Roman Military Brick Stamps: A Comparison of Methodology 9781841719757, 9781407330006

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
PREFACE
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND
CHAPTER 3 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS
CHAPTER 4 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE
CHAPTER 5 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SPAIN
CHAPTER 6 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE
CHAPTER 7 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST
CHAPTER 8 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN NORTHERN AFRICA
CHAPTER 9 BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN
CHAPTER 10 THE BEGINNING OF THE HABIT OF STAMPING MILITARY BRICKS
CHAPTER 11 THE PROBLEM OF BRICK REUSE
CHAPTER 12 NAME STAMPS
CHAPTER 13 THE QUESTION OF THE PRATA LEGIONIS
CHAPTER 14 CONCLUSION
CATALOGUE OF THE PUBLICATIONS EVALUATED IN THIS THESIS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GLOSSARY

Citation preview

BAR S1543 2006

Roman Military Brick Stamps: A Comparison of Methodology

KURZMANN ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Renate Kurzmann

BAR International Series 1543 B A R

2006

Roman Military Brick Stamps: A Comparison of Methodology Renate Kurzmann

BAR International Series 1543 2006

ISBN 9781841719757 paperback ISBN 9781407330006 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719757 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

CONTENTS Preface.................................................................................................................................................................. v 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Research methods .........................................................................................................................1 1.1.1.1 Petrology ............................................................................................................................1 1.1.1.2 Epigraphy ...........................................................................................................................2 1.1.1.3 Archaeological context .......................................................................................................3 1.1.2 Research approach ........................................................................................................................3 1.1.2.1 Chronology .........................................................................................................................3 1.1.2.2 Troop dispositions and distribution patterns ......................................................................4 1.1.3 The methodology in this thesis .....................................................................................................6 1.2 Roman brick and tile – a general introduction........................................................................................7 1.2.1 Brick classification .......................................................................................................................8 1.2.1.1 Classification by size ..........................................................................................................8 1.2.1.2 Classification by function .................................................................................................12 1.2.2 Production technology and kilns ................................................................................................16 1.2.3 Markings other than stamps on bricks and tiles .........................................................................17 1.2.3.1 Impressions and imprints .................................................................................................17 1.2.3.2 Signatures .........................................................................................................................18 1.2.3.3 Combing and scoring .......................................................................................................19 1.2.3.4 Graffiti ..............................................................................................................................19 1.2.3.5 Tally marks .......................................................................................................................20 1.3 Brick stamps .........................................................................................................................................21 1.3.1 Technique of brick stamping ......................................................................................................22 1.3.2 Material of stamps ......................................................................................................................24 1.3.3 Shape of stamps ..........................................................................................................................25 1.3.4 Variety of stamps ........................................................................................................................26 1.3.5 The frequency of use of stamps ..................................................................................................26 1.3.6 Multiple stamps ..........................................................................................................................29 1.3.7 The purpose of brick stamping ...................................................................................................30 1.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................31 2. Brick stamp research in Germany, Austria and Switzerland..........................................................................32 2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................32 2.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................35 2.2.1 Overviews and histories of troop dispositions............................................................................35 2.2.2 Local lists....................................................................................................................................47 2.2.3 Brick stamps of a particular building .........................................................................................63 2.2.4 Brick stamps of the same unit found in several locations ..........................................................66 2.2.5 Local lists from a certain period only .........................................................................................67 2.2.6 Studies on the collections of stamps ...........................................................................................67 2.2.7 Studies on the petrology of stamps .............................................................................................68 2.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................70 3. Brick stamp research in the Netherlands .......................................................................................................73 3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................73 3.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................73 3.2.1 Overviews or histories of troop dispositions ..............................................................................75 3.2.2 Local lists....................................................................................................................................83 i

3.2.3 Stamp of a unit in one location only ...........................................................................................84 3.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................84 4. Brick stamp research in France ......................................................................................................................87 4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................87 4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................88 4.2.1 Overviews and histories of troop dispositions............................................................................88 4.2.2 Local lists....................................................................................................................................90 4.2.3 Studies on the petrology of stamps .............................................................................................96 4.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................98 5. Brick stamp research in Spain........................................................................................................................99 5.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................99 5.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................99 5.2.1 Local lists....................................................................................................................................99 5.3 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................107 6. Brick stamp research in South-Eastern Europe ...........................................................................................109 6.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................109 6.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 111 6.2.1 Overviews and histories of troop dispositions.......................................................................... 111 6.2.2 Local lists.................................................................................................................................. 116 6.2.3 Brick stamps of a unit in one location only ..............................................................................134 6.3 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................140 7. Brick stamp research in the Middle East .....................................................................................................142 7.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................142 7.2 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................145 7.2.1 Overviews and histories of troop dispositions..........................................................................146 7.2.2 Local lists..................................................................................................................................147 7.3 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................156 8. Brick stamp research in Northern Africa .....................................................................................................157 8.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................157 8.2 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................159 8.3 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................161 9. Brick stamp research in Britain....................................................................................................................164 9.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................164 9.2 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................165 9.2.1 Overviews and histories of troop dispositions..........................................................................165 9.2.2 Brick stamps of units in several locations ................................................................................167 9.2.3 Local lists..................................................................................................................................182 9.2.3.1 Comparison of methodology on the classis Britannica stamps in the British and French School of Research .....................................................................................................184 9.2.4 General articles .........................................................................................................................190 9.3 The brick stamps of Legio VI Victrix-their study through epigraphy ................................................190 9.4 The tilery at Scalesceugh ....................................................................................................................192 9.5 The fate of Legio IX Hispana and its brick stamps ............................................................................197 9.6 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................199 10. The beginning of the habit of stamping military bricks .............................................................................201 11. The problem of brick reuse ........................................................................................................................209 ii

12. Name stamps ..............................................................................................................................................215 12.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................215 12.2 Discussion .........................................................................................................................................215 12.2.1 The question of civilian enterprises stamping for the Roman army .......................................215 12.2.2 The relationship between military brick production and the civilian world ...................................................................................................................................232 12.2.3 Imperial titles and military brick stamps ................................................................................241 12.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................255 13. The question of the prata legionis .............................................................................................................256 14. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................263 Catalogue of the publications evaluated in this thesis .....................................................................................273 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................................283 Glossary ...........................................................................................................................................................295

iii

PREFACE

Initial research on Roman military brick stamps was prompted by an excavation in the auxiliary fort in Carnuntum in Austria in August 1998, in which I was required to draw stamped bricks and tiles. It was discovered that the methodologies used with these inscriptions vary from area to area. At first, the aim was to examine the military brick stamps from Roman Britain (RIB II.4; Brodribb 1969: 102-125; Wright 1976: 226-235; 1978: 379-382; Peacock 1977: 235-248; Hassall 1979: 261-266; Philip 1981; Boon 1984), since relatively little critical literature had been focused on those, compared to other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland (Holwerda & Braat 1946; Von Petrikovits 1950: 102-103; 1959: 102-105; Baatz 1962: 52-89; 1965a: 118-138; 1965b: 101-117; 1967: 40-73; 1969a: 126-128; 1969b: 63-75; 1973a: 108-111; 1973b: 219-222; 1976: 95-96; 1978: 61-107; 1982; Paar & Rüger 1971: 260-330; Spitzlberger 1968: 65-183; Neumann 1973; Lörincz 1976: 261-262; 1979: 293-307; 1980: 275-279; Bogaers 1967: 54-76; Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 93-108; Strobel 1986: 257264; 1988a: 437-453; Kaiser 1996: 51-91). It was noted that British research was less concerned with the use of epigraphy on the stamps but preferred instead to employ petrology as its principal methodology (Peacock 1977: 235-248; Philip 1981; Dearne 1993: 123; Bidwell & Speak 1994: 152-156; Betts in: Cool & Philo 1998: 225232). Nevertheless, the latter was much more common in Britain than in continental Europe. At first, this general lack of epigraphic interest by British scholars in the brick stamp research of their country seemed a flaw in their study of inscriptions. However, careful comparison of the methods used in previous work has revealed that the problem does not necessarily lie with the scholars involved, but sometimes in the nature of the surviving material. Apart from the obvious difference in the amount of material available for study between the two areas, there are other stamp characteristics that may allow a more or less detailed study. Nonetheless, it was discovered during closer examinations of brick stamp research in most of the other countries covering the former Roman Empire, that there are some strong methodological differences, which are the basis of the different schools of research. It was decided to shift the focus of study away from a concentration on brick stamps in Britain and instead to

dedicate this study to the evaluation of these different methodologies, in order to determine their value and efficiency for a particular area. The questions asked in this publication are: 1. What are the different research methods used in dealing with military brick stamps, and who uses them? 2. What are the different results represented by the different research approaches? 3. Which results are best achieved by what methods? 4. What can Roman military brick stamps contribute to our understanding of Roman history and can we use them as documents of military history, as other military inscriptions are employed? If we cannot use them for the latter, could they, instead, be helpful in reconstructing other historical aspects of Roman provinces? 5. Are military brick stamps uniform documents, which can be used equally in all former Roman provinces? Due to the space limitations it has been necessary to concentrate on legionary rather than all military stamps. In the case of provinces where only auxiliary units were present, their stamps were considered. In other areas, where legionary stamps predominate, they were the focus of this study. This publication is not a list of all military brick stamps but is meant to be a representative sample of the research methodologies for each province. Therefore, the focus lies on legionary stamps but occasionally also includes auxiliary stamps where no other evidence exists. Obviously, large numbers of Roman military brick stamps were found in many areas of the former Roman provinces, and it is impossible to mention all of them here. Instead, this study critically reviews a selection of articles, focusing primarily on the methodologies employed by the chosen scholars. The reviewed articles contain a selection of brick stamps. Some are illustrated in Volume III of this thesis, particularly if their stylistic features are important for their discussion. Epigraphic conventions were used as far as possible in the presentation of the stamp texts. […] is used for a gap in the text, (…) is used for the expansion of an abbreviation. v

Instead of a finds catalogue, which would be too long, a catalogue of the works reviewed in this study is included on pages 273-282. The publications listed there are the background for this present analysis. The bibliography contains a list of all other works cited and consulted. Some of the stamps discussed in this thesis are illustrated at the end of this thesis. Unless stated otherwise, the scale in which they are depicted is 1:2. The terms ‘brick’ and ‘tile’ are used interchangeably in this thesis regardless of their technical differences (Brodribb 1983: 175-177; 1987: 4-96) since the author is only secondarily concerned with the different types of bricks. Several topics, such as the relation of the stamps to the brick types on which they appear, or the study of unstamped bricks, are only peripherally touched upon here. Those topics should be the subject of further research. Normally publications which were published very early in the Twentieth century, or before, are not discussed in this thesis since research methods and approaches have changed over the decades and it would not be fair to criticise our predecessors for the omission of knowledge and methods not yet available to them. However, there are certain fundamental publications for some areas which modern scholars still base their own work upon. Those are, of course, introduced in this thesis (Steiner 1903: 86-109; Lehner 1904: 289-309; Ritterling RE XII: 1186-1837; 1904: 25-38; Jahn 1909a: 111-129; 1909b: 303-313; Grimes 1930).

neighbouring countries and who usually research similar areas. They do not necessarily share nationalities but they may have been instructed by the same teachers and have similar research interests. The different research methods used in different areas will be compared. Most scholars do not combine methods but use only one. The value of this selectivity is questioned. This study attempts to be an overall view of research methods, approaches and categories of studies used in all schools of brick stamp research and will pose the question whether brick stamps can contribute to our understanding of military history. Regional and local differences of both stamps and modern schools of research are highlighted and their importance to our picture of Roman history is discussed. Roman military brick stamps are a very varying and complex subject. The following chapters investigate this problem further and see how different methods work in different areas. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Birgitta Hoffmann for her excellent supervision, time, and effort with my dissertation. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Anthony Birley, who examined me on my dissertation and who gave me invaluable advise on how to prepare it for publication. I would also like to thank Prof. Andrew Smith for his advice and supervision as head of Classics Department at University College Dublin. I am very grateful to Dr. Norbert Hanel, who answered many of my questions concerning brick stamps from Germany and Spain and who was always willing to answer my queries. Jens Dolata and Prof. Hermann Baatz sent me some of their work and also answered questions relating to material from Germany. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Andreas Schaub, Dr. Tom Parker and Dr. Jocelyn Nelis-Clément, who shared views on current excavations and research. I would also like to express my gratitude to Prof. Brian Dobson, who read part of my early work and advised me on how to expand my thesis to PhD level. I owe special thanks to Ian Caruana, who sent me some unpublished material early on in my thesis and gave good help and advice on Chapter 9, which addresses the brick stamps from Britain. Patrick Murphy and Michael Hawkins at the Department of Statistics, University College Dublin analysed my material in relation to statistical tests. Furthermore, I am thankful to Dr. Paul Holder and Prof. Michael Speidel, who answered some last minute queries on their research on legions and auxiliary units, to Renate Miglbauer who informed me about a newly found stamp type in Ovilada/Wells at the 19th Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Pécz in September 2003 and to Prof. Barnabas Lörincz who shared some of his research results with me there. I would like to thank the staff of the University Library in Helsinki for their helpfulness

The structure of this publication is the following: Chapter 1 includes an introduction to the methodologies of studying brick stamps, concentrating on research methods and approaches. It also contains a discussion of the methodology used in this study, and also introductions to Roman bricks, and stamps on bricks, respectively. Chapters 2-9 analyse the different groups of research schools and the methodologies they employ in studying military brick stamps. Chapters 10-13 consider more general problems and questions which arise during the study of provincial military brick stamps, such as the phenomenon of name stamps, the question of when the habit of stamping bricks was started by the Roman army, the relationship between brick stamps and military territories or the so-called prata legionis and the problem of brick reuse. Chapter 14 summarises the answers to the research questions posed in the course of the previous chapters and offers a conclusion. The purpose of this publication is to determine the most informative articles and the most effective methods and research approaches. The schools of research covering the former Roman Empire are investigated using this approach. A school of research is defined here as a group of scholars who trained and who research in the same or vi

when I was looking for literature there in 1999. I owe many thanks also to Deirdre Hurley-Osing, Cormack Taylor, Attracta Kinsella and Siobhan Condron who proof-read my dissertation. Paul Stewart solved some last minute computer hardware problems, and Tanja Blankenburg and Rüdiger Liedtke assisted with some of the illustrations. Martin Kurzmann provided constant and prompt advice and assistance with the illustrations and other technological matters. I owe special thanks to Lucy Corcoran, who not only proof-read parts of my dissertation but who also helped me to format and check the final draft and who kept me in a positive

mood shortly before submission. I am entirely grateful to the Irish Research Council of Humanities and Social Sciences for the financial support I received. I am also indebted to the late Prof. Jan Haalebos, who gave me information on the brick stamps from Alphen during the 18th Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman in 2000. Finally, I must express my gratitude to my husband, James Kinsella, for his support and understanding through the years, and to our au pairs Simone Krispel, Monika Perner, Elisabeth Holler, Kathrin Zuser, Lioba Lühl and Christin Fiedler. Without their hard work this publication would not have been possible.

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Methodology

threatens to disintegrate, conservation techniques can be used. Although the colour of the tile is little guidance to the nature of the fabric, the feel of the texture is more revealing. Many tiles are sandy on the underside, because they were dried on a sandy bed, but some are notably sandy on the top surface as well. Other surfaces can be soapy or very hard and shiny. It is common to find good quality tegulae with a cleaned off underside yet it is seldom as smooth as their top. Some solid voussoirs have both faces equally smooth. Sometimes, brick is found with combing on one side and a smooth surface on the other. This smoothness must not be confused with the smoothness from wear through use in a doorway or passage. Occasional blisters on the surface of a tile happen during the process of firing. Sometimes very small craters appear on the surface where a bubble has burst. The causes are not always certain; it could be due to inclusions or mistakes during tempering.

In this section, the different methodologies and research approaches are discussed. The purpose of this study is to determine to what extent brick stamps can contribute to our understanding of Roman history, society, and the army. Finally, the methodology used in this thesis is explained. All areas of the former Roman Empire were separated into different schools of research. These schools sometimes correspond with the territories of the ancient provinces but not always. Generally, countries that use similar methods, and which also have similar research approaches, have been addressed as one school of research.

1.1.1 Research methods 1.1.1.1 Petrology

Darvill (1979: 309-349) describes the following fabric analysis technique: one face of the sample is polished and stuck onto a glass slide. The sample is then ground down on a diamond lap wheel and Carborundum powder is added until it is 0.03 mm thick. After affixing a cover slip and cleaning, the slide can be studied under a petrological microscope. In the absence of distinctive minerals or rock inclusions in the fabric, another technique can be used. Textual analysis is performed by sedimentologists. The sizes of quartz grains, abundant in the sections, are measured using a calibrated graticule in the microscope. A sampling device, known as a point counter, located on the turntable of the microscope, moves the section along the parallel rows, ensuring that a representative selection of quartz grains are measured. The grain-size measurements are grouped into classes based on a phi-scale and their cumulative percentages are plotted on a probability paper. Simple statistics, such as grain size or standard deviation, are plotted on scattergrams. This technique was, for example, used successfully on the Cotswold stamps (Darvill 1979: 309-349).

Petrology is the investigation of the brick fabric, which is separate from the actual stamp on the brick. This method is currently mainly used in Britain, although more petrological studies have been performed on stamps of private producers than on military stamps. The colour of brick can vary considerably from red to mauve, blue, grey, pink, buff or cream. It usually depends on the circumstances of firing, but the clay itself can also vary in colour. There are over a hundred different types of clay fabric. Most sites have several different types. The sizes of tiles are not constant, as the clay can shrink up to 10 per cent as a result of firing (Spitzlberger 1968: 102). In a study undertaken by Baatz, of the bricks of the legionary baths at Echzell, the measurements of the bricks were compared with the sizes of the wooden frames used to fire them. It was determined that the firing shrinkage of 5 per cent produced typical brick sizes known from many sites (Baatz 1965: 128-129). Difference in fabric can be provisionally identified using a hand lens, but when identified under a microscope the differences become more acute. Almost every site provides more than one type of fabric. Some have as many as twenty. Fabric should not be confused with colour. Orange tile often has a surface that tends to rub off and stain water and hands when the tile is washed. If a tile

Petrology investigates the tile fabric and therefore makes it possible to assure from which clay area a tile originated. It also provides information about the tile industry, based on stamp types (Darvill 1979: 311). However, stamp dating is not the sole purpose of petrology. This method enables archaeologists to successfully trace the movements of tiles 1

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

and determine how far stamps were traded between units. The epigraphic study of a stamp that apparently travelled, does not establish if the brick was shipped elsewhere, if a unit moved and took a die with them, or if a detachment of a unit was moved elsewhere to produce tiles. Petrology, on the other hand, leaves little doubt if and how far bricks were moved. Another advantage of the method of petrology is that it does not separate the study of stamped and unstamped tiles. Unfortunately, the exact percentages of the stamped and the unstamped material of a site cannot be determined. However, petrology ensures that the two groups can be treated together. This is important because frequently information obtained from a stamped tile, such as the nature of the production unit, can be used on unstamped tiles. Therefore, it is a good idea, as done by the British school of research, to discuss the two together. Petrology can also help to determine if there was more than one clay source used for the bricks of a particular site, and if one of them was used more frequently. This can make it possible to decide if two or more different workshops supplied a place with bricks, and if one of them stamped bricks more frequently, therefore aiding our discussion as to why bricks would have been thus marked at all. Generally, petrology is not a methodology used by most countries in their brick stamp research. It has a tradition in Britain, although applied more often to unstamped material and civilian rather than military brick stamps. In recent years, there has been an increased preference for this research method by continental scholars, who wish to verify epigraphic results.

different places can be compared, and conclusions can be made about their appearance, including the forms of the letters. It becomes possible to generate a comparative date of when a certain form was used, which gives some indication about the relative age of stamps found elsewhere. For a more detailed discussion of the special features concerning the letters of stamps see section 1.3.1. Stamps were usually drawn before the die was cut. Sometimes the soldiers cutting the dies fell back into using cursive writing, although they attempted to write in monumental capitals. As a result it is not easy to achieve exact chronological results with the epigraphy of brick stamps. 2.

Apart from palaeographical studies one can also investigate the stamp surface and its form, although this is often the source of problems. Certain features might originate at a certain time, but this is not always consistent. Spitzlberger proves that ansae are not a sign of early development on stamps, which only exist in a degenerate form during the later periods, and shows that there are beautifully carved ansae, dating to the end of the fourth century, from Raetia (Spitzlberger 1968: 111).

3.

A third aspect of epigraphy that provides more secure dates are the so called ‘date stamps’. These include the names of the current consuls in the inscription, and thus date the particular stamp very precisely. Unfortunately, this is extremely rare on military brick stamps. Imperial titles are very common and commemorate certain emperors or dynasties, therefore making it possible to place the stamp within a narrow chronological bracket. Such titles occur on a large number of military brick stamps, and they appear in almost every province. However, there are some problems with title dating, which shall be discussed in detail in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3.

4.

Finally, many researchers use honorific titles as their main dating criterion: stamps are separated into chronological groups, depending on whether they display a certain honorific title or not.

1.1.1.2 Epigraphy This approach is the investigation of the actual stamp on a brick or tile. It does not include other written marks, such as graffiti or tally marks, which are not stamps and are briefly discussed separately in section 1.2.3. As a dating method it is somewhat more complicated to use than others because the forms of the stamps and letters vary, due to the fact that bricks were stamped almost anywhere in the Roman Empire. Therefore, it is very difficult to achieve a secure date by epigraphy (RIB II. 4: 125). 1.

Firstly, palaeography can be used as a subscience of epigraphy: this entails the study of the writing and letter forms, which changed throughout Roman history (Meyer 1973: 37-45). However, the use of writing in Roman provinces did not change as it did in the capital, even on stone inscriptions. The people of the provinces producing stamps often used outdated forms of writing, which would not be used in Rome or on other inscriptions. Thus, often not a lot of information is obtained from this method. However, sometimes the stamps of a unit in two

Traditionally, epigraphers tend to place a given stamp in as narrow a chronological bracket as possible. Scholars who are familiar with other small finds, on the other hand, are used to dealing with long chronologies and accept ranges of up to 150 years as closed dates. One aim of this thesis is to investigate whether short chronologies are possible with Roman military brick stamps, or if we would be well 2

INTRODUCTION

advised to prefer long chronologies. The terminology regarding long or short chronologies also varies between archaeology and epigraphy. For someone recording small finds a closely dated context is datable to within 150 years (Rütti 1991: 19-67). In epigraphy and amongst scholars dealing with brick stamps this length of time is often considered undatable (Baatz 1965b: 105). It is very hard to work with these discrepancies in scholarly approach. Brick stamps have been studied by both epigraphers, such as Baatz (1962: 52-89; 1965a: 118-138; 1965b: 101-117; 1967: 40-73; 1969a: 126-128; 1969b: 63-75; 1973a: 108111; 1973b: 219-222; 1976: 95-96; 1978: 61-107; 1982) or Alföldy (1967: 44-51= 1987: 317-325) and small find specialists such as Hanel (1995: 253-281; 1998: 401-415). The results often differ. In this thesis, it remains to be shown that both methods can be problematic at times. A short chronology in the context of this thesis refers to a period of up to 20 years. The possibility of dating brick stamps to a few years will be questioned in this thesis. A long chronology or date means that a stamp can be dated to within 150 years. Extremely long chronologies entail periods over 150 years. The possibility of reuse, which is discussed in Chapter 11, further complicates dating matters in the case of short chronologies. Brick reuse can often not be excluded and it is difficult to date a find to within 10 or 20 years if we cannot be sure that it was used for a second time. Epigraphy, which is more accessible and less expensive than petrology, mainly leads to conclusions of chronology, but the dates achieved by this method are usually relative. This is with the exception of imperial titles, which allow for a more exact date, and which will be investigated in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. It also allows for conclusions on workshop organisation and legislation. As a method it is inexpensive in comparison to petrology, and is often applied by continental researchers, stretching to the areas of the Middle East and Northern Africa. It is less common in Britain.

can be given a date too. This also works in the opposite way: sometimes a brick stamp which has been dated by another method, for instance by the previously discussed methods of epigraphy or petrology, can give a date to an archaeological phase. Of course, this can only be a terminus post quem, because the brick might have been produced at one time but not used in the building until a later period. This leads to the next problem: the possibility of secondary use. If it were not for this flaw in the method, brick dating by archaeological context would make the study of Roman brick stamps extremely easy and straightforward. The extent to which brick stamps have been reused and the difference between stamps used primarily and secondarily is not fully understood. Chapter 11 will be dedicated to this problem, which is, of course, not unique and applies similarly to other finds. Ceramics, for example, had long periods of use, reuse and residuality which extend the actual date of circulation (Hird 1997: 243-248). Occasionally the possibility of a displaced context may be considered: for example, if a brick falls into a context during the collapse of a building, for whatever reason, it is possible that it ends up in a context different than the one it originally came from and disturbs the one it fell into. Although this is a case that probably does not frequently apply, its possibility cannot be denied. The most successful way to reach any conclusion about the information value of brick stamps is a combination of the above cited methods. However, although we might assume that this is very obvious and therefore practised by all archaeologists and epigraphers alike, it does not happen as often as one would wish. Whereas some schools of research are well trained in investigating the stamps in terms of their epigraphic value, and completely omit petrology, others concentrate more on the latter technique and do not give much thought to the actual inscription on the stamps.

1.1.1.3 Archaeological Context 1.1.2 Research approach This method is commonly used by scholars dealing with brick stamps in the Roman provinces. An archaeological context date is achieved in the following way: 1.

2.

The favoured approaches, like the research methods, vary between the schools of research. Depending on the school of research and the quality of the material, the questions asked of the material differ widely. The majority can, however, be summarised under the following headings:

The find, in this case a brick, is associated with the archaeological phase it is found in, namely the wall of the building, which is dated in relation to other phases.

1.1.2.1 Chronology

It is dated by association to other finds found in that phase, such as coins or ceramics.

This approach is mainly achieved by epigraphic studies, and when known, archaeological context. Nevertheless, petrology can sometimes achieve similar results (Dolata 2000a: 95-124). Chronology has been the main approach to the study of urban Roman stamps for over 400 years.

If archaeological phases can be dated by other finds, or in relation to each other, a brick stamp of such a phase 3

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

as for their advantages. Scholars who prefer, and feel the need to create detailed chronologies should clearly differentiate between secure and hypothetical dates, so as to make their work accessible and useful for the reader. Long chronologies usually apply to several decades or hundreds of years, depending on the length of time spent by a unit in a place, if known, or more generally the length of Roman occupation in an area in which the production of a stamp ultimately falls. Long chronologies apply to most bricks stamps or brick stamp types, but are often not mentioned by scholars who prefer short date ranges.

As these brick stamps nearly always display consular dates they can be fitted into an absolute chronology early on. The fact that urban Roman brick stamps can be dated much more precisely than some other inscriptions, and are a main source of value for historians, made it possible to date many buildings in Rome. The obsession of the continental school of research with chronologies of the military brick stamps of the provinces, especially displayed in the schools of Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but also in Eastern European countries and as far as Northern Africa (which was mainly researched by the French school) might originate in the example of the chronology of urban Roman brick stamps. It is extremely easy to establish chronologies for the latter, and perhaps it was traditionally assumed that the same applied to the military brick stamps of the provinces. However, these are totally different in nature, and usually only display the number and name of units, as will be further explained in section 1.3 of this chapter. Sometimes a private name or imperial title was added. Consular dates are extremely rare. The only military brick stamp with a consular date, to the author’s knowledge, is a stamp of Legio XX Valeria Victrix from Britain (Fig. 168), which Swan and Philpott believe was stamped by civilians (Swan& Philpott 2000: 55-67). This view will be discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1. Therefore, military brick stamps (like provincial civilian stamps, which also do not normally display consular dates) have to be treated very differently from the stamps of urban Rome. The question remains if short chronologies are at all justified on provincial military brick stamps. It is rare to have dates for all stamps or stamp types found in a place. In general, the method used is the following: scholars take those stamps for which they have secure dates, either because of their archaeological context (which again raises the question if the stamps were used primarily) or because of an imperial title. They fit all the other stamps around the securely dated ones in a relative chronology, achieved by epigraphic methods such as palaeography, or the study of the stamp form, ansae, or other characteristics. The wordings on different stamp types are compared and dated given a relative date, and thus placed within a typological development resulting in a chronology. The system is, therefore, similar to the typological chronologies of many pre-historic cultures.

1.1.2.2 Troop dispositions and distribution patterns Another reason to study military brick stamps is that they can provide information about the units of the Roman Empire. Distribution patterns are discussed here since they are linked with troop dispositions. In the first instance, this appears very straightforward and easy, and indeed a lot of our information about troop movements and their histories has come from brick stamps. However, there are some problems with this approach. Basically, the presence of one or more stamps of a unit need not necessarily imply that the unit was garrisoned in that place. If a couple of hundred brick stamps of a particular unit are being considered, the existence of a unit from a building inscription can be determined as fairly reliable. However, the archaeological record is not always so clear cut. Unfortunately, there is no reliable statistical method to perform an analysis to determine whether the number of stamped bricks found at a military site is an indicator of whether or not a particular unit was present at a site. Due to the fact that a data set based on the different sites in the Roman Empire is varied in the length of time of a unit’s stay, and the sizes and the number of units present, it is difficult to compile a representative data sample. Furthermore, there are not enough sites where it is known for sure that the bricks of units who were never garrisoned there were found to provide a representative sample. In a lot of cases, as discussed in the following pages, it is not known if the unit or a detachment of it was stationed in a location or if the bricks travelled there. This latter fact means that inferences can only be made on one class of site, namely, those sites where it is known with certainty that particular units had been based. This means that tests which compare classes based on samples from those classes cannot be used for this purpose. Because of these problems, inference based on the evidence of Roman sites and their military brick stamps is highly unreliable and it was decided not to proceed with this analysis.1

Chronologies are very useful because they allow an overall view of the stamps from a place, area or period and make our work with the brick stamps of a given location easier. Chronologies are also an important factor of brick stamp research because they can help the reconstruction of troop dispositions. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that they are artificially created structures by modern researchers, designed to bring order into the archaeological material. It is, therefore, important to evaluate the proposed chronology for possible pitfalls and inefficiencies as much

1. Personal comment of M. Hawkins.

4

INTRODUCTION

Therefore, it is necessary to make use of instinct as much as science to establish if the presence of a stamp can clearly identify the presence of a unit. It is known from the Rhine and Danube area that brick stamps travelled substantial distances on the river; stamps of the same unit appear in different places (see Chapter 2, 34-47). The same was proven by fabric analysis on the stamps of the classis Britannica that were shipped between Britain and Gaul across the British Channel (Peacock 1977: 235-248) and in Castleford/Yorkshire (Cool & Philo 1998: 225-232). In short, the presence of a stamp or several stamps of a unit in a location can mean the following: 1.

The unit (or a detachment of it) was garrisoned there for a certain period of time. This period can vary between a few months and many years but it usually suggests that the unit must have stayed there long enough either to build new buildings for which bricks were needed, or to repair old ones.

2.

The unit was not garrisoned there but elsewhere, and a different unit was stationed in the place. The unit named on the stamps delivered bricks to the latter because they had a lack of building materials and/or insufficient men to produce bricks for whatever reason. The bricks would have travelled mainly along the water routes.

3.

The unit was not garrisoned in the location permanently, but a detachment came to the location to help with the brick production. This might be due to a lack of personnel in the unit in the garrison proper, as mentioned above, or to the fact that a large construction required the help of more than one unit. The brick producing unit brought some of its own dies or cut new ones with its name because bricks were usually stamped with the name of the unit that produced it (or a detachment of it).

The second possibility, that a unit received bricks from elsewhere, is attested on the Rhine (Böckling 1978: 111117; Paar & Rüger 1971: 260-330; Haalebos & Franzen 2000, 121-141). Sometimes one unit also delivered bricks to different sites occupied by it, as the British fleet did on the British Channel (Peacock 1977: 245). The reason why units would have exchanged stamps and send them by boat, sometimes over longer distances, can only be speculated upon. As clay is found everywhere, the question arises why bricks where shipped when a tilery could be installed near every unit’s garrison? Yet sometimes it was the custom. Already in the 1950s Von Petrikovits showed that Legio I Minervia, from Bonn, did not only produce its own bricks near the fortress, but also obtained bricks from the legionary tilery at Holdeurn/Lower Germany. No tilery of Legio I was found, but further stamps of legions V and XV were discovered there. These legions were not stationed at Bonn but at Xanten/Vetera and produced tiles there at the same period in which the stamps from Bonn are dated (Von Petrikovits 1950: 102-103 and Holwerda & Braat 1946). Peacock suggested that the ships on the Rhine brought other cargo downstream and that the bricks were useful for the return journey upstream (Peacock 1982: 137). Perhaps, as suggested above, the Roman army preferred employing other military units with the production of stamps rather than civilians, if there was a lack of brick making personnel. As will be seen in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1, there is no convincing evidence that civilians ever produced tiles for the army. Of course, in the case of the deliveries on the Rhine it is uncertain whether the units in questions sent detachments to produce bricks rather than building materials themselves. However, since many bricks in Germany are found in locations other than where they were produced, it would be unreasonable to suggest that such large numbers of men were moved around in detachments for the mere purpose of the production of building material. However, the third possibility, that detachments of legions were sent elsewhere to produce tiles for the units, is also occasionally known. It happened on Hadrian’s Wall, for example, where most of the British legions came to assist with the building in the 120’s AD, as is proven by building inscriptions (Breeze & Dobson 1991: 64-70).

There are examples of all these cases all over the Roman Empire. The first case is obviously the most frequent with examples from all Roman provinces. Sometimes this interpretation can be supported by other finds of the legion’s presence in a place, including, for instance, other inscriptions. In Nijmegen, for example, there are only two stamps of Legio IX Hispana. Firstly, the fortress was far from Britain where the legion was garrisoned before it came to Germania Inferior some time during the 120’s AD, and it is unlikely that bricks were delivered from there. Secondly, a mortarium stamp of the legion was found at Nijmegen. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that it was garrisoned there (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323-329).

Nevertheless, it is sometimes hard to decide which of the three interpretations fits a particular case. Since the physical character of brick stamps varies a lot, perhaps this also applies to the customs connected with them. It is not impossible that the Roman army followed a pragmatic approach when producing bricks. Mostly, they were issued by a unit near its camp, but sometimes, if there was not enough time, or personnel, and other units might have had spare bricks, they may have been delivered 5

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

from elsewhere. The Roman army does not appear to have found it daunting to ship large quantities of goods along rivers and across the sea. Obviously, this applies to bricks as well. Alternatively, it appears that sometimes detachments were sent from one place to the other to assist in building activities. Very often the archaeological differences cannot be determined. The fact that occasional stamps mention more than one unit, like in Moesia where both the fleet and detachments of the Moesian units are named on one and the same brick (this is discussed in detail in Chapter 6, page 115 and Sarnowski 1995: 498), warns against reconstructions of troop dispositions that are too simplistic.

movements of units are traced. All research methods discussed above can be used for this type of study. 2.

Studies concerning local lists of brick stamps are the most common form of publication. They are a list of brick stamps of units from one location, and frequently the stamps of a legion or auxiliary unit were only found in one place. Sometimes they appear in several buildings from one site. The way in which these local lists are conducted varies. Scholars are often concerned with dating and the movements of units, but there are exceptions. At worst, an article is a mere list of stamps from a place without any further information. Again, each of the three methodologies discussed can be applied. Changes between units in a place become clear. These studies also often propose chronologies.

3.

Local lists from a building are a small scale version of the preceding category as it excludes other buildings. Therefore, information important to the understanding of these brick stamps might not be contained in this criticism. However, often the brick stamps found in one building are the only ones in the area. Consequently, these studies can be treated in a similar way to local lists of a place.

4.

Studies concerning stamps of a particular unit may include stamps from more than one location. Nevertheless, most of the scholars who address this area of research are restricted to the stamps of a unit within one province, entailing all places where the unit left stamped tiles. Changes between units in a place are not necessarily revealed. Again, all methods can be used to trace the dates and movements of a unit’s brick stamps in a province. Troop dispositions and distribution patterns are not really possible, since the stamps come from only one unit. Occasionally these critics discuss a unit’s transfer from one province to the other, although this aspect is more likely to be treated in works on troop dispositions and histories. These studies omit the information and relationship of other units from the same places, which makes a determination of the relationship between them difficult.

5.

Sometimes scholars conduct studies which focus on the stamps from one unit in one place only. Of course, a lot of information about a unit’s possible stay in other places (if it was ever garrisoned elsewhere) is omitted. However, for one reason or another, researchers occasionally prefer to discuss

1.1.3 The Methodology in this thesis The purpose of this thesis is an overall view and analysis of the different schools of research and the methods and research approaches with which the stamped bricks of a region are analysed. The above are discussed and their use in different areas are investigated and questioned with regard to brick stamp research. Differences in the material are taken into account. Secondary criticism is reviewed under the following headings. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

Overviews or histories of troop dispositions. Local lists, that is collections from specific sites. Brick stamps of a particular building. Brick stamps of the same unit found in several locations. Brick stamps of a unit in one location only. Local lists for a certain period only. Studies on the collections of stamps, regardless of the origin of the stamps and the nature of the units. Studies on the petrology of stamps.

Sometimes the borders between these categories fluctuate and a publication might belong to more than one. In that case an article or monograph will be discussed under the aspect which appears to be the most important to the scholar, who wrote it. The attempt of this study is to analyse which are the best approaches for an overall picture of Roman brick stamps. Most schools researching brick stamps produce a combination of the above different types of studies. 1.

In the case of overviews and studies on troop dispositions the brick stamps serve the purpose of investigating the history of one or more units, and question the location of this unit’s garrison. Scholars in this category often use the evidence of other inscriptions or literary sources. The 6

INTRODUCTION

stamps of one area and one unit only, particularly if they are concentrating on the history of this unit. If the stamps of many units were found in one place this may be methodologically questionable. 6.

Criticism of stamps that are concerned with a certain period only is limited because it only provides a part of a location’s building and troop disposition history. Usually, one unit of a fortress or fort is discussed in this way. However, to enlighten the building activity of a certain period, these articles can be useful. They can concentrate on all research approaches: chronologies, troop dispositions and distribution patterns, for that period only.

7.

Studies addressing stamp collections are somewhat problematic in their value of military brick stamp research. They contain stamps from what is usually one collection, regardless of their origin or the units that stamped them. Without good background information about stamp types, and possible other examples, these studies do not contribute much to the research of brick stamps. However, some articles concerning collections offer a lot of information about the stamps, such as Brandl’s extensive research on the Fritzmayer collection (1999) (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.6). Nevertheless, they add little to the research approaches discussed. Since they only discuss single stamps it is not possible to establish chronologies, or say much about troop dispositions or distribution patterns.

8.

Scholarly work concerning petrology will be discussed separately for all areas apart from Britain, where this research method is so common that it is used in most studies. In all other areas it is rare and usually used to verify other methods. Therefore, some areas receive a special discussion of articles concentrating on petrology.

5. 6. 7. 8.

The second and third last of the groups of schools of research, namely, Northern Africa and the Middle East, are exceptional because most scholars who have performed research there are not locals of these areas. Therefore, they are really a mix of schools of research. The American school is represented in the research of the Middle East. Occasionally, published works concerning the brick stamps of areas which are not traditionally researched by their schools of research are listed. These will be referred to in the text. When dealing with different stamps (or stamp types) for which we have a dating work from petrology or archaeological context it is feasible to investigate these stamps and date them in relation to each other. However, it is important to recognise that there are limitations and that these suggestions often have to remain hypothetical. One of the problems is that we are very often dealing with very small numbers of examples for each stamp type. Therefore, from a statistical point of view, hypotheses often cannot be verified. However, we should attempt to propose these hypotheses even if we might have to concede that we cannot say for sure if they apply. It is also possible to use the evidence from brick stamps in combination with other inscriptions such as inscriptions on stone. However, although this is useful, we have to bear in mind that the expansions of many of these stone inscriptions have not been reviewed since the publication of CIL and might not be completely secure.

1.2 Roman brick and tile – a general introduction This thesis is particularly concerned with brick stamps. It should be noted that in the following chapters no distinction has been applied between the term ‘brick’ and ‘tile’. At the same time it should be remembered that a typological difference does exist between the two.

In this thesis, the work of the scholars of different countries has been arranged in groups of schools of research, to determine patterns of research differences. Countries with similar research approaches, which use similar methods, have been listed together. Scholars who have trained in these countries/ schools are addressed as part of the school, regardless of their nationality. The groups are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Eastern Europe The Middle East Northern Africa Britain

Classical writers provide hardly any information about brick and tile. Vitruvius, writing in the 20s BC, in his work ‘De architectura’(II. 3), included a section on clay-preparation, although he is mainly concerned with sun-dried bricks (lateres crudi). There is only a passing allusion to kiln-baked bricks, which were not used widely until after Vitruvius. Because of his early date Vitruvius is not very useful to the brick stamp research from the provinces. Nevertheless he is seen as a valuable source by Brodribb, who compiled a list of all brick and tile types from Britain (Brodribb 1987: 4). During the Republic,

Germany, Austria and Switzerland The Netherlands France Spain 7

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Table 1 is based on measurements of the most common types of Roman brick and tile by Brodribb (1987) and RIB for Roman Britain and by Spitzlberger for the Northern part of the Province of Raetia (1968: 104-105). Some measurements were also recorded by Baatz on the bricks of Upper Germany (Baatz 1965a: 128; 1967: 53) and by Sarnowski on the bricks from Lower Moesia (Sarnowski 1983: 18-26). Most other studies reviewed in this thesis have omitted similar analysis of their brick material, which is why these locations are chosen here as a representative sample for the former Roman Empire. FIGURE 1 CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF WITH TEGULAE AND IMBRICES (BRODRIBB 1987: 4) private and public buildings were usually built of bricks that had not been baked in a kiln. They were rather thick and clumsy and had a tendency to collapse when too moist. In imperial times baked bricks became the norm and were usually used from the time of conquest. In Germany, (unstamped) baked bricks were used from the time of Tiberius.2 In Britain, the earliest fragments of Roman fired brick come from Baldock, which is dated to the time of Claudius. Some of the bricks may be of a pre-conquest date (Brodribb 1987: 4). By the end of the first century AD the art of making baked brick had been brought to perfection and the Romans brought it to all new areas, adapting style and method to local circumstances.

1.2.1 Brick Classification 1.2.1.1 Classification by size Tegula Tile-roofing only became really efficient when the tegula had developed the flange with cut-outs at the top and bottom, which enabled a snug fit, and a taper which held the tiles together. The nature of those tiles naturally means that the roof was built up from the bottom course towards the apex. The tiles sat in position by sheer weight and friction. Every tegula has certain peculiarities. Apart from signatures and stamps that may be present, they can be used to identify the make of a particular tile-maker. Nail holes are usually centrally placed and pierced before firing. There are several examples that are still intact. Drill holes are often visible. The total weight of any roofing must have been considerable. The tile-maker had several other jobs to do apart from making holes into the face of the tegula. First the flanges were made. These could be created by folding up the edges of the clay into the mould or former, and then slicing away the surplus clay (Brodribb 1987: 16). Spitzlberger and Baatz (Spitzlberger 1968: 105; Baatz 1988: 68) mention a special form of this roofing tile, the so-called tegulae sine marginibus, which usually have combing in Raetia and are used in walls as well as in the balks of roofs (Vitruvius On Architecture 10.3). Similarly, tegulae colliciares, which had a ridge to collect rain water, were used for roofs (Spitzlberger 1968: 105). Sarnowski records that in Moesia two types of tegulae were in use; the first was the usual flat type with flanges. The second was a rounded flat tile which was used from the third century AD onwards (Sarnwoski 1983: 22-25).

The most common form of tile is roofing tiling. There are two distinctive types, the imbrex and the tegula (Fig. 1). Tegula means ‘a small covering’ and this tile was usually flat with flanges on each side, which pointed upwards. The tegulae were accompanied by the semi-circular imbrices, which provided covering against the rain and tapered slightly towards the end. The imbrices were placed over the adjoining flanges of the tegulae and therefore effectively sealed off the roof. The tegulae had portions cut out at the top and the bottom of the flanged side that enabled the tiles to lock into each other and fit tightly. The low pitch of the roof and the weight of the tiles were enough to hold the roof in position. Sometimes the bottom course and the edges were nailed. The ridge along the crest of the roof was covered either by imbrices or by a taperless curved tile. Occasionally, there was a chimney pot or vent on the ridge. On the bottom of the lowest course of imbrices there was an emblem tile (antefix) which served as a decorative element or good luck charm.

Imbrex The imbrex is also used variously. Among many applications it is used for hearths, hypocausts, draining channels, and ridge tiles on a roof, as well as for makeshift

2. Personal comment of A. Schaub.

8

INTRODUCTION

TABLE 1 Brick classification (according to Brodribb 1987: 5-135; Spitzlberger 1968: 104-107; Baatz 1965a: 128; 1967: 53; Sarnowski: 1983, 18-26). Name

Type

Usage

Average sizes

Stamp frequency

Tegula

tile

roofing

length: 30-66 cm width: 12-40 cm (Spitzlberger) length: 43 cm width: 33 cm (Brodribb) length: 54 cm width: 41-42 cm (Baatz) length: 42-47 cm diameter: 1.5-3 cm (Sarnowski)

frequent (none on round tegula type)

Imbrex

tile

roofing

length: 40 cm width: 14-18 cm (Brodribb)

frequent

Antefix

tile

roofing: decoration and apotropaic function

height: 218-310 mm (RIB)

frequent

Bessalis

brick

hypocaust floor

length/width: 19.8 x 19.8 cm (Brodribb) 16 x 16-21 x 21 cm (Spitzlberger/ Baatz) 15 x 15- 19.5 x 19.5 cm (Sarnowski)

occasional

Pedalis

brick

base cap for pilae of bessales

length/width: 28 x 28 cm (Brodribb) 26 x 26-29 x 29 cm (Baatz) 21 x 21-32.5 x 32.5 cm (Sarnowski)

occasional

Lydion

brick

bonding/lacing courses in walls

length: 40.3 cm width: 28 cm (Brodribb) length: 24-42 cm width: 13.5-28 cm (Sarnowski)

rare

Sesquipedalis

brick

pavement for mount of hypocaust or flooring

length/ width: 40 x 40 cm (Brodribb) 36 x 36-40 x 40 cm (Spitzlberger) 35 x 35-40 x 40 cm (Sarnowski)

frequent

Bricks for flooring:

9

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

TABLE 1 CONTINUED Name

Type

Usage

Average sizes

Stamp frequency

Tegula bipedalis

brick

hypocausts/ walls/ floors

length/width: 57 x 57 cm (Brodribb)

frequent

Round bricks

bricks

hypocausts

length: 17-19.5 cm diameter: 5.5-9 cm (Sarnowski)

frequent

Chimney pot

tile

roofing

length: 20-22 cm width: 15 cm (Brodribb)

none

Ridge tile

tile

roofing

length: 31-42 cm width: 28-33 cm (Brodribb)

none

Cuneatus (solid voussoir)

brick

arches

length: 30-40 cm width: 15-40 cm (Brodribb)

occasional

Parietalis

tile

facing tile in walls

length: 40 cm width: 26 cm (Brodribb)

frequent

Tegula mammata

tile

to assist bonding in flooring

occasional

round shallow mammae

diameter: 44 mm depth: 17 mm (Brodribb) length; 40 cm width: 44 cm (Sarnowski)

conical mammae

diameter: 57 mm depth: 60 mm (Brodribb)

Tiles in walls: Tegula mammata

(see above)

Spacer bobbin

tile

wall cavities

length: 80 mm diameter: 57 mm (Brodribb)

none

Half-box tile

tile

flanged spacing tile

length: 45.3 cm width: 33.7 cm (Brodribb)

frequent

Tubulus (box tile)

tile

pipes in wall

length: 36.6 cm width: 19 cm (Brodribb) length: 27 cm width: 16.5 cm (Spitzlberger)

occasional

10

INTRODUCTION

TABLE 1 CONTINUED Name

Type

Usage

Average sizes

Stamp frequency

Tubulus cunneatus (hollow voussoir)

tile

arches

length: 25.5 cm width: 14.4-17.3 cm (Brodribb) length: 26.5 x 40 cm width: 177.5 x 33.5 cm (Spitzlberger)

occasional

Springer

tile

foot piece of curved arch

length: 23 cm width: 16.6-19.5 cm (Brodribb)

none

Pipes and drains

tile

water transport

varied in forms and sizes (Brodribb) length: 40-72 cm diameter; 10-20 cm (Sarnowski)

rare

flues instead of the usual box-tiles. Sarnowski records three types of imbrices in Moesia. Apart from the normal round form, they also appear in triangular and half-cylindrical form, complementing the flat and rounded tegulae. All combinations of different tegulae and imbrices are possible (Sarnowski 1983: 22-23). Antefix The face of the antefix (Fig. 2) is basically triangular or pentagonal, and at the back there is often a projection that can plug into the wider end of an imbrex, but some have a semi-circular integral extension of imbrex-shape that can be overlapped to an imbrex. The angle of the face presented to viewer does not seem to be constant. If the face is mounted at right angles to the base it would be seen upright when set at the ridge-ends. If the same was set at the end of the imbrices on the eaves, the face would lean forward (Brodribb 1987: 29-31). The pictorial designs on antefices vary. Of the seven types found at Holt in Britain, for example, six show the letters LEG XX and the boar (RIB II.4: 4120-4123). Others display the legion’s badge only, for example the Lion of legion XVI at Neuss (Lehner 1904: 306-307). Motifs were often meant to have an apotropaic character, sometimes displaying protective symbols (RIB II.4: 119).

FIGURE 2 ANTEFIX OF LEGIO XX VALERIA VICTRIX FROM CHESTER/ HOLT (RIB II.4: 2458.8) 1.

Bricks (flooring) Because of the rougher climate unbaked bricks were not very useful in the northern provinces of the Roman Empire (Spitzlberger 1968: 105). They continued to be used in the near Eastern provinces and Northern Africa.

Bessalis: This brick was small and its main function was to create pillars to support the suspensura, the floor suspended above the hypocaust. The word bes means ‘two-thirds of a unit’, the unit being the Roman foot (pes), which measured 12 Roman inches (unicae).3 There is a variant form of the bessalis in which the brick, though it has the same width, is round (Sarnowski 1983: 20).

3. 12 Roman inches is 11.64 English in equivalent, which is 295.67 mm.

11

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

2. Pedalis: This brick measures one square foot. Its main function was to act as a capping or base brick for pilae made of the smaller bessales. 3.

Lydion: This is one of the most common bricks used by Roman builders. It was most suitable for bonding or lacing courses found in the walls of large public buildings or defences. Courses of lydion tile were also needed for flooring.

4.

Sesquipedalis: This brick measured 1.5 feet square (443 mm). It could also be used for flooring, as arches from Rome and from Ostia show (Brodribb 1987: 37).

5.

Tegula bipedalis: This is the largest of all Roman bricks and measures 2 feet square (591.4 mm). It has many different uses and is more versatile than the sequipedalis. For instance, it was used to bridge the gaps between the pilae of the hypocaust and the form of the basis of the suspensura. Not many examples have been found in situ. Moreover, complete examples are rare.

FIGURE 3 CHIMNEY POT FROM BEAUPORT PARK, BRITAIN (SCALE 1:8) (BRODRIBB 1987: 32) the thickness of the mortar constant. The French word voussoir is used for any kind of wedge-shaped object of stone or brick made to help the formation of an arch. The Latin word is ‘cuneus’, meaning wedge. There are two varieties of the voussoir: the solid ones and those similar to the ordinary box-flue. The latter are open-sided and have a taper. Nowadays, since there is no difference in Latin, cuneatus is used to refer to the solid voussoir and tubulus cuneatus to the hollow one.

1.2.1.2 Classification by function Chimney Pot Another form of ceramic roof accessory has the form of a tapering cylinder (Fig. 3). It is not clear if these bricks were actually part of a roof, or if they only stood on the ridge formed of tegulae. These could have been laid flat with a central hole over which the pot could be set. Perhaps they were also used for covering lamps, or burning aromatics. Alternatively, they may have been used for ventilation purposes (Brodribb 1987: 30-32).

Bricks in walls There is little evidence for Roman walls that were fully constructed out of brick. However, it was common to face walls with broken, triangular or halved brick. The interior of walls were packed with rubble and concrete. The longest edge of the brick edged outwards, and was visible. Originally it might have been covered with stucco, plaster, or marble.

Ridge tile and other curved tile This type of tile is also associated with roofing. The purpose was to cover the gap where the tegulae met the apex of the roof. Although the imbrex was usually used for this, special tiles were sometimes made in Italy (Blake 1947: 7). In the provinces, however, nothing so elaborate was used. Yet, there are a few examples of specially made ridge-tiles which resembled an imbrex, but which taper little and were generally thicker (Brodribb 1987: 30-32). Cuneatus (Solid Voussoir) It is possible to make curved arches from any size of flat brick, by simply adjusting the amount of mortar to induce the curve (Fig. 4). However, it is more satisfactory to make a curve by using brick that is tapered and leaving

FIGURE 4 SOLID VOUSSOIR/ TUBULUS CUNNEATUS (BRODRIBB 1987: 79) 12

INTRODUCTION

from the hypocaust could be conducted in the manner of box-tiles, but this space could be created only by fixing spacers which looked like bobbins or cotton reels between the wall and the tile. Tegula mammata Some bricks had deliberately made lumps of clay in various formations attached to the surface. The term ‘tegula mammata’ is based on Vitruvius (On Architecture VII: 4,2) and Pliny (Natural History XXXV: 46, 159) and is now generally accepted by archaeologists (Fig. 7). They fall into two types: Type 1 has round shallow mammae with an average base diameter of 44 mm and a depth of 17 mm. Type 2 has conical mammae with a base diameter of an average of 57 mm and a depth of 60 mm. The distinction between the two types lies in their differing purposes. Type 2 seems to have been used for brick set vertically in a wall so that it could create a cavity for insulation or to act as a flue. It was held in place by clamps or T-shaped nails. The rounded shallow mammae are lumps of clay either fixed superficially to the surface or bedded into a scooped out hole. There are different formations of settings. Sometimes the mammae have become detached, displaying the cavity from which they came, and sometimes it seems to have been chipped off deliberately to make it flush with the surface. According to Brodribb, tegulae mammatae have seldom been found in situ, at least in Britain, but there are two examples from Beauport Park where bricks forming the floors of two rooms have the mammae facing downwards

FIGURE 5 OPUS SPICATUM (VILLA DEII MISTERII, POMPEII) Flooring Brick used for flooring was used in opus spicatum and opus sectile (Fig. 5; 6). Bricks for columns Semicircular bricks, quadrants and segmented bricks of various shapes were used. Parietalis (facing tile) Usually interior walls of Roman buildings were plastered over and then painted in various ways, ranging from plain colour to splendid figural designs. However, some walls were lined with tiling, though little of this is left in situ. Tiles vertically attached to walls would give some opportunity of providing a space through which hot air

FIGURE 6 MOSAIC IN OPUS SECTILE (PALAZZO DEI COSERVATORI, ROME) 13

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 7 TEGULAE MAMMATAE FIXED TO A WALL (BRODRIBB 1987: 64)

to make a good fix in the cement (Brodribb 1987: 62). There are many examples from Northern Africa and from France although there seem to be none from Germany (Spitzlberger 1968: 105). In Eastern Europe, tegulae mammatae are found occasionally (Sarnowski 1983: 26).

5.

Tiles in walls 1.

Tegula sine marginibus: These tiles usually had a rough surface, achieved by combing (see section 1.2.3.3) and were built into walls as an ‘undercoat’ for plastering (Spitzlberger 1968: 105).

2.

Tegula mammata: (see Type 2 above)

3.

Half-box tile: There is no special term that exists for this type of flanged spacing tile. Sometimes the term tegula mammata has been used to describe this type as well as the proper tegula with attached mamma. However, it is more logical to refer to the type with the deep flange and the central cut-away as a ‘half-box’, on the basis that the ‘half-box’ is similar to a large box-tile cut in half (Brodribb 1987: 65).

4.

Spacer bobbin: Another method of creating a wall cavity is the use of bobbin-shaped clay-objects, forming a space between the wall and a vertically mounted wall-tile (Fig. 8).

Tubulus (box tile): These tiles are basically a square form of pipe, and have the merit of being able to stand more securely. They could easily be mortared and fixed to the wall. Furthermore, heat could have been easily transferred through the thin tile and plaster into the room. Box-flues were usually set vertically in the walls, but sometimes they were placed horizontally. The quantity of box-tiles required depended on the size of the box and the size of the room. There are different styles and sizes of vents. Box-tiles are usually held in place by clamps or another form of nail. On the other hand, there are

FIGURE 8 SPACER BOBBINS FROM BROCKLEY HILL (TOP) AND FISHBOURNE (BOTTOM), BRITAIN (SCALE 1:2) (BRODRIBB 1987: 68) 14

INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 10 SPRINGER, ACTING AS FOOT-PIECE FOR AN ARCH OF VOUSSOIRS (BRODRIBB 1987: 82)

FIGURE 9 BOX-TILES FROM BRITAIN (SCALE 1:8) (BRODRIBB 1987: 76)

made of wood, lead or leather (Fig. 11) (Pliny Natural History X: 34; XIV: 81, 224) but were more usually made of earthenware (Spitzlberger 1968: 105). Possible applications include internal piping in the bathhouse system, the piping of water into a building and the draining of it out again, conducting water within aqueducts, downfall pipes from rainwater, flues and chimneys concerned with wall heating, and drainage for roadways. There are some unusual shapes, including square, hexagonal, bulbous, oval, syringe shaped and folded. Their ends also vary. Some have a chamfered end, while some have a flared end. Others have a full length tape or a junction outlet (Brodribb 1987: 84-87).

a few examples where one end of the tile has been shaped so that the end will slot into the open end of the next tile, like a pipe with a spigot. There are also box-tiles divided into two parts, forming a double box (Brodribb 1987: 79) (Fig. 9). 6.

7.

Tubulus cunneatus (hollow voussoir): Hollow voussoirs have the same purpose as solid voussoirs, namely to create an arch (Fig. 10). They could also create airspace, either for insulation, or for the flow of heated air. In the box-tile the open part comes at the top and the bottom, but in the voussoir it is the sides that are open. The upright tapering parts are called ‘faces’ and there is a ‘top’ and a ‘bottom’ (Brodribb 1987: 79). The faces often have a cutout vent that enables air to pass from one rib of voussoirs to the next, and most arches consisted of several ribs. Hollow voussoirs were mainly used in arch constructions for air movement in heating systems (Spitzlberger 1968: 107).

2.

Hypocaustum material: Vitruvius (On Architecture V: 10.2) gives instructions for the building of hypocausts. The ground has to be paved with tegulae sesquipedales (1 foot 6 inches square bricks) and is required to slope towards the mouth of the furnace (praefurnium) to such a degree that

Springer: This is a voussoir where two corners of the face are at right angles, leaving a taper at one edge only (Fig. 10). The two right-angled corners are clearly cut, and any combing pattern follows the unusual shape. It may be a specially-made tile intended as a foot piece or springer set at the base of a curved arch, or possibly to change the angle of a line of box-tiles. However, it is difficult to identify a springer from a fragmentary piece.

Miscellanous material 1.

FIGURE 11 VARIETIES OF PIPE (BRODRIBB 1987: 87)

Pipes (tubuli lingulati) and drains: The purpose of pipes was to convey water and they could be 15

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

An occasional shortage of bessales meant that the other types of brick were either used to fill in odd spaces in need of repair or for more extensive use. Alternative forms of pilae include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

box tiles (they were usually filled with mortar) voussoirs imbrices cylinders (Brodribb 1987: 94-96)

As has been seen, tiles come in a standard set of sizes. Thus it is sometimes possible to say what they were made for simply by looking at the dimensions of the tile. From this point, the terms ‘brick’ and ‘tile’ will be used interchangeably since they are almost synonymous for the purpose of this study.

FIGURE 12 SCHEMATIC SECTION OF HYPOCAUST SYSTEM OF THE CENTRAL BATHS, POMPEII (CHANT-GOODMAN 2000: 104 )

1.2.2 Production technology and kilns

when a ball is thrown on the floor it will roll gently towards it. The slight slope also helps to draw the flame (Fig. 12). Upon this pavimentum the pilae were built at intervals suitable to take the tegulae bipedales (2 feet square bricks) which form the suspended floor. Those bipedales are sometimes called ‘bridging tiles’, since each corner of them has to be sited on the centre point of four bessales. This usually means a gap of about 16 inches (410 mm) between each pila. Vitruvius (On Architecture V: 10.2) also states that the pilae are supposed to stand two feet high. The actual number of bessales required depends on the thickness of the bessalis used, which can vary between 7 and 25 mm. The thickness of the mortar between each tile also plays a role. The average number of bessales in a pila of two feet is ten. Investigations from Raetia and Upper Germany have shown that the average brick measurements for hypocaust material agree with those suggested by Vitruvius (Baatz 1965a: 128-129; Spitzlberger 1968: 106-107).

Brick making was tedious and labourious. The clay was usually kneaded by foot, mixed with water and dredged. The bricks, which, as stated above, were produced in certain sizes, were formed by hand and pressed into wooden frames in order to be sized. A piece of flat wood was used to smooth the tiles, and they were dried for several days on wooden frames before firing (Böckling 1978: 112-113). The basic features of a typical tile kiln include the firing chamber, or oven, in which the material was fired (Fig. 13). The floor of the oven was supported on a series of closely spaced cross-walls in the combustion chamber with arches across the main central flue. Between each cross wall was a cross flue which allowed circulation through the combustion chamber and enabled the gases to enter the oven through holes left in the oven floor that coincided with the sub-floor flues. The central flue often projected beyond the combustion chamber to link with a stokehole. This projection is also known as a flue, fire tunnel or praefurnium and was corbelled or arched over. The stokehole was the area outside the kiln from which it could be serviced (McWhirr 1979: 98).

A common practice was the use of a pedalis (one-foot square brick) as a cap to surmount each pila. This gives extra support and also helps to fill in the gaps that are caused by any irregular size of the bipedalis (Brodribb 1987: 91). It was essential that bipedales should lie flat and fit well, since otherwise the cement placed on top would run through the joints and lead to the cracking of the overlying surface, which often consisted of a smooth finished cement topped with a mosaic. Pilae made of brick provided the most efficient form of hypocaust and were made to deal best with the great amount of heat.

There is no appreciable difference between military and civilian tileries. The techniques of making and firing tile and brick seem to be the same, whether they are manufactured for the military or civilian market (McWhirr 1979: 97). Generally military and civilian tileries appear to have been separate and the products usually appear very different from each other. Possible exceptions will be discussed in detail in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1. In many cases there is a problem in identifying the production centres for all the bricks of an area. It is rare that both the locations for the 16

INTRODUCTION

and Künzing were not excavated yet (Spitzlberger 1968: 79).4 In Britain, the kilns used for firing brick are in all cases square or rectangular, which is a sensible design for objects of rectangular shape. In Italy, Sicily and the rest of the continent, however, round kilns are also common (Böcking 1978: 114). Therefore, the possibility for circular kilns in Britain should not be excluded (McWhirr 1979: 98). Holdeurn near Nijmegen, for example has five oval ovens for both bricks and pottery (Holwerda & Braat 1946). Similarly, the excavated tile kiln at Xanten/Vetera is also round (Böckling 1978: 111-115).

FIGURE 13 SCHEMATIC SECTION OF A TILE-KILN FROM XANTEN, VETERA (BÖCKLING 1978: 114)

1.2.3 Markings other than stamps on bricks and tiles military and the civilian tileries are known, even if their products are. Petrological studies, recently begun by a team of archaeologists in Vienna (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.7) may aid such identifications in the future.

1.2.3.1 Impressions and imprints Unlike other marks on bricks mentioned here, impressions and imprints were usually unintentional, apart from some possible exceptions from Raetia, which will be explained below. It was easy to leave some sort of impression in the damp surface before the tile was fully dry. This often resulted in fingerprints, particularly at the point of balance of imbrices. However, it is not possible to identify the tile maker from these prints alone. Some prints were left by shoes or bare feet (Spitzlberger 1968: 89). The variety of animal prints is wide and includes dogs, cats, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, horses, cows, badgers, wolves and birds.

Grimes, the leading authority on British kilns, has classified them according to their shape and the arrangement of the flues beneath the oven flooring (Grimes 1930). Sizes of tile kilns vary considerably; for example the only legionary kiln in Britain that has been identified was found Holt and is remarkable for its size (McWhirr 1979: 98). On the continent, several kilns have been identified as belonging to legionary centres, such as Holdeurn near Nijmegen or Abbach in Raetia (Holwerda & Braat 1946; Spitzlberger 1968: 65-183). The main tileries for the legions of Upper Germany were at Nied (Wolff 1893: 212-326). In the East, the military brick work of Legio X Fretensis has been identified at Givat Ram (Barag 1967: 252). The tilery excavated at Xanten/Vetera in Germany was probably built by Legio XXII Primigenia, since stamped tiles of this legion were excavated in the Eastern outer wall. Legio VI came to the Lower Rhine at the end of the first century AD, and clearly repaired the oven there, as is evidenced by the bricks built into the stairs and post of the oven. Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix finally took over the brick works from 120 AD and produced tiles until the fourth century AD. The final floor consisted of bricks stamped with the name of this legion. Böckling has conjectured that there was more than one oven at the brick works, but only one has been excavated. The final oven did not have a permanent firing chamber covering the combustion chamber. A firing chamber was made up of clay for each firing (Böckling 1978: 111). However, it is not always possible to detect the production centres near the military fortresses and forts. In Raetia, for example, the location of the ovens that fired bricks for Legio III Italica is known at Abbach. Spitzlberger stated in 1968 that the tileries for the auxiliary forts at Straubing

Spitzlberger, with regard to the bricks of Raetia, believes in the deliberate placing of animal, especially dog, imprints, on bricks. He bases this theory on his observation that some bricks display the imprints of more than one animal, and the fact that in some cases it looks as if the animal was forced to stand on the tile. He believes in the apotropaic function of such marks and links this phenomenon with the role of dogs as divine companions for Sucellus-Silvanus, Diana and Mars-Mercury in Gaul and Germany. Spitzlberger also sees a connection with the medieval superstition that it was wise to let a dog walk over a newly finished bridge, so that the devil would take possession of this poor animal rather than a human soul. He not only views animal prints as apotropaic but considers that imprints by human bare feet may have had the same function (Spitzlberger 1968: 88). Sarnowski does not concur with Spitzlberger’s interpretation of animal imprints and proposes that most were probably made unintentionally. He argues that the fact that stamps and tally marks were often put over imprints

4. No separate brick tileries for the Straubing or Künzing are mentioned in Czysz- Dietz- Fischer, Kellner 1995, therefore it appears that excavations have produced no further evidence on the matter.

17

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

shows that they did not have a special significance. Moreover, he shows that shoe imprints often followed brick stamps and suggests that the stamper accidentally stood on the tile while marking it thus (Sarnowski 1983: 31). Even if some of the animal and human imprints on brick and tile were intentional it is unlikely that this was always the case. Other tiles are marked with imprints of what appear to be raindrops. This, however, is rare, and therefore suggests that the tiles were normally kept under cover. Leaves and grasses and textile material, or perhaps some sort of racking the tiles were laid on, also left their marks on tiles. Finally, the underside of a tile can sometimes show a trace of sand on which the tile was lying (Brodribb 1987: 126).

FIGURE 14 TYPES OF SIGNATURE FROM BRITAIN (BRODRIBB 1987: 100) tile makers indicated different types of brick, but so far there is insufficient evidence to support this hypothesis (Brodribb 1987: 102). No exact percentages have been established for other provinces.

1.2.3.2 Signatures Signatures on brick and tile were usually made with the tips of fingers and take the form of semi-circles (Fig. 14). These signatures have been classified according to the quantity of half-rings, which range from one to four, or occasionally, five. There is no distinction between the sizes of the semi-circle either in height or width of base or in the amount of spacing between the rings. The mark with the finger can be put on when the clay is still quite soft, unlike a stamp which is put on before the drying but when the clay is a bit harder (Brodribb 1987: 100).

The quantity and variety of signatures poses some questions. It is impossible to say why some tiles were signed and some not. Custom varies throughout the centuries in which Roman tiles were produced. In total, roughly twenty-eight per cent of all Roman tiles carry some sort of signature, so there must have been a purpose in signing them. However, since few publications specify percentages this number is only speculative. An important question to consider is what the signum represented. Perhaps signatures on tegulae placed near the bottom indicated where in the building they were to be placed. However, since the form of the cut, which was consistently at the bottom of the flange, indicated which way it has to be set in any case, this explanation is not fully satisfactory. Moreover, there are too few signed tiles, to be able to identify the signum as an individual mark. Alternatively, it is possible that the signum represents the work of a group in a particular tilery, or even a whole tilery (Brodribb 1987: 104). More evidence is necessary to reach a conclusion regarding what the signum really represents.

It is often difficult to compare signatures on tegulae and those on imbrices, because the imbrex does not provide the same wide area of flat surface that can easily receive marking or writing. Sometimes the marker used a comb rather than the finger. Combing or scoring usually has the purpose of assisting the rendering of plaster or mortar, but combing on the top surface of the wide end of an imbrex could have no such use because they were used on roofs, so this mark on roofing tiles does not count as combing or scoring (Brodribb 1987: 102). In Britain sixteen percent of brick and tile carry signatures. Only eight per cent of bessales are signed. Being the easiest brick to make, it might have been considered unworthy of signing. With larger bricks such as sesquipedalis and bipedalis that required more skill in handling, there is a much higher proportion of signatures. It would be interesting to find evidence that different

1.2.3.3 Combing and scoring Unlike the signature or decoration, the indented grooving on box-tile and hollow voussoir tile has the main purpose of providing a key for the plaster and rendering of the tiles once they had been set into walls and arches. 18

INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 15 BOX-TILE FROM HOLT DISPLAYING COMBING (BRODRIBB 1987: 106) Combing (Fig. 15) meant the use of special instruments to form a widespread pattern. It was more efficient to use a comb than to score the tile with a knife or stick. A tile from Beauport Park in Britain, for example, has a large impression of a tile comb, measuring 132 mm from tip to handle, displaying a clear impression of the tile comb on the originally soft surface. The comb had a row of eight teeth. Unfortunately, combs were often made of wood, and thus do not survive (Brodribb 1987: 105). However, other materials might have been used, such as bone. A fragment of a box-tile from Griff Hill is said to have been combed with a bone comb but no further detail is given (Scott 1971: 17). Sometimes, metal combs are found that could have been used for marking tiles, such as in Witham in Britain (Brodribb 1987: 107) In Raetia comb patterns were usually diamond or wave-shaped and mainly appear on wall and hypocaust bricks (Spitzlberger 1968: 85).

FIGURE 16 ROLLER-RELIEF TILE FROM SAALBURG, GERMANY (BAATZ 1988: 72) is one exception from the cohort fort at Saalburg, which may have been produced by the military (Baatz 1988: 75). They were found in the territory of the civitas Auderiensum and the southern part of the civitas Taunensium (Baatz 1988: 78). According to Baatz, they are the products of a geographically and chronologically restricted private enterprise, which was probably situated at Dieburg. There are five stamp types, which were all used during the second half of the second century AD (Baatz 1988: 78).

Scoring was a less sophisticated and less efficient method than combing. It was performed by a line of knife-cuts put into the unfired bricks. The patterns are usually lattice with diagonal lines or straight lines producing rectangles. It is less common than combing. The knife-cuts, which were often very thin, cannot have provided much grip for keying. It might have been an earlier practice from which the use of combing developed (Brodribb 1987: 109).

1.2.3.4 Graffiti Interpretation of graffiti is usually not easy. According to Brodribb, most of the examples from Britain suggest that the tile maker had something to say about his work. For instance, he may have indicated his satisfaction with work completed (Brodribb 1987: 127). However, many graffiti are simple commemorations of names, and must have originated in the urge of the literate or semi-literate human to be remembered. Sometimes there are dates (Sarnowski 1983: 28). Sarnowski interprets some single letters on some of the tegulae from Novae as the supervision reports of workshop supervisors or immunes figlinae (Sarnowski 1983: 29-31). However, like most of the abbreviated names included on the stamps, as discussed in Chapter 12, this can only remain a hypothesis. It is quite possible that the letters could represent the names of the workers, or alternatively, something completely different.

Another form of marking is roller-printed relief patterns (Fig. 16). These are made by engravings on a roller, similar to a modern paint roller. The relief pattern on flue tiles served the same purpose as that of the usual combed ones, and when the tiles were in use the pattern would have been covered with plaster that was not visible. In Britain, the manufacture of relief-patterned tiles seems to be confined to non-military sites, and the evidence suggests that they were produced between AD 80 and 150. The roller-printed relief bricks from the region of Southern Hessia/Germany were also mainly of civilian origin. There 19

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 17 GRAFFITO OF A PHAROS FROM LONDON (BRODRIBB 1987: 130) Another form of graffiti is drawing. The most interesting example from Britain, for example, is the drawing on a bessalis from London, showing the impression of a Pharoslike building (Brodribb 1987: 131) (Fig. 17). Bricks from other provinces also display drawings which seem to have been produced for entertainment. A tegula from Intercisa/ Hungary, for example, displays what appears to be a fun caricature of the four emperors under Diocletian. Their names are written on the tile and the drawing shows two men and two horses (Visy 1977: Plate 39).

obscure, but maybe they were not meant to be numerals but rather were intended to be symbols of something else. There are some examples of marking with multiple figures extended in such a way that they cannot be included amongst all the other types. Some may possibly come into the category of those graffiti that refer to a tilemaker’s activity (Brodribb 1987: 131-135). According to Brodribb, the search for the meaning of tally marks must consider similar forms of markings found on pottery. In Britain, marks on pottery were found in Fishbourne and in West Sussex. Often they seem to represent numbers. They have be called ‘batch marks’ but it is not always easy to say what that term means or what

1.2.3.5 Tally marks Tally marks are number-like impressions. Therefore, they are a variation of graffiti or signatures and are rather difficult to classify. Firstly, some numbers can also be read when inverted. Secondly, slanting lines may really be careless vertical lines. Thirdly, some lines are not properly cut or are poorly aligned and finally, the ‘X’ mark is sometimes found set centrally, but sometimes at both ends of the foreedge (Fig. 18). Although the first impression is that the marks represent Roman numerals it is not that simple. The single, double, triple and quadruple lines seem to stand for 1, 2, 3, 4. IIII is common for 4. The mark looking like the letter N, one of the most common ones, could stand for 4 or 6. But there seems to be a total absence of any marks representing the numbers 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, there are several other marks that are obscure. Both marks cut with knives, and those written by hand can be rather

FIGURE 18 TALLY-MARK OF A BRICK STAMP OF LEGIO X GEMINIA (BRANDL 1999: PLATE 18) 20

INTRODUCTION

proportion of pots carried them. We cannot be certain if they were only put on occasionally to represent a particular batch of pots, or if perhaps they signify the end of a work period (Brodribb 1987: 135). Brodribb refers to the current practice at some tile works of marking the tile at the top of a stack to show where the next counting starts from, thus recording each batch. It is also a modern practice to give a personal number to a new brick maker and that this number stays with him permanently, so that any of his productions could be identified (Brodribb 1987: 135). Another analogy is that of past carpenters or stonemasons who used to mark wood on each component of a framed building to be able to identify its position. They would use a coding system where all the numerals were additive to avoid mistakes that were caused by reading the mark upside down. Four was written as IIII, VI and IV. VI could also be six. IX and XI always meant 11. According to Brodribb, both suggestions could be a possible explanation for Roman tally marks (Brodribb 1987: 135).

simply have had a decorative function (Sarnowski 1983: 27). The scholar is probably right to allow for different interpretations. With regards to the use of tally marks for better plastering, however, it is more likely that Sarnowski is mistaking scoring patterns for tally marks which covered the whole brick or tile. They sometimes look similar. Wesch-Klein observes that, at Rheinzabern, tally marks are predominately found on the lower edge of tegulae. Therefore, she argues that the marks can be seen as evidence for a special stapling procedure of these roofing tiles (Wesch-Klein, 1992, 216). Brandl suggests that because the signatures are often semicircular and situated on the lower side tegulae they were meant to conduct rain water to the next tile below, and eventually off the roof (Brandl, 1999, 14-15). However, as he himself, tally marks occasionally appear on hypocaust and other bricks, where such a function would have been unnecessary. Furthermore the marks appear almost too decorative to have a purpose.

Spitzlberger, who researched the stamped bricks from the northern part of the province of Raetia, proposes that the marks represented a counting system for the daily work output of the soldiers in the tileries. He observes that in the case of Raetia the marks appear on civilian and military bricks equally. He compares the evidence of the tally marks with some inscriptions on bricks which give information about production numbers. He names a brick from Regensburg with the inscribed words ‘…coli fec(it) CX’ (Spitzlberger 1968: No. 409). Further bricks from Siscia/ Sisak/Segestica, O-Szöny/Brigetio, Seggau/Flavia Solva and Szombathely/Savaria appear to give the numbers of bricks made by a man (CIL III 11378; CIL III 11382; CIL III 11425; CIL III 11867; CIL III 11410; CIL III 11385; CIL III 11384; CIL III 11382). The number CCXX/220 recurs. Spitzlberger believes that 220 bricks was the daily production requirement for brick workers because some of the cases quoted also include the date of a particular day (Spitzlberger 1968: 86). Nevertheless, this explanation for the meaning of tally marks can only remain a hypothesis, since we cannot be sure that those very common marks and the graffiti containing brick numbers are truly related. Sarnowski records two groups of tally marks from Novae. The first is either placed in the middle or covers the whole tile starting from the edge of the flat side of a tile. The second type is smaller and appears on a brick or tile edge (Sarnowski 1983: 26-27). Sarnowski states that stamped bricks from Novae frequently carry tally marks. In those cases the stamp was usually administered after the tally mark. Concerning the meaning of the tally marks, Sarnowski states that it is possible that they represented some kind of counting or quality control system. Alternatively, he suggests that these marks were undercoats for better plastering. He also remarks that some might

It is possible that not all tally marks were administered for the same purpose. Many of them may represent a counting system, which is not comprehensible to modern scholars. However, others may have been inscribed on a tile for decorative purposes only, and perhaps it is wiser to allow for several rather than one interpretations. Similar to other marks on brick stamps, few publications quantify how many bricks found in any location bore such marks. Therefore, it is almost impossible to give percentages.

1.3 Brick stamps Military units probably produced their own tiles from the Late Republic or Augustan period. Nevertheless, the first productions did not have stamps until the mid-first century AD. The first appearance of a military unit identifying a tile as their own is the name LEG II (Augusta) in Strasbourg, which was inscribed on a tile before firing. It is known from the context of the tile that it dates to before AD 43, the year in which the legion was transferred to Britain. This is not classified as a stamp since it was inscribed with an object and not imprinted with a die. The custom of stamping tiles for military use first began in the period of Claudius in Germany, and slightly later in most other provinces. From that period onwards troops stamped their tiles at many places simultaneously. A lot of scholars automatically assume that there are no stamps before the second half of the first century AD. The beginning of military tile stamping in the different provinces, and problems associated with this question, are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10. Legions, cohorts and auxiliaries, as well as the navy, put stamps on tiles. Not all bricks and tiles were stamped. It is hard to establish percentages because customs varied from 21

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

province to province, and even from location to location. Furthermore, unstamped bricks were often discarded during excavations, and unfortunately in some areas this is still the case. The question of the frequency of stamping is discussed further in section 1.3.5 of this chapter. A typical military brick stamp contains the title, number and name of a unit, for example Legio VII Gemina. There are a lot of brick stamps with additional information, such as names, ranks, imperial titles, or place names. The phenomenon of name stamps is discussed in Chapter 12. There are a lot of abbreviations of what appear to be names on military brick stamps. The interpretation of those is not only based on the letters but often on the locations and contexts the stamps were found in. Chapter 12, section 12.2.1 discusses the possibility that some of the individuals whose names appear on military brick stamps were civilians rather than soldiers and raises some problems with the reading of imperial titles.

A very interesting phenomenon is that of the die made from a stamp that is a stamped tile that has already shrunk is used for making a new die with clay. Its format is already 5% smaller through the shrinkage. If this die is used for another stamp, we again notice shrinkage of 5%. Therefore the new, imitated stamp is 9.75% smaller than the original die. Spitzlberger mentions an example: one of his stamp types, No. 237 from Westheim, measuring 8.2 x 1.8 cm is exactly 9.75% of another stamp from the same place, No. 236, measuring 9 x 2 cm (Spitzlberger 1968: 102).

Bricks are naturally suited for the inscribing and imprinting of signs and are therefore one of the oldest known writing materials. Apart from their use in cuneiform in the Middle East, there is evidence of actual brick stamps from Egypt, which carry the names of members of the royal family who purchased building materials. There are also stamped Etruscan tegulae and Oscan stamps from Pompeii, which are predecessors to the Greek and Roman stamps.

There are some special features concerning the forms of letters on military brick stamps. C is often used for G, especially with the abbreviation Leg(io/ionis). This is also common with amphora stamps (Spitzlberger 1968: 112). Callender (1965: 57) observes that the Romans developed the G comparatively late, and had previously used the C to indicate both sounds. Sometimes the letter A without the cross beam, which was initially common on papyri of the first century BC, is frequently used in provincial inscriptions of the third and fourth centuries AD, and on military brick stamps. There is no possibility of a chronology (Spitzlberger 1968: 113). Furthermore, the letter A may have a vertical cross beam. The letter E with two parallel vertical beams is quite common. Both of the latter are also due to the influence of cursive writing. On the stamps of Upper Germany, Baatz remarks that they sometimes had a very small O in the word cohors, which although frequently dated to late antiquity, appeared in some very early stamps (Baatz 1969b: 63-75).

The imprint on the tile is usually the only surviving item that can provide any information about the technical side of brick stamping. Good measurements are important for classification. If the stamp surface is not even, the middle line is used as length, if the stamp surface is only partially extant; the longest remaining side length is stated in brackets. A positive die with raised letters produced a negative stamp on the brick with incuse letters, and vice versa. The identification of stamps, originating from the same die is usually possible, because usually drying and burning have the effect of a rather even shrinkage on the tiles (Spitzlberger 1968: 108; Baatz 1965a: 124, 129). Apparent differences can be caused by less energetic, diagonal or vertical impressing or also by dirt on the die. However, with some practice it is possible to separate these from more significant differences. Shrinking never changes the proportions of single parts to one another. Due to shrinkage the size of the die can be assumed to have been around 5% larger than the stamp that it produced on the finished tile. The shrinkage that is caused by drying and burning is very even, so that differences in sizes amongst stamps from the same die are seldom more than one or two mm (Spitzlberger 1968: 102).

In a similar fashion to stone inscriptions, brick stamps abbreviate a lot and use ligatures to shorten the texts. This naturally served to keep the length of the stamp within reason. Usually, units displayed varieties of their names. This variety is enhanced by the different positions of the letters, and the peculiar fact that some die-cutters cut a positive die which produced negative, reverserunning imprints. Letters which seem to be wrong by accident and interpunction marks also appear on stamps but are rare. Some military stamps have more than one line or can be circular. Occasionally, legionary stamps display more than the abbreviation LEG and so make it possible to define the case legioni in the dative form, or legio in the nominative form. Spitzlberger, on the stamps from Raetia substitutes legioni(s), suggesting that the genitive form, ‘of Legio…’ was intended (Spitzlberger 1968: 112). However, this cannot be said definitely as legioni ‘(produced) for Legio …’ could also apply. Since some stamps are also in the nominative form, the cases may well have varied, as with all other characteristics and aspects of Roman military brick stamps. The usual abbreviation is LEG, which leaves any of the three expansions possible.

1.3.1 Technique of brick stamping

22

INTRODUCTION

Spitzlberger proposes that it was unusual for military units to bring dies when moving to a new location, considering it hardly worth the effort. The rapid decay of the wooden letters probably demanded the production of new dies. The dies were not important juridical signets but rather practical objects. Metal dies were perhaps more likely to be moved. However, according to Spitzlberger, there are examples from Raetia where the same dies were moved from one fort to the other (Spitzlberger 1968: 109). Brandl also argues that it happened occasionally that military units brought metal dies with them when they moved to a new location, although, according to him, it also appears to have been an exceptional situation rather than the rule. The examples he names are the following: a stamp type of Legio XIV from Carnuntum, which has the shape of a horse-shoe shows similarities to two types from the same legion from the period when it was garrisoned in Upper Germany at the end of the first century AD. Therefore, Brandl argues, the legion could have brought its stamp dies to the new location (Brandl 1999: 21). Similarly, there are certain similarities

between two stamp types of Legio II Italica. The first type comes from the unit’s first fortress in Ločica and is a reverse stamp, with the name of the legion LEG II ITALICAE in one line, and one of several names in the second (Fig. 19). The second type was found at the unit’s second place of garrison, Albing. This type, however, runs positive and does not have the second line with the name. Nevertheless, Brandl makes the point that the type from Albing must have developed typologically from the previous one (Brandl 1999: 22) (Fig. 20). Furthermore there are positive and negative versions of two similar stamp types in Ločica and Enns/Lauriacum. However, in spite of certain similarities, such as the forms of the letters, especially G, it is obvious, according to Brandl, that the stamp types did not come from the same die (Fig. 21) (Brandl 1999: 22). Furthermore, there are similarities between stamp types of Legio XI Claudia from Windisch/Vindonissa, Szöny/Brigetio and Svistov/Novae. The unit was moved from Vindonissa to Brigetio around AD 100/101. From there it went to Oescus and Durostorum between AD 102/103 and 106 (Brandl 1999: 23-24). It is therefore not surprising that bricks of the legion were at Novae. Brandl states that although the wording, sizes and relations between the letters are very similar on all three types, the stamp itself became smaller (Fig. 22). He adds that it is likely that the legion took the original die with them to Brigetio and cut new ones based

FIGURE 20 BRICK-STAMP OF LEGIO II ITALICA FROM ALBING (BRANDL 1999: PLATE 8.86)

FIGURE 21 BRICK STAMP OF LEGIO III ITALICA FROM LOČICA AND LAURIACUM (BRANDL 1999: PLATE 7.78;79)

FIGURE 19 BRICK STAMPS OF LEGIO II ITALICA FROM LOČICA (BRANDL 1999: PLATE 7.70-75) 23

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

made from iron were found. According to Szilágyi these were not used regularly (Szilágyi 1972: 434) Spitzlberger offers an explanation for the apparent use of iron dies in Raetia. According to him, they were used on very early types. He states that when a unit was first garrisoned at a place it would not have immediately produced its own dies for brick stamping, and instead used the branding irons normally used for animals. According to him, the early stamps of Cohors I Flavia Canathenorum and the stamps of Legio III Italica from Eining are a result of this practice. He reasons that on these types the letters were worked out of massive blocks, in a similar fashion to iron brand marks. Spitzlberger names an example from Mainz (Fig. 23) (Spitzlberger 1968: 110). Without examining the brick stamps and by looking at drawings of the stamp types in question it is not easy to follow Spitzlberger’s argument and decide if there are differences between stamps produced by wooden and metal dies. Also, since metal dies produced for brick stamping would have looked the same as iron dies used for other purposes, it is impossible to determine what the initial function of a metal die was and Spitzlberger’s statement can only remain a hypothesis.

FIGURE 22 BRICK-STAMPS OF LEGIO XI CLAUDIA FROM VINDONISSA (2.1), BRIGETIO (2.2) AND NOVAE (2.3) (BRANDL 1999: 23)

Many scholars have pondered the possibility that the dies were mainly made of wood. Grain impressions, that are visible in many stamp impressions from Britain, are evidence for wooden dies. An example is a stamp of Legio II Augusta from the amphitheatre of Caerleon (Boon 1984: 17). Some cl(assis) Br(itannica) stamps from Britain display nail marks. Brodribb suggests that they were caused by metal handles attached to a wooden die (Brodribb 1969: types 1b and 1c). Similar evidence occurs on another Legio II stamp (Boon 1984: 17). Frere and Tomlin argue that in Britain the bulk of dies was made from wood, because the end grains of wooden billets are often still visible on the tiles (RIB II.4: 125-126). Letters on wooden stamps would tend to wear out and break off. According to Szilágyi, one often

on it in there. The same happened after the final change of garrison (Brandl 1999: 24). Brandl concludes that there is not enough evidence to establish that military units brought their dies with them. However, based on the given evidence, it must have been a rare phenomenon (Brandl 1999: 24).

1.3.2 Material of stamps Since we do not have a great selection of surviving dies, it is very hard to say what material was used most often and different scholars have argued for different materials. Under the remains of the ceramic workshop of a certain Pacatus in Aquincum, a stamp of terracotta was found that shows the whole text in one piece (Szilágyi 1972: 434). Another material that could be used for making the dies was clay. This material would readily have been available to tile makers, and experiments by Brodribb have shown that baked clay dies, with integrated handles needing no attachment, made good impressions (Brodribb 1987: 119). A rectangular ceramic stamp found in the barracks at Chester with the text c(enturiae) Mali(i) Crassi, Lucilius Sabinianus (Britannia 1984: 342. 17; RIB II.1: 2409.6) may have been used for brick or mortaria stamps (Brodribb 1987: 119). On the continent clay dies for bricks were found in Mainz, Straubing and Westheim in Germany (Spitzlberger 1987: 110; Dressel CIL XV 1: 83; Degen 1963: 34; fig. 19.2). Baatz (1965b: 123; footnote 65) also mentions dies of baked clay but gives no examples. In Alsókosály/Dacia several letter stamps with long handles

FIGURE 23 IRON BRAND-MARK FROM MAINZ, GERMANY (SPITZLBERGER 1968: 110) 24

INTRODUCTION

notices that pieces have splintered off a given stamps. He argues that it is quite possible that tiles which were stamped with raised letters were produced with carved wooden dies, while those stamped with incused letters were probably made with metal stamps (Szilágyi 1972: 434). It is possible that different soldiers used a large amount of those wooden dies at the same time. Szilágyi explains the phenomenon of name stamps with regard to the usage of wooden dies: each soldier could have carved his own stamps (Szilágyi 1972: 434). However, name stamping was not the custom everywhere and at all times, as will be discussed.

FIGURE 24 ANSAE ON A BRICK STAMP FROM CAERLEON, BRITAIN (RIB II.4 2459: 10)

Spitzlberger, in his research concerning the stamps from the Northern part of the province, Raetia, believes that the material of the dies was not always the same, and that this is evident from resulting products, namely the stamps. He maintains that those cases that had wooden dies display less complicated detail on the letters. The cross beams of the letters E, A and T, for example, would be omitted completely or connected to neighbouring larger letter parts, because they were in danger of breaking off with the use of wooden dies. He concludes that the dies from Raetia were sometimes made of wood but were also made of other materials. Like some of the British researchers mentioned above, he states that in some cases the use of wooden dies is certain because the grain of the wood can still be seen on the stamps (Spitzlberger 1968: 109). Baatz also argues that the dies from Upper Germany were either of clay or wood (Baatz 1965b: 123; footnote 65), but does not give a reason for this statement. Dressel, who studied the brick stamps of Rome concluded that the bulk of dies were wooden but he, unfortunately, does not elaborate on this (Dressel CIL XV: 1, 3). According to Spitzlberger, the wood used must have been a very hard and tough one. Box-tree wood is proposed (Spitzlberger 1968: 109). Naturally, wooden dies have very little chance of survival. However, unfortunately, without the evidence from a preserved wooden die, we have no proof that they really existed. Nevertheless, similarly to Brodribb, RIB names a few stamps from Britain that display the impression of a nail-head or peg-end which attached or re-attached a wooden handle (RIB II.4: 127; 2459.43-45; 2473).

FIGURE 25 HORSE-SHOE SHAPED BRICK STAMPS OF LEGIO VIII AUGUSTA (ESSER, SETZER AND DECKER 1981: 151) raised borders, zig-zag borders or notched borders. Stamp surfaces with ansae are a special group that might have their origin in stone inscriptions, or owner-inscriptions on metal objects (Fig. 24) (Spitzlberger 1968: 102). Ansae can occur with inner border frames. Military stamps are most often square, but there are exceptions including round, horse-shoe shaped (Fig. 25), cross-formed (Fig. 26) (Esser, Setzer & Decker 1968/9: 150) or even fish-shaped (Fig. 27) (Baatz 1967: 64) stamps. Some are in the shape of footprints and are known as planta pedis (Fig. 28). Examples are found in several former Roman provinces, such as Pannonia (Neumann 1973: plates 9-22; Szilágyi 1933: figure 7), Germania Superior (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: figure 69) or Germania Inferior (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 326). Some stamp types from Novae/Lower Moesia are in the shape of ships and are, according to Sarnowski, the result of Legio I Italica’s connection with the Moesian fleet (Fig. 29) (Sarnowski 1986: 527-531).

According to Spitzlberger the dies could also have consisted of stone (Spitzlberger 1968: 109). Since no reason for this statement is given, it has to remain a hypothesis.

1.3.3 Shape of stamps Stamp surfaces vary. The letters are more often positive with a raised surface than negative with an incused surface. Different kinds of decoration are used to frame sets of letters. Amongst these are lines, double lines,

FIGURE 26 CROSS-SHAPED STAMP OF LEGIO XXII PRIMIGENIA (ESSER, SETZER AND DECKER 1981: 120) 25

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

1.3.4 Variety of stamp types The varieties of stamp types vary from one unit to the other. In the case of the cl(assis) Br(itannica) stamps in Britain, for example, there are 120 different varieties from a total of 2,338 stamps (Brodribb 1987: 180). In Vindobona/ Vienna there are 61 out of a total of 337 brick stamps of Legio XIII Gemina (Neumann 1967: 13), and 193 types out of a total of 370 bricks of Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix (Neumann 1967: 17). Even within one and the same period, the varieties of dies used differ sometimes. The double fortress of Vetera, for example, hosted two legions at the same time. The excavations produced 79 types out of 529 Legio V Alaudae stamps and only 11 out of 510 brick stamps of Legio XV Primigenia (Hanel 1995: 253-281). Of course, we have to bear in mind that we are not dealing with certain percentages, since all the stamped bricks of a unit are never found. Nevertheless, the numbers give us some idea that customs might have varied from unit to unit. For a discussion of the uniformity of stamping habits of Roman military units see Chapter 14, pages 266-267. Many varieties differ only very slightly, as if the die had been re-cut or copied inaccurately. One question that arises is whether stamps tended to be confined to certain types of tile. Brodribb, researching the cl(assis) Br(itannica) stamps from Britain, has shown that this was indeed the case for the British fleet. There are stamp types that appear on certain types of brick and tile only, including tegulae, imbrices and flat bricks (Brodribb 1987: 122-123).

FIGURE 27 FISH-SHAPED BRICK STAMP OF LEGIO XXII PRIMIGENIA (BAATZ 1967: 4)

FIGURE 28 PLANTA PEDIS STAMPS OF LEGIO X GEMINA (BRANDL 1999: PLATE 14.192; 15.183)

1.3.5 The frequency of use of stamps The question has often been posed as to whether stamps were impressed on every tile or only on a selected few. Scholars

FIGURE 29 SHIP-SHAPED BRICK STAMPS OF LEGIO I ITALICA (SARNOWSKI 1986: 527) 26

INTRODUCTION

often comment about a certain frequency of stamping. Böckling, for example, states that every hundredth brick was stamped but does not offer any evidence for his argument (Böckling 1978: 113). Over the long period in which military brick stamping was practiced one cannot expect a uniform custom throughout the Roman Empire. This is probably not even the case in a single province, although it may be possible that some units were more consistent about tile stamping than other legions.

primary building was erected: this building preceded the adoption of stamps with the legionary title. He says that the persistence of the early, unstamped bricks would affect the calculations (Boon 1984: 16). Boon adds furthermore that the roof of the Fortress Baths would have presented a distorted appearance in the varieties of stamped tegulae and imbrices. The roof of the amphitheatre baths were fixed with a batch of 28 tiles bearing the Antoniniana title, thus dating these repairs to the late second and early third century. They were all from the same batch and had the same stamp type (Boon B3.1) (Fig. 142). The stamp was slightly blurred because the clay had been wet when the stamp had been applied. The tiles appeared thin, over-fired and somewhat arched, something common when they were produced in haste. Boon says that, unfortunately, we do not know how many tiles in that batch were stamped (Boon 1984: 17), which is what we would expect since we do not seem to know where the remaining tiles from this batch were used. He states that sometimes all tiles in a batch were probably stamped such as, for instance, in the batch used for the praetentura bath-house of Aberyscir, where the flues were lined with tiles each carrying Boon Type A1 (Fig. 141). He adds furthermore, that complete unstamped bricks were quite common at Caerleon and that either sometimes no stamp was applied or that only a few bricks or tiles were marked (Boon 1984: 17). Without any further comments on the numbers of unstamped tiles found, it is hard to decide which scenario applies.

The continental schools of brick stamp research are normally not too concerned about this question and usually discuss the stamped material only. Von Petrikovits (1979: 237) states that it would not have been practical to stamp all tiles since they were probably laid out to dry so closely to each other that it would have been impossible to put a stamp on each one. One reason for this could be the fact that unstamped bricks, were traditionally discarded during excavations and are in fact occasionally discarded today, especially where the numbers of bricks (stamped and unstamped) were high. In Britain, on the other hand, where, generally, fewer bricks are found, archaeologists usually keep the unstamped bricks. Furthermore, British brick stamp lists are usually parts of excavation reports, and the finds, which are usually less than in continental excavations, are listed together. Therefore, the British school of research has a traditional interest in discussing both stamped and unstamped material together, unlike continental counterparts. Petrology is meant to analyse both, and this is certainly a very wise approach and remains to be paralleled elsewhere. Of course, this is also a relatively recent approach of the British school. Scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in Britain did not elaborate on the numbers of bricks stamped in a batch. Nevertheless this question is a backbone of modern research in Britain now. However, although we can establish the percentage of bricks stamped in a place based on the brick finds, there seem to be no uniform numbers for the whole Empire, and the fact that many unstamped (and stamped) bricks found during previous excavations are lost, makes it even more difficult to generalise.

Boon states that it is not possible to work out the exact proportions between stamped and unstamped material because some phases from the legionary baths contained stamps from a period where the legions, supposedly, did not yet stamp their tiles. It is often assumed that stamps cannot date to a certain period of time because the legions did not stamp that early. Yet we do not have exact knowledge about the beginning of the habit of stamping tiles as yet. For a more detailed discussion of this problem see Chapter 10. Brodribb also attempts a definition of the relationship between stamped and unstamped tiles in his study on the stamps of the British fleet (Brodribb 1969: 106-108). He argues that the proportions of tiles that were stamped by the classis Britannica were very small in comparison to other units. Brodribb suggests a couple of reasons why this might be the case:

Like most scholars who investigate the matter, Boon who writes on the stamps of British legion II Augusta from Caerleon (1984), reaches the conclusion that the relationship between stamped and unstamped material varied over time. He states that ideally, the approximately 150 stamps from the Fortress baths and the 400 from the ‘Roman Gates’ should be compared with all numbers of bricks and tiles from those sites. However, as at Caerleon, like at most sites, these numbers were beyond computation. At the baths the position was not only complicated by both the loss and destruction in Roman times but also, according to Boon, by the early date at which the

1.

27

The actual stamp usually only represents a very small portion of the whole area. The bigger a tile is the smaller is the area. This does not account for those tiles that carry no stamp at all but perhaps some of the fragments are pieces of a tile, where the stamp, which was originally on it, is missing.

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

2.

Many stamped tiles might still be in situ, for example bonding tiles in walls, and such tiles cannot reveal their stamps. Brodribb argues that few of the stamped tiles from the classis Britannica sites were found in the position in which they had been laid, and even fewer had mortar attached to them. He suggests that some of them were reused.

3.

Unless a tile is very carefully washed it is sometimes hard to see the stamp on it. Brodribb argues that many stamped tiles were overlooked and thrown away with excavation spoil, perhaps because they were not examined carefully enough or perhaps because they were not regarded as important.

4.

Brodribb suggests, furthermore, that it could be possible that only a small proportion of bricks were stamped deliberately. During the production process, tiles were left out to dry, and perhaps each batch of tiles contained one tile stamped by an inspector to approve of the work done (Brodribb 1969: 108).

Britain, Raetia, one selected sites in Germany, Pannonia and Moesia. However, the present evidence also suggests that on the continent one cannot generalise about the percentages of stamped tiles. Spitzlberger is one of the few scholars who ponder the question. He suggests of the sites he surveyed in Raetia, there could be one in eighty stamped tiles or as many as every second (from 1.3 to 50%) (Spitzlberger 1968: 112). Hanel informs us, that in the case of Vetera, out of 1,358 bricks and tiles, 1,035 (77.5%) were stamped. Therefore, it is impossible to reach any satisfactory conclusions about definitive numbers. Considering those numbers, one might reach the conclusion that in Raetia and Germany generally, more of the bricks were stamped than in Britain. For a discussion of the purpose of stamping, which is related to this question of the frequency of stamps, see section 1.3.7 of this chapter. Excavations in the Eastern provinces have shown that very few bricks were stamped. Of the 100, 000 fragments of bricks and tiles recovered at Lejjun none bore a stamp.5 Wagner states that there were a lot of unstamped bricks from Zeugma, without giving exact numbers, and lists nine stamps (Wagner 1977: 520). Similarly, very few stamped bricks were found in Africa (see Chapter 8, pages 5-6). Therefore, we can assume that bricks were rarely stamped in those provinces. Spitzelberger’s assumption that the top of each row was stamped and that the stamps were some kind of counting system does not apply in every province. It may be worth asking if the reason for a lack of stamps from certain areas could be that instead of brick roofs slate roofs were common. This could certainly be the case in Upper Germany where few brick stamps can be dated later than the second and third centuries AD (see Chapter 2, section 2.2) and where slates from that period have been found in the vicus of Nida-Heddernheim (Fischer, Eschbaumer, Fasold, Huld-Zetsche, Rupp & Schubert 2001: 478). In Britain there is also evidence that the roofs were covered with sandstone slates rather than bricks in the first century AD (Astill in: Wilmott 1997: 131-132). Nevertheless, as explained on page 29, this does not always apply since roofing tiles were not always the only tiles which were stamped.

This theory contradicts the general idea that bricks were stamped by the military to prevent misuse (Peacock 1982: 137). Nevertheless, it is worth consideration. Evidence from the classis Britannica fort at Beauport Park tiles shows that out of 41 complete tegulae, only one carried no stamp. This suggests that all the tiles were supposed to be stamped (Brodribb 1987: 123), and disagrees with the evidence from other British fleet sites where few tiles were stamped (Brodribb 1969: 106-108). Blockley, writing on Prestatyn, states that out of 2,531 recovered roofing tiles 15 (0.6%) were stamped and one out of 64 (1.5%) bricks (Blockley 1989: 135-136). Davies (1993: 229-231) records that only two fragments out of 4,365 pieces of brick and tile from Segontium were stamped (0.05%). Dearne (1993: 123) informs us that in the case of Navio only three out of 520 fragments of brick and tile were stamped (0.6%). Dore and Wilkes (1999: 535-536) state that that 20 out of 368 (5.4%) fragments of brick and tile were stamped at the Roman fortress at Carpow. This selection of sites from Britain suggests that customs varied and were not always the same at different sites.

The main problem with establishing percentages of stamped bricks is that many excavators have discarded the unstamped material in the past. Unfortunately, this is still the case in some continental excavations today. Naturally, if we do not know the numbers of unstamped bricks the frequency of stamping in a location cannot be established.

Unfortunately, continental scholars have generally been less accurate in recording the numbers of unstamped material. Usually, publications only mention the stamped bricks and tiles. Very few of the continental publications in this thesis give any numbers of unstamped tiles recovered at a site. Therefore this report relies on the evidence from

Similarly, the question of which types of bricks and tile were most likely to be stamped, poses a problem, because

5. Personal comment of S.T. Parker.

28

INTRODUCTION

of a lack of records from most sites and publications. However, some scholars have recorded which types were most likely to be stamped. Mócsy states that an overall view of brick and tile from all provinces shows that wherever stamping occurs, the tegula is the most likely tile to be stamped (Mócsy 1972: 149). However, although this statement can be applied to a lot of sites, it does not always hold true. In Novae, for example, bricks were stamped as frequently as roofing tiles. Sarnowski does not give exact numbers, but he does indicate roughly how frequently the brick and tile types carried stamps. About half of all the flat bricks were stamped. With regard to roofing tiles, only the flat tegulae with flanges carried stamps. None of the round tegulae was stamped. Imbrices were stamped less frequently than tegulae, which concurs with the evidence from other sites. None of the tegulae mammatae or tubuli were stamped (Sarnowski 1983: 20-25).

produced some stamped hollow voussoirs. At Caerleon, stamped cornice bricks, which were mainly found in bath buildings, have been recorded (RIB II.4: 127). The present evidence indicates that, at least on the continent, tegulae are the most frequently stamped tiles, but that in some cases larger flat bricks were stamped as often. In Britain the situation is similar but on some sites imbrices are as frequently stamped as tegulae. The percentages vary from site to site. It appears that pipes and voussoirs are not normally stamped in any of the areas surveyed for this thesis. However, since the bulk of publications reviewed in this thesis do not include information about the types of brick and tile on which the stamps are found, we cannot take this as a representative study for the whole of the Roman Empire. Hopefully, future researchers will include information concerning both the types of bricks stamped and the amount of stamped and unstamped material, in their site and find reports.

With regard to the British stamps, Brodribb states that in the case of legionary stamps there was not enough recorded evidence to work out the proportions of different types of tile. This was only possible with the classis Britannica stamps. Out of 2,338 classis Britannica stamps he records, 765 tegulae (33%), 830 imbrices (36%), 670 bricks of all sizes (29%) and 38 box-flue tiles (1.6%) were stamped (Brodribb 1987: 124). Further research has shown that larger bricks are more likely to be stamped than the small bessales. From the site of Beauport Park in Britain, for example, not a single one of the 79 complete bessales was stamped (Brodribb 1987: 124-125). From Britain, according to Brodribb, there is no recorded stamp on a hollow voussoir tile, although there are many unstamped ones (Brodribb 1987: 125). To the author’s knowledge none is known from other areas. Philps states that the stamps of the classis Britannica from Dover occur on all types of Roman tile in a haphazard manner (Philps 1981: 124).

1.3.6 Multiple stamps In the late nineteenth century, scholars viewed the use of multiple stamps as insignificant and as an indication that a stamper added a playful element without further purpose (Wolff 1893: 323). Spitzlberger argues that quite a number of tiles that carry the same stamp two or three times, especially from Raetia but also from Lower Germany, in Trier and Strasbourg (Spitzlberger 1968: 83). According to Spitzlberger, this challenges the assumption that the phenomenon is always due to the mood of a stamper, or the mending of a failed stamp. Moreover, two stamps would have been sufficient for the latter, but there are quite a number of tiles that carry three or more stamps, such as Spitzlberger’s types 395 and 396 from Raetia (Fig. 31) (Spitzlberger 1968: 83). Furthermore, since it is argued that usually both or all three stamps on a brick are of good quality, the theory of repaired stamps lacks conviction. Spitzlberger adds that some so-called cross-stamps are known from Raetia (Spitzlberger 1968: 83; type 381). Since none of the stamps were found in a Christian context, he argues against a Christian interpretation of this type (Spitzlberger 1968: 83). In addition, according to Spitzlberger, cross-stamps cannot indicate the repair of an original by second stamps because in Trier and Strasbourg there are tiles that have three, four or even more. One tile has been stamped five times, while another has been stamped eight times (Spitzlberger 1968: 83; figure 2). Spitzlberger (Spitzlberger 1968: 82-84) believes that the stamping of bricks was a technique of numbering used during brick production in order to control the output. If a tile was stamped several times, it would indicate a multiple number of the original stamp. Spitzlberger divides the types from Raetia into different groups of multiple stamps (Fig. 30; 31) (Spitzlberger 1968: 83) Group A consists of two

Bidwell and Speak investigated the types of stamped tiles of Cohors V Gallorum from South Shields. There is not much difference between the actual numbers of stamped imbrices (47) and tegulae (58), which shows that they were roughly stamped equally. Like on most sites, it was not possible to determine what percentage of tiles were stamped at all (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 155). All stamped tegulae had a nail-hole occurring on the upper ends of the tegulae. There were no stamps on tiles other than roofing tiles (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 155). RIB, giving an overall view for Britain, provides us with the following information about the types of bricks and tiles stamped: most of the British stamped materials are tegulae, imbrices or bricks. Box-flue tiles were rarely stamped. The authors, Frere and Tomlin, state that obviously, few buildings at military sites required them. Legio IX 29

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

that multiple stamps are not always related to stamp mending. Some multiple stamps overlap and others do not. Spitzlberger’s types 382 and 384 have stamps on top of each other, whereas types 393, 388, 397, 389, 390, 392 and 396 have two or more stamps beside each other on the tile (Spitzlberger 1968: 83; figure 2). Similarly, one brick from Dover has as many as three impressions on top of each other, and an imbrex from Caerleon has three stamps separately imposed on it (Brodribb 1987: 121). Brodribb argues that it is possible to identify the characteristics of a certain stamper. For instance, some stampers always put the stamp in the same position (Brodribb 1987: 121). Again, customs probably varied and it would be methodologically questionable to interpret all multiple stamps as counting marks. Apart from Raetia, Germany and Britain multiple stamps appear in several areas of the former Roman Empire, such as Pannonia (Lörincz 1981: 97) and Moesia. In Krivina/Iatrus, four different stamp types of Legio I Italica were found on one tegula (Sarnowski 1983: 32-33). It is probable that sometimes double, triple or multiple stamps were put on for mending purposes, but that generally this was not the case. Perhaps it is better not to search for complex interpretations such as counting systems and instead to accept that the stamper simply might not have had a different reason for putting more than one stamp on a brick other than personal preference or inclination. It probably depended on the workshop and situation.

FIGURE 30 GROUPS OF DOUBLE STAMPS FROM RAETIA (SPITZLBERGER 1968: 83)

stamps next to or on top of each other in more or less the same position. Group B consists of two stamps beside each other with a difference of 90 degrees. Group C is represented by cross-stamps. Group D contains the remainder of multiple stamps, except for double stamps. Finally, Group E consists of multiple stamps in which there are different stamp types. Spitzlberger assumes that Group A are meant to represent the double numeral (Zahlwert), whereas Groups B and C signify a special numeral. He thinks that cross-stamps represent the numeral (Zahlwert) 1000 (x is used to represent 1000). Therefore, multiple stamps, just like tally marks, may have a logical connection and explanation (Spitzlberger 1968: 22-24). Sarnowski agrees with this, to the extent that he believes multiple stamps to be a system of counting. He states that the same may be said for tally marks and that it is not possible to reconstruct the system any further (Sarnowski 1983: 33). However, similarly to tally marks this theory can only remain a hypothesis. It is likely that the original interpretation of the phenomenon was less restricting. Without literary or epigraphic evidence for any counting system in Roman military tileries, it is very difficult to reach any certain conclusions. Spitzlberger is probably right to state

1.3.7 The purpose of brick stamping Szilágyi states that although one cannot reliably determine the reasons for brick stamping, the most likely explanation is that the stamp of a unit, or an official in charge, was meant to be a sign of guarantee of the quality of the building material. According to him, they were a measure of production. He argues that it seems a logical explanation, since the name of the owner of a tilery sometimes appears on the stamp. In the case of military stamps the name of the emperor is used as the guarantee mark. However, Szilágyi also concedes that if the stamps were only a confirmation of quantity this would not be necessary (Szilágyi 1972: 434). The theory is not fully satisfactory, since the name of the emperor is not always included on the stamps (see 30

INTRODUCTION

to be stamped, whereas bricks that remained in a location were not. According to him, that might be the reason for the fact that some bricks, like those from Exeter, remained unstamped, as they were only used within the fort (Peacock 1982: 137-138). Nevertheless, the chief reason for putting a stamp on a tile, as also suggested by Von Petrikovits (1979: 237), may simply have been to display identity, in a similar fashion to stamps on amphorae (Callender 1965) and mortaria (RIB II.6: 2497.25). Makers of eye-salve labelled their goods as a form of advertisement (RIB II.4: 43-62). Metal sheets and ingots carried official stamps (RIB II.3: 2433; 2463) that also appeared on writing tablets (RIB II.4: 2443.2), leather (RIB II.4: 29-31) or wooden barrels (RIB II.4: 2442.11). As mentioned before, the military then, as now, used their stamps as a sign of authority (Brodribb 1987: 117). Private brick stamps were probably used for advertising purposes. They use a lot of personal names which are sometimes phrased in the genitive case, and are accompanied by another word such as opus, officina, or manu, which means ‘the work of’. Given the present evidence, the likelihood is that military bricks were stamped by the army as a sign of their authority, and with the intention of preventing unauthorised use.

FIGURE 31 GROUPS OF MULTIPLE STAMPS FROM RAETIA (SPITZLBERGER 1968: 83)

Chapter 12). Both signatures and tally marks on bricks are also explained as production measurements but this cannot be proven, as shown in sections 1.2.3.2 and 1.2.3.5. One has to wonder if stamping was a means of registering output, and that perhaps every tenth, hundredth or thousandth brick was stamped (see the discussion of the frequency of stamping in section 1.3.5 above) (Böckling 1978: 113). However, this explanation is unlikely because private brick works would also have registered their output and these did not always stamp (Peacock 1982: 137). Another theory is that the stamps signified exemption from taxes (Szilágyi 1972: 434). However, Peacock argues that such taxes would probably have applied to the empire as a whole and that military brick stamps, their frequency, and their texts are not uniform enough for this explanation (Peacock 1982: 137). Spitzlberger prefers to interpret the stamps as a trade and production mark and adds that military stamps were probably used to prevent use of military tiles for private buildings, which was forbidden (Spitzlberger 1968: 82). Boon (1984: 16) and Peacock (1982: 137) agree with Spitzlberger. Peacock argues that stamping was introduced for the same reason that modern governments mark their property that is to deter pilfering and unofficial distribution. In a newly conquered territory such measures might not be necessary until military production reached a high level, or until there was a chance of confusion with recently established private works. Furthermore, Peacock argues that it was easier to lose bricks when they had to be transported elsewhere from their place of manufacture, and that thus bricks that travelled had

1.4 Conclusion Military brick stamps come in a variety of forms and shapes, and each stamp type requires separate treatment. There is a large difference between military and civilian brick stamps with regard to their purpose, and archaeological interpretation. The latter are, however, not discussed in this thesis, which looks at the different research methods and approaches towards military brick stamps and the value awarded to them in archaeological discussion. There are still a lot of uncertainties regarding the mechanical aspects of stamp production, as have been highlighted. Diverse opinion with regard to technique and material used for dies is dealt with. The former Roman Empire has produced a variety of different stamp sizes, shapes and types. The frequency of the use of stamps is still something that can only be guessed at. Following this introduction into the methodology used on Roman brick stamps, Roman brick and tile, in general, and the technical details of brick stamps the next chapters investigate the importance of stamp research and the validity of the various methods used within the different areas of the Roman Empire. 31

CHAPTER 2

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

2.1 Introduction

Inferior. The street system of the ancient city coincides well with that of the modern one. A number of major buildings have been excavated and include bath-houses, a Mithraeum, other shrines and temples, a governor’s palace as well as private houses. Cologne eventually established a reputation for its industries in glass-making, pottery, jewelry and precious metals. These products were traded all over the western half of the empire, mainly along the Rhine-Rhone corridor. In the third century Cologne became the capital of the short-lived Gallic Empire (Eck 2004; Schönberger 1985: 321-497).

Modern Germany covers parts of ancient Gallia Belgica Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, Noricum and Raetia, while modern Austria is situated on parts of ancient Raetia, Pannonia and Noricum, with Switzerland covering parts of Raetia, Germania Superior and the Alpine provinces. The research of the Netherlands, although including parts of Germania Inferior, shall be discussed in a separate chapter, because of its different approach. Caesar first reached the Rhine during his Gallic campaigns. Augustus abandoned the idea of advancing the frontier to the river Elbe after the disaster suffered by Varus in AD 9. Under Vespasian and Domitian the frontier of Upper Germany was pushed beyond the river to include the Taunus and the so-called Agri Decumates, probably to shorten the lines of communication between Rhine and Danube. It was Domitian who separated the two areas of Lower and Upper Germany into two official provinces in c. AD 90. From this time each had its consular legate, although the financial affairs continued to be administred by the procurator of Belgica. Trajan reduced the overall legions in the two provinces to four. Hadrian marked the frontier of Upper Germany by a large palisade; Antoninus Pius advanced the Hadrianic frontier along the length leading southwards from the river Main. After the invasions of AD 260 and the usurpation of Postumus all land east of the Rhine was evacuated and the river, once more, became the empire’s border.

A number of Germanic tribes were situated on the northern extremity of the Empire. These threatened the Roman Rhine and the Danube frontiers. The military occupation of the Rhine was organised by Drusus between BC 12 and 9. Later, Tiberius made it his personal concern, before becoming emperor. After the Varus disaster in AD 9 the area east of the Rhine remained a constant worry for Augustus. This is testified by the large numbers of troops garrisoned there. Under Augustus probably up to nine legions were stationed there, while for most of the first century AD this number rose to seven. If the fleet and the auxiliaries are included, there was a reduction from 90,000 men in the first century to 45,000 in the following two centuries (Le Bohec 1994: 168). We know of the presence of the following legions in Germania: •

The capitals of Germania Superior and Inferior were Mainz and Cologne. Mainz was first used by Augustus as a double legionary fortress. In the first century AD it became a permanent fortress for the same number of legions; only after the Saturninus revolt was its size reduced to accommodate one legion. During the first century a civil settlement began to develop between the fortress and the Rhine, and became the seat of the provincial governor. It also became the capital of the Ubii, a Roman-friendly tribe, who were transported westwards by Agrippa for their own protection. The legionary fortress was evacuated towards the end of the reign of Tiberius, although the classis Germanica remained in garrison nearby. Claudius granted the settlement the status of a colony and it received fortifications. Under Domitian it became the seat of the governor of Germania

•

•

•

•

32

Augustus: V Alaudae or XVI, XIV Gemina, XVII, XVIII, XIX (at least) Tiberius: I Germanica, II Augusta, V Alaudae, XIII Gemina, XIV Gemina, XVI, XX Victrix, XXI Rapax Claudius: I Germanica, IV Macedonica, V Alaudae, XV Primigenia, XVI, XXI Rapax, XXII Primigenia Vespasian: I Adiutrix, VI Victrix, X Gemina, XI Claudia, XIV Gemina, XXI Rapax, XXII Primigenia Trajan-Aurelian: I Minervia, VI Victrix (replaced by XXX Ulpia Victrix), VIII Augusta, XXII Primigenia (Le Bohec 1994: 168).

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

Lower Germany had several large fortresses, at Haltern and Oberaden from the Augustan age, and also at Neuss/ Novaesium, Nijmegen/Noviomagnus, Cologne/Colonia, Bonn/Bonna and Xanten/Vetera. In the second century AD, Legio I Minervia was stationed at Bonn, and Legio XXX Ulpia was in Xanten/Vetera, while the legate governor had his residence at Cologne. All the fortresses backed on to the Rhine, and there was no necessity to build a barrier defense. This was different in Upper Germany, where the Agri Decumates were situated between the upper reaches of the Rhine and the Danube. To protect this area and to establish a barrier between Roman and barbaric lands, the Romans built a 383 kilometres long frontier. The older part (Hadrianic, around AD 199/120), went towards Köngen and the Neckar and consisted of a palisade (Hanel & Wigg 1997: 41-46). The outer limes (built around 155 to 158 AD), an earth bank with dirches on either side, went towards Lorsch on the Rems, before turning east along the Suebian Alb. In the period of Caracalla (AD 211-217) a wall of stone replaced the palisade east of the Schwäbisch-Gmünd. Small forts were erected at irregular intervals. The large fortresses were situated at Windisch/Vindonissa, Strasbourg/Argentorate and Mainz/ Mogontiacum, the home of the legate-governor. During the Augustan period there is also evidence of fortresses at Marktbreit and Dangstetten (Schönberger 1985: 321497). In the second century the following legions were garrisoned in those fortresses respectively: XI Claudia, VIII Augusta, and XXII Primigenia (Le Bohec 1994: 167-169).

The neighbouring province of Noricum only had auxiliaries until Marcus Aurelius established Legio II Italica at Enns/ Lauriacum, which moved there after a period at Loĉica near Celje/Celeia in Northern Italy and another at nearby Albing some time after the Marcomannic wars (AD 166/7175) (Wilkes 2000b: 104). Elements of the Pannonian fleet covered part of the Danube attributed to Noricum (Le Bohec 1944: 169). The province, derived from the chief Celtic tribe of the Norici, started as a federal state which minted its own coinage. It became an independent kingdom which supported Caesar during the civil war in the 50s BC. It was peacefully incorporated into the Roman Empire in 16 BC. For a time it may have been left under the leadership of a praefectus or even princeps civitatum, but eventually it became governed by a procurator, who had the auxiliary units of the province at his disposal and who had his residence at Virunum (Wacher 1987: 224). After the introduction of Legio II Italica the province was governed by a senatorial legate (Wilkes 2000b: 104). Like Noricum, Pannonia bordered the river Danube, making a frontier unnecessary. Nevertheless, the river demanded the establishment of a fleet (classis Pannonica), which probably happened during the reign of Vespasian (Le Bohec 1994: 170). After AD 9, Legio VIII Augusta was garrisoned at Ptuj/Poetovio, IX Hispana at Sisak/Siscia and XV Apollinaris probably at or near Ljublijana/Emona, until a colony was settled there in AD 14/15 and the unit moved to Altenburg/Carnuntum. However, the exact date of this transfer is uncertain (Wilkes 2000b: 102; 112). Legio IX Hispana left Pannonia to join the conquest of Britain in AD 43. It was not replaced, but some years later, when Legio VIII Augusta moved to the Lower Danube it was substituted by Legio XIII Gemina from Germany (Wilkes 2000b: 102).

Drusus occupied Raetia in 15 BC. Together with the tribe of the Celtic Vindelici, it was placed under the control of the legate of Gallia Belgica, who appointed in AD 16-17 a praefectus civitatum to look after the region. Later, an equestrian procurator was introduced, as in neighbouring Noricum, who resided at Augsburg. In the Augustan age, it was defended by two legions: XIII Gemina and XXI Rapax. During the reign of Tiberius there were only auxiliaries in the province, which was the case until the institution of Legio III Italica in Regensburg/ Castra Regina after the Marcomannic Wars (AD 166/7175) from which period on the province was governed by a senatorial legate (Wilkes 2000b: 104). The auxiliary units consisted of four alae and eleven cohorts, the most senior of which was Ala II Flavia milliaria stationed at first at Heidenheim and later at Aalen. There was a barrier from Schwäbisch Gmünd to Regensburg consisting of a palisade, later replaced by wall of stone. The principal town of the province was Augsburg, which, at first, was probably no more than the civitas capital of the Vindelici. Under Hadrian at the latest it acquired the status of a municipium, but never appears to have been promoted to a colonia (Wacher 1987: 225).

In AD 62, Legio XV Apollinaris was temporarily replaced by Legio X Gemina, which came from Spain to Carnuntum. After the death of Nero (AD 68) there were two Pannonian legions: X Gemina at Altenburg/Carnuntum and XIII Gemina at Ptuj/Poetovio (Wilkes 2000b: 103). It is possible that after the civil war of AD 69, legions VII Gemina and XXII Primigenia briefly stayed in Pannonia (Wilkes 2000b: 103). A Sarmatian attack on Pannonia in AD 92 may have been responsible for the loss of Legio XXI (Wilkes 2000b: 103). In AD 106, Trajan divided the province into Upper and Lower Pannonia, separated below the Danube bend. Around AD 85-87, Legio II Adiutrix returned to the Danube from Britain and moved to the new legionary fortress at Budapest/Aquincum, situated on a major Sarmatian crossing point. Legio I Adiutrix arrived from the Rhine around the same time, and after a brief period 33

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

in Moesia Superior, the unit occupied the new fortress of Szöny/Brigetio above the Danube bend, facing the German tribes in Pannonia Superior. The legion was joined by construction detachments of other Pannonian legions, such as XIII Gemina, XV Apollinaris and the newly arrived XIV Gemina (Wilkes 2000b: 103). It is not certain where the latter was first stationed (possibly Osijek/Mursa) but it was in Mosonmagyaróvár/Ad Flexum by AD 97 (Wilkes 2000b: 103-104). The Upper Pannonian frontier was strengthened further by sending Legio XIII Gemina from Ptuj/Poetovio to Vienna/Vindobona (Wilkes 2000b: 104). At the start of Trajan’s first Dacian campaign (AD 101), four legions were garrisoned in Pannonia: Legio XIII Gemina at Vienna/Vindobona, Legio XV Apollinaris at Altenburg/Carnuntum, Legio I Adiutrix at Szöny/ Brigetio and Legio II Adiutrix at Budapest/Aquincum. During the emperor’s two wars against the Dacians (AD 101-102 and 105-106) there was more change in military dispositions: Legio I Minervia left the Lower Rhine and briefly replaced XIII Gemina at Vindobona, but continued eastwards, as its place was taken by XIV Gemina, coming from Mosonmagyaróvár/Ad Flexum. At Szöny/Brigetio, Legio I Adiutrix was replaced by XI Claudia, which then moved down to Silistra/Durostorum in Moesia Inferior. Furthermore, around the same time Legio II Adiutrix departed from Aquincum and Legio X Gemina took its place (Wilkes 2000b: 104).

The situation of the provinces of Upper and Lower Moesia, Illyricum, and Lower Pannonia will be considered in Chapter 6, which discusses the brick stamp research in South-Eastern Europe. The research of Germany, Austria and Switzerland has the advantage of much higher numbers of brick stamps than most other parts of the former Roman Empire. Articles on Roman bricks and their stamps from these areas are numerous, and only a selection of the most important ones can be discussed here, such as Baatz’s articles for the Upper German limes (Baatz 1965a: 118-138; 1965b: 101-117; 1967: 40-73; 1969a: 126-128; 1969b: 63-75), Kaiser on the legions garrisoned at Bonn (1996: 51-91), Spitzlberger on Raetia (1968: 65-138), Strobel on the role of brick stamps in the reconstruction of military history (Strobel 1988a: 437453) or Neumann (1973). The emphasis in this thesis lies on the evidence of the legions, rather than the auxiliaries, for those areas where legions were present. It would be too much to include all the material here. Auxiliaries are generally discussed in this thesis where they were the prior garrisons. Units in the above mentioned provinces often left some hundreds of brick stamps behind, rather than just few as was usually the case in Northern Africa, the Middle East or Britain. In comparison to Roman Britain, the material from the two Germanies, Raetia and Pannonia, is much greater. Noricum was only home to auxiliaries initially and was home to one legion from the second century AD; therefore it does not have corresponding numbers of brick stamps. Due to this abundance of material, brick stamps have always been used in different ways in the research of Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. Brick stamps have nearly always been incorporated into chronologies and regularly have been used for troop dispositions. Scholars and archaeologists usually attempt to date brick stamps irrespective of whether the find location is known or not. Dating has been important to German, Austrian and Swiss scholars since the beginning of the twentieth century (Wolff 1893: 212-326; Düntzer 1886: 20-23; Jahn 1909a: 111-129; 1909b: 303-313). Many publications discuss hundreds or thousands of brick stamps, while often others deal with less than 10, which makes a successful dating more difficult. Usually the German, Swiss and Austrian researchers attempt to create chronological sequences.

During Trajan’s expedition to Parthia many Danube units were transferred to the East, as had previously happened when the Rhine legions were required at the Danube. Legio XV Apollinaris left Carnuntum and Legio XIV Gemina came from Vienna/Vindobona to take its place. In return, Legio X Gemina became the permanent garrison of Vindobona. Legio I Adiutrix returned to Szöny/Brigetio, and as a result Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix departed to Germania Inferior. Legio II Adiutrix was reinstalled at its former base at Budapest/Aquincum. For a brief period (AD 163-166) the latter joined Verus’ Parthian campaign and Legio IV Flavia was moved from from Belgrade/ Singidunum to occupy the fortress at Aquincum. Pannonia Superior was governed by a consular legate and Pannonia Inferior by a praetorian one, until Caracalla changed the boundaries to enlarge Inferior and its governor was promoted to consular rank. The two capitals, Carnuntum and Aquincum did not receive the status of a municipium until the era of Hadrian. In both cities the legionary fortresses were built in the Flavian period. The civilian settlement in Aquincum was situated north of it, on the west bank of the Danube. In Carnuntum it was situated west of the fortress and the surrounding canabae. Carnuntum was awarded the title colonia under Septimius Severus (Jobst 1983).

There are several reasons why brick stamp chronologies and dating might work better in these provinces than in other areas of the former Roman Empire. For example, there are more stamps there than elsewhere. As explained earlier, the provinces situated on the Rhine and the Danube were strategically highly important, and therefore had a higher concentration of military units. From the first to the fourth centuries AD, there was nearly always more than one legion present in those provinces. This was the cause 34

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

of an increased interest in brick production. Unfortunately, there are no current indications about relations between stamped and unstamped material, as a lot of the unstamped bricks were not kept in excavations up to the later twentieth century. There are, however, some indications that the practice varied from place to place. Spitzlberger observed that in some places every second, in other places only every eightieth brick was stamped (Spitzlberger 1968: 82). For a more detailed discussion of the frequency of tile stamping see Chapter 1, section 1.3.5). If we were to obtain any definite answers to the question why the Rhine and Danube areas have more brick stamps, the exact percentages of unstamped bricks and tiles from all these areas would be required. Therefore, the main subject of this and the following chapters will be the importance and methodology of brick stamp research and dating. What numbers of brick stamps do we need to date successfully? What methods have been used and can they be applied to other provinces such as Britain?

that bricks were used soon after their production. In his opinion, brick stamps are a better and safer dating criterion than ceramics, and can always be used (Baatz 1965a: 124). Baatz’s dating of the stamps from the fort at Salisberg is based on the work begun by Ricken (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 101-117). In this study, the Upper German units and their bricks are introduced and the scholar’s chronology is explained. The same types of units appear in most of the Upper German limes forts, which is why it is important to have a brief introduction in Baatz’s chronological frame, and determine why he thinks it important to establish a chronology. Baatz, following Ricken, divided the stamp types found in the military buildings on the Upper German limes into different groups, based on epigraphic stylistic characteristics, such as the form of writing, and decorative elements, such as ansae. He then compared the groups, and determined spread patterns, according to which building they were found in most frequently. The stamps of Legio XXII:

As already mentioned, the body of publications from Germany, Austria and Switzerland is rather large. They also include a span of several decades, although articles prior to the beginning of the twentieth century have not been included. Archaeological methods change over time, and it is not appropriate to criticise the methods of our predecessors who did not always have the same research possibilities and who reached achievements valuable for their own time. Where possible, the investigation will concentrate on the newer publications of brick stamps, beginning in the middle of the twentieth century. With a body of material and articles as large as that from Germany, Austria and Switzerland it is not claimed that the list of articles is complete for any area. Rather, selections of studies, which, as I believe, are the most representative of brick stamp research in those countries, have been chosen. The publications have been ordered according to the criteria set out in the Introduction (Chapter 1, page 6).

Baatz partly dates the stamp types of this unit based on archaeological stratigraphy. Salisberg had two consecutive bath buildings and the bricks of the two have different stamp types, which are accordingly dated, relatively older and relatively younger. Baatz also states that many of the types within this group can be dated by archaeological context from various military structures along the Upper German limes (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 104). The Heddernheim Group (Fig. 32): These stamp types that Baatz classifies as one group, were mainly found in the baths of the fort of Frankfurt am Main/ Heddernheim, which gave them their name. Baatz states that the stamp types were used at the same time in the bath, together with the later stamps of Legio XIV, which is why he considers them a unified group. According to him, these types appear together in most find locations on the Upper German limes (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 105). His dating of this group is explained in the following way: the legionary tileries of Frankfurt am Main-Nied produced single stamps of these types, which is why Baatz argues that this group was produced in this tilery. He proposes that legions XXII and XIV might have produced bricks at the same time for a short period in these brick works and that since Legio XIV was moved to in AD 92, the Heddernheim group of Legio XXII stamped bricks would have begun in the same year, or only shortly after (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 105). Furthermore, it is argued that the archaeological context of the fort at Salisberg confirms this date: the younger bath complex was built on top of the older one, in which this group of stamp types was used. The younger baths, on the other hand, used what

2.2 Discussion 2.2.1 Overviews or histories of troop dispositions Baatz’s chronology of brick stamps from Upper Germany will be discussed first. His work is regarded as fundamental by modern German archaeologists. Following his chronology, two further publications which deal with the same stamp material from Upper Germany will be discussed to high-light the problems with close chronologies and the differences between single scholars approach to the subject. Generally, Baatz disagrees with the hypothesis that bricks might have been produced in stock without immediate use, stating that as long as the opposite is not proven, one has to assume 35

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 32 STAMPS OF THE HEDDERNHEIM GROUP (BAATZ AND RICKEN 1965B: 110-111) he called the Echzell group, which is dated to the period before AD 100, possibly going as far back as the last years of Domitian’s reign. In Baatz’s opinion, this shows that the Heddernheim group originated in the short period of not more than three years (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106). Concerning the relationship between the Heddernheim group and the Echzell group, Baatz argues that all observations show that the brick production did not cease between them and that the transition between the groups was continuous. He admits that the groups are an artificial creation by modern archaeologists and that there is always an element of arbitrariness as some of the Heddernheim group stamps have been found in levels of the younger bath, and the Echzell group in levels of the older one. Baatz’s stamp type E 21, for example, is a stamp of the Heddernheim group, which was found together with the Echzell types in the younger bath complex from Salisberg. Unfortunately, no picture of the stamp is included (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106).

would have been built shortly after the hypocausts. Therefore, it is questionable if separate groups can be distinguished chronologically in one and the same building. The Stockstadt group (Fig. 34): Apart from some exceptions, as cited above, this group was mainly found in the bath complex of Stockstadt. According to Baatz, it chronologically follows the above mentioned Echzell group (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106). Apart from Stockstadt, stamps of the Stockstadt group were occasionally found in the fort baths of Bendorf, Salisberg and Echzell, together with stamps from the Echzell group. The bulk of stamps from the Stockstadt baths are of this group, only complemented by some stamps of a Cohors IV Vindelicorum, which Baatz believes to be later additions (Baatz 1969b: 63-75) (for a more detailed discussion of these stamps see the analysis below of Baatz’s relevant article on pages 7880). Furthermore, stamp types of the Stockstadt group were found in the baths of Niederberg, Oberflorstadt, Marienfels and Saalburg. Some were also discovered in the legionary fortress of Mainz and the tileries at Frankfurt am Main-Nied. Baatz says that the latter produced few stamps of this group but no exact numbers are given (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 107). A relative chronology for this group is proposed, based on typological observations and the fact that the different stamp groups followed one another with some overlaps. Furthermore, the Stockstadt group, with its many decorative elements, and its often unusual writing forms, according to Baatz is similar to the Echzell stamp types before it but still a distinctive group (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 107).

The Echzell group (Fig. 33): Baatz dates this group to between AD 92 and 100, stating that its production must have begun during the last years of Domitian’s reign. According to him, it came immediately after the Heddernheim group. The Salisberg baths used mainly the younger types of this group (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106). The archaeological context of the baths shows that the younger complex had bricks from this group built into the hypocausts. However, the praefurnia, the walls and the roof, which all came later, incorporated some bricks of the Stockstadt group (see next column). According to Baatz, this is proof that the Stockstadt group followed the Echzell group (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106). However, a question arises if the two groups, contrary to his claim, were used contemporarily. It is likely that the walls, roof and praefurnia

Baatz mentions a so-called ‘control stamp’(used to identify and date the single groups), which carries the inscription IUSTUM 36

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

FIGURE 33 STAMPS OF THE ECHZELL GROUP (BAATZ 1965A: 132)

FIGURE 34 STAMPS OF THE STOCKSTADT GROUP (BAATZ AND RICKEN 1965B: 110-111) 37

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

The group of name stamps (Fig. 35): Baatz states that the evidence of the Salisberg baths shows that bricks which were stamped with names (for a discussion for the evidence of these being soldier’s names, see Chapter 12, 225-226) were added as later repairs, and therefore dates them to the Trajanic period (AD 96-117). He argues that this group comes after the Stockstadt group and states that there are some similarities in the decorative elements and writing styles but that it is still a distinctive group (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 108). However, based on this statement, it is hard to decide if the group of name stamps is really one chronologically uniform group. Baatz does not elaborate on the stylistic criteria he bases this upon. Neither do the stamps appear to come from a closed archaeological context. The statement that they appear to be added as later repairs is not proof for a chronological unity. As will be shown in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1 stamps with soldier’s names were common at different FIGURE 35 times in different locations. It is STAMPS OF NAME STAMP GROUP (BAATZ 1967: FIG. 9) not surprising that Legio XXII Primigenia also used some brick stamps with personal names, and FECIT, of which, unfortunately, no picture is included. without further dating we cannot be certain that they were This stamp appears on bricks alone but also sometimes as all produced at the same time. a double stamp together with Echzell group stamp types. Stamps of this type are found in contexts with both Echzell The stamps of Legio XXI: and Stockstadt group types. Therefore, Baatz argues that this stamp type was used as a transition from the one group to the This legion left Upper Germany in AD 89. Baatz states other (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 108). His argument is rather that bricks stamped in its name, found in levels, that date hard to follow. The fact that this stamp appears with both of later, were probably reused (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 104). the groups mentioned, and in the case of the Echzell group Unfortunately, it is not explained if there is proof for this sometimes as a double stamp means that the groups could be on the bricks, although a later article on the Stockstadt contemporary. The so-called control stamp is not necessarily baths includes some suggestions on the matter. In this a proof for chronological development. The absolute date of article Baatz argues that reused bricks or tiles can usually the Stockstadt group is determined in the following way by be recognised either because they are fragments or because Baatz: on one hand, we know its date because it is followed they show signs such as traces of mortar where none would by the Echzell group; on the other hand stamps of this type have been required. Alternatively, tiles are sometimes used appear in levels of fort baths on the Upper German limes, instead of bricks, such as tegulae in a floor (Baatz 1969b: which can be dated. The baths on the Upper German limes 66-68). However, Baatz does not go into detail here and were built around AD 100, since the forts were erected before does not specify if any of the bricks stamped with the name that year. Therefore the Stockstadt group is dated to around of Legio XXI from Salisberg fitted any of these criteria AD 100 (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 108). (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 104). 38

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

The stamps of Legio XIV:

some stamp types of Legio V Alaudae from Vetera that name the same tegularius with different combinations of his name, thus proving that the types are contemporary (Hanel 1995: 263; plate 158; types G173; G178) (Fig. 36). The decoration on the stamp types with the name of this person is completely different: type G173 is bordered by zig-zag lines, while type G178 only has a one line frame. This shows that bricks which were made roughly at the same time could indeed have stylistic variations. Another soldier named Cupit(i)us is named on stamps in Vetera. One of the stamps recording this name is square, the other one has ansae. It is, however, likely that the person named is the same, so the two stamp types must be contemporary (Hanel 1995: 263). Therefore, there is very little consistency in styles and stamp types with military brick stamps in Germany.

The brick stamps of Legio XIV from the Upper German limes, according to RE (XII, 1735-1737) must originate from the period between AD 83 and 92 when this unit was garrisoned there. Baatz says that the latest stamp group from this legion dates after the revolt of AD 89, and was used together with the Heddernheim group bricks of Legio XXII in the baths of Heddernheim and Salisberg (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 105). According to him, the remaining types of this legion were not datable (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 105). Baatz dates his stamp type groups mainly to the first and early second centuries AD. It is worth noting that there appear to be few brick stamps which date to the late second and third centuries. Recent research has shown that from the middle of the second century AD the roofs at the vicus of Nida-Hedderheim were covered with slates rather than bricks (Fischer, Eschbaumer, Fasold, Huld-Zetsche, Rupp & Schubert 2001: 478). Combined with Mócsy’s theory (Mócsy 1972: 149) who states that in Upper Germany like other areas the bulk of the stamps were administered to roofing tiles only, this could be a reason for the lack of late stamp dates from Upper Germany. The frequency of stamps, the types of bricks and tiles that were stamped and the question if generalisations can be made based on these topics are further discussed in Chapter 1, section 1.3.5.

It is true that some of the so-called groups are predominately found in a particular building. Nevertheless, it becomes clear that some groups overlap, and thus, there is often no proof for a chronological sequence. The fact that the IUSTUM FECIT stamp, which Baatz addresses as the control stamp was found together with stamps of two of the groups, the Echzell and the Stockstadt group, does not necessarily mean, as stated by Baatz, that it was a transition stamp between the two types. It could also mean that the two groups are contemporary. Similarly, it is not quite certain why all name stamps are addressed as chronologically uniform. No exact definition for the stylistic criteria that this is based upon is given, and the fact that all the stamps carry personal names is not enough to identify them as a uniform group. Unfortunately, since some brick stamp types seem to overlap in Baatz’s chronology, care should be expressed and the different groups have to remain hypothetical. It must be questioned if it is possible to attribute stamp types, which do not carry a date stamp such as the name of a consul or a governor to periods of ten years or less. Baatz states that this group dates immediately after the previous one (the Echzell group), and therefore to around AD 100, after the forts were built, most of which construction date we know from archaeological context. However, how can we know that the baths were built immediately after? Perhaps a period of time elapsed before their construction, a period which cannot be detected by the stamps, unless we can date the levels of the baths to exact years. Dates of less than ten years are hypothetical in the case of military brick stamps.

Baatz is an archaeologist who relies heavily on the use of chronologies. Chronologies, as he admits himself at one point (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106), are artificially created by modern scholars to make the ancient material more accessible. Of course, the variety and the large numbers of stamps and stamp types from the Upper German limes make such modern classifications and typologies extremely attractive. However, scholars have to be made aware that Baatz’s groups are primarily based on the stylistic characteristics of the stamps and only secondarily related to archaeological context. Generally, Baatz’s groups are hypothetical. The stylistic groups are partly based on the characteristics of ansae. These classifications cannot be sustained satisfactorily since it is now known that a chronology based on styles from the brick stamps of the provinces is not possible. Hanel, for example, describes

Baatz does not always provide the reader with the background of the archaeological context, such as ceramic dates, and probably relies on previous reports. It is not always clear why a diverse collection of stamps is addressed. For example, he states that the Heddernheim group, a unified group, is contemporary because the stamp types were all used in the same building. On the

FIGURE 36 HANEL’S TYPES G173; G178 (HANEL 1995: PLATE 158) 39

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

other hand, it is stated that more than one group can exist within a building, such as in the case of the Salisberg baths. It would be interesting to know if any other dates, such as pottery, can give some information about building processes. There is also the problem of the shifting stamp types – some types of the Heddernheim group appear in levels of the younger baths of Salisberg and some of the Echzell group in levels of the older one. Baatz is aware of this and explains the shifting types with the fact that the transition between the groups was fluid. However, this implies that the groups are only hypotheses for which no verification is available, and they are not as defined as we would like to assume.

caution is necessary in assigning the term ‘undatable’, this only applies to a close epigraphic chronology whose value, as this thesis shall show, is questionable in the first place. If the fact is accepted that chronologies are arbitrary, and that the stamp type groups are based on hypotheses, they can be used safely. Nevertheless scholars need to be aware of the limitations that rigid stamp chronologies present and employ them carefully. In another article, Baatz is dealing with the distribution of military units in the Limes fort of Stockstadt in Upper Germany (Baatz 1969b: 63-75). He argues that military bricks stamps can be used for dating and challenges the view that bricks were often reused and are therefore useless as dating material. Baatz investigates the bricks from the Stockstadt baths, stating that archaeologists have previously used brick stamps successfully for dating stratigraphy (Baatz 1969b: 64). He bases the dating of this bath complex on the examples of the brick stamp groups, already discussed in the analysis of the previous article, found there.

Also, Baatz argues that another reason for the Echzell and Stockstadt types are addressed as independent groups is that the first were used on the hypocausts of the baths of Salisberg and the latter in the walls, roof and praefurnia. This contradicts his argument about baths being built in a very short period of time. If the baths were built within a couple of months, those two groups would be more or less contemporary. How is it known that they were not produced simultaneously and used for different parts of the building? Baatz indicates that the baths of Stockstadt remained the same for 210 years, without rebuilding (Baatz 1969b: 63-75). However, since he talks about rebuilding processes in other baths, such as Echzell, as shown above, this has to be questioned.

Baatz published 126 stamps from the bath complex at Stockstadt, which adds some new finds to the previously discussed article. Four are those of Cohors IV Vindelicorum. These stamps were produced during the reign of Commodus. The bath building had already been built at this time, and this shows that they were the bricks that were built in as repairs (Baatz 1969b: 66). Therefore, Baatz used the 122 stamps of Legio XXII for the dating of the building. According to Baatz, the stamps are of a chronologically uniform group, which he calls the ‘Stockstadt group’, and which he also describes in the above-cited article (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 101-117). Baatz states that it is unusual to find an unvaried group, since most bath complexes on the Upper German Limes had different types of Legio XXII stamps, some of which would have been added later (Baatz 1965b: 106-107). Baatz suggests that later repairs were made with Cohors IV Vindelicorum bricks, which are attested by the remaining four stamps. The Stockstadt group is addressed as chronologically uniform, as these types were often found together in other buildings on the Upper German Limes. The variety of stamp types appears to be a unique habit of the Twenty-Second legion, no other legion has produced so many contemporary types (Baatz 1969b: 66-67).

The answers to all these questions, such as whether all stamps of a certain group were produced in a certain tilery, as proposed by Baatz, can only be found in a petrological analysis of the material. In recent years, Dolata has begun some research on this matter regarding a Legio XXII stamp from Mainz. This approach will be discussed in section 12.2.7 and it remains to be repeated for the rest of Baatz’s groups. Baatz, writing in the 1960s was not alone: most German scholars were not familiar with fabric analysis then, and British scholars had only just begun to engage in this research method (see Chapter 9, section 9.1). Unfortunately, many other scholars, such as Strobel, whose work is discussed below, have based their research on Baatz’s groups, and have taken them as facts, instead of recognising that Baatz intended them as suggestions and not necessarily as a chronological dogma. In some cases, it is argued that a certain stamp type or group is not datable. This reflects the opinion of epigraphists from many schools who believe that only a narrow date of a decade or less is a date. However, even if an epigraphic date of a few years is not possible brick stamps, like all finds, can be fitted into long chronologies, namely into the period of time in which the unit that stamped it remained in the location or province. Even a date of several hundred years is a date. Therefore,

As shown above, according to Baatz, it is one of the later groups of Legio XXII stamps and dates to the early Trajanic period (Baatz 1965: 123-125). Baatz does not think it likely that the bricks in question were used secondarily, because the bulk of them are quite large brick types (tubuli, wall bricks), which are usually too large in size to be removed from buildings without breakage. Therefore, the use of secondary bricks in the baths of Stockstadt is not likely in his view. The chronological unity of the stamps and their 40

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

large number testify that they were used for the first time when the bath was built, and dates the bath complex of Stockstadt to the early Trajanic period (Baatz 1969b: 67). As the bricks found there include a stamp type of Cohors IV Vindelicorum from the late second century AD, it was concluded that the baths and the fort existed at the same time (Baatz 1969b: 70). This evidence from Stockstadt and of the groups determined to the previous article is used to date other baths and forts on the Upper German Limes (Baatz 1969b: 73-75), such as Rückingen (late Trajanic) as the brick stamps found there belong to his late group of name stamps (Baatz 1969b: 73). The brick stamps of the fort of Gross-Krotzenburg are believed to date the building to the middle years of Trajan because bricks belonging to what he calls the middle group of name stamps were found there (Baatz 1969b: 73). When Baatz wrote his article no secure date was known for the fort at Hainstadt, but he asserts that the brick stamps of the Stockstadt group found there attest that it had already been built when the Stockstadt fort was erected (Baatz 1969b: 73). This argument is hard to follow since one might expect that a building that uses the same types of stamps as the Stockstadt group would have been built in that period. On the basis of the brick stamps, Baatz states that it is probable that the Cohors I civium Romanorum attested at Seligenstadt went there early because there are stamp types that are otherwise only known from Salisberg and Hainstadt which were given up relatively early (Baatz 1969b: 74). However, no exact date is given. The date of Niedernberg, according to Baatz, is not very secure, as there are fewer brick stamps than from Stockstadt. Baatz states that the earliest stamp groups indicate that the erection of the fort might be contemporary with Rückingen, which was built in a late extension phase of the Main-limes (Baatz 1969b: 74). Since he does not specify which stamp groups were found in the building his argument is difficult to follow.

their stylistic criteria and named after the buildings in which they are predominately found. However, some of the groups overlap and sometimes it is not clear why Baatz addresses certain types as chronologically different. Therefore dates of buildings based on military bricks stamps only, without the evidence of other finds such as ceramics, can only remain hypothetical. In the article on Salisberg (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 101-117) Baatz’s dating of groups which, identified according to their stylistic characteristics, are based on archaeological contexts (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 101-117). In the article on Stockstadt (1969b: 63-75) the opposite is the case: here those dates are used to date new stratigraphy. Therefore, we may be dealing with circular arguments. Waurick criticises some of Baatz’s dating of the brick stamps of the Upper German limes and suggests a different chronology (Waurick 1986: 834-837). He suggests that Baatz’s chronology is not correct in some cases: He proposes that the dating of the first group (Baatz’s Heddernheim group/Waurick’s Group 1) cannot only be dated by the period between AD 92 and 95, in which Legio XXII Primigenia stayed in Mainz. Instead, he argues that the epigraphy of the stamps indicates a later date. He bases this theory on the evidence of the titles on the stamps: Waurick reasons that because the brick stamps of the legion from Upper Germany never include the title Domitiana, whereas the ones from Lower Germany in Xanten, where it was garrisoned before do, they have to be dated accordingly. Therefore, in his view, if the legion had been in Mainz before AD 96 the title would have been included (Waurick 1986: 834). Secondly, Waurick notes the fact that only about half of Legio XXII Primigenia’s stamps from Lower Germany name the title pia fidelis, awarded to the legions loyal to Domitian during the Saturninus revolt in AD 88/89. He proposes that if the legion had only remained in Mainz for three years, this period would have been too short to cause the title to be included on half of the stamps known from this unit. Furthermore, he proposes that the pia fidelis stamps, without Domitiana should also be dated to the years after Domitian’s death, after 96 AD. In that case, the legion, would have remained in Vetera/Xanten in Lower Germany for longer. Again, he bases this on the assumption that given titles were always included (Waurick 1986: 834).

Baatz’s article is based on the previously mentioned publication, in which a chronology for all the stamp types of Legio XXII in Upper Germany is suggested (Baatz 1965a: 118-138; 1965b: 101-117; 1967: 40-73). Further publications which include this chronology will be discussed under category 12.2.3 in this thesis, since they predominately deal with other aspects of brick stamp research rather than troop dispositions. As mentioned previously, different stamp types usually appear in more than one location on the Upper German limes, and consequently chronologies make the material accessible because a date frame for more than one place can be used and it is possible for the researcher to compare stamp types and contexts. Baatz is not deterred from attempting to date stamps in spite of the possibility of secondary use, but it is very important to determine if bricks could have been used for a second time or not. All stamp types are frequently incorporated into different groups based on

He argues further that Legio XXII’s predecessor, Legio VI Victrix, which came from Novaesium/Neuss is only attested in Vetera from AD 100. He adds that it is unlikely that the fortress would have been empty for five to ten years (Waurick 1986: 835). Finally, Waurick argues that Legio XIV Gemina possibly did not leave Mainz before AD 92 or 95/96 since it is not attested on the Lower Danube until AD 101 (Waurick 1986: 835). However, no evidence for this is provided. According to this, Waurick suggests that Group 1/ Heddernheim group of the Legio XXII Primigenia 41

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

stamps dates to around AD 100. Moreover, Waurick uses some ceramic dates to strengthen his arguments: According to Pferdehirt, Samian ware from Southern Gaul ceased to be delivered to the forts on the Upper German limes around AD115. At Bendorf, for example, which produced Samian from Southern Gaul the most recent coin dates to AD 112/117, which gives an approximate date for the abandoning of the fort (Pferdehirt 1986: 221-320). The brick stamps found there belong to Waurick’s Group 2 (Baatz’s Echzell group), including a few of Group 3 (Baatz’s Stockstadt group). At the fort at Heddesdorf, which, according to Waurick, was erected to replace the one at Bendorf, Southern Gaulish Samian was found. Most of the brick stamps from the fort were classified as Group 3. Therefore, it is argued that the transition between the two groups was around AD 115 (Waurick 1986: 835). Waurick states that no exact dating was possible for what he calls Group 4 (Baatz’s Name stamp group). Group 5 and 6, on the other hand, according to Waurick, can be dated by archaeological context to the periods from AD 135/139 to 150/160 and to after AD 150/160, respectively (Waurick 1986: 835).

there (predominately Group 3/Stockstadt group and few of group 2/Echzell group) from AD 115 (Waurick 1986: 836). In the case of the baths at Stockstadt, only bricks of Group 3/the Stockstadt group were found. According to Waurick, this shows that it could not have been built before around AD 120 (Waurick 1986: 837).

Waurick’s chronology places the first three groups later than Baatz’s chronology (see Table 2). On top of that, it is suggested that there was no gap in the brick production between AD 125 and 150/160, as indicated by Baatz. Since both scholars, Baatz and Waurick, date building complexes according to the stamps, this chronology leads to the conclusion that some of the military buildings on the Upper German limes date slightly later than assumed. For example, in the case of the bath building at the Saalburg, Waurick’s chronology dates the brick stamp types found

Strobel’s 1988 publication on the relations between Legio XIV Gemina and XXII Primigenia in Mainz in the Trajanic period (Strobel 1988a: 437-453) uses the evidence of brick stamps for the establishment of troop dispositions, a recurrent theme in the articles. This paper works with the chronology as defined by Waurick. As we have seen, Baatz suggests that Legio XIV Gemina left Upper Germany for the Middle Danube area in either AD 92 or 97, when it was replaced by Legio XXII from Vetera (Baatz 1965b: 104-105) .

Waurick bases a large part of his chronology on the evidence from missing titles. It is, however, a recognised fact that those cannot be taken as dating criteria (for a more detailed discussion of this problem Chapter 12, section 12.2.3 can be consulted). Military brick stamps did not always include imperial titles (Baatz 1969a: 128; Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106), therefore, Baatz’s chronology cannot be proven wrong based on the evidence of those titles. The ceramic dates presented give some indication about the later periods in the fort in question, but do not answer any questions about earlier stratigraphy and the building dates. As argued above, stamp type groups are artificial creations. On the evidence that Waurick presents, neither his nor Baatz’s chronology can be proven.

Baatz

Baatz

Waurick

Waurick

Strobel

92/97

Heddernheim group

= Group 1

AD 101-110

AD 97-101

to

Echzell group

= Group 2

AD 110-115

AD 101-114

AD 105

Stockstadt group

= Group 3

from AD 115-

sees Groups 2 and 3 as contemporary

AD 105-125

Name stamp group

Group 4

until AD 135

gap AD 125-150/160

Gap

Group 5

AD 135-150/160

AD 150/160

Late Antonine stamps

Group 6

from AD 160

TABLE 2 42

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

In another publication, Strobel argues that the changeover took place later, around AD 100/101 when Trajan started the first Dacian campaign. This article is discussed in Chapter 6, page 139, together with the South-Eastern European research, to highlight differences in the treatise of similar material. Strobel discusses some Legio I Minervia stamps found at Novae. He sees the five stamps as a proof for the legion’s prolonged stay in the fortress during Trajan’s Dacian campaigns (Strobel 1988b: 501-511).

they are dated earlier than in Waurick’s chronology (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 106-108). Strobel suggests that, based on the archaeological context from the baths, these groups might have been used simultaneously. Legio XXII Primigenia could have produced more than one group at one time to meet increased brick demand. Strobel keeps Baatz’s dating for Group I/ Heddernheim Group to between around AD 97 and 101, while the unit was stationed in Mainz and has no doubt that the early groups of Legio XXII stamps (Groups I-III) derived from the years before the beginning of the Parthian campaign in AD 114 (Strobel 1988a: 439). He adds that the unstamped material is unknown, and that a building can usually not be dated by the stamped material, as unstamped bricks were used during early building phases (Strobel 1988a: 440).

The publication analysed here deals with the stamp types of Legio XXII Primigenia on the Upper German Limes. Strobel discusses the importance of types which are dated to before AD 150/160, concentrating on the transit from Group II/Echzell group to Group III/Stockstadt group, which Waurick dates to AD 115 (Waurick 1986: 834-837). As shown above, Waurick’s dating is based on the stamps found at Bendorf and Heddesdorf. In both cases the bricks were found in the baths. Strobel argues that they are not chronologically consistent with the erection of the forts (Strobel 1988a: 437). He adds that the report on Bendorf is rather unsatisfactory as one of the excavation campaigns there has little written documentation. Therefore, it is not possible to reach conclusions about the building chronology. The 39 stamps found at this fort are mainly of the above mentioned Group II/the Echzell group, with a few exceptions from Group III/the Stockstadt group. However, only two of these stamps were found in a secure archaeological context. Moreover, the few coin finds from Bendorf are not representative because Strobel argues that they only come from the fort. The vicus, on the other hand, could date much later. He also states that the fragments of Samian ware on which Waurick (1986: 835), following Pferdehirt (1986: 221-320), bases his date, are not sufficient in numbers to come up with a definite conclusion. No occupation period can be determined (Strobel 1988a: 438).

Strobel criticizes some of the suggestions made by Waurick. The latter dates some of the stamps by their titles and proposes that because the Upper German stamps never display Domitiana, which was awarded to the four legions and auxiliary units of Germania Imperior after the Saturninus revolt of AD 88/89 (Holder 1999: 237250), they have to date before this time (Waurick 1986: 834-837). Strobel recognises the fact that missing titles on brick stamps are not a secure dating criterion and that the borders between those stamp types might not be as clear as proposed (for a further discussion of this problem Chapter 12, section 12.2.3 can be consulted). The chronological order of buildings in Vetera was unknown at the time in which the article was written, making dating even more difficult. This has now changed, due to the research of Hanel (1995: 253-281). Strobel states, however, that since the title Domitiana is missing from the stamps of Upper Germany, the production at Nied probably did not start until AD 96. He argues that because stamps displaying this title were found in Trier and the title pia fidelis was used after the assassination of Domitian, stamps of this title might have been produced at later period during the reign of Trajan, when Legio XXII Primigenia possibly stayed in Xanten for a second time (Strobel 1988a: 440441). However, in this case Strobel introduces a similar methodological non sequitur to Waurick: he states earlier that missing titles are not a safe dating criterion, and no chronological conclusions can be based on the fact that these stamps do not display the Domitiana title. The title pia fidelis may indeed have been used after the murder of Domitian (Holder 1999: 237-250) but this assumption alone is not enough to reinforce a theory about a stay of Legio XXII Primigenia in Xanten during the reign of Trajan. Therefore, Strobel’s argument cannot be supported.

At Heddesdorf the stamped bricks were also found in the baths. The building is very similar to the equivalent in Bendorf. It has been suggested, that Heddesdorf was built around AD 115 to succeed the fort at Bendorf (Strobel 1988a: 438). The baths mainly produced stamps of Group III, with a few exceptions of Group II. Bendorf was primarily built with Legio XXII Primigenia bricks of Group II, but a few from Group III were also found. The Hedderndorf baths are the opposite: the baths were built with bricks of Group III, while a few from Group II were also used. The chronological order in which they are related to each other in either of the baths, according to Strobel, is not clear. Strobel criticises Waurick’s view that the two groups followed each other and that change happened around AD 115. This also challenges Baatz who is the first to address the two groups as separate, although

Strobel also bases some historical theories on the evidence from the brick stamps of Legio XXII Primigenia and combines them with other epigraphic evidence. He 43

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

states that that when Legio I Minervia went to the Lower Danube, a detachment of it remained in Bonn (Strobel 1988a: 443).6 He suggests that because Legio I Minervia, Legio VI Victrix and Legio X Gemina, which are attested as detachments in inscriptions (CIL XIII 7715; 7716), had left the area, detachments of Legio XXII Primigenia were ordered to build the Colonia at Xanten. They had stayed in Vetera previously for around twenty-five years and were familiar with the local production kilns and raw materials. It is proposed that this was mainly the case between the departure of the previous three legions and the arrival of Legio XXX Ulpia, namely between AD 101 and 103 (Strobel 1988a: 445). According to Strobel, the new Colonia must have served as a substitute for the abandoned fort. He is certain that those Legio XXII Primigenia pia fidelis stamps, which do not carry the additional title Domitiana were produced in Xanten by detachments of the legion during the early period of Trajan, without giving cause to the presumption that the unit was garrisoned in Xanten/Vetera between AD 97 and 100 (Strobel 1988a: 446). However, apart from the two inscriptions cited here, no other evidence for this late stay of parts of the unit in Xanten is mentioned, which highlights the hypothetical nature of the statement.

XXII Primigenia. Six legions remained at Nijmegen (X Gemina), Neuss (VI Victrix), Bonn (I Minervia), Strasbourg (VIII Augusta), Vindonissa (XI Claudia) and Mainz (XXII Primigenia). The Vetera fortress between Nijmegen and Neuss was not so important from a strategic point of view and could be spared (Strobel, 1988a, 449). Strobel suggests that the building of the new colonia at Xanten began around AD 99, or AD 100 at the latest. It is doubtful that this substitute for the fortress at Vetera had already been planned by Domitian, because of the events of the AD 70’s on the Rhine (Strobel 1988a: 449). For his reconstruction of military history Strobel adds new sources to the above-mentioned brick stamp groups. As shown, both Baatz and Waurick divide the stamps of Legio XXII Primigenia in groups based on epigraphic criteria, and date them according to the buildings in which they were found. Neither of the two scholars goes into great detail about the stylistic characteristics the groups are based upon, and therefore it is difficult for the reader to decide if the groups are plausible. Some of the groups seem arbitrary, such as the group of name stamps. Also, the fact that the groups are based upon one stylistic criterion, the forms of the ansae, is not totally convincing. However, Baatz is aware of the fact that his groups are artificial creations and reminds the reader of this. His chronology can be taken as a hypothetical frame for the dating of military buildings on the Upper German limes. Waurick’s criticism of Baatz’s chronology is methodologically questionable, since he bases a large part on the evidence of missing titles, which cannot be used as dating criteria on military brick stamps (this is explained in detail in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3). Also, as Strobel points out, the ceramic dating Waurick suggests cannot be used supportively to verify his hypothesis. Strobel, finally, adds a different dimension to the discussion. On the one hand, he challenges the artificiality of the chronology and argues that it cannot be proven that Group 2/the Echzell group and Group 3/the Heddernheim group are chronologically separate, due to the archaeological dating of the forts in question. On the other hand, he combines artificial stamp chronologies with other epigraphic and literary sources. He accuses other scholars of circular arguments (Strobel 1988a: 438; footnote 12) but might commit the same logical non sequitur by accepting the chronology for Group 1/the Heddernheim Group, as suggested by Baatz. It is questionable if brick stamp chronologies, which cannot date to exact years, can be used for reconstructions of military history, as proposed by Strobel. A further problem with Strobel’s theory on the history of legions XXII Primigenia and XIV Gemina in Mainz is, that the historical source he uses in combination with the brick stamp chronologies does not really answer the question: Strobel says that is stated it is likely that Legio XXII Primigenia was sent to Upper Germany as well

Strobel uses some literary evidence that indicates that Legio XXII Primigenia had moved to Upper Germany by January-February 98 AD to strengthen his theory. During those months, a senatorial military tribune of Legio V stationed in Oescus, was sent to Germania Superior. However, there is no indication of whether the fortress he was sent to after he was made military tribune of Legio XXII Primigenia was Mainz or not. The text reads: ad gratulationem exercitus missus in Germaniam superiorem translatus est (HA, Hadrian: 2.5 cited after Strobel 1988a: 446), which according to Strobel, shows that the legion was at least transferred to Germania Superior (Strobel 1988a: 446). According to Strobel this means the following: in spring AD 97, Legio XIV Gemina went from Mainz, where it had remained during the Saturninus revolt, to the middle Danube region. In its place Legio XXII Primigenia was sent to Mainz by AD 98. The plan was to abandon Vetera, which, according to Strobel, might not have been a favoured location after the events of the Saturninus revolt. It is unlikely that there was any intention of abandoning the fort at Neuss, as one would not have kept changing legions there over a couple of years, but have moved Legio VI Victrix from there to Mainz rather than Legio 6. For a discussion on the uncertainties about when Legio I Minervia went to Moesia and if the whole legion or detachments remained there during and after the Dacian Wars see Chapter 10.

44

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

as its military tribune Hadrian but that the location is not specified. With this statement he combines a literary source (HA, Hadrian: 2.5 cited after Strobel 1988a: 446) and an inscription (CIL III: 550; ILS 308), which commemorates Hadrian’s command of Legio XXI Primigenia. However, both sources are not very helpful in determining building chronologies in Upper Germany and caution should be taken in using chronologies to supplement historical sources.

XXII Primigenia (6 stamps), the tegularia Transrhenana (9 stamps), Legio I Minervia (18 stamps), Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix (17 stamps), exercitus Germaniae inferioris (27 stamps), vexillatio exercitus GermaniRIB Inferioris (16 stamps), numerus Ursariensium (2 stamps). Five stamps come from cohorts. There are 2 bricks stamped sub Did(o) Iul(iano) cons(ule) and 64 displaying M(arcus) Val(erius/ erianus) San(?).

The examples given above are all different interpretations of one and the same stamp population. They show that chronologies are highly subjective. Three authors suggest different dates for the material. Firstly, the groups are not always as clearly discernible as proposed. Baatz is not very specific about the stylistic criteria used for the classification of the groups. New scholars dealing with the material are thus advised to look at the material in detail before adopting his system. Secondly, as has been shown, there are dating problems and some of the groups are not as chronologically distinguishable, as might be assumed. Therefore, the question has to be raised whether artificial chronologies can be used for further dating. Naturally, it is a good idea to suggest chronologies to make archaeological material more accessible. Nevertheless, it might not be advisable to adopt another scholars’ chronologies uncritically. Artificial groups, as suggested here, should always be re-analysed by new scholars dealing with the material. It is questionable if military brick stamp chronologies should be used to back up other sources such as historical records, which often give exact dates. As has been shown, short dates are not possible with military brick stamps. Strobel accepts Baatz’s dating of Group 1/the Heddernheim group. On the other hand, he argues that Groups 2 and 3/the Echzell and Stockstadt groups are interchangeable. It has, however, also been shown that Group 2/Echzell group stamps were found in Group 1/Heddernheim group contexts. Therefore, it is not certain if a clear chronological cut can be determined between Groups 1 and 2/Heddernheim and Echzell groups in the first place. No close dates are possible and a dating combination of historical military records and military brick stamps, as proposed by Strobel at the end of his paper, is not advisable.

Before this publication, no unit had been named for Gelduba but the third century AD Itinerarium Antonini (255.3 cited after Paar & Rüger 1971: 260) records an Ala at the fort. There is a Cohors I Hispana Vasconum that participated at the battle of Gelduba under Vespasian, and was awarded Roman citizenship by the emperor in return. However, this unit was in Britain during the last third of the first century AD and could not have been garrisoned at Gelduba (Paar & Rüger 1971: 261). In modern Gellep a stamp naming a Cohors II Varcianorum equitata civium Romanorum, which was present somewhere in Lower Germany, led Von Petrikovits to propose that the unit was stationed there (Von Petrikovits 1954: 142). Alföldy does not share this opinion, but states that like the other brick stamps from Gelduba, those cohort stamps were traded to Gelduba from other units. The auxiliaries of Germania Inferior were studied and following his investigation of the military diplomas he suggests that in the early period after the Batavian revolt an ala, most likely Ala Afrorum was stationed at the fort (Alföldy 1968: 10; 34; 154; 164). It is also proposed that this unit went to Kalkar/Burginatium during the period of AD 83 to 89 and that another unit, Ala Sulpicia took its place at Gelduba (Alföldy 1968: 172). Paar and Rüger doubt that this unit remained there permanently until the third century AD, because its place of garrison was never known (Paar & Rüger 1971: 261). Their investigation showed that it was not certain which unit was garrisoned at Gelduba. It is very likely that the complete brick material from the fort was obtained from other units on the Lower Rhine. It appears that the alae of the lower Rhine generally did not produce their own bricks, which also indicates the presence of an ala at Gelduba. However, one cannot exclude that cohorts might have been stationed there for short periods of time. In the eyes of Paar and Rüger it is worth considering a closer inspection of those stamps from Gelduba, which are those of cohorts, rather than those of legions and units that were definitely never stationed there (Paar & Rüger 1971: 261262). The different units that left stamps at Gelduba and their proposed dating are listed below.

Paar and Rüger analyse the stamped brick material from the fort at Gelduba/Germania Inferior (Paar & Rüger 1971: 260-264; 290; 324-330). There are 176 stamped bricks from Gelduba, an auxiliary fort on the Lower Rhine, which are from a number of different units and indicate that most of the brick material was brought there from other places. It has been mentioned before that the trading of bricks from one unit to the other was very common on the Rhine. Bricks of the following units have been found: Legio VI Victrix (4 stamps), Legio VIII Augusta (1 stamp), Legio X Gemina (2 stamps), Legio XVI Gallica (2 stamps), Legio

Paar and Rüger propose a chronology for the stamps, which is based on the titles on the stamps and stratigraphy: the first period of the fort after the Batavian revolt produced those stamps that are stamped with the name 45

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

of Legio XVI. Vespasian did not reinstall this legion after its misconduct during the revolt, which is why the bricks must originate from the period when it was garrisoned at Novaesium/Neuss before the revolt and AD 70. According to Paar und Rüger, the bricks must have been delivered to Gelduba some after (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262). This contradicts Baatz’s view that military bricks were normally used immediately (Baatz 1965a: 124). The archaeological context from the Gelduba fort, however, indicates that in this case some time passed between the production and usage of the bricks.

building of the Colonia Ulpia Traiana but might also have been carried to smaller forts like Gelduba (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). Archaeological excavations of Gelduba have shown that before the stone fort there was one of timber, or both stone and timber (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263).

Legio VI Victrix was garrisoned at Novaesium between AD 70 and 103. After that it moved to Vetera and remained there until AD 119. Two of the stamps from this unit carry the cognomen pia fidelis, which was given to all units in Lower Germany in AD 88/89 because of their excellence during the revolt of Saturninus by Domitian. Ritterling suggested that the stamps without the title originate from the period at Novaesium, whereas the stamps with the title were made at Vetera (Ritterling RE XII: 1603) and Paar and Rüger concur (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262).

According to Paar and Rüger, stamps of Legio I Minervia in Bonn and of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix from Vetera/Xanten show that the fort at Gelduba was still being built at the end of the first century AD and during the second century AD, because the large numbers retrieved from those legions are dated to those periods (Ritterling RE XII: 1425-1427; 1823). Paar and Rüger base this date on the historical dates of the legions stay in Bonn and Vetera. A stamp with the name of Legio I Minervia including the Antoniniana title was attributed to an extensive building programme of Caracalla with its centre in Holdeurn near Nijmegen (Ritterling, RE XII, 1425). Paar and Rüger concur on this date (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). However, it is now known that the Antoniniana title occasionally dates as early as the reign of Septimius Severus (see Chapter 12, page 246) and this date has to be brought forward to from AD 195.

Legio XXII was stationed and had brick works at Vetera. The brick material from Gelduba probably came from there. Four of the stamps have no cognomen and are dated by the scholars into the period of Vespasian or the early years of Domitian. In Paar’s and Rüger’s opinion those stamps with titles could belong to the last years of the units stay on the Lower Rhine, before it went back to Mainz in AD 92 or they could have derived from detachments of the unit, perhaps around AD 100 (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262). However, missing titles cannot be taken as dating criterion (see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3). The stamps with no imperial titles could also belong to the later years of the unit’s stay on the Lower Rhine, and no short chronology is possible. They date the two stamps of Legio VI Gemina into the same period of time. The legion was in Lower Germany between around AD 70 and 103. It was a period of intensive building activity.

There are two stamps naming Didius Iulianus who, according to Paar and Rüger held this position in AD 178 (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). More recently, Eck, Haalebos and Franzen suggested that the name refers to a governor of Lower Germany who was in command of this province some time between AD 181 and 185 (Eck 1985: 184186; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123; 141). Stamps of the exercitus Germanicus Inferior usually date at the earliest to the AD 150s but more often to the third century AD. They were also produced at Holdeurn and represent a quarter of all stamped bricks at Gelduba (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). Paar and Rüger base this on archaeological context from Neuss/Novaesium which Lehner suggests based on some coin dates (Lehner 1904: 296-297). Finally, there are the bricks of a private entrepreneur, M(arcus) Val(erius/alerianus) Sarn(us/o), which Lehner dated to the third century AD (Lehner 1904: 306).

There are a total of nine stamps naming the tegularia Transrhenana. During the Flavian period large military brick works had to produce tiles for the army in Lower Germany to meet the rising demands of bricks for restorations after the Batavian revolt (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262). Paar and Rüger conclude that the fort at Gelduba had mainly been built with bricks made by legions VI, X and XXII in conjunction with the tegularia Transrhenana (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). Detachments of these legions are mentioned on the altars from Brohltal (CIL XIII 7697; 7715; 7716). In the years AD 101/102 all work units from these troops seem to have worked at the Brohltal quarries. The stone material they quarried was mainly used for the

According to this list the bulk of the stamp material has been dated to the third century AD. According to Paar and Rüger this dating is supported by excavation results. These have shown that during the second half of the third century the fort was restored in a third stone phase (Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). The stamp of a numerus Ursariensium is dated to the second half of the third century AD or later. This unit is attested in other places on the Lower Rhine, but again, it is uncertain, if they were ever garrisoned at Gelduba (Paar & Rüger 1971: 264). Paar and Rüger propose the following chronology for the stamps of Gelduba: 46

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

Period I Legio VI Victrix 1. no titles 2. P F Legio VIII Augusta Legio X Gemina Legio XV Legio XVI Gallica Legio XXII Primigenia 1. without titles 2. P F tegularia Transrhenana Period II Legio I Minervia 1. without titles 2. P F 3. Ant(oniniana)

appears on the bricks might have been present at the fort at some time. 1 stamp 3 stamps 1 stamp 2 stamps 1 stamp 2 stamps

after 70 AD AD 70-103 Flavian AD 40-70

2 stamps 9 stamps 9 stamps

AD 70-92 AD 70-120

11 stamps 6 stamps 1 stamp

AD 70-120 2.2.2 Local lists Neumann (1973: 53-130) catalogued the brick stamps from Vienna/Vindobona in Upper Pannonia. This settlement is a good place for the study of brick stamps due to the fact that there are over 2000 examples, although some of them are civilian products. Neumann’s dating criteria are mainly titles and the history of occupation of the units in Vindobona, based on epigraphic records other than brick stamps, although archaeological contexts, where known, are included for some of the units, such as Legio XIV Gemina.

AD 833rd century AD

According to Neumann, the first unit which occupied Vindobona was probably Legio XV Apollinaris, which is represented by 11 stamps in 10 types as well as an inscription from Vindobona, which names C. Atius, a soldier of this legion (Neumann 1961/62: IaV). The unit was garrisoned in nearby Carnuntum between the years AD 14-62 (Ritterling RE XII: 1748-1750). Neumann suggests that Atius might have been in Vindobona as part of a detachment of the unit (Neumann 1973: 11). However, none of the bricks found in Vindobona come from a contemporary military context. Most of the bricks, as far as their find location is known, originate from the area surrounding the fortress, from later phases. The only two that were found in the fortress come from strata which date to between AD 71 and 114, and were, according to Neumann, produced in Carnuntum, for the building of the Vindobona fortress. According to him, this means that the XVth legion mainly sent brick deliveries to Vindobona to assist the building of the later fortress. It is not clear if the tileries found near Kalvarienberg/Vienna were used by Legio XV. Neumann proposes that the bricks were produced in and delivered from Carnuntum because the two cities are only 40 kilometres apart and bricks could have been delivered from there on the Danube (Neumann 1973: 11-12). 11 bricks are a relatively small number and the suggestion that the bricks were deliveries from Legio XV has to be used with care. It is possible that the bricks were newly delivered for buildings within the fortress territory of Vindobona but there are other possibilities: They could have been used secondarily, and also taken from buildings in Carnuntum, or from buildings which had been produced in the period when the detachment of Legio XV stayed in Vindobona for some time between AD 14 and 62. Since brick stamping started around the AD 40s in Germany in some areas, this could also have happened in Pannonia. If Legio XV had produced bricks for Vindobona on a regular basis, one would expect to find more than 11 brick stamps. Therefore, interpretation of secondary use appears more likely.

Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix 1. without titles 4 stamps 2. P F 13 stamps 2nd to 3rd century AD ex. Germ. Inf. 27 stamps second half of 2nd to 3rd century AD vex. Ex. Germ. Inf. 16 stamps M Val San(?) (civilian) 64 stamps 2nd to 3rd century AD numerus Urs(ariensium) 2 stamps after mid-3rd century AD stamps of cohorts 5 stamps uncertain TABLE 3 Although the numbers of stamps from single units at Gelduba are not very large, Paar and Rüger have good material for comparison from other places where the same types were found. Some of their dating uses the evidence of missing imperial titles. This could be problematic and will be discussed in detail in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. This author does not concur with those parts of their chronology, which separates bricks of units with and without those titles. Their dating of the Antoniniana title might be somewhat late, since we now know that this title was occasionally used from AD 195 (see Chapter 12, page 246). On top of that, Paar and Rüger rely on archaeological context dates, proposed by other researchers. Since the bulk of these dates are confirmed by other finds, such as coins, this method is workable. Nevertheless, they only use archaeological dates as a secondary dating criterion and prefer to rely on the title dates in a first instance. This is methodologically questionable, since all methods should be equally important. In this publication it is assumed that none of the units mentioned on the stamps were garrisoned at Gelduba. Since all of the units are attested elsewhere, this assumption is justified. However, it cannot be excluded that a detachment of one or the other military unit which 47

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

There are 337 stamps of Legio XIII Gemina in Vindobona in a total of 61 types. The legion came to Vindobona around AD 90 and remained there until it moved on to Dacia in 101 (Ritterling RE XII: 1714-1717). These bricks are mainly distinguished by the names on them. Neumann interprets them as the names of centurions, because one of them, Cammius Secundinus is cited in an inscription (CIL III 5328) as procurator. The inscription dates to AD 150 and Neumann suggests that he entered the XIIIth legion as centurion in AD 100 (Neumann 1973: 13). However, this equation is not without problems: Dobson (1978: 247248) suggests that the hypothesis that the man cited in the inscription recorded in CIL III 5328 was a procurator is questionable. Furthermore, he argues that the expansion Leg(ionis) XIII Gem(inae) Cam(mius) Secu(ndinus) is also not totally certain and could refer to a different man, thus suggesting that the man named on the tile could have been an ordinary soldier rather than a centurion. The different interpretations regarding name stamps are discussed in detail in Chapter 12.

order the stamps of this legion chronologically, although he is of the opinion that the length of the abbreviation gives some indication about the age of the stamp (Neumann 1973: 18). This decision is probably justified, since it is hard to make chronological guesswork about such a variety of types without using a differentiating title. Dating by archaeological context could be attempted, but it is not clear to what extent such context is known to Neumann. He considers it unlikely that some of the stamps came to Vindobona from Carnuntum, after the legion was stationed there from AD 115 (Neumann 1973: 17-18). However, the year AD 115 for this transfer, as given by Neumann, is not quite certain. Franke (2000: 200) suggests that it could have happended any time between AD 113 ans 117. The numbers of Legio XIV stamps are much smaller than those of Legio X who followed in Vindobona in AD 115 (Neumann 1973: 18). This seems to reflect the assumption that if bricks were delivered from one unit to the other, there would have to be large numbers. This view cannot be supported as certainly on one hand it cannot be assumed that all relevant stamps have been found, and on the other hand, a small building alteration at a particular time might have required only a few bricks from a different tilery. The fact that the percentage between stamped and unstamped material is unknown supports this. Bricks might have been delivered from Legio XIV from Carnuntum, and not all of them may have been stamped. It is impossible to verify this since until recently unstamped bricks were not kept at excavations in either Vienna or Deutsch Altenburg/Carnuntum.

There are a total of 40 different abbreviated names on the bricks. The bulk of these stamps were found within the territory of the fortress, very few of them came from the canabae and the municipium. This clearly shows that the main building activity of Legio XIII was in the fortress (Neumann 1973: 17), which would be expected. Neumann indicates that the small number of bricks from the surrounding areas did not exclude the possibilities that bricks were delivered there and used for buildings. This is one of the scholars who believe in the use of military bricks in civilian and private buildings, but again he does not consider the possibility of secondary use. Indeed the fact that very few of the stamps were found outside the camp supports this argument for the few that did. Neumann indicates that there were at least two bricks which were definitely found outside a military context. No indication of a date is given (Neumann 1973: 17). Two bricks is a very small number. The question whether military bricks were sold to civilians will be discussed at length in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2 but the most recent research seems to indicate that there is no proof for this (Lörincz 1989: 244245; Kaiser 1995: 52).

Legio X Gemina represents the largest group of military brick stamps from Vindobona with a total of 1202 bricks. This is not surprising, due to the length of its garrison in Vienna. It remained there from the reign of Trajan to the end of the fourth century AD (Ritterling RE XII: 1683-1687). When the fortress was destroyed by the Marcomanni around AD 170, Legio X rebuilt it and was responsible for any other reconstruction and rebuilding until the abandonment of the site at the end of the fourth century. According to Neumann, the legion could also have produced bricks for Vindobona when it was garrisoned in Carnuntum in earlier years, between AD 63 and 68, as shown above. Neumann does not completely exclude the possibility that bricks might have been reused from Carnuntum, but states there is no proof for this. It is more plausible that all of the Legio X brick material from Vindobona originates from the period between AD 115 and the end of the fourth century AD, when the legion was garrisoned at Vindobona (Neumann 1973: 23).

Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix succeeded Legio XIII in Vindobona, and is known from a total of 370 bricks. The presence of the legion is also attested by two building inscriptions (Neumann 1973: 17). Neumann argues that Legio XIV must have finished the fortress construction between AD 107 and 114 (Neumann 1973: 17). More recent scholars date the arrival of Legio XIV in Vindobona to as early as AD 101 (Lörincz 1981: 78; Franke 2000: 199). The bulk of stamps abbreviate the name of the legion with G M V. There are a total of 193 types. Neumann decided not to

When dating the stamps, Neumann starts with the assumption that the legionary fortress was completely finished. The building program of Legio X is defined as slight, until the rebuilding of the complex in the 170’s AD, which leads to the hypothesis that most of the 48

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

bricks would have been produced and used in the second and third centuries AD, when a lot of buildings were reconstructed. The end of the fourth century also saw many restorations. Neumann identifies the group of late bricks and lists them (Neumann 1973: 30-31), stating that it is obvious that the legion found unused bricks of its predecessor in their workshop. According to him, this is supported by archaeological context in the areas of the legionary brickwork’s in Hernals/Vienna. He states that the planta pedis stamps of this legion are typical for the reconstruction phase after AD 170. Many have a laurel leaf before the text. Both the nail and the leaves wore out after frequent usage of the dies, which can be discerned on the stamps. Neumann’s types T 122-127, 136-153 and 155-167 (Fig. 37) are were predominately found in archaeological contexts from that period at the tribune’s quarters of the fortress, which are interpreted as reconstruction works of Legio X (Neumann 1973: 31). Some stamps are dated by their titles, such as those displaying L X G P F AN. Because of the title Antoniniana they are dated to the early third century (Fig. 38). Other stamp types without this title (Neumann’s types 4-120) (Fig. 39) are typical in the early third, but already appear in the late second century AD. These seem to have been dated by archaeological context, although Neumann is surprisingly vague about his methods; it appears that different stamp types were issued at the same time (Neumann 1973: 31).

FIGURE 37 NEUMANN’S TYPES T122-127 (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 43)

FIGURE 38 STAMP OF THE LEGIO X GEMINA FROM VIENNA WITH THE ANTONINIANA TITLE (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 26)

Two stamps come from Legio I Adiutrix, which was garrisoned in Brigetio from AD 114 onwards. This gives a terminus post quem for both stamps. One of them has the title A(ntoniniana), which, according to Neumann, places it between AD 211 and 222 (Neumann 1967: 35). It is known since that the title may occasionally date earlier (see Chapter 12, page 246). It is worth noting that in this case there appears to have been brick exchange over province boundaries. Of course, the evidence of two stamps is not enough for conclusive evidence on the matter since they could have been reused and brought to Vienna long after they were produced.

FIGURE 39 STAMP OF THE LEGIO X GEMINA FROM VIENNA WITHOUT THE ANTONINIANA TITLE (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 14)

Only one stamp comes from Legio II Adiutrix. Neumann dates the stamp to after AD 115 (Neumann 1973: 35), but one wonders if it could not have been produced in the era of Domitian. Ritterling dated the unit’s move to Aquincum to around AD 103-106, but said furthermore, that some of its moves were unclear after that (Ritterling RE XII: 1437-1438), as Neumann provides no further references, the origin for this date remains uncertain.

LEG II ITAL PF and one the latter in reverse. Neumann states that the writing on all three is typical for the second half of the third century (Neumann 1973: 35) but does not elaborate on the matter. There is one stamp which could possibly have been stamped with the name of Legio VII Gemina, but is very fragmentary displaying only G VII (Fig. 40) This legion came to Pannonia in AD 68, and stayed in Carnuntum, but left for Italy in the same year. This means that the stamp, if it is really that of Legio VII, must date to this short period, unless the legion brought bricks with them,

Seven stamps belong to Legio II Italica, which come in three different stamp types. This unit was garrisoned in Enns/Lauriacum from around AD 176 (Ritterling RE XII: 1468-1476). One of the types reads LEG II ITALIC, one 49

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 40 POSSIBLE STAMP OF THE LEGIO VII GEMINA FROM VIENNA (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 65) which is unlikely. It is also improbable that bricks were delivered from Italy to Pannonia because of the distance. As Neumann rightly states (Neumann 1973: 36) it could also be a stamp of VII Claudia, which was garrisoned in Dalmatia under Claudius and then in Moesia. This is also a long way from Pannonia. Therefore, the origin of this stamp is unclear. Perhaps it is a civilian product but these did not usually have numbers. The stamp is a fragment, which makes a expansion extremely difficult.

FIGURE 41 NAME STAMPS OF THE LEGIO XIII GEMINA FROM VIENNA (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 40; 41) Legio X Gemina with over 1202 examples has few parallels, even in Pannonia and the two Germanies. Neumann’s study of these stamps lacks a certain consistency in methodology, sometimes using archaeological context, sometimes only historical background or titles, which is partly due to the absence of complementing evidence where no archaeological context is known. Although chronological frameworks are created and archaeological context is used in some cases the exact references from where the information is acquired are not provided, making the proposed dates difficult to verify. Archaeological context is used sparingly. This is probably due to a lack of records, however, where it is used Neumann does not make very clear statements about its origin. The study oscillates between different methodologies and does often not include all available research methods. The approach is admirable because of the diversity and the size of the material but for the same reasons a lot more could have been made of it. Recently, a team of archaeologists under Mosser working for the City of Vienna have started a new catalogue, in which the fabric of some stamps of Legio XIV Gemina from Vienna is analysed to determine if they were produced in Vindobona or in Carnuntum, and brought to Vindobona. For a more detailed discussion of this research see section 2.2.7.

Bricks of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix were known in Vindobona but are now lost. This unit stayed in Brigetio between AD 105 and 115. There is also some indication for auxiliary units from Vienna: one brick is stamped COHRTIS, with the second O missing (Neumann 1973: 35). It is not clear which unit the stamp represented. There is also a Cohors I Aelia Sagittariorum, which is recorded on 14 bricks in four types. This cohort was founded by Hadrian and is mentioned in Cannabiaca (Notitia Dignitatum as cited in Wagner 1938: 183-185), which has so far not been located. Unfortunately, Neumann does not specify where he got this information from (Neumann 1973: 35) If this is true, it implies that the bricks must date to the period in which there is evidence for this place of garrison, i.e. from the second half of the second century AD to the first half of the third century AD (Neumann 1973: 35). A small number of stamps from Vindobona mention the names of what appear to be soldiers, sometimes with or without the names of the units (Fig. 41) (Neumann 1973: 37-39). These stamps will be discussed in detail in Chapter 12, pages 226-227. A further group of stamps appears to be those of private tilers. They are also small in number and were usually found within the boundaries of the municipium.

Spitzlberger established a chronology of all stamp types in Raetia (Spitzlberger 1968: 76-131). However, only the stamps from the German part of Raetia are included, omitting similar material from the same units from Austria and Switzerland. As a reason for this Spitzlberger states that the brick stamps from Raetian Switzerland were published elsewhere (Howald & Meyer 1940) and that brick stamps from Raetian Austria are rarely found (Spitzlberger 1968: 76). The bulk of brick stamps from Raetia are those of Legio III Italica. Spitzlberger also includes some auxiliary stamps and the stamps of civilian producers from German Raetia. The latter is not relevant for this thesis, while the auxiliary stamps will not be discussed in detail here since, due to space constraints, it was decided to focus on legionary stamps when possible, of which there are around 300 types. One can assume that they were the result of a longer period of brick production. Ritterling stated that

The group of auxiliary stamps is rather small in number. The fact that there are usually only between one to seven stamps from each auxiliary units show that the bulk of the units were not garrisoned in Vindobona and did not deliver bricks to the fortress. Therefore, very little is contributed to the study of the place. Neumann appears to recognise this (Neumann, 1973: 37-39). The larger group of legionary stamps, mainly of legions X, XIII, XIV and XV, is characterised by very large numbers and types. Especially, the group of stamps of 50

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

the number of Legio III stamps was not necessarily due to a long period of time, but rather to a great variety of dies, which were used simultaneously (CIL XIII 6-7). Spitzlberger does not agree with this, and attributes the multitude of stamp types to the fact that Legio III was in Raetia for the long period from AD 171 to the end of the Roman rule (Spitzlberger 1968: 120-124).

Legio III Italica was garrisoned at Regensburg. Brick stamps of the legion are found in the early contexts of the legionary fortress which date after the Marcomanni Wars in the AD 170s (Spitzlberger 1968: 123). However, according to Spitzlberger, it is likely that a part of the unit was also garrisoned at the fort of Eining in the early years of the unit’s arrival in Raetia, after AD 171. He argues that this fort was strategically important because it was situated near the spot where the limes road crossed the river, and therefore had to be well defensible. He reasons further that the CON stamps (Legio III Italica Concordis) of Legio III (see next paragraph) are of an earlier date than the other stamp groups and indicate that the legions had buildings erected in Eining before bricks were delivered to the other forts (Spitzlberger 1968: 123). Those mentioned above, in which stamps of the unit were found, are either interpreted as garrisons of a detachment of Legio III Italica (Spitzlberger 1968: 120-124; Czysz, Dietz, Fischer & Kellner 1995: 130-132) or, alternatively, as recipients of brick deliveries. No definite decision for one of the two hypotheses can be made, based on the evidence of brick stamps alone. The building activities in those forts date to during or after Marcus Aurelius’ wars against the Marcomanni, AD 166 to 172 and 177 to 180 (Ritterling RE XII: 1617-1629).

The long period of legionary occupation in Raetia and the large numbers of tiles (according to the Spitzlberger) make it likely that there were a variety of different production groups from this legion (Spitzlberger 1968: 121). He states that a full chronological order of types is not possible because the excavation contexts of earlier decades have not been provided with stratigraphy and do not allow very detailed conclusions. Earlier studies of Legio III stamps, for example in CIL III (6000) did not focus on questions of chronology, so Spitzlberger’s work is the first proposal. Spitzlberger’s study pays particular attention to the chronological features of stamp types and is the first to investigate stamp types of this legion by comparing epigraphic features. His study is based on the find locations of Legio III stamps in Raetia. The modern place names are Regensburg, Ziegetsdorf, Burgweinting, Abbach (legionary brick works), Alkofen, Eining, Sitting, Gögging, Kösching, Pförring, Wasserfels, Prüfening, Straubing, Künzing, Westheim, Augsburg, Türkheim and Dickenreis (Fig. 42).

Apart from the early group and the first group of CONstamps there is no stratigraphical or other dating indices for the stamps. Caution is required in narrowing down single stamps to a particular time, and only provisional correlation

FIGURE 42 FIND LOCATIONS OF MILITARY BRICK STAMPS IN NORTHERN RAETIA (SPITZLBERGER 1968: 77) 51

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 43 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPES 11 AND 23 with event dates that concern the history of a find location can aid dating. However, since exact find locations are sometimes unknown, it is important to place the stamps in a chronological order to make it easier to classify later finds (Spitzlberger 1968: 115-120). Spitzlberger uses this system of a relative chronology on the brick stamps from Raetia, which is characteristic for the methodology used with brick stamps of his period, as has already been shown in the analysis of Neumann’s study (pages 95-101; Neumann 1973).

later than types 1, 70, 99, 197 and 285 (Fig. 44) because of Samian ware and coin finds from there. Type 86 (Fig. 45) appears in both the southern and western vicus and, according to him, possibly marks a period in which both vici were being built (Spitzlberger 1968: 116-117). Steinmetz (1936: 437-439) already investigated the finds from the temple of Ziegetsdorf before Spitzlberger, stating that the first building activity started at AD 180. The building was destroyed in AD 211 and rebuilt in AD 233. Around

Spitzlberger divides the stamps from Künzing into six different types. Stamps from this place were, according to him, also delivered to Eining and Regensburg, since they were found there. By archaeological context it is known that the fourth building period in Künzing started around AD 180, and ended in AD 233, which placed the stamps in this bracket (Spitzlberger 1968: 115-120). The majority of the stamps from Straubing are divided into 11 distinct types. Eight of those also appear in other locations on the Raetian limes. According to Spitzlberger, the bulk of stamps found at Straubing would have been produced at the legionary brick works excavated at Abbach. The die used for one of the types was faulty, and can thus be shown to have originated there. Because of the Samian finds, it is thought that the fort at Straubing did not survive past the year AD 233. Spitzlberger states that this date also coincides with coins from the area and thus dates the finds from the southern vicus at Straubing to the late second and early third century AD (Spitzlberger 1968: 116). Spitzlberger dates stamp types 11 and 23 (Fig. 43) to between AD 180 and 233 and relatively

FIGURE 44 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPES 1, 70, 99, 197 AND 285 52

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

FIGURE 45 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPE 68 and states that this stamp possibly dates the reconstruction after AD 233 into the period of Gordianus (AD 238-244) (Spitzlberger 1968: 117). FIGURE 46 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPE 273

The dating of the villa rustica from Burgweinting shows that the complex already existed before AD 233. One of the stamps found there, type 11, is also dated to that period by Spitzlberger. After the coin-dated destruction during the period of Severus Alexander (AD 222-235) a major part of the building was rebuilt. Spitzlberger states that those stamps reading LEC III, like in Ziegetsdorf, belong to this period of reconstruction. Later reconstruction is indicated by later coin finds. Nevertheless, it is unclear which of the stamps belongs to which of the different building programmes (Spitzlberger 1968: 117).

AD 260 or later there is evidence of further destruction and rebuilding. The final destruction took place at the end of the fourth century, perhaps in AD 357, and finalised the end of the temple (Steinmetz 1936: 437-439). Spitzlberger is careful to concur with these dates. As there is no information about the exact find locations it can only be assumed that those stamps, which were also known from Regensburg, were either used for constructions or for reconstruction. Spitzlberger expands stamp 273 (Fig. 46) as Le(gionis) III Ital(icae) G(ordianae),

FIGURE 47 STAMP TYPES OF COHORS III BRITANNORUM EQUITATA FROM RAETIA (SPITZLBERGER 1968: PLATE 12) 53

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 48 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPES 40 & 190

FIGURE 49 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPE 240

FIGURE 50 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPES 77, 84, 133, 172 & 236

FIGURE 51 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPE 162 54

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

FIGURE 52 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPES 62 & 161 Alkofen is a Claudian foundation (Numeruskastell). Like other forts in its neighbourhood it suffered destruction by the Marcomanni in the 170’s. The bulk of coins found there date to the first and second third of the third century AD. The small finds date up to the arrival of the Alemanni around AD 259/260. Two stamp types produced in Abbach, Spitzlberger’s 143g and 144g with deepened letters, were found in buildings, which were erected in the first period of the fortress in Regensburg and also the last constructions of the principia at Eining-Unterfeld. Spitzlberger, therefore assumes that Alkofen could have been one of the early garrisons of Legio III in Raetia (Spitzlberger 1968: 117). Unfortunately, no pictures of those stamp types are included.

FIGURE 53 SPITZLBERGER (1968) TYPES 62 & 161 types that they come from several building periods. This view is aided by the coins found there (Spitzlberger 1968: 119). He states that when compiling his study on Legio III stamps, it was hard to determine stamps from production groups for a later building activity. Stamp types 11 and 240 (Fig. 49) are dated to the period before AD 233 because of their find context. Stamp types 77, 84, 133, 172 and 236 (Fig. 50) also appear in Eining-Unterfeld. Spitzlberger dates them to after AD 280, when building began there. Stamp types 162 (Fig. 51) and 172 (Fig. 50) were also found in Prüfening and can be dated by sigillata finds. Stamp types 62 and 161 (Fig. 52) were also found in Ziegetsdorf, where it is assumed that building began around AD 260 (Spitzlberger 1968: 119). Some stamped bricks were found amongst the hypocaust pillars, which were situated at the principia buildings, but again this is not certain because the excavation report which Spitzlberger uses is unclear. Spitzlberger states that they could also have originated from other phases, which makes dating impossible. In a rough summary the following is suggested: Types 1, 197 and 285 (Fig. 44) appear to belong to earlier building periods in Alkofen, Eining and Straubing according to find context. Type 197 must be earlier because of the form of its ansae. Type 194 (Fig. 53) belongs to a late building period after AD 260 or AD 280. Spitzlberger claims that there is no indication for dates of other stamps. A follis dating to the period of Maximinus Daia (AD 305/306), confirms in his view that the find complex may be a mixed deposit (Spitzlberger 1968: 119).

The remains of the Roman building at Gögging belong to different periods. The complex was a villa before it was changed into a bath around AD 150. The building was extended around AD 200. Those stamps bearing the letters Coh(ors) III B(ritannorum) E(quitata) (Fig. 47) may have come from this context, but this is not certain since no exact find context was recorded. The Legio III stamps came from a phase above that. A fourth, late-Roman phase did not produce any finds. Spitzlberger states that until a more detailed excavation report, where the exact relationship between the stamps and the phases can be defined, no dating can be attempted. He is, however, rather certain that the legionary stamps come from at least two phases, one relatively older (Stamp type 11), and one relatively younger. Both of these phases fall into the period around AD 180 to before AD 233 (Spitzlberger 1968: 118). Two stamp types, Spitzlberger’s 148 from the early group with deepened letters, and 190 (Fig. 48), which was found in Kumpfmühl, according to Spitzlberger, can be ascribed to the first building period of the fortress at Regensburg under the aedileship of Aurelius Artissius (Spitzlberger 1968: 119). However, he does not specify why he believes this to be the case.

Unterfeld-Eining produced Legio III stamps, which were stamped with the additional title Con(cors/ cordia). According to Spitzlberger, they are the earliest indications for the legion’s presence in Eining. Stamps of what he calls the production group, as it appears to be the groups of types used for the first buildings in Raetia, are attested in the legionary brick works in Abbach. The title Con(cors/cordia) points to the Antonine period because, according to Spitzlberger the stamps are found in the context together with Samian ware and coins from that

The largest number of brick stamps of Legio III from Raetia was found when a 400-year-old house was demolished at Wollwirkergasse/Regensburg. Unfortunately, the archaeological contexts were again not taken into consideration when excavated earlier in the century and many of the bricks had been reused in the medieval period. Spitzlberger assumes when looking at the different stamp 55

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

to the forts in which they were found, rather than by studying the different types together. However, in a second step he compiles the types together in his chronological table. In some cases Spitzlberger also uses stylistic criteria for his dating, for example the forms of ansae (Spitzlberger 1968: 119). This is methodologically questionable since, as

period. Unfortunately, not a lot of CON stamps found in the ninetenth century were recorded with their find context (Spitzlberger 1968: 120). Spitzlberger proposes the following chronology of stamp types from Northern Raetia (Spitzlberger 1968: 121): Production group:

Types:

Find Location:

First group: from AD 171

Nos. 262-265, 266-269

Eining-Unterfeld, Abbach

Early group: from AD 172

Nos. 141-149 190, 286

Eining-Unterfeld, Eining: auxiliary-camp, Eining: vicus, Regensburg: Wollwirkergasse, Regensburg: praetoria, Kumpfmühl, Alkofen

Construction group I: before AD 180 until around AD 200

Nos: 70, 99 111, 185, 197 240, 285

Construction group II: around and after AD 200

Nos: 11, 86

Eining: auxilliary camp, Künzing Straubing, Alkofen, Regensburg: Wollwirkergasse, praetoria, post-office of 1963 Straubing, Gögging, Burgweinting, Abbach, Regensburg

Middle group: after AD 233

Nos: 26, 172 251, 261, 273

Gögging, Prüfening, Ziegetsdorf, Regensburg: Wollwirkergasse, praetorian

Late group: after AD 280

Nos: 77, 84, 133 194, 236 et al.

Eining, Regensburg

TABLE 4 has been shown on page 39, ansae cannot be used as dating criteria. Spitzlberger’s study is one of the most thorough of all studies on Roman brick stamps, yet it concentrates very much on single forts, instead of an overall view of Raetian brick production. He does not go into great detail about why different types were delivered to more than one fort, and does not say a lot about the brick works in Abbach. This is partly due to the fact that some of the forts had previously been dealt with in other publications. Neither does he discuss possible secondary use of stamps in any of the forts he considers. Another problem with his study is that it only covers a part of Raetia, namely that which covers modern Germany, and this omits some of the material from the same units in Austria and Switzerland. Although some of those stamps have been discussed before (Howald & Meyer 1940), it would have been better to include them to achieve a more complete portrait of the brick stamps of Raetia. Nevertheless, his study is to be counted amongst one of the most detailed on brick stamps of a Roman province, and like other chronologies, such as Baatz’s, it can serve as an example for further brick stamp catalogues.

Like other researchers such as Baatz, Spitzlberger uses the brick stamps in connection with stratigraphy, and also epigraphy, based on the titles of the stamps. He creates chronological groups, similar to Baatz’s approach of probable chronological horizons. Secondly, he compiles an overall chronological model, like many other epigraphers and small finds researchers. Nearly all stamp types from Raetia are placed in a relative chronology, although a lot of the find contexts from earlier excavations had not been recorded. There are, however, gaps in this chronology, where there was not enough information on certain stamp types to date them. This is quite usual with small finds chronologies since rarely can all stamps from a location be securely dated. For a discussion of this problem see Chapter 1, pages 2-3. It might be worth considering giving the stamp types which cannot be closely dated a long chronological date of the period of Marcus Aurelius to the end of the Roman period, which is the entire period of brick production by the unit concerned, rather than classifying them as ‘undatable’. Spitzlberger’s approach is somewhat unusual, because he discusses the different types according 56

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

Wesch-Klein published the bricks stamps from Breisach am Rhein/Upper Germany. These included the results of two campaigns between the years 1980 to1986 (Wesch-Klein 1984: 387-426). She dates the fortification to the late Roman period of the third and fourth centuries AD (Wesch-Klein 1984: 388). Stamped bricks of the following units were found: Legio VIII Augusta (10), Legio XXI Rapax (2) and Legio I Martia (46). There are no indications of the amount of unstamped material by Wesch-Klein. She investigates the brick stamps in connection to their archaeological contexts. There are two fragments of Legio XXI Rapax stamps. The existence of those tegula fragments raises the question as to whether there was military occupation as early as the early principate. The first of the two tiles was found in a post-Roman context. The second one was found in a layer of rubble, which could be dated to the fourth century AD. Therefore, both bricks must have been used either secondarily, or moved from their original context, of which at least the last one had to reach the phase that it was found in during late antiquity. In spite of extensive excavations there had been no other first century AD finds when Wesch-Klein published her report. Because of this, she does not believe that there was a large military occupation in the form of an early fort on the Münsterberg at Breisach. On the other hand, it is recognised that the find location is a strategically perfect place to allow control over a larger area, which suggests that it could have been the location of a small watch tower during the years of the early principate. A similar one existed on the Kapellenberg near Hofheim (Wesch-Klein 1984: 388-389).

Constantine, either during the military building program of AD 306/312 or at the latest around AD 320/330. The interior of these first period buildings was mainly stone, which were probably roofed with bricks. The bricks stamped with the names of Legio VIII Augusta and Legio I Martia were very likely part of these roofs. It is not clear if these roofing tiles were used during the first period or during later ones, but it is evident that they were used during the reign of Constantine or Constantius II, before the middle of the fourth century AD (Wesch-Klein 1984: 393). After the destruction of these buildings, the bricks were part of the rubble that reached the above-mentioned context. Shortly after the middle of the fourth century AD there is a clear end of the first building period. WeschKlein suggests that this destruction could be connected with the events during the war between Magnentius and Constantius II, which provoked a series of attacks by the Alemanni (Wesch-Klein 1984: 393). Wesch-Klein proposes the following dates for the brick stamps found during her campaigns: Legio XXI: The Legio XXI stamps from Breisach are restored and expanded by Wesch-Klein in the following way: (centuriae) S(---) l(egionis) [XXI] and [(centuriae) S(---) ? l(egionis) X]XI. Therefore, she suggests that they were produced by a detachment or a centuria of the legion (Wesch-Klein, 1984, 395). As is known, Legio XXI was on the Lower Rhine Xanten/Vetera from the Augustan to the early Claudian period and was moved to Upper Germany in AD 43-45 to Windisch/ Vindonissa (Speidel M.A. 1996: 40-42; Le Bohec & Wolff 2000: 49-51). Around AD 69 it left for Lower Germany and was in Bonn until Domitian’s Chattian campaign (AD 83). Finally, it returned to the Upper Rhine and stayed in Mainz/ Mogontiacum (Ritterling RE XII: 1782-1789). Wesch-Klein dates these stamps to the first period that Legio XXI spent in Upper Germany. There are other stamps found with the same reading, which were found on the Upper Rhine, in Biesheim/Oedenburg, Strasbourg, Niederschopfheim and Wolfenweiler. These areas are near Breisach and no similar stamps are known from Switzerland, which leads her to believe that the stamps from Breisach are from the same detachment and period (Wesch-Klein 1984: 395). However, the second of the two stamps only displays the number of

With exception of the two stamps of Legio XXI Rapax all other stamps belonged to the late Roman fortification, which occupied the southern half of the Plateau. There are stamps of two units: Legio VIII Augusta and Legio I Martia. Archaeological context allowed Wesch-Klein to date the stamps. The bulk was found in strata that belong to the first period of the military complex. This is dated by coins to after AD 351/353 (Wesch-Klein 1984: 389). One pit was of particular interest to the excavator because it was completely filled with a compact brick layer (WeschKlein 1984: 391). The filling of this pit contained 7 of the 10 stamps of Legio VIII Augusta, and 18 of the 46 stamps of Legio I Martia. It was possible to determine a terminus post quem for the pit because a coin, dating to AD 351/353, was found between the bricks. On top of that a stratum of humus sealed the pit. The latter also produced some coins which, however, were not dated at the time of WeschKlein’s publication (Wesch-Klein 1984: 391). The coins found in this the fort indicate that it was erected during the reign of

FIGURE 54 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO I MARTIA FROM BREISACH (WESCH-KLEIN 1984: 415) 57

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the unit with the first X broken off and the first only displays the letters S L without any number, therefore the expansions can only remain hypothetical.

Bonna. The modern expansion is Leg(ionis) I M(a)r(tiae) (Fig. 54; Wesch-Klein 1984: 421), but the possibility of the nominative form Leg(io) I M(a)r(tia) cannot be excluded. Although we know that this unit was founded in late antiquity, it is not certain when and where. It is possible that the name Martia, which derives from Mars, was given to this legion by Galerius, who worshipped this god as his personal protector. However, there is another unit named in the Notitia Dignitatum (XXXVII 22 cited after Wesch-Klein 1984: 422), which has the same name (Legio IV Martia), and which was definitely in Arabia before the age of Galerius (AD 293311). Before Wesch-Klein’s publication the stamps of Legio Martia from Breisach had been connected with the building program of Valentinian I. Wesch-Klein says that this is not secure, since the bricks found in those contexts may have been reused. Furthermore, the archaeological context of some of the stamps found is not clear. Therefore, it could also be possible that the stamps of this legion are connected with the building activities during the reign of Constantine (AD 306337) or Constantine II and Constantius II (AD 337-340), and belong to the same period as the Legio VIII stamps (WeschKlein 1984: 424-425). Stamps of this legion were also found in Kaiseraugst and in Frick. It is worth noticing that all Legio I Martia stamps found so far are quite similar in epigraphic details, which is why Wesch-Klein suggests that the stamps of this legion belong to one period (Wesch-Klein 1984: 425).

Legio VIII Augusta: The Legio VIII stamps from Breisach, on the other hand, are clearly all from the same type. One of them is complete, the others are fragments. Wesch-Klein points out two stamps from the same type from Strasbourg. The complete stamps read LEG VIII AUG C ARG. The last word is usually supplemented with Arg(entorate) because of the location Strasbourg/Argentorate. Wesch-Klein does, however, admit that such place names are unusual on stamps from Gaul and the Germanies. It is possible that the unit adapted the name of its place of garrison and ARG stands for a title of Legio VIII (Wesch-Klein 1984: 399). As an example of this phenomenon Wesch-Klein names stamps of Legio V Macedonica garrisoned in the province Dacia Ripensis which are expanded as l(egionis) V M(acedonicae) Oes(co) and l(egionis) V M(acedonicae) Var(inia) after the locations in which they were garrisoned (Wesch-Klein 1984: 403; Morfova 1958: 640-648). These stamps will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6, pages 226-228. Other units from the area also used place name stamps: Legio XIV Gemina refer to the locations Ratiaria, Pontes and Cuppae in Moesia: l(egionis) XIII Rat(aria), leg(ionis) XIII Cup(pis) or [leg(ionis) x]IIII Ge(minae) Po(n)t(ibus) are possible variations (Wesch-Klein 1984: 404). Similarly, detachments of Legio VII Claudia also refer to Cuppis and those of Legio IV Flavia to Ierna in Moesia. Legio XI also used place names on stamps in the same province (Wesch-Klein 1984: 404). A stamp type of Legio XX Valeria Victrix may refer to the location of the garrison Deva, the Roman name for Chester (RIB II.4: 191). Therefore, Wesch-Klein assumes that the Legio VIII stamps also refer to a place-name. However, it should be born in mind that there are no parallels from either of the two Germanies.

Wesch-Klein only dates the stamps by archaeological context, which is safe if the possibility of a secondary use is considered, which she does for the Legio I Martia stamps but not for the stamps of Legio VIII Augusta. The latter, dated by her to the fourth century AD, could have been reused, since this legion is attested in the vicinity of Breisach much earlier. It is not clear whether the expansion of the Legio XXI stamps, mentioned earlier as formula, is correct since it is rather unusual and a detachment of a legion did not always state that it was a detachment on a stamp. Tiling units did not always specify that they were only a detachment of a legion, as Legio I Minervia did not in Moesia during the Dacian campaigns (see Chapter 6, page 136). Apart from the fact that the numbers of brick stamps from Breisach are rather small, Wesch-Klein’s methodology of dating by archaeological context is correct. Furthermore, other methodologies, as epigraphic comparison with stamps from other locations are used successfully on the stamps of legions VIII Augusta and I Martia.

Because of the find context of the above mentioned coins, which were found together with the stamps, WeschKlein states that the traditional second century AD date for the LEG VIII AVG C ARG stamps from Strasbourg is incorrect and seeks to prove that the stamps belonged to the fourth century AD (Wesch-Klein 1984: 403). However, the prospect of secondary use of these stamps cannot fully be excluded and Wesch-Klein does raise this possibility. Legio I Martia: There are 48 stamps from this unit found in Breisach, most of which were recovered during Wesch-Klein’s campaigns. Earlier campaigns had produced more, so that the total number is around 50. Most of the bricks are very fragmentary. Legio I Martia has so far not been one of the legions of which much was known. The stamps have often previously been considered those of Legio I Minervia, stationed in Bonn/

Hanel surveyed the stamps from Vetera (Hanel 1995: 253281). The fortress at Vetera dates to the period of Nero and hosted two legions. Excavations between 1905 and 1934 resulted in the retention only of those bricks that were stamped or had other significant marks like impressions or graffiti. There are three different main stamp groups belonging to Legio V Alaudae, XV Primigenia and a unit 58

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

a good idea to determine if single types had been used for specific buildings only (Hanel 1995: 264). The fact that a lot of the stamps came from old excavations might make this difficult, since often the recording of archaeological contexts was not consistent in the research of the early twentieth century. However, although the 529 stamps are only a part of the material originally found, some conclusions can be reached regarding the distribution of types in certain buildings of Vetera. Hanel adds an investigation of the different buildings and types in the location, producing a table of the types and buildings stamped bricks were found. He indicates that bricks stamped by one person were not used in a certain area only, but that the different names were distributed unevenly over the whole fortress. This is further proven by the variety of types in the principia and the valetudinarium: the first produced 25 different types, the latter 37 (Hanel 1995: 265-266).

FIGURE 55 BRICK STAMP OF THE LEGIO V ALAUDAE FROM VETERA (HANEL 1995: PLATE 159) called TRA. The bulk of bricks are roofing tiles. The brick production of Vetera belongs to one of the earliest on the Lower Rhine. They are tegulae, imbrices, lateres and tegulae mammatae. Some of the bricks have tally marks. The stamps of Legio V Alaudae are distinguished by the variety of stamp types, which mention the names of different soldiers. The significance of the names will be explained in Chapter 12, pages 224-225. There are a total of 529 stamps in 79 different types from this legion. Types I 1-3 (19 stamps in total) do not include any soldiers names. Hanel states that the suggestion that these types are the oldest ones from Vetera can only remain a hypothesis (Hanel 1995: 263). Hanel’s Group I is distinguished by heterogeneity of the stamp forms, which ranges from simple square and rather common tabulae ansatae to special forms like pointed edges (Fig. 55). This group shares the name of the legion, which comes in different forms: L V, LEC V and LEG V. In most cases this is followed by the name of the soldier who produced the tile. The names are usually in the genitive and less frequently in the nominative form. They display different parts of the tria nomina. Some soldiers used different stamp forms at different times: for example the stamper Cupit(i)us used a tabula ansata one time (Type I 18) and a square stamp the next (Type I 17) (Fig. 56). Hanel could not verify the hypothesis that the two main stamp forms reflect chronological trends and he states that there are no strategraphical indications for the chronology of the 79 types from the excavations, which only allows for a loose chronological frame to date the stamps (Hanel 1995: 263).

The stamps of Legio XV Primigenia, on the other hand, produced only 11 known types on 510 found brick stamps, which distinguish this group as rather uniform. The text usually names the legion only and there are very few name stamps: Only two types (II 2 and 3) with a total of 39 stamps appear to be including the name of a soldier abbreviated as L S N. Hanel states that it is not clear why in this case the unit adapted the habit of the neighbouring unit, situated in the same fortress (Hanel 1995: 271). A possible explanation is that one of the immunes figlinae from Legio V Alaudae could have been transferred to Legio XV Primigenia, perhaps due to a lack of skilled tilers in that legion, and kept the stamping habit used by Legio V. The stamp surfaces are always square, apart from one tabula ansata. As Hanel also recognises, the two legions are a very good example of different stamping habits within one fortress. The soldiers of Legio V included their names on the dies, whereas this was not custom for Legio XV. Since only 3.6% of the total number of Legio V stamps (19 out of 529) do not display a name Hanel suggests that it was compulsory to include it. It might have been a way to control the individual’s daily output and increase production (Hanel 1995: 271).

Hanel continues with a statistical evaluation of the stamp types, in relation to where they were found within the fortress. The stamps of Group I were only found in the western half of the Neronian fortress. Hanel states that it is

Again, Hanel investigates the distribution of different types of Legio XV stamps in the buildings. Unlike the products of Legio V Alaudae the bricks of this legion were mainly found in the eastern part of the fortress. There are a couple of exceptions but these have no influence on the overall outcome of the survey. There are two building complexes, which Hanel calls A and G, which have produced bricks from both units. Within these buildings the stamps from the two units are also divided: the ones from the Legio V appear more in the western half, the ones from Legio XV more in the eastern half of the two complexes. Hanel came to the following conclusions: the principia was built and used by the two legions, which would be expected. The contribution

FIGURE 56 HANEL TYPE I 17 & 18 (STAMPER CUPITIUS, WITH AND WITHOUT ANSAE) (HANEL 1995: PLATE 157) 59

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

of bricks from Hanel’s Group II follows the same principles as the previously discussed one of Group I: buildings were never roofed over by bricks of one stamp type only. Type II 7 was found in every building of the Legio XV area, which is not surprising because this type makes up 71% of the total brick material of the unit (Hanel 1995: 272).

few observations possible; those types found in the wall (G 1040-1041) and those from the south side of the Neronian camp (G1042-1044, 1137, 1142) could be contemporary with type II 7 (Hanel 1995: 274). The material from Vetera also included seven fragments of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix and 50 antefices, which were not dated. This unit was garrisoned in the second fortress of Vetera (Vetera II) from the early second century AD (Hanel 1995: 274).

Hanel used the stamps to date the foundations of buildings, in which they were found: Bricks G701 and 998 came from a building on the south walls and also from buildings A, G and P. The investigator states that they were bricks of types II 2, 4 and 7 and concludes that these were the first chronological of stamp types of Group II, which mark the beginning of the building of the Neronian twinlegionary fortress. Those stamps that were used in the reinforcement of the walls during the Batavian revolt are the chronologically latest. The bricks were mainly found in the ditch of the legionary fortress. The types in question were II 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 (Fig. 57). A total chronology for all the remaining stamp types was, however, not possible (Hanel 1995: 272).

The stamp types mentioned above were not only found in the area of the fort on the Fürstenberg (Vetera I) but also in its vicinity, especially in the pre-settlement of the Colonia Ulpia Traiana, and further along the Rhine. All groups only appear in locations connected with the Rhine limes of the first century AD. The majority of these locations was of military nature and usually associated with detachments of the Vetera I units which came to assist with buildings there. Hanel wanted to determine if these bricks dated to pre-AD 70 when the Vetera fortress was abandoned and destroyed, or after. Few could be dated by archaeological context, except those from Zwammerdamm, which could be attributed to the Claudian-Neronian period (Hanel 1995: 280). The Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium produced stamps of the Vetera legions, which shows that they were active in that area. Kilns were excavated at the north end of the colonia. The tiles found there only come from the Vth legion. A further kiln in Sinzig, on the other hand, produced Legio V and TRA stamps. The units of Vetera were obviously heavily involved in the building. These finds are likely to date to before AD 70 (Hanel 1995: 280-281).

One-hundred-and-six stamps, displaying the letters TRA can be divided into three sub-groups. With the exception of two types the bricks of this group were found in areas within the fortress which were dominated by bricks of Legio XV Primigenia, i.e. the eastern area. Similarly to Group II (XV Primigenia stamps) these brick stamps also come in very few types (three) and give no names of soldiers. The expansion of TRA is by no means secure. Tra(iana) is not a very likely explanation and was soon dismissed (Hanel 1995: 23). Hanel favours the interpretation that the bricks are those of the preFlavian predecessor of the tegularia Transrhenana, arguing that the increased building activity during the Neronian period meant that detachments of Legio XV Primigenia would have been sent across the Rhine to produce bricks (Hanel 1995: 274). It is worth noting that the TRA stamps in the eastern half of the camp appear only on imbrices. Hanel suggests that this could mean that the tegularia Transrhenana were solely responsible for these roofing tiles because none of the stamps of Group II of Legio XV Primigenia appeared on imbrices (Hanel 1995: 274). The stamps of the tegularia Transrhenana are further discussed in Chapter 3.

Hanel proposes that some of the bricks from Vetera were reused. Apart from in the near vicinity of Vetera, such finds were made mainly at Nijmegen. Archaeological context has shown that the bulk of these bricks were used before the turn of the first to the second century AD, during the last third of the first century AD. Hanel argues that bricks could have been reused during the Flavian period, soon after the destruction of Vetera and to bricks from Vetera II, which were incorporated into buildings of the new Colonia Ulpia Traiana some years later. He is, however, aware of the hypothetical nature of these suggestions (Hanel 1995: 281). Investigating the question if military bricks were used for civilian buildings (public or private), Hanel once more confirms that there is not enough evidence to prove that military bricks were ever sold to civilians and used in private buildings (Hanel 1995: 281). This is further reviewed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2.

According to Hanel, a lack of archaeological context allowed for no dating, as with the previous types. There are only a

With this article on brick stamps from one location, Hanel shows that it often makes more sense to investigate brick stamps in connection with the areas in which they were used within a building, rather than trying to find a date for each stamp. The latter is often not possible and

FIGURE 57 HANEL’S TYPE II 2 OF LEGIO XV PRIMIGENIA (HANEL 1995: PLATE 158) 60

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

an epigraphic chronology usually has a lot of gaps. The approach of this article is innovative, listing the stamps under the aspect of where they were used. With the help of a statistical evaluation valuable points are made on where the two units dominated within Vetera. Of course, the fact that the fortress held more than one legion offered itself to the kind of investigation the scholar performed. In forts/fortresses with only one unit we can hardly make statements about the distribution of different buildings between units. The fact that Legio V Alaudae has so many different types, because of the name stamps naturally makes close dating naturally more complicated, but Hanel shows that establishing chronologies need not always be the most important thing when dealing with military brick stamps. According to the information provided in this article there do not appear to be other stamp types from either Legio V Alaudae or Legio XV Primigenia from Germany. There do not appear to have been other tileries, or differences in clay: at any rate they are not mentioned.

and 1978. Most of the results had not been published when Kaiser wrote her report on the bricks stamps, and thus the material from different campaigns for her work had to be combined (Kaiser 1996: 56-57). Kaiser states that her success was in dating stamp types which came from the walls, dated strata, or a relative chronological order of phases (Kaiser 1996: 57). This again shows that some scholars who work with epigraphic methods as well as archaeological stratigraphy hope for close dates of a couple of years and often do not accept a long date at all. Kaiser considers the possibility of secondary use (Kaiser 1996: 57), which only allows for a certain amount of security in the dating in the case of stamps, as bricks were often reused in the German provinces. Furthermore, the bulk of bricks from Bonn came from rubble layers, which made it impossible to say if they were used for the first or second time. Because of a lack of contexualized information Kaiser does not include bricks stamps from old excavations or smaller rescue excavations, where documentation was partly missing. She also states that even the newer excavations do not always allow for the allocation of bricks to layers or building phases (Kaiser 1996: 57).

Kaiser published an overall catalogue of brick stamps from Bonn (Kaiser 1996: 51-90). The material discussed in this publication includes the products of legions I (Germanica), XXI Rapax, I Minervia, the German fleet and a detachment of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix. Most of the stamps came from the fortress and occasionally from other military buildings, such as two fabricae (Bonner Berg and Böselagerhof), the brick workshop and a building in the Adenauer Allee/Bonn which is interpreted as a administrative building of the army (Kaiser 1996: 66-71). Kaiser lists 1200 newly found stamps, of which 450 could not be classified as they were either too fragmented or too worn to recognise the stamp. A further 400 stamps were already listed in CIL XIII, 6. There is a total of 234 types, of which 218 are those of I Minervia, 7 of Legio I (Germanica), 3 of XXI Rapax, 5 of the detachment of XXX Ulpia Victrix and one of the classis Germanica (Kaiser 1996: 56).

Kaiser is rather confident that the later buildings in the fortress of Bonn were largely built with bricks that had already been used, although it is assumed that new bricks would have continued to be used and a brick workshop would have existed for that reason. She is, however, aware of the fact that this is a hypothesis that cannot be proven. According to Kaiser, a lot of the bricks, especially from the older excavations, came from layers of rubble, so that it is not possible to say if they were reused or not (Kaiser 1996: 57). Most of the stamp types from Bonn cannot be allocated to a specific building phase, because the find context is not completely clear from the reports or because the contexts have not been allocated to periods. For those bricks stamps which are attributed to a phase, the scholar suggests a relative date. Around 900 stamps were investigated in connection with their find location and other finds from the same phase, like ceramics were surveyed. The dates of the archaeological stratum in which it was found provide a terminus ante quem for a stamp type in question (Kaiser 1996: 57-58). Thus, long chronologies are accepted for stamps, which do not allow for a closer date.

The chronology of brick stamps from Bonn is based on the one hand on the deployment of units and the knowledge of their locations, and on the other hand on stratigraphical investigations on the find location. Epigraphic and literary sources have proved that Legio I, Legio XXI and Legio I Minervia followed each other as garrisons of Bonn, which provided a background for the chronology of the stamps. Kaiser recognised that short chronologies are problematic for the stamps of Legio I Minervia, since this unit was in Bonn between AD 83 and 295. However, the titles on the stamps, pia fidelis, pia fidelis Domitiana and Antoniniana provided her with a chronological background for some of the stamps (Kaiser 1996: 71-74).

Kaiser proposes a typology for the stamps of the Roman units from Bonn, and attempts a chronological distribution. Legio I Minervia provided the bulk of stamps. During its period of occupation, from AD 83 to late antiquity, there were several restorations of the fortress, as is shown by building inscriptions and archaeological stratigraphy (Kaiser 1996: 88). The investigation of the distribution of the stamp types showed that Legio I Minervia erected buildings both inside the fortress and at selected places

The stratigraphic context Kaiser uses arises from five different excavation campaigns, between the years 1949 61

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

outside it. Legio XXI and the detachment of Legio XXX built new complexes within the fortress and also on the military building complex at the Adenauer Allee/Bonn. The brick stamps of Legio I (Germanica) have so far only attested building activity of this unit within the fortress. The German fleet was involved in the construction of a new fabrica in the modern area of Böselagerhof/Bonn (Kaiser 1996: 89).

different places. The Legio XXI stamps from Bonn, apart from some which coincide with Dormagen types, do not appear anywhere else. Archaeological context shows that they were used between the years AD 70 and 83 (Kaiser 1996: 89). The find context of classis Germanica stamps allows for a date at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century AD (Kaiser 1996: 89). Contexts connected with the Legio XXX stamps do not permit an exact date: Kaiser estimates that they belong to the second half of the second century or later. However, since the German fleet and the detachment of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix assisted Legio I Minervia’s building activities equally in the same period, she proposes that the stamps from both units might date to the same period (Kaiser 1996: 90).

It is possible to discern six types of Legio I Minervia stamps because of the titles Flavia and Antoniniana. The title p(ia) f(idelis) give a terminus post quem for 113 types. However, archaeological context shows that stamps without those titles were still produced after AD 89 (Kaiser 1996: 7174). The limitations of title dating are further discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. Therefore, further dating can only be achieved by a chronological order of those phases that carried bricks in them. Kaiser informs us that she did this herself mainly because the contexts were often not clear in the excavation reports, even where these were present. Find context allows 101 stamp types of Legio I Minervia to be placed in a chronological order. 20 types are very likely to belong to the end of the first century AD (and a further four probably also). 29 types belong to the middle of the second century AD. 34 stamps date to before the end of the second century AD. All these dates are termini ante quem. A further four stamp types have the beginning, and a further two the middle of the third century as the latest chronological limit. No stamp types can be dated without doubt into late antiquity. Kaiser suggests that perhaps only secondary bricks were used for building in this period. Furthermore there is a concentration of stamps in the horrea of the north-west area of the fortress, which testifies that Legio I Minervia was involved in reconstruction there (Kaiser 1996: 71-82).

Kaiser is one of the few scholars dealing with brick stamps who realises that titles of units do not always appear on brick stamps. She bases this on the observation that around 400 of the stamps of Legio I Minervia do not mention the title pia fidelis awarded in AD 88/89. However, at the time it was acquired the unit had only been in Bonn for seven years, and it is unlikely that all 400 out of 1000 recorded stamps originated in such a short period (Kaiser 1996: 81) (for a more detailed discussion of this problem and Kaiser’s analysis of the titles from Bonn see Chapter 12, page 245). On top of that, she is usually very careful when applying dates to brick stamps, using archaeological contexts for her dates, sometimes supplementing this with epigraphic comparison of stamp types. Stamp types are dated in relation to other finds and building phases where possible but Kaiser admits that in a lot of cases the context is not known. Problems with short chronologies are recognised, although short chronologies are provided where possible.

For the dating of Legio I Germanica stamps, Kaiser uses the material from a bricks works of this legion from Dormagen (Kaiser 1996: 82-85). It is assumed that the production at Dormagen was started when the legion was still garrisoned in Cologne/Colonia, but was probably abandoned when the unit was moved to Bonn. This view is strengthened by the presence of tile kilns of I Minervia in Bonn in the area of the modern university, which lead Kaiser to the conclusion that the types from both places (Dormagen and Bonn) had to be from different periods. It is stated that those types which do not appear in Bonn but only in Dormagen, and those which were found in both places, belong to the older production activity in Dormagen, which dates to the beginning of the 40s of the first century AD at the latest because of archaeological context. This dates the brick production in Lower Germany about ten years earlier (Kaiser 1996: 89) than Müller assumes (Müller 1976: 12; 1979: 17-18). Kaiser compares the stamps from Bonn with other types from

Fuchs and Margueron catalogued the brickstamps from Avenches/Aventicum in modern Switzerland. Avenches is interesting, not only because of its civilian stamps, of which there are over a hundred, but also because military ones of Legio XXI from nearby Vindonissa, were found in public buildings. The question of the use of military bricks in the private sector is discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2. The stamp types of Legio XXI are the second most frequent after the civilian forms of a tiler named M(arcus) Afr(anius) Prof(essus). There are 15 bricks stamped L(egio)·XXI C, four of which are very likely to have originated from the Roman harbour of Avenches. This stamp type is not only known from Windisch/Vindonissa but also from the whole region. A further stamp carries the inscription s(ub) c(ura) V(ictoris/ictorinis?), and probably came from the roof of the temple of Grange des Dîmes. Further stamps are those of other private tilers, Ca(millius?) To(rquatus?) and L C(ornelius?) Pris(cus?) (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 105). 62

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

FIGURE 59 L XX (I S C VI) STAMP FROM AVENCHES (FUCHS AND MARGUERON 1998: NO. 76, RECONSTRUCTED AFTER JAHN 1909A FIG. 5B OR 5C) years AD 45 and 70, which marked the legion’s stay at Vindonissa. FIGURE 58 L XXI C STAMPS FROM AVENCHES (FUCHS AND MARGUERON 1998: NOS. 71 & 73)

The one brick stamped L·XXI·S·C·VI (Fig. 59), which also appeared in Vindonissa is expanded by Fuchs and Margueron as l(egionis) XXI s(ub) c(ura) Vi(ctoris/ ctorinis) (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 120). The significance of this stamp and their suggestion that the name on it might be that of a civilian working for the army will be discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1. They state that dating is not possible due to a lack of knowledge of find context and the fact that no palaeographic observations with similar stamps are workable (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 122).

Both palaeographical comparison of epigraphic features and stratigraphy are used as dating criteria. The letter C, in conjunction with the legion’s number XXI, which normally carried the name Rapax has caused some speculation. The title Rapax is attested by an inscription found in Vindonissa since AD 47 (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 119). Several readings for the C have been suggested (Fig. 58): One of them, which Fuchs and Margueron do not want to dismiss, is leg(ionis) XXI c(onductione) or leg(ione) XXI c(urante). However, they do stress that these titles are usually not known in Rome until the period of Trajan to Antoninus Pius, much later than the date in question, and is limited by the the period of the length of stay of the legion in Vindonissa (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 119). Thus, Fuchs and Margueron imply that the stamps bearing names could have been those of private tilers stamping for the army (see Chapter 12, page 244), which would fit the above mentioned expansion quite well (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 120-131). In any case, the expansion cannot be certain until further evidence from Legio XXI is achieved. The dating is based on the historical context of using the years in which Legio XXI was garrisoned in the area of modern Switzerland. The unit was founded by Augustus and at first stationed in Xanten/ Vetera on the Lower Rhine, and moved to Ptuj/Poetovio in modern Slovenia between AD 43 and 45 before it came to Vindonissa, where the fortress was rebuilt in stone. It departed in AD 69/70. The fifteen stamps from Avenches are all of the same type and from a die, which has been cut from wood. Jahn suggested that these dies, also indicated by the peculiarity of the ansae, are those types which were cut when the legion first arrived at Vindonissa (Jahn 1909: 19). Fuchs and Margueron are reluctant to adapt this dating and state that stylistic phenomena alone cannot be used for dating. Therefore, it is stated that the only secure dating they can allow is that the stamps fell between the

The authors of the article on Avenches are very careful in dealing with dating brick stamps. The possibilities of epigraphic and context dating are recognised but in most of the cases they discuss that it is not possible. Therefore, only the historical background of the unit’s stay in Switzerland is used, which comes from other sources such as the literary ones or stone inscriptions. They acknowledge the problems of brick reuse with dating, and are aware of the difficulties involved with brick dating (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 107-108). For the small numbers of stamps known from Avenches, the best possible dating method is achieved. This includes awareness of the fact that short chronologies are not always possible. They also gain results by investigating the distribution of stamps in specific buildings, also in relation to their civilian or military nature. One stamp type of Legio XXI is the only instance where a legionary stamp with a (soldier’s) name was ever found in a civilian, public building. For a detailed discussion of this case see Chapter 12, pages 231-2.

2.2.3 Brick stamps of a particular building Baatz’s study on the stamps from the bath building in Echzell only deals with stamps from a certain building in a location. This article contains the brick stamps from the bath building only, but also includes a discourse in 63

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

show traces of mortar used in a previous buildings. In other cases tegulae, initially produced for roofs were incorporated into hypocausts. However, other repairs cannot easily be traced: hypocaust pillars, for example, can be changed without indication for later excavators. Such repairs can sometimes be detected by the stamps on the bricks used, which might date to a much earlier period, but not always. Generally, according to Baatz, repairs are characterized by small numbers of stamps. Baatz seems to indicate that the situation in Echzell can be paralleled with other locations and that the reuse of bricks was generally rare. However, a situation may not always be that straightforward. A discussion of the problem of reuse is offered in Chapter 11.

which the author explains his dating methodology on brick stamps from the Upper German limes (Baatz 1965a: 123-124). The legionary baths from Echzell produced over 300 stamped bricks, which are presented by 60 types. Baatz remarks that these numbers are unnaturally large in comparison with other military buildings on the limes of Upper Germany. After the article was written further excavation were carried out, which increased the number of brick stamps further. Heddernheim Group

from AD 92/97

Echzell Group Stockstadt Group

to around AD 105

Group of Name stamps

AD 105-125

Late Antonine stamps

AD 150/160

With the aid of these criteria, Baatz separates those bricks used in the baths at Echzell. According to him, the contemporary main group of stamped bricks used for the bath consists of a rather large variety of different stamps. The same applies to some single later groups, for example the chronologically contemporary group of Legio VIII stamps (Baatz 1965a: 123). According to him, the stamps from Echzell were all produced in the legionary brickworks at Frankfurt am Main-Nied, because the stamp types are almost the same as from other baths at Bendorf and Salisberg. The production might not have lasted longer than two to four years. According to Baatz, there is evidence that the dies consisted of wood, and would not have lasted very long (Baatz 1965a: 123). For a discussion of the material of dies, Chapter 1, section 1.3.2 can be consulted.

TABLE 5 Part of the variety of types and number of stamped bricks can be explained by the fact that there were several repairs in the complex before it was abandoned in AD 260. These repairs are usually easy to discern in the building context. A lot of these bricks would have been reused, which can also be detected by archaeology. Some of them have very likely been introduced later to repair walls, roofs or floors. Sometimes broken tiles were added, and they

Baatz establishes that a relatively small number of stone buildings were erected in the period of the Echzell main group. Only a certain percentage of stone buildings contained bricks and these were only used for roofs and hypocausts, but not for walls. He suggests that due to the fact that many types are contemporary, there were probably fewer staff in the brick works. It is proposed that one die producing a particular type of stamp would have been used by a group of around three to four men. In his opinion, the short life expectancy of dies caused the variety of types (Baatz 1965a: 123). On average there are only three to four brickstamps of a single type found at Echzell. Baatz cautions not to interpret the number of types as an indication of a reuse of stamps (Baatz 1965a: 124). There are four stamps of Legio XIV in Echzell, which were found in some hypocaust pillars added in at a later period and belonging to three different types. As the pillars also contained some brickstamps of Cohors IV Vindelicorum (Fig. 60), Baatz thinks that those bricks were built into the building during the last quarter of the second century AD, as there are almost no Legio XIV bricks anywhere else in the baths. Furthermore, he suggests that it could

FIGURE 60 STAMPS OF COHORS IV VINDELICORUM FROM ECHZELL (BAATZ 1965A: FIG. 6) 64

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

been used in hypocaust pillars in a building north of the church, where two brick stamps of Legio XIV were found. At the time of Baatz’s publication there was a newly-found stamp type of Legio XIV, discovered in the baths south of the fort at Frankfurt am Main/Heddernheim, where archaeological context dates to around AD 90 and 92. Baatz thinks it possible that the stamp types from Echzell belong to the same period, and could have been produced in the brickworks at Frankfurt am Main/Heddernheim between AD 83 and 92 (Baatz 1965a: 124).

dating of Legio XXII stamps: these produced mainly stamps of the Echzell main group. The tegulae found there often carried stamps of Legio XXII (Fig. 61) (Echzell main group – Baatz’s FIGURE 61 type 25) and of Cohors BAATZ’ TYPE 25 FROM ECHZELL I Thracum. This unit is (BAATZ 1965: FIG. 4) mentioned in an Upper German military diploma of AD 90 but also attested in another military diploma on Upper Moesia in AD 100, which shows that the baths must have been built before that date. The cohort came to Upper Germany a second time between the years AD 110 and 116, but these dates, according to Baatz are too late for the erection of the baths (Baatz 1965a: 126). Unfortunately, Baatz does not specify the archaeological evidence this argument is based upon. He also uses the stamps of the main group of types used in the baths of the legionary fortress at Mainz to date the Echzell stamps, proposing that these baths were erected soon after the legion’s arrival at the new fortress of garrison after AD 92 (Baatz 1965a: 126).

He interprets the stamps and stamp types of Legio XXII as the main group used for the erection of the baths. The bulk of these stamps were found in situ. There are 244 stamps in 56 different types. It is worth noticing that there is not a single tegula amongst the bricks of this legion, all tegulae found in the baths are of Cohors I Damascenorum. Some of the tegulae were found in situ in the hypocausts of Room E of the baths where they had been incorporated together with some stamps of Cohors IV Vindelicorum. According to Baatz, this means that they were built in during the last quarter of the second century, and had been used secondarily, based on the historical date of this unit’s stay in Upper Germany (Baatz 1965a: 125). Bricks of types from this main group were also found in Frankfurt am Main-Nied, where they were obviously produced, and also in some of the other baths of forts on the Upper Rhine, most importantly at Bendorf and Salisberg.

There are 14 stamps in five types of Legio VIII from Echzell. Four of these types and probably also Type 5 (Fig. 62) carry the title Antoniniana, which, according to the scholar, were held under Caracalla and Elagabal between AD 211 and 222. These stamps are, according to Baatz, the chronologically latest group in the baths. Three of the five types also appear in Strasbourg, but not in any other location on the Upper Rhine. Unlike the previously discussed types from Echzell they were probably produced in the brickwork of this legion at Strasbourg-Königshofen. Baatz admits that the presence of these 14 stamps so far from Strasbourg is rather surprising and unusual, reminding the reader that at the fort of Niederbieber produced stamps of the same legion, which date to the period of Commodus (Baatz 1965a: 128).

Nearly all of the stamps and types of Legio XXII display the title pia fidelis, which means that they were produced after the revolt of Saturninus (AD 88/89). The legion came to Mainz in AD 92 to replace Legio XIV. According to Baatz other stamp types, which are not from Echzell belong to the earlier periods of the legion’s stay in Mainz, when bricks were also produced in the brickworks at Frankfurt am Main-Nied. This conclusion was reached through archaeological context from excavations of the baths of Salisberg, where a larger bath with stamp types of the Echzell main group lies on top of an older, smaller one with different, older stamps of Legio XXII (Baatz 1965a: 125-126). Bricks of the stamp group from the older building were also found in the southern baths of the fort at Frankfurt am Main/Heddernheim (for a more detailed discusssion of the types the reader can consult section 2.2.1 of this chapter). This encompasses those types, which the legion produced soon after its arrival in Mainz, as these baths also used the late types of Legio XIV. However, Baatz states that both groups of Legio XXII stamps are typologically very similar, which indicates that the period between them could not have been very long (Baatz 1965a: 126). No detail about these stylistical similarities of types is produced, making it difficult to follow his argument. The finds from the baths of the Bendorf fort also aid the

The article is very similar to other articles by the same author (Baatz & Ricken 1965b: 101-117 and Baatz 1969b: 118-138), two of which have been listed under 2.2.1 in this chapter (see the relevant discussion on pages 35-41), with the exception that here, only stamps from one building and elsewhere stamps from an area are discussed. There is, however, no real difference since the baths discussed here are the only FIGURE 62 building with stamps from the location and the article BAATZ’ TYPE 5 FROM ECHZELL (BAATZ 1965: FIG 4) serves the same purpose as 65

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

2.2.4 Brick stamps of the same unit found in several locations

building with stamps from the location and the article serves the same purpose as one on a the stamps from a place. Baatz always compares palaeographic elements of the stamps types, stating that the Legio XXII stamp types from Stockstadt, which were mentioned earlier are typologically very similar to the Echzell group, and therefore must have come soon afterwards (Baatz 1965a: 126). During those periods the brick works must have been in continuous use, which is supported by the typological similarity of the bulk of stamp types to each other. In doing so Baatz compares the types from all the places in which they are found along the Upper Rhine and Main (Baatz 1965a: 126-127).

Most of the publications that discuss the appearance of stamps from a certain unit in a certain place or area are rather short. In 1950, Von Petrikovits (Von Petrikovits 1950: 102-103) wrote about a stamp type of Legio XV Primigenia from Bonn. The unit was stationed in Xanten/Vetera between around AD 45/46 to its destruction in AD 70 during the Batavian revolt (Ritterling RE XII: 1759). The stamps reads: L(egio) XV L S N. The last three letters are obviously an abbreviation of the tria nomina, very common amongst the stamps from Vetera, although more for the Vth legion than the XVth (Hanel 1995: 253-281). According to Von Petrikovits, one example of this stamp type Legio XV had been found in the legionary fortress of legions I (no known name)7 and I Minervia, another had been previously found near Bonn. He says that the exact find location of the latter is not known and gives no indication about the find spot within the fortress of the former (Von Petrikovits 1950: 102). Von Petrikovits was one of the first scholars to investigate why bricks were traded up the Rhine rather than down the river. He recognised that it was custom for Roman units on the Rhine to supply each other’s buildings with bricks (Von Petrikovits 1950: 102). Legio I Minervia in Bonn also obtained bricks from the military brickworks at Holdeurn near Nijmegen. Von Petrikovits explains the Legio XV of a legion stationed at Vetera in a similar light, stating rightly, that for a study of military history larger numbers of stamps have to be present, which is not the case with the one stamp of Legio XV here (Von Petrikovits 1950: 103).

He relies heavily on stamp chronologies, which were established for all the locations and buildings discussed. Sometimes Baatz puts too much trust into the information of chronologies. Perhaps it is less important to place a date on each single stamp type, especially when few stamps of each type are found, than to allow for statements about stamp movements and therefore, placements of units within an area, as done, for example by Hanel. The latter scholar takes the evidence from the stamps of Vetera and with the help of statistical tests determines which units built which building within the fortress. This article has been analysed in section 2.2.2. It has to be taken into consideration, however, that Hanel’s article was written 30 years after Baatz’s studies and that during that period new ideas concerning military brick stamp methodologies had been developed. Echzell, like most of the Upper German limes forts has the advantage that a lot of units were involved in its building. Rather than just trying to date single groups (which in a chronology are always artificial), Baatz could have attempted to determine which units were responsible for which parts of the building. Furthermore, little is said about whether these units were detachments which came to Echzell, or if all the stamps were produced elsewhere. There is probably no definitive answer to this question but it should have been raised. A lot of groups of stamp types are based on the titles. Yet it is known that titles can only be used to a certain degree for this type of classification (see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3). Stamps often omit titles and it is wrong to include all stamps that have certain titles into one group and date it without first establishing if there are other contemporary stamps (by archaeological context) that may belong to the same category. On top of that, it is now known that the title can sometimes be dated from early during the reign of Septimius Severus to the reign of Elagabal (AD 196-222) (for a discussion on the dating of this title see Chapter 12, page 246). Articles on buildings, as written here, are certainly of equal importance to articles on larger areas. Sometimes Baatz is not too specific about the epigraphic features of stamps used. The problem of secondary use is touched upon here, and will be explained in more detail in Chapter 11.

Von Petrikovits makes no reference to the letters on the stamp other than that they were probably tria nomina. Because of the name of the legion and the fact that at least one of the stamps was found within a military context, these names should be interpreted as those of soldiers who worked or supervised in the tilery, according to her criteria which will be listed in Chapter 12. Kaiser who reviewed the stamps from Bonn in 1996 makes no reference to this stamp type (Kaiser 1996: 51-91). This probably means that no further examples were found, and that the evidence of two stamps which probably come from Xanten/Vetera since the unit was garrisoned there, were not regarded as important enough to be part of her catalogue. Of course, the interpretation that a detachment of Legio XV Primigenia produced tiles in Bonn, cannot be excluded fully. Given the fact, however, that there are only two stamped bricks of this type, Von Petrikovits hypothesis of brick trade is more likely. Nevertheless, without petrological analysis there is no proof for either theory.

7. Probably Legio I Germanica (Kaiser, 1996, 82-85)

66

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

Articles which only contain brickstamps from a certain area can only contribute a certain amount to the study of Roman military brickstamps. This is without doubtless necessary, when new finds have to be published to allow access to new material for further study. However, a certain perspective on the remaining material of the same unit in the area should be included. Usually these articles are reserved for small bulletins in journals, serving those interested in new brick stamp finds. It is worth noting that the articles discussed here are publications from the 1950’s and more recent authors attempt to discuss brickstamps with a more complete approach.

of stamps in the area of Trier, but does not add references to those already known and therefore establishes few connections between them. No dates, either short chronologies or long ones, are suggested. The value of publishing stamp collections has to be questioned. Usually, only the stamps of a certain collection, usually of private individuals who gathered the material during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are investigated without regard to further stamps from a unit or location. It is more sensible to include these collections in publications on stamps from a certain area or unit, such as shown above. If stamps are to be discussed in the form of the collections in which they are kept, it is important to include cross-references to all other stamp types and stamps from the same military units, and from the same buildings, in which they were found when known. Of course, this question also has to be extended to the publishing of old museum collections, such as Mainz.8 However, since museums usually collect more regional material, the stamps are more likely to be complete groups of areas than in the collections of private individuals such as Fremersdorf who possessed brick stamps from all over Germany.

2.2.5 Local lists for a certain period only The only article from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, which incorporates material from only a certain period is Von Gonzenbach’s study on the brick stamps from Windisch/Vindonissa during the first century AD, based on the length of the legion’s stay there (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 76-135). However, for reasons of chronological development this article is discussed in Chapter 13, pages 256-257.

There are, however, examples of publications of collection of brick stamps, which are much more than lists of stamps and stamp types, and which incorporate comparisons with other stamps of the unit besides discussions of several aspects of brick stamp research connected with the stamps in question. Brandl (1999) surveyed a collection of 1320 stamped tiles from the north-western provinces of the Imperium Romanum with the focus on Upper Pannonia. The collection, assembled by someone named Fritzmayer during the nineteenth century, is housed in the Prehistoric State Collection at Munich. Only some of the precise origins of these tiles are known. Brandl states that only 2% of them were assessed chronologically with the aid of other finds, and that no exact dating was possible for the remainder (Brandl 1999: 301).

2.2.6 Studies on the collections of stamps Some articles only discuss the contents of certain collections of brick stamps. Esser, Selzer and Decker (1968/1969: 149-152), who list the Roman finds of the collection of Fremersdorf, say very little about the meaning of different stamp types. A total of 105 brickstamps from this collection are listed, which contains the stamps of five different legions, of which most were stationed in Mainz/Mogontiacum. Eleven of the stamps could not be identified. There are 60 stamps of Legio XXII and 20 of Legio IV Macedonica. Furthermore, there are two stamps of Legio VIII Augusta, garrisoned in Strasbourg. The scholars state that the connection between this legion and the previous is unclear, and it is uncertain whether bricks were delivered of Legio VIII or not (Esser, Selzer & Decker 1968/1969: 149). Considering the small number of stamps this is the only possible statement. More than 90% of the stamps originate from the area of the fortress, as far as a find location is known. They do not date the stamps, nor do they compare them with other types or stamps from the area.

The collection contains stamps of the main legions of the north-western province: legions I Adiutrix, I Minervia, II Italica, III Italica, X Gemina, XIV Gemina, XV Apollinaris, XI Claudia and XXI Rapax. There are also stamps from some auxiliary units and some private ones. Brandl does not merely list the types from the collection but compares each stamp and each type with those of the same unit from other places. The newest research results for each unit are provided, and the most recent publications are discussed. This study is mainly a list of the stamps of units in north-western provinces, related to their histories and research. Brandl mostly reproduces

Similarly, Kann catalogued the brick stamps from private collections in Trier (Kann 1980/1981: 287-303). This article, however, only contains a general introduction into the custom of stamping bricks and a catalogue which describes the bricks. The catalogue introduces new types

8. Dolata, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Mainz (2000).

67

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the research performed in other studies and only recounts the dates given by other archaeologists. Nevertheless, this publication is a valuable contribution to brick stamp publications because it is an overall view of what research has been performed in those areas. The most recent dating for the stamps of each unit, considering all dating methodologies are included. In the introduction more general topics of brick stamps are discussed, in which the personal research and opinions of the author are detailed (Brandl 1999: 1-40). The hypothesis that legions in the north-western provinces brought their dies from one place to another is investigated. Previous scholars suggested that the stamps of legions XIII Gemina and XIV Gemina were successively chronologically related at several of their garrisons (Chapter 1, section 1.3.1). There is some evidence for this: for example, the use of similar types from the 11th legion (LEG XI CPF) could be followed from Windisch/Vindonissa to Szöny/Brigetio to Silistra/Durostorum. With the 14th legion similar types were observed from Mainz/Mogontiacum and Carnuntum/ Deutsch Altenburg (Brandl 1999: 21-25). However, after an examination of stamp types from most western legions, Brandl suggests that the custom of bringing dies from one place to another appears to have been rare. There is not enough evidence for any other legion to prove that they used the same dies in two different locations. If it was custom to do so for any, the material of the dies would have been rather resistant and could not have been wood or clay based (Brandl 1999: 21-25). However, it is likely that, as with most observations on Roman brick stamps, there was no uniform custom. For a more detailed discussion of the question whether dies were brought from one garrison to the next, see Chapter 1, section 1.3.1.

FIGURE 64 EISGRUBGRUPPE TYPE 1 (DOLATA 2000D: PLATE 1) Although a lot of the research introduced is not original, it is the only study encountered during the research for this thesis, which attempts to produce an overall view on the situation of the military brick stamp research in any area of the Roman Empire. Dolata, whose new approach of analysing the fabric of some of the Upper German bricks is further explained below under 12.2.7, also compiled a study of a museum collection which is entitled ‘Römische Ziegelstempel aus Mainz. Chronologisches und baugeschichtliches Quellenmaterial aus Provinzhauptstadt und Legionsstempel (PhD thesis 2000, unpublished). He does not merely list stamps but also talks about the background history of the units and attempts to verify theories by fabric analysis (see below).

2.2.7 Studies on the petrology of stamps Petrological studies on brickstamps are not very common in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. One of the few archaeologists from the German school of research, who uses archaeometric and petrological investigations on Roman bricks is Dolata. Unlike the British research, where petrological studies are common, but seldom carried out in conjunction with epigraphy and archaeological context, he often combines all three methods (Dolata 1994a; 1999a; 1998a; 1998b; 1999b; 2000a; 2000b; 2000c).

Brandl’s study is more than a list of brick stamps, seen in older publications on collections, and therefore deserves a special status amongst the articles in this category.

Dolata analyses used are known to modern brick producers for the classification of their products. He states that it was especially important to compare the different methodologies on brick stamps, including palaeographical comparison and epigraphy with archaeological context and petrological investigations (Dolata 2000b; 126). Dolata uses petrological analyses mainly to verify hypotheses based on other methodologies, such as epigraphy and archaeological context: An example of such an investigation is that of two brickstamps from Mainz, which belong to the socalled ‘Eisgrubgruppe’ of LEGIO XXII PRIMIGENIA ANTONINIANA stamps from the end of the second or beginning of the third century AD (Dolata 1998a: 93). The so-called ‘Eisgrubgruppe’, named after a location in Mainz,

FIGURE 63 EISGRUBGRUPPE TYPE 5 (DOLATA 2000D: PLATE 1) 68

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

contains eight stamp types. As is known, Legio XXII was garrisoned in Mainz. Type 1 (Fig. 63) displays the title Antoniniana, which can be used for dating, whereas Type 5 (Fig. 64) only has the number of the legion without any titles. Both stamp types are conventionally addressed as belonging to the same group. The hypothesis is that they are contemporary, meaning that they were produced in the same brickworks, which was situated in Gross-Krotzenburg-am Main, by the same tilers and in the same period, during the reign of Caracalla (AD198 / 211-217), perhaps around AD 213 (for a more recent dating of the Antoniniana title see Chapter 12, page 246) (Dolata 1998a: 94). The petrological methodology used on over 70 bricks in question is a chemical investigation of the brick material. The process included refiring of the brick material. These analyses showed, that the different colours on the bricks were due to different firing temperatures in all cases, and not due to different clays, which verifies the hypothesis that bricks were from the same production, and are contemporary (Dolata 1998a: 95). Dolata is presently involved in a programme, which aims at a petrological analysis for most of the stamped brick material for Upper Germany.

Gemina Martia Victrix, which, was garrisoned in Vienna/ Vindobona between AD 101 and 114. From AD 114 it was stationed in Altenburg/Carnuntum. They are questioning if the approximately 500 bricks were produced in the period in which the unit was in Vindobona, or if they were delivered to the latter location from Carnuntum. They do not exclude the possibility that both happened and if so, would like to determine the relationships between the brick material from the two locations and the types. Furthermore, the researchers aim to establish, if Legio XIV indeed produced bricks for Vindobona when it was already permanently in Carnuntum, whether they used local clay from Carnuntum, or if they used the clay area near Vindobona (the legionary tilery excavated at Hernals/ Vienna). On the other hand, bricks stamped by Legio X Gemina, which was permanently garrisoned in Vindobona from AD 114, have been found in Carnuntum. The same questions apply, aided by the fact that this unit was garrisoned in Carnuntum for a short period between the years AD 62 and 68.9 Kastler, working on the brick material from Carnuntum has added the following questions: 1.

What is the typical fabric of the Carnuntum material, and is it possible that there are more than one fabric?

2.

Type Legio X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) (Neumann, 1973, type 68) appears in Musov/Czech Republic and is dated to the late second or third century AD. Was this type produced in Vindobona or Carnuntum?

3.

Were the most common brick stamp types of legions XIV and XV from Carnuntum produced in Carnuntum, Vindobona, or both locations?

4.

Where do the brick stamps found in locations of the Czech Republic stamped with the names of legions from Carnuntum originate? Were they produced locally, in Carnuntum, or Vindobona?

5.

Where were bricks stamped with the names of legions I Adiutrix and XXX Ulpia Victrix, which were not stationed in Carnuntum but Budapest/ Aquincum and Szöny/Brigetio produced?

6.

Where was the clay area for Carnuntum?

Similar analyses were also performed on the stamps of Legio VIII in Strasbourg showed that the bulk of the stamps from this legion carried the same geochemical profile with some exceptions, and therefore came from the same clay area. There is a total of 155 analyses of stamps from Legio VIII. Petrological analysis slightly modified the picture of Legio VIII’s stamp production: the fabric investigation showed that apart from the main brickworks at Strasbourg-Königshofen, there were two further centres of brick production at Rheinzabern and Frankfurt am MainNied (Dolata 2000c: 196). This proves that petrological analysis can be used to verify or falsify hypotheses based on other methodologies: according to archaeological context and palaeographic comparison one has so far assumed that all the stamps of Legio VIII were produced at Strasbourg-Königshofen and came to other areas in Upper Germany from there. Kritsotakis is responsible for the analysis of brick fabric in Strasbourg and Mirebeau. He shows that the bricks from Strasbourg, Mirebeau and Nied came from independent clay areas and that their production centres were not connected. This article will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8, since it is part of a French publication (Kritsotakis 1995: 301-303). Dolata’s article (Dolata 2000c: 196) was based on this research. Petrological analysis remains to be done for the most of the bricks stamps in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and has so far been neglected by most scholars.

The last question is based on the fact that no clay area for this town and legionary centre has been located so far.10

A team of archaeologists under Mosser and Gugl in Vienna are currently investigating the fabrics of bricks from the city. Their main focus is the bricks stamped by Legio XIV

9. These questions were formulated in a conversation with M. Mosser, the results of which still remain to be published. 10. As stated by M. Mosser in June 2002.

69

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

paper at the 19th Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Pécs in September 2003: Differences in fabrics used by private and military brick makers could be attested in Vienna. It is likely that the clay area for the military brick factories of Vienna was situated in the area of the ‘Wiener Becken’. The clay area for the military bricks of Carnuntum is yet to be identified. Based on the evidence of fabric types from Vindobona and Carnuntum, it is likely that the Legio XIV bricks found at Vindobona were manufactured there and not delivered from Carnuntum. Private tileries used different clay areas, and the same probably applies to Carnuntum. It was also stated that was is likely that the bricks of private entrepreneurs were exported. There is also a noticeable difference between the fabrics of the legionary stamps and auxiliary stamps at Vienna. So far, there appears to be only one stamp type where there is evidence that the brick fabric was changed during the use of this stamp die. The results presented at the Congress will be published shortly as part of the Congress Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies.11

and suggest chronologies. If no archaeological context is known for one site, it might be there for another one, which has the same stamp types. The German, Austrian and Swiss school of research is distinguished by a variety of categories. At first, the types were considered which serve best to grasp the overall situation concerning Roman brick stamps in the provinces in question. Articles listing different stamps from a private collection are likely to have a different aim, than those examining questions of troop locations or histories. Due to their diversity it is worth investigating, which type of publications provide optimal information of brick stamps, and which are primarily aimed at dating them. Overviews or studies on troop dispositions and military history usually attempt to date brick stamps and use them as evidence of history. This can work well, especially if other archaeological evidence, such as archaeological context or dates of other finds is used. Conversely, they are sometimes unconvincing because they usually only concentrate on certain aspects of the history of a location or unit and tend to take a lot of facts from other publications, often without investigating their scientific value. Strobel’s article on the changeover from Legio XIV Gemina to XXII Primigenia in Mainz is well researched but uses too many hypotheses, presented as facts, which come from other sources. The study is quite confusing because the author often fails to specify details about certain dates. Baatz’s article on the fort of Stockstadt, although listed amongst publications on troop location due to its content here, is not very different to his works which were listed under the category of brick stamps from an area. Baatz established a chronology on all brick stamps from the limes forts of Upper Germany, based on both archaeological context and epigraphy. This works well, if one combines all the publications. Generally articles on troop dispositions and military history contribute to research on brick stamps, because they use them as evidence of other research, once the right methodologies have been used.

In comparison to Neumann (1973) whose list of brick stamps from Vindobona has been discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this chapter this study offers a more complex analysis of some of the brick material from Vindobona, and is attempting to answer questions which have previously not been regarded as important. The outcome of this study and its publication will be interesting in its contribution to the building and brick production history of the units in both locations. 2.3 Conclusion It is rather difficult to comment on the methodologies of brick stamp research in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, because, as we have seen, in the above review of articles there are a great variety of sites, as much as of different kinds of literature on the matter. The most noticeable feature of brickstamps from these provinces is that there are much more of them, than in any other area within the former Roman Empire. In a lot of cases, this makes it easier to apply dates, simply because of the statistical value of large numbers in a sample. Furthermore, the Rhineland, more than any other area within the former Roman Empire, reveals the phenomenon of brick trade between the different units, which did not happen to such an extent in other provinces. On the one hand, this makes it more difficult to establish the origin of material from one place, but on the other hand, the fact that the same types appear in more than one place, makes it is easier to compare types

Lists of brick stamps from one location aid our understanding of brick stamps from an area once we can be certain that all stamp types have been listed and exact numbers are given. The bulk of publications from our provinces are local lists. They generally give a good overview on the brick stamps from an area, but can sometimes be problematic if questionable methodologies are used. As mentioned before, most scholars from Germany, Austria and Switzerland date brick stamps. Local lists also vary in size: Spitzlberger’s list of brick stamps from Raetia is the only publication, which attempted to catalogue all brick stamps from a province (see section 2.2.2). However, even this list only covered a part of Raetia because similar studies had been

11. The paper entitled ‘Archaeometrical and archaeological research on stamped tiles from the Carnuntum and Vindobona region (Austria)’ was delivered at the 19th Congress of Roman Studies in Pécs in September 2003 and will be published in the Proceedings of this Congress.

70

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN GERMANY, AUSTRIA AND SWITZERLAND

conducted for Swiss Raetia, although they still remain to be performed for Austria (Spitzlberger 1968: 76). What most of the local lists discussed here have in common is the desire to catalogue all stamp types into some sort of chronology. Especially Baatz in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.3, Kaiser and Spitzlberger in section 2.2.2, but also Paar and Rüger, discussed under 2.2.1, are eager to establish chronologies for their areas. Other articles, such as Hanel on Vetera (section 2.2.2) chose other aspects of brick stamp research as more important. Hanel deals with a large variety of types, and investigates the spatial differentiation both of the two main types of the two legions in the fortress and of the stamp types within the two main groups. This is a new approach, less intent on submitting each type into a chronology, which is, as Hanel, and also Fuchs and Margueron recognise not always possible. Hanel’s study of spatial differentiation at Vetera certainly contributes a lot more to an archaeological discussion than the often very rigid chronologies suggested by his predecessors Baatz or Spitzlberger, who wrote nearly thirty years ago. A general problem with local lists, as illustrated in this chapter, is the fact that they usually do not pay too much attention to the stamps of the same unit from a different location. In spite of the fact that the volume of material from Germany is large, it has to be questioned whether it may not be good to attempt more inclusive studies, talking about those cases where a unit left stamps (and often indeed the same types) in more than one location. It has become clear from this chapter that either the bricks or perhaps detachments of units travelled in Germany; until more petrological analyses are performed it will be impossible to tell which scenario best applies.

been done with the material. However, one has to consider that the stamps were published in the 1960s. Fuchs and Margueron published the stamps from Avenches much more recently, and recognised the limits of brick stamp dating, especially since the numbers of stamps are very small. The phenomenon of the military bricks in public buildings, which is their most interesting feature, will be discussed in Chapters 12, section 12.2.2 and 13. Articles on brick stamps from certain buildings are similar to local lists, at least in this study, because the sole article in this category deals with stamps from a building where no other stamps appear to have been found elsewhere in the fort; i.e. Baatz’s publication on the stamps from the baths at Echzell. It follows the theme of Baatz’s other publications, using the same chronologies and methodology. The author does raise the subject of secondary use and believes it to be a rare phenomenon, which is questionable given the fact that most other articles cited in this chapter, and indeed thesis, have detected reuse in varying levels. The fact that the baths from Stockstadt do not appear to have used reused bricks does not mean that it can be concluded that it never happened elsewhere. Baatz does, however, identify a lot of the bricks, which were used secondarily from his own excavations and is able to classify them. It is interesting that Spitzlberger and Baatz, who are both responsible for creating chronologies for the brick stamps of their respective areas (Raetia and the Upper German limes in the 1960s), reached totally different conclusions on the period of time involved to create a large variety of types. Spitzlberger claims that the material from Raetia (or rather the part of Raetia he catalogued) is so diverse because it was produced over many years (Spitzlberger 1968: 121). Baatz, conversely, dealing with a large number of types from Upper Germany, dated them all to a very short period of time. As there is some archaeological context which attests to a short and a long occupation in either case, and brick stamp chronologies are very arbitrary, the unpredictability of Roman brick stamps, in their design, variety of types, and texts is demonstrated.

Not all articles which date brick stamps use the same methodologies. Generally it is safe to use archaeological context together with palaeographic comparison if the possibility of secondary use of bricks is considered, which was done by the bulk of authors discussed here. Wesch-Klein dates the bricks from her excavation by archaeological context only, and is able to name the bricks which were used for the second time, thus using valid methodology. Kaiser establishes a very exact chronology and typology of stamps from Bonn, using both methods and aided by the fact that the numbers of stamped bricks from Bonn are very large. Spitzlberger’s study is very thorough, but, as mentioned above, sometimes too inflexible in using chronologies, when it is not always clear why certain stamp types are dated to a certain period. Neumann’s study on the stamps from Vienna displays problematic methodologies: where archaeological context is used, it is not very clear, if it is known to him at all. His view on secondary use, which the author cannot share, is that bricks which were reused are found in large quantities. There are more than 1000 stamps from Vienna/Vindobona, and a lot more could have

As mentioned in the discussion, articles on collections of brick stamps have little value if they do not include some information about similar or different stamp types from a unit in question, found and published elsewhere. Two of the examples listed here have failed to do so. Neither are recent publications. If collections of stamps are to be published in this era, it is important that cross-references to similar stamps and stamp types are included. If stamps and types of the unit in question can be dated or have been dated successfully this has to be mentioned. This is the case in the third study introduced here by Brandl (1999). Not only does Brandl talk about a large number of stamps 71

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

from a collection, but also brings them into context with other brick stamps from the same units and creates a review of all recent research on military brick stamps in the north-western provinces.

In conclusion, different approaches on the Roman military brick stamps in Germany, Austria and Switzerland illuminate their different aspects, and reach different results. To gain a good overall view of stamps of an area, and being able to use them for dating and other information, papers on troop dispositions and local lists are most helpful. Other types of articles, also serve purposes of their own, but often contribute little to overall understanding of Roman military brick stamps. Generally, the research of Germany, Austria and Switzerland tends to exhaust the possibilities of establishing dates, and often insists on rigid chronologies, forgetting other aspects of brick stamp research. However, more recent scholars have moved away from this tendency, recognising the limitations of dating, and acknowledging that other investigations can be more relevant.

Petrological experiments on brick stamps are very rare in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Dolata, Mosser and Kritsotakis are amongst some new scholars, who have started to use fabric analysis in connection with other brick stamp methodologies. They use petrology to verify or falsify hypotheses suggested by epigraphy and archaeological context. A combination of methodologies in this manner is extremely rare, in any of the former Roman provinces. British scholars often use petrology but not epigraphy. Hopefully, future brick stamp research will combine methods.

72

CHAPTER 3

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

3.1 Introduction

assume that the bricks were traded along the river Rhine, as in other parts of Germania Inferior. As explained above, the collection of stamped brick types is very similar to the German material because there are stamps from the same units. Therefore, it is worth determining if there are any differences in the way the scholars from the Netherlands have treated their material.

The Netherlands were part of the Roman province Germania Inferior, the history of which has been discussed in detail in the last chapter. The most important Lower Rhine fortress in the territory of the modern Netherlands was at Nijmegen/Noviomagus. Like all the other fortresses on the Lower Rhine, it faced the river. Its main units of garrison were Legio X Gemina and detachments of other legions, with some other legions in between for a limited period of time. Auxiliary forts accompanied the fortress along the Rhine. Most of the articles discussed here deal with Nijmegen apart from Haalebos’ and Franzen’s description of brick stamps from the auxiliary forts of Woerden (Haalebos 1986: 169-173) and Alphen an der Rijn (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121-141). The legionary brick works for Nijmegen were at Holdeurn (Holwerda & Braat 1946) (Fig. 65).

The article used as a base for many other studies on brick stamp types from the Netherlands is Holwerda’s and Braat’s publication on the Holdeurn workshop (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 1-67). This article can be counted amongst the pioneer articles on military brick stamps, since most Dutch and some German scholars base their work upon it. Holwerda and Braat divided the Holdeurn stamps into different types, which most other scholars have continued to use. Obviously, many of the types from the tilery at Holdeurn and the legionary fortress at Nijmegen are similar. Holwerda and Braat mainly base their dates on the titles on the stamps. They date the different ovens excavated at Holdeurn using the stamps found in them: both pottery and brick stamps suggest a Flavian date for the first constructions within the Holdeurn complex (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 5). However, most of the ovens excavated date from the end of the second century AD: The walls of five of the ovens contain hundreds of bricks stamped with the names of the exercitus Germaniae Inferioris (EX GER INF), its detachment (VEX EX GER), Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix, which was garrisoned in Vetera/Xanten from AD 119 and Legio I Minervia which was garrisoned in Bonn from AD 83 to at least AD 295 (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 6). The small pottery oven A also had some date stamps naming a certain Didius Julianus additionally to 29 with the name of a Iunius Macr(--) or Macer. Holwerda and Braat regard these names as those of consulares legati Augusti pro praetore of Lower Germany around AD 175 (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 7). More recently, Eck, Haalebos and Franzen recognised Didius Iulianus as a possible governor of Lower Germany some time between AD 180 and 185 (Eck 1985: 184-186; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). This is based on a new inscription found shortly before Eck’s 1985 publication, which testifies that Didius Iulianus was still in Lower Germany in AD 182, and probably also in AD 184/185 (Eck 1985: 185). Furthermore, Eck argues that Iunius Macr(--) or Macer

3.2 Discussion The types of brick stamps and units used in the buildings at Nijmegen are not necessarily the same as those found at Holdeurn, which is why Dutch archaeologists interpret some of the bricks produced at the workshop as having been destined for all Lower German forts, rather than just Nijmegen. For a discussion of the production of the tegularia Transrhenana and others see below. Unfortunately, there is little contact between the Dutch and the German research on the matter, which makes it difficult to trace types of stamps crossing the borders of the modern countries. While the Dutch school believes that the tegularia Tranrhenana produced bricks for all other units as a centralised form of production at Holdeurn, the German school, with the exception of a recent article by Hanel (2002: 293-296), never discusses this view (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262; Böckling 1978: 115-116; Hanel 1998: 409-410). This is typical of the different types of schools of research, which do not tend to influence each other. Otherwise, the school of research in the Netherlands generally asks similar questions to the German one, partly due to the similarity of material. Nijmegen has produced over 600 stamped bricks, and since it was situated on the Rhine, one can 73

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bingen Koblenz Sinzing Bonn Cologne Köln-Feldkassel Neuss? Krefeld-Gellep Moers-Asberg Ginderich Büderich Xanten-Fürstenberg

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Xanten Haldern Altkalkar Kleve Montferland Kranenburg Hochstrasse Berg en Dal? Holdeurn Nijmegen Vechten

FIGURE 65 MAP OF LOWER GERMANY (BRANDL 1999: 203-204) must have been governor shortly before or shortly after Didius Julianus. Since no other inscriptions apart from the brick stamps commemorate this governor, no other conclusion is possible (Eck 1985: 182-183).

Holwerda and Braat suggest that two of the ovens, H and I were probably those of Legio X Gemina, which was garrisoned at Nijmegen in the Flavian period, since a few bricks with its name were found in buildings near them. 74

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

Firma lamps from these ovens date to the years between AD 70 and 100 (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 7). Oven G has both, EX GER INF stamps and stamps of Legio XXX Ulpia Traiana (LEG XXX VV). As a lot of stamps of this legion carry the title Antoniniana, Holwerda and Braat conclude that this oven must have been used during the reign of Caracalla. These authors say that the title never appears on stamps of this legion from Xanten (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 9). However, it is now known that the title was occasionally used previously (Grimes 1930: 142 and Lörincz 1982: 142-144), so this dating cannot be considered as secure any longer (see Chapter 12, page 246). Nevertheless, Holwerda and Braat produced an admirable study in which they show tables of stamp types that indicate the number in specific buildings and ovens.

Furthermore, Holwerda and Braat describe bricks of Legio X with the title pia fidelis Domitiana in the foundations of the Holdeurn buildings in area II, which point to the period between AD 89 and 96 since pia fidelis was awarded in AD 89 and Domitiana was not used any more after the damnatio memoriae of Domitian in AD 96. The material predominantly found in the roofs consisted of imbrices that they date to AD 170 in the foundations leading them to conclude that the roof was built or rebuilt in that time (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 20). Holwerda and Braat attempt a detailed typological study of the brick stamps found at Holdeurn and they use this to date the different ovens and buildings in the tilery. Their typological framework is still used by Dutch scholars. There are some problems with their study, the most pressing of which is that they do not consider the possibility that bricks might have been reused. Of course, it has to be questioned if reuse was very likely in a place where brick and tile were so readily available. However, the fact that it might have happened occasionally raises some doubt about some of the dates of Holwerda and Braat. Also, it is now known that the Antoniniana title was occasionally used earlier than the reign of Septimius Severus (Lörincz 1982: 142-144; Grimes 1930: 142). Therefore, the dating of Holdeurn based on this title might be too late. Nevertheless, dates are based on titles that are generally secure and attested in other inscriptions. Holwerda and Braat have recognised the fact that typological studies of letter types cannot be safely recommended for dating Roman military brick stamps. As a result, their dates can generally be accepted. There follows a listing of more modern articles by the Dutch school of research under the usual categories:

Oven A, as mentioned above, produced stamps with the name of Didius Iulianus , which the Holwerda and Braat believe to be a definite sign of the fact that they were produced after AD 180 (although more recent scholars, as explained above, are more careful with this date). They concede that there are many different types of stamps with this name but conclude that they must be contemporary. The possibility of reuse is not considered. Oven B is built on to Oven A, thus it cannot be older. Holwerda and Braat suggest that this Oven B has a building date from AD 170 to 180 AD. Oven C is earlier than Oven B, according to Holwerda and Braat it dates to before AD 170. The three ovens shared praefurnia (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 10). Oven D has similar stamp types as Oven C, which is why they believe that it was built shortly after C. Oven E also has comparable material including the Antoniniana stamps of Legio XXX. Therefore, they date it between AD 180 and 235, which is when the use of the title ended (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 13). It is not clear when Oven F was built as the stamp types found in it allow no conclusion concerning possible dates (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 14). Holwerda and Braat are careful to suggest that letter forms can be used to date single stamp types (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 14-15).

3.2.1 Overviews or histories of troop dispositions In 1967 J. E. Bogaers wrote an article about the garrison troops of Nijmegen in the second century AD (Bogaers 1967: 54-76). This study could also be counted amongst a category of articles, which discuss bricks of units in a certain period of time but since it also deals with troop locations, it will be considered under this, more important, aspect. As mentioned before, the borders between the different categories are not always clearly defined.

The building materials of Oven J included many exercitus Germaniae Inferioris and Didius Iulianus stamps. Because of this they propose that it might have been erected shortly after AD 180. Also, it contained two stamps of Legio XXX, which, according to them, date to the early period of this legion in Xanten, together with a vexillatio Britannica stamp, which also fits the period (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 17). Holwerda and Braat suggest the following dates for the ovens: The ovens B, C, D, E and F might have been built as a unit. The first four were probably used around AD 180, the others were taken into use more slowly. F was also built later and was used together with the others in the first quarter of the third century AD (Holwerda & Braat 1946: 19).

Because of various inscriptions-brick stamps and others, it had been assumed long before Bogaers’ study that Legio X Gemina was in Nijmegen or in its vicinity. The location of the fortress was discovered in 1916 in the area of the modern Hunerberg. Until the period of the Second World War, Nijmegen was only known as the location of Legio X Gemina. The legion remained there from around AD 71 75

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

to 104 (Bogaers 1967: 56). However, Bogaers studied the possibility of activities of Legio II Adiutrix there. In his report about the Batavian revolt Tacitus (Historiae V 20) it is stated that in September of AD 70 the camp of Legio II (Adiutrix) was situated in Batavodurum. According to the information of Tacitus, it is most likely that this place was somewhere between Arenacium, which is possibly modern Rindern and Grinnes, which was Rossum aan der Waal. Parts of Legio X were stationed in Arenacium. According to Bogaers the fort is too small for the entire force (Bogaers 1967: 52).

Bogaers suggests that the TRA stamps, which belonged to the tegularia Transrhenana, and those stamps of legions XV Primigenia, VI Victrix and XXII Primigenia were used in the first buildings of the third period at Nijmegen, before the tilery at Holdeurn had been started or when it was still in its beginnings, because these bricks were delivered from units not situated at Nijmegen (Bogaers 1967: 61). Legio X Gemina left for Budapest/Aquincum around AD 104 (Bogaers 1967: 61). Before the middle of the twentieth century it was always assumed that the Nijmegen fortress had been left derelict and abandoned for a period of time. This view is criticised by Brunsting and Steures (1995: 323-329), who suggest that until the end of the second century AD detachments continued to occupy the fortress of Nijmegen based on some brick and mortaria stamps found there.

The two early first century AD timber phases at Nijmegen have produced very few finds, and it is not clear if the area was inhabited or not. Bogaers suggests that two cremation burials from the Neronian period could be connected to activities of Legio II Adiutrix during its short stay at Batavodurum between AD 70 and 71, and that they were definitely linked with Legio X Gemina in its early stay at Nijmegen (Bogaers 1967: 60). These phases did not produce any bricks, stamped or unstamped.

Some brick stamps of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix proved to be of great importance for dating the end of the military occupation at Nijmegen. This unit arrived in Lower Germany in AD 120 and was garrisoned in Xanten/Vetera II. Its stamps at Nijmegen have the same form as those on the bricks, which were used at Holdeurn around AD 175. Bogaers and others accept that the brick works were not only used in the period of Legio X Gemina but also later, when the exercitus Germanicus Inferior started to produce tiles for constructions built to protect the Lower German limes against threats from across the Rhine. Bogaers dates these activities to around AD 175 when Iunius Macer/ Macrinus and Didius Iulianus were in charge of Lower Germany (Bogaers 1967: 62). For a more recent dating for the governship of Didius Iulianus see Chapter 12, page 151. Stamps of the Exercitus Germanicus Inferior were found at the Holdeurn depots but not within the territory of the fortress of Nijmegen, which is situated 4.5 kilometres north-west of the brick works.

A third phase at Nijmegen is mainly characterised by stone buildings. Between this period and the previous, one can clearly distinguish a level of burning. The third phase appears to have lasted a longer period of time. There are a lot of new buildings and restorations connected with the numerous brick stamps of military units, which are mainly those of Legio X Gemina. Bogaers dates those stamps displaying Legio X Gemina to between AD 71 and 89 or 104), those stamped Legio X Gemina Pia Fidelis Domitiana to AD 89 to 96 and those with Legio X Gemina Pia Fidelis to AD 96 to 104 (Bogaers 1967: 60). This dating goes back to the titles, whereby Bogaers recognised that the legion might have omitted some of those already acquired on the stamps; by allowing that those only displaying LEGIO may date as late as AD 104. He suggests that the beginning of this third period began with the reign of Domitian in AD 85 (Bogaers 1967: 60). It is not quite clear, as some of the brick stamps could date as early as AD 71.

Several stone inscriptions of Legio X Gemina are known from Nijmegen but none of any other units after the legion left in AD 104. The brick stamps found within the fortress area are the only finds, which can help to identify units which were garrisoned in that fort. vex(illatio) Brit(annica) stamps were found in the fortress of Nijmegen and at the brick works at Holdeurn, where they were probably produced. Two of the stamps were also found in Ulpia Noviomagus, which is the civilian settlement connected with Nijmegen. Another one was excavated on the territory of the fort at Vechten/Fectio. Archaeological context has proven that both the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) stamps and the ones of Legio XXX belong to the last period of the fortress (Bogaers 1967: 63). Bogaers states that since the stamps of the vexillatio Britannica could not possibly date before AD 120 and excavations of the fort have shown that

The area of the fortress also produced some bricks stamped Legio XV Primigenia, which disappeared after AD 70; some bricks stamped TRA, which Bogaers also dates to the period before AD 70; and some stamps of Legio VI Victrix from Neuss/Novaesium before it moved to Xanten/Vetera II, where it was garrisoned between AD 71 and AD 96-100. Bogaers believes that the latter stamps all derived from the period between AD 71 and 89 (Bogaers 1967: 60-61). There are some stamps of Legio XXII Primigenia, which are proposed to belong to the period before AD 89 (Bogaers 1967: 61). The unit was in Vetera between AD 71 and 92/93, or at the latest AD 96 (Bogaers 1967: 61). 76

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

there is no gap in the occupation of the fortress between around AD 104 and 120, the brick stamps probably date between the departure of Legio X Gemina and AD 120. He observes that some of the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) stamps are stylistically similar to some of Legio X but does not include illustrations. He adds further that he believes that the two units were at the fortress at the same time (Bogaers 1967: 62). Unfortunately, he does not go into detail about the stamps’ design and it is not very clear where these stylistic similarities would originate, if the two units never shared kilns. Stamping habits were different from unit to unit and two units usually needed a communal workshop for at least a short time to influence each other’s styles. Bogaers’ hypothesis is not very convincing.

since different forms, nominative, genitive, or even dative appear equally on brick stamps and because they are usually abbreviated it is not possible to determine which is the intended one. A brief review of research about the detachment will be provided to illuminate the meaning of those stamps: Bogaers suggests, following CIL XIII 6, 131, that the unit was one of those founded by Antoninus Pius around AD 142, containing inhabitants of Britain, which were only brought under Roman rule in the Flavian period or later (Bogaers 1967: 64). Xanten and Vechten produced some stamps of a Cohors II Brittonum (milliaria equitata) that also date to the Flavian period (Bogaers 1967: 64). As mentioned previously, Birley prefers the expansion vex(illatio) Brit(annica). This would characterise a detachment, which consisted of units garrisoned in Britain, rather than men of British origin (E. Birley 1961: 22). According to this, the detachment could have consisted of legionary and auxiliary soldiers. If Birley’s hypothesis is correct the soldiers in the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) could have been men of legions II Augusta in Caerleon/Isca, XX Valeria Victrix in Chester/Deva and VI Victrix in York/ Eboracum or any of the British auxiliary units. Bogaers states that it is not clear why after the departure of Legio X a detachment from Britain was sent to Nijmegen. However, it is observed that it was not unusual if one province sent a detachment of a legion to another one, that all of the legions of the first would donate men for this detachment (Bogaers 1967: 66). He proposes that the second interpretation, i.e. that this detachment consisted of soldiers of units that were garrisoned in Britain, is more likely. There is an inscription found at Altenburg/Carnuntum, which was part of Upper Pannonia with the following text: T(itus) Flavius Crescens, equ(es) al(a)e Tam(pianae) vex. Brit. It commemorates a man who came from Durocor(torum) Rem(orum) or modern Reims and who died aged 30 after 15 years service. In this case VEX BRIT most likely stands for vexillatio Britannica. T. Flavius Crescens was an equestrian soldier of Ala (I Pannoniorum) Tampiana and also belonged to the army of Britain, of which a detachment was sent to the Danube for a special command (Bogaers 1967: 66). It is, therefore, likely, as Bogaers hypothesises, that Nijmegen’s vexillatio Britannica consisted of auxiliary soldiers, who were normally garrisoned in Britain. There is a unit of this name, which returned to Britain from Pannonia at the

The fragment of a tegula stamped with the name of Legio IX Hispana and mortarium fragment stamped with this legion’s name created quite a surprise at the time of Bogaers’ article. It is now known that the legion spent some time in Nijmegen. At the time of the article it was assumed that the legion disappeared around AD 107/108 from the list of Roman legions. More recent research about the legion’s whereabouts in the second century AD will be discussed in Chapter 9, section 9.5. Since 1945 over 100 stamps of the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) were found. Bogaers states that this is around 5% of the total of brick stamps from Nijmegen, and that the Legio X stamps contributed between 80 and 90% of the total number. This suggests that the numbers of brick stamps from Nijmegen are around 2000, although exact numbers are not given. A lot of the information about finds location and archaeological context was lost during the Second World War. Bogaers is certain, however, that the vex(illatio) Brit(tannica) stamps were found within the fortress territory (Fig. 66). There are five different types, all with raised letters. They appear on tegulae, lateres and brick pipes (Bogaers 1967: 64). The VEX BRIT on the stamps can be expanded in different ways: Bogaers suggests vex(illariorum) or vex(illationis) Brit(tonum), but adds that BRIT could also be an abbreviation of Britanniae, Britannorum, Britannicorum, Britannicae, Britannicianorum or Britannicianae (Bogaers 1967: 64). This author favours vex(illatio) Brit(annica) in the nominative form, as does E. Birley (1961: 22), but

FIGURE 66 VEX(ILLATIO) BRIT(ANNICA) FROM NIJMEGEN (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 327) 77

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 68 BRICK STAMPED LEG(IO) VIIII [HISPANA] FROM NIJMEGEN (BOGAERS 1967: 63) at Nijmegen these three stamps are also unusually broad. The Nijmegen stamps have more exact letters. It is likely, as suggested by Bogaers, that these three stamps date to a period, shortly before the legion’s departure to Nijmegen, where the stamping soldiers would have continued to cut the number as VIIII, and perhaps used the same dies as near Hadrian’s Wall.

FIGURE 67 BRICK STAMPS WITH LEGIO VIIII HISPANA FROM BRITAIN (BOGAERS 1967: 69) earliest in AD 101/102 and at the latest AD 122, as attested by inscriptions. Bogaers does not exclude the possibility that the VEX BRIT stamps name the same unit as the vexillatio Britannica on the inscription from Carnuntum. The detachment could have come to Nijmegen for some months or years after the departure of Legio X Gemina in AD 104. Another inscription from Lower Germany might name the same unit. It was found in Hemmen in Niederbetuwe/Netherlands and reads: Deae Vagdavercusti Simplicius Super, dec(urio) alae Vocontior(um) exercitus Britannici. The dedicator’s nomen gentile and the goddess Vagdavercustis probably indicate an origin from the Lower Rhine (Bogaers 1967: 67-68). The inscription can be dated at the earliest to the reign of Trajan. The already mentioned military diploma from AD 122 also names an Ala (Augusta) Vocontiorum (civium Romanorum). Bogaers suggests therefore that the vexillatio Britannica from Nijmegen consisted of at least one contingent of horsemen of different alae, whose place of origin was Britain (Bogaers 1967: 68). The unit is, however, not attested in Britain.

Bogaers does not believe that there was any connection between Legio IX Hispana and the vexillatio Britannica in Nijmegen and that the whole of Legio IX came to Nijmegen (Bogaers 1967: 72). Some relatively new questions about the military occupation of Nijmegen were addressed in this 1967 article. Nijmegen has produced large numbers of brick stamps. Especially in the case of Legio X Gemina, there is no doubt that the brick stamps testify the legion’s long presence. Sufficient brick stamps of the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) have also been produced to certify the unit’s stay. At the time of his publication, Legio IX Hispana only attested by a single stamp, but as with the stamps of the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) Bogaers uses other inscriptions, for his reconstruction of history. Other inscriptions which support his statements of troop locations are military diplomas, stone inscriptions and the mortaria stamp of Legio IX. Generally this methodology is convincing, because not only are epigraphic features and archaeological context combined but the evidence of other inscriptions are also used. Fabric analysis is only used for the mortarium stamp, but as explained before, it is extremely rare for the continental research to use this method on bricks. A few of the statements in this article are very hypothetical. Bogaers assumes that the cremation burials date to the Neronian period and that Legio II Adiutrix remained for a short period of time in that period but this remains to be proven. In another instance, which was discussed earlier it is stated that some stamps of Legio X and the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) are stylistically very similar, yet Bogaers does not believe that they shared a garrison. However, usually, when units produced similar types of stamps, this means that they shared brick works for a short period of time. It has to be questioned if they could have shared the brick works without sharing the fortress. Perhaps the detachment

Bogaers, furthermore, discusses the finds connected with Legio IX Hispana. As mentioned previously there is only one stamp of this legion (Fig. 68), which is larger than other stamps found in the Netherlands of former Germania Inferior (Bogaers 1967: 68). The stamps of this unit from Britain, from York/Eboracum and its vicinity, usually display the number IX with the letters I and X. Bogaers states that only three stamp types from there have the number written as VIIII like the one from Nijmegen and includes illustrations (Fig. 67).12 They were found in Carlisle/Luguvalium and Scalesceugh, which has produced a fragment and one complete example. Like that 12. Since Bogaers (1967: 54-76) two further types which spell VIIII were discovered. All the types are listed in RIB (II.4: 2462. 1-4; 16)

78

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

produced bricks there for a period of time for an increased demand of bricks for the fortress without ever being a garrison of Nijmegen. As is the case with many scholars, information on the numbers of stamps, origin of the finds and the definition of types is not provided. This is problematic. The chronology is explained well. In conclusion, Bogaers’ article is comparatively well based and researched and contributes substantially to our knowledge of troop history at Nijmegen in this time.

of canal A consists of tegulae that have very likely been used for a second time with stamps reading L(egio) X G(emina) and L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis), giving a terminus post quem for the year AD 88 (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106). In the walls and fundaments, which belong to period 5, large numbers of Legio X bricks were found. Most bricks are either stamped L(egio) X G(emina), L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana) or L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis). Bogaers and Haalebos conclude that the stone buildings of this fifth period were built after AD 88 (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106).

In 1977 Bogaers and Haalebos (1977: 93-108) published another paper, which had previously also been presented at one of the Congresses of Roman Frontier Studies. Again, the paper discusses the brick stamp material from Nijmegen and includes some new brick stamps found during excavations. Some stamps of Legio X Gemina, both with and without the titles pia fidelis were found in the fifth phase of the fortress, which consisted of stone buildings. The bricks came from a drain (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 102). Bogaers and Haalebos discuss again the fact that it is common for brick stamps to omit titles. Legio X Gemina was amongst those legions in the Lower German army that remained loyal to Domitian when the governor of Lower Germany Lucius Antonius Saturninus attempted a rebellion against the emperor. All units in Lower Germany that showed loyalty, including the auxiliaries and the classis Germanica, were awarded the titles pia fidelis Domitiana. After the assassination and damnatio memoriae of Domitian in AD 96 the last name was omitted. Most other inscriptions which do not have pia fidelis Domitiana can be dated to before AD 89 and those that do to between AD 89 and 96. However, this is not necessarily the case with brick stamps, which often fail to mention the full titles of their unit. One cannot take the omission of a title as a criterion for dating (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 105), although the converse is true, an existing title is a good criterion for dating. For a more detailed discussion of this problem see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. For the stamps of Legio X Gemina this means the following: those stamped L(egio) X G(emina) can date from any time between AD 71 and 104, those with L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana) between AD 89 and 96 and those with L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) between AD 89 and 104 (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106).

Pottery of the fourth period, together with the brick stamps from the two channels and the floors and walls from the fifth period, point to the fact that the latest phase of building took place during the late Flavian period, after AD 88. Archaeological context does not allow Bogaers and Haalebos to determine if this great building program was begun before or after AD 96. Some inscriptions, however, which were dedications from the Lower German army and the auxiliaries there, indicate that it was likely to have happened in the last years of Legio X Gemina’s stay in Nijmegen (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106). Another argument used by Haalebos and Bogaers supporting that the last building activity in those years, are the 120 brick stamps of the vex(illatio) Brit(annica), which were already mentioned in the discussion of Bogaers’ previous article. They suggest that the building was not finished when the vexillatio Britannica moved into the fortress, evacuated by Legio X Gemina (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106-107). Bogaers and Haalebos think that those two units never stayed at the fortress simultaneously. However, as mentioned before, Bogaers lists indicates that there are similar types of stamps of Legio X and vex(illatio) Brit(annica) (Fig. 66; 69-71; 73), and this makes a chronologically different stay of the two units somewhat doubtful. Bogaers and Haalebos cite a second fragment of a Legio IX Hispana stamp in this article, which increases the testimony of this unit from Nijmegen to two brick stamps and one mortarium. They suggest that because of this small number there was no building in the fortress at the time this legion arrived and propose that the legion was not at full strength because the fortress was not large enough to house a full legion (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 107-107). Similarly, they state that the few stamps of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix, the exercitus Germanicus Inferior and of detachments of these units are not enough to determine larger building activity of these units in the fortress. They propose that between AD 120 and 175 only repairs took place (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 108).

The newly found tegulae fragments in the drain of Phase 5 were clearly reused. Bogaers and Haalebos do not state their exact numbers, but say that there were two rows of roofing tiles. They come in three different types, one displaying L(egio) X G(emina) and two L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana). They suggest that the trench B was filled some time between AD 89 and 96, because it consists of complete tegulae, which do not give the impression that they were reused. The floor

The authors do not always mention the exact numbers of brick stamps. Some of them can be deduced from Bogaers 79

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 69 BRICKS OF LEGIO X GEMINA STAMPED L X G FROM NIJMEGEN (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 324)

FIGURE 70 TYPES OF L X G STAMPS FROM NIJMEGEN WITH ANSAE (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 324)

FIGURE 71 TYPES OF L X G WITH WREATHS (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 324)

FIGURE 72 L X G STAMPS WITH PERSONAL INITIALS FROM NIJMEGEN (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 325) 80

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

FIGURE 73 SOME STAMPS WITH THE LETTERS L X G BETWEEN WREATHS AND BRANCHES FROM NIJMEGEN (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 325)

previous article. Thirty-two brick stamps might not be enough to determine if Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix was in Nijmegen at all, unless they are attested by other inscriptions. It is true that on the other hand there are only two stamps of Legio IX and it is agreed that this unit was garrisoned at the fortress. However, it is also supported by a mortarium stamp, which makes its presence very likely. Brunsting and Steures (1995) state that the Legio XXX stamps from Holdeurn and Nijmegen are a type that does not appear in the legions garrison in Xanten/Vetera II. Therefore, Bogaers’ and Haalebos’ view that there must have been a detachment of this unit at Nijmegen is preferable. Furthermore, it is accepted that there was only a detachment of Legio IX, because the testimony for this legion in Nijmegen is rather small. Bogaers and Haalebos used different methodologies for dating: archaeological context, and titles. They also compare the styles of writing of the brick stamps and are aware of the possibility of secondary use and the limitations of title-dating. It is interesting to note that Bogaers, in his earlier article (1967: 54-76), does not pay much attention to the possibility of reuse.

So far the generally accepted view, suggested by Bogaers and others, is that Legio X Gemina was garrisoned in Nijmegen between AD 71 and 104, the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) around AD 104 to 121, Legio IX Hispana from around AD 122 to 130 and Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix from AD 130 onwards. It is generally believed that the military occupation of area ended around AD 175. Stamps of legions VI, XV and of the tegularia Transrhenana are supposed to have been used by Legio X Gemina, as it started its own production (Bogaers 1967). In their study Brunsting and Steures propose a shorter use of the legionary fortress. The vexillatio Britannica stayed in Nijmegen around AD 90, together with Legio X Gemina, and was commissioned to build the brick granaries, in which it used tubuli for ventilation, on whose bricks their name was stamped. This leaves an occupation gap between the years AD 104 and 121 (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323). They reconstruct the stone phase and the occupation of the legionary fortress as follows: previous wooden barracks, built in two phases from AD 71 onwards were demolished and burnt on the spot. This archaeological level has been mentioned already in the discussion of Bogaers article. According to Brunsting and Steures, building in stone and brick started immediately afterwards. Clay and pebble foundations were laid, to which all bricks, which broke during the transport were added. This building activity, in their view, took place in AD 89, because of two stamps displaying: L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) amongst the oldest bricks (Brunsting & Steures, 1995: 323). However, since the legion obtained these titles in AD 89, these stamps could date later; they could be from any year from AD 89 onwards; according to Brunsting and Steures, the oldest dies used were left-over bricks used by Legio X Gemina as it was starting its own brick production in the brick factories of Holdeurn. Those types addressed as the oldest stamps of the Tenth legion itself by Brunsting and Steures are rectangular stamped L(egio) X G(emina), and stamps with ansae and wreaths and the same text (Fig. 69-71), L(egio) X G(emina) with the personal initial of soldiers (Fig. 72) and some types of L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) stamps (Brunsting-Steures 1995: 323). After these,

In 1995 Brunsting and Steures added to this new interpretation of military history in Nijmegen with a paper that had previously been presented at a Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323-329). They challenge some of the views suggested by Bogaers and other colleagues. In their study they discuss some of the stamps, which were already listed in Bogaers’ earlier article. Most of the stamps presented in their paper are those of Legio X Gemina but also some of legions V, VI, IX Hispana, XV, XVI and XXX Ulpia Victrix, vex(illatio) Brit(annica) and those stamped TRA, which were the produce of the tegularia Transrhenana beyond the Rhine. The stamps of this workshop are also found in Germany, as mentioned in Chapter 2, sections 2.21 and 2.2.2. However, the German research sees those stamps in a different light and the two schools do not appear to have influenced each other. Finally, there are two stamps of the exercitus Germanicus Inferior, each one occurring only once, which are dated to the second century AD (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323). 81

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

they date the rectangular stamps with L(egio) X G(emina) between wreaths and branches (Fig. 73) to the years between AD 59 and 66. The honorary title Domitiana was abandoned in AD 96 as a result of the damnatio memoriae of Domitian, after he was murdered. According to them, stamps with L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) are not likely to have occurred before AD 96. They state that there are many stamps without titles after AD 89. Therefore, they observe that it is impossible to obtain a chronology of the later stamps, especially those in the shape of footprints and circles (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323). The omission of titles on stamps is quite a usual feature and missing titles cannot be used as dating criterion, as illuminated in Chapter 12.2.3. This fact is recognised, but the statement that bricks stamped L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) date to after AD 96 is hypothetical. It contradicts what Brunsting and Steures said earlier about the omission of titles on stamps. The vex(illatio) Brit(annica) stamps from Nijmegen were used in connection with early L(egio) X G(emina) stamps only. According to them, they are also connected with at least one stamp type of Legio XV (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323). The most frequent early L(egio) X G(emina) stamps and the most frequent vex(illatio) Brit(annica) stamp types both have the X slightly tilted to the left. The scholars, therefore, date the vex(illatio) Brit(annica) stamps early, to around AD 90. They believe that the unit was commissioned to build the granary known as horreum II in Nijmegen and possibly the two other granaries as well, but do not illustrate how they reach this conclusion (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323). The builders used longitudinal dwarf walls underneath the granary floor, a technique that was not adapted in Britain until several decades later (Rickman 1971: 224; Gentry 1975: 9). Therefore, Brunsting and Steures suggest that the detachment was housed in the century barracks situated with its back wall towards the granaries. Von Petrikovits, who investigated the interior of the Nijmegen fortress, assigns it to the first cohort but first deals with the idea that the builders of the granaries could have lived there (Von Petrikovits 1975: 46; plate 4b; 9).

FIGURE 74 STAMP OF LEGIO XXX ULPIA VICTRIX FROM NIJMEGEN (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 327) of these rooms has been recognised correctly. Brunsting and Steures suggest that the obvious explanation is that the barracks had decayed over a period after standing empty, and that this hearth was used during a brief and provisional stay. The most likely unit to have been garrisoned in the fortress around the time of AD 121 is Legio IX Hispana on its way from York/Eboracum to the East. The existence of a mortarium fragment of this legion has already been mentioned, which suggests that the legion stayed long enough to produce at least one vessel (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 329). Brunsting and Steures think that because of the small number of stamps (33) Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix was never in Nijmegen but always in Xanten/Vetera II. They also say that the stamp type of this unit from Nijmegen does not occur there (Fig. 74) (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 329). This makes little sense, however, because the existence of a different type from Vetera II at Holdeurn does indicate that it is likely that at least an detachment of the legion must have been there and produced stamps, probably for use at Nijmegen rather than Vetera. Brunsting and Steures propose the following occupation history for the Flavian fortress at Nijmegen: Legio X Gemina arrived in AD 71. Between AD 71 and 88 there were wooden barracks. In AD 88 the wooden barracks were demolished and the debris burnt, the fortress was rebuilt in stone and brick around AD 90. Vexillatio Britannica helped to build the brick granaries, and the builders were quartered in the century barracks nearest to the granaries. In AD 104, Legio X Gemina departed for the Danube frontier and the fortress was deserted, although not demolished. In AD 121, Legio IX Hispana briefly stayed at Nijmegen on its way from York/Eboracum and provisionally repaired the fortress. Pottery finds indicate that the fortress ceased to be used in AD 125. Brunsting and Steures state that the two second century AD brick stamps of the exercitus Germanicus Inferior are, therefore, difficult to bring into relation with the actual use of the legionary fortress, because it was probably not demolished long after AD 125 (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 329).

The new view proposed by Brunsting and Steures is that the legionary fortress was left to decay when Legio X Gemina went to Pannonia around AD 104, but was not demolished then. It was provisionally repaired by a rather small number of bricks stamped by Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix around AD 121. They argue that only one stamp of this unit has actually been found in the Nijmegen fortress itself, whereas at the brick factories of Holdeurn 32 stamps of this legion were discovered (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 329). The one tegula of the unit found in situ was found in a hearth situated in a rather unusual place: in a room designed for the storing of weapons, instead in the papilio room behind it. This leaves us to question if the function

Although Brunsting’s and Steures’ paper is a good attempt to review the history of the fortress of Nijmegen and its units, there are some problems concerning methodology. They concentrate mainly on epigraphic features of the stamps and do not review the archaeological context 82

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

apart from the one stamp of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix found in the hearth. Furthermore, they date some stamps with the titles pia fidelis to the year AD 89. However, since stamps often omit titles they could date to any period after that year. They do not appear to be aware of the limitations of title-dating. Brunsting and Steures state that 32 Legio XXX stamps are too few to conclude that the unit was present at Nijmegen. Yet they accept that one stamp of Legio IX is enough to testify this unit’s presence. It is my view that the one stamp of Legio IX would not be enough evidence, if it was not for the existence of a mortarium fragment that indicates the legion, or at least a detachment of it, passed Nijmegen. However, it is impossible to say if their stay was any longer than a couple of months, therefore, Brunsting and Steures interpretation of the length of their stay is preferred over Bogaers earlier view. The fact that there is a type of Legio XXX stamp, which does not appear in Xanten/Vetera II does indicate that a contingent of the legion did indeed stay at Nijmegen and produced bricks at Holdeurn for a while, as Bogaers suggests, even if it was for a different unit. The contingent might have consisted mainly of soldiers specialising in brick production. Also, Brunsting and Steures argue that the fortress ceased to be used in AD 125 due to pottery finds. Pottery alone might not be enough evidence, and the fact that some bricks found at the fortress or at Holdeurn date later must at least allow us a hypothesis that the fortress could have been occupied for longer.

of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix, and two stamped legio of which the identity of the legion is uncertain. Seventeen bricks are stamped vexillarii Ex(ercitus) Ger(manicus) Inf(erior) and 142 Exercitus Ger(manicus) Inf(erior). There are four stamps of a private entrepreneur, Iulianus, three with circular symbols and another thirteen whose identity is uncertain (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). However, one may want to question if the Iulianus stamps are indeed those of a private entrepreneur of if they could perhaps refer to the above mentioned governor, Didius Iulianus. Haalebos and Franzen state that it was custom for Roman forts to organise their own bricks, although trade was common on the Lower Rhine. The most important producers and purchasers were the legions (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121). As is known from other excavations and publications, the tegularia Transrhenana is only recognised by its brick products, and was obviously responsible for the distribution of bricks on Roman military institutions along the Rhine. Its bricks were known in Xanten/Vetera and Neuss/Novaesium as early as the end of the first century AD (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121). Some of the stamps name soldiers of auxiliaries and legions. The products of this tilery were distributed from Cologne to Alphen. Haalebos and Franzen state that the numbers of tegularia Transrhenana are large (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121). Alphen an der Rijn, as is known, had only four of these stamps. The stamps from this workshop are also known from Germany (see Chapter 2, sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).

Finally, Sijpesteijn published a fourth testimony for Legio IX Hispana in Nijmegen in 1996: the new find was a bronze pendant with the letters LEG HISP IX. It is interesting that this inscription is the only one of the four inscriptions of Legio IX in Nijmegen (two brick stamps, one mortarium) that writes the number nine as IX instead of VIIII, as is much more common with the stamps from Britain. Sijpesteijn suggests that this pendant was brought over from there in AD 121 and lost in Nijmegen (Sijpesteijn 1996: 281-282).

Haalebos and Franzen suggest that the Legio X stamps might have been the product of a detachment of this legion in Alphen. They observe that the types from Alphen did not occur at Nijmegen (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121) and propose that the tilery at Holdeurn was not only organised by Legio X, but also by detachments of legions I Minervia from Bonn and XXX Ulpia Victrix from Xanten/Vetera II. The workshop is recognisable as one of the main centres of brick production of Lower Germany (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121). The nine stamps of Legio XXX from Alphen correspond to three types from Holdeurn and are dated to between AD 150 to 260 (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 129). There are numerous stamps of the Exercitus Germanicus Inferior from Alphen. Obviously, soldiers of different legions and auxiliaries used the name of this unit. Haalebos and Franzen suggest that the introduction of this unit’s brick production signified the end of small workshops (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121). The excavations at Alphen have produced two new stamp types of the exercitus Germanicus Inferior. Haalebos and Franzen’s excavations doubled the number of stamps in the area. The stamps of this unit contribute 75% of the total brick

3.2.2 Local lists Haalebos and Franzen’s list of stamps from the Roman fort of Albania/Alphen an der Rijn is a good example for a local list. It contains brick stamps discovered at Alphen during the excavations of 1998 and 1999 (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121-141). They discuss a total of 223 stamps. Nine come from Cohors VI Breucorum, four from the tegularia Transrhenana, three from Legio X Gemina. Two are stamped Legio I Minervia and fourteen Legio I Minervia Antoniniana. There is one brick stamped Legio I Min (?). There are nine stamps 83

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

stamps from Alphen. It is stated that they are connected with the increased building activity at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century AD. Haalebos and Franzen also remark that because of their numbers the stamps of this unit are more significant for a reconstruction of history of the military occupation at Alphen (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 122-123).

3.2.3 Stamps of a unit in one location only An article, which deals with brick stamps of a unit in an area is Haalebos’s paper, held at the Roman Frontier Congress in 1983, on the excavations at Woerden (Haalebos 1986: 169-173). This fort, as with the two neighbouring ones at Vleuten-de-Meern and Alphen, had produced brick stamps of a Cohors XV voluntariorum (civium Romanorum pia fidelis). These stamps are not mentioned in the above cited monograph on Alphen (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121141) (see section 3.2.2). They were discovered during excavations in 1975 and 1976. The unit was garrisoned in Germania Inferior from the Flavian period to around AD 200. Apart from brick stamps it is known from two building inscriptions from Leiden-Romburg/Matilo, which causes Dutch archaeologists to assume that it was stationed there around AD 200 (Haalebos 1986: 169).

They believe that there was little building activity around the middle of the second century AD, because very few stamps could be dated to this period. A stamp found in the 1998 campaign in Alphen proves that Legio X was active there during the first century AD (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). As explained earlier the legion’s brick works were at Holdeurn. Cohors VI Breucorum, Alphen’s own unit, produced their own tiles at Alphen in the first century AD. There are nine stamps from this unit (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). In the second half of the second century AD there is evidence for more building activity. It is possible that the stamps with the name of Didius Iulianus, who was governor of Germania Inferior between AD 181 and 185, are connected with this. It is, however, not clear, if the numerous stamps of the exercitus Germanicus Inferior are connected with building under this governor or with Septimius Severus, some decades later. Haalebos and Franzen suggest that the central brick works of the exercitus Germanicus Inferior began around the middle of the second century AD and that those bricks reading vex(illatio) ex(ercitus) Ger(manici) Inf(erior) are earlier than those with the text ex(ercitus) Ger(manicus) Inf(erior) (HaalebosFranzen, 2000, 123). Because of archaeological context the stamps of Legio I Minervia Antoniniana from Alphen date to the reign of Septimius Severus to Elagabal (AD 193-222) (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). For a more detailed discussion of the dating of the Antoniniana title see Chapter 12, page 246.

Unfortunately, Haalebos does not mention brick stamp numbers, unlike in his later publication (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121-141). It is stated that the stamps come in two types: the first are dated with relief letters to the early Flavian period and suggests that the other type with incused letters could be earlier (Haalebos 1986: 173). Brick stamps, which date prior to the early Flavian period, are extremely rare, as will be seen in Chapter 10. Haalebos does not comment on why these stamp types were dated to these periods, which is methodologically problematic. Therefore, such an early date must remain doubtful. From the stamps alone it is not easy to determine if Cohors XV Voluntariorum was stationed in Woerden or nearby. However, a one-handled jug from Woerden also names the unit in a graffito, which names the unit and an act(u)arius or scribe in it. The inscription is dated to AD 100 due to its form (Haalebos 1986: 173). The main problem with the article is the missing numbers of brick stamps. The dates are based on epigraphic comparison only, which is not sufficient. Therefore, they can only be accepted as hypotheses. The article does not compare to the scholar’s usual standard but is perhaps more problematic because of the smaller volume of material discussed.

Haalebos and Franzen use a combined method: they are dealing with a lot of stamp types, known from other locations on the Lower Rhine, such as Nijmegen and Holdeurn. If possible, they are dated by a combination of the titles (or names of the governor Julianus) and the archaeological context from Alphen. Generally, they recognise the limitations of using brick stamps for dating buildings, where titles are not safe. Alphen an der Rijn has produced many different stamps, of which a lot were probably not produced there. They compared these finds with the stamps from other places, namely the brick stamps of the same units from other Dutch sites and Germany; therefore, the study is very detailed. Sometimes brick stamp dates which derived from context dates are used to date archaeological phases. This is potentially problematic because it might lead to circular arguments.

3.3 Conclusion The research approach to military brick stamps in the Netherlands is similar to that from Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, and in fact most continental areas. Military brick stamps are used to date buildings, and archaeologists and epigraphers usually want to determine the disposition of troops and the date of stamps or stamp types. Mostly, Dutch scholars use a combination of methods, entailing 84

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE NETHERLANDS

archaeological context, epigraphic comparison and titles when dating their brick stamps. One also has to bear in mind that the circle of archaeologists and epigraphers from the Netherlands is much smaller than from other areas discussed in this thesis. Most of the articles introduced here were written by the same people, so the research approach does not vary a lot. Different studies are influenced by each other.

stayed in Nijmegen, at least for a short period of time. Sijpesteijn adds some new evidence for Legio IX’s stay at Nijmegen, but no new research approach. Rather, Bogaers’ ideas are reproduced. Haalebos’ and Franzen’s local list of brick stamps of Alphen an der Rijn is a good combination of methods. Haalebos’ earlier article on Woerden, which is here listed under ‘units in one location only’ in section 3.2.3, uses the evidence form other inscriptions and appears methodologically sound, but fails to mention the number of brick stamps, which is methodologically questionable.

The methodology of Bogaers’ 1967 article on Nijmegen is a combination of archaeological stratigraphy and epigraphy. He also uses the titles on stamps for dating, and disputes the possibility of tile-dating and its limitations. This combination of methods works well. Some of the statements are somewhat hypothetical, for example, the earlier explained connection between Legio II Adiutrix and some first phase cremation burials. It is not clear if there were really no connections between Legio X Gemina and the vexillatio Britannica, since according to Bogaers some of their stamps are stylistically similar and appear to have influenced one another. Given these facts it is hard to believe, as Bogaers proposes, that the units never shared the fortress. However, generally, dating and methodology in this article are good. The evidence of the units in question was also supported by inscriptions from military diplomas and mortaria stamps. Unfortunately, Bogaers, together with Haalebos in the article from 1977, does not always mention the exact numbers of brick stamps, which makes any evaluation of research extremely difficult. However, generally, one gets the impression that there were enough brick stamps to testify the presence of units, or, as in the case of Legio IX Hispana, other finds strongly indicate that the unit was really present at Nijmegen. Unsurprisingly, Bogaers’ and Haalebos’ 1977 paper uses the same methodologies as the previous article and continues the suggestions of Bogaers’ earlier publication. Brunsting’s and Steures’ paper follows some of the ideas of the two previously discussed papers and suggested new solutions. However, some of their statements are very hypothetical and they do not always give information about which method was used to date the brick stamps. Often, they are not very clear about the archaeological stratigraphy behind certain dates. They adapt some of Von Petrikovits’ interpretations (Von Petrikovits 1975: 49; plates 4b; 9) on the granaries without scrutinising the argument and they make mistakes based on the titles on the stamps. It remains questionable if they are right in assuming that Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix was never at Nijmegen, given the fact that some of the stamp types from there are very different from the legion’s garrison at Xanten/Vetera II. Bogaers’ and Haalebos’ suggestion that a detachment of the unit might have produced bricks at nearby Holdeurn appears far more satisfactory. There are 32 brick stamps of Legio XXX and only two of Legio IX, yet it is assumed that the latter

In conclusion, the Dutch research has a very similar approach to that from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and most continental areas of the former Roman Empire. However, Dutch archaeologists tend to be quite consistent in using all available methods for dating stamps. They also recognised early on that dating by titles causes certain problems as they are often omitted on stamps. Generally, the Dutch school of research appears less concerned with rigid stamp chronologies than the German one. This raises the same question as the last chapter, that is, which of the categories of articles on brick stamps is best? Most publications here have been listed under the category of ‘overviews or histories of troop dispositions’, which contributes most to our locations. The borders of these categories are very blurred. Some papers have been listed in the category of local lists and of units in a certain methods are applied, petrology, although recognised as important, has not been attempted by the Dutch school of research. Some approaches differ from the German school, which partly deals with material from the same units. For example, both schools talk about the stamps of the tegularia Transrhenana. Whereas the Dutch school, especially Haalebos and Franzen (2000: 123), believes that this workshop was a form of centralised brick production for all other units, the German school has never considered this unit distinct from others (Paar & Rüger 1971: 260-64; 290; 324-330; Böckling 1978: 115-116). It is worth noticing that the two schools of research do not influence each other, or even refer to each other’s opinions in this matter. Nontheless, a more recent German approach by Hanel does indicate that the unit produced bricks for others (Hanel 2002: 293-296). The question if the tegularia Transrhenana was a centralised form of brick production for the other units of the Lower Rhine is a valuable one. However, other provinces do not seem to share the phenomenon, with the exception of a place name Tegulicium and the Transdierna workshop in Dacia/Rumania (Benea, 1977, 327), which may indicate that there was such a thing. The possibility of centralised brick production is discussed in Chapter 14. A lot of research remains to be performed on the matter. 85

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

A method used by most of the scholars cited here and shared with some of the German scholars, is that often dates of brick stamps, derived from archaeological context, are reused for dating other sites and buildings. This is potentially problematic because it may sometimes lead to circular arguments, and redate stamps

dated in the first place. As stated this is not a method unique to Dutch researchers but also practised by other schools, such as the German one. It is, however, worth considering if circular arguments have developed and new scholars dealing with material may be advised to recheck dates.

86

CHAPTER 4

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE

4.1 Introduction

too surprising: it was only in the first years of the Empire that Gaul received substantial numbers of soldiers. After the battle of Actium, Octavian left his fleet at Fréjus in Gallia Narbonensis. Lyon was always home to at least one cohort, to protect the mint (Cohors XVII Ad Monetam, or Cohors I, later XIII Urbana). Arlaines near Soissons dates to the Julio-Claudian period (Le Bohec 1994: 166), which makes it unlikely, although not completely impossible, that any stamped bricks would be found. Belgium had no legions, and, therefore, no military fortresses. The brick stamps of the classis Britannica appear in and near Boulogne. As Gaul was the subject of turbulence in the third century AD, there must have been auxiliary units there (Le Bohec 1994: 166). However, the author is not aware of any auxiliary stamps from Gaul.

The French school of research on Roman military brick stamps is connected to the British school because it touches on some subjects that are also researched by British archaeologists, for example the stamps of the classis Britannica. Brick stamps, in general, are not a subject encountered too often, due to the lack of material. Yet, generally, there is a sufficient collection of articles on brick stamps, of which a few will be discussed here. Rome’s initial interest in the area was focused on the need to maintain overland communications with Spain. In this it was aided by the Greek colony at Marseilles, an old ally. In 121 BC, the Romans annexed the inland territory from the sea port. Threats from the Helvetii provided Caesar with a political expedient for his campaigns, which eventually resulted in the Roman conquest of Gaul. Under Augustus the earlier acquired territory was constituted as a senatorial province with its capital at Narbo, from which the provincial name was taken. That part of Gaul outside Narbonensis conquered by Caesar was at first named Gallia Comata. Caesar planted his first veteran colony at Nyon, in the territory of the Helvetii. Other coloniae were founded at Augst and Lyon. In 44 BC, Caesar separated the area from Narbonensis and divided the area into two equal halves. Augustus extended the reorganisation, and three provinces emerged: Aquitania with the probable capital at Bordeaux, Lugdunensis with the capital at Lyon, and Belgica with its capital and legate’s residence at Rheims and procurator’s seat at Trier. At this stage and for some time afterwards the legate of Belgica was also responsible for administering the land up to the Rhine. During the Flavian period, Domitian finally separated Germany from Gaul and created two new provinces along the Rhine, each with its own consular legate.

There were no legions in any of the provinces of Gaul, at a time when stamping became a habit. However, the French research entails some areas that are part of modern France and were previously part of Germania Superior. Mirebeau was a large fortress in this province, and is situated in modern France. The stamps from the garrison/s of this fortress are also found in the surrounding area, stretching as far as Biesheim. The background and military history of this province are discussed at length in Chapter 2, section 2.1. Germania Superior became a province proper rather than a military district in AD 85-89 (Filtzinger, Planck & Cämmerer 1976: 54) and was researched extensively by the German school, such as Mommsen (1884: 439-441) and Ritterling (RE XII: 1657-1659) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and more recently by the French. As explained in the introduction, the publications of archaeologists from the late nineteenth and up to the middle of the twentieth century are not discussed here because methods have naturally changed since. However, many of these scholars, such as Ritterling or Mommsen, are still read nowadays, because they were the first and often only authors on certain topics. Both scholars dominated the brick stamp research of the area around Mirebeau and Dijon and shall, therefore, be included in the discussion. The brick stamps from the French part of Germania Superior have been thoroughly catalogued by Le Bohec. The units in the area, namely Mirebeau as now known, were usually detachments from the German legions.

The main problem in the area of Roman Gaul is, consequently, a deficiency of material due to the lack of military presence in the area. The small numbers of stamps are a similar situation to Britain, although there was a heavy military presence there. Considering that the material base is rather small, it is quite well researched in France. The absence of many military brick stamps is not 87

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

discussion on the most recent interpretation of the nature and dating of AD 72 to 75 of this legate see Chapter 12, page 231. Ritterling, therefore, dated the stay of the legion in the area (around Dijon) to around the year AD 89 and also included the observation that the unit participated on the campaigns of Domitian against the Chattians in AD 83 and 89, due to brick stamps and a tombstone inscription (CIL XIII 7574) from the Lower Main area (Ritterling RE XII: 1658).

Strasbourg is another example for a military garrison from the French part of Germania Superior, and was researched by both French and German archaeologists and epigraphers. The stamps of Legio VIII and a group of detachments from Upper Germany are found at both Biesheim and Strasbourg.

4.2 Discussion A lot of time has passed since these publications. It has been stated in the introduction that papers that are more than fifty years old will not be critically analysed or even included in this thesis. However, for our understanding of the French school of research on the brick from Mirebeau it is important to know the older, German approach. Both Mommsen and Ritterling only used historical background and no archaeological context for their dating. Nonetheless, since both publications date to the early twentieth century, and the infancy of archaeological research, this is hardly surprising. There is a noticeable difference between the way the French school has evaluated the material in the above-cited article, and its earlier predecessors from the German school.

This discussion will commence with a short introduction to the old German research on the fortress of Mirebeau, part of Germania Superior. This will illuminate the different approach of the two schools of research. Mommsen was the first to publish some of the brick stamps of Legio VIII Augusta from Mirebeau and the area around it. He was already dealing with stamps from all the three stamp type groups possible on the bricks of Legio VIII in and near Mirebeau: one of which names the legion only, one that names detachments from five legions in total (I, VIII, XI, XIIII and XXI), and the stamp type group naming the legate Lappius (Mommsen 1884: 439). Mommsen proposed that the legate in question was ‘L(ucius). Norbanus Appius Maximus’, who crushed the revolt of Saturninus in AD 88/89 (Mommsen 1884: 438). About the detachments mentioned on the stamps, Mommsen suggested that these were documents of an exceptional situation. According to him, all the legions of the middle and Lower Rhine surrendered when the news of Vitellius defeat reached Gaul (legions I, IV,V, XV, XVI and XXII). Vespasian then sent legions from Italy (II Adiutrix, VIII, XI, XXI, and perhaps XIII), Legio XIV from Britain and VI from Spain to Upper Germany. Mommsen proposed that the army for which the bricks from the area around Dijon were produced consisted of those units. It was stated that it was not necessary that all the legions in question were named on the bricks since not all might have been involved in building activities (Mommsen 1884: 440).

4.2.1 Overviews or histories of troop dispositions An article by Strobel, however, was only published in 1986, and will be used here to illuminate the difference of the two schools of research on the stamps from Mirebeau. Like most of his work, it is an article on troop dispositions. He performs an analysis of the above-cited detachment stamps from Mirebeau13 (Strobel 1986: 257-264). Strobel mentions that five different stamp types are being considered. Later in the article it is stated that that the total number of brick stamps that display these types is 12 (Strobel 1986: 257 and footnote 16). From Bérard’s, Le Bohec’s and Reddé’s list of stamp types C, it is obvious that there are 34 stamps (see below) (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 222-229). They, however, discuss eight different types, which were perhaps discovered after Strobel’s publication, so it is very likely that fewer types were known at the time of Strobel’s survey. In any case, 12 stamps are a very small number to base a statement upon. Strobel divides the stamps into two groups: The first merely consists of detachments of the army of Germania Superior:

Like Mommsen (1884: 439-441) before him, Ritterling (RE XII: 1657-1662) did not yet know that Legio VIII Augusta was garrisoned at Mirebeau. Stamps from this legion had been found around the area of Dijon and came from one of three different locations which, according to him, could all have been centres of the unit: Mirebeau, La Noue, and Potailler sur Saône. According to Ritterling, all these bricks could have been reused (Ritterling RE XII: 1657). The tombstone commemorating a veteran of the legion at Mirebeau was mentioned but the connection between this location and the place of garrison of Legio VIII Augusta was not made. About the person of the legate Lappius, named on one of the three stamp groups, Ritterling followed Mommsen’s identification (Ritterling RE XII: 1658). For a

a. b. c.

vexil. legionum /I, VIII, XI, XIIII, XXI vexil legion(um) /VIII, XI, XIIII, XXI [vexil. or vex(illationes) ? l(egionum) ? I ?, VIII ?, XI ?, ] XIIII, XX[I] /Manli (centurionis) l(egionis) (---)

13. Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: Types C.

88

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE

In Strobel’s opinion, it is clear that the change from type a to type b show that Legio I Adiutrix was moved from Germania Superior in AD 85 to be installed against the Dacians at the Danube frontier. With the exception of this legion, the units mentioned on types a and b are identical with the legions used during the Chattan wars in the army of Germania Superior. He dates the building activity and production time of the stamp types in a and b to immediately before and after the period in which Legio I Adiutrix was moved from the province. He argues that it is unlikely that the legions in question could have spared any men during the Chattan wars for any building activity; therefore, the commencement of work is dated after AD 84, before the removal of this unit (Strobel 1986: 258-259). Type c misses the first half of the first line. It can be substituted with the text of either type a or type b. However, it is argued that because the second line is short in text, it is more likely that it can be substituted with the text of b, without the name of Legio I Adiutrix (Strobel 1986: 259). Since no measurements of the stamp surface are included this argument is hard to follow.

d. e.

vexil. l[e]/gionum/II, VII [---] vexil. legion[um?]/[---A]ug(ustae), VII [---]

Strobel does not state how many brick stamps there are in total but only that most of them are fragments. It is clear that one of the legions is Legio VIII Augusta, the other Legio II Augusta. Legio VIII Augusta was moved from Mirebeau to Strasbourg in AD 73/74 (Ritterling RE XII: 1652-1653). Since the stamps indicate the presence of detachments of both legions, they can only date to a later period. In his summary, Strobel states that the stamps of group I (types a-c) are proof for building activities of the named detachments at Mirebeau in AD 85 and 86. The tiles are closely connected with a restructuring of the fortress that had been derelict for a period of about 10 years. Strobel adds that the building of the gates of the fortress, as well as the porta triumphalis at the entrance to the principia, which the excavators date to that period, is connected to those stamps. Unfortunately, the exact archaeological context of the tiles is not stated. However, the interpretation that Mirebeau is supposed to be a centre of Flavian building activity after the successful defeat of the Lingones is proposed only as a hypothesis. Strobel adds that the stamp fragments naming legions II and VIII Augusta discussed in his paper came from bricks used for major fortifications at Mirebeau. He dates this to around the middle of the second century AD. In his opinion, this becomes evident in the building of the new gates of the fortress (Strobel 1986: 264). As stated previously, no archaeological context is stated.

At the time of Strobel’s article about 700 stamps with the formula LEG VIII AVG or LEG VIII AVG LAPPIO LEG were known. The small number of detachment-stamps, according to Strobel, proves that the units were only in Mirebeau for a very short period of time. The fortress dates to the early years of Vespasian (Strobel 1986: 259). Strobel suggests that the occupation of the Arbeitsvexillationen (work detachments) occupied a very short period of time, and was connected some with rebuilding activity after the Chattan Wars, from around AD 84/85 to around AD 86 to 89. The detachments would have been involved in the political and architectural reconstruction of Germania Superior, like the fortress of Mirebeau, which had belonged to Germania Inferior (Strobel 1986: 259). According to Strobel, the first part of the type c could read like either a or b. He proposes that the latter is more likely, because it is shorter and leaves more space for the second line. Strobel seems to be certain of the reading Manli (centurionis) l(egionis) [---]. Care has to be suggested with that interpretation. If l stands for legionis, there is no indication of the fact that the person was a centurion. Unfortunately, Strobel does not include a picture of the stamp, which makes the expansion for the reader difficult. L could well be expanded as l(egati), since a person of such rank is named on other stamps from Mirebeau, as stated previously. Alternatively, if one interprets the l as legionis, the stamp might refer to a soldier working in the brick factory. Thus there is no real proof for Strobel’s argument.

Generally, Strobel is rather cursory in analysing the stamps from Mirebeau, in spite of the fact that the he is dealing with a very small number of stamps. Strobel bases his article on the evidence of 12 stamps in the case of his Group I (types a-c). In the case of Group II (types d and e) no numbers are given but he is probably dealing with even less. From a statistical point of view, this is hardly enough to make any statements about dating. He tries to reconstruct the history of the fortress at Mirebeau on the evidence of a couple of stamps. Furthermore, the archaeological evidence and epigraphy are not combined. The archaeological context is never stated and from the article it becomes clear that Strobel dates his groups based on the texts and epigraphic characteristics of the stamps only. This is a questionable methodology, since texts alone are not enough to date brick stamps, as discussed at various other points in this thesis (i.e. Chapter 2, pages 70-72; Chapter 14). Epigraphy must, at least, be combined with archaeological context, if not petrology. Admittedly, Strobel is not the only scholar who does not combine methods. In addition, the lack of illustrations of the stamp

There is a second group of stamps that Strobel describes which are fragmentary and have no archaeological context: 89

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

types listed raises questions about the value this article to military brick stamp research. If a more recent publication from the French school of research about the stamps from Mirebeau and area is considered, which is a local list; it becomes apparent that a more inclusive approach to the subject could have been taken.

FIGURE 76 LEGIO VIII AUGUSTA FROM MIREBEAU, SERIES A41 (BERÁRD, LE BOHEC AND REDDÉ 1995: 211)

4.2.2 Local lists usually hederae (Fig. 75). Ligatures, on the other hand, are quite rare: Only six types of series A (A50-55), one type of Series B (B12) and two types of Series C (C3 and 4) present themselves with this particular phenomenon. The letters vary, but are in general, and apart from a few exceptions, large and well-cut and therefore do not present the epigrapher with any difficulty in deciphering them. The style of writing is always homogenous and quite elegant, the letters usually opening out towards the ends (Fig. 76). Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé state that the tiles from Mirebeau resemble stylistically the ones from Strasbourg (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 191).

Le Bohec, Bérard and Reddé (1995: 191-267) published the brick stamps from Mirebeau near Dijon. As stated above, since the nineteenth century, stamped brick and tile had always been found in the vicinity of Mirebeau. However, aerial photography attested the presence of a Roman fortress at the place only in the middle of the twentieth century and a lot of the brick stamp material addressed in the article was uncovered during excavations by Goguey between 1968 and 1976. The presence of Legio VIII is attested in Upper Germany from AD 73/4 and the legion was either garrisoned at Strasbourg/ Agentorate from that time or the whole legion was possibly in Mirebeau for some time from that period (Oldenstein-Pferdehirt 1984: 405-406). Le Bohec, Bérard and Reddé summarize the three separate series of stamps found at Mirebeau: Series A carries the inscription LEG VIII AVG, Series B displays the name of the legate Lappius (see Chapter 12, page 231) and reads LEG VIII AVG LAPPIO LEG, and Series C displays stamps of a number of different detachment units. Series C divides again into two variants: The first variant mentions detachments of five legions (VEXIL LEGIONUM/I VIII XI XIIII XXI). The second one mentions two detachments (VEXIL LE?GIONUM II VIII or VEXIL LEGIONUM/II AVG VIII AVG).

The number of bricks from Mirebeau is more than 600. Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé divide the stamp types into the following groups: A13 and 14, A15 and 16, A21 and 22, A23, 25, 26 and 27, A 37 to A40, A43 to A45, A50 and 51, A52, 53 and 54, B2 to 6, C1 and 2, and C3 and 4. Their typology is as follows (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 193). Each series consists of different stamp types, related to its texts. Series A has 50 different stamp types. The number of single brick stamps ranges from 1 to 47. The total number of stamped bricks is 283. In most cases, there are fewer than 10 single examples of types. Series B has 9 different stamp types, with quite a lot of stamped tiles for each one – the number ranges between 8 and 80. The total number of stamped bricks is 322. Series C has seven different stamp types. The single numbers vary between 1 and 6 and the total number of stamped tiles is 32. Series A came mainly from the baths and from the inside of the fort. Of Series B, most types were represented in the interior and the exterior of the fortress, with the exception of type B6 (8 stamps). Series C came from both the fort and the exterior of the baths. The stamp material appears very homogenous. However, it does appear that the bath complex was built at the same time as the fortress, therefore the possibility of a secondary use of the stamps bricks cannot be excluded (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 194). A considerable proportion of the brick stamps from Mirebeau, together with the name of Legio VIII Augusta, display the name of the legate Lappius (B1-12 and Series A). Brick stamps of the same kind were found in Néris/Allier (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 194). For a discussion concerning the identification of the legate in question, Chapter 12, page 231can be consulted.

It appears that all bricks were stamped. The bricks are always tegulae, and even in the bathhouses no flat bricks were found. Deliberately broken tegulae were used instead of those in the hypocausts. Neither are there any imbrices or tegulae mammatae. The tiles measure on average 53.5 cm by 40 by 6 cm, and the stamps are negative imprints. Apart from a single type, all stamps of Series A and B are framed by tabulae ansatae of different forms and sizes. Series C does not display this ornament in any of the cases. A great number of tiles have finger imprints. Two out of three cases have punctuation marks on the inscription,

FIGURE 75 LEGIO VIII AUGUSTA FROM MIREBEAU, SERIES B10 WITH ANSAE AND HEDERAE (BERÁRD, LE BOHEC AND REDDÉ 1995: 220) 90

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE

Series C (Figs. 77-79), as shown when discussing the German articles, displays the names of detachments rather than legions. Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé include a more detailed description of these stamps, which they justify with their small numbers (32 in total) (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 200). As explained above, a typology of some of the stamps from Mirabeau was already compiled by the German school in the late years of the nineteenth century. A new typology of Series C that is not only based on variations of the epigraphic text, but also on the archaeological background and the stamps themselves, is suggested. The German school dated the detachment stamps from Mirebeau to the period of the war against Civilis and against the Lingones of Iulius Sabinus (Mowat 1883: 221-232; Mommsen 1884: 437-441). Other scholars followed. Ritterling suggested that the famous primuspilus C. Velius Rufus who was praefectus of nine detachments, mentioned on the tiles (I Adiutrix, II Adiutrix, II Augusta, VIII Augusta, IX Hispana, XI Claudia, XIV Gemina, XX Victrix and XXI Rapax) united these detachments and commanded two armies, the one of Germania Superior, and the one from Britain in Mirebeau, in AD 83 during the Chattan War (Ritterling 1925: 1386-1388). However, the scholars of the Mirebeau article have since argued that what was interpreted as VIIII on the stamp, is more likely to be a VIII (the number on the stamps is always fragmented), and that it is, therefore, unlikely that any of the British units were present as detachments (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 203).

FIGURE 77 SERIES C11 FROM MIREBEAU (BERÁRD, LE BOHEC AND REDDÉ 1995: 225)

FIGURE 78 SERIES C12 FROM MIREBEAU (BERÁRD, LE BOHEC AND REDDÉ 1995: 224) 91

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the Kriegsvexillationen (detachments participating in war) is the one usually favoured by military archaeologists. A chronology depends more or less entirely on the hypothesis connected with those stamps, which illuminates the fact that chronologies are usually artificial creations. The only thing one can be certain of is that those detachments from Germania Superior came to Mirebeau some time between AD 83 and 86, effectively worked at the building of the fortress, and were there during the Chattan Wars and the first difficulties on the Danube (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 206.)

FIGURE 79 SERIES C13 FROM MIREBEAU (BERÁRD, LE BOHEC AND REDDÉ 1995: 225)

The chronology is least secure with the second series of detachments, which consists of the stamps citing detachments of Legio II Augusta and Legio VIII Augusta (C11-C13). Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé only feel entitled to say that those detachments were not necessarily contemporaries of the legions in Germania Superior, and that they date to a period when Legio VIII was not the sole garrisoned unit at the fortress. In their opinion, this is illustrated by the different types of writing of the letters on stamp-types C11-13 (Fig. 77-79 and on those of Series A (Fig. 76) or B (Fig. 75). They do not decide if it makes more sense to place them at a later date, that is to the second half of the second century AD, or an earlier one than the other tiles from Mirebeau, for example, at the end of the first or the beginning of the second century AD. They state that both hypotheses can only remain speculative for the moment, and that one cannot be certain of the purpose of those detachments, even if the presence of men from one of the British legions, Legio II Augusta cannot exclude a mission of military nature (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 206). Some recent evidence on the cursus honourum of M(arcus) Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatus Maternus, the probable successor of A. Bucius Lappius Maximus, has shown that it is likely that the latter was a legionary legate between AD 72 and 75 (Alföldy 2004: 45-62; Chapter 12, page 231). However, this only provides us with a date for the production of one of the stamp groups of Legio VIII Augusta and the fact that bricks could have been reused makes a very short building chronology impossible.

In general Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé agree with the Ritterling’s hypothesis that the detachments mentioned on the tiles were so-called Arbeitsvexillationen (work detachments) who came to help with the construction of the camp. They compare the case with one from Germania Inferior, where during works at the quarries at Brohltal, most of the units of the province, and even detachments of the German fleet, were present. However, a problem that arises is that the small number of tiles of series C from Mirebeau does not allow a conclusion about the construction work that took place at the time. No other building activity appears to have taken place in the vicinity of it either (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 205). Another interpretation is that of a so-called Besatzungsvexillation (occupation detachments), which means that a detachment would have been garrisoned at Mirebeau, consisting of numbers of soldiers from existing units. They would have produced tiles for the buildings that were built for their own use. There are plenty of cases where detachments of units were stationed at one place for a longer period of time, not only from the borders but also from the centres of Roman provinces. There is nothing strange about the implication that five such detachments from legions connected with Germania Superior could have been garrisoned at the fortress of Mirebeau and controlled both Gaul and Germany, in anticipation of the constant threat of an attack on behalf of the Lingones. This of course, would not make sense if the presence of Legio VIII Augusta as a permanent garrison at Mirebeau is accepted, which is indicated by the large body of brick stamps produced only by that unit. However, if one dates the departure of Legio VIII to the end of the reign of Domitian and the period of the detachment to the Chattan Wars (AD 83-85) or immediately after (AD 85-86), the hypothesis can yet be sustained. If one dates the stay of Legio VIIII longer than AD 89 there are, according to Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé, considerable problems with it (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 205-206). These uncertainties show that the question of the presence of the detachments of five legions at Mirebeau remains to be solved. The interpretation of

Stamps resembling those from Mirebeau also came from the area of Bourgogne and others. They were found at (Fig. 80): Bezouotte, Pontailler, Marnay, Til-Chatel, Orville, Dienay, Arcelot, Brognon, Dijon, La Noue, Mont-Afrique, Bessey, Boncourt-le-Bois, Les Boplards, Montremenont, Palleau, Langres, Viviers et Neris-les Bains, which are all situated in a forty kilometres radius around Mirebeau. It might seem surprising that the stamps have travelled quite some distance from their original place of construction and use, but one can never exclude secondary use. Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé also point out that stamps were hardly ever used for the sole purpose of a fortress but also for 92

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE

Tiles stamped Legio VIII Augusta have frequently been discovered at Strasbourg. The large number of stamps (the exact number is not known but there are more than 100 types) can only be explained by a longer period of garrison of the legion there. However, the Flavian dating of the fort of Mirebeau contradicts the original hypothesis of the legions installation at Strasbourg during the 70s AD, and, therefore, needs a closer investigation (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 252). The brick works of the legion at Strasbourg is traditionally assumed to be at Königshoffen. The Römisches Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz did an analysis of brick-fabric and reached the following conclusion: practically all tiles stamped LEG VIII AVG from Strasbourg came from the central brick works of the area, whereas the tiles stamped with the same letters from Mirebeau formed a distinct group from a different area (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 252). Several excavations took place at Strasbourg; however, some of the material might have disappeared during the Second World War, when excavations still continued. Some material was possibly never published at all, which makes a detailed evaluation considerably more difficult. Due to these difficulties Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé do not suggest any dating for the stamps from Strasbourg (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 252).

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Mirebeau Bézouotte Pontailler Marnay Bessey Boncourt-le-Bois Palleay Les Bolards

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

The site of Biesheim, near Neuf-Brisach, in Haute-Alsace, produced a series of tiles, displaying the names of Legio XXI, Legio XI, Legio XIIII and Legio I Martia. On top of these a number of stamps from Legio VIII was also found, in total 21 types that have usually up to three examples on tiles each. Unfortunately, no archaeological context of the Legio VIII Augusta stamps is known. Stamp material and aerial photographs have shown that there was a fortress and a civilian settlement in the first century AD. In the third and fourth centuries Biesheim was a military fortress and palace. The stamps have similarities with those from Strasbourg: tile 17, for example, from Bérard’s, Le Bohec’s and Reddé’s list has a parallel in No. 25 from the Strasbourg tiles (Rue de l’Ail). They do not suggest a chronology (Berárd, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 267), so the question remains if the stamps are from earlier or later levels, which is not stated.

Mont Afrique La Noue Dijon Arcelot Brognon Til-Châtel Diénay Orville

FIGURE 80 MAP OF DISTRIBUTION OF LEGIO VIII AUGUSTA STAMPS NEAR MIREBEAU (BRANDL 1999: 115) bath-houses, temples, bridges etc. (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 239-242). This could explain the wide spread of stamps, without assuming that civilians used military stamps, which, as mentioned earlier, has never been supported. Generally, Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé do not suggest any dates for the stamps. In a lot of cases, no exact archaeological context is known, especially when stamps were found as stray finds or before the middle of the twentieth century. Some stamps, the number is unspecified, were found at Til-Chatel, which has produced the remains of a Roman fort. It is dated to the third century AD by some religious dedications (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 244). The stamps, however, could have been reused.

Although there are large numbers of brick stamps, the authors are extremely careful in suggesting any dates, and refrain from doing so if there are any doubts, which conflicts with the approach of the older and also newer German school, such as Strobel. There are no relative chronologies for the Strasbourg and Biesheim stamps, and very little for the stamps from the environs of Mirebeau. The suggested chronologies differ from the German school. The French scholars are generally less keen to impose fixed dates on the stamps and always stress the 93

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

hypothetical nature of their theories. This is a lot safer when dealing with brick stamps, which, as discussed in Chapter 1, section 1.1.2.1, pose certain problems in chronology, such as the possibility of reuse. On top of that, the French scholars are dealing with a lot more stamps than the German school, represented by Strobel, who only concentrated on a few of the detachment stamps before them. They include both, epigraphic comparison of types and archaeological context in researching the stamps. The parts concerning Strasbourg and Biesheim could include a relative chronology, if Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé looked at their typological differences. A rough identification, such as if they belong to the early or the late fortress, would be interesting. However, in a lot of cases, such as the list of sites which have produced Legio VIII stamps apart from Mirebeau (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 243-251) the exact archaeological context does not appear to have been recorded. Generally, some information of a long chronology for the stamp types should be given, as Legio VIII Augusta remained in Upper Germany from Vespasian to the end of the Roman period. This should be included as a long date, even if it appears obvious.

Mer. For a discussion of the British material and the research performed on it see Chapter 9, pages 179-186. A comparison of methodology between the British and the French school is of great interest. The most recent publication on the subject was written by Seillier and Gosselin (1969: 363-372). All other publications appear to have been written in the late nineteenth or the early twentieth century. The presence of the British Fleet at Boulogne-sur-Mer was already recognised epigraphically in the nineteenth century (Vaillant 1888 et al). Some funerary inscriptions mention the unit but the mainpart of the epigraphic evidence is the brick stamps. The first stamps were found in 1862 (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 363). They are now part of a collection of the museum of Boulogne-sur-Mer, and are all from the town and its hinterland. Generally, the stamps consist of the letters CL·BR, separated by a full-stop in the middle. For the most part the stamps were impressed by a rectangular die with rounded angles. There are several exceptions, like round stamps, and some examples of less abbreviated words with more than the four letters (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 363). The stamps found in the nineteenth century mostly came from the area of Val-Saint-Martin, the site of the ancient port Gesoriacum, which is thought to be the place of garrison for the British Fleet (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 363). Regular excavations since 1967 produced more brick stamps from the area of the ancient town Bononia. They were found in two locations near the cathedral, an area which belongs to the modern Ville-Haute of Boulogne. One of the two find spots is situated inside the Roman fort. The discovery of these stamps doubled the number of known CL·BR stamps from Boulogne.

Apart from some problems, especially when the archaeological context is missing, the French school is a lot more inclusive of different problems on Mirebeau. Most of the time a combination of methods is used. The old German scholars, on the other hand, followed by Strobel only used epigraphy for dating. Bérard’s, Le Bohec’s and Reddé’s publication is a more comprehensive approach to the brick stamps of Mirebeau and the area round Dijon. They attempt to give an overall view of the stamps, classify them into different types of groups, provide information about exact numbers and the types of bricks the stamps were used on, and employ a combination of the methods of archaeological context and epigraphy. The publication also raises the question of the legate on the stamps, favouring one hypothesis without completely dismissing the others.

Seillier and Gosselin produced a catalogue of all the stamps types from Boulogne-sur-Mer (for a more detailed description see Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 364-371), but covered only those stamps found during the excavations between 1967 and 1969. They do not specify the types of flat bricks (for a classification of brick types see Chapter 1, section 1.2.1) (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 364-371). Perhaps the exact sizes are not known, due to the fragmentary status of the bricks.

In 1999 Fevrier and Le Bohec published a short article on some further stamps of Legio VIII Augusta, which had been discovered in Langres, Haute-Marne. They classify them into the groups of types, which are already known from Mirebeau. Those types are A. LEG VIII AVG, B. LEG VIII AVG LAPPIO LEG, C1. VEXIL LEGIONUM/I VIII XI XIIII XXI, C2. VEXIL LE/GIONUM/II VIII and C3. VEXIL LEGIONUM/II AVG VIII AVG. Like the ones from Mirebeau, according to Fevrier and Le Bohec, none of these stamps can be dated to a narrow time span (Fevrier & Le Bohec 1999: 257-259).

1.

Rectangular stamps:

CL·BR with a triangle in the middle (Fig. 81): A1: 1 brick A2: 1 imbrex A3: 1 voussoir A4: 6 bricks A5: 1 imbrex

Similarly to Britain, stamps of the classis Britannica have been found in France, at and near Boulogne-sur94

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE

FIGURE 82 BRICK STAMPS OF THE CLASSIS BRITANNICA FROM BOULOGNE AND AREA (SEILLIER AND GOSSELIN 1969: 367)

from different dies. A5 stands out by its thick letters (Fig. 81). A13 and 14, with the letters B and R in reverse (Fig. 83), represent a new type in France, but it is known in England. While publishing the article, Seillier and Gosselin encountered a newly found type found in at Rue de Pressy, Boulogne (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 368).

FIGURE 81 STAMPS OF THE CLASSIS BRITANNICA FROM BOULOGNE AND AREA (SEILLIER AND GOSSELIN 1969: 365)

C L B R without symbol in the middle (Figs. 82-83): A6: 1 imbrex A7: [C L] B R 1 tegula A8: [C L B R 1 imbrex A9: [C] L B R 1 imbrex A10: [C L ]B R 1 imbrex A11: [B or R] 1 imbrex A12: 1 imbrex 14 A13: 1 brick A14:15 1 tegula 2.

3.

C1: [CB] C2: [CB]

1 brick 1 brick

As in Germany, brick stamp chronologies at Bolougne were purely based on the character of lettering on the stamps during the nineteenth century. A so-called ‘good’ style of letters was dated earlier, and a ‘badly-formed’ letter later. Seillier and Gosselin regret the fact that for most of the stamps no archaeological context is known (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 371). The bricks carrying stamps of types A4, A13 and B1 came from the ruins of a building that was built during the reign of Trajan and destroyed during the invasions of the third century AD. Seillier and Gosselin observe that types A4 and B1 (Fig. 81; 83) are made of the same red, clear, homogenous clay as the other bricks from the building, and they think it likely that the tiles are contemporary with the construction of the building, proposing a date in the beginning or middle of the second century AD (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 371). The imbrex which carries the stamp type A5 (Fig. 81) was found at the top of a clay third-century destruction level. On top of this was a layer of paving that contained some coins from the era of Constantine. Therefore, Seillier and Gosselin date

Round stamps (Fig. 83):

B1: B2: B3: B4:

Incused stamps (Fig. 84):

26 bricks 1 tegula 1 tegula fragment 1 brick, 1 tegula

Stamps A1 to A4, A6 and A7 have further examples among the bricks found between 1862 and 1890, which are not listed in the article. The major difference is a second full-stop after the R in the ones published in the article by Seillier and Gosselin. This could be an indication that the stamps originated 14. The letters are in reverse. 15. The letters are in reverse.

95

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

(Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 372). However, they do make a few suggestions: the number and variety of types, in their opinion, stands for an evolution of styles over a longer period of time (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 372). A lot of the buildings, discovered since the nineteenth century, would not have been built until after the invasions of the third century, which might explain styles on stamps that are usually attributed to late Roman times (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 372). The wide radius of find locations for classis Britannica stamps (Fig. 85) has Seillier and Gosselin wondering if the brick material thus stamped was indeed reserved for the British Fleet, or if they could have been circulated to other areas (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 372). This idea was continued by the British school who proved that the latter theory was right with the help of petrological analysis, as is explained in Chapter 9, pages 181-186. As illustrated in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2, private usage of military brick stamps is rather unlikely. However, there is always the possibility that classis Britannica stamps could have been used in other military sectors.

FIGURE 83 BRICK STAMPS OF THE CLASSIS BRITANNICA FROM BOULOGNE AND AREA (SEILLIER AND GOSSELIN 1969: 369)

Seillier and Gosselin cannot date all stamps in a close chronology, but they make a good attempt and are successful with relative dating of some of their brick stamps. Their methodology always includes both archaeological context (sometimes aided by absolute dates of other finds) and epigraphy and they do not make any statements based on too little evidence, as is often the case with military brick stamps. They do not, however, discuss the possibility of reuse for those stamps dated by archaeological context. Older publications from the nineteenth century on the matter of the stamps from Boulogne have been deliberately omitted, for this is a study of more recent publications. In comparison with British archaeologists and epigraphists, the British fleet material from France has received a good interpretation and chronology, however, the British school also used petrology as a research method and reached some conclusions on the material from both sides of the channel, which would not have been otherwise possible (see Chapter 9, pages 179-186 for a more detailed discussion of the British school and additional British fleet stamps from Boulogne, discovered after Seillier and Gosselin’s paper).

type A5 to before that period (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 371). The other stamps from Rue de Pressy, Boulogne came from the same pavement. They are certain that the homogeneity of the stamps permits them to be dated to the fourth century AD (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 371). The group of imbrices A8-A12 (Fig. 82) appears to be linked to the above group, not only in style but also because of the character of the lettering. In the opinion of the Seillier and Gosselin, they also date to the fourth century (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 372). According to Seillier and Gosselin, those stamps for which a date is proposed, are too few in numbers to reach any conclusions about an evolution of style since there is only a total of 15 types on 51 stamps. Seillier and Gosselin remain careful with interpretations about the age of stamps based on better or more careless style of lettering

4.2.3 Studies on the petrology of stamps Nevertheless, the French school has also been successful at studying brick stamps through petrology as well as epigraphy. As already briefly mentioned the monograph on Mirebeau by Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995) also includes a section on

FIGURE 84 BRICK STAMPS OF THE CLASSIS BRITANNICA FROM BOULOGNE AND AREA (SEILLIER AND GOSSELIN 1969: 370) 96

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN FRANCE

FIGURE 85 MAP OF LOCATIONS WITH DISTRIBUTIONS OF CLASSIS BRITANNICA STAMPS (PEACOCK 1977: 236) chemical-mineralogical investigations on stamps from Mirebeau, Strasbourg, Nied, Heddernheim, Okarben and Wagbach. The author, Kritsotakis, is actually from the German school of research yet the article will be discussed here as part of the French school, since it is published in a French monograph (Kritsotakis in: Berárd, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 268-310).The purpose of the investigation is a classification of brick material based on the different groups. The following questions are posed: 1.

Are the bricks from Mirebeau and Strasbourg from the same brick works?

2.

Are there, amongst these groups, sub-groups, which could be identified more exactly in combination with archaeological context and petrology?

3.

It is with regard to these questions, especially Question 3 that apart from the stamps from Mirebeau and Strasbourg, stamps from sites from the Wetterau are studied. Mineralogical (X-rays, DTA), as well as chemical (for which ICP-OES was used) analyses were performed on the different groups of brick (Kritsotakis 1995: 286). The results are as follows:

Are there any indications that Legio VIII Augusta really participated in the Chattian Wars between AD 83 and 85, and had its own brick works in Nied during that period? So far, only two bricks stamped with the units name were known from Nied, which could have been just as well imports from Strasbourg (Kritsotakis 1995: 269). The original idea for this came from Baatz (1970: 31-35). 97

1.

The bricks from Mirebeau, Strasbourg and Nied are an independent homogeneous group, and can therefore be used as a reference-group.

2.

Those bricks from Heddernheim, Wagbach, and Tile 4 from Okarben do not appear to be independent groups but are very likely part of the Strasbourg-group.

3.

All other bricks from Okarben appear to be part of the Nied-group.

4.

All bricks were fired between 750 and 900 C, in which the Mirebeau group is the most distinct from the rest, with a temperature of between 900 and 950 C.

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

5.

The groups from Nied and Strasbourg consist of clay poor in chalk, whereas the material of the Mirebeau group is rich in chalk.

Kritsotakis reaches conclusions:

the

following

material. As discussed above, the French approach is lateral, including all possible hypotheses without giving preference to one interpretation. The analysis of the material could even be called too cautious in some parts, without attempting even a relative chronology of stamps or giving a long chronology based on the period in which a unit was present. Usually, both archaeological context and epigraphy are used as research methods. There are some exceptions where some brick stamps are cited without the contexts in which they were found, but these cases are rare. Usually, the reason for this is that no close context is known.

archaeological

1.

The fortresses of Mirebeau and Strasbourg had their own independent brick-productions.

2.

The brick-groups of Mirebeau and Strasbourg do not clearly show any sub-groups, as shown by mineralogical tests. A chronological separation of the material is not possible with chemicalmineralogical tests.

3.

Nied produced its own bricks; they were not imported from Mirebeau or Strasbourg.

4.

The brick that was found in Nied is not a late import from Strasbourg, but was produced in Nied, together with three other bricks found at the fort at Okarben. Therefore, the chemicalmineralogical investigation has proven the old archaeological hypothesis that Legio VIII Augusta or part of it was stationed north of the Main during the Chattan Wars, and had her own brick works there for a short period of time (Kritsotakis 1995: 301-303).

The French analyses of the stamps from the area around Mirebeau are both more recent and more useful than the German approach to the same subject. It focuses on certain theories but stretches their hypothetical nature without giving unbased statements. Also, a wide range of other theories are included as possible explanations for those stamps. The authors of the article on the classis Britannica give dates. The arguments are never unsupported and the number of stamps is very large. Furthermore, epigraphy and archaeological context are used for dating. The only problem with Seillier’s and Gosselin’s work is that they do not investigate a possible reuse of the stamps, nor does it consider this question. As discussed in Chapter 11, this is a problem which should not be disregarded when talking about military brick stamps. Like the British, the French also use petrology in their research of brick stamps, although less frequently, and not on the stamps of the classis Britannica, where it would provide another important method. As has been shown, both methods have resulted in informative answers about the brick stamp production of Legio VIII Augusta in Germania Superior. Similar investigations have only ever been regularly carried out in Britain, and are hardly ever repeated in the continental research. For a further discussion of this problem the reader should consult Chapters 1, section 1.1.1.1 and Chapter 14.

These achievements based on petrology are important, since they provide valuable information about the production techniques of Legio VIII Augusta. The tests confirm some archaeological statements reached by epigraphical methods, which have so far not been proven. They show the importance of using both, petrology and epigraphy, in combination, when researching stamped bricks.

4.3 Conclusion

The French school shares elements of both the German and the British approach to brick stamps. French scholars are less likely to use cases of very few stamps for historical hypotheses, but dating and chronologies are attempted where possible. A combination of research methods is usually applied, although petrology, like in other schools of research, is still only in its infancy.

In an overall view the French school of brick stamp research can be classified as a lot less keen on chronologies as the German, Swiss and Austrian research. The comparison of the material from Mirebeau is worth an analysis because the two different schools investigated the same stamp

98

CHAPTER 5

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SPAIN

5.1 Introduction

Also, auxiliary cohorts were stationed to guard the ora maritima on the Mediterranean, the stamped bricks of one of which will be discussed in this chapter. All in all, Spain was defended by less than 10.000 men (Le Bohec 1994: 177).

The Spanish peninsula was divided into three provinces during the reign of Augustus: Hispania Baetica, Lusitania and Tarraconensis. The emperor Augustus reduced the remaining districts and reorganised the whole peninsula. He returned Baetica to the Senate in 27 BC but retained the other two provinces under his own control. Spain was the only large area in the Empire where problems of a frontier did not arise until late, as it was surrounded by sea on three sides and the Pyrenees in the north, and the province evolved rather peacefully without much external threat (Wacher 1987: 217). In the course of time, as Spain became less involved in warfare, owing to its safe geographical position in the west, it produced fewer soldiers. Furthermore, fewer troops were needed for the garrisoning of the peninsula.

Apart from two stamps of Legio X Gemina, the only legionary bricks found are those of Legio VII Gemina. It was likely that the stamping of military brick was not yet customary, at the time when the other legions were garrisoned in Spain. For a discussion of the question of the beginning of military brick stamping Chapter 10 can be consulted. Only two of the Spanish auxiliary units, both in Hispania Tarraconensis, appear to have produced stamped bricks: Cohors I Celtiberorum and Ala I Parthorum. During the first centuries AD many of the garrison troops doing duty in the north of Spain were natives recruited from the three provinces. A lot of soldiers were also conscripted for service on the Rhine and elsewhere. Many auxiliary units of the Roman army bore Spanish names.

Hispania Tarraconensis is interesting because it had no frontier with barbarians and yet had legionary soldiers stationed in it (Le Bohec 1994: 176). The end of its conquest was marked by a series of operations in the north-west between 29 and 19 BC, in which Agrippa distinguished himself. At that period there were eight legions in the province: I (probably Augusta), II Augusta, IV Macedonica, V Alaudae (or the XVI), VI Victrix, IX Hispana, X Gemina and XX. Under Tiberius only three remained (VI Victrix, X Gemina and IV Macedonica). IV Macedonica left under Claudius and X Gemina under Nero. Galba created the VII Galbiana, which later became VII Gemina, in the province, but took it with him when he left. After a brief episode that saw X Gemina return to Spain with I Adiutrix, Vespasian decided that the province only needed one legion. Legio VII Gemina came to Spain and remained there as the legion of the province.

Whereas Lusitania had auxiliary units, Baetica was a senatorial province and had no troops at all. During an attack on the province by pirates from Africa in AD 170 the beleaguered town Malaga was not relieved until the arrival of troops from Lusitania. Consequently, Baetica was declared an imperial province and a detachment of Legio VII Gemina was posted in Italica, in western Baetica.

5.2 Discussion All articles on military brick stamps from Spain fall into the category of local lists:

The defensive situation of Hispania Tarraconensis took the local situation into account. There was no question of defending a province against an enemy, but rather of keeping watch over the most turbulent inhabitants and ensuring the security of the mines. The headquarters of Legio VII Gemina were at Leon. The word legio is responsible for this modern name. An enclosure which housed an ala was discovered at Rosinos de Viridales.

5.2.1 Local lists Garcia y Bellido excavated in the legionary fortress at Leon, discussing the results of his campaigns in two publications (1968: 29-63; 1970: 570-599). The walled enclosure in Leon is rectangular. The fortress has rounded corners. Its largest axis measures 570 m, and the shortest 350 m. The area covers 20 ha, which is the size of an 99

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

average Roman fortress. It was situated on a hill, with the slope towards the Bernesga river, which is the main river of the area. Apart from the river, the area is very rich in springs. Several of these were found within the vicinity of or in the fortress. In spite of this water presence, aqueducts were built into the fortress, as the one discovered in San Isidoro’s orchard, which will be discussed in terms of the brick stamps found there. A further one was situated at the north west of the city in San Esteban and was destroyed in 1875. The large baths which were situated on the place of the modern cathedral of Leon must have needed more water than the wells near there could supply (Garcia y Bellido 1970: 572). One of the hypocausts was situated directly beside one of the wells. The excavator observes that the archaeological level of the fortress was 3m under the modern surface. The outer walls of the fortress are 5.25 m thick, including the rampart, whereas the inner walls only measure 1.80 m. They are made of square bricks, which are joined together very tightly. In the course of his excavations the Garcia y Bellido discovered a building with walls of masonry, and a floor covered by large tegulae. A pipe comes from the southeast part of the building and enters into the rectangular room with a curve. Garcia y Bellido states that there were some tegulae in the walls, which were not investigated for stamps, because he wanted to avoid damaging the walls (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 29). The tegulae, which make up the floor of the above mentioned drain, measure 54 x 44 x 3 cm. The thicker edge is 6 cm high. The stamps display different legends of Legio VII Gemina. As a result, the excavator concludes that the building dates to the last third of the first century AD. The feature is interpreted as a hydraulic installation, probably for water supply, because of the drain (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 29-30).

FIGURE 86 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VII GEMINA FROM THE HYDRAULIC FEATURE IN SAN ISIDORO’S ORCHARD (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 35) the period before AD 73/74, the year in which the legion was given the title felix (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 30). According to this, the building with the hydraulic feature is one of the first constructions of the building (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 30). Some further fragments of bricks were found scattered in the same area (Fig. 87):

The bricks with Legio VII Gemina stamps from this feature are the following (Fig. 86):

1. 1. 2. 3. 4.

carving, retrograde stamp Leg(io) VII G(emina) F(elix) carving, retrograde stamp Leg(io) VII Ge(mina) carving, normal stamp Leg(io) VII Ge(mina) carving, normal stamp Leg(io) VII […]

2. 3.

The final f of stamp 1, which is in relief, might have lost its inferior stroke, a phenomenon observed on several stamps at Leon (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 30). The letter, which is missing from the end of stamp 4, is most likely a G. For this reason Garcia y Bellido deduces that all the bricks discussed here, with the exception of stamp 1, belong to

4.

100

Two fragments of brick with two incomplete stamps, both of which are in relief: Leg(io) VII Ge(mina). A tile fragment, which is 3.5 cm thick, with a carved stamp: Leg(io) V[II…] Two large tile fragments, 2.5 cm thick: Leg(io) VII Ge(mina) Qui(ntilliana), which Garcia y Bellido dates to 270 AD due to this cognomen (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 30). This interpretation of the title on which the dating is based is explained on Chapter 12, page 246. A tile fragment, which is 3 cm thick with a rectangular stamp: [Leg(io)] VII Ge(mina) Go[r(diana) p(ia) f(elix)]. According to Garcia y Bellido, the titles date this stamp to between AD 238 and AD 244 (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 30).

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SPAIN

FIGURE 87 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VII GEMINA FROM THE HYDRAULIC FEATURE IN SAN ISIDORO’S ORCHARD (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 35) The remaining bricks found in the area were not stamped.

the legion arrived in Spain after it was awarded with the cognomen. The hypothesis that some men could have been working at the fortress of Leon is proposed, while the rest of the legion was still on the Rhine (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 36). This explanation can only remain speculative and is not very likely, because it would not have been the usual custom, since normally the construction of permanent garrisons was only begun when the whole legion arrived in a location. As explained in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3, a unit did not always display its titles on its stamps and the reason why they were sometimes omitted is not known. Therefore, the bricks were probably produced by Legio VII Gemina after AD 73/74 and after its arrival in Spain, when it already carried the title but did not necessarily display it on its brick stamps.

Garcia y Bellido attempted to determine if some of the bricks and tiles that were incorporated into the wall A-B and the channel D-E carried the stamps of Legio VII Gemina, thus providing a date of construction. Three fragments stamped Leg(io) VII Ge(mina) were found. All the stamps were in relief. One of them was on a roofing tile, the other two on flat bricks, which were 3 and 4 cm thick respectively. The first and the second stamp were the same, the first of the two had a broken letter G, something, a phenomenon frequent with relief stamps. The third stamp had ansae, the right end of which was broken off completely. In wall A-B, two bricks with the same letters were found. Garcia y Bellido does not make it clear if the stamps are the same as any of those previously mentioned.

The area beside the mouth of the above mentioned channel and the next wall B-C also produced stamped tiles (Fig. 88):

According to Ritterling, the title felix was probably given to Legio VII Gemina during one of the campaigns in either of the two Germanies in AD 73/74. Unfortunately, no specific locations or circumstances are known (Ritterling RE XII: 1632). Because of the fact that none of these stamps mention the title felix Garcia y Bellido concludes that the construction did not start before AD 73/74. However, he admits that this could be a wrong deduction, since 101

1.

a fragment of an overlapping stamp: Leg(io).

2.

a relief stamp on a tile: Leg(io) VII Ge(mina).

3.

a third fragment with the following stamp: Leg(io) VII Ge(mina). The number is broken off in parts

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 88 BRICK STAMPS FROM CHANNEL B-C FROM PLAZA DEL CID, LEON (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 44)

(2 copies, probably from the same die) (Garcia y Bellido, 1968, 37). 4.

stamps came from Garcia y Bellido’s own excavations and some had been found by chance in paving constructions at San Isidoro square at Leon. Garcia y Bellido’s dating of stamp types of Legio VII Gemina is mainly based on the titles on the stamps. Not all the expansions Garcia y Bellido suggests are plausible. However, those stamps, which, according to him, include imperial titles and their credibility, are discussed in detail in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3 since this chapter centres on this topic (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 48-63).

a brick fragment, which is 4.5 cm thick and shows part of a stamp: [Le]g)io) VII Ge(mina)

Garcia y Bellido states that there was no space to do a safe stratigraphic excavation, due to the fact that all the trenches showed walls and foundations of previous constructions (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 31). An excavation of El Cid’s square in Leon produced a total of 217 fragments of Roman brick and tile. All of the bricks showed the stamp of the legion, which is interesting, because places in which all bricks appear to have been stamped are rare. Garcia y Bellido states that another 200 stamps of different sizes and different stamp types had been found at the location in previous years and that at least 100 had been distributed amongst friends and acquaintances by their owner. The rest of them might have gone to the Archaeological Museum of San Marcos and some of them to the Monument Commission of the city of Leon (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 47).

Nevertheless, a first brief summary of Garcia y Bellido’s chronology will be introduced here: According to him, all stamp types bearing the letters Legio VII Gemina were produced at the beginning of the legion’s stay at Leon after the year AD 69 (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 51-52) given the fact that the name Gemina was obtained after the battle of Cremona, which took place in October of the same year (Tacitus Historiae: III 22). Gemina meaning double or twin was given to the legion when it had had suffered great losses after this battle because it was substituted with men from other disbanded units. It is suggested that some of them might have been British or German detachments (E. Birley 1929: 56-60). Garcia y Bellido’s dating for these stamps derives from the idea that legions always included all given titles on their bricks stamps. However, since it is known that brick stamps do not always mention existing cognomina, as explained in Chapter 12c, this methodology of dating is not correct. There are examples of Legio VII stamps, for example the type addressed as Quintiliana (see Chapter 12, pages 251-252), which do not include felix, although being part of the unit’s title at the time that Garcia y Bellido

Garcia y Bellido catalogued all the stamps of Legio VII Gemina available to him. This includes stamps found at locations other than Leon from Spain. The biggest collection of Legio VII stamps is kept in the Province Archaeological Museum in Leon. Unfortunately, it was not possible for Garcia y Bellido to include all find locations, as a lot of them were unknown in his time. Some of them were also in the Archaeological Museum of Madrid. The rest of the 102

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SPAIN

caution has to be taken in dating all stamps displaying Legio VII Gemina to this early period of the legion’s stay in Spain. Since Garcia y Bellido bases his dates solely on the cognomina displayed on the stamps and no other dating criteria are considered some of his dates are problematic. The collection of bricks stamps of Legio VII Gemina from Spain is indeed distinguished by a rich variety of emperor’s titles, which made the dating of some stamp types easy. However, as shall be outlined in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3 not all the abbreviations addressed as imperial titles of the late second to third century AD are certain. Also, presence of a cognomen on a stamp can give a very safe terminus post quem. However, unfortunately this does not always apply for the opposite and lack of a title on a stamp is not necessarily a terminus ante quem for a brick stamp.

FIGURE 89 STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VII GEMINA FOUND DURING THE RESTORATION OF THE CATHEDRAL OF LEON 1960-61 (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1970: FIG. 25) suggests for it. However, this dating, as will be seen, is debatable. Perhaps different legions had different traditions, in regard to the display of titles that had been awarded to them throughout the years. Because of this theory, Garcia y Bellido deduces that, although previously thought that the whole of Legio VII Gemina left for the Rhine between AD 69 and 73/74, there were still detachments of the legion who built and produced tiles in that period. Nevertheless, as the tiles are not always necessarily included on the stamps this hypothesis cannot be proven. In its stylistic appearance the group addressed as that of the Legio VII Gemina stamps without further abbreviations is not very homogenous (this is further explained in Chapter 12, on page 242) and because of the above-mentioned problem with cognomina

Garcia y Bellido’s methodology of separating different groups based on texts only works well for some of the later brick stamps where emperors name date the stamps to very precise periods of time. It does not work so well with the earlier stamps, where time differences might have little to do with the displaying of certain titles. Generally, there are few attempts of stylistic considerations in aid of the title dates and too much is preempted by an initial separation of stamps into text-groups. Also, not all imperial titles mentioned are secure: as will explained in Chapter 12c, several are more likely to be individual’s names rather than imperial titles, because the emperors in question did not reign for very long and are not known from any other brick stamp types.

Generally, Garcia y Bellido does not use the stamps found during his excavation for dating, but there is one exception, where tegulae found in a drain were used to date the level to the last third of the first century. He believes that stamps with the inscription LEG VII GE belong to those years (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 29). It has been explained previously that bricks stamped with these letters might not be a homogenous group and that dating cannot be based on missing titles. A study by Wahl, although not from the Spanish school of research but from the German one, shall briefly be discussed here, since it deals with some Spanish material. 103

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

proposes that the latter is more plausible as firstly, brick stamping was not habit before the middle of the first century AD, and secondly, some stamps types L(egio) X G(emina) from Nijmegen, where the legion was stationed between AD 71 and 104, are very similar apart from their smaller size. It is argued that the existence of only two stamps is a sign for a short occupation. The fortress of Rosinos de Vidriales is a so-called vexillation- or 20-30 acre fortress, and Wahl thinks that it was inhabited by legionary detachments. Apart from the testimony of two stamps of Legio X there are no indications for other units (Wahl 1984: 74-76).

FIGURE 90 FINDS FROM THE FOOT OF THE CATHEDRAL TOWER, LEON 1960-61 (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1970: FIG. 20)

The two brick stamps undoubtedly originate from one of the legion’s stays in Spain but it is dubious to determine which is more likely. Wahl states that the custom of brick stamping only began after the middle of the first century AD (Wahl 1984: 74). Although there are in fact rarely stamps which can securely be dated before that time, there are some indications that some might date earlier, to the Claudian rather than Neronian period (Dolata 1999b: 421423 and 2000a: 95-124). The evidence for the beginning of the stamping habit of military brick producers is discussed in Chapter 10. Even if it started around the middle of the first century AD, it is still possible for these stamps to have been produced between then and AD 63, which is at least a span of 13 years. Wahl’s hypothesis is less likely, as the legions second stay in Spain was less than a year. Indeed, the stamp types from Nijmegen are similar to the type from Rosinos de Vidriales, but they are about two thirds smaller. In any case two stamps are statistically not enough to determine if the unit was stationed in Rosinos de Vidriales or not. The two tiles could have originated at a nearby military location, which had come from another location, especially since at least one of them was a stray find, and no context seems to be known for the other.

FIGURE 91 BRICK STAMP OF LEGIO X GEMINA FROM ROSINOS DE VIDRIALES (WAHL 1984: 74) Wahl published two brick stamps of Legio X Gemina from Rosinos de Vidriales in 1984 (Fig. 91) (Wahl 1984: 72-78). Both stamps were of the same type, displaying L(egio) X G(emina). The one found by Wahl two years before the publication is a tegula and has a tally mark between the stamp and the right edge of the tile. The other tile is a fragment with the same stamp (Wahl 1984: 72). They are the only testimony for bricks produced by Legio X Gemina in Spain. As mentioned before, the legion was part of the initial military garrison of Roman Spain. According to the career of a primuspilus (CIL IX 4122) the unit must have shared a garrison with Legio VI Victrix at least temporarily. However, the location and duration of occupation of the fortresses of legions X, IV and VI is uncertain (Wahl 1984: 72). Between AD 63 and 68, Legio X Gemina replaced Legio XV in Carnuntum, but returned to the south of Spain to aid Vitellius against Otho’s troops from Mauretania. At the end of AD 69 the legion joined the two other Spanish legions and went over to the victorious Vespasian. It did not remain in Spain for long but went to Lower Germany the following year. Tacitus (Historiae: V, 19) stated that the unit arrived there after the battle of Vetera in AD 70. Wahl suggests that the transfer did not take place before the middle of that year (Wahl 1984: 73).

Caamaño Gesto published the brick stamps from the Roman fort of Cidadela near modern Coruña, in ancient Hispania Tarraconensis, after an excavation campaign in 1981 (Caamano Gesto 1984: 233-254). The site known as the Roman fort of Cidadela or Cidadella is placed beside the baroque church, in the village of Sobrado des Monxes. It is on a little plateau, which is limited by the river Calabar on the west side and by the Rio Pequeno on the south-east side, which flows into the Calabar. The defensive system of the fort was based on a moated wall called ‘A Cerca’, which today limits three of its sides. The eastern moat is still preserved; the one from the north was destroyed in 1934. The west moat was used as a bypass and the south moat has disappeared completely. The wall is quite thin, approximately 1 m and made of square bricks. The north-east angle of the wall was reinforced by

Therefore, there are two possible dates for the two stamps: the years before AD 63 and the period between the autumn of AD 68 and the summer of AD 70. Wahl 104

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SPAIN

granite bricks. 25 m south of this corner are the remains of a tower, which is attached to the wall on the inside. A lot of the bricks from this tower were used as building materials by inhabitants of Cidadela in past centuries.

Sector A also produced bricks: Caamaño Gesto states that there are also many unstamped bricks and tiles. However, nine carry stamps, of which seven are identical to those from the castle. Three of the seven are illegible, the other four read:

According to Caamaño Gesto, an altar found in 1934 already testified to the presence of Cohors I Celtiberorum at the site and a further stone inscription, naming the same cohort, although the name is incompletely preserved, was discovered during the 1981 campaign (Caamaño Gesto 1984: 240). Neither of the two inscriptions has the full name of the cohort, but the first one gives C I C as the name, the second I C(o)hor(s). Caamaño Gesto makes the identification with Cohors I Celtiberorum, based on the name of this unit in the Notitia Dignitatum (42, 30) which names the fort of Iuliobriga, which is thought to be is Cidadela. The hypothetical nature of this suggestion will be discussed below.

1. 2. 3. 4.

The other two stamps are completely different. One is incomplete and reads CP, the other one displays CPC. All stamps are rectangular with round squares. Caamaño Gesto drew the following conclusions from the campaign: 1.

The brick material found during the excavations of the castle area was bricks and tiles. Fifteen tiles have stamps. They are rectangular and some have rounded squares, while three were illegible. The other twelve, according to Caamaño Gesto, had the following inscriptions (Fig. 92): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

[Cohors I] C(eltiberorum) [Cohors I] C(eltiberorum [Cohors I] C(eltiberorum) C(ohors) [I Celtiberorum]

2.

C(ohors) [I C(eltiberorum)] C(ohors) [I C(eltiberorum)] [Co]h(ors) I [C(eltiberorum)] [Co]h(ors) I C(eltiberorum) [C]oh(ors) I C(eltiberorum) [C]oh(ors) I C(eltiberorum) Co(hors). I C(eltiberorum) Coh(ors) I C(eltiberorum) Coh(ors) I C(eltiberorum) Coh(ors) I C(eltiberorum) [Cohors I] C(eltiberorum) [Cohors] I C(eltiberorum)

3.

The site of Cidadela is the size of a Roman fort ideal for a cohort (Caamaño Gesto 1984: 251). Due to the stamped tiles, it can be concluded that the cohort, which occupied the fort was Cohors I Celtiberorum. The inscription on an altar erected by a signifer of this cohort also testifies this, which confirms that the cohors is a cohors equitata (Caamano Gesto 1984: 251). According to Caamaño Gesto, the Notitia Dignitatum (42, 30) confirms that this unit was in Cidadela during the second half of the third century, and probably the beginning of the fourth century AD, before it moved to Iuliobriga (Caamaño Gesto 1984: 251).

However, Caamaño Gesto does not give an explanation for the date she suggests. Roxan (1976: 59-80) has shown that the Notitia Dignitatum has preserved the Severan garrison of Hadrian’s Wall and that pre-Severan units are mentioned. It is possible that the same applies to the auxiliary units of Spain, but until further evidence is stated, the proposed date for the occupation of the fort cannot be seen as secure.

Stamp 8 and 9 are of the same type.

Caamaño Gesto attempts no further palaeographic comparison on the stamps. From the two illustrations of stamps included (Caamaño Gesto 1984: fig.10; 248), it appears that the stamps are quite homogenous in appearance and therefore might present a chronological unity. This, however, is a hypothesis. To make further investigations it would be important to see further illustrations of the stamps of Cohors I Celtiberorum from the fort: the evidence seems to imply that no further chronological differentiation is possible, but this is not entirely certain. The two stone inscriptions rather indicate that the unit was garrisoned there. However, none of the stamps, nor the two

FIGURE 92 BRICK STAMPS OF COHORS I CELTIBERORUM FROM CIDADELA (CAAMAŇO GESTO 1984: 248) 105

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 93 BRICK STAMPS OF THE ALA PARTHORUM FROM HERRERA DE PISUERGA (FERNANDEZ OCHOA 1996: 99) 106

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SPAIN

inscriptions, write the name in full, so it is not definite that the unit on the stamps and the one of the inscription are really the same, and correspond with the unit mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum. No other dating evidence from the fort is mentioned, which makes this suggestion rather uncertain.

not enough to confirm the garrison of a unit, especially if another unit is mentioned in an inscription. Therefore, it is not definite that the Ala Parthorum was stationed at Herrera Pisuerga.

5.3 Conclusion Fernandez Ochoa (1996: 91-102) describes the results of excavations in Herrera de Pisuerga. A fort was discovered there, which, according to her, was inhabited by an Ala Parthorum between the middle of the first, and the first half of the second century AD (Fernandez Ochoa 1996: 93). No information is provided about the strength of the unit garrisoned there, but some of the barracks were excavated.

Garcia y Bellido’s methodology of dating stamps by their cognomina is sometimes well based but as shall be further explained in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3, all of his suggested imperial titles cannot be supported. For example, his chronology of the earlier brick stamps, which just display Legio VII Gemina, is methodologically questionable. From the pictures, this group does not appear to be of a chronological unity, and as explained earlier some of the stamps addressed as very early could belong to a later period, after AD 73/74. His dates work well in those cases were the researcher can be certain that the abbreviations on the stamps are imperial titles, as is the case with some of the second and third century AD stamps. Cognomina are the only dating criteria used for the stamps. Archaeological stratigraphy is not typically considered. One has to bear in mind, however, that the bulk of Legio VII stamps from Leon have no known find location. To sum up this methodology, one has to state that Garcia y Bellido includes good research in cataloguing all the stamps, and in case of the later types, the dating by cognomina (in those cases where the abbreviations can be accepted as imperial titles) was on the whole a sound base for a chronological framework.

This interpretation of the unit as Ala Parthorum is based on five brick stamps (Fig. 93): 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

A fragmented tegula, with ansa, reading AL in reverse. A tegula, reading ALA PAR. It came from levels dated to the middle of the first to the first half of the second century AD and was found together with other unstamped tegulae and imbrices. An imbrex, reading ALA PAR, found together with metals, terra sigillata and glass, dating to between AD 70 and 150. An imbrex, reading ALA P. It was found in a cubicle with other material (which is not specified in the article) dating to between the middle of the first and the first half of the second century AD. A tegula, reading AL.

Caamaño Gesto’s does not include a lot of palaeographical and stratigraphical study on the stamps of from Cidadela. The information in the Notitia Dignitatum might confirm that the Cohors I Celtiberorum stamps belong to the fourth century AD, although Caamaño Gesto suggests that she believes the presence of the cohort of the fort may date earlier, to the second half of the third century AD, but she does not elaborate on the reasons for this suggestion. Unfortunately, not all stamps are illustrated, but within this period, which is quite a limited one, the stamps appear to be quite a homogenous group. However, further dating evidence is needed.

None of the stone inscriptions found at Herrera Pisuerga mention an Ala Parthorum. One names a Cohors I Gallica equitata civium Romanorum and dates to the period of Vespasian (Fernandez Ochoa 1996: 91). Five brick stamps are not a lot to base a hypothesis upon, although allowance has to be given to the fact that Spain usually does not produce as many stamped bricks as other provinces, such as the two Germanies. The abbreviation PAR probably does stand for Parthorum, but because there are so few brick stamps, it is difficult to determine if this unit was really garrisoned at the fort. It is also possible that brick stamps were delivered between units or that some detachments of units of different forts made bricks for each other (see Chapter 1, page 5). According to Fernandez Ochoa, this unit was possibly in Germany and Dalmatia before Spain and it is known that it was in Mauretania in AD 107 (Fernandez Ochoa 1996: 92). Even if the archaeological context date based on the stratigraphy in which the stamps were found is correct, five stamps are

Fernandez Ochoa bases her hypothesis of the garrison of the fort at Herrera Pisuerga on the small evidence of five brick stamps. Although this dating by archaeological context is justified, and it appears that these stamps are indeed chronologically contemporary and seem to name the same unit, it is not clear if it was actually ever garrisoned in the fort. Another unit is mentioned in an inscription which admittedly dates earlier, but nevertheless the unit on the stamps does not appear in any inscriptions found 107

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

at the location. Perhaps further excavations will produce more evidence but based on this article, it cannot be determined if the ala in question was stationed at the fort permanently, produced bricks there for a short period of time, or delivered bricks from elsewhere. For a discussion of the question of the delivery of bricks to nearby garrisons see Chapters 1, page 5.

provided. Garcia y Bellido obviously has enough brick stamps to confirm the garrison of Leon. However, the two remaining articles discussed here, are dealing with very small numbers of stamps. Caamaño Gesto relied on the evidence of another inscription, whereas Fernandez Ochoa bases a statement about a troop disposition on too little evidence. Wahl is more careful and offers two possible periods for the production of the stamps of Legio X in question. Nevertheless, one of them is favoured, and might be victim of a circular argument concerning the beginning of the habit of stamping military bricks. Therefore, all the articles reviewed here, although partly correct in their methodologies, have presented hypotheses as facts for which there is little proof. Hopefully, future research on the Spanish brick stamp material, especially on the large collection of Legio VII stamps will attempt a more complete combination of methods.

The Spanish research which is admittedly represented by few articles generally does not include a very balanced combination of research methods concerning military brick stamps. Whereas Fernandez Ochoa, the most recent scholar writing on the subject, uses archaeological context, Garcia y Bellido writing in the 1960’s hardly ever dates by any other criteria than titles, even when the archaeological context is known. Caamaño Gesto only relies on the Notitia Dignitatum, and an uncertain date is

108

CHAPTER 6

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

6.1 Introduction

the early period: V Macedonica may have been stationed at Gigen/Iskur/Oescus from as early as BC 9. It is not certain, however, where the fortress of Legio IV Scythica was situated before the legion moved to the East under Claudius or Nero (Wilkes 2000b: 102).

There are many publications on the brick stamps of SouthEastern Europe. Most of the research has been performed by local archaeologists and epigraphists, although one of the articles written here has been written by a German scholar, which will not be counted as Eastern European research, but will be discussed, where relevant, to illustrate differences. The provinces entailed by ‘the South-Eastern European research’ are Pannonia, Illyricum, Dalmatia, Dacia, and Moesia. A strong military presence in some of those provinces provides us with a substantial body of stamped tiles, although not all areas are equally represented. There are no gaps in brick stamps from those areas with a strong military presence, as there are in other areas of the former Roman Empire, such as the Near East or Northern Africa.

Legio IX Hispana left Pannonia to join the conquest of Britain in AD 43. In AD 45/46, the army of Moesia was increased when Legio VIII Augusta was sent to Svisthtov/ Novae. Around the same time, Legio IV Scythica departed from Moesia, which introduced Legio VII Claudia from Dalmatia, which was from now on only guarded by a single legion. It is not certain where Legio VII Claudia was garrisoned at first, but it may have been at Skopje/ Scupi, before it moved to Kostolca/Viminacium above the Iron Gates (Wilkes 2000b: 103). In AD 62, following a crisis in Armenia, Legio V Macedonica was moved from Oescus, leaving Moesia with two legions until Legio III Gallica arrived from the East and remained there for a short period in the reign of Nero. At the same time, Legio XV Apollinaris was temporarily taken from Carnuntum, and replaced by Legio X Gemina. In AD 68 the six legions of the Danube provinces were: X Gemina at Altenburg/ Carnuntum, XIII Gemina at Ptuj/Poetovio, XI Claudia at Kostolca/Viminacium, possibly III Gallica at Gigen/Iskur/ Oescus and VIII Augusta at Svisthtov/Novae (Wilkes 2000b: 103). During the Sarmatian attacks of AD 68-70 Legio VIII Augusta was replaced at Novae in Moesia by the new Neronian legion I Italica. Legio XI Claudia was substituted in Şuplja Crkva/Burnum in Dalmatia by IV Flavia. Some legions may have been temporarily placed in Illyricum and Legio VIII Augusta may briefly have been in Burnum in the aftermath of the civil war of AD 69 (Wilkes 2000b: 103). The classis Moesica was probably instituted by Vespasian (Le Bohec 1994: 170).

The military history and units of Pannonia have already been partly been discussed in Chapter 2, section 2.1 but will be included here when talking about Lower Pannonia, which is mainly researched by the school of South-Eastern Europe and when presenting an overall view of all the legions on the Danube at a particular time. The advance to the Danube took place between 14 and 9 BC and brought control of the Drava, Sava and Morava valleys. Strategic locations such as Osijek/Mursa, Sremska Mitrovica/ Sirmium and Nis/Naissus were added to Roman control. Illyricum became part of the Roman Empire after a lengthy military campaign by Tiberius (AD 6-9). Little is certain regarding the nature of the Danube forces before AD 6. After AD 9 the seven legions on the Danube were the following: In Pannonia, Legio VIII Augusta at Ptuj/ Poetovio, Legio IX Hispana at Sisak/Siscia and possibly Legio XV Apollinaris at or near Ljubljana/Emona until its move to Altenburg/Carnuntum in AD 14/15. In Dalmatia, Legio XX (later Valeria Victrix) was garrisoned at Şuplja Crkva/Burnum until AD 9 when it was moved to Germany and was replaced by Legio XI. Legio VII, which had once served in Macedonica, probably came to Gardun/ Tilurium some time before AD 6. Both, the XIth and the VIIth legion were rewarded with the titles Claudia pia fidelis in AD 42, as a result of their loyalty to the emperor against a rebellious provincial governor. Not much is known about the locations of the two Moesian legions in

AD 85/86 saw the beginning of two decades of wars on the Danube. It is possible that Legio V Alaudae, which was dispatched to the Danube after the civil war, was destroyed around AD 85-87 (Wilkes 2000b: 103). In AD 88, Domitian made a pragmatic peace with the Dacians and their leader Decebalus. In AD 92, the Sarmatians attacked Pannonia and caused the loss of a legion, possibly XXI Rapax (Wilkes 2000b: 103). The movements of legions under Domitian and his campaigns against Decebalus cannot be traced 109

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Moesia Inferior

XI Claudia I Italica

Silistra/Durostorum Svisthtov/Novae

Moesia Superior

VII Claudia IV Flavia

Kostolca/Viminacium Belgrade/Singidunum

Dacia

XIII Gemina V Macedonica

Alba Julia/Apulum Porolissensis/Potaissa

Dacia Nova*

XIII Gemina V Macedonica

Archar/Ratiaria Gigen/Iskur/Oescus

Pannonia Inferior

II Adiutrix I Adiutrix†

Budapest/Aquincum Szöny/Brigetio

Pannonia Superior

XIV Gemina X Gemina

AltenburgCarnuntum Vienna/Vindobona TABLE 6

* When Dacia was evacuated by Aurelian (around AD 271) the two legions of Dacia were moved to the newly formed province. † This legion was moved from Pannonia Superior to Pannonia Inferior under Caracalla (AD 215).

completely and new excavation results are only making interpretations more complex in relation to the epigraphic sources (Wilkes 2000b: 103). Moesia was divided into Inferior and Superior in AD 86. The border was fixed at the river Ciabrus (Cibrica in modern Bulgaria), both under consular legates. The river Drava was the western border of Moesia Superior and enclosed the region of Sremska Mitrovica/Sirmium. The river Sava signified the boundary between Pannonia Inferior and Moesia Superior. Pannonia was divided in AD 106. Pannonia Superior faced the Marcomanni and Quads in the west and Pannonia Inferior, separated from the upper province below the Danube bend, faced the Sarmatians in the Hungarian plain between Pannonia and the new province Dacia.

Viminacium), and two in Moesia Inferior (V Macedonica at Gigen/Iskur/Oescus and I Italica at Svisthtov/Novae). Fourteen legions are likely to have participated in the two wars of Trajan in Dacia (AD 101-102 and 105-106). Recent research suggests that the initial occupation of legionary fortresses on the lowest stretch of the Danube could date to the years between these two campaigns, and that this occupation moved from Gigen/Iskur/Oescus to Igliţa/ Troesmis in the northern Dobrudja, and from there to Silistra/ Durostorum. Legio XI Claudia moved to the latter from Pannonia (Wilkes 2000b: 104). The first garrison of Dacia consisted of legions XIII Gemina, IV Flavia and possibly I Adiutrix (Wilkes 2000b: 104). XI Claudia briefly moved to Brigetio during these Dacian campaigns but continued to its permanent post in Silistra/Durostorum. The newly formed Legio II Traiana was probably on the Lower Danube during this period (Wilkes 2000b: 104). During Trajan’s Parthian expedition (AD 114 to 117) Legio IV Flavia returned to Moesia Superior and Legio XIII Gemina remained in its legionary base at Belgrade/Singidunum at the mouth of the Sava, as the sole garrison of the new province.

When Oppius Sabinus and Cornelius Fuscus were defeated in Moesia and Dacia respectively (AD 85-87), Legio IV Flavia was brought from Dalmatia, which was the end of legionary presence in that province. Furthermore, Legio II Adiutrix came to aid from Britain. The former legion was garrisoned somewhere in Moesia Superior, the latter at the new fortress at Budapest/Aquincum. At the same time, Legio I Adiutrix was sent from the Rhine to occupy a garrison near or at Sremska Mitrovica/Sirmium. However, by the end of the first century it had moved to Szöny/Brigetio in Pannonia Superior (AD 97-101) (Wilkes 2000b: 103). At the start of Trajan’s first campaign against the Dacians, there were nine legions on the Danube: four in Pannonia (XIII Gemina at Vienna/Vindobona, XV Apollinaris at Altenburg/Carnuntum, I Adiutrix at Szöny/Brigetio and II Adiutrix at Budapest/Aquincum), three in Moesia Superior (XIV Gemina possibly at Osijek/Mursa, and later Magyaróvár /Ad Flexum in Pannonia, IV Flavia probably at Belgrade/Singidunum and VII Claudia at Kostolca/

The reign of Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180) saw the transfer of Legio V Macedonica from Igliţa/Troesmis in Moesia Inferior to a new to a new base at Potaissa/ Porolissensis in northern Dacia. The legions recorded in Table 6 remained in the Danube provinces until the middle of the third century AD (Wilkes 2000b: 104). As a general rule, the eastern European authors are very keen on dating their stamped tiles, since most articles that review material from these provinces include some sort of dating. It remains to be investigated how appropriate 110

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

the different methodologies used by the authors are. An investigation of areas that have been covered by the eastern European and by the German research will be performed. Similar to other Roman provinces and modern research areas, the list of articles does not claim completeness but is representative of a substantial sample of publications.

Brigetio between AD 101 and 106 the building of the stone walled fort at Ad Flexum must have happended at that time (Szilágyi 1952: 207). The construction work was carried out with the bricks of Cohors I Aelia (Caesariensis?), which does not, however, appear to have been garrisoned there. According to Szilágyi, in the 240’s AD, bricks for repair work were sent by a Coh(ors) VII Br(eucorum) Gord(iana). Since this unit was only certainly stationed in Pannonia as early as AD 85 (Szilágyi 1952: 206; footnote 173) it is not quite clear how he reaches this date. Perhaps the archaeological context points to the third century and the bricks were reused ones.

6.2 Discussion 6.2.1 Overviews or histories of troop dispositions Very few of the articles reviewed, with the exception of Sarnowski’s, give exact information about the types of bricks on which the stamps are found. This leaves little room for any conclusions about the types of buildings the bricks were used in. There are three articles whose main purpose is to shed light on troop disposition and histories.

The fortified camp of Gerulata/Oroszvár, according to Szilágyi, was probably built at the turn of the first to the second century AD with the collaboration of legions X and XIV Gemina, or in any case by bricks sent by these units (Szilágyi 1952: 207).

Szilágyi (1952: 189-220) catalogues the Roman garrisons stationed at what he calls the ‘Northern Pannonian Quad frontier sectors’ of the empire. His reconstructions of troop disposition are partly based on the evidence of military brick stamps. For example, in the case of the question of the garrison units of Arrabona/Györ he names the following, that are testified by stone inscriptions: Ala Pannoniorum, Ala I (Augusta) Ituraeorum sagittariorum, Ala I Aravacorum, Cohors I Thracum, Ala I Ulpia contariorum c(ivium) R(omanorum) and Ala III Thracum Ger(manica). The cohors II Alpinorum, stationed in nearby Quadrata (between Györ and Magyaróvár, according to Szilágyi, could have been involved in building activities in the fort, since a damaged grave-stone with the name of this unit and bricks stamped C II (he does not say how many) were found there (Szilágyi 1952: 205). There are, however, also bricks of legions XIV Gemina and XV Apollinaris, which means that these legions either sent bricks from Brigetio, where they were doing work simultaneously or that detachments of these came to Arrabona to do the work (Szilágyi 1952: 205). There are also bricks from units, which were active later, namely Cohors Aelia sagittariorum, Legio I Adiutrix, Legio I Noricorum, Legio I Italica and Legio X Gemina, which according to Szilágyi, show that the fort was repaired with bricks of these units in the third and until the middle of the fourth century AD (Szilágyi 1952: 205).

In Altenburg/Carnuntum the following legions were garrisoned: Legio XV Aplloniaris was there from AD 19 to 62 and again between AD 71 and 114. In the period in between it took part in the capture of Jerusalem. In the meantime it was replaced by legions X Gemina and later VII Galbiana (Szilágyi 1952: 207-208).Together with the XVth legion, Cohors I Alpinorum was involved in building because of a limestone tablet and brick stamps with the letters CAP. Another auxiliary unit present in Carnuntum after AD 69 was Cohors II Italica c(ivium) R(omanorum) voluntariorum (Szilágyi 1952: 208). Legio X Gemina is presented in Carnuntum by a lot of inscribed stones and brick stamps. One has to distinguish, however, between the part of this material which derives from its stay in Carnuntum and that which originates from its stay in Vienna/Vindobona. According to Szilágyi, the legion did not carry on with the building of the fortress in an extensive way in the period it was in Carnuntum. Therefore, it is more likely that the bulk of the stamps come from Vindobona, stretched by the fact that he suggests a date of after AD 107 for them (Szilágyi 1952: 208). Unfortunately, he does not go into detail about this date. For a new study on these bricks including petrology as a research method, Chapter 2, section 2.2.7 can be consulted. Some of the bricks carry the title Antoniniana, which shows that the fortress was repaired later, in the early third and possibly late second century (for a more detailed discussion of the Antoniniana title see Chapter 12, page 246). There are also bricks stamped with the names of legions I Noricorum and II Italica, two units that possibly assisted the rebuilding in the fourth century AD (Szilágyi 1952: 208). Several auxiliary units are attested in Carnuntum at different times, one of which was Ala I Pannoniorum Tampiana. The bricks stamped AF and ATI may be attributed to those (Szilágyi 1952: 209; footnote 199).

The garrison of Magyaróvár/Ad Flexum has not been established for certain (Szilágyi 1952: 206). It is, however, clear that not all of the units that left stamped bricks were garrisoned there. There are bricks stamped with the names of the legions I Adiutrix, II Italica, X Gemina and XI Claudia, which remained in Western Pannonia for varying periods and which obviously helped to repair the fort. Szilágyi, states that since Legio XI Claudia was garrisoned in 111

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

From 113 AD Legio XIV Martia was the garrison of the province of Upper Pannonia. The brick stamps of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix are generally attributed to this legion’s stay at Szöny/Brigetio, from which the bricks might have been shipped to Carnuntum (Szilágyi 1952: 209). Stamped bricks were found at Carnuntum, reading L V M and L V IULIO ADNAT (the latter two words are written in smaller letters than the others and on top of each other in two lines). Szilágyi expands them as L(egio) V M(acedonica) and L(egio) V Iulio/Adnat(o) and says that a detachment of this Dacian legion must have stayed at Carnuntum during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, quoting Ritterling (Szilágyi 1952: 209-210 and Ritterling RE XII: 1578). It is possible that this expansion is valid and that Iulius Adnatus is the name of a stamping soldier, however, we have to be aware that this is only a hypothesis based on the evidence of the stamps. Similar letter combinations are also common for civilian tileries (Todd 1966: 29-30).

bricks found in Vienna that came from legions stationed in Vindobona, Carnuntum or Brigetio, which, according to Szilágyi, shows that other legions also took part in the constructions there, either through building detachments or bricks. According to Szilágyi, bricks were shipped by Legio XV Apollinaris from Carnuntum and XXX Ulpia Victrix from Brigetio, perhaps together with tilers (Szilágyi 1952: 212). Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix completed the interior buildings of the fortress. Legio X Gemina, however, became the permanent garrison of the Vindobona and was responsible for all further building. Again, other legions, such as I Noricorum and II Italica sent bricks for repair works in the fourth century (Szilágyi 1952: 212). Cohors I Aelia sagittariorum, the garrison of Cannibiaca/Klosterneuburg also left stamped bricks in Vindobona (Szilágyi 1952: 212). For a different view on the same assemblage see Chapter 2, section 2.2.2. Klosterneuburg/Cannabiaca was inhabited, amongst two other units, by a Cohors I Aelia (Caesariensium?) sagittariorum equitata. During its long stay there, it seems to have sent bricks all along the Danube sector, since they were found as far as Komárom (Szilágyi 1952: 212).

Several letter combinations on stamps from Carnuntum have been interpreted as auxiliary stamps: such as the bricks stamped C(ohors) I F(ratensium) dating to the first century AD. It is, however, uncertain if this unit was ever at Carnuntum (Szilágyi 1952: 210). Stamps with the letters C V S, C A S, according to Szilágyi, belong to either a Cohors I Aelia sagittanorium or Cohors Alpinorum secunda (Szilágyi 1952: 210; footnote 216). Neither of these expansions can be seen as certain since the letter combinations are not very conclusive. We cannot exclude other possibilities, such as the interpretation that the stamps might have been produced by private entrepreneurs. Also, the fact that Szilágyi expands C F P F on bricks as c(lassis) F(lavia) P(annonica) f(elix/ecit) (Szilágyi 1952: 210) cannot be taken as completely secure. In a lot of these, he does not give other evidence such as other inscriptions that may attest these units in or near Carnuntum, so the expansions are often doubtful.

The military buildings of Pannonia also display a wide distribution of brick stamps. At the watch-post at Königshofen-Királyudvar/Ulmo an inscription was found, which shows that a detachment was garrisoned there. There are also bricks of Legio XV Apollinaris from Carnuntum that were discovered together with bricks of Cohors Aelia sagittariorum from Klosterneuburg/Cannabiaca (Szilágyi 1952: 213; footnote 256). Stamps reading COH III or COHORS III were found at another watchpost at Mursella (on the road between Arrabona/Györ and Savaria/Szombathely. Szilágyi is not certain about the nature of this unit (Szilágyi 1952: 214). The mansio at Crispiana (near modern Veszprémvarsány and Sikátor) was obviously built by the stamps of the legions stationed at Vindobona and Brigetio since stamped bricks of these were found there. Szilágyi also thinks that it must have been manned with soldiers from these legions (Szilágyi 1952: 214). Osones (near Csákberény) had a stone fort. A votive inscription and a brick stamp of Legio II Adiutrix show that this legion built the fort and that a detachment of it was probably garrisoned there (Szilágyi 1952: 214). Tác-Fövenypuszta/Gorsium (later Herculia) was a watchpost at cross-roads in inland Pannonia. Bricks made by Ala I Scuborum show that around AD 50 this unit was involved in some building activities in the district. Stamped bricks of the legions stationed at Aquincum and Brigetio (legions I and II Adiutrix) attest that these also sent bricks (Szilágyi 1952: 214). Bicske-Csákvár/Floriana was one of the watch posts or mansiones controlling the lines of supply behind the Danubian fortification line. According to Szilágyi,

Szilágyi states that the military remains found at Carnuntum and Vindobona are very similar. The garrisons of the two cities places were involved in the constructions of military and public buildings at both places, and this resulted in the frequent communication between them. According to the scholar, the units of Carnuntum and Vindobona have no independent history of their own (Szilágyi 1952: 211). Vienna/Vindobona only hosted auxiliary units in the first century AD, one of which left a stamp reading COHORTIS (Szilágyi 1952: 211). In the early second century Legio XIII Gemina, Vindobona’s garrison from this time, built the stone fortress. Szilágyi’s account of the bricks from Vindobona is very short (for a discussion of Neumann’s publication on the stamped bricks from Vienna see Chapter 2, section 2.2.2). There are many stamped 112

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

the fort was either built by Legio II Adiutrix stationed at Aquincum or by detachments of Legio I Adiutrix based in Brigetio, depending on the correct reading of the stamped bricks found at Csákvár (Szilágyi 1952: 215). He is not very specific about this and there is no reason, why, if stamps of the two were found, it could not have been a joint effort.

period, Dalmatia’s troops consisted of auxiliaries and one fleet unit. There is a relatively small amount of military bricks compared to other Eastern European former Roman provinces, such as Moesia. A lot of civilian stamped bricks have been found, but, according to Alföldy, there was no interaction with military producers (Alföldy 1967=1987: 45). For a more detailed discussion of the question of possible intervention between military and civilian brick producers, Chapter 12.2.2 can be consulted.

Szilágyi’s article shows very well that one cannot take the presence of brick stamps alone as proof that a unit was garrisoned in a location. As we have seen, bricks were traded quite regularly in Pannonia and transported on the Danube. It is hard to determine to what degree this building involvement also meant that detachments of units were moved from fort to fort to assist building activities. In fact, in many cases a decision between the two cases is not possible. Szilágyi recognises this and mostly includes both interpretations. An important aspect, which he does not mention, however, is the possibility that some bricks may have been reused. He usually dates bricks either by archaeological context or epigraphy, but reuse is not considered. However, in most cases, Szilágyi is rather careful not to give too narrow dates to bricks if it is not possible to do so by archaeological context. Often the historical frame of a stay of a unit is used for dating, aided by the testimony of other inscriptions, for which there is no lack in the province. It would be helpful for the reader to reconstruct the arguments if Szilágyi had added the numbers of brick stamps found in each case, to verify the number of stamps a hypothesis is based upon. Nevertheless, together with the testimony of other inscriptions and the aided by fact that it is obvious that bricks travelled in Pannonia. However, some of Szilágyi’s expansions for auxiliary and fleet stamps from Carnuntum are based on very little evidence. He does not include other possibilities, such as a civilian origin, and only considers one theory. Because of the facts that sometimes there is no other evidence for one of his suggested units and that the texts on the stamps often consists of two or three letters only, we have to treat these expansions with care.

Brick stamps of Legio XI Claudia titled pia fidelis were found in three places in modern Croatia: Burnum, Salona, and Dolac near Gardun. The legion came to Dalmatia under the reign of Augustus and was awarded the cognomen pia fidelis in AD 42 (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 45). It left Dalmatia in AD 69, which leaves the dating of brick stamps by Alföldy between those years beyond doubt. Stamps of Legio VIII Augusta were found in three different locations: Smrdelji, south of Burnum, where the legion’s brick works lay, Burnum, the municipium of Assernia, and Gradcine near Ljubuski. Alföldy states that the dating of those stamps is not secure. It is more than likely that the legion participated in the defeat of the Pannonian-Dalmatian rising against Rome between AD 6 and 9, and was probably in Dalmatia at the time. Like many scholars Alföldy concludes that since no other military stamps are known from that period, the tiles have to date to a later period. The problems of the beginning of the habit of stamping and resulting circular arguments are discussed in Chapter 10. Alföldy does not believe other scholars who date the stamps to the period of the Marcomannic Wars (AD 166-172 and 177-180), where the presence of the legion is confirmed in Dalmatia. He argues that other inscriptions in stone, naming soldiers of Legio VIII Augusta, date to the late 60s AD and that the stamps must originate from this period. The unit was moved from Moesia in AD 69, went to Aquileia, and finally continued on its way to Italy to participate at the battle of Cremona under Vespasian. Alföldy suggests that the legion did not only pass Dalmatia on its way, but that a detachment replaced Legio XI Claudia at Burnum, remained there, and produced and stamped its own tiles at the brick works at Smrdelji (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 46-47).

G. Alföldy, who contributed to the German school of research, wrote about the brick stamps from Roman Dalmatia. Legio XI Claudia, Legio VIII Augusta, Legio IV Flavia Felix and a Cohors VIIII volontariorum civium Romanorum left stamped tiles in this province. He researched the question of whether military tiles were being used for private buildings, and came to the conclusion that this was not the case in Dalmatia. His approach is also discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2. There are, however, some indications that military tiles were used for public buildings in the province (Alföldy 1967=1987: 45-51). For a short period in the first century AD between AD 45 and 86, two legions were garrisoned in the province. From that

The dating of stamps of Legio IV Flavia Felix is easier. They come from a number of different places. According to Alföldy, this is the case because military tile-stamping was more common in the Flavian period, when the legion was in Dalmatia (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 47). The legion arrived in AD 70 and left c. 86 for Moesia (Ritterling RE XII: 1540-1542), which secures the dating to that period. Most of the stamps were believed to have originated at the brick works at Smrdelji (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 47). 113

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Cohors VIII Voluntariorum was the only auxiliary unit that left stamped tiles. Examples were found at Gardun, Andetrium and Salona. The last place produced two tiles with different stamps. Other epigraphic testimonies have placed the stay of the unit in the fortress of Andetrium to the second half of the first century AD. The stamps from the fortress are likely to date to that period as well. One of the stamps from Salona might date to AD 42-69 because it was found with a stamp of Legio XI with the title pia fidelis. However, because of the possibility of reuse this date is not certain (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 48). The other stamp from Salona cannot be dated closely. The cohort was garrisoned at Gardun from the end of the first century AD, therefore, the brick stamps from there can date to any period from this time onwards (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 48).

been of interest to know if some of the bricks are datable by archaeological context. From the article, it is not apparent if the archaeological context of the stamped tile is known or not. Historical dates regarding a unit’s stay in a province are usually based on the evidence of other inscriptions and are relatively safe. However, sometimes they are based on brick stamp dates in the first place, which leads to potential circular arguments (as discussed in Chapter 10). The reason why some stamps are thought to be related to the Marcomannic Wars is not very clear since, there seems to be no specific epigraphic link between the two. An article by Sarnowski published in 1995 is a general study on legionary tiles in civilian and military contexts during the period of the principate (Sarnowski 1995: 497-501). A lot of the brick stamps and their dates, as discussed in this article, were also included in Sarnowski’s earlier publications (see section 6.2.2). Since the division of Moesia in AD 86 Lower Moesia had a garrison of two legions: I Italica and V Macedonica. The latter was probably in Oescus since the reign of Tiberius. Legio I Italica was stationed at Novae, which had been deserted by Legio VIII Augusta in AD 69. The exact date Legio I Italica took over is not known (Sarnowski 1995: 497). Legio XI Claudia came to Lower Moesia from Upper Germany during the period of Trajan’s first Dacian campaign (AD 101-102). Its first place of garrison was Oescus. Around AD 116/117, the unit was first attested at Durostorum. It is possible that the legion left Oescus during or shortly after the second Dacian war (AD105-106), before the city received the status of a colonia. Legio V Macedonica moved to Dacia to the border to Parthia in AD 162. From this period, Lower Moesia had two legions: Legio I Italica and Legio XI Claudia (Sarnowski 1995: 497). Sarnowski’s dating of Legio I Italica is discussed in more detail below under the category of local lists (section 6.2.2). This article, based on the division of stamps from the legions of Lower Moesia in four groups, is concerned with the question of the organisation of brick production on the Lower Danube, concentrating on the stamps of legions XI Claudia and V Macedonica.

Alföldy believes that if Dalmatia’s military occupation was highly reduced, the possibility of stamped brick-material would have been as well. He does not exclude the possibility that private tilers might have provided the remaining auxiliary units with bricks (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 49). As explained in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2, this was not a very common phenomenon, and is, generally, rather unlikely. Alföldy points to the fact that no military brick stamps were found in the wall of Salona, which as we know was built by the military in AD 170 (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 49). However, he does not state if there were any civilian stamped tiles at all, which probably means that the bricks were unstamped. No definite information about the brick’s origin can be given. We cannot disregard the possibility that the tiles were produced by the military but not stamped until excavations are carried out and further evidence is produced. Like so many scholars, Alföldy never gives the numbers of brick stamps from Dalmatia, which makes it harder to evaluate the material from a statistical point of view. However, his dating method is generally based on the historical background of the period in which a unit was stationed in Dalmatia. The stamps are dated to rather long chronologies, which is methodologically safe. Nevertheless, it would have Unit

Types

Date

Legio XI Claudia

10 Legio X CPF

shortly after AD 101

Legio V Macedonica

8

before 162/167

LEG V MAC LEG V MC

Flavian (AD 69-96)

all stamps found north of the Danube in Romula, Burdiva and in the South Carpatian forts

between AD 105 and 117 (between the Trajanic conquest and abandonment of the area) TABLE 7 (Sarnowski 1995: 497) 114

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

The dates given are based on archaeological context and are discussed in more detail in section 6.2.2. The bulk of stamped bricks from lower Moesia were found on the Danube. In 13 cases the legionary stamps were found together with those of auxiliaries and the classis Flavia Moesica.

222) and that it had suffered from damnatio memoriae. Gudea disagrees with this view, and apart from the brick stamps from Porolissum, names two other inscriptions that testify to the existence of this legion after this date: an inscription from Kostolac/Viminacium in Upper Moesia (modern Yugoslavia) indicates that a detachment of the unit was in this fortress of Legio VII Claudia (Vulic 1905: No. 14). Gudea says that it is likely that the unit obtained the title Severiana Alexandriniana, displayed on it, there (Gudea 2002: 20). A further inscription from Sremska Mitrovica/ Sirmium in Lower Pannonia (modern Yugoslavia), which is dated to the late second or early third century names a soldier of Legio III Gallica (Mirkovic 1990: 635-636).

According to Sarnowski, little is known about the production centres of Lower Moesian stamps. However, a brick workshop dating to the fourth century AD was found at Novae. Because of a stamp LEG XI CL FIG KAS found in Ostrov near Durostorum, Sarnowski suggests that Legio XI also had a brick factory near its garrison (Sarnowski 1995: 498). Unfortunately, he does not state how many bricks of this type were found. It is possible that could have travelled from one place to the other. Most of the brick works with the exception of Legio XI Claudia’s were situated upstream along the Danube. A lot of places of brick production remain unknown. Unlike Strobel (1988: 502) (for a discussion of this publication see category 6.2.3), Sarnowski does not exclude the possibility that there was a communal brick works for all units in the area. A place name Tegulicium, for a site 20 kilometres north of Durostorum, might be proof for this. Furthermore, stamps of the fleet and the detachments of legions were found on the same bricks, thus mentioning more than one unit on one brick. Fabric analysis has shown that the same clay was used for the bricks of Legio I Minervia, I Italica and XI Claudia (Sarnowski 1995: 498). For a discussion of the idea of shared brick works, see page 117 and Chapter 14, page 269.

According to Gudea, the over 50 brick stamps of Legio III Gallica from Porolissum testify that at least a detachment of the legion was present. The evidence from the brick stamps and the inscriptions mentioned, in his opinion, make it likely, that Legio III Gallica was punished, and thus dissolved and probably reassembled, during the reign of Septimius Severus, rather than Elagabalus, since there is evidence that the legion was present in the East in the early third century AD. He adds because the legion used its name on building material in Porolissum and that its name is mentioned in Sirmium and Viminacium, even including imperial titles in one case, the interpretation of a lasting damnatio memoriae is not justified (Gudea 2002: 21). Gudea continues that it is even harder to establish how those detachments came to Porolissum, Viminacium and Sirmium. He thinks that they were part of the Dacian and Moesian legions, which participated on the Eastern War of Septimus Severus, and that they accompanied those legions to their locations of garrison afterwards (Gudea 2002: 21-22). He states that even if we accept that the evidence from the two inscriptions in Viminacium and in Sirmium is doubtful, the brick stamps of Porolissum are certain proof of a detachment of Legio III Gallica, dated by archaeological context, and adds that the stamps do not only appear in the fort on the hill top Pomet but also in the civilian settlement and the amphitheatre. Gudea informs us that all of them can be dated roughly to the same period, the beginning of the third century AD, when some building and reconstruction took place. He also observes that the stamps do not appear in contexts that date later than AD 240 (Gudea 2002: 22).

The fact that in this case more than one unit stamped, and therefore, produced bricks in the same workshop disagrees with the (occasionally still encountered) opinion that the presence of a unit’s name means that the whole unit was garrisoned in a location. This, as has been shown, was not the case in the shared brick works of legions I Minervia, I Italica and XI Claudia. Therefore, Sarnowski shows that some concepts about the organisation of army brick production have to be reviewed. More recently, Gudea used some stamps of Legio III Gallica to shed light on the history of this unit (Gudea 2002: 1923). Since the late 1930s Moigrad-Jac/Porolissum in Dacia Porolissensis (modern Romania) has produced bricks stamped with the name of this legion, the most recent of which were found during Gudea’s 1977-1980 excavations. Previously, it had been assumed that the expansion of the stamps reading LG III was wrong. Gudea, however, is rather certain that Legio III Gallica or more likely a detachment of it was really at Porolissum in the first half of the third century AD (Gudea 2002: 19). Ritterling, (RE XII: 1526-1527) amongst others, had previously suggested that the unit had been dissolved by Septimius Severus after his victory against Pescennius Niger (AD 193/194) or by Elagabalus (AD 218-

Both the inscriptions and the brick stamps of Legio III Gallica show that the unit, or rather detachments of it, was present in the Danube provinces. We cannot, however, be entirely certain of the dates suggested. The inscription from Sirmium, according to Gudea, is dated to the late second or early third century AD, which means that the legion could have been dissolved either by Septimius Severus or Elagabalus. The inscription from Viminacium must date during or after the 115

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

reign of Septimius Severus (AD 222-235). Gudea argues that the brick stamps from Porolissum are a proof that the legion existed and had been reinstalled by the third century AD. As a back up of this argument he mentions over 50 stamped bricks found in Porolissum, which testifies without doubt that a detachment of Legio III Gallica was garrisoned there at one time. Nevertheless, we cannot be entirely certain of the date. The fact that the stamped bricks were found in an early third century AD context only provides the researcher with a terminus post quem. The bricks could have been produced earlier and been reused. Gudea does not give any indications if there are any traces of reuse (the guidelines in Chapter 11 can be consulted). The only information given is that there are both roofing tiles and wall bricks (Gudea 2002: 20), both of which could have been used for a second time. Therefore, a late second century AD date for the bricks cannot be fully excluded, which means that they do not really provide decisive evidence for the question of when the unit was dissolved. The inscription from Viminacium is a more secure proof for the existence of the unit in the third century, although, it is also only a terminus post quem and the fact that Legio III Gallica was obviously reinstalled under Alexander Severus could still mean that it was dissolved some time before, as for example, during the reign of Elagabalus.

FIGURE 94 STAMPS FROM ULPIA OESCUS (MORFOVA 1959: FIG. 1) a new border along the Danube and Oescus became a new centre of strategic importance. The presence of the legion at Oescus is attested until the fifth century AD. Morfova states that most of the stamped tiles of the legion probably date to that later period of occupation (Morfova 1959: 642), which is plausible, since the first stay of the unit lasted less than a decade. The significance of the praefectus title on the Legio V Macedonica stamps will be further discussed in Chapter 12, pages 229-230.

6.2.2 Local lists Most articles from the South-Eastern European school of research belong into this category. Morfova published the stamps of Ulpia Oescus in Moesia Inferior found at Gigen/ Iskur in modern Bulgaria. The site has produced stamps of the three main legions of Moesia Inferior: Legions V Macedonica, I Italica and XI Claudia. The bulk of the stamps come from the first unit, which had its permanent garrison at Oescus. There are a total of 148 stamps from Legio V Macedonica, 29 stamps of Legio I Italica and 7 of Legio XI Claudia (Fig. 94).

Brick stamps of the legions I Italica and XI Claudia were found only in small numbers. Legio I Italica was garrisoned at Svisthtov/Novae, also situated in modern Bulgaria. Both legions were part of the army of Moesia Inferior from the end of the second century AD. Morfova dates the tile stamps of Legio XI Claudia from Oescus to the arrival of the legion in the province, at the end of the second century AD. She compares them to stamps from Madara that were found in a building that dated to that period (Morfova 1959: 647). Morfova also thinks that the presence of stamps from both legions testify to their building activities at Oescus. She

Legio V Macedonica remained at Oescus at two different periods: the middle of the first century AD and from AD 271 to the end of antiquity. Between AD 62 and 71 the legion took part in two oriental expeditions. Under the reign of Trajan, it was transferred to the north-eastern part of the province and finally to Igliţa/Troesmis in Dacia. In AD 271, the Romans were forced to leave Dacia and fortify 116

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

dates the stay of a detachment of Legio XI Claudia to the same period, the end of the second century AD. The bulk of Legio I Italica stamps from Oescus were found in the city wall. Morfova sees this as a proof for the fact that detachments of the legions came to Oescus to participate in its erection. In her opinion, this view is strengthened by the vicinity of Oescus and Novae, the legion’s fortress. Morfova thinks that the most likely period for this activity was the era when Legio V Maedonica was absent from Oescus, from the second or third century to AD 271. The units from Novae would have been responsible for the protection of Oescus and for the restoration and construction of public buildings (Morfova 1959: 647-648). However, given the distance between the two places Oescus and Novae, which is roughly eighty kilometres, the exchange of bricks between the two units as a regular occurrence is doubtful.

legion must have participated at the brick production there (Milosevic 1971: 99). Nevertheless, on the given evidence, no safe conclusion can be reached on this issue. Her interpretation and dating of these stamps is largely based on that of other scholars. Often a date suggested by another researcher is adopted without further questioning, thus the different groups are dealt with in a different ways, which is problematic, since no uniform analysis is achieved. To make an evaluation of the study more accessible, it shall be discussed in categories, relating to the different dating methods employed, although Milosevic herself makes no such divisions. a.

Archaeological interpretation and dating:

There are 13 stamps belonging to Legio VII Claudia. Like Legio IV Flavia, this unit was also a permanent legion of Moesia. In AD 65, the legion was at Požarevac/ Viminacium in Upper Moesia, where it was permanently garrisoned. It is generally assumed that the legion was in the future territory of Lower Pannonia during the Dacian War, and there are numerous brick stamps. There is also evidence that auxiliary units under Legio VII Claudia took part in different wars (Milosevic 1971: 99). The stamps from Sirmium present the following types from Pannonia and are expanded by Milosevic as such:

Morfova dates the stamps of Legio V Macedonica from Oescus based on the historical back-ground of the legion’s stay in the location. She generally suggests long chronologies. Her methodology is valid because narrower date ranges are probably not possible and long chronologies are generally safe. The dating of the stamps of the two remaining legions is a little more complicated. Morfova proposes a date for the Legio XI Claudia stamps that is based on the dating of a building at Madara (Morfova 1959: 647). This can, however, only remain a hypothesis, due to the possibility of a secondary use. Lastly, her dating of the I Italica stamps is not certain (Morfova 1959: 646-647). The possibility that Legio I Italica initiated the building of the city wall of Oescus in a period when Legio V Macedonica was absent can also only remain hypothetical. It is just as possible that detachments of the unit assisted the other legion.

1. LEG VII CL 2. LEG VII CL PF

leg(io) VII Cl(audia) leg(io) VII Cl(audia) p(ia) f(idelis) 3. LEG VII CL PS leg(io) Cl(audia) p(ars) s(uperior) 4. LEG VII CLSCVRSACIFARCVTIOF leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura) Ursaci (prae)f(ecto) Arcutio f(ecit) 5. LEG VII CLSCVICTORINIP leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura) Victorini p(raefecti) (Milosevic 1971: 100)

Milosevic’s publication on the brick stamps from Sremska Mitrovica/Sirmium in Pannonia Inferior appeared in 1971. She deals with a material of several hundred stamped bricks, which had been discovered during archaeological excavations during in the years prior to the publication. Apart from military bricks Sirmium also produced civilian ones. Frequently, the publication refers to a shared brick works in Osijek/Mursa in modern Croatia, dating to and owned by the emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138). Three inscriptions (CIL III, 3290, 3299 and 3288) testify that Hadrian was the owner of a brick factory there. However, without fabric analysis of the bricks from Sirmium it is hard to determine which bricks originated there. Milosevic argues that because some bricks from Budapest/Aquincum display the text Legio II [Adiutrix] Had(rian), the stamps from the same legion found at Sirmium must have originated at Mursa (Milosevic 1971: 97). However, this must remain a hypothesis, due to lack of proof by fabric analysis. Furthermore, it is argued that a tombstone of a soldier of Legio X Gemina from Mursa, shows that the

Stamp types 4 and 5 possibly mention the praefecti Ursacius and Victorinus and in the first case also Arcutio, who was according to Milosevic the tegularius, who transported to Sirmium by water. The expansion suggested are, however, slightly doubtful, since it seems uncertain if the letters f and p represent the words praefecto and praefecti. These bricks were found together with coins that date to the third stamped the tile. They were produced in the workshop of the legion and probably and fourth centuries AD, therefore, Milosevic places the tiles into the same period (Milosevic 1971: 100). The remaining types are discussed on pages 120-121, since she uses epigraphic arguments for a date. 117

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 97 STAMP OF THE EXERCITUS PANNONIAE FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 64) FIGURE 95 STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VI HERCULIA FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NOS 28-30) FIGURE 98 BRICK STAMPED AP LUPPIAN ORD FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 67)

Five stamps belong to Legio VI Herculia (Fig. 95), which was recruited during the reign of Diocletian. Brick stamps of the legion were found at Osijek/Mursa, Sotin/Cornacum, Bononia and Baranjska Greda (?)/Aureum Montes. Its garrison was in a fort on the left bank of the Danube, according to stamps found in Észék and Čerević. Milosevic suggests that large construction projects were entrusted to the legion, stating that bricks from Lower Pannonia were shipped all the way to Noricum, because a brick of Legio VI Herculia was found there (Milosevic 1971: 101). The evidence this theory is based upon is not specified. The brick stamps of Legio VI Herculia from Sirmium offer the following variants (Fig. 95): 1. 2. 3. 4.

L(egio) VI H(erculia) L(egio) VI He(rculia) VIH(e)R(culia) C(ohors) X L(egio) VI H(e) R(culia) C(ohors) X examples)

to the Milosevic, this proves that Sirmium could have had a cavalry garrison in the fourth century AD, or even earlier. The stamp was found in one of the chronologically latest strata during excavations (Milosevic 1971: 106). Milosevic mentions over forty examples of stamps from the exercitus Pannoniae Inferioris (Fig. 97), of which she only illustrates and catalogues three in her study. Stamps of this unit appeared all through Lower and Upper Pannonia. She does not suggest a date. Two stamps in Milosevic’s study come from the same unit, displaying f(ig)l(ina) ex(e)r(citus) P(annoniae) with the first and the last letters in ligature. The only indication for a relative date, according to her, is that the bricks were found in archaeological levels originating from the period after the Marcomannic-Wars (after AD 180); consequently the brick works of the exercitus Pannoniae Inferioris must have begun its production around this time or somewhat later (Milosevic 1971: 106).

(2

Milosevic thinks that the difference between the two first types is also a chronological one. Examples of stamps bearing only the number and the name of the legion were found on three occasions (altogether about thirty pieces of bricks) with coins from the pre-Constantinian period, while examples with a longer legend were found with coins from the post-Constantinian period. She concludes that the stamp variants should be dated to the respective periods (Milosevic 1971: 101).

A single stamp from Sirmium is rather illegible, however, through comparison of the same type from other places in Pannonia a reading ap(parente) Lvppian(o) ord(inario centurione) is suggested (Fig. 98). Bricks with this stamp have been found in Dunaújváros/Intercisa and the entire length of the Pannonian limes. Because of the fact that other stamp types with the same reading were found in Sopron/ Scarbantia in a stratum associated with the reconstruction which followed the destruction by the Quadi in AD 374, these stamps are dated by Milosevic to AD 375 and later (Milosevic 1971: 106).

One stamp appears to belong to a Sirmian cavalry unit called eq(uites) Si(rmienses) (Fig. 96). The Notitia Dignitatum (occ. XXI: 12-22 cited after Milosevic 1971: 106) mentions other cavalry units in the vicinity of Sirmium. According

b.

Interpretation and dates based on historical background:

Two legionary stamp types (of two examples each) were inscribed with the name of Legio I Adiutrix. The first stamp, No. 1 is not entirely preserved. It reads I AD in negative (Fig.

FIGURE 96 STAMP OF THE EQUITES SIRMIENSES FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 63) 118

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

FIGURE 99 STAMP OF LEGIO I ADIUTRIX FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 1)

FIGURE 101 STAMP ADDRESSED AS FROM THE WORKSHOP OF LEGIO II ITALICA BY MILOSEVIC (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 56) Presumably, south-eastern Pannonia refers to the area of former Yugoslavia, and thus to a modern division of the ancient province.

FIGURE 100 BRICK STAMP OF LEGIO I ADIUTRIX/ NATIONAL MUSEUM OF HUNGARY (SZILÁGYI 1933: NO. 25)

Two brick stamps belong to Legio II Italica (Fig. 101), another legion which was garrisoned in Noricum, but unlike the previous one, did stay in Pannonia for a short period of time, before going to Enns/Lauriacum in modern Austria (Milosevic 1971: 102). They are stamped FIG LEG II ITAL SAB. There is another stamp FIG SAB, which can be attributed to the legion as well. The legion was in existence during the reign of Valentinian I (364-376), therefore the stamps must date to that period (Milosevic 1971: 102). Chapter 12, section 12.2.1 has a more detailed analysis of this particular stamp and all probable soldiers’ stamps. Like the above mentioned Legio I Noricorum stamp, it is most likely that SAB signifies the name of a military workshop officer or an ordinary soldier working there.

99). The variants of the I Adiutrix stamps from Sirmium are most similar to the ones from Brigetio (Fig. 100) (Milosevic 1971: 96). Previously, no bricks stamped by this unit had been discovered at Sirmium. However, an inscription was found, with the names of members of the legion, and was dated to the period before the emperor Nerva (AD 96-98), because it does not display the title pia fidelis, which Nerva awarded to the unit (Milosevic 1971: 96). On the basis of this, it was assumed that the legion was probably in Sirmium during the Dacian Wars of Domitian between AD 86 and 89. From there it went to Szöny/Brigetio. Szilágy thinks that Legio I Adiutrix was already active in the vicinity of Brigetio in AD 92 (Szilágyi 1952: 194). This article is discussed in section 6.2.1. Consequently, one might be tempted to assume that the legion remained there during the Dacian Wars. Alföldy suggests that the unit came to Sirmium in AD 89, when the city became a colony (Alföldy 1959). Milosevic suggests that the fortress of I Adiutrix was situated at Sirmium during Domitian’s time, due to the assumption that Sirmium was a strategically important site of the entire region, which belonged to Upper Moesia (Milosevic 1971: 96). Although it is not certain if the unit participated in the war in Pannonia in Domitian’s reign, we know that it took part in Nerva’s war against the Germanic tribes in AD 97. Legio I Adiutrix, together with Legio IV Flavia contributed substantially to their defeat (Milosevic 1971: 96). Milosevic points to the fact that there is no proof for the legion’s stay in Sirmium during the Dacian wars, nor is there for the assumption that Sirmium became a colony in AD 89, as suggested by Alföldy (Milosevic 1971: 96). She suggests that the two examples of brick stamps from the unit found near Sirmium can be linked to the legion’s stay in south-eastern Pannonia, rather than in northern Pannonia, although the variants of the stamps are quite similar to the ones from Brigetio. Unfortunately, she does not go into detail about these similarities, nor does she quote supporting evidence (Milosevic 1971: 97).

c.

Interpretation and dates based on epigraphy:

Four stamps belong to Legio II Adiutrix (Fig. 102). It is agreed that the legion came to the Danube around AD 86 to participate at Domitian’s campaigns in Dacia. However, scholars do not agree about its whereabouts for two decades after its arrival in Pannonia. Milosevic concludes that the unit may have been garrisoned in either Sremska Mitrovica/ Sirmium or Belgrade/Singidunum (Milosevic 1971: 97). In any event, smaller units of the legion were deployed in several places of Lower Pannonia, before it returned to its permanent base in Aquincum (Ritterling RE XII: 1443 and Milosevic 1971: 97). Inscriptions found in the area testify that Legio II Adiutrix had units near Sirmium in the course of the second and third centuries AD (Milosevic 1971: 97; CIL III 10224; 3241). Brick stamps of Legio II Adiutrix were found in the vicinity of Sirmium before the excavations and

FIGURE 102 BRICK STAMP OF LEGIO II ADIUTRIX FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 3) 119

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

some of the military units were transferred to the immediate proximity of the Dacian frontiers. A tombstone inscription from Mursa, dating to the turn of the first century proves the legion’s existence there (Milsosevic 1971: 99). Apart from this detachment, the legion was permanently stationed at Vindobona. No bricks from this unit had been previously found at Sirmium. On three of the stamps the title pia does not appear. One stamp from Sirmium is the same type as one from an unknown site of Pannonia. Milosevic dates the Sirmium-stamps by chronological order. She thinks that bricks with the addition p(ia) f(idelis) to be from the period of Domitian, whereas the bricks with the stamps which carry an additional p(ia) are earlier variants of the stamps of this legion. In her opinion, the former can be linked with the unit’s stay at Carnuntum and the latter with the unit’s stay at Osijek/Mursa (Milosevic 1971: 99).

FIGURE 103 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO II ADIUTRIX FROM AQUINIUM (SZILÁGYI 1933: NOS 21 & 22) were catalogued by Milosevic. However, there are numerous stamp types of the unit of the legion from several places found prior to the campaigns in Sirmium. According to Milosevic, the ones from Aquincum (Fig. 103) are the closest to the ones from Sirmium (Milosevic 1971: 97). One stamp type from Sirmium is only known from a fragment. If it is taken to contain the word LEG, it can be classified as the same type from as from Aquincum, which was dated to the third century, because it also displays HAD which is interpreted as Hadrian’s name. However, the letters are incomplete (Milosevic 1971: 97). Two more types, Milosevic’s Nos. 7 and 37 are also believed to be have been stamped by Legio II Adiutrix, originating from either Sirmium or the near brick works of Osijek/Mursa in Pannonia. The first letters of the stamps are FLAE and Milosevic suggests to complete them with f(ig)l(ina) Ae(lia), indicating Hadrian’s authority, as on the stamps from Aquincum (Milosevic 1971: 98). She links the appearance of stamps from this unit to the period of its stay in south-eastern Pannonia. She does not exclude the possibility that the above mentioned stamp No. 5 dates earlier, due to the fact that troops of Legio II Adiutrix were continuously in the south-eastern part of Lower Pannonia between the first and the fourth century AD (Milosevic 1971: 98). There are four bricks stamped by Legio X Gemina (Fig. 104). This legion came to the Danube region in AD 63 and was garrisoned at Carnuntum (as a successor of Legio XV Apollinaris and a predecessor of Legio VII Gemina). It remained there for five years until Galba’s units returned to Spain in AD 68. The unit came to Pannonia a second time some time between AD 103 and 107 during Trajan’s first Dacian War, this time to Aquincum. During this stay some of its detachments were apparently stationed at Mursa, because the centre of war operations shifted to Dacia so that

FIGURE 104 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO X GEMINA FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NOS 10 & 11)

FIGURE 105 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VII CLAUDIA FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NOS 16-27) 120

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

Some of the Legio VII Claudia (Fig. 105) stamp types from Sirmium are dated by epigraphy: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

All the brick stamps of Legio XIV Gemina from Pannonia (from Mosonmagyaróvár/Ad Flexum and Vienna/ Vindobona) bear the name of the legion as Gemina and a numeral. The type from Sirmium is, therefore, completely unknown. Milosevic suggests that it could date to the time when the legion was in Petrijevci/Mursella, which is not far from Sirmium (Milosevic 1971: 102).

LEG VII CL leg(io) VII Cl(audia) LEG VII CL PF leg(io) VII Cl(audia) p(ia) f(idelis) LEG VII CL PS leg(io) Cl(audia) p(ars) s(uperior) LEG VII CLSCVRSACIFARCVTIOF leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura Ursaci (prae)f(ecto) Arcutio f(ecit) LEG VII CLSCVICTORINIP leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura Victorini p(raefecti) (Milosevic 1971: 100)

Furthermore, there are the brick stamps which, according to Milosevic, name auxiliary units from Sirmium. She expands ADS (two stamps) with A(la) D(ecima) S(irmiensis), an ala, of which we know that it was in Sirmium in the fourth century (Milosevic 1971: 103). Another stamp is expanded as A(la) I (Augusta) e(t) V (rerorum). This unit was stationed somewhere near Sirmium in the second century (Milosevic 1971: 103). One stamp, according to Milosevic, expands as A(la) I G(allorum et) B(osporanorum). This unit is mentioned in a diploma from AD 158, which indicated that the unit was in Upper Dacia. It probably came there because of the Dacian Wars, according to Milosevic, and might have passed through Pannonia before going to Dacia. She states that two separate units, Ala Gallorum and Ala Bospanorum merged into this unit, and that this happened some time in the middle of the second century AD, which presents us with a terminus post quem for the stamps. Unfortunately, she does not give any back up evidence for this (Milosevic 1971: 103-104).

Milosevic suggests that types 1 and 2 are older, while 3 and 4 are part of a more recent group. She thinks this argument is supported by the fact that on the brick stamps of the former group, no additional text appears next to the name of the legion, or if it does, as in case of type 2, it is the title p(ia) f(idelis). The third type has been subject to several expansions: p(edeturae) s(uperior) might also be a possibility (Milosevic 1971: 100). According to Milosevic, similar words are used in the Notitia Dignitatum (occ. XXXI-XXXVII cited after Milosevic 1971: 100), which induces her to think of a later date with this stamp type. One stamp found at Sirmium had been previously unknown in Pannonia and its neighbouring provinces. The stamps reads MAR L (Fig. 106). If one, accepting Milosevic’s theory, expands this as Mar(tia) L(egio), it would follow that the brick was made at one of the military workshops of Legio XIV Gemina in Petrijevci/Mursella, Vienna/ Vindobona or Altenburg/Carnuntum. This would mean, however, that a very rare name for the legion was used. The unit was in Mainz/Mogontiacum in AD 43, and there are no brick stamps from that period. Between AD 43 and 70 it was in Britain and from AD 70 to 92 it was back in Mainz. The legion came to Pannonia to replace Legio XXI Rapax. According to Milosevic, the brick stamps suggest that the fort was in Petrijevci/Mursella (Milosevic 1971: 101). In AD 101 the unit came to Vindobona to replace Legio XIII Gemina, which had gone to fight the Dacians. In AD 113 it arrived at Carnuntum. It received the appellation Gemina during the reign of Augustus, and the name Martia Victrix in the beginning of the year AD 61 (Milosevic 1971: 101).

Five brick stamps might belong to the Alpine cohorts. Milosevic addresses her stamp type 39 (Fig. 107), of which examples were found both in Sirmium and Novi Banovci/Burgenae, as one of Cohors III Alpinae because it is incomplete and could have had a III rather than a I. This unit is recorded in an inscription from Pannonia which dates to the third century AD (Alföldy 1962: 263264). She thinks that this stamp and further ones of this unit found at Mursa belong to the same period (Milosevic 1971: 104). However, this is not totally secure because it is not certain that this stamp displayed III and not I or II Alpae/Alpinorum. As will be shown below, units of these names also existed. Four further stamps reading CALE and CAL are expanded with C(ohors) Al(pinorum) E(quitata)

FIGURE 106 BRICK STAMP ADDRESSED AS THAT OF LEGIO I MARTIA BY MILOSEVIC FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO 35)

FIGURE 107 BRICK STAMP ADDRESSED AS THAT OF THE ALPINE COHORTS BY MILOSEVIC (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO 39) 121

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 108 MAP OF THE DANUBE PROVINCES (WILKES 2000A: MAP 7)

and C(ohors) AL(pinorum). They do not display numbers; nevertheless, Milosevic interprets them as the names of cavalry units. The I and II Alpine cohorts also had equites. The second unit was in Pannonia around AD 116, and, according to Milosevic, brick stamps marked with Cohors I Alpinorum should be dated around that time (Milosevic 1971: 104). Another stamp of which only one example exists, reading CORSARI, is expanded as Co(ho)rs A(lpinorum) Pri(ma) by Szilágyi (Szilágyi 1942: 187) and the interpretation is followed by Milosevic (Milosevic 1971: 104-105). Two stamps carrying the inscription CAC, according to Milosevic, could be read as C(ohors II) A(sturum et) C(allaecorum), although she admits in this case that this expansion is only a hypothesis (Milosevic 1971: 105). Milosevic states that several fragments were found, without giving the exact numbers (Milosevic 1971: 105). The unit in question was in Pannonia from AD 80 and the earliest evidence of its stay in Lower Pannonia is a diploma from AD 110 (Milosevic 1971: 105). Throughout the second century it was stationed in the southern part of the limes of Lower Pannonia in the area of modern Yugoslavia (Fig. 108), because it is mentioned in diplomas from the years AD 148, 160 and 167. There are two variants, of which only one is known from Sirmium. Brick stamps of the other variant were found in Surduk/Rittium and Batina Skela/Ad Militare. The Sirmium stamps appeared in a

sounding with coins from the second half of the second century (from Antoninus Pius to Commodus). Therefore, Milosevic assumes that both stamp types of the cohort correspond to the same period (Milosevic 1971: 106). Four stamps from Sirmium read fig(lina) s(ub) c(ur)a Bar(…) (Fig. 109). These brick stamps were not found anywhere else apart from Sirmium. Milosevic rejects that the hypothesis that the brick stamps are from a private firm. In support of the latter, Ammianus Marcellinus mentions a supreme commander of the infantry, Barbatio, who, during the reign of the emperor Constantius, spent time in Sirmium at the head of the military forces (Ammianus Marcellinus XVIII: 3.1). Milosevic proposes that this Barbatio could be linked to the one on the stamp. She assumes that the workshop was Barbatio’s responsibility, and that the stamp could be completed as fig(lina) s(ub) c(ur)a Bar(bationis). If the appearance of these stamps in Sirmium can be

FIGURE 109 FIG S C A BAR STAMP FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 47) 122

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

connected to this commander, the chronological placement of the stamps is not very difficult. Emperor Constantius was in Sirmium on several occasions, conducting the war against the Sarmatians. In the years AD 359/360, he spent the winter in Sirmium, and it is not implausible that the episode with Barbatio Ammianus Marcellinus described took place at that time. The bricks would have been manufactured some time around the middle of the fourth century AD. The terminus ante quem for the stamp is AD 360 when Barbatio was assassinated (Milosevic 1971: 107). The abbreviation s(ub) c(ura), as mentioned above, also appears on some stamps of Legio VII Claudia which are expanded as Leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura) Ursaci (prae)f(ecto) Arcutio f(ecit) and Leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura) Victorini p(raefecti) (Milosevic 1971: 100). In these cases, a definite military context can be determined. As stated above, it is likely that apart from Sirmium the rather rare formula is also found on a stamp of Legio XXI Rapax from Avenches/Aventicum in modern Switzerland where Fuchs and Margueron expands as l(egionis) XXI s(ub) c(ura) Vi(ctoris/ictorinis) (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 120-122; Chapter 12, page 224). Again, the text refers to a military unit. For a more detailed discussion of this stamp and a slight possibility that a private entrepreneur tiling for the Roman army is mentioned, Chapter 12, section 12.2.1, can be consulted. Furthermore, brick stamps naming the tile praefectus without a name from Gigen/Iskur/Oescus display the letters s(ub) c(ura) before this title (Morfova 1959: 644). d.

prior to that no legions had been stationed at Aquincum (Ritterling RE XII: 1540-1543). He dates the Legio IV Flavia stamps from there to the first and the beginning of the second centuries AD. For a terminus ante quem, he names the year AD 137, because the title Flavia felix, which the legion carried during its stay in Dalmatia and Pannonia until the period of Hadrian, appeared rarely during the reign of Antoninus Pius. Since the legion was in Dacia between AD 101 and 106, and in Belgrade/Singidunum from the year AD 106 on, he assigns its stay in Pannonia to the period prior to AD 101 (Alföldy 1967a=1987: 47). Alföldy dates the stamps of the legion from Sirmium to the period of Domitian’s war in Pannonia (Alföldy 1959: 119). Protase deals with brick stamps of Legio IV Flavia from Oltenia and Banat in modern Rumania, and believes that this territory belonged to Dacia and not to Moesia. He dates the Legio IV Flavia-brick stamps found there to the years AD 108-112, whereas he thinks that the ones from Orsova/Dierna and Celeiu/Sucidava in Rumania date to the third and fourth centuries AD (Protase 1967: 47-72).This article is further discussed in section 6.2.3. Milosevic does not make a decision between the different possibilities. Two stamps display figvlinas Ivensianas Leg(io) I Nor(icorum) (Fig. 110). Milosevic does not think that the name Ivensianas belonged to a private entrepreneur tiling for the army. However, it might possibly be linked with Adiuvense, which appears in the Notitia Dignitatum (occ. XXXIV cited after Milosevic 1971: 102) and she rightly states that it was more likely to derive from a military workshop (Milosevic 1971: 102). Legio I Noricorum was permanently in Noricum the end of the third century AD (Ritterling RE XII: 1434) and never came to Pannonia. Milosevic reproduces two different possibilities of dates, suggested by other scholars based on archaeological context: the beginning (Nágy 1931: 44) and the end of the fourth century AD (Szilágyi 1933: 22; plate IV 2, 3, 4). She does not go into detail about these suggestions (Milosevic 1971: 102).

Interpretation and dates adopted from other scholars:

Nos. 8 and 9 on Milosevic’s list, according to her, were stamped by Legio IV Flavia. This legion belonged to the army of Moesia from AD 86 to the early second century AD, but was connected closely to the province of Pannonia and Legio II Adiutrix, who it sometimes replaced at Aquincum (Ritterling, RE XII: 1540-1543). Milosevic’s dating of Legio IV Flavia stamps is based on that of other scholars. In the above discussed article in section 6.2.1, Alföldy gives a terminus post quem of AD 89 because

stamped

Dates, according to Milosevic:

Unit:

Number of bricks:

Text:

Legio I Adiutrix

2

in Sirmium from around AD 86-89

Legio II Adiutrix

4

in Pannonia from AD 86 to the fourth century AD

Legio IV Flavia

2

in S-E Pannonia from AD 89 to around the late second century AD 123

Proposed date:

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Unit:

Number of bricks:

Legio X Gemina

4

stamped

Text:

Proposed date:

with the titles p(ia) f(idelis)

in Carnuntum AD 63-68

without titles Legio VII Claudia

7

with the titles p(ia f(idelis) with p(ars) s(uperior) or names

Legio VI Herculia

1

Legio VI Herculia Legio VI Herculia Cohors X

a detachment in Mursa AD 103-107 in Moesia from AD 65 to the third century AD third or fourth century AD pre-Constantine (before AD 306) post-Constantine (after AD 337)

Legio XIV Gemina (??)

1

in Mursella AD 92-101 in Vindobona AD 101113 in Carnuntum from AD 113

figulinas Iuvensiana Leg(io) I Nor(icorum)

2

fourth century AD

Legio II Italica

2

AD 364-376

A(la) D(ecima) S(irmiensis)

2

fourth century AD

A(la) I (Augusta) e(t) V r(erorum)

1

in Sirmium in the second century AD

A(la) I G(allorum et) B(ospororum)

1

in Upper Dacia from AD 158

Alpine Cohorts: (Cohors II) I Alp(inorum C(ohors) Al(pinorum) C(ohors) Al(pinorum) E(quitata) C(ohors II) A(sturum et) C(allaecorum) Co(ho)rs A(lpinorum) (P)ri(ma)

third century AD 5 4

late second century AD in Pannonia from AD 80

2 or more no date 1

eq(ites) Si(rmienses)

1

fourth century AD

exercitus Pannoniae Inferioris

40

no date

f(ig)l(ina) ex(e)r(citus) P(annoniae)

2

after Marcomannic Wars (after AD 180)

ap(parente) Luppian(o) ord(inario centurione)

1

after AD 375

fig(lina) s(ub) c(ur)a Bar(batio?)

4

Constantius II (AD 337) to AD 360 TABLE 8 (MILOSEVIC 1971: 95-116) 124

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

FIGURE 110 FIGULINAS IUVENSIANAS LEGIO I NOR(ICORUM) STAMP FROM SIRMIUM (MILOSEVIC 1971: NO. 68) Generally, the dates of brick stamps proposed in the study are well researched. However, there are some problems. Milosevic does not appear to include all of the stamps found at Sirmium. In some cases she admits that more stamps than she lists in her paper exist. The main problem with her dating is the small numbers of stamps. Two to four brick stamps are not enough to place a secure date on the stamps of a certain unit, as has been done in many cases by either Milosevic or by her adoption of the dates of others. Furthermore, she does not use unified methodology for the brick dates due to the fact that she follows the interpretation of other scholars. This makes the study inaccessible and hard to follow.

of the above mentioned stamps of legions X Gemina and VII Claudia from Sirmium, Milosevic bases dates on the fact that the titles pia fidelis are missing on some of the stamps. However, this is debatable, since the units who were awarded with the title pia fidelis in AD 88/89 did not loose it when Domitian was assassinated in AD 96 but only the additional title Domitiana. Therefore, pia fidelis was still used after AD 96. Imperial titles are not a safe dating criterion and are often omitted on brick stamps. For a more detailed discussion of this problem, the reader can consult Chapter 12, pages 242-246. Furthermore, it is possible that the stamp type reading MAR L and expanded by Milosevic as Mar(tia) L(egio) could also be a brick of Legio V Martia which was garrisoned in Upper Germany in the late Roman period (Tomasevic-Buck 1996: 268-273), although the brick would have traveled quite a distance. However, occasionally single bricks have been found far from their unit’s the place of garrison. Alternatively, one might want to consider the possibility that MAR L is the abbreviation of some person’s name and this is a civilian stamp. There are further problems with Milosevic’s expansions since a lot of the names she proposes are hypothetical. She mentions some civilian bricks from Sirmium (Milosevic 1971: 107-109) which are few in proportion to the military ones. In the case of the expansion of ADS with A(la) D(ecima) S(irmiensis), we have to bear in mind that the Roman military brick stamps usually write numbers as numerals and not as words, which is why this expansion remains questionable. It could also be an abbreviation for a name, and is perhaps a civilian stamp. Milosevic proposes some very unusual name resolutions for the material. Also, she bases her history of the Alpine cohorts on the assumption that one Alpine cohort could not be garrisoned at Sirmium in a period when another was stationed there. This is questionable because one cannot exclude the possibility that two Alpine cohorts were garrisoned at Sirmium simultaneously.

The third problem, which appears very often throughout Milosevic’s study, is that she very often dates stamps after archaeological stratigraphy. This is a good method that can be used safely as long as the point is made that the date strata is a terminus ante quem only. The article does not mention the possibility of reuse, so it is not very clear if this is considered at all. A lot of the dates that Milosevic proposes are quite general, covering a large period of time, and there are usually no faults with those. However, care has to be suggested where archaeological stratigraphy is used to date to a very specific period of time, due to the problem of the possibility of reuse. One also has to bear in mind that Milosevic accepts a lot of dates from brick stamps chronologies from other places in Pannonia and bases her dating on those. The study relies to a great extent on the research of others from the Pannonian school. This is generally safe for those units were enough material is present, as in the case of the stamps of Legio X Gemina from Carnuntum, Legio II Adiutrix from Aquincum or Legio I Adiutrix from Brigetio. However, it is never unproblematic to accept dates of other scholars without rechecking them. Therefore, it would have been better to review the brick stamps published by Szilágyi (1952: 189-200) and Alföldy (1959; 1962: 263-264; 1967a: 4451=1987: 317-325). In a lot of the cases, the dating is based on the evidence of imperial titles. As further discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3, these are not necessarily are not safe dating criteria on military brick stamps.

Caution has to be suggested with the interpretation that the abbreviations CALE ad CAL (see pages 121-122) refer to Alpine cohorts. Since no numbers are displayed, the stamps may represent name abbreviations of civilian stamp producers. The same applies to a stamp displaying the inscription CORSARI, represented by one stamp. This is expanded as Co(ho)rS A(lpinorum) (p)ri(ma) by Szilágyi

In addition, some of Milosevic epigraphic dates, especially those based on missing titles are questionable. In the case 125

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

(Szilágyi 1942: 187) and the interpretation is followed by Milosevic (Milosevic 1971: 104-105). Milosevic suggests that CAC might expand as C(ohors II) A(sturum et) C(allaecorum). In fact, there is a civilian glass bottle from Silchester with the same stamps. The suggested reading for this stamp is that it is a name (RIB II.2: 2419.92). Although it is unlikely that the person who produced the glass from Silchester and the brick from Sirmium are the same, it shows that Milosevic’s explanation is very hypothetical. It is as likely that this brick type names a civilian producer as a military unit. Perhaps we cannot dismiss totally the possibility that some of the insecure expansions, as for example the bricks reading CALE, CAL, CORSARI or CAC might be abbreviated names of civilian entrepreneurs. The same applies to the fig(lina) s(ub) c(ur)a Bar(…) stamps. Firstly, there could be a different expansion, in which the letters S and C are part of a name or place name, such as perhaps Scarbantia. Secondly, there is no real indication that these are really military stamps.

FIGURE 111 BRICK STAMP ALA I NUMERI ILLYRICORUM FROM BRÎNCOVENEŞTI (PROTASE 1977: 384) when a test trench had been dug. The excavations of 1972 also produced over 40 fragments from funerary inscription and sculptures, which obviously had been recovered from the cemetery, smashed, and incorporated into the reconstruction the defenses of the fort. Protase dates this restoration to the late second or third century AD, because either the war against the Marcomanni or the attacks of barbarians during the third century AD would have made such measures necessary. Together with other uninscribed and undecorated stone blocks, they then ended up in the ditch in which they were discovered (Protase 1977: 383). He argues that Ala I numeri Illyricorum appears on one of the funerary inscriptions. The inscription mentions an Aurelius Valens Sesquiplicarius, a soldier of this unit, who was commemorated by his wife Zetzi (Protase 1977: 383384).

Some of the historical contexts presented by Milosevic might be assumptions since a lot of the initial histories were based on inscriptions, including brick stamps by previous scholars. Milosevic does not appear to be very critical of these earlier readings. This problem is also discussed on page 125.

According to Protase, the funerary inscription attests the presence of an Ala I numeri Illyricorum at Brîncoveneşti. He states that the inscription is the only one mentioning the unit found in former Dacia (Protase 1977: 384). He states that none of the military diplomas from the province cite the ala, which makes it difficult to determine if it was part of the army for Dacia Porolissensis or Dacia Superior/ Apulensis (Protase 1977: 384).

In the case of Milosevic theory that Legio I Noricorum shipped bricks to Pannonia from Noricum, no evidence for this theory is given. Fabric analysis remains to be performed and without it one brick is not enough for a safe conclusion. A detachment of the unit could also have gone to Noricum, or alternatively the brick got there later, and was reused. Also, the fact that the archaeological context is not stated does not help. Milosevic’s assumption can, therefore, not be proven. In spite of the fact that the study is well researched and includes comparison with a wide range of material from the areas in which the units in questions were garrisoned, there are some methodological problems, such as the inconsistency of research methods, the problem that often, hypotheses are presented as facts and some unusual expansions without parallels from other areas.

However, this interpretation can now be reviewed. Spaul (1994: 150-151) shows that there is a military diploma from Dacia naming an Ala I nova Illyricorum. He mentions a tile from Vecs near Clausenburg which is stamped with ALNILR. Spaul expands this as A(la) n(ova) Ily(ricorum) and it is likely that the tile from Brîncoveneşti has the same text, thus naming Ala I nova Illyricorum, rather than a numerus of the same. Two inscriptions with the name of one unit, is still a relatively small number. The fact that there is only one stamp and one funerary inscription, shows that the prolonged presence of Ala I nova Illyricorum or even a detachment of it at Brîncoveneşti can only be presumed and that no definite answer can be reached based upon the present evidence. Two inscriptions is never enough to reach any safe conclusion. Even although it is now certain that the unit was a part of the Dacian army, the statement that it was at any time garrisoned at Brîncoveneşti can only remain a hypothesis and the ala could also have been stationed at a fort nearby.

In 1977, Protase published some research on the fort of Brîncoveneşti /Rumania (Protase 1977: 379-386). The area belonged to ancient North-eastern Dacia. The first archaeological excavation of the fort, known and discussed in literature on the Romans in the area since the middle of the nineteenth century, had taken place between 1970 and 1973. Traces of an earth and a stone-fort were found. The only brick stamp found in the fort was expanded by Protase as Ala I n(umeri) Il(l)yri(corum) (Fig. 111). The stamp had already been found in the nineteenth century, 126

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

Benea published an article on the military brick works of Orşova/Dierna in Rumania (Benea 1977: 321-328). After the abandonment of Dacia in AD 275, the area between Bazias, Turnu Severin/Drobeta became subject to a period of renewed activity including intensive building and restoration on both banks of the Danube. The figlina of Dierna, on the north-bank was one of the new centres in that period. Excavations before the 1970s had already produced bricks stamped LEG X R and DRP DIERNA, DIERA or DIERTRA. The stamps Leg(io) XIII Gem(ina) and Leg(io) XIII R(atiaria), in the eyes of Benea, testify the presence of a detachment of Legio XIII Gemina, which was summoned from the legion’s main quarters at Archar/ Ratiaria (Benea 1977: 322). About a century later, the Notitia Dignitatum (XLII 37 cited after Benea 1977: 321328) mentioned Dierna as the residence of a praefectus legionis tertiadecimae Geminae.

Transdierna workshop (Benea 1977: 326). Benea is certain that the stamps testify that Dierna was not only a small military base, but a centre of great military and economic importance during the third and fourth centuries AD, when the bricks were produced. In addition, many coins were found at Dierna, which, according to her, further illuminates its superior position (Benea 1977: 327). Benea dates the stamps very loosely to the late third and fourth century AD. Her approach by dating by historical background and establishing a long chronology, that is the retreat of the Roman army from Dacia, is methodologically correct. There are, however, a few problems of methodology, concerning the statements about the importance of Dierna as a military and economic centre. Firstly, dates of other stamps (Legio XIII Gemina) are adopted without reference to the methodologies used on those. Secondly, and more importantly, Benea never gives the numbers of stamps she is talking about. Without knowing roughly how many stamps were produced there, we cannot accept statements about the strategic and economic position of a place. Therefore, there are methodological problems with the analysis.

Benea states that the stamp type only naming Legio Gemina dates to the second and third centuries AD in other places. The other type that names Ratiaria as the legion’s cognomen together with the first version, according to her, must date to the years following the retreat of Aurelian from Dacia, and the reconstruction of the border along the Danube. She also does not exclude the possibility that the bricks were fired at the new headquarters at Dierna but carried stamps still inscribed onto dies at the old legionary headquarters (Benea 1977: 322). The Notitia Dignitatum (cited after Benea 1977: 322) mentions the following quarters for Legio XIII Gemina in the fourth century AD: Archar/Ratiaria, Brza Palanka/Egeta, Transdrobeta (?), Burgo Novo(?) and Orşova/Dierna.

Culiça produced two publications on the stamps of Legio XI Claudia at Silistra/Durostorum in Dacia, which is part of modern Bulgaria. The latter of the two will be discussed here (Culiça 1978: 225-237). The scholar deals with a total of 41 brick stamps. He divides the stamps into ten types (Fig. 112-113) (for a more detailed list see Culiça 1978: 228-231): 1. LE XI (no illustration) There are two examples, both on rectangular tiles.

The brick stamps mentioning Dierna were found in 12 different places in the area. Benea studies the stamps on the unit on a map of the area, and recognises the fact that the whole area of the right bank of the Danube up to the border to Moesia and even further was reached by the Dierna-stamps. She is, however, certain that the products originated from one workshop, and were sent to different forts along the Danube due to the unity of the stamp types (Benea 1977: 324). Since no petrological analysis appears to have been carried out, this statement can only remain hypothetical.

2. LE XI CL (Fig. 112, type 67) There is one example, on a tile. 3. LEG XI (Fig. 112, types 51, 57, 66) There are three examples of this type, two of which the author describes with ansae. All three are on tiles. 4.

LEG XI C (Fig. 112-113, types 54, 59, 61, 70, 73) There are five examples, which appear on tiles, bricks, and curved tiles.

There is a last type from Dierna stamped DIERTRA. Benea makes the connection with the place-name Transdierna, which, as its name indicates, is at a location on the opposite shore the river Danube (modern Tekija in Yugoslavia). In her opinion, those tiles were also produced at the brick works of Dierna. The stamp type DIETRA, according to her, was used to differentiate the stamps for the buildings of Transdierna from those bricks fired for the use of the fort at Dierna. She thinks it is the first proof of the existence of a

5. LEG XI C PF (Fig. 113, types 84, 85) There is only one example from Durostorum on a tile. It has a tabula ansata. The type is attested in Pannonia before AD 106, before the legion’s transfer to Durostorum, and then Oescus. Culiça suggests that this stamp type could possibly date later in Durostorum, perhaps to the beginning of the third century AD (Culiça 1978: 229). 127

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 112 STAMP TYPES OF LEGIO XI CLAUDIA FROM DUROSTORUM (CULIÇA 1978: FIGS 5 & 6) 6. LEG XI CL (Fig. 112-113, types 55, 79, 81) According to Culiça, there are nine examples of this type, of which he described one with ansae (Culiça 1978: 229). This shows, however, that the stamp with the ansae is of a different type. These examples are bricks and tiles, one is a curved tile. This type is not

known from Pannonia and, therefore, Culiça states that it could not date prior to the legion’s arrival at Durostorum. He suggests that it does not date earlier than Type 5. In his opinion, it cannot be later than the beginning of the third century AD, which is his proposed date of Type 9. This type carries the cognomen 128

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

FIGURE 113 STAMP TYPES OF LEGIO XI CLAUDIA FROM DUROSTORUM (CULIÇA 1978: FIGS 5 & 6)

Antoniniana, hence the date (Culiça 1978: 229-230). If the proposed date is right, this stamp type is a good example of the fact that legions did not continuously display their cognomina on stamps, since the suggested

earlier Type 5 does display p(ia) f(idelis), while this type does not. However, there is some indication that the Antoniniana title might sometimes date earlier than previously assumed (Lörincz 1982: 142-144 and 129

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123), which makes this dating hypothetical. Problems with this title will be discussed in Chapter 12, page 246.

this type was later than the previous ones (Culiça 1978: 231). Culiça is relatively careful with his dates. He discusses very few types or rather groups of stamps. Perhaps it is better to call Culiça’s distinctions groups, based on the texts, since his type 6, for example, is represented by different dies with different ansae. In the article, he indicates that during previous campaigns and in previous publications more stamps of Legio XI were present. His methodology of a relative chronology includes cognomina, which he applies very carefully, for example when allowing for the fact that the cognomina pia fidelis were probably omitted on Type 6. Culiça wrote at a time when few scholars were familiar with the fact that missing titles are not safe dating criteria and recognised that because of its archaeological context a different date for this type has to be suggested. However, the archaeological context of the types is not always mentioned, which should be the case in a total approach. Epigraphy alone is not enough to gain maximum information about a stamp, even if some of the titles provide a safe dating criterion. As mentioned above, the date of the Antoniniana title is not as secure as assumed here. Therefore, it would be interesting to know if further information can be gained from stratigraphy and if there are any signs of reuse on the bricks.

7.

LEG XI CL PF (Fig. 112-113, types 52, 72, 74, 76, 87) There are 14 examples of this type, on bricks and tiles. According to Culiça, there are six examples with ansae. It displays the same letters as the previous type, therefore, he suggests it dates from the same period, between the arrival of Legio XI Claudia at Durostorum, and the beginning of the third century AD. The title pia fidelis was obtained at the end of the second century. A funerary inscription commemorating one of the veterans of Legio XI Claudia from Durostorum, which dates to AD 167, uses the same formula: Leg(ionis) (XI) Cl(audiae) p(iae) f(idelis) (Culiça 1978: 230). 8. LEG XI FIG KAS (no illustration) There are five examples of this stamp, all on flat bricks. All the different variants use the K instead of the C. Culiça states that, if Ritterling’s dating of the stamps f(iglinae) Tra(ns) ma(riscae) and f(iglinae) Can(didianis) to the fourth century AD (Ritterling RE XII: 1690-1700) is correct, it could present us with a parallel for these stamps. He himself admits, however, that this method is more than insecure (Culiça 1978: 230). Since the stamps that Ritterling cited did not mention Legio XI Claudia, the connection appears somewhat arbitrary.

Sarnowski, who is part of a Bulgarian-Polish cooperation excavating in Bulgaria, is the author of several publications on brick stamps from Roman Bulgaria. In 1983, he completed a systematic and typological study on the brick stamps from Svishtov/Novae. This study compiles a total of 1107 brick stamps from 21 excavation campaigns. A further 143 were eliminated due to their fragmentary state (Sarnowski 1983: 17-61). The bulk of the material is bricks and roofing tiles. There is a certain amount of double and multiple stamping, which Sarnowski and Spitzlberger agree presents a form of quality control (Spitzlberger 1968: 83; Sarnowski 1983: 32-33). Sarnowski not only classifies the stamps he discusses into types but also into groups, based on epigraphic similarities, such as similar texts, titles and styles.

9. LEG XI CL ANT (Fig. 112, type 53) There are four examples of this stamp type, three flat bricks and one roofing tile. ANT is in ligature. The cognomen Antoniniana is attested for eight units in Dacia, and, according to Culiça and many others, was introduced by Caracalla in AD 212 after the assassination of Geta. One inscription, however, is named, which reads coh(ortis) I A(u)reliae Brittorum (milliariae) Antoniana(e) and which dates to AD 201. As mentioned above, there is now some evidence that the title might occasionally date to as early as the reign of Septimius Severus (Lörincz 1982: 142-144; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). The abbreviation with the ligature ANT near Durostorum is known from a brick stamp found in Drobeta of Cohors I Sagittariorum dated to the beginning of the third century AD, and also from a stamp of Cohors Numidarum Antoniniana. The cognomen is attested until the end of the reign of Elagabal, therefore, Culiça dates type 9 between AD 212 and 222 (Culiça 1978: 231).

Sarnowski states that there are very few stamps, which give a concrete indication for a date (Sarnowski 1983: 55). One of the exceptions to this is a stamp of Legio I Italica with a consular date, Marulo cos, which points to the year AD 184 (Fig. 114). A consular date on a military brick stamp is a very rare occurrence. This stamp falls into a period that is very well attested by other epigraphic sources. There is evidence that the late second century AD was a relatively prosperous era amongst the army of Lower Moesia, which influenced the lives of the simple soldiers. Sarnowski thinks that the stamp is a sign of the extensive building

10. LEGIONIS X (Fig. 112, type 58) This stamp was found on two bricks and one tile. Culiça is not specific about a date, but indicates that 130

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

activity in that time, within and outside the military camp. He suggests that it might have been used in a building of civilian rather than military character (Sarnowski 1983: 55). This is possible since, as will be mentioned in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2, there is some evidence that the Roman army used some of their bricks for civilian public buildings, although usually not for private civilian ones.

FIGURE 114 CONSULAR STAMP FROM NOVAE (SARNOWSKI 1983: PLATE VII)

During the third century AD, Legio I Italica had several cognomina, of which Antoniniana and Alexandriana are recorded on stamps. In Sarnowski’s opinion, they make a dating easy. Another stamp type, LEG ITAL G (Fig. 115) was previously interpreted as Leg(io) I Ital(ica) G(ordiana), but the G on the fragmentary stamp turned out to be a decorative feature rather than a letter, which had derived from the tabula

FIGURE 115 LEGIO I G STAMPS FROM NOVAE (SARNOWSKI 1983: PLATE VI)

FIGURE 116 SARNOWSKI’S TYPES XV-XVIII (SARNOWSKI 1983) 131

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 117 SARNOWSKI’S TYPES VI 123 & 124 (SARNOWSKI 1983) ansata (Sarnowski 1983: 55). Stamps Leg(io) I Ital(ica) Ant(oniniana), according to Sarnowski, were common during the reign of Caracalla (AD 212-217) or perhaps Elagabal (AD 218-222). Bricks of the same legion stamped Ale(xandria) came from the second half of reign of Severus Alexander (around AD 230-235) (Sarnowski 1983: 55-56). Apart from the brick stamps, there are other indications that there was extensive building activity during the first decades of the third century AD. Building inscriptions testify this for the reign of Severus Alexander, and a single one also for Caracalla (Sarnowski 1983: 56). Sarnowski lists all the known building inscriptions and the buildings they were found in and fills in the stamps that had been found in those buildings, thus giving a relative chronology for the brick stamps of the early third century AD (Sarnowski 1983: 56-58). His dating of the Antoniniana title might be too late, since there is some evidence, as explained above, that cognomen could sometimes date earlier. For more detailed discussion of the title, see Chapter 12, page 246.

FIGURE 118 SARNOWSKI’S TYPE VI 35 (SARNOWSKI 1983)

FIGURE 119 SARNOWSKI’S TYPE VI 65 (SARNOWSKI 1983)

The Notitia Dignitatum (cited after Sarnowski 1983: 59) also serves as a dating criterion for Sarnowski’s study. Sarnowski states that although it was not possible to date to decades, the fourth century AD serves as a long chronology for the bricks (Sarnowski 1983: 59). Archaeological context also assisted the dating: most of the bricks, over 90%, which cover three of Sarnowski’s classified brick types (Type XVXVIII) (Fig. 116), came from the porta princialis sinistra and were used in the second building phase. According to the excavator, this phase does not date later than the second half of the fourth century (Biernacki 1975: 35). The bricks account for 80% of the building material of the gate. However, one other excavation produced stamps of the same types from the south-eastern area of the fort. Apart from there the types did not appear much in other parts of the fort. Therefore, Sarnowski suggests that those bricks were produced for the fortification of the fort. Those ones that did appear in other places than the porta principalis sinistra, with exception of the ones from the south-eastern corner, mainly came from walls. According to Sarnowski, these types were used for a restoration of the gates of the fort, protected it with rectangular towers on the outside, and provided the eastern wall of the town with similar towers. It is very likely that this was due before the construction of the U-shaped towers that were erected on the southern gate, probably during the reign of Constantius II (AD 337-361). Sarnowski thinks it most likely that the stamp types XV to

FIGURE 120 SARNOWSKI’S TYPE VI 66 (SARNOWSKI 1983)

XVIII date to the reign of Licinius and Constantine, in the first decade of the fourth century AD. As the finds show, the production of these types was limited to a short period of time, and would have ceased by the second half of the century (Sarnowski 1983: 59). All the other types of Legio I Italica stamps from Novae display a reverse find situation. They were often found in the buildings within the fort, but rarely in the fortifications. From this observation, Sarnowski draws the conclusion that these stamps originated largely from the second and third centuries AD. The stone fortifications, in which almost no bricks were used, were finished not later than the reign of Hadrian (AD 117-138). This is attested by one of the building inscriptions (Sarnowski 1983: 59). The brick stamps used in the wall around the fort with the above mentioned stamps were probably reused in the late Roman period. However, Sarnowski mentions the fact that some of them might have been used at the time they were produced or only slightly earlier than the above discussed types XV to XVIII. He names a few exceptions among the additional stamp types (not XV to XVIII) which did come from the fortifications and could have been used in those 132

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

circumstances (Sarnowski, 1983, 59). He then lists three other types of Legio I Italica stamps (VI 135, 123, 124 and XIV) (Fig. 117) in his study, which were of interest to him. The last three types appeared only in the fortifications of the fort. Type XV has the abbreviation LE instead of LEG. VI 123 and 124 (Fig. 117) have greater numbers of bricks than the other two types. Stamp type VI 35 (Fig. 118) was probably used during the second half of the third century due to the fact that they were found in the praefurnium of the principia, which dates to this period. Because of these characteristics, Sarnowski dates the four mentioned stamp types at the earliest to the third quarter of the third century AD. In his opinion, a further stamp type VI 65 (Fig. 119) belongs to the same group, due to its position within archaeological stratigraphy. He also lists another series of stamp types (VI 66, 67, XI and XIII) (Fig 120) which appear as often as the above mentioned and have palaeographical and stratigraphical similarities. Therefore, he counts them amongst the same group (Sarnowski 1983: 60).

found in the eastern part of the valetudinarium together with a number of types of stamps (I, VI 80, 82, 85, 112, 134, 165) (Fig. 122) which were roofing tiles. However, these types, according to Sarnowski, cannot be contemporary, because the latter ones were also found in great numbers in a layer of rubble form the third century in the principia and the legionary baths. In the rubble of the eastern part of the valetudinarium, the earlier and the latter roofing tiles were found together (Sarnowski 1983: 60). All this points very strongly to the idea of a constant secondary use of bricks and makes the dating of stamp types more difficult. Sarnowski recognises this problem and the difficulty to base the closely dating of further stamp types on the groups containing the chronologically earlier roofing tiles (Sarnowski 1983: 60). Some stamps found within the walls are easier to date to shorter periods of time. There is a large group of stamp types (Sarnowski’s types VI 107118) (Fig. 123) that was represented by bricks from the pillars and vaults of the aeraria of the shrine of insignia. It appears that those bricks were used for the reconstruction of the principia during the reign of Septimius Severus and Caracalla. These types also appeared relatively often in the legionary baths and the valetudinarium, but hardly ever in the fortifications (Sarnowski 1983: 60).

Sarnowski bases his further dating of brick stamps from Novae on the hypothesis that the earlier group should consist of more roofing tiles than bricks used in walls i.e., due to the fact that the roof would have been constructed during the earlier building activities. He takes a sample of types, of which there are at least as many roofing tiles as bricks, if not more (Sarnowski 1983: 60). However, very few of these types allow a more concrete dating. Finds from one of the rooms from the western part of the valetudinarium make it possible to date types IV 1, 3-5 (Fig. 121) to the earliest period (probably the first half of the second century AD) of the fort. The same types were

Further types (VI 59-174) containing the ones with imagery like ships and eagles (Fig. 124), could date to between the second and the early third century because they were found in hypocausts, which date no earlier and no later than that time. The same stamp types were found in the valetudinarium, which causes Sarnowski to conclude that the roof of this building was constructed or

FIGURE 121 SARNOWSKI’S TYPES IV 1 & 3-5 (SARNOWSKI 1983)

FIGURE 122 SARNOWSKI’S TYPE I (SARNOWSKI 1983) 133

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 123 SARNOWSKI’S TYPE VI 108-116 (SARNOWSKI 1983) repaired by using the same brick type as the reconstruction of the baths. Since the same types are completely absent from the principia, which was rebuilt in the third century, Sarnowski favours the second century (Sarnowski 1983: 60). He does not discuss the stamps of Legio XI Claudia in this publication, which are planned for a separate study.

of cases, he is extremely open to all different aspects of the relative chronology involved. Generally, he does not make any statements about an unknown population of tile, but in any case the numbers of the different stamp types from Novae are very large. He is careful to address hypotheses as such. Legio I Italica, whose bricks form the main part of the study, produced over 1000 stamps found at Novae. In some cases, Sarnowski dates the stamps by their cognomina. There is some insecurity, such as the Antoniniana title but generally these titles are a good criterion for dating. The article gives the overall impression thorough research was undertaken and a combination of methods was used. Archaeological context is combined with epigraphy.

In this publication, archaeological context is mainly used for dating. He takes the problem of reuse into consideration and very carefully examines all the phases of the buildings in which the bricks were found. In a lot

6.2.3 Brick stamps of a unit in one location only In another publication, Sarnowski discusses some brick stamps of Legio I Minervia that were also found at the Legio I Italica camp at Svishtov/Novae (Fig. 125) (Sarnowski 1987: 107-122). The five stamps were discovered during Polish-Bulgarian excavations in 1985. The stamps consist of two different variations of a type of Legio I Minervia stamps: LEG I M P F (Fig. 125). Four were found in the valetudinarium, and one in the scamna tribunorum beside the via praetoria. Sarnowski suggests that the die was made of wood (Sarnowski 1987: 107). Two of the stamps from the valetudinarium came from the latrines, which was situated in the north-west corner of the building. A third one

FIGURE 124 LEGIO I ITALICA STAMPS WITH SHIP AND EAGLE IMAGES (SARNOWSKI 1983: TYPES VI 167 &172-174) 134

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

FIGURE 125 TRAJANIC BRICK STAMPS FROM NOVAE OF LEGIONS I MINERVIA, XI CLAUDIA AND I ITALICA (SARNOWSKI 1987: 110) was found in one of the inner rooms of the hospital, which was interpreted as a possible reception room or operation theatre (Sarnowski 1987: 107). The fourth had been in the rubble of the canalisation system of the building. Amongst the finds from this layer were a further 23 brick stamps, one type LEG XI C PF (Fig. 125) which dates to the Trajanic period because of the archaeological context it was found in. Two bricks were stamped with type LEG I ITALI (Fig. 125), which possibly dates to the period of the Trajan’s Dacian wars (AD 98/99, 101-102 and 105-107) (Sarnowski 1987: 110). The remaining stamps were further variations of another stamp type of Legio I Italica: LEG I ITAL, which dates to the second and third centuries (Sarnowski 1983: 55-60; 1987: 110). Only three of the stamps appear on bricks used for walls, the bulk of them were on flooring bricks. Most of these flooring bricks were bipedales. Some of these carried further stamps LEG IT and LEG ITA, which Sarnowski dates to the middle or late third century AD (Sarnowski 1987: 110). One of the two LEG I M P F stamps came from the floor above the latrine canalisation. Two other of these stamps were tiles from the roof of the valetudinarium. Amongst the rubble from the roof, which lay directly over the last layer of the camp there was a stamp LEG ITALICAE, which may date before the period of Trajan, one stamp LEG I ITALI, which dates to the reign of Trajan, and several LEG I ITAL stamps that date to the second and third centuries AD. Coin finds and stratigraphy place the destruction of the valetudinarium into the middle of the third century (Sarnowski 1987: 110).

that the prolonged period of construction is also illuminated by the stamp texts, because a lot of variations of Legio I Italica stamps were found (Sarnowski 1987: 111-112). However, very few bricks were found in situ during the excavations, which make the dating of the building and the stamps rather difficult. Furthermore, very often the bricks have been clearly used for a second time. One of the Legio I Minervia stamps, for example, displays traces of mortar. However, the stamps from the latrine appear to prove that the bricks were used for the second time in the same building (Sarnowski 1987: 112). For the chronological placing of the Legio I Minervia stamps, it is worth noticing that they appear together with Legio I Italica’s type LEG I ITALI and Legio XI Claudia’s LEG X C P F. The two latter types were also found in the same context at Gigen/Iskur/ Oescus. Because of its titles Sarnowski dates the Legio XI Claudia stamps to the first half of Trajan’s reign. This places the stamps into the period shortly after the legion’s arrival in lower Moesia (Sarnowski 1987: 112). The bricks of all three legions were made of what appears to be the same clay. However, no fabric analysis was performed and the suggestion that the three legions produced in the same workshop for even a period of time can only remain a hypothesis (Sarnowski 1987: 112). Due to the scarcity of types from Legio XI Claudia and Legio I Minervia from Novae and the fact that their bricks were all tegulae used for the roof of the valetudinarium it is suggested that their production time was a very limited one. It is proposed that the material might be the product of one season only (Sarnowski 1987: 112). No stamps of Legio I Minervia were previously found on the Lower Danube and also in Dacia. There are a few cases of illegible stamps, where the name of the unit was suggested but Sarnowski does not believe that there was any real evidence for the presence of the legion on other stamps (Sarnowski 1987: 113-114).

The finds from the earliest layers have proven that the construction of the valetudinarium can be dated to the late first or early second century AD. The erection of the building which was rather large (71.9 x 81.9 m) must have lasted some years (Sarnowski 1987: 111). The latrine is the youngest structure within the building. Sarnowski thinks 135

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

route to the East to produce stamped tiles (Sarnowski 1987: 115). It is, therefore, more likely that Legio I Minervia in some form or other participated at Trajan’s Dacian Wars. Both Sarnowski and Strobel accept an interpretation of Cichorius who thought that two pictures on Trajan’s column showed the insignia of Legio I Minervia (Fig. 126) (Cichorius 1896: 228-229; Sarnowski 1987: 115; Strobel, 1988b: 506-507). Furthermore, Sarnowski states that the list of battle victims on the altar of Adamklissi could have connections with the participation of the legion from Bonn (Sarnowski 1987: 115). Unfortunately, he does not elaborate on this. Three inscriptions from the German Brohltal, which date to AD 101, name the vexillations of the legion and show that at least part of the unit was there at the time. One of the pictures in question on Trajan’s column displays the opening of the third campaign of the first war, which happened in the spring of AD 102.

FIGURE 126 BEGINNING OF THE THIRD CAMPAIGN ON TRAJAN’S COLUMN (LE BOHEC 1994: PLATE XVI, SCENE 34) Also, he is very certain that the small numbers of brick stamps of Legio I Minervia and Legio XI Claudia could be seen as an indication that these units had been garrisoned at Novae. Brick stamps of Legio XI Claudia were found in 12 different locations in Lower Moesia. Legio I Minervia was stationed at Bonn and its stamps LEG I M P F were widely circulated in Germania Inferior (Sarnowski 1987: 114).

From this evidence, Sarnowski suggests that it was likely that detachments of the legion participated at the earlier phases of the Dacian Wars. He mentions the monuments of Adamklissi and proposes that not only soldiers of Legio I Minervia but also those of Pannonian legions, such as I Adiutrix and XIIII Gemina, which fought in the war, were named amongst the deceased (Sarnowski 1987: 116). Sarnowski dates the stamps of Legio I Minervia and XI Claudia from Novae to the autumn of AD 101, when the campaigns started and when detachments of the units had recently arrived form their former camps in Germany and Pannonia. He does, however, allow for the fact that a detachment rather than the whole legion remained in Novae for building purposes (Sarnowski 1987: 118-122).

There is one stamp type of Legio I Minervia from Bonn16 which, according to Sarnowski, has great similarity with the ones from Novae. Unfortunately, no picture of the stamp could be obtained. Sarnowski is rather certain that both types of stamps came from the same die, but unfortunately, the stamps are not illustrated. It is suggested that when the legion or part of it was moved, the tegularii probably had orders to bring the dies. Due to the fact that research of the 1980s came to the conclusion that the transport of wooden dies from one place of garrison to a new one is not as frequent as previously assumed, Sarnowski proposes that the unit’s change from the Lower Rhine to the Lower Danube was a limited one (Sarnowski 1987: 114). All the stamps from Novae display the cognomen pia fidelis, which shows that they were produced after the rebellion of Saturninus in AD 89 when they received this title. Furthermore, Sarnowski states that they could not date later than AD 96 since they do not have the cognomina Flavia and Domitiana which were abolished that time (Sarnowski 1987: 115). This is, however, a problematic suggestion, since, as explained before, brick stamps do not always carry the titles a unit owned at the time. Therefore, a later date later than AD 96 might apply. As will be explained further in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3, missing titles cannot be taken as a dating criterion. However, there are some indications that Sarnowski’s date of the legion’s stay in Lower Moesia is credible. During the reign of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius the legion could have briefly been at the Lower Danube: Between AD 162 and 166, Legio I Minervia participated in a campaign against the Parthians. It is quite unlikely that it stayed in Lower Moesia long enough en

In 1992, Biernacki added some brick stamps to Sarnowski’s list from Novae, discovered during the 1990 excavations (Biernacki 1990: 107-111). Seventy bricks and 3 roofing tiles are stamped. Seventy-two of those belong to Legio I Italica and one which is stamped in Greek presumably to a private producer (Biernacki 1990: 107). A comparative analogy of the stamps allows Biernacki to attribute 34 of them to the following examples of Sarnowski’s typology (Sarnowski 1983: 17-61) (Figs 127128): • • • •

Type VI Type VII Type VIII Type XVIII

LEG I ITAL LEG I ITALANT LEG I ITALAL LEPIFICOR= Le(gionis)p(rimae) I(talicae) figi(glinae) Co(ho)r(tis)

The stamps of Type VI are the most numerous, as in previous excavations. 26 of the stamps are found analogies in Sarnowski’s type VI:

16. Private collection, Munich, Catalogue No. 2827 (Sarnowski 1987: footnote 25).

136

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

FIGURE 127 LEGIO I ITALICA STAMPS FOUND IN 1990 AT NOVAE (BIERNACKI 1992: 110-111) Type VI variant VI34 VI35(?)

plate I-1 IV-12.

VI41 VI45 VI65(?) VI66

dating half of 3.C. 137

I-2,3,4,5 I-6,7,8 I-9 I-10

2.half of 3.C. 2.half of 3.C.

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 128 LEGIO I ITALICA STAMPS FOUND IN 1990 AT NOVAE (BIERNACKI 1992: 110-111) VI108(?) VI110 VI111(?) VI114 or 118 VI117(?)II-1 VI144-151(?) VI147 or 148 VI148 VI150

I-12 I-11, 13, 14, 16 I-17, 18 I-20 1. quarter of 3.C. IV-2 II-3 II-2 II-4, 5, 6

1. quarter of 3.C. 1. quarter of 3.C. 1. quarter of 3.C. 1. quarter of 3.C.

Other types and variants VII38 II-18 VIII1 or 2 II-17 XVIII var. 5 III-1-6

1. half of 3.C. AD 324-339 (Biernacki, 1992, 107)

There are four further stamps on bricks that were used in the construction of the legionary baths that are not listed in Sarnowski’s catalogue (Biernacki’s nos. 8-11, Pl. II-12-15). 138

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

be discussed here because it adds to Sarnowski’s study on Legio I Minervia stamps from Novae. Strobel uses the same archaeological source as Sarnowski: the scenes from Trajan’s column. He also suggests that, according to Chicorius, a scene on Trajan’s column (Scene XLVIII) (Fig. 129) shows that the whole of Legio I Minervia went to join the Dacian War in AD 102 (Chicorius 1886: 227229 and Strobel, 1988b: 507). This based on the depiction of a ram, the legion’s emblem. However, he proposes that the evidence shows that the whole legion I Minervia remained in Moesia after the Dacian Wars and had its own brick-production there (Strobel 1988b: 509-510). Strobel, focusing on the roof of the valetudinarium, does not agree with Sarnowski that the legionary fortress at Novae was finished in AD 101, nor does he believe that the three legions I Italica, I Minervia and XI Claudia shared a workshop (Strobel 1988b: 509). He proposes that the fortress was finished in the period between the two Dacian Wars (AD 102-105). Unlike Sarnowski, no archaeological context is considered, but it is argued that in spite of the losses during the first Dacian War, there was need and use for further building (Strobel 1988b: 510). Strobel thus criticises Sarnowski’s view. He does not, however, acknowledge the fact that Sarnowksi either uses secure archaeological context dates or merely suggests hypotheses. Instead, Strobel uses some fragments of information on the legions of Moesia, based on epigraphy and pictorial sources such as Trajan’s column, as dating evidence for buildings, which is potentially problematic. Strobel argues that the stamps of Legio I Minervia from Novae serve as proof that the whole of the legion (rather than perhaps a detachment as proposed by Sanowski) remained on the Lower Danube after the first Dacian Wars, and thus between AD 102 and 105. He argues that two scenes on Trajan’s column, one depicting the beginning of the third campaign of the third campaign of the first Dacian War, and secondly the final adlocutio of the first Dacian War attest this (Fig. 126; 129) (Strobel 1988b: 510). However, it is not specified why this is the case, nor why this means that the legion remained in the province after the campaigns. Strobel admits that no exact location can be given. He argues that it is unlikely that a building detachment of the legion remained, without giving further reasons for this (Strobel 1988b: 510) A lot of assumptions are based on very small number of bricks stamps. Five bricks are not enough to assume the presence of a legion. Ritterling already showed that it is by no means secure how long Legio I Minervia spent in the East and when it went there (Ritterling RE XII: 1426-1428). Strobel, here and in some of his other articles (Chapter 2, section 2.2.1 and Chapter 4, section 3.2.1), tends to combine the epigraphic evidence from brick stamps with other sources, which have shorter chronologies than the stamps. This is usually not workable, since a stamp type might have been in use much longer than the life span of the historical event

FIGURE 129 FINAL ADLOCUTIO TO THE TROOPS AT THE END OF THE THIRD DACIAN CAMPAIGN, TRAJAN’S COLUMN (LE BOHEC 1994: PLATE VI, SCENE 57) Biernacki dates those stamps to the first half of the second century AD, because of archaeological and stratigraphical data (Biernacki 1992: 107). He includes a list of additional stamps newly found at Novae, which do not fit into Sarnowski’s typology but does not attempt to date them. Biernacki’s publication adds some new examples to the list of stamps from Novae but he mainly uses Sarnowski’s typology to date them. Therefore, the article does not add a lot of new research to the brick stamp analysis from Novae. He does publish some new variants of the known types but no chronology or typology is attempted. Biernacki includes some new variations to Sarnowski’s study but otherwise contributes little to our understanding of the brick stamps and occupation history of Novae. In many ways, a lot of the statements in Sarnowski’s article are rather hypothetical and he partly fails to mention this, for example when talking about the legions participating at the Dacian Wars. The numbers of stamps are few and it is problematic to draw any secure conclusions about the presence of units. Also, the interpretation of Legio I Minervia on one of the scenes of Trajan’s column does not appear to be very well researched, although often repeated, and comes from a publication form the late nineteenth century. It would have been worth a second analysis. On the other hand, Sarnowski does allow for the fact that a lot of the information gathered from the brick stamps he is dealing with is rather fragmentary. He does state that the stamps on the bricks could have been administered by tegularii of detachments of Legio I Minervia at Novae rather than the whole unit, therefore, allowing for the fact that the unit returned to Bonn between AD 102 and 105. On the whole, Sarnowski’s article is a lot more judicious than the article by Strobel that followed a year later (Strobel 1988b, 501-511). Strobel, who trained in the German school of research, investigates the same stamps of Legio I Minervia found at Novae. The article, like his other publications also fits the category of articles on troop dispositions. It shall, however, 139

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

or period used for the date. The hypothetical nature of the statements in the article should be stressed. Sarnowski, on the other hand, is aware of the theoretical nature of his suggestions. His interpretation of a detachment of Legio I Minervia appears thus more justified.

Morfova also uses historical knowledge for dating. Sometimes this historical knowledge can be based on other inscriptions, therefore, also originating in epigraphy. Some of her statements on Legio XI stamps are rather hypothetical, and one method, as we know, is not enough to research stamps.

6.3 Conclusion

Milosevic’s methodology on the brick stamps of Sremksa Mitrovica/Sirmium is relatively well researched and includes both, epigraphy and archaeological context. Nevertheless, in some cases, as on the stamps of the Legio IV she adapts dates from other scholars. Furthermore, her list only includes the brick stamps found in her excavations, which leaves it rather incomplete. It would have been better to include all stamps from Sirmium. Also, she presents some hypotheses as facts, such as the movements of the Alpine cohorts and some rather unusual expansion of letter combinations.

Generally, the South-Eastern European research on brick stamps is very keen to date brick stamps. In many ways, the methodologies used by the scholars are very similar to the ones used by the German, Swiss or Austrian school. Sometimes there are differences: some scholars from South-eastern Europe only attempt dating when larger numbers of stamps are present. However, this is not true for all of the articles, and some show exceptions to this rule. Petrology has so far not been used as a research method. Some scholars, such as Sarnowski, however, are aware of the need for fabric analysis. In his 1987 publication, Sarnowski suggests that the clay for the bricks of legions I Italica, I Minervia and XI Claudia appears to be the same and may have originated in the same workshop (Sarnowski 1987: 112). Nevertheless, a proper analysis of the fabrics remains to be carried out. Epigraphy is the most common method. Other methodologies of brick stamp research include archaeological stratigraphy, and dating by historical background, for example by the fact that a unit stayed in an area for a certain amount of time. This historical back ground can often present us with circular arguments, since a lot of the original identifications of units made by nineteenth century archaeologists and epigraphers were based on brick stamps. Hypotheses presented as facts were taken as such and repeated back throughout the literature.

Protase’s article is quite problematic in its methodology. Two inscriptions, one stamp and one stone inscription are not enough to attest the presence of a unit in a place. Protase should at least have proposed the possibility as a temporary hypothesis, until more evidence is found. Benea also uses mainly the historical background information on the stay of units in the area as a dating criterion, but she suggests long chronologies for the brick stamps, thus leaving a lot of possibilities open. Nevertheless, the fact that she does not mention the numbers of stamps she is dealing with, even if she does so in other publications, makes a methodological evaluation of the article difficult. Also, she adapts other scholars’ dates without giving background information about which methods were used. Also, historical background because of the danger of circular arguments should not be used as the only dating method. Other approaches, such as epigraphy and/or archaeological context should be attempted.

Alföldy uses historical background information for dating and suggests long chronologies. With this method, he stays within safe boundaries, apart from the fact that historical background might be subject to circular arguments. The archaeological context of the stamps, as far as known, is not explained very well in Alföldy’s article. Also, he never mentions the numbers of stamps he is dealing with. The latter is necessary to research brick stamps to give the reader an idea about the extent of brick production and the reliability of the construction.

Culiça is very careful dating the stamps from Silistra/ Durostorum. Only a few types of his research can be dated, and he acknowledges the fact that precise dating is difficult. He suggests only a relative chronology for his stamps and uses the very cautious approach of dating by cognomina. However, no other methods are used. Sarnowski’s methodology used on the stamps of Lower Moesia is usually very well based. For his dating, he used mainly archaeological contexts. If one acknowledges the possibility of brick reuse, which is considered in the article, this is a very safe method. Sarnowski’s interpretation of Legio I Minervia stamps from Novae is a lot less hypothetical than Strobel’s interpretation of the same material. Strobel uses the presence of these five stamps as a proof of the theory that the whole of Legio I Minervia came to Lower Moesia for

Gudea bases his dates on archaeological context but does not consider the fact that the bricks may have been reused which makes his decision for the early third rather than the late second century AD controversial. His article, among others, shows that it is mostly impossible to attribute brick stamps to short chronologies and use them for the reconstruction of military history. 140

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

a longer period of time during the Dacian Wars. Sarnowski recognises that five stamps are a very small number to draw any conclusions about a unit’s presence and suggests instead that a detachment of the unit could have stayed in the province to assist with the reconstruction at Novae. This cautious approach results in a much more attractive interpretation for such a small number of stamps. Sarnowski’s dating in his article on the stamps from Lower Moesia is based on his two earlier articles mentioned in section 6.2.1.

the different types in a single location. Yet local lists are valuable contributions to military brick stamp research because they highlight the occupation history of a place. It is interesting to note that one of the two articles listed here under the category of overviews or histories of troop dispositions (section 6.2.1) was written by a scholar who trained in the German school on Roman military brick stamps, who can, however, on his own, not be seen as totally representative of this school of research. It is also worth noticing that this publication is potentially prone to circular arguments based on historical background. There are two articles that only discuss the brick stamps of a certain unit in a place. Two of these also serve the purpose of troop dispositions. Only Sarnowski uses a balanced combination of methods. Biernacki’s study is based on Sarnowski’s. Strobel’s article presents hypotheses as facts. In this study it is used in comparison to Sarnowski’s more thoroughly researched work.

Biernacki uses Sarnowski’s typology and relative chronology of stamps from Svishtov/Novae and does not add any new information on the dates of brick stamps, but proves the workability of Sarnowski’s system. Generally, the South-Eastern European research on brick stamp methodology represented by the above cited articles uses methods very similar to the German school, followed by the rest of Middle and Northern Europe, with the exception of Britain and France. Great importance is put on the dates of the military stamps and on chronology. However, a change of methodology is noticeable in the articles discussed here written more recently. Starting with Culica’s research on Durostorum and Legio XI Claudia in 1979 and followed by Sarnowski’s articles in the 1980s and 1990s scholars become less eager to use chronologies at any cost. The earlier articles from this list are much more likely to follow the German research and date brick stamps based on very little evidence. There are, however, exceptions to this rule and occasionally modern scholars suggest short stamp chronologies based on little evidence, such as Gudea (2002: 19-24). As has been shown, some researchers fail to mention the exact numbers of bricks discussed in their articles. More recent publications use more satisfying methodologies, and are also more likely to offer combinations of methods. A problem with many older South-Eastern European publications on military brick stamps is that they often only use one research method. Furthermore, the possibility of reuse is hardly ever discussed by the scholars, with the exception of Sarnowski. Some publications talk about sites, which have produced large numbers of bricks and tiles, and we have to wonder whether all of them were used for the first time.

Sarnowski (1995: 498) mentions a place name called Tegulicium and suggests that this brick factory did not only produce locally but possibly provide the whole garrison of the province Moesia with bricks. This suggestion is interesting because it agrees with some Dutch scholars’ interpretation of a unified brick production for Lower Germany (see Chapter 3, page 85) and the mention of a factory for Lower Pannonia in Milosevic (1971: 97-99; 106). Unfortunately, Sarnowski does not go into detail about this idea and does not compare it with the evidence from other provinces. No one has ever attempted a study containing the evidence from different areas and provinces concerning this question. Indeed, the type of name of the tegularia Transrhenana from Germany seems unique. However, we have to wonder whether the possibly centralised brick production, if it existed in Germany, was not paralleled by other provinces. The name Tegulicium and perhaps the Transdierna, which was also a brick factory (Benea 1977: 327), might be an indication for this. There is room for further research on this matter. Future scholars researching the stamps from South Eastern European sites should attempt to be more inclusive in both their sites and methodologies. It is important to compare bricks from the same units from different sites, and also to make certain that all research methods are used on a material, if possible. Petrology, so far, has not been used as a research method and remains a challenge for future research on the military brick stamps from South Eastern Europe.

Similar to the German, Austrian and Swiss schools of research articles which fit into the category of local lists are very frequent. Most of them present us with a good overall view of the brick stamps in a certain location. Like in other areas, scholars are less likely to compare the stamps of units from different locations but focus on

141

CHAPTER 7

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

7.1 Introduction:

Vespasian organized the administration of Syria and its surrounding areas: As soon as the uprising in Judaea was defeated in AD 73/74, this territory was raised to full provincial status, governed by a legatus pro praetore of praetorian rank from Caesarea in Palestine. This new province included Judaea, Samaria and most of Galilee, northern Idumaea (the non-Nabataean part), Gaza, parts of the Palestinian coast and several parts of Trans Jordan. At the beginning of the rule of Vespasian in AD 69, the Mediterranean regions of the Semitic Near East were all under Roman control but their status varied, since they were either provinces or client states. Nevertheless, the province was not continuous, and parts were still without direct Roman administration. The most important client kingdom, at the fringes of the province of Syria, was Commagene. The kingdom was still independent during the early years of Vespasian but was annexed in AD 72. Further examples are the Arab dynasty of the Sampsigerami in central Syria and the Nabataean kingdom, with its centre at Petra (Sartre 2000: 635). Around AD 72, Cilicia Campestris/Pedias had already been separated from Syria, and made into an independent province, having been reunited with Lycaonia and Isauria. Commagene was annexed from King Antiochus IV around the same period (Sartre 2000: 637-639). During the Flavian dynasty until the early second century AD the remaining client kingdoms were added to the Empire. With the annexation of the Nabataean kingdom in AD 106, Syria had reached the extent it was going to keep until the Severan reorganization. This included the large province of Syria under a consular legate, the province of Judaea of the southern Mediterranean regions (officially SyriaPalaestina after the Bar Kochba revolt of the early AD 132-135), initially governed by a legate of praetorian rank and then once a second legion had been established in the province by a consular one, and lastly the huge province of Arabia, governed by a praetorian legate, covering rich agricultural zones (the Hauran and the Tran Jordan Plateau) as well as desert area. Three new provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria, were added to the empire by Trajan in AD 115/116 but evacuated again by Hadrian in AD 118.

In 64 BC, Pompey added the remaining parts of the former Seleucid Empire to the Roman Empire. The ancient unit known as Syria bordered the Mediterranean and the Taurus Mountains on two sides. In the south and east it met the Sinai and the North Arabian and Syrian Deserts. The area of western Mesopotamia, which reached as far as the river Khabur, was included geographically, although often separated politically (Kennedy 1996: 705). A small strip of these areas only represented Pompey’s initial conquest, and the included cities reached no further than 100 kilometres from the sea (Kennedy 1996: 705). The following decade saw a period of civil war and the annexation of the province by the Parthians after the defeat of Crassus (53 BC). Eventually, Augustus attempted to restore the stability of the province. The Julio-Claudian period saw relative peace. After the death of Herod of Judaea, which was probably around 4 BC, the installation of the new province Judaea removed a part of the large province Syria (Kennedy 1996: 705). Initially, there was an equestrian governor or even governor of lesser rank, apart from a brief period in AD 41-44 under Agrippa I. This was the case until the rebellion of AD 66. The first governors of Judaea were praefecti and had military authority. The term procurator, used after Claudius in the early 40’s AD, probably only signified a change in terminology and not function (Goodman 1996: 751). Direct administration was soon extended to eastern Cilicia, (intermittently) Commagene, and the intermittent parts of Itureaea and the Hauran. In 27 BC, the status of Syria was fixed. Its legate, a man of consular rank, was the most powerful and prestigious person in the eastern provinces. The rebellion in Judaea of AD 66-73/74 possibly followed resentment against the imperial cult, conflicts with the Greeks of the area and a procurator who sympathised with the latter, as well as, as indicated by the ancient sources, the general cruelty of the governing authorities (Tacitus Histories V: 10.1; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20: 253258). It was recorded by Josephus (Jewish War), a Jewish rebel, who after the war converted to the Roman side. Masada, the last stronghold, fell in AD 73/4. Vespasian gave Judaea to a praetorian legate, with Legio X Fretensis permanently garrisoned at Jerusalem.

The Diaspora revolt under Trajan (AD 115-117) involved the Jews in the eastern Mediterranean, in Egypt, Cyrene, 142

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Cyprus and Mesopotamia. The Jews of Palestine do not appear to have been involved very much (Goodman 2000: 671). However, rebellion broke out again in Judaea in AD 132 under a certain Simon Bar Kochba. The immediate causes of the revolt are uncertain. The literary sources on the revolt obscure the reasons and archaeological excavation has not revealed much about the nature of the Roman operations against it. General hatred against the Roman domination is probably the most likely reason. It may have played a role that Hadrian had begun new roadbuilding in the province (Goodman 2000: 672). Legio XXII Deiotariana fought in this war and does not appear in the records after AD 135. However, it cannot be assumed that it was destroyed because of this lack of evidence, since legions were disbanded for various reasons throughout the Roman period (Mor 1986; Keppie 1990; Goodman 2000: 674). The punishment for Roman Judaea was harsh, and what followed was a period of retribution in which certain Jewish religious customs were forbidden and Jews were not allowed to settle in Hadrian’s new town Aelia Capitolina and its territory on the site of the destroyed Jerusalem (Goodman 200: 674-675). Galilee became a centre of Jewish religion. By the third century the religious restrictions imposed after the revolt were relaxed, and a Jewish community was reinstalled at Jerusalem.

Tertia. It is, however, not certain if all these changes happened under Diocletian or shortly after (Butcher 2003: 85-86). In the late fourth century, Syria Phoenice was also divided into several sub-provinces under various names (Butcher 2003: 85-86). The forces of the Republican and Early Imperial Army in the Middle East were concentrated in the major cities. Initially, there were probably two legions in Syria but the numbers fluctuated. The evidence for the legions of the Julio-Claudian period is sparse; there were perhaps three legions under Augustus and possibly four under Tiberius: legions III Gallica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis and XII Fulminata. All were garrisoned in the north of the province. Legio IV Scythica seems to have been added during the period of Corbulo’s Armenian wars (Butcher 2003: 411). Until the Jewish war of AD 66-73/74 there were no permanent legions in Judaea and its units consisted of auxiliaries, in spite of the fact that some proper fortresses began to emerge at the end of the first century AD (Butcher 2003: 411). At the outbreak of the war Nero (AD 54-68) brought Legio XII Fulminata and possibly Legio VI Ferrata to Rafniye/Raphanea. The site remained a legionary base until the third century AD (Butcher 2003: 411). During the reign of Vespasian (AD 69-79), Belkis/Zeugma became the base of Legio IV Scythica. It is possible that Legio X Fretensis was also briefly stationed there before it moved to Judaea during the Jewish war. Occasionally, the Roman army relied on the assistance of the armies of client kings (Butcher 2003: 411).

Between AD 162 and 165 Lucius Verus temporarily annexed parts of Upper Mesopotamia in a new Parthian campaign, an area which was formed into a separate province by Septimius Severus. Following Pescennius Niger’s defeat (AD 194), Septimius Severus also divided Syria into two, Syria Coele in the north and Syria Phoenice in the south, probably to reduce the power of the governor and the possibility of further revolts (Butcher 2003: 49). In AD 217, Caracalla fell victim to a conspiracy under Macrinus. However, Macrinus’ reign did not last for long, and in AD 218 Elagabalus, named after the Roman name of the Syrian deity of Emesa, having posed as an illegitimate son of Caracalla, succeeded. When Elagabalus was assassinated in Rome in AD 222, Severus Alexander, a cousin of his, took the throne. In that period, the Roman Empire saw its largest extent, with the Roman army having been established in the steppe and deserts of Syria, Arabia and Mesopotamia, as far as the river Tigris. However, subsequently the unchallenged Roman rule in Syria was disturbed by the Persians.

As further kingdoms were annexed, the legionary forces moved to the south. By the reign of Hadrian the legions were as follows: in the north Legio XVI Flavia at Samsat/ Samosata, the former capital of Commagene, at Belkis/ Zeugma Legio IV Scythica and at Rafniye/Raphanea Legio III Gallica. In the south there were Legio X Fretensis at Aelia Capitolina (on the site of former Jerusalem) and VI Ferrata at Caparcotna/Legio in the Jezreel valley. In AD 115/116, Legio III Cyrenaica was transferred to Busra esh-Sham/Bostra from Egypt as the garrison of Trajan’s new province of Arabia. After that period the transfer of legions became rare. However, the Severan legion II Parthica seems to have wintered at Pella/Apamea during imperial campaigns of the third century, when it was involved in leading Elagabalus’ revolt against Macrinus in AD 218. Legio III Gallica supported a rebellion against the same emperor and was dispersed but later reinstalled (for a discussion of some new interpretation of this instance see Chapter 6, 211-213). Legio IV Scythica appears to have been transferred to Alexandria from Syria Palaestina around the same time but there is evidence that the unit was at At Tayibeh/Oresa in the Syrian steppe in the fourth century AD (Butcher 2003: 412).

Diocletian divided the Eastern provinces further: the provinces of Syria, Arabia and Palaestina lay in the eastern half of the empire. The old province of Arabia was broken up. The northern part remained Arabia and the southern part was added to Syria Palestine. The latter was also divided into three new provinces: Palaestina Prima, Secunda and 143

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

LEGIONARY BASES

FIGURE 130 MIDDLE EAST (PARKER 2000: 122)

IN THE

Two military diplomas of AD 88 record eight alae and nineteen cohorts in Syria, which adds up to an auxiliary force of about 14,500. A second diploma of AD 156/157 names three or four alae and sixteen cohorts, and it is likely that there were more at the time (Butcher 2003: 412). There was also a Syrian fleet, possibly introduced

by Vespasian, although the earliest evidence is Hadrianic (Butcher 2003: 413). During the early imperial period, Syria had the largest military presence of the eastern provinces (Fig. 130). The size of the army can be calculated as perhaps 40,000 in the 144

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

early principate and 60,000 by the time of Hadrian. The garrisoning of Mesopotamia possibly raised the numbers even higher to 80,000-90,000 by the early third century AD. When Severus divided Syria into two, there were around 20,000 men in Syria Coele and 10,000 in Syria Phoenice (Butcher 2003: 413). By the fourth century, most of the legions of Syria had moved to new garrisons, apart from Legio III Cyrenaica, which remained at Busra eshSham/Bostra. Legio IV Scythica went to At-Tayibeh/Oresa on the Euphrates, Legio XVI Flavia to Sourriya/Soura, III Gallica to Danaba near Damascus in the steppe, and Legio I Illyricorum, which was probably introduced to the East by Aurelian, was stationed at Palmyra. In Palestine, Legio X Fretensis had been transferred to Aqaba/Aila on the Gulf of Aqaba. Arabia now had two legions, III Cyrenaica and Legio IV Martia at El-Lejjun(?) /Betthorus (Butcher 2003: 413).

Palmyra, probably the base of Legio I Illyricorum and traces for a possible fortress of Legio IV Scythica between Palmyra and Sourriya/Sura at At-Tayibeh, identified as ancient Oresa (Butcher 2003: 418). Most auxiliary forts, if they can be dated at all, date to the late Roman imperial period (Butcher 2003: 148-149). Some forts on the Strata Diocletiana and around Azraq were possibly deserted by the end of the fourth century AD but many stayed in use through the fifth century AD (Butcher 2003: 149). There was no unified frontier system in the East, since there were large differences between the desert, steppe and mountain areas. Recent excavations have radically changed some of the old concepts about a Middle Eastern frontier and have shown that military inscriptions were found beyond the immediate line, which was once called the eastern frontier. Therefore, it is unlikely that there ever was a fixed linear frontier (Whittaker 2000a: 307).

Most of the remains of the Roman army in the East are in the steppe and desert areas and date to the third century AD or later. By this period the Roman army had advanced into these areas, mainly with the purpose to police trade routes and to control the populations in these zones (Butcher 2003: 415). During the Severan period (AD 193235) advances were made into the remote Azraq Oasis in the region of the former province of Arabia. The late third century AD Strata Diocletiana and the legionary fortress at Palmyra may be related to strategies being pursued at Azraq. The Strata Diocletiana linked a line of forts from Sourriya/Sura on the Euphrates via Palmyra to the south, passing east of Auranitis to reach the road linking Busra esh-Sham/Bostra and Azraq.

7.2 Discussion Unfortunately, this section on brick stamps is a lot smaller than expected, due to a great lack of material from the Middle Eastern provinces. Only Zeugma and Jerusalem have extensive collections of published stamps. Publications on the stamps from Satala/Turkey from Asia Minor were also not accessible for this study, which is why this area is not included in this thesis. It was not possible to obtain other material which might exist, due to certain difficulties in collecting the literature. Tepper, writing about the fort, which hosted at least a part of Legio VI Ferrata at Lajjun/Legio in Israel, mentions that there are at least nine stamps of this legion in private collections (Fig. 131). The stamps were found on El Manach Hill and its slopes, and in the area of Kibbutz

Little is known about the legionary fortresses of the early empire. The one at Samsta/Samosata was buried under the floods of a dam, as perhaps has been that of Belkis/ Zeugma. Rafniye/Raphanea was never explored fully and little is known about the fortresses at Legio/Carpacotna and Jerusalem (Butcher 2003: 418). The legionary fortress of Busra esh-Sham/Bostra has been identified (see page 155). The legionary fortresses of the later empire are slightly better investigated: The fortress at El-Lejjun/Betthorus(?) was probably built under Diocletian (AD 284-305) for Legio IV Martia (Butcher 2003: 418). Udhruh/Augustopolis(?), which is also situated in modern Jordan, was possibly built for Legio VI Ferrata. Since the fortress is not mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, Butcher suggests that the unit was transferred there in the third or early fourth century and then destroyed or suppressed shortly after (Butcher 2003: 148). El-Lejjun and Udruh were situated east of Trajan’s Via Nova Traiana, which ran from the Gulf of Aquaba to Bostra, in Diocletian’s new provinces Arabia and Palaestina Tertia respectively. Other remains asscociated with late Roman legions are the ‘Camp of Diocletian’ at

FIGURE 131 TILE FROM KIBBUTZ MEGGIDO STAMPED LEG VI FER[R] (TEPPER 2000: 241) 145

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Meggido (Tepper 2002: 233; figure. 9). Apart from one illustrated stamp, no descriptions of the stamped bricks are given and it is stated that it cannot as yet be determined when Legio VI Ferrata (or parts of it) where garrisoned at the site (Tepper 2002: 231-237).

138). The same could be the case in the Middle East. This argument is strengthened by the fact that unstamped brick material was found in recent excavations, for example at Bostra. However, there is probably more than one reason for the low numbers of stamps and, as shown already on page 145 a lot of excavation work remains to be done, before any statements about brick proportions in relation to the rest of the Roman provinces can be made. Nevertheless considering the numbers of men in those provinces during most of the Roman rule, it is astonishing that there are so few stamped tiles or bricks.

During consultations with the excavators in Arabia it emerged that there were no stamped bricks from any of the recent excavations. Five seasons of excavations in ElLejjun/Betthorus did not produce stamped tiles. Nearly all excavated forts in Jordan were late-Roman and had no stamped brick-material.17 Dura-Europos in Syria does not appear to have produced any stamped tiles. Only the stamped tiles from Zeugma date, as shall be seen, to the Principate rather than the late Roman period.

7.2.1 Overviews or histories of troop dispositions An article which uses the evidence from a single brick stamp only is Speidel’s on the Caucasian frontier and the second century garrisons in Jordan, which was presented at the Thirteenth Limeskongress in 1983, published in 1986 and republished in 1992 (Speidel 1986: 657659=1992: 204-208). The Eastern coast of the Black Sea was covered with a system of Roman forts, whose task it was to keep the local tribes from engaging in piracy, and thus to ensure undisturbed trading and shipping along the shores. Yet they also had a strategic function, which was to protect Roman access to the client kingdoms of the Iberi and Albani and thus to control the Caucasus passes (Speidel 1986: 657).

The lack of material from the Middle East is surprising, since the area had strong military presence. Provinces with similar numbers of military, like the two Germanies, have produced large numbers of stamped bricks. Factors such as poor excavation methods during the last centuries might play a part. However, since Northern Africa has a similar problem, as will be referred to in the following chapter, the problem might be a little more profound than just lack of excavation techniques. In any case, it is said that stray bricks have been discovered during the years. Not only are there few publications about them, but there also appear to be a much smaller proportion of stamped tile in local museums in the Middle East. One can conclude that brick roofs were not popular in the eastern Roman world, where clay buildings were common long before the Romans. However, again, this alone can only be part of the reason for the lack of stamped material. As we know, Roman brick was always used in the hypocaust system of bath complexes, as well as walls and other floor constructions. Therefore, there should be a certain amount of stamped material. Apart from that, many of the tile stamps discussed in this chapter, as we shall see, are roofing tiles (provided that the scholars publishing the material inform us on which types of bricks and tiles the stamps are found, which is not necessarily the case). This does not agree with the theory that there is a lack of stamped bricks from the Middle East because there were no brick roofs.

At the small fort of Petra between Aparus and Phasis a tile stamp was found with the following inscription: VEX·FA (Fig. 132). Speidel rejects the previously suggested reading vex(illationes legionum XII) F(ulminatae et XV) A(pollinaris), because legions were usually named with their numbers. This explanation is convincing. Instead, he proposes the reading vex(illatio) Fa(siana), suggesting that the tile was made in the brick works of the detachment stationed at Phasis. According to Speidel, the argument is strengthened by the fact that other vexillationes were named after their garrison places such as vexillatio Chersonnesitana on the Crimea (Speidel 1986: 659). Fasianus, Fasiana is a regular adjective for Phasis (Speidel 1967: 659). Arrian stated that the fort at Phasis was built in fired bricks (Arrian Periplus: 9 cited after Speidel 1986: 659). According to Speidel, the Petra tile shows that the brick works of the garrison produced tiles for other Black

As explained in Chapter 1, section 1.3.7, it is likely that one of the main reasons to put a stamp on a tile for the Roman military, was to prevent unauthorised use. As also mentioned in Chapter 1, a possible explanation for the missing stamped material, is the argument that areas, like Britain with low brick movement between military camps, have less stamped brick and tile (Peacock 1982: 137-

FIGURE 132 VEX FA STAMP FROM PHASIS (SPEIDEL M.P. 1986: 658)

17. Personal comment of S. T. Parker.

146

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Sea forts, stating that there was no need to think that the vexillatio Fasiana needed to be garrisoned in Petra to produce bricks for the fort (Speidel 1986: 659).

Barag published the stamps of Legio X Fretensis from Jerusalem (Barag 1967: 244-267). Bricks bearing the stamp of Legio X Fretensis were already known in the nineteenth century. He does not, however, date any of the stamps. Barag’s study adds new material found at excavations in his time. In the summer of 1949 the largest body of Legio X Fretensis stamps was uncovered during excavations by M. Avi-Yonah at Givat Ram (Sheikh Bader). The article contains some material that has, so far, remained unpublished, in an attempt to obtain a relative and absolute chronology (Barag 1967: 244).

According to Arrian (Arrian, Periplus 9 cited after Speidel 1986: 659) the 400 soldiers in garrison at Phasis were equipped with artillery. Therefore, the 400 men stationed at the garrison had previously been thought to have been legionary soldiers. The fort was, however, very exposed, which may have made it necessary to have artillery soldiers (Speidel 1986: 659). Speidel does not exclude the possibility that Cappadocian pedites singulares built the fort at Phasis. A similar thing was the case at Ellingen, a possible parallel, where Raetian pedites singulares built the frontier fort (Zanier 1992: 166-170). He proposes that such singulares may well have been identical with the Vexillatio Fasiana that made the Petra tile. In his opinion there may have even been a crew rebuilding the fort in bricks. Their stay in Phasis would have been short and they soon would have returned to the capital of the province where their duty called them (Speidel 1986: 659). Speidel does not add why he thought that this garrison was inhabited by elite troops rather than an ordinary auxiliary unit.

Legio X Fretensis had two types of insignia: a wild boar and a group of maritime symbols (Fig. 133). Often the two types appear together on one stamp. The boar, usually standing from left to right is the main symbol on the insignia of the unit. Maritime symbols include a galley, Neptune and a dolphin. Like on the antefices of Legio XX Valeria Victrix from Britain (RIB II.4, 2458: 119-124) the symbol and the name of the legion was included within one die. Unfortunately Barag does not say on which brick types the insignia of Legio X Fretensis appear (Barag 1967: 245-247).

Speidel sees this stamp as proof for the stay of singulares in Phasis, called the vexillatio Fasiana. However, one stamp is very little to base a theory upon. A unit called vexillatio Fasiana obviously originated in Phasis but the fact that we have one stamp of the unit in Petra does not necessarily mean that it had anything to do with the building activities there. Furthermore, it is not quite clear how this relates to Ellingen, since the fort there was built by the governors bodyguard and not an ordinary detachment, as indicated by the vexillatio at Phasis. Zanier argues that an inscription at Ellingen and the lack of another suitable garrison during the period of rebuilding in AD 180 probably mean that the pedites singulares were garrisoned there (Zanier 1992: 166-170). In the case of Phasis there is no inscription but only one stamp. Single stamps could have reached the site by accident more than anything else, used primarily or secondarily. Therefore, Speidel’s article, although interesting, adds little to our understanding of the military history of an area or brick stamps due to the insufficient reliability of single stamps.

Legionary installations were discovered at Givat Ram. Shortly after the capture of the Sheikh Bader Quarter (now Givat Ram) of Jerusalem in 1948, fragments of broken brick and tiles were discovered bearing stamp inscriptions of Legio X Fretensis. The hill is situated in the west of Jerusalem, to the west of the Valley of the Cross. In 1949 excavations took place carried out by the Israel Exploration Society. A large area of quarrying was discovered, several foundations and debris containing sherds and bricks. There were many cisterns that were supposed to be for water and grain storage. These remains were ascribed to the period prior to the destruction of the second temple, on the basis of some mid-first century sherds. Apparently in the period after this the soldiers of Legio X Fretensis took advantage of the installations on the site and used them for their brick works (Barag 1967: 248). The remains of a kiln with traces of soot on its walls were found. Raw materials for the production of brick were also found at the site. Though many bricks were found, none of them had any remains of plaster attached, which is not expected of bricks already used in buildings. Therefore, Barag agrees with the excavator that the area was the brick workshop for the legion. Obviously, some of the tiles found were unused and had been in storage. In spite of the fact that the area excavated was small, no building remains were found. Many types of stamp impressions were found on the bricks discovered at the site. Had buildings been constructed at the site, there would have been large quantities of one type of stamp impression, or at least just a few types. Furthermore, Barag

7.2.2 Local lists All other articles dealing with the stamps from the Middle East have been listed under this category. Some of them could also be listed under ‘brick stamps of certain units’ since stamps of only one unit were found in the location. However, to make things more accessible, it has been decided that they are counted as local lists. 147

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 133 TYPES I AND II A-E OF THE LEGIO X FRETENSIS STAMPS FROM JERUSALEM (SCALE 1:3) (BARAG 1967: 255) argues, that the stamps found belong to the entire period of Legio X Fretensis’ stay in Jerusalem, which would be expected at a brick factory (Barag 1967: 248).

The brick types in Givat-Ram, according to Barag, were the following: 1. 2.

The drying area at the kilns was being located at the time the article was published. In area D, excavated in 1949, it was possible to distinguish rectangular areas, some of which were rectangular pools and the openings of cisterns. These were not quarries or kilns. In Barag’s opinion they represented the units in which the clay had been prepared for use. Some of the cisterns might have existed prior to the use of the site as a brick works; some may previously have served as wine presses (Barag 1967: 249).

3. 4. 5. 6.

Rectangular bricks (lydia) Square bricks and floor tiles (bessales, pedales, sesquipedales) Round bricks (cunneati) Tegulae Imbrices Pipes (tubuli lingulati)

The brick stamps of Legio X Fretensis all have relief impressions. There is one type of round stamp, although most of the types are rectangular, in a few cases they are almost square. An examination of the stamp-impressions reveals that the stamps were made of wood because there are clear impressions of wood grains between some of the letters. Type IIc (Fig. 133) has a number of impressions made after the stamp had become damaged, the character of the damage point to wood having been used as material. Type IIf4 (Fig. 134)) continued to be used after it became cracked, as one impression indicates. There are examples of type IIf6 (Fig. 134) showing increased and successive

An examination of the brick fragments found at Givat Ram showed that they were prepared in wooden moulds. After the clay had been forced into the mould, the open top was smoothed off with a board. On the floors of the drying shed was a layer of thin gravel, some of which stuck to the bottom sides of the bricks. This was meant to prevent the bricks from sticking to the drying-floor. At this stage some of the bricks would have been stamped (Barag 1967: 250). 148

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

FIGURE 134 TYPES II F-J OF THE LEGIO X FRETENSIS STAMPS FROM JERUSALEM (SCALE 1:3) (BARAG 1967: 257) damage with its continued use, including a repair. This die had become increasingly cracked and may even have been nailed together (Barag 1967: 253).

Furthermore, occasionally single letters were carved wrongly. Dots used to separate the different parts of the inscription are rare. Simple ligatures appear often.

The inscriptions on the stamps are in Latin, except for one in Greek. The word Legio is abbreviated to L, LE or LEG. The letter X appears with a bar above, marking it as a numeral, or sometimes without the line. The name of the legion, Fretensis, is abbreviated to F, FR, FRE or FRT. The title Antoniniana appears twice, once abbreviated to ANT (with a reverse T) and once in its full form. One type is outstanding, in which the appellation of the legion is lacking: LX (Type II, variant a). There are ten text variants in the Latin of the stamp inscriptions: LX, LXF, LCXF, LEXFR, LEGXF, LXFRE, LEGXFR, LXF ANT (with reversed T), LXFAN/TONINIANA and …FRT.

Barag gives a list of stamps according to size and type (rectangular or round), without taking the differences of the inscription and the later chronology into consideration (for a more detailed list see Barag 1967: 254-263): Type I (Fig. 133, types 1-2): Round stamp, Variant: LEG X F (1 type) Type II (Fig. 133-134): Square stamp, Variant a: LX, in ligature (2 types) (Fig. 133, types 3-4). Variant b: LXF (13 types) (Fig. 133, types 6-17). Variant c: LCXF (1 type) (Fig. 133, type 18). Variant d: LEXFR (1 type) (Fig. 133, type 19). Variant e: LEGXF (3 types) (Fig. 133, types 20-22). Variant f: LXFRE (9 types) (Fig. 134, types 1-7). Variant g: LEGXFR (7 types) (Fig. 134, types 8-14).

The soldiers who carved the stamps often made mistakes of direction, and often the letters were formed backwards. 149

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Variant h: LXFAN/ANTONINIANA (1 type) (Fig. 134, type 15). Variant i: LXF ANT (with reversed T) (1 type) (Fig. 134, type 16). Variant j: …FRT (1 type) (Fig. 134, type 17).

the latter. The two stamps types bearing that title (Types IIh-i) (Fig. 134), according to him, definitely date between AD 212 and 222 (or possibly between AD 218 and 222). Again, he assumes that there was only a short period of use due to the fact that there are only two stamp types. He also argues that those certain dates would be important for the dating of further stamp types (Barag 1967: 264). As will be further explained in detail in Chapter 12, page 246, this date of the Antoniniana title is no longer secure: there is some evidence that it was sometimes used as early as the reign of Septimius Severus (Lörincz 1982: 142-144; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123).

Barag does not state how many single stamps of each type there are. All we can tell from the list is that there are 40 types of brick stamps from Jerusalem. He suggests a chronology of the stamp types: it is known that the legion was stationed in Jerusalem as a permanent occupying force from the end of the Jewish War until the end of the third century AD, with a short gap during the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The occupation covers a period of more than twohundred years. It is obvious that, during such a long period, buildings would have been destroyed, repaired and rebuilt. Barag assumes that there was extensive rebuilding in two periods especially: after the Jewish War, when it was decided that the legion should stay in Jerusalem and after the above-mentioned revolt in AD 132 (Barag 1967: 263).

In the excavations at Ramat Ramel, the remains of a bath, in which building materials of the Tenth Legion was used, were discovered. Several examples of type IIg6, one of type IIg7 and fragments of types IIf6 and IIb10 were found (Fig. 133-134). The 150 coins found there indicate a gap in the finds between AD 70 and the third century AD. Only one coin dates from the period of the gap, which was struck at Raphia in AD 180/181, which according to the excavator shows that the bath complex not built before the third century AD (Barag 1967: 264). Four other coins found there date to the third century. There are few other finds belonging to the period between the Jewish War and the Byzantine era, all of which date no earlier than the third century. The excavator states that the remains of the legionary installations were preserved in an excellent condition and were reused in the Byzantine period (Barag 1967: 264-265). No major changes in the bath are evident. There were only a few small repairs. Only four stamp types were found at the site. Those facts, according to Barag, indicate that the legion did not use the bath for a long time, and that it was built in the third century (Barag 1967: 264). Since there are no stamps bearing the title Antoniniana, together with the other data, he suggests that the stamp types found at Ramat Rahel belong to the third century AD, and more exactly to the period after Elagabal. He adds that types IIf6 and IIg6 display ligatures and late forms in their letter, and that although he thinks that one should be extremely careful with palaeographical evidence, there are some indications of a relative age: in his opinion all this suggests a relatively late date (Barag 1967: 265).

Barag states that he regrets that there are no chronologies concerning typological characteristics of all brick stamps. He adds that because of this he only compares the stamp types of Legio X Fretensis amongst themselves (Barag 1967: 263). As we know, this in fact the only way to conduct a chronological study of the brick stamps of a unit, since other units rarely show similarities in their brick stamps. A short chronological list for all stamp types all over the Roman Empire is not possible because the stamps from all over the former Roman Empire are so diverse. For a more detailed discussion of this problem see Chapter 14. Barag is very critical of other studies on brick stamps. However, the fact that he does not give the exact numbers of the brick stamps he writes about shows that his methodology is not flawless either. For his dating of the Round Stamps (Type 1) Barag uses coins bearing counter-marks showing the galley and the boar together side-by-side. He sees a great similarity with the stamps bearing a warship below and a boar above. Therefore, he assumes that the only stamp type bearing this combination is to be considered contemporary with the production of the coins, which date to the period between AD 68 and the end of the first century AD. Since there is only one stamp type displaying the two symbols, Barag proposes that it was probably only used for a very short period of time. He suggests that it belonged to the first period of garrison in Jerusalem, i.e., the period after the Jewish War, until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Barag 1967: 264).

The stamps of types IIf1-4 (Fig. 134), according to him, are a homogenous group. Besides the inscription LXFRE all four types have several other points in common: All types display a small letter X, which appears in the same manner next to the L. Three of the four types have reversed letters, which read from right to left. Three of the types are surrounded by a border. Finally, in all types the crossstrokes of the F are slanted. Barag came to the conclusion that the four stamp types represented a homogenous group and that they are more or less contemporary. He also states

Barag says that the title Antoniniana was confined to the period under Caracalla and Elagabal, possibly only under 150

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

that types IIf1-4 are stylistically and palaeographically similar to Type IIh (Fig. 134). Barag states that the types have to date either earlier or later than the Antoninianagroup since the title was not displayed on any of the stamp types. He suggests that since the letters are well-formed they are probably from an earlier period, .i.e. the end of the second or the beginning of the third century AD (Barag 1967: 265).

lack of the title Antoniniana does not necessarily imply that the tiles were not stamped in the period under Caracalla and Elagabal (or under Elagabal only), or even as early as Septimius Severus. It is known from other areas of the former Roman Empire that tiles that were stamped in a period when an emperor’s title was used on other stamps and other inscriptions, do not always display that name. Therefore, a missing title as in this case Antoniniana, is no proof that the tile was not stamped in that period.

Barag then asks the question, which of the remaining stamp types should be ascribed to the second century. He answers this by taking palaeographical considerations: Type IIb1-3 (Fig. 133) have interpunctuation-marks separating the letter (L·X·F). This element appears also on Type 1. The form of the letter is finer than on those for which he suggested a third century date. Type IIe1 (Fig. 133) (LEG·X·F) has interpunctuation-marks separating the elements, and the letters are fine and well-executed. According to Barag, the style of the letter of Iid (Fig. 133) is very similar to that of the letters of type 1. In his opinion the ‘tail’ from the bottom of the F is characteristic of the second century AD on. Therefore, these types are most likely to date to the second century. He argues further that the form of the F could place types IIb5 and IIg1 (Fig. 133-134) into the same period. Furthermore, from a stylistic comparison, types IIg2-4 (Fig. 134) could also possibly belong there (Barag 1967: 265).

Otherwise, Barag is quite careful in suggesting dates for his other stamp types, stating that palaeographic and stylistic comparisons can only provide the reader with provisional dates. However, most of his dating is based on epigraphy only, and does not include either archaeological context (with the above mentioned exceptions of the coin dates) or petrological studies. As stated before, only a combination of methods provides us with safe dates and stylistic diversities are not necessarily a sign of different ages in Roman brick stamps, as already shown in Chapter 2, page 39 and Chapter 14. On top of that, the main problem with the article is the lack of quantification. Legio X Fretensis was transferred to Aqaba/Aila around AD 300. Aqaba has been extensively excavated since 1994 and has produced a large number of brick and tiles. However, according to Parker18 all the brick material found so far was unstamped. This is possible evidence for the cessation of stamping tiles by the fourth century in the Middle East. Stamped tiles in Europe also became very rare toward the fourth century, although they do not cease completely, as the stamps of Legio I Martia from Kaiseraugst show for example (Tomasevic & Buck 1986: 268-273). These stamps are further discussed in Chapter 12, pages 239-240. This could possibly be related to a lesser degree of troop movement in late antiquity. The argument that stamping tiles was mainly designed to prevent unauthorised use when units or tiles were transferred has been mentioned previously. We have to bear in mind, however, that it is a hypothesis.

Barag dates the remaining types (IIa1-2, IIb7-9 and IIf7) (Fig. 133-134) to the third century, using stylistic comparison. He states that if the dates he suggested were correct, one could assume that, except for the use of the title Antoniniana, the specific form of the inscription was of little importance, and that some of the variants went in and out of use more than once over the years (Barag 1967: 266). In his opinion, type IIe (Fig. 133) (LEG·X·F) appears the most characteristic of the first century AD (from AD 70 on) and the second century AD, and type IIf (Fig. 134) with the text LXFRE was mostly used from the end of the second century on (Barag 1967: 266).

Amongst the places that have produced tile stamps in the Middle East are the twin-towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates. In AD 58, Tacitus wrote that Legio IIII Scythica was stationed in Syria (Tacitus Annales: 13.35). It is generally accepted that, contrary to what is stated by Tacitus, that the legion was moved from Moesia, not Germany, as early as AD 56 or 57 (Speidel 1998: 165166). In AD 66 Nero appointed Flavius Vespasianus to take command in the war against the Jewish rebels. The troops which were sent against the enemy included Legio

If Barag’s chronology is correct, the stamps of Legio X Fretensis represent the units stay for a very long period of time. There are, however, a few problems with his chronology. Barag’s dating of the Antoniniana stamps is generally correct in methodology but, as explained earlier the dating of the title might be earlier in rare cases. When talking about the Ramat Rahel stamps once again Barag does not indicate how many stamps of each type he is actually dealing with. This is the most important step before starting a chronology, even if one does not intend to make statements about a population of unknown stamps, but only of existing ones. There is a slight problem with the methodology he uses when dating these stamps: The

18. Personal comment of S.T. Parker.

151

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

X Fretensis, which may have been previously garrisoned the river-crossing Zeugma/Seleukia-on-the-Euphrates. Since it is unlikely that such an important crossingpoint and one of the major Parthian invasion routes would have been left unguarded, it is assumed that the legion that took the former unit’s place was Legio IIII Scythica (Speidel 1998: 167). There is only one broken stone-inscription attesting the legion from that period, but a body of other inscriptions, including tile stamps, testifies that Legio IIII Scythica was permanently placed at Zeugma. Wagner’s survey of ancient Zeugma names several tile stamps of the legion on one of Zeugma’s western hills (Wagner 1977: 522-524) (Fig. 135). More recently, other stamps of the same types have been found, including one on Belkis Tepe, the location of the ancient sanctuary of Tyche and of Zeugma’s acropolis (Kennedy 1998: 133135). So far no tile stamps of other units have been found in or near Zeugma, and no other place suitable for a garrison place of the legion produced Legio IIII Scythica stamps. The exact location of the fortress of the legion was not yet been discovered. Wagner, who excavated in the 1970’s, thinks it likely, that Atmeydani, the area were most of the tiles were found at Zeugma, could be the location for the fortress. It would have been an ideal location for a military fortress because it is the only plain in the town area and neighbourhood of Zeugma. Wagner admits, however, that there is no proof (Wagner 1977: 526). An ongoing study of satellite photographs might soon provide further clues (Speidel 1998: 168).

FIGURE 135 STAMPS OF THE LEGIO IV SCYTHICA FROM ZEUGMA (WAGNER 1977: 525) Samosata. This stamp is of particular interest because the site produced a Latin building inscription reading: …vex]ill leg IIII Scyth/[sub…]no castellum fec. The building inscription is dated to AD 197 (Wagner, 1983, 112-113). As mentioned before no stamped tiles were found at Dura-Europos, the only other site which produced epigraphic attestations of Legio IIII Scythica during the same period.

The brick stamps of Legio IV Scythica from the Middle East were only discovered in recent excavations. To date, 30 have been published or reported from three different locations, more have been found in recent excavations by C. Abadie-Reynal.19 The main group with 27 examples comes from Zeugma itself. Two other stamps of this group were found at the Roman Bridge over the Karasu, a tributary to the Euphrates, which runs 50 kilometres to the north of it, on the western road to Samosata. This could be linked to the phenomenon, seen in other parts of the Roman world, that brick stamps were transported along the rivers. The excavator, Wagner sees that the appearance of the stamped tiles reflects the fact that the bridge was built by Legio IIII Scythica. The stamped tiles were found amongst a large body of unstamped brick (Wagner 1977: 520). One single stamp was found at the fort of Eski Hisar, which is around 50 kilometres north of Zeugma, on the road across Osrhoene to

Both Wagner (Wagner 1977: 517-539) and Kennedy (Kennedy 1998: 133-135) have published drawings and photographs of some of the stamps from Zeugma. He published nine stamps that he found in his excavations in the town area of Seleukia on Euphrates/Zeugma. Most of the stamps were found in the above mentioned, At Meydani area. A lot of the stamped and unstamped material came from stray finds, which is due to the fact that a lot of the tiles would have been uncovered when a new street system was built in 1969 (Wagner 1977: 537). One tegula fragment (No. 7) came from the western necropolis of Zeugma under a pile of stones. His stamps Nos. 8 and 9 (Fig. 135) came from the bridge at the Karasu River. Wagner thinks that the stamp dies must have been made out of wood due to the fact that the imprints are very flat. Broken letters are also visible on some, which is also a sign of wooden dies, as discussed in Chapter 1, section 1.3.2 (Wagner 1998: 537).

19. This is a publication which could not be located through inter-library loan in spite of intensive searches and which is, therefore, not included in this analysis.

152

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Wagner states that the creation of a relative chronology has not been possible due to the fact that the expansions are all the same. For a detailed listing of the nine stamps see above mentioned article (Wagner 1977: 538-539). All stamps read legionis IIII Scythicae in expansion, with the exception of No. 6 (Fig. 135) which is a fragment reading leg(ionis). Due to the find location it is naturally interpreted as a Legio IIII Scythica stamp. Most of the tiles, whole or fragmented, are tegulae. This actually contradicts the assumption that the Middle East has less stamped material because fewer roofs were tiled, and shows that we to have to look for alternative answers.

with its strong ligatures and common writing, to the third century. Since it does not display cursive writing, which is a sign of the late third century, it is placed in the first half of the third century (Wagner 1977: 529). According to Wagner, the connection with the stamp material and the Severan period is not surprising (Wagner 1977: 529). Zeugma was subject to a large building programme during the period of Septimius Severus. The construction of the Karasu Bridge was part of this programme. New buildings were probably erected in Zeugma itself, very likely sponsored by the emperor who would have been interested in the city, which was a starting point for the Mesopotamian conquests of Septimius Severus. Around AD 180, the later emperor, Septimius Severus, had been commander of Legio IV Scythica in Zeugma. This personal knowledge of the city, in Wagner’s opinion, was a good reason to invest in buildings for the city (Wagner 1977: 529).

In his article, Wagner states that the possibility of dating the stamps from Zeugma and from the Karasu bridge can only depend on a few palaeographical clues due to the fact that most of the stamps were stray finds (Wagner 1977: 528). Again, the fact that a long chronology already exists is not mentioned. Nevertheless, there is an attempt to date the material more closely by means of epigraphic comparison. The nine Legio IIII Scythica stamps (Fig. 135) have very different typefaces. Wagner’s stamps 6 and 7 are stamped in clear capitals (capitalis monumentalis) but are very fragmentary. Therefore, Wagner does not allocate them to any time period. Nos. 1, 3-5, 8 and 9 are a second group whose first letters LEG are not always cut cleanly in capital letters, and whose second part of the stamps show a change to a writing form called capitalis rustica. No. 2 is written in a much more common writing form. All the stamps share the fact that the Y is written as a crossbeam. However, Wagner states that this does not contain any dating-possibilities (Wagner 1998: 528). There are a few slight differences between the stamps of the second group. No. 3 uses a very accurate letter-form with a very small c as a littera inserta towards the middle of the inscription. The same phenomenon appears on stamp No. 8. It is suggested that those two stamps might date earlier than other stamps as Wagner’s numbers 1 or 5, which display a certain slurring of letter-forms with ligatures and apiciations (Wagner 1998: 528). No. 1 and No. 2 are similar in the lay-out of the number IIII, but No. 2 lacks the cross-beam on top of the number. Wagner explains that this is as far as he is willing to go with a palaeographical analysis of the stamp material. He does, however, draw parallels to stamps of Legio X Fretensis from Jerusalem (Barag 1967: 244-267). Due to stratigraphy, Barag dates his find complex to the second half of the second century AD. Wagner thinks that his stamp types Nos. 3 and 8 and type Nos. 1 and 5 have both parallels among the Legio X Fretensis stamps published by Barag (Wagner 1977: 529). This attempt is certainly a valid attempt to achieve an epigraphic date at least, since in a lot of the cases the archaeological context for the stamps is not known. Wagner dates his stamp No. 2,

In connection with the other inscription material, the Legio IV Scythica stamps show quite clearly that the legion was really stationed at Zeugma. However, even though the nine stamps that he mentions do certainly point into the Severan period, the small number of stamps suggests care. Nine stamps are not enough to give a secure date. Wagner deals with even less stamps than Kennedy twenty years later, and it is extremely unlikely that there is any proof that the stamps are really Severan. Also, Wagner only uses epigraphy for his dating. Archaeological context (if known) or petrology might or might not confirm his dates. However, his statement can always remain a hypothesis, as long as it is not disproved, and his epigraphic comparison is very detailed and exact. As mentioned before, safe dating can only be achieved with a combination of methods, including archaeological context and, preferable, petrological analysis. This is not the case here. Kennedy lists 28 stamps from Zeugma and three from Karasu bridge and Eski Hisar. This includes the stamps published by Wagner in 1977 and Abadie-Reynal in 1996.20 Wagner’s stamps include two reverse ones. The number is invariably rendered as IIII (rather than IV) but it may be set out with all the strokes of equal height or with the second and third shorter (e.g. Wagner’s numbers. 1, 2, 7, 27). The number may be written either with a horizontal bar over the strokes or without. On all the stamps with a left to right layout, the name is abbreviated as SCYT but with the Y and T in ligature, the T being represented by a horizontal bar through the middle of the Y. Only on one of the retrograde examples (No. 101) are the T and the Y 20. Again, this is a publication could not be located through inter-library loan, and is therefore not included in this thesis.

153

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 136 BRICK STAMPS OF LEGIO III CYRENAICA FROM THE LEGIONARY FORTRESS AT BOSTRA (BRULET 1984: 178) separate. The C of the name is sometimes shorter than the other letters. It may be set high or in the centre. When the C is full-sized, it is either a half-circle or a shallow curve, or a near vertical stroke with a small tail at the bottom. The

G of LEG is either a full G or a virtual C. LEG is the most common from but one of the retrograde examples (No. 7) has only LE. On one stamp (No. 8) the E of LEG is smaller than the two other letters (Kennedy 1998: 135). 154

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Kennedy does not suggest any dates for the brick stamps he publishes. Given the fact that there are only a total of 31 stamps, it is probably wise not to attempt to establish short chronologies. However, we can assume a long chronology of from the period of Nero to the end of Roman military occupation in Syria based on our knowledge of the legion’s stay in the area, which should be added. Short chronologies are usually not possible with small numbers of samples because they are more likely to produce an argument that cannot be sustained because the margin of error is too long. Kennedy states that further discoveries at Zeugma will, hopefully, be recorded and that then a detailed typological study of the group will be conducted (Kennedy 1998: 135). A typological study of the existing stamps might have been possible without suggesting any dates, which are not based by means of an epigraphic comparison of letter types.

in buildings. Unfortunately, no indications of the types of bricks and tiles on which the stamps were used are given (Brulet 1984: 177). Brulet lists 19 stamps (for a more detailed list see Brulet 1984: 177-179). All the stamps are rectangular. Most of the bricks are very fragmented and, although Brulet suggests that there are 16 stamp types, we cannot be entirely certain how many dies are present in the illustration included (Fig. 136). Most of the 19 stamps contain the name of the legion, Cyrenaica. The abbreviation of the name varies; it can be CY (inverse) or CYR. The horizontal bar indication the number is sometimes there, sometimes not (Brulet 1984: 179; Fig. 136). As shown in Fig. 136, Brulet forms eight groups according to the letter graphics: Since there is no known stratigraphical context, he refrains from suggesting any chronological order for the stamps (Brulet 1984: 179). However, in his opinion, the stamps represent a strong case for the acceptance of the argument that the fortress was situated at the proposed location. Brulet also adds that the possibility cannot be dismissed that they could be evidence of a brick factory or a bath-house, since those were usually not situated in the immediate vicinity of the fortress (Brulet 1984: 179). In view of the recent evidence published by Lenoir (2000: 175-184) it is unlikely that the area was a separate brick factory. It is, of course, possible that the bricks formed part of a bath-house within the fortress but this has to remain speculation.

Finally, Brulet investigates the brick stamps from Bostra (Brulet 1984: 175-179). Legio III Cyrenaica probably arrived in the province of Arabia by AD 107, and it was most likely garrisoned there for a limited period of time. The legion was definitely in the province between AD 140 and 144 (Brulet 1984: 175). Epigraphic sources show that the legion was garrisoned at Bostra. There are numerous inscriptions that show the dispersion of the units of the Roman army along the frontiers in the Severan period. Brulet suggests that it is possible that the legion was stationed in several towns and along the Arabian limes in that period of time (Brulet 1984: 175).

Brulet is very cautious in dealing with the stamps. Nineteen brick stamps is not a very large number. He is probably right about the fact that no exact dating can be achieved (Brulet 1984: 179). Like Barag or Wagner, he could have attempted a relative chronology of the different types of letter-forms, especially since he had already separated them into eight different groups. The first two groups definitely display clearer letters than the last ones (i.e. Group seven and eight). If Wagner’s and Barag’s interpretations are correct, it would mean that the first groups might date earlier that the later ones, especially since groups seven and eight have ligatures. However, this is probably as far a researcher can go with attempting a relative chronology of stamp types. Even without the recent results from aerial photography and surface and geophysical surveys (Lenoir 2000: 175-184) the stamps of Legio III Cyrenaica make it quite likely that the fortress of the legion could have existed at the location (Brulet 1984: 178). Of course, the relatively small number of stamps could not be sufficient for a definite conclusion. The fact that the archaeological context of the stamps is not known, does not allow for a safe dating using a combination of methods. Brulet probably gives the maximum information we can gain from the stamps, although he does not appear to be concerned about

The location of the fortress of Legio III Cyrenaica at Bostra was not established for a long time. Most modern scholars writing on the subject merely hypothesised about a fortress, which could have been somewhere to the north of the modern town. Speidel was rather doubtful of the suggested location (Speidel 1984: 691-697). Kennedy allowed for some doubt over the proposed existence of the military fortress to the north of the town (Kennedy 1979: 879-897). Other authors, like Mougdad, accepted the location as the former fortress of III Cyrenaica (Mougdad 1976: 65-81). Brulet proposed a temporary outline of the fortress in his 1984 article. Fragments of brick stamps bearing the name of Legio III Cyrenaica were discovered in the proposed axis of the via principalis of the fortress (Brulet 1984: 176). Since the publication of Brulet’s article new research by Lenoir (2002: 175-184), based on aerial photography, prospection and geophysical surveys, has confirmed that the area in question was more than likely indeed the location of the fortress of Legio III Cyrenaica. Most of the bricks listed by Brulet measure 2.2 cm across and are of red or brown colour and have a lot of basalt inclusions. Traces of mortar show that they have been used 155

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the lack of dating criteria, which may, of course, have been due to lack of space and time limitations when the article was compiled.

uses the cognomen of the legion as a dating criterion, which is not completely reliable, as explained in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. On top of that, again, epigraphy alone as a research method is not sufficient. Archaeological context and petrology should be used as well.

7.3 Conclusion: The British scholar Kennedy has been very cautious. He does not use any attempts of chronology, not even a relative one, which might be possible. Given the small numbers of stamps from the Middle East it is probably a good approach not to date closely, but a long chronology of a unit’s stay can always be stated. Brulet, from the French school, is also extremely careful and does not suggest any relative or long chronology at all. This makes us wonder if the scholars are interested at all in dating the stamps. If there are methodological or problems of quantification, as on the stamps from the Middle East, this should be said, and alternative solutions should be considered. However, the author is aware of the fact that constrictions of space and time sometimes force scholars to omit such considerations. None of the scholars listed here make any obvious mistakes of methodology, but like many other areas presented by schools of research, not enough methods are attempted and combined.

Due to the lack of more material the five articles discussed here, serve as representative of the methodology on brick stamps in the Middle East. It is worth noticing that all mentioned authors come from different archaeological schools, due to the fact that the discussed area tends to be investigated by several nations that are not local. The American and British school mostly excavate Jordan, which was former Arabia. The French school has excavated in Syria, which was Roman Syria and partly Arabia (Bostra). However, the British archaeologist Kennedy also writes about Syria (Zeugma) and Wagner trained in the German school. Israeli archaeologists have excavated the archaeological sites in Jerusalem and the rest of the country. Therefore, a lot of different methodologies appear in the brick stamp research of the Middle East. Yet there are some similarities. Barag and Wagner use similar systems in investigating the brick stamps of Legio X Fretensis in Jerusalem and the stamps of Legio IIII Scythica from Zeugma. Both involve epigraphic methods to suggest chronologies. Wagner is dealing with a very small number of stamps, which makes it hard to make any statements about dating. He is careful and does not make any statements about reconstruction of military history, which is justified the lack of archaeological context and material. He does suggest relative dates. He uses some of Barag’s system of palaeographical comparisons. Unfortunately, the lack of archaeological context or other methodology does not allow for the article to be a significant contribution to the dating of military brick stamps. Wagner uses some uses some of Barag’s system of palaeographical comparisons. Barag’s methodology, apart from slight problems with his dating of the Antoniniana title, is generally sound, but he makes one main mistake, which is not stating the numbers of brick stamps he is dealing with; as explained before, this makes a numeric comparison impossible and the results are questionable. If we do not know exact numbers it is not possible to evaluate the validity of statements based on the quantification of stamped bricks. His dating can be a hypothesis for the number of stamps he is discussing but not for any unknown stamp population. His chronology also has a few problems: he

A problematic article in the collection is M.P. Speidel’s. It is worth noticing that this article is listed here under the category of overviews and histories of troop dispositions. Of course, it can also be named a local list but Speidel states that the main aspect of the study is the subject of troop dispositions. Experience from researching articles from other areas has shown that this category is most prone to use too little evidence for statements. Speidel writes articles about all aspects of Roman military archaeology, usually well researched. In this article, however, the argument is based on the evidence from a single stamp which is not sufficient to make any conclusion about military history. The methodology of the brick stamp research in the Middle East varies due to the different nationalities and backgrounds of the scholars. Generally, the approach is a careful one and reflects on the limitations of the small numbers of stamps found. Nevertheless, sometimes more information is needed about possible solutions to these problems. The lack of archaeological context for many of those stamps demands an interest in the fabric of the bricks, which has not been mentioned so far. This offers a new research approach for further studies of the Middle Eastern stamps.

156

CHAPTER 8

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN NORTHERN AFRICA

8.1 Introduction

Dio (59: 20.7) by AD 37 the third Augustan legion under the command of its legate was separated from the province of Africa. Both sources include contradictory information. It is certain that the legion was not separated from the province but, according to Whittaker, rather from the direct patronage of the senatorial governor and an imperial legate was put in charge (Whittaker 1996: 596-597). It is further claimed that a year or two later Mauretania was annexed to the Empire, because Caligula was annoyed by the boastful demeanor of his cousin Ptolemy, king of Mauretania (Tacitus Annales: 4.23; Dio Cassius 59: 25; Suetonius Lives of the Caesars: 4.35). However, again the sources contradict each other and there is no real evidence for the annexing of Mauretania, which obviously took some time, until the reign of Claudius (Le Bohec 1989: 347-348; Whittaker 1996: 597-599). In AD 73 the boundaries between Africa Nova and Africa Vetus (the two provinces of Julius Caesar before Augustus united them as Africa Proconsularis) were redefined, and possibly the new XIIIth urban cohort was created for this task (Whittaker 2000b: 517). From the period of Septimius Severus, who separated Numidia from Africa Proconsularis, Roman Africa consisted of Mauretania as far south as Volubilis (divided into Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis), Numidia as far south as the Aurés Mountains, and Africa Proconsularis with the narrow coastal strip of Tripolitania. The two Mauretanias were usually administered by two separate equestrian procuratorgovernors, but sometimes they were reunited under a single administrator. It is uncertain why this was the case; a military crisis, a special honour to an imperial favourite or a recent death of one of the governors could have caused such a change of administration (Le Bohec 1989: 367-450; Whittaker 2000b: 515). Africa Proconsularis was governed by a series of governors and legates.

The history of the provinces known under the term ‘Roman Africa’ is a turbulent one, and the number and names of the provinces fluctuated during the imperial Roman period. In BC 46 both parts of Numidia, the original Roman province after the defeat of Jugurtha in BC 105 and the independent kingdom of Juba, fell to Caesar. Julius Caesar thus extended Roman rule well beyond Scipio’s original boundaries. The territory now included most of the Numidian kingdom. The original African province was now called Africa Vetus, the new one Africa Nova. Augustus gave the whole of Mauretania to Juba II of Numidia, who had been brought up in Rome and the city of Cherchel/Iol Caesarea was founded. In BC 35 the single province Africa Proconsularis was formed to incorporate all territories, including the area around Cirta (Le Bohec 1989: 335-337; Whittaker 1996: 600). In spite of the fact that it was a ‘border province’, Augustus left Africa to be governed by the senate. Legio III Augusta was sent to Africa and its first base was Haidra/ Ammaedara. From this strategic position the movements of the tribes between he southern steppes and the Tunisian plateau and the Aurés Mountains in the southwest could be checked. The legion remained as the only permanent legion to be garrisoned in the northwest of Africa. There are records for the legion from AD 14 (Le Bohec 1989: 335-337; Whittaker 1996: 600). It is impossible to say how many auxiliary units there were at this stage. Inscriptions record a Cohors XV Voluntariorum and an Ala Siliana (CIL VIII: 22786; 23252; 23255; 25646; AE 1972: 969; Tacitus Histories: 1.70). It is likely that they were recruited locally (Le Bohec 1989: 342; Whittaker 1996: 601). Revolts were always a substantial part of the Roman occupation in Africa. The motives of native opposition, despite the accounts of Roman literary sources, are not very clear. The revolt of Tacfarinas under Tiberius (AD 17-23), possibly caused by native hostility against the newly established road from the port of Gabés/Tacapae in southern Tunisia to Haidra/Ammadaera, is documented by Tacitus (Annals: 2.52; 3.21; 3.73-74; 4.23-26).

The above-mentioned Tacapae-Ammaedara military road was the beginning of a system of roads built by the Roman army in Africa. Tébessa/Theveste, which lay on the main route from Carthage to Ammaedara, became the new garrison of Legio III Augusta in the AD 70’s. It was the centre of a system of roads spreading into all directions. Trajan, or Hadrian had the legion moved to the west again. The new headquarters were at Lambaesis, which was a better location to watch over the whole length of the frontier. More roads were constructed to connect Lambaesis with

The reign of Caligula is said to have brought military changes. According to Tacitus (Annales: 4.13) and Cassius 157

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the old frontier road. The Vescara-Lambaesis road was built by Legio VI Ferrata and led northwards passing Constantine/Cirta. There were other roads leading towards western Mauretania.

by Ptolemy Physcon in 115 BC and inherited by them after the death of his son Ptolmy Apion in 96 BC. It is not totally clear how far the Romans went south into the interior. There are forts dating from the Tiberian period in the Syrtican part of the Cyrenaican plateau and recently Libyan archaeologists found stone constructions dating to AD 53/4 in the desert south of Mechili, which was possibly part of a structure inherited by the Romans from Ptolemy Apion (Reynolds & Lloyd 1996; 622). From 27 BC, Cyrene was administered together with Crete and governed by a proconsul of the praetorian rank. Cyrene had auxiliary units, for which the main sources are graffiti (Whittaker 1996: 636). In times of crisis the neighbouring legions could come to aid (Le Bohec 1994: 174).

The Fossatum Africae, discovered by aerial photography in the middle and late 1930’s has caused as much controversy as other frontier systems such as Hadrian’s Wall in Britain. Recent publications tend to see the border as a system to control trade rather than a military barrier. Originally, the building of this frontier was assigned to either Trajan or Hadrian. However, as archaeological prospection progresses, the originality of the contribution of these emperors becomes more and more doubtful. For example, the legionary base of Lambaesis is now known to have been in use about twenty years before Trajan. It is now likely that the whole legion did not move there until AD 115/120 (Whittaker 2000: 520). The fort at El Kasbat/ Gemellae, situated at the oasis on the Oued Djedi, was connected to a fortification, which was part of a wallberm-and-ditch system with fortlets and watchtowers. Other sections have been found in the southern pre-Sahara area between the Hodna basin and Algeria, and during recent campaigns also in Tripolitana (Whittaker 2000b: 520-521). However, despite similarities in construction techniques with Hadrian’s Wall, there is only the tenuous link to Hadrian with the date of the fort at Gemellae. There is no consistent system of forts and watchtowers and there is no evidence that the fossatum was built during one period. Whittaker suggests that earlier emperors began the work, and that it was only continued in the period of Trajan and Hadrian. He argues furthermore, that the purpose of the fossatum was less to exclude the southern tribes than to control their movement (Whittaker 2000b: 520-521). The Antonine emperors continued building to the west of Gemellae (Whittaker 2000b: 521).

Since Egypt’s status was modified to that of a Roman province, it was governed by an equestrian praefectus, who was under the direct command of the princeps. During the reign of Augustus, the province had three legions: III Cyrenaica, XII Fulminata and XXII Deiotariana. There were also nine auxiliary cohorts, three alae and the classis Alexandrina (Bowman 1996: 687). Initially, the legionary headquarters were situated at Alexandria, Babylon and Thebes in the vicinity of the modern Lake Nasser. In AD 23, Legio XII Fulminata left and the two remaining legions were garrisoned at Nicopolis near Alexandria (Le Bohec 1994: 174: Bowman 1996: 687). Three or possibly four auxiliary units were also garrisoned there, whereas the numbers of the remaining units are not certain and it is only guessed that they must have been located somewhere in Middle and Upper Egypt (Bowman 1996: 687). The strength of the troops in Egypt varied. The two legions remained until the reign of either Trajan or Hadrian, when Legio III Cyrenaica left (Le Bohec 1994: 174; Bowman 1996: 687). Legio XXII Deiotariana was destroyed in the second century AD. Legio II Traiana, created by Trajan, had its quarters at Nicopolis (Le Bohec 1994: 174). In AD 105 there were still three alae but only seven cohorts, and by the middle of the second century four alae and twelve cohorts (Bowman 1996: 687). Since Egypt did not have senatorial legionary legates, the legions were led by the praefectus castrorum. In addition to the fortress at Nicopolis, there were series of smaller forts along the road, which borders the Nile, and the margins of the desert and oases (Le Bohec 1994: 174). Recently, a research project by V. Maxfield focuses on further fortlets and watering places at a range of sites in the Eastern Desert. The sites are situated along the major highways from the Nile at Coptos to the Red Sea at Quseir and Berenike, including the imperial quarry complexes at Mons Claudianus and Mons Porphyrites (Maxfield 1996; Maxfield & Peacock 2001a; Maxfield & Peacock 2001b). Results regarding Roman military control over the Eastern Desert zone will be published in the Proceedings of the Limes Congress in Pécz in 2003.

Legio III Augusta, moved from its old base in Africa Proconsularis to its new base in Numidia some time from the reign of Trajan, and was responsible for the whole of the Maghreb. Many scholars have expressed surprise at the fact that there was so little military presence in such a vast area as Northern Africa, compared to places like the Danube or Britain (Le Bohec 1994: 176; Whittaker 2000b: 525). The exact numbers of garrison are not known for any given time. As known from inscriptions, reinforcements from other armies assisted in times of need. The exact numbers of auxiliaries from Africa still remain unclear (Whittaker 2000b: 525-526). Only two are known on brick stamps: Cohors II Flavia Africana and Cohors II Hispana (see Table 10). Cyrene, named after its capital city, and situated in modern Libya, was bequeathed to the Romans in default of an heir 158

BRICK RESEARCH IN NORTHERN AFRICA

Researching the brick stamps in Northern Africa is even more of a problem than the ones from the Middle East. Although Roman Africa was a very large area covering several provinces, very few brick stamps are known. The article, which is more than a list of stamps amongst other inscriptions such as CIL VIII, 2, 10474-10475 and more modern lists, encountered during the research for this thesis, is Le Bohec’s contribution on the stamps of Legio III Augusta in Lambaesis and in Numidia and Africa (Le Bohec 1981: 127-160). The article also includes some stamps of Legio VII Gemina and two auxiliary cohorts from the region. No stamped bricks were found from Mauretania, Cyrenaica or Egypt.21 It is true that some of these provinces only had auxiliary units, however, brick stamps of auxiliaries are known from other parts of the Roman world, and indeed also from Numidia and Africa (Le Bohec 1981: 127-160). That there appear to be no stamped tiles from Egypt is even more peculiar. Legio XII Fulminata was stationed in Egypt until the period of Tiberius, and since military tile stamping in most places did not occur until later it is not surprising that the legion left no stamped brick material behind. Legio III Cyrencaica and Legio XXII Deiotariana, on the other hand, stayed in Egypt until the second century AD and Legio II Traiana was garrisoned there from this century onwards, therefore it is surprising that there are no brick stamps from these units at all.

article on Northern Africa is not representative enough to draw any conclusions about the brick stamp research there.

Again, Northern Africa is an area where brick roofs do not appear to be too common, but as mentioned several times, bricks were not only used for the construction of Roman roofs. It would perhaps explain smaller numbers but not a total absence of brick material. Unfortunately, it was not possible to determine if there is any unstamped brick material (like in some places in the Middle East) as the relevant literature was hard to obtain in Dublin. Excavations in the past had a tendency to dispose of such material, and would not necessarily have mentioned it in excavation reports. Roman Africa has produced a very large body of other inscriptions, especially on stone and that makes the lack of brick stamps more surprising. The fact that there are fewer units than in other parts of the Roman Empire might play a role in the scarcity of material. Nevertheless, it appears amazing that there are so few stamped bricks and tiles. Perhaps we have to consider the possibility that the Roman period has not been investigated as extensively as other periods in Egypt, and that this lack of research might have led to a lack of recorded or unrecorded finds. This investigation does not attempt exhaustion of the published material but rather an overall view of methodology in all the different areas discussed. However, it is clear that one

The most common abbreviation for the legion is LEG III AVG, but one also finds LEG III AG, LEG III AV, LG III AVG, LEG AV and LEG III. Sometimes the name of the legion is followed by one or more letters, with the exception of Nos. 1-3. Nos. 64, 76, 77 and 103 have retrogrades. For a more detailed discussion of the different types addressed Le Bohec should be consulted. Only few of the types named in the article are illustrated (1981: 137-149).

8.2 Discussion The only article on the stamps from Northern Africa is a local list. Le Bohec published a list of all the stamps of Legio III Augusta, Legio VII Gemina, Cohors II Flavia Africana and a Cohors II Hispana from Africa. The list entails 130 brick stamp types, most of which contain only one example but some of which contain up to six bricks stamped with a type (Le Bohec 1981: 137-149). The exact find location is known for most, although not all of the stamps, and the main part are stamps of Legio III Augusta. LEG III AVG did not cause any difficulties in deciphering, it clearly stands for Legio III Augusta. Many of the brick stamps display what appear to be titles of the legion, and Le Bohec places the main focus of the research on these. In his article, he first discusses all the cognomina ever worn by the legion and their appearance in all forms of inscriptions (Le Bohec 1981: 129-136). He uses them as the most important criteria in brick stamp classification and brick stamp chronology.

Le Bohec’s No. 19 displays inverted letters. Some of the stamps show certain peculiarities in the way the letters are formed: A has no cross-beam on the Le Bohec’s stamp type Nos. 8, 24, 36, 38-40 and others. C instead of G appears on Nos. 11, 46, 58, 64. IZ is written instead of L on Nos. 10, 41, 62, 78, 55, 66, 68 and 67. I instead of V is used on No. 100. All these elements are taken by Le Bohec to signify chronological differences (1981: 149). The 176 single bricks in total came from 11 sites. The stamps were found in six different types of monuments ranging from military, civilian and religious contexts. Stamps of Legio III Augusta were found at the following sites: El-Avenia, Tebessa, Sidi Feradji, Ain-el-Aouad (Aures), Timgad, Lambaesis (district, city and fortress), Henchir Fegussia and El Kasbat/Gemellae. They were found in bath-houses, the Asclepieium and at the temple

21. Personal comment of V. Maxfield.

159

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

of Neptune of Ain Drinn at Lambaesis. Stamps of Legio VII Gemina were found in Lambaesis in the Asclepieium. Stamps of Cohors II Flavia Africana were found in the forts of Remada and Ksar Rhelane. Stamps of Cohors II Hispana came from the fort of Hr Besseriani.

displays NUM which according to Le Bohec probably reads Numeriana, so he argues that the N on the first cited stamp is likely to mean the same (Le Bohec 1981: 152). As with the above cited cases, it cannot be determined if this is true, or if the letters are an abbreviation of soldier’s names. Another stamp that presents us with a great problem of translation is one stamp displaying: PER LEG III AUG. per leg(ionem) III Aug(ustam) is not a very satisfactory interpretation. Le Bohec states that it is more likely that the words are meant to be read reverse LEG III AUG PER, in which case the PER could an abbreviation of Perpetua (Le Bohec 1981: 153). Yet Perpetua also lacks any other examples amongst the stamps of the legion. Valeriana is the likely reading for VAL, and could have separated the emperor Gallienus from his son. On the other hand admits that these could also be the name of the soldier or tegularius stamping the tile (Le Bohec 1981: 151-153). Pertinax might also be a possibility. There are lots of varieties of the surnames and very often they appear only once, which makes a reading and an interpretation extremely tedious and difficult. For a discussion of the names of soldiers in general and more detail about the possibility of the Legio III abbreviations being the names of soldiers, see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. It is worth noticing that Le Bohec only suggests the possibility that we are dealing with soldier’s names, when no other interpretation seems plausible. Yet it will be shown in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1 that the inclusion of soldier’s names on stamps was a phenomenon practiced (however irregularly) all over the Roman provinces.

The following abbreviations a selection of those included on the brick stamps of Legio III Augusta (for a more detailed list of the stamp types distinguished by see Le Bohec 1981: 137-149): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

L III A CON [LEG] III A COR [LEG] III PE LEG III AVG V L III AD LEG III VAG LEG III VAC LEG III AVR LEG III AVG B L III BA [LE]G III A/ GOR L III A NUM L III N L III A PER L III VAL/ VAC/ VA

Le Bohec uses the fact that a lot of the stamps of Legio III Augusta display an imperial title of the legion. Yet he states that he encountered some problems while researching the names on the stamps. B and BA, according to him, give the name of the person who stamped two of the tiles but no rank of the soldier can be detected. On another stamp the B could also be standing for bindex instead of vindex, although the combination of vindex without pia does not appear on any other stamps of the legion in third century Africa (Le Bohec 1981: 152). Yet, as will be shown in Chapter 12, section 12.2.1, the names of soldiers on military brick stamps, often do not include ranks. Given the abbreviated nature of these letters, it is hard to decide on one of the two hypotheses. CON, according to Le Bohec, could be standing for Constantiana or constans, one cannot be certain (Le Bohec 1981: 152). In my opinion, it could also be an individual’s name. The same applies to GOR, which according to Le Bohec could also be a false form of CON, if one can accept the theory of a total deformation of the text. Otherwise, he claims, it could stand for Gordiana but that title appears nowhere else and does not usually appear with the Legio III Augusta (Le Bohec 1981: 152), especially since the legion was actually disbanded by Gordian III. N, in Le Bohec’s view, could read Nova in but this interpretation has yet to be confirmed (Le Bohec 1981: 152). Again we could be dealing with the name of a soldier. Another stamp

Le Bohec suggests several meanings for the different abbreviations on the stamps of the legion. One, which he already indicates in his expansion of them, is that Legio III Augusta displayed imperial and other titles of personal honour for the units the soldiers served under. He does admit, however, that the material that hardly ever shows any of the usual titles displayed by legions such as Severiana or Antoniniana (Le Bohec 1981: 153). For a more detailed discussion of the problems with imperial titles see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. Another possibility proposed by Le Bohec is that the brick stamps display the names of legates of Legio III Augusta. There is a stamp from the Roman camp of Mirebeau/ France that mentions a legate: Leg(io) VIII Aug(usta) Lappio Leg(ato) (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 195). On the examples from Africa two stamps could possibly display legates’ names. They would then read: Leg(io) III Aug(usta) Num(mo legato) and Leg(io) III Aug(usta) Gor(diano legato). The two legates found in historical context are L(ucius) Acilius Strabo Clodius Nummus, who was a legate of the legion and the province of Numidia in AD 116 and Ti(berius) Claudius Gordianus who was legate 160

BRICK RESEARCH IN NORTHERN AFRICA

in AD 188. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation see Chapter 12, pages 230-231.

between AD 121 and 123, as we know from honorary inscriptions and another later date of reconstruction on the building is AD 143-146. A number of buildings were added in the period of Marcus Aurelius (Le Bohec 1981: 157-158). The fort at Remada resembles typologically the one in El-Kasbat/ Gemellae. Typological research did not allow a very precise dating but one has assigned its construction to the middle of the second century, perhaps to the years of Hadrian’s reign. This does, however, not exclude restorations and additional construction works during later buildings. The same applies to Ksar-Rhelane, where one inscription dates to AD 184-192 (Le Bohec 1981: 158).

A third possibility is that the names on the stamps of Legio III Augusta are the names of the soldiers who inscribed the tiles. Chapter 12, section 12.2.1 deals with the question of civilian entrepreneurs stamping for the army entails enough accounts of cases in the Roman Empire where such soldiers’ names were found on stamps. This theory works if one excludes a certain number of the names that are definitely surnames of the legion rather than single soldiers’ names (Le Bohec 1981: 155). For more information about the names of soldiers on brick stamps see Chapter 12, section 12.2.1. Perhaps we do not have to decide for one of the hypotheses but can conclude that either of these possibilities might apply in some cases. As this thesis has shown, and as will be illuminated further in Chapter 14, there are no uniform customs with Roman military brick stamps. The information and the names and titles included on the stamps ever varied within one and the same location.

Le Bohec adds a short study of the surnames of Legio III Augusta from other inscriptions, which he also uses as dating criteria. He dates the cognomina as shown in Table 9 (Le Bohec 1981: 130-159): Le Bohec then proposes a chronology, which is mainly based on archaeological context and title dates. The gaps are filled by stylistic comparisons of the remaining stamp types (Table 10) (Le Bohec 1981: 151-160).

In some cases, the names on the stamps can be chronologically identified without any problem; usually in cases were there are epitaphs mentioning the same name. This is the case with the surname pia vindex, which appears on an epitaph dating from AD 194/195 to AD 238 (Le Bohec 1981: 155). If one accepts the hypothesis of the legates’ names, the two above mentioned legates of Legio III Augusta are also a very safe dating criterion. However, this can only remain hypothesis.

According to this chronology types 42 to 49 can be dated to from AD 123; a date which appears to derive from stylistic similarities with the other types which are known to have originated in that period because of archaeological contexts. Similarly, types 51 to 93 and 95 to 97 appear to be dated according to such similarities to other types, dating from AD 148 because of the context they were found in Lambaesis (Le Bohec 1981: 160). Unfortunately, Le Bohec does not elaborate on those stylistic dating criteria. Caution has to be suggested against dating military brick stamps, according to stylistic similarities with other types alone, as explained in Chapter 2, page 39. Furthermore, type 111 from Hr Fergussia is listed after types 101 to 102, which are dated to between AD 194/195 and AD 238 because of the abbreviation PER (Le Bohec 1981: 160). However, PER, as will be shown in more detail in Chapter 12, page 254, is not a very secure imperial title on the stamps of Legio III Augusta. Other interpretations, such as PER being an abbreviation of a private name, have to be taken into consideration and the author advises against dating other stamp types of the legion based on this date.

According to Le Bohec, it is historical context that is most useful in dating the stamps (Le Bohec 1981: 157): Legio VII Gemina stayed in Africa for a limited period of time in the second century. A tile of the legion was found in the temple of Neptune at Ain Drinn/Lambaesis, shortly before Le Bohec published his article. The construction of the temple can be dated by inscriptions of dedicators and a building inscription: Dedications were set up in AD 137138, AD 140-141 and 148. The building inscription dates to AD 158. Finally in AD 174, 203 and 364-367 the temple was rebuilt. Therefore, Le Bohec establishes that Cohors II Hispana was part of the auxiliaries of Legio III Augusta and its presence in Africa can be dated to the middle of the second century AD (Le Bohec 1981: 157). For all the other cases of brick stamps from Africa and Numidia Le Bohec states that archaeological context could only provide him with a terminus post quem, and that the possibility of reuse can never be completely excluded (Le Bohec 1981: 157). The fortress at Lambaesis was built between AD 115 and 120 but the principia were reworked in the Severan period. The Asclepieium was erected

8.3 Conclusion The methodology Le Bohec uses to establish his chronology is always well based. Title dating works well but, unfortunately, not all military brick stamps include titles. Nevertheless, a more comprehensive approach would be to include the archaeological context, which as 161

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Title

Date

Sources

pia vindex

AD 194/195-238

CIL VIII 17726; 17890a; 2465; 2466; 2527; 2466; 2527; 2528; 2550; 2551; 2552; 2671; AE 1895: 204; 1922: 53; 1967: 539; 1976: 697; 700; 1906: 10; Picard 1944: 13-17; Cagnat, Merlin & Chatelain 1923: 27; Reynolds & WardPerkins 1952: 408; 868; 915; 916.

Antoniniana

Caracalla-Elagabalus (AD 211-222)

CIL VIII 2546; ZPE XII 1976: 147; AE 1917-1918: 50; Cagnat, Merlin & Chatelain 1923: 334.

Severiana

Alexander Severus (AD 222-235)

CIL VIII 2753; 2467; 2737; Reynolds & Ward-Perkins 1952: 895; 908.

Alexandriniana

Alexander Severus (AD 222-235)

CIL VIII 2742; CIL VIII: 193; 1739; AE 1920: 30; Picard 1944: 22.

Severiana Alexandriniana

Alexander Severus (AD 222-235)

Pflaum 1922 II: 663.

Maximiniana

Maximinianus Thracus (AD 235-238)

CIL VIII 2675; Picard 1944: 3-4.

Valeriana Gallienana Valeriana

Valerianus and Gallienus (AD 253-268)

CIL VIII 2634; AE 1946: 39.

Gallienana

Gallienus (AD 253-268)

CIL VIII 2797, CIL VIII: 1739.

Aureliana

Aurelianus (AD 270-275)

CIL VIII 2665; RE, Suppl., XIII: 317.

p. f. = pia fidelis

AD 286-305

CIL VIII 2576; 2577. TABLE 9

he states, is also known to verify the title dates. Again, it remains to be said that the safest approach is a combination of methodologies, including epigraphy (the titles in this case), archaeological context, and, as practiced more and more recently, petrology. This could offer a new research approach for further studies on the stamps from Africa. On top of that, a small percentage of the titles addressed by Le Bohec are doubtful. For a more detailed discussion of the apparent imperial titles on the Legio III stamps from Northern Africa and a reviewed date of the Antoniniana title see Chapter 12, pages 253-255.

evidence of other inscriptions, that the unit was stationed there. The number of single stamps of different groups is smaller, but Le Bohec never attempts to date anything through the evidence of the stamps but only the stamps themselves. There are only seven stamps of Legio VII Gemina, eleven of Cohors II Flavia Africana and a single one from Cohors II Hispana. The stamps alone would not be enough to suggest a military presence of those units but since there are other sources, we can be certain of their stay in Africa. As mentioned above, I do not think that one single article is enough to represent a school of methodology for an area; therefore, not a lot can be done in terms of a satisfying conclusion on the matter of North Africa. Le Bohec is in fact a pupil of French epigraphy and archaeology and has published other works on Roman military inscriptions in France. For that reason he is even less able to present a ‘North-African’ approach to the study of Roman brick stamps, which does not appear to exist. Since this is the only article available its discussion must be enough for a short analysis of the brick stamps of Northern Africa.

Dating by archaeological context is a little more complicated with these stamps. Since one can never fully exclude a secondary use, a stamp can only give us a terminus post quem. However, Le Bohec never excludes the possibility of a secondary use in his chronology by dating the stamps from a certain period onwards. The small numbers of stamps may represent a problem with the bricks from Africa. There are a total of 135 stamps of Legio III Augusta, of which the greatest number comes from Lambaesis. This attests, together with the 162

BRICK RESEARCH IN NORTHERN AFRICA

Stamp Nos.

Sites

Monuments

Legio III Augusta

Chronology

Dating method

AD 194/195-238

title pia vindex

from AD 100

foundation of Timgad in AD 100

1-3

El-Avenia

4, 6-11

Tebessa

12-13

Sidi-Feradj

14

Ain-el-Aouad

15

Timgad

16-23

Lambaesis

fortress, schools

from Septimus Severus (AD 193)

archaeological context

24-34

Lambaesis

fortress

from AD 115-120

archaeological context

35-41

Lambaesis

Asclepieium

from AD 123

archaeological context

42-49

Lambaesis

Urban baths

50

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

Neptune temple

from AD 148 (?)

archaeological context

51-93, 95-97

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

103-110

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

94

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

AD 188

title date of legate Gordianus

98-100

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

AD 116

title date of legate Nummus

101-102

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

AD 194/195-238

title date of Per(petua)

111

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis, Hr. Fergussia

baths

Legio VII Gemina 124-125

Lambaesis

archaeological context

126

Ain Drinn/ Lambaesis

Neptune temple

AD 148

127-129

Remada

fort

from the first half of the second century AD

archaeological context

130-132

Ksar-Rhelane

fort

from AD 184-192

archaeological context

Hr. Besseriani

fort

middle of the second century AD

historical date of unit’s garrison in Africa

Cohors II Flavia Africana

Cohors II Hispana 133

TABLE 10 163

CHAPTER 9

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

9.1 Introduction

new province, immediately after the conquest, the classis Britannica was formed. In addition there was a garrison of four legions at the time of the conquest in AD 43/44: II Augusta, IX Hispana, XIV Gemina and XX (Valeria Victrix). Under Vespasian there were still four, replacing XIV Gemina by II Adiutrix. In the late first century the number of legions was reduced with II Augusta occupying a base at Caerleon/Isca, VI Victrix at York/Eboracum and XX Valeria Victrix at Chester/Deva. There are a total of 73 auxiliary units so far known from Britain during the 400 years or so of Roman occupation (Jarrett 1994: 35-77).

Roman interest in Britain first began with Caesar who initiated two campaigns to subjugate the island in 55 and 54 BC, neither of which were very fruitful. The Roman general did win the formal submission of the British tribes opposed to him, but returned to Gaul that winter without further action in Britain. The final conquest of Britain did not take place until AD 43, when the emperor Claudius, as yet without a military career, achieved a victory. It took 40 years to consolidate the new province. The conquest of the Welsh peninsula, northern England and southern Scotland took about a decade (AD 71-81), which, according to Breeze and Dobson (1991: 11), suggests that Nero was not very enthusiastic about further conquests after the Boudiccan revolt. By AD 79 the governor Agricola had apparently moved the frontier to the Tay. According to Tacitus, a further advance was undertaken in AD 82 in Agricola’s sixth term as a governor. The following year he achieved a Roman victory in the battle of Mons Graupius (Tacitus Agricola 29). Forts and the legionary fortress at Inchtuthil were begun shortly after but only inhabited for about a decade. According to Breeze and Dobson, the Inchtuthil fortress was an initial centre for further advance rather than a legionary base in the frontline of a defensive system (Breeze & Dobson 1991: 14). The evacuation of all north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus seems to have been within a few years of AD 86. The pottery suggests a final date of AD 90. Trajan (98-117) finalised the frontier at the Tyne-Solway line, which his adoptive son Hadrian, enhanced by erecting his frontier system of ‘Hadrian’s Wall’. An attempt in the Antonine period of the 140s AD to advance the frontier to the Forth-Clyde with the so-called ‘Antonine-Wall’ line remained short-lived (Hodgson 1995: 24-49). The fortresses were Caerleon in Wales, York and Chester in Northern England and Inchtuthil in Scotland, which was built around AD 83 but soon abandoned (Johnson 1983: 257). They were constructed during the second half of the first century AD and rebuilt in stone during the early second century AD (Johnson 1983: 222290; Fulford 2000: 561-566).

The school of British brick stamp research has always been different from the continental one. Firstly, the numbers of stamps found in Britain are fewer than in other frontier areas of the West: the Rhine and Danube and their adjacent provinces have produced more stamped bricks on a scale of roughly 1:50. We cannot be entirely certain why this is the case: one would assume that the same building techniques were used in Britain as in the provinces in continental Europe. There was a high military presence, so one would expect that a lot of military bricks were used. The use of stone roofs in Britain might be one reason why fewer bricks are found. The stone fort at Birdoswald, for example used sandstone slates with countersunk nailholes instead of bricks for its roof (Astill in Wilmott 1997: 131-132). Generally, there is also an absence of stone buildings in the first half of the first century AD in Britain, which makes it perhaps not surprising that there are no stamped bricks. On the other hand, it has been argued that bricks and tiles were only stamped when they were transported elsewhere because a stamp, as a symbol to prevent unauthorised use, was only necessary in that case (Peacock 1982: 137). Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that apart from petrological analysis we can only trace movement of bricks by their stamps, so we could be dealing with a circular argument. Furthermore there are cases where brick stamps travelled, for example those of the classis Britannica (see below) across the British channel and those from Scalesceugh, which were found as far as Carlisle, Stanwix and Old Penrith (Caruana 1997: 267-268). None of these places dealt with much competition from civilian firms. Problems with the dating of the tilery at Scalesceugh will be discussed in section 9.4 of this chapter.

When Britain was initially conquered, occupied only in its most southern part, it was no more than a strip of under the hands of Roman authority. In order to ensure defence of the 164

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

In any case the relatively small numbers of brick stamps from Roman Britain have resulted in a different treatment of the material than in the continental research. British scholars are less eager to put a date on each single stamp and fit it into a chronology, which, as we have seen, is usually attempted in the research of Germany, Austria and the Netherlands and in fact, most European countries. In Britain a stamped brick is normally recorded amongst other finds in excavation reports but hardly ever is there much attention paid to stamps as a dating criterion for any archaeological context. There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, as we shall see. Roman inscriptions of Britain (RIB), a collection of inscriptions known until the mid 1990s is not concerned with the dates of the brick stamps. Long chronologies are mostly used when dating stamps and the dating methodologies often differ from the Continental schools of research.

There are some pioneer articles written by British scholars, which built the base for a lot of more recent research. Two of those are Wright’s works on the stamps of legions IX Hispana and VI Victrix respectively (Wright 1976: 226235; 1978: 379-382). Many modern scholars use these publications and reproduce its stamp groups although, as we shall see, Wright is not very concerned about conclusions of military or economic history based on the material. However, most of the research on the stamps of these legions is based on his two articles and they are important pillars in the legionary brick stamp research of Britain and are, therefore, quoted often. A similarly important publication is Grimes (1930) on the stamps of Legio XX Valeria Victrix and Boon on the stamps of II Augusta from Caerleon (1984). These articles shall be discussed after ‘overviews or histories of troop dispositions’, under the category of brick stamps of units. As stated before, this thesis normally concentrates on the evidence of legionary brick stamps. However, since the most recent works have been done on auxiliary and the Roman fleet tiles in Britain, the focus in this chapter also lies with those.

Scholars researching Roman Britain quite commonly use petrology. As explained before, this is rarely done in the continental research and only in recent years have some young scholars started to take analyses of the brick fabric to investigate hypotheses suggested by epigraphy (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.7, Dolata 1994 a; 1998 a; 1998b; 1999a; 1999b; 2000 a; 2000b; 2000c; Kritsotakis 1955: 269-311). The British research has achieved many results using this method, although so far the focus has been with civilian and procuratorial bricks rather than military ones. Only the British fleet stamps have received detailed fabric analysis.

9.2 Discussion To aid chronological understanding of the articles presented here the section ‘Brick stamps of units’ comes before ‘Local lists’ in this chapter. British scholars were at first more concerned with publishing all the stamped brick material from a particular unit rather than stamps from different units found in one location. Given the fact that there is less material than on the continent, this is not surprising. The more recent local lists are, generally, parts of excavation reports, which include newly found stamps and are based on the chronological assumptions of the pioneer articles listed here under ‘Brick stamps of units’.

We have to ask ourselves why the brick stamps of Britain have been used much less for dating and chronologies than the ones from the continent. Naturally, the fact that there are often too few stamps to provide us with a valid statement plays a role. Nonetheless, there is also the possibility that dating stamps by whichever method is something which scholars are not traditionally used to, and which they often fail to do in their research. There are plenty of cases in which brick stamps are mentioned in the British literature but often they are not used to make historical statements comparable to the continental research. Perhaps the British school of research has always acknowledged certain limitations which brick stamps present in our system of archaeological statements, which are not equalled by the continental research and their rigid chronologies. A choice of articles will be reviewed here under the same aspects as the other school of research discussed previously. Articles, which include petrology, will not be listed separately here because this method is used in many studies, especially recent ones, and is generally an important part of the British military brick stamp research.

9.2.1 Overviews and histories of troop dispositions Although the British research sometimes appears less concerned with the values of brick stamps and their meaning for archaeological hypotheses, there are several articles which are concerned with troop dispositions and reconstruct history with the aid of the evidence of stamps. It is, however, worth noticing that most of these works include the evidence of other inscriptions, archaeology and literary sources alongside the stamps, and that brick stamps are usually just one aspect in the argument. Some articles, like Keppie (1989: 247-255) on troop dispositions and the units of Britain, cite the evidence from brick stamps but usually only in a few words, without going into 165

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

much detail about the nature of the stamps. Thus, part of this section is moved to a separate appendix in section 9.5, which deals with the topic of the fate of Legio IX Hispana after it left Britain and with the usage of brick stamps in combination with other evidence.

Septimius Severus planned during his reign. Caracalla, on the other hand, abandoned Scotland, and settled the northern frontier of Hadrian’s Wall. He installed an occupied and patrolled area, extending into Southern Scotland. His legionary dispositions were a return to the scheme that had existed with modifications since the withdrawal of Legio II Adiutrix in AD 85/86. Jarrett states that those legions were stationed at Caerleon, Chester and York with small detachments of two of them, providing workshop facilities at Corbridge. He says that the main forces of the legions were kept well back from the frontiers, emphasising their character as reserves, which would not take part in routine frontier patrols (Jarrett 1965: 521).

Jarrett refers to the stamps of York in his article about Septimius Severus and the defenses of the city (Jarrett 1965: 516-523): He mentions the site of Carpow which is, according to him, large enough to have held half a legion. According to Jarrett, dated coins show that the fortress was not built before AD 202 and 205 (for the most recent conclusion on the occupation of Carpow see pages 25-26). Historical knowledge indicates that the northern campaigns of Septimius Severus took place between AD 208 and 211 (Jarrett 1965: 518). Jarrett suggests that the existence of tiles with the stamps Leg(io) VI Vic(trix) B(ritannica) p(ia) f(idelis) attest the presence of a detachment of the legion, which was garrisoned in York. He proposes that the main part of Legio VI was away from York on campaign during the latter years of Septimius Severus (Jarrett 1965: 518). Jarrett indicates that the Severan scheme was to leave part of Legio VI Victrix at Carpow, and perhaps another detachment at Corbridge. He does not, however, believe that York was completely unguarded in that period and proposes that earlier during Septimius Severus’ reign the abandonment of Caerleon seems to have been contemplated because in the third century it was of little military importance. The Silures had accepted Roman rule and it was not necessary to have a greater military presence than an auxiliary unit within 100 kilometres of Caerleon. Jarrett thinks that a part of Legio II Augusta was transferred to York, although it is admittedly unusual to use legionary troops as a first line of defence (Jarrett 1965: 520). Unfortunately, he does not provide the reader with a source for this information. Furthermore, he claims that this view is supported by the fact that although building in Caerleon began before AD 211 and probably before Geta was elevated to the rank of Augustus in AD 209, it was not completed until the period between AD 212222 or later, since some buildings were roofed with tiles bearing the stamp Leg(io) II Aug(usta) Anton(iniana). The title Antoniniana, according to him, was only borne by the legion during the reigns of Caracalla (AD 212-217) and Elagabalus (AD 218-222). He concludes that tiles with those stamps may not have been used until later and, therefore, believes in a whole series of changes in the military plan of Britain and concedes that this might have happened under Caracalla rather than his father (Jarrett 1965: 520). Grimes (1930: 142), Lörincz (1982: 142144) and Haalebos and Franzen (2000: 123), on the other hand, show that this title was occasionally used as early as the reign of Septimius Severus (from at the earliest AD 195). According to Jarrett, it is still rather uncertain what

For a date of the rebuilding of the defenses at York Jarrett names a tile discovered at the time of his article giving it the following expansion: [Leg(io) VI V]ic(trix) B(ritannica) p(ia) f(idelis). Septimius Severus and his sons assumed this title in AD 210, which means that this stamp dates after this date. According to Jarrett, the title does not appear to have been used for very long, and the tile found at Bishophill Junior at York was the only one of his kind at the time of the article. He concludes that the building activity in York must not have lasted long after AD 210. One problem is, however, that the tile was found in the colonia and may have little to do with the rebuilding of the fortress (Jarrett 1965: 521). If the letter B can really be expanded as B(ritannica) we are dealing with an unusual title since titles of victory were not normally transferred to legions (with the possible exception of Legio III Gallica). However, the stamp is only displaying a B and we cannot be fully certain of the expansion. The fact that it appears before the title p(ia) f(idelis) does rather imply that it is a title rather than a name, but we cannot be certain of its nature. Therefore, the building activity of York cannot be narrowed down to an exact date on the basis of brick stamps. There are also some other methodological problems with Jarrett’s approach to the defences of York, Carpow and Caerleon and their garrisons. When talking of the garrison at Carpow, for example, he does not give the exact numbers of the stamps found there which is not valid for any statistical evaluation. Presumably, a larger number of stamps were found. However, based on the evidence of the stamps, we cannot be fully certain that a detachment of Legio VI was really garrisoned there for a longer period of time. Also, more recent results on the fort of Carpow have revealed that the occupation of the fortress was somewhat shorter than originally anticipated and Jarrett’s suggestion has become even more unlikely. R.E. Birley carried out initial excavations in 1961-1962 and it was recognized that the fortress was a Severan campaign base. At this time it seemed that there had been two construction phases 166

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

(R.E. Birley 1963: 126-134; R. Birley 1965: 184-207; A.R. Birley 1967: 1-5). At first, during new campaigns between 1964 and 1979 the timber posts near the east, north and south gates appeared to confirm this proposition. However, as more evidence appeared it was shown that the builders had combined the use of mortared stone and timber, and the hypothesis of the two phases was rejected. It was concluded that the occupation of Carpow began at the earliest, in or soon after AD 208 and ended shortly after the death of Septimus Severus in York in AD 211, when the treaties of Caracalla and Geta with the Scottish tribes resulted in withdrawal for the region (Dore & Wilkes 1999: 481-575).

unit and the evidence of other inscriptions have to be taken into full account, it will not be discussed here. The reader may consult section 9.5 of this chapter to decide on the importance of this work as a part of the study of British troop dispositions. Generally, British research uses brick stamps more sparingly in articles on history and troop dispositions than continental research. They are usually used in combination with other finds and they are rarely dated to exact years. Brick stamps are not used for chronologies but more often their purpose is to define which units were situated where. Most of the articles discussed here, serve to point out the deficiencies of inscriptions like brick stamps and show that a lot of things have to be left unanswered. There are some problems with this article, like the dating of the Antoniniana title. However, Jarrett could not have known that the title occasionally dates to the period of Septimius Severus since this was discovered after his publication (Lörincz 1982: 142-144; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123).

The dating of the rebuilding of Caerleon, which Jarrett took as proof for the fact that part of the legion were away at York before that time, is even more problematic. Jarrett proposes that the Antoniniana title on the stamp proves that it was produced during the reign of either Caracalla or Elagabalus. This title, however, was sometimes used as early as the reign of Septimius Severus, as has been shown since (Lörincz 1982: 142-144; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). Grimes in his article of 1930, as we shall see, also concedes the fact that some of these titles may date earlier than anticipated. This problem will be explained in more detail in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. Therefore, Jarrett’s dating of the building activities at Caerleon is not very convincing. It remains doubtful if really part of Legio II took up residence at York during the Scottish campaigns of Septimius Severus and his sons.

9.2.2 Brick stamps of units in several locations This category of articles is listed first as it shows the logical development of arguments based on articles on the collected stamps of British legions, on which other small local reports are based. This section includes mostly those pioneer articles on the stamps of the main four British legions which produced stamped bricks. Grimes wrote on the stamps of Legio XX Valeria Victrix in 1930. Articles by other scholars which shall be discussed in this section were written between the 1970s and 1990s. This section will also analyse the way in which the British school of brick stamp research has changed with the years. The articles are mostly listed in chronological order with the exception of Brodribb (1969). This publication is listed after RIB, in spite of having been written earlier, since its topic is the stamps of the classis Britannica, which is the same theme as the articles following.

At times, Jarrett’s statements would benefit from more extensive evidence. He proposes that the Silures’ acceptance of Roman rule caused the new rulers to abandon a part of Legio II and send it to York under Septimius Severus but gives no evidence (Jarrett 1965: 520). On the other hand, Jarrett recognises the fact that the dating of the York defences is doubtful because of the one tile bearing the Britannica title. The problems connected with title dating will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.2.3. Since Jarrett’s publication many new conclusions on the defences of Caerleon and York have been reached. They shall not be discussed here but can be consulted for independent archaeological dates (Addyman 1977; Whitwell 1977; Zienkiewiecz 1986; White 1987; Evans & Metcalf 1992; Knight 1994; Philips & Haywood 1995: Hall 1997; Brewer 2000 et al).

In spite of the fact that Grimes’ study was written more than 70 years ago, and this thesis normally does not include works that old, it shall be included here because extensive research on the stamps of the Twentieth Legion has not been published since. Furthermore, a lot of recent research is based on this article, which makes a review of it important to understand these scholars’ work. Holt, where most of the material discussed by Grimes, was found was probably called Bovium in antiquity. The buildings excavated were the following: workmen’s barracks blocks, a bath building, a dwelling house, two sets of workshops and drying sets, a double flue kiln, a main kiln plant and some clay pits. The tile kilns are obviously connected with the twentieth legion

There is another article which can be counted amongst studies of troop dispositions related to Roman Britain. However, it concerns itself with the fate of Legio IX Hispana, after it left the province (Keppie 1989: 247255). Since brick stamps only play a minor, although not negligible role in the determination of the history of this 167

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

and its fortress at Chester due to the fact that tiles and antefices with the name of this legion were found (Grimes 1930: 41). Only one of the kilns was for tiles, the others were pottery kilns. Grimes states that workmen employed at Holt probably formed the main community living there (Grimes 1930: 41). The industrial site was a large scale construction to fit in with the size of the legionary fortress it had to supply. The works were probably controlled by a praefectus castrorum to whom, according to Grimes, the specialists in the brick works were responsible. He states that this is supported by two tile stamps (Grimes No. 32 and 14) which read: praef(ectus) leg(ionis) XX and leg(io) XX V(aleria) V(ictrix) sub logo pr(incipis) or sub log(o) o(ptione) pr(aefecto).22 Nevertheless, he is convinced that at least one of the two examples is a direct reference to the praefectus castris (Grimes 1930: 42). However, the expansion sub Lo(n)go pr(aefecto) cannot be dismissed completely, since there are other possible examples of names from Britain where N before G might have been left out, such as a bronze and a brass pan (RIB II 2415. 45; 2415.46), which mention a Sag(us?untinus?) and a Sangus, which might refer to the same man23.

years after Grimes’ publication this has not changed. A type of tile of Legio XX, one of which bears the graffito of Julius Aventinus, naming him as a soldier of Cohors I Sunicorum, suggests that there was a connection between Segontium/ Caernarfon and Holt and that bricks from the latter were delivered to the former (Grimes 1930: 43). Indeed Davies also reports the more recent finds of tile stamps of Legio XX (Davies 1993: 229-231). Unfortunately, the fabrics of the tiles in question have not been analysed. As shown in Chapters 2 and 6 it is not unusual in the Rhine and Danube provinces that legionary bricks appear in auxiliary forts but fabric analysis is necessary to determine if the bricks were delivered or if a detachment of the legion made tiles at the fort. Grimes associates a lot of the brick stamps from Holt with the third century AD occupation. He follows the interpretation of others and dates most of the titled stamps to between AD 212 and 222, although he is aware of the fact that occasional ones may date to from as early as AD 195 (Grimes 1930: 142). Mason who published the results of excavations at Chester says that the rebuilding of the fortress was finished by AD 230 (Mason 2001: 90-93). According to Grimes, the title represents proof that the tile stamp production flourished in the early third century, which roughly coincides with the period which he suggests for the graffito of Julius Aventinus. He proposes that this tile may have belonged to the same period because the cohort mentioned on the tile with the graffito is known from an inscription from Segontium around that time (Grimes 1930: 51). Since the other evidence for the third century is quite sparse, Grimes suggests that the tile stamps and the graffito of Julius Aventinus are proof that the work depot at Holt played a part in the renewed activity during the early part of the third century. However, according to Grimes, the extent and duration of that activity are uncertain. There are no tiles from the late third and early fourth century because there were no new buildings (Grimes 1930: 5152).

Holt, as a workshop, can be compared in size with some of the great legionary workshops from the continent such as Holdeurn, Rheinzabern, Nied or Bonn. Grimes states that the biggest difference between the brick works on the continent and in Britain is, that the Roman British legions were also responsible for providing the army and its connected areas with pottery whereas this was up to civilians on the continent. He says that this was due to a lack of sufficient privately produced local supply of pottery (Grimes 1930: 42). On the one hand, this appears hardly surprising since the Roman legions were in many cases nearly self sufficient. This interpretation is further aided by the fact that there is little evidence that there were ever connections between the private and military sector of brick stamps. On the other hand, pottery, unlike bricks and tiles, was often produced by civilians elsewhere, and traded to the army. Also, it is now known that both Rheinzabern and Nied in Germany had pottery workshops as well as brick tileries (Baatz 1965a: 123; Cüppers 1990: 533-539). Holt probably belonged to the territory of the prata legionis of Chester, for a more detailed discussion of which Mason (1986: 19-43) and Chapter 13, pages 258261 can be consulted.

Grimes concludes that the work depot at Holt was established towards the end of the first century AD, and that its purpose was to supply the newly built stone fortress of Chester with tiles. According to him, this reconstructed history agrees with that of other places: the occupation was intensive during the early second century AD and fell off in the Antonine period, when the military forces of Wales were reduced to fortify the Northern frontier. He also states that in the third century AD, Holt shared the brick manufacture with other places and that the occupation probably continued on a smaller scale. He says that no date can be allocated to the final abandonment of Holt (Grimes 1930: 52). Grimes states, furthermore, that in the early third century AD the terracotta roofing tiles at

According to Grimes, many of the stamp types found at Holt are not found at Chester and its surrounding sites. On an investigation of RIB it becomes clear that more than 70 22. Grimes prefers the latter expansion and cites Haverfield as the originator of the first (Grimes 1930: 141). 23. Personal comment by A.R. Birley.

168

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

Segontium were replaced by local roofing slates, so that the roofing tiles did not all have to be brought from Holt. This did not mean, however, that the demand for other tiles from there was restricted completely but only that it was less likely for roof slates to bear legionary stamps (Grimes 1930: 43). According to Grimes, this question can only be settled if the third century date of the graffito is certain. He states that the evidence for Holt tiles at Segontium is still indecisive, especially since there does not appear to have been much pottery exchange between Segontium and Holt (Grimes 1930: 43). He says that there are similar results from Canovium: there are some stamps of Legio XX, which are presumably from Holt. Also Ffrith in Flintshire produced some legionary stamps that are likely to originate from there (Grimes 1930: 44). In Caersws twenty stamps of the legion were found as well as some other stamps of an unidentified auxiliary cohort. Outside Wales there are some isolated stamps of the Twentieth legion, namely in Wilderspool, Manchester and Whittlebury in Northhamptonshire. In particular, the last one is rather far from the unit’s centre, and therefore classed as an unexplained phenomenon by Grimes, since the legion did not leave other traces there. Also because of its archaeological context, according to Grimes, the stamp can not be of an early date (Grimes 1930: 45). He goes on to say that it is very likely that the main supply of the legionary tilery at Holt was indeed designed for the legionary fortress at Chester. He thinks that the auxiliary forts at Caer Gai and Tomen-y-Mur were supplied by either undiscovered tileries or the small workshop at Peny-Shyd in Gwynedd. Grimes argues that sometimes the kilns would be situated near the fort, or sometimes nearer to a clay source, such as in the case of Holt (Grimes 1930: 45). In the case of Brecon Gaer the tiles were drawn from the kilns of Legio II Augusta (Grimes 1930: 46).

reconstructed. The tileries were erected at a time when there was a high demand for tiles and building material, probably when the legionary fortress at Chester was rebuilt in stone at the end of the first century AD (Grimes 1941: 47). Mason, however, more recently suggests that the reconstructions were not finished until AD 230 (2001: 90-93). Also, the excavations at Caernarfon/Segontium between 1975 and 1979 showed that there was more than one phase of reconstruction in the fort, which was occupied from AD 77-83 to the end of the fourth century AD (Casey, Davies & Evans 1993). This shows that most of the dates suggested by Grimes are in need of revision. The legionary stamp types of the Twentieth legion, found by Grimes, are the following (Fig. 137): 1. LEG XX VV with ansatae border. Ten examples from Holt, five from Chester. Grimes dates this type to the early second century (Grimes 1930: 139; RIB II.4: 2463.29). 2. LEG XX VV in rectangular label. Three examples from Holt, nine from Chester. Late second/Early third century (Grimes 1930: 140; RIB II.4: 2463.4; 2463.5). 3. LEG XX VV. Four examples from Holt, one from Chester. Late second/Early third century (Grimes 1930: 140; RIB II.4: 2463.6). 4. LEG XX VV. Two examples from Holt, one from Chester. Late second/Early third century (Grimes 1930: 140; RIB II.4: 2463.11). 5. LEG XX with ansatae border. Two examples from Holt, two from Chester. Late second/Third century (Grimes 1930: 140; RIB II.4: 2463.30). 6. LEG XX VV with ansatae border. Two examples from Holt, three from Chester. Late second, early third century (Grimes 1930: 140; RIB II.4: 2463.47). 7. LEG XX VV with ansatae border. Nine examples from Holt (one on an imbrex), two from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.36). 8. LEG XX VV with ansatae border. Three examples from Holt, one from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.32). 9. [LE]G XX VV. One example from Holt, one from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.18). 10. LEG XX VV retrograde stamp with ansatae border. Three examples from Holt, one from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.49). 11. LEG XX V. Two examples from Holt, one from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.44). 12. [LEG X]XX V DE with ansatae border. One example from Holt, one from Chester which had already been lost at Grimes’s time. Grimes, like his predecessors, expands DE with Devae or Devensis (Grimes 1930: 140; RIB II.4: 2463.54).

The occupation of Wales began with Scapula between AD 47 and 50 and was completed by Frontinus and Agricola between AD 74 and 78. AD 75 to 140 was a period of intense occupation and gave cause to the building of a whole series of auxiliary forts, which were based on the fortresses of Chester and Caerleon. Then, during the Antonine period a phase of inactivity followed and many of those forts were reduced or abandoned. The reign of the Severans, on the other hand, signified a period of activity, followed by the series of defensive actions against invaders from outside and inside in the late third and fourth centuries AD. This resulted in the building of fortifications similar to the Saxon Shore forts, for example the one in Cardiff in AD 300. According to Grimes, the rebuilding of Segontium took place around AD 350 (Grimes 1930: 47). On the foundation of the work depots at Holt Grimes observes the following: Around AD 100 the fort and earthen ramparts were built. Under Domitian, Trajan and Hadrian they were 169

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 137 BRICK STAMPS FROM CASTLE LYONS (SCALE 1:4) (GRIMES 1930: FIG. 69) 13. [LE]G XX VV with ansatae border. Seven examples from Holt, one lost one from Chester (Grimes 1930: 140-141; RIB II.4: 2463.55). 14. LEG XX VV/S VB LOGO PR in two lines with ansatae border. Grimes suggests the expansions sub l/o.g. o(ptione) pr(incipis) or sub logo pr(aefecto), with l.o.g. being in one case the initials in the other the name, of presumably the officer in charge of the workshop. (Grimes, 1930, 42 and 141). There are nine examples from Holt and four from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.58).

15. LEG XX VAV within a rectangular label. The V and A are in ligature. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.20). 16. IVLIVS. Two fragments from Holt, one from Chester (RIB II.4: 2463.61). Grimes suggests that Iulius is the name of the officer in charge of the works who directed the production (Grimes 1930: 141). It could also be the name of a soldier working at the tilery. 17. LEG XX VV with square label. Four examples from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.21). 170

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

18. LEG XX VV with ansatae label. Two examples from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.39). 19. LEG XX VV with ansatae border. The stamp is incomplete. One example from Holt. There may be fragments of this example from Chester but this is not certain (Grimes 1930: 141; RIB II.4: 2463.40). 20. LEG XX VV within double rectangular border with tags at the corners. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.31). 21. LEG XX[. The stamp is incomplete. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.16). 22. LEG XX[ within rectangular border. The stamp is incomplete. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.13). 23. …LE]G XX VV. The stamp is incomplete. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.12). 24. L]EG XX. The stamp is incomplete. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.14). 25. …V]VA. The stamp is incomplete. There was no example left at the Chester Museum at the time of Grimes’s publication but it had been registered there previously (Grimes 1930: 142; RIB II.4: 2463.53). Grimes expands the text as [Legio XX V(aleria)] V(ictrix) A(ntoniniana). About its date, Grimes says the following: in one exceptional case the Antoniniana title was also used under Antoninus Pius. He follows on to state that he was aware of the fact that before AD 211/2 only six instances of this title were known, and only in connection with auxiliary troops. On the death of Geta the title came to be applied, under Caracalla to a large number of units of classes including the legions. It continued until the death of Elagabal in AD 222 and was abolished and replaced by Severiana under Severus Alexander (AD 222-235). Therefore, Grimes dates the Holt stamp to between AD 212 and 222 (Grimes 1930: 142). As already mentioned on several occasions, it could also belong to a slightly earlier date, especially since Lörincz showed that the title was sometimes used under Septimius Severus for legions (Lörincz 1982: 142-144). Similar proof is now available from the research of the Netherlands (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). It seems, however, that Grimes was aware of this fact long before Lörincz, Haalebos and Franzen, and therefore it is more surprising that he excludes the possibility that some of the stamps from Holt and Chester may date earlier. The material may need a review in connection with the fact that the rebuilding of the fortress was during the 190’s AD (Mason 2001: 90-93). 26. ]XX VV. The stamp is incomplete. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.17).

27. LEG XX. A retrograde stamp in square label. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.28). 28. LEG XX VV. A retrograde stamp in label with indented ends and zigzag decoration along the side. Two examples from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.48). 29. LEG XX[ A retrograde stamp in rectangular label, which is incomplete. Three examples from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.27). 30. LEG XX VV in square label. One example from Holt (RIB II.4: 2463.15). 31. LEG XX VA. The V and A are in ligature. One example from Chester. Again, Grimes suggests that the A stands for Antoniniana (RIB II.4: 2463.53?). 32. ]PREF LEG XX[ The stamp is incomplete. It was found at Holt but is no longer there (RIB II.4: 2463.60). 33. ]ANTO. The stamp is incomplete. It has been recorded at Holt and Chester but was not present there any more at the time of Grimes publication. Grimes expands the text as Anto(niniana) (Grimes 1930: 142-143; RIB II.4: 2463.51). Unfortunately, with the exception of stamp No. 25 Grimes does not state which methodologies were used to achieve the stamp dates he gives. Presumably, the dates come from archaeological context. Grimes also uses the Antoniniana title, which some of the stamps carry, as a dating criterion. Although he recognises that this title may sometimes date to Septimius Severus rather than his sons up to Elagabal, he does not consider an earlier date for the stamps he discusses (from AD 195). Most of the stamps with this title were probably indeed produced between the years AD 212-222, yet we can never fully exclude the possibility that a stamp dates earlier. Furthermore, without one exception (No. 31) the stamps with the assumed Antoniniana are fragmented and it is not possible to tell if the name of the legion came before. Thus, there is a slight doubt in my mind as to whether this is really an imperial title or if it is the abbreviation of a personal name (for a detailed discussion of name stamps see Chapter 12, sections 12.2.1 and 12.2.3. This is another one of the problems of title dating: without the method of context dating, titles alone only provide a terminus post quem. Grimes uses a combination of methods to date the stamps, which is always best, but he uses either archaeological context or title dating. Furthermore, very often he does not give evidence for the origin of his stamps. Since this article was written over 70 years ago, the archaeological methodologies in Britain and our conclusions have changed. Petrology is now more widely used and the date of the Chester fortress has been revised (Mason 2000). Nevertheless, Grimes has to be given credit for his conclusions about the disposition of Legio XX and its connections with Holt. 171

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 138 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO IX HISPANA AS RECORDED BY WRIGHT (SCALE 2:5) (WRIGHT 1978: FIG. 380)

Wright’s articles on the brick stamps of the Sixth and Ninth legion from Britain were the most important works for both of the legions until the publication of the RIB volume on brick stamps, in which Wright was also involved. Since then, excavation reports have added further finds of these legions but no other full study of tiles has been attempted. Both articles were written in the 1970s. In his article on the tile stamps of the Legio VI, Wright writes on the usefulness of brick stamps for archaeological statements: ‘many units of the Roman army stamped tiles which were manufactured in military tileries, and these tile stamps can be useful in assigning structures to the units concerned; and ultimately they can also be employed as an aid to dating once the die-sequences have been established, or directly from imperial titles incorporated in the stamps. However, it must be remembered that tiles were frequently reused and therefore only indicate a terminus post quem’ (Wright 1976: 224).

Hadrian’s Wall. Wright bases his study on rubbings and squeezes from the original stamps and states that no dating, apart from internal indications such as imperial titles, has even been attempted. He does not, however, give a reason for this (Wright 1976: 224). Wright divides the stamps into 79 different types, based on the texts on the stamps and epigraphic differences. The 79 types are actually sub-types of 28 groups based on the texts only. He gives the exact numbers of examples for each type and states on which kinds of bricks or tiles they were found (Wright 1976: 225-235). The following titles are known from the brick stamps of the unit: Gordiana, Severiana, Antoniniana and Britannica. However, Wright gives no further information about the titles. For a discussion of these titles see Chapter 1, section 12.2.3. His article on the stamps of Legio IX Hispana is written in a rather similar manner. These stamps were found at Lincoln, Templeborough, Old Winteringham (Lincolnshire), Malton, Aldborough, and to a large extent at York and Carlisle and its tilery at Scalesceugh (Fig. 138). Wright’s second article is also based on the rubbings and squeezes

The brick stamps of Legio VI were mainly found in York but also in the forts of the Pennine area and Corbridge, and other forts north or south of the eastern section of 172

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

made of these stamps. He states that much of an earlier list of these stamps has been omitted because the stamps, which were merely published in capital letters, cannot be identified with specific dies (Wright 1978: 379). He adds that the die used for the one example from Lincoln (Wright’s type 6) (Fig. 138) seems to have been taken north for use amongst others in one of the tileries, on sites not yet located, which supplied York/Eboracum (Wright 1978: 379). He says that the rare examples from Aldborough/ Isurium Brigantum, the possible civitas capital about 20 kilometres northwest of York, match two of the dies from the city. He adds that, in contrast, one other example, Type 1 (Fig. 138), which probably belonged to Aldborough has no parallels (Wright 1978: 379). Furthermore, the outlying post at Malton/Derventio produced two dies unmatched elsewhere, not even at York (Wright 1978: 379).

seems very likely that Legio IX Hispana was transferred to Nijmegen/Noviomagus from Britain because of the two brick stamps and the mortarium stamp there. Wright divides the stamps of the Ninth legion into 15 types, which are based on their epigraphic styles. There are a total of 86 stamps. He separates the types according to the thickness of letters (Fig. 138) (Wright 1978: 380). Types 7 and 911 have a cross balk over the numeral. Types 1-5 have the number written by addition, the other types by subtraction. Again, Wright is not interested in other dating methods apart from the imperial titles. The stamps of Legio IX Hispana have no such titles. He does not make statements about the archaeological context in which the stamps were found. This could be due to the fact that the stamps came from different collections and from excavations of the earlier decades of the twentieth century. However, Wright should state the context in which they were found, and the locations in which they were kept. Obviously archaeological context is not recognised as an important dating criterion. When Wright says that he is not concerned with dates, he is probably implying that dating is done on the epigraphic styles of the bricks (Wright 1976: 224). Yet we know that epigraphical dating is not that simple. Apart from indications like consular dates (which, as has been shown, are extremely rare on military brick stamps) and imperial titles we can only achieve relative dates. Still, the most obvious relative dating of Legio IX Hispana stamps can be based on the way in which the numeral is written: since the stamps from Nijmegen show the number nine in subtraction, and this is where the legion went from York it seems likely that those stamps from Britain that write the number in the same way are relatively later than those that write it in addition. In other words, Wright’s types 1-5 are very probably earlier than types 7-15. This is in fact suggested by the Dutch scholar Bogaers (1967: 68-72) and is another example of the fact that continental research is traditionally far more interested in dating brick stamps than the British school. Furthermore, a long chronology, from AD 43 to the early AD 120’s, the period of time in which the unit was in Britain (Keppie 2000: 83-100), should be provided.

West of the Pennines bricks of Legio IX Hispana were found at Carlisle/Luguvalium and the legionary tilery at Scalesceugh, which lies 7.5 kilometres south east of Carlisle beside the Roman road to Old Penrith/Voreda. We know about the tilery and the pottery because of chance discoveries, found during buildings and draining operations in 1915 and 1921. Scalesceugh also produced a tile of Legio XX Valeria Victrix. Two further ones were found at Carlisle. Wright states that one of these seemed to have belonged to a tile tomb which included six tegulae of the Second legion with a stamp unmatched at Caerleon. However, these bricks were not necessarily contemporary with those of Legio IX and probably originated in the period of Hadrian, when the two legions came to the north to build the wall (Wright 1979: 380). Furthermore, Wright suggests that a substantial portion of Legio IX Hispana may have been stationed at Carlisle or near there, perhaps as a key post along the Trajanic frontier. He thinks that this is connected with the drop in Samian Ware and that it accounts for the legionary tilery at Scalesceugh (Wright 1979: 380). One of the three brick stamp types from the Carlisle area (Wright’s types 3-5) (Fig. 138) has the numbers presented by addition instead of subtraction (LEG VIIII H). This discovery enabled earlier Hope to assign types 3 and 4 (Fig. 138) to the Ninth and not, as previously assumed, to the Sixth legion (Hope 1922: 457). Wright concludes that on the analogy of the mortarium stamp from Holdeurn near Nijmegen, it seemed probable that the tegula of Type 1 (Fig. 138), probably from Aldborough, should be reconstructed as a tile of Legio IX Hispana (Wright 1979: 381). He proposes a similar reconstruction for the imbrex of his Type 2 (Fig. 138) from York Minster. Furthermore, he states that if this is accepted, it appears that the Scalesceugh practice of expressing the numeral by addition rather than subtraction was also adopted at the tilery which supplied York and Aldborough (Wright 1979: 381). As already stated in the section on troop dispositions and histories, it

It is not as simple to compile a relative chronology of the brick stamps of Legio VI, using the evidence of the legion’s titles. However, there are some titles which give indications (for a more detailed discussion of this see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3): The title p(ia) f(idelis) was awarded in AD 88/89, which was before the legion came to Britain in the early AD 120’s. Sev(eriana) or S(everiana) usually marks the reign of Severus Alexander (AD 222-235)24 and Gordiana Gordian (AD 238-244). The 24. Although we can never fully exclude the possibility that it might occasionally have been used under Septimius Severus (AD 195-211).

173

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

title B(ritannica) p(ia) f(idelis) derived from the British campaigns of Septimius Severus (Jarrett 1965: 521). The problem with the Ant(oniniana) title, which might occasionally date earlier than assumed by the British research, will be highlighted in Chapter 12, page 246. All these titles are dated in RIB, where the list of military brick stamps was drafted by Wright and edited by Frere and Tomlin (RIB II. 4: 125-207). The two articles on the brick stamps of the Legio VI Victrix and Legio IX Hispana were thus superseded by RIB. Because they fail to suggest dates they are not as helpful as they could be to the British brick stamp research. Nevertheless, both articles are widely used by other scholars, as shown earlier, because they provide an almost nearly complete listing of types.

at Prysg Field (Boon 1984: 13). He suggests that broken pieces served in the core of walls and that they were often employed to level up the huge blocks which formed the sides of bypass road drains. Boon points to a fragment of what he calls Class B, which in his opinion provided him with a terminus post quem because of the Anto(niniana) title on it (Boon 1984: 14). Again, the original date of the reigns of Caracalla to Elagabal should be amended to from Septimius Severus (see above). There are about 24 stamp types, which Boon calls Class A (Fig. 139). He states that this Class is more difficult to date because of the existence of broken scrap material in later deposits. Until shortly before his publication, it was maintained that no stamped material appeared in the primary structure of the fortress baths, which is of Flavian date. A few records of stamped material in ‘Flavian’ or ‘timber’ (synonymous terms) levels were ignored because a reassessment of the evidence for dating the timber-stone transition at Caerleon placed it towards the middle of the second century AD (Boon 1984: 14). Boon concludes that the stamping of bricks and tiles was introduced in Caerleon after Legio II Augusta’s return from the north of England, where it had learned the value of marking one’s property at the communally shared tilery of Scalesceugh (Boon 1984: 14) (for a discussion Scalesceugh see also section 9.4 of this chapter). There is, however, only one stamp type of the legion from there (Fig. 140). This stamp type was used together with one of Legio XX Valeria Victrix on a total of five tegulae to cover an inhumation burial at Carlisle. It was dated to a period subsequent to Hadrian’s reign (Boon 1984: 15), based on the assumption that there was few stamped tiles before that period. This argument before Boon, regarding the earliest occupation of Caerleon, seems weak, despite the apparent support which a general survey of the evidence for the earliest military stamps in Britain appears to lend to it (McWhirr 1979: 253-259). It ignores the complex structural development in this Flavian ‘timber’ period, and does not pay attention to what should have be taken as an indication: a stamp called A1 by Boon which was initially dated to the Flavian timber period being found in a timber structure (Boon 1984: 15). Boon states that two more examples of the same type were since found at the Fortress baths and that they were securely stratified. They were discovered beneath the stone bottoming of the frigidarium drain when its level had been raised and below that level nothing but Flavian material was found (Boon

Boon (1984) published the tiles of Legio II Augusta from Caerleon. His works are based on the around 150 stamps from the Fortress Baths and on the nearly 400 stamps found at the so-called ‘Roman gates’. Boon says that bricks and tiles were amongst the most enduring artefacts, and that they were always carefully saved for reuse. Therefore, in his opinion, the final roof-fall debris at Caerleon might have contained a very mixed collection of stamps. This was actually the case with the different types of stamps found

FIGURE 139 BOON’S TYPE A2 (BOON 1984: FIG. 11)

FIGURE 140 BOON 1984: FIG. 5 174

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

FIGURE 142 BOON’S TYPE B3.1 (BOON 1984: FIG. 19) different stamp types. Workshops such as Xanten/Vetera II, where each soldier cast his own die and little control from above seems to have been present to determine the design of stamps, have shown a variety of types (Hanel 1995: 253-281). Vienna/Vindobona has also known a large variety of types, as in one other example (Neumann 1973). Boon suggests the workmen at Caerleon went to great efforts to copy the an original example of die (Boon 1984: 15) Given the diversity of the two above cited types, this remains questionable. All the lettering on the stamps of Caerleon is in high relief. The five tegulae of Legio II Augusta from Carlisle are the only ones with incuse lettering, they are all from the same die. They were not produced at Caerleon and Boon suggests that the dies were cut in lead, like the so-called ‘bread-stamp’ (Boon 1984: 17). This leaves us to conclude that the dies were not brought from the workshops at Caerleon and Holt to Carlisle, but that the detachments of both legions obviously worked under the same supervision and cut new dies at the new tilery. On the material of the dies, which always occupied the minds of British scholars more than the continental researchers, Boon says that they were sometimes cut in wood, sometimes in clay (Boon 1984: 19-20).

FIGURE 141 BOON’S TYPE A1 (BOON 1984: FIG. 10) 1984: 15). Furthermore, according to Boon, a stamp was discovered on a brick, which had formed part of the primary bath building of AD 75 (Boon 1984: 15). Unfortunately, this stamp is not a legionary one but only bears a private name. Boon also states that another one of his stamp types, A2 (Fig. 139) may have been introduced around the turn of the first to the second century AD, although it is generally discovered in the rebuilding work of the middle decades of the later century. This type does not only appear at Caerleon but also at Aberyscir.

Boon proposes that the two main stamp types of what he classified as Class A (A1 and A2) in its several varieties were contemporary (Fig. 139; 141) (Boon 1984: 20). He bases this on stylistic comparison of the neat narrow letter of both types (of which only type A2 has ansae) (Boon 1984: 20). There does not appear to be any archaeological context which can date these types to the same years. Boon adds furthermore, that the different types of his Class B (Fig. 143) are diverse in their stylistic appearance. Yet the Antoniniana title puts them into a bracket, which Boon suggests was 10 years (Boon 1984: 16). However, since the above mentioned evidence from Pannonia was discovered, we know that the time frame for this title was in actual fact around 18 years (Lörincz 1982: 142-144; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123), as explained earlier. Boon states that it is convenient to have the bulk of one’s brick stamp material divided and grouped but adds that in many cases the dating is vague or non-existent. He also thinks that the artificiality of grouping should always be born in mind.

Boon admits, on the other hand, that, since A1 (Fig. 141) has large serif letters and A2 has bordered ansate labels, the use of two very different types like these might seem unusual. He argues that the stamps of Class B, which he dates to between AD 213 and 222 (due to the traditional dating of the Antoniniana title, see Chapter 12, page 246) also display a variety of very different types (Boon 1984: 15). In addition to that, he cites the stamps from the legionary tilery at Holt near Chester, where Legio XX Valeria Victrix also used markedly different varieties at the same time (Grimes 1930: 141). Indeed the use of very diverse stamp types does not appear to be something that rules out the possibility that they are contemporary. There are plenty of cases of such stamp combinations in other Roman provinces where units have produced very 175

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

together the material and the research already performed on it. Of course, this collection can also be counted under the category of a general article on British brick stamps (see category 9.2.4), but it shall be discussed as a local list for the whole of Britain here because it is the base of further articles discussed. In an introduction to military brick stamping in Roman Britain, RIB states that this did not happen in Britain until the end of the first century AD (RIB II.4: 125). For a more detailed discussion of this theme see Chapter 10, pages 204-206. There are 72 known dies of Legio II Augusta, 64 of Legio XX Valeria Victrix and 94 of Legio VI from York. These are all outnumbered by the 119 known dies of the classis Britannica. The authors of RIB claim that this was partly due to the fact that the legions in their fortresses were not continuously occupied with tile production, tile manufacture being restricted to times of building or reconstruction (RIB II.4: 127). This statement seems to be a contradiction of what they say in their introduction about the fact that bricks were stored for longer times to be used when needed (RIB II.4: 125). If they were only produced in times of need this does not make sense. In actual fact there is very little evidence for bricks ever having been stored for use (Baatz 1965a: 124). As an example for an extensive building period in Britain RIB names the reroofing undertaken by Legio II Augusta at Caerleon in the Severan period (RIB II.4: 127). On top of that RIB states that the identification of different specimens is rather difficult, on the one hand because of the fragmentary character of many bricks and on the other because of the differential shrinkage during manufacture caused by the drying of tiles with differing moisture content. The authors argue that another case of difficulty was that the canals cut into the die to produced raised letters sometimes became partially choked with clay, which produced imperfect impressions (RIB II 4: 127). The numbers of stamps of a certain type are always given.

FIGURE 143 BOON’S CLASS B (BOON 1984: FIG. 19) Considering the urge that especially the German, Austrian and Swiss research have to classify artifacts such as brick stamps, and the various rigid and artificial lists, which often put a single stamp into its own group, Boon’s comment about the artificiality of grouping is a valid one. Nevertheless, he also places the stamps he is dealing with from Caerleon into groups. Boon’s date of Class B, dated within 10 years by the title, is not correct, but has a longer chronology because of the revised date of the Antoniniana title (see Chapter 12, page 246). It is true that Class A is stylistically very uniform. Yet a more detailed description of the archaeological context they were found in would make it easier to determine if they are chronologically equal or not. Boon is certainly right to state that contemporary groups of stamps can look very different, especially when different soldiers cut their own dies and there were no example dies. He appears to suggest that such a die existed at Caerleon, yet the variety of types indicates otherwise. Generally, Boon’s study is well researched and he combines archaeological context and epigraphy to date the stamps. He recognises the limitations of stamp dating, without ignoring the possibilities.

The authors of RIB state that the close dating of individual stamps, even if found within a dated context, is not easy because of the fact that stamps might have been reused and stock might have been held for a long period. They argue that several dies might have been in use at the same time, as happened with the stamps of the classis Britannica, which used 56 different types on the bath-house of Beauport Park in Sussex (RIB II.4: 125). RIB lists the titles held by the stamps: Anto(niniana)/ A(n)to(niniana)/ A(ntoniniana) is dated to the years between AD 213-222. All legions of Britain used this cognomen. The Second and the Sixth legions had stamps with the titles S(everiana)/Sev(eriana) or S(everiana) A(lexandriana), which dates them to the reign of Alexander

The most extensive local list on Roman brick stamps from Britain is the collection of brick stamps in RIB (Roman Inscriptions of Britain), which does not contribute much on the discussion of the stamps but gathers and draws 176

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

Severus between AD 222 and 235. The latest datable tiles from Britain, according to RIB, are those with the titles Gor(diana), which derived from the emperor of the same name between AD 238 and 244. However, there is another title on tiles of the Second legion that might date later: Vi(ctoriana), possibly referring to the emperor of this name (AD 268-270). Frere and Tomlin admit, nevertheless, that this expansion is doubtful, similarly to the expansion De(ciana) for DE on stamps of the same legion, as an abbreviated imperial title awarded by the emperor Decius (AD 246 to 251) (RIB II.4: 125). Chapter 12, section 12.2.3, will explain further why a lot of these imperial titles are unconvincing. They argue that concerning the length of period for which the legions of Britain stamped their tiles, they are likely to have continued to do so during the fourth century although there are no stamps to attest this (RIB II.4: 125). This would coincide with the evidence from the continent, although without any stamps of a late date we can never be fully certain.

FIGURE 144 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 23 we know that archaeological context sometimes allows us to date stamps, namely when we can differentiate between stamps that have been used for the first and for the second time, because of the site stratigraphy. In Chapter 11, Baatz’s work on the problem will be discussed in detail. Some scholars on the continent have distinguished between bricks which were used secondarily and primarily and therefore managed to date the latter. Of course, it is not easy to date stamps without any archaeological context, only based on epigraphy and palaeography as has often been done in the continental research. Nonetheless, Frere’s and Tomlin’s statement about the dating of particular stamps is somewhat hypercritical. Perhaps, if ‘particular stamps’ means ‘single stamps’, they are right. Whether secure dates can be given also depends on the numbers of stamps found. The author is not entirely certain if the argument about the recognition of stamp types is completely accurate either. According to RIB, as mentioned above, the shrinkage of dies makes it more difficult to recognise types. Nevertheless, they attempt to classify the military brick stamps of Britain. Bricks which have shrunk still produced the same dies even if they are somewhat smaller than the original. The blockage of letters with clay makes the recognition of types somewhat more difficult but not impossible. Thus, RIB reviews most recent evidence for the brick stamping habits of the British units up to its date of publication and, on top of that, it is a reliable collection of military brick stamps found in Britain.

RIB argues that is interesting that while legions II, IX and XX seldom failed to display their titles on stamps, Legio VI appears not to have been so concerned about theirs (RIB II.4: 126). But perhaps stamps of this legion that contained titles have not been found yet. With Legio IX Hispana one has to keep in mind that the unit left relatively soon after the habit of tile stamping had been introduced in Britain, namely between 25 and 30 years later (RIB II.4: 125). On the other hand, we may ask ourselves if we are not dealing with a circular argument: legions II Augusta and XX Valeria Victrix did not have the titles p(ia) f(idelis) and therefore had less to display. Furthermore, not many scholars have pondered the question whether there were stamped bricks that did not have the suffix Antoniniana in the reign of Severus. RIB catalogues all brick stamps found in Britain until the publication of this particular volume in 1992. It is a thorough list of brick stamps for the whole of Britain. There are no dates included apart from the titles on the stamps, some of which, as stated above, are somewhat doubtful. The volume does not necessarily need to include the dates, since it is merely meant to be a list of finds and plenty of references to the original publications of individual stamps were given. This enables the reader to check the dates of particular stamps when required. However, the reason for the omission of dates may have its origin in the attitude of the authors towards them rather than mere lack of space for detail. As referred to above, RIB states in its introduction that it is not easy to date individual stamps and that even when they are found within archaeological context, this is not sufficiently reliable. In view of the problems encountered with over-confident dating elsewhere, this caution has to be welcomed (see Chapter 2, pages 70-72). Nevertheless,

Brodribb (1969: 102-125) published the stamps of the classis Britannica found in Britain and also mentioned some of the material from France. The sites on which British fleet stamps were discovered are the following: Pevensey, Folkestone, Richborough, Cranbrook, Bardown, Bodiam and Beauport Park (Fig. 153). It is worth noting that there are no stamps of the classis Britannica from Hadrian’s Wall in spite of the fact that it is attested by three inscriptions there (RIB I: 1340; 1944; 1945). The lettering on these stamps is usually CLBR, although there are some 177

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

more unusual ones like CLSBR, CLA B or CLASIS BRIT. There are 25 different types of stamps in a total number of 180. According to the Brodribb, some of the stamps are very complicated and it is, therefore, not surprising that mistakes were made when they were cut: Broddrib’s type 23 from Folkstone (Fig. 144) spelt the letters CLASIS BRIT, therefore misspelling classis. Type B5 (Fig. 145) from Boulogne has the letters CLHR and Brodribb’s Type 22 spells CTBR (Fig. 146). Brodribb states that all these were due to human error and that they reveal the wide range of individual craftsmanship and literacy of the men who cut the dies (Brodribb 1969: 103). According to Brodribb, there are several varieties of style and lettering, including the letter A lacking the cross beam (Picture Brodribb Type 24) and two oddly shaped Ls. One of the latter, Type 1, has an obtuse angled foot (Fig. 147) and the other, Type 2, a heeled 1 (Fig. 148). Brodribb examined all 2400 stone inscriptions in RIB and discovered these oddities are not too frequent there: the obtuse angled l appeared in 33 inscriptions, the heeled L in 8 and the A without the beam in 21. He states that considering how rare these are on stone inscriptions it is odd to find them on the stamps of the classis Britannica (Brodribb 1969: 105). Apart from the actual style of lettering, the quality also varies considerably. Type Boulogne 5 (Fig. 149), a type which was first discovered in France but which also exists in Britain, for example, is rather crude, whereas Brodribb’s Type 10 is rather fine (Fig. 150). Brodribb states that although the letters CLBR, written in a clear manner, would have sufficed for the purpose of marking the stamps, some are extremely elaborate such as his Type 20 (Fig. 151) (Brodribb 1969: 105). This probably reflected the individual taste of men in the brick works who had the liberty and perhaps sometimes time to design the dies to their liking. Type 20 has divided panels. Type 19 (Fig. 152) displays CL followed by BR in reversed monogram. On some tiles the stamp is considerably tilted because the stampers were careless in preventing the die from smudging and slipping on the soft clay. A few of the tiles were so deeply impressed that Brodribb found it impossible to make rubbings of them. Furthermore, there are two examples of double stamping. The positions on the stamps are somewhat arbitrary. They are seldom neatly placed to line up with the tile edge. Some stamps on imbrices are hard to read since they come across the rounded part of the tile. Comb-markings sometimes confuse the reading of stamps on box-tiles. Brodribb says that the stamps on tiles were administered casually and compared it with the stamps in books of public libraries (Brodribb 1969: 105). This speaks for a relative haste in which tiles were stamped.

FIGURE 145 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE B5

FIGURE 146 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 22

FIGURE 147 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 1

FIGURE 148 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 2

FIGURE 149 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE B5

One of the most interesting features, according to Brodribb, of the tile stamps of the classis Britannica is the fact that 178

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

some stamp types appear on several different sites whereas some do not. Brodribb’s type 1 (Fig. 147) appears on no less than six of the nine sites in Britain on which British fleet stamps were discovered. He suggests that there could be various reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly, he states that it is possible that Type 1 came from a tilery that used this stamp as a trade mark and perhaps copies of it were issued to the stations from central head-quarters, which subsequently changed to a different type. This might account for the small variations that are inevitable if one die is copied from another. Another possibility suggested by Brodribb, is that when different units moved they took their dies with them (Brodribb 1969: 106). He admits, however, that all such theories need further evidence and that the distribution of tiles was perhaps not as complicated as sometimes assumed and that the tiles might have been fired with local clay (Brodribb 1969: 106). Nonetheless, the second possibility proposed by Brodribb is not very likely because the classis Britannica would not have moved around a lot. Perhaps the bricks stamped with a certain die of type 1 were indeed issued by a central tilery and distributed to other quarters. However, we have to question what benefit the Roman army would have gained by this, since some of the sites are not very near to each other. As the unit had access to the sea, perhaps it was used as a means of transport. We also have to bear in mind that bricks did apparently travel quite far sometimes and were traded between units, although the reasons behind this are often hard to understand. It yet remains to be proven if ‘economy’ and decisions of supply and demand were a concept in Roman times (Duncan-Jones 1982).

FIGURE 150 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 10

FIGURE 151 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 20

FIGURE 152 BRODRIBB 1969: TYPE 19

FIGURE 153 DISTRIBUTION MAP OF CLASSIS BRITANNICA TILES IN BRITAIN (BRODRIBB 1969: 104) 179

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

About the dating of the classis Britannica stamps Brodribb says the following: the area in which the stamps have been found is very limited and ranges a mere 90 kilometres. The range in time is far more considerable: the British fleet was there from the beginning of the Claudian invasion in AD 43 to some 250 years later. Brodribb adopts Cunliffe’s view on dating: ‘The duration of the technique of stamping is difficult to date with precision, but there is no evidence for the existence of stamped tiles before the early second century or after the mid-third century’ (Cunliffe 1968: 257; Brodribb 1969: 108). For a different view of the dating see Chapter 10. Yet there are some stamps from the British fleet from Boulogne, which the French school dates to the fourth century AD due to the fact that they were found in a pavement of that date and that they look like a rather homogeneous group (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 371) (see Chapter 4, section 4.2.2). Furthermore, Brodribb also states that tiles could seldom be associated with datable material but that a tile at Dover had been found in a floor over a late second century AD destruction. On top of that, at Bodiam a tile was found together with two coins of Trajan. One at Beauport Park lay within a few feet of a coin of Commodus. However, Brodribb concludes that there is little other dating evidence (Brodribb 1969: 108).

Brodribb does not indicate if the reluctance to date comes from the fact that those bricks might have been reused. If that is the case, it might have been worth mentioning if there is a possibility of secondary use for those tiles that were dated. There is no attempt at any other form of dating than by archaeological context: since there are no titles on the classis Britannica stamps, imperial title dating is out of question. Perhaps some observations of stylistic differences in terms of a chronological statement might have been possible, especially since Brodribb does make some observations based on the difference of the letters. However, as stated on pages 164-165, the British school is generally very careful to suggest dates and Brodribb is right to avoid an artificial chronology. Peacock (1977: 235-248) and Philp (1981), as we shall see, are more concerned with the dates. Brodribb contributes a lot to other discussions on brick stamps apart from dating, such as the relationship between unstamped and stamped material, as discussed in Chapter 1, section 1.3.5 the distribution of stamped tiles and also the purpose of stamping (see Chapter 1, section 1.3.7). Peacock also concerned himself with studies of the brick stamps of the classis Britannica before Philp, who follows him a lot. This article is mainly based on petrology and the origin of the brick clay (Peacock 1977: 235-248). As we already know, the stamps of the classis Britannica were found on nine sites along the shores of Sussex and Kent and in two places in the Boulogne region of France. Peacock was the first who undertook the study of the fabrics: examination under a hand-lens suggested that two types existed: Fabric 1 includes many of the Boulogne bricks and one example from Dover, while Fabric 2 is characteristic of the remaining British material and also comprises one third of the material from Boulogne (Peacock 1977: 236). Peacock’s description of Fabric 1 is the following: ‘it is hard and of fairly uniform buff colour (Munsell 5YR 7/6). There are scattered quartz sand-grains in the fracture and very occasionally small lumps of redbrown ferruginous sandstone’ (Peacock 1977: 237). About the origin of the fabric, he stated that the stamped bricks of this material were identical with that of many unstamped ones in Boulogne. In his opinion, there is little doubt that they were produced locally. He states that the brick-yard could have been in the close vicinity of Boulogne, but not necessarily so since some legionary establishments such as Chester, Vindonissa and Xanten found it worthwhile to place their tileries in some distance upstream from the fortress, in which they were garrisoned. Therefore, they could have been located somewhere a little further up the river Liane (Peacock 1977: 237). Peacock says that Fabric 2 is strikingly different from the above: ‘It is of a distinctive reddish-pink colour (Munsell 2.5 YR 6/8) and is interrupted by streaks, lenses and swirls of creamy white

At Boulogne/Gesoriacum in France, as already mentioned in Chapter 4, some CLBR tiles have been found. This site was the base of Claudius’ successful invasion of Britain in AD 43. The great pharos built there by Caligula could possibly have marked the headquarters of the British fleet (Brodribb 1969: 111). According to Vaillant, who published the British fleet stamps from France at the end of the nineteenth century, there were once over 50 stamps from Boulougne (Vaillant 1890: 246). However, Brodribb counts only nine at the local museum (Brodribb 1969: 112). Since his publication, more tiles have been found, which have been discussed under the topic of the French school of research in Chapter 4, section 4.2.2. Brodribb says that none of the Boulogne tiles were identical with the types from Britain and suggested that there had been a local production on the other side of the British Channel. This view has been changed since, as we shall see. The most interesting stamp, according to him is one displaying the letters NNCAE, expanded as [opus classis Brita]nnicae (Brodribb 1969: 112). Apparently, there was also a variation displaying CL SAM, which was expanded as cl(assis) Sam(brica/amarica) (Brodribb 1969: 112). Brodribb suggests that this fleet came into existence shortly after the British fleet (Brodribb 1969: 112). However, since there seems to be little other evidence for a fleet of this name, caution has to be suggested with this expansion. Perhaps CL SAM was part of a name. Since the tile in question has disappeared, it is impossible to make any conclusions the meaning of the letters in question. 180

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

clay. The largest inclusions are black or red-brown iron ore. These usually appear as near-spherical particles about 1 mm across. Sometimes there are irregularly larger ones. Another feature is subangular fragments of white, fine siltstone. Unlike Fabric 1, the quartz is not visible in the fractured cross-section but sand-size grains are occasionally seen near the surface. There are rare occurrences of subangular particles of hard red and white clay’ (Peacock 1977: 237-238).

bricks of Fabric 2. Peacock states that it is probable that the lighthouse was contemporary with the one on the east side, and that later repair might account for the finds of stamped bricks. Therefore, it might not be impossible that the factory which produced Fabric 2 was established as early as the end of the first century to provide for the lighthouses and other structures which were not built of wood (Peacock 1977: 245). In a conclusion, Peacock says that the analysis of the fabrics suggests that the bricks of the classis Britannica were produced in two factories on either side of the British Channel. The British material was imported to Boulogne to some extent but movement in the other direction was more limited. He thinks that the British brick production was more important, and that the evidence suggests that it was situated somewhere in the southern central Weald area. There is a possible connection between the activity of the fleet and the iron working sites of that region (Peacock 1977: 245).

Peacock argues that it is likely that it came from a single source rather than from more than one: 1.

The clay is remarkably uniform in both the hand specimen and the thin section.

2.

Study of brick fabrics from all over Roman Britain showed that most had material quite distinctive from Fabric 2, suggesting, according to Peacock, that the appropriate clays were not omnipresent.

3.

Fabric 2 only comprises a small part of the brick fabrics from Richborough, Dover, Folkestone, Lympne and Pevensey. Peacock explains this as imports to these sites and that it was later diluted with materials of more local origin.

4.

According to him, it is possible to find die-links between stamps from widely separated sites; examples from Dover can be matched exactly with ones from Beauport Park (Brodribb type 20) and Cranbrook (Brodribb type 12) in the Weald (Peacock 1977: 238).

Peacock also proposes that the distribution of classis Britannica stamps along the south coast of Britain might indicate the location of further forts, such as the one discovered at Dover or at other structures (Peacock 1977: 245). He concedes, on the other hand, that the stamps could have been partially distributed as secondarily used material for reuse in new structures. He adds a study of the fabric range from each locality to investigate the plausibility of this theory. The most northerly site to have produced a stamped brick of the fleet is Richborough. However, in spite of several extensive excavations only one stamped brick has been found there. The walls of the Shore forts occasionally reveal some material superficially similar to Fabric 2, however, examined in a thin section by Peacock; it showed differences in the sizes of quartz grains. Therefore, they might not be of Fabric 2 and it cannot be assumed that more stamped bricks are embedded in the walls (Peacock 1977: 245). Peacock continues that there is insufficient evidence for an early fleet-base at or near Richborough and that it is more likely that the single stamped brick arrived together with building material from a British fleet structure elsewhere, as perhaps Dover (Peacock 1977: 246).

Peacock stated that at time of writing (1977) a precise chronology of classis Britannica stamps had not yet been established. He repeats Brodribb’s observation that there was no stamped brick before the early second or after the mid third century from the British fleet and says that this is in good agreement with the evidence surveyed by the French school of research in Boulogne (Seillier 1969: 670; Peacock 1977: 244). According to Peacock, there is some evidence that unstamped bricks were produced and used much earlier: The eastern pharos at Dover has some bricks of the distinctive Fabric 2, which were presumably taken from the shore fort at Dover. It is possible that these were produced in a very early period in which stamping was not necessary, perhaps in the late first or very early second century (Peacock 1977: 244-245). However, we also have to consider the possibility that the bricks used for the pharos were never stamped at all. The western lighthouse also has some brick-courses preserved in the wall of the nineteenth century fort. It is not possible to examine it fully, but the building material appears to be complete

The villa at Folkestone produced some stamped bricks. Four of those were complete and it has been suggested that that the villa was the residence of the commander of the classis Britannica (Cunliffe 1969: 260; Peacock 1977: 246). The early phase of the building consisted of chalk blocks, which was also the case with the fort at Dover, which according to Peacock, assists this interpretation (Peacock 1977: 246). However, the numbers of stamped 181

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

bricks are very few, and most of the bricks from the site are of a very different orange-red fabric. Peacock suggests that those were probably reused bricks from elsewhere, which, in his opinion, fit the assumption that there had been a lighthouse at Folkestone (Peacock 1977: 246).

as in excavation reports, and will be listed in the next category. However, the approaches in this category are very different. Peacock, for example, writing in the 1970s although he mainly uses fabric analysis only and does not date single stamps, delivers a thoroughly well researched study on the distribution of classis Britannica stamps. Wright, on the other hand, who published his articles in the same decade, merely produces a list of stamps types for legions VI Victrix and IX Hispana. In spite of the fact that this is obviously his sole intention, since he states so in his introduction, we have to question the value of his contribution to the British brick stamp research. Apart from determining stamp types (which are changed by other recent scholars such as Betts recently as we shall see) we gain little or no information about the dates of the stamps, and very limited information about their distribution in the areas controlled by those units. Wright corrects some of his lack of interest in the research value of these stamps in his issue of Vol. II.4 of RIB. However, these two articles are not a very informative contribution to the British brick stamp research. Similar articles on the stamped military bricks, rather than just in excavation reports, gathering all information of recent excavations on the stamps of the British units, especially the legions should be attempted. Certainly, RIB fulfills some of this purpose but only in fragments, since the collection is more concerned with presenting us with a list of all materials rather than their value to our discussion of archaeology and history. Grimes, who wrote the first publication for brick stamps of a unit from Britain presents us with a well researched list of stamps and stamp types, providing us with dates by titles and archaeological context, where possible. Boon in 1984 follows this example. Therefore the articles listed in this category present us with a mix of different approaches from different periods and mind sets.

Excavations at the Shore Fort of Lympne produced a number of stamped brick fragments, and occasionally complete bricks. The fabric was identified petrologically as Fabric 2 and it came from the walls of the building. Peacock states that the material had clearly derived from a pre-existing structure, but that this was not situated under the existing Shore Fort. He explains this with the fact that there was no evidence of a Second Century occupation at the site (Peacock 1977: 246). Five stamped bricks were found at the Shore fort of Pevensey. The material is identical with Fabric 2 and is present in the walls of the building. Peacock proposes that there was a classis Britannica base on or near the site because some second century AD pottery was also found (Peacock 1977: 246). He concludes that there is undeniable evidence for an early classis Britannica base at Dover, and that there may have been another one at Pevensey, and possibly at Lympne. He states that the evidence for Richborough remains extremely dubious. Peacock’s survey is extremely well argued and a lot of the suggestions made by him are copied by Philp in his report on Dover and the classis Britannica, as we shall see. Again, the methodology in which the investigation of the stamped bricks is approached is petrology with its exact analysis of the brick fabrics. This includes, of course, the analysis of the unstamped material together with the stamped one. Peacock uses fabric analysis to determine where the bricks came from and in which buildings along the coast, controlled by the British fleet, they were used. He is also the first scholar to discover that some of the bricks were traded across the British channel. However, petrology is the only method used in the report on the stamps of the classis Britannica. There is not much information about the archaeological context of the single stamps, or the aspect of epigraphy. The British fleet stamps carry no titles by which they might be dated. Nevertheless, an epigraphic and palaeographic comparison can always be attempted. However, since the numbers of stamps are very small, we cannot be too certain if dates would have been possible at all. Although the research in this article is only represented by one method, it is very well based and contributes to our knowledge of the classis Britannica sites.

Most of the older scholars, like for example Grimes, date stamps reluctantly and only based on their imperial titles. Yet those titles pose some problems, as will be shown further in Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. Generally, the British scholars do not believe too much in the archaeological context and prefer not to date stamps. Although we might argue that brick stamps have been dated successfully on the continent once the possibility of secondary use is excluded or taken into consideration, we cannot but admire the exactness with which most of the British articles analyse the find locations and contexts and their interpretation.

9.2.3 Local lists

Most articles on the stamps of a unit in Britain are not very recent because modern articles usually concern themselves with the stamps of units in certain places,

Further excavation reports of sites in Britain, which have produced brick and tile, and analyses of the way in which the material is treated will now be listed: as in other schools 182

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

FIGURE 154 PHILIP’S GROUB B (PHILIP 1981: FIG. 28)

FIGURE 155 PHILIP’S GROUP I (PHILIP 1981: FIG. 29) of research, there are plenty of articles which discuss local lists of stamps. In Britain they are mostly included in excavation reports, whereas the research of most other countries discussed in this thesis discuss and publish brick stamps separately. This has, of course, partly to do with the smaller numbers of brick stamps from Britain but perhaps we are also presented with a slightly different view of their importance.

50 bricks of each. Only two types are very common, with 135 and 309 examples respectively (Philp 1981: 123). Eleven of Philp’s stamp groups, in a total of 50 stamped bricks, have incised letters. One group (Philp’s Group B) (Fig. 154) has incised letters which may have been created by a metal die (Philp, 1981, 125). The remaining group (Philp’s Group I) (Fig. 155) has high relief letters (Philp 1981: 125). Of the 58 types from Dover more than half apparently match those from other Classis Britannica sites. Philp states that on the available evidence and taking into account all previous publications of classis Britannica bricks, the stamps from Dover match at least six of the types from the Boulogne area and at least eleven from the other British sites (Philp 1981: 125).

Philp published some of the stamps of the classis Britannica from Britain, however, his study treats Dover (Philp 1981). Nevertheless, because it follows closely Brodribb (1969: 139-156) and Peacock (235-248), it shall be listed here. His list of tiles is part of his excavation report. It includes 888 stamped tiles with the letters CLBR, most of which were also contained in Brodribb’s list. Peacock’s article was used substantially by Philp for his study. The tiles came either from the classis Britannica fort from Dover or from the area north of it, which contained the so-called ‘Painted house’ and a bath-house. Those stamps which were discovered after 1975 (and were therefore not in Brodribb’s report) were not included in Philp’s report, of which he states they would be published at a later date (Philp 1981: 123). Like Peacock, Philp divides the tiles into different types. According to him, 74 of the stamps are too fragmentary for classification. The remaining 814 stamps are classified into 13 main groups according to their stylistic appearance. Most of the groups established by Philp have variants. He recognises a total of 58 different stamp types. Of these 20 are rare, with only one or two examples of them, 22 are rather uncommon with only three to ten examples and eleven fairly common with eleven to

Philp, talking about the brick fabrics, adopts Peacock’s system (Peacock 1979). A quick investigation of the 58 types showed that only two basic fabric types were represented, which was largely in accord with a fabric survey, which had been performed in 1977 (Peacock 1977: 237-238). For a further discussion of Peacock’s work see above, pages 180-182. In spite of some minor variations of colour and texture, Philp follows Peacock in identifying eight of the excavated Dover stamps as of the first fabric (Fabric 1) and thus probably from a source near Boulogne (Philp 1981: 126).Of these, three types are incised and the others are moderately distinctive in form. Together they represent about 5% of the total of stamps from the excavations. The rest of the stamps from Dover are of the other fabric (Fabric 2) and are, therefore, from the British source. From this Philp follows Peacock’s view that some tiles were shipped over from Boulogne 183

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

to Dover, thus reflecting the difficult channel crossing (Peacock 1977: 245; Philp 1981: 126). We have to ask ourselves what benefits the Roman army would have gained by shipping bricks over large distances. However, as this analysis proves, it was done, even if only a small percentage of the bricks from Dover came from Boulogne. Similar results were so far shown by the German research about the distance of military brick travel on the Rhine, although this was not verified by fabric analysis but only by epigraphy. For a more detailed discussion of this see Chapter 1, page 5

sides of the channel it is not surprising that goods were shipped between them. Philp’s chronology of classis Britannica stamps from Dover is mostly based on Peacock’s article and includes little of his own research. Like Peacock he only dates those stamps that came from securely identified stratigraphy. About the dating and chronology of the brick stamps of the classis Britannica from Dover, Philp says the following: only 34 bricks, representing 11 of the known types where found within an archaeological context within the forts that allowed them to be dated. The rest were found either in demolition rubble overlaying Philp’s CL BR II fort, were reused in later Roman structures and came from postRoman deposits or were unstratified.

Philp also proposes that it could reflect a military attitude that saw no major difficulty in shipping occasional loads across in either direction, just as required. He goes on to conclude that the most possible explanation is that both the British and the Boulogne centres were normally producing brick simultaneously and that one or the other of the two closed down when the fleet was largely out of the Channel area on one of their Northern expeditions (Philp 1981: 126). It might be hard to comprehend the logic behind the fact that the Roman army had the need to ship any quantities of tiles over the channel between Britain and the mainland, when normally a clay source would be readily available in most areas. Yet we have to bear in mind that modern day building materials are often brought over large distances too. Perhaps sometimes the Roman forces had no qualified personnel to fire the tiles. Although this seems hard to believe, there is, so far, no real evidence that the army ever contracted out their brick production into the hand of civilians, although they did obtain pottery from non-military sources (see Chapter 12, page 232). Building material, however, such as bricks seem to have been a different matter and obviously the forces wanted to produce them themselves. If either side of the channel did not have sufficient numbers of men qualified to produce bricks, which they needed, they obviously commissioned the opposite side of the channel to deliver them.

However, often, when a certain stamp type appears in a certain phase, all other stamps are automatically dated to that period, in spite of the possibility that stamps might have been reused. Philp recognises the fact that 4% of brick stamps that can be dated through stratigraphy are not enough evidence to reach any certain conclusions. He treats the material in a very different way than many continental scholars, who often propose chronologies based on a small numbers of stamps (i.e. Chapter 2, section 2.2.1, Chapter 7, section 7.2.1). Furthermore, Philp combines the methods of stratigraphy and fabric analysis. He uses mainly fabric analysis to determine from which side of the channel the clay had come, and archaeological context to state in which layers of the fort in Dover the bricks had come from. His classifications, firstly, are based on epigraphy combined with the fabric types. A combination of methods like this seems fairly safe. In his study he combines Peacock’s types with archaeological dates. Furthermore, the numbers for the different types of brick and tile and their frequency are compiled (see Chapter 1, section 1.3.5).

9.2.3.1 Comparison of methodology on the classis Britannica stamps in the British and French school of research (based on Chapter 4, 94-96 and above).

A further point to be made is that sometimes bricks were used to weigh down ships coming back from areas to which other goods had been delivered: in the medieval period Norwich cathedral was built with stones from Caen in Normandy used as stabilisers on the way back from France, to which cloth had been delivered. The stone was cut and shaped in France. Other medieval buildings built with lime-stone delivered by boat from Caen are Winchester Cathedral, Westminster Cathedral, Canterbury Catherdal, Wymondham Abbey and the Tower of London.25 Since the classis Britannica had forts built by the same unit on both

In another article in the category of local lists, Davies writes about the bricks and tiles found during the excavations at Caernarfon/Segontium fort between 1975 and 1979 (Davies 1993: 229-231). 4365 brick fragments were found, most of which came form stratified deposits. He states that the quantities of tile form the periods II-IV of Segontium were very small, which suggests that the fort from the Flavian era was not roofed over with tile with the possible exception of those tiles that came form the latera praetorii (Davies 1993: 230). There were only two tile stamps, which belonged to Cohors I Sunicorum (Fig. 156). This unit is attested in Segontium in the Severan period

25. http://www.speel.demon.co.uk (last accessed on March 3rd, 2005); http://www.wymondham-norfolk.co.uk/abbey/history/htm/ (last accessed on March 3rd, 2005)

184

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

school of research:

France

Britain

Stamp type classification

Based on lettering on stamps, brick types identified.

Based on lettering on stamps, compared to fabrics.

Survey of sites

None, find locations mostly unknown, archaeological context generally unknown.

Extensive survey of sites and types found there. Archaeological context mostly known.

Research method

Mainly epigraphy, rudimentary petrology (homogeneity of clay discussed in case of two types).

Mainly petrology, two brick fabrics and production centres on either side of the British channel identified. Survey of fabric spread.

Dating

Close chronologies, based on archaeological context (coins) in a few cases, otherwise determined as impossible. Possible evolution of styles discussed.

Long chronologies, based on fabrics, with inclusion of unstamped material. Archaeological context only used if securely stratified.

TABLE 11 21. The first of these tiles derived from material lying on the floor of the centurion’s quarters of what the excavation report called TS8. Davies says that it may have come from the demolition of this structure during its replacement by a phase called SS1 in the Trajanic period. He also adds that the context is not securely stratified and that a later date for the production can not be excluded (Davies 1993: 231). Obviously, three tiles of one unit are not enough to draw any well founded conclusions. Yet, the presence of other epigraphic evidence apart from the stamps of Cohors I Sunicorum attests that the unit was indeed in Segontium during the Severan period. However, its presence during the Trajanic period, as suggested by the one tile stamp from the centurion’s quarters can not be securely accepted by the evidence of one stamp alone. Also, the context of the brick is not clear (Davies 1993: 231). Therefore, Davies is right to state that there is not enough evidence for a definite date for the stamp. He adopts Grimes’s dates for the other two tile stamps of Cohors I Sunicorum.

FIGURE 156 TILE STAMPS OF THE LEGIO XXX VALERIA VICTRIX FROM SEGONTIUM (SCALE UNKNOWN) (DAVIES 1993: 230)

Betts published the bricks and tiles in the excavation report of Castleford (Fig. 157) (Betts 1998: 225-233). The Roman brick and tile from Castleford came from three different locations: the fort, the bath-house and the vicus. Betts says the following about the tile stamps from Castleford: with one exception (Betts No. 29, Fig. 157) the seven tiles stamped with the name of Legio IX Hispana come from the bath-house and can be classified as Fabric 2 (York fabric). Therefore, they were manufactured at the legionary tilery at York. Many of the stamps are fragmented and weathered but Betts classifies them as Wright’s stamp type 7 (Wright 1978: 380). Thus, he concludes that these legionary stamp tiles were manufactured during this legion’s stay at York, which was from AD 71 to around AD 122 (Betts 1998:

(RIB 430). It is also known from the legionary tilery at Holt because of brick stamps with its name, as discussed on pages 28-35 (Grimes 1930: 43-44). According to both scholars, this proves that the unit contributed labour to the pottery and tile production in Holt in the early third century AD or earlier. Davies says that it is unlikely that their labour did not relate to the provision of materials for their fort (Grimes 1930: 43-44; Davies 1993: 231). The stamps retrieved were recognised as Grimes stamp types 7 and 23 from the Holt kilns (Davies 1993: 231). He states, furthermore, that a third tile of this unit was found in 1963 during an excavation, which he classified as Grimes type 185

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 157 TILE STAMPS FROM CASTLEFORD (BETTS 1998: 231) 231). He also informs us that a fragment of a tegula from the vicus has the corner of a stamp of uncertain type. Scientific analysis of this tile revealed that it was also from the York tilery (Fabric 2) (Betts 1998: 231). Two tegulae found previously in Castleford are stamped C(ohors) IIII G(allorum) (Fig. 157). Both are on roof tiles of Betts Fabric 1 (fine fabric). Tiles of this material make up the main part of the building material from the place. Therefore, Betts suggests that the military brick works were organised and run by this cohort that supplied most of the military’s needs. He also concludes that there are strong indications that this unit was the garrison of the fort (Betts 1998: 231). The two stamps discussed by Betts, however, were found previously, and no archaeological context seems to be known. No tiles of this unit were recovered during the excavations on which the report is focused (Betts 1998: 231).

231). This date comes from archaeological context. Betts concludes that the Castleford tiles were also manufactured during the first quarter of the second century AD (Betts 1998: 231). He says that scientific analysis revealed that Castleford obtained ceramic building material from five separate sources of supply, only two of which could be identified: the legionary tilery at York and the military tilery at Grimescar Wood, near Huddersfield. The bulk of tiles, however, with the exception of those from the bathhouse are of a fabric type which Betts believes to be local in origin. Betts investigates the types of bricks that were used on both stamped and unstamped tiles and stated that the lack of tesserae shows that there were no mosaic floors (Betts 1998: 231). The ceramic building material first appeared at Castleford in Phase I of the fort. The tiles from this phase are all Fabric 1, which suggests that the local production may have begun sometime during the Flavian period. Bricks and tiles (both stamped and unstamped) appeared in larger quantities in Phase II of the fort. This dates them to the late Flavian period (Betts 1998: 232). In the vicus the earliest ceramic building material is characterised by a single brick in York fabric 2, of the late Flavian date of Phase II. The majority of bricks, however, is of Fabric 1, came from Phase III and is of Antonine date (Betts 1998: 232). Betts states that the most characteristic feature of the bath-house is the presence of both stamped and unstamped material from the legionary tilery at York. He says that this suggests that the bath-house was probably built by a specialist team of military building contractors based at the legionary headquarters at York (Betts 1998: 232). He

Cohors IV Gallorum was stationed at Templeborough near Rotherham at one point, where it stamped tiles with two different dies. One of these was the one that was also used on the two Castleford tiles (Betts 1998: 231). A fragment of a tegula from the vicus bears part of a stamp that reads […]IIIBR[…] (Fig. 157). The fabric is Betts’s fabric 4, which came from Grimscar, and is also found at Slack and Castleshaw. Frere identifies this fragment as an example of the stamp in RIB II.4: 2470.1. Betts states that all the tiles found with COH.IIII.BRE stamps were manufactured at Grimscar by the Cohors IV Breucorum (Betts 1998: 231). At Slack, tiles with the same stamp were used between AD 104 and AD 122-125 (Hunter 1967: 78-80; Betts 1998: 186

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

adds furthermore, that a first century AD date for the bathhouse agrees with the date of the legionary stamped tiles which were manufactured sometime between AD 71 and around AD 122. He thinks it probable that the entire tile from York was originally intended for the bath-house with the small quantities of York tile in the vicus and fort being either leftover after the baths were constructed or reused fragments when the baths were rebuilt (Betts 1998: 232). Betts states that it is not known when the bath-house was reconstructed but that it is possible that this was the case when the tiles of the possible local Fabric 1 were added to the structure (Betts 1998: 232).

numbers are not given), not a lot can be achieved. So far, there is no evidence that tiles were ever stamped in Britain any time before the very end of the first century AD, so probably AD 71 is too early a date for a possible tilestamp. For a possible circular argument on this matter, see Chapter 10. Since there are only two brick stamps of Cohors IV Gallorum from Castleford, we cannot assume for definite that this unit was ever garrisoned there. The fact that it was also possibly in Templeborough, from where there are more tile stamps, means that the evidence from Castleford is at present too thin to reach a satisfactory conclusion. The bricks could also have been delivered from elsewhere to Castleford or a building troop of Cohors IV Gallorum from Templeborough or elsewhere might have assisted with the building. The same is true for Cohors IV Breucorum, however, Betts does not assume that it ever was at Castleford. Like other scholars from Britain, he uses a combination of methods: the type classifications of the tiles are partially based on already existing ones, such as Wright’s. The brick fabrics are analysed and used to determine different clay sources. These are employed for dating in combination with archaeological stratigraphy. The report is generally careful and dates are not applied too readily, due to the small numbers of bricks.

Betts also thinks it likely that the movement of tiles from York was by water, as Castleford can be easily accessed thus via the rivers Ouse and Aire. The distance between York and Castleford, 35 kilometres by land, is about 65 kilometres by water. Nevertheless, he concludes, the costs of bringing goods by water would have been less. He cites some evidence from Diocletian’s Edict of AD 301 and some Egyptian papyri, which state that the transport of grain was much cheaper by inland waterways than by roads (Betts 1998: 232). Betts says that the transport of Roman brick and tile is well documented on the Rhine (Peacock 1982: 145) but that similar evidence is lacking from Roman Britain. He states that the only exception is the movement of legionary stamped tile from York not only to Castleford but to other military garrisons such as Doncaster, Templeborough, Malton and Aldborough, which also seem to have been transported by inland waterways (Betts 1998: 232). Apart from these, we also have the earlier cited evidence of brick exchange between Dover and the Boulogne area of the classis Britannica across the Channel, which was a similar distance. However, it seems hard to understand why any quantities of brick would have been transported many kilometres from one source to some remote forts. As has already been stated, the only possible explanation is the lack of trained personnel in one place and the unwillingness of the Roman army to let civilians take over their brick and tile production. However, without evidence from Castleford this cannot be proven. It seems that the Roman army was not very reluctant to ship large quantities of goods along the well-used rivers to exchange them between units when needed.

In a report on the excavations at South Shields, Bidwell and Speak also talk about the stamped tiles from the fort (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 152-157). Some 108 stamped tiles with the letters COHVG are known from the site, including those preceding the authors’ excavation before 1989. The first of those were already found at the end of the nineteenth century. The bulk of stamps came from the excavations in 1949 and those undertaken since 1983. The stamps comprise one of the largest collections of auxiliary tile stamps from a fort in Britain (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 152). Bidwell and Speak assume that the tile kilns were situated somewhere in the close vicinity of the fort (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 155). This is sometimes the case, but not always, and so this assumption has to remain a hypothesis. The stamps are separated into different groups: Wright already established six of those previously (Wright 1951: 143). The editors of RIB distinguish a further three dies from rubbings and squeezes made by Wright (RIB II.4: 24312439). Bidwell and Speak only recognise five dies in the whole collection (Fig. 158), although this study is based on three times as many stamps as Wright’s (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 154). Some details such as ligatures, according to them were sometimes smudged or even invisible. They say that the failure of these details to register was due to the clogging of the die with clay or by the angle in which the stamps was impressed (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 154).

Again, Betts uses fabric analysis in combination with archaeological context for his investigation of bricks. Some of the stamp types found at Castleford were classified, for example the stamp types of Wright’s research. He is careful with the dating and does not try to date the Legio IX Hispana tiles more exactly than the period between AD 71 to around AD 122, when the legion left. Given the fact that there are only five stamps (there appear to be five, according to the drawings, but the exact 187

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 158 STAMPS OF COHORS V GALLORUM FROM SOUTH SHIELDS (BIDWELL AND SPEAK 1994: 154)

Bidwell and Speak separate the following dies:

Die 3: 96x 26 mm. ‘This die is very different from the previous two: it has a large gap between the top of the H and the V. The H has no serifs. It is the largest of the groups. All apart from one example were on imbrices. Seven examples came from the well and a further three from the dumps of tile fragments in a modern context, which according to the scholars, also derived from the well. Examples of this type also came from the fourth century metalling of the street between the forecourt granary and the principia, and from the dark soil deposited after the metalling of the via principalis was quarried at a very late date’ (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 154).

Die 1: 90x 30 mm. Bidwell and Speak note a well-marked depression in front of the C and a fainter depression after the G (Bidwell & Speak 1995: 154). Wright observed similar features on some of his stamps (Wright 1951: 143). Die 1 is classified as similar to Die 2, with the exception of the fact that the H has pronounced serifs, with its bar slopes slightly down to the right, and the H and the V are not linked on the top (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 154). Die 2: 100x 31 mm. ‘There are depressions on either end of the die. The H and V are joined at the top and the H has no serifs. The only examples came from the filling of the well at the main principia’ (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 154).

Die 4: 73x 24 mm. ‘This die is smaller than the others. The bar of the H is slightly inclined leftwards to connect with the O and the superscript bar which is set between the arms of the V. One 188

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

example comes from the post-Roman dark soil over the ditches in front of the south-west gate and another one from the floor of the latrine built against the north-east wall of the fort. A third example came from the well’ (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 155).

Therefore, they conclude that they cannot determine if the stamped tiles belonged to the beginning of Period 5 or of Period 6. There is some evidence that Legio VI Victrix was involved in the construction work of Period 5 (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 23) but that, according to Bidwell and Speak, does not necessarily exclude the possibility that Cohors V Gallorum was manufacturing tiles at that time. They say that they might have been responsible for the construction of their own quarters within the supply base (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 156).

Die 5: 92x 30 mm. ‘This die is partly similar to Die 1 but the C is closer to the left-hand edge of the die, the letters are smaller and there is a shorter superscript bar over the V. The three examples found were stratified and came from the dark soil filling the quarried area of the via principalis in front of the principia and from the well’ (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 155).

Many of the brick stamps came from contexts later than the construction levels of Period 7. According to Bidwell and Speak, the large numbers of unstratified tiles almost certainly originated in the fourth century AD and later contexts. They say that it is evident that the tiles were used to roof the buildings of Period 7, particularly the principia, where 29 stamped tiles were found, and also the courtyard house. They add that the purpose of the tile kilns near the double granary, which produced unstamped tiles, seems to have been to meet deficiencies in the supply of secondarily used tiles, from older buildings (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 156).

About the date of the stamps the Bidwell and Speak observe the following: it is known from other sources that Cohors V Gallorum was at South Shields around AD 205/207 until the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century AD (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 27; 42). The earliest context for a COH V G stamp was the floor of the latrine built against the north-east wall of the fort extension. This fragment was found in the platform part of its eastern end. It was embedded into the mortar core. It was considered that the floor was primary and that the latrine itself was part of the original construction work in the extension of Period 5 (early third century AD). However, Bidwell and Speak state that it is not certain that the latrine was constructed in this period, and furthermore that it is possible that the undated extension is dated by an alteration to its interior, which might have included the relaying of the floor. Therefore, they conclude that, until a series of drains feeding into the latrine sheds more light on the matter, the context of the tile cannot be dated closely (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 156). Apart from this tile the next earliest contexts for stamped tiles, according to Bidwell and Speak, are the construction levels of Period 7 (Bidwell & Speak’s , Die 1 no.8, Die 3 nos. 24-26 and 31 and illegible nos 7, 20-21). They add, however, that in some instances their associated finds make it clear that the tiles were discarded when the roofs of the buildings of Period 6 were dismantled. Four of them were found together with a mass of broken roofing tiles used to raise the level in the alley between the Period 7 courtyard house and the barrack to the north-west (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 156). Furthermore, they say that the absence of stamped tiles from the demolition levels of Period 5 does not necessarily mean that they could be associated with the construction work of Period 6. They say that an excavation of Period 5 in the eastern quadrant only produced a few fragments of tile and that they are not quite certain if they belonged to that phase because on the site of the principia most of the levels had been removed by earlier excavations (Bidwell & Speak 1994: 156).

The survey of brick stamps from South Shields by Bidwell and Speak is extremely thorough. The previous stamp groups by Wright are reviewed and changed. Again, epigraphy is used to classify the bricks and archaeological context for dating, as far as possible. Cohors V Gallorum was at South Shields for a rather long period, from AD 205207 to the late third or early fourth century. Unlike many other scholars, Bidwell and Speak are extremely careful to use the archaeological context in which the stamps were found for dating. However, given the small numbers of stamps and certain insecurities about the phases in which they were found, they are right to express caution. They are probably right to interpret the one Legio VI stamp as having been found elsewhere and coming from some unknown private collection, since no other stamps of this legion were found. However, since the unit was at South Shields it might still be possible that it had either a very small brick production there, or that the tile was delivered (perhaps together with other, possibly unstamped, ones) from elsewhere where the unit did stamp tiles. The exact archaeological context of the latrine in which the bulk of the stamps discussed here was discovered is not very clear. Furthermore, several of the stamps found in other contexts are fragments and were found together with pieces of unstamped bricks. This means almost certainly that they were reused, and that they cannot be dated closely. On top of the other good qualities of their work, Bidwell and Speak’s publication is one of the best sources to this day on how bricks were reused within a fort, as suggested by archaeological evidence. 189

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Most essays on local lists from Britain only deal with brick stamps briefly in the course of excavation reports. This is partly due to the small numbers of stamped bricks. It is also worth noting that they are never the sole feature of brick reports in Britain: as already discussed in Section 9.1, modern scholars usually deal with the unstamped material as much as with the stamped one and the brick fabrics of both are usually analysed. This leads to conclusions other than the mere dates of bricks, such as the distribution of fabrics within an area, as in the case of the classis Britannica stamps, where bricks travelled across the sea. Some scholars perform investigations of the relationships of stamps to different kinds of fabric. Although it is usually recognised that it is almost impossible to obtain exact numbers of the relations between stamped and unstamped material (see Chapter 1, section 1.3.5), they are both treated with the same interest. On the other hand, both the British local lists and the above listed articles on the stamps of units are most careful to put dates on stamps. Even when the archaeological context is known, the researchers are extremely reluctant to date because of a certain awareness of the possibility of secondary use of bricks.

possibility to gain some additional knowledge about the stamps in Britain. The brick stamps of Legio IX Hispana from Nijmegen have already been discussed previously, in Chapter 3, section 3.2.2 and in section 9.2.2 of this chapter, when talking about the lack of Wright’s failure to use the one Dutch Legio IX Hispana stamp known at the time of his publication. However, one possible conclusion to draw from the stamps from Nijmegen, which write the number nine as IX, is that those types from Britain which use VIIII are probably earlier. The question remains if the stamp types of Legio VI from Britain can be compared with those from Germany before the legion came to England in the 120s AD, in a similar fashion. One of the problems of this research is that the Legio VI stamps from Germany are only partly recorded in publications from the nineteenth or early twentieth century. On some of the pictures the stamps are barely visible, especially where a lot of stamps were illustrated in one photograph, such as in Steiner’s essay (Steiner 1903: Plate VI). The Römisches-Germanisches Museum in Mainz was contacted as a part of the research for this thesis for access to some better pictures of the stamps in question, but unfortunately they are not accessible due to some building works there at present. A lot of publications mention stamps of Legio VI Victrix found in Germany but do not illustrate them. This comparison of stamp types is based on those examples where good illustrations were available. Legio VI Victrix was stationed in Novaesium/ Neuss from AD 71 to around 100 and in Vetera II/Xanten from then to its departure to Britain around AD 120. The stamps of this unit come from both these locations.

9.2.4 General articles McWhirr’s book ‘Roman brick and tile’ (McWhirr 1979) is a collection of articles on Roman brick and tiles and their manufacture. It reviews a lot of the publications already discussed (see sections 9.2.2 and 9.2.3). There are two articles which are relevant to the question of military brick stamp methodology in Britain. Hassall produced a general article on the tile stamps of the British units (Hassall 1979: 261-266). It is a short overall view of military brick stamps in Britain. It is interesting because although extensive (although somewhat outdated) works have been performed on the stamps of the legions and the ones from the classis Britannica, little has been done on the auxiliary units of Britain, apart from some small essays in excavations reports. However, due to the fact that the stamps of the auxiliaries are not normally reviewed in this thesis due to lack of space, his results on these shall not be discussed here. In another section in his book McWhirr discusses the origins of legionary tile stamping in Britain (McWhirr 1979: 253-259). This chapter is discussed in Chapter 10, pages 204-206.

CIL XIII lists all known stamps of the legion from both locations but the drawings focus on the shapes of the stamps, and not the text. Therefore it is not very useful for this investigation. Schwörbel (1920: 20) mentions a stamp of Legio VI Victrix with the name Reburrus after the name and number of the unit. There is no drawing of the stamp, which is discussed as the possible name of a soldier in Chapter 12, page 180. Von Petrikovits, (Fig. 159) who published the stamp material from Vetera in the 1950s (Von Petrikovits 1959: 102) mentions one VI Victrix stamp found there and does include a drawing. The stamp has two lines, of which the second appears to be a

9.3 The brick stamps of Legio VI Victrix—their study through epigraphy Legio VI Victrix and Legio IX Hispana are the two legions that left stamped tiles not only in Britain but also elsewhere. This valuable information gives us the

FIGURE 159 STAMP OF THE LEGIO VI VICTRIX FROM VETERA (VON PETRIKOVITS 1959: 102) 190

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

FIGURE 160 STAMP OF THE LEGIO VI VICTRIX FROM NOVAESIUM (LEHNER 1904: PLATE XXI)

FIGURE 161 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VI VICTRIX FROM BRITAIN (RIB II.4: 2460.5-17)

soldier’s name, M(arcus) Aclon(ius---), in the second line, and therefore has no parallels in Britain. In fact, there are hardly any two lined examples amongst the British stamps. Bogaers also mentions some stamps of Legio VI from the period in which the unit was stationed in Novaesium, found at Nijmegen. However, no pictures are included (Bogaers 1967: 60-61). Paar and Rüger date the brick stamps of the legion found at Gelduba to between AD 70 and 120, indicating that they might have come from either Neuss or Vetera. Some of the stamps included the title pia fidelis, which dates them to after AD 89. Again, no drawings were included (Paar & Rüger 1971: 325-326; 264). Recently, Hanel added that the German fleet fort in Köln-Marienburg also produced 8 stamps of Legio VI Victrix. According to him, they date to between AD 72 and 120 and came from Vetera. He mentions their numbers in CIL and in the Römisches-Germanisches Zentralmuseum but does not illustrate them, probably because of the fact that they were inaccessible (Hanel 1998: 408).26There are, however, some illustrations of the Legio VI Victrix stamps from Germany, mainly from old publications. Steiner published the brick stamps from the legionary brick works from Vetera/Xanten in 1903 (Steiner 1903: 86-109; Plate VI). Unfortunately, his illustration was a photograph, which included all the

stamps discussed. They are barely visible on the plate and it impossible to even decipher the texts clearly. The bulk of the stamps appears to have the p(ia) f(idelis) title which is also on several of the British types. These, on the other hand, omitted the title about half of the time as is often the case with military brick stamps, which did not necessarily include their titles. Several of Steiner’s stamps have two lines, which is rare on the British examples. Name stamps are also present, some of which were probably discussed by the above mentioned scholars. Lehner on the other hand, who published the brick stamps from Novaesium/Neuss in 1904 (Fig. 160) (Lehner 1904: 289-309; Plate XXI) included drawings made by W. Rose. Twenty centimetres on the drawings are about 9 cm in reality. Therefore, the stamps are on a slightly smaller scale than the ones drawn for RIB, which are on a scale of 1:2, which is the usual scale used with brick stamps. It is not enough to base the comparison on the texts only because the frequent omission of p(ia) f(idelis) on the British stamp shows that the texts were arbitrary and similar formulas might not necessarily be contemporary. Types 7-11 from Novaesium read LEG VI. The text corresponds with types RIB II.4 2460.5-17 (Fig. 161). Both of the areas produced examples either with or without the beam over the numeral. Some of the examples from Britain have very thin stylised

26. Despite very kind efforts by N. Hanel these stamps could not be located.

191

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

letters. However, others display the thick rather bulky letters of the Novaesium styles, especially RIB 2460.7 and 2460.15. It is possible that these three types might originate from the earliest period of the unit. The I is not echoed by any of the types in RIB. Type 13 has a leaf after the number, which not the case is in Britain. However, only based on the evidence of lettering styles and without fabric analysis this can only remain hypothesis. Type 12 from Novaesium shows a ligature of the letters V and not on any of the types from Britain either. Type 14 from Novaesium is a reverse stamp. Reverse stamps from Britain are the following: RIB II.4, 2460.25-28. The C of 2460.26 is very similar to the one the Novaesium stamp but the distance between the V and the I is much wider, therefore, they cannot be of the same die. However, the similarity in lettering and the width of the actual letters may or may not be due to a chronological similarity. Type 15 from Novaesium reads LEG VI VIC, which is displayed by a number of the British stamps. However, it has reminiscences of ansae that are round instead of wedge-shaped, which is not the case with any of the British examples.

any dies with them. The Dormagen types are definitely not represented amongst the British stamps because they are smaller. The drawings on the Novaesium Plates are slightly smaller than our normal scale of 1:2 and it is hard to convert the measurements. Most importantly, the legion was in Vetera for around 20 years before it moved to Britain. Therefore, the possibility that some of the dies were brought from Novaesium to Vetera and then to Britain is rather small, given the usually short life span of dies. Nor is it very likely that the soldiers in the workshops of Vetera still remembered dies from Novaesium and started remodelling them in Britain. Without a good analysis of the Vetera stamps, which is not possible due to the bad photograph, we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion. Therefore, it is not possible to make any statements about a chronology of the Legio VI stamps, similar to the one for the stamps of Legio IX Hispana. British researchers are right to refrain from establishing relative dates for the brick stamps of Legio VI Victrix, but perhaps not in omitting to give reasons for this. It is also worth noting that Legio VI Victrix used several two lined stamps in Germany, whereas few are known from Britain. This is a further example of the fact that the stamp from the one unit from two different locations is very different in style, and few connections can be made. Furthermore, stylistic dating, without the aid of other dating methods, is often very doubtful (see Chapter 2, page 39) and can merely be taken as hypothetical suggestion of a relative date.

Furthermore, Müller (1979a: 22; plate 74) published six stamps of Legio VI Victrix from Dormagen/Durnomagus, two of which included what is presumably a soldier’s name, Iul(ius) Messor(inus?). Of the other types two show the VI but not the LEG in reverse, which is never the case on the British types. Müller’s types Plate 74, 5 and 6, however are similar to RIB 2460.6, 7, 10 and 12. Nevertheless, they are smaller than any of the types from Britain, the first measuring 3x 1cm in a reduced scale of 1:2, the second 1.8 x 0.7 cm (Fig. 162).

9.4 The tilery at Scalesceugh The Roman tilery at Scalesceugh is often referred to in the British literature since it produced bricks stamped with the names of two British legions, and the names of all four were found on stamps along the Stanegate line. It is usually seen as a communal tilery, which produced bricks

Of course, it is not impossible that those types similar to the ones from both Novaesium at Dormagen were influenced from dies brought over when the legion moved to England. However, we cannot say with certainty that they brought

FIGURE 162 BRICK STAMPS OF THE LEGIO VI VICTRIX FROM DORMAGEN (MÜLLER 1979A: PLATE 74) 192

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

for building activities in the North of Britain. There are, however, some problems with the dating of this tilery.

considering the fact that military tiles were found there. The tilery of Muncaster, on the other hand, is of a later date and may be connected with the building of Hadrian’s Wall, due to pottery of the Trajanic to Antonine period (Bellhouse 1960: 1-12; 1961: 47-56).

Hogg talks about the military tilery at Brampton (Hogg 1965: 133-168). He suggests that this tilery was built for auxiliary units and that it was simpler in its organisation than legionary tileries. No stamps were found at Brampton. Hogg states that the pottery dates are AD 100 to 125. Therefore, he thinks that it can be associated with a phase of military consolidation on the Stanegate line in the earlier years of the second century AD, before the building of Hadrian’s Wall (Hogg 1965: 163). Hogg brings this date into relation with the tilery at Scalesceugh and says that this brick works was approximately contemporary and that together the two tileries must have been used by more than one unit. He believes that this custom was probably more wide-spread than the available evidence indicates (Hogg 1965: 163-164). Hogg also says that the brick works at Brampton ceased production because other legionary centres obviously met the demand on Hadrian’s Wall. He adds, however, that it is not clear which legionary brick works took over since Scaleseugh’s activities ended at the same time as Brampton’s (Hogg 1965: 164). Unfortunately, Hogg gives no references for his dating of Scalesceugh.

The military bricks, which originated at Scalesceugh or which were found elsewhere on the Stanegate line, and later Hadrian’s Wall are the following (Fig. 163-166): •

Legio II Augusta RIB II.4: 2459.1: five examples from Carlisle, Brook Street, five from Carlisle, Annetwell street, one in Penrith Museum. RIB II.4: 2459.2: two examples from Carlisle, Annetwell Street.

•

Legio VI Victrix RIB II.4: 2460 48: six from Carrawburgh, one from Chesterholm, one from Chesters, 10 from Corbridge, five from Ebchester, two from Netherby, one from High Rochester, two from Wallsend, two of uncertain find spot. RIB II.4: 2460.49: four from Carrawburgh, two from Chesters, three from Corbridge, three from Ebchester, one from Binchester, one from Catterick, fourteen from Chesterholm, six from Corbridge, one from Ebchester, two from Netherby, one from Wallsend. RIB II.4: 2460.51: two from Carrawburgh, two from Chesterholm, one from Ebchester, one from Rudchester.

•

Legio IX Hispana: RIB II.4: 2462.2: one stamp, found at Scalesceugh. The number of the stamp is broken off after the V. Because of the similarity of the letters to another type, RIB II.4: 2462.4 this stamp was attributed to the Ninth legion (RIB II.4: 169). RIB II.4: 2462.3: one example from Carlisle. Again, the lettering is broken off after the first I; therefore, it may possibly be also a stamp of Legio VI.

Bellhouse, in an article written in 1971 (1971: 35-44) does not quote dating evidence for Scalesceugh either. He names lots of wasters and says that the majority were found about 200 yards south of a milestone dating to the reign of Gordianus (AD 238-244). He also describes a tile of Legio XX, another that he attributes to Legio VI, and a further one which reads Leg(io) VIIII H(ispana). Richardson (1973: 79-89) also writes about Scalesceugh. He mentions the fact that there were many wasters and says that the tilery was probably established in the first century AD. He states that pottery dating to between AD 80 and 130 was found in level I of a pottery kiln and says that it is contemporary to the LEG VIIII H tile. He dates the second level to the second century AD. Furthermore, he mentions an unstratified second century coin of Antoninus Pius (AD 138-161) (Richardson 1973: 87). Therefore, Richardson suggests a similar date for the tilery as Hogg. In addition to that, Britannia (1971: 251) mentions the tilery at Scalesceugh. The passage refers to pottery from the first to fourth centuries AD. It quotes the above mentioned article by Bellhouse (1971: 35-44). No dating evidence is given. Thus, this is extremely unreliable information and cannot be taken as a proof that Scalesceugh continued to be in use after the early second century AD. Another issue of Britannia (1972: 308) suggests that Scalesceugh was a civilian tilery rather than a military one based on the ‘irregular lay-out’ of the ovens, which also lacks proof,

FIGURE 163 RIB II.4 2459.1 & 2 193

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 164 RIB II.4 2460.48-50

FIGURE 165 RIB II.4 2462.2-4 RIB II.4: 2462.4: three examples, on from Carlisle, one from Scalesceugh and one from Stanwix, reading LEG VIIII H. •

IX Hispana, is AD 108 (E. Birley 1953: 25-28). It does not appear on building inscriptions on Hadrian’s Wall, where Legio VI appears to take its place. On the one hand, this could mean that the changeover took place some time between AD 108 and 122. On the other hand, as the western third of Hadrian’s Wall was initially built of turf, and since at least one inscription of wood has been restored as Hadrianic (RIB I: 1935), it cannot be ruled out completely that Legio IX Hispana built some of the turf wall. Nevertheless, it is well possible that the groups of legionary stamps here date to different periods. Scalesceugh is 8 kilometres south of Carlisle. It is also imaginable that the stamps found at Carlisle and nearby, listed here, were produced there. However, a lot of the named locations are on the eastern half of the Stanegate and transport by water was not possible. Therefore, they could have been produced elsewhere, such as Brampton, which was nearer to the eastern areas. In any case, Scalesceugh seems to have existed as a tilery long before Hadrian’s Wall. We cannot be certain if the tiles of the Twentieth and the Ninth legion from there are contemporary. If they are, we have to ask the question for

Legio XX: RIB II.4: 2463.1: seven examples from Carlisle. RIB II.4: 2463.2: one from Scalesceugh, three from Carlisle, one from Old Penrith. RIB II.4: 2463.3: one from Stanwix, eleven from Carlisle.

Apart from some stamps of the Legio IX Hispana and Legio XX Valeria Victrix none of the bricks is directly from Scalesceugh, and without fabric analysis we can only guess where they were produced. It would be wrong to assume automatically that all the bricks can be associated with the building of Hadrian’s Wall. In fact, the stamps of the Ninth legion (although there are some with broken numbers with may arguably belong to the Sixth) had to be produced before the erection of the Wall since the Ninth legion had left Britain by then. The last epigraphic testimony for the presence of Legio 194

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

FIGURE 166 RIB II.4 2463.1-3 what building activity on the Stanegate brick production by two legions would have been required.27

the Birdoswald stamp and the other stamps of this die. Therefore, he proposes that it is Trajanic or earlier, given the fact that the Legio IX die ceased to be used after the legion left the province (Caruana In Wilmott 1997: 267). Furthermore, Caruana says that the legionary tiles on the Stanegate were most likely produced in Scalesceugh and used at Carlisle. According to this, it is not surprising to find strays in Stanwix and Old Penrith, since those are the nearest forts to the main find spots. The find of Birdoswald is more unusual since the brick works of Brampton, where no stamped material was found was much closer to this fort (Caruana In Wilmott 1997: 267).

Caruana (in Wilmott 1997: 267-268) pondered this question and thinks that the stamps of the Ninth and the Twentieth legion from Scalesceugh are contemporary. He investigates a tile of Legio XX found at Birdoswald, which has the same die as RIB 2463.2. Caruana says that the example from Carlisle provides us with the only dating possibility for this type. He states that the tiles from the Tullie house site in Carlisle came from a second-phase context in the second stone fort, which suggests a deposition date not very far into the third century AD. He also says that two of the tiles from the 1981-1984 excavations were from a slightly earlier dated context. Both came from the same room of the barrack block, one from the primary and one from the second phase. The latter was reused as rubble, and had, therefore, derived from an earlier phase, when used as roofing tile. Caruana adds that the dating of the construction of the second stone period fort at Carlisle was not very precise but that it was probably in use by AD 165 (Caruana in Wilmott 1997: 267). Regarding the dating of the stamp, he says that this information, because of the reuse, cannot be taken as a date for the stamp. Instead, he suggests that similarities between this die, another one of Legio XX (Fig. 166) (Journal of Roman Studies 1954, 109: No 32) and one of Legio IX Hispana (Fig. 138) (Wright 1978: fig. 3; type 5) indicate an earlier date for

In a more recent exchange for the research for this chapter, I. Caruana confirmed that he was certain that all the stamps found in Cumbria are from dies uniquely northern and specific to Cumbria. He does not see any reason to believe that there was ever a legionary or even half-legionary base at or near Scaleceugh. The fort at Carlisle was not large enough to host a whole legion, and it is likely that detachments were situated there and that from 170/180 AD onwards Carlisle, like Corbridge, was used very likely for two legionary detachments.28 Joint inscriptions by legions II and XX, such as a dedication to Concordia confirm this (Hassall & Tomlin 1989: 331; No. 4). Caruana’s explanation of the distribution of tile from Scalesceugh to Carlisle is rather plausible. Nevertheless, his dating of the Legio XX die based on stylistic similarities is not certain. As often shown in this thesis, stylistic similarities on stamps are often arbitrary and, on

27. In a personal comment I. Caruana stated that there was unstamped brick material from the first century AD at Annetwell Street, Carlisle. In the Trajanic period, according to him, further stone buildings, i.e. the principia may have been constructed.

28. Personal comment of I. Caruana.

195

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

their own, cannot be taken as dating evidence (see Chapter 2, page 39). Therefore, we cannot be totally confident of the date of the Legio XX tiles from any of the above cited locations. An argument which may aid Caruana’s interpretation that the stamps of the Ninth and Twentieth legions from Scalesceugh are contemporary is the fact that there is little evidence for Legio VI Victrix there. Stamps of Legio II Augusta also were not found at Scalesceugh but at Carlisle. Caruana mentions four stamp types of Legio VI from Carlisle, two of which are listed as stamps of Legio IX Hispana in RIB II.4 (2463.3; 2463.16). He believes those to be types of the Sixth legion. Two further ones, not listed in RIB read LEG VIV and are, therefore, clearly stamps of Legio VI (Caruana Cumbrian tiles unpublished: 2-3) Bellhouse (1971: 36) does mention a tile of Legio VI from Scalesceugh but adds no picture. RIB does not mention this tile and, therefore, it is likely that he is referring to one of the Legio IX types, since they were written in numerals V and IIII rather than I and X. Fabric analysis could help the interpretation of the origin of the stamps, although not the question of the dating of the Scalesceugh tilery. The stamps of Legio VI Victrix, apart from these exceptions from Carlisle, were predominantly found on the Eastern Stanegate, and were obviously produced for the building of Hadrian’s Wall between AD 122 and 124. However, as we have seen, here are some exceptions since Caruana mentions some tiles of this legion from Carlisle.29 It is unlikely that those from the Eastern Stanegate were produced in Scalesceugh. Therefore, there is only limited evidence that the tilery at Scalesceugh continued to be in use for a long time after the departure of Legio IX Hispana, and it does not have seem to have produced tiles for Hadrian’s Wall. If the interpretation that the stamps of the Ninth and the Twentieth legion from Scalesceugh are contemporary is correct, this leaves us with the question of what building activities did it manufacture bricks for before that time, and why did all the British legions of the time participate?

and the fact that a large amount of stone tile was found, the later buildings must have had stone and clay tiles at the same time.31 The vicus at Carlisle shows early second century AD activity but very little building from the middle of the second century AD to the third century. The whole city only shows increased building activity in the period of Septimius Severus. The excavations from Castleville/ Carlisle have shown that stone building only began in this period (McCarthy 1991: 9-10). It is, therefore, astonishing to find pre-Hadrianic roofing tiles at Carlisle. Apparently, the Legio XX tiles from Annetwell Street Carlisle came from a burial, which used roofing tiles.32 It is likely that the tiles may have been reused, but on the present evidence it is hard to decide on a date for any of the stamps from either Carlisle or Scalesceugh. All the stamps found at the fort were mixed together, which led Caruana to the conclusion that they were used contemporarily. Since this includes Hadrianic stamps (Legio IX, and possibly Legio XX stamps), he argues that those must have been reused or kept in storage for over 50 years.33 On the other hand, we may also speculate that the Legio XX tiles could be later than assumed, and that Caruana’s assumption that they are contemporary with the Legio IX ones is not right. In this case the tilery of Scaleseugh would have been in function longer than the period of Trajan (AD 98-117). However, without the evidence from a context that proves that tiles of both legions are contemporary, no answer is possible. Even if we found such a closed context we could still be dealing with the possibility of brick reuse. It remains a riddle why the stamps of legions XX from Chester and IX from York appear together at Scalesceugh and Carlisle and what kind of building activity required two, three (or possibly four, if the Legio II bricks from Carlisle are counted) of the British legions to engage in mass brick production. The apparently shared military brick works of Scalesceugh has so far not produced satisfactory results about its date, meaning and the fact that several, or at least two legions were summoned to the area in a period before the construction of Hadrian’s Wall (in spite of the fact that, of course the tiles of the Twentieth and Sixth legion found there could date later). The evidence from Carlisle indicates that it is possible that Scalesceugh produced bricks for military constructions there, for the barracks in Tullie House, or the part of the fort in Annetwell Street. However, since a lot of these buildings were wooden ones before the AD 120s the question remains why roofing tiles were needed, or if the tiles found there were even older than the military

The buildings excavated in Carlisle, in which the bricks of legions II Augusta, IX Hispana and XX Valeria Victrix were found, were wooden ones (McCarthy 1991). However, the bulk of tiles catalogued in RIB and listed above are roofing tiles. Wooden buildings in Britain used roofing tiles sparingly and seem to have preferred slates (Astill In Wilmott 1997: 131-132). The use of roofing tiles in Carlisle in wooden military buildings, therefore, seems surprising, although not totally unheard of, since some wooden buildings do seem to have had tiles, such as the fort at Cardean.30 It was suggested by I. Caruana that because of the reasonable amount of ceramic roofing tile

31. Personal comment of I. Caruana. 32. Personal comment of I. Caruana 33. Personal comment of I. Caruana.

29. Personal comment of I Caruana. 30. Personal comment of B. Hoffmann.

196

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

buildings of Carlisle and reused. The tilery at Scalesceugh leaves room for further research.

new evidence from Nijmegen in Upper Germany, as already mentioned in Chapter 3, page 77, which attests that the unit, or at least part of it, was there in the 120s AD. This evidence consists of a mortarium stamp, and one tile stamp at the time of Mor’s article (another tile stamp was found since). Furthermore, there is an inscription on an altar at Nijmegen to Apollo set up by a praefectus castrorum mentioning the legion (Mor 1986: 268).

9.5 The fate of Legio IX Hispana and its brick stamps The whereabouts of Legio IX Hispana within the Roman Empire has been on the minds of Roman scholars for many years without reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Brick stamps play a minor but nevertheless, essential role in the determination of the history of this legion in the second century AD. Thus, the most recent conclusions on the unit’s fate, which are partly based on the evidence of brick stamps, are discussed here.

This evidence shows that AD 119 is not the latest possible date of existence for Legio IX Hispana. It is suggested by E. Birley that the unit joined Julius Severus in his expedition to Judaea in the 120s AD and was disbanded after heavy losses (E. Birley 1953: 28-32). However, according to Mor, military considerations and a new diploma make the link between the disappearance of Legio IX Hispana and the Bar-Kochba revolt more doubtful. He states that Julius Severus arrived in Judaea in AD 134, at which point the rebels were probably too weak to launch a counter attack and much less to wipe out a whole Roman legion (Mor 1986: 269). The diploma in question dates to February AD 161 and names a military tribune of Legio IX Hispana. That, however, only delays the period during which the unit disappears from our records and does not answer the question of what happened to it (Mor 1986: 269). Mor uses the article to show how much military historians on the Roman army should rely on the facts, and that they should avoid hypotheses based on unfounded suppositions (Mor 1986: 278). He does not follow any theory in particular, but acknowledges that too little is known at present about the fate of the Ninth legion after it went from Nijmegen to the East.

The suggestion that Legio IX Hispana was destroyed at Elegeia/Armenia in AD 161, based upon a comment of Cassius Dio who remarks that Roman legion was destroyed there (Cassius Dio LXXX: 2.1) was first made by E. Birley (Bogaers 1965: 98-106; 1967: 75) and reviewed by the same in 1971 (E. Birley 1971: 74). Forni cited Aelius Asclepiades, nati(one) [C]il(ix), mil(es) leg(ionis) IX (CIL X: 1769) as evidence that the legion still existed under Hadrian, because of the name Aelius, which, with its Cilician origin, indicates that the legion was in the east no earlier than Hadrian’s reign (Forni 1953: 88; No. 33). This view was accepted by Bogaers (1965: 98-106). A.R. Birley (1981: 222; No. 27) noted that Asclepiades might originally have been a soldier of the Misenum fleet and could have been transferred to Legio IX Hispana around AD 133 when men from this fleet changed to Legio X Fretensis (CIL XVI: Appendix 13). This was not accepted by Keppie (1989: 251) whose article is discussed below (pages 82-85). Mann (1983: 177; No. 473), discussing CIL X 1769, first suggested that the Ninth legion was brought to the East for Trajan’s campaign against the Parthians and destroyed during the second Jewish rebellion.

Keppie, a British scholar, (1989) offers little new evidence but suggests seeing the problem in a new light. He states that during the civil wars of the late Republic, legions were frequently destroyed in battle or were amalgamated with other legions because the army had been raised to an unprecedented size. He concedes that little was known about the disbanding of armies from Roman authors (Keppie 1989: 247). Keppie cites Dio Cassius who said that in his time out of the 25 legions of Augustus’ day 19 were still in service, the remainder having been destroyed, disbanded or disgraced (Dio Cassius 55.24.3 cited after Keppie 1989: 247). Legions XVII to XIX were annihilated in a blaze of publicity in AD 9. Several legions, which had adhered to the rebels of AD 6, were either disbanded or reconstituted under new titles. V Alaudae and XXI Rapax also disappeared from view during the Flavian period. Legio IX Hispana, like XXII Deiotariana disappeared during the Hadrianic-Antonine period (Keppie 1989: 247). Keppie also reminds the reader of the fact that at a somewhat later age, Legio III Augusta was disbanded by Gordian III after resisting the imperial aspirations of his grandfather

In 1986 Mor wrote about Legio IX Hispana (Mor 1986: 267-279). He belongs to the Israeli school of research, however, since this article discusses a topic partly to do with Roman Britain and the following article is that of a British scholar, who followed Mor’s arguments, it is discussed here. The unit is mentioned in an inscription from York for the last time in AD 108. In the past, scholars attributed the disappearance of the unit to the rebellions in Britain in AD 119, when the legion suffered heavy losses at the hands of the British rebels. However, it was discovered that there are two cursus honorum who attest men serving in Legio IX Hispana later than that (E. Birley 1953: 25-28). Apart from the record of these two careers the 1980s produced 197

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

and uncle. Its name was erased from inscriptions. It was, however, reinstituted by Valerian (Ritterling RE XII: 1501; Keppie 1989: 247).

to suppose that the British army had to contribute. Keppie suggests that the absence of the Ninth legion from York contributed to the unrest in Britain late during Trajan’s reign and the heavy losses of the year AD 117 led to the transfer of Legio VI Victrix from Vetera in Lower Germany to York. He states that this was a reverse drift of legions westward at the beginning of the Parthian War. According to him, if the Ninth was then at Nijmegen, it would be inconceivable that VI Victrix would have been moved to Britain in preference. He concludes that Legio IX Hispana was no longer available at Nijmegen (Keppie 1989: 249-250).

Keppie proposes that, although legions were sometimes dispersed, this did not happen lightly and efforts to retrieve them were often made. Legions lost their eagle, as for example XII Fulminata in AD 66 or V Alaudae in 17 BC, or supported the losing side, as for example the legions of Saturninus in AD 89 and were not disbanded (Keppie 1989: 247). He suggests that Legio IX was at some stage completely annihilated or suffered a shameful surrender, although it is now known thanks to the evidence from Nijmegen and the East that this did not happen somewhere in Scotland (Keppie 1989: 248).

About the legion’s whereabouts in the East, Keppie thinks that we cannot be certain. He states three possible occasions for its defeat:

He also states that legions did not normally move as far as seems to be the case with Legio IX Hispana. Preparation for the Dacian Wars saw an eastwards drift of legions normally stationed in the West. Keppie continues to suggest a different date for the Nijmegen finds, including the stamps of Legio IX Hispana. He proposes that the withdrawal of troops for the Dacian War seems to have been the key to the final retreat from Scotland in AD 105. He argues, furthermore, that neither the then known brick stamp from the Nijmegen fortress nor the mortarium rim from the manufacturing depot at Holdeurn came from a precisely dated context, doubting Bogaers’ date of AD 120 (Keppie 1989: 249; Bogaers 1967: 54-76). In addition, he suggests that this move was a temporary expedient and that it was not surprising to find the legion back in Britain in AD 108, where it was recorded on an inscription of a gate at the fortress of York (Keppie 1989: 249). Keppie rejects the theory previously proposed, that the legion met its end during the rebellion of AD 115-118 in Britain, and says that there were two options to regard the activities of the Legio after AD 117: either it remained in Britain or not. He proposes that the first possibility is rather doubtful: Britain’s garrison with the arrival of Legio VI Victrix was three legions, the permitted maximum from Trajan’s reign. The Ninth legion left no record on Hadrian’s Wall, which construction legions II, VI and XX split amongst themselves (Breeze & Dobson (1991: 64-65). It did spend some time at Carlisle but that was very probably during the late Flavian period. Keppie also states that the brick stamps of Legio IX Hispana (Wright 1978: 379-382) could not really permit a later date either (Keppie 1989: 249). Therefore, he adds that it was more probable that the unit left Britain late during the reign of Trajan. He explains this with the fact that the last years of this emperor saw a search for troops throughout the Empire for the Parthian War, and that it would be natural

1.

Between AD 125 and 126 a detachment of Legio III Augusta was dispatched eastwards from Lambaesis to reinforce another third legion, which could have been either III Gallica in Syria or III Cyrenaica in Arabia. No wider circumstances are known.

2.

The second Jewish revolt according to Keppie might have been a context for the loss of the Ninth.

3.

The opening years of Marcus Aurelius reign were marked by a setback in Armenia when the legate of Cappadocia, Sedatius Severianus, was surrounded at Elegeia, committed suicide and his troops were killed. Dio (71.2.1) stated that a legion was destroyed there.

Although the article brings no new evidence of the fate of Legio IX, he sees its history in a different light from other archaeologists. Nevertheless, not all of Keppie’s arguments are entirely convincing. No final decision can be made about the last and final event in which Legio IX Hispana was destroyed. Any of the events cited by Keppie could have been responsible. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand why the disappearance of the legion from our record must necessarily be seen in connection with a disaster. The possibility that not all records of Legio IX Hispana have been found and that the legion existed far longer than assumed cannot be disregarded. Without any more convincing evidence, it cannot be said for certain whether it became the victim of destruction or not. Also, Keppie’s dating of the legion’s final parting from Britain seems problematic. He argues that the inscription from AD 108 proves that the legion was still in Britain at the time and did not believe the dating of the scholars from the Netherlands who dated the brick stamps and mortarium stamp of the 198

BRICK STAMP RESEARCH IN BRITAIN

unit to the 120s AD. The excavators of Nijmegen, on the other hand, are quite certain that the finds came from this period because of their archaeological context (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323-329). Besides, it makes much more sense that Legio IX Hispana left England only once and was immediately replaced by Legio VI Victrix. There is no doubt that this legion followed to replace the gap left by the Ninth legion at York but the date of the finds from Nijmegen indicate that the Ninth legion probably never left England before the AD 120’s. Perhaps it was already destined for a mission in the East, since it stayed in Nijmegen for a relatively short time (Brunsting & Steures 1995: 323-329). However, what the nature of this mission was to be, we cannot determine at present. For the view of the Dutch school on the history and troop disposition of Legio IX Hispana see Chapter 3, section 3.2.2.

However, like the continental and other school of research there are frequent mistakes, mainly based on the dating of the Antoninana title. Generally, the British research is not so interested in the exact dates of stamps as in other historical value which can be obtained from them. Amongst the latter are the origin of the clay and the kinds of bricks that were stamped. This includes unstamped bricks, something which rarely interests the research of the continent where those are usually omitted in discussion. Bricks that are stamped are, obviously, often of the same fabric as unstamped ones and they should be surveyed as one material. We can sometimes use the information obtained by a stamp and use it on the research of unstamped bricks of the same material, without separating the two, as it is custom with the school of continental research.

Although the research on the fate of the Ninth legion is only partly concerned with brick stamps, it is still a valid part of brick stamp research because they are connected with other finds, such as other inscriptions and literary sources. These articles on troop dispositions and history show the importance of a combination of finds and the relevant methodologies. Unfortunately, it is not possible to bring the discussion on the fate of this legion to a satisfactory conclusion.

Petrology is a main research method used by the British research, not only in recent publications as is the case on the continent but since the 1970s. However, even though a lot of scholars have performed this research method this has not been completed for all areas of British research. Recent petrological investigations have mainly covered the produce of civilian brick factories and the classis Britannica bricks. The fabrics of single stamps of the legions and the auxiliaries have been examined in recent excavation reports but there is room for further investigations in collective studies on the tiles of the legions and auxiliaries in Britain.

9.6 Conclusion Generally, the British school of research is less concerned with the dating of brick stamps than researchers on the continent. However, as we have seen this is often due to the fact that it is simply not possible to date small numbers of very diverse brick stamps by epigraphy. It also becomes obvious during the analysis of the continental research and that of parts of the former Roman Empire that some scholars are too eager to date with this method because of their wish to establish chronologies. The British scholars seem to have acknowledged the fact that a combination of methods is the best methodology for dating brick stamps. However, scholars often do not say why it is not possible to apply close dates, which frequently leaves us with the impression that he or she is simply not interested in the chronological value of a brick stamp. On top of that they may also omit a long chronology for a stamp type based on the period of time that the unit was in a place. This is especially the case with older publications up to the 1970s. The more recent research mostly dates, mainly based on archaeological context and gives reasons if it is not possible. Some earlier scholars like Grimes also include detailed information about the archaeological context in which stamps where found. Title dating, an aspect of epigraphy, is generally used by scholars of all eras.

There are fewer types of different articles than on the continent, which is not necessarily a disadvantage. There are only a few articles concerned with troop dispositions and military history. Usually these are not predominantly concerned with the evidence from brick stamps like many of these articles are in the German, Austrian and Swiss research and they also concentrate on the evidence from other sources. This is mainly due to the fact that there are fewer brick stamps in England than, for example, Germany. Therefore, although only merely touching the subject of bricks, they are still valuable to our brick stamp research because they show the importance of including other sources. In that sense, the British research has acknowledged the limitations of brick stamps. Close dating, which is as has been shown, often problematic in continental publications (for example, Chapter 2, pages 70-72), is hardly ever a subject in those articles. Articles on brick stamps from specific units are frequent and there are different categories. RIB has been listed amongst those, as an overall list for Britain. This study can, of course, also be listed under the category of general articles. However, although a good collection 199

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

on the stamps of Britain, it is not particularly concerned with dates, and we have to look elsewhere if we want to establish how British brick stamps are researched and dated. Some of the older articles, like Boon and Grimes, perform extensive research on their material and date the stamps. They show that the British research was always less eager about chronologies than in Germany and only dated stamps where this could be done securely. The methodologies used on these older articles were mainly archaeological context and epigraphy (but only imperial titles) and, therefore, still slightly limited. Petrology is not used there. Wright, on the other hand, does not date the stamps he discusses at all, and because of this lack of effort he cannot be counted as a reliable source. His lack of methodology has been discussed already. Further publications are articles on the stamps of the classis Britannica. Generally, the British fleet and its brick stamps research are the subject most extensively and best surveyed by the British school. All methods, including petrology, epigraphy and archaeological context are usually applied. The material has also been extensively compared with France.

discussion of the beginning of the habit of brick stamping discussed in the next chapter and will be introduced there. Hassall’s article, which was also not reviewed in this chapter, is a general study of all categories of Roman military stamps. It is rather short for such an extensive study on the matter and mainly reviews the opinions of others. There is, however, some new analysis of auxiliary stamps but since the focus of this thesis is on legionary stamps this was not included here. Most of the most recent articles on the British military stamps are part of excavation reports and only briefly discuss new stamp finds. There are still gaps to be filled in the British research. Generally, the modern British school tries to date stamps and obtain other valuable information about them without disregarding a certain aspect of alertness to mistakes. All available methods are usually used, although epigraphy is somewhat less common than on the continent. However, a lot of the material remains to be reviewed again. Although Boon and Grimes have extensively studied the stamps of the Second and the Twentieth legions, the latter article was written over seventy years ago and would certainly leave room for a renewed interest. The stamps of the Sixth and the Ninth legions have only once been researched by Wright but he only listed them and did not interpret the material in any way. RIB lists all the stamps but did not spend too much time with an interpretation either. There is, therefore, room for an extensive analysis of the military brick stamps from Britain, including petrology.

There are many modern articles on the brick stamps of specific sites in excavation reports, listed here as local lists. Most of the recent scholars use all possible methods to date stamps and if they omit to do so give a good reason. Mostly, they are careful to date stamps and are more interested in the economical aspect of brick trade. Petrology and archaeological context are the two main methods used but epigraphy is also sometimes employed. However, scholars are usually aware of the limitations of this method.

The stamps of the auxiliaries could also see a new review in the light of many more finds, which have appeared since. Although it is often hard to date stamps by epigraphy, the archaeological context of recent excavations combined with the method of petrology could change the fact that a lot of the British stamps remain to be dated. The tilery at Scalesceugh and its apparent products also need a review in the light of fabric analysis.

Under general studies, two of the articles in McWhirr’s very informative collection on Roman brick and tile were introduced briefly. Both articles are overall views of the British brick stamp research. However, McWhirr’s article was not reviewed here in detail since it contributes to the

200

CHAPTER 10

THE BEGINNING OF THE HABIT OF STAMPING MILITARY BRICKS

Scholars do not agree when the stamping of military bricks became routine. There is evidence for brick stamping in the periods of Claudius and Nero, and even more for the periods after. However, in a lot of the cases where brick stamps are interpreted as Claudian, the interpretation is based on historical arguments not archaeological data (Brandl 1999: 30). It is worth investigating whether some of the dates suggested by archaeologists and epigraphers could be based on assumptions. It might be possible that scholars assume that military bricks were not stamped before the period of Claudius, and often even the second half of the first century AD, and, therefore, imply that certain brick stamps and brick stamp types have to date later without further investigation. It is not enough to repeat dates from previous publications. The archaeological context as far as known always needs to be assessed and if this is not possible it may be safer to admit so, instead of reproducing a potentially circular argument. The following chapter will investigate if there were stamped tiles before the period in question, and if authors have used facts in dating brick stamps of the first century AD, or if they have accepted opinions offered by older publications without questioning them. It will in some cases also review the evidence about the beginning of the stamping of auxiliary units. Since these appear to have adopted this habit generally later than the legions, it is worth discussing how the legionary tileries might have influenced the auxiliary ones.

which may exclude this possibility. Since the second date suggested by Wahl is the rather short period of less than two years, for which an extensive brick production for military buildings is rather unlikely, the first date, before AD 63, is the more likely one. Nevertheless, without archaeological context one cannot make a safe decision for one or the other. The evidence for the earliest brick stamps is the following: it appears that the first military bricks were stamped in the Rhine provinces. Bricks were not the only items that were stamped by the Roman military as marks of identification and authority. Bronze tags and other objects stamped with the names of Roman units are not rare, i.e. a catapult arrow head stamped with the name of Legio XIX has recently been found near Oberammergau in Germany. The excavator dates this find to around AD 15, which is long before the legions supposedly started to stamp their bricks (Brandl 1999: 30). The early twentieth century research presents an inscription on a tile from Strassburg/Argentorate naming Legio II Augusta as the earliest stamp (Forrer 1935: 33; fig. 3a). As this inscription is not a stamp but a graffito, this is inappropriate (Bidwell & Boon 1976: 280). Legio II Augusta went to Britain in AD 43, which means that this graffito has to date before this time. It becomes clear that it was custom or at least occasional habit for Roman legions to mark their goods, even bricks, as in the case of the graffito before the 40s AD. Why is it that there are no formal brick stamps from this period? Is it possible that they have not been found yet? To answer these questions it is not only necessary to look at publications that have dealt with so-called early military brick stamps but also to ask ourselves if bricks were indeed used in early first century buildings or earlier and what the purpose of stamping was for Roman military units.

One of many publications in this context is Wahl’s article on a stamp of Legio X Gemina from Rosinos de Vidriales in Spain (Wahl 1984: 73-74). Wahl states that there are two possible dates for this stamp, as Legio X Gemina was in Spain twice. The first time was before the year AD 63 when it was garrisoned there and the second time between the autumn of AD 68 and the summer of AD 70. Between AD 63 and 68, the unit was on the Danube. It finally left Spain for Lower Germany in the summer of AD 70. Wahl thinks that it is much more likely that the stamp dates to the second period of stay due to the fact that military brick stamping was not common during the first half of the first century AD (Wahl 1984: 74). This view might be the result of the above-cited possible circular argument: since few bricks date without doubt to before this time, Wahl is hesitant to suggest that it could date earlier in spite of the fact that we do not know the archaeological context,

Schönberger’s catalogue of the Augustan and Tiberian military installations in Germany and Raetia includes the following early brick stamps: (Schönberger 1985: 324497). • Woerden: Finds, which include brick stamps, date to as early as AD 50 until the third 201

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

century. There is no secure indication that the fort dated to before the Flavian period (Schönberger 1985: 439). Schönberger, therefore, dismisses the hypothesis based on a lack of evidence suggested by Haalebos (Haalebos 1986: 173).

Haltern horizon (Augustan), Tiberian, Claudian/Neronian, Early Flavian and Late Flavian (Schönberger 1985: 324497). It is not possible to distinguish between Claudian and Neronian. Therefore it may be hard to establish if a stamp originated in the Claudian or in the Neronian period, i.e in the 40s, 50s or 60s AD.

• Vleuten-De-Meern: The auxiliary fort probably existed since AD 47. Bricks stamps and weapons were found, but it is not certain if they date this early. (Schönberger 1985: 439).

Kaiser published some stamps of Legio I Germanica from Bonn and, as a comparison, uses stamps of the same legion from Dormagen. She states that the older stamps of the unit from the brick works at Dormagen date to the early 40s AD at the latest (Kaiser 1996: 89). Mainly she dates the bricks with the aid of archaeological context. It becomes obvious that bricks were produced before the second half of the first century AD in the Claudian period. Kaiser also mentions the bricks from the so-called Claudian ‘Erdlager’ at Hofheim of Legio III Macedonica, which could also be dated to the Claudian period because of stratigraphy. The stamps of Legio I Germanica in question could date as early as AD 39, during the reign of Caligula, and at the latest AD 43 under Claudius. The bricks are dated by associated ceramic finds (Kaiser 1996: 83).

• Altkalkar: There was a fort during the late Tiberian and early Claudian period, which was rebuilt later. The earliest brick stamps date to the Claudio-Neronian period (Schönberger 1985: 439). • Selz: It is possible that this was the location of a fort because of some brick stamps of Legio XXI, a legion which was garrisoned at Vindonissa. The bricks, like ones found at Vindonissa may date as early as AD 45 (Schönberger 1985: 443).

Wesch-Klein who writes about the antefices of Legio XIV Gemina from Rheinzabern talks about the fact that there are no stamped bricks of this legion from Britain. She states that since the legion stayed there between AD 43 and AD 70, stamping military bricks had not yet become habit (Wesch-Klein 1988: 224). Again, although no bricks have been found in Britain that definitely date to such an early period, one has to wonder if a circular argument has not been carried from report to report, and publication to publication. As will be shown on pages 203-204, there is some evidence for pre-Flavian stamps from other legions that were garrisoned in Germany.

• Kembs: This fort also produced some stamps of Legio XXI, some of which, as we know, go back to the 40s AD (Schönberger 1985: 443). • Baden im Aargau: Again, there are more than ten brick stamps of Legio XXI’s early group. Schönberger suggests that they were used by building detachments of this legion. The existence of a fort could not be proven but we know of the existence of a bath complex (Schönberger 1985: 444). • Zurzach, Zürich, Oberwinterthur, Pfyn, Eschenz: None of these places offers secure evidence for a fort, but early stamps of Legio XXI have been found in all of them (Schönberger 1985: 444).

Haalebos discusses brick stamps found at Woerden in Germania Inferior, stamped with the name of the Cohors XV voluntariorum. Again, exact numbers of stamps were not stated. He divides the stamps into two groups: he dates those with raised letters to the early Flavian period and those with incised letters ‘possibly earlier’ (Haalebos 1986: 173). Unfortunately, he does not go into detail about why he suggests these dates, so it is not clear if they are based on archaeological context or stylistic comparison of stamp types. For the moment, his statement can only remain a hypothesis. Since we know that some stamps date to the Claudian period, the suggestion is not unbelievable. Nevertheless, Schönberger dismisses the possible Claudian date, stating that there is no certainty for anything earlier than a Flavian one (Schönberger 1985: 439).

• Schleitheim: There are six stamps of Legio XXI. A fort could not be proven (Schönberger 1985: 444). This list shows again that there is hardly any evidence for brick stamps dating earlier than the Claudian period. Bath complexes such as the one from Baden im Aargau must have had hypocaust bricks. However, it is a problem that we often cannot separate the archaeological horizon and material between the reign of Claudius and Nero. The archaeological horizons of Germany can be stated as follows: Dangstetten/Oberaden horizon (Augustan),

Hanel also devotes some time to the question of when the units of Lower Germany began to stamp their tiles. He 202

THE BEGINNING OF THE HABIT OF STAMPING MILITARY BRICKS

discusses the bricks stamps of the German fleet from the fortress of Köln-Marienburg (Hanel 1998: 401-415). He uses the legionary brick stamps found there to date the camp. The earliest brick stamps from there are those of Legio V Alaudae, which was garrisoned at Vetera between AD 14 and 69. Hanel states that the legion did not stamp bricks until the reign of Nero. He says, however, that there is only one example of the Legio V Alaudae stamp and the find context of the brick is not very clear. Thus, Hanel is very aware of the hypothetical nature of this statement (Hanel 1998: 408-409). In this case, the circular argument warned against possibly applies. Most of the other brick stamps from Köln-Marienburg are dated to the Flavian period (Hanel 1998: 409). Hanel says that the earliest indications for the habit of stamping tiles come from the Claudian period, during the 50s and 60s AD. He thinks that most of these early brick works were in the immediate vicinity of the legionary fortresses and the capitals of military occupation of Lower Germany and names the workshops of Holdeurn, Xanten, Dormagen, KölnFrühlingen/Feldkassel, Köln (Annostrasse) and Sinzing. He does indicate that the earliest brick stamps came from Dormagen and dates them, like Kaiser, to the early second third of the first century AD. Hanel adds, however, that neither the historical background nor the find material can fully support this date in the case of Legio I at Cologne (Hanel 1998: 401). He suggests that further tileries were introduced at Vetera I and the brick works on the far side of the Rhine, the tegularia Transrhenana, in the 60s of the first century AD (Hanel 1995: 273-275). The other tileries mentioned here did not produce bricks until the period after the Batavian revolt. Hanel is of the opinion that mass production of bricks and brick stamping was started some time during the early Flavian period by the legions in Lower Germany (Hanel 1998: 402).

FIGURE 167 BRICK STAMP OF THE LEGIO II PRIMIGENIA FROM MAINZ (DOLATA) the Claudian period (Brandl 1999: 30-31). He is the only archaeologist who has considered this possibility so far. Brandl brings this in connection with the above mentioned stamp of Legio XIX on an arrow head from Oberammergau. This weapon was in use around 15 BC, when Lower Raetia was first occupied. This is about 50 years earlier than the period in which we assume that brick stamping began. According to Brandl, the stamp on the weapon is surprisingly similar to those on bricks and tiles. It has a rectangular frame and gives the abbreviated name of the legion without subdivisions or members of the unit. Like other stamps, it is clear that this object was marked because of a certain message one wanted to convey. A military unit wanted to state that it was responsible for the production of an item, which was its property. Brandl proposes that perhaps it was not uncommon to mark goods in this way, and that further finds of stamps on military goods might shed more light on the matter in the future (Brandl 1999: 31). Furthermore, he suggests that there could be a connection between these early stamps on weapons and military bricks. He proposes that the Romans could have marked their goods on transitory material such as painted signs on wood or other materials, like those from amphorae, to indicate the content. Brandl thought that with the construction of more permanent buildings one might have thought it necessary to mark the bricks (Brandl 1999: 31). At Windisch/Vindonissa the earliest brick stamps found originate from two periods, the first one being when Legio XXI rebuilt at least a part of the fortress in stone, the second one when the auxiliary units did not take over the buildings of their predecessors but built their own (Brandl 1999: 32). This agrees with observations from Xanten/ Vetera I. Here bricks were stamped in the Neronian era when the fortress was rebuilt in stone and large numbers of bricks were used. Hanel dates these constructions and

Dolata mentions one stamp of Legio XXII Primigenia, which can definitely be dated to the Claudio-Neronian period (Dolata 1998b; 1999b). He uses the method of fabric analysis unlike most of his colleagues in Germany. The stamp was found in the area of the legionary fortress at Kästrich in Mainz. It was probably part of an extensive rebuilding of the soldier’s barracks at Mainz, which hosted at least 10,000 men. The tile is a tegula (Fig. 167). Dolata and his team investigated the material and fabric of this tile. It becomes obvious that it came from the brick production at Rheinzabern because of geochemical similarities and that it was produced during this period there (Dolata 1998b: 97; 1999b: 421). Brandl, on the other hand suggests that, based on Kaiser’s thesis, one stamp type of Legio I Germanica could possibly date even earlier than the Claudian period to AD 39, and that brick stamping might have been practised even before 203

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the beginning of brick production at Vetera to the 60s AD, which is 15 years later than Vindonissa (Hanel 1995: 253281).

was used under a support beam. The oldest ditch also produced a bipedalis amongst a layer of rubble dating to the reign of Tiberius. In a pit of the third period (late Tiberian to Claudian) one tubulus and several opus spicatum bricks were found. None of these bricks and tiles carried stamps.34 However, since the bulk of brick stamps found in Germany are on tegulae this is perhaps not too surprising. Usually, reports from German excavators indicate that bricks were used during the Augustan and the Tiberian period but did not carry any stamps. Of course, there were generally fewer bricks than in later periods.

Brandl concludes that brick stamping in Vindonissa did not begin until 45 AD with the arrival of Legio XXI Rapax. He argues that it is likely auxiliary units generally started stamping their bricks at the time when they had to erect their own quarters, separate from the legions. He wonders if, in the case of Vindonissa, its Cohors VII Raetorum must have stamped bricks since AD 38, the year in which the unit is first mentioned on a writing tablet found at Windisch (Brandl 1999: 31-32). Nevertheless he admits that these are hypotheses and that we cannot be certain how much time it took auxiliary units to employ the stamping practice. Although the evidence from auxiliary stamps is not normally mentioned in this thesis, due to lack of space, it is important to investigate, if possible, if they begun to stamp their tiles at the same time as the legions, or later. Brandl concludes that, generally, bricks were not stamped until the forts and fortresses were built in stone, when larger numbers of bricks were needed. The tilery of Dormagen, and its early stamps, according to Brandl (1999: 32), is an exception. Although there are some places where bricks were obviously stamped before, the bulk of Roman military centres did not stamp tiles until the middle of the first century AD. Brandl does not exclude the possibility that, like other aspects of brick stamping, such as what percentage was stamped, the habit varied from place to place, and that some military brick works were faster to adopt the technique than others (Brandl 1999: 32). Brandl’s statements can only remain hypothetical: a connection between other marked military goods and brick stamps may be possible but cannot be proven by the existence of one stamp that may date earlier than the reign of Claudius.

The other Roman provinces did not start to stamp their bricks and tiles until some time after the period of Claudius and Nero, in which, as explained above, brick stamping became the habit on the Rhine. About the earliest brick stamps from Britain, McWhirr writes the following: • Legio II Augusta: This unit’s bath-house at Exeter is so far the earliest military building found in Britain which used brick and tile. Tile must have been in production before the construction of the bathhouse because fragments were found in the fortress streets, which according to the McWhirr, were laid between AD 55 and 60 (McWhirr 1979: 253). The bath-house itself was built between AD 60 and 65 and included the usual range of bricks typical for its type: pilae tiles, roofing tiles, antefices and box-tiles. However, no stamps of Legio II Augusta were found. According to McWhirr this testifies that the legion did not stamp tiles when it came to Britain and reminds us of the fact that from the legion’s headquarters in Strasbourg, where it was stationed before its departure to Britain, only one tile inscribed by hand with the name of the legion was found (McWhirr 1979: 253). However, the fact that a unit did not stamp tiles upon arrival does not necessarily mean that it could not already have stamped elsewhere. As explained previously, the habit of stamping might be connected with the need for property protection: only stamps that travelled far would have been stamped. Peacock suggests that the Exeter bricks were not stamped because they did not go far, and were produced by the unit for its own use only (Peacock 1982: 137). As discussed before, Boon dates the tile stamps from Caerleon from second century AD

Brandl thinks that the habit of stamping bricks coincided with the rebuilding of military centres in stone. Naturally, phases in which stone buildings needed brick roofs and walls demanded an increased brick production and, therefore, probably stamps on the bricks to mark them as military goods. Other goods, such as weapons might have needed stamps earlier because they were mass-produced long before bricks. However, even timber forts needed some bricks, for example for the hypocausts of the military baths, which accompanied most forts and fortresses. We know of the existence of very early bath complexes from Germany that have produced bricks, as shall be explained shortly. Yet no stamped ones seem to have been found. The auxiliary fort in the inner city of modern Augsburg used bricks as early as the reign of Tiberius. During this second phase of the fort, for example, a hypocaust brick

34. Personal comment of A. Schaub.

204

THE BEGINNING OF THE HABIT OF STAMPING MILITARY BRICKS

• Legio II Adiutrix: This legion was brought to Britain by Cerialis and replaced the Ninth at Lincoln until around AD 71. It moved to Chester around AD 77, where it stayed until AD 85/86 when it was sent to Moesia (McWhirr 1979: 256; Wilkes 2000: 106). No stamped tiles of this legion have been found. Perhaps this supports the view that the one tile stamped with the name of Legio XIV Gemina is indeed very unlikely to be from Britain.

and apparently there are no stamps from the first century baths (Boon 1984: 14-16). McWhirr accepts this view. He says that Legio II, although producing the usual bricks and tiles since the first century AD, did not stamp until the middle of the second (McWhirr 1979: 254). • Legio IX Hispana: The legion was stationed at Lincoln around AD 60, when it came to the east of England, either as a complete legion or as a part of it. It remained there until AD 71 when it moved to York. McWhirr discusses the brick material, also reviewed by Wright: There is one tile of the legion which was found at Lincoln but the British research convincingly argues that it must have come originally from York (McWhirr 1979: 254). Two other tiles of the legion came from the east Midlands, one of which is from Old Winteringham. Wright names this stamp as one of Legio IX Hispana because according to him, it matches a type from York and the one from Lincoln (Wright 1969: 242). McWhirr, however, argues that there was no good reason to assume that the Lincoln example was really produced there and the only parallel for the Old Winteringham stamp was, therefore, at York and could not be associated with the legion when based at Lincoln (McWhirr 1979: 255). A rib voussoir from Hilly Wood also bears a stamp of Legio IX Hispana. However, it might also have come from York and is not enough proof that the legion stamped tiles in the first century AD, when at Lincoln (McWhirr 1979: 255). McWhirr concludes that the legion only produced stamps for certain when it was moved to York, some time before its departure to Nijmegen in the 120s AD.

• Legio XX Valeria Victrix: This legion remained at Colchester for several years after Claudius’ departure. After that, it possibly moved to Gloucester. It has been suggested that the unit replaced Legio XIV in Wroxeter in AD 67 (Frere 1967: 93). It was later involved in campaigns in Scotland and was garrisoned at Inchtuthil before it moved to Chester around AD 87. The bulk of tile stamps from the legion come from Chester and from the work depot at Holt, as already shown in the discussion of Grimes’s work (Grimes 1930). McWhirr quotes Grimes by saying that the former attributed dates to the stamps from Holt but that the stamps from Chester dated to between the early second and third century AD. McWhirr says, however, that one of the antefices of the legion, which carries the number of the legion and its emblem, the boar, can be dated to the first century (McWhirr 1979: 256). The majority of stamps have also been found in an area of Britain where one would expect Legio XX to be active. Besides Chester and Holt they are recorded in Carlisle, Manchester, Prestatyn, Heronbridge, Caernarvon, Ffrith, Caerhun, Caersws, Wilderspool. Two stray brick stamps were found at Silchester and Whittlebury in Northhamptonshire. They were examined and proven to be of Holt fabric (Webster 1958: 51; McWhirr 1979: 256). McWhirr states furthermore that there were indeed two separate tiles with these stamps in the Northhampton Museum but that the stamps appear to be identical and that they are the same ones as illustrated by Grimes in his report on Holt (Grimes 1930: figure. 59.1; McWhirr 1979: 256). He continues that they may have been part of a collection because they were found at the beginning of the nineteenth century with a number of Greek and consular and imperial Roman coins, when some trees were felled (McWhirr 1979: 256). The find context of the Silchester stamp was not clear (McWhirr 1979: 257).

• Legio XIV Gemina: This legion was part of the British conquest army but only stayed in the province until AD 67/69. McWhirr states that a stamp from this legion would be crucial to the study of the beginning of the stamping habit in Britain (McWhirr 1979: 255). However, no stamps from this legion have yet been found, a fact that has not changed since this publication. A stamp from Legio XIV Gemina, in the possession of the Horsham Museum was probably not found in Britain. McWhirr says that it would be the earliest tile stamp to be found there (McWhirr 1979: 256). However, since we have only got one stamp, the chance that it is a genuine find from Britain is small. 205

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

• Legio VI Victrix: It is likely that the legion arrived with the emperor Hadrian around AD 122. It was eventually based at York. McWhirr uses Wright’s study of VI Victrix stamps from Britain, accepting his 79 identified dies. As already mentioned earlier, stamps of this legion were found at Carlisle, Carrawburgh, Corbridge, Gayton Thorpe, Carpow, Catterick, Ebchester, Wallsend, Chesterholm, Aldborough, Slack, High Rochester, Chester and Halifax. Wright does not offer a date for these stamps. McWhirr does not comment on this fact but states that a detailed study of the unit’s stamps are not necessary since they are not relevant to his discussion of the origins of Roman British military tile stamping, since it is unlikely that bricks were stamped before the departure of the Ninth legion (McWhirr 1979: 257).

no tile stamps from it. Therefore, he concludes that the legions in Britain adopted the practice at different times and certainly not before the start of the second century AD (McWhirr 1979: 258). McWhirr’s article still represents the most recent research published on this matter, and is well founded, gathering evidence for all British legions. To the author’s knowledge the conclusions of his report have not been challenged by any recent excavations. No brick stamps dating earlier than the second century AD have been found. Of course, this might be a circular argument, as stated above, because we tend to date brick stamps only to periods to which we believe they may date. However, the fact that two important first century bath-houses had no stamped bricks may indicate that it was indeed not a custom at the time. As mentioned before, it was perhaps the need to prevent unauthorised use that led the units to stamp their tiles. It is possible they did not need to do so before the second century AD, since the bricks in those early bath-houses did not travel far from the workshops in which they were produced. In any case, the opinion cannot be disproved and the date voiced by McWhirr remains valid until a stamped tile can be securely dated by a first century AD archaeological context.

Furthermore, he mentions two stamped tiles of unexpected legions in Britain: one of Legio XXII is probably not genuine and is dated to the Hadrianic period or later (McWhirr 1979: 257). The other stamp bears the inscription LVIII in retrograde. A close examination shows it to be complete, which excludes the possibility that it was a broken stamp of the Ninth legion. There are several indications for the presence of Legio VIII Augusta in Britain. The first period is its possible stay with Claudius during the period of conquest. However, McWhirr concludes that this was too early for a stamped tile (McWhirr 1979: 257) to which one could reply that this is a circular argument (see page 201). He mentions a shield-boss from the Tyne with a punched inscription: LEGVIIIAVG and proposes that it is tempting to connect this find with this period of reinforcement in which men from this unit may were sent to Britain in the first half of the second century AD (McWhirr 1979: 258). He also mentions the possibility that the stamp in question is a civilian one, displaying a private name (McWhirr 1979: 258).

The authors of RIB also wonder briefly why the stamping of bricks started relatively late in Britain. They argue that during the first century AD, and often much later, most military structures with the exception of bathhouses consisted of half-timber and were roofed over with thatch or shingles, which required no brick or tile. The few buildings that did require tile (such as bathhouses) involved a more limited production and therefore, according to Frere and Tomlin, needed no stamps (RIB II.4: 125). They follow Boon’s argument that by the end of the first century a different situation had arisen. Not only were permanent canabae on the rise, creating the need to prevent the distribution of military property for civilian use near the fortresses, but also the concentration of troops from several legions on the Northern frontier around Carlisle made it desirable to distinguish the property of each (Boon 1984: 16). According to RIB, this applied especially when they were sharing a tilery such as in Scalesceugh on Hadrian’s Wall, where all of the British legions are attested as having produced bricks for the construction of the wall. Obviously detachments of them were sent there and shared a tilery. The military soon adopted the practice for signifying other items such as shoe-leather and even minor equipment for tile-making, such as a tile comb of the classis Britannica (RIB II.4: 125; 2444). Nevertheless, it is still not quite clear which unit produced tiles in Scalesceugh and for how long, as shown in the previous chapter, section 9.4.

In conclusion, McWhirr states that the evidence of the four legions that conquered Britain shows that although they are undoubtedly capable of producing and using brick and tile by the late 50s AD, no tile stamps could positively be attributed to this early period. He argues that there are no stamped tiles from the legionary bath-houses at Exeter or Caerleon, which are both dated to the first century AD and that there are no stamped tiles from Legio XIV Gemina, which was withdrawn in AD 69. The Ninth legion did not stamp tiles in Lincoln from AD 60 to 71 but did so in York before it left Britain around AD 120. Legio II Adiutrix was in the province from AD 71 until 86/7 and, according to the McWhirr, may not have been involved in brick making during this time. In any case there are 206

THE BEGINNING OF THE HABIT OF STAMPING MILITARY BRICKS

The oldest stamps from Raetia are probably those of cohortes and alae dating to the beginning of the second century AD (Spitzlberger 1968: 107). Like the Rhine area, the Danube area has produced large numbers of stamps, and we would expect that some of them would date to the Claudio-Neronian period like in Germany. Yet there are no brick stamps indicating an earlier date than the Flavian dynasty. Sarnowski (1995: 497) dates some stamps of Legio I Italica from Moesia to AD 69 to 96 because of their archaeological context. Similarly, Milosevic names stamps of legions I Adiutrix and X Gemina from Sirmium, which date to the same time (Milosevic 1971: 97-99). Generally, the beginning of the stamping habit of the legions on the Danube seems to have started with the Flavians.

mentioned. As explained, Wahl seems to indicate that the first possibility has to be excluded because of the fact that legions did not stamp before this time (Wahl 1984: 72-78), which, considering the evidence from the Rhine, is not true. In any case Legio X stamped as early as the Flavian dynasty in Spain (or possibly the reign of Nero, if the first hypothesis is accepted), which is not surprising since the same legion also stamped on the Danube where it was garrisoned before its short return to Spain in AD 68. The evidence for the Middle East and Northern Africa, as explained in Chapters 7 and 8 is scarce: there are fewer stamps than in other provinces and not many of them can be dated. Therefore, it is hard to establish a date for the beginning of the habit of stamping for these areas. In North Africa we have the earliest secure date only for the Antonine period, based on the titles for the stamps of Legio III Augusta. Other dates, based on archaeological context, suggest that one type may go back as far as AD 100 but it could also be later. This long chronological date applies to a lot of the dates from Northern Africa (Le Bohec 1981: 129-136).

Alföldy, who researched the brick stamps from Dalmatia, states that it is impossible that the brick stamps of Legio VIII Augusta, a unit which was stationed there between AD 6 and 9, date to these years because military bricks were not stamped that early (Alföldy 1977: 46). He bases this assumption on the fact that no military bricks from that period have been found elsewhere. This does not refer to the find’s archaeological context but only to historical knowledge and interpretation. Unfortunately, Alföldy does not state how many brick stamps of this legion were found in Dalmatia. He says that the bricks were produced in the workshop of Smredelji, where Legio IV Flavia Felix fired brick stamps for the province between AD 70 and 86. He suggests that Legio VIII Augusta passed Dalmatia on its way from Moesia to Italy in AD 69 and that the bricks were produced during this time (Alföldy 1977: 46). However, a stay of a couple of weeks or months is a very short period and it is unlikely that that the unit produced bricks in that time. Alföldy does not give exact indications of why he thinks that the bricks were produced at the Smrdelji workshop. Stylistic similarities between the two legions cannot be ruled out, but there is no indication in the article that a fabric analysis has been undertaken. But even if the unit had brought these bricks from Moesia, it would have been a very rare occurrence indeed, since a unit on the move did not usually want to carry additional ballast. The riddle of these brick stamps can not be solved satisfactorily. Perhaps they date indeed to the early years between AD 6 and 9. Nevertheless, since we do not have any other dating criteria, there can be no proof for either hypothesis. Perhaps they were traded from Moesia when the legion was garrisoned there. We do know that bricks travelled quite a distance sometimes, at least on the Rhine.

Scholars writing about the brick stamps of the Middle Eastern provinces are extremely cautious about applying dates to the stamps because often this is not possible. Both Barag (1967: 244-267) and Wagner (1977: 529) suggest a date of the second half of the second century AD at the earliest for the stamps of legions X Fretensis and IV Scythica respectively. However, because of the lack of bricks in general of this area and the dating difficulties connected with this we cannot accept this as a definite date for the beginning of the stamping habit in the Middle East. The evidence from these provinces and areas has shown that it is indeed very likely that the stamping of (initially legionary and following this also auxiliary) military stamps was indeed begun on the Rhine. The custom was eventually equalled by all provinces but not at the same time. As we have seen, its beginning varied from province to province. Possible reasons for this and for the stamping of bricks as such are now going to be investigated. Several reasons for the fact that Augustan and Tiberian bricks in Germany and elsewhere were not stamped have been suggested. Stamps on bricks, as on other military goods, mainly fulfilled the purpose of a mark of authority to mark military property and to prevent unauthorised use. As seen earlier, other military properties carried such marks, and seemingly at a much earlier time than bricks. Peacock suggests that the Roman military might not have marked its property in such a way yet, in a newly conquered territory. Until military production reached a higher level such measures might have been unnecessary. He proposes that perhaps military

The fact that we cannot be certain if the stamp of Legio X Gemina from Rosinos de Vidriales/Spain dates to the period before AD 63 or between AD 68 and 70, the second stay of this legion in the province, has already been 207

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

bricks were not stamped until there was the possibility of confusion with recently established private works. Also, the risk of loss would have been increased when bricks had to be transported from their place of manufacture to elsewhere. Peacock indicates that these factors might have played a role in the fact that bricks remained unstamped at Roman Exeter. Its bricks were destined for the fort alone and were, to our knowledge not used for other installations (Peacock 1982: 138-139). However, if this is true it seems to apply to bricks only because, as we have seen, the Roman army applied bronze tags to some of its goods early on.

Perhaps bricks were only likely to have been stamped if extensive numbers were needed and produced for military buildings but this cannot be proven. Most areas had timber forts at first, either temporary or permanent ones, such as at Haltern, neither of which required bricks in large numbers. Roman military brick production reached its peak with the erection of stone forts and fortresses instead of wooden ones in the first half of the first and second century AD. From this period brick roofs and bricks in walls became common and more bricks were used. It is not surprising that more bricks from this period are found, and that many of them are stamped. Nevertheless, bricks were used long before the erection of stone forts and fortresses because they were always used for hypocausts and buildings, which had a close association with fire. The total absence of brick stamps from those early bricks is not yet fully explained. However, in the case of Germany, the bulk of bricks stamps excavated are on tegulae. If we can deduce from this that roofing tiles were more likely to be stamped, for whatever reason, perhaps this lack of stamps from the early periods is not so surprising.

Perhaps there is some truth in Peacock’s suggestion in relation to bricks. It could be the reason why the bricks from Germany were not stamped in the Augustan and Tiberian period and apparently still relatively rarely during the reign of Claudius and Nero. One possibility is that more brick stamps from the early occupation period remain to be found. The other possibility is that, as Peacock proposes, the Roman military did not need to stamp its bricks during the early years. The reason why this study mainly names bricks from Germany is not arbitrary. On one hand, this region had a much higher military presence than other areas nearby. Also, bricks were produced earlier there than elsewhere. On the other hand, it was also the area where bricks were more extensively traded and exchanged between military units. We know that brick stamps were traded along the Rhine. Often units in one location produced extensive numbers of bricks for others in the surrounding areas. We know of the existence of the tegularia Transrhenana, the tilery on the far side of the Rhine, which provided the whole of Lower Germany with bricks and tiles (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.2 and Chapter 3, section 3.2.2). Bricks moved to a far higher extent than in other Roman provinces. It is very likely that this is the reason why bricks were stamped earlier in Germany than in other Roman provinces. It has been shown that brick stamping was practiced by the reign of Claudius and well established during the reign of Nero. Therefore, the assumption frequently made by scholars, that brick stamps are rare before the second half of the first century AD, is methodologically questionable. It is possible that bricks were stamped early in Lower and Upper Germany because they travelled further and the risk of loss and unauthorised use was higher. As mentioned before, Brandl (Brandl 1998: 30-32) names some stamps on other military goods, such as on an arrow head from the Augustan era. However, there is no evidence for tiles having been stamped as early as this. Also, the similarity of the stamp forms Brandl mentions, appear to be a coincidence.

In conclusion, there is no evidence of any stamped bricks before the Claudian period, with the exception of one brick type of Legio I Germanica, which may date to the reign of Caligula. However, the Caligulan date of this stamp is not certain. The custom of stamping military bricks appears to have started during the reign of Claudius on the Rhine in some areas, and later elsewhere. By the middle of the first century AD it became habit everywhere. It is wrong to conclude that brick stamps cannot date before the second half of the first century, as is often assumed in publications. Brick stamps did exist during the Claudian period in Roman Germany and there is no secure proof that they did not elsewhere. It is highly questionable from a methodological point of view to adopt dates forwarded by earlier research without any other dating criteria. However, because of the fact that it is impossible to differentiate between the Claudian and the Neronian horizon in Germany, scholars who state that brick stamping did not start before the middle of the first century AD are not wrong, unless they specify that if happened after the AD 50’s or later. Therefore, most publications that talk about the beginning of military stamping are within the boundaries of the possible. Additional hypotheses are often omitted. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that, because of this differentiation problem of the material of that period in Germany, there are no definite answers.

208

CHAPTER 11

THE PROBLEM OF BRICK REUSE

One of the main problems when dating brick stamps is that it is often not known if bricks have been used primarily or secondarily. Although we can assume that bricks produced by the Roman military were not kept in storage for long periods, but usually used in buildings soon after production, we also know that building material sometimes was reused. This custom continued throughout the Roman period. Roofing tiles are found in walls and floors, hypocaust bricks were used in other parts of legionary fortresses once new buildings were erected. Obviously, it was sometimes more convenient to use old rather than new building material. The possibility of brick reuse always has to be considered when dating Roman brick and tile. The bulk of publications do not state in what conditions the bricks discussed were found and if they could possibly have been reused. There are, of course, exceptions where scholars talk in detail about the occurrence of reused brick and tile in the fort at South Shields (Peacock 1977: 234348; Sarnowski 1983: 59; Boon 1984; Bidwell & Speak 1994: 152-157). Because of this lack of information narrow ranges of a few years or decades, as often suggest by epigraphers, do not necessarily apply. Archaeological context, otherwise a safe close dating method, fails to work if the bricks in question have been used secondarily. Reused brick was often reincorporated into buildings not only years but also decades and centuries after its production. A short chronology based on reused brick can be substantially wrong.

used brick. There are, however, some possibilities to detect or exclude secondary use, which will be referred to shortly. Once the possibility of brick reuse is ruled out, the normal dating criteria by archaeological context apply. However, since this is not always possible, we must remain careful with archaeological and stratigraphical dates. Whereas a terminus post quem, after which a brick must have been produced and stamped, can sometimes be given, much more care is needed with termini ante quem because often it is impossible to determine if a brick was produced before a period and reused. Baatz investigates some evidence of reused brick based on the brick stamps from Upper Germany (Baatz 1965a: 123124). He researched the bath complex from Echzell and states that of the almost 300 stamped bricks in 60 different types many came into the complex during later repairs. These repairs can sometimes, but not always, be explained by archaeological context. There are some parts, which were clearly incorporated into a building later or had been mended. Baatz confirms that he often recognises if bricks were used for the second time in the province: broken ones were fitted into a building, traces of mortar are seen on the bricks and sometimes tegulae are found in the hypocausts of the bath complex at Echzell (Baatz 1965a: 123). He adds, furthermore, that other repairs can be detected by the archaeological context of the buildings: it is possible to change single hypocaust pillars without disturbing or damaging the suspensura of a building. He suggests that the following frequently happened: a builder crawled into the heart of the hypocaustum through the praefurnium, supported the suspensura with blocks of wood and then changed the damaged pillars. Baatz states that he himself tried this process on the bath complex of Echzell (Baatz 1965a: 123; footnote 24). He says that during this work, bricks that had not been damaged and that could be reused were reincorporated into the building. The problem, according to him, is that if this work has been done carefully with non-damaged bricks, archaeologists find it hard to detect it in the archaeological context of a building. In his opinion, the only way to identify such repairs is through some date of the brick stamps (Baatz 1965a: 123). However, this raises the question of whether we can date those bricks with different methods to archaeological context. As we know, petrology analysis is seldom performed in Germany

Unless there are certain signs on the bricks themselves, indicating reuse, such as traces of mortar on bricks in places where none was required, there is only one way to detect secondary use. Sometimes bricks, which date to a certain period according to archaeological strata, display some epigraphic feature, like an imperial title, which securely places them into an earlier time. However, such cases are rare. Moreover, imperial title dating is not always without problems because these titles are sometimes hard to recognise and it is occasionally not certain if an abbreviation is an imperial title or the name of some other individual. For a discussion of this problem see Chapter 12, section 12.2.3. In some cases, bricks or tiles prove that they were reused because their characteristics suited parts of a building other than that in which they were found. Yet it is not always that easy to recognise and classify secondarily 209

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

and has only recently received some attention. It is hard to date stamps without significant epigraphic or palaeographic features. Nevertheless, there is one other possibility: Baatz observes that some of the stamps from the Echzell bath complex were stylistically different than the others. As seen in the discussion of his work in Chapter 2, sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3, he suggests a chronology of stamps from Upper Germany, which is not fully acceptable since it is based on stylistic criteria like ansae, which cannot be used for dating due to their diversity in all provinces. If one of the bricks found at Echzell falls into a group, which according to Baatz is a chronologically different one, he interprets this as secondary use (Baatz 1965a: 123). For problems with his dates see Chapter 2, section 2.2.1.

larger than it really was. Archaeological context shows that, during the time of the Echzell main group, very few stone buildings were erected. Only a part of these stone buildings contained bricks. Furthermore, these were only used for hypocausts and roofs and not for walls. Therefore, Baatz suggests that there must have been fewer workers at the tilery than previously assumed. He proposes that one work group, consisting of three or four men, shared one type of die. Several groups employed at the same time and the short life span of dies resulted in the variety of stamp types (Baatz 1965a: 123). Therefore, according to Baatz, this variety of types was based on the work organisation in the legionary tilery at Frankfurt am Main-Nied. This proves, in his opinion, that many stamp types cannot be seen as evidence for a lot of secondary use of bricks in a building, as had often been assumed in older publications (Baatz 1965a: 124). Other evidence from Upper Germany, discovered by Baatz, shows that every building that contains many stamped bricks of Legio XX also has a lot of different stamp types of this legion. This is even the case when the building has only been in use for a short period of time, like, for example, the bath complexes of Bendorf, Salisberg and Marienfels. Baatz concludes that there is an average of three to four bricks for one stamp type from the Upper German Limes (Baatz 1965a: 124).

Baatz discusses some other aspects connected with the detection and dating of secondarily used bricks: Usually, quite small numbers of bricks are used during those repairs. He states that stamp types on bricks, which generally do not fit the others types from a dated context, are likely to represent reused bricks. There are certain areas within the hypocaust system were such repairs seem to have been performed more often: these areas, according to Baatz, are the praefurnia and the hypocaust pillars at the entrance of the praefurnia (Baatz 1965a: 123). He continues to separate those bricks from the Echzell bath complex that he believes to have been used for the first time from those that he thinks have been used for the second time, according to those differences. The main group, which Baatz addresses as chronologically uniform, is still very rich in types and stamps. Baatz adds that the same applies for later stamp groups, for example the group of Legio VIII stamps (Baatz 1965a: 123).

Without doubt, the question of secondary use is important for dating. Baatz recognises this fact and surveys the brick material of Upper Germany with this in mind. A survey of excavation reports from the area shows that definite secondary use of stamped bricks on the German Limes is not very frequent. In most of the cases in which reused bricks are found, they were utilised in the same location in small quantities. Baatz suggests that it could not have been economically lucrative for the Roman army to raze buildings containing hypocaust material for the purpose of gaining bricks and tiles. It is not very easy to remove large tubuli or lateres from hypocausts without damaging them. It is stated that the claim that bricks had been used secondarily needs a well based proof through an archaeological context from a building (Baatz 1965a: 124).

Baatz observes that the main group from the Echzell baths appears in more or less the same composition in other bath complexes from Upper Germany, such as Bendorf and Salisberg. He suggests, therefore, that the bricks were produced within a relatively short period of time in the brick works of the legionary tilery at Frankfurt am MainNied. He proposes that their production lasted no longer than two to four years and that the workshop used a wide range of stamp types at the same time (Baatz 1965a: 123). He thinks that the dies were mainly made of wood or fired clay (see Chapter 1, section 1.3.2). Most of the dies produced for these materials would not have survived frequent use for longer than about a year. Wooden dies were, perhaps, changed even more often. Single stamp types of the group, however, may have been in use for longer (Baatz 1965a: 123).

In connection with the question of secondary use, Baatz also investigates the claim that bricks were occasionally produced without demand and kept in store for longer periods of time for future building activities. He proposes that it is possible that this might have happened with small quantities of material. However, he claims that there is no proof from Upper Germany or elsewhere that it did happen either. Schönberger names some cases where, allegedly, whole unused bricks had been found in storage in a

Baatz states that the variety of types and material gives the impression that the production time and extent of the legionary brick works at Frankfurt am Main-Nied was 210

THE PROBLEM OF BRICK REUSE

legionary workshop (Schönberger 1957: 75). However, further research proved that in these cases the bricks had been incorporated into buildings within the brick works (Baatz 1965a: 124). There are no locations where bricks were definitely stored, and therefore, the habit was probably rare. However, I do not believe that the legionary brick works always met the exact number of bricks that were demanded for buildings as this does not seem to be the case with modern constructions. Something must have happened with the bricks left over. If the latest research on the question of the Roman army selling bricks to civilians (which is unlikely but which will be discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2) is considered it becomes likely that those, probably few, remaining bricks were kept in storage somewhere. There is evidence from the auxiliary fort at Gelduba in Lower Germany that some military bricks were used some time after their production: Gelduba produced some brick stamps of Legio XVI found in post-Batavian revolt contexts (AD 70). Since the unit was garrisoned in at Novaesium/Neuss prior to the revolt and dissolved after the events of AD 70 by Vespasian, the bricks had to be manufactured before, and some time has passed before they were used at Gelduba by another unit (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262). Paar and Rüger do not state if the bricks could have been reused or not. However, if this prospect is ruled out, this could have been a rare situation, in which some bricks were not used immediately after their production. Baatz states that brick stamps, if all the problems discussed were put aside, were one of the best dating criteria one could use for dating archaeological stratigraphy (Baatz 1965a: 124). As shown in Chapter 2, page 39, this is not really the case due to their variety and instabilities in form, texts and other characteristics. It is unfortunately impossible to tell the difference between bricks which were reused and those which were used some period after their production from a chronological point of view (unless there are some traces like mortar where there should be none, indicating reuse, as further explained on pages 117-118 and 120).

amongst the ‘control stamps’, reading IUSTUM FECIT in conjunction with the name of the legion (Baatz 1969b: 66). Baatz proposes that all stamps from the Stockstadt bath complex belong to one homogenous group. He names this group the ‘Stockstadt group’ and excludes the possibility of reuse because he sees no signs of such on any of the bricks. Furthermore, he adds that, as he states in his 1965 publication on Echzell, it is unusual that a bath complex only used bricks that were newly fired. He names the other baths from Upper Germany as examples of buildings that reused bricks and tiles (Baatz 1969b: 66). Baatz traces some bricks in the Stockstadt bath that were used for the second time but none of these were of Legio XXII. Amongst those which were reused were, as mentioned above, the bricks of Cohors IV Vindelicorum. This becomes clear, as stated, from their historical background and the fact that they were reproduced during the reign of Commodus (Baatz 1969b: 66). Furthermore, Baatz observes that there were some unstamped bricks that were used for the second time (Baatz 1969b: 66). Again, he notices that the Legio XXII stamps came in many types but were still one contemporary group. He already pointed out this fact in the reuse article of 1965 (1965a: 106-123). He maintains that the Legio XXII stamps are a homogenous group because of the fact that they were found in other buildings and locations on the Upper German Limes. He already explained that the variety of stamp types was something common for Legio XXII. They are dated to the first years of the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117) (Baatz 1965a: 106-123). According to Baatz, the bricks of the Stockstadt bath complex belonged to the massive bricks production of Legio XXII, which dates to the years of the legion’s second stay in Upper Germany between AD 92 and 93. This building programme was necessary to meet the demands of new buildings during the period of Domitian and Trajan. There are, however, some other groups, which Baatz dates earlier than his so-called ‘Stockstadt-group’ (Baatz 1969b: 67). For a detailed discussion of his article see Chapter 2, section 2.2.1.

The bath complex of the legionary bath at Stockstadt was also published by Baatz (Baatz, 1969b, 63-75) Again, he analyses the stamped brick and tile from this building and pays attention to the possibility of secondary use. The archaeological context is as follows: 126 brick stamps are known at the time of Baatz’s study and are used for dating. Four stamp types name a Cohors IV Vindelicorum. Baatz states that these stamps were produced during the reign of Commodus (AD 180-192). Since the bath complex already existed at that time, Baatz suggests that the bricks had been added at a later period (Baatz 1969b: 66). Because of this, these stamps can not be used for dating. Instead, he uses a group of stamps of Legio XXII. These come in 30 stamp types. A further stamp type mentioned by the Baatz and included in this group is what he counted

Baatz again uses the same arguments against the theory of secondary use. He states that it must have been hard to retrieve larger bricks, such as tubuli, suspensuratiles, or wall tiles, undamaged. He argues, therefore, that the building of a whole bath complex out of secondary tiles is impossible and that it has never been attested archaeologically anywhere (Baatz 1969b: 67). It has to be born in mind, however, that this may be an assumption since Baatz is the only scholar who discussed the topic so far, and the fact that little reuse was attested on the stamps of Upper Germany does not mean that it cannot have existed elsewhere. Baatz adds that the military baths of the Upper German limes usually had small quantities of reused 211

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

bricks, which were added during later repairs. In Baatz’s view the chronological similarities and their large numbers are a sign of the fact that all these bricks have been built into the bath for the first time. Because of this he dated the building to the reign of Trajan (Baatz 1969b: 67).

between stamped and unstamped material—the possibility that the brick works of Legio XXII which produced the stamped ones did not also produce some unstamped bricks can never fully be excluded. It is known that it was unusual that all bricks of a unit were stamped. Therefore, it cannot be determined for certain that those bricks were really produced at Obernburg and Marköbel. Such a statement demands a fabric analysis of the material used in all workshops of Legio XXII, and other units on the Upper Rhine, which might enable researchers to determine where different fabrics came from and which workshops used which clay. However, to the author’s knowledge such analyses have not been performed too often, and certainly not at the time of Baatz’s study.

However, as mentioned above, Baatz does interpret the bricks stamped with the name of Cohors IV Vindelicorum as reused. He dates these repairs to the end of the second century AD (Baatz 1969b: 68). He does not attempt to date further repairs, which were partly undertaken with unstamped bricks and he states that those bricks were not homogenous as an epigraphic group and that they must have belonged to different periods. It is not certain if they were incorporated during one or more repair works (Baatz 1969b: 68). In these cases the archaeological context in which they were found within the building is responsible for Baatz’s interpretation of secondary use. According to him, unstamped bricks were mainly produced in the kilns of nearby forts of Obernburg and Marköbel (Baatz 1969b: 68). Baatz thinks that their use was responsible for the fact that there was only one homogenous and contemporary group of Legio XXII stamps in the bath complex, a phenomenon that is rather rare for legionary brick stamps (Baatz 1969b: 68). Also, Baatz believes to detect reused tiles in the hypocausts at Stockstadt, similarly to the bath of the fort at Marköbel. This bath, in his view, has been repaired more often as one would guess after taking a superficial look. Those repairs, according to him, are the testimony of an intensive and long use of the bath complex, which might have lasted to the end of the second century AD, and probably the end of the limes of Upper Germany (Baatz 1969b: 68).

Brick stamp dating and the interpretation of the problem of brick reuse are probably not as simple as indicated by Baatz. It is true that sometimes secondary use on bricks can be detected because occasionally there are fragments of different types of brick and tile than expected in a building, or because bricks show traces of mortar from a previous use. Nevertheless, this is rare and it is certainly not always that simple to decide if bricks have been used for the first or second time. It is true that, as Baatz stated, if there are some exceptions in an otherwise quite homogenous group of, probably, chronologically contemporary brick types, that these were probably used secondarily. If all these exceptions are rather similar we can assume that they again came from the same context. However, context is not always as straightforward as this. Cases like these might have appeared in the bath complexes of Upper Germany but a lot of contexts encountered during the course of the research for this thesis are different and usually there are several brick types at a site, often on only a few examples each. It is difficult to say which were used for the first and which for the second time, by merely comparing types. If there are no certain signs of reuse on the brick or tiles, it is impossible to determine if they were used for the first time or not. Also, it is not convincing that reuse was quite so rare an occurrence as Baatz suggests. Roman roofs and hypocausts must have needed mending regularly, just like modern roofs. It is likely that they got damaged very easily by weather conditions. Hypocausts were in constant use and the brick pillars must have been changed every few years. Walls, obviously, did not need mending on a regular basis. However, often buildings were razed and new ones built, and in those cases the old bricks might have been used. Boon, writing about the stamped tiles of Legio II Augusta from Caerleon, suggests that all broken pieces of brick and tile may have been reused ones (Boon 1984: 13-14). Perhaps Baatz is right to state that the reuse of old brick is unlikely for larger types of bricks, because they did not survive very well. Yet smaller types of bricks and tiles might have survived undamaged. Scholars often

The fact that the bricks of Legio XXII are a homogenous group probably does indeed speak for the fact that none of them was used secondarily, and all of these bricks were produced not long before their use. Also, because the archaeological context has shown that the brick stamps of Cohors IV Vindelicorum from the bath complex were produced long before they were incorporated into the buildings, this speaks for their reuse. Of course, they could also have been kept in storage for a long time. However, this theory, as considered by Baatz, is not very likely and has at least never been proven. Baatz’s interpretation of the stamps of this cohort as reused bricks remains, therefore, valid. Baatz’s view that all the unstamped bricks from Stockstadt were a separate group, which had been incorporated later, cannot fully be accepted because it does not become clear on which background this theory is based upon. Even if most of the bricks of Legio XXII were stamped, no information is given about any possible relationship 212

THE PROBLEM OF BRICK REUSE

appear to believe that to state a secondary use of bricks and tiles large numbers of them have to be found because the ancient builders would have either incorporated many or none. However, this is not necessarily the case. Perhaps in some cases they found a few undamaged bricks and used those for their building together with new bricks. One of the problems is again the fact that older publications did not state the relationship between stamped and unstamped bricks, as already high-lighted in Chapter 1, 26-29. Unstamped bricks could also have been reused and might aid our understanding of the practice. Generally, the problem with the detection of the reuse of stamps is that we cannot establish what number of bricks would have been used to mend a building. The argument used by Baatz that we ought to be dealing with large numbers of stamped bricks cannot be sustained. A roof may be mended with a few tiles, if only damaged in a couple of places, or a larger part of it may be rebuilt. There is little evidence about ancient roofs suggesting anything about the reuse of bricks and ways in which they were mended. Without petrological analysis, which may help to determine if bricks came from different clay sources and, therefore, could be chronologically different, few conclusions can be drawn. Because of the fact that it is hard to establish a case where a few bricks were used to mend a roof, no example to illustrate this possibility can be given. As with other aspects of military brick stamp research, scholars have to rely on numbers without actually knowing how many brick stamps are needed to determine that a reuse took place.

one of the few archaeologists who gives this question thought and who proposes guidelines on how to deal with possibly reused bricks and their dating. He recognises the fact that reuse can present a problem, investigates those cases in which he suspects secondary use and lists the possible signs. Nevertheless, although Baatz’s articles discuss the problems connected with reuse at length and detect a lot of the problems, his approach does not work with all brick stamps from all locations. In Baatz’s study case, the bath buildings from Upper Germany produced different groups of brick stamps that fitted into the different categories. The group of Legio XXII stamps is stylistically very homogenous and, therefore, it is probable that they are contemporary. For these stamps secondary use can be excluded. In the case of the stamps of Cohors IV Vindelicorum historical background of the unit’s history in the province makes it clear that the bricks had to have been incorporated into the building at a later date. Yet this method only works with homogenous groups of brick stamps. Some excavations or collections produce brick stamps, which come in many different groups where it is uncertain if they were contemporary or not. However, with such a mixed material it is hard to determine which bricks might have been used for the first time and which for the second. Dating becomes very difficult. It is true that, as Baatz states, it is not easy to obtain many undamaged large bricks when buildings are destroyed. However, perhaps smaller bricks were frequently used for a second time. In addition, fragments of bricks might also have been used in walls or floors and we might not be able to tell the difference between bricks that are fragmented because they were broken before they were reused or those, which were only used once, but did not survive as a whole in the archaeological context. As Baatz observes, there are some signs on Roman bricks that can detect reuse, such as trace of mortar. Another possibility is the occurrence of bricks or tiles in building features for which they were not originally designed. An example of this is the existence of tegulae in hypocausts or in walls. Nevertheless, caution is needed because hearths in military buildings were frequently made with tegulae (f.e. Wilmott 1997: 205209). It is easier to detect large numbers of reused bricks: Bogaers and Haalebos discuss two canalisation trenches in the fortress of Nijmegen: trench A consisted of brick fragments, whereas trench B was laid out with full tiles. It was very obvious that the material in trench A had been reused and that the bricks in B were new when the floor of the canal was built (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106). Nevertheless, in the cases where there are few bricks or different types and shapes, it is hard to determine if material has been reused or not. Thus, although we can sometimes detect reuse, we might often not be able to, on material, which appears to have been used for the first time.

Baatz’s analysis of reused bricks in the bath complexes of Upper Germany works well because there are lots of bricks and it is easy to detect single groups. Nevertheless, his method works only in those places where there are few types of stamps on a large number of bricks, as long as one can separate those types into different groups easily. In a case where there are few bricks and each stamp represents a different type, it becomes more problematic to detect reuse. In addition, Baatz’s suggestions are based on his chronology as shown in Chapter 2, sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 and on a lot of his hypotheses. He argues that some of the bricks from the buildings he discusses are older, and therefore, have to have been reused because they come from groups, which he recognises as chronologically different. However, much of his dating is based on stylistic differences, as we have seen in Chapter 2, section 2.2.1. This is disputable as it is hardly ever possible to clearly detect stylistic differences in provincial military brick stamps. Thus, the suggestions about bricks used for the first or second time can only remain hypothetical. Most scholars dealing with Roman military brick stamps are not concerned with the question of reuse. Baatz is 213

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Researchers should aim to abide to those guidelines proposed by Baatz within reason and attempt to follow them to obtain some information about primary and secondary use of Roman bricks. It is sometimes possible to determine if bricks have been used secondarily or

sometimes that they have been used for the first time. The possibility of secondary use must always be considered when brick stamps are dated. Only if secondary use is excluded, a stamp can be given a short chronology.

214

CHAPTER 12

NAME STAMPS

12.1 Introduction

highly unusual, and could have occurred only in special circumstances. As explained in Chapter 1, section 1.2.2, and as is obvious from the study of numerous military establishments throughout the Roman Empire, kilns have frequently been found in the vicinity of the fort or fortress, and can, therefore, testify to the presence of an army-run brick works (see Chapter 1, section 1.2.2).

Military brick stamps carrying personal names have appeared in a number of places in the Roman Empire. A lot has been written on the subject since the early days of Roman epigraphy and opinions vary. Some stamps only display names; others state or indicate the rank of a person, such as praefectus or legatus. The stamps discussed under section 12.2.1 are those, which appear to be names that definitely display the name of a military unit, and are, therefore, classified as military stamps. They also raise the question of whether there was such a thing as a civilian entrepreneur tiling for the army. Section 12.2.2 investigates if the opposite, trade of military bricks to civilians, occurred. Some abbreviations are interpreted as the names of emperors, and are, therefore, imperial titles. Names interpreted as such titles and some possible problems with some of them will be discussed in section 12.2.3.

This leads to the next point: the importance of location. The only other indication of a civilian involvement with the army appears to be the area in which the tile was found. The further tile finds or even kilns are from the nearest camp, the more likely it is that archaeologists and epigraphers will assume that they could have been produced by civilians for the army. The same system is applied the opposite way: if a kiln is found close to a military site, the involvement of the army is often assumed without further evidence. The following paragraphs will analyse those cases, and investigate if the argument for civilian enterprises working for the army can really be sustained.

12.2 Discussion Swan and Philpott have recently published an article about the tile production at Tarbock, Merseyside (Swan & Philpott 2000: 55-67), in which they suggest that a civilian entrepreneur was stamping for the Legio XX Valeria Victrix. The 1950 fragments of tile are of a distinctive fabric, variable in colour, containing large angular and sub-angular purple argillaceous inclusions, and sometimes streaked with white, unprocessed clay. All pieces that could be identified are imbrices or tegulae. Seven of the latter were stamped in relief. There are two distinct types of stamp, both of which are known from the Chester/Deva legionary fortress (Swan & Philpott 2000: 55) (Fig. 168).

12.2.1 The question of civilian enterprises stamping for the Roman army In those cases where no rank is given on name stamps, and they are not imperial titles, interpretations vary, especially to the extent to which those stamps can be classified as military or civilian. Without doubt, those stating the name of a unit are first and foremost military, but some people have suggested that names on stamps could signify private individuals producing tiles for the army. This argument was raised early in the research of continental brick stamps, and has survived into modern brick stamp research. The following section is meant to investigate cases where private names have been mentioned on stamps, and compare them with some name stamps that are without doubt of military origin.

The first type appears on two fragmentary tiles from Tarbock. It has a distinctive pointed ansa and rectangle with a raised border. It displays the letters LXXVV [---], transcribing L(egio) XX V(aleria) V(ictrix) [---], with a vestige of a sixth letter being too degraded to be legible. There are traces of possible stops between the letters, though they do not appear consistently on both of the two stamps of this type from Tarbock. On one of the fragments, the raised border of the left ansa has evidently been damaged before the tile was fired (Swan & Philpott 2000: 58).

One must be extremely careful about suggesting civilian intervention in the production of bricks for the Roman army, since on most sites the Roman army performed its own tasks. Soldiers and immunes were assigned to certain tasks of production (see pages 228-229). The production of tiles by civilians for the army would have been 215

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

wording on other dedications from this place at the Rhine Delta). This second inscription can be dated to AD 221 since the names of the town councillors are given (Swan & Philpott 2000: 56). A.R. Birley points out that, although both inscriptions are likely to name the same man, Viducius describes himself more formally on the inscription from Clementhorpe, using his father’s name as a gentilicium (A.R. Birley 1979: 126-127). Because of the extreme rarity of the name, the Swan and Philpott suggest that all three records, the two inscriptions and the stamp refer to the same family. They think that the Tarbock tilery was run as part of a family enterprise of several generations, which dealt in the supply and production where necessary, of clay artefacts of various types. As an alternative reading of the stamp from Tarbock they suggest: tegula(ria) A(uli) Vidu(ci fecit), Vero III co(n)s(ule) Leg(ioni) XX, ‘the tilery of Aulus Viducius made this for the Twentieth Legion in the third consulship of Verus’ (Swan & Philpott 2000: 57). They give a number of reasons why they think that Tarbock was a civilian rather than a military tilery. According to them, the site produced no military characteristics: there were no coins, and very little metalwork. It suggests that the site was used very briefly. The post-hole building, which was interpreted as the workshop, was not rectangular, like a usual military building. There are no known military vici in the Tarbock region. With the possible exception of Wilderspool there is no evidence at present that the Tarbock tiles reached any other sites connected with Legio XX Valeria Victrix, apart from the fortress at Chester itself. According to Swan and Philpott, the location of the brick works has no advantages over the legion’s long-established works-depot at Holt, on the River Dee, which is 12 kilometres upstream from ancient Deva. (Swan & Philpott 2000: 57-58).

FIGURE 168 AULUS VIDUCIUS STAMP AND STAMP WITH ANSAE FACING INWARD OF LEGIO XX FROM TARBOCK (SWAN AND PHILPOTT 2000: 57) The second type from Tarbock is represented by up to five tiles, and is interesting because the finds at Tarbock added to our incomplete knowledge of it, since only two fragments of the same type from the Northgate-brewery site at Chester were known before. The neatly executed letters, which are in relief, read: TEGVLA A VIDV/VERO III COS LEG XX. These have been expanded by Swan and Philpott as tegula(m) A(ulus) Vidu(cius fecit) Vero III co(n)s(ule) Leg(ioni) XX, and translated as ‘Aulus Viducius? made this roofing tile for Legio XX in the third consulship of Verus’ (Fig. 168) (Swan & Philpott 2000: 56). If this expansion is right, the date in question is AD 167. Hassall and Tomlin compare the general style of wording with that of workmen’s graffiti, such as have been found at other Romano-British sites, thus implying that Aulus Viducius or Viducus was the name of a soldier who produced the tile (Britannia 1978: 476).

Swan and Philpott have noticed some unusual features on the Tarbock stamps: the ansata die is morphologically strange, because, instead of being expanded and bluntedged, the ansae on each side of the frame taper outwards, with their apices on the extreme edges of the impressed area. No similar ansae are known from Britain, neither from military, nor from civilian tileries. In Germany and Gaul, only one parallel is found in Niederbieber (Germany) on a stamp of Legio VIII Augusta (Swan & Philpott 2000: 58; CIL XIII 12206.5). Swan and Philpott see this peculiarity as a reason why the stamper was a civilian, who was unused to such a military device as ansae, and therefore, put them the wrong way around (Swan & Philpott 2000: 58). The die of the second Tarbock stamp type is quite sophisticated in style. The neat triangular leaf-stops point upwards, and have relatively small tidy lettering. There is an attempt to provide some characters with serifs. Swan and Philpott suggest that this sophistication was the product of a civilian

Swan and Philpott discovered that Viducus is a rather uncommon Gallic family name, which only appears in two other cases. One is a dedicator on a third-century altar dedicated to the goddess Nehalennia from Colijnsplaat on the Rhine Delta (Stuart & Bogaers 1971: No. 45). Placidus, son of Viducius describes himself as a negotiator Britannicianus, a trader with Britain (Swan & Philpott 2000: 56). The second one appears on a dedication found at Clementhorpe, York, south-east of the colonia, in a post-Roman context (Britannia 1977: 430-431; No 18=AE 1977: No. 512; CIL XIII: 6445). It records the gift of an arch and a shrine to Jupiter Dolichenus by a certain Lucius Viducius Placidus, son of Lucius, who came from Rouen and was a pottery merchant at York (a negotiator cretariae, of which the second word was reconstructed based on the 216

NAME STAMPS

rather than a military producer. Also, they argue, the text is rather long, which seems to be the case with civilian rather than with military stamps. The wording on tile stamps in Britain and other provinces usually follows a set formula (Swan & Philpott 2000: 58).

FIGURE 169 STAMP WITH CONSULAR DATE FROM NOVAE (SARNOWSKI 1981: PLATE VII)

Furthermore, Swan and Philpott argue that the words tegula or tegular(ius) appear on only one other tilestamp in Britain, which is private. The tilery is that of tile-manufacturers in London, perhaps freedmen, D M Val and D M P. Here, unlike the Tarbock text, the word tegular comes after the abbreviated tria nomina of the producers. Swan and Philpott admit, however, that there are several graffiti giving the name of the person stamping a tile, which are all from a military context (Swan & Philpott 2000: 58). Here also, the word tegula comes after the name of the individual involved. There are, however, tiles from the German Transrhenana tilery, which was operating on the Lower Rhine, that place the word teg, tecla, tegula, tegla or tegra at the beginning of the text. It appears to be part of a title, such as tegularia Transrhenana (the Trans-Rhine tilery) (Swan & Philpott 2000: 59). Sometimes, these words are followed immediately by the name of a soldier, occasionally together with the word m(iles), as on the stamp Tra(ns)r(h)ena(nae) fec(it) mil(es) l(egionis) X/ Svl(picius) Nepos (CIL XIII, 6, 15 and Swan-Philpott, 2000, 59). This is also the case with some stamps from Vienna/Vindobona (Neumann 1967: 115; types 2246; 2247). The name of the unit is then added. In some cases only, the unit in which the soldier served is mentioned. With this analysis of the material from the Rhine area, the Swan and Philpott admit that the only other similar formula on tile stamps is definitely of a military context, as illustrated by the names of the soldiers on the tiles.

Roman provinces (i.e. Britain, the three Gauls, the two Germanies and Northern Raetia), of military or civilian context (Swan & Philpott 2000: 59). It does, however, occasionally appear on military brick stamps. A stamp of Legio I Italica from Novae/Moesia, for example, writes Marulo co(n)s(ule), thus dating the stamp to AD 184 (Fig. 169) (Sarnowski 1983: 55). In Mirebeau/France there is a stamp type, which mentions the name of a legate (Fig. 75) (Bérard , Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 194-200) and some stamps from Northern Africa also possibly do (Le Bohec 1981: 137-149). These military date stamps will be further referred to on pages 150-151. Some British tile stamps of the second century AD include the names of local duoviri and quinquennales, which is the nearest approximation of a date-indication on stamps. This appears on a publiclyowned tilery of Gloucester (Fig. 170) (RIB II.5: 2487.123, 2488.1-8). The practice was probably intended to prevent unauthorised use of these civic materials (Swan & Philpott 2000: 59). Swan and Philpott suggest that the civilian firm of Aulus Viducius had an exceptional need to audit its production and stock. They think that the reason for this might be that a case of civilian tile manufacture for the army was unusual with Legio XX Valeria Victrix (and indeed it would have been for most other legions), and that the firm wanted to establish itself as the producer

Swan and Philpott also state that the omission of the legion’s cognomina V(aleria) V(ictrix) is a relatively uncommon feature on a tile from Britain stating the name of a legion, and they see this as further proof for the civilian origin of the stamp. They add that the Twentieth legion, like other units, took pride in displaying the titles that they had gained on their stamps. They think that either the producer of the Tarbock die omitted the titles because he was running out of space (the XX is quite squashed up), and this appears to be their favoured explanation, the tilery wanted to show that they had no need for the display of such titles because it was not an official military tilery (Swan & Philpott 2000: 59). Swan and Philpott continue to discuss an admittedly unique feature of the Tarbock die: the use of the consular date on the tile stamp. They state that the feature is not paralleled by any of the tile-stamps of the North-Western

FIGURE 170 CIVILIAN STAMPS FROM GLOUCESTER (RIB II.5: 2487.1 & 2488.1) 217

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

of quality products. Moreover, they think that since the proposed firm was responsible for all the deliveries of tiles to the legion, a date stamp would have given some sort of control as well as being a deterrent to theft (Swan & Philpott 2000: 59).

researched the military territory of the Chester fortress, came to the conclusion that there is evidence that the military influence on the area around Chester extended for a long distance (Mason 1986: 19-43). However, it is not specified if this included Tarbock or not.

Because the ansae stamps from Tarbock were incomplete and their characters abraded, some effort was made to find further examples of the same stamp type in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester. As indicators, samples of the distinctive Tarbock tile fabric and stylistic details on the Tarbock products were used. Seven examples of the ansata die in a Tarbock fabric were located. Except for one fragment from Wilderspool all came from sites in Chester. The whole text is reconstructed as L.X.X.V.V.VI (Swan & Philpott 2000: 60-61). Swan and Philpott come to the conclusion that the significance of the letters VI at the end is crucial (RIB II.4: 192). The traditional reading of the Wilderspool stamp had been Vi(ctoriniana), presuming that this imperial title had been awarded to the Twentieth legion by Victorinus (AD 268-270). According to this expansion, the stamp would date to the third century AD. However, after the discovery that the die of the stamp is the same as the ones from Tarbock, which dates to the second century AD because of its archaeological context, this interpretation is no longer valid. According to Swan and Philpott, it clearly stands for Viducius, dating the stamp to the same period of time as the Tarbock ones (around AD 167) (Swan & Philpott 2000: 61).

The question arises why Legio XX Valeria Victrix would have chosen to cease the production of its own tiles at Holt, where it had been making tiles since the late 80s AD. In the eyes of Swan and Philpott, the evidence from Holt is not in conflict with their suggested theory of a civilian firm producing tiles for the legion. They propose that an absence of coins between AD 192 and 235 suggests that there was little activity at the site. They do not concur with the De(ciana) and Vi(ctoriniana) expansions on Holt tiles that would date stamps into the late third century and argue that there are no coins from that period and that they indicate that the abbreviation could be those of names of private entrepreneurs (Swan & Philpott 2000: 63). However, it has to be borne in mind that for some reason there are generally very few coins from this period. Moreover, Swan and Philpott raise the hypothesis that the Tarbock tilery was part of a gradual trend towards the privatisation of military tileries at all the fortresses in Britain in the Hadrianic-Antonine period (Swan & Philpott 2000: 63). They add that an earlier example is known from Caerleon. A [---] R TVSCVS is known from stamps from the bath-house in Caerleon, which dates to the mid-late 70s AD. It is a sesquipedalis of 7 cm thickness from one of the string-courses of the primary block of the building. The fragment was attached by the mortar, typical for the phase, to a piece of Old Red Sandstone, the face of both being coated in brick-mortar and rendered in a thin skim of lime. The impression appears to be a cognomen, which is common in Spain and Italy. Boon (1986: 27-28) reminds the reader that Legio II Augusta was in Spain before it proceeded to Strasbourg and Britain. The rather doubtful R in front could be part of an abbreviated nomen such as Valer(ius), which is well attested by inscriptions in the area. It is likely that the nomen was preceded by a praenomen (Boon 1986: 27-28). Swan and Philpott argue that this is a case of civilian stamping as well, since the legion did not begin to stamp its own tiles until the end of the first century AD (Boon 1986: 28; Swan & Philpott 2000: 63). However, it has to be remembered that in this case the tile bears the name of a person only, and not that of a unit, like the Tarbock tiles.

They also investigated the fabric of an example of the Old Market site, Chester. This, however, suggested a different fabric, which had not been made at Tarbock. Furthermore, the lettering and the ansae are stylistically different from the Tarbock tiles. Swan and Philpott suggest that this stamp could signify a local workshop also owned by the same Viducius, or perhaps of another contractor with the same initial. They admit, hereafter, that most of the names appearing on stamps on the continent are not of civilian origin, due to the fact that some have indications of ranks on the stamps (Swan & Philpott 2000: 61; CIL XIII 6). Discussing the regional context, Swan and Philpott state that the tilery was found in an area with no other evidence of settlement in the immediate vicinity. The pottery and tile produced there are absent from rural occupation sites in the general area. The tile had clearly been buried deliberately in the pits and ditches, which could suggest that the site had been carefully and probably purposely cleaned up at the end of its function. It is likely that the production was short-lived (Swan & Philpott 2000: 62). Swan and Philpott do not mention the possibility that the area might have still been part of the legionary territory of Chester. Tarbock is situated about 30 kilometres from there. Mason, who

Swan and Philpott interpret the pottery/tilery at Apple Tree farm, Heworth near York in the same way. The place is about 3 kilometres from the Legio IX’s and Legio VI’s tilery, and the pottery from the same site date to between the Flavian and the Hadrianic period. Some stamps have 218

NAME STAMPS

been produced at Heworth bearing the names of individuals amongst pottery and mortaria. Swan and Philpott date these products to the Hadrianic-Antonine period and interpret these productions as those of civilians; although they concede that they could also have been veterans (Swan & Philpott 2000: 63). There is apparently no proof for either theory.

Colijnsplaat (Stuart & Bogaers 1971: No. 45) who also lived in the third century AD. Furthermore, the Tarbock tiles did not reach any sites other than Chester. There is no evidence for or against the interpretation that it was a civilian tilery. Both civilian or military tileries might or might not have delivered to one place only. In fact, it is likely that a civilian entrepreneur would have produced tiles other than the ones for the Twentieth legion whereas a military tilery might only have delivered to its fortress. Furthermore, we have to consider the possibility that further bricks stamped with the name of Viducius might still be found elsewhere in the future.

Another argument they use is the delivery of what they call civilian-produced pottery to the fortress at Caerleon in the same period of time. The so-called Caerleon ware has so far been interpreted as legionary, in spite of the fact that it only bears the names of what appear to be civilians with no references to units, because it was mainly found within the obviously military territory of the Chester fortress (Swan & Philpott 2000: 63). Swan and Philpott go as far as to say that there might have been a shortage of suitable men resident at the Chester fortress, or a general unavailability of troops who could be spared to refurbish and re-open the tilery at Holt that had been derelict for a period of time, as archaeological excavation has shown. They argue that the making of tiles would have happened during the summer season, before the arrival of new troops from Scotland or elsewhere in AD 167. Alternatively, they suggest that it might not have seemed viable to the unit to restart tile production at the place for a perhaps less substantial tile requirement. In their opinion, this could be the reason for the employment of a civilian firm for a period of time and its commission to manufacture roofing tiles for the Chester fortress (Swan & Philpott 2000: 65).

Even more importantly, doubts could be raised about the credibility of Swan and Philpott’s expansion of the letters A·VIDV. The combination of a praenomen and nomen gentilicium without a cognomen is rare for the second century AD, which is the proposed date (Salomies 1987: 350-353). If it was not for the above named inscription from York (Britannia 1977: 430-431; No 18=AE 1977: No. 512; CIL XIII: 6445) VIDV would not have been expanded as Vidu(cius), which had been a previously almost unknown name. Vibius is a common nomen, Vicirius or Vinicius are somewhat rarer. Cognomina beginning with Du are less common but there is a wide range of possible names such as the more frequent Dubitatus and the rarer Dubius, Ductus, Dulcis or Durus. Thus, A·VIDV may expand as something like A Vi(bius) Du(bitatus?). Alternatively, A could be, instead of a praenomen, the preposition ‘a’, thus meaning ‘from’, in which case VIDV would refer to a place rather than a person.35 There are a lot of possibilities to expand this inscription.

Admittedly, the appearance of one single name in conjunction with that of a legion appears rather strange. Yet there are some major problems with Swan’s and Philpott’s interpretation. On a close examination of their arguments, it becomes quite evident that there is no proof either way, for interpreting Viducius as soldier or civilian. Some of the arguments appear rather far-fetched and can only remain a hypothesis. At several points in the article, Swan and Philpott admit that on most other cases elsewhere in the Roman Empire names on stamps in conjunction with those of units appear to be those of soldiers. They even give a few examples, which will be referred to in the following pages.

It is true that the Tarbock tiles have somewhat unusual features and that the design of the ansae, especially, appears to have been made by a person not so familiar with military signs. However, unusual ansae have been found on stamps in other parts of the Roman Empire in a military context. There is an example of a military stamp from Niederbieber with ansae which are turned inwards like on the Tarbock tiles (CIL XIII 12206.5). There are similar ansae on bricks of Legio VII Gemina from Spain (Garcia y Bellido 1968: types 52.16; 52.19) (Fig. 171) and on a stamp type of Legio V Alaudae with a soldier’s name from Vetera (Hanel 1995: Plate 159) (Fig. 172). Odd forms include leaf-shaped ansae on a type of Legio I Italica from Novae (Fig. 173) (Sarnowski 1983: plate VI 28), spiral forms on a type of Legio XXII Primigenia from a private collection in Germany (Fig. 174) (Esser, Selzer & Decker 1968/9: 150) and round ansae on stamp types of the same legion from Zugmantel/Germany (Fig. 175) (Baatz 1967: 63; type 33). All these have been

It is a fact that the rare name on the tile, Viducius, does appear in a civilian context in the only other case it appears at all in Britain, and the person recorded is a pottery merchant. However, the inscription in question dates 54 years later. If the Viducius on the dedication from Clementhorpe (Britannia 1977: 430-431) was indeed related to the Viducus of the tiles, there is no proof that the latter was not a soldier whose descendants became pottery merchants. The same applies to the Viducius from

35. Personal comment of A.R. Birley.

219

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

found in military contexts and show that the soldiers in the legions were not necessarily completely familiar with the typical design of ansae, and it did not need a civilian to produce a peculiar type. Swan’s and Philpott’s argument that the wording tegula or tegular appears at only one other place in Britain is quite convincing. However, they do proceed to remind the reader of the fact that sometimes the word does appear in a military context on bricks, although in form of graffiti, rather than stamps. Furthermore, they admit that the same words appear on the military tile stamps of the Roman army on the Rhine in Germany. Again, neither a military nor a civilian context can be excluded. The omission of the cognomina of Legio XX Valeria Victrix is not necessarily a good criterion for a decision between a civilian or military context. There are plenty of cases of brick stamps that fail to mention a unit’s cognomina although they existed at the time. Legio X Gemina stamps which were dated by stratigraphy to the period after AD 89 fail to include the titles pia fidelis, which had already been given to the Lower German unit at that time (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 105-106). There is really very little consistency with the mentioning of cognomina on brick stamps. This problem will be discussed in detail in section 12.2.3.

FIGURE 171 INWARD-TAPERING ANSAE ON STAMPS OF LEGIO VII GEMINA FROM LEON (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 52)

FIGURE 172 INWARD-TAPERING ANSAE ON A STAMP OF LEGIO V ALAUDAE FROM VETERA (HANEL 1995: PLATE 159)

One has to agree with Swan and Philpott’s argument that a consular date on a tile stamp is as rare on a stamp in Britain as it is elsewhere. However, since the habit was alien to both military and civilian tileries it does not prove the hypothesis of a civilian tilery. Furthermore, there is a consular military stamp from Novae, which names both Legio I and a consul Marulus (AD 184) (Sarnowski 1983: 55). Also, their argument, that the consular date could provide a deterrent from theft for a civilian entrepreneur is not totally convincing because the name of the producer would suffice for this reason, like the name of a unit on military stamps. The second suggestion, that it was a form of control, is more likely: civilian stamps from Italy usually had consular titles, probably to register the brick production of particular years. Swan and Philpott are obviously entitled to doubt some expansions of Legio XX’s cognomina, such as Victoriniana for VI or Deciana for DE. However, since they mention themselves that abbreviations on these stamps occasionally appear on German stamps to indicate the names of soldiers stamping the tiles, the possibility that the abbreviations refer to a soldier rather than a civilian should not be excluded.

FIGURE 173 LEAF-SHAPED ANSAE ON STAMPS OF LEGIO I ITALICA FROM NOVAE (SARNOWSKI 1983: PLATE 6)

FIGURE 174 SPIRAL-SHAPED ANSAE ON A STAMP OF LEGIO XXII PRIMIGENIA FROM A PRIVATE COLLECTION (ESSER, SELZER AND DECKER 1968/69: 150)

This leads to the next problem, the consular date proposed by Swan and Philpott. VERO III COS might not necessarily refer to L(ucius) Verus, the consul of the year AD 167. M(arcus) Annius Verus, a consul of AD 126, named without a colleague, is used to date a civilian brick stamp from

FIGURE 175 ROUND ANSAE ON A STAMP OF LEGIO XXII PRIMIGENIA FROM ZUGMANTEL (BAATZ 1967: 63) 220

NAME STAMPS

FIGURE 176 GRAFFITO OF IULIUS AVENTINUS OF THE COHORS I SUNICORUM ON A TILE STAMP OF LEGIO XX VALERIA VICTRIX FROM HOLT (RIB II.5: 2491.96) the city of Rome (CIL XV: 277).36 Salomies (AE 2000: 832 a-c) also doubts the date of AD 167, refers to further inscriptions naming M(arcus) Annius Verus (f.e. CIL VI: 32516; AE 1994: 1670a) and thinks that it is very likely that the Tarbock stamp refers to his third consulship in AD 126. Therefore, the consular date from Tarbock remains is uncertain and the products of the tilery could date forty years earlier than suggested by Swan and Philpott.

It could just as likely have been a military production. The site is not so much further from Chester than Holt and the journey would have been along the river.

To come to further conclusions about the nature of these stamps it would be appropriate to investigate the fabric of all Legio XX bricks to detect regional differences. Perhaps some information about military and civilian productions could be provided in this way. However, even if different fabric sources existed, it would still not be totally certain which were used by the military and which by civilians. In this case, to prove a civilian origin, civilian stamped tiles without the names of units of the same fabric would have to be found. Tarbock, in its regional context, does not appear to favour either of the two, a military or a civilian context. Swan and Philpott state that there was no immediate settlement in the area, and there is no indication for any military buildings either. The evidence at the moment is probably not enough to determine the site’s position within Roman Britain. Even an apparent contemporary cessation of production at Holt does not provide researchers with any definite proof that the Tarbock tilery was run by a civilian.

All in all, not a great number of arguments Swan and Philpott use are convincing. On examination of the present context neither a civilian nor a military background can be proven definitively. The date is uncertain. However, it has to be borne in mind that the presence of the name of the legion does usually strongly stand for a military context. All other cases of private names on stamps bearing the name of a unit have been addressed as and are most likely of military origin. It is true, that so far no other stamps that definitely bear the names of private individuals in conjunction with the name of a unit have been found in Britain except at Tarbock. Nonetheless, there are some cases where private individuals have left their names on bricks in the form of graffiti. This is the case with one stamp from Holt, where a soldier left the following graffito on a tile stamp of Legio XX: Iulius Aventinus milis/cohortis prim(ae) Sunicor(um) (Fig. 176). Cohors I Sunicorum was in Britain in AD 124 and is attested in Caernavon in the Severan period (Grimes 1930: 133; RIB II.4: 2463.15). This tile stamp is a good example of military units producing tiles for other ones; in this case a cohort for the Twentieth Legion. The author would be inclined to interpret the name of Viducus in a similar light, even though in this case it is a stamp not a graffito.

36. Personal comment of A.R. Birley.

Furthermore, something remains to be added to the study of the above mentioned tile-stamp from the bath-house from 221

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 177 BRICK STAMP READING R TVSCVS FROM CAELEON (SCALE 1:1) (BOON 1986 :27) Caerleon, dating to the 70s AD (Fig. 177). As mentioned earlier, the stamp bears the name A[---]R TVSCVS. Swan and Philpott have addressed this stamp as that of a civilian as well (Swan & Philpott 2000: Footnote 43). The tile, however, is a fragment. It could easily have carried the name of Legio II Augusta before the person’s name and Swan and Philpott did not exclude this possibility, thinking of their interpretation of the Tarbock tiles. The brick is the fragment of a sesquipedalis of 7cm length. There is clearly a break in front of the name. We know that a sesquipedalis measured up to 40 cm in length (Brodribb 1987: 40-41), so there would have been enough space for the legion’s name on the tile. Adding the fact that it was found in a military location, this tile stamp is almost certainly of a military origin, although we cannot be fully certain.

FECIT, according to him, were only found in fragments. Jahn addressed them as products of civilians as well (Jahn 1909a: 115). There is no indication what kind of tiles they were and whether, since they were fragments, they could have had names of units inscribed before the personal names. Jahn suggested that those stamps bearing private names were most likely those of firms providing the area with brick and tile, after the military had left Vindonissa, thus dating them to a later date, when the Legio XI and XXI had moved to Augst. He even goes as far as to muse that since no stamps bearing the names of those legions were found at Augst, these private firms could have supplied the army there (Jahn 1909a: 115). Jahn was one of the earlier archaeologists who believed that brick trade between the private and the military sector was fairly common. We know now that it was actually quite rare, and that there is no proof that military tiles were ever used for private buildings. Therefore, his hypothesis that at first the bricks of Legio XXI were used for private buildings in the area is not very convincing. His interpretation of the name stamps as private ones, on the other hand, is plausible. None of the stamps bears the name of a unit, even in the case of the fragments there is no indication. There is very little comparison with the Tarbock tiles, which did name the Legio XX Valeria Victrix. There is, however, no proof for Jahn’s suggestion that these private brick-producers delivered tiles to Augst.

Swan and Philpott were not the first to interpret apparent military tiles as those of civilian firms. One of the originators of the idea was Jahn, who wrote about the tiles from Windisch/Vindonissa, Switzerland (Jahn 1909a: 111-129). Amongst a lot of obviously military tiles stamped with the name of Legio XXI Rapax, there are some rectangular stamps bearing the inscription doliare stationis publici, ‘produce of the customs border’. Some other stamps, which are not rectangular, carry the name of individuals, such as AMASONIUS or LEGIMIR. The latter had been interpreted as Legio I Minervia in previous publications, but soon it was realized that because of its location the translation was not very likely. The reading tegularia imperatoris did not prove satisfactory either. Jahn realised that the products probably did not come from a military workshop, but are those of private entrepreneurs. The character, style, and type of the much smaller tiles is a lot different from all other types from Vindonissa. Jahn stated that he was very certain that they were produced by civilians, although he did not exclude that they might have been used for military purposes. He also added that they were probably of a later date than the other stamped tiles from the site (Jahn 1909a: 114). Other stamps from Vindonissa, bearing the inscriptions L FLAV and VICTOR

In an article that shortly followed his first one, Jahn mentioned yet another type from Vindonissa, a stamp bearing the inscription LEGIMP. Like the Amasoniusstamp, he dated this type to the late third century (Jahn 1909b: 312). Unfortunately, he did not explain his dating any further; perhaps it was based on the archaeological context. Neither did he give the numbers of bricks there were for any of the types of stamps he listed. In any case, he believed that the LEGIMP stamp was of military origin. He explained this with the more sophisticated style of the stamp, in comparison to the Amasonius and the other so222

NAME STAMPS

The brick stamps discussed in Jahn’s articles appear to be of a civilian origin (apart from the LEGIMP stamps, for which an expansion is suggested above). They mention the names of private individuals and they do not display the names of units. They are very different in style from military brick stamps and most of them were also found in non-military places. There is no case of civilian interpreted stamps from Vindonissa that display names of units with individuals’ names. The usual interpretation for the appearance of individual names is that they are those of soldiers stamping the tiles. Rarely are indications of the rank of the person given on the stamp. In those cases, the names were probably meant to serve as a kind of datestamping, as well as adding to the primary purpose of military brick stamp, which was to prevent unauthorised use. One example is the name of the legate Lappio found on brick stamps in Mirebeau/France (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 194-200). Legates and prefects on stamps will be discussed further at the end of this section. Avenches also produced tiles of Legio XXI Rapax but there is also quite a substantial number of stamps of private entrepreneurs. The bulk of these stamps, including the military ones stamped by the Twenty-first legion, according to Fuchs and Margueron, were found in public buildings (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 105-172). However, a lot of these stamps came from the temple at Grangedes-Dîmes, which was dedicated to the goddess Lugoves, a deity connected with trade and merchandise (Drack & Fellman 1988: 342-343). Although this is a goddess one would expect to meet in civilian connection, we cannot fully exclude the possibility that the military worshipped this deity. In fact, the cult of the Matronae at Bonn was mainly sustained by soldiers, as inscriptions show (Horn 1987: 571-574). Therefore, one cannot dismiss completely the possibility that this temple, although in a civilian settlement, was built by the military, which would make the fact that military bricks were used unsurprising. The degree to which one can say for certain if such buildings are military or civilian in areas dominated by the Roman army will be discussed further in section 12.2.2. Of course, one can never exclude fully the possibility of reuse. However, the number of Legio XXI stamps from Avenches is over 50, which makes this possibility quite improbable. Private stamps were also found in large private domus. Like the Legio XXI-stamps from Windisch and Kaiseraugst some of the ones from Avenches also display a formula, whose interpretation has presented the world of epigraphy with some problems: L·XXI C (Fig. 179). The legion in question is most definitely Legio XXI Rapax, which was stationed at Windisch/Vindonissa. It appears odd that the legion does not mention its cognomen Rapax, as is usually the case on legionary tiles stamps, with or without abbreviations. Two other types that occur in Avenches are

FIGURE 178 BRICK STAMPS OF LEGIO XXI RAPAX AND COHORS VI RAETORUM FROM SCHWARZACKER/KAIERAUGST AFTER A SKETCH BY STAEHELIN (MATTEOTTI 1993: 186) called private stamps from Vindonissa. Also, he added that the LEGIMP stamp was used in military buildings, at Vindonissa and at other places, such as the fortress at Hornburg/Colmar (Jahn 1909: 312). A plausible explanation for these stamps is that they refer to the recently discovered Legio I Martia (Tomasevic & Buck 1986: 268-273), which definitely attests to their military nature. Matteotti (1993: 185-197), who published some of the stamps of Legio XXI and Cohors VI Raetorum from Augusta Rauricorum/Kaiseraugst also thinks it probable that civilians could have provided the army with tiles without making a reference to a particular period (Fig. 178). He, however, thinks these to be mudbricks. There is no proof for this hypothesis other than the fact that he believes he has evidence for the reversed phenomenon at Kaiseraugst: the use of military tiles in a private context, as will be discussed under section 12.2.2. Matteotti’s assumption that civilians provided the army with bricks is based on no evidence at all. The brick stamps he discussed are clearly stamps of the military. 223

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 179 L XXX C STAMP TYPE FROM VINDONISSA (FUCHS AND MARGUERON 1999: 156)

FIGURE 180 L XX[I·S·C·VI] STAMP TYPE FROM AVENCHES (FUCHS AND MARGUERON 1999: 155)

the above-mentioned L·XXI·S·C·VI and L·XXI·L. Jahn interpreted C in L·XXI C as the name of a centurion or officer responsible for the production of the tiles (Jahn 1909a: 123).Quite similarly, Le Bohec thinks that that the name must be that of a commander or magister fabricae (Le Bohec 1994). However, this still presents us with the problem, whether we are dealing with praenomen, nomen, or cognomen.

of a simple stamping soldier, as has been proposed in other Roman provinces, and will be explained in the next paragraph. The letters might not necessarily be part of the name of a high officer or centurion, or anyone responsible for the tile production, but could be part of that of the soldier stamping the tile. It has to be added, however, that in places where stamping soldiers left their names on tiles, there are usually different names found on stamps, because more than one person would be stamping the tiles. Perhaps, from this point of view, it would make more sense to talk of an official supervising the brick production. In any case, there is no definitive answer to the question of the meaning of the C.

It is remarkable that the combination L·XXI C has the interpunctuation-mark after the letter C and none between the number XXI and the C., unlike the L·XXI·L stamps where the punctuation-marks are between letters, as is usually the case. Previously found stamps of Legio XXI from Avenches, of which unfortunately no illustration could be obtained, are stamped L·XI CP F, with no punctuation between the number and the cognomen. Therefore, Fuchs and Margueron raised the question of whether the C on the stamps, could not be part of an older cognomen of Legio XXI: one it held before it was named Rapax. The fact that none of the tiles of the legion found at Windisch/ Vindonissa appeared to have carried the cognomen Rapax could be an indication of this, although it does appear early on in other inscriptions (Fuchs-Margueron 1998: 119).

A similar situation arose with the stamps L·XXI·S·C·VI (Fig. 180). Previously it had been suggested that it was an indication for the fortress of Vindonissa l(egionis) XXI s(ub) c(astris) Vi(ndonissensibus). Fuchs and Margueron suggest l(egio) XXI s(ub) c(ura) Vi(ctoris), with the possibility of the display of a centurio fabrum or officinator (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 122). The term officinator suggests a civilian origin. Like the authors of the Tarbock article, it is suggested here that a civilian could have taken over the production of tiles for the legion. In this case, this view is more plausible, because, as mentioned above, Legio XXI stamps were found in public buildings. However, the expansion of the stamps is still very uncertain, and care has to be suggested with any hypothesis. The name of Victor, Victorinus,etc. could still be that of a soldier tiling for the army. There is no real proof for any of these possibilities.

Another possible expansion could be leg(ionis) XXI c(onductione) or leg(ione) XXI c(urante) (Steinby 1978: 1501). Whatever interpretation one prefers, there is no definite parallel for either one. C could well stand for a personal name, such as a centurion’s or an officer’s, but it could just as well be an abbreviation for curante or conductione, although these formulas are rather rare. Fuchs and Margueron’s hypothesis of a cognomen cannot be dismissed either. It is worth noticing that none of the scholars involved suggests that the C stands for the name

There are several cases of names on brick stamps from different Roman provinces, of which a selection is going to be discussed. Excavations at Vetera/Germania Inferior produced over 70 types of brick stamps of Legio

FIGURE 181 STAMPS WITH SOLDIER’S NAMES FROM VETERA (HANEL 1985: PLATE 159) 224

NAME STAMPS

V Alaudae, of which the main-part are stamped with private names (Fig. 181). Almost each stamp type carries a different name. In this case, they are quite clearly the names of soldiers who stamped the unfired tiles. They are rectangular stamps, some of which have tabulae ansatae. Some are special forms, like one with pointed edges, and one with a shortened upper line. Apart from three types that do not mention any names and might or might not be older (Hanel 1995: 263), all of them carry the tiler’s name after that of the legion. Usually, the names are in the genitive form, but occasionally also in the nominative. Some cases also have an F, which Hanel interprets as fecit. This shows that in this case the persons commemorated on the bricks were not officers but ordinary soldiers, stamping the tiles (Hanel 1995: 263). Hanel obviously reached this conclusion because no ranks are given on the tiles. There are all forms of names. There are 16 cases of a nomen gentilis only, which is, therefore, the most common form. Twelve cases name only the cognomen. The combination of praenomen and nomen appears eight times, the tria nomina five times, and the combination of praenomen and cognomen twice. There was a change in the formula of names on tombstones during the middle of the first century AD. It is, however, harder to identify changes like this on the stamps. Hanel, who analysed the stamps from Vetera, is relatively certain that there was no norm (Hanel 1995: 263). A certain Lucius Valerius Sabinus appears in tria nomina on three different types. On another stamp type the same person is mentioned with praenomen and nomen gentilis. There is a further stamp type that displays the name of a Sabinus. If it is the same person, then we are dealing with a third combination (Fig. 182). Therefore, changes over time cannot be detected (Hanel 1995: 263). Hanel suggests

that it was up to the soldiers to design the die that was used to stamp the tile and, thus, choose the way in which to display their names. He compared this with soldier’s graffiti on ceramics (Hanel 1995: 263). At this point one could recall that some are known from Britain. Again, a connection between these and the Tarbock tiles cannot be excluded. The Vetera-stamps also show that the soldiers had a right of choice in stamp-format. A certain Cupit(i)us uses a rectangular stamp on one occasion, a tabula ansata on another (Fig. 183). The total number of persons commemorated on the Legio V Alaudae stamps from Vetera is 36. Two thirds of those are names common in Italy, and the western part of the Roman Empire, without having any distinctive province of origin. There are only 11 names for which a more exact origin can be detected. Elvorix, P(ublius) Maioro, Rinnius, Cupit(i)us, Pullius, Minicius, and perhaps Trosius and Blaesius are names that originate from the areas of Cisalpine and Narbonensian Gaul. These names still are reminiscent of Celtic languages in the romanised form. The other group, with the names T(itus) Lusienus, M(arcus) Manlius and Marcius suggests a central or Southern Italian origin, although this is less certain than in the case of the Gallic names. In summary, the soldiers of Legio V Alaudae appear to have been recruited from the areas of Southern Gaul and Italy (Hanel 1995: 263-264). Stamps of Legio XV that also originate from Vetera only come in 11 types in a total of 510 tiles, of which two (in a total of 39 stamps) display tria nomina that could not be resolved. The fact that only 19 stamps out of 529 from Legio V Alaudae do not have names and only 39 out of 510 stamps from Legio XV Primigenia do include names, shows that soldiers of the first unit were probably meant to include their names and those of the latter were not. This is a good example of the variety of habits connected with brick stamping, even within the same camp. Perhaps the soldiers of Legio V had to include their names so that their daily output could be controlled and productivity increased. The names on the 39 stamps from Legio XV Primigenia could have originated in an immunis figlinae, who had to change units because of a lack of skilled workmen in the latter and kept the tradition of including names of his former workshop.

FIGURE 182 STAMPS OF LEGIO V ALAUDAE FROM VETERA, MENTIONING THE SOLDIER LUCIUS VALERIUS SABINUS, WITH TRIA NOMINA AND COGNOMEN ONLY (HANEL 1995: PLATES 158 & 159)

Stamps of Legio XXII from Germany found in several forts also displayed names (Fig. 184). Baatz addresses these names as those of soldiers, since they always appear in a military context. He sees them as a separate group of stamp types, and dates them to the Trajanic period (Baatz 1967: 50-52). The soldiers usually included three but sometimes fewer of their names. Frequently, f(ecit) or fe(cit) is added to those. Baatz argues that there is a great

FIGURE 183 STAMP TYPES OF LEGIO V ALAUDAE, MENTIONING THE STAMPER CUPIT(I)US (HANEL 1995: 157) 225

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 186 NAME STAMP OF LEGIO XIII GEMINA FROM VINDOBONA (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 44)

FIGURE 184 NAME STAMP OF LEGIO XXII PRIMIGENIA FROM ZUGMANTEL (BAATZ 1967: 63)

an architect or entrepreneur, T(itus) Crispius Reburrus, who commemorated himself on the sub-structures of the amphitheatre of Nîmes (Schwörbel 1920: 20). Although this person fits the period of time the legion was stationed in Germany (until Hadrian), the quite substantial distance between Southern Gaul and Cologne suggests otherwise. On top of that, Reburrus was a very common name in Spain (CIL II Suppl.: 1090). It cannot be determined if the soldier on the inscription in Mainz is the same as the Reburrus on the tile, but if it is accepted that the names of individuals on brick stamps are usually the soldiers who stamped the tiles, this stamp could be interpreted thus. However, since the archaeological context is not known, it cannot be established for certain if Reburrus was a soldier or a civilian stamping for the army.

FIGURE 185 NAME STAMP OF LEGIO XIII GEMINA FROM VINDOBONA (NEUMANN 1973: PLATE 41) variety of names on the stamps belonging to a relatively short period of time, which is why he proposes that we cannot talk of the names of officers but rather of those of the stamping soldiers (Baatz 1967: 50). The author shares this view. Baatz thinks that there were groups of three to four men in Roman military brick works which always shared one die (also see Baatz 1965: 124-126) and proposed that it was the name of the supervising immunis figlinarius that went on the stamps. He indicates that the f of some stamps could be expanded as f(iglinarius) (Baatz 1967: 50). Proof for that is not evident, since it is hard to decide if the inscription includes the name/s of a supervisor in the brick factory or a worker of a team. F(ecit) is also a valid expansion. As Brandl points out, the names of the soldiers are usually written in the nominative case, where a case can be recognised. Therefore, figlina or fabrica cannot be a valid expansion since one would expect a possessive genitive after the nominative form. Figlinarius is possible from a grammatical point of view, but so is fecit (Brandl 1999: 26).

Legio XIII Gemina also put the name of some of its soldiers on brick stamps (Fig. 186-187). Many of the 337 stamps (61 types) that this legion produced in Vindobona/ Vienna where it was garrisoned between AD 97 and AD 100/101 have names on it. Most of the stamps were found in or near the fortress, and only very few of the name stamps came from the canabae and the municipium of Vindobona. Therefore, we are in little doubt about the military character of these name stamps. Furthermore, two stamps have what appears to be the word miles on the inscription: Neumann’s type 2246 (Neumann 1973: 115) writes LEG XIII GE OCTMI, which can be expanded with Leg(io) XIII Ge(mina) Oct(avius?) Mi(les). Three further stamps have the same text apart from an Mi(les) at the end, which makes the expansion even more clear (Neumann 1973: 115-116; types 2247-2249). It is, therefore, plausible to assume that the names on the Legio XIII stamps from Vindobona are ordinary soldiers. However, Neumann does not share this view. He suggests that they could be centurions because he identified one of the names on the

Schwörbel (1920: 20) mentions a tile similar to the Tarbock ones but does not include a picture. He discusses a brick stamp of Legio VI from Cologne, with the inscription: Leg(io) VI Rebur(rus). The name Reburrus also appears on an inscription from Mainz, as the cognomen of a soldier of Cohors I Lucensium Hispanorum. Schwörbel thinks it more likely that the person on the tile had connections with

FIGURE 187 NAME STAMPS FOUND WITH LEGIO I ITALICA STAMPS FROM NOVAE (SARNOWSKI 1983: FIG. 22) 226

NAME STAMPS

stamps, Cammius Secundus, with an inscription (CIL III 5282) where a procurator of Noricum of AD 150 of the same name is commemorated. Neumann proposes that this man was a centurion of Legio XIII Gemina around AD 100 when the unit was involved in the building program of Vindobona (Neumann 1973: 15). Nevertheless, it is not certain if the Cammius Secundus on the inscription and the one on the stamps were the same person, or if they were perhaps related. Perhaps some stamps named centurions and others did not. The fact that we have the word miles on some of the stamps favours the interpretation of ordinary soldiers. Furthermore, as Brandl points out, the fact that there are so many different names on the stamps would have meant that most of the centurions from this legion, in that time, would primarily have been occupied with producing bricks, which is not a very convincing theory (Brandl 1999: 28).

gentilia of these apparent soldiers and based on those, dated the stamps to the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries AD (Ritterling RE XII: 1718). Tile stamps from Oescus and Novae in Moesia also display some names (Fig. 187): The names Fir(mus), Max(imus), Procu(lus) and Vetia(us) appear on tegulae from Oescus. Sarnowski identifies them as the names of those soldiers who were in charge of stamping the tiles in the military brick works (Sarnowski 1983: 33). Venetia(nus) is also inscribed on a fragment of a tile from Novae. In both places, the names were imprinted very near the shorter edges of the roofing tiles, where single letters and tally marks are situated on other bricks (Sarnowski 1983: 33). The legionary stamps are, as usual, in the middle. There are other name stamps from Novae, which, according to Sarnowski, belong to a different group: They read Gemel(lus/ianus) and Marc(us?) (Fig. 188). These name stamps do not mention the legion, or any unit, and are placed on rather large bricks. Sarnowski seems certain

The same legion also produced name stamps in Alba Julia/Apulum in Dacia. Ritterling investigated the nomina

FIGURE 188 NAME STAMPS FROM NOVAE (SARNOWSKI 1983: FIG. 18) 227

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

that they belong to the military, which is explained by the fact that they were found amongst the military area of Novae (Sarnowski 1983: 33). Other name stamps are those mentioning Corn(elius) Seve(rus) and [Iul?]ius Aper. They are also found amongst the stamps of a detachment of the Lower Moesian legions at Buridava. Sarnowski, therefore, interprets them as heads of the workshops at both places (Sarnowski 1983: 33). The possibility that they might have supervised tile making at Novae first and then at Buridava, or in the reverse order, cannot be dismissed completely. Sarnowski discards the idea that they could have been the commanders of the detachments. As he explains, there are, however, stamps from Tyras and Charax on the Crimea, which did combine the names of stamping soldiers and commander of the vexillationes (Sarnowski 1983: 33).

production and transport of bricks due to the fact that military units generally provided for their own needs with the exception of pottery (Dolata 1994b: 70-71). Comparably, the Roman army had the post of an armorum custos, who was responsible for the production, but also and unlike with bricks, the acquisition of armour. It is likely that each centuria or turma employed a man of this position, and Dolata used this function to interpret the role of the custos castelli figlinarum (Dolata 1994b: 71) However, the vexillatio concerned with the making of the bricks would not have been commanded by the custos castelli figlinarum, but probably by a higher officer. The role of the custos was very likely to provide for the technical aspects of brick making and ensure the quality of the bricks, therefore having expertise on the subject (Dolata 1994b: 71). In most cases, when dealing with what is believed to be the names of soldiers on stamps, it is impossible to tell if the name represents such a custos or an ordinary soldier who worked in the tilery because the ranks are not given.

The use of name stamps in Moesia is shared by Legio XI Claudia and Legio I Italica. Names do not appear on stamps of V Macedonica. On the other hand, Legio V Macedonica and XI Claudia share the phenomenon of place names on their tile stamps. Sarnowski states that these peculiarities had probably more to do with the new organisation and distribution of troops on the Lower Danube than with certain customs of the brick works (Sarnowski 1983: 40). He also reminds the reader of the fact that the design of brick stamps depended on the writing ability of the soldiers. Most of all, the writing ability of individuals would have influenced the outcome of the stamps. The head of the brick production in most cases was probably not a high ranking officer but most likely a soldier who supervised the brick production, an immunis figlinae or in figlinis magister (Sarnowski 1983: 40). A carved inscription from Drobeta/ Dacia introduces the soldier of an auxiliary unit, who was the head of 60 soldiers in his function as in figlinis magister. It is interesting that the soldier could not write himself. One of his comrades wrote the inscription for him on the unfired tile (Florescu & Petolescu 1977: 70) or, alternatively, he may have had a secretary. A custos castelli figlinarum is mentioned in an inscription from Mainz. Similarly, two immunes figlinarii are named in two inscriptions from Bonn (Dolata 1994: 68). All this shows that the custom of name stamping would have been very much the decision of ordinary men within the army. The fact that name stamps appear only occasionally illustrates that the customs varied very much from place to place and time to time. As a rule of thumb we can say that one name on many stamps as in the case of Mirebeau is likely to be the name of one person, either an officer of higher rank or brick works supervisor. Alternatively, many different abbreviations, like on the Vetera stamps, are usually more likely to represent the soldiers working in the brick factories.

There is a stamp type from Sirmium/Sremska Mitrovica in Pannonia, found at the site of the fort, which mentions the work-shop in which the bricks have been produced, displaying either FIG LEG II ITAL SAB or only FIG SAB (Fig. 101). The traditional reading is fig(linae) leg(ionis) II Ital(icae) Sab(inianae), indicating that Sabiniana derived from either the name of the workshop supervisor/owner or from the names of different auxiliary units involved in the brick production (Milosevic 1971: 102-103). However, the letters could also be expanded as fig(linae) leg(ionis) II Ital(icae) Sab(inius/inus), in which case it would be the name of the tegularius or ordinary soldier who set the stamp. In any case, the stamps were found in a military context, and the names are most likely those of military men. Brandl points to the fact that in most of the abovementioned cases the use of name stamps only lasted for a short period of time. In the case of Legio XIII the unit was garrisoned at Vindobona only for the short period of 3-4 years to assist with military buildings (Neumann 1973: 37-39; Brandl 1999: 27) The name stamps of the Thirteenth legion from Upper Germany only include a time span of about 15 years if Baatz’s chronology is correct (Baatz 1967: 50; Brandl 1999: 27). Legio V Alaudae was at Vetera during the Neronian period and only produced name stamps during this period. No unit appears to have kept the habit throughout its whole history of tile production (Brandl 1999: 27). Perhaps this shows that the inclusion of soldier’s names on the tiles was indeed a rare habit reserved for exceptions. All the cases mentioned were periods of intense building activity. This supports the view that the names on the tiles were ordinary soldiers

Dolata thinks that a custos castelli figlinarum was part of a vexillatio legionis, which was responsible for the 228

NAME STAMPS

who had to include their names on the stamps so that the supervisors of the brick factories could register their daily work output.

between 1940 and 1941. The fact that they state the name of the place, Oescus, illustrate, that the tiles were probably produced directly at Oescus. The research of Morfova’s time suggested an alternative reading. Brick stamps from Sucidava/Bulgaria stamped PRVAR and PRLMOES had previously also been expanded as pr(aedia) for the first two letters. Morfova suggests praefectus instead, transcribing the inscriptions from Sucidava as pr(aefectura) r(ipensis) Var(iniae) and p(raefectura) r(ipensis) l(egionis V) M(acedoniae) Oes(ci). Other bricks stamped PPRIPVAR and PRLVMOES, therefore, can be expanded as p(raefectura) rip(ensis) Var(iniae) and pr(aefetus) l(egionis) V M(acedoniae) Oes(co). Morfova preferred the reading praefectus to praefectura (Morfova 1959: 644). Military praefecti could have had the supervision over tile production in some cases, even if the evidence form the above mentioned areas in Germany indicates otherwise. Since stamping customs, as we know, varied very much from place to place, the supervision of the workshops may also have varied. In Moesia it appears to have been military praefecti, at least sometimes, who were in charge of the brick production. In Germany, it seems that small teams of soldiers or individual soldiers could decide on the wording on the bricks themselves. It is possible that these variations reflect a chronological as well as geographical development since these stamps date later than the early imperial name stamps from Germany. However, without literary or epigraphic evidence on the level of official control over brick stamp texts, this argument can only remain speculation.

Brandl suggests that the names on the stamps from Germany and central Europe mentioned above are mainly those of veterans. He proposes that the Roman army, busy with other tasks, employed former soldiers for the production of tiles because these were more familiar with army customs than civilians. Furthermore, he does not exclude the possibility that civilians were also used in the brick factories when needed (Brandl 1999: 28-29). Nonetheless, given the evidence reviewed here, there is no proof for either of these theories. Although it seems attractive to imagine the involvement of veterans in army tasks after their retirement, the evidence from the bricks offers no examples that can testify such a case. Instead of m(iles) we would expect v(eteranus) inscribed into some of the tiles, which is not the case on any of the bricks found so far. It cannot be proven that civilian firms were ever commissioned to produce tiles, thus it is not certain that civilians were recruited to work in military brick workshops. Furthermore, the names included on the stamps never indicate a civilian status but occasionally a military one. The Roman army was generally quite self-sufficient and this probably extended to the production of bricks. Apart from what appear to be the names of ordinary soldiers, the Roman army also occasionally had the names of higher officials inscribed on their stamps. Obviously this served a very different purpose than the naming of the soldiers. Researchers can only guess what made certain units commemorate their commanders on their bricks, since the building material would mostly have been used quite soon anyway. Name stamps of officials were probably an additional mark of authority, to prevent unauthorised use. Furthermore, they could have served as a way of datestamping, as the names of consuls on the civilian stamps from Italy or as on the stamps from Tarbock.

The stamps reading s(ub) c(ura) from Moesia can probably be seen in the same light as the above (Morfova 1959: 644). The title praefectus appears quite often in the Notitia Dignitatum (cited after Morfova 1959: 644), often in the same meaning as praepositus or tribunus. Praepositus could also be a possible reading of tiles stamped PR. Praefectus ripae is a title that appears especially common in Moesia (Morfova 1959: 644).

Oescus in Moesia also has such stamps, which, however, only display the titles and not the names of the individuals. They are not strictly speaking name stamps, but they will be discussed briefly because they fall into the same category as some other name stamps, which probably display the names of officials (Fig. 94). The first stamp type from Oescus reads PRLVMOES and has been expanded as Pr(aefectus) ? l(egionis) V M(acedoniae) Oes(co). Like another type of stamp which only mentions the location Oescus, these stamps date to after AD 271, when the legion was first established at Oescus (Morfova 1959: 643). The V and the M are in ligature. A considerable amount of stamps (Morfova does not state how many) of this type have been found during excavations by an Italian team

Another type from Oescus is stamped PRLVMVTO. Morfova suggested pr(aefectus) ? l(egionis) V M(acedoniae) Uto. The V and the M are in ligature. Only one example from the Museum of Guighen, of which the find location is not known, is complete. The other tiles are fragments and were found in the vicinity of ancient Oescus. Utus is the name of a fort, in the construction of which Legio V Macedonia is likely to have taken part. The name of the place also appears on stamps from the above mentioned Sucidava (Morfova 1959: 645). Stamps reading PRELVM can be expanded as pr(a)e(fectus) ? l(egionis) V M(acedoniae). The E, L V and M are in ligature. Most of the stamps found are fragments. If the above listed expansions are accepted, the example stamped PROES, 229

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

only found on a fragment, probably reads Pr(aefectus) Oes(ci) (Morfova 1959: 645). Pannonian examples of Legion VII Claudia brick stamps, finally, have some abbreviations which Milosevic interprets as the names of praefecti (Milosevic 1971: 100). 1. LEG VII CLSCVRSACIFARCVTIOF

Leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura) Ursaci (prae)f(ecto) Arcutio f(ecit)

2. LEG VII CLSCVICTORINIP

Leg(io) VII Cl(audia) s(ub) c(ura) Victorini p(raefecti)

If the expansions are correct, the first stamp does not only mention the praefectus in office, but also the stamping soldier, and is unique in the way it includes both. If this is true it strengthens the argument that both interpretations, that of a praefectus and that of an ordinary soldier, can be possible, where only a name is known without further context. However, Milosevic’s expansions are not without doubt, since she bases the words praefecti/ praefecto merely on the letters f and p. A stamp which also mentions a title and a name has been found at Wels/Ovilava/Austria (Fig. 189). One of two tegulae found in a layer of rubble above the Roman foundations walls in the area of the ‘Minoritenkloster’ displays the letters L RF LEG AUG. The first three letters are probably part of the name. LEG AUG is most likely expanded as leg(ati) Aug(usti) (Miglbauer 1996: 12-13). The governor of Noricum carried this title since the arrival of Legio II in Noricum, which had its garrison in nearby Enns/Lauriacum. The name of the governor in question has not been identified yet. Because of the fact that 120 stamped bricks, naming Legio II Italica and an unknown numerus, n(u)mer(i/us), in the hypocausts of the same complex, Miglbauer suggests that there was probably a building owned by the governor of Noricum (Miglbauer 1996: 12-13).

Bucius Lappius Maximus was consul twice in AD 86 and 95, and he was legate of Syria in AD 91. Most scholars have proposed that Lappius was a legate of the legion VIII Augusta (Assa 1964: 31-39; Alföldy 1967b, 11-13, Oldenstein-Pferdehirt 1984: 405). In their publication on the military fortress of Mirebeau, Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé do not exclude the possibility that the term legate meant a provincial or consular governor and propose a date of AD 89. They suggest that this governor might have been in office in Germany for a short period of time, during the revolt of the legate of Germania Superior, Antonius Saturninus, as a substitute for the rebellious legate and propose that the naming of someone of such rank is so rare that it could suggest an exceptional situation indeed. Also, they argue that since legionary legates are rarely named on brick stamps the explanation of a governor is more plausible (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 195-198). However, this view has recently been rejected by Alföldy who shows that it is very likely that A. Bucius Lappius Maximus preceded M(arcus) Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatus Maternus as a legionary legate of Legio VIII Augusta. He argues that since the latter was a legate between AD 75 and 78 and since a recently found building inscription (Alföldy 2004: 46-54) must have been incorporated into the fortress at Mirebeau during that time, after the building was finished, it is feasible that the bricks naming Lappius were used for the construction of the fortress earlier than so far assumed (see Chapter 4, page 80) and that Lappius was a legate between AD 72 and 75. He convincingly argues that there is no reason to reject the theory of Lappius as a legionary legate based upon the observation that they are rarely mentioned on stamps, since legati Augusti pro praetore are not very frequent either (Alföldy 2004: 45-62). There is another stamp type that may record a provincial governor, from Lower Germany (Fig. 190). Stamps displaying the names of Didius Iulianus and Iunius Mac(--) or Macer have been recovered in several locations along the Lower German limes (Thomasson 1984: 58; 60). Because of the frequency and the fact that a provincial governor of that name was identified, it is generally regarded as an official rather than a private stamp. Holwerda and Braat, and Paar and Rüger interpret the two names as those of the consulares legati augusti pro praetore and date this to around AD 175 (Holwerda & Braat 1946 7; Paar & Rüger 1971: 263). However, more recent researchers identified the name of Didius Iulianus as that of the governor of Lower Germany some time between AD 180 and 185 and that of Iunius Macr(--) or Macer either shortly before or after (Eck 1985: 182-186; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123; 141).

A considerable number of stamps from Mirebeau are stamped with the name of a legate, Lappius, clearly stating the title: LEG VIII AVG LAPPIO LEG (Fig. 75). The name had firstly been read as L(ucius) Appius, simply based on the fact that Appius was a more common name (Mommsen 1884: 439; Ritterling RE XII: 1657-1662). However, the reading of Appius was rejected in favour of Lappius. A.

FIGURE 189 STAMP WITH LEGATE’S NAME FROM OVILAVA, WELS (MIGLBAUER 1996: 13)

The two stamp types from Africa that probably name legates do not give the title legatus. They read LEG III 230

NAME STAMPS

the tile, one cannot completely dismiss the hypothesis that the Gordianus and the Nummus, and perhaps some of the other abbreviations on the tiles from Africa, that have been interpreted as rare cognomina of Legio III Augusta, are the names of stamping soldiers. There are plenty of parallels as shown above, as from Vetera or the forts from the Upper German limes, where the names are most likely to be those of such soldiers. Several different types of name stamps exist in military contexts. Some of those give the names of simple soldiers stamping the tiles. In cases like Vetera, where a lot of different stamp types appear this is the most likely interpretation. Other cases give the names of officials, as it is probably the case with the above cited stamps from Moesia and Mirebeau, and perhaps with some of the types from Africa. The variety of military name stamps suggests that, similar to other aspects of brick stamps, there was no uniform custom in name-stamping and in the decision making which names, if any, were to be included on the stamps. As already mentioned, in a lot of cases the brick production would have been supervised by men, probably immunes, who were not very high in rank, but were chosen because of their training as tegularii. As discussed, sometimes these custodes castelli figlinarum or magistri figlinarum survived in inscriptions other than tile-stamps. Therefore, a substantial idea about their organisation of military brick works can be developed. It was probably up to the fore workers to make the decision whether a legate or governor was to be mentioned on the stamps, perhaps as a kind of time-stamp, or whether the soldiers working at the depot could include their names on their dies, perhaps also to have their daily work output registered. Alternatively, and as Baatz suggests (Baatz, 1967, 50) these supervisors of brick making could have equally had their own names commemorated on the tiles. Usually scholars on the subject favour only one interpretation. It is rather certain, given the evidence that customs varied.

FIGURE 190 DIDIUS IULIANUS STAMP (SCALE UNKNOWN) (HAALEBOS AND FRANZEN 2000: 140) AUG NUM and LEG III AUG GOR. Le Bohec proposes three different interpretations. Firstly, they could be rare cognomina of Legio III Augusta. Since there are no parallels on other inscriptions this suggestion is not very satisfactory. Furthermore it cannot be an imperial title after AD 238 since Gordian III dissolved Legio III Augusta in that year because it had caused the death of Gordian I and II. Secondly, the names could be those of the stamping soldiers, or tegularii, as for example on the stamps from Vetera. The third and because of the rarity of the cognomina most likely possibility is that, like at Mirebeau, the names are those of legates. Thus, they can be expanded as Leg(io) III Aug(usta) Num(mo legato) and Leg(io) III Aug(usta) Gor(diano legato). Two legates could have been the ones on the tiles: L(ucius) Acilius Strabo Clodius Nummus was a legate of the legion and the province of Numidia in AD 116 and Ti(berius) Claudius Gordianus in AD 188 (Le Bohec 1981: 154). A problem with this third interpretation is that the titles or rank of the men are not mentioned on the stamps. Also, the fact that we do not know if we are dealing with cognomina or nomina gentilia, makes a satisfying interpretation even harder. Given the reality, that there is no title mentioned on

The question whether there was such a phenomenon as civilian entrepreneurs stamping for the army is not very easy to answer. The interpretation of such uncertain tile stamps must not only depend on the inscription but also on the location in which the tiles were found. The only case that allows for an interpretation of a civilian person stamping for the army, is perhaps the type from Avenches stamped SC·VI, because, like the other military stamps found there, it came from a public building. This could indeed suggest a civilian context. However the expansion s(ub) c(ura) Vi(ctoris) is by no means secure, and we have to tread carefully. The tiles from Tarbock do not even have a definite civilian find location, and the fact that there are very few stamps make the interpretation of the site very unsatisfactory. There are certainly no parallels in the 231

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

civilian stamped tiles from Vindonissa discussed by Jahn, because they clearly do not state the names of a military unit.

and public, based on the finds expected in either case: public civilian buildings generally have more connections with the military world than private civilian ones. It has to be investigated if scholars who talk about military finds in private buildings do not in fact mean public civilian ones, as is the case with the Legio XXI brick stamps from the temple at Grange-des-Dîmes (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 119-120). Also, some new research has shown that not all buildings previously addressed as civilian are exclusively civilian. The Roman army also had substantial influence in civilian settlements, many of which had beneficiarii stations (Nelis-Clément 2000), which were introduced by the military. Military influence is, furthermore, noticeable on temples in civilian settlements, and there is occasional evidence that the military may have been involved in the construction of baths used by civilians (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 242; 245-247). Therefore, it has to be investigated if all formerly addressed cases of military stamps in civilian buildings can really count as such. The different cases will be discussed in detail in this section. Generally, there are two possible ways in which military brick stamps might have come to be used in private buildings: firstly, they could have been used primarily, which means they were produced by the army for civilians. Secondly, they could have been reused, which means that used bricks either were sold to civilians or civilians ransacked derelict military buildings to use the bricks.

It is true that there is evidence, in the form of pottery, that the Roman military used its own products but, later, but it also used civilian wares (Swan 1984: 19). However, it is wrong to draw conclusions from pottery to bricks. Pottery responds to the need of individuals in the army, bricks to the need of a whole unit. The Roman army did buy food and sometimes armour from civilians, although in the latter case they usually also had metalworks themselves. Perhaps scholars have to differentiate between things that were of collective use such as brick for military buildings and things which were more for the use of individuals (and it must not be forgotten that armour was quite individualised too) and it seems that only in the latter case was the army willing to buy from civilian producers. The hypothesis proposed by Swan and Philpott, regarding the civilian tilery at Tarbock, cannot be proven since the context of the site is unclear, and since the expansions of both the name of the producer and the consul are uncertain. If the expansion of the latter is incorrect, the scholars’ proposal is around forty years out of date. To conclude, if civilians ever did stamp for the Roman army, it would have been a very exceptional occurrence indeed. At the moment, there is no evidence for the hypothesis. Until the discovery of a datable site that is clearly within civilian territory and a substantial number of name stamps also citing units, it will probably remain that way.

In the late nineteenth century Wolff and Ritterling observed that some military bricks had been found in private buildings, but very rarely, and that these bricks were usually of rather late date. Both authors denied that the trade of military bricks into the private sector was a regular phenomenon (Wolff 1893; Ritterling 1898: 215). Jahn, who wrote on the brick stamps of Windisch/ Vindonissa in modern Switzerland, argued that the opposite was true, that the army often sold their brick produce to civilians, who had no connection with the military. He named bath-houses and villas, whose roofs were supposedly tiled with military bricks (Jahn 1909a: 128). As was often the case in publications of his time, he did not state the exact archaeological context of these finds, nor did he indicate if they were used primarily or secondarily. As explained above, bath-houses may have stood under military influence. The buildings which Jahn addressed as villas will be discussed below in an analysis of Von Gonzenbach’s approach to them.

12.2.2 The relationship between military brick production and the civilian world A lot has been said and written on the subject of military bricks and their connection with the civilian world and its buildings. In the literature on the subject, it is often stated that military bricks were sold and traded to the private sector and that this was a regular occurrence. Military brick stamps, which are found outside what is known as military territory, are often interpreted in this way. A lot of publications, which state that brick trade between the military and the civilian world was common, fail to investigate the archaeological context and adopt the views of older literature on the matter. The following section will attempt to summarize the research concerned with this question from past to present and raise the question of how far it is possible to allocate single buildings to either the private or military sector.

Staehelin, in his book on Roman Switzerland, also follows Jahn’s view, based on some military bricks found in what was believed to be private buildings (Staehelin 1948: 176178). Von Petrikovits, who investigates the brick stamps of Lower Germany, concludes from their distribution that military brick stamps can indeed be used to determine

Military brick stamps are occasionally found in what appear to be civilian buildings. When talking about civilian buildings, scholars have to differentiate between private 232

NAME STAMPS

military territories and declares all the buildings to be military (Von Petrikovits 1960: 65).

bricks. She suggests, however, that it is likely that such a system did indeed exist before the Claudian period, because the fortress of Vindonissa was built in AD 17, and that the security organisation of the area probably started soon after (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 126). However, she does not go into detail about this last suggestion, which is not logical. Von Gonzenbach also uses other finds from the area in question for her interpretation: most of the ceramics cannot be classified as typical ‘military-ware’ but there are some military bronze tags. A combination of all finds discussed led her to be certain that the road system of the area already existed in the early Augustan period (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 127-128). Von Gonzenbach interprets the territory, which has previously been addressed as civilian and of agricultural nature as of secondary military nature. In her opinion the military stationed in Vindonissa controlled the area and roads with out-posts.

Von Gonzenbach follows this example and investigates all sites where military brick stamps of the units garrisoned at Windisch/Vindonissa in the first century AD were found (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 76-135). In her publication the scholar partly criticises the views put forward by Staehelin in his earlier book on Roman Switzerland (Staehelin 1948). She uses the following statements, as proven facts in Roman military brick stamp research: 1. The products of military brick works were not sold to private individuals. 2. Military brick stamps, found in private buildings, could have been taken from military buildings and used secondarily.

It has to be examined, furthermore, if some of the locations addressed by Von Gonzenbach, which were previously interpreted as villas, might be beneficiarii stations, which were also in the hands of the Roman military. Nelis-Clément has recently compiled a study of all such places for the entire Roman Empire. Between Augst and Vindonissa she mentions Stein am Rhein/Tasgaetium as a possible beneficiarii station. Soleure/Salodurnum near Avenches, according to her, is a road outpost in the tradition of Von Gonzenbach’s suggestion, whereas she names Eburodunum/Yverdon as another possible beneficiarii station because of the votive inscription naming a L(ucius) Speratus Ursulus (Nelis-Clément 2000: 158-159).

3. Brick stamps moved in this way probably did not travel very far. 4. A presence of military brick stamps indicates nearby military buildings. Staehelin does not concur with the last point. He suggests that a military location had to show some qualities of strategic nature, or that some sort of fortification has to be present. Since most locations in Switzerland with military brick stamps do not fit into these categories, he suggests that the military had sold bricks to private civilians on a regular basis (Staehelin 1948: 179; 426). Von Gonzenbach reinvestigates all the locations already addressed by Staehelin. She states that Staehelin’s criteria on which he based his interpretation of military buildings are arbitrary (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 78). At the time the article was published, new stamped bricks of legions XXI, XI and some auxiliary units had been found at Vindonissa. Her interpretation of the distribution of these bricks is the following: the area of mean variation of these brick stamps is not in the immediate area of the fortress but rather in the rather fertile area behind it. Secondly, the area is crossed by two important roads. Therefore, she suggests that the locations in question were not of great strategic importance but still dominated by the military since there was no sign of agrarian use for private individuals, such as villas. She proposes that most of the places in question could have been road posts, which were controlled by the Roman military (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 79-80). Von Gonzenbach traces a system of Claudian-Neronian military road stations based on these brick stamps. She argues, furthermore, that the system could have been older, but because of the fact that Legio XIV does not appear to have stamped its tiles, it is impossible to evaluate such an outpost system by

Unfortunately, another study on the possible connection between beneficiarii and brick stamps in Upper Germany proves that no such correlation can be established (Brandl 1999: 8-13). It is true that in places where beneficiarii inscriptions are found there are also often brick stamps of the same legion along the Rhine (Fig. 191). Nevertheless, this is also the case with inscriptions which mention auxiliaries led by a centurio: they are often also accompanied by brick stamps with the name of the same unit. Furthermore, there are locations, such as Jagsthausen and Osterburken which have beneficiarii inscription and brick stamps of both Upper German legions, Legio VIII Augusta and Legio XXII Primigenia. Therefore, Brandl concludes that there is no evidence for an immediate connection between beneficiarii and brick stamps: the brick stamps do not correspond with commando areas but perhaps possibly with work areas. This means that both legions and auxiliary units led by centurions may have sent detachments for building purposes to previously determined locations along the Rhine, which would also explain why in the case of Osterburken and Jagsthausen the two legions are named on stamps and beneficiarii inscriptions (Brandl 1999: 13). 233

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

ż brick stamp of Legio VIII ǻ brick stamp of Legio XXII Ÿinscription of Legio XXII Ɣ inscription of Legio VIII 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Vinxtbach Niederberg Holzhausen Wiesbaden Mainz Heddernheim Frankfurt

8 9 10 11

Friedberg Grosskotzenburg Seligenstadt Stockstadt

FIGURE 191 DISTRIBUTION MAP OF BENEFICIARII STATIONS AND BRICK STAMPS OF LEGIONS VIII AUGUSTA AND XXII PRIMIGENIA ON THE LOWER RHINE (BRANDL 1999:12)

234

NAME STAMPS

The fact that we are still not certain what the exact area of responsibility of the beneficiarii was does not help the interpretation (for suggestions on their position see Brandl 1999: 8-9; Nelis-Clément 2000).

•

Alföldy is also against the hypothesis that the military and the civilian sectors mixed much in relation to brick stamps. He investigates the brick stamp material from Dalmatia (Alföldy 1967a: 44-51). According to him, Dalmatia had an extensive military occupation only during the first century AD. Until AD 45, the province had two legions. There was only one between AD 45 and 86, and from AD 86 there were merely a fleet detachment and auxiliaries. Because of this, few military brick stamps are known, due to the fact that stamping was not a common habit until the second half of the first century AD. This is discussed in Chapter 10. There are, however, large numbers of civilian brick stamps.

•

•

• • •

There are brick stamps of the following units: legions XI Claudia, VIII Augusta, IV Flavia and a Cohors VIII voluntariorum civium Romanorum. The bulk of military brick stamps from Dalmatia date to the middle and second half of the first century AD, dated by historical background and archaeological context (Alföldy 1967a: 45-49). The stamps of the cohort from Gardun/Tilurium and Solin/Salona could date possibly later due to archaeological context. Nevertheless, they could still have been produced at the end of the first century AD (Alföldy 1967a: 49). After most of the Roman military had left Dalmatia very few military bricks were produced, as indicated by the small numbers of stamps. Alföldy suggests that civilians could have filled the gaps and produced bricks for the remaining auxiliaries (Alföldy 1967a: 49). This is, however, a rare occurrence and unlikely, as explained under section 12.2.1. Since stamping habits appear to have varied and stamps were more likely to be applied if bricks were traded between units (Peacock 1982: 137-138), one cannot fail to wonder if the remaining units did not simply omit to stamp the bricks, as was largely habit during the first half of the first century. This could have been the fact with the bricks of the city walls of Salona, which were built by military in AD 170. The distribution of bricks found in military and in civilian buildings in Dalmatia, according to Alföldy, is the following: •

•

for the period between AD 69 and 86 (Alföldy 1967a: 49). Tepljuh/Promona had a Roman fort and was part of the defensive line between Burnum and Bigeste (modern Humac near Ljubuski). Gornji Muč/Andetrium was occupied by the Romans in AD 9, and was also part of the defensive line. Gardun/Tilurium was occupied by Legio VII Claudia until AD 45 and by smaller units after that time. Dolac near Gardun was obviously part of the military territory of Tilurium. Gradčine near Ljubuški was the auxiliary fort of Varoš/Bigeste. Ljubučki/Vitina must have belonged to the military territory of Bigeste (Alföldy 1967a: 49-50). However, Alföldy does not go into detail about any buildings or inscriptions other than brick stamps found there.

Alföldy states, furthermore, that the only non-military locations, in which military brick stamps were found, are the Dalmatian town of Asseria (modern Podgrađe near Benkovac in Croatia), and the eastern part and northern city wall of Solin/Salona (Alföldy 1967a: 50). In Podgrađe/ Asseria large numbers of bricks of Legio VIII Augusta were found, and there are also occasional ones of Legio IV Flavia, which were probably brought from other places. He does not believe, however, that these bricks were sold to civilians by the military and he suggests instead that the town might have had a small military station around AD 70, or that the military brick works in modern Smrdelji sent bricks for public buildings to Asseria. He argues that Podgrađe/Asseria was situated on one of the main roads of Dalmatia, which led from Ivoševci/Burnum to Zadar/Iader and to Italy, and that it could very well have hosted a military station of some kind. Nevertheless, he is more inclined to favour the second possibility; that the military provided bricks for public buildings. Alföldy is rather certain that the Roman military in Dalmatia was often involved in the construction of public buildings in the towns, so that it would not have been unusual that both Dalmatian legions would have participated in the buildings of the colonia at Zadar/Iader under Tiberius, or the remaining military in the erection of the city wall of Solin/Salona in AD 170. The history of Podgrađe/Asseria led him to conclude that there were major building activities in AD 70. The municipium had already been installed by Claudius but it was not until the end of the first or the beginning of the second century that the construction of the town was finished: the town gates were not completed until AD 113 as confirmed by an inscription (Alföldy 1967a: 50). Unfortunately, the Alföldy does not state how these buildings are dated,

Ivoševci (near Kistanje)/Burnum had a legionary fortress from the Augustan period until AD 86. Smaller detachments were still garrisoned there after Legio IV Flavia left. Smrdelji had a legionary tilery, which was without doubt within the military territory of the legionary fortress of Burnum. According to Alföldy, it was already being used at the time of Legio XI’s stay in Dalmatia, and the production of tiles can be proven 235

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

although it is presumably by other finds, such as coins. Also, the statement about the military assisting in public buildings can only remain hypothetical because the brick stamps found there are not enough to prove it.

Also, Alföldy states that Gardun/Tilurium hosted small detachments after AD 45. Nelis-Clément lists an inscription dedicated to a [Genius] Luci Ang(itiae) (NelisClément 2000: 35). Neither piece of information gives us any indication about the size or nature of this military location. It could have been the garrison of a detachment or a beneficiarii station. Alföldy’s study, although not very informative about the size of buildings, if known or other finds associated with them, makes clear that there is very little evidence for military brick stamps in civilian buildings in Dalmatia. Nelis-Clément’s recent list of possible beneficiarii stations shows that even those locations, which were formerly addressed as public civilian were possibly under the influence of the military.

Alföldy states that it was uncertain how the bricks stamps of Legio XI Claudia, Legio IV Flavia and Cohors VIII voluntariorum came to the province capital Salona. The military bricks found in the Early Christian basilica urbana were probably taken from other buildings. He suggests that they could have been parts of older public buildings, which are archaeologically attested near the basilica. In this case, they might have been deliveries from the military for public buildings, as in Asseria. All military bricks found in Salona come from the area of the urbs nova and its vicinity. This part of the town was developed gradually during the early imperial period. There is no indication for the theory that the military bricks of Salona were sold to private individuals (Alföldy 1967a: 51). In a conclusion, Alföldy states that it was very unlikely that bricks trade between the military and private civilians ever took place. The bricks were very likely designed for military buildings, and were sometimes commissioned for the construction of public buildings in the province’s towns (Alföldy 1967a: 51). Alföldy revised his study in 1987. He added some new finds from the above cited areas. The results and the conclusion remain the same (Alföldy 1987a: 317-325). Again, there is some evidence that not all of Alföldy’s interpretations have remained valid since his publication. One problem with his article is that he does not provide us with an explanation as to why he interprets the possible forts in his list as such: he gives no numbers for the brick stamps found nor any information about the sizes of the buildings, which may allow us to verify the claim that certain amounts of soldiers were housed in them. Alföldy names Ivoševci /Burnum as the home of small detachments after the departure of the Legio IV Flavia in AD 86. NelisClément has researched Burnum as a possible location for a beneficiarii station, due to a votive fragment reading [---] BF [---] (Nelis-Clément 2000: 350-351).

Other scholars, such as Neumann and Mócsy do not agree with this interpretation and use the evidence from Pannonia to attempt to prove the opposite, namely that the trade of military bricks to the civilian sector was common. Mócsy states that in Pannonia military bricks were obviously used in civilian settlements and that exchange between the two sectors was common based on the fact that some stamps were found in what he interpreted as private buildings. He says that south of Carnuntum/Altenburg in the territory of the Civitas Boiorum and both the municipium of Carnuntum and that of Sopron/Scarabantia bricks of legions X and XIV Gemina were found in what were believed to be private buildings. In addition, he mentions a monumental tomb in Brestovik, near ancient Belgrade/Singidunum in Moesia Superior, where bricks of legions IV Flavia and VII Claudia were found. Unfortunately, Mócsy does not define exactly why these buildings are addressed as private rather than public. As long as this is not secured we cannot exclude military activity in the private public sector, which is attested elsewhere as explained below (Mócsy 1962: 631; 1972: 133-135). Neumann who published the brick stamps from Vindobona repeatedly suggests that military bricks were used in civilian buildings (Neumann 1973: 49; 53). However, in Neumann’s study find context is not always very clear, which makes an evaluation of his statement extremely difficult.

Furthermore, Alföldy states that at Salona military brick stamps were found in public buildings, namely from the vicinity of the urbs nova (Alföldy, 1967a, 51). NelisClément names the funerary inscription of a beneficiarius of Legio I Italica from Salona as a possible indication for a beneficiarii cult there (Nelis-Clément 2000: 351). The presence of beneficiarii may indicate that the area in question was perhaps less public civilian dominated than previously assumed. In that case it would not be surprising that buildings that were erected under the influence of the military which obviously was substantial even in civilian settlements were provided with military bricks.

Lörincz disagrees with Neumann’s and Mócsy’s interpretation. He presented a paper at the Limes Congress of 1989 in which he reinvestigated the relationship between military brick stamps and military territories in Pannonia (Lörincz 1991: 244-279). He starts from the observation that those scholars refuse to believe in the connection between the two use the Pannonian evidence to support their theory and therefore he deals with the same collection of brick stamps. He states that most of the stamps come from the territory of Altenburg/Carnuntum, Vienna/Vindobona and Budapest/Aquincum. In other parts of Pannonia and Noricum, only a few single stamps were found. A lot of the 236

NAME STAMPS

stamps were found in contexts, which are as late as the fourth century AD. Due to the possibility of reuse, according to Lörincz, their original dates are hard to determine (Lörincz 1991: 244). We have to wonder if stamps were produced and used by the military but reused by civilians when the military buildings were derelict. Lörincz argues that since we do not know about the legionary territories in the fourth century, we cannot use finds from a fourth century context to argue for or against the theory of trade between civilians and the military, especially since we are also dealing with undated stamp types, which may have been reused (Lörincz 1991: 244-245).

brick stamps of Legio I Adiutrix to before AD 97 based on historical arguments (Milsosevic 1971: 96) but most of the material that she published had been found in the Late Roman town. Only the stamps of the exercitus Pannoniae Inferioris might date earlier than the fourth century AD, although, according to Lörincz, it is even possible that those bricks were not used until the period of the tetrarchs (Lörincz 1991: 245). Some of the spas of the Pannonian army also produced brick stamps: Varaždinske Toplice/ Aquae Iasae only has a few but Baden/Aquae produced many. Lörincz proposes that it was not unlikely that the stamps dated to the same period, the fourth century AD (Lörincz 1991: 245).

According to Lörincz, part of the material discussed by those who argued for trade between civilians and the military was found at border stations of confirmed military character, for example at Mauerbach and Velika Kladusa (Lörincz’ numbers 14 and 41) (Lörincz 1991: 244). Another came from the towns of Pannonia: Sopron/Scarbantia, Ptuj/Poetovio, Kisárpás/Mursella and Sremska Mitrovica/ Sirmium. Lörincz shows that in the case of Scarbantia the brick stamps from civilian context came from public buildings, such as the baths and the capitolium. He stated that on evaluation of the material one cannot omit the fact that there was a station of beneficiarii at Scarbantia (Lörincz 1991: 244). As Nelis-Clément explains, Sirmium was also the location of such a station (Nelis-Clément 2000: 133-135; 348-350). Beneficiarii stations were clearly erected and organised by the Roman military, which is why military brick stamps would be expected in buildings of such a nature. However, as explained earlier, there is not always a connection between beneficiarii inscriptions and brick stamps (Brandl 1999: 8-13). Regardless of this fact, we have to bear in mind that public baths, such as at Scarbantia might also have had a military background, either through beneficiarii or regular soldiers in the area. Among the remaining material often used for the argument that the military sold its brick to civilians, Lörincz draws attention to the fact that CFR and CFRA are products of private tileries, which need omitting from the list (Lörincz 1991: 244).

The brick stamps from the second and third centuries AD were partly found at border-and beneficiarii stations, such as Mauerbach, Pécz/Sopianae, Ptuj/Poetovio and Sopron/ Scarbantia. Some came from public buildings. A lot of these bricks cannot be used for the argument, suggested by those scholars on Pannonia, who think that trade between the military and civilians was common, because under the reign of Hadrian all these places belonged to the civitas Boiorum, which was governed by the military (Lörincz 1991: 245). Some places, such as Györasszonyfa and Zamoly, have no find context for the stamps, mostly because they had been stray finds and the area had never been excavated. Lörincz suggests that they could have been built into mansiones or mutationes of the Pannonian army (Lörincz 1991: 245). Generally, he argues that because of the fact that most of the material is of such late date (and may possibly have been reused) and because we do not know much about the extension of military influence at this time, these locations cannot be used in support of the theory that military bricks were sold to the civilian world (Lörincz 1991: 244-245). Finally, Lörincz reviews the material from Tác/Gorsium. Previously, it was assumed that this was the location of a villa, where a number of military bricks had been found. However, excavations proved that this was wrong. There was an auxiliary camp in Gorsium, built around the middle of the first century AD, in which an Ala Scubulorum and a Cohors I Alpinorum equitata were garrisoned. The buildings of Trajan’s and Hadrian’s reign were erected on top of this camp, for which construction the stamps of legions X Gemina and II Adiutrix were used. The other stamps found at Gorsium date to the fourth century AD for which, as explained above, no context can be given (Lörincz 1991: 245).

Lörincz states that the material from Ptuj/Poetovio usually addressed as military within civilian context partially dates to the first century AD (Legio XIV Gemina and Cohors I Hispanorum), when there was a legionary fortress there. The stamps of Legio I Adiutrix date to a later period. The colonia at Poetovio was installed by Trajan and included a beneficiarii station at this time (Lörincz 1991: 244). Lörincz says that most of Sirmium’s military brick stamps date to the fourth century AD. Tiles stamped with the names of the following units were found there: Legio I Noricorum, Legio VI Herculia, Legio IV Flavia, Legio VII Claudia and Cohors III Alpinorum. Milsosevic dates the

Lörincz’s study shows that the dating of the brick stamp material in Pannonia is not as simple as assumed. The secure dates, however, prove that the Pannonian military bricks were either found in military or in possible civilian 237

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

public buildings. Some of the latter might also have military connections, even if they were situated in civilian settlements. Beneficiarii stations could also be found in locations generally addressed as civilian and were under the influence of the military (Nelis-Clément 2000).

of context and reading, it is impossible to determine if this stamp has any connections with the early military presence at Kaiseraugst, or if, unlike generally believed, there was a prolonged military occupation, which lasted into the second half of the first century AD (Matteotti 1993: 187). However, the bricks from the Schwarzacker area have a recorded find context. It was unknown to Von Gonzenbach, who mentioned these stamps in her 1963 publication and suggested they had come from near the eastern part of the town (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 98). According to Matteotti, they were found north of the Insula 52, which was the location of a pottery district. The five brick stamps found there were situated closely together. Matteotti interprets the building they were found in as basement structure. Therefore, he concludes, the stamps had been found within non-military context (Matteotti 1993: 188-189). He agrees with scholars like Neumann (Neumann, 1973, 49 and 52) and Staehelin (Staehelin 1948: 179) that military bricks were sometimes used to provide private settlements with building materials. Matteotti follows Staehelin’s argument that there was trade between the Roman military and villae rusticae, and suggests that this was mainly an exchange of agricultural products and building materials. He proposes, further, that while those large farms might probably sent their crops to the military, towns, like Augusta Rauricorum would have participated in the exchange of handicraft produce (Matteotti 1993: 189-190). He does, however, state that it is unlikely that brick deliveries of this kind were common. According to him, Augusta Rauricorum had its own tileries, and would not have needed military bricks in large numbers. He states that private tileries would probably have been cheaper than military ones (Matteotti 1993: 190).

From the above cited articles it is obviously unlikely that military bricks were ever sold systematically to private civilians to be used for their buildings on a regular basis. Studies, like the above mentioned, have only been accomplished for some areas of the former Roman Empire, but the results were similar. There is no evidence for trade between the military and the private civilian sector, but there are some indications that the military sometimes allowed some of their bricks to be used for public civilian buildings, especially if there was a military interest in the town, such as beneficiarii stations. Most of the more recent scholars have agreed to this view. There are, however, some publications, which still retain the older view, that military bricks were incorporated in the buildings of private individuals. In 1993, Matteotti researched some brick stamps from Kaiseraugst/Augusta Rauricorum in modern Switzerland, which were stamped with the name of Legio XXI (Matteotti 1993: 185-197). Five of these stamps were discovered at the location of the so-called Augst-Schwarzacker, Insula 52. A further stamp, according to Matteotti, was that of Legio XI and came from a different place in Kaiseraugst (Matteotti 1993: 185). A further eleven brick stamps of legions XXI and XI, and of the sixth and seventh Raetian Cohort of partly unknown origin are kept in the Roman Museum at Augst. Some of them have no recorded find contexts; others came from Windisch/Vidonissa, where the legionary fortress was situated, and not from Kaiseraugst (Matteotti 1993: 185). Matteotti concentrates on the bricks from Augst-Schwarzacker. He states the two main hypotheses about their background, which have already been discussed earlier: Staehelin was certain that they were testimony for an economic relationship between military Vindonissa and civilian Kaiseraugst (Matteotti 1993: 186; Staehelin 1948: 130). Von Gonzenbach believes that there was a military outpost at the location (Matteotti 1993: 186, Von Gonzenbach 1963: 98). Matteotti investigates the location in its archaeological context: There was a fort in Kaiseraugst, but excavations have shown that it was left to decay in the Claudian period (Matteotti 1993: 186). Legio XXI was garrisoned at Vindonissa in AD 45, and started producing brick stamps.

Matteotti argues against the possibility that the five Schwarzacker tiles were used in a secondary context. He states that a concentration of five stamps in one place, and their relatively good condition stand for the fact that they were used for the first time. He reasons, furthermore, that if military buildings had been razed and their bricks used, more would have been found within civilian territory (Matteotti 1993: 190). There are some problems with Matteotti’s hypothesis: firstly, Staehelin’s drawing, on which Matteotti’s statements are based, is rather vague; it is not entirely clear in what condition the stamps are, and if they were indeed found together or not. It is perhaps not unlikely that those stamps were used in a secondary context, because this is what might have happened in other provinces, as least it is what Alföldy suggests for Dalmatia (Alföldy 1967: 44-51). But secondly, and above all, five stamps are statistically not enough to prove one or the other hypothesis. The five brick stamps from the Schwarzacker area are, therefore,

The Legio XXI stamp has no known exact find context. It is not even certain if the legion on the stamp has been identified correctly, because apart from the letter C(laudia?) it is illegible. Matteotti states that due to these insecurities 238

NAME STAMPS

not enough evidence to conclude that military bricks were sold to private individuals for their buildings.

give a reason for this interpretation (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 242). Perhaps the existence of military brick stamps in so-called ‘civilian’ areas appears less surprising if we allow for the possibility that the military often had more influence in these areas than anticipated.

Fuchs and Margueron, who published the brick stamps from Avenches/Aventicum in 1998, amongst other points criticise Von Gonzenbach’s interpretation of Avenches as a central point of military control. They state that, although this was probably a Roman military station, some brick stamps of Legio XXI were also found in what were insulae of the civilian settlement (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 122123). Such a private civilian context is indeed unusual. However, firstly, Fuchs and Margueron do not go into detail about the question that these bricks could have been used secondarily. Each of these places has only produced a small number of these military bricks, on average, two or three, and never more than five. As mentioned above, small numbers of bricks like these, could easily have been taken from military buildings and been used for a second time. The total number of stamps which Fuchs and Margueron published on the civilian settlement of Aventicum is 15. This is not a very large number. It is definitely not enough evidence to speak of organised trade between the military and the private sector. Secondly, one of the Legio XXI stamps, with the letters s(ub) c(ura?) Vi(ctoris/orinis?) probably came from the roof of the temple at Grange-desDimes. This stamp was also discussed above under section 12.2.1, as the only possible example of a civilian tiling for the army, although there is very little evidence for this practice elsewhere.

Similarly, there is some evidence that bath-houses used by civilians have been built by the military in Germania Superior. However, no definite answers can be provided, due to problems of dating and interpretation in those cases. There are three examples from the area near Mirebeau. At Diénay a complex with two villas, including hypocausts and a pool were excavated. However, part of the complex beside the villas is addressed as military road station (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 245). Nevertheless, the villas and baths indicate a partly civilian context. In any case, several brick stamps of Legio VIII Augusta were found there, and the fact that a mixed context is possible shows that the military may have been involved in the construction of baths for civilian and military use. Furthermore, a bath complex in a civilian Gallo-Roman building at Arcelot produced several bricks of stamped with three types of Series A and C of Legio VIII Augusta (Chapter 4, page 177). However, Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé state that reuse of these stamps cannot be excluded (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 245). Therefore, the theory that the military was involved in civilian bath buildings can only remain a hypothesis. Finally, at la Noue more than 500 bricks stamped with the name of Legio VIII Augusta were found. The nature of the site is not quite clear. There is a bath-house, however, it may have been built after the abandonment of the fortress at Mirebeau and it is possible that the bricks were reused from there. On the other hand, it is also possible that there was a military station before the bath-house was built, and that the bricks were used initially used for it (Bérard, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 247). The evidence presented here is rather inconclusive and critics may want to argue that in some of the cases the bricks could have been sold to civilians by the army. However, neither hypothesis, either that of brick trade between the two sectors or that of military intervention in civilian building projects, can be proven.

It has to be questioned to what degree it can be said for certain that a building – even if it was situated in a primarily civilian settlement – was actually civilian or military. There is some evidence that the Roman military influenced civilian settlements to a certain degree because of its occasional presence at baths (see below and the following page) and certain cults manifested through inscriptions at temples or beneficiarii stations in those areas. The line between civilian and military may not be as defined as scholars would like to assume. For example, the temple of Grange-des Dîmes was dedicated to the goddess Lugoves, who was a matron of trade and merchandise (Drack & Fellmann 1988: 342-343). At a first glance this seems a typically civilian deity. However, the cult of the Matrones at Bonn was mainly performed by soldiers, rather than civilians and predominantly women as one would expect (Horn 1987: 571; 574). Therefore, it is quite possible that the Roman army besides civilian bodies was involved in the building of, and worship of, the temple at Grange-desDîmes. In a building at Chassey near Mirebeau a bronze statue of Hercules with a lion-skin and several brick stamps of Legio VIII Augusta were discovered. Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé interpret this as a temple built by but not necessarily exclusively used by the military but do not

Similar evidence comes from other provinces: MacMullen argues that army personnel were widely used in civilian buildings. He gives a list of literary and epigraphic sources which record imperial buildings, naming army officials who were employed with the supervision of construction of temples, bath-houses, city walls, towers, and gates. CIL VIII 2728, for example, is a letter by an evocatus Augusti, who was sent to solve some engineering problems of a badly surveyed aqueduct at Saldae in Numidia. On the subject of imperial building 239

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

there is a passage in Ulpian where it is stated that the provincial governor, who was also the head of the army, was responsible for examining if public buildings were in need of repairs.37 Also, Pliny repeatedly requested for an architect to be sent from Lower Moesia to help his inspection of Bithynian building projects (Pliny the Younger Letters: X 17b; 39; 41; 61). MacMullen argues that it is very likely that if provincial governors were responsible for the maintenance of buildings in the provinces, the army would have been used for these jobs (MacMullen 1959: 214-215). Mitchell (1987: 18-25) reviewing this evidence for the Eastern provinces only, argues that military experience must have been highly prized in provincial public civilian buildings. He admits, however, that there is a certain ambiguity in defining a construction as either military or civilian, especially when inscriptions are incomplete or if both, members of the military and the civilian elite are mentioned. He proposes that collaboration between local civic authorities or individuals and the central administration, in form of the provincial governor or emperor may have been normal, including the regular employment of military personnel for public civilian buildings (Mitchell 1987: 20).

It is a problem that the research concerned with military brick stamps in civilian buildings has only been performed for certain areas of the former Roman Empire. It would be interesting to continue what has been done for the Germanies, Pannonia and Dalmatia for other provinces. On the other hand, other areas do not appear to have produced military bricks in civilian buildings. The opposite phenomenon, civilian stamps in obvious military territories was discussed in section 12.2.1. In conclusion, those scholars who insist that military bricks were sold to civilian private individuals cannot prove their point. Neumann’s study, for example, is more than vague about the find context of the bricks in question. Matteotti is one of the few authors who suggest that the sale of military tiles to private individuals was not common but that it did happen occasionally. From the study of his site in Kaiseraugst, it becomes clear that the number of stamps (five) is insufficient for his conclusion. However, there is no other satisfactory explanation for the existence of those stamps, which shows that their meaning cannot be explained at present. This leads us to the next point: to conclude that there was brick exchange between the civilian and the military world we need more military bricks from civilian buildings. Very few stamps were found. Secondly, some buildings that are traditionally addressed as civilian might have been built and frequented by soldiers, although situated in civilian settlements, such as the temple at Granges-des-Dîmes. Perhaps it has to be admitted that, although some idea can be gained about military and civilian territories, the buildings within these apparent areas might vary according to circumstances and the borders are not as clear cut as researchers would like to assume. From the evidence of the articles presented here, it certainly appears that, in a lot of cases, it cannot be fully determined if a building was built/used by civilians and/or the military and brick stamps are not always able to help the situation and do not make an interpretation easy. Thirdly, a lot of bricks have been used twice. The possibility of a secondary use can never fully be excluded. Alföldy suggests that most of the brick stamps in question, from Dalmatia, were military bricks, which were used for the second time. It is unlikely that these bricks would have been sold to civilians. They might have been taken from decaying and derelict military buildings in the locations described in the article. Perhaps those few military brick stamps which were indeed found in civilian private buildings and used for the first time can be seen in a slightly different light. Military brick stamps were probably stamps of authority, mainly to prevent unauthorised use. If this is the case, the fact that this protection was necessary, shows that such unauthorised use must have happened. The possibility

It appears that the Swiss research, including such authors as Matteotti, and Fuchs and Margueron, has been careful to adopt views accepted by its predecessors, as Von Gonzenbach, in recent articles. Both publications discussed above have criticised aspects of Von Gonzenbach’s and Alföldy’s hypotheses and have, again, suggested that trade between the Roman military and the private sector might have been possible, at least on a small scale. However, the material in question is examined more closely it becomes apparent that, even if the buildings in which the military brick stamps were found are perhaps of a civilian nature, the numbers of stamps are too small to come to any definite conclusions. Furthermore, the possibility cannot be excluded that some of these ‘civilian’ buildings, such as temples and perhaps some baths, were partly built and used by soldiers who frequently visited the civilian settlements near the location of their garrison. There are no definite civilian buildings, because of the above explained possibility that some might be buildings of military connections, such as temples in towns that have attested beneficiarii. Therefore, they could also be of a military origin. Not until more military brick stamps are found in buildings of Roman Switzerland for which we can definitely exclude a military context, can we reconsider our argument.

37. Ulpian is quoted in Dig. I.16.7.1 (cited after MacMullen 1959: 214215).

240

NAME STAMPS

that those few military bricks used in the buildings of private individuals had not been purchased, but stolen, cannot fully be excluded.

Although imperial titles are a substantial aid in the analysis and dating of Roman military bricks they can be used in the wrong way and lead to false conclusions. There are some guidelines which an archaeologist or epigrapher has to follow when dealing with them. Firstly, the most common mistake in brick stamp research is that missing imperial titles are often seen as a proof that a stamp was produced before the award of these names. This happens a lot in publications on Roman brick stamps but is a wrong conclusion because the titles a unit carried were not always included on the stamps. The second problem with imperial titles is that one cannot always be certain if a name on a stamp is an imperial title or the name of an individual other than the emperor or the unit’s title. The texts on military brick stamps are in most cases abbreviated. Some emperors’ names, such as the Antoniniana title, are commonly known titles of units, which also appear in other inscriptions. In those cases there is little doubt that the stamp commemorates the unit’s imperial title. Other so-called emperor’s names are not easily discerned and often there are a couple of emperors that fit a name. Mostly, these difficulties arise with later Roman military stamps. Because a lot of these names are also very common first names, it is often not only hard to decide which Roman emperor could be commemorated on the stamp, but, furthermore, to deduce if the name is not that of an individual, such as a stamping soldier, who left his name on the stamp. To a certain degree one can make deductions about the nature of the abbreviation of a name of a stamp based on its position. Individual names, such as the names of soldiers and commanders, as we have seen in section 12.2.1, usually come after the titles of a unit at the end of a stamp. An imperial title is usually positioned before other titles such as pia fidelis, pia felix, and others. However, a lot of stamps only display the number and name of a unit, followed by an abbreviation without any further titles either after or before it. It is difficult to determine, in those cases, if the abbreviation is that of an imperial title or an individual name. Examples will be given shortly.

From the evidence discussed here from the provinces in question, it becomes clear that, in spite of some scholars who claim otherwise, there is no proof for organised trade of military brick stamps to the civilian world. Some public buildings might be an exception, unless they were buildings that were equally or predominantly used by soldiers, which is a valid possibility.

12.2.3 Imperial titles and military brick stamps Imperial titles are used as one of the most important guidelines in dating military brick stamps. They enable us to place a stamp in the time frame of an emperor’s reign. Although the brick on which the stamp was placed might have been used and incorporated into a building after the emperor in question’s reign, it gives an indication of a period in which it was produced. Usually, it seems, bricks were incorporated into buildings soon after their manufacture. For more details about the question of how soon bricks were used after their production Chapter 11, pages 210-211 can be consulted. Unfortunately, not even half of all Roman military brick stamps give imperial titles, unlike other military inscriptions, like Roman military diplomas, where they are seldom missing. There are strong indications that there was no uniform custom concerning the stamping of tiles in the Roman army and that it was up to individual units and workshops to decide which words went on a die and, therefore, a stamp. Of course, it has to be considered that brick stamps are rather small in comparison to other Roman military inscriptions and that the text depended very much on space. One of the most common titles displayed on Roman brick stamps is p(ia) fi(delis), which was awarded by Domitian to all legions loyal to the emperor during the rebellion of Saturninus in AD 88. There are other variations, such as p(ia) f(elix) or p(ia) v(index), as we shall see. Mostly, other imperial titles came before these titles, although there are exceptions which will be referred to later. P(ia) f(idelis) was used by many units. Without the aid of other titles, this particular formula is not the most helpful dating criterion, because bricks displaying it date to any time after its awarding in AD 88, due to the fact that most units carried this title to the end of the Roman world. It can, however, be helpful in deciding if a brick in question dates to before or after AD 88. Therefore, this title is mostly useful for dating first century AD material.

The use of private names has been discussed at length in section 12.2.1, where it was shown that sometimes ordinary soldiers working in military tileries and workshops were able to include their names on the stamps. It is uncertain if this was done to register their daily work output or if it was a way of commemorating their names. It seems that there was no uniform custom throughout the empire. In some cases the names might be those of higher officers. There are some cases where the rank of the person, such as a legate, is added on the stamps but these are rare. Generally, as explained in section 12.2.1, where there are a variety of names, each on only a few stamps, these are more likely to be those of the soldiers stamping the tiles in the workshops. One name on many bricks is more likely to 241

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

be a higher rank officer of a unit perhaps as a kind of datestamp. There are cases of so-called imperial stamps, which are not satisfactorily explained by searching the lists of possible Roman emperors. This will be explained shortly.

the full titles were named or not, depended very much on the space on the material designed for the inscriptions. In the case of military brick stamps, the proof that titles were not always included came from Lower Germany. Bogaers and Haalebos (1977: 105-108) investigated the titles on inscriptions from Lower Germany. The military units of this province, including the classis Germanica were awarded the titles pia fidelis Domitiana after the revolt of Saturninus in AD 88/89 by Domitian. The last title was omitted after this emperor’s damnatio memoriae in AD 96. Monumental inscriptions from the area can usually be dated by these titles: Those without p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana) date to before AD 88/89, those with those titles to between AD 88/89 and those with only p(ia) f(idelis) to after AD 96 (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 105).

At first, the problems with missing titles on Roman military brick stamps shall be investigated here. As mentioned above, many articles on Roman brick stamps name missing titles as an indication of a terminus ante quem. Garcia y Bellido, for example, published the brick stamps on Legio VII Gemina in Spain, most of which came from the area of and around its legionary fortress in Leon. He dates all stamps with the text Legio VII Gemina (in abbreviation) to the years before AD 73/74 when the legion received the title felix. The unit arrived in Spain under Vespasian, which only allows for a short period of time for these stamps (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 51-54). In its palaeographic appearance, however, this group of stamps is not very homogeneous. The writing of types 48.3 and 4 is a lot more stylised and thinner than that of other types (Fig. 192-193) and could be from a different period. Some of the types have lines above and underneath the number VII, others do not. These palaeographic features, although on their own not necessarily safe dating criteria, need to be taken into consideration as well. On Garcia y Bellido’s figure 48 the numbers 2, 3 and 4 definitely appear to be a stylistically different group stylistically than 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 where the letters are a lot thicker. The stamps of figure 49, which are also stamped LEGIO VII, are a more homogenous as a group but 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 have lines above the number VII. Type 13 has the number written in reverse on top of that. The hypothesis that all the stamps are from the same period cannot be proven. This is supported by the fact that later stamps do indeed mention the felix title. As shall be seen, all the stamps in question were dated by other titles and in some cases these are not secure. However, the title felix does appear together with Antoniniana (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 57), which dating will be discussed, but which in any cases it dates to either the late second or early third century AD. This means that the cognomen felix was not merely reserved for the early years of the legion’s stay in Spain.

However, the excavators of Nijmegen show that the same does not apply to brick stamps, in which case the omission of titles can not be used for dating. The Lower German brick stamps displaying L(egio) X G(emina) can date to any period between AD 71 and 104 when this unit was garrisoned at Nijmegen. Those stamped L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana) date to the years between AD 89 and 96 and those with L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) to AD 89 to 104 (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 105-106). Baatz states already that there are some stamps of Legio XXII Primigenia that omit the title Domitiana (Baatz 1969a: 128) (Fig. 194). He observes that some of the brick stamps of this unit from Xanten carry the titles pia fidelis but not Domitiana. The former attest that the bricks must have been stamped after AD 88/89. However, since the legion left for Mainz/Mogontiacum in Upper Germany at the latest in AD 97 the bricks were very likely still produced during the reign of Domitian and before his damnatio memoriae. We know that Legio XXII Primigenia was in Mainz in the autumn of AD 97. According to Baatz, this means that it must have left Xanten/Vetera during the summer of that year, which was the traditional season for firing bricks. He suggests that if the legion had still been in Xanten when Domitian was murdered on the 18th of September AD 96, it would not have recieved the news before October, when the brick production season was over. Even if the legion

Waurick also bases a brick stamp chronology on the assumption that military brick stamps always included a unit’s titles. In the case of the stamps of Legio XXII Primigenia, he suggests that the fact that the stamps of this unit from Lower Germany do not include the Domitiana title, shows that they must have been produced after, AD 96, the year when Domitian was murdered (Waurick 1986: 834). FIGURE 194 STAMPS OF LEGION XXII PRIMIGENIA WITH AND WITHOUT DOMITIANA (BAATZ 1969A: 128)

It is known that other inscriptions, such as tombstones, do not always include a unit’s full titles. It seems that whether 242

NAME STAMPS

FIGURE 192 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS WITHOUT TITLES FROM LEON (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIGS 48 & 49)

FIGURE 193 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS WITHOUT TITLES FROM LEON (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIGS 48 & 49) 243

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 195 LEGIO X GEMINA BRICK STAMPS FROM NIJMEGEN WITH DIFFERENT TITLE COMBINATIONS (BRUNSTIG AND STEURES 1995: 326) 244

NAME STAMPS

had still been there for a short period of time, it would not have produced bricks any more (Baatz 1969a: 128).

Kaiser also recognised that missing titles cannot serve as a dating criterion when researching the brick stamps from Bonn. She argues convincingly that some of the types 198 from Bonn, which do not bear the abbreviation p(ia) f(idelis), were produced after AD 89 the year in which the legion acquired this title. The legion reached Bonn in AD 83. Kaiser states that it is unlikely that there would have been such extensive building activity between the years AD 83 and 89 to require 98 different stamp types (Kaiser 1996: 81). Even though places where a lot of types date to shorter periods are now available, as for example in Vetera, where soldiers of the Vth legion carved their names into the stamps and produced a variety of types, the time span in question is definitely too short for so many types. The total number of stamps of these types is 4000, which is also too large a number to define a period of seven years, and the chance that 400 stamps from the same seven years are found is very small. It would also mean that those 400 stamps were produced in seven years and the remaining 600 Legio I Minervia stamps in the rest of the years the legion stayed in Bonn, which is not plausible, since the legion remained for another 200 years, and often changed buildings within the fortress in that period (Kaiser 1996: 81).

Baatz’s argument is convincing. Of course there is always the possibility that a detachment of the unit stayed behind and produced bricks for the units that came after Legio XX. However, the possibility that this happened is not very high, and the explanation of the omitted titles seems satisfactory. For the dating of Nijmegen and Bogaers’s and Haalebos’s work this means the following (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.2 for a more detailed discussion of the archaeological context): the complete tegulae from the floor of Bogaers’s and Haalebos’s canalisation trench B appear to have been used for the first time. The three types of stamp texts on those tiles are the following: L(egio) X Gemina, L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) and L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana). This means that between the years AD 89 and 96 the floor of the canalisation trench was covered with tiles and that not all of the bricks had the full titles (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106). The floor of their canalisation trench A, on the other hand, consists mainly of secondarily used brick fragments. These carry the two stamps L(egio) X G(emina) and L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis), which give Bogaers and Haalebos a terminus post quem for the year AD 88. The walls of the fortress of Nijmegen produced the following stamp variants: L(egio) X G(emina), L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis), and L(egio) X G(emina) p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana). Again, they conclude that the terminus post quem for the erection of these walls was AD 88 (Bogaers & Haalebos 1977: 106).

Another example for the fact that titles were not always displayed on brick stamps is a stamp type of Legio XI Claudia from Durostorum/Silistra in modern Bulgaria. It reads LEG XI CL (Culiça 1978: 229) without including the titles pia fidelis. Nevertheless, it was found in contexts with stamps of another type which has the Antoniniana title (Culica 1978: 231), and which, therefore, has to date to from the late 190’s AD (see page 180). Unless, the bricks were reused, which cannot be fully excluded, the titles pia fidelis must have been omitted.

Bogaers and Haalebos use archaeological context to date the stamps in conjunction with the text, rather than the other way around, as done by Garcia y Bellido on his group of Legio VII stamps. Haalebos and Bogaers display a critical approach to imperial titles and illustrate the point that the omission of titles is very common on Roman brick stamps. Their proposal that all the bricks from the canal were used primarily has to be accepted, to concur with the argument. Sometimes it is not easy to tell if bricks have been used for the first time or not. This problem is further discussed in Chapter 11. However, one gets the impression that the bricks are indeed complete and show no signs of wear or traces of mortar, as is sometimes the case with secondarily used stamps. Of course, it is never easy to determine for certain if bricks have been used for the first time or not. In the case of Bogaers and Haalebos canalisation trench B, it is likely that they were, which results in a high probability that those bricks stamped L(egio) X G(emina) omit all other titles that the unit already possessed at the time when the bricks were produced and probably not too much later built into the trench. It is not very likely that bricks were stored and kept for a time, long enough to allow them to have been produced in a time before AD 88 (Baatz 1965: 124).

These studies show that title dating has its limitations: existing titles are a safe and easy way to date brick stamps, and should be used when present as they provide a terminus post quem. Missing titles, on the other hand, are no indication for a terminus ante quem and cannot be used to date brick stamps before a certain time. It can be assumed that in most areas of the former Roman Empire brick stamps did not always automatically include all titles. It appears that the decision if these were to be included or not depended on the space on a tile. This is not, however, the only reason why titles are sometimes omitted. In section 12.2.1 it has been shown how the design of brick stamps and the inclusion of an individual’s name were usually arbitrary. The same applies to imperial titles. Although they appear more often than the names of soldiers and officers, they are frequently omitted. Researchers can only hypothesize about what led those men who cut the dies and put the stamps on the tiles to state the full titles 245

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

of their unit or not. It may be thought that these titles are connected with a certain amount of honour for the army and would not easily be forgotten or deliberately excluded. Nonetheless, it is known that this was not always the case. It has been shown that stamping customs varied and were specific to a unit and/or province. In many cases, it was probably an immunis figlinis, who was not necessarily of high rank but might often have been chosen for the management of the brick works due to his experience in that sector, who decided on the text on the stamps. In some cases, the soldiers who cut the dies could also have made such decisions, especially when the bricks or stamps were too small to include the full titles. However proud the Roman military units were of their imperial titles, which they usually received for honours earned in various wars, they did not always include these on their bricks and tiles. If one considers that these were usually used quite soon after their production this is not too surprising. A brick or tile, built into a roof, a wall, or a floor would not have been open to public view and often the stamps were on the averted side. As mentioned before, the main purpose of a military brick stamp was to emphasise its owner, the Roman army, to prevent civilians from stealing and using it. A tile inscription, unlike a publicly viewed stone one, would not have been in open view for long periods of time but perhaps the stamp was meant to deter theft for the short period of time that it may have been stacked in a brick workshop until its use. One did not necessarily need to include the full titles on the bricks, which were known to the men within the unit anyway.

proposed that the British legions were given the Antoniniana title in AD 213, which supports Fitz’s view but concludes that the title was awarded at a time when Caracalla was already safely installed on the throne (E. Birley 1951: 4551=1953: 172-180). However, Grimes already suggested in 1930 that some of the bricks thus stamped may date to Septimius Severus (Grimes 1930: 124) without going into further detail about this assumption and Lörincz was able to prove with the evidence of a building inscription from Viminacium/Kostolca in Upper Moesia that this title was indeed occasionally already being used under this emperor (Lörincz 1982: 142-144). More recently, Haalebos and Franzen showed that some bricks stamped with the Antoniniana title came from contexts that dated to the reign of Septimius Severus (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). Therefore, it has been shown that occasionally the title could have been used from the time Septimius Severus proclaimed himself the son of Marcus Aurelius and his son Bassianus (Caracalla) was renamed Marcus Aurelius Antoninus in AD 195 at the earliest (A.R. Birley 1971: 184). This allows for a date frame of the Antoniniana title from AD 195 to the end of the reign of Elagabal in AD 222. It has already been mentioned that pia fidelis was awarded to those legions loyal to Domitian in Upper Germany in AD 88/89. There is no upper time limit because those units who were given this title appear to have kept it on their list until the end of the Roman world. Flavia has been suggested for the f on brick stamps during the Domitian era but there is no proof for that expansion (Kaiser 1996: 72).

This leads to the next problem of imperial titles. It has been stated that when they do exist they provide an easy way of dating. Furthermore, as has been shown, individual names also appear on stamps sometimes. How easy is it to tell the difference between such individual names and imperial titles? The names of emperors were usually quite common Roman names. The variety of Roman names is not very large. It has been high-lighted that most brick stamps come in an abbreviated form. How can the difference be told? Scholars dating military brick stamps by their imperial titles usually appear to be certain that these really are imperial names. Can they really be certain?

Severiana is, occasionally, a title under the reign of Septimius Severus (AD 193-211) (Barkoczi & Soproni 1981: Nos. 840; 843) and usually marks the period of Severus Alexander (AD 222-235). The full title Severiana Alexandriana was also common under this emperor (RIB II.4: 148). The cognomen Gordiana was given under the reign of Gordian III (AD 238-244). Usually, emperor’s titles, with the exception of the above mentioned Antoniniana, which possibly describes a whole dynasty, disappeared after the death of an emperor. As mentioned before, other inscriptions usually put p(ia) f(idelis) etc. after all other titles, but again, this is not always the case with brick stamps and once more there appears to have been no uniform custom there.

Of course, there are a lot of imperial titles, which are attested on large numbers of brick stamps, and which are quite secure. Some examples will be given. Most of the titles addressed here as secure are also recorded on stone inscriptions (RIB I; Le Bohec 1981: 159).

Other emperor’s titles on brick stamps are more doubtful. One tile stamp of Legio II Augusta from Britain, for example, displays the letters […] VG·VI (Fig. 196). RIB (II.4: 2459.64) gives the expansion [Leg(io) II A]ug(usta) Vi(ctoriniana) after the Gallic emperor Victorinus (AD

A lot of units carry the title Antoniniana. Fitz suggested that this title was given by Caracalla to those units who remained loyal to him against his brother Geta who was assassinated in AD 211 (Fitz 1977: 545-547). E. Birley 246

NAME STAMPS

found on ten bricks. Another type from Chester also has the third V (Fig. 198) The third V has been expanded as V(ictoriniana) although again RIB admits that this is not certain (RIB II.4: 193) Perhaps the name is also that of a stamping soldier.

FIGURE 196 TILE STAMP OF LEGIO II AUGUSTA FROM CAERLEON WITH THE LETTERS VG·VI (RIB II.4: 2459.64)

Several tiles from the same legion display the letters DE on the stamp. Type RIB II.4 2463.54 was found on 14 different bricks and reads: LEG XX VV DE (Fig. 199). It has been suggested that DE could be expanded as De(ciana), and therefore, date the stamp to the reign of Decius (AD 249251) (RIB II.4: 191). However Frere and Tomlin favour the interpretation that these stamps might refer to Chester’s ancient name Deva, and thus read alternatively Leg(io) XX V(aleria) V(ictrix) De(vensis) (RIB II.4: 191). This explanation seems preferable because of the fact that on another type 2463. 55 on a total of 15 stamps the DE comes between Val(eria) and V(ictrix). Place names of legion’s garrisons are not completely uncommon on tile stamps. Sometimes bricks from Strasbourg/Agentorate also include the ancient place name on their tiles (WeschKlein 1984: 399). Place names mentioned on the tiles of Moesia and Pannonia are mentioned in section 12.2.1. The British school of research, therefore, has recognised that not all apparent imperial titles are totally secure. It has given some thought to the matter, offered alternative suggestions, and admitted, occasionally, that we cannot be fully certain of the meaning of certain abbreviations.

FIGURE 197 LEGIO XX VALERIA VICTRIX STAMP FROM CHESTER WITH A THIRD V (RIB II.4: 2463.56(I) & (V)) 268-270), but admits that it is not very likely because none of the brick stamps on the Rhine bear a similar title. However, Victorinus did include Legio II Augusta on a very rare set of aurei (RIB II.4: 146). Of course, it could be argued that bricks stamped with his title in Germany might not have been found yet. However, Victor or Victorinus is an extremely common praenomen, which would have been the name of many soldiers. It is not impossible that this tile cannot be expanded as Vi(ctoriana) but Vi(ctorinus/ianus) or Vi(ctor)and is the name of the soldier who worked at the brick works and put the stamp on the tile. Since it is the only tile of Legio II Augusta in Britain with this name, it cannot be ruled out. As explained in section 12.2.1 there are few other British military brick stamps which carry the names of what are likely to be, stamping soldiers. As mentioned in section 12.2.1, a stamp type of Legio XX from Tarbock and Chester mentions a certain Viducius/us. There was a Victorinus/ianus from Avenches/Aventicum who was probably an immunis figlinis of Legio XXI (Fuchs & Margueron 1998: 107-108). For a further discussion of this stamp see section 12.2.1). A stamp type of Legio XX Valeria Victrix from Chester/Britain has a third V after its name reading LEG XX VVV (Fig. 197). This stamp was

Until recently, on the other hand, the Spanish research was generally keen to address all abbreviations as imperial titles: Garcia y Bellido who published the stamps of Legio VII Gemina from Spain explains a lot of the abbreviations on the stamps with imperial titles. For a more detailed

FIGURE 198 LEGIO XX VALERIA VICTRIX STAMP FROM CHESTER WITH A THIRD V (RIB II.4: 2463.57)

FIGURE 199 LEGIO XX VALERIA VICTRIX STAMP TYPE FROM BRITAIN WITH THE LETTERS CE (RIB II.4: 2463.54) 247

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 200 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS FROM LEON WITH THE TITLE FELIX (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 52)

discussion of his articles, see Chapter 5, section 5.2.1. Although in some of those cases the expansion appears to be justified, there are other cases in which we cannot be certain if a name is really an imperial title or not. The division of stamp types was only based on the titles on the stamps. I have already cited the example of stamps only displaying the name and the number of the legion, Legio VII, which Garcia y Bellido addresses as one group (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 51-54) but which does not seem to be a very stylistically homogenous collection. He only based these groups on the imperial names on the stamps. The following pages will investigate how certain these emperor’s names are.

FIGURE 201 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS FROM LEON WITH THE TITLE FELIX (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 51)

Apart from the stamps only displaying Legio and VII in abbreviation there are some groups citing Legio VII felix, Legio VII Gemina felix, Legio II pia and Legio VII Gemina pia felix (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 54-57). These words are also abbreviated (Fig. 200-202). We can, however, be quite certain about these names and titles, although the time in which they were received is not fully secured. Garcia y

FIGURE 202 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS FROM LEON WITH THE TITLE PIA (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 54) 248

NAME STAMPS

Bellido gives the impression that it is certain that the title felix was awarded in AD 73/74 (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 54). He obtained this information from Ritterling, who, however, suggests that although we might assume that the unit was given this name during wars on the Rhine in the years before it returned to Spain in AD 74, this is not proven. There are some brick stamps form Rheinzabern that omit this title but it is mentioned on an inscription from Worms (Ritterling RE XII: 1632).

There are seven stamps from Leon reading L(egio) VII G(emina) A(ntoniana) p(ia) f(elix) (Fig. 203). The expansion A(ntoniana) is plausible since this title appears on brick stamps of most units. Garcia y Bellido dates it to the time of Caracalla (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 57). There are three tombstones from Spain mentioning the same title (CIL II 2663; 3337; 4137), one of which put the Antoniniana after the pia felix, which is more unusual (CIL II 4137). In view of Lörincz’s and Haalebos and Franzen’s research Garcia y Bellido’s dating of the stamps to Caracalla does now seem too narrow and should be extended to the period from Septimius Severus to Elagabal (Lörincz 1982: 142144; Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123).

Under the reign of Septimius Severus (AD 193-211), the legion acquired the title pia felix, which is attested by stone inscriptions. An inscription CIL II 4121, which dates to Septimius Severus’ reign, between AD 208 and 211, and which describes the cursus honorum of Q. Hedius Lollianus Gentianus includes p(ia) f(elix). Another inscription, which records the same man while he was governor of Spain, CIL II 4122, does not include these titles but because of the fact that part of the inscription has broken off they have been substituted with the same words, which is probably correct (Ritterling RE XII: 1637). The son or nephew of Q. Hedius Lollianus Gentianus, Lollianus Plautius Avitus, a legate of Legio VII in AD 209, is commemorated as such in an inscription (CIL VI 32412) that names him: leg(atus) leg(ionis) VII Gemin(ae) piae felicis, perhaps at the same time when his kinsman governed the province (Ritterling RE XII: 1637). This inscription proves that the f of the previous one and on the brick stamps indeed stands for felix rather than fidelis, common with the units that were on the Rhine in AD 88/89. Both titles are recorded on a number of stone inscriptions in CIL II, compiled by Hübner (CIL II 2664; 2663; 2667; 3327; 4083; 4111, 4144; 4156; 4157; 4152; 4153; 4148; 4145).

There is no picture of the stamp that Garcia y Bellido expands as that of Severus Alexander (AD 222-235). Therefore, we do not know in what abbreviation the supposed Legio VII Gemina pia felix Severiana Alexandriana is present. The title, however, is common enough in the Roman provinces not to exclude the possibility. Also, there are two inscriptions on stone which mention this title: Leg(io) VII G(emina) Sever(iana) p(ia) f(elix) in CIL II 2664 and Leg(io) VII Gem(ina) p(ia) f(elix) Severiana Alexandriana in CIL II 4111. Garcia y Bellido states that it was also found on other inscriptions of Legio VII from Spain (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 58). More doubtful is the reading of another brick stamp type, on one stamp from Leon, which Garcia y Bellido expands as [L]e(gio) VII G(emina) Max(iminiana) p(ia) f(elix) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 58-59). The exact find location of the stamp is unknown. Garcia y Bellido names a number of emperors who could have been abbreviated in this way:

FIGURE 203 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS FROM LEON WITH THE TITLE ANTONINIANA PIA FELIX (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 56) 249

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 204 STAMP TYPE OF LEGIO VII FROM LEON WITH THE ABBREVIATION MAX (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 57) Maximinianus, Maximinus, Maximus, Maxentius. His favoured interpretation is that it refers to Maximinus I (AD 235-238), also known as Maximinus Thrax, who followed Severus Alexander, because it might have followed stylistically the previous stamp group (Fig. 204) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 37). This is difficult to comprehend since he does not include a picture of the previous stamp, interpreted as that of Alexander Severus. Hübner (CIL II 6252 r; s; t; u) claims to have found four stamps of this group, which were supposed to be in Leon but were not found by Garcia y Bellido when completing his study (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 37). The reading of the stamp is not certain and the title could refer to a number of emperors of that very common Roman name. Nevertheless, it is possible that the title could be imperial because of its position on the stamps, before the titles p(ia) f(elix). If it was the name of a soldier who stamped the tile it would probably have come after the other imperial titles.

FIGURE 205 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMPS FROM LEON WITH THE ABBREVIATION PHL (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 59) G(emina) Phil(lippiana) were said to have been found in San Miguel de Escalada. These stamps were not included in his catalogue because they were lost at the time of his publication (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60). The stamps named in his list might be imperial titles because the Ph(i)l(ippiana) comes before the p(ia) f(elix). However, it is not certain if the same applies to the stamps allegedly found from San Miguel de Escalada, since here the name appears to come after the legion’s name with no pia felix. Therefore, this could also be a soldier’s name. Phillipus is a common name amongst Roman men, which allows for this conclusion. It is mentioned three times as a cognomen in Spain (CIL II Suppl.: 1089). However, since there are no drawings of these stamps, which seem to have been lost, the possibility that the titles pia felix were at the end of the stamp and were broken off cannot be excluded.

Garcia y Bellido names five stamps with the text: L(egio) VII G(emina) Gor(diana) p(ia) f(elix), one with [L(egio) VII G(emina)] Gor(diana) p(ia) f(elix), one with [L(egio)] VII G(emina) Gor(diana) p(ia) felix) and one case were the word for legion is not mentioned: (Legio) VII G(emina) Gor(diana) p(ia) f(elix). Gordianus III ruled between AD 238 and 244. Garcia y Bellido states that stamps with this legend were numerous but only includes eight stamps in his publication (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 59; fig. 58) Almost all of the types have full stops separating the words, which is rare amongst the stamps of Legio VII Gemina from Spain (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 59). The expansion Gordiana is justified since this is a common title and it comes before the titles pia felix and because of the stone inscription of CIL II 2667 e, which reads L(egio) VII G(emina) Gor(diana) p(ia) f(elix).

One stamp displays the letters DEC·TRA with a punctuation mark in the middle (Fig. 206). Garcia y Bellido expands this with [L(egio) VII G(emina)] Dec(iana) Trai(ana) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60). Another stamp with the letters G TRA is recorded by Hübner (CIL II 6252). Garcia y Bellido suggests that this was a misreading and that the letters were the same on the stamps he discusses, and which were still there at the time he stared writing about the stamps from Leon (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60). There is evidence that Castillon, a scholar from the 1920’s, had

There are three stamps from Leon displaying the letters PHL before the P F and after the name G(emina). Two of the stamps are expanded as L(egio) VII G(emina) Ph(i)l(ippiana) p(ia) f(elix), a third has the same expansion but L(egio) is broken off (Fig. 205). Garcia y Bellido suggests completing the emperor’s name with Philippus, due to the fact that there were two emperors of this name. Father and son ruled between the years AD 244 and 249 (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60). Garcia y Bellido adds, furthermore, that two more stamps displaying Leg(io) VII

FIGURE 206 STAMP DISPLAYING DEC·TRA FROM LEON (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 60) 250

NAME STAMPS

a similar stamp which is also lost (Diaz-Jimenez 1920: 162). A third stamp is mentioned by Hübner in CIL, which displays the letters TRA (CIL II 6252z). Again, this stamp could not be relocated by Garcia y Bellido. Nevertheless, Garcia y Bellido attributes all these stamps to the reign of Decius Traianus (AD 249-251) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60). Decius Traianus is an unusual imperial title and is to my knowledge not recorded on brick stamps from any other legion. Also, the evidence from these three brick stamps is somewhat doubtful. Garcia y Bellido’s stamp, which is illustrated in his publication, might not even contain the name and number of the legion. The name might be that of the emperor but could also be that of any other individual with a similar name. Although Garcia y Bellido claims otherwise, no inscriptions in CIL II that mention this imperial title in connection with Legio VII Gemina could be found during the research for this thesis. One stamp recorded by Hübner only includes the letters TRA. The fact that there is no p(ia) f(elix) after this supposed imperial title leaves it somewhat doubtful. It is not certain that these brick stamps record the name of the emperor Decius Traianus. Naturally, this also leaves the British reading of stamps with DE rather doubtful. RIB suggests that a stamp type of Legio XX from Britain displaying the letters DE could either be expanded as Deciana referring to the emperor Decius, or as De(vensis), referring to Deva, the Roman name for Chester, where the legion was garrisoned. (RIB II.4: 125; type 2463. 54) Unlike Garcia y Bellido, the scholars of RIB admit that either expansion is uncertain.

relatively short time, and one year or a couple of months of reign were usually not enough to have one’s imperial title included on brick stamps. Also, Claudius and Clodius are two different names, and it is not certain which one is meant here. The stamp cannot date to the Claudian period although brick stamping existed at least already in the two Germanies then (see Chapter 10, pages 201-204) because Legio VII Gemina did not arrive in the province until Vespasian. Instead of interpreting this stamp as an imperial title it could be argued that Cl(audius/ianus) or Cl(odius/ ianus) was the name of either, a stamping soldier working at the brick works of Legio VII at Leon or an officer of this unit. Finally, another reason for dismissing this name as a imperial title is the fact that none of the stone inscriptions mentioning Legio VII Gemina recorded in CIL II appear to include a title Claudiana. In addition, it has to be remembered that Claudius was one of the most common Roman names in all levels of society. In Spain it appears 47 times as a nomen gentile and 45 times as a cognomen (CIL II Suppl.: 1059) Claudianus or Clodianus can also appear as a cognomen (Kajanto 1965: 144). Soldier’s names on brick stamps have been discussed at length in section 12.2.1 and are not an uncommon occurrence. It is also not the only mention of what could be a possible name from Spain. A stamp listed in CIL II 6252 o reads LEG VII GE REB. Garcia y Bellido could not find this stamp when he was compiling his study of Legio VII stamps in Spain. He is not certain how to interpret the name and recognises that it was not a cognomen of any known emperor (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 61). He does not seem to be aware of the fact that soldiers’ names on brick stamps are not an uncommon phenomenon elsewhere. The name Reburrus appears on a brick stamp from Cologne/Germany. This inscription from Mainz names Reburrus as the cognomen of a soldier of Cohors I Hispanorum (Schwörbel 1920: 20). There was probably no connection between the Reburrus from Spain and the one from Germany, but Reburrus seems to have been a cognomen also used in Spain since CIL II mentions it 30 times (CIL II Suppl.: 1090) and it shows that Reburrus on a tile could be the name of a stamping soldier.

Even more ambiguous is Garcia y Bellido’s expansion of a further stamp from Leon which reads: LEG VII CL in reverse (Fig. 207). The last letter in an upside down L. Garcia y Bellido suggests Leg(io) VII Cl(audiana) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60) but this is not certain. The stamp does not mention the imperial pia felix, which otherwise characterises the stamps of Legio VII. Garcia y Bellido proposes that it refers to the emperor Claudius II Gothicus who reigned between AD 269 and 270. He also states that Clodius Albinus (AD 193-197) and Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus (AD 409-411) could be possible (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 60). However, all of these emperors with the exception of Clodius Albinus were only in power for a

Two bricks found at San Isidoro’s orchard at Leon read: LEG VII GE QUI. The L on the first brick is broken off, apart from that they appear identical and seem to be the same type from the same die (Fig. 208). Garcia y Bellido expands these as Leg(io) VII Ge(mina) Qui(ntiliana) or Qui(etiana). He argues that they could be attributed to Quintillus, Claudius Gothicus brother who reigned in AD 270 or to the reign of Quietus (AD 260-262) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 61). Again, this is highly unlikely. Both men reigned for a short time only and Quietus did not reign in Spain, so it is likely that their titles may not have

FIGURE 207 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMP FROM LEON WITH THE ABBREVIATION CL (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 61) 251

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

or stamped the tile. The same is the case for a stamp displaying LEG VII CEIE (Fig. 209). Again, Garcia y Bellido classifies this inscription as unidentified (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 61). It is possible that the first C is supposed to be a G and stands for G(emina). But it could also be part of the name Ceie(tus?..), which possibly names the stamping soldier. The nature of the name cannot be determined for certain. FIGURE 208 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMP FROM LEON WITH THE ABBREVIATION QVI (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 62)

Another stamp, which the Garcia y Bellido treats as unidentified, reads: LEG VII G F METI CECILI (Fig. 209) (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 61). The stamp is broken off at the right side where there was originally more text. The name, METI CECILI is on the second line, therefore, there must have been text in between. This is unusual for the Legio VII from Spain because, as we have seen, most of the other stamps, which probably commemorate soldiers, only have one line. The following reading is likely: Leg(io) VII G(emina) f(elix) […] Meti(us/ilius) Cecili(us). After the second i for CECILI there are the remains of a letter that does not appear to be a U because it is rather straight and not rounded, and which therefore, does not appear to be part of the nomen Cecilius. It could have been a word like fecit. Although we cannot fully read this stamp it is probable that the stamp is one of those types of Legio VII that name soldiers. Of course, the possibility that a legate is named, like on the stamps of Legio VIII Augusta from Mirebeau as explained in section 12.2.1, cannot be excluded fully. However, usually if a higher officer, such as a legate, was included on stamps, we would expect to find more examples. The exact nature of the name is uncertain. The topic of soldiers’ names, and why they can usually be addressed as such rather than the names of civilians tiling for the army, has been discussed at length in section 12.2.1. Of course, a certain decision can never be made unless the archaeological context of the find location, either military or civilian, is known. The stamps discussed by Garcia y Bellido do not always have this context and the stamps listed here appear to be from an unknown one (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 61).

resulted in being used in military titulature, especially on brick stamps, which do not necessarily mention all titles. A similar title does not appear to have been put on stamps of any other legion. Quietus/Quintus/Quintilius/Quintilianus etc. were all common Roman names and could all have been the names of soldiers in the Roman army of Spain. CIL II on Spain mentions Quintus as a nomen gentile 13 times and it was also an extremely common praenomen (CIL II Suppl.: 1071). The cognomen Quietus appears 10 times, Quintanus once, Quintianus three times, Quintilianus four times and Quintillus twice (CIL II Suppl.: 1090). Again, the titles pia felix which in the case of Legio VII usually come after the imperial titles, are missing here. It seems that some types at Leon commemorated imperial titles and others stamping soldiers. In this case, it is likely that we are dealing with the latter. Garcia y Bellido treats some other stamps as unidentified because he could not classify them as imperial titles. Some of these cases can be interpreted as soldiers’ names. There is one stamp reading: LEG VII GE PRI (Fig. 209). Garcia y Bellido states that he is not certain about the letters PRI and that the expansion pri(ma) does not make sense (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 61). However Leg(io) VII Ge(mina) pri(mus) is not unbelievable, in which case the inscription refers to the soldier who produced and/

It appears that there are two different types of Legio VII stamps from Spain recording names: those that cite imperial titles and those that record soldiers. Again, the phenomenon of these two distinctive groups of stamps (not to mention the third group, which mentions neither, an imperial title nor a soldier’s name, and which is not relevant here) shows how varied stamping habits were. It has been discussed before on page 152 that there was probably no uniform custom in designing the stamp dies. It is impossible to determine if it was the manager of the workshop, the so called custos castelli figlinarum (Dolata 1994b: 67-72) or the soldiers working there who decided what words went on the stamps. Perhaps customs changed

FIGURE 209 LEGIO VII GEMINA STAMP FROM LEON WITH POSSIBLE SOLDIERS NAME’S (GARCIA Y BELLIDO 1968: FIG. 63) 252

NAME STAMPS

from place to place and time to time. Perhaps it depended on the enthusiasm of the managing immunes, or even higher officer in charge whether they paid attention to the wording of brick stamps or not. In the case of the Legio VII stamps from Leon a possible chronology and possible chronological differences between those stamps containing imperial titles and those naming stamping soldiers are discussed on pages 247-252.

and appears to think that it could only refer to Maximinus Thrax (Le Bohec 1981: 144). However, not only could Maximiana/Maximiniana refer to a number of emperors, but the letters I M on the stamp are also very ambiguous and might not be an imperial title at all . No other stamp definitely referring to this emperor in his catalogue could be found. The abbreviated letters on this stamp could also be part of a tria nomina. VAG and VAC· are expanded by Le Bohec as Valeriana Gallienana (Le Bohec 1981: 142). Again, these letters are not quite definitive as imperial titles. They could refer to those emperors (AD 253-260) but they could again be parts of soldiers’ or officers’ names. There is a series of stamps reading LEG III VA, VAL or again VAG/C (Le Bohec 1981: 145). It is not certain if these are imperial titles or other names. Le Bohec acknowledges the difficulty of this reading in another part of his text and states that it could be the possible name of a tegularius (Le Bohec 1981: 153). Finally, it is not certain which stamps, according to Le Bohec’s catalogue, are attributed to the title Aureliana. Aurelian ruled between AD 270 and 275. It is worth noting that the above mentioned stamps never mention other imperial titles such as p(ia) v(index) with the other supposed imperial titles. Le Bohec uses these titles for a chronology of stamps. Therefore, this dating is not valid if the stamps present other names rather than those of emperors. At least it should be said that his chronology, due to those problems, can only remain hypothesis, as can the suggested imperial titles.

The brick stamps of Legio III Augusta from Numidia and Africa with its garrison at Lambaesis also included a wide range of imperial titles. Some of these are well attested as such, and there is little doubt that they are indeed emperors’ names. However, there are some cases which are uncertain, and the imperial titles of those units shall be discussed here briefly. The brick stamps of Legio III Augusta from Northern Africa were catalogued, analysed and published by Le Bohec (Le Bohec 1981: 127-160). A lot of his dating is based on the imperial titles. He lists the titles on the stamps of Legio III Augusta and suggests the following dates: pia vindex Antoniniana Severiana Alexandriniana Severiana Aexandriniana Maximiniana Valeriana Gallienana Valeriana Gallienana Aureliana pia fidelis

AD 194/195-238 Caracalla-Elagabal Severus Alexander Severus Alexander Severus Alexander Maximinus Thrax Valerianus and Gallienus Gallienus Aurelianus AD 286-305

One fact that justifies Le Bohec’s hypothesis on imperial names is that all these titles discussed above also all appear on other inscriptions of Legio III in Northern Africa. A list of all those titles and the inscriptions in which they appear is given in Le Bohec’s study (Le Bohec 1981: 130131). For a more detailed discussion of the chronological background of the legion’s stay in Africa, see Chapter 8, section 8.2.

TABLE 12 (Le Bohec 1981: 159) The period of time in which the titles pia fidelis were won is not certain, but it is known that pia vindex was awarded to the legion by Septimius Severus because of its loyalty during the civil war of AD 193 (Ritterling RE XII: 1500-1506). Le Bohec might date the title Antoniniana to too short a period because, as explained on page 180, it was occasionally already used under Septimius Severus. Therefore, the stamps could date as early as AD 195. Severus Alexander, who reigned between AD 222 and 235, was often named in imperial titles on brick stamps. The dates for the stamps from Lambaesis and surrounding area with the titles Severiniana, Alexandriniana and Severiana Alexandriniana are quite certain. Maximiana/Maximiniana, on the other hand, as Le Bohec fails to recognise, could be attributed to a range of emperors. I am not fully certain which stamp refers to this title in Le Bohec’s catalogue. There is one stamp type that reads L III, followed by a reversed A without beam, an I, and another reversed A without beam and N. Le Bohec suggests I(uliae) M(aximinianae)

There are more uncertain stamps of Legio III Augusta: B and BA are interpreted by Le Bohec as soldiers’ names. He states that no ranks can be detected (Le Bohec 1981: 143-144; 152). If we consider the evidence from Novae (Chapter 6, section 6.2.2) and Vetera (Chapter 2, section 2.2.2) this is not surprising because usually the names are just given in abbreviation without any indication of a man’s rank. Le Bohec proposes, furthermore, that B could also stand for bindex instead of vindex, although the combination of vindex without pia does not appear on any other stamps of the legion in third century Africa (Le Bohec 1981: 152). One type writes CON after the number and name of the legion (Le Bohec 1981: 138). Le Bohec suggests Constantiana or Constans. He also states that, if one accepts the theory of misspelling, it could stand for Gordiana (Le Bohec 1981: 152). Another stamp reads 253

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

COR (Le Bohec 1981: 139), which is a more likely form of Gordiana. This title is known from stone inscriptions (Le Bohec 1981: 131). However, since Legio III Augusta was disbanded by Gordian in AD 238, an alternative reading may also apply (Ritterling RE XII: 1501). Constantia could either refer to one of the emperors of this name in the early and middle fourth century AD. Constans would be an otherwise unknown title of the unit. CON could also be part of the name of a soldier. Two types read N after the number and name of the legion. Le Bohec proposes n(ova) (Le Bohec 1981: 144; 152) but this reading does not really make sense. There is another stamp type reading NUM (Le Bohec 1981: 144) which he expands with Num(eriana) (Le Bohec 1981: 152). Perhaps all three types refer to the same person or title. In any case, they could also be soldiers’ names but there is no way to be certain, unless a stamp with longer text is found. Another stamp type reads PER LEG III AUG P V (Le Bohec 1981: 137). P V is easily expanded as p(iam) v(indicem). Le Bohec suggests that the rest of the text might be in reverse and mean LEG III AUG PER, which is displayed by two further types (Le Bohec 1981: 144-145). In this case, he proposes Per(petua) as the title of the unit (Le Bohec 1981: 152-153). Again, it is not very satisfactory because no other occasions for the achievement of this title are known and the title does not appear in other inscriptions. It is more likely a soldiers’ name.

name and number of the legion. Stamps that correspond to an Aureliana title in Le Bohec’s catalogue at all could not be identified during the research for this thesis. Indeed, Maximus/Maximinanus was a common Roman name. With such abbreviation, it is not certain that they are meant to be emperors names, and therefore, imperial titles. This does not mean that there are no have imperial titles on the brick stamps of Legio III Augusta from Africa. But care has to be taken in implying that such titles are the only possible explanation for some abbreviations. The fact that none of these titles appear with the other honourable titles acquired by the unit pia vindex (for those imperial titles dating after AD 194/195 and before 238) and pia fidelis (from AD 286305) which were likely to have come after the emperors’ names, makes such interpretations more doubtful. On the other hand, as has been stressed before, there was no uniform custom concerning this habit, and these titles did not necessarily come at the end. Nevertheless, it has to be remembered, that Le Bohec is extremely careful and states that imperial titles and honours are only one of the possible interpretations (Le Bohec 1981: 135). The second suggestion by Le Bohec is that the brick stamps display the names of legates of Legio III Augusta. This hypothesis is based on the fact that there is a stamp from the Roman fortress of Mirebeau/France, which mentions a legate: Leg(io) VIII Aug(usta) Lappio Leg(ato) (Berárd, Le Bohec & Reddé 1995: 194-200). On the examples from Africa there are two possible types that could mention legates. These would, therefore, read: Leg(io) III Aug(usta) Num(mo legato) and Leg(io) III Aug(usta) Gor(diano legato). The two legates found are L(ucius) Acilius Strabo Clodius Nummus, who was a legate of the legion and the province in AD 116 and Ti(berius) Claudius Gordianus, who was legate in AD 188. Le Bohec states that the fact that we cannot be certain in a lot of cases if we are dealing with a cognomen or nomen, as in the cases of Aur(elius) which could be also the imperial title Aureliana, makes an expansion and satisfactory explanation more confusing (Le Bohec 1981: 154).

Le Bohec recommends several meanings for the different ‘titles’ of the legion: one of them is that Legio III Augusta displayed titles of honour for the units the soldiers served under, and therefore, imperial titles. He suggests that this is attested by the fact that there are many brick stamps that display common titles like Severiana or Antoniniana and that it is unusual to find these kind of titles on brick stamps (Le Bohec 1981: 153). However, neither Severiana nor Antoniniana are really rare on brick stamps elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and they appear on many stamps from different provinces. On the other hand, many of the titles proposed by Le Bohec like Valeriana or Perpetua have few parallels. Valeriana and Gallienana, however, are attested on stone inscriptions (Ritterling RE XII: 1505). The abbreviations on the stamps are VAL, VAG and VAC· It cannot be determined for certain if these are really abbreviations for the titles in question or if these are abbreviations for something else, such as a soldier’s name. Of course, the interpretation of a soldier’s name is also only one of many hypotheses, and the name on the stamp could also be that of an officer in the Roman army. A definite decision for one of these expansions is not possible. The same applies for the abbreviations for Aureliana and Maximiniana. Both are attested titles on other inscriptions (Ritterling RE XII: 1505). However, the stamps in question here, which are supposed to be expanded somehow as M(aximiniana), read MG after the

Finally, as has been suggested before by this researcher, the third possibility raised by Le Bohec is that the names on the stamps are those of the soldiers who inscribed the tiles (Le Bohec 1981: 155). Section 12.2.1 has named some cases from other provinces where we can be certain that the persons named on the stamps were the soldiers working in the brick factories rather than officers. As a rule of thumb, we can say that one name on many stamps (as in Mirebeau where the rank is mentioned as well) is likely to have been the name of one person, probably an officer of higher rank. Many different abbreviations, each on few stamps, as we have here, with the stamps of Legio III, are usually more likely to be ordinary soldiers. Le Bohec says 254

NAME STAMPS

that this theory only works if one excludes those cases that were definitely imperial titles (such as Antoninianaof course this could also be a name of a soldier named Antoninianus but this title has been attested elsewhere on the tiles of many legions and has been found frequently on the stone inscriptions of Legio III. It is perhaps the most secure imperial title we know (Le Bohec 1981: 155).

other information, such as imperial titles. The survey of titles presented here has shown, furthermore, shown that imperial titles are really only secured for the very late second and first half of the third century; namely from the Severans to the Gordians. All titles presumably referring to later emperors, especially those who were in power for a short period of time, are doubtful. Without the knowledge of the archaeological context, it is not possible to date stamps based on these ‘late titles’.

Both legions’ brick stamps discussed here, the ones of Legio VII Gemina from Spain and the ones from Legio III Augusta from Africa have shown that imperial titles cannot always be recognised easily. Often, brick stamps only show three abbreviated letters. In the cases were an imperial title is known from other sources, such as stone inscriptions, it can be assumed that the same title is represented on a brick stamp. If other titles of honour, such as the pia felix of Legio VII Gemina or the pia vindex or pia fidelis of Legio III Augusta, come after these abbreviations, it can also be supposed that they were imperial titles. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this rule, because the pia/fidelis/felix/ vindex etc. does not necessarily always come after imperial names. This chapter does not want to suggest that imperial titles shall be excluded completely from our interpretation of military brick stamps because they did exist and were used frequently from the late second century AD onwards, but wants to propose care with titles that are otherwise unknown. It has been seen that there are other possibilities: military brick stamps do sometimes name soldiers or army officers. What has been perceived as an imperial title could be an individual’s, rather than a unit’s, name. As long as a stamp only gives an abbreviation it is impossible to tell for certain. However, assumptions can be made based on the knowledge derived from other inscriptions, historical background such as battles fought, which might have caused the award of a title and known combinations of titles on other military brick stamps. Imperial titles on brick stamps can still be used for dating. This means, however, that researchers have to be careful and should aim to identify securely the titles if their importance, so far held in brick stamp research, shall be maintained.

In conclusion, imperial titles can be very helpful, if used in the right way. Firstly, only existing titles can be used to date stamps and it cannot be concluded from a missing title that a terminus ante quem applies. On the other hand, researchers need to make certain that an imperial title really is one. As has been shown, many so-called imperial titles are doubtful, and can not be traced in other inscriptions, nor is it known when a legion was supposed to have acquired them. In those cases, perhaps it is best to look for alternative hypotheses and interpretations. Soldiers’ names on Roman military brick stamps are perhaps more common than often assumed. One problem is that an abbreviated emperor’s name and an abbreviated soldier’s name can be very similar. Roman names did not vary very much and it is hard to differentiate between social ranks. Because of these factors, imperial titles are only a safe criterion for dating, if it is certain that the letters on our stamp are indeed an emperor’s name.

12.3 Conclusion This chapter has shown that there are many variations regarding names on Roman military bricks stamps. On the one hand, imperial titles, although often used when present, are not as frequent as often assumed. On the other hand, there are numerous abbreviations that appear to present the names of individuals. Unfortunately, in a lot of these cases the nature of these names is not certain. Since there is little evidence that civilians were ever commemorated on military brick stamps or organised brick production for the Roman army, the author interprets the bulk of such uncertain abbreviations as soldiers’ names, similar to those examples explained above. She is, however, aware of the hypothetical nature of this assumption. Even if we accept that it is most likely that the people named on the stamps are soldiers, we know little about their status within the army. It is, however, possible to make some deductions based on their frequency on bricks: names that appear often on the stamps of one unit are more likely to be those of officers who wanted their names included on the stamps. Names that only appear a couple of times are probably those of either the foremen in the tileries (custodes castelli figlinarum) or those of the soldiers working there.

Both the locations discussed here, Northern Africa and the area of Leon, have produced a variety of brick stamps for which different hypotheses apply. There do not appear to have been specific times in which the one or the other was custom. It appears that a workshop put soldiers’ names on tiles one time and imperial names another. The fact that these messages on stamps would not have been very lasting to the beholder’s eye, because they were usually incorporated into buildings soon after, has been mentioned before. Why they were put on stamps in the first place is not clear. The name of the unit should have sufficed to deter theft and unauthorised use. However, as has been seen, a substantial number of stamps do include 255

CHAPTER 13

THE QUESTION OF THE PRATA LEGIONIS

Past publications have often questioned the degree to which military brick stamps can be used to determine the extent of the so-called prata legionis. Aside from this specific question, there are various publications on the subject and scholars do not always agree on the definition of this term. Since the topic is partially related to our interpretation of Roman military brick stamps, it shall be discussed here as a separate chapter.

differentiate between military and civilian territory, and overlapping between the two, are also discussed in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2. This chapter will serve as an attempt to define the term and review the most important literature on the matter. Von Gonzenbach published a study of the brick stamps from Windisch/Vindonissa during the first century AD (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 76-135). The presence of legions in Vindonissa in the first century was in the following order: from around AD 17 to 45 Legio XIV Gemina, from around AD 45 to 69 Legio XXI Rapax and from AD 70 to 101 Legio XI Claudia pia fidelis. The location of the fortress remained the same during this period, and there were no other legionary brick works in its vicinity. The scholar does not date any of the stamps. This aspect of brick stamp research is not important in this context since the period of the first century AD is already known from the occupation history of the area and the Von Gonzenbach concentrates on the question of the nature of the buildings in which the stamps are distributed. She interprets some sites, which were previously addressed as civilian as ‘military territory’, and mainly road stations within those, indicating that this was an area much larger than the prata in a close definition of the word (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 76-135).

The fact that Roman legionary fortresses must have had some form of land adjacent to the castra has been discussed by British scholars of the last 20 years and long before that on the continent. This legionary territory is supposed to have been under the control of the legion garrisoned at the fortress. Boundary markers found in Hispania Tarraconensis and Dalmatia dating to before the middle of the first century AD refer to this area as prata. After this period, there are still inscriptions mentioning an area adjacent to a fortress, but they call it territorium legionis rather than prata (Mason 1986: 20-22). The question has to be asked if there are topographical or chronological differences between the two terms and to what extent we can detect them. Mócsy suggests that the regular use of the term prata (which means pasture as opposed to cultivated land) implies that the most common purpose of that area was the provision of grazing for the legion’s livestock (Mócsy 1967: 211). Interpretations of this term vary from ‘strip of land adjacent to the fortress’ (Mócsy 1967: 211) to ‘area under military control’ (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 76-135). Parts of the question of to what extent we can

Through the study of the spread of brick stamps of legions XXI and XI Von Gonzenbach establishes a ClaudianNeronic system of street outposts. Military roads, on which the bricks in question were found, she classifies as of primary importance are the following routes (Fig. 210): 1. Grosser St. Bernhard-Avenches/AventicumSolothurn-Windisch/Vindonissa 2. Basel-Vindonissa-Oberwinterthur-Pfyn-(Raetia) 3. (Bündnerpässe)-Chur-Walensee-ZürichseeWindisch/Vindonissa 4. Windisch/Vindonissa-Zurzach-SchleitheimHüfingen-(Rottweil) Military roads she classifies of secondary importance are:

FIGURE 209 DISTRIBUTION OF THE MILITARY ROAD STATIONS DURING THE FIRST CENTURY AD NEAR VINDONISSA (VON GONZENBACH 1963: 9083) 256

5. (Basel)-Stein-Säckingen-Zurzach 6. Zurzach-Schaffhausen-Singen-(Danube)

THE QUESTION OF THE PRATA LEGIONIS

7. Kempraten-Oberwinterthur-Eschenz-Singen(Danube) 8. (Simplon)-Lötschberg-Thun-Berg-Enge-Aaretal 9. (Grimsel)-Bünig-Alpnach-Luzern-Aaretal (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 82-83).

inscriptions, which have already been cited above, from Spain and Dalmatia dating to the first decades of the first century AD and including the word prata (Mócsy 1967: 211). He assumes that the prata, which were basically an area of large pastures, were taken over by the military territory from the second half of the first century AD. Mócsy suggests that it would only have been possible to keep large areas of unused land in the early principate. Furthermore, he argues that the second period of provincial military organisation included the introduction of the canabae, the settlements adjacent to the fortresses. These were also in charge of certain pieces of land but also included settlements. In the Severan period, the situation changed again: there are no testimonies for the canabae organisation after the end of the second century AD. The newly erected fortresses did not share the dual settlements of the earlier ones. Therefore, Mócsy proposes that the civilian municipia began to take control. He concedes, however, that there were single cases of military territories as late as the third century AD because one inscription mentions the term canabarii instead of canabenses for the inhabitants of canabae (CIL III 10489). He adds, further, that these areas would have been smaller than before the third century AD. Finally, Mócsy states that it is not possible to determine similar patterns of military territories in the Danube provinces and says that the traditional domains in these areas must have been responsible for the catering for the Roman army. He discusses the results from the Eastern provinces in a separate study listed below.

Von Gonzenbach states, furthermore, that the spread of brick stamps to large sites was caused by the fact that they were industrial estates owned by army veterans rather than civilians. She admits that no inscriptions to verify this exist, but adds, nevertheless, that it is a likely explanation. In her opinion, the locals were probably tenants on the estates in which, traditionally, the land would have been farmed by them and that they continued to serve under Roman military control. She concedes, however that this is only a hypothesis and that we cannot say much about the administration of these industrial estates due to the lack of inscriptions other than brick stamps and literary sources (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 126). Although her article is since often cited as a definition on military territory, it is worth noting that the word prata is never mentioned. Von Gonzenbach speaks of a Nutzungsgebiet (area of usage) when talking about the area that has produced military brick stamps. She states the following facts about this area: 1. It is situated in the hinterland of the fortress. 2. It is, therefore, not near any points of strategic importance. 3. It is touched, but not cut, by either one or two military roads running along the Aare and Limmattal. 4. It is situated in a fertile area (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 80).

Mócsy uses the evidence of inscriptions for his definition of the three different stages of Roman military territories. For him, prata and territorium legionis are basically the same area in chronological order. He concedes that there are some differences in the use of the land. Whereas prata, in his opinion, meant mainly unused pastures adjacent to the fortress, territorium legionis was the military controlled territory near it, including workshops, land and settlements. Mócsy’s reading of the two terms is probably correct although it does not appear certain that prata came first and territorium legionis and canabae after. Since only a few inscriptions mention those terms, perhaps it cannot be assumed automatically that prata was always the earlier term and territorium legionis the later one and researchers have to be aware of the hypothetical nature of this theory.

Von Gonzenbach’s study adds to some previous publications, such as Jahn who proposed that a lot of the locations in which military brick stamps were found, and which were not forts or fortresses, must have been private villas (Jahn 1909a: 111-129; 1909b: 303-313) or Staehelin, who denied any connection between the military and private sector at all (Staehelin 1948: 179). Von Gonzenbach proposes the hypothesis that although brick trade between the military and the private sector was unlikely, it was possible that veterans employed civilians to work on their estates. Furthermore, she suggests that there was a network of road-stations run by the Roman army. Her article, however, does not define what the so-called prata were in the narrower sense. It does not mention this word but speaks of a military territory of usage (Nutzungsgebiet), thus implying an area organised by either the military or its veterans, but nevertheless, one in which civilians continued to live and contribute to agriculture and production.

In a later article, Mócsy investigated the question of military territories on the Danube (Mócsy 1972: 133168), where he argues that no definition of this term is possible. Apart from researching evidence for the term prata legionis and its meaning in other inscriptions, he also dedicated some time to the question whether military brick stamps can provide any information about military territories. Mócsy is sceptical of those scholars who use

Mócsy (1967: 211-214) bases his definition of military territory on the evidence of inscriptions. He names the 257

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

the stamps to determine such territories and thinks it likely that military bricks were used in public buildings on a regular basis. He states that the existence of military bricks is not necessarily a proof that the find location was owned by the army. On the other hand, Mócsy proposes that the interpretation of bricks found in a territory near to a legionary fortress might not be as straightforward as Von Gonzenbach assumed. He is certain that there was trade between the military and civilians and that civilians in the canabae or auxiliary vici bought bricks from the military or traded them for other services. Therefore, he doubts Von Gonzenbach’s interpretation of military territory (Nutzungsland) (Mócsy 1972: 148-149). However, Mócsy, although clearly convinced of this view, provides no persuasive arguments for his belief that military bricks were used in private buildings. It has already been shown in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2 that the sale of military bricks to private individuals cannot be proven. On the other hand, military brick stamps do appear in public buildings, which highlights that the military did have a certain influence in civilian areas. A connection between military brick stamps and military territories as suggested by Mócsy (1972: 148150) and also by Brandl (1999: 8-13) cannot be sustained.

could legally only be a territorium or universitas agrorum intra fines cuiusque civitatis (Pomponius Digest. L 16.239.8 cited after Mócsy 1971: 167), especially since it would have had a separate administration from the neighbouring territories (Mócsy 1971: 167). He ponders the idea that possibly not all provinces had military territories adjacent to their fortresses. He sees the canabae as part of the military territory but admits that they would have had a separate administration from the prata, which were administered by the immunes directly (Mócsy 1972: 167). Mócsy’s 1972 article offers some very helpful interpretations regarding military territories, at least in the Danube area. He also offers the suggestion that the situation might not have been the same in every province. However, like most scholars concerned with the matter, he does not explain the difference between prata and territorium legionis in this later article. Still, he includes a list of occurrences in which those terms are mentioned in Roman sources: the name territorium legionis appears only once in a period before imperial times (Mócsy 1972: 134). Prata legionis, as a term for territory owned by the military, appears in an inscription from the Dalmatian coast (CIL III 13250). The term is encountered in a strange context since both legions in this area, Legio XI Claudia and Legio IV Flavia, had left by the time the inscription was written (Mócsy 1972: 134). No other secure evidence for the term as an area adjacent to military fortresses, could be found (Mócsy 1972: 134-135). This raises the problem that, although they may have been similar, it cannot be excluded that there were differences between the prata legionis and the territorium legionis on the Danube and that this fact is not always given credit in modern literature on the subject.

Mócsy attempts to prove that the military territories, where known, on the Danube did not always correspond with the size of the area required for agricultural production of the units. The area was usually a strip of land on the bank of the Danube. It is generally assumed that it was used for pasture and arable land. However, although several different species of immunes or specialists within the army are known, none is mentioned in our sources as being responsible for farming land. Mócsy suggests, therefore, that perhaps the army did not farm its own land although we might assume that that was what the prata were used for and that civilian labour might have been employed (Mócsy 1972: 157). On the question of the extension of military territory, Mócsy includes literary and epigraphic sources. He shows that the topic is omitted by most of these sources, although it is a question of ownership law and administration. Neither the jurists nor the agrimensores mention the fact that apart from colonial and municipial territories, the domains and the civitates peregrinae, there must have been military territories as well (Mócsy 1972: 1967). The prata mentioned in the early imperial period were partly given up during the restriction of unit dispositions in the first century AD and partly changed into territoria. In some cases, it survived as fiscal property (Mócsy 1972: 167).

Von Petrikovits (1979: 229-242) also equates the term ‘prata legionis’ with ‘area for military usage’ and indicates that civilians may have been used for the production of goods used by the military without further elaborating on this. He also mentions settlements near forts and fortresses, which he calls ‘military territories’ and of which he says that they sometimes could administer their own territory according to an unpublished inscription which attests this (Von Petrikovits 1979: 242). He admits that the exact definition and usage of this area is uncertain. He states that the ‘prata’ were not owned by single military units or by provincial armies or the Roman army as a whole, nor by the aerarium militare, since neither of these was a juridical unit. Instead, he proposes that the area could have been part of the fiscal property (Von Petrikovits 1979: 242).

Mócsy says, furthermore, that this area, which must have consisted of pastures, woods, quarries, industrial establishments (such as brick factories) and settlements,

Mason published an essay on the question of the prata legionis and their boundaries on the evidence based on inscriptions at Chester (Mason 1986: 19-43). He discusses 258

THE QUESTION OF THE PRATA LEGIONIS

an idea often proposed, that the distribution of buildings in the hinterland of a fortress that stamped military tiles, could indicate the extent of the prata territory. This theory, of course, presumes that legionary tiles were only produced and stamped by a legion for their own use. Mason states that Von Gonzenbach’s study on Vindonissa serves as an example for an area, which was armyorganised, and therefore prata legionis (Mason 1986: 22; Von Gonzenbach 1963). Mason does not agree completely with this approach. He points out the fact that legionary tiles were often transported over large distances for use at outlying auxiliary forts and other military facilities outside the prata of a particular legion. He argues that if one were to take all the tiles stamped by the legion into account, the prata at Chester would extend as far as Caerhun and Caernarfon. The extent of tiles traded is obviously an indication of the size of the ‘command’ area of the fortress and not of the prata. Mason proposes that even though there seems to have been a well-defined zone around a fortress containing farms, which have produced legionary tiles, it is necessary to prove that both military base and farmsteads were occupied at the same time, for this to be significant. If the former was abandoned at a comparatively early date, as happened in the case of Vindonissa, or even if the fortress was only deserted for a few decades items such as tiles could easily have been looted by civilians after the legion’s departure (Mason 1986: 22).

Mason furthermore investigates the evidence of the prata legionis at Chester. He states that on a first inspection the extent of this area seems easily discernible. The pottery works of Legio XX stood at Holt, which is situated on the left bank of the river Dee, 12 kilometres from ancient Chester/Deva. Grimes, before Mason (Grimes 1930), assumes that this brick works was within the military territory or prata of Chester. Two further sites, Pentre Ffwrndan and Ffrith also produced stamped tiles of Legio XX. The nature of the two places is not quite certain. According to Mason, it is likely that the latter was a mining and ore-processing centre because of the lead ingot finds, while the bath-house excavated there was constructed by or with the aid of Legio XX (Mason 1986: 27). Pentre Ffwrndan appears to have been an industrial settlement site also, having produced both a residential complex and furnaces (Mason 1986: 27). Mason suggests that the siting of the legionary tilery at Holt, together with the official and seemingly military character of the two settlements Pentre and Ffirth, could well lead to the proposition that the whole area stretching from Wexham in the south to Holywell or even Prestatyn in the north could have been within the prata legionis of Chester/Deva. He states that the Roman authorities would have been particularly interested in the area because of its rich mineral deposits, especially lead. The exploitation of these would have been linked with the creation of the legionary fortress (Mason 1986: 28). He argues, furthermore, that the use of the mineral deposits and the building of the fortress occurred within a couple of years of each other. The original view that the fortress was built for Legio II Adiutrix during the governorship of Frontinus (AD 73/74-77), according to Mason, holds true, while the earliest officially produced ingots from the Clwydian lead fields date to AD 74 (Mason 1986: 28). Archaeological features of large extent under the AD 79 layers now support this date. Mason states that although Legio XX and presumably its predecessor at Chester, Legio II Adiutrix, were almost certainly involved in the operation of the land mines, there was no official proof of any ownership of land by them. None of the above mentioned lead ingots bears the name of either of the legions. Normally, the Roman mines were state-owned and were operated as an imperial monopoly, either directly by using slave and/or convict labour or indirectly by having private lessees running the mines. In both cases, the overall administration of the mines was in the hands of the procurator of the province. Mason, therefore, argues that the Clwydian lead-fields, rather than being part of Deva’s prata legionis, must have been part of an imperial estate as early as AD 73. He suggests that in addition to Ffrith and Pentre there must have been others in the Holywell/ Basingwerk area. The area would have been organised by procuratorial officials, and security and order enforced by a small detachment of troops from the legion at Chester,

Mason’s arguments concerning the extent of legionary prata and their difference to a ‘command’ area are convincing. However, his reading of Von Gonzenbach’s interpretation is not fully correct. Von Gonzenbach, in her work, as explained above, sees those sites that were formerly discussed as civilian ones as road-stations and other military controlled zones. There is no indication in her article that she interprets them as part of a territory near to the fortress, meant to be used for the pasture of animals. The arguments in criticism of Von Gonzenbach’s work appear to be based on a misunderstanding. However, Mason states, furthermore, that there are some instances where the distribution of farm buildings containing military tiles can be seen as useful in the determining the minimum extent of the prata legionis. He suggests that part of the military’s territory could have been sub-let to tenant farmers by a legion. He admits, further, that this phenomenon if it existed might be difficult to prove but mentions an altar inscription from Lambaesis, which names some possessores vinearum et agrorum (AE 1964: No. 196; Mason 1986: 23). In his opinion, it would have been economically practical for a garrison, once it was more or less permanently stationed in a fortress, to lease part of its territory to civilians (Mason 1986: 23). 259

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

which might have supplied men and materials for the construction of more sophisticated buildings and facilities built there (Mason 1986: 29-30).

argues that it is possible that the latter formed the majority of the group from the early days. According to him, there appears to have been only one truly nucleated settlement in the immediate vicinity of the fortress apart from the canabae legionis and there was little reason for the development of a settlement so close to the first one and the fortress, unless the legal and administrative conditions governing its existence differed from those in the canabae (Mason 1986: 32-33). He suggests that the Heronbridge settlement was not situated on the prata legionis but on the territory of the neighbouring civitas or proto-civitas. Mason favours this hypothesis because, according to him, no other early second century fortresses show any signs of dual settlements before the reforms of Septimius Severus, like the promotion of certain canabae to chartered towns. However, since this publication, we know of the existence of other earlier second settlements near a fortress, such as Bulmore/Caerleon (Burnham 2001: 315), Bonn (Horn 1987: 364-383) or Nijmegen in the Netherlands (Van Enckevort 2002: 387-394).

Since Mason rejects the idea that these industrial centres belonged to the prata of the legionary fortress, he, further, investigates the possible extent of this area at Chester. The fact that the legionary brick works were situated 12 kilometres upriver from the fortress lead him to suggest that military control extended to at least that distance. Nonetheless, he also states that in this case the situation was not as straightforward as one might assume. The Roman site of Heronbridge lies 2 kilometres south of the fortress just beyond the limits of one of the military cemeteries. This cemetery was in use from the beginning of the fortress until at least AD 300 (Mason 1986: 30). On the other hand, excavators found it difficult to account for the existence of a second settlement in the vicinity of the fortress – the first one being the canabae legionis beside the fortress itself. The ceramics of Heronbridge have a high proportion of Holt wares, due to which fact, it has been suggested that the place might have had partly or fully military function (Hartley 1952: 1-20; 1954: 1-14) Mason is not fully convinced of this. He argues that the quantity of the Holt material, given the close proximity to the fortress, might not be as significant as Hartley imagined in the 1950’s. In addition, the site has only produced one stamped legionary tile, which is not strong enough evidence to prove a military connection. Furthermore, Hartley’s theory that flat-bottomed barges were used to transport the products of the Holt depot down the river proved to be without foundation. Mason proposes that the settlement with its ‘ribbon-development’ and civilian type ‘strip-houses’ was a civilian community (Mason 1986: 30). However, strip-houses are also the most common houses types in vici (Sommer 1984: 46-49).

Mason argues that the latter resulted in a probable reorganisation and diminishing of legionary territories and the disappearance of the complex legal position of canabae and their inhabitants, when all civilian communities in the vicinity of a legionary fortress were formally placed under one single civil administration. He states that he is not certain if Heronbridge as a settlement developed naturally or if it was the result of an official policy (Mason 1986: 33). Mason concludes that the prata at Chester were probably situated north and east of the river Dee. Legio XX’s work depot at Holt, according to him, must have been situated outside the prata proper because the land between it and the fortress, at least on the west side of the Dee, formed part of the Civitas Cornoviorum from AD 90. It was, however, still situated within military territory (Mason 1986: 34). He adds that it is impossible to reconstruct the exact size and disposition of the territory because of insufficient evidence (Mason 1986: 35).

Mason continues to suggest that the civil settlement of Heronbridge, 2 kilometres from the fortress, was separated from the suburbs and cemeteries of the latter by a ‘clear zone’ and that it had its own burial grounds. This ‘duality of settlements’ has been discerned at many legionary bases. However, the reasons for this development are still unclear (Mason 1986 31-32). Both Carnuntum and Aquincum in Pannonia have some evidence of a second civilian type settlement, of which it was suggested that it was home to both citizens and non-citizens from other provinces. Other similar settlements had the local population as their inhabitants (Mason 1986: 32). Mason suggests, therefore, that Heronbridge was an earlier native settlement and proposes that it was a focus for the local indigenous population, where none had existed before. He is also certain that all these settlements attract settlers of foreign provinces to a degree, including veterans. He

Mason also investigates some of the research done on other prata legionis in Britain. It was formerly suggested that the prata at Caerleon stretched from a point a little east of Cardiff to somewhere in the vicinity of Goldcliff Priory, together with the mining areas of Lower Machen and Risca and the lower Usk Valley as far as Usk itself. This would give an area of approximately 375 square kilometres. However, Mason argues that it is by no means clear that the Usk lay within the zone controlled directly by Legio II Augusta, and although it may have been operated by the legion, it is not certain if it was actually within the territory of the prata. Even if this was the case initially, 260

THE QUESTION OF THE PRATA LEGIONIS

part of the area might have been lost to the Civitas Silurum on its foundation (Mason 1986: 39).

no indication if there were workshops or not. What can be gathered, from the evidence presented here, is that the borders between prata and military territory are not clearly distinguished yet, and according to the archaeological evidence, a differentiation does not appear to be very easy. As a third alternative we may want to consider an area where the Roman military dominated regardless of legal status, and where there was sufficient military presence to make it impossible for civilians to live their lives without the interference of soldiers. Such a situation might have been the case in the pagi and civitates, such as in Gallia Belgica during the early principate (Wightman 1985: 5363). It is usually hard to decide what impact on the life of the individual this interference exercised, as explained in a Breeze’s (1990: 85-97) study on military and civilian interaction on Hadrian’s Wall.

Mason’s article makes it clear how hard it is to establish the extent of a territory like legionary prata. His interpretation of the settlement at Heronbridge seems very well researched. Indeed, the existence of a second settlement so close to the canabae does not really allow for any other interpretation. However, the extension of the prata and the difference between it and other military-controlled territory is not easy to discern. Ways to distinguish them are not really obvious from this article. Furthermore, it is not really explained how brick stamps can be related to one or the other and how they can play a role in determining military territory. Early in the article, it is stated that prata legionis were usually a territories which were used mainly for the pasture of the animals kept for the use of the legion. This means that the legionary brick works would have been outside the prata but within territory that was still under military control. If the prata were primarily used for animals, this means that there would have been few or little buildings on it, resulting in little or few stamped bricks. Therefore, areas with stamped bricks like the brick works or other settlements with stamped military bricks had to be outside this territory. Of course, one can never exclude the possibility that a brick was used secondarily and brought to a territory to which it did not belong initially, something which is not discussed by Mason. Also the term prata is here applied in its most minimalist way. Due to the fact that no exact definition of the area can be achieved this is perhaps the safest one.

Lörincz sees the term ‘military territory’ as a loose definition, and investigates the degree to which military territories can be determined by the existence of military brick stamps. As already discussed in the previous chapter (pages 162-164) he presented a paper at the Limes Congress of 1989 in which he reinvestigates the relationship between military brick stamps and military territories in Pannonia and which was published in the proceedings of this congress (Lörincz 1991: 244-279). He starts from the observation that those scholars who refuse to believe in the connection between military brick stamps and military territories use the Pannonian evidence to support their theory, and therefore, he deals with the same collection of brick stamps. According to Lörincz, sometimes original dates of brick stamps are hard to determine because of the possibility that the bricks were reused (Lörincz 1991: 244). Therefore, the question has to be asked if stamps were produced and used by the military but reused by civilians when the military buildings were derelict. Lörincz argues that since we do not know about the legionary territories in the fourth century, we cannot use finds from a fourth century context to argue for or against the theory of trade between civilians and the military, especially since we are also dealing with undated stamp types which may have been re-used (Lörincz: 1991: 244-245).

From the evidence gathered in the article, it becomes clear that the boundaries of the prata in the absence of boundary markers are indeed very hard to establish and can only be guessed. The area had no buildings or characteristic features, which would make it possible to be identified and can only be guessed by the recognition of other areas around it. Therefore, it can only remain hypothesis. Mason’s interpretation of Von Gonzenbach’s work is based on a misunderstanding: Von Gonzenbach is clearly relating to territory under military control or at least military domination and not to what is understood under prata legionis. The differences between the two appear to be significant. As Mason suggests when talking of military territory and the areas of Pentre and Ffirth, it probably means that the legion controlled the area and had certain influence on the buildings and institutions, but that it was inhabited by civilians, probably alongside veterans and other military related people who worked and produced there. The existence of military tiles in such an area shows that the area was clearly under military control. The prata, on the other hand, were an area in the immediate vicinity of the fortress where the legions kept animals. There is

In Lörincz’s opinion, there is a definite connection with the finding of military brick stamps and military territories. However, it does not become very clear what ‘military territory’ means: it is clear that the area described here is more than just the strip of land beside the legionary fortress used as pasture for the animals owned by the Roman army. Again, the word prata is not mentioned. As shown in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2, the border between civilian and military is not always as clear cut as we might want to think, and military territory in a wider sense is very hard to determine. It appears that the Roman military also had a lot of 261

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

influence in civilian areas. Temples and beneficiarii stations are examples of buildings that were situated in civilian territory but often partly or wholly built by the Roman military (Nelis-Clément 2000). However, beneficiarii inscriptions and military brick stamps, as Brandl proved on the example of Upper Germany are not necessarily proof of the influence territory of a unit but perhaps only its presence as temporary workforce (see Chapter 12, page 233-235 and Brandl 1999: 8-13). Therefore, military brick stamps may not always be a parameter of territory directly under military control (although possibly of areas indirectly under military control).

may also be found in such contexts, since the Roman army was sometimes involved in public buildings used by both, soldiers and civilians. Therefore, there is no exact definition of the term prata legionis because its interpretation merely relies on modern views and we have no ancient source for it. However, it becomes obvious that there must have been a difference between the prata legionis, which seem to have been an area near the fortress and used by the army, and what is called military territory. The latter is explained by Von Gonzenbach (she calls it Nutzungsgebiet) and Lörincz and, according to those scholars, describes a command area that was controlled by the military but also seems to be inhabited by civilians who worked as producers there. The Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (Campbell 2000), a collection of writings of ancient land surveyors dating from AD 100 to the late imperial period gives some idea of land distribution between the emperor and private communities in some areas but adds little to our understanding of the term prata legionis and the definition of areas influenced by the military. The same applies to the existing inscriptions which refer to boundaries in the Roman provinces (Campbell 2000: 452-467); although alongside archaeological stratigraphy they can help to define military territory (which, therefore, means areas under military control) to a certain degree. However, military brick stamps are not of great aid in the definition of military territories. As already shown in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2, the Roman army had more influence on civilian areas and buildings than often assumed, and baths, temples and beneficiarii stations were built by soldiers. Therefore, we can often not determine if we are talking about territory administered by the military or military influence in an area of civilian administration. The term prata remains without exact definition. It is very likely that this area was more than just a strip of land near the fortress used for the pasture of the animals. Probably the mines associated with the army and brick clay areas belonged to it as well. However, how much was part of it exactly, and if this can be determined for all areas, remains doubtful. Perhaps future scholars should attempt to move away from the traditional terms such as prata, which originally come from inscriptions that are hard to expand, and try to focus on the evidence presented by archaeology. However, because of the fact that it is possible that military influence and administration was not the same in each province and that the excavated buildings are often not easy to interpret, we might not be able to generalise.

One problem, which makes a general definition of the term prata legionis almost impossible, is the fact that the different scholars who have written on this subject do not agree on the definition of the term and the extension of the territory. Furthermore, some scholar’s views are not fully understood by others. Von Gonzenbach talks about a military controlled area but one that is definitely within civilian territory. She does not actually mention the term prata. Mason, on the other hand, misreads her article and says that she talks about too large a territory for prata. His definition of the term is more than just a mere area of pasture for animals but a territory which was organised and inhabited by the Roman military only. Mócsy sees the prata as a strip of land bordering the military fortress on the Danube but does not separate this from military territory. It is debated if the canabae were under direct military administration or not, and no definite conclusion is reached. In his 1967 article, he differentiates between the two terms and states that prata was the earlier one and territorium legionis the later one. He bases this on the dates of the inscriptions mentioning the terms. However, little can be gathered about the actual appearance of these territories from them. Lörincz, on the other hand, shows some of the uncertainties encountered in the research of Roman military territories. He does not offer an exact definition of the term ‘military territory’ nor does he equate it with prata legionis. Other areas, such as Gallia Belgica, have shown that there is a third possibility of military influence. In spite of the legal status, which left the administration of the area in the hand of civilians, the high level of military presence influenced daily life sufficiently to make it impossible exist without interference of the Roman army, a point already raised on page 261. It is preferable to call such areas ‘military dominated territories’. As explained in the last paragraph and in Chapter 12, section 12.2.2, military brick stamps

262

CHAPTER 14

CONCLUSION

In the course of this thesis most former Roman provinces containing military brick stamps and their research were covered. This has resulted in the recognition that there are great differences in methodology between all those countries. Furthermore, it has been shown that a large number of scholars do not use a combination of methods but usually just one to review brick stamps. These methods may, however, vary within the same area and within the same school of research. Also, apart from geographical differences we are dealing with differences in time in which publications were written. The brick stamp research of the nineteenth century AD differed very much from that of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, which again is very different from more modern publications dating from the 1980s to today. This thesis includes a lot of articles from different decades. Generally, the rule has been set in this thesis not to discuss articles that were written much earlier than the middle of the twentieth century because research methods were very different then, and older publications should not be discussed with the critical eye of the modern scholar. However, there are several exceptions to this because some older articles are pioneer works and set bases for modern publications, for example Grimes (1930) on the stamps of Legio XX Valeria Victrix from Britain. This dissertation has criticised many publications for questionable methodology without actually wanting to diminish their value as pioneers on the material and creators of lists of material, which all modern scholars, including myself, have worked with. Alföldy (1967: 44-51), Wright (1976: 226-235; 1978: 379382) or Baatz (1965a: 118-138; 1965b: 101-117; 1969a: 126-128; 1969b: 63-75; 1967: 40-73; 1976: 95-96) have left us their publications as important foundations of brick stamp research to work with.

on their distribution in it. On the other hand, areas that only ever investigated bricks under aspects of distribution patterns and movements might now attempt to date some of the material. Nevertheless, in spite of these recent changes, of both research methods and approaches of a few young scholars, the traditional schools of research and their traditional areas of research and methods still remain the same in most articles and publications reviewed for this thesis. Although it was not possible to include all articles or books ever written on military brick stamps because there are too many in some areas and it would not have been possible to discuss them all, this collection has still presented the reader with a representative sample for the work done in each of the groups. The groups have been carefully chosen and, as became obvious during the discussion of the previous chapters fit well because there are indeed similar approaches amongst the articles within the groups. Obviously, they do not always correspond to the ancient Roman provinces but to modern countries and their respective schools of research. Therefore, some groups might include many, others only one Roman province. Sometimes, as in the case of Britain or Spain the ancient province and the modern country correspond. Some areas, as explained, have a very similar research approach and use similar methods but may have been discussed separately due to geographical and/or linguistic differences. Other countries, bordering each other and with schools that originated in the same sort of thought were discussed together, such as for example, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Although there are great differences between the groups, it is obvious that each school of research has made its best attempt at researching Roman military brick stamps and while for most schools have made valuable contributions some have included aspects that have proven to be problematic.

Lately, some changes are noticeable in Roman military brick stamp research. Apart from the fact that the use of different methods has changed and that now some schools of research are happier to experiment with methods previously unknown to them but used by other schools, the research approach of different scholars of those schools has also often shifted. Areas that might traditionally only have used brick stamps for chronologies might now look towards their role in the determination of distribution patterns and troop dispositions. They might attempt to reflect on the use of different bricks from one building and

The largest group of books and articles in this thesis is the brick stamp research of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The extensive size of this chapter is not only due to the fact that there are comparatively more brick stamps from these countries but also because so many articles were written on the subject. Brick stamp research is, traditionally, more prevalent in those countries than in others. In a lot of cases, it is much easier to suggest chronologies for the 263

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

stamps from these countries because they are focused in larger numbers. On the other hand, they are harder to research because stamps travelled a lot in those areas and were traded between units. Overviews or histories of troop dispositions are very frequent in this group. Some of them are well based and the evidence from other sources, such as other finds, or the archaeological context of the stamps is integrated. But many articles only concentrate on certain aspects of the history of a location or unit and adapt a lot of hypotheses of other scholars’ work without questioning the evidence.

Kann 1980/1: 287-303). Petrological experiments in those countries are still very rare, although some new scholars (Dolata 1994a: 343-345; 1999a: 287-296; 1998a: 93-95; 1998b: 18-20; 2000a: 96-104; 2000b: 126-127; 2000c: 193208) have started to become interested in this method. Generally, there are many different types of articles in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, which all achieve different results. Local lists are the most frequent studies and prove helpful with information about troop dispositions and chronologies. The research of these three countries tends to exhaust the possibilities of dating and often insists on rigid short chronologies, of which there is little information, about which of the dates are secure and which are not. Yet more recent scholars have moved away from this tendency, having recognised the limitations of narrow dating and attempted new research approaches, such as the determination of distribution patterns through fabric analysis.

The main part of publications on military brick stamps from this group are local lists (as in most other groups as well). They generally give a good overview of the brick stamps from a place but in the case of Germany, Austria and Switzerland they are sometimes problematic because scholars, especially those who wrote in the middle of the twentieth century, often failed to give the exact numbers of stamps. Scholars were generally very eager to date stamps, and from time to time used doubtful methodologies, by taking very few stamps as a proof for a certain date or a unit’s presence in a location. The problem with the local lists of this group is that they vary in size – some discuss a large amount of several thousand stamps as Spitzlberger on the stamps from Raetia (Spitzlberger 1968: 65-183), others only a few.

The research approach in the Netherlands is very similar to the one from the above mentioned countries. Military stamps are usually used for the dating of single stamps but not necessarily for whole chronologies where gaps between dated stamps tend to be filled. Mostly, a combination of methods is applied when dating brick stamps. As in Germany, the scholars of the Netherlands, as part of former Germania Inferior are usually dealing with large numbers of bricks stamps but the circle of scholars reviewing them is much smaller than in the first group. Most of the articles reviewed were written by the same people, so naturally there is not much of a variation in the research approach.

Articles on stamps from a particular building include one such as Baatz’s article on Echzell (Baatz 1965a: 118-138) and apply to the same rules as the above. The German, Austrian and Swiss schools rarely write articles about the stamps of a unit regardless of an area in a province as, for example, Wright does in Britain (Wright 1976: 226235; 1978: 379-382). Military brick stamps predominantly serve the purpose of shedding light on the history of place rather than a province as a whole. Scholars have to be aware, however, that there are differences in the numbers of stamps in the provinces. Germany, Switzerland or Austria has more than, for example, Britain. On the other hand, some British articles in this category are not very well based; the study of the classis Britannica stamps by Peacock uses a combination of methodologies but Wright on the stamps of the Sixth and Ninth legions in Britain does not involve any dates or interpretation of the stamps.

Although there is a very similar approach to brick stamps as in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and other areas of continental Europe, there are some differences: the Dutch Research is rather consistent in using all available methods (apart from petrology which still is not used a lot in the Netherlands). The problems with title dating are recognised. Generally, the Dutch school of research is less concerned with rigid chronologies than the German one. The research approach used is usually the study of troop dispositions. The categories of articles are overviews or histories of troop dispositions and some local lists. The French school of research is much more circumspect in its approach than the two previous schools. Petrology is included as well as archaeological context and epigraphy. Of the latter, title dating is more common than other epigraphic methods. The French school does attempt chronologies alongside distribution patterns and troop dispositions but more rarely than other research and is much more worried about the reliability of dates. Sometimes scholars are even too careful without ever attempting a relative chronology

There is only one article containing a local list from a specific period from Switzerland (Von Gonzenbach 1963: 76-135). Articles on collections of stamps, as mentioned earlier, do not contribute much to our discussion if they do not include some information about other stamps of the types in question and a general history of the stamps in the collection. Most of these frequent articles from Germany fail to do so (Esser, Decker & Selzer 1968/9: 149-152 and 264

CONCLUSION

of the brick stamps. The French school can be considered as middle ground between the British and other European approach to brick stamps. It is more varied in its approaches than either and uses all methods more evenly. There are fewer cases that base historical hypotheses on the evidence of very few stamps, but chronologies are attempted and are considered as important.

Therefore, a lot of different methodologies and research approaches are used, and we cannot speak of a unified approach to the research of brick stamps in the Middle East. Most articles are well researched and the general approach is a careful one, realising the limitations of close dating and troop dispositions based on so few stamps. The ‘school of research’ of Roman Africa is only represented by one article by the French scholar Le Bohec. Like the Middle East, Northern Africa also has very few brick stamps to offer. It remains to be discovered why there are no stamps from legionary Egypt or from the auxiliary units of Mauretania. Le Bohec dates the stamps of Legio III Augusta from Numidia and Africa mainly by their titles. Some of these titles may be not very secure but most of their cases are well argued. Dating by archaeological context and the possibility of secondary use are more complicated. Auxiliary stamps in Africa are also studied. In spite of the small number of these, Le Bohec can be certain of the unit’s presence in the area because of other inscriptions. His main research approach is chronology, although he also gives some indications of troop dispositions, especially since the whereabouts of the units are already attested by other sources. In combination with title dates verified in stone elsewhere, this resulting chronology seems workable. It is, however, wrong for one scholar and article to be representative of a whole school of research for an area. Therefore, a Northern African school cannot be defined as yet. Hopefully, more work, and perhaps more local research will be attempted on these stamps.

The Spanish school on military brick stamps is generally signified by a general lack of unified methodology: partly because of the fact that there are less brick stamps than in other Roman provinces but also because archaeologists seem generally less interested in them. The few articles that do exist do not display a well-founded methodology. Petrology is never involved. Epigraphic methods are often used unsatisfactorily: Garcia y Bellido’s title dating is often unsupported by evidence and the titles reconstructed are sometimes contentious (Garcia y Bellido 1968: 2963; 1970: 571-599). Furthermore, the assumption that all stamps of one unit which do not carry a certain title are chronologically contemporary is not tenable. The archaeological context is also often incompletely analysed. Caamaño Gesto’s (1984: 233-254) work is based on very few stamps but the fact the unit is attested by other sources is sufficient. No other information can be gained from the material. Generally, it appears that the Spanish research is not too familiar with the methods available with brick stamps as it often uses them incorrectly. The South-Eastern European research is eager to date stamps. The types of articles are very similar to Germany, Austria and Switzerland, mainly serving the purpose of chronologies. There are, however, some slight differences in the way in which chronologies are constructed: some of the Eastern European authors are more careful in suggesting stamp chronologies. But this is not true for all articles. Again, there are differences of the periods in which those articles were written: modern ones are less likely to overindulge in stamp dating without sufficient evidence. Epigraphy and archaeological context are used, but never petrology.

The British school of research differs from most of the continental school in its methodology and research approach. In Britain, fewer brick stamps were found than on the Rhine and in Central Europe. Nevertheless, a lot has been written on the stamps of this province. However, apart from title dating, epigraphy is hardly ever used. The British school is generally more wary of using epigraphic methods for dating stamps and is more careful in its approach. If epigraphy is employed brick stamps are usually used in combination with other inscriptions, as far as they exist, which is a good idea since this increases the ability to back up arguments with valuable evidence.

The research of the Middle East is represented by few articles. There are hardly any brick stamps compared to other parts of the former Roman Empire in this region. The reasons are not quite clear. On one hand, it is possible that the areas in this group did not use fired bricks for their roofs. On the other hand, bricks were also used for wall and floors, and especially for hypocausts, which still makes the small numbers of stamps unexpected. Another problem of the analysis of this group is that this group of schools of research is actually not a homogeneous one. Most scholars do not originate from the countries in question but from European schools of research or from the United States.

Petrology is used much more frequently than on the continent, Northern Africa or the Middle East. Still, not all British brick stamps have been investigated by fabric analysis and more civilian stamps than military ones have received petrological investigations. It remains to be performed for a large part of the military stamps. The auxiliary stamps, as a whole, need reviewing, since nothing on this subject has been written since Hassall (1979: 261267). 265

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

The research approach of the British school is also different. Chronologies with narrow date ranges are not considered important, although stamps are given long dates when possible to give a rough time frame. This happens only if their dates are very secure. The British are generally more aware of the problems of dating, such as the problem of secondary use, than the continental school of research. The research approaches favoured are distribution patterns and troop dispositions. Scholars are mainly careful to make statements based on too few stamps. Some scholars, especially in the middle of the twentieth century to the 1970s appear not to have believed in the value of brick stamps at all, merely listing them with no evaluation of the material. This is the other extreme to rigid chronologies without basis and dispositions based on the evidence of one or a few stamps: it may be wiser to suggest some hypothesis about the value of material presented. If there is no possibility of a statement, a reason should be given. In this aspect British scholars in the past have been sometimes too careful or uninterested in brick stamps.

stamp fabric as well as with the actual inscription on the stamps. Only then will we be able to reach a complete and easily comparable picture of the value of military brick stamps in the provinces. The reader has to bear in mind, however, that this thesis has mainly mentioned petrology in connection with stamped bricks due to lack of space. It is in the interest of scholars who perform fabric analysis on a certain group of bricks, to investigate both the stamped and the unstamped material. Although it is important to date stamps to give us a frame of reference for our historical statements, researchers should perhaps try to move away from rigid short chronologies. Close dating can be attempted, especially if a combination of methods is used, but tight chronologies are very artificial and usually some of the dates in them are only arbitrary and not sufficiently supported. They can, therefore, be very misleading in our understanding of the history of a location. Distribution patterns and troop dispositions are a valid reason to study brick stamps, yet the reader has to be made aware of the difficulties with a differentiation of the two: sometimes neither can be achieved because there are not enough stamps for secure evidence. Generally, looking at the evidence from this thesis, it becomes obvious that troop dispositions are those articles that are most unreliable and use too little evidence.

Generally, there is no ‘best’ one among the methods used to study military brick stamps. Some areas use different methods than others and have a different research agenda. Some schools are only interested in one aspect, such as the preference for short chronologies by the Germans, Austrian and Swiss or the older British scholars, who did not believe in the importance of brick stamps for chronologies at all. No school is completely wrong in their methodology but some scholars are less adept than others. Continental schools are very fond of epigraphy and are used to reconstruct military history. The British school tends to verify epigraphic statements with petrology. Furthermore, the numbers of stamps play a role in the value of the historical statements. The research of Spain has not contributed a lot to our discussion of brick stamps so far but we have to bear in mind that we were dealing with very few publications for this country and that they are mainly from the 1970s. Therefore, it is perhaps not fair to dismiss this school of research completely when areas other than Spain have more recent and better argued works to offer. Further research will be awaited on the military brick stamps from Spain. Archaeological context is used everywhere, although not always adequately.

We have to hope that future scholars will consider the methodological differences encountered in each of the research groups throughout Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. They will, hopefully, remember that some of these differences are not due to the material but to the fact that traditionally schools have used different research methods and approaches for many years. It is desirable that they might want to learn from other schools of research and achieve a more complete picture of brick stamp research in the former Roman provinces through a combination of methods. There is a further problem with military brick stamp research. Although there are a number of different schools of traditional brick stamp research, they do not always correspond with the ancient provinces and, therefore, they sometimes discuss similar material. However, they do not take much notice of each other’s research results. This is best illuminated on the example of the products of the tegularia Transrhenana: Haalebos, representing the Dutch school, sees the bricks of this unit as a proof that there was a central brick production for all the units on the Lower Rhine and thinks that the mere purpose of this organisation was to produce bricks for the units on the Rhine (Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 121). However, although many of the articles from the German school listed in this thesis (Paar & Rüger 1971: 262; Böckling 1978: 115-116; Hanel 1998:

This thesis has shown that a lot remains to be done on different groups of brick stamps from most areas. Unfortunately, none of the groups and areas discussed in this thesis attempted an approach combining all methods on the stamps of any province. Petrology is usually used separately from archaeological context and epigraphy and vice versa. It would be in the interest of a more thorough brick stamp research of the future to teach young scholars to familiarise themselves equally with the 266

CONCLUSION

409-410) name stamps of the tegularia Transrhenana none, with the exception of a more recent approach by Hanel (2002: 293-296), who indicates that the unit produced bricks for others, mention this view and the bricks are seen as those of a separate military unit.

In addition, we have to be aware of the fact that we are dealing with areas which have produced very diverse numbers of brick stamps. Some of the continental areas, like Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Austria, and South-Eastern Europe usually deal with hundreds, if not thousands from one location. Other areas, such as Britain, Spain, and especially the Middle east and Northern Africa have only a few. In these cases, archaeologists have to work in very different ways. In spite of statistical reservations and the fact that larger numbers of artefacts are preferable for a secure statement, it has to be remembered that the find of a brick stamp has a very distinct value in an area where it is rare. Researchers are usually glad to determine that the Roman army stamped bricks at all in such an area, rather than classifying types and issuing dates, as common in those regions where we are dealing with thousands. However, scholars who are used to dealing with large numbers of stamps are often over enthusiastic when working with sites with few stamps, and use the rules that apply for large stamp populations only. Differences of research background should be taken into consideration when talking about military brick stamps from different Roman provinces. In the future, it will be important to attempt research approaches which include scholars from several areas and review material from more than one. Of course, this can only work if certain topics are highlighted, because obviously the brick stamps of all provinces are too large a material to analyse in great detail. However, especially in those cases where different schools have talked about the same material or stamps of the same units in different ways it should be possible to undertake more comprehensive studies.

The German and the French schools of research also talk about the same material in some cases. Nonetheless, as has been shown in the discussion of their schools there are differences in the way the material is approached. Whereas occasional scholars in Germany/Austria are more likely to apply chronologies and base troop histories on the evidence on few stamps in the case of the stamps from Mirebeau (Strobel 1986: 257-264), the French school (Le Bohec, Bérard & Reddé 1995: 191-267) prefers to date by both titles and archaeological context where possible but does not try to fill chronological gaps with non datable stamps. The French school, on the other hand, researched the material of the classis Britannica roughly at the same time as the British (Seillier & Gosselin 1969: 363-372). Whereas their efforts only include archaeological context epigraphy on the matter, the British scholars use petrology and contribute to our knowledge of clay sources and the movement of bricks on the channel (Peacock 1977: 235-248; Philip 1981). Spitzlberger catalogues the stamps from the German part of Raetia but ignores their Swiss and Austrian counterparts (Spitzlberger 1968: 65-183). A similar problem applies to the South Eastern European school of research where the Moesian and the Dacian material are rarely treated together and where neither is brought into relation with the stamped military bricks from Dalmatia. All this shows that there is basically no unified research approach where different schools work with similar material, which makes an overall estimation of the role of military brick stamps in archaeology more difficult. It is to be hoped that future scholars will include research approaches from other schools on similar material. If they cannot agree with them, they should at least accept and mention attempts other than their own. Part of the reason why it is so hard to gain any valuable results on military brick stamps is due to the fact that they have been researched by different school with very different research agendas and methods.

This thesis has also shown that there is other information that we can gain by studying Roman military brick stamps, such as whether the Roman army worked with civilians when producing tiles. On the other hand, a detailed survey of stamps has shown that sometimes information that we believed certain is indeed rather insecure, for example some of the imperial titles on the stamps. Names on stamps, in general, have been investigated in great detail in this thesis. Firstly, most of the names of private individuals appearing on military brick stamps are most likely the names of the soldiers who produced the tiles for the army. By looking at the evidence of these names from all places and provinces surveyed in this thesis, it becomes clear that there was no uniform custom determined by some superior authority in stamping the tiles. Sometimes the soldiers included their names on the tiles, sometimes they did not. They would include either one, two or all three of a man’s names. Sometimes officers’ or commanders’ names were included. In other cases the names on the stamps are more likely those of the soldiers who worked in the brick factories. It

The same research separation even occurs within one and the same school in a restricted fashion, especially in provinces like the two Germanies, where we are dealing with large numbers of stamps. Scholars tend to publish the stamps of one location frequently and often do not pay attention to the theory that stamps of the same unit (and even the same types) were found elsewhere. Therefore, we even have to wish for more all-inclusive research attempts within one school. 267

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

probably depended on the customs in a particular tilery, which names were included, if any at all. Sometimes the people in charge might have been responsible for these decisions. Some of them might have wanted to have their names included. Others made certain that the name or title of the emperor was added. Others had the soldiers cut their own names in their dies, either to keep a record of their daily work output or they allowed them to do so to have their names commemorated in the buildings they helped to construct. Perhaps sometimes the ordinary soldiers were permitted to decide which texts were put on the stamps. All these hypotheses have been put forward to explain the phenomenon of the so-called name stamps, but the fact remains that in many cases all we can say is that there are letter combinations behind the name of the unit which cannot be explained sufficiently. The study of sites for which there have been suggestions that civilians produced tiles for the army has shown that there is no satisfactory proof for this theory at present. There was trade between civilians and the army in other sectors, and therefore, we might conclude that the same may have applied to bricks. However, the few sites for which such a thing has been suggested have either been of military origin or neither a military nor a civilian context could be determined and problems with the dating of those sites were shown. Therefore, it has to be stated that there is no basis for the assumption that civilians did ever produce tiles for the army. The fact that sometimes large quantities of tiles were shipped from one fort to the other between units shows that perhaps the Roman army did not want to employ civilians to produce tiles for them but preferred to commission nearby units to do so. Also, if they had no time or lacked personnel to make building materials themselves, possibly a surplus capacity of manpower in the forces needing employment or if the clay was simply better for bricks elsewhere.

suggested as certain and accept that they have perhaps their significance is not as great as assumed. Since the abbreviations on the stamps are so brief, we often will not be able to differentiate between the name of a soldier or an emperor. An imperial title is only secure if it is common, commemorates a frequently used emperor and appears on a good number of stamps. This leads to the next point, the fact that brick stamps are by no means as uniform as often assumed. They were not official documents like military diplomas, or as informative as urban Roman civilian stamps, which give secure dates. It seems that their design was very arbitrary all over the Roman world. There are inscriptions, which commemorate magistri figlinarum or custodes figlinarum. However, little is known about the abilities and limitations of these men in setting out rules for the design of stamped bricks. It appears that it was often up to the individual workshop – decided by the magister or custos or individual soldiers – how to carve the dies. In large tileries, units often seem to have shared brick production, and perhaps firing specialists divided the use of the brick ovens, as for example at Scalesceugh (see Chapter 9, section 9.4). There is no evidence for any uniform design for brick stamps. Indeed, due to this lack of unity, it appears that some stamps are square, others round, some have ansae, others do not, some name the soldiers who carved them, many more do not, some commemorate officers, most do not, some include the imperial titles, some do not, a few include place names, others do not, most name one unit only, some more than one (Sarnowski 1995: 498), some have shorter abbreviations, some longer ones. Some units stamped their tiles in one place but did not continue the tradition when the unit or a detachment of it was moved. The classis Britannica, for example, stamped a large percentage of its tiles in the south of England but does not appear to have stamped any while building on Hadrian’s Wall (RIB I: 1340; 1944; 1945). Generally, there is no criterion that is the same for all brick stamps around the former Roman Empire.

Imperial titles can also be counted as name stamps. These are very common throughout the Empire. Unfortunately, as the survey of some of these titles in this thesis has shown, not all of them are as secure as we might think. Some titles appear to record emperors who only reigned for a short period of time and not long enough to be commemorated in titles, let alone on brick stamps. In these cases, it is better to interpret the titles in a different way, as the names of the soldiers who stamped the tiles. Other imperial titles belong to dynasties rather than individual emperors. Due to these difficulties it is sometimes hard to differentiate between imperial titles and name stamps, which presumably record soldiers. Archaeologists have generally already accepted they cannot date stamps that do not use titles to the period before their award because they were often omitted on brick stamps. Now we have to ask ourselves if we can be so certain about all titles previously

Even the types of bricks on which stamps were put varies, although this needs further study for which there was not enough space in this thesis. Although the percentages between stamped and unstamped material cannot be established in most cases, we know from evidence from all over the empire that this relation varied too. As has been shown, in many provinces and areas predominantly roofing tiles were stamped. This may be responsible for the lack of brick stamps, in those areas where the roofs consisted of materials other than brick. Not always does the assumption that stamped tiles were mainly roofing tiles apply because there are cases where all brick types where stamped evenly, for example the tiles of the classis 268

CONCLUSION

Britannica (Philip 1981: 124). Nevertheless, in many areas of Germany or for example the Middle East or the Danube area (Mócsy 1972: 149), stamped roofing tiles dominate.

wider areas. However, it always has to be remembered that brick stamps do not assume a certain form and state, because there was no empire-wide standard example after which brick stamps were modelled. Hypotheses can be based on how similar stamps from a location look, and suggestions for a local area can be made. For our wider understanding of inscriptions, it should be remembered that brick stamps are not uniform. They can be used for the research approaches discussed, once scholars are aware of their limitations, for the areas in which they are found. The diversity of the material has to be kept in mind.

If the tegularia Transrhenana was indeed a centralised form of military production as the Dutch school suggests, this would again be a unique phenomenon in the Roman world, since in most other areas military units seem to have produced tiles mainly for themselves but sometimes delivered bricks to others. There is, however, some possible evidence for this from Moesia where Sarnowski mentions a place name tegulicium (Sarnowski 1995: 498). Furthermore, there are stamps which mention a tegularia Transdierna, which may have produced bricks for more than one unit (Benea 1977: 327) (see Chapter 6, section 6.2.2). Milosevic also mentions some stamps displaying f(ig)l(ina) ex(e)r(citus) P(annoniae) from Sirmium and a possible communal workshop at Mursa during the reign of Hadrian (Milosevic 1971: 97-99; 106; CIL III 3290; 3292; 3288), which may have been a brick workshop for more than one Pannonian unit. The evidence for the latter is, however, sparse, as explained in Chapter 6, page 117. Also, the fact that sometimes more than one unit is named on a stamp in Moesia might indicate communal workshops (Sarnowski 1995: 498). There is also some evidence that sometimes detachments of several units were used for building activities in one location, and stamped their own tiles in a communal workshop, for example during the building of Hadrian’s Wall (AD 122124) (Breeze & Dobson 1991: 65-72) although it is not quite clear where the workshop for the units working on Hadrian’s Wall was situated (see Chapter 9, section 9.4). There are large brick factories and smaller ones in different provinces. Generally, smaller tileries existed before the introduction of the larger ones but often only started to stamp tiles because they copied the larger centres. In Germany, the development may have been slightly different because there were several units from the start who needed to differentiate their tiles by stamps, even if there were small workshops. This may be one of the reasons why so many bricks from Germany are stamped. One problem of research on this matter is that no scholars have published overall works on the large tileries in the Roman Empire and it remains something to be investigated by future scholars.

The aim of this thesis was to illuminate what brick stamps can contribute to our research of Roman military and economic history. The results and problems of these inscriptions shall be listed in a conclusion here: Proven problems with the use of military brick stamps:

Because of all these diversities of the material, it has to be wondered if brick stamps really are as valuable as traditionally assumed by the continental, middle, central and Eastern European schools of research. It is true that for each location the stamps, if carefully approached by all methods, can give us some information about dates, local troop dispositions or distribution patterns over 269

1.

Military brick stamps are not very useful for reconstructing military history. The main reason is that military history is usually a matter of a short period of a couple of years, whereas brick stamps can often be dated only to periods of several decades or centuries. Therefore, they cannot be used to date events to exact periods. As has been shown, many continental researchers want to date stamps and reconstruct history to specific years, which is questionable. A further problem is the fact that scholars often date newly found stamps based on the apparent stay of a unit in a place, the dating of which is based on brick chronologies suggested by older scholars in the first place. It is necessary to re-investigate these dates to avoid assumptions. Similarly, many of the expansions of stone inscriptions by Mommsen in CIL (1862- ) have never been reviewed and may not be accurate. The British school of research places less importance on close dating and is, therefore, more successful in this aspect of brick stamp research.

2.

Brick stamps can usually not be dated to exact years, which means that an epigraphic date is not possible. Epigraphy as a research method can be employed in certain cases, for example in the case of secure imperial titles. But sometimes imperial titles are doubtful, as in the case of some of the brick stamps from Spain (see Chapter 12, section 12.2.2), and sometimes the exact date is not certain, as in the case of the Antoninana titles (Grimes 1930: 124; Lörincz 1982: 142-144;

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Haalebos & Franzen 2000: 123). In addition, it is nearly impossible to base any assumptions about dates on the epigraphic styles of the stamps, by employing palaeography and other epigraphic methods, because the styles of the stamps do not only vary from province to province but also within provinces. Thus, brick stamps are not very valuable for short chronologies. Due to the fact that no close epigraphic dates are possible, but often only a loose date or a terminus post quem, it is hard to bring different stamp types into a chronological relation with each other. It is justifiable to give some thought to the possible dates of brick stamps. However, most of these suggestions, based on epigraphy only, must remain hypothetical. As long as it is remembered that there are few mistakes but in many cases, especially in continental research, scholars seem to assume that chronologies are correct in every single detail suggested. This happens most when disciples of a certain scholar quote hypothetical dates without questioning. Therefore, the very often artificial chronologies proposed by scholars on the continent, are a mix of secure dates, such as imperial titles (if correctly identified) and archaeological context and some hypothetical dates of other epigraphic methods. To avoid assumptions in a short chronology a scholar should state exactly which dates are secure and which are not. Unfortunately, this does not happen very often. The schools of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, and the Eastern European school are traditionally very fond of short chronologies, and in the best or rather worst case scenario every single artifact (every single stamp in our case) are fitted into a place within a chronology. It is, unfortunately, sometimes forgotten that, from a statistical point of view, we should have more than one find to verify a hypothesis. 3.

conclusions. It is interesting to note that very few scholars consider the possibility that the presence of a stamp can mean the presence of a detachment of a unit as much as the presence of a whole unit. References to this obvious possibility are rare in the reviewed literature. The fact that occasional stamps name more than one unit (Sarnowski 1995: 498) also shows that brick stamps are not always reliable sources of troop dispositions.

Brick stamps are not always able to give information about troop dispositions. As scholars have long recognised, the presence of a stamp in a location does not necessarily mean that the unit was there. If the numbers of stamps are large enough or other inscriptions of the same unit are found it can be assumed that this was the case but in many cases there is less evidence: However, as we shall see below, petrology can sometimes determine if it was the brick or the unit that travelled. In many cases, however, very few stamps are found and from a statistical point of view it is not possible to draw any definite

4.

The relationship between stamped and unstamped material can be determined for the bricks in a building or location, in the case of a recent excavation where it is certain that all the unstamped material has been kept. However, the relationship of stamped and unstamped bricks in the Roman Empire in general cannot be established because many unstamped ones are lost and scholars hardly ever dealing with the complete material.

5.

Generally, brick stamps have no uniform format that could allow the researcher to determine what one stamp looked like based on others: it has been shown that there are variations of length, format, text, style and size even within one location. Brick stamps are not epigraphic documents with a standard appearance, like for example military diplomas, and are, therefore, less suited to epigraphic studies.

6.

There are a lot of letter combinations on many brick stamps following the name of the unit, which, at present cannot be explained satisfactorily. Many different hypotheses exist regarding those, and it is very probable that a lot of these letters represent the names of soldiers working in the tileries. However, there are also other possibilities, such as the names of officers, governors, place names and imperial titles, dependent on the individual cases. In a lot of cases there is no definite answer. As long as there are difficulties in expanding the texts of many brick stamps their role as carriers of military history remains even more doubtful.

Possible results of brick stamp research: 1.

270

The archaeological context in which a brick stamp is found gives a secure frame work to a certain degree. A close date is often not possible, and the possibility that a brick may have been reused has to be considered. However archaeological context always provides archaeologists with a

CONCLUSION

terminus post quem after which the brick was produced. Of course, this information requires excavations where a system of stratigraphy has been processed. Since a lot of the continental excavations, especially in Germany, are much larger than, for example, in Britain, this is rarely the case there. Each find group is usually analysed by a different scholar, and so is the stratigraphy. In Britain, on the other hand, there are fewer buildings and finds, and therefore, the material is more likely to be processed and published by one scholar or by a team of scholars working together. Therefore, the brick stamps can be more easily brought into relation to the stratigraphy of the excavation and better results are achieved. The processing of stratigraphies is partly a case of a difference in research and publication. 2.

3.

4.

be developed. Petrology enables scholars to determine if the bricks or the units travelled and to trace travel routes of bricks. It appears that the Roman army was quite willing to ship bricks over longer distances sometimes, the reason being either a lack of personnel to fire the bricks in one place, or simply the fact that a clay source was better in a more distant location.

As already indicated above, brick stamps can be used for troop dispositions to a certain degree if they are found together with other inscriptions. For example, if accompanied by another military document, preferably a building inscription, they can help to attest the presence of a unit. When found together with less secure military inscriptions like owner’s inscription, military diplomas or tombstones, they account for a certain probability of troop presence. Of course, unless dealing with a building inscription scholars have to be careful. Instead of attesting a unit garrison, inscriptions may also simply indicate that buildings were erected by people connected with the military, as for example beneficiarii (Nelis-Clément 2000). Further studies on the influence of members of the Roman military on civilian areas still remain to be carried out. Brick stamps can give some information as to whether a unit may have fitted into a building. If inscriptions with stamps with the name of a unit in a building are found, researchers can look at the size of the building and determine if the unit in question had enough room. Alternatively, brick trade or questions of ownership and garrisoning have to be considered.

5.

It is possible to trace if several units worked in the same workshop-the clay source can be located by using petrology and determining which units were involved. This shows that epigraphy and petrology should be employed together for maximum result.

6.

It is, furthermore, possible to determine if different units stamped different types of bricks. This, of course, includes the unstamped material while employing the research method of petrology.

7.

Petrology can establish if bricks are of a civilian or military tilery, if stamps have been found on such-unclearly stamped bricks or unstamped ones can be traced back to the clay areas.

8.

It is possible to attest work processes on buildings by looking at the stamps: if a certain type comes from a certain building, and another one from a different one it can be assumed that different work groups were employed for the two. If dealing with the same brick types in a phase it can be assumed that they are contemporary. It may be a thought for future German scholars to investigate if there was work separation in the tegularia Transrhenana.

9.

Brick stamps can help with logistical analyses, provided these concern longer periods of time of at least 20-30 years.

10. Primarily and secondarily used bricks can be differentiated to a certain degree. Firstly, occasional traces of secondary, such as the remains of mortar where there would have been no need, can be detected, if found in situ. Secondly, certain brick types may be found in a location of a building where they would not normally have been used (although this it not necessarily a certain sign for secondary use, since sometimes tegulae were also used in floors and walls for the first time). Thirdly, petrology can help us to determine older and more recent material, if it comes from different clay sources.

Brick stamps can be used to trace military trade routes of bricks. As has been shown, they are not very helpful for establishing military histories but it is possible to reconstruct economic history. With the aid of petrology on the stamped bricks it can determined how far bricks were traded between units. Distribution maps of bricks can 271

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Possible research results of military brick stamps:

Problematic research results of military brick stamps:

long dates/chronologies

short dates/chronologies

economic processes and logistical analyses

military history processes

troop dispositions with evidence of other inscriptions

troop dispositions without evidence of other inscriptions

sizes of units in relation to buildings

relationship between stamped and unstamped material

local brick work organisation, information about what units stamped what types of bricks in an area

conclusions about empire-wide brick works organisation

TABLE 13 There are many aspects in which the evaluation of brick stamps is very valuable. However, in most cases one research method is not enough and it has become obvious that petrology plays a very important role in brick stamp research, and that without it few useful results are possible. Therefore, it can only be hoped that the future brick stamp research, where the scholars of different countries and schools will work together on similar material, will employ this research method much more. It is also desirable that more inclusive studies on brick stamps will be attempted, reviewing the evidence from the large tileries, and contrasting them with the smaller ones. The author is, of course, aware of the fact that the specialists

who are asked to submit reports on stamped tiles encounter space, time and funding limitations and may not be able to include all research methods possible. They may encounter problems in acquiring the relevant, comparative literature from other areas, as was also the case with the research for this thesis. Brick fabric analysis, although necessary, is both expensive and time consuming. Nevertheless, petrology will hopefully be incorporated more and more as a main research method in Continental research as it is in the British. Furthermore, it is to be expected that future research on brick stamps will recognise the limitations of these inscriptions and use them to reconstruct economic history rather than military history.

272

CATALOGUE OF THE PUBLICATIONS EVALUATED IN THIS THESIS

1. Germany, Austria, Switzerland

Baatz D. 1969b. Zur Datierung des Bades am Limeskastell Stockstadt. Bayrisches Vorgeschichtsblatt 64: 63-75. This article deals with the brick stamps found in the bath complex of the fort at Stockstadt on the Upper German limes. The stamp types are the same as in other buildings from the forts of the region, discussed in previous publications by Baatz. He divides them into types based on the chronology in his 1965b article and dates the bath complex according to these stamps.

Baatz D. 1965a. Die gestempelten Ziegel aus dem Limeskastell Echzell. Saalburg Jahrbuch 22: 118-138. In this article, Baatz lists all the stamp types from the bath complex at Echzell, comparing them with other types from the same units (Legio XXII Primigenia, Cohors IV Vindelicorum, Legio XIV Gemina) from Upper Germany. His stamp dates are based on stylistic differences on the stamps. Apart from this, he dedicates some time to the question of brick reuse since a lot of the bricks from the bath complex appear to have been incorporated into the building for a second time. The article also includes an appendix in which Baatz talks about his dating methodology on brick stamps of the Upper German limes. Baatz’s main concern is chronology. This article is discussed in this thesis together with the next publication as it contains similar result.

Brandl U. 1999. Untersuchungen zu den Ziegelstempeln römischer Legionen. Passauer Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie 6. (Rahden). Brandl investigates the brick stamps of a collection by Fritzmeyer, containing stamps mostly from German, Raetian and Pannonian legions. However, not only does he catalogue the stamps but also gives the background and history of research for the stamps of each military unit. He also discusses some topics connected with the study of military brick stamps, such as the beginning of the stamping habit, name-stamps, the connection between brick stamps and beneficiarii stations and brick stamp dating.

Baatz D. & Ricken H. 1965b. Die gestempelten Ziegel aus dem Bad des Kastells Salisberg (HanauKesselstadt). Saalburg Jahrbuch 22: 101-117. This article contains a chronology for the brick stamp types on the Upper German limes. It was initially begun by Ricken and continued by Baatz. The main dating criteria on the stamps are stylistic comparisons of the stamps and the titles on them. Archaeological context is also used. Ricken and Baatz divide the stamp types into larger groups, often named after the location in which they were predominantly found. They use these stamp groups to reconstruct troop dispositions and suggest very short chronologies.

Dolata J. 1994b. Custos Castelli Figlinarum. Mainzer Archäologische Zeitschrift 1: 67-72. Dolata talks about a dedication to Mars from Mainz, which names a custos castelli figlinarum. He compares this with inscriptions, which mention similar positions elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and discusses the organisation and distributing labour in Roman military tileries, based on the evidence of these. He also talks about the function of tilery immunes in general by looking at the work division in similar positions in the Roman army.

Baatz D. 1969a. Ziegelstempel der Legio XXII Primigenia Pia Fidelis Domitiana in Obergermanien? Saalburg Jahrbuch 26: 126-128. In this article, Baatz reviews a particular stamp type of Legio XXII from Upper Germany. He introduces a new theory on the arrival of this legion in the province before the death of Domitian, based on the assumption that they carry the title Domitiana pia fidelis. His focus is on the reconstruction of military history through the evidence of the stamps. This article is not discussed in detail in this thesis since it contains very similar results as the two previously mentioned publications.

Dolata J. 1998a. Archäologische und archäometrische Untersuchungen and römischer Baukeramik und Ziegelstempeln. Archäologie und DenkmalpflegeKurzberichte: 93-95. Dolata uses archaeometric analyses to verify or falsify hypotheses based on other methods, such as epigraphy and archaeological context. Therefore, he is shedding new light on some reconstructions of history based on military brick stamps in Upper Germany. This article explains some of the scientific methods used in this type of analysis. 273

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Dolata J. 1998b. Chemisch-physikalische Untersuchungen an römischen Ziegelsteinen. Stiftung RheinlandPfalz für Innovation-Jahresbericht: 18-20. Similarly to the preceding article, this also reviews chemical-physical analyses performed on some bricks of Legio XXII Primigenia and Legio I Adiutrix. It explains how such scientific analyses can aid our understanding of the origin of ancient building material and in determining where the clay sources lay.

Hanel surveys the stamps of legions V Alaudae and XV Primigenia from the Neronian twin fortress at Vetera. The stamps of the first are distinguished by a variety of what appear to be soldiers’ names. Hanel adds a detailed study of those, determining the origin and frequency of single names. He also ponders the question if different name combinations can be used for dating. Hanel uses the stamps less for chronologies than for establishing building processes within the fortress by looking at the different types of both legions in the buildings.

Dolata J. 1998c. Kommandostruktur einer Vexillatio von Ziegelstreichern. Saalburg Jahrbuch 49: 93-94. A stamp type from the fort at Miltenberg/Upper mentions a Cohors I Sequanorum et Rauracorum and the words cura agente together with the name of a centurion of Legio XII Primigenia. Dolata argues that this was a centurion of a legionary detachment, which function he believes to have been brick making. He underlines this with some evidence from an inscription from Schlossau, which mentions a similar command area. He discusses the organisation of military brick making based on the evidence from these inscriptions and brick stamps.

Hanel N. 1998. Ziegelstempel aus dem Areal des Flottenlagers Köln-Marienburg (Alteburg). Kölner Jahrbuch 31: 401-415. The German fleet base at Köln-Marienburg contained brick stamps from this unit as well as from different legions of Lower Germany (Legio I Minervia, Legio V Alaudae, Legio VI Victrix, Legio XVI, Legio XXII Primigenia and Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix). In addition, there are some bricks stamped with the name of the legate Iulius Didianus, the tegularia Transrhenana and some detachment brick stamps known from most Lower Germany sites. Hanel considers most of the dating suggested by previous scholars on the latter units, while recognising difficulties with short chronologies. He does suggest some dates based on the titles of the fleet stamps but adds that they are generally not closely datable.

Dolata J. 1999b. Ingenieurtechnische Untersuchungen an antiken Ziegelstempeln aus Mainz: Interdisziplinäre Erforschung römischer Baukeramik und Ziegelstempel. Ziegel Zeitschrift 4/6: 421-423. This article talks about the role of military brick stamps as sources of information for both military and building history. Dolata adds some information about new petrological studies on the brick stamps from Upper Germany, which has recently been employed to verify some hypotheses proposed through epigraphical and archaeological research.

Kaiser M. 1996. Die Ziegelstempel der römischen Garnisonen von Bonn. Bonner Jahrbuch 196: 51-91. Kaiser is interested in a chronology of the brick stamps of the units at Bonn (legions I Germanica, XXI Rapax, I Minervia, the German fleet and a detachment of Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix). She is generally cautious about dating brick stamps. Dates, when suggested, are taken from archaeological statigraphy. Kaiser proposes a chronology for the stamps.

Esser K.H., Selzer W. & Decker K.V. 1968/9. Die Sammlung Fremersdorf. Mainzer Zeitschrift 63/64: 149-152. The scholars list the stamps in this collection but do not go into detail about dates or the historical background of the units who stamped them.

Kann H.-J. 1980/81. Römische Ziegelstempel in Trierer Privatsammlungen. Trierer Zeitschrift 43/44: 287-303. Kann’s article contains a general introduction into the subject of Roman military brick stamping and describes the bricks from a private collection in Trier. It adds some new stamp types from the Upper German units but does not go into detail about existing ones, nor does it contain a troop history of the units.

Fuchs M. & Margueron G. 1998. Les estampilles sur tuiles d’ Avenches. Afranius, la légion XXI, Cornelius, Camillius et les autres. Bulletin de l’Association Pro Aventico 40: 105-172. At Avenches the brick stamps of Legio XXI were not only found in military buildings but also in public civilian ones. In addition, there are many civilian brick stamps, which are also discussed. Fuchs and Margueron are relatively careful to apply dates and suggest some new expansions for several brick stamp types with uncertain abbreviations.

Kritsotakis K. 1995. Vergleichende chemischmineralogische Untersuchungen an römischen Ziegeln. In M. Reddé & R. Goguey Le camp légionnaire de Mirebeau. Römisch-Germanisches-ZentralmuseumMonographien 35. (Mainz): 269-311. Kritsotakis performs petrological analyses on the brick stamps of Legio VIII Augusta found at Strassbourg. He

Hanel N. 1995. Vetera I-Die Funde aus den römischen Lagern auf dem Fürstenberg bei Xanten. (Cologne): 253-281; Plates 158-161. 274

CATALOGUE OF THE PUBLICATIONS EVALUATED IN THIS THESIS

seeks to identify production centres and investigate regional differences. The article poses some questions based on previous research, which are answered by using fabric analysis.

stamps of Legio III Italica. He bases his stamp dates on stratigraphy and epigraphy and discusses the bricks according to the forts in which they were found rather than according to the stamp types. Spitzlberger fills the gaps between datable material to achieve a better chronological effect.

Matteotti R. 1993. Zur Militärgeschichte von Augusta Rauricorum in der zweiten Hälfte des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.-die Truppenziegel der 21. Legion aus Augst. Jahresberichte Augst und Kaiseraugst 14: 185-197. Matteotti lists six brick stamps, five of Legio XXI and one of Legio XI, found in a basement of a building in the area of Roman Augusta Rauricorum from the second half of the first century AD. Because of the fact that the basement in which the stamps were found has no military context, Matteotti sees the stamps as a proof that the army sold brick to private individuals. The article contains a discourse on the trade between the military and the private sector.

Strobel K. 1988a. Bemerkungen zum Wechsel zwischen Legionen XIV Gemina und XXII Primigenia in Mainz und zur Struktur des untergermanischen Heeres in trajanischer Zeit. Germania 66: 437-453. Strobel uses the evidence from brick stamps for a reconstruction of troop dispositions. He challenges a previous view that Legio XIV Gemina left Upper Germany for the Middle Danube area in either AD 92 or 97, when it was replaced by Legio XXII from Vetera. Strobel suggests that the legion left Mainz in AD 97, and that in its place Legio XXII was sent there after the Antonius Saturninus revolt. The article also uses some literary evidence (Hist. Aug. Hadrian, 2. 5), but this is doubtful, since although the military tribune mentioned was no doubt sent to Upper Germany, the exact location is not stated in the source. Strobel dates the stamps to rather short periods and reconstructs military history based on short chronologies.

Neumann A. 1973. Ziegel aus Vindobona. Der römische Limes in Österreich 27. (Vienna). Neumann catalogues the over 2000 brick stamps of six legions and those of several private entrepreneurs in Vindobona. He includes the occupation history of the units and dates the stamps, based on epigraphy and archaeological context. Paar J. & Rüger C.B. 1971. Kastell Gelduba. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 10: 260-330. Paar and Rüger reconstruct the occupation history of the Gelduba fort based on the brick stamps found there. The stamp material found there resembles that of other locations in Lower Germany. The units on the stamps are the following: legions VI Victrix, VIII Augusta, X Gemina, XVI Gallica, XXII Primigenia, I Minervia and XXX Ulpia Victrix. There are, furthermore, stamps of the exercitus Germaniae Inferioris, a detachment of the latter, the tegularia Transrhenana, a numerus Ursariensium, the legate Didius Iulianus and a private entrepreneur. The bulk of the stamps are dated to the third century AD and it is stated that this is supported by the excavation results.

Von Gonzenbach V. 1963. Die Verbreitung der gestempelten Ziegel der im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. in Vindonissa liegenden römischen Truppen. Bonner Jahrbücher 163: 76-135. Gonzenbach uses the distribution of brick stamps from Vindonissa to analyse the question of military territories. She interprets the wide spread of military brick stamps of legions XIV Gemina, Legio XXI Rapax and XI Claudia as a military dominated territory in the area surrounding the fortress of Vindonissa. This is in contrast to Jahn’s (1909a, 128) and Staehelin’s (1948, 176-178) view that private civilian buildings, such as villas were built with military bricks. Gonzenbach looks at the nature of the buildings and streets, in and on which military brick stamps were found. She adds that a military controlled street system with street-posts is the most likely explanation for the relatively wide spread of stamped military bricks.

Schönberger H. 1969. The Roman frontier in Germanyan archaeological survey. Journal of Roman Studies 59: 144-197. This is a list of all military sites along the German limes. Schönberger gives the excavation history, stratigraphy and finds for each location. Amongst the latter are brick stamps, including their dates where known.

Von Petrikovits H. 1950. Zu einem Ziegelstempel der Legio XV. Primigenia aus Bonn. Bonner Jahrbücher 150: 102-103. Von Petrikovits reviews some of the evidence for trade between military units: the fact that a stamp of Legio XV, garrisoned in Vetera, is found at Bonn shows that brick stamps travelled along the Rhine. He also ponders the question of how many brick stamps are necessary for secure historical statements.

Spitzlberger G. 1968. Die römischen Ziegelstempel im nördlichen Teil der Provinz Rätien. Saalburg Jahrbuch 25: 65-183. Spitzlberger proposes a chronology of all stamp types for the German part of Raetia, the bulk of which are 275

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Wesch-Klein G. 1984. Breisach am Rhein: die gestempelten Ziegel aus den Grabungen 1983-1986. Fundberichte Baden Württemberg 14: 387-426. The report on the brick stamps from Breisach am Rhein is part of an excavation report, which gives information about the stratigraphy. The two stamp types of Legio XXI Rapax from the location are dated by their archaeological context. With exception of two all stamps belong to the late Roman fort. Brick stamps are dated by association with other small finds, such as coins, i.e. archaeology.

already listed by Bogaers and Haalebos (see above). They also use the evidence of a mortarium stamp in the case of Legio IX Hispana. This legion’s brief stay in Nijmegen is discussed. Haalebos J.K. 1986. Ausgrabungen in Woerden. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III-13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 169-173. The fort of Woerden produced brick stamps of its garrisoning unit, Cohors XV voluntariorum (civium Romanorum pia fidelis). The unit was in Lower Germany from the Flavian period to around AD 200. Haalebos divides the bricks into two types. According to him, the first is Flavian, the other possibly earlier.

2. The Netherlands Bogaers J.E. 1967. Die Besatzungstruppen des Legionslagers von Nijmegen im 2. Jahrhundert nach Christus. In Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms, Vorträge des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses (=Bonner Jahrbücher, Beihefte 19: Köln-Graz): 54-76. The article can be attributed to several categories of studies, such as ‘troop dispositions’, ‘local lists’, or ‘bricks of units in a certain period’. It mainly discusses the evidence of the brick stamps from Nijmegen on which this location history is based. Bogaers, however, also includes other finds and inscriptions. He explains some previously unanswered questions about the period of garrison of Legio X Gemina and the vexillatio Britannica.

Haalebos J.K. & Franzen P.J.F. 2000. Alpen an der Rijn-Albania 1998-1999. (Nijmegen): 121-141. Part of this extensive excavation report on the fort at Alphen contains a list of the brick stamps amongst other finds. The types are rather similar to the ones from Nijmegen and Holdeurn. Haalebos and Franzen also talk about more general topics, such as brick trade on the Rhine and the hypothesis that the tegularia Tranrhenana was a form of centralised brick production for the legions of Lower Germany. Holwerda J.H & Braat W.C. 1946. De Holdeurn bij Berg en Dal, centrum van pannenbakkerij en aardewerk industrie in den romeinschen tijd. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum von Oudheden te Leiden (nieuwe reeks) 26. Supplement. (Leiden). This publication is a base for many other Dutch articles. It lists the brick stamp types from Holdeurn, the legionary tilery of Nijmegen. The material is similar to many other Lower German locations, including forts and fortresses. Holwerda and Braat use the titles of the stamps for their dating. Because of the stamp dates they establish a chronology of the ovens, both those used for firing bricks and those for firing pottery.

Bogaers J.E. & Haalebos J.K. 1977. Die Nijmegener Legionslager seit 70 nach Christus. In D. Haupt & H. G. Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms II (Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior (=Bonner Jahrbücher, Beihefte 38: Köln): 93-108. This paper also discusses brick stamp material from Nijmegen, including some stamps newly found during the 1970s excavations. It analyses some problems with dating by imperial titles, such as the frequency of the omission of titles on military brick stamps, since some stamps of Legio X Gemina bricks leave out titles they already had a the time the brick was stamped. It also ponders the question of stamp reuse.

Sijpensteijn P.J. 1996. Die Legio Nona Hispana in Nimwegen. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111: 281-282. This article published a fourth testimony for the existence of Legio IX Hispana at Nijmegen in the 120s AD: a bronze pendant mentioning the name of this legion. Together with two brick and a mortarium stamp it is a testimony for the legion’s presence there. Sijpenstein compares the stamp types of this legion with bricks of the same legion from Britain, thus attempting a relative chronology of stamp types.

Brunsting H. & Steures D.C. 1995. The brick stamps and the occupation of the legionary fortress at Nijmegen. In W. Groenman van Waateringe, B.L. van Beek, W.H.J. Willems & S.L. Wynia (edd.), Roman Frontier Studies 1995. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Oxford): 323-329. This paper challenges some of the reconstructions of troop dispositions suggested by the previous two papers. Brunsting and Steures propose a shorter use of the Nijmegen fortress, based on the evidence on the stamps 276

CATALOGUE OF THE PUBLICATIONS EVALUATED IN THIS THESIS

3. France

of the legion. He discusses several stamp types of Legio VIII Augusta.

Bérard F., Le Bohec Y. & Reddé M. 1995. Les tuiles estampilles. In M. Reddé & R. Goguey Le camps legionnaire de Mirebeau. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum-Monographien 36. (Mainz): 191-267. There are three different series of brick stamps from Mirebeau, divided by the authors: series A carries the name of Legio III Augusta only. Series B includes the name of the legate Lappius and Series C names different legionary detachments from Upper Germany. Berárd, Le Bohec and Reddé compile a detailed study of the different stamp types but do not closely date the stamps. The different theories concerning the identity of the legate are discussed.

Seillier C. & Gosselin J.Y. 1969. Nouvelles estampilles de la flotte de Bretagne en provenance de Boulognesur-Mer. Revue du Nord 51: 363-372. This is the most recent article on the stamps of the classis Britannica written by French scholars. Unlike the British school, no petrological analyses on the British fleet stamps are performed. The stamps are dated by epigraphy and archaeological context. Seillier and Gosselin include a catalogue of all types of British fleet stamps found during the excavations between 1967 and 1969. Strobel K. 1986. Zu den Vexillationsziegelstempeln von Mirebeau bei Dijon. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 64: 257-264. Strobel discusses the vexillation stamps from Mirebeau (Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé’s Series C). Unlike the French school of research, he suggests short chronologies for the stamps and uses them for exact reconstruction of military history. He sees the stamps of this type as a proof for building activities at Mirebeau between AD 85 and 86. The article does not include the archaeological context background, which is why his argument is hard to follow.

Kritsotakis K. 1995. Vergleichende chemischmineralogische Untersuchungen an römischen Ziegeln. In M. Reddé & R. Goguey Le camp légionnaire de Mirebeau. Römisch-Germanisches-ZentralmuseumMonographien 35. (Mainz): 269-311. In this article Kritsotakis seeks to answer some questions with the aid of petrological analysis. The questions asked are: did the bricks from Mirebeau and Strassbourg originate in the same brick works? Are there, amongst these groups, sub-groups that can be identified by both petrology and archaeological context? Is there truth in the statement that Legio VIII was in Nied during the Chattan Wars between AD 83 and 85?

4. Spain

Le Bohec Y. & Fevrier S. 1999. La VIIIième legion Auguste et Langes (Haute-Marne, France). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29: 257-259. This article adds some further stamps of the types of Legio VIII, in addition to the ones quoted above mentioned study by Berárd, Le Bohec and Reddé (1995), discovered at Langres, Haute-Marne. Like in this previous publication none of the stamps are dated.

Caamaño Gesto J.M. 1984. Excavationes en el campamento romano de Cidadela (Sobrano des Monxes), Coruña. Memoria preliminar de la campaña de 1981. Noticiario arqueológico Hispanico 18: 233-254; Plate X, 8-9. This publication contains the results of an excavation campaign at the Roman fort of Cidadela near modern Coruna in ancient Hispana Tarraconensis. Fifteen brick stamps of Cohors I Celtiberorum were found. The unit is also named in the Notitia Dignitatum and therefore the presence at the fort is certain.

Mommsen T. 1884. Lingonische Legionsziegel. Hermes 19: 437-441. Mommsen’s article, used in this thesis to illuminate the different angles between the German and the French school of research, was written before the legionary fortress at Mirebeau was excavated. Mommsen lists some of the brick stamp types later catalogued by Bérard, Le Bohec and Reddé and also ponders the question of the nature of the legate named on one stamp group.

Fernandez Ochoa C. (ed.) 1996. Los finisterres atlánticos en la antigüedad. Época preromanay romana. (Gijon): 91-102. Fernandez Ochoa lists some Roman forts, amongst which is the one at Herrera de Pisuerga. Five brick stamps naming an Ala Parthorum were found there. Because of these stamps, he believes that the unit was garrisoned there.

Ritterling E. 1925. Legio VIII Augusta. In RE XII: 1657-1662. Ritterling also takes up the theory that Legio VIII was present in the Chattan wars. He also could not know yet that the legion was garrisoned at Mirebeau although he names a tombstone inscription from there with the name

Garcia y Bellido A. 1968. Nueves estudios sobre la Legio VII Gemina y su campamento en Leon. (Leon): 29-63. Garcia y Bellido gives a detailed account of his excavations at Leon during the late 1960s. Also part of this is also an extensive catalogue of the stamps of Legio VII Gemina 277

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

stationed there. He mainly classifies the stamp types by the titles included or omitted on the stamps. Imperial titles (as how he interprets most abbreviations) are his main dating criterion. His list also includes some stamps found in earlier excavations and kept in the museum of Leon.

stamps naming Leg(io) XIII Gem(ina) and Leg(io) XIII R(ataria) show, according to Benea, that a detachment of this legion garrisoned in Rataria, was present at the location. She argues that the military brick factory on the far side of the Danube in the location produced tiles for both legions mentioned.

Garcia y Bellido. 1970. Estudios sobre la Legio VII Gemina y su campamento en Leon. (Leon): 571-599. This study adds some additional excavation results from the area of the cathedral. Most of the stamp types and dates suggested are the same as in the above listed publication, but there are some previously unpublished bricks of the same types.

Biernacki A. 1992. Stamps on the building ceramics from Novae. Archaeologica Warszawa 43: 107-112. Biernacki’s article mainly uses Sarnowski’s (1983) list of brick stamps from Novae. He adopts Sarnowski’s typology and chronology and merely adds some newly found brick stamps.

Wahl J. 1984. Ein Ziegelstempel der Legio X Gemina aus dem Alenkastell bei Rosinos de Vidriales (Prov. Zamora). Madrider Mitteilugen 5: 72-78. Wahl is actually a German scholar but is mentioned in the chapter on the research school of Spain since he discusses Spanish material. He investigates two brick stamps from Rosinos de Vidriales. He talks about the two possible dates of their origin, depending on either of the two stays of this legion in Spain. The first was before AD 63, the second for a brief period between AD 68 and 69. Because of the general notion that there was no military brick stamping in the earlier of the two periods, Wahl favours the second.

Culiça V. 1978. Estampilles de la XI Legion Claudia de Durostorum. Dacia 22: 225-236. Culiça deals with the brick stamps of Legio XI Claudia from Durostorum. He divides the stamps into ten stamp types based on the titles and cognomina. His dates are mainly based on these titles. Gudea N. 2002. Bezüglich der europäischen Wanderschaft der Legio III Gallica zu Beginn des 3. Jh. In P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z. T. Fiema & B. Hoffmann (edd.) Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (I). (Oxford): 19-24. Gudea discusses the significance of the brick stamps of Legio III Gallica found at Porolissum/Dacia Porolissensis. He also names two stone inscriptions, which name detachments of this legion from Viminacium and Sirmium, of which the latter dates to either the late second or early third century AD. Gudea argues that the fact that the brick stamps from Porolissum were found in early third century contexts is a proof for the hypothesis that the unit was dissolved by Septimius Severus rather than Elagabalus, which was previously often discussed by scholars of Roman military history. The existence of the name of this legion on the stamps and the two other inscriptions, in Gudea’s opinion, show that detachments of Legio III Gallica were part of the Dacian and Moesian army in the early third century.

5. South-Eastern Europe Alföldy G. 1967a. Epigraphische Studien 4: 44-51 = 1987. Die Verbreitung von Militärziegeln im römischen Dalmatien. In G. Alföldy Römische Heeresgeschichte. (Amsterdam): 317-325. Alföldy compiles the military brick stamps of the province Dalmatia. Those are the stamps of legions XI Claudia, VIIII Augusta, IV Flavia Felix and of a Cohors VIII voluntariorum civium Romanorum. He spends some time on the question if military tiles were used for private buildings and argues against it. He does, however, recognise that public buildings were sometimes erected with military tiles. The brick stamp dates are mainly based on epigraphy and archaeological context. Alföldy lists all places in Dalmatia in which military bricks were found and seeks to interpret the nature of those sites.

Lörincz B. 1991. Pannonische Ziegelstempel und die militärischen Territorien. In V.A. Maxfield & M.J. Dobson (edd), Roman Frontier Studies 1989-Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Exeter): 244-247. Lórincz discusses the subject of military territories and their connection with brick stamps. He disagrees with Mócsy’s opinion (1967 and 1972), which is that there was brick trade between the civilians and the military sector. He names the locations in Pannonia in which military stamps

Benea D. 1977. Einige Aspekte der Römerherrschaft im Gebiet des Eisernen Tores nach Aurelians Rückzug. Die Militärziegelei von Dierna. In J. Fitz (ed) Limes. Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Székesfehérvár, 30.8.-6.9. 1976). (Budapest): 321-328. This article deals with the military brick works of Dierna in Romania, where bricks stamped with the name of a workshop called DIERA or DIERTRA were found. Further 278

CATALOGUE OF THE PUBLICATIONS EVALUATED IN THIS THESIS

were found and argues that sometimes there is no clear difference distinguishable between military and civilian. Furthermore, the article raises the point that the material often discussed by scholars who argue for the phenomenon of military brick sales to civilians, which dates to the fourth century AD, is inconclusive and hard to interpret. Therefore, we cannot make too many statements about the extent of the Danubian military territory.

Protase D. 1977. Das Römerlager von Brincovenesti und seine Bedeutung für die Verteidigung der Nordostgrenze Dakiens. In D. Haupt & H. G. Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior. (Cologne): 379-386. One brick stamp and one funerary inscription mentions an Ala I Numeri Illyricorum from Brincovenesti. Because of these Protase believes that the unit was garrisoned there. None of the military diplomas from the province cite the ala, which, according to Protase, make it hard to decide if it was part of Dacia Porolissensis or Dacia Superior/ Apulensis.

Milosevic A. 1959. Inscriptions from Sirmium. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 11. Milosevic catalogues the brick stamps from Sirmium. Apart from stamps of a wide range of legions from Pannonia and neighbouring provinces, which were obviously not all garrisoned at Sirmium, she includes several stamp types of private producers. Milosevic mainly dates the stamps by the unit’s historical contexts, using the work of other scholars. In a lot of these cases the dates for the historical background of a unit’s stay derived from inscriptions, and often brick stamps in the first place.

Sarnowski T. 1983. Die Ziegelstempel aus Novae. Archaeologia Warszawa 34: 17-61. This is a systematic, typological study of the brick stamps of Legio I Italica from Novae.Sarnowski is extremely careful to date stamps and bases his dates on both archaeological context and epigraphy. He talks about other issues such as tilery organisation, secondary use and imperial titles.

Mócsy A. 1967. Zu den ‘prata legionis’. In Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms. Vorträge des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses in Süd-Deutschland. Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 145: 211-214. Mócsy argues that it is possible that there was brick trade between the Roman army and civilians. He bases this on the evidence from some buildings and sites on the Danube limes: he argues that they do not have a definite military context. Furthermore, he ponders the question if it possible to determine the extent of the prata legionis based on military brick stamps, a theory, of which he is not in favour.

Sarnowski T. 1987. Zur Truppengeschichte der Dakerkriege Trajans-die Bonner Legio I Minervia und das Legionslager Novae. Germania 65: 107-122. This publication discusses five stamps of Legio I Minervia found at Novae. Sarnowski brings these in relation with the legion’s participation in Trajan’s Dacian wars. Yet he is cautious not to suggest that the whole legion stayed in Novae for a prolonged period of time and suggests instead that there may have been a tile making detachment instead. Sarnowski T. 1995. Legionsziegel an militärischen und zivilen Bauplätzen der Principatszeit in Niedermösien. In W. Groenman van Waateringe, B.L van Beek, W.J.H. Willems & S.L. Wynia (edd.) Roman Frontier Studies 1995. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Oxford): 497-501. This article is a general study on legionary tiles in civilian an military context during the period of the principate. A lot of it contains brick stamps already discussed in Sarnowski’s previous articles. It includes some fabric analysis regarding the origin of the tiles of different legions. Sarnowski also talks about the phenomenon of more than one unit named on a tile and ponders the question if it is possible that there was a workshop shared by several.

Mócsy A. 1972. Das Problem der militärischen Territorien im Donauraum. Acta Anthologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 20: 133-137. This article is a more detailed list of the evidence for military territories on the Danube. Not only does Mócsy review the question if military bricks can determine these, which he does not believe, but he also poses the question to what degree such a area can be established at all. The article also considers some epigraphic evidence for the ancient terms for military territories and considers regional differences. Morfova Z. 1959. Briques et tuiles à estampilles d’ Ulpia Oescus. Latomus 18: 640-648. Morfova talks about the stamps from Ulpia Oescus in Moesia Inferior. The site produced stamps of the three main legions from Moesia Inferior: Legion V Macedonia, Legio I Italica and Legio XI Claudia. Morfova bases stamp dates on the historical background of the unit’s stay in the area, thus achieving long chronologies.

Strobel K. 1988b. Anmerkungen zur Truppengeschichte des Donauraumes in der hohen Kaiserzeit I: Die neuen Ziegelstempel der Legio I Minervia aus dem Lager der Legio I Italica in Novae in Moesia Inferior. Klio 70, 2: 501-511. This article by a German scholar is discussed together with the South-Eastern European research to high-light 279

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

differences in the treatise of the same material. Strobel discusses the stamps Sarnowski includes in his 1987 article: those of Legio I Minervia, a legion normally garrisoned in Bonn, found at Novae. He draws rather different conclusions. His approach is less careful than Sarnowski’s since he sees the five stamps as a proof for the legion’s prolonged stay in the fortress during Trajan’s Dacian campaigns.

Deiotariana). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62: 267-278. Mor reviews the evidence for the disappearance of both legions IX Hispana and XXII Deiotariana from the epigraphic record. He dismisses the idea that their fate can be linked to a communal catastrophy and considers the different hypotheses regarding the fate of both legions suggested by other scholars without deciding for one. He makes the point that it is important not to rely on mere hypotheses to reconstruct military history without solid evidence.

Szilágyi J. 1952. Roman garrisons stationed at the Northern Pannonian-Quad-Frontier-sectors of the Empire. Acta Archaeologia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2-3: 189-200. Szilágyi lists all units recorded for the Northern Pannonian frontier. Most units are attested by both brick stamps and other inscriptions, which makes it possible to attest their presence for certain. He also shows that either brick stamps or military detachments travelled frequently in Pannonia to assist each other’s building programmes since the stamps of many units are found in more than one location.

Speidel M.P. 1986. The Caucasian Frontier 2nd century garrison at Asparus, Petra and Phasis. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms. 13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 657-659 = 1992. In M.P. Speidel (ed.) Roman Army Studies 2 (Stuttgart): 204-208. Speidel suggests that the presence of one brick stamp with the inscription VEX. FA found at Petra is testimony for the existence of a unit named ve(xillatio) Fa(siana) at Phasis. He proposes that a brick making crew of soldiers from this unit were garrisoned and helped to rebuild the fort Petra, and/or delivered bricks to the latter. Their stay, according to him, was short.

6. The Middle East Barag D. 1967. Brick-stamp impressions of the Legio X Fretensis. Bonner Jahrbücher 167: 244-267. Barag discusses the brick stamps of Legio X Fretensis found at the legionary fortress at Givat Ram in Jerusalem. His stamp groups are based on the texts on the stamps. Furthermore, he bases stamp types, as sub-groups to the above on the epigraphic characteristics of the writing on the stamps. His dates derive from archaeological contexts, and are often based on other finds and on the titles on the stamps.

Wagner J. 1977. Legio IIII Scythica in Zeugma am Euphrat. In D. Haupt & H.G Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior. (Cologne): 517-539. Wagner talks of the epigraphic and archaeological evidence of Legio IV Scythica’s presence in Zeugma. He mentions nine stamps of Legio IV Scythica from the area of ancient Seleukia in Zeugma. Most of them were stray finds. Wagner states that a chronology is not possible.

Brulet R. 1984. Estampilles de la IIIième Légion Cyrenaique à Bostra. Berytus 32: 175-179. Legio IIII Cyrenaica is testified at Bostra not only by its brick stamps but also by other epigraphic sources. Brulet lists 19 stamps, without separating types. He does not suggest narrow dates.

7. Northern Africa Le Bohec Y. 1981. Les marques sur briques et les surnoms de la IIIième Légion Auguste. Epigraphica 43: 127-160. The bulk of material discussed by Le Bohec comes from Legio III Augusta, based at Lambaesis, although there are also some auxiliary stamps. He lists the different types of stamps and the find location of the single bricks. He also includes a study on the surnames of Legio III Augusta, which is partly based on the evidence of other inscriptions. Le Bohec’s dates are mainly based on the titles on the stamps. In some cases they are rather uncertain. He also ponders the question of the so-called legate stamps, possibly mentioning two legates, without dismissing other theories of an expansion.

Kennedy D. 1998. The twin-towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates-rescue work and historical studies. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 27. (Portsmouth). This is an report of the excavations of Zeugma during the 1990s. Kennedy lists the brick stamps of Legio IIII Scythica found during those campaigns. He mentions 31 stamps in total, 28 from Zeugma, three from the Karasu bridge and one from Belkis Tepe. These include the stamps addressed by Wagner (1977). He does not suggest any dates. Mor M. 1986. Two legions-the same fate? (the disappearance of the legions IX Hispana and XXII 280

CATALOGUE OF THE PUBLICATIONS EVALUATED IN THIS THESIS

8. Britain

the material with some types of Grimes’s report (Grimes, 1930) and is extremely cautious to make statements about the stamps because of insecurely stratified contexts.

Betts I.M. 1998. Brick and tile. In H.E.N. Cool & C. Philo (edd.) Roman Castleford. Excavations 1974-85 Ithe small finds. Yorkshire Archaeology 4. (Exeter): 225232. Betts analyses the bricks and tiles in the excavation report on the Roman fort at Castleford. All are stamps of Legio IX Hispana and came from the bath-house. He classifies the stamp types based on Wright (1978, 380). Betts uses fabric analysis in connection with archaeological context to investigate the bricks. He recognises one brick fabric.

Grimes, W.F. 1930. Holt, Denbigshire-the work depot of the Twentieth legion at Castle Lyons. Y Cymmrodor 41. Grimes writes about the stamps found at the legionary tilery at Holt, 12 kilometres from the fortress at Chester. The bulk of the material comes from Legio XX Valeria Victrix, Chester’s garrison. Grimes divides the bricks into different types and groups and attempts a chronology based on historical background, archaeological context and titles. He also considers some insecurity about certain titles of the latter.

Bidwell P.T. & Speak S. (edd.) 1994. Excavations at South Shields Roman fort. Vol. I. Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne with Tyne and Wear Museums. (Newcastle): 152-156. In their excavation South Shields fort Bidwell and Speak talk about some stamped tiles from the fort. One-hundredand-eight tiles stamped with the name of a Cohors V Gallorum were found there. Bidwell and Speak separate five fabrics. They suggest that the kilns were in the close vicinity of the fort. The date is based on the historical context, based on stone inscriptions.

Frere S.S. & Tomlin R.S.O. 1992. The inscriptions of Roman Britain (RIB) II. 4. (Bath): 119-207. RIB deals with all inscriptions found in Britain up to its date of publication. It is based on other publications and excavation reports concerning most of these. Usually, the collection is not concerned with the dates of brick stamps. The introduction on these inscriptions does consider some questions, such as the possibility of close dating. In the case of an uncertain expansion, all possibilities or hypotheses are given.

Boon G.C. 1984. Laterarium Iscanum-the antefices, bricks and stamps of the Second Augustean Legion. (Cardiff). Boon presents the reader with a detailed catalogue of the stamps of Legio II Augusta from Caerleon. He distinguishes different types and suggests dates, based on imperial titles and archaeological context. He is also concerned with the question of secondary use.

Hassall M. 1979. Military tile-stamps from Britain. In A. McWhirr Roman brick and tile. British Archaeological Reports International Series. (Oxford): 261-266. In his account on legionary brick stamps and the fleet stamps from Britain, Hassall mainly uses the results from other scholars. However, he offers the first extensive study on the British auxiliary brick stamps. His dates of these are naturally based on the historical background of a unit’s stay in an area, which usually derived from other inscriptions.

Brodribb G. 1969. Stamped tiles of the Classis Britannica. Sussex Archaeological Collections 107: 102125. This is a very detailed study of the stamps of the classis Britannica from Britain. Brodribb divides the stamps into types based on the letters on them. He also divides the bricks into different fabrics and talks about the relationship between stamped and unstamped material. He also reviews some of the French classis Britannica material. Brodribb is extremely careful to apply short chronologies, even by using archaeological context.

Jarrett M.G. 1965. Septimius Severus and the defences of York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41: 516-523. Jarrett argues that detachments of Legio VI Victrix were taken as garrisons both for forts at Carpow and Corbridge some time in the early third century during the reign of Septimius Severus. In return, he thinks, a detachment of Legio II Augusta might have been sent to York where the former legion was stationed. He bases these observations on bricks stamped with the names of these legions at the cited locations and dates these suggested stays based on the titles on the stamps.

Davies J.L. 1993. Brick and tile. In P.J. Casey & J.L. Davies Excavations at Segontium (Caernarfon) Roman fort 1975-1979. Council of British Archaeology 90. (London): 229-231. Davies writes about the bricks and tiles found during excavations at Caernarfon/Segontium between 1975 and 1979. Amongst the bricks there are two stamped tiles mentioning the name of a Cohors I Sunicorum. He compares

Keppie L. 1989. The fate of the Ninth legion-a problem for the Eastern provinces? In D.H. French & C.S. Lightfoot The Eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. British Archaeological Reports International Series 553 (i). (Oxford): 247-255. 281

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Keppie offers no new evidence on the question of Legio IX Hispana’s whereabouts in the Hadrianic-Antonine period but offers to see the problem in a new light. He offers three possible scenarios for the legions’ disappearance: firstly, it could have vanished between 125 and 126 when a legionary reinforcement was sent to an unknown legion in the East. Secondly, he mentions the second Jewish revolt, and thirdly, a revolt in Armenia during the first year’s of Marcus Aurelius’ reign. Thus he suggests that the legion met a violent end.

The British fleet shipped bricks between England and France across the British channel. Philp B. 1981. The excavations of the Roman forts of Classis Britannia at Dover 1970-77. (Dover). Philp investigates Dover, one of the British fleet forts in Britain. His typology types is based on Peacock’s (see above). Swan V. & Philpott R.A. 2000. Legio XX VV and tile production at Tarbock, Merseyside. Britannia 31: 5567. Swan and Philpott use the evidence of a rare stamp type of Legio XX Valeria Victrix from Tarbock and Chester, naming an A(ulus?) Vidu(cus/ius?) to argue that in special situations the Roman army employed civilians to produce tiles for army buildings. They base their argument on the fact that the stamp has several features unusual to military ones, such as a consular date, inwards tapering ansae and the fact that excavations of the Tarbock site have shown no military context.

McWhirr A. 1979. Origins of legionary tile-stamping in Britain. In A. McWhirr (ed.) Roman brick and tile. British Archaeological Reports International Series 68. (Oxford): 253-259. McWhirr offers a review of the evidence from the British legionary centres, establishing when the habit of legionary tile stamping was started. Although there are buildings, like the legionary bath-house from Caerleon which use bricks in the first century AD, none are stamped. According to McWhirr, there is no evidence for military brick stamping in Britian before the start of the second century. It is probable that different legions took up the habit at different times and the auxiliary units adopted it even later from the legions.

Wright R.P. 1976. Tile-stamps of the Sixth legion found in Britain. Britannia 7: 226-235. This is a list of the stamps of Legio VI Victrix found in and near York. Wright merely catalogues the stamp types, stating their numbers and find locations without further information, analysis or dates.

Peacock D.P.S. 1977. Bricks and tiles of the Classis Britannica: Petrology and origin. Britannica 8: 235248. Peacock divides the bricks stamped with the name of the classis Britannica found in Britain into different fabrics. He does not date bricks but his fabric investigation sheds some interesting light on the economic history of the sites:

Wright R.P. 1978. Tile-stamps of the Ninth legion found in Britain. Britannia 9: 379-382. Similar to the above, this is a list of the stamps of Legio IX Hispana found in and near York.

282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations

Vitruvius (Translated by F. Grainger 1934, reprinted 1996) On Architecture. London: William Heinemann.

AE Année Épigraphique. (Paris 1888-). CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. (Berlin 1862-). ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin 1892-1916). RE G. Wissowa et al, Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. (Stuttgart 18931978) RIB R.G. Collingwood & R.P. Wright, Roman Inscriptions of Britain. (Oxford 1965).

Modern Sources Addyman P.V. (ed.) 1977. The Archaeology of York, excavations 1972-75. Vol. 3 The legionary fortress. Fasc. 2 Internal tower south-west-south and the south-west defenses. (London). Alföldy G. 1959. Die Truppenverteilung der Donaulegionen am Ende des 1. Jh. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11: 113-141. Alföldy G. 1962. Die Auxiliartruppen der Provinz Dalmatien. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 14: 263-264. Alföldy G. 1967a. Die Verbreitung von Militärziegeln im römischen Dalmatien. Epigraphische Studien 4: 4451 = 1987. In G. Alföldy Römische Heeresgeschichte. (Amsterdam): 317-325. Alföldy G. 1967b. Die Legionslegaten der römischen Rheinarmeen. Epigraphische Studien 3 (KölnGraz). Alföldy G. 1968. Die Hilfstruppen der römischen Provinz Germania Inferior. Epigraphische Studien 6 (1968). Alföldy G. 2004. Marcus Cornelius Nigrinus Maternus: Neues und Altes zum Werdegang eines römischen Generals. Revue des etudes militaires anciennes 1: 45-62. Amos A.G.J. & Wheeler R.E.M. 1929. The Saxon Shore fortress at Dover. Archaeological Journal 86: 47-58. Arnold P. 1966. Die römischen Ziegeleien von Hunzenschwil-Rupperswil. Jahresbericht 1965, Gesellschaft Provindonissa (Brugg): 37-53. Assa J. 1962/1964. Aulus Bucius Lappius Maximus. Akten des 14. Internationalen Kongresses für lateinische und griechische Epigraphik (Vienna): 31-39. Atkinson D. 1942. Report on the excavations at Wroxeter 1923-1927. (Oxford).

Ancient Sources Ammianus Marcellinus (Translated by J.C. Rolfe 1982) The surviving books of the History. London: William Heinemann. Cassius Dio (Tranlated by E. Cary 1927, reprinted 1982) Roman History. London: William Heinemann. Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (Translated and edited by B. Campbell 2000) The writings of the Roman land surveyors. Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 9. London: Stephen Austin & Sons. Josephus (Translated by H.St.J. Thackeray 1927, reprinted 1997) Jewish War. London: St. Edmundsbury Press. Josephus (Translated by L.H. Feldman 1930-1934, reprinted 1996-1998) Jewish Antiquities. London: St. Edmundsbury Press. Pliny (Translated by H. Rackman 1938-1952, reprinted 1995-1997) Natural History. London: William Heinemann. Pliny the Younger (Translated by B. Radice 1969, reprinted 1989) Letters. London: St. Edmundsbury Press. Suetonius (Translated by J.C. Rolfe 1913, reprinted 1998) Lives of Caesars. London: Harvard University Press. Tacitus (Translated by M.Hutton & R.M Ogilvie 1914, reprinted 1996) Agricola. London: St. Edmundsbury Press. Tacitus (Translated by J. Jackson 1931-1937, reprinted 1994-1998) The Annals. London: St. Edmundsbury Press. Tacitus (Translated by C.H. Moore 1925-1931, reprinted 1996-1998). The Histories. London: St. Edmundsbury Press.

Baatz D. (ed.) 1962. Mogontiacum. Limesforschungen 4 (Berlin): 52-89. Baatz D. 1965a. Die gestempelten Ziegel aus dem Bad des Limeskastells Echzell. Saalburg Jahrbuch 22: 118138. 283

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Baatz D. & Ricken H. 1965b. Die gestempelten Ziegel aus dem Bad des Kastells Salisberg (Hanau-Kesselstadt). Saalburg Jahrbuch 22: 101-117. Baatz D. 1967. Die gestempelten Ziegel aus dem Bad des Zugmantel-Kastells. Saalburg Jahrbuch 24: 40-73. Baatz D. 1969a. Ziegelstempel der Legio XXII Primigenia Pia Fidelis Domitiana in Obergermanien? Saalburg Jahrbuch 26: 126-128. Baatz D. 1969b. Zur Datierung des Bades am Limeskastell Stockstadt. Bayrisches Vorgeschichtsblatt 64: 63-75. Baatz D. 1973a. Kastell Hesselbach und andere Forschungen am Odenwaldlimes. (Berlin): 108-111. Baatz D. 1973b. Einige Funde obergermanischer Militärziegelstempel in der Germania Inferior. In Archeologie en Historie, Festschrift für H. Brunstig. (Bussum): 219-222. Baatz D. 1976. Ein Ziegelstempeltyp der 22. Legion aus Jagsthausen. Saalburg Jahrbuch 23: 95-96. Baatz D. 1978. Das Badegebäude des Limeskastells Waldürn (Odenwaldkreis). Sonderdruck aus dem Saalburg Jahrbuch 35 (Berlin-New York): 61-107. Baatz D. (ed.) 1982. Die Römer in Hessen. (Stuttgart). Baatz D. 1988. Verkleidungsziegel mit Rollenstempelmustern aus Südhessen. Sonderdruck aus dem Saalburg Jahrbuch 44 (Mainz): 65-83. Barag D. 1967. Brick-stamp impressions of Legio X Fretensis. Bonner Jahrbücher 167: 244-267. Barkoczi L. & Soproni S. 1981. Die römischen Inschriften Ungarns 3. (Budapest). Bartel H.G., Dolata J. & Mucha H.J. 2000. Klassifikation gestempelter römischer Ziegel aus Obergermanien. Archäometrie und Denkmalpflege-Kurzberichte: 8688. Bellhouse R.L. 1960. Excavations in Eskdale: the Muncaster Roman kilns. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 60: 1-12. Bellhouse R.L. 1971. The Roman tileries at Scalesceugh and Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 71: 35-44. Benea D. 1977. Einige Aspekte der Römerherrschaft im Gebiet des Eisernen Tores nach Aurelians Rückzug. Die Militärziegelei von Dierna. In J. Fitz (ed) Limes. Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Székesfehérvár, 30.8.-6.9.1976). (Budapest): 321328. Bérard F., Le Bohec Y. & Reddé M. 1995. Les tuiles éstampilles. In M. Reddé & R. Goguey Le camp légionnaire de Mirebeau. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Monographien 36. (Mainz): 191-267. Bernhard H. 1979. Ein spätrömischer Ziegelbrennofen bei Jockgrimm, Kreis Germersheim. Saalburg Jahrbuch 36: 5-8.

Betts I.M. & Crowley N. 1992. Three Classis Britannica stamps from London. Britannia 23: 218-222. Betts I.M. & Foot R. 1994. A newly identified Late-Roman tile-group from Southern England. Britannia 25: 2134. Betts I.M. 1995. Procuratorial tile-stamps from London. Britannia 26: 207-229. Betts I.M. 1998. Brick and tile. In H.E.N. Cool & C. Philo (edd.) Roman Castleford. Excavations 1974-85 I-the small finds. Yorkshire Archaeology 4. (Exeter): 225232. Biernacki A. 1975. In S. Parnicki-Pudelko (ed.) NovaeThe Western Sector 1972. Poznan: 35. Biernacki A. 1992. Stamps on the building ceramics from Novae. Archaeologia Warszawa 43: 107-112. Bidwell P.T. & Boon G.C. 1976. An antefix type of the Second Augustan Legion from Exeter. Britannia 7: 278-280. Bidwell P.T. 1985. The Roman fort of Vindolanda. (Gloucester). Bidwell P.T. & Speak S. (edd.) 1994. Excavations at South Shields Roman fort Vol. 1. Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne with Tyne and Wear Museums. (Newcastle): 152-154. Birley A.R. 1967. Excavations at Carpow. In Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms, Vorträge des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses (=Bonner Jahrbücher, Beihefte 19: Köln-Graz): 1-5. Birley A.R. 1971. Legio VI Victrix in Britain. In R.M. Butler (ed.) Soldier and civilian in Roman Yorkshire: essays to commemorate the nineteenth centenary of the foundation of York (Leicester): 81-96. Birley A.R. 1971. Septimius Severus, the African emperor. (London). Birley A.R. 1979. The people of Roman Britain. (London). Birley A.R. 1990. Officers of the Second Augustan Legion in Britain. The third Annual Caerleon Lecture, National Museum of Wales. (Cardiff). Birley E. 1928 [1929]. A note on the title ‘Gemina’. Journal of Roman Studies 18: 56-60. Birley E. 1948. Britain after Agricola, and the end of the Ninth Legion. Durham University Journal: 78-83 =1953 (reprinted 1961) In E. Birley Roman Britain and the Roman army. (Kendal): 20-30. Birley E. 1951. The prefects at Carrawburgh and their altars. Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 29: 45-51 = 1953 (reprinted 1961) In E. Birley Roman Britain and the Roman army. (Kendal): 172-180. Birley E. 1971. The fate of the Ninth Legion. In R.M. Butler (ed.) Soldier and civilian in Roman Yorkshire: essays to commemorate the nineteenth centenary of the foundation of York. (Leicester): 71-79. 284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowman A.K. 1996. Egypt. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 676-702. Bowman A.K., Garnsey P. & Rathbone D. (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70-192. (Cambridge). Brandl U. 1996. Bemerkungen zu einem Ziegelstempeltyp der Legio XIV Gemina aus der Germania Superior und Carnuntum. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112: 224-227. Brandl U. 1999. Untersuchungen zu den Ziegelstempeln römischer Legionen. Passauer Universitätsschriften zur Archäologie 6. (Rahden). Breeze D.J. 1989. The Second Augustan Legion in North Britain. The Second Annual Caerleon Lecture, National Museum of Wales. (Cardiff). Breeze D.J. 1990. The impact of the Roman army on the native peoples of North Britain. In H. Vetters & M. Kandler (edd.) Akten des 14. Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum. (Vienna): 8598. Breeze D.J. & Dobson B. 1991. Hadrian’s Wall. (London). Brewer R.J. 2000. Caerleon and the Roman army: Roman Legionary Museum: a guide. (Cardiff). Brodribb G. 1969. Stamped tiles of the Classis Britannica. Sussex Archaeological Collections 107: 102-125. Brodribb G. 1979. A survey of tile from the Roman bathhouse at Beauport Park, Battle, E. Sussex. Britannia 10: 139-156. Brodribb G. 1983. Roman brick and tile. Current Archaeology 89: 175-177. Brodribb G. 1987. Roman brick and tile. (Stroud). Brulet R. 1984. Estampilles de la IIIième Légion Cyrenaique à Bostra. Berytus 32: 175-179. Brunsting H. & Steures D.C. 1995. The brick-stamps and the occupation of the legionary fortress at Nijmegen. In W. Groenman van Waateringe, B.L. van Beek, W.J.H. Willems & S.L. Wynia (edd.) Roman frontier studies 1995. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Oxford): 323329. Burnham B.C. 2001. Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia 32: 315. Butcher K. 2003. Roman Syria and the Near East. (London). Bushe Fox J.P. 1949. Richborough IV. (Oxford).

Birley R. E. 1963. The Roman legionary fortress at Carpow, Perthshire. Scottish Historical Review 42 (No. 134): 126-134. Birley R. E. 1965. Excavations of a Roman fortress at Carpow, Perthshire 1961-2. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries Scotland 96: 184-207. Black E.W. 1985. The dating of relief-patterned flue-tiles. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4: 353-375. Blockley, K. 1989. Prestatyn 1984-5-an Iron age farmstead and Romano-British industrial settlement in NorthWales. British Archaeological Reports British Series 210. (Oxford). Böckling W. 1978. Die Römer am Niederrhein: die Ausgrabungen in Xanten, Westfalen und Niedersachsen. (Frankfurt): 111-117. Bogaers J.E. 1965. Exercitus Germanicus Inferior. Numaga 12: 98-106. Bogaers J.E. 1967. Die Besatzungstruppen des Legionslagers von Nijmegen im 2. Jahrhundert nach Christus. In Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms, Vorträge des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses (=Bonner Jahrbücher, Beihefte 19: Köln-Graz): 5476. Bogaers J.E. 1977. Roman tile-stamps from Lincoln (Lindum) and the Legio V Alaudae. Britannia 8: 275-278. Bogaers J.E. & Haalebos J.K. 1977. Die Nijmegener Legionslager seit 70 nach Christus. In D. Haupt & H.G. Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms II (Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongesses in der Germania Inferior (=Bonner Jahrbücher, Beihefte 38: Köln): 93-108. Bogaers J.E. 1986. Regensburger Rätsel. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 13. Internationalen Limeskongresses Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 127-134. Bloemers J.H.F. 1980. Nijmegen: ROB excavations 1974-1979 in the Roman forts, cemeteries and canabae legionis. In: W.S. Hanson & L.J.F. Keppie (edd.) Roman Frontier Studies 1979. British Archaeological Reports International Series 71. (Oxford): 471-474. Boon G.C. (ed.) 1978. Monographs and Collections IRoman sites. Cambrian Archaeological Association. (Cardiff). Boon G.C. 1984. Laterarium Iscanum-the antefices, bricks and stamps of the Second Augustan Legion. (Cardiff). Boon G.C. 1986. Stamped bricks and tiles. In J.D. Ziewkiewitz The legionary fortress baths at Caerleon II. The finds. (Cardiff): 27-28. Bowman A.K., Champlin E. & Lintott A. (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge).

Caamaño Gesto J.M. 1984. Excavationes en el campamento romano de Cidadela (Sobrado des Monxes), Coruña. Memoria preliminar de la campaña de 1981. Noticiario arqueológico Hispanico 18: 233-254; Plate X, 8-9. 285

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Cagnat R., Merlin A. & Chatelain L. 1923. Inscriptions latines d’ Afrique (Tripolitaine, Tunisie et Maroc). (Paris). Callender M.H. 1965. Roman Amphorae, with index of stamps. (London). Caruana I. The Southern defences and third century barracks of the Roman forts at Carlisle: excavations on the Tullie house extension site, 1989 (unpublished). Caruana I. The Roman forts at Carlisle: excavations at Annetwell Street 1973-84 (unpublished). Caruana I. 1997. Ceramic building material. In T. Wilmott (ed.) Birdoswald-excavation of a Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall and its successor settlement 1987-92. (London): 267-268. Casey P.J., Davies J.L. & Evans J. 1993. Excavations at Segontium (Caernafon) Roman fort 1975-1979. Council of British Archaeology 90. (London). Chicorius L. 1896. Die Reliefs der Trajansäule 2. (Berlin): 228-229. Cichy B. 1971. Das römische Heidenheim. (Heidenheim): 11. Clifford E.M. 1955. Stamped tiles found in Gloucestershire. Journal of Roman Studies 45: 68-72. Collingwood R. G. 1930 (1969). The Archaeology of Roman Britain. (London). Crackrell S. & Mahany C. (edd.) 1994. Roman Alcester: Southern extramural area. 1964-1966 excavations. Vol I, Part 2. (York). Cüppers H. (ed.) 1990. Die Römer in Rheinland-Pfalz. (Stuttgart). Culiça V. 1978. Éstampilles de la XI Legion Claudia de Durostorum. Dacia 22: 225-236. Cunliffe B.W. 1968. Fifth report on the excavations of the Roman fort at Richborough, Kent. (London): 257-258. Czysz W., Dietz K., Fischer T. & Kellner H.J. (edd.). 1995. Die Römer in Bayern. (Stuttgart).

Roman fort 1975-1979. Council of British Archaeology 90. (London): 229-231. Dearne M.J. (ed.) 1993. Navio-The fort and vicus at Brough-on-Noe, Derbyshire. British Archaeological Reports British Series 234. (Oxford). Decker K.V & Selzer W. 1976. Mogontiacum: Mainz vor der Zeit des Augustus bis zum Ende der römischen Herrschaft. In H. Temporini (ed.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 5.1. (Berlin): 457559. Detsicas A.P. & Tatton-Brown T.W.T. (edd.) 1982. Excavations on the Roman and medieval defenses of Canterbury. Vol. II. (Gloucester). Diaz-Jimenez E. 1920. History of the Archaeological Museum of San Marcos. (Madrid). Dobson B. 1978. Die Primipilares. (Cologne). Dolata J. 1994a. Kritische Neuaufnahme römischer Ziegelstempel aus Mainz und Rheinhessen. Denkmalpflege in Rheinland-Pfalz 1989-1991 4446: 343-345. Dolata J. 1994b. Custos Castelli Figlinarum. Mainzer Archäologische Zeitschrift 1: 67-72. Dolata J. 1996. Hin zu einer archäologischen Nutzanwendung geochemischer Analytik römischer Baukeramik. Mainzer Archäologische Zeitschrift 3: 105-125. Dolata J. 1998a. Archäologische und archäometrische Untersuchungen an römischer Baukeramik und Ziegelstempeln. Archäologie und DenkmalpflegeKurzberichte: 93-95. Dolata J. 1998b. Chemisch-physikalische Untersuchungen an römischen Ziegelsteinen. Stiftung RheinlandPfalz für Innovation-Jahresbericht: 18-20. Dolata J. 1998c. Kommandostruktur einer Vexillatio von Ziegelstreichern. Saalburg Jahrbuch 49: 93-94. Dolata J. 1999a. Keine Heeresziegelei der Legio XIV Gemina in Hockheim. Mannheimer Geschichtsblätter. Neue Folge 6: 287-296= 2000b. Archäometrie und Denkmalpflege Kurzberichte: 89-91. Dolata J. 1999b. Ingenieurtechnische Untersuchungen an antiken Ziegelstempeln aus Mainz: Interdisziplinäre Erforschung römischer Baukeramik und Ziegelstempel. Ziegel Zeitschrift 4/6: 421-423. Dolata J. 2000a. Antike Ziegelsteingeschichten aus Mogontiacum. Mainz 20/1: 95-124. Dolata J. 2000b. Chemisch-physikalische Untersuchungen an antiken römischen Ziegelsteinen. (RheinlandPfalz): 126-127. Dolata J. 2000c. Archäologische und naturwissenschaftlichtechnische Untersuchungen zur Beschaffung römischer Baukeramik im nördlichen Obergermanien. In K. Strobel (ed.) Forschungen zur römischen Keramikindustrie: Produktions-, Rechtsund Distributionsstrukturen. Akten des 1. Trierer

Darrell-Hill, J. 1960. The Romano-British site at Bodiam Station. Sussex Notes and Queries 15: 190-192. Darvill T. 1980. Some small groups of Roman ceramic tiles from the Corswold. Glevensis 14: 49-57. Darvill T. & McWhirr A. 1982. Roman brick production and the environment. In D. Miles The RomanoBritish countryside: Studies in rural settlement and economy. Part I. British Archaeological Reports British Series 103 (i). (Oxford): 137-150. Darvill T. & McWhirr A. 1984. Brick and tile production in Roman Britain: Models of economic organisation. World Archaeology 15: 239-261. Darvill T. 1986. Petrology of stamped ceramic tiles. In A. McWhirr (ed.) Houses in Roman Cirencester. (Cirencester). Davies J.L. 1993. Brick and tile. In P.J. Casey, J.L. Davies & J. Evans Excavations at Segontium (Caernafon) 286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Symposiums zur Antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Trierer Historische Forschungen 42 (Mainz): 193208. Dore J.N. & Wilkes J.J. 1999. The Roman fortress at Carpow, Perthshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries Scotland 129: 481-575. Down A. 1988. Roman Chichester. (1988). Drack W. & Fellmann R. (edd.) 1988. Die Römer in der Schweiz. (Stuttgart-Jona). Dressel H. 1909. CIL XV. 2.1. Duncan-Jones R. 1982. The economy of the Roman empire: quantitative studies. (Cambridge). Düntzer H. 1886. Köln und seine Römerbrücke. Bonner Jahrbücher 81/82: 20-23.

Forrer R. 1935. L’Alsace romaine. (Strasbourg). Franke T. 2000. Legio XIV Gemina. In Y. Le Bohec & C. Wolff (edd.) Les légions de Rome sous le HauteEmpire. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (17-19 septembre 1998). (Lyon-Paris): 191-202. Frere S.S. 1967. Britannia-A history of Roman Britain. (London). Frere S.S., Show S. & Bennett P. 1982. Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defenses of Canterbury. Vol II. Kent Archaeological Society. (Maidstone). Fuchs M. & Margueron G. 1998. Les estampilles sur tuiles d’Avenches. Afranius, la légion XXI, Cornelius, Camillius et les autres. Bulletin de l’ Association Pro Aventico 40: 105-172. Fulford M.G. 1996. The Second Augustan Legion in the West of Britain. The Ninth Annual Caerleon Lecture, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. (Cardiff). Fulford M.G. 2000. Britain. In A.K Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed)) Vol. 11. The High Empire- AD 70-192. (Cambridge): 561-566.

Eck W. 1985. Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jh. Epigraphische Studien 14. (KölnBonn). Eck W. 2004. Köln in römischer Zeit: Geschichte einer Stadt im Rahmen des Imperium Romanum. (Cologne). Esser K.H., Selzer W. & Decker K.V. 1968/9. Die Sammlung Fremersdorf. Mainzer Zeitschrift 63/64: 149-152. Evans D.R. & Metcalf V.M. Roman Gates Caerleon. Oxbow Monograph 15. (Oxford).

Garcia y Bellido A. 1968. Nueve estudios sobre la Legio VII Gemina y su campamento en Leon. (Leon): 2963. Garcia y Bellido A. 1970. Estudios sobre la Legio VII Gemina y su campamento en Leon. (Leon): 571599. Gentry A.P. 1976. Roman military stone-built granaries in Britain. British Archaeological Reports British Series 32. (Oxford). Le Glay M. 1974. Recherches et découvertes épigraphiques dans l’Afrique romaine depuis 1962. Chiron 4: 629646. Goodburn R. & Bartholomew P. (edd.) 1976. Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum. British Archaeological Reports Supplementary Series 15. (Oxford). Goodman M. 1996. Judaea. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 737-781. Goodman M. 2000. Judaea. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70192. (Cambridge): 664-678. Green T.K. 1970. Roman tile-works at Itchingfield. Sussex Archaeological Collections 108: 23-38. Greenaway J. 1981. The Neronian stamped tile from Little London. Britannia 12: 290-291. Grimes W.F. 1930. Holt, Denbighshire–the work depot of the Twentieth Legion at Castle Lyons. Y Cymmrodor 41. Gudea N. 2002. Bezüglich der Europäischen Wanderschaft der Legio III Gallica zu Beginn des 3. Jh. In P.

Faber A. 1994. Das römische Auxiliarkastell und der Vicus von Regensburg-Kupfmühl. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 49. (München). Fernandez Ochoa C. (ed.) 1996. Los finisterres atlánticos en la antigüedad. Época preromana y romana. (Gijon): 91-102. Filgis M.N. & Pietsch M. 1990. Die römische Stadt von Bad Wimpfen im Tal, Kreis Heilbronn. Archäologische Augrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1989. (Stuttgart): 117-123. Filtzinger P., Planck D. & Cämmerer B.(edd.) 1986. Die Römer in Baden-Württemberg. (Stuttgart). Fischer U., Eschbaumer P., Fasold P., Huld-Zetsche I., Rupp V. & Schubert H. 2001. Grabungen im römischen Vicus von Nida-Heddernheim 1961-1962. Germania 79 (2. Halbband): 473-478. Fitz J. 1976. Die Stempelziegel von Gorsium-Herculia. Alba Regia 15: 175-191. Fitz J. 1977. Das Verhalten der Armee in der Kontroverse zwischen Caracalla und Geta. In D. Haupt & H.G. Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms II (Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongesses in der Germania Inferior (=Bonner Jahrbücher, Beihefte 38: Köln): 545-547. Florescu G. & Petolescu C.C. 1977. Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae I.2 (Bukarest). Forni G. 1953. Il reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano. (Milan). 287

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema & B. Hoffmann (edd.) Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (I). (Oxford): 19-24.

Helen T. 1975. Organisation of Roman brick production in the first and second centuries AD. (Helsinki). Henzen W. 1913. Ephemeris Epigraphica 9. (Berlin): 644645. Hinchcliffe J. & Sparey Green C. 1985. Excavations at Brancaster 1974 and 1977. East Anglian Archaeology Report 23. (Norfolk). Hinz H. & Binding G. 1972. Beiträge zur Archäologie des römischen Rheinzabern. (Bonn). Hird L. 1997. Coarse Pottery. In T. Wilmott (ed.) Birdoswald-excavation of a Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall and its successor settlement 1987-92. (London): 233-267. Hodgson, N. 1995. Were there two Antonine occupations of Scotland? Britannia 26: 24-49. Hödler A. (ed.) 1906. Der römische Limes in Österreich 7. (Wien). Hogg R. 1965. Excavations of the Roman auxiliary tilery, Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 65: 133-168. Holder P.A. 1999. Exercitus Pius Fidelis: The army of Germania Inferior in AD 89. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 128: 237-250. Holwerda J.H. & Braat W.C. 1946. De Holdeurn bij Berg en Dal, centrum van pannenbakkerij en aardewerkindustrie in den Romeinschen tijd. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum von Oudheden te Leiden (nieuwe reeks) 26. Supplement. (Leiden). Hope L.E. 1922. Roman tile of the Ninth legion, from Scalesceugh. Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 22: 456-457. Horn H. G. (ed.) 1987. Die Römer in Nord-Rhein-Westfalen. (Stuttgart). Hornblower S. & Spawforth A. (edd.) 2003 (4th edition). The Oxford Classical Dictionary. (Oxford-New York). Howald E. & Meyer E. 1940. Die römische Schweiz. Texte und Inschriften. (Zürich). Hurst H. 1976. Foundations of stone colonial buildings in Gloucester. In K. Branigan & P.J. Fowler (edd.) 1976. The Roman West Country-classical culture and Celtic society. (London): 71-75.

Haalebos J.K. 1986. Ausgrabungen in Woerden. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III-13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 169-173. Haalebos J.K. & Franzen P.J.F. 2000. Alphen an der RijnAlbaniana 1998-1999. (Nijmegen): 121-141. Hall R.A. (ed.) 1997. The Archaeology of York. Vol. 3 The legionary fortress. Fasc. 4 Excavations in the Praetentura: 9 Blake Street. (York). Hanel N. 1995. Vetera I-die Funde aus den römischen Lagern auf dem Fürstenberg bei Xanten. (Cologne): 253-281; Plates 158-161. Hanel N. & Wigg. A. 1997. Die neuentdeckten Militärlager bei Trebur-Geinsheim (Hessen) und die römische Okkupationdes nördlichen hessischen Rieds. In: W. Groenman van Waateringe, B.L. van Bek, W.J.H. Willems & S.L. Wynia (edds.) Roman Frontier Studies 1995. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Oxford): 41-46. Hanel N. 1998. Ziegelstempel aus dem Areal des Flottenlagers Köln-Marienburg (Alteburg). Kölner Jahrbuch 31: 401-415. Hanel N. 2002. Ein Ziegelstempel der Cohors XV Voluntariorum c. R. aus der Tegularia Transrhenana im Flottenlager Köln-Marienburg (Alteburg). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 139: 293-296. Hartley B.R. 1952. Excavations at Heronbridge 1947-48. Journal of the Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Society 39: 3-20. Hartley B.R. 1954. Heronbridge excavations: a bronze worker’s hearth. Journal of the Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Society 41: 1-14. Hassall M.W.C. & Tomlin R.S.O. 1978. Roman Britain in 1977: II. Inscriptions. Britannia 9: 473-485. Hassall M.W.C. & Tomlin R.S.O. 1989. Roman Britain in 1988. Britannia 20: 331; No. 4. Hassall M.W.C., Evans D.R., Hartley K. & Lennox P. 1992. Inscribed material. In D.R. Evans & V.M. Metcalf Roman Gates Caerleon. Oxbow Monograph 15. (Oxford): 83-86. Heighway C.M. & Parker A.J. 1982. The Roman tilery at St.Oswald’s Priory, Gloucester. Britannia 13: 25-77. Heimberg V. (ed.) 1995. 2000 Jahre Bonn-Etappen der Stadtgeschichte-Die römische Aera Bonns. (Bonn): 25-29.

Ivanov R. 1981. Tuiles et briques avec des estampilles de la Legio I Italica et de la Legio XI Claudia de Ulpia Oescus. Archaeologija (Sofia) 23: 42-47. Jacob H. 1927. Chronik der Saalburg von 1914-1924. Saalburg Jahrbuch 6: 1-184. Jacobs P. 1990. Das römische Bad in Fischbach, Gemeinde Niedereschach, Schwarzwald-Baar-Kreis. 288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archäologische Ausgrabungen Baden-Württemberg 1989. (Stuttgart): 169-174. Jahn V. 1909a. Die römischen Dachziegel von Windisch. Anzeiger für Schweizer Altertumskunde 11/2: 11129; Plate V. Jahn V. 1909b. Nachtrag zur Abhandlung über die römischen Dachziegel von Windisch. Anzeiger für Schweizer Altertumskunde 11/4: 303-313. Jarrett M.G. 1964. Legio II Augusta in Britain. Archaeologia Cambrensis 113: 47-63. Jarrett M.G. 1968. Legio XX Valeria Victrix in Britain. Archaeologia Cambrensis 117: 77-91. Jarrett M.G. & Mann J.C. 1970. Britain from Agricola to Gallienus. Bonner Jahrbücher 170: 178-210. Jarrett M.G. 1994. Non-legionary troops in Roman Britain. Part one, the units. Britannia 25: 35-77. Jobst W. 1983. Provinzhauptstadt Carnuntum. (Wien). Johnson A. 1983. Roman forts. (London). Johnson S. 1976. The Roman forts of the Saxon Shore. (London).

Keppie L. 1989. The fate of the Ninth Legion-A problem for the Eastern provinces? In D.H. French & C.S. Lightfoot The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire. British Archaeological Reports International Series 553 (i). (Oxford): 247-255. Keppie L. 1990. The history and disappearance of the legion XXII Deiotariana. In A. Kasher, U. Rappaport & G. Fuks (edd.) Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: collected essays. (Jerusalem): 54-61. Keppie L. 1993. The origins and early history of the Second Augustan Legion. The Sixth Annual Caerleon Lecture, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff. (Cardiff). Keppie L. 2000. Legio VIIII in Britain: the beginning and the end. In R. Brewer (ed.) Roman fortresses and their legions. (London): 83-100. Klee M. 1984. Neue Ausgrabungen in Rottweil. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in BadenWürttemberg 1983. (Stuttgart): 129-134. Knight J.K. 1994. Caerleon Roman fortress. (Cardiff). Kolling A. 1974. Zur Verbreitung gestempelter römischer Ziegel an der Saar. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 4: 81-87. Kritsotakis K. 1995. Vergleichende chemischmineralogische Untersuchungen an römischen Ziegeln. In M. Reddé & R. Goguey Le camp légionnaire de Mirebeau. Römisch-Germanisches ZentralmuseumMonographien 35. (Mainz): 269-311.

Kaiser M. 1996. Die Ziegelstempel der römischen Garrisonen von Bonn. Bonner Jahrbücher 196: 5191. Kajanto I. 1965. The Latin Cognomina. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum Societa Scientiarum Fennica 2. (Helsinki-Helsingfors): 59-418. Kandler M. 1991. Die Legio I Adiutrix und Carnuntum. In V.A. Maxfield & M.J. Dobson (edd.) Roman Frontier Studies 1989-Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Exeter): 237241. Kann H.-J. 1980/81. Römische Ziegelstempel in Trierer Privatsammlungen. Trierer Zeitschrift 43/44: 287303 Kennedy D. L. 1980. The frontier policy of Septimius Severus: new evidence from Arabia. In W.S. Hanson & L.J.F. Keppie (edds.) Roman Frontier Studies XII. British Archaeological Reports International Series 71 (iii). (Oxford): 879-887. Kennedy D.L. 1996. Syria. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 703-736. Kennedy D.L. 1998. The twin-towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates-Rescue work and historical studies. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 27. (Portsmouth). Kennedy D.L. 2000. The Roman army in Jordan. A handbook prepared on the occasion of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Amman, Jordan, 2-11 September 2000. (Liverpool). Kenyon K. 1984. Excavations at Jewry Wall Site, Leicester. (Oxford).

Le Bohec Y. 1981. Les marques sur briques et les surnoms de la IIIième Légion Auguste. Epigraphica 43: 127160. Le Bohec Y. 1989. La troisième légion Auguste. (Paris). Le Bohec Y.-Wolff C. (edd.) 2000. Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (1719 septembre 1998). (Lyon-Paris). Le Bohec Y. & Fevrier S. 1999. La VIIIième legion Auguste et Langres (Haut-Marne, France). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29: 257-259. Lehner H. 1904. Die Einzelfunde von Novaesium. Bonner Jahrbücher 111-112: 289-309, Plate XXI. Lenoir M. 2002. Le camp de la légion III Cyrenaica à Bostra. Recherches récentes. In P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema & B. Hoffmann (edd.) Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (I). (Oxford): 175184. Le Ny F. 1988. Les fours des tuiliers gallo-romains. Méthodologie, étude téchnologique, typologie et statistique. Chronologie. Documents d’ Archaeologie Française 12. (Paris): 11-61. Liversidge J. 1968 Britain in the Roman Empire. (London). 289

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Löschke S. 1931. Die römischen Ziegelöfen im Gemeindewald von Speicher. Trierer Zeitschrift 9: 1-7. Lörincz B. 1976. Zur Datierung der Stempelziegel von Vindobona. Alba Regia 15: 261-262. Lörincz B. 1979. Die Ziegelstempel des spätrömischen Südostfriedhofes von Intercisa. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31: 293-307. Lörincz B. 1980. Die Ziegelstempel des Hansági-Museums von Mosonmagyaróvár. Alba Regia 18: 275-279. Lörincz B. 1981. Brick tiles in Pannonia. In J. Gómöri (ed.) Researches in Industrial Archaeology in Hungary (Veszprem): 78. Lörincz B. 1982. Zur Datierung des Beinamens Antoniniana bei Truppenkörpern. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 48: 142-148. Lörincz B. 1989. Zur Verbindung zwischen Pannonien und Barbaricum: Die Verbreitung und Datierung der Ziegelstempel. Klio 71.1: 96-106. Lörincz B. 1991. Pannonische Ziegelstempel und die militärischen Territorien. In V.A. Maxfield & M.J. Dobson (edd.) Roman Frontier Studies 1989. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Exeter): 244-247.

Mason D.J.P. 2001. Roman Chester-city of eagles. (Stroud). Mattotti R. 1993. Zur Militärgeschichte von Augusta Rauricorum in der zweiten Hälfte des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.-die Truppenziegel des 21. Legion aus Augst. Jahresberichte Augst und Kaiseraugst 14: 185-197. Maxfield V.A. 1993. Review of the Annual Caerleon Lectures. Britannia 24: 323-324. Maxfield V.A. 1996. The eastern desert forts and the army in Egypt during the principate. In D.M. Bailey (ed.) Archaeological research in Roman Egypt: the proceedings of the Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, held on 1-4 December 1993. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supllementary Series 19: 9-19 Maxfield V.A. & D.P.S. Peacock 2001a. Mons Claudianus, survey and excavation 1987-1993: Vol. II, excavations, Part 1. (Cairo). Maxfield V.A. & D.P.S. Peacock 2001b. The Roman Imperial quarries, survey and excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998: Vol.1, topography and quarries. (London). Metzler J. & Zimmer J. & Bekker L. 1981. Ausgrabungen in Echternach. (Luxembourg). Meyer E. 1973. Einführung in die lateinische Epigraphik. (Darmstadt). Meyer-Freule C. 1989. Das Praetorium und die Basilika von Vindonissa. Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Provindonissa 9 (Brugg). Miglbauer R. 1996. Neue Forschungen im römischen Wels. Ostbairische Grenzmarken 38: 9-17. Milosevic A. 1971. Roman brick stamps from Sirmium. In V. Popovic (ed.) Sirmium-Archaeological Investigations in Sirmium, Pannonia (Beograd): 95116. Mirkovic M. 1990. Sirmium et l’armée romaine. Arheoloski Vestnik 411: 631-642. Mitchell S. H. 1987. Imperial building in the Eastern Roman provinces. In S. Macready & F.H. Thompson Roman architecture in the Greek world. (London): 18-25. Mócsy A. 1962. Pannonia. (Stuttgart). Mócsy A. 1967. Zu den ‘prata legionis’. In Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms. Vorträge des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses in Süd-Deutschland. Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 145: 211-214. Mócsy A. 1972. Das Problem der militärischen Territorien im Donauraum. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20: 133-137. Morfova Z. 1959. Briques et tuiles à estampilles d’Ulpia Oescus. Latomus 18: 640-648. Mommsen T. 1884. Lingonische Legionsziegel. Hermes 19: 437-441.

McCarthy M.R. (ed.) 1991. Roman waterlogged remains and later features at Castle Street, Carlisle. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 5. (Stroud). MacMullen R. 1959. Roman imperial building in the provinces. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64: 207-235. McWhirr A. & Viner D. 1978. The production and distribution of tiles in Roman Britain with particular reference to the Cirencester region. Britannia 9: 359377. McWhirr A. 1979. Roman brick and tile. British Archaeological Reports International Series 68 (Oxford). McWhirr A. 1981. Roman Gloucestershire. (Gloucester): 109-114. Mann J.C. (ed.) 1983. Legionary recruitment and veteran settlement during the Principate. University of London, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publications 7. (London). Margary I.D. 1952. Tile with CL BR stamp from a Roman ironworks in the Weald. Antiquaries Journal 32: 7374. Marvell A.G. & Owen-John H.J. 1991. LeucarumExcavations at the Roman auxiliary fort at Loughor, West-Glamorgan 1982-84 and 1987-88. Britannia Monograph Series 12 (London): 189-196. Mason D.J.P. 1986. The prata legionis at Chester. Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 69: 19-43. 290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mongdad S. 1976. Bosra: Aperçu sûr l’urbanisation de la ville à l’époque romaine. Felix Ravenna 111-112: 65-81. Mor M. 1986. Two legions-the same fate? (The disappearance of the legions IX Hispana and XXII Deiotariana. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62: 267-278. Mowat R. 1883. Les inscriptions et les tuiles légionnaires de Mirebeau. Bulletin Épigraphique de la Gaule 3: 221-232. Müller G. 1976. Ausgrabungen in Dormagen 1963-1977. (Köln): 12-14. Müller G. (ed.) 1979a. Ausgrabungen in Dormagen 19631977. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 20 (Bonn): 4-16; 103-104; Plates 74-75. Müller G. 1979b. Durnomagnus-Das römische Dormagen. (Köln): 17-28; Plate 19. Musil J. 1993. Gestempelte römische Ziegel vom Burgstall bei Mušov, Mähren. Archaeologia Austriaca 77: 89103.

Parkhouse J. & Evans E. (edd.) 1996. Excavations in Corbridge, South Glamorgan 1977-78. British Archaeological Reports British Series 245. (Oxford): 177-178. Peacock D.P.S. 1973. Forged brick-stamps from Pevensey. Antiquity 47: 138-140. Peacock D.P.S. 1977. Bricks and tiles of the Classis Britannica: Petrology and origin. Britannia 8: 235-248. Peacock D.P.S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World. (New York): 129-151. Petch D.F. 1960. Excavations at Lincoln 1955-58-The Southern defences of the legionary fortress and the Upper Colonia at Sub-Dearny and the Old Bishop’s Palace. Archaeological Journal 117: 68. Pflaum H.G. 1963. Du nouveau sûr les agri decumates à la lumière d’un fragment de Capoue. Bonner Jahrbücher 163: 230. Pflaum H.G. (ed) 1976. Inscriptions latines d’Algérie II. (Alger). Picard G. Ch. 1944. Castellum Dimmidi. (Alger). Philp B. 1981. The excavations of the Roman forts of Classis Britannica at Dover 1970-77 (Dover). Philips D. & Heywood B. 1995. Excavations at York Minster. In M.O.H. Carver (ed.) Royal Comission on the Historical Monuments of England Vol. I Part 2. (Swindon). Planck D. 1990. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in BadenWürttemberg 1989. (Stuttgart): 169-174. Protase D. 1977. Das Römerlager von Brincovenesti und seine Bedeutung für die Verteidigung der Nordostgrenze Dakiens. In H. Haupt & H.G. Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior. (Cologne): 379-386.

Nágy L. 1931. Az Óbudai ókereszteny cella trichora a Ráktár-ucában. (Budapest). Nash-Williams V.E. 1932. The Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon in Monmouthshire-Report on the excavations carried out in the Prysg Field, 1927-29. Volume II. Archaeologia Cambrensis 87:53-61. Nélis-Clement J. 2000. Les beneficiarii: Militaires et administrateurs en service de l’empire (Ier s.a.C-Ve s.p.C.). (Bordeaux). Neumann A. 1961/1962. Inschriften aus Vindobona. Jahrbuch des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Wien 17/18: 7-29. Neumann A. 1971. Vindobona-die römische Vergangenheit Wiens. (Vienna). Neumann A. 1973. Ziegel aus Vindobona. Der römische Limes in Österreich 27. (Vienna).

Radnoti A. 1974. Legionen und Auxilien am Oberrhein im 1.Jh.n.Chr. In E. Birley, B. Dobson & M. Jarrett (edd.) Roman Frontier Studies 1969, Eighth International Congress of Limesforschung. (Cardiff): 138-155. Reynolds J.M & Ward-Perkins J.B. 1952. The inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. (Rome). Reynolds J.M. & Lloyd J.A. 1996. Cyrene. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 619639. Reynolds J.M. 2000. Cyrenaica. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70-192. (Cambridge): 547-558. Richardson G.G.S. 1973. The Roman tilery, Scalesceugh 1970-71. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 73: 79-89.

Oldenstein-Pferdehirt B. 1984. Die Geschichte der Legio VIII Augusta. Jahrbuch des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 31: 397-434. Oldenstein-Pferdehirt B. 1986. Die römische Okkupation Germaniens und Rätiens von der Zeit des Tiberius bis zum Tode Trajans-Untersuchungen zur Chronologie süd-gallischer Reliefsigillata. Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 33.2: 221320. Paar J. & Rüger C.B. 1971. Kastell Gelduba. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 10: 260-330. Parker H.M.D. 1928. The Roman legions. (Oxford). Parker S.T. 2000. Roman legionary fortresses in the East. In R.J. Brewer (ed.) Roman fortresses and their legions. (London): 121-135. 291

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Schneller H. 1992. Römische Ziegelstempel-Funde im Aushubmaterial aus dem Bad des Auxiliarkastells Petronell-Carnuntum aus dem Grabungsjahr 1992. (Vienna). Schönberger H. 1954. Zwei Ziegelstempel-typen der Cohors IV Vindelicorum. Saalburg Jahrbuch 13: 75. Schönberger H. 1969. The Roman frontier in Germany-an archaeological survey. Journal of Roman Studies 59: 144-197. Schönberger H. & Simon H.G. 1980. Das Kastell Okarben und die Besetzung der Wetterau seit Vespasian. Limesforschungen 19. (Berlin): 78-97. Schönberger H. & Simon H.G. 1983. Die Kastelle in Altenstadt. Limesforschungen 22. (Berlin): 166171. Schönberger H. 1985. Die römischen Truppenlager der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit zwischen Nordsee und Inn. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission 66: 321-497. Schwörbel L. 1920. Zur Topographie und Geschichte von Köln. (Cologne). Seillier C.L & Gosselin J.Y. 1969. Nouvelles éstampilles de la flotte de Bretagne en provenance de Boulognesur-Mer. Revue du Nord 51: 363-372. Shotter D.C.A. 1983. A note on tiles found on the Mitre Yard, Lancaster, in 1973. Britannia 14: 270-271. Shotter D.C.A. & White A. 1990. The Roman fort and town of Lancaster. Centre for North-West Regional Studies Occasional Paper 18. (Preston): 63-65. Sijpestejn P.J. 1996. Die Legio Nona Hispana in Nimwegen. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111: 281282. Sommer C.S. 1984. The Military Vici in Britain. British Archaeological Reports British Series 129. (Oxford). Spaul J. 1994. Ala². The auxiliary cavalry units of the preDiocletianic imperial Roman army. (Andover). Speidel M.A. 1996. Die römischen Schreibtafeln von Vindonissa. Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 12 (Brugg). Speidel M.A. 1998. Legio III Scythica, its movements and men. In D. Kennedy ‘The twin-towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates-Rescue work and historical studies’. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 27. (Portsmouth): 163-203. Speidel M.P. 1984. The Roman army in Arabia. Roman Army Studies 1: 691-694. Speidel M.P. 1986. The Caucasian frontier second century garrison at Asparus, Petra and Phasis. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms. 13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 657-65 = 1992. In M.P. Speidel Roman Army Studies 2 (Stuttgart): 204-208.

Richmond I.A. 1966. Note in Sussex Archaeological Collections 104. Rickmann G. 1971. Roman granaries and store buildings. (Cambridge). Ritterling E. 1904. Zu den Germanenkriegen Domitians an Rhein und Donau. Österreichische Jahreshefte 7: 25-38. Roxan M.M. 1976. Pre-Severan auxilia named in the Notitia Dignitatum. In R. Goodburn & P. Bartholomew (edd.) 1976. Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum. British Archaeological Reports Supplementary Series 15. (Oxford): 59-80. Rudling D. 1986. The excavation of a Roman tilery on Great Cansiron Farm, Hartfield-Sussex. Britannia 17: 191-230. Rüsch A. 1976. Arae Flaviae. Die Militärlager und die Zivilsiedlung in Rottweil am Neckar. In H. Temporini (ed.) Austieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.5.1. (Berlin): 560-600. Rütti B. 1991. Die römischen Gläser aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (Basel). Saddington D.B. 1990. The origin and nature of the German and British fleet. Britannia 21: 223-232. Saddington D.B. 1980. British auxiliary regiments-origins and early nomenclature. In W.S. Hanson & L.J.F. Keppie (edd.) Roman Frontier Studies XII. British Archaeological Reports International Series 71 (iii). (Oxford): 1071-1076. Salomies O. 1987. Die römischen Vornamen: Studien zur römischen Namensgebung. Commentationes Humanarum Literarum 82. (Helsinki). Sarnowski T. 1983. Die Ziegelstempel aus Novae. Archaeologia Warszawa 43: 17-61. Sarnowki T. & Tryowski J. 1986. Legio I ItalicaLiburna-Danuvius. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III-13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 528-532. Sarnowski T. 1987. Zur Truppengeschichte der Dakerkriege Traians-die Bonner Legio I Minervia und das Legionslager Novae. Germania 65: 107-122. Sarnowski T. 1995. Legionsziegel an militärischen und zivilen Bauplätzen der Prinzipatszeit in Niedermösien. In: W. Groenman van Waateringe, B.L. van Bek, W.J.H. Willems & S.L. Wynia (edds.) Roman Frontier Studies 1995. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. (Oxford): 497-501. Sartre M. 2000. Syria and Arabia. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70-192. (Cambridge): 635-663. Schleiermacher W. 1959. Die zweite Räterkohorte in Butzbach. In H. von Petrikovits (ed.) Limeskongress III Rheinfelden-Basel 1957. (Basel): 156-159. 292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Spitzlberger G. 1968. Die römischen Ziegelstempel im nördlichen Teil der Provinz Rätien. Saalburg Jahrbuch 25: 65-183. Staehelin F. 1948. Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit. (Basel). Stein E. 1932. Die kaiserlichen Beamten und Truppenkörper im römischen Deutschland. (Vienna): 274-278. Steinby M. 1978. Ziegelstempel von Rom und Umgebung. In RE Supplement XV. (Stuttgart): 1489-1531. Steiner J. 1903. Ein römischer Ziegelofen bei Xanten. Bonner Jahrbücher 110: 86-109. Steinmetz G. 1936. Vom Merkurtempel auf dem Ziegetsdorfer Berg. Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Regensburg und die Oberpfalz 86: 434440. Stork I. 1988. Neue Ergebnisse zum römischen Kastell Lorch, Ostalbkreis. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1987. (Stuttgart): 92-95. Strobel K. 1986. Zu den Vexillationsziegelstempeln von Mirebeau bei Dijon. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 64: 257-264. Strobel K. 1988a. Bemerkungen zum Wechsel zwischen Legionen XIV Gemina und XXII Primigenia in Mainz und zur Struktur des untergermanischen Heeres in trajanischer Zeit. Germania 66: 437-453. Strobel K. 1988b. Anmerkungen zur Truppengeschichte des Donauraumes in der hohen Kaiserzeit I: Die neuen Ziegelstempel der Legio I Minervia aus dem Lager der Legio I Italica in Novae in Moesia Inferior. Klio 70. 2: 501-511. Stuart P.J. & Bogaers J.E. 1971. Deae Nehalenniae. (Leiden). Swan V. 1984. The pottery kilns of Roman Britain. Royal Commission of Historical Monuments Supplementary Series 5. (London). Swan V. & Philpott R.A. 2000. Legio XX VV and tile production at Tarbock, Merseyside. Britannia 31: 55-67. Swoboda R.M. 1975. Ein Ziegelstempel der Legio I Martia in Breisach. Germania 53: 177-180. Szilágyi J. 1933. Inscriptiones Tegularum Pannonicarum. Dissertationes Pannonicae. Series 2. No.1. (Budapest). Szilágyi J. 1942. Römische Auxiliar-Truppenkörper, ihre Ziegelstempel und Lagerstätten in Pannonien. Archaeologiai Értesita 3: 18-189; Plate XIX. Szilágyi J. 1952. Roman garrisons stationed at the Northern Pannonian Quad-Frontier sector of the Empire. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2: 189-200. Szilágyi J. Ziegelstempel. In Pauly & Wissowa RE. Zweite Reihe, Zweiter Halbband X A (München): 433-446.

Bennett, Z.T. Fiema & B. Hoffmann (edd.) Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (i). (Oxford): 231-237. Thomasson B.E. 1984. Laterculi Praesidum. Vol. I. (Göteborg). Thompson E.M. 1912. Greek and Latin Palaeography. (Oxford). Threipland L.M. 1951. Excavations at Dover 1945-1947. Archaeologia Cantiana 64: 130-149. Threipland L.M. 1957. Excavations in Dover. Archaeologia Cantiana 71: 14-36. Todd M. 1966. Roman stamped tiles from Lincoln and their origin. Lincolnshire History and Archaeology I. (Gainsborough): 29-30. Tomasevic-Buck T. 1986. Neue Grabungen im Kastell Kaiseraugst. In D. Planck (ed.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms. 13. Internationaler Limeskongress Aalen 1983. (Stuttgart): 268-273. Tomlin R.S.O. 1992. The Twentieth Legion at Wroxeter and Carlisle in the first century: the epigraphic evidence. Britannia 23: 141-158. Van Enckevort H. 2002. The eastern canabae legionis of the Legio X Gemina on the Kops Plateau in Nijmegen (NL). In P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema & B. Hoffmann (edd.) Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (I). (Oxford): 387-394. Visy Z. 1977. Intercisa-Dunáujváros in the Roman period. (Kecskemét). Visy Z.(ed.) 2003. The Roman army in Pannonia. An archaeological guide of the Ripa Pannonica. (Pécs). Von Gonzenbach V. 1963. Die Verbreitung der gestempelten Ziegel der im 1. Jahrhundert n.Chr. in Vindonissa liegenden römischen Truppen. Bonner Jahrbücher 163: 76-135. Von Petrikovits H. 1950. Zu einem Ziegelstempel der Legio XV. Primigenia aus Bonn. Bonner Jahrbücher 150: 102-103. Von Petrikovits H. 1959a. Der Niedergermanische Limes. In H. von Petrikovits (ed.) Limeskongress III Rheinfelden-Basel 1957. (Basel): 88-93. Von Petrikovits H. 1959b. Die Legionsfestung Vetera II. Bonner Jahrbücher 159: 102-105; Plate VI. Von Petrikovits H. 1960. Das römische RheinlandArchäologische Forschungen seit 1945. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nord-Rheinwestfalen 86. (Köln-Opladen). Von Petrikovits H. 1975. Die Innenbauten römischer Legionslager während der Prinzipatszeit.

Tepper Y. 2002. Lajjun-Legio in Israel. Results of a survey in and around the military camp area. In P. Freeman, J. 293

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Wightman E.M. 1985. Gallia Belgica. (London). Wilkes J.J. 1996. The Danubian and Balkan provinces. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 545-585. Wilkes J.J. 2000a. The Danube provinces. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70-192. (Cambridge): 577-603. Wilkes J.J. 2000b. Roman legions and their fortresses in the Danube lands. In R.J. Brewer (ed.) Roman fortresses and their legions. (London): 101-113. Wilmott T. (ed.) Birdoswald-excavation of a Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall and its successor settlement 198792. (London). Whittaker C.R. 1996. Roman Africa: Augustus to Vespasian. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 586-618. Whittaker C.R. 2000a. Frontiers. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70-192. (Cambridge): 293-319. Whittaker C.R. 2000b. Africa. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone (edd.) 2000. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 11. The High Empire, AD 70192. (Cambridge): 514-546. White R. 1987. Caerleon: Roman fortress. (Cardiff). Whitwell J.B. (ed.) 1976. The Archaeology of York. Vol. 3 The legionary fortress. Fasc. 1 The Church Street sewer and adjacent building. (London). Wolff G. 1893. Die römischen Ziegeleien von Nied bei Höchst a.M. und ihre Stempel. Archiv für Frankfurter Geschichte und Kunst 3: 212-326. Wolff G. 1981. Das römisch-germanische Köln. (Cologne). Wright R.P. 1976. Tile-stamps of the Sixth Legion found in Britain. Britannia 7: 226-235. Wright R.P. 1978. Tile-stamps of the Ninth Legion found in Britain. Britannia 9: 379-382. Wright R.P. 1985. Official tile-stamps from London which cite the province of Britain. Britannia 16: 193-196.

Abhandlung der Rheinisch-Westfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 56. (Opladen). Von Petrikovits H. 1979. Militärisches Nutzland in den Grenzprovinzen des römischen Reiches. In D.M. Pippidi (ed.) Actes du VIIe Congrès d’épigraphique grecque et latine, Constantza, 9-15 septembre 1977. (Paris-Bucuresti): 229-242. Vulic N. 1905. Antike Denkmäler in Serbien. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 8: Plate 1-24. Wacher J. (ed.) 1987. The Roman Empire. (London). Wacher J. (ed.) 1996. Britain 43 BC to AD 69. In A.K. Bowman, E. Champlin & A. Lintott (edd.) 1996. The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed.) Vol. 10. The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69. (Cambridge): 503516. Wahl J. 1984. Ein Ziegelstempel der Legio X Gemina aus dem Alenkastell bei Rosinos de Vidriales (Prov. Zamora). Madrider Mitteilungen 25: 72-78. Wagner J. 1977. Legio IIII Scythica in Zeugma am Euphrat. In H. Haupt & H.G. Horn (edd.) Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms III. Vorträge des 10. Internationalen Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior. (Cologne): 517-539. Wagner W. 1938. Die Dislokationen der römischen Auxiliarformationen. (Berlin). Waurick G. 1986. Untersuchungen zur Militärgeschichte und der Flotten der Römerzeit. Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums 33: 834-837. Weaver P. 1998. Imperial slaves and freedmen in the brick industry. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 122: 238-246. Weber W. 1996. Die Ausgrabungen in der Pfarrkirche St.Peter in Trier-Ehrang. (Trier): 182-183. Webster G. 1949/1950. The legionary fortress at Lincoln. Journal of Roman Studies 39/40: 57-60. Webster G. 1958. The Roman military advance under Ostorius Scapula. Archaeological Journal 115: 4998. Werr U. 1998. Grenzen der Aussagekraft chemischer Analytik für römische Baukeramik. Archäometrie und Denkmalpflege-Kurzberichte: 96-98. Wesch-Klein G. 1984. Breisach am Rhein: Die gestempelten Ziegel aus den Grabungen 1983-1986. Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg 14: 387-426. Wesch-Klein G. 1988. Gestempelte Antefixe der Legio XIIII Gemina aus Rheinzabern. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 75: 222-226. Wesch-Klein G. 1992. DieTruppenziegelei von Rheinzabern. Probleme militärischer Produktionstätigkeit und Arbeitsorganisation. Vorüberlegungen zu einer Ziegelstempeledition. Specimina Nova Universitatits Quinqueecclesiensis 1991: 213-222.

Zanier W. 1992. Das römische Kastell Ellingen. Limesforschungen 23. (Mainz). Zienkiewicz J.D. 1986. The legionary fortress baths at Caerleon. Welsh History Monuments. (Cardiff). Zucca R. 1988. L’opus doliare urbano in Africa e in Sardinia. Africa Romana 4 II: 659-676.

294

GLOSSARY

Aedicula-walls: niches in walls in forms of temples, in which images of deities were kept. These could be features in temples, houses or tombs. Aerarium: treasury in a military building. Antefix: a moulded object of clay slotted into the end of the lowest course of imbrices on a roof or set at the end of a ridge. It often carried some emblem. Ansae/ansatae: decorative frames on brick stamps in the form of writing tablets. They originally derived from inscriptions on stone and metal objects. Armorum custos: immunes responsible for the supervision of weapons in the army. Asclepieium: a temple dedicated to Asclepius. Beneficiarius: a soldier with a special ‘mission’, as an assistant or ‘benefit’ of a tribune or prefect. Some served as major-domo, others as governors of prisons or at statemail staging posts. Bessalis: a flat square brick of 20 cm used most commonly to form a pila in a hypocaust. Bindex: see vindex. Bipedalis: a flat square brick measuring 58 cm. Bobbin spacer: this form of cavity heating was created by a flat wall tile being separated from the inner wall by reel-like clay bobbins held in place by long cramps of holdfasts running through the middle. Box-flue tile: a hollow tile used to act as a flue to carry hot air. Brick: the joined term ‘brick and tile’ covers most ceramic building material. For some ‘tile’ is a more appropriate term, i.e roofing tile or box-tile, while for other, predominantly flat ones ‘brick’ is used more often. In this thesis, however, the terms are both used independently. Canabae: settlement adjacent to a military fortress. Capitolis monumentalis: capital writing.

Capitolis rustica: a form of writing on inscriptions. It derived from the early imperial style of writing and was distinguished by very lean representations of the letters E, F, L and T and by the fact that the crossbeams on letters were only represented fragmentary. Castra: military camp. Centuria: unit of 100 men in the Roman legion. Centurio: commander of the above. Chimney-pot: a ceramic object shaped like a tower with a series of portions cut out, set on a roof to allow smoke or fumes to escape. Civitas: community of non-Roman citizens, a tribe. Classis: Roman fleet. Cognomen: Roman last name, surname. Cohors equitata: equestrian unit in the Roman auxiliaries. Colonia: Roman city, originally founded and inhabited by veterans. Constans: constant, title for military units. Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum: a collection of writings by Roman land surveyors, dating from around AD 100 to the late imperial period. Cursus honorum: career account of a Roman senator or equestrian. Custos castelli figlinarum: curator of an army military tilery. ‘Cut-way’: a piece of tile deliberately cut way before baking, for example the lower end of the flange of a tegula. This helps to fit in with the adjacent tile. ‘Cut-out’: a piece of tile cut out on a surface, for example those cut out of the sides of box-flue tiles to allow hot air to circulate and provide a vent for the fumes to escape. Damnatio memoriae: erasion of a person’s memory from the official record, such as documents and inscriptions. This was the case with some Roman emperors. 295

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Die:

an object made of wood, clay or metal in which lettering has been engraved to produce a stamp when the die is impresses on the tile. Raised letters on a die will achieve retrograde letters on the stamp and vice versa. Domus: house. Double-box: some large box-flue tiles are divided in the middle to form two boxes on one tile. Exercitus: army. Fecit: ‘…made this’, a phrase often used on brick stamps and other inscriptions. Felix: fortunate, title of military units often used in inscriptions, such as brick stamps. Fabric: the body of clay used to make the ceramic object. There are many varieties of clay, and different fabrics can be recognised. Fabrica: factory. Figlina: tilery. ‘Half-box’: they resemble large box-flue tiles cut down the middle. Hederae: ivy leaves, used as word separators in inscriptions. Hypocaust: the area below a floor suspended on pilae in which hot air from the adjacent furnace (praefurnium) can circulate, and then make its way up the walls by means of flues. Imbrex: a semi-circular tile mostly used to cove the flanges of two adjacent tegulae. Immunis: a soldier exempt from duty of arms, usually a specialist in a certain area. Immunis figlinae: a tiler in the Roman army. Insignia: army standards. Insula: block of houses in a Roman city. In situ: this means something was found in its original position (usually recovered during excavations). Later: a general term for any type of brick that has been baked. Later crudis: sun-dried brick. Legatus legionis: a legionary legate. Legatus pro praetore: a governor of an imperial province, deputy of the emperor. Littera inserta: smaller, inserted letters on brick stamps. Lydion: a flat brick which measures on average 40x 28 cm, often found in bonding courses. Magister fabricae: an overseer in a factory.

Mansio: Manu:

a lodging place or inn. ‘made by the hand of’, phrase often used on brick stamps. Miles: a foot soldier. Mortarium: a mortar. Municipium: a city with a right to its own government. Mutatio: a changing station for horses on Roman roads. Negotiator cretariae: a ceramic salesman. Nomen gentile: Roman family name. Notitia Dignitatum: a late Roman list of officials, including those in the Roman army, source of many place names. Numerus: an ethnic unit in the Roman army. Officina: a workshop. The term is often used as phrase ‘made in the workshop…’ on civilian brick stamps. Ora maritima: coast, shore. Orbilicus: a disc-shaped bite out of the edge of a brick stamp. Opus: ‘the work of’, a phrase often used on brick stamps. Opus spicatum: a floor surface composed of small bricks laid in a herringbone pattern. Opus sectile: a decorative form of flooring made up of various specially-cut shapes of marble, clay etc. Parietalis: this tile, fixed vertically into a wall, held it in position by cramps. Pavimentum: a hard floor composed of small stones and earth beaten down. Pedalis: a square flat brick measuring 28 cm. Pedites singulares: infantry guardsmen of a high officer. Perpetua: ‘constant one’, title of a military unit. Pertinax: ‘persistent’, title of a military unit. Petrology: the study of the brick fabric. Pia fidelis: ‘pious and true’, title awarded to all legions loyal to Domitian during the Saturninus revolt in Upper Germany in AD 88/89. Pius: ‘pious’, title of a military unit. Pilae: the pillars mounted on the floor of the hypocaust to hold up the floor above (suspensura). It usually consisted of bessalis bricks. Planta pedis: a brick stamp in form of a footprint. Porta principalis dextra/sinistra: the right and left entrance gate of a military fortress. Porta triumphalis: a triumph gate. 296

GLOSSARY

Praedia: Praefectus:

property. a prefect, overseer, director, superindendent or commander and often the title of a particular civil or military officer. Praefecti usually commanded the allied troops in the army. In imperial times they were from the equestrian order. Praefectus castrorum: a camp commandant. Praefurnium: the furnace next to the hypocaust in which wood fuel was burnt to provide hot air to be drawn into the hypocaust. Praenomen: Roman first name. Praetentura: the front part of a military camp. Prata legionis: an area adjacent to a legionary fortress, mainly pastures. Primipilus: the highest ranked centurion in a legion. Principia: the headquarters building in a military fortress. Proconsul: an ex-consul or ex-praetor, governor of a senatorial province. Relief: a method of stamping in which the lettering stands out raised from the surface. Retrograde: the die for a tile-stamp has to be cut in reverse in order to come out the right way. If the die is copied directly from the stamp, it will, when impressed, come out in reverse or retrograde. Ridge-tile: The ridges on a roof where the tegulae meet on each side are covered by a curved tile, often an ordinary imbrex, but sometimes by a specially made ridge-tile of similar shape but larger. Roller printing: lines or patterns are put on a special roller used to cover the tile. Sacerdos: a priest or priestess. Scamna tribunorum: the central area in a legionary fortress where the houses of the tribunes were situated. Scoring: In order to make a key for the plaster to be imposed on a tile, the surface of the tile may be scored over, often in a lattice pattern, with a knife point or sharp instrument. Sesquipedalis: a square flat brick measuring 41 cm. Signaculum: a piece of metal, hung around the neck that signified membership of the Roman army or a private owner stamp. Signature: often the surface of a tile has frequently semi-circular lines, which were usually imposed with the finger.

Signifer: ‘Springer’:

a standard-bearer in the Roman army. a hollow tile similar to vouissoir but different because one side is a right angle, while the other one has a slope. This tile makes a suitable starting piece for an arch made of voussoirs. Strata Diocletiana: the Diocletian road from Damascus to Sura, via Palmyra. Suspensura: the floor that lies above a hypocaust, usually suspended on pilae. Tally mark: some tiles have lines cut on the edge which resemble Roman numerals and may signify various patches of production. Tegula: a flat roof tile with a flange on each side: the adjacent flanges are then covered with an imbrex. Tegula Mammata: flat tile with lumps of clay (mamma= breast) to prevent slipping where tiles are used in a bonding course or, with a deeper pointed variety, to form a spacer when the tile is mounted vertically to provide cavity heating space. Tegularia Tranrhenana: Trans-Rhine tilery, military brick works on the far side of the Rhine in Lower Germany. Tegularius: a brick maker, tiler. Terminus ante quem: a date before which an artefact was produced Terminus post quem: a date after which an artefact was produced.. Territorium legionis: military territory. Tesserae: small specially cut cubes of stone or tile used to form a tesselated floor in mosaic pattern. Tile: see Brick. Tria nomina: all three names-praenomen, nomen and cognomen, which could characterise a male Roman citizen. Tubulus Cuneatus: see voussoir. Tubulus lingulatus: a tongue-shaped tile pipe. Turma: squadrons of 500 men in the auxiliaries. Urbs nova: a newly built part of a city. Valetudinarium: a military hospital. Veteranus: an army veteran. 297

ROMAN MILITARY BRICK STAMPS: A COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGY

Vexillatio: a detachment of a unit. Via Nova Traiana: a military road built by Trajan (AD 98117), fortified with military out-posts, from the Gulf of Aqaba to Bostra. Via praetoria: the street, leading from the principia, to the front gate (porta praetoria) in a legionary fortress. Villa rustica: a working farm or country estate building.

Vindex: Vicus: Voussoir:

298

‘saviour’, title of military units. a small settlement adjacent to a fort. a hollow or solid tile with taper on two edges generally used to form arches. The hollow variety enables hot air to circulate or help to lighten the weight of the structure.