Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A study of military life from archaeological remains 9781407310008, 9781407322391

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Index of Tables
Index of Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain
Chapter 3: Interpretation and Theory – Developments in Romano-British Studies
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings
Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups
Chapter 7 : Further Questions
Chapter 8: Conclusions
Appendix 1: Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia
Appendix 2: Forts Included in This Study
Appendix 3: Attributes in the Database
Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer
Appendix 5: Tables of Data
Appendix 6: Glossary
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

BAR 562 2012

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army A study of military life from archaeological remains

GILES

Rikke D. Giles

ROMAN SOLDIERS AND THE ROMAN ARMY

B A R

BAR British Series 562 2012

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army A study of military life from archaeological remains

Rikke D. Giles

BAR British Series 562 2012

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 562 Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army © R D Giles and the Publisher 2012 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407310008 paperback ISBN 9781407322391 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407310008 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2012. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

In Memoriam Bernard Wailes Advisor, Mentor, Teacher, Friend I will miss you always.

Dedication To

the four pillars of my life: Randy Wagner, my husband; Sharon and James Giles, my parents; Malena Giles, my sister. Without you, it would have all turned to dust. Thank you.

iii

Acknowledgments I'd like to acknowledge the work of my long suffering mentor and adviser, Dr. Bernard Wailes, for all his patience and understanding. Dr. Wailes passed away the week before I sent this book to the publishers. I deeply regret that he was not able to be part of that sending. Thanks also goes to Dr. Kevin Greene, the late Charles Daniels, and so many more for their mentorship at University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, now known as Newcastle University. Librarians are the key to a researcher's success and Averill Robson gave me a lot of help at the Cowen Library in Newcastle whilst I did the research for this study. I'd also like to acknowledge my father, James N. Giles, for his labor in creating the maps and figures which are included in this work. Drs. Campbell Grey and Robert Schuyler of the University of Pennsylvania read previous manuscripts of this work and gave many helpful suggestions and I owe them my deepest gratitude. And finally, I'm extremely grateful to my friend David Clough for his willingness to be photographed for the cover of this book. Also, gratitude goes to his wife, Laurie Clough, for staging and taking the photo. David is a re-enactor dedicated to studying Roman military life, Laurie studies a later, Celtic, period.

iv

Areas Outside the Fort..............................................54 Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings: Summary. .55

Table of Contents

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups......................57 Kitchen/Food Group..................................................57 Utilitarian Group.......................................................59 Clothing Group..........................................................61 Commerce Group .....................................................63 Military Group..........................................................65 Transportation Group................................................65 Health Care Group....................................................67 Religion Group..........................................................69 Animal Group............................................................69 Patterns In Functional Groups: Summary................73

In Memoriam...................................................................iii Dedication........................................................................iii Acknowledgments...........................................................iv Index of Tables...............................................................vii Index of Figures...............................................................ix Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................1 Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain...........5 The Flavian Period: Conquest of the North...............5 Hadrian's Wall.............................................................6 The Antonine Wall......................................................9 Campaigns by Septimius Severus.............................15 Peace: the Third Century A.D..................................18 Reorganization in the Early Fourth Century A.D.....22 The Fourth and early Fifth Centuries A.D...............22

Chapter 7 : Further Questions........................................75 Women in Roman Forts............................................75 Status in Roman Forts...............................................77 Summary...................................................................78 Chapter 8: Conclusions..................................................79 Methodology ............................................................79 Results.......................................................................79 Functional Group Patterns...................................79 Functional Group Patterns Analyzed by Period. .80 Questions of Status and Gender..........................80 Older Excavation Reports....................................81 Problems of Scale and Natural Transforms.........81 Future Research.........................................................81

Chapter 3: Interpretation and Theory – Developments in Romano-British Studies..............................................27 Beginnings: Antiquaries and Archaeologists in Northern Britain........................................................27 The First Half of the Twentieth Century: Culture History and Research in the North............................28 New and Processual Archaeology: A Scientific Approach...................................................................30 Post Processual Theories: New Trends in RomanoBritish Archaeology..................................................31 The Current State of Romano-British Archaeological Theory.......................................................................33

Appendix 1: Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia..........................................................................83 Appendix 2: Forts Included in This Study......................87 Appendix 3: Attributes in the Database.........................89

Chapter 4: Research Methodology................................35 Terminology .............................................................35 Methodology: Basic Research Considerations.........36 Methodology: The Spatial Dimension ....................36 Roman Forts: the Basics.....................................37 Roman Forts: Buildings......................................39 Methodology: The Formal Dimension.....................42 South's Methodology: Functional Groups..........42 Methodology: The Frequency Dimension...............44 Methodology: The Relational Dimension................44

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer ........................................................................................91 Excavation Information.............................................91 Site Gazetteer............................................................93 Ardoch.................................................................93 Bar Hill................................................................93 Bewcastle.............................................................93 Birrens.................................................................93 Carpow.................................................................97 Carrawburgh........................................................97 Castledykes..........................................................97 Cramond..............................................................97 Crawford..............................................................97 Fendoch.............................................................106 Hardknott...........................................................106 Housesteads.......................................................106 Mumrills............................................................106 Newcastle..........................................................106 Newcastle (cont)................................................114 Rough Castle.....................................................114 Strageath............................................................114 Wallsend............................................................114

Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings.......47 Composite Forts: Period Patterns.............................48 Buildings and Areas in the Composite Forts: Patterns of Artifact Loss..........................................................49 Barracks...............................................................49 Commander's House............................................50 Headquarters........................................................51 Other Buildings...................................................51 Areas within the Fort.................................................52 Ditches.................................................................52 Roads...................................................................53 Intervallum...........................................................54 v

Appendix 5: Tables of Data.........................................125 Abbreviations/Notations.........................................125 Buildings and Areas................................................125 Functional Groups...................................................125 Tables of Data: Composite Forts............................125 Tables of Data: Functional Sub-Group Patterns in the AP Composite Fort..................................................146 Appendix 6: Glossary..................................................165 Bibliography.................................................................169 Abbreviations..........................................................169 Index.............................................................................179

vi

Table 29: Forts Included in this Study: Antonine Wall Area and North................................................................87 Table 30: Database Tables, Fields and Artifact Attributes ........................................................................................90 Table 31: Excavation Report Information: A – CRA.....91 Table 32: Excavation Report Information: CRA – WA.... 92 Table 33: AP Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1..............................................126 Table 34: AP Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2..............................................127 Table 35: Flavian (AD 70s-90s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1................128 Table 36: Flavian (AD 70s - 90s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2................129 Table 37: Hadrianic (AD 117 - 138) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1................130 Table 38: Hadrianic (AD 117 - 138) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2................131 Table 39: Antonine (AD 140 - 160s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1................132 Table 40: Antonine (AD 140 - 160s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2................133 Table 41: 2nd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1...................................134 Table 42: 2nd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2...................................135 Table 43: Severan (AD 192 – 211) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1................136 Table 44: Severan (AD 192-211) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2................137 Table 45: 3rd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1..............................................138 Table 46: 3rd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2..............................................139 Table 47: 4th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1..............................................140 Table 48: 4th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2..............................................141 Table 49: Early 5th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1...................................142 Table 50: Early 5th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2...................................143 Table 51: Animal Group Percentage Means from the Composite Forts, Part 1................................................144 Table 52: Animal Group Percentage Means from the Composite Forts, Part 2................................................145 Table 53: Areas/Buildings in the AP Composite Fort: Number of Sites Excavated...........................................146

Index of Tables Table 1: Functional Groups and Sub-Groups.................46 Table 2: Composite Forts with Good Ceramic Data.......48 Table 3: Composite Forts without Good Ceramic Data ........................................................................................48 Table 4: Hadrian's Wall System Composite Forts without Good Ceramic Data........................................................49 Table 5: Barracks from Composite Forts.......................50 Table 6: Commander's House from Composite Forts,....51 Table 7: Headquarters from Composite Forts.................51 Table 8: Miscellaneous Buildings in the AP composite fort...................................................................................52 Table 9: Ditches in the Composite Forts........................53 Table 10: Roads in the Composite Forts,........................54 Table 11: The Intervallum in the Composite Forts.........54 Table 12: Areas Outside the AP Composite Fort...........55 Table 13: Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort ........................................................................................59 Table 14: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort, Part 1 ..............................................................................61 Table 15: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort, Part 2...............................................................................61 Table 16: Clothing Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort ....63 Table 17: Military Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort......65 Table 18: Transportation Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort..................................................................................67 Table 19: Health Care Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort (Areas with 100% Body Sub-Group Not Included in this Table)..............................................................................67 Table 20: Religion Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort.....69 Table 21: Animal Remains, Percentage Means of Total Animal Assemblage, AP Composite Fort.......................69 Table 22: All Known Shoes from the AP Composite Fort ........................................................................................75 Table 23: Jewelry Sub-Group of Clothing Group: Possible Women's Items from the AP Composite Fort (Percentage of Total Jewelry Sub-Group)......................76 Table 24: Textile Equipment: Percentages of Utilitarian Group from the AP Composite Fort...............................76 Table 25: Percentages of the Total Ceramic Assemblage by Type from Buildings within the AP Composite Fort.77 Table 26: Percentages of the Total Ceramic Assemblage by Type from Areas within the AP Composite Fort.......78 Table 27: Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia ........................................................................................85 Table 28: Forts Included in this Study: Hadrian's Wall System and Lowland Scotland........................................87 vii

Table 54: Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Animal Group, Part 1.................147 Table 55: Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Animal Groups, Part 2................148 Table 56: Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Animal Group, Part 3.................149 Table 57: Clothing Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Clothing Group...........................150 Table 58: Health Care Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Health Care Group.....................151 Table 59: Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Kitchen/Food Group, Part1........152 Table 60: Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Kitchen/Food Group, Part 2.......153 Table 61: Military Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Military Group............................154 Table 62: Religion Sub-Group, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Religion Group...........................155 Table 63: Transportation Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Transportation Group.......156 Table 64: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 1.............157 Table 65: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 2.............158 Table 66: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 3.............159 Table 67: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 4.............160 Table 68: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 5.............161 Table 69: Unassigned Sub-Groups, AP Composte Fort: Percentage Means of Unassigned Group, Part 1...........162 Table 70: Unassigned Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Unassigned Group, Part 2...........163

viii

Figure 33: Cramond......................................................105 Figure 34: Crawford, Flavian Period............................107 Figure 35: Crawford, Antonine I Period.......................108 Figure 36: Crawford, Antonine II Period .....................109 Figure 37: Fendoch.......................................................110 Figure 38: Hardknott.....................................................111 Figure 39: Housesteads.................................................112 Figure 40: Housesteads Vicus.......................................113 Figure 41: Mumrills......................................................115 Figure 42: Newcastle....................................................116 Figure 43: Rough Castle...............................................117 Figure 44: Strageath, Flavian Period............................118 Figure 45: Strageath, Antonine I Period.......................119 Figure 46: Strageath, Antonine II Period......................120 Figure 47: Wallsend, Hadrianic Period.........................121 Figure 48: Wallsend, c. A.D. 160-192..........................122 Figure 49: Wallsend, early third century......................123 Figure 50: Wallsend, c. 225-35 to early fourth century ......................................................................................124

Index of Figures Figure 1: Area Included in This Study..............................3 Figure 2: Tribes of Northern Britain.................................4 Figure 3: Marching Camps and Forts Attributed to Cerialis..............................................................................7 Figure 4: Marching Camps Attributed to Agricola...........8 Figure 5: The Flavian Period in Northern Britain ..........10 Figure 6: The Stanegate Frontier....................................11 Figure 7: The Hadrianic Frontier c. 130 A.D.................13 Figure 8: Northern Britain during the Antonine Period ........................................................................................14 Figure 9: Late Second Century, Northern Britain...........16 Figure 10: Possible Marching Camps of Septimus Severus............................................................................20 Figure 11: Northern Britain in the Third Century...........21 Figure 12: Northern Britain in the Late Fourth Century ........................................................................................23 Figure 13: Fort Schematic...............................................38 Figure 14: Fort Buildings................................................40 Figure 15: Kitchen/Food Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................58 Figure 16: Utilitarian Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................62 Figure 17: Clothing Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................64 Figure 18: Commerce Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................66 Figure 19: Military Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................68 Figure 20: Transportation Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................70 Figure 21: Health Care Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................71 Figure 22: Religion Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort...............................................................72 Figure 23: Ardoch ..........................................................94 Figure 24: Bar Hill..........................................................95 Figure 25: Bewcastle......................................................96 Figure 26: Birrens, 1895 Excavation Results ................98 Figure 27: Birrens, Hadrianic Period..............................99 Figure 28: Birrens, Antonine I Period..........................100 Figure 29: Birrens, Antonine II Period ........................101 Figure 30: Carpow........................................................102 Figure 31: Carrawburgh ...............................................103 Figure 32: Castledykes..................................................104 ix

x

contains a brief chronological overview of the development of archaeological method and theory concerning northern Roman Britain and corresponding schools of archaeological theory in Britain and the United States. The chapter is an attempt to place the archaeology of the Romano-British North into context so that the developments which have occurred in the archaeology of Roman Britain can be better understood and related to developments in New and Processual archaeology.

Chapter 1: Introduction This study combines archaeological material from Romano-British forts located in northern Britain with concepts and methods from the New and Processual schools of archaeological theory in order to learn more about the lives of the inhabitants of those forts. The primary goal of the study was the discovery of activity areas within the forts. Secondary goals included the discovery of possible artifact toolkits used in and around the forts and the utilization of information from older excavation reports; it was hoped that computerizing this data would make it more accessible and useful to modern scholars.

Two bodies of work contributing to New and Processual archaeology are particularly important for this study. These are the works of Michael B. Schiffer and Stanley South. During the floruit of New and Processual archaeology in the 1970s, Schiffer and others developed the first concepts of Behavioral archaeology (see Schiffer 1975, 1976). Schiffer has continued to add to the corpus of Behavioral archaeology principles (see Schiffer 1987, 1995, 2000) in succeeding years.

The Roman army has been a source of fascination for historians and antiquarians, and subsequently archaeologists, for centuries. Textual and epigraphic evidence has allowed an understanding of the organization and composition of the army. Roman military manuals enable us to learn something about the training of the troops and the conduct of warfare from the point of view of the Romans or their allies. Archaeological study has brought knowledge of the accommodations of the soldiers, when these structures were built, modified and abandoned, and the artifacts those soldiers discarded or lost.

Behavioral archaeology is centered on principles and concepts which explain and explore the relationship between human behavior and material culture (Reid, Schiffer and Rathje 1975:864). Schiffer proposed that artifacts, after their initial creation, usage and eventual disuse, survive in two types of records; the historical and the archaeological. The archaeological record is formed by both cultural and natural (non-cultural) processes. Schiffer calls these processes cultural and natural transforms (Schiffer 1987:49-50).

In Britain the Roman army has been the subject of scholarly research since the late sixteenth century, when Camden's Britannia was first published, and throughout the last 150 or so years the Roman occupation of northern Britain has been studied from an archaeological as well as an historical perspective. An understanding of the chronology of the Roman conquest of northern Britain and a general history of the Roman occupation of that area has been developed over years of work by many historians and archaeologists. This history and chronology, much of which is based solely upon archaeology, is discussed in Chapter 2 of this book in order to remind readers of the background information necessary to understand the results of this study.

In the 1970s Stanley South, working on historical sites in the eastern United States, developed methods of quantification and analysis which fit a New archaeological framework. South categorized the artifacts from sites in the Carolinas by function and then described and explained the patterns created by artifact functional group distribution across these sites (see South 2002). The concepts of M. B. Schiffer, especially those centering around cultural and natural transforms, were combined with the methods of Stanley South to create the methodology presented and used in this study (see Chapter 4). In short, artifact functional group patterns from composite forts representing actual Romano-British forts were examined to discover some of the cultural transforms which acted to create the archaeological record of those forts. The artifact functional groups were created by entering artifact location and attribute data into a computer database and assigning each artifact a function. The creation of the artifact functional groups and their distribution patterns required special care to allow the utilization of older excavation reports, which had limitations due to the techniques and methods under which they were excavated. Modern excavation reports also had limitations, and those had to be recognized and

The development and evolution of the historical and archaeological narrative of the Roman conquest and occupation of Northern Britain has not been undertaken by historians and archaeologists without a theoretical basis, but that basis has not always corresponded with theoretical developments in other areas of archaeology. There has been a divergence in method and theory between archaeologists studying Classical civilizations like Rome, those studying colonial and post-colonial historical civilizations like South Africa and the New World, and those studying prehistoric societies. Chapter 3 1

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

accommodated. The limitations of the excavation reports used in this study are explained more fully in Chapter 4 and the solutions which were used to circumvent at least partially these limitations are found in Chapters 5 and 6. Chapters 5 and 6 present and analyze the functional group patterns found in the Roman forts under study. Chronological changes in functional group patterns are analyzed in Chapter 5, with a distinct difference found between the early periods of Roman forts and the later. Chapter 6 discusses the patterns within each functional group. Various cultural transforms are proposed to account for the differences in functional group patterns from different areas and buildings of the composite forts in both Chapters. Chapter 7 shows some aspects of the utility of the database developed for this study by examining the possibility of women living within the forts and the status of those using the various buildings of the forts. Chapter 8 presents the conclusions of this study.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1: Area Included in This Study (drawn by J. N. Giles)

3

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 2: Tribes of Northern Britain (drawn by J. N. Giles after Jones and Mattingly 1990:Map 2:6; Mann and Breeze 1987:Illus. 2)

4

somewhere in Cumbria as indicated by the marching camps and forts built over the Stainmore (Hanson 1987:60-61).

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

Auxiliary units and irregulars were usually stationed in the frontier regions of the Empire from the mid first century A.D. (see Luttwak 1976; Elton 1996; and Dyson 1985 for more on the defensive systems of Rome) and the earliest permanent Roman forts in the North undoubtedly were built under the direction of Cerialis or his successor, Julius Frontinus (Hanson, 1987:63-65). Carlisle, for example, is thought to have been founded around A.D. 72 or 73 ( McCarthy 2002:53, 69) and recent work on the Gask Ridge frontier system in Scotland (see page 6 for more about this system) shows that it was built in the A.D. 70s. Cerialis or Frontinus, therefore, conducted a conquest that went to the Tay or beyond (see Hoffman 2001; Woolliscroft and Hoffman 2006).

The Romans occupied northern Britain for over 300 years. The narrative of their occupation is given in this chapter in order to present briefly the background necessary to understand Roman forts in northern Britain, their construction and repair, and periods of occupation and abandonment. This information is important to understanding the data, patterns and conclusions presented in Chapters 5 through 7.

The Flavian Period: Conquest of the North The Romans began their Conquest of Britain under the Emperor Claudius in A.D. 42 (see Appendix 1, page 83 for a list of Roman Emperors). At first the Romans stationed four legions in Britain, along with their attendant auxiliaries; the number of legions was reduced to three from c. A.D. 87-88 (Frere 1987:101). The first years of the Roman occupation of Britain were spent conquering the southern part of the island and consolidating control of this newly acquired territory. By about A.D. 47 Queen Cartimandua, the ruler of the tribe of the Brigantes (see Figure 2, page 4), seems to have entered into a treaty relationship with Rome. At that point the northern Roman frontier probably bordered her territory (Hanson and Campbell 1986:73). Cartimandua and the Romans retained their treaty arrangement for the next 24 years. Her control over her subjects was tenuous at times, and the Romans at one point in A.D. 51 had to send a legion to keep her in power (Braund 1984:4-5). In A.D. 69 her former husband, Venutius, rebelled and the Romans were called in to aid the queen. They rescued her and left Venutius in control of Brigantia (Braund 1984:4) for a short time.

Frontinus was succeeded by Julius Agricola in A.D. 77. Details of the history of Agricola's governorship are known because of the book his son-in-law Tacitus wrote about him, The Agricola. Archaeologists and historians have built a complex account of the governorship of Agricola and his campaigns in northern Britain based on Tacitus' work (see Hanson 1987, for example). Recent research, however, has shown that this narrative will change (Woolliscroft and Hoffman 2006). Tacitus' tells us that Agricola moved beyond the areas conquered by previous Roman governors (Tacitus Agricola 20-22) using the Roman navy for scouting, forward strikes and supply (Agricola 25). Evidence from marching camps shows Agricola campaigned as far north as the Moray Firth in Scotland in his seventh and final season (see Figure 4, page 8). In this last season, A. D. 83, he won a victory over the Caledonians1 at Mons Grapius, the actual location of which has never been identified (Keppie 1981). Agricola returned to Rome in A. D. 84. The sites of some of the marching camps from Agricola's campaign gained permanent forts as a system of protection and control was set up to guard the new territorial acquisitions (see Figure 5, page 10, and Maxwell 1981). Permanent bases, vexillation fortresses, were also set up to supply the army; two are postulated to be at Carlisle and Red House, Corbridge (Hanson 1987:85). Amongst the forts built in lowland Scotland during the Flavian period (see Appendix 1, page 83, for period time spans and Appendix 6, page 165, for period definitions) are Birrens (at the very least an enclosure

When Quintus Petillius Cerialis became Governor of Britannia in A.D. 71 (see Appendix 1, page 83, for a listing of known Roman governors of Britannia), he turned his attention to the Brigantes and their new ruler, Venutius. Little is known about the campaigning during the 3 years of his governorship, as that part of Tacitus' Histories is lost (Birley 1973:187). Tacitus does say that Cerialis "struck terror into the hearts of the Britons by attacking the Brigantes" and that after a series of battles, some of them quite intense, he had "overrun, if not actually conquered, a major portion of [the Brigantes'] territory" (Agricola 17). A string of marching camps was built over the Stainmore Pass (see Figure 3, page 7) and into the Eden Valley as part of Cerialis' campaign. The exact location of the battle between Cerialis' troops and Venutius and his tribe is unknown, although it may be

1 A confederation of native British tribes which occupied the Highlands of Scotland (see Figure 2, page 4). They remained an occasional enemy of Rome up until after the time of Septimius Severus (early 3 rd C A.D.). They seem to have disappeared by the early 4 th C A.D. or were absorbed by a new confederation of tribes called the Picts (Ritchie and Ritchie 1981:159).

5

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

was built, (Robertson 1975:73)), Crawford (Maxwell 1972:177), and Castledykes, which had an enclosure followed by a fort (Robertson 1964:15-17). Forts that might have been built by Agricola include Strageath, Ardoch and Mumrills, although the last excavator at Mumrills did not believe it to be an Agricolan foundation (Steer 1961:97), contra Hanson (1987:100-101), who wrote that all of these forts were constructed under Agricola.

Indeed, it is considered that the Flavian period in Scotland ended around A.D. 90 or not much later (Breeze and Dobson 2000:11). In the Scottish lowlands the fort at Birrens was abandoned (Robertson 1975:73), as well as that at Crawford (not occupied past about A.D. 97) (Maxwell 1972:177). The fort at Castledykes, as mentioned above, seems to have been abandoned around A.D. 100 (Robertson 1964:262). The forts at Newstead and Dalswinton were also abandoned c. A.D. 100 (Frere 1987:106-107).

There were Flavian forts built north of the Forth, possibly by Agricola, or more probably his successor (but see contra Hoffman 2001; Woolliscroft and Hoffman 2006). These installations include the legionary base at Inchtuthil and the fort at Fendoch (see Richmond and McIntyre 1939), amongst others. Their occupation period was short indeed, for they were systematically dismantled and abandoned by the Romans around A.D. 87 (for Inchtuthil abandonment see Pitts and St. Joseph 1985:280), as proven by coin evidence from Inchtuthil, Stracathro and Dalginross. Fendoch also has no evidence of occupation beyond about A.D. 90 according to the samian ware (Hartley 1972:4). Ardoch only has samian dating to the earlier Flavian period (Hartley 1972:5). This withdrawal was the result of the need for troops in Germany and the consequent reduction of forces in Britannia (Hanson 1987:148-152). Therefore, by the early second century A.D. the number of legions in Britain was reduced to three and they were moved to permanent stations to the rear of the frontier area at York, Chester and Caerleon (de la Bedoyere 2001:48).

By A.D. 105, during Trajan's reign, the frontier in northern Britannia was established along the line of the Stanegate (see Figure 6, page 11), a Roman road which ran between the Tyne and the Solway. The line was not really an official frontier in that it was not equipped with watchtowers or a wall, but it did have forts along it, including the important bases at Red House, Corbridge and at Carlisle. This line roughly coincided with the northern edge of Brigantian territory. From about A.D. 105 to 120 or so the Stanegate was strengthened by the addition of one fort, two fortlets and several watchtowers. The fort at Kirkbride already existed west of Carlisle, and east of Corbridge there may have been a new fort at Washing Well, Whickham, which is only known from aerial photography. Watchtowers seem to have been built during the early years of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). The Stanegate was presumably reinforced to aid in frontier control, but may not have been as effective as had the Gask Ridge frontier system with its closely spaced towers (Breeze 1987:203-204).

The area north of the Forth may not have been completely abandoned, however. A series of wooden watchtowers along the Gask Ridge between the forts of Bertha and Ardoch (with Strageath in the middle) was constructed in the early 70s A.D. (Hoffman 2001). Dating evidence from the towers is sparse, but there have been a few sherds of Flavian pottery found in those excavated (Woolliscroft 1993:291). This system seems to have been meant to control an area of agricultural and political importance, probably one that was pro-Roman (Hanson 1987: 153-157). The forts and watchtowers were soon dismantled as the army moved further south, possibly around A.D. 90 (Hartley 1972:13-14). The reason for this withdrawal once again seems to have been imperial policy, rather than enemy action. The fort at Strageath was systematically demolished around A.D. 87 (Frere and Wilkes 1989:13), and it, and presumably Bertha and Ardoch (Hobley 1989:73) were abandoned and their troops moved south or to the Continent.

Hadrian's Wall After the time of Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) there are no more detailed histories of Roman Britain. As Jarrett notes, “because of their backgrounds and attitudes the Roman historians who mention Britain are excessively brief and infuriatingly vague” (1985:60). The Roman history of the province from the early second century A.D. relies greatly on archaeology and passing information from historians such as Dio (c. mid second to mid third century A.D.), Pausanias (second century A.D.), Fronto (c. A.D. 100-170), the historian who wrote of the Emperors (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, c. A.D. 395), and Ammianus Marcellinus (c. A.D. 325-391) (Dornier 1974). When Hadrian became Emperor in August A.D. 117, his biographer (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Hadriani, 11 2) noted “the Britons could no longer be held under Roman control”, which suggests a rebellion in the province (Frere 1987:111). When Hadrian arrived in Britain in A.D. 122 he concerned himself with the

The withdrawal from Scotland continued in the years between A.D. 90 and the ascension of Trajan to the imperial throne in A.D. 98. Castledykes has no identifiably Trajanic decorated samian (Hartley 1972:10). 6

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

Figure 3: Marching Camps and Forts Attributed to Cerialis (drawn by J. N. Giles, from information in Shotter 1993)

7

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 4: Marching Camps Attributed to Agricola (drawn by J. N. Giles after Frere 1987:Figure 4)

8

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

design and placement of the northern frontier (Breeze and Dobson 2000:26); therefore, most scholars assume that this rebellion was in the north.

the line of the Wall. Secondary forts, including Carrawburgh, built after the Vallum was constructed, and Newcastle, built in the late Antonine or Severan period (see page 15), do not project north of the Wall. The forts built along the Cumbrian coast as part of the Wall system are probably primary rather than secondary (Breeze and Dobson 2000:78, 85).

A. Platorius Nepos, who was consul in A.D. 119, probably accompanied Emperor Hadrian to Britain, and Nepos began construction of a wall running along the northern border of Britannia after he was appointed Governor of that province (Frere 1987:111). The wall, now known as Hadrian's Wall, was built by legionary troops as was the Antonine Wall which was built later (see page 9). The sequence of construction of the wall can be deduced by examining the inscriptions and plaques left by legionary construction detachments as they moved from building site to building site along the wall's length (Breeze and Dobson 2000:66-67).

To the north of the Wall in lowland Scotland the fort at Birrens was rebuilt along new lines as part of the Hadrianic frontier system (see Figure 7, page 13, for the Hadrianic fort dispositions). This fort was then extended and rebuilt in Antonine times, probably without a break in occupation (Robertson 1975:75-87). The fort at Bewcastle, just beyond the Wall, was also built as part of the Hadrianic system (Austen 1991:41).

There were several changes made to the design of the border system during the initial construction of Hadrian's Wall. In its first phase the wall ran from sea to sea - from Newcastle, where there was a bridge over the Tyne, to Bowness-on-Solway (see Figure 7, page 13). There were gates situated every mile along the wall protected by small fortlets called milecastles. Between each pair of milecastles were two turrets, or watchtowers, evenly spaced. The wall itself was built of stone along its eastern 45 miles, and turf along its western 35 miles. The turrets were built of stone all along the wall, but the milecastles were stone on the stone wall, and turf on the turf wall. The system of milecastles and turrets, minus the wall itself, continued about 42 km (26 miles) beyond Bowness down the Cumbrian Coast towards Wales (Breeze 1987:205).

Behind the new frontier additional forts were constructed to house auxiliary units redeployed from northern Scotland or southern England into the Hadrian's Wall hinterland area. One of these forts was Hardknott, built early in the reign of Hadrian (Bidwell, Snape and Croom 1999:66). Hardknott and the hinterland fort at Ambleside and fortlet at Ravenglass were added to the RomanoBritish defense system at a rather late date (c. A.D. 120s), considering how far behind the frontier they were situated (Bidwell, Snape and Croom 1999:70). Hardknott seems to have been quickly abandoned. It was probably dismantled and burned by the Romans when Ravenglass, the fortlet at the mouth of the valley in which Hardknott was situated, was rebuilt as a fort late in Hadrian's reign (Bidwell, Snape and Croom 1999:66).

The first phase of the Wall did not have forts along its line. The forts remained behind the line of the Wall along the Stanegate (see Figure 6, page 11) (Breeze and Dobson 2000:28). Within perhaps two years the units stationed along the Stanegate behind the Wall were brought forward to garrison newly built forts attached to the Wall. A huge ditch system, called the Vallum, was constructed to the south of the Wall and the newly built forts. The Wall also was extended down to Wallsend, along the Tyne, and the section of the Wall which had been built in turf was replaced in stone (Breeze and Dobson 2000:85).

The Antonine Wall Changes came to the frontier in Roman Britain almost immediately after the ascension of Antoninus Pius as Emperor upon the death of Hadrian in A.D. 138. A new governor, Q. Lollius Urbicus, arrived in the province (Hanson and Maxwell 1983:59) and Hadrian's Wall, along with some of its hinterland forts, was abandoned. It is strange that the new Wall was abandoned so recently after it was built and there is little evidence about why the frontier was moved. Pausanias, a contemporary Greek writer, has a passage which might refer to these events in which he says that Pius "deprived the Brigantes in Britain of most of their land" because they were aggressive towards their neighbors, the Genounia, who were subjects of Rome (Pausanias viii 43,4 in Frere 1987:133).

The forts themselves underwent changes as construction along the Wall progressed. The first forts built, the primary forts, had their northern wall, two side gates and part of their side walls projecting north beyond the main Wall. Subsequent forts were built attached to, but behind, the line of the Wall with their north gates opening through the Wall. Primary forts include Wallsend, Benwell, Halton Chesters, Rudchester, Chesters, Housesteads, Great Chesters, Birdoswald, Castlesteads, Stanwix, Burgh-by-Sands and Bowness-on-Solway along

Pausanias' statement is confused and does not make much sense. The Brigantes were inside the province of

9

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 5: The Flavian Period in Northern Britain (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figure 2; Jones and Mattingly 1990:Maps 4.39, 4.40; Breeze and Dobson 2000:Figure 1)

10

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

Figure 6: The Stanegate Frontier (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figure 4; Hodgson 2003:Figure 6; Hanson and Maxwell 1983:Figure 2.5; Jones and Mattingly 1990:Map 4:42)

11

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Britannia, not outside it. There is no known Genounia district in Britannia. There is a tribe called the Brigantii in Raetia and they had neighbors called the Genouni. Hind postulates that Pausanias was referring to Britain and not Raetia, but that the writer got the Brigantes of Raetia and their neighbors confused with the Brigantes of Britannia (1977:235) which seems as likely an explanation for the passage as any. It is also possible that Hadrian's Wall was abandoned because it was out of touch with the main centers of resistance to Rome in Caledonia (Breeze 1987:208-09).

Some forts were built or reoccupied north of the Antonine Wall (see Figure 8, page 14); amongst these are Ardoch (Steer 1964:196) and Strageath (Frere and Wilkes 1989:13). Both of these forts had been occupied earlier during the Flavian period (see page 5). They may have been rebuilt to protect friendly tribes, rather than as part of an advance warning system, although the latter is always possible (Breeze 1987:211). Cramond fort was built near Edinburgh, beyond the eastern end of the Wall (Rae and Rae 1974:163). Sometime towards the end of Antoninus' reign trouble surfaced on the frontier. Precisely what, when and how this took place is not completely understood. It used to be thought that there was a Roman retreat from the Antonine Wall in about A.D. 157-58 due to a Brigantian revolt (which relied upon the same evidence of Pausanius as the reasoning for the advance into Scotland in the first place) (Hodgson 1995:37), followed quickly by a re-advance and reoccupation of the Wall circa A.D. 160-61. Then another retreat supposedly took place, but the Wall was once again reoccupied in a fairly timely manner. These different periods of occupation were called Antonine I (A.D. 142-57/8), Antonine II (A.D. 160/1-180) and Antonine III (A.D. 184-5).2

Whatever the reason, the Roman army moved north under Urbicus and began construction of another wall (see Figure 8, page 14). It ran across the Forth/Clyde isthmus and was only one half the length of Hadrian's Wall. This wall, called the Antonine Wall, was built of turf, with a sometimes very substantial ditch (40 ft wide and 12 ft deep in places even today) to the north of the rampart (Hanson and Maxwell 1983:75). Behind the Wall's rampart, and the forts and fortlets attached to it, ran the Military Way. The Wall, ditch and road ran from Bridgeness on the Forth to Old Kilpatrick on the Clyde: about 37 miles (Hanson and Maxwell 1983:84). Much like Hadrian's Wall, the first plan for the Antonine Wall was quickly modified. At first there were 6 forts built (Carriden, Mumrills, Castlecary, Auchendavy, Balmuildy and Old Kilpatrick) with about 8 miles between each pair. Arrayed every mile between the forts along the rampart was a milecastle (Hanson and Maxwell 1983:112, Breeze 1987:209-211).

K. A. Steer proposed to do away with Antonine III, as there was little evidence to support it (Steer cited in Hodgson 1995:31). Then B. R. Hartley showed that the occupation of the Antonine Wall and many of the forts in Scotland could not have continued much past A.D. 160. It is possible that there was a move to reoccupy Scotland which led to unrest which was put down by Ulpius Marcellus in A.D. 181-182. However there is no trace of even the briefest reoccupation of the Antonine Wall sites according to the evidence of samian pottery. There is evidence of late Antonine occupation at sites like Cramond and Carpow. These sites are known to have been used during the later Severan campaigns (Hartley 1972:36). As Hartley suggested, there is no evidence from the Antonine Wall forts included in this study that occupation continued beyond the early 160s. For example, at Rough Castle occupation started in the 140s and finished between 160 and 163. There is also no evidence that Rough Castle was re-inhabited at any later period (McIvor et al. 1980:282).

While the Wall was being built the plan was modified by adding additional forts, at least eight (Breeze 1987:211). All the forts in the final plan of the Antonine Wall were attached to the Wall by their northern rampart, except the forts at Carriden and Bar Hill. The new Antonine Wall forts added to those of the previous plan were Inveravon, Falkirk, Rough Castle, Westerwood, Croy Hill, Bar Hill, Kikintilloch, Cadder, Bearsden, Castlehill, and Duntocher. The forts of the new plan are approximately 2 to 3 miles apart (Hanson and Maxwell 1983:86-88), which is twice as close as those on Hadrian's Wall. There was also military construction at this time in southwest Scotland, behind the line of the Antonine Wall (see Figure 8, page 14). Timber towers were built between some of the forts and fortlets, creating a dense system of military occupation (Breeze 1987:211). The fort at Birrens was rebuilt by having its Hadrianic rampart leveled, and a new fort constructed on larger lines (Robertson 1975:78). Crawford was also reoccupied and rebuilt with a different orientation (Maxwell 1972:178). Castledykes was reoccupied and some of its Flavian ditches were filled (Robertson 1964:267).

Recently N. Hodgson (1995) has advanced the idea that the break between Antonine I and Antonine II, as slight as it may have been, was non-existent (although contra see Swan 1999 who argues for two occupations based on pottery sequences from the Wall's forts and fortlets). He 2 These periods were named after perceived occupations of the Antonine Wall, not after the Emperor Antoninus Pius himself. His successors, M. Aurelius (A.D. 161-180) and Commodus (A.D. 180192) are also considered Antonines.

12

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

Figure 7: The Hadrianic Frontier c. 130 A.D. (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figure 5; Breeze and Dobson 2000:Figure 9; Jones and Mattingly 1983:Map 4:43)

13

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 8: Northern Britain during the Antonine Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figure 6; Breeze and Dobson 2000:Figure 17; Hanson and Maxwell 1983:Figure 5.2; Jones and Mattingly 1983:Map 4:54) 14

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

argues that standard fort maintenance, things like the resurfacing of roads and the refurbishment of timber buildings, has been mistaken for evidence for more than one Antonine period (1995:32). Even at forts which do seem to have some evidence for two periods, such as Bar Hill and Mumrills on the Antonine Wall, it is more than possible that the rebuilding detected simply reflects changes in garrison rather than retreat and reoccupation. Evidence for two Antonine phases at Strageath can also be interpreted this way, as can the evidence for enlargement of the fort and barracks at Crawford (Hodgson 1995:34-36).

A.D. 140s, except that the turf wall was finally, completely, replaced in stone (see Figure 9, page 16) and a road was built along the southern edge of the Wall. Over time many of the turrets on Hadrian's Wall were abandoned and milecastles were reduced in size and given narrowed gates suitable only for pedestrian traffic. This process of modification along the Wall seems to have culminated in the early to mid third century A.D. (see page 18); however, most of these changes cannot be closely dated (Breeze 1987:212, Breeze and Dobson 2000:135-136). Several outpost forts in southern Scotland were kept active, although it is likely that occupation at Castledykes ended in the late Antonine period (Robertson 1964:276). At Bewcastle the fort wall and internal buildings were rebuilt in stone upon the return from the Antonine Wall (Austen 1991:45). It is thought a network of outpost forts ran north from Hadrian's Wall on the eastern side, definitely up to Newstead, and perhaps to Inveresk and Cramond beyond. This system was probably developed under Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180) in the A.D. 160s (Holmes 2003:155) (see Figure 9, page 16).

Hodgson believes this single period of Antonine occupation to have ended starting in A.D. 158, when there is epigraphic evidence for rebuilding on Hadrian's Wall. Of course, the withdrawal need not have taken place from every fort at the same time, and it is possible that some forts were occupied for a few years after this. Also, it seems likely that the Roman forces advanced into Scotland several times between the abandonment of the Antonine Wall and the campaigns of Severus in the early third century A.D. Scattered finds of a late Antonine date can be accounted for by this sporadic occupation.

During the late second or early third century A.D. a fort was built on Hadrian's Wall at Newcastle. The fort at Newcastle is the only one known to have been added to the Wall after the reign of Hadrian. There might have been a predecessor fort to guard the bridge at Pons Aelius on the south side of the Tyne, in Gateshead. If so, the site of the Gateshead fort is as yet undiscovered (Bidwell and Snape 2002:251).

The reason(s) for the abandonment of the Antonine Wall are unknown; the event in not mentioned in any of the Roman histories which have come down to us. It is probable that the growing threat from tribes outside the Empire on the Continent led to the movement of troops from Britain to Germany in the late 150s to counter that threat (Hodgson 1995:38-40). Others date the abandonment of the Antonine Wall to the years A.D. 161-163, soon after the death of Antoninus Pius and the ascension of Marcus Aurelius. The reasons given for abandonment are much the same as those given by Hodgson (see above). Troops were needed on the Germanic frontiers for the Marcomannic wars (late A.D. 160s-170s) and there was possible unrest to the south of the Antonine Wall (Hanson and Maxwell 1983:194ff). The abandonment of the Antonine Wall led to the reoccupation of Hadrian's Wall.

Not long after the death of Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180 there was another crisis in northern Britain. Dio says that the greatest war of Commodus' (A.D. 180-192) reign occurred in Britain, when the northern tribes crossed the wall that separated them from the Romans and killed a general at the head of his forces. Commodus sent Ulpius Marcellus to take over as governor of Britannia and Marcellus dealt severely with the northern tribes (Dio lxiii, 8). A victory was won by A.D. 184, when Commodus took the title Britannicus, but war continued until A.D. 185 when commemorative coins were issued (Frere 1987:147).

Campaigns by Septimius Severus

Which wall Dio meant has been the subject of much discussion. Many consider it to have been Hadrian's Wall, but there are no convincing destruction levels from Hadrian's Wall forts (Frere 1987:147-148). Forts in southern Scotland were still occupied during Commodus' reign and could have controlled the area up to the Tay (Breeze 1987:213), in which case Dio may have meant the Antonine Wall.

Events in northern Britain in the late second century A.D. are not well understood. There is little historical evidence for this period, and what there is can be interpreted in several different ways (as displayed by the problems over understanding the end of the Antonine Wall, see page 12). However, we do know that upon reoccupation in the late second century A.D. Hadrian's Wall was at first restored to the way it had been when abandoned in the

Whichever wall was 'overrun' the effect of this unrest on 15

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 9: Late Second Century, Northern Britain (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figure 7)

16

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

the frontier is basically unknown. It appears that some garrisons were strengthened, with larger units being stationed in the outpost forts. As the main function of Hadrian's Wall was essentially border control of the native populations on either side of the Wall; the center of frontier defense was to the north, around or beyond the outpost forts (Breeze and Dobson 2000:142). The ditch system behind the wall (the Vallum) fell into disuse in places and civilian settlements began to encroach upon it, demonstrating the reduced importance of the Wall as a defensive feature at this time (Breeze 1987:212-13).

In A.D. 208 the governor of Britannia Superior, Senecio,4 wrote to the Emperor, Septimius Severus, and asked for his help in dealing with the northern tribes. They had overrun the country and were pillaging and looting. Severus responded by coming to Britain himself with his two sons and more troops to put down the northern tribes (Reed 1976). It is apparent from the costly preparations he made for his campaigns that he intended to conquer, if not occupy, the whole island. Forts on the frontier were rebuilt. At South Shields the fort was extended and 13 new granaries were built in order to provide stores for the army (Breeze and Dobson 2000:139). It is possible the new fort at Newcastle was built at this time, rather than during the late second century, as part of a new inland communication scheme for South Shields (Bidwell and Snape 2002:253). At Corbridge another granary was rebuilt, although from the emphasis on the granaries at South Shields it is likely that the army was supplied from the sea (Breeze and Dobson 2000:139-140).

The troops in Britain mutinied in A.D. 185. A new governor, Helvius Pertinax, was appointed, but proved unable to quell the mutiny, although he had some successes. He nearly lost his life and resigned his command because of his unpopularity with the troops (Breeze and Dobson 2000:122). The man who replaced Pertinax as governor is unknown. The next known governor of Britain, Clodius Albinus (governor c. A.D. 191-197), decided to challenge the new emperor, Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211), for the throne. Some of the northern tribes took advantage of the absence of Roman garrisons when Albinus withdrew troops to support his attempt at usurping Severus. The northern tribes may have invaded the province and done damage to Hadrian's wall. There is limited textual evidence for this invasion (see Dio lxxvi 9), although there is no conclusive archaeological proof (Frere 1987:155). Albinus lost his bid for emperor in A.D. 197 and according to Dio the new governor, Virius Lupus, had to purchase peace from the Maeatae3 who were threatening pro-Roman tribes in the Scottish lowlands. There might have been minor unrest in the succeeding years but for part of each of these year's campaigning season the troops were occupied with repairing forts rather than fighting; amongst those repaired were Housesteads, Vindolanda and Birdoswald (Breeze and Dobson 2000:138-139).

Huge marching camps mark the progress of Severus' campaign (see Figure 10, page 20). At least two permanent sites for supply were built or rebuilt by the army as it moved north. One was the vexillation fortress at Carpow on the Tay, which may have been built in the very early years of the third century A. D. (Birley 1963:197). The other was the fort at Cramond on the Firth of Forth near Edinburgh. Cramond may have been occupied in some form by the Roman army through the late Antonine period, when it would have been part of the outpost system extending north from Hadrian's Wall to Newstead and beyond, and the fort was reoccupied in full during the beginning of the Severan period (Holmes 2003:155). Severus died in A.D. 211, leaving his son Caracalla to carry on the campaign in northern Britannia. Caracalla made peace with the Scottish tribes, although he probably did not immediately withdraw from the northern forts. There is evidence at Carpow that the Romans were there until A.D. 213-215. At Cramond the large industrial complex outside the fort was systematically demolished and the fort abandoned around the same time (Holmes 2003:156). With the exception of the Hadrian's Wall outpost forts, none of the forts in lowland Scotland were re-occupied (see Figure 11, page 21). It is possible that Severus never intended a permanent occupation of Scotland; instead his campaigns might have served as a punitive expedition. Whatever the original goals of Severus, it is true that the results were effective enough that the frontier remained at peace for 80 years or so, until A.D. 296 (Frere 1987:162).

Severus divided the province into two, Britannia Inferior and Britannia Superior (c. A.D. 197), although these names do not appear in inscriptions until after his death (A.D. 211). Two of the legionary bases south of the frontier area were in Britannia Superior: Chester and Caerleon. The other base, York, was in Britannia Inferior, along with the frontier area. The province may have been divided this way to avoid concentrating too much military power in one governor's hands in an attempt to prevent usurpation attempts from British governors, such as had happened with Clodius Albinus during the early years of Severus' reign (Frere 1987 162-63).

4 Senecio was apparently in charge of all the troops in Britain, not just those stationed in Britannia Superior. It is likely that the division of the province into two did not take effect until after the peace achieved by the wars of Severus (c. A.D. 213) (Frere 1987:163-64).

3 Probably a confederation of tribes inhabiting an area around the Antonine Wall (see Dio lxxvii 12).

17

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

area (Breeze and Dobson 2000:145-46). On the other hand, these irregular units could represent temporary replacements. These replacements may have been sent to Britain to take the place of detachments removed to the Continent for campaigns there (Mann 1979:146).

Peace: the Third Century A.D. After the campaigns of Severus peace came to northern Britannia. Why is incompletely understood. After the first part of the third century A.D. there are few historical resources and inscriptions from northern Britain, and it seems that Britannia Inferior became a backwater (Frere 1987:170-171). It could be the final campaign of Severus was so effective the tribes outside the frontier could not mount an offensive. The tribes beyond the frontier also may have been undergoing internal changes which forced their members to focus inwards instead of upon Rome; these changes gave rise to the confederation eventually called the Picts.5 Whatever the reason, it was the advent of peace which makes the third century A.D. in northern Britain so little understood, historically (Webster 1981:343).

The system of frontier control in the third century A.D. was not dependent upon Hadrian's Wall functioning as a barrier or fighting platform (Breeze and Dobson 2000:150). The soldiers stationed in the outpost forts patrolled and controlled the lands further to the north, perhaps as far as the Tay. There is evidence that patrols were visiting the abandoned fort at Cramond. The fort has yielded late third century A.D. coins and pottery, unassociated with any permanent habitation (Holmes 2003:156). The third century A.D. frontier system included forts behind the line of Hadrian's Wall. The whole system provided a defense in depth which ranged from perhaps the Tay down to Lancaster and the Lake District on the west side, and into Cleveland on the east (see Figure 11, page 21).

In the Scottish lowlands there were four outpost forts controlling access to Hadrian's Wall and the province (see Figure 11, page 21). These were High Rochester and Risingham to the east, with Bewcastle and Netherby to the west. Posted to these forts were probably 4 of the 5 cohortes milliariae equitatae (see Appendix 6, page 165) of Britannia. These were large auxiliary units with both cavalry and foot capabilities (Breeze and Dobson 2000:142-43). At Bewcastle changes in some building functions and the building of new barracks suggests that more accommodation was needed within the fort for the new cohors milliaria equitata. These changes have been dated to the period of late Antonine and Severan reorganization (Austen 1991:46). Birrens, one of the original Hadrianic outpost forts in the west, was given up for whatever reason during the late Antonine period (Robertson 1975:94).

Hadrian's Wall was reappraised throughout the third century A.D. and the turrets were abandoned completely. The milecastle gateways were narrowed or closed off (Breeze and Dobson 2000:150). Some of the milecastles seem to have been used by local natives in the third and fourth centuries A.D., although none of the turrets were occupied by local natives (Allason-Jones 1988:220). Repairs and reconstructions took place in the forts and along the Wall all through the third century A.D. A new style barracks, known as the 'chalet' style, was introduced as early as A.D. 235 at Vindolanda. This style is also found at many other forts, including Housesteads (Crow 2004:109), Wallsend, Great Chesters, Chesters, Risingham, Ebchester and High Rochester. This new style of barracks consisted of a row of separate, small, buildings instead of one large continuous block. There are usually only 6 of the small buildings, compared to the 8 to 10 sets of rooms (contubernia: see Appendix 6, page 165) in the old style barracks-blocks (Breeze and Dobson 2000:218-219).

On Hadrian's Wall the ditch system called the Vallum became disused during the early third century A.D. Civilians built houses and shops around the forts in front of the Vallum and in some places the ditch and mounds were leveled and removed to allow civilian expansion. The military dispositions at some forts were strengthened by the addition of new units. For example, at Housesteads the cuneus Frisiorum was added to the garrison in the early third century A.D. along with the numerus Hnaudifridi (see Appendix 6, page 165). There may not have been room for the new units within the forts to which they were nominally posted. The result was soldiers seconded to various ancillary posts in the frontier

At other forts the barracks were modified to contain only 5 or 6 contubernia (e.g., at South Shields). This could imply a reduction in the size of the units, although in some forts more buildings were erected in the intervallum (see Appendix 6, page 165, and pages 37-42 for fort layout) and rampart spaces, and could have provided space for the 'extra' soldiers (Breeze and Dobson op. cit.). Crow believes that the change to chalets does not imply a reduction in forces, pointing out that at Housesteads the accommodations in barracks XIV had

5 The Picts, probably a confederation of tribes, had replaced the Caledonians as the northern enemy of Rome in Scotland by about A.D. 315. The Caledonians are last mentioned in A.D. 313 in the Verona List (Ritchie and Ritchie 1981:159). The people living in the area under control of the Picts practiced farming and stock-rearing in the coastal plains and the valley floors of northern Scotland (Thomas 1997:83-85).

18

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

already been reduced by one contubernium before the construction of the chalets (Crow 2004:109). The issue of reduction of housing space in these forts is confused by the addition of new units in the third century A.D., for example at Housesteads (see previous page); these troops were probably seconded to other posts along the frontier.

perhaps well into the fourth century A.D. Neither of these forts seem to have been completely abandoned, because there are still old style units6 attested as their garrisons in the Notitia Dignitatum. In most cases where a fort had been abandoned and then reoccupied, the Notitia listed a new style unit (Breeze and Dobson 2000:223). It is likely that at Halton Chesters and Rudchester the garrisons were substantially reduced in size, perhaps because of the withdrawal of parts of their units by Allectus (see below) (Jones 1981:393). Another consequence of the military neglect along the frontier was the dwindling, and perhaps abandonment, of civilian settlements (vici) outside the forts. The civilian settlement at Vindolanda seems to have ended soon after 270 A.D., for example (Breeze and Dobson 2000:224).

The civilian settlements (vici) around the forts flourished during the peace of the third century A.D. They became larger and in some cases came to envelop the forts on the three sides situated to the south of Hadrian's Wall (e.g., Housesteads). At Vindolanda the civilian settlement grew to encompass 10 acres. At Corbridge and Carlisle walled towns developed. At many sites, including those of Housesteads and Vindolanda, the settlements attained a measure of self-government (Breeze and Dobson 2000:220). Certainly Carlisle and probably Corbridge were given grants of self-government. Carlisle became the civitas capital of the Carvetii. The advent of selfgovernment for many of these settlements reflects a process whereby the army slowly gave up control of some areas and relinquished that control to local Romano-British natives (McCarthy 2002:69, 82-83).

The function of the vici, if related to the supply of their associated forts rather than housing soldiers' families, might have contributed to the decline of the civilian settlements as the numbers of troops declined. The families living in the vici would necessarily be reduced, and the supply function, which seems to have been taken over by a number of larger centers (e.g., the towns of Corbridge and Carlisle) would not have contributed residents or industry to the vici (Bidwell 1999:29-30).

New enemies of Roman Britain, the pirates and raiders typified by the Saxons from free Germany, had arisen by the mid third century A.D., but these mostly affected the southern areas of Britannia. In response a system of forts, both existing and newly constructed, was developed along the south eastern coast of Britain in the late third century A.D. It has come to be called the Saxon Shore (Pearson 2002:56ff).

The evidence for neglect and disrepair in the frontier region in the late third century A.D. is not absolutely conclusive. None of the Wall forts excavated since the early 1970s, including Housesteads, Vindolanda, Wallsend and South Shields show evidence of abandonment or serious disrepair. There are also no suggestions in the coin series at these forts, and at Birdoswald, where buildings are known to have been in a state of disrepair (see above), that there were gaps in occupation (Bidwell 1999:26-27).

The raids along the eastern coast seem to have had little effect on the northern areas of Britannia Inferior, which did not see a corresponding development in new fort plans or modifications. Indeed, it seems as though units were withdrawn from the hinterland south of Hadrian's Wall and fourteen forts in the hinterland were abandoned according to evidence from the Notitia Dignitatum (see below) (Breeze and Dobson 2000:221-222). In the late third century A.D. there is some evidence that discipline and military readiness were declining along the frontier. The Wall itself fell into neglect and disrepair. This was probably the result of disuse and of troops stationed so long in one area without an enemy that they lost their military effectiveness. In the forts still inhabited some important buildings were left in ruin.

Britannia returned to the center of imperial politics with the rebellion of Carausius in A.D. 286. He and his coemperor, Allectus, created a short-lived British empire using the troops stationed there and along the English Channel on the Continent. Carausius was murdered by Allectus in late A.D. 293. Constantius, one of the emperors of Rome, invaded Britain in A.D. 296 and defeated Allectus near Silchester. Allectus had been using Frankish mercenaries, which after the defeat turned upon London. Constantius sent help and London welcomed him as a hero when he arrived there (Frere 1987:327-328, 330-31).

For example, at Birdoswald there is an inscription from A.D. 296-306 recording the rebuilding of the commander's house, which had fallen down and become covered with earth, and the repair of the headquarters and the baths (see Donaldson 1990). Buildings at Halton Chesters and Rudchester apparently lay in ruin for years,

6 'Old style' and 'new style' refer to the nomenclature of the units. Old Style units were the auxilia formed in the early Empire: the cohortes and alae. New style units had a different nomenclature: numeri, cunei, etc.

19

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 10: Possible Marching Camps of Septimus Severus (drawn by J. N. Giles after Frere 1987:Figure 9; Jones and Mattingly 1983:Maps 4:19, 4:58)

20

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

Figure 11: Northern Britain in the Third Century (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figures 8, 9; Jones and Mattingly 1983:Map 4:60)

21

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

As Breeze and Dobson (2000:227-229) point out, most of the repairs to Hadrian's Wall and the forts in the north are difficult to date. They are assigned to the restoration of Constantius simply because this is a convenient marker, rather than because solid evidence dates them to this time. The changes could have been on-going at any time during the end of the third and beginning of the fourth centuries A.D.

Reorganization in the Early Fourth Century A.D. Constantius reorganized the administration of the British provinces at the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century A.D. The two provinces, Britannia Inferior and Superior, were divided into four. These four, in place certainly by A.D. 313-14 when detailed in the Verona List,7 were Britannia Prima, Britannnia Secunda, Maxima Caesariensis, and Flavia Caesariensis (Frere 1987:331). Northern Britain was in Britannia Secunda, and the province included the fortress of York (Breeze and Dobson 2000:233; although see contra Mann 1989:341 who places the northern frontier and York in Flavia Caesariensis).

In A.D. 306 Constantius returned to Britain to fight against the Picts in Scotland. Little is known about this campaign, although apparently the far north of Scotland was reached, and Constantius won a brilliant victory. He died in York in A.D. 306 and his son, Constantine was accepted as Caesar and soon left for Gaul (Frere 1987:335).

On the northern frontier there is evidence that the forts and Hadrian's Wall were overhauled (Figure 12, page 23). Whether this was necessary because the Picts had attacked while some of the troops were absent fighting for Allectus or because some forts had simply fallen into disrepair is unknown. Birdoswald and Housesteads were renovated at this time, as was Carrawburgh (Breeze 1972:115). As mentioned above, the headquarters building, commander's house and baths were all rebuilt at Birdoswald. Other buildings within the fort were renovated or rebuilt. Barracks were rebuilt in the 'chalet' style (Breeze and Dobson 2000:225), which originated in the A.D. 220s or 230s (Bidwell 1999:27). South Shields was rebuilt in the late third or early fourth century A.D. after it was destroyed or damaged by a large fire. The fire may have been deliberately set as part of demolition before the arrival of a new unit, the numerus barcariorum Tigrisiensium (Breeze and Dobson 2000:224-226), or it could have been the result of enemy action (Bidwell 1999:32) or simply accidental.

Many forts in the north that were abandoned in the late third century A.D. were reoccupied at some time during the early fourth century A.D. This is shown by the change in nomenclature of the occupying units as noted by the Notitia Dignitatum, specifically numeri and equites (see page 19). A distinction was created by Constantine between frontier troops, or limitanei as they were called, and the more mobile field armies (comitatenses) (see Appendix 6, page 165). It is possible the units of limitanei were much smaller than their predecessors, comprising only 100 to 200 men rather than 500 or more (Breeze and Dobson 2000: 231; Jones 1986:607-608; but see contra Elton 1996:68). This reorganization was meant to protect against new enemies originating both from the Continent and Ireland and attacking by sea and from across the frontier in Scotland. Some forts were abandoned, including perhaps Bewcastle, by around A.D. 312 (Austen 1991:50) (although Bewcastle might have been occupied for a further 40 to 50 years, see below).

The outpost forts north of Hadrian's Wall also saw rebuilding, with new chalet style barracks at Risingham and High Rochester. The headquarters building at High Rochester may have been rebuilt in the late third or early fourth century A.D. (Breeze and Dobson 2000:229). At Bewcastle the fort was reduced in size and the bath-house was possibly converted to a barrack some time after c. A.D. 273 (Austen 1991:49-50). Some of the turrets and milecastles were refurbished along the wall. However, none of this building or reorganization in the late third and early fourth centuries A.D. reflected the new style of forts and defensive architecture as seen on the Saxon Shore. This new style was typified by high and thick walls, well-defended entrances and broad ditches (Frere 1987:334).

The Fourth and early Fifth Centuries A.D. Northern Britannia in the first half of the fourth century A.D. seems to have been peaceful (Mann 1979:147). More military installations were built along both the east and the west coasts, and a line of watchtowers was erected along the Yorkshire coast towards the end of the fourth century A.D. The watchtowers were to protect against sea-borne raiders. Such raiders came not only from the Continent and Ireland, but also from northern Scotland and the Highlands (Breeze 1987:214-216). In A.D. 342 Constans was required to visit Britannia in a hurry, arriving in the winter. We do not know why, the relevant book of Ammianus Marcellinus' history is missing. Constans was overthrown by Magnentius in A.D. 350, and Magnentius took the British army with him

7 The Verona list is a list of provinces dating to the time of Diocletian or Constantine I which was preserved in a 7th century manuscript (see Jones 1954).

22

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

Figure 12: Northern Britain in the Late Fourth Century (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze and Dobson 1985:Figure 10; Jones and Mattingly:Map 4:67)

23

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

when he went to fight for the throne against Constantius II at Mursa in Pannonia in A.D. 351. He was defeated. It is unlikely the troops he brought with him were sent back to Britain, which could account for the relative vulnerability of the province for the next 15 years (Frere 1987:337-9). It is possible the outpost forts of Hadrian's Wall (High Rochester, Bewcastle and Risingham) were abandoned at this time, although they also could have been abandoned after the barbarian conspiracy in A.D. 367 (see below) (Breeze and Dobson 2002:241) or earlier, around c. A.D. 310-15. Coin evidence from Bewcastle ends c. A.D. 312 (Austen 1991:50) and it is unlikely the fort was occupied much beyond this year. This also may be true of High Rochester and Risingham (Breeze and Dobson 2002:241).

might have eased any pressure these tribes were putting upon the Wall system. The Picts and Scots do not seem to have been involved in the end of Roman control of Britain in A.D. 410 (Mann 1979:148). At Carlisle coin evidence shows that the site was inhabited and receiving coinage until the very late fourth century A.D. Some of the wear on the coins shows use into the fifth century A.D. Coastal sites in Cumbria, Lancaster, Maryport and Ravenglass show an increase in coins in the late fourth century A.D., which is unusual and hints at the importance of coastal defenses during the very late Roman period (Shotter 1980:12-14). At the end of the fourth century A.D., a small field army was established in Britain. Its location is unknown. Barbarian raids and invasions plagued Britain into the fifth century A.D. The island's military garrison was depleted over and over again by usurpers, culminating in the last withdrawal in A.D. 407 by Constantius III, after which the mobile troops did not return. Despite this it has to be acknowledged that no barbarians got a foothold in the British provinces until the Saxons were invited onto the island as mercenaries; the army continued to maintain its role as the defense of the province (Breeze 1987:217). In A.D. 410 Emperor Honorius sent his famous letter to the civitates of Britain, telling them to look to their own defense (McCarthy 2003:132).

In A.D. 367 the Picts, Scots and Attacotti (the first tribe from Scotland, the second from Ireland and the third from an unknown homeland), whether by chance or design, simultaneously attacked the northern and western parts of the province in what Ammianus Marcellinus (xxvii 8, xxviii 13) called the 'barbarian conspiracy'. The Franks and Saxons from the Continent also attacked the coasts of Britannia and Gaul. The brunt of the attack was borne by the northern frontier and the western coast. Hadrian's Wall was overrun and the Count of the Saxon Shore and the Dux of the British army were captured or besieged. The areani (frontier scouts stationed beyond Hadrian's Wall (see Appendix 6, page 165) were complicit in the attack and gave no warning to the troops behind the Wall (Frere 1987:340; Breeze and Dobson 2002:234-235). Theodosius, father of Emperor Theodosius I (A.D. 37995), was sent to restore order to the four provinces of Britannia. He arrived in A.D. 368 and spent that year recovering the countryside and destroying the small bands of raiders which roamed everywhere. He allowed an amnesty for deserters and reconstituted the provincial garrison. In A.D. 369 he finished clearing the raiders from the countryside and began a restoration program (Frere 1987:340-41). He added another province during his restoration program. The precise location of this province, Valentia, is unknown. It was probably located in Wales (see Dornier 1982) or the western part of northern England (Frere 1987:Figure 15, 347).

It is not known how the life of the frontier installations ended. It is unlikely the end was sudden or occasioned, at least on the frontier, by a withdrawal. It is more likely that as Roman control was removed the garrisons gradually declined. There is evidence from South Shields and Birdoswald that habitation and centrally controlled development continued into the fifth century A.D. and it is possible that communities still survived in the Roman forts for some time (Bidwell 1999:30). Excavations at Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall show continuing occupation until sometime between the early sixth and early seventh centuries A.D. The garrison here seems to have remained as a "self-perpetuating social unit" receiving provisions from the hinterland area which had previously supplied the unit under Roman control (Wilmott 1997:408-409).

In the early to mid fourth century A.D. Roman control over the lands to the north of Hadrian's walls was diminished or lost. The outpost forts were abandoned by A.D. 367 if not earlier (see Figure 12, above). Tribes immediately to the north in the lowlands of Scotland may have been used by Rome to create a buffer zone, but there is limited archaeological evidence of trade or tribute to suggest direct Roman interaction with them (Breeze and Dobson 2002:242-243). However, action by Magnus Maximus against the Picts and the Scots in the A.D. 380s

Evidence from several other forts shows no such continuity and it is likely that "different units, even within the same province and on the same frontier, will have had different responses to the situation in which they found themselves" at the end of official Roman control (Wilmott 1997:409). For example, at Housesteads it is probable that the end came slowly as the supply system of money, metalwork and pottery broke down and imperial control gradually ended. There is no artifact evidence here, at least, that the fort was occupied after the 24

Chapter 2: The Roman Army in Northern Britain

formal end of Roman control in A.D. 410. There is, on the other hand, the possibility that there was a Christian church at Housesteads in the late Roman and post A.D. 410 periods (Crow 2004:113-14). This chapter has briefly covered the generally accepted narrative of the Roman conquest and military occupation of northern Britain in order to provide the reader with a basic understanding of that conquest and occupation. The next chapter examines the changing theories and methods used by archaeologists working on aspects of northern Roman Britain. It is necessary to understand the framework within which excavation and interpretation have been undertaken in order to evaluate the data produced by those excavations and eventually included in this study. Therefore, we turn to the methods and theories of Romano-British military archaeologists, framed by the general development of archaeological method and theory throughout the last two centuries.

25

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

26

villages and military installations still extant (Hepple 2004:148). He also utilized a network of correspondents and acquaintances to solicit descriptions of Roman archaeological sites, small finds and inscriptions. He traveled extensively to the locations of the surviving sites (mostly in northern Britain) and then summarized what he had seen of them, and what was found in or around them, in his gazetteer (Hepple 2002:177, 2004:151-52). The work of early antiquarians like Camden was continued by other historians and topographers, often on a county level, who also utilized networks of correspondents and journeys into the field to examine standing ruins. Very few of them, however, did any "deliberate digging and had no sense of chronology apart from what was known from written records" (Trigger 1989:48).

Chapter 3: Interpretation and Theory – Developments in RomanoBritish Studies Archaeological knowledge is integral to the development of the historical narrative of northern Roman Britain, the military aspects of which are detailed in Chapter 2, page 5, of this study. As new theories and techniques in archaeology are developed the general narrative of Roman Britain shifts, sometimes quite subtly, in the direction of those developments. The Roman sites that form the basis of this study were excavated and reported at vastly different points in the theoretical and methodological development of Romano-British archaeology. In order to understand the limitations and advantages of the data coming from these archaeological explorations, and hence how they have contributed to the Romano-British general narrative, it is important to examine briefly the theoretical and methodological climates in which they were produced and how theoretical developments outside of Roman archaeology might have affected them.

Other antiquaries and surveyors worked in Scotland, doing for that country's history what Camden had done for English history. In 1726 Alexander Gordon published Itinerarium Septentrionale in which he recorded many of the Roman sites in Scotland. In 1793 William Roy's survey on the military antiquities of Roman Britain was published posthumously. These antiquarians published records and descriptions of standing monuments and accounts of the Roman coins and inscriptions found over the years at each site. They did not excavate (Keppie 1986:57-59). Because of the efforts of these antiquarians in Scotland and England many of the sites discussed in this study were first recognized as Roman and surveyed during the very early period of antiquarian study in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries.

Beginnings: Antiquaries and Archaeologists in Northern Britain The Renaissance rekindled an interest in and appreciation for Greco-Roman writings, art, architecture and culture (Trigger 1989:36) and a consequent desire for antiquities. This interest eventually arrived in Britain in the sixteenth century partly as a consequence of the Renaissance and partly as a consequence of a new and secular interest in the history of the British nation as it drew away from the influence of the Church of Rome. This interest in history is reflected in the publication of several histories of Britain dating to the late 1500s and early 1600s and ancillary gazetteers, maps and travelogues. Leland, appointed King's Antiquary in 1533, and Camden, who wrote among other histories the first topographical survey of England, were amongst these early authors (Trigger 1989:45-47).

In the north of England the first archaeological research that resulted in extensive excavation was undertaken during the middle of the nineteenth century by John Clayton. In 1843 he, or his correspondents, began writing papers in the local antiquaries journal (Archaeologia Aeliana) about the discoveries he was making at various forts along the wall. In the first of these papers he still regarded the wall in Northumberland and Cumbria as belonging to Severus, not Hadrian (see Budge 1907 for a list of Clayton's work), although in 1840 John Hodgson had made the definitive and final argument that the wall was built by Hadrian (Breeze 2003:3).

Camden's work, Britannia (first published in 1586), is the foundation of Roman epigraphic study in Britain (Hepple 2002:177). Camden was the first to try to reconstruct a detailed geography of Britannia and his work transformed the antiquarian and historical knowledge of the time (Hepple 2004:147-148). His methods of study included concepts revolutionary for the time, such as tracing the geography of Roman Britain, previously known only from historical documents, on the ground. He tried to reconstruct the Roman landscape from the roads, towns,

These early gentlemen archaeologists, Clayton in particular, were instrumental in saving many of the forts along Hadrian's Wall for later generations. Clayton stepped in at Housesteads, bought the farm which contained the fort amongst its holdings, and proceeded to explore it at his leisure (Crow 2004:131), although Chesters, where he lived (Budge 1907:5), usually controlled his attention. As well as exploring specific sites, the early archaeologists attempted a more rigorous analysis of textual evidence as related to archaeological 27

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

and epigraphic evidence. However, some of the sites were dug and almost completely cleared by Clayton and his colleagues before the concept of stratigraphy was understood and implemented by archaeologists. For example, the basic plan of Chesters excavated by Clayton and visible today is a conglomeration of various building periods (Birley 1961:174-75). The fort was inhabited by the Romans for several hundred years, but the early excavators were unable, due to the limitations of method and theory at the time of excavation, to recognize all of the complexities of this long period of habitation.

The First Half of the Twentieth Century: Culture History and Research in the North Chronological and typological methods were refined and developed in prehistoric archaeology throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Trigger 1989:148-156). The work of archaeologists like V. Gordon Childe (e.g., Childe 1956) elucidated a methodology for prehistoric archaeologists which allowed archaeological cultures to be fitted in a temporal and spatial sequence which revealed how people moved from place to place at different points in time, and how technology has changed through time (Trigger 1994:12).

It was also at this time that the first hypotheses about the purpose of Hadrian's Wall were made. J. Collingwood Bruce, in the first edition of his Handbook to the Roman Wall (pub. 1863), described Hadrian's Wall as a defensive line against a northern enemy and meant for military operations along either side (Breeze 2003:6). This interpretation would be challenged by R. G. Collingwood in 1921 (see below, page 29).

This methodology, called Culture History (see Trigger 1989 for a history of the development of the methodology), appeared to be unnecessary for classical archaeology, which had a temporal framework supplied by the historical record. However, interest in typological methods amongst classical archaeologists paralleled the development of such methodologies in prehistoric archaeology and later developments in archaeological theory, discussed below, were undertaken as a reaction to the perceived failings of Culture History.

In addition to helping save many archaeological sites, these mid-nineteenth century archaeologists, along with those working at the turn of the twentieth century, advanced knowledge of Romano-British forts in great measures. Whole plans were revealed and compared against those discovered elsewhere in the Empire. Although artifact research was in its infancy, the recovery of thousands of sherds of pottery, the discovery that these sherds were paralleled on the Continent and the fledgling development of typology all helped advance knowledge about Roman Britain.

This first half of the twentieth century saw great advances in the study of Roman and Romano-British artifacts with an emphasis upon those artifacts, their traits, and their expression as cultural norms and how they changed through time. The typology of first decorated and then plain samian was refined to the point that samian became a fairly sensitive chronological indicator (Peacock 1982:114). The sources of other kinds of fine wares were located and typologies for them were developed. Unfortunately the vast majority of pottery on RomanoBritish sites, the coarse wares, were too numerous and their attributes too confusing to be studied very effectively. It was not until the 1950s and 60s that typologies and chronologies for coarse wares began to be developed (e.g., Gillam 1970).

Sites in this study which saw excavation during the nineteenth century include Housesteads and Carrawburgh. The reports from sites dug at this time share some common characteristics. Generally large amounts of earth were moved with only the scantiest record taken of artifacts and their discovery locations. Great attention was paid to epigraphic discoveries; small artifacts were almost completely ignored unless they were remarkable in some way. Coins were very important, as they gave direct dating evidence. In the earlier reports there is confusion over the nomenclature of buildings and, of course, it was not decided until the mid 1800s that Hadrian's Wall was actually built by Hadrian and not Severus. With little to no understanding of stratigraphy, the very earliest reports offer a false picture of a site with architecture of different periods and levels intermixed. Finally, these excavations were overseen by foremen and manned by laborers with the person/people sponsoring the excavation visiting periodically. It is quite possible that aspects of the site noted by the foreman and laborers were not remarked upon by the excavation sponsors and published with the site report.

The concept of romanization was also advanced during the early part of the twentieth century. Romanization was less a theory than a term to explain a collection of processes8 which saw the assimilation of conquered territories into the Roman world, making what was once 'foreign' or 'Celtic' or 'barbarian' into something recognizably Roman. Francis Haverfield made romanization the centerpiece of his book, The Romanization of Roman Britain, in 1912. Since that time, romanization has become perhaps the main preoccupation of Roman scholars (Woolf 1998:5, see also Millet 1990), 8

28

These processes turned 'native' societies and cultures into 'Roman' through changes in material culture, trade, political alliances and rewards (Greene 2003:253).

Chapter 3: Interpretation and Theory – Developments in Romano-British Studies

at least in Britain and the areas that comprise the former north-western provinces of Rome.

went against the way the Roman army equipped, fought and deployed. The wall served instead as a frontier line or controlled border (Breeze 2003:6). Interpretations of the Antonine wall as a frontier line, rather than a fighting platform, followed forthwith (for a later example see Hanson and Maxwell 1983:162-3, 170-71).

In 1894, following earlier studies by Bruce and others, Haverfield began a 10-year campaign to improve understanding of the development of Hadrian’s Wall (Breeze 2003:9). J. P. Gibson also undertook investigations along the line of the Wall, preferring to examine individual structures for clues rather than looking at the whole Wall. This campaign was continued by Gibson, and others such as F. J. Simpson, Eric Birley and Ian Richmond, into the 1920s and 1930s and led to the first elaboration of the sequence of Wall periods. The development of this sequence reached fruition in the 1940s (Breeze 2003:10). Richmond, in 1950, proclaimed that the chronology of Hadrian's Wall and the history of the Roman North was firmly known due to previous work and all that was left was to fill in detail (1950:43). Hadrian's Wall itself, after its archaeological exploration in the first half of the twentieth century, was felt to no longer offer any real challenge to understanding (Breeze 2003:12, 14).

The excavation reports used in this study that date to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, i.e., when the large exploratory digs were being done, share several characteristics. By and large they have exquisitely produced site maps. The sites were cleared by long trenches with balks in between. The trenches were dug until something interesting was discovered and then the area of excavation was expanded. Oftentimes spoil heaps were piled onto areas that had been previously investigated, if they were deemed to have been of little importance. Artifact reports were seldom complete, but do seem to have included most of the small finds, if little of the pottery. There was no attempt to locate any but the most notable finds stratigraphically. There were little to no reports on bones, wood, textiles or anything else perishable. Among the sites included in this study which were dug at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are Bar Hill (MacDonald and Park 1906), Hardknott (Calverley 1895) and Housesteads (Bosanquet, 1904) (see Tables 31 and 32, pages 91-92).

Similar studies to those of Haverfield and Simpson (see above) took place in Scotland. In the 1890s a committee was established in Scotland to excavate important Roman sites (Keppie 1986:57-59). Sir George MacDonald began developing a chronology for the Antonine Wall in the first part of the twentieth century. In 1934, in the Roman Wall in Scotland, he elucidated his chronology. His work was later refined by K.A. Steer (1964a), Brian Hartley (1972) and N. Hodgson (1995). Through the refinement of MacDonald's Antonine Wall sequence the number of occupation periods on the wall has changed from three, to two, to finally one as proposed by Hodgson (see page 12), although the latter's suggestion has not been universally accepted. In fact, recent work on pottery from the forts and fortlets on the Wall shows two periods of occupation (Swan 1999).

From the 1920s to the 1940s, when excavations were being undertaken to answer directed questions about the sequence of periods of Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall, excavations and site reports changed in character, with a new emphasis on stratigraphy and chronology. In many cases only small trenches were opened, as the goal was to discover specific information. Artifact reports improved, but still were not complete, and the chronological significance of coins and pottery was all important. In some excavations, no artifact reports were included at all, but promised for some time later (for example Birley and Charlton 1932). Other excavations from this period included slightly better artifact reports, but once again they were not complete. The catalogs published from these excavations might only include decorated samian for its chronological significance (e.g., Richmond and McIntyre 1939), a few of the more interesting artifacts and nothing else.

By 1934 the general sequence of the Antonine Wall was known. Many, if not all, of the most prominent forts on its line had received major excavation. Work continued along the line of the Wall, but it was often eclipsed in later years by new discoveries at the forts behind and beyond the Forth-Clyde isthmus (Steer 1960:84-85). As in the case of Hadrian's Wall, it seemed that there was not much left to do to understand the Antonine Wall.

There were, however, some excellent excavation reports written towards the end of the 1950s through the 1970s. Amongst these was the excavation at Castledykes (Robertson 1964). The subsequent report included almost a complete record of the artifacts discovered, with detailed artifact descriptions, precise stratigraphic locations and more. Also by the same archaeologist, and equally as informative, was her discussion of her work at Birrens (Robertson 1975). Another important report

Interpretations of the purpose of the two walls changed during the early to mid twentieth century. From the time of Collingwood Bruce (mid-late 1800s, see page 28, above) it was thought that the walls were part of defensive systems, and meant to act as actual platforms for warfare. R. G. Collingwood argued in 1921 that the purpose of Hadrian's Wall was not defensive, for this 29

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

published at this time was the re-cataloging of the finds from Bar Hill (Robertson, Scott and Keppie 1975). This report described and classified the artifacts found during the excavations of the early 1900s, including the hundreds of shoes found in the ditches. The work of the three authors has made the fort and its finds readily accessible to modern scholars. Along the same lines is the re-cataloging of the finds from Carrawburgh, specifically those from the temple of Coventina's Well (Allason-Jones and McKay 1985). These efforts have gone a long way towards making the information from these forts useful, despite the absence of stratigraphic data. The improvements in excavation reports begun in the 1960s and 1970s have continued to this time (see pages 31 and 34, and Tables 31 and 32, pages 91-92).

Culture History, the theoretical paradigm popular before the advent of New and Processual archaeology (see page 28), was seen as unscientific because it supposedly seldom advanced new ideas. More and more data were accumulated in excavation after excavation, but the data were simply inserted into the "same endless sequence of cultures" (Johnson 1999:20), or in the Romano-British military sense, into the same sequence of historically derived periods and phases. As Clarke (1978:12) put it, "An archaeological culture is not a racial group, nor a historical tribe, nor a linguistic unit, it is simply an archaeological culture". Culture History was not anthropological, because it derived cultures from artifacts and seemed to ignore human beings as the agents of artifact creation (Johnson 1999:21). And yet archaeology should be anthropological since it is, in part, the time dimension of anthropology and ethnology (Clarke 1978:12).

New and Processual Archaeology: A Scientific Approach

Proponents of the new and processual paradigms in archaeology argued that in order to become truly rigorous scientific methods had to be followed. Patterns in the archaeological record could not be explained unless the range of potential causal processes was understood and examined scientifically (Schiffer 1995:3). Therefore, archaeologists were to propose hypotheses derived from various sources, many of them anthropological, or derived from related disciplines like geography, and test them against the data found in their research. Their conclusions ideally would become generalized laws about a culture and give rise to a deeper and deeper understanding of those cultures as law built upon law (Johnson 1999:20-21).

In the 1960s and 1970s a new self-conscious trend in archaeological theory developed in the United States and Britain (Hodder 2001:1). In reaction to the perceived problems and limitations of the culture history paradigm, 'New Archaeology' and 'Processual Archaeology' were conceived of as being scientific, anthropological and rigorous. Lewis Binford in the United States was a major proponent of New Archaeology, a paradigm which used the hypothetico-deductive method to understand culture process as well as to analyze single period sites. Changes in cultural systems were, to Binford, adaptive responses to the natural environment or other cultural systems (Trigger 1989:296-300). Binford's work is scattered throughout numerous papers and books, including the influential early book that he edited with his wife: New Perspectives in Archaeology (1968).

There are several components central to the new and processual paradigms. Among these are cultural evolution, a systemic view of culture, culture as adaptive to an external environment, a scientific approach and understanding variability. The components stressed the idea of culture process and allowed the examination of underlying processes, of change in the long term and of questions of causation (Johnson 1999:22-27).

David Clarke in Britain, writing about the same time as Binford, developed the beginning theories of Processual Archaeology. He focused on analyzing the processes of cultural change, an analysis which naturally involved multi-period sites and was inspired by locational analysis and general systems approaches in Geography (Trigger 1989:303). Clarke's work is seen in his book Analytical Archaeology (1968/1978) and the collection he edited called Models in Archaeology (1972).

Historical archaeology in the United States also saw a shift to these new paradigms. One of the first to use the precepts of the New archaeology was Stanley South. In his book Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology (originally published 1977) he showed how to use artifact assemblages to determine trash disposal and usage patterns on different American colonial sites (South 2002). His methods will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Both of the new paradigms had much in common and are often considered as one set of methods and theories (see, for example, Chapter 8 in Trigger 1989), as they are in the paragraphs which follow. These new paradigms, like the Culture History paradigm from earlier decades, were mostly developed around Prehistoric archaeology, and thus were seen at first to have little applicability to Classical and Roman archaeology.

The notion of cultures and societies as systems (see Clarke 1978, 1972), and the realization that explanatory models of these systems could be obtained from 30

Chapter 3: Interpretation and Theory – Developments in Romano-British Studies

geography, ecology and anthropology and adapted to an archaeological objective, were quickly adopted and elaborated by European archaeologists. Such multi-causal systems were used to explain the development of commerce and urban origins in late prehistoric Europe (Wells 1984) as well as the rise of classical civilization in the third millenium B.C. (Renfrew 1972).

framework centered upon universities where new theories and questions could influence the direction of research. Archaeological work done on the Roman Walls was done for reasons other than research: rescue, tourism, etc. Although new knowledge about the chronology and cultural processes of the Roman north could and did arise from this work, these discoveries were not the primary objectives of such work (Breeze 2003:14-15).

Ian Hodder (1972) used the methods of the New archaeology paradigm in his early paper which discussed systems models and Romano-British settlement patterns. He went on to enumerate various models of trade and distribution of Roman coarse pottery in southern Britain (Hodder 1974). Others later expanded upon this work and looked at the trade of an important class of coarse ceramic in the north, black burnished ware. These pots were manufactured at potteries in the Midlands, eastern Dorset and other areas south of the frontier. Black burnished ware type one (BB1) was generally made and distributed in the west, while type two (BB2) was made and distributed in the east, except in the frontier region where there was some overlap in their distribution (Gillam 1981:10; and see Tomber and Dore 1998 for updated distributions). Gillam showed that the distribution of BB1 and BB2 was roughly related to transport cost. The farther from the center of manufacture, the less likely the ware was to be distributed, unless there was a direct water route for that trade. At various sites in the north, relative proportions of the different black burnished ware types correlate with the transport costs to each site (Gillam 1981:16).

The main point is that military aspects of Roman northern Britain ceased to be seen as important or interesting topics for research in academic contexts. It took time for the methods and theories of the new and processual paradigms to filter into academic discussions of the Roman military and change this perception. Excavation reports from Romano-British forts in northern Britain excavated during the heyday of New and Processual archaeology (i.e., the 1960s and 1970s) are little different than those written before the new paradigms were developed. Artifact reports continued to improve and several of the excavations and their associated artifact reports used in this study are excellent (see Tables 31 and 32, pages 91-92). Among these are the excavation and artifact reports on Strageath (excavated 1973-1986) (Frere and Wilkes 1989). Here, the investigators tried to illuminate all of the interior of this fort by selective excavation. The artifact reports are complete, and include detailed stratigraphical information. Strageath, therefore, is one of the most important sites in this study.

D. P. S. Peacock was another to study Roman artifacts within the framework of new archaeology. In 1982 he produced a book on the manufacture and trade of Roman pottery and its integration into the economy, using ethnoarchaeology as a foundation (Peacock 1982). He specifically concentrated upon amphorae in other processual analyses of Roman ceramic trade. He studied the movement of amphorae, and hence their contents, across the empire and located regions of origin and regions of product reception. He also chronicled the rise and fall of specific pottery industries (Peacock 1982:152159; Peacock and Williams 1986).

Some areas of artifact study become more important during the 1960s and 1970s. Faunal and environmental reports began to appear more often. The analysis of coarse ware improved, with some typologies refined, and the growing importance of fabric was recognized. Gillam pioneered much of the work on coarse wares and published several catalogs (e.g., Gillam 1970). In contrast to the situation in Romano-British military archaeology, new and exciting studies did emerge in a wider Romano-British context with the development of New and Processual Archaeology and their successors (see page 33ff). These eventually became quite important in Romano-British military archaeology as well.

The ideas of New and Processual archaeology have taken hold very slowly in the circle of archaeologists studying the Roman army in Britain. The reasons are various, but Breeze discusses several in his 2003 paper on the legacy of J. Collingwood Bruce, without directly acknowledging the contrast between the new and processual paradigms and those of archaeologists studying, for example, Hadrian's Wall. Because of the adherence to the sequences of Wall periods which were based mostly on history (see page 29), archaeological work on Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall ceased to be undertaken in a

Post Processual Theories: New Trends in Romano-British Archaeology In the late 1970s new theoretical paradigms for archaeology were being proposed. These were often a reaction to the perceived failures of New and Processual archaeology, just as those paradigms had been a reaction 31

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

to the perceived failings of Culture History before them. Emphases were placed on new topics such as gender (Sorenson 2000; Gero and Conkey 1991; Meskell 1999), status (McQuire and Paynter 1991), ethnicity (Jones 1997; Laurence and Berry 1998), contextual interpretation (textual metaphor) of artifacts, individuality and agency.

the narrative of the Romano-British North were examined in Chapter 2. All of the textual sources, if discounting some epigraphy and graffiti, diplomae and some of Vindolanda's preserved tablets, were written by and for elites. They are documents which need to be deconstructed by historians so that we understand their purpose within the framework of their originating class, gender and society before archaeologists put them to uncritical use (see Hoffman 2004 for example). The attempt to construct the history of the Romano-British North based on what is found in classical texts has been, since the beginning of archaeological research in that area, relentless. This reconstruction peaked, as mentioned in the section above (see page 29), in the 1940s-50s, and helped cause studies on the Roman Walls to drift into relative research obscurity because it was thought that everything about the Roman military in northern Britain was basically already known (Breeze 2003:12).

Another concern was the recognition that New and Processual archaeology often failed to explain how an archaeological site was formed and which of the processes involved concerned humans and which concerned nature. In response Michael Schiffer proposed and continues to advocate Behavioral archaeology, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. Textual metaphor was a reaction to the new and processual paradigms. It is utilized mostly by historical archaeologists. In the textual metaphor paradigm artifacts are seen as having contextual meanings analogous to the meanings of written words. "Through careful analysis one should be able to observe and read the network of relationships embodied within the archaeological assemblages of specific sites and use this 'context' to educe meaning" (Yentsch and Beaudry 2001:226). In an interesting twist, Penelope Allison studied the form and function of artifacts found in households at Pompeii and labeled by the original excavators according to their interpretation of objects mentioned in classical texts. She showed how labeling artifacts with their supposed classical names can lead to circular arguments in which labels given by modern scholars are used to show functions which are then interpreted to explain similarities between Roman and modern cultural usages. New contextual relationships amongst household items at Pompeii, which show for example that some artifacts originally thought to be food related are actually bathing related, have been teased out of the old data by Allison (1999).

One example of the erroneous direction to which this methodology led is the sequence of occupation of the Antonine Wall. Textual evidence suggests that there were three periods of occupation dating from the A.D. 140s through the A.D. 190s. Archaeological evidence, however, shows one or two periods at most, and dating evidence from ceramics and coins shows that the last period of occupation ended in the early 160s (see page 12). Another example of the tendency for classical texts to lead Roman military archaeologists astray is the historical narrative constructed about the conquest of northern Britain in the first century A.D. The generally accepted narrative of the conquest of northern Britannia by the Romans is given in Chapter 2 (page 5) of this study and is based upon Tacitus' Agricola, but recent archaeological work has shown that this narrative is at least partially in error (see Woolliscroft and Hoffman 2006). Despite the failure of history and archaeology sometimes to agree, textual evidence has helped the archaeologists of Romano-Britain in many ways. For example, basic historical events, such as the invasion of Britain, provided the framework for constructing the elaborate typologies of various types of pottery (e.g., samian) which are so very useful now. Although the literature which mentions Roman Britain must be carefully critiqued, it is still useful for generating hypotheses about the chronology and events in the Roman North and some of the literature available is highly useful for understanding aspects of the Roman army. For example, Arrian's Ars Tactica is the subject of Hyland's work (1993), which explores training and equipping the Roman cavalry. Other types of textual evidence are also useful for understanding the Roman military and the occupation of Britannia. Epigraphic evidence supplies some dates for construction phases or

Historical archaeologists working on colonial societies have recognized that prehistoric and historical archaeology need a common theoretical framework and struggled to provide one. Texts tend to focus on the affairs of elites: religion, warfare, laws, rulers, etc. Textual sources often ignore most aspects of the poor, rural inhabitants, gender, ethnicity, artifact usage, manufacture, and so on; these are aspects about which archaeology can provide information. The study of material culture therefore remains very important in examining these missing aspects of past historical cultures (Funari, Jones and Hall 1999:8-10). In the case of the Roman military in Britain texts often can play only a modest role in the cultural reconstruction of the province. The contributions of textual evidence to 32

Chapter 3: Interpretation and Theory – Developments in Romano-British Studies

periods in the forts and along the two Walls. Knowledge gleaned from evidence such as the Vindolanda writing tablets or the papyri found in Egypt illuminates some of the expectations and lives of the common soldiers and their communities (see, for example, Davies 1989; and Bowman 1994). Textual evidence is very important for Romano-British archaeological and historical narratives. It must, however, be reviewed and critiqued before being used.

least one author that "romanization has become a major preoccupation, perhaps the major preoccupation" (emphasis original) (Woolf 1998:5-6) for archaeologists inheriting the traditions of Haverfield and his successors. With the recognition that individual agency, ethnicity, class and other factors were important to the creation of society came the realization that romanization might not have occurred in quite the way imagined by earlier scholars. Previously seen as a possibly conscious policy emanating from Rome, the concept of romanization changed when it was recognized that the process of interaction went both ways. As Greene (2002:253-54) points out, the system that was the Roman empire was not entirely driven by Rome itself. The provinces made increasing contributions to the imperial system in the form of recruits to the army, manufactured goods traded throughout the empire, slaves, and more. So whatever 'romanization' there was, it was complemented by 'provincialisation' which eventually resulted in the changes that saw the western Roman Empire replaced by the states of Medieval Europe.

The Current State of Romano-British Archaeological Theory Currently archaeology has a diversity of competing and complementary theories and methods. This is not a bad thing, for it often arises from focusing on different aspects of, or asking different questions about, the archaeological record and leads to the generation of archaeological knowledge (Hodder 2001:4-5; see also Pearce 2011 and Bintliff and Pearce 2011). Hodder notes that Processual and Post-Processual theories need not be contradictory, but should be complementary. Processual methods often excel in studies of long term processes and large scale structures. Post-Processual methods are good for studies of short term sequences or events and often need a large amount of detailed information to be successful (Hodder 1999:12). Recent trends in archaeological method and theory have turned from reliance upon a framework based on new paradigms and the shifts between those paradigms to an eclectic approach in which method and theory are chosen by archaeologists to suit their research (Pearce 2011:87).

Greene's view has something in common with that of Mark Grahame, who sees the process of romanization as a reflection of social politics. Instead of Rome actively trying to romanize the Britons, or the elite native Britons taking on the characteristics of Roman elites in order to survive and keep power, romanization was an outcome of the reciprocity and patronage politics that were active in Rome and in Britain prior to the Claudian conquest. The material culture of Britain became more Roman as the British elites were drawn into the sphere of Roman elites by mutually reciprocal gift giving, honoring and power brokering (Grahame 1997).

Since its beginning in 1990 the annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) has become very important in the world of Romano-British archaeology. TRAC has been "instrumental in embedding theoretical development into the mainstream of Roman archaeology" (Scott 2006:111-113). At the same time, or slightly earlier in the 1980s, other Roman scholars were independently coming to the conclusion that Roman archaeology needed to be grounded in theory. Two of the first were Richard Reece (1988) and Martin Millet (1990), who tackled the concept of romanization (see page 28).

Another advance in Roman archaeology in Britain has seen artifacts from previous excavations analyzed using new techniques and theories. Some very startling results have come from the re-analysis of the Roman cemetery at the fort of Brougham, for example. Here the graves included two belonging to females which contained large numbers of high status and military items and associated horse cremations. This suggests that the status of the women's families cut across sex differences, so that items usually associated with men were deposited with the women when they died. These women were probably the wives or mothers of officers. However, the author concluded:

By the late 1990s romanization was the topic of most theoretical thinking amongst Roman archaeologists. Although other topics have arisen, the deconstruction of the discourses on Roman imperialism and romanization, using post-colonial analyses, has been the main topic of research and writing (Grahame 1997:3). This is unsurprising, given the emphasis on romanization under previous theoretical paradigms and the conclusion of at

"Though this seems the most likely explanation within the milieu of third-century Brougham, it should not be forgotten that though biological sex is given, gender identities are constructed. Perhaps we are indeed looking at female amazons, if so this 33

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

would give an entirely new meaning to the term irregular formation which is often used to describe numeri..." (Cool 2004a:461).

their specialists; this has led to both becoming too specialized (Darling 1989:98). Darling calls for more attention to be paid in pottery studies to the ceramic object's stratigraphic location, quantification and form (1989:100-101).

Ethnic theories, such as those discussed in Cultural Identity and the Roman Empire (Laurence and Berry 1998), have also made their way into Roman military and artifact studies. Swan (1999:445-447) studied coarse pottery from the Antonine Wall dating to the time of Pius's Moorish war (A.D. 144-152), when vexillations of troops were withdrawn from the forts along the wall. When the troops returned to the Antonine Wall towards the end of the 140s or early 150s the Wall forts received secondary annexes and the units in garrison were changed at several of the forts. At about this time pottery of North African type appears on the Antonine Wall: Swan speculates that the returning troops brought North African potters with them, either as actual soldiers, or as followers. From then on North African pottery is found in small quantities at 9 or 10 of the wall forts, and in significant quantities at some of them: Bar Hill, Bearsden and Croy Hill (see Swan 1999).

Reports dating to the last decades of the twentieth century, besides having an overwhelming emphasis on ceramic fabrics, also usually include detailed faunal reports, excellent small find reports and good to excellent reports on stratigraphy and context. The excavation reports tend to be well illustrated and some even provide computerized catalogs. Aside from the sometimes frustrating focus on pottery fabric studies to the exclusion of other pottery data, they are a pleasure to read and analyze. Archaeological reports have always been bound by method and theory; biases on the part of the archaeologist, whether shown by emphasis on selected aspects of artifacts or in excavation itself due to different methods, are probably impossible to overcome. Archaeologists now understand that they must discuss their methods and theories so the connections between excavation, analysis and interpretation are apparent. Excellent examples of very recent excavation reports used in this study include Cramond (Holmes 2003), Wallsend (Hodgson 2003) and Newcastle (Snape, Bidwell et al. 2002) (see Tables 31 and 32, pages 91-92).

Arguments about the purpose of Hadrian's Wall still go on. The two positions discussed above, those of J. Collingwood Bruce (page 28) and R. G. Collingwood (page 29), have become fossilized into two camps, those who believe the Wall was a defensive fighting platform and those who believe it was a frontier marker and convenient station for troops. Breeze finds that views of the two camps have colored everything in their interpretations of the purpose of Hadrian's Wall and how it was used (2003:6-8).

Specific concepts and methods derived from the new and processual archaeology paradigms were used to develop the methodology and analysis featured in this study. The next chapter introduces and explores those concepts and methods in more detail, while discussing in depth the methodology developed for this study.

Studies of pottery fabric became the norm in site reports from about the mid 1970s on. By the 1990s fabric was everything. Pottery is often recorded in excavation reports in fabric tables which exclude detailed information on find location and form, although catalogs of at least some of the stratified ceramic finds are usually available. The establishment of a national reference collection for fabric in the late twentieth century shows the enormous progress made in ceramic studies in the previous 100 years. This is a progression from the artifact studies that began in the late nineteeth century with the samian typologies of Dragendorff and the amphorae typologies of Dressel (Tomber and Dore 1998:1). Gillam, from the 1930s to the 1970s, did much work on coarse pottery (see Gillam 1970 for example), and Peacock did more work on amphorae (Peacock and Williams 1986) (see page 31). But fabric, which can determine the area of origin of some ceramics and may in such cases be used for trade and exchange studies, has become overused. Additionally there is a lack of communication between excavators and 34

two basic categories of formation processes: the cultural and the natural or non-cultural. Because of these processes the archaeological record is not a direct view of how artifacts were used in a cultural system. It is transformed or distorted. The implication of this, often recognized if not explicitly verbalized by archaeologists, is that behavior and cultural organization cannot be discerned directly from the patterns discovered in the archaeological record. However, the formation processes themselves show patterning, and so they may be recognized and discounted, and the underlying behavioral patterns in the record discovered. It is important to understand that cultural formation processes include not only the activities of the culture(s) which created the archaeological record, e.g., discard, reuse, construction, manufacture, etc, but also the activities of the archaeologists studying that record. Recovery and analysis of artifacts in the archaeological record is a cultural formation process in which artifacts move from an archaeological to a systemic9 context (Schiffer 1987:110).

Chapter 4: Research Methodology As discussed in Chapter 1 (page 1) the primary aim of this study is to combine the wealth of data from Roman military forts with the techniques and possible insights of New and Post-Processual archaeology. Specifically, it is hoped that an examination of the spread of artifacts across a fort will result in discernible differences in patterning which can then be interpreted using local expertise (see below) and insights gleaned from the work of M. B. Schiffer and others. Analysis of artifact patterns in Roman forts should allow the discovery of insights into the lives of the soldiers living in the forts, the areas where they might have done their chores and the typical artifact kits they used, and also allow the exploration of the life-ways of the soldiers and those that might have lived in or near the fort with them: their wives, children, servants, traders, merchants, etc. A subordinate goal is to discover if the data from older excavation reports, perhaps the oldest indeed, can be made useful in a computerized format.

The explanations or laws which archaeologists propose and test in order to explain cultural and non-cultural processes are called cultural and non-cultural transforms (c- and n- transforms) respectively (see Schiffer 1975, 1987:7-11). Sources for the identification, study and analysis of c-transforms include ethnoarchaeology, anthropological and historical studies and direct observations from the archaeological record (see Schiffer 1995 for detailed explanations and examples); sources for n-transforms include chemistry, engineering, environmental studies, archaeological preservation studies, observations of the archaeological record and experimental archaeology (Schiffer 1987:143-44). Important to understanding these cultural and noncultural processes and transforms is what Schiffer calls 'local expertise'. This involves a familiarity with and understanding of the patterned behavior of specific societies and specific natural environments which can not usually be generalized to archaeology as a whole (Schiffer 1987:22-23).

Terminology Michael B. Schiffer has spent the last thirty-five years writing about ways to study the processes which create the archaeological record (Schiffer 1987), archaeology and how it relates to anthropology and communication (Schiffer 1999), social theory (Schiffer 2000), models of inference in archaeology (Schiffer 1972, 1976) and more. Many of these concepts were eventually gathered together into a school of thought called Behavioral archaeology (Schiffer 1976), which has been defined as "the study of relationships between human behavior and material culture" (Reid, Schiffer and Rathje 1975:864). What follows is an extremely brief explanation of the basic concepts developed by Schiffer which are important to the methodology and analysis of this study. There are two records within which artifacts survive, the historic and the archaeological. The artifacts in the historical record include heirlooms, curated objects and documents. These artifacts furnish evidence of earlier behaviors but are not necessarily used in the present as they were in the past. In contrast, the archaeological record is made up of artifacts removed from society by processes which include loss, deposition in graves, placement of hoards, deposition as rubbish and so on. The artifacts in the archaeological record are no longer part of a 'live' cultural system (Schiffer 1987:3).

Artifacts are variable in four dimensions, all of which are acted upon by formation processes. These four dimensions are the formal, the spatial, the frequency and the relational. The formal dimension of the artifact is its type, size, shape, color, weight, chemical composition, and so on. The spatial dimension is the location of the artifact in a site's archaeological record. The frequency 9 Artifacts participating in a behavioral or cultural system are said to be in systemic context. Those interacting only with the natural environment, and no longer part of a behavioral or cultural system, are said to be in archaeological context (Schiffer 1972, 1987:3-4). Artifacts can move back and forth between the two contexts many times.

The historic and archaeological records are created by 35

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

dimension is the number of times the artifact's type occurs in that archaeological record. This can be deceptively simple. For example, pottery can have a frequency dimension counted in sherds, or minimum number of vessels, or weight, etc. Each method is appropriate depending upon the set of research problems being studied (Schiffer 1987:15-19). As discussed on page 44 these various methods of counting vessels create problems when attempts are made at comparisons between excavations and sites.

Computers are needed to do the kind of analysis that was planned for this study. Therefore all the data had to be put into a form usable by a computer. Before this could be done, the data had to be studied to determine common features which could be used with the computer. The data were eventually entered into a series of spreadsheets delineated by artifact material type, e.g., metals, samian, coarseware, glass, etc, for each site excavation and then transferred to a database where the artifacts were grouped and analyzed according to function (see Appendix 3, pages 89ff). Database queries were used to generate lists of artifacts grouped by function from the different excavated areas of each fort. For presentation purposes it was easiest to transfer these lists automatically back to spreadsheets. The spreadsheet program created statistics and tables from the generated data. All of the computer software used is open source software created for the Linux computer platform. The spreadsheet program is Gnumeric and the database system is MySql.

The last of the four dimensions is the relational, which consists of patterns of co-occurrence of artifacts. These patterns are traditionally called associations. Schiffer maintained that relational patterns must be treated with caution because they are often derived from formation processes and do not necessarily show systemic context (1987:21). Relational patterns from Roman forts are studied via the database, queries and spreadsheets developed for this study and discussed in detail in the following chapters.

As data entry progressed it became apparent that type of excavation and quality of artifact recording would be important points of information to add to the analysis of the sites. Because the excavations of the forts included in this study had taken place over such a long period of time, archaeological considerations and goals changed from excavation to excavation, sometimes drastically, and led to differences in artifact recording. Therefore the quality of the excavation and its artifact catalog and records10 were noted and used in the analysis presented in Chapters 5-7 (see pages 42 and 44 and see Tables 31 and 32, pages 91-92).

Methodology: Basic Research Considerations The forts of the Romano-British north were chosen as the subject of this study for practical reasons. This area of Roman Britain has been studied for a long time. There are a substantial number of excavated forts in the Romano-British north. The sequence of habitation is reasonably well known and it is possible to fit every fort into this sequence, although each fort differs in particulars and thus makes the sequence more complicated. There is enough textual evidence, of various kinds, to allow an understanding of Roman military culture, unit assignments, possible ethnicities and artifact usage by the soldiers.

Methodology: The Spatial Dimension To record the spatial dimension of artifacts in the database a method had to be developed to formalize artifact locations within and around or adjoining the Roman fort so that results from different excavations can be compared. Each excavation is unique. The area in which excavation took place, the amount of earth moved, the goals of the researcher and the abilities and interests of those writing the individual artifact reports all vary. Some excavation reports had locations pinpointed down to a square meter framework. Others only reported the buildings and levels in which the items were found. Still others reported the trench and the building or general area within the trench in which the artifact was found. Some reports had no artifact find locations at all (see pages 28, 29, 31, 34 for summaries of the different kinds of excavation reports encountered in this study), although it was often possible to determine a general location, even for unstratified objects, by examining the area within

Individual forts were chosen on the basis of their published site reports and location. Only forts in the area of Hadrian's Wall and its hinterland, the area between the Antonine and Hadrian's Wall, and the Antonine Wall and the area north of this Wall occupied by the Romans (see Figure 1 page 3) were studied. I attempted to find forts with fully published site reports which were inhabited during different periods of the Roman occupation in order to be able to compare the material remains from those periods. The forts needed to be spread out in location as well to see, for example, if those in the Antonine Wall differed from those from Hadrian's Wall. Once a fort was chosen, an attempt was made to research every possible episode of excavation at the fort, even if such an episode was not reported fully, in order to obtain the fullest picture of the fort and its material remains.

10 In terms of their usefulness for this study.

36

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

which the excavation was conducted. These different ways of handling location had to be standardized as much as possible to permit comparison between forts.

the order of march, talks about the composition of cavalry units of his time (Johnson 1983:4; see also Hyland 1993 on Arrian; and Campbell 1994 for more on classical sources about the army, its encampments and how it worked in the field). Other sources of information about Roman camps and forts include the depictions on Trajan's column (and the other columns like his), and building and repair inscriptions from the forts themselves, which can give us the nomenclature of various buildings and areas in the fort.

Roman Forts: the Basics The layout of Roman forts offers a framework which can be used to codify locations for spatial comparisons and analysis. Roman forts developed from the marching camps of the late Republic and early Imperial period (see Johnson 1983 for a detailed explanation of the development of Roman forts). These marching camps were fortifications built during campaigns and generally inhabited for only one or two seasons at most and perhaps for as little as only a few weeks.

Using information from these sources and from archaeology it is possible to develop a model of a typical auxiliary fort and give it the elements mentioned by the classical authors noted above. Such a model is provided in Figure 14 (page 40) which details the internal elements of the fort, and Figure 13 (page 38, below) which shows the gates and basic areas of the fort as mentioned in the Roman texts. Other models are available in Johnson (1983:Figure 19), Wilmott (1999:Figure 12) and Wilson (1980:9-21).

The most important Classical references we have for Roman fort organization are the de munitionibus castrorum and the epitoma rei militaris. De munitionibus castrorum is attributed to either Hyginus Gromaticus or an author known as psuedo-Hyginus and was perhaps written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180) or a bit later. It is basically a surveying manual detailing how to set up a marching camp (Johnson 1983:4). The epitoma rei militaris was written by Flavius Vegetius Renatus between c. A.D. 383 and A.D. 450 and draws upon many earlier works, some dating back into the later centuries B.C. (Milner 1996:xiii-xxxi, xxxvii). Because Vegetius drew on so many sources ranging from very different time periods and because he concentrated upon legions, his work can only be applied cautiously to the study of auxiliary forts (Johnson 1983:4).

The hypothetical fort in Figures 13 and 14 is based on evidence from the first and second centuries A.D. when the frontier of Britannia was being developed and solidified. During the mid third century A. D. the composition and organization of the army began to change in reaction to the new challenges arising in frontier defense (Johnson 1983:16). These changes are reflected in the fort plans of the time and show up as changes in internal organization in, for example, some Hadrian's Wall forts. New forts, built at the end of the second century and in the early third century A.D. also show changes in plan. Newcastle was built during that time period and shows a different internal arrangement than that of forts built earlier (see page 41 and Figure 42, page 116).

Methods and formulae for laying out a camp are given in de munitionibus castrorum. The formulae vary depending upon the type of unit meant to be housed in the resulting camp (Miller and DeVoto 1994). Although the camps Hyginus discussed were theoretical and designed for a very large number of men, the "principles of organization, the functions of the various components, and the terminology also hold true for the smaller permanent auxiliary fort" (Johnson 1983:4).

A Roman marching camp, fortress or fort of the early Empire was usually a 'playing card' shaped installation surrounded by a wall and ditches and provided with one or two symmetrically placed gates in each side (see Figure 13). In this study one of the forts deviates drastically from the playing-card shape. Bewcastle is shaped hexagonally so as to take advantage of the prominence upon which it sits. This configuration of the fort seems to have been in place from its inception during the Hadrianic period (Austen 1991:43); see Figure 25, page 96, for a plan of Bewcastle.

Several other classical authors provide details about Roman camps and their defenses. Polybius (c. 200-118 B.C.) describes in The Rise of the Roman Empire (book 6) the Roman military system. Included in this description are details about marching camps (book 6 Chps. 27-32; see also Fabricius 1932; and Miller and DeVoto 1994). Caesar discusses camp construction and siege operations in the histories he wrote of his campaigns. Josephus wrote a history of the Jewish Wars during A.D. 66-70. He mentions some aspects of Roman army camps, forts and military operations in his history. Arrian (c. A.D. 86-146), writing on cavalry training and

The basic camp, fortress or fort was arranged within its walls, gates and ditches into three broad areas: the praetentura, the retentura and the latera praetorii or central range. This layout is shown in Figure 13 (below). Each area could be further subdivided into the right

37

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 13: Fort Schematic (by J. N. Giles)

38

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

and left, or dextra and sinistra, sides. These areas were delineated by roads which ran through the various gates of the fort. The via praetoria ran from the porta praetoria to the praetorium: the headquarters building. Across the face of the headquarters was the via principalis. Behind the headquarters ran the via quintana parallel to the via principalis. And from the rear of the headquarters ran the via decumana, out the porta decumana (see Hyginus and the other classical authors discussed above; or Johnson 1983:35; Wilmott 1999:22, Figure 12).

there were variances in artifact usage, possible trash dispersal patterns and discard patterns depending upon the specific area of the fort. Many of the artifacts found during the excavations which comprise this study were unstratified. However, these excavations often occurred only in one or two of the areas discussed above. In these cases it was therefore possible to locate unstratified artifacts within these broad areas of the fort. Data from unstratified objects must still be treated with caution due to the problems of postdeposition spreading, drift and redeposition, from both cand n-transforms. Of course, many site excavations have more refined data about artifact location, with trenches, buildings and levels specified.

The central range (latera praetorii) and the other two areas served broadly different functions. The central range contained the buildings of command: the headquarters, the commander's house, the granaries and perhaps a hospital, workshops or storehouses. The praetentura and retentura held the barracks, stables, additional storehouses and workshops and perhaps extra granaries or a bathhouse, if a bathhouse wasn't provided outside the walls. Tucked into the walls of the fort were often latrines and ovens. Sometimes buildings were built up against the fort walls in the intervallum area between the rear of the walls and the via sagularis, which was the road which ran around perimeter of the fort just inside the walls (Johnson 1983:33-35).

Roman Forts: Buildings The buildings within the fort were generally as standardized as the areas within which they were located. Each fort held a commander's house, a head-quarters building, barracks and a granary; some had workshops, stables and storehouses. Storehouses other than the granaries (horrea) were built along the lines of the barracks. Figure 14, page 40, below, is a simplified plan of a generic fort and its buildings.

The ditches varied in number with each fort and often each period of that fort. Some forts had many ditches (Ardoch, see Figure 23, page 94, had up to 6 ditches on the north-eastern side), others only one or two. A fort could have had different numbers of ditches on each side, as at Bar Hill (Figure 24, page 95).

The headquarters building (principia) is always easy to identify. It is centrally located in the middle of the central range and faces towards the main gate: the porta praetoria. The principia was the administrative and religious center of the fort. The front of the building was usually formed by a portico which led into an open courtyard in the center. The courtyard could contain a well or cistern. To either side of the courtyard were long hallways. Sometimes during rebuilding and modifications in later periods these hallways were partitioned to make rooms for weapons storage called armamentaria. Across the rear range of rooms at the back of the building was often a cross-hall, called a basilica. The cross-hall is absent from earlier forts, and makes its first appearance in Britain at the Agricolan fort of Fendoch. At one end of this cross-hall was a dais called the tribunal. This is the platform upon which the commander stood to address the troops and issue orders. The back of the building contained the rear range of rooms, five to seven in number in an auxiliary fort. The central room contained the regimental shrine (sacellum or aedes) that held the standards of the unit. This room was visible from the street in front of the headquarters and was the focus of the building. The regimental treasury, consisting of the pay-chest and the savings of the soldiers, was kept in the sacellum or in a room or pit built underneath it. To either side of the shrine were other rooms which are usually considered to be offices for the unit's officers and

Many forts had annexes attached to one or more sides of the fort. The annexes were also protected by ditches and walls, generally earthen or turf. Very few of these annexes have been excavated and their function is assumed to have been to provide protection for stores, a bathhouse, civilians traveling with the army, areas of industry and so on. At Cramond in Scotland the annexe on the south eastern side was used for leather working, shoe making and carpentry, to judge by the finds from the area. The northern annexe at Cramond held a bathhouse (Holmes 2003:12, 32-33). In fact, it is possible that in Severan times the fort defenses at Cramond were unused and the fort sat at the center of a defended industrial complex. Evidence from the ditches shows that food was also processed and stored at Cramond (Masser 2006:17). In order to standardize the spatial location of each artifact used in this study the generic fort areas discussed above (see Figure 13, page 38, above), such as the praetentura dextra or the ditches on the left (sinistra) side, were given computerized codes. Items found in areas outside the fort were also given codes. This way it was possible to see if 39

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 14: Fort Buildings (by J. N. Giles)

40

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

administrators (Johnson 1983:104-120).

and Wilkes 1989:46-48, Figure 24).

The central range almost always held the commander's house (praetorium), situated to one or the other side of the headquarters building. This house was built in the classical Mediterranean style, with the building arranged around a central courtyard. It was usually supplied with a bath suite (Johnson 1983:132) and the praetorium at Housesteads also had a section which served as a stables (Charlesworth 1975:19-20).

Workshops (fabricae), storehouses and stables were also located in the pratentura or retentura (see Johnson 1983:176-188). These buildings are usually recognized by their size and sometimes by the artifacts found within them, such as slag and furnace pits. They are often as long as the barracks blocks, but narrower and lacking the standard pairs of rooms which mark a barracks. Long buildings which do not have pairs of rooms but which are set amongst the barracks at Strageath are called workshops or storehouses (see Strageath fort plans, Figures 44, 45, 46, pages 118-120). Other workshop buildings were U-shaped. There are only a few of this type known from Britain, including those at South Shields, Bearsden and Gelligaer (Johnson 1983:187) and possibly at Strageath, where U-shaped buildings of unknown function are found in the central range during the Flavian and Antonine II periods (Frere and Wilkes 1989:52, 55-56).

On the other side of the headquarters building from the commander's house were the granaries (horrea). The location of these buildings could be variable and granaries or storebuildings are found in the praetentura and retentura as well the central range. The horrea are easy to distinguish by their shape and construction. They are buttressed buildings with floors raised on sleeper walls or posts and are often built of stone (Johnson 1983:142, 144-152). As Wilmott (1999:23) points out, these buildings were not only meant as grain stores; the word horrea also could have referred to any kind of store building. In this study, the buttressed buildings are called 'granaries', but it is well to keep in mind that these buildings stored many kinds of things and were not exclusively used for grain or other foodstuffs.

Other buildings were sometimes built in the forts. Latrines can often be found set into the ramparts or the intervallum or attached to the baths buildings. Bathhouses were not usually located inside the fort but rather in an annexe outside the fort walls, although Strageath had a bathhouse set into the rampart in the retentura during the Antonine period (Frere and Wilkes 1989:Figures 52, 53) and Bar Hill had a bathhouse in the praetentura (Robertson, Scott and Keppie 1975:20-22). Some of the forts included in this study have hospitals (valetudinaria) situated in their central ranges. Wallsend, Housesteads, Strageath and Fendoch had such hospitals during varying periods of time (see fort figures in Appendix 4, pages 91ff and Hodgson 2003:123-124).

Barracks buildings were organized and built in a recognizable manner. Often they were built in pairs, back to back, and had porticoes along their front sides. The barracks were L-shaped and split into a series of rooms, with the officer in charge of the century or turma in the larger rooms at one end. The rooms were arranged in pairs longitudinally. Each pair of rooms was occupied by one contubernium comprised of 8 men. These men would share a tent in the field. If the unit were at full strength each barrack block would hold 10 pairs of rooms for an infantry century (80 men), and 8 rooms for a cavalry turma (32 men) (Johnson 1983:166-168). However, this was not always the case and the number of pairs of rooms varies from barrack block to barrack block and fort to fort. The missing men were perhaps posted out to other locations (e.g., milecastles along the Walls, signal towers, watchtowers, etc.) or the unit was simply not at full strength when the barracks were built and not expected to be at full strength any time in the near future after construction (Frere and Wilkes 1989:121-122). The third century A.D. cavalry barracks from Wallsend show that the pairs of rooms at that time consisted of a sleeping room for the men to the rear of the building, and a stable for the horses to the front (Hogdson 2003:119). Barracks, with few exceptions, were located in the praetentura or retentura. At Strageath during the Flavian period a possible barracks block, constructed without officer's quarters at the end, was located in the central range flush up against the back wall of the commander's house (Frere

Through the long period of Roman occupation the buildings in a fort changed function, location and shape. Sometimes they fell into ruin, only to be rebuilt along slightly different lines, or perhaps never rebuilt and their site left as an open space. However, the function of a particular building can usually be determined by its general location, shape and size, or even by associated inscriptions. Forts built later than the mid second century A.D. often have different arrangements of interior buildings. For example, the fort of Newcastle (see Figure 42, page 116) was built during the late second or early third century A.D. and its praetorium was not situated in the central range but in the retentura. This fort also featured a principia set in the center top of the retentura behind several large granaries which occupied the central range (Snape and Bidwell 2002). When entering spatial data into the database these buildings were assigned standardized codes. Creating a scheme to represent building layouts is not unheard of in 41

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Roman studies, Brigitta Hoffman created a schematic of legionary centurion quarters in order to prevent her study from "becoming bogged down with detailed variations in the internal partitioning of centurion's quarters" (Hoffman 1994:84). This solution is similar to that used in this study. With this developed set of spatial codes, an artifact can be located within the fort down to the area and building and sometimes the feature within that area and building if given by the excavator. The levels at which the artifacts were found were included if given in the site report and eventually translated into the various accepted periods of Roman occupation (e.g., Hadrianic, Antonine, etc) via scripts run on the database.

remains, like grains and seeds, occur in favorable circumstances. In the excavation reports used in this study, artifacts are divided into common categories by material and in the case of ceramics, fabric, status and sometimes function (e.g., mortaria). Decorated samian ceramics are recorded separately from plain samian. The decorated samian typology was one of the first to develop in Roman ceramic studies. Coarse wares, including amphorae and often mortaria, are usually recorded in a typical excavation report by artifact specialists different from those who analyzed the samian, if they are recorded at all. This is one of the limitations of the data used in this study. Oftentimes ceramic reports do not include all of the coarse wares, amphorae, mortaria and plain samian found.

This system allows the comparison of features, buildings, and major areas within a particular fort and between forts. On a larger scale, it can compare fort to fort, or compare all commander's houses from a specific period, for example. The system keeps the divisions originally made by the Romans, and so preserves some contextual data and hopefully delineates some of the functional differences in areas and buildings as perceived by the Romans. The system also allows for all the spatial data for each artifact to be retained. That way, analysis can take place on the level of square meters or whole forts, depending upon the kind of spatial data originally available in the excavation reports.

Other artifact types are treated in much the same way. In earlier reports only those small finds deemed notable by the excavator are included in the report. As interest in a particular artifact type and subsequent knowledge of that type has grown, the corresponding artifact reports have become more detailed. The only way to cope with the problems of excavations with variable artifact reports and/or limited ceramic data was to record which site reports included incomplete data and analyze the data from those reports separately (see page 57 and Tables 31 and 32, pages 91-92). A possible future meta-analysis of the data collected in this study could examine the patterns in artifact type interest amongst archaeologists and how those patterns have varied with time.

The spatial codes are translated into usable form for comparative analysis by scripts which collate the artifacts in the database into locational lists (e.g., all the finds from the praetoria, or all the metal utilitarian items from the barracks). Simply changing these scripts will allow a change of spatial resolution for analysis. The analysis contained in this study is at the resolution level of buildings and areas, rather than specific meters or features within a building. Because many reports do not include information beyond chronological level and building or area or feature, this resolution was chosen to allow use of the maximum amount of data. However, the data gathered in this study can hopefully be used for analyses requiring finer spatial resolution in the future, even if that means a large amount of data has to be dropped from such a study.

The elements of the formal dimension of the artifacts, their attributes, were entered into the database (see Table 30, pages 89-90, for a full listing of attributes included). The attributes vary by type of artifact. For example, ceramics and glass have two fields that other types of artifacts do not, sherd/shard number and a true/false query indicating whether the number of vessels is exact or approximate. All artifact attributes, with the exception of weight and physical dimensions, have been entered into the database, although not all of them are used in this study. Weight and the physical dimensions of artifacts were not included because most of the site reports do not give this information in a readily accessible form, if it is given at all. It is hoped that the database developed for this study will be useful for other kinds of research in the future.

Methodology: The Formal Dimension The artifacts found at Roman forts are myriad in type, although numerically the vast majority of them are ceramic sherds of one kind or another. Faunal remains, when recorded, are also quite common and sometimes outnumber the ceramics. Other types of artifacts, generally grouped together as 'small finds', include glass, stone, metal, wood, leather, cloth and bone. Vegetative

South's Methodology: Functional Groups In 1977 Stanley South, an American historical archaeologist, published a seminal treatise on methodology called Method and Theory in Historical

42

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

Archaeology (reprinted in 2002). In this book he developed techniques for quantifying and comparing artifacts and artifact distribution patterns from various North American historical sites. An important part of the classification system South proposed was the creation of classes "that represented processes in the past cultural system, such as subsistence-related activities reflected in the Kitchen artifact group..." (South 2002:xvi). Grouping artifacts into classes by function rather than material or appearance allows the analysis of behavior and/or process in the cultural system under study (South 2002:xvi). This key aspect, grouping artifacts by function, was incorporated into this study's methodology in order to study behavior and process in the Roman army in northern Britain. It must be admitted that there are potential problems in assigning functional groups to archaeological artifacts, and those are discussed below.

a pugio) if the knife should be given a military or kitchen/food or utilitarian classification. It is possible that the knife could have belonged to all these classifications depending upon circumstances unrecoverable by the archaeologist. Therefore, knives without known classifications such as cleavers and pugiones were given their own sub-group. Some artifacts can easily fit into more than one group. Jars could either be jars for drinking, liquid storage, storage for other objects, for grain or other foodstuffs, or even, depending upon size, for cooking. In these cases the function assigned by the artifact specialist in the excavation report was entered for the artifact's functional group. However, the artifact also was given entries for secondary and tertiary functional groups. These secondary and tertiary functional group entries were not used in this study, but they may prove useful for future analyses.

This methodology, studying artifact function as a way to understand behavior and process, has begun to be used in Romano-British studies. For example, Cool et al. (1995) used functional classes in their analysis of small finds from the Roman fortress at York, and Gardner (2001) has used such classes in his work on identities in the late Roman army. This interest in function has become important enough that there are calls for more work on function and less on fabric typologies in Roman pottery studies (Darling 1989). At Newstead, Clarke looked at the distribution of brooches and coins and discerned a difference in function between coins used in the fort, and those used in the vicus outside the fort (Clarke 1994:76).

Allison (1999) has published a critique of the way Roman archaeologists have assigned function to various objects found at Pompeii and other classical sites. These assignments derive from nineteenth century scholars who assigned known Latin names to various objects found at Roman sites. Unfortunately, this process assigned the objects a function along with a name (Allison 1999:5859) and subsequent archaeologists have accepted that function with little criticism. To a certain extent, the problems Allison sees in the labeling of items from Pompeii occur with assigning function to artifacts in this study. It is impossible to know precisely the function an artifact had in cultural context and it is likely that the quality of in situ archaeological data available from Roman Britain will never rise to the level of that found in Pompeii. A possible solution to this problem is the study of associations between artifacts in assemblages from particular areas: for example, from the commander's house, within a building with a known function (e.g., a bath, a villa's dining room, etc.), from a grain mill, etc. The database developed for this study can be used to examine associations between specific types of artifacts and their locations in order to determine if their possible functions vary from those assigned them by archaeologists. That type of study is not done here, simply because the focus in this study is on artifact pattern distributions within Roman forts.

The database developed in this study includes entries, or 'fields' as they are called by computer database experts, for an artifact's function (see Table 30, pages 89-90, for a listing of all artifact attributes recorded). Standardized functional groups have not been universally agreed upon by archaeologists, so I developed groups from those used by South (see South 2002:93-102) with additions appropriate for Roman military sites. The main functional groups used are Kitchen/Food, Health Care, Utilitarian, Animal, Travel, Clothing, Military, Architectural, Religious, Commerce and finally a group entitled 'Unassignable' for things too damaged by environmental or depositional conditions to be identified. The Utilitarian group is diverse, containing utilitarian items for manufacturing, building, lighting, gaming, etc. Each main group has sub-groups which are enumerated in Table 1, pages 44-46.

The problem of assigning an artifact multiple or erroneous functional groups is not easily, and perhaps will never be entirely, resolved. Other researchers have wrestled with it. Spradley examined the potentials of using functional groupings to analyze 'small finds' and concluded:

As can be seen from Table 1 some of the sub-groups possibly could occur under more than one group. For example, the 'Knif' sub-group under Kitchen/Food can be military. It is impossible to know, except in circumstances such as a knife that is obviously a butcher's cleaver, or one that is part of the Roman military kit (e.g., 43

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

"It is accepted that there can be more than one possible function for an object, and that not all functions are always easily detected... However, in order for any investigation to be conducted, some allowance must be made. Even if an object was produced with the sole purpose of looking pretty, then that objective can be considered here to stand as its function. Although often problematic, functions were an essential part of an artifact's total makeup, and thus cannot be ignored. Hidden meanings are likely to remain hidden, deceptive objects are likely to remain deceptive, and so the best we can do is to proceed with the most apparent function. When there is more than one obvious function, for instance a sword sheath which may operate both as an item of personal adornment and one with military associations, this presents an opportunity to look at the object concerned from more than one angle, something which should not be, but often is, ignored" (Spradley 2001:105).

(Snape and Bidwell:2002)) do not include a separate listing for each vessel or sherd found. Instead the data is tabulated by fabric and sometimes by context. In these instances the tables of data were deconstructed as far as possible and the number of vessels and sherds estimated. While the methodology discussed above is not perfect, it was developed in an effort to extract the most data possible from the artifact reports while still retaining a way to express uncertainty about the eventual frequencies of occurrence when necessary.

Methodology: The Relational Dimension The relational dimension of artifacts and the patterns developed from it are studied in detail in the next three chapters. However, at this point it is useful to discuss how the relational dimensions and patterns discussed in the next three chapters were computed. South organized the data from the historical North American sites he studied into functional classes or groups as discussed in the pages above. He then went on to compare percentages for functional group, both intraand inter-site. He computed the total number of artifacts found in each location and site and then derived percentages from that total number for each functional group (see South 2002 for details on his methodology). Comparing percentages derived from each site and/or location removes some of the obstacles to inter-site comparison that would normally arise. For instance, the problem of different extents of excavation, thus resulting in different absolute numbers of artifacts, is reduced. This study computes functional group percentages from artifact totals after the example set by South.

Methodology: The Frequency Dimension At first the analysis of an artifact's frequency dimension seems fairly straightforward. After all, one penannular brooch is one penannular brooch. But artifacts break and many are recovered only as pieces. Ceramics and glass are particularly prone to breakage and a method had to be developed for dealing with the confusion of different methods for counting each ceramic and glass type. Generally an artifact catalog in an excavation report was considered to have listed distinct vessels (i.e., one 'pot') unless the report specified otherwise. Often the reports would give the number of sherds found per vessel, and this was recorded in the database as 'sherd number'. Other information recorded for glass and ceramics included a true/false entry to indicate if the vessel was found in sherds in different contexts (which would indicate some mixing or displacement of the archaeological record). Another true/false entry recorded if the number of sherds per vessel was exact (see Table 30, pages 89-90, for a listing of all artifact attributes in the database). In some cases, this was impossible to detect from the excavation report. Sherd numbers are not used in this study, although they were recorded. However, information on number of sherds and items with multi-contexts might be useful for future analyses.

The frequency data derived from the database tables were automatically fed into spreadsheets, and percentages were computed both for each building and area within the fort, and for the fort as a whole. In the next chapters (5, 6, and 7) these percentages and the patterns and relations derived from them are examined in detail in an attempt to discern behavioral similarities and differences within and between the forts studied. Funct ional Groups and Their Sub-Groups Group KF: Kitchen/Food

Some ceramic reports (e.g., amphorae from Wallsend (Hodgson:2003); coarse wares and amphorae from Cramond (Masser:2006); all ceramics from Newcastle

44

Sub-Group

Examples

Food: food remains

grains, seeds, nuts, etc

Prep: Preparation items

mortaria, cooking vessels, mixing bowls, querns, cheese presses, meat hooks, etc

Stor: Storage items

amphorae, large jars, etc

Chapter 4: Research Methodology

Functional Groups and Their Sub-Groups Group

HC: Health Care

Sub-Group

Funct ional Groups and Their Sub-Groups

Examples

Eat: Items for eating

dishes, bowls, spoons, wood bowls, platters

Drink: Items for drinking

cups, glasses, beakers, bottles, small jugs, etc

Knif: knives, blades

knives, whetstones, etc

Wash: items for cleaning

basins, strigils, jars for water, soap, bath flasks...

Group

Sub-Group

Examples tools

11

Stud :

studs, discs, rivets, other small fastenings

Oth: other items

rope, lock/padlock, buckets, barrels, bungs, pulley, keys, ladder, dodecahedron, handle, baby feeding bottle, bells, etc

ANML: animal Dog remains Cat

Body: cosmetics, unguent jars, grooming items perfume jars/bottles, mirrors, brushes, combs, tweezers, ear picks, nail cutters, ligulae, etc

Horse Ox12

Surg: surgical

surgical instruments, etc

Cattl: Cattle

Bone

human bone (animal bone has its own group)

Deer

charcoal and coal, charred wood

Pig

includes boars

Sh/Gt

sheep or goat

Fowl

chicken, bird, goose, duck

UT: Utilitarian Fire Lmp: lamps, lighting

lamps of various sorts, candle holders, etc

Leath: leather working

scraps of leather for working, or leather byproducts, smoothers

Fox Sea: sealife

shells, whelks, fish bones

Oth: other

hedgehog, unknown ruminant, etc

Cart

cart parts, wheels, spokes, etc

Harn: harness

bits, mountings, etc

Farr: farrier items

farrier tools, horseshoes, etc

Oth: other

ox goads, tethers, curry-combs

Writ: writing tools

wax tablets, stylii, palettes, etc

Furn: furniture

furnishings, hooks, stakes, bindings for furniture, etc

Text: textile and clothing creation

loom weights, looms, spindle whorls, flax and wool combs, carding combs, needles, shears, bobbins, pins

Clth: clothing

Metl: Metal working

tuyeres, slag, furnaces, anvils, ingots, bars, billets, whetstones, etc

leather clothing, textile clothing, neckbands, etc

Shoe: shoes

shoes, hobnails from shoes, etc

Glss: glass working

cullet, slag, etc

Jewl: jewelry

Wood: wood working

adze, axes planks, planes, scraps

rings, bangles, intaglios, hair ornaments, metal armlets, stone armlets, brooches, charms, inlays, hair pins

Game: gaming items

counters, dice, play toys, dolls, game boards, toy axes, whistles

Oth: other

Antl: antler/bone working

worked antlers, bones, etc

leather ties, furs, toggles, purses, bags, satchels, belts, buckles, button-loop fasteners, identify tags, cloak fasteners, etc

Clay: clay working

clamps for pottery repair, etc

Cons: construction

ground prep items, rakes, trowels, etc

Tool: tools

tools, tool frags, dividers, plumb bobs, pincers, bone

TR: Travel

CL: clothing

ML: military

Weap: weapons spears, arrows, bows, swords, daggers, slings, sling bullets,

11 This subgroup contains items that probably belong to the clothing, harness, weapons or armor subgroups. However, the exact attribution of the items in the 'stud' sub-group is unknown since many fittings/fastenings were interchangeable. 12 This subgroup was created because some excavation reports differentiate between 'ox' and 'cattle'. It is combined with cattle for the purposes of this study.

45

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Functional Groups and Their Sub-Groups Group

Sub-Group

Examples arrowheads, catapult bolts, sheaths, shields, etc

DA: decorative architecture

Apprl: armor

helmets, armor, military belts, belt fittings, etc

Hous: housing

tents, tent spikes, pegs

Stat: statues

statues

Ins: inscriptions inscriptions, tables, graffiti Carv: carvings

carvings, worked stones

Oth: other

nails13, window glass14, wooden beams, bolts, t-bars, l-bars, clamps, etc

RG: Religious At: altars

altars, dedications

Tm: tombstones Bur: burials Oth: other

priapii, tazza, figurines, obvious religious offerings

CO: commerce

none

coins, weights, steelyards

Unassn: unassignable

Metl: metals

corroded or too small to identify

Glss: glass

too small or unidentifiable

Leath: leather

frags that can not be assigned

Ston: stone

worked stone, pebbles with unknown function

Cer: ceramics

pieces of ceramics worked into items of unknown function

Wood: wood

pieces of unknown function

Bone: Anml, Antl

bones of animals or antlers which are too small to be identified or usage unknown

Not Roman

item is not prehistoric lithics, medieval roman coins, etc Table 1: Functional Groups and Sub-Groups

13 Nails are included here, rather than under construction or woodworking (utilitarian group), because many archaeological reports, while mentioning these items, do not provide detailed catalogs or information such as quantity and location of nail finds. Instead, presence or absence is noted. 14 Window glass is often recorded in excavation reports as simply presence or absence, with no quantities given.

46

remains (for example Austen 1991; Richmond, Hodgson and St. Joseph 1938; and Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993), or give only partial information such as species and number, but not complete context (e.g., Rae and Rae 1974). Because of the problems with faunal reports encountered whilst collecting data for this study, animal remains are not included in the percentage means and totals discussed below, although what few results there are will be discussed briefly in Chapter 6 (page 69).

Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings A total of 45 excavation reports concerning 17 different Romano-British military forts were examined (see Appendix 2, page 87, for a listing of the forts and their periods, and Figure 1, page 3, for a map of the study area) to compile the raw data for this study. These reports gave details on over 30,000 objects, of which 5,900 were stratified.

Similar problems afflict the data collected in the Decorative/Architecture group. Many of the artifacts that belong in this group are unreported or not fully reported. For example, decorated and carved stone moldings, construction nails, roofing tiles and window glass are often mentioned in a report but no quantities, levels or exact artifact locations are given. The data concerning these finds were collected and entered into the database, and are available for further study, but are not discussed in this and the following chapters.

As discussed in Chapter 4, the artifacts from each fort were divided into groups by period of occupation, area within the fort, and function (see pages 41-42 and 44). The results from each fort and occupation period were used to compute percentage means for every functional group (see page 44) from each area. These percentage means were compiled together to create a composite fort representing each period. An overall, all-period composite fort was also created and is called the 'AP' composite fort in this chapter and the following chapters.

Items that could not be identified or assigned to any functional group were entered into the database under 'Unassigned'. The group comprises about 1.1% of the stratified finds from forts with good ceramic data in the AP composite fort. Over half of the stratified items from forts with good ceramic data in the Unassigned group are unidentifiable clumps of metal (64.4%). The remaining items are pieces of glass (22.7%) and bits of worked animal bone (12.9%). The results for this group are given in Tables 69 and 70 (pages 162 and 163).

The problems with ceramic reports discussed in Chapter 4 (page 42) were ameliorated by dividing sites with stratified finds into those with 'good' stratification and those without. Good stratification indicates that the excavation report included data on all the stratified ceramics found. The results from these sites are more trustworthy with respect to the Kitchen/Food functional group, which is mostly composed of ceramics. Using results from sites with good stratified ceramic data also facilitates more reliable inter functional group comparisons. In most cases the results discussed in this and the next chapters are from excavations with full ceramic reports: the good stratified sites. All results are presented in tables in Appendix 5.

Only sites and areas with 5 or more total items were included in the tables presented in this and the following chapters. The cutoff is arbitrary, and was used in an attempt to limit bias or skewing of the data. Many of the percentage distributions discussed below are skewed and bimodal due to comparison between areas with small and areas with large numbers of artifacts. They also have large standard deviations because of the unevenness of the distribution.15 The smaller the number of artifacts, the more likely a particular functional group will be over or under represented. Also, the probability that an item with a low discard rate16 will be deposited increases with the quantity of all items deposited (Schiffer 1987:297). In consequence better results are obtained when more sites can be included in computing the percentage means. The number of sites used in each computation is given in the tables below as a rough indicator of the reliability of the results. It appears in parentheses after the period header.

Data were collected on animal remains (see Tables 51 and 52, pages 144 and 145) which technically should be included in the Kitchen/Food functional group and, to a far lesser extent, the Transportation group. However, these data are not at all reliable because of the variable quality of the faunal analyses, if they exist, given in various excavation reports. Some excavators report that many bones were found, but the faunal section of their excavation report only discusses the finds from one or two areas. The report from Wallsend, for example, only discusses the animal remains from the barracks and hospital (Gidney 2003:231-233). Other excavators mention that faunal remains were numerous, but soil conditions were such that the remains were very fragmentary and unidentifiable (e.g., Strageath, Frere and Wilkes 1989:271) and no faunal analysis could be made. Other excavation reports say nothing about faunal

15 To view more statistics from this study (almost 600 tables of data) please contact the author via the publisher. 16 e.g., valuable items (weapons, jewelry), items that could easily be reused (metal for remelting), items with sentimental value, etc.

47

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Whether this dominance of the artifact assemblages by the Kitchen/Food group reflects such a dominance when the artifacts were in systemic context is debatable. Ceramics break easily and then usually are discarded, unlike, for example, metal objects. The higher survival rate of ceramics after deposition is another factor which could result in the dominance of the artifact assemblages by the Kitchen/Food group. The survival rate for ceramics in most conditions is higher than survival rates for many other types of artifacts (see Schiffer 1987:158 for deterioration processes of ceramics).

Composite Forts: Period Patterns Throughout the various periods of occupation in the forts under study the most prevalent functional group of artifacts is overwhelmingly the Kitchen/Food. As can be seen in Table 2, below, which shows the results for stratified finds from composite forts with good ceramic data (see above), the percentage mean of the Kitchen/Food group varies from a high of 95.8% in the fourth century A. D. to a low of 66.7% in the third century A. D. If it had been possible to include animal remains in this study the Kitchen/Food group percentage means would rise even higher, showing how this group dominates the artifact assemblages from Roman forts.

Composite Forts wit hout Good Ceramic Data: Relative Ranking of Funct ional Groups Rank

AP (15)

Flavian (5) A.D. 70s-90s

Hadrianic Antonine (3) A.D. (8) A.D. 117-138 140s160s

1

KF, 69.3

KF, 70.3

KF, 66.0

KF, 66.4

2

CO, 7.9

UT, 6.3

CL, 8.8

UT, 10.3

3

UT, 7.6

CO, 4.0

ML, 7.0

CO, 8.6

4

CL, 3.7

HC, 3.1

UT, 6.2

CL, 6.2

5

ML, 2.9

ML, 2.6

HC, 3.6

HC, 4.5

6

HC, 2.5

TR, 2.1

CO, 1.9

ML, 2.1

7

TR, 0.7

CL, 1.2

TR, 1.6

TR, 0.5

8

RG, 0.2

RG, 0.1

Rank

Severan 3rd C 4th C 5th C (3) A.D. A.D. (4) A.D. (4) A.D. (2) 193-211

1

KF, 79.9

KF, 53.9

KF, 48.3

KF, 47.1

2

UT, 8.8

CO, 14.8

CO, 33.9

CO, 43.5

3

CO, 7.4

UT, 11.8

CL, 7.4

UT, 6.5

4

ML, 2.7

HC, 6.7

UT, 5.3

HC, 2.9

5

CL, 0.6

CL, 6.3

HC, 2.8

6

HC, 0.3

ML, 3.3

ML, 1.7

7

TR, 0.3

TR, 0.1

TR, 0.1

Composit e Fort s with Good Ceramic Data: Relat ive Ranking of Functional Groups Rank

AP (12)

Flavian Hadrianic Antonine (4) A.D. (1) A.D. (7) A.D. 70s-90s 117-138 140s160s

1

KF, 81.9

KF, 75.8

KF, 80.7

KF, 75.4

2

UT, 5.4

UT, 6.1

CL, 3.3

UT, 8.9

3

CO, 4.5

CO, 4.9

UT, 2.8

CL, 5.0

4

ML, 2.5

HC, 3.9

HC, 2.8

CO, 4.3

5

CL, 2.0

TR, 2.6

ML, 1.1

ML, 2.4

6

HC, 1.6

ML, 2.3

HC, 1.9

7

TR, 0.7

CL, 1.6

TR, 0.6

8

RG 0.3

RG, 0.1

Rank

Severan 2nd C (2) A.D. A.D. (2) 193-211

RG, 0.1 17

3rd C 4th C A.D. (1) A.D. (1)

1

KF, 78.3

KF, 85.8

KF, 66.7

KF, 95.8

2

CO, 10.9

UT, 3.6

CO, 29.2

HC, 2.8

3

UT, 4.8

CL, 3.1

UT, 2.1

ML, 1.4

4

ML, 4.1

HC, 1.8

CL, 2.1

5

CL, 0.9

CO, 1.2

6

HC, 0.5

ML, 0.7

7

TR, 0.5

TR, 0.3

RG, 0.1

8 Table 3: Composite Forts without Good Ceramic Data, for abbreviations see Table 1

8 RG, 0.2 Table 2: Composite Forts with Good Ceramic Data, for abbreviations see Table 1

The next most prevalent functional group after the Kitchen/Food is generally either the Utilitarian or the Commerce group. If one of these is not the second most prevalent group after Kitchen/Food then it is usually the third, with a few interesting exceptions. The Hadrianic and second century composite forts show far less importance for the Commerce group. The Clothing group replaces the Commerce group in these composite forts. The patterns from the Hadrianic, Flavian and second

17 The second century composite fort is computed from data from forts in the Hadrian's wall system. Although labeled second century A.D., this composite fort also may include artifacts from the Severan period because many of the excavation reports do not report an exact reoccupation date for the Hadrian's Wall forts after the Antonine period hiatus. Where forts have firm Severan dated deposits, they are included under the Severan period composite fort in these tables.

48

Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings

century composite forts show differences in other ways which will be explored in more detail below and on pages 49, 50, 52.

processes is unknown, although this relatively high Transportation group percentage mean is one of a series of differences apparent in the Flavian and Hadrianic composite fort patterns (discussed above and on pages 50, 52, see page 50 for more on the Transportation group in the barracks).

Table 3, previous page, shows the results when sites with excavation reports which do not have complete ceramic data are included in the calculations of percentage means. The Kitchen/Food group, despite lack of complete ceramic reports, is still dominant. The Utilitarian group and the Commerce group are ranked either second or third, just as in the results shown in Table 2. Once again the Hadrianic and second century patterns (for the second century results see Table 4, below) differ from the overall trend with the Clothing group, instead of the Commerce group, being one of the top three groups in these patterns.

Table 4 (above) presents results from the forts of the Hadrian's Wall system. The third, fourth and fifth century composite forts have large percentages of Commerce group items, although, as always, the Kitchen/Food group is most dominant. Two of the sites in the fourth century seem to have had markets. According to the excavators, Newcastle had a market on its main road (Snape and Bidwell 2002:9) and Wallsend had a market at one of its gates (Hodgson 2003:17); both markets were indicated by lost coins. The high level of coin loss at Newcastle and Wallsend could be a reflection of the general cleanliness of these forts' streets and gates (see page 55).

In most of the period composite fort patterns the Military group is about 3.3% to 2.6% of the total assemblage, although the relative ranking of the group varies. However, in the fourth century the group drops to 1.7% of the assemblage, and is not even present in the fifth century assemblage. In the Hadrianic period the Military group is 7.0% of the assemblage. This relatively high percentage mean could possibly be due to the warfare which took place during the Hadrianic period. On the other hand, the composite fort patterns of other bellicose periods do not reflect a high amount of Military items (e.g., the Flavian, Antonine and Severan periods).

Buildings and Areas in the Composite Forts: Patterns of Artifact Loss The same methodology used in the section above to study whole composite forts can be used to examine major buildings and areas within those composite forts. Each table below shows buildings or areas in the composite forts for which there is enough data to draw at least tentative conclusions. A missing occupation period in a table indicates that there were no stratified data in any of the composite forts for that period from the building or area featured in the table. The number of sites used in computing the results for each period is given after the period name in the table headings. As noted on page 47, this number is a rough indication of reliability; the more sites used to compute the result, the more reliable that result.

Composite Forts in the Hadrian's Wall system without Good Ceramic Data: Relative Ranking of Funct ional Groups Ranks Hadrianic 2nd C (3) A.D. A.D. 117-138 (6)

3rd C A.D. (4)

4th C A.D. (4)

5th C A.D. (2)

1

KF, 66.0

KF, 61.1

KF, 53.9

KF, 48.3

KF, 47.1

2

CL, 8.8

UT, 13.4 CO, 14.8

CO, 33.9 CO, 43.5

3

ML, 7.0

CL, 5.6

UT, 11.8

CL, 7.4

UT, 6.5

4

UT, 6.2

CO, 3.6

HC, 6.7

UT, 5.3

HC, 2.9

5

HC, 3.6

HC, 3.4

CL, 6.3

HC, 2.8

6

CO, 1.9

ML, 2.1

ML, 3.3

ML, 1.7

7

TR, 1.6

TR, 0.6

TR, 0.1

TR, 0.1

Barracks Table 5 (next page) shows that the top ranked functional groups in the barracks are first the Kitchen/Food group and then generally either the Utilitarian or Commerce group, although the actual percentage means of these groups vary amongst the composite fort patterns. The Commerce group is relatively well represented in the barracks in all the composite forts but the Antonine (3.6%), second century (5.6%), and fourth century (where there are no Commerce group items at all). In the Flavian period Commerce items are the second most common in the assemblage. These results from the barracks tend to mirror those of the composite forts (see Table 2, previous page).

8 RG, 0.1 Table 4: Hadrian's Wall System Composite Forts without Good Ceramic Data, for abbreviations see Table 1

Although the Transportation group never has a very high percentage mean in the composite fort patterns, the Flavian and Hadrianic patterns (see Tables 2, 3 and 4) have higher percentage means of this group than the other period patterns. Whether this reflects subsequent changes in transportation and cavalry use or different formation 49

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

The Military group is fairly well represented in the Flavian period where it is 8.2% of total items. For purposes of comparison, results from the Hadrianic period composite barracks18 (see Tables 37 and 38, pages 130 and 131) show the Military group at 10.7%, ranking second after the Kitchen/Food and before the Clothing group. It is possible that during the Hadrianic and Flavian periods military artifacts were used or lost in greater amounts, or, perhaps more likely, not recovered when the forts were abandoned at the end of both periods.

was no reoccupation of the Antonine Wall forts after the Antonine period. In contrast, the Flavian and Hadrianic 19 forts studied were reoccupied during the Antonine or later periods. It is possible that this reoccupation sealed these abandoned objects and left them for archaeologists to find, although such a conclusion is, at this point, extremely tentative. The percentage mean of the Transportation group is much higher from the barracks in the Flavian period than the barracks of the other periods and AP composite fort. Most of the Transportation group items from the Flavian composite barracks came from Strageath and Crawford, which were garrisoned in the Flavian period by part mounted units (Frere and Wilkes 1989:118-121; Maxwell 1972:168-9). The relatively high percentage mean of Transportation group items from the Flavian composite barracks likely reflects the housing of cavalry horses with their riders in those barracks, as happened in the later, Hadrianic, period at Wallsend (Hodgson 2003:13). The survival of transportation equipment from the barracks in the Flavian period may be due to cultural transforms similar to those acting upon the military group artifacts during the Flavian and Hadrianic periods discussed above, namely that the abandonment and subsequent reoccupation of the Flavian forts sealed the Flavian deposits in the barracks.

Barracks from Composite Forts: Relat ive Ranking of Functional Groups Rank

AP (8)

Flavian (2) A.D. 70s90s

Antonine (5) A.D. 140s160s

1

KF, 83.6

KF, 59.6

KF, 84.9

2

CO, 4.1

CO, 15.1

UT, 3.4

3

UT, 3.5

TR, 10.4

CO, 3.2

4

HC, 2.6

ML, 8.2

HC, 3.0

5

ML, 2.1

UT, 4.0

ML, 2.1

6

CL, 1.6

CL, 2.6

CL, 1.2

7

TR, 1.3

TR, 1.0

8

RG 0.1

Rank

2nd C A.D. (1)

3rd C A. D. 4th (1) (1)

C

1

KF, 69.3

KF, 83.3

KF, 91.7

2

UT, 9.0

CO, 16.7

ML, 4.2

3

HC, 6.0

4

CO, 5.2

5

CL, 1.9

6

TR, 1.9

7

ML, 1.1

A.D.

On the other hand, the relatively high level of Transportation group items from the Flavian composite barracks may be due to nothing more than the presence of the part mounted units at Strageath and Crawford in the Flavian period. Strageath also had a part mounted unit in garrison during the Antonine period (Frere and Wilkes 1989:126), however the Antonine composite barracks do not have a high percentage mean of Transportation group items (Table 5). This lends credibility to the suggestion offered above that there were cultural transforms operating on the artifacts deposited in the Flavian composite barracks during abandonment and later reoccupation which enhanced the survival of Transportation and Military group items (see page 55).

HC, 4.2

8 RG 0.4 Table 5: Barracks from Composite Forts, for abbreviations see Table 1

The high level of Military group items in the barracks from the Flavian and Hadrianic periods may have to do with the abandonment of the forts at the end of those periods and the subsequent unlikelihood of recovery of these presumably valuable items. However, this is belied by the evidence from the Antonine period, which also ended in abandonment. During the Antonine period items in the Military group from the barracks are not as prevalent. One difference between the abandonment phases of these periods in the forts studied is that there

Commander's House

18 The results for Hadrianic period composite barracks were compiled using excavation reports without good ceramic data.

19 With the exception of the Hadrianic fort at Hardknott, which supplied no Military or Transportation items from the barracks.

The commander's house was not excavated in as many forts as were the barracks, therefore there is less stratified data from the commander's house with which to calculate period composite patterns. Those patterns which could be calculated are presented in Table 6 (next page). In most periods the Kitchen/Food and Utilitarian groups are well represented in the composite commander's house. This is unsurprising, given the dominance of the Kitchen/Food

50

Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings

and Utilitarian groups in the overall composite fort patterns (see Tables 2, 3 and 4, pages 48 and 49). Commerce group items are more numerous than the Kitchen/Food group items in the Severan pattern, but the results for the Severan pattern may be suspect because they come from only one fort and in that fort just 5 items were found in the commander's house.

composite headquarters pattern shows the same emphasis on Kitchen/Food, Commerce and Utilitarian groups as the AP composite fort pattern. Military items from the composite headquarters have a relatively high percentage mean during the AP, Antonine and Severan periods. This may reflect one of the functions of the building as a store for weapons. The relatively high value for the Health Care group found in the Antonine headquarters buildings is interesting. All of the Health Care group items found in the Antonine composite headquarters were part of the 'body' sub-group (see page 67). It is possible that these were medical supplies stored in the headquarters, although there was no surgical equipment found in the Antonine composite headquarters assemblage.

The Clothing group is relatively highly ranked in the patterns from the composite commander's house. It is 16.0% of the assemblage from the composite commander's house in the Antonine period, and 21.7% in the second century. This is in marked contrast to those periods in the composite barracks, in which the Clothing group percentage means are only 1.2% and 1.9% respectively.

Headquart ers from Composit e Fort s: Relative Ranking of Funct ional Groups

Commander's House from Composite Forts: Relat ive Ranking of Functional Groups Rank AP (5)

Antonine Severan (2) A.D. (1) A.D. 140s193-211 160s

2nd C A.D. (1)

1

KF, 65.6 KF, 54.7

CO, 80.0

KF, 42.8

2

CO, 17.1 UT, 16.1

KF, 20.0

CL, 21.7

3

UT, 6.5

CL, 16.0

UT, 9.0

4

CL, 6.5

TR, 2.9

ML, 4.2

5

TR, 1.4

CO, 2.8

HC, 3.6

6

ML, 0.8

ML, 2.1

CO, 3.0

7

HC, 0.7

HC, 1.8

TR, 0.6

Rank AP (6)

Flavian (2) A.D. 70s-90s

Ant onin e (3) A.D. 14160s

Severan (1) A.D. 193-211

3rd C A.D. (1)

1

KF, 66.0

KF, 63.3

KF, 61.2

KF, 76.0

KF, 53.6

2

CO, 11.7 UT, 28.3

UT, 12.2

ML, 16.0

CO, 46.4

3

UT, 8.7

CO, 4.2

HC, 7.9

CL, 4.0

4

ML, 6.2

CL, 4.2

ML, 6.6

CO, 4.0

5

HC, 3.7

CO, 5.6

6

CL, 1.7

TR, 2.2

7

TR, 0.7

CL, 2.2

3rd C A.D. (1)

KF, 100.0

8 RG 0.4 Table 7: Headquarters from Composite Forts, for abbreviations see Table 1

8 RG 0.0 Table 6: Commander's House from Composite Forts, for abbreviations see Table 1

Other Buildings

The AP composite pattern shown in Table 6 reflects the function of the commander's house, with lower Kitchen/Food and higher Clothing and Utilitarian group percentages means than found in the composite barracks (Table 5, previous page). The commander's family and servants lived in the house, and the inhabitants could include women and children (Van Driel-Murray 1993:42, 44-46). The breakdown of the Utilitarian group into its various sub-groups, discussed on pages 59ff in Chapter 6, demonstrates this even further; the Utilitarian group items in the commander's house reflect domestic activities.

The sections above discuss the barracks, commander's house and headquarters. These were the buildings most commonly excavated in the forts under study. Data from many of the other buildings common to Roman forts were gathered and analyzed, but few conclusive results were obtained because these buildings were not very often excavated. However, it was possible to compute patterns for the AP composite granaries, baths, latrines, and workshops. These patterns are shown in Table 8 (next page). 'Bath/Ann' in Table 8 refers to a bathhouse which was found in the annexe of the Antonine and Severan fort at Cramond. This bath building was situated outside the ramparts of the fort in an annexe to the north and is included to provide a comparison for the bath buildings found inside the ramparts of the fort.

Headquarters As with the commander's house, stratified evidence for the character of the assemblage from the headquarters building during most of the periods under study is not conclusive. It is summarized in Table 7. The AP 51

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

The AP composite patterns from the baths are interesting. In both the bath inside the composite fort and that outside, the first four highest ranked groups in the composite patterns are Kitchen/Food, Utilitarian, Clothing and Military. This is different than the general trend from the composite fort and might relate to the function of the baths as areas for disrobing. In comparison to the results from the baths inside the fort, the baths in the annex have higher percentage means of nearly every functional group except the Kitchen/Food. This could, perhaps, be due to the location of the annexe bath in an area possibly isolated from food preparation and consumption (see pages 39, 97).

The pattern from the AP composite fort granaries20 (Table 8) seems to reflect the function of the buildings as storehouses. The Utilitarian, Military and Health Care groups are particularly prominent in the AP composite granary pattern in comparison to the pattern from the AP composite fort in general (Table 2, page 48). There are patterns for only the Flavian and Antonine occupation periods in the granaries because granaries of other periods were not excavated in the forts included in this study. The pattern from the Antonine composite granaries (see Table 39, page 132) does not reflect much of a difference from the pattern from the AP composite granaries.

Miscellaneous Buildings in t he AP Composit e Fort : Relat ive Ranking of Functional Groups

The Flavian pattern (see Table 35, page 128) in the granaries is different from the Antonine and AP composite patterns. In the Flavian composite granaries the Kitchen/Food group (79.2%) is followed by the Health Care group (8.3%), the Clothing group (4.2%) and the Military group (2.8%). The Utilitarian group, which normally ranks second or third in most patterns, is only 1.4% in the Flavian composite granaries.

Rank Granary Bat h (3) (1)

Bat h/Ann Latrine (1) (1)

Workshop (2)

1

KF, 63.0

KF, 85.6 KF, 51.7

KF, 93.8 KF, 79.6

2

UT, 12.1

UT, 6.0

UT, 24.1

UT, 6.3

3

ML, 9.1

CL, 3.6

CL, 8.6

UT, 3.2

4

HC, 9.1

ML, 1.2

ML, 5.2

CL, 2.1

5

CL, 4.7

HC, 0.6

TR, 3.4

CO, 1.6

6

TR 1.0

HC, 1.7

TR, 0.5

ML, 12.4

The pattern from the AP composite hospital, although computed from stratified data from sites which did not have complete ceramic reports and therefore not directly comparable to the patterns discussed in this chapter, is interesting (see Table 33, page 126). In the pattern from the AP composite hospital the Commerce (22.5%), Health Care (17.5%) and Utilitarian (15.0%) groups were important, ranking just behind the Kitchen/Food group (37.5%). The Health Care group percentage mean from the AP composite hospital is unusually high in comparison to the other buildings of the AP composite fort; this high Health Care group percentage mean clearly reflects the function of the hospital.

7 CO, 0.3 Table 8: Miscellaneous Buildings in the AP composite fort, for abbreviations see Table 1. 'Granary' includes data for granaries and other storehouses.

The AP workshop pattern in Table 8 is compiled from data from the Antonine fort at Crawford and the Flavian and Antonine forts at Strageath. The high percentage of military items in this pattern is the result of clay slingshot bullets which were left in the building at Strageath when the fort was abandoned. The Flavian composite workshops (see Table 35, page 128) had a high percentage mean of the Utilitarian group (14.3%), and fairly high percentage means of the Clothing and Transportation groups (4.8% each). The Antonine composite workshops (see Table 39, page 132) do not have this high level of the Utilitarian (2.1%) and Clothing (2.1%) groups and the Transportation group is not represented at all. These differences in the patterns from the Flavian and Antonine composite workshops may reflect changes in the building's function. On the other hand, because they are compiled from data gathered from only one Flavian fort and two Antonine forts, it is possible that the different patterns are simply the result of differences in fort garrison or the transforms that may have taken place upon the abandonment and reoccupation of the Flavian forts (see pages 50, 55ff).

Areas within the Fort Several areas within the forts included in this study were excavated often enough to offer the opportunity to compare their functional group composite patterns by period. These areas include the ditches, intervallum and roads.

Ditches It is probable that the ditches of the fort received some of the rubbish removed from the fort during everyday cleaning and that the ditches themselves were 20 Throughout this analysis 'granary' and 'granaries' refer to the buildings traditionally known as granaries or horrea and those that the excavator labeled storehouse or storeroom. Although they differ architecturally, they had the same function and are considered together for analysis purposes (see page 41).

52

Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings

periodically emptied (Van Driel-Murray 1993:35). Where the refuse went after it was emptied from the ditches is unknown. At Bar Hill discarded shoes from the fort and nearby annexe or vicus were thrown into the ditches outside the ramparts and into rubbish pits dug in the interior of the fort (Robertson, Scott and Keppie 1975:23). In the north ditch of Bar Hill, situated near the baths, were many fragments of small clay bottles, "such as might have been used for holding unguents" (MacDonald and Park 1906:46), presumably discarded from the baths nearby (MacDonald and Park 1906:46). The ditches at Vindolanda (not included in this study) received rubbish from the fort or nearby vicus (Van Driel-Murray 1993:35, 43) and it is likely that the ditches of other forts also served as rubbish deposition areas.

the AP composite fort ditches (Table 9). Another composite area, that just 'outside' the AP composite fort, is also included in Table 12. It too shows differences with the AP composite ditch assemblage; the Kitchen/Food, Military, and Transportation groups have higher percentage means in the area just outside the AP composite fort than in the AP composite ditches. Ditches in t he Composite Fort s: Relative Ranking of Funct ional Groups

If it is true that the ditches received the fort's rubbish, then the functional group patterns in the ditches (see Table 9, below) might resemble those of the fort's interior (see Table 2, page 48, for results for the AP composite fort). However, this is not the case. The third ranked group in the AP composite ditch pattern is Clothing rather than Commerce, in contrast to the pattern from the AP composite fort. In the ditches the Utilitarian group percentage mean is higher in the AP composite ditches than in the AP composite fort. The AP composite ditches also have a much lower percentage mean of Military group items and a slighter lower percentage mean of Transportation items than the AP composite fort.

Rank

AP (7)

Flavian (2) A.D. 70s-90s

Hadrianic (1) A.D. 117-138

Antonine (3) A.D. 140-160s

1

KF, 80.0

KF, 84.2

KF 81.1

KF 80.7

2

UT, 9.9

HC, 7.3

CL, 2.7

CL, 7.8

3

CL, 3.0

UT, 2.2

4

CO, 2.2

HC, 1.6

5

HC, 1.5

CO, 0.4

6

ML, 0.5

ML, 0.1

7

TR 0.4

RG, 0.1

UT 7.5

8 RG 0.3 Table 9: Ditches in the Composite Forts, for abbreviations see Table 1

It is unlikely, therefore, that the assemblage found in the ditches came straight from the annexe, the area outside the fort or the fort interior without undergoing as yet unknown cultural and natural transforms. For example, the moist environment often found in the ditches usually leads to better preservation of leather items and almost certainly accounts for the larger percentage mean of Clothing group items found in the AP composite ditches than in the AP composite fort interior and the AP composite annexe. A possible cultural transform in operation on the AP composite ditch deposits may involve selective gleaning of the rubbish before it was thrown into the ditches, leading to a lower percentage of Commerce, Military and Transportation group items in the AP composite ditches than the corresponding percentages found in the AP composite fort.

The differences in the patterns between the AP composite ditches and the overall AP composite fort 21 are subtle and may not be important. However, they do seem to suggest that the rubbish in the AP composite ditches went through more transforms as secondary22 deposits than the possibly primary deposits in the AP composite fort interior. It is also possible that the rubbish in the AP composite ditches originated from selected areas of the fort, such as the barracks, and this has led to the differences visible in the assemblages. The results presented in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 do not support this hypothesis, however, because the AP composite patterns for these buildings all differ from that of the AP composite ditches.

Roads

The pattern for the AP composite annexe is presented in Table 12, page 55, below. It shows lower Utilitarian, Clothing and Commerce group percentage means and a higher percentage mean for the Health Care group than

The results for the roads in the composite forts are presented in Table 10, next page. As usual, the Kitchen/Food, Utilitarian and Commerce groups dominate the AP composite road assemblage, although the dominance of the Commerce group is due almost entirely to coins found at Newcastle (see page 55). The comparatively high percentage means of the Religion group in the AP, Flavian, Antonine, and second century composite roads are due to small items, such as figurines

21 The overall AP composite fort percentage means include those from the ditches, as well as from areas which could not be related to a specific building or area under study, but which were within the fort itself. 22 Secondary deposits are composed of artifacts which have been moved from their place of use. Primary deposits are composed of artifacts discarded at their location of use (Schiffer 1995:31).

53

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

and tazzas. The Transportation group has a relatively high percentage mean (1.8%) from the AP composite road assemblage compared to the AP composite fort as a whole (0.7%, see Table 2, page 48). This is unsurprising and most likely relates to the function of the roads.

the first four ranked groups in both areas. The Health Care group percentage mean is fairly high in the assemblages from the intervallum during the second and fourth centuries A.D. This could indicate that the intervallum might have been used for washing or even doctoring during these periods. Another possibility is that the intervallum was used for the disposal of broken glass and clay bottles and other health care items in preference to disposal in the roads or living areas such as the barracks.

Roads in t he Composite Fort s: Relat ive Ranking of Functional Groups Rank AP (7)

Flavian Antonine 2nd C (1) A.D. (4) A.D. A.D. (1) 70s-90s 140-160s

4th C A.D. (1)

1

KF, 86.6

KF, 71.4

KF, 92.3

KF, 84.2

KF, 100.0

2

UT, 5.6

RG, 14.3

UT, 3.8

UT, 5.3

3

CO, 3.1

ML, 14.3

HC, 1.4

RG, 5.3

4

TR, 1.8

RG, 1.4

5

RG, 1.1

CL, 1.2

6

HC, 0.8

7

CL, 0.6

The Intervallum in t he Composite Fort s: Relative Ranking of Funct ional Groups

8 ML, 0.3 Table 10: Roads in the Composite Forts, for abbreviations see Table 1

The AP composite road pattern might be expected to reflect the overall AP composite fort pattern, as it was presumably via the roads that rubbish was removed. In fact, the means for the first three ranked functional groups in the AP composite road pattern do resemble those from the AP composite fort interior (see Table 2) but the assemblages differ otherwise, with the Military and Clothing groups being particularly under-represented in the roads. If the coins from Newcastle are removed from consideration, the Commerce group percentage mean becomes 1.8%, which is low in comparison to the Commerce group percentage mean from the AP composite fort. It is possible that Military, Clothing and Commerce group items, presumably fairly valuable, were sometimes retrieved from the road surfaces after initial loss.

Rank

AP (8)

Ant onine (5) A.D. 140-160s

2nd C A.D. 4th C A.D. (1) (1)

1

KF, 80.6

KF, 78.1

KF, 79.2

KF, 87.5

2

UT, 9.7

UT, 14.0

UT, 6.3

HC, 12.5

3

ML, 3.2

HC, 2.0

HC, 4.2

4

HC, 2.3

CO, 1.5

CO, 2.1

5

CO, 1.5

CL, 1.5

RG, 2.1

6

CL, 0.9

ML, 1.2

7

TR, 0.5

RG, 0.4

8 RG, 0.3 Table 11: The Intervallum in the Composite Forts, for abbreviations see Table 1

Areas Outside the Fort Table 12, next page, presents the minimal data that was available from sites with 'good' ceramic reports for areas outside the AP Composite Fort. In this table 'outside' refers to artifacts that were found beyond the ditches, but were not known to be in any annexe or vicus. There were no coins found 'outside' the AP composite fort, and there are more Transportation group items found there than inside the composite fort. The AP composite annexe has a similar pattern to the AP areas 'outside' the fort, with the Kitchen/Food, Utilitarian, Clothing and Health Care groups all ranking highest. The vicus at Housesteads was included in this study but the results from the excavations there are suspect because all stratified finds were not given in the reports; however a full coin report was published, which over-emphasizes the Commerce group. The results, for what they are worth, are given in Table 34, page 127. Assuming a drastic over-emphasis on the Commerce group and equally drastic under-reporting of the Kitchen/Food groups, it can be said that the Clothing, Military and Utilitarian groups ranked fairly highly in the vicus.

Intervallum The results from the assemblages found in the intervallum are presented in Table 11, below. In the Antonine period the Utilitarian group is 14.0% of the composite intervallum assemblage, indicating that the intervallum during that period may have been used for crafts, industrial activities such as metal working or construction, and storage (see Tables 14 and 15, pages 61 and 61). It is interesting that the AP composite intervallum resembles the AP composite granaries in ranking, if not in values of percentage means, with Kitchen/Food, Utilitarian, Military and Health Care being 54

Chapter 5: Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings

of the commander's house as a dwelling for his servants and family, and give the commander's house a slightly less military flavor than the barracks. The patterns from the barracks, headquarters and other buildings of the fort also reflect the function of those buildings. These patterns, of course, are the result of the cultural transforms which took place upon the artifacts lost, discarded and left in Roman forts. In this study, these cultural transforms are taken to be the simple transforms of direct loss and discard which created primary refuse deposits. The buildings of the fort were cleaned, and the cleaning operation can be considered as another transform acting upon the primary refuse deposits locating in the buildings, although the effects of this transform upon the functional group patterns is yet undetermined.

Areas Outside the AP Composite Fort : Relat ive Ranking of Functional Groups Rank

Outside Fort (1)

Annexe (3)

1

KF, 87.6

KF, 86.4

2

UT, 5.6

HC, 3.7

3

CL, 2.2

UT, 3.6

4

HC, 1.1

CL, 1.4

5

ML, 1.1

ML, 1.3

6

TR, 1.1

CO, 0.7

7

TR, 0.4

8 RG, 0.1 Table 12: Areas Outside the AP Composite Fort (Numbers following 'Outside Fort' and 'Annexe' are the number of the forts included in the percentage means computations for each area) for abbreviations see Table 1

The differences between the pattern found in the composite ditches and those of the overall fort, areas outside the fort and the buildings of the fort interior can be explained by differing cultural transforms which worked to created the secondary deposits found in the ditches. Items found in the ditches underwent cultural transforms such as gleaning and scavenging when collected as rubbish from the forts' interior. In the ditches, the items also may have undergone natural transforms which differ from those in operation in the forts' interiors, such as water-logging.

Artifact Patterns in Forts and Buildings: Summary This chapter has examined how functional group distribution patterns differ processually, by comparing different occupation period patterns from composite forts. The Flavian and Hadrianic composite fort patterns differ from those of the AP and other periods. This difference is also apparent in the patterns from the Flavian and Hadrianic composite barracks, which have higher percentage means of Military and Transport group items than the other periods and the AP composite fort. The Flavian composite workshop pattern is also different from composite workshop patterns of the AP and other periods. These differences probably reflect varying cultural transforms which operated upon the artifacts in the Flavian and Hadrianic forts during abandonment and then subsequent reoccupation in the Antonine and postAntonine periods (see pages 49, 50, and 52). For example, the abandoned deposits were not left open as long as the abandoned deposits of subsequent periods (e.g., the Antonine). Reoccupation and rebuilding of the forts by the Romans led to the sealing of the earlier deposits, which provided less opportunity for cultural transforms such as scavenging and gleaning (including scavenging and gleaning by local native residents) to take place.

The patterns from the roads also reflect the cultural transforms of gleaning and scavenging, with lower percentage means of commerce, clothing and military items than the AP composite fort pattern. However, the large amounts of coins found in the road assemblages from Newcastle and the large amount of coins from the gate assemblage from Wallsend (see pages 49 and 53), both dating to the fourth century, offer an interesting problem. If roads and gates in Roman forts are taken, generally, to be fairly full of dirt, manure and rubbish, then the coins could have been lost from the markets speculated to be at these forts and not recovered from their dirty roads. On the other hand, the roads and gates in Roman forts could have been fairly clean and the higher coin loss at Newcastle and Wallsend during the fourth century could indicate, again, markets at those forts. However, the higher coin losses could also indicate dirtier roads only at Newcastle and Wallsend, leaving the presence of markets at other forts open to speculation. The precise cultural transforms which caused these assemblages to contain higher coin percentages have yet to be completely determined, although they must relate to the activities taking place on the roads and at the gates: potential marketing, higher loss of commerce items, and cleaning.

The patterns in the composite buildings reflect the functions of those buildings. For example, the AP composite pattern from the commander's house shows Utilitarian and Clothing groups with relatively high percentage means and the Kitchen/Food group with a lower percentage mean than the pattern from the composite barracks. These differences reflect the function

The next chapter examines patterns within each 55

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

functional group and its sub-groups. These patterns should reveal in more detail activities and activity areas within the composite fort.

56

closer to the communal cluster.

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

The breakdown of the Kitchen/Food group into subgroups (Table 13, page 59, and Table 1, page 46, for more information on each sub-group) shows distinct differences in the composition of the Kitchen/Food group from the various areas and buildings of the AP composite fort. For example, when comparing the barracks, intervallum and roads of the AP composite fort, the highest storage sub-group percentage mean comes from the intervallum. The storage sub-group percentage mean from the barracks is lower than that from the intervallum, and the percentage mean from the roads is lower than that from the barracks. The percentage mean for the preparation sub-group from the intervallum is also higher than the corresponding percentage means from the barracks and the roads. The eating sub-group comprises almost half of the Kitchen/Food group assemblage found in the barracks. This sub-group comprises far less of the assemblage from the roads and the intervallum. The percentage mean of drinking sub-group artifacts from the roads is higher than that from the barracks and the intervallum.

Patterns amongst functional groups for different occupation periods in the composite fort are examined in Chapter 5 and conclusions about the cultural transforms which created the assemblages in different areas and buildings of the composite forts are drawn. This chapter presents the patterns within each functional group and its sub-groups in the AP composite fort. The sub-group patterns from different areas are particularly informative because they vary greatly and show, in greater detail and nuance than the main functional group pattern, possible locations of cultural activities. The tables in each section below show the breakdown of the functional groups into their sub-groups. In these tables the sub-group values are their percentage mean of each functional group, not their percentage mean of total artifacts. The numbers after the building and area labels indicate the number of sites which supplied data for each composite building or area. As discussed in Chapter 5 (page 47), the greater the number of sites which supplied data to compute the percentage means, the greater the reliability of those percentage means. If a functional group was not present in the AP composite assemblage from a particular area or building that area or building is not presented in these tables.

These results show that Kitchen/Food activities in these three communal locations from the AP composite fort (barracks, intervallum and roads) were quite different. Eating took place in the barracks, while storage and food preparation seem to have been activities undertaken more often in the intervallum. The relatively high percentage mean for drinking sub-group items from the roads may reflect tasks such as fetching water or other substances stored in jars (such as food from the granaries, see pages 43 and 59), and subsequent breakage along the roads between the barracks and the source of water or food.

The figures in this chapter were created from the data presented in Tables 33 and 34, page 126-127. In the tables in this chapter, as elsewhere in this study, results from granaries and storerooms are combined under the title 'granaries' because granaries and storerooms share the same function (see page 41). Therefore the buildings labeled 'storeroom' and 'granary' on this Chapter's figures should be considered as functional, albeit not architectural, equivalents.

Table 13, page 59, shows that the lowest percentage means of eating sub-group items from the AP composite fort are from the granaries, the headquarters, the gates and the baths; these are places that probably would not have seen much eating activity. The AP composite commander's house has a lower eating sub-group percentage mean than the barracks. This could, perhaps, be due to a lower number of inhabitants in the commander's house, with subsequent less need for and less breakage of pottery. Another factor to account for the difference in eating sub-group percentage means between the AP composite commander's house and barracks might be relative cleanliness. Perhaps the commander's house was cleaned more often than the barracks.

Kitchen/Food Group The pattern of the Kitchen/Food group in the AP composite fort shows several trends (Figure 15, next page). Communal areas and buildings in the AP composite fort, including the roads, barracks, latrines, bath and intervallum, produced assemblages made up in large proportion of items in the Kitchen/Food group. Those buildings and areas which were possibly restricted by either status or function, the headquarters, the commander's house, the gates, the ovens and the granaries, all show much lower percentages of Kitchen/Food group items in the AP composite fort. AP composite workshops lie between the two clusters, albeit

The areas with the highest percentage means of preparation sub-group items from the AP composite fort are the intervallum, the commander's house, the headquarters, and the workshops. The presence of preparation sub-group items in the AP composite fort 57

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 15: Kitchen/Food Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

58

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

intervallum is likely due to the preparation of meals in the fires and ovens known to have been situated in that area. Preparation sub-group items from the commander's house and the intervallum are not generally mortaria but rather coarse-ware cooking pots (see Tables Tables 25 and 26, pages 77 and 78, and pages 77ff for more on mortaria usage).

being captured in drains or falling through cracks in the floor into the hypocausts of the bath. Kit chen/Food Sub-Groups, Sites with Good Stratification Percentage Means of AP Kitchen/Food Group

Drink sub-group items (see Table 13, below) include jugs and jars that could be used to hold dry goods such as grain, liquids for drinking, water for drinking and washing, etc, as well as drinking cups and glasses. It is not surprising, therefore, that drink sub-group items from the AP composite fort turn up in higher percentage means in the annexe baths, the granaries and the commander's house. There are low percentages of these items in the AP composite drains, ramparts, intervallum and just outside the fort, but a very high percentage comes from the ovens. The results from the AP composite ovens are not very reliable and this percentage could be an anomaly. However, it is possible the cooks using the ovens might have needed drinks for the hot work of baking, or were heating food in jugs in the ovens. The drinking sub-group items found in the roads are discussed above, page 57. The AP composite granaries, unsurprisingly, have a fairly large percentage of storage vessels (Table 13, below) amongst their Kitchen/Food assemblage. However, the AP composite gates, baths in the annexe, latrines and drains also have large percentage means of storage subgroup items. In some cases this might be explained by amphorae or jugs being turned into water cisterns and/or urinals.

location

eat ing prep.

storage

drink

knife

overall (12)

34.9

24.5

17.9

11.0

1.0

barracks (8)

44.5

25.6

18.6

8.1

0.3

com. house (5)

36.8

35.8

9.9

15.0

0.3

headquarters (6)

25.3

34.1

27.3

9.7

0.7

workshop (2)

44.7

34.4

6.2

9.4

1.5

granaries (3)

18.6

26.9

33.7

18.8

0.6

ovens (2)

50.0

0.0

12.5

37.5

0.0

roads (7)

37.5

25.6

12.1

14.3

0.6

gates (3)

22.3

25.3

40.7

6.2

0.0

ditches (7)

33.3

30.4

25.7

9.5

0.2

drains (2)

48.9

16.0

30.7

3.3

0.0

intervallum (8)

29.1

38.9

22.7

5.3

3.4

ramparts (4)

38.0

18.2

29.4

12.7

0.0

latrines (1)

40.0

20.0

33.3

6.7

0.0

baths (in fort) (1) 23.8

10.5

11.2

9.1

1.4

bath (annexe) (1) 26.7

16.7

30.0

23.3

3.3

annexe (3)

11.3

20.8

13.0

0.8

43.9

'outside' (1) 33.3 17.9 29.5 3.8 Table 13: Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort

A Kitchen/Food sub-group that is not included in Table 13 is composed of 'unknown' ceramic sherds. These are sherds which were too small or abraded to be classified or were lumped together in a fabric classification in an excavation report, with no form given. This sub-group comprises no more than about 10% of the assemblages from all the AP composite fort areas and buildings except the bath within the fort (see Tables 59 and 60, pages 152 and 153).

2.6

Utilitarian Group The Utilitarian group is composed of a mixture of different kinds of artifacts (see Table 1, page 46, for more information). All tools, most recognizable raw materials, furniture fittings, fixtures, small unidentifiable pieces of clothing or armor or harness fittings (called studs in Table 1 and subsequent tables concerning the Utilitarian group) gaming pieces and boards, writing tools, lamps and more are included in this group. The breakdown of the group into sub-groups has proved to be especially illuminating, as the overall percentage means of the main group mask some large differences in its components. The Utilitarian group pattern from the AP composite fort group is shown in Figure 16, page 62 and the group's breakdown into sub-groups is shown in Tables 14 and 15, pages 61 and 61. In the AP composite fort (Figure 16) the gates stand out with the highest Utilitarian percentage mean. The AP composite granaries also have a fairly high percentage mean of Utilitarian items and the AP composite ditches, drains and intervallum percentage

The AP composite bath within the fort is based on an assemblage from only one site, Bewcastle. At this site the Kitchen/Food 'unknown' sub-group comprised 44.1% of the Kitchen/Food items from the bath. The bath at Bewcastle was excavated many years before the final report was written. In fact, two of the authors of the report were not involved with the original excavation (see Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993). It is impossible to tell from the excavation report if the sherds that are classified as 'unknown' were too small to determine form, although this seems likely to be the case. If so, the high percentage mean of 'unknown' sherds might be due to the sherds 59

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

means cluster together after the value for the granaries. The AP composite headquarters and commander's house percentage means are well above the percentage means of the AP composite barracks and workshops.

likely reflects the activities which commonly took place in that house. This reinforces the findings from Chapter 5 (page 50) which show that the overall pattern for the AP commander's house, reflecting the functions of that residence, is different than the pattern from the AP composite barracks.

The breakdown of Utilitarian sub-groups in the AP composite fort, shown in Tables 14 and 15, both on the next page, is very helpful in exploring the differences in Utilitarian group patterns and functions amongst buildings and areas. The AP composite headquarters building has a relatively high Utilitarian group percentage mean (Figure 16, page 62). In this building many of the Utilitarian items are in the stud23 or game sub-groups (Tables 14 and 15). The bulk of the rest of the Utilitarian group items from the AP composite headquarters are in the writing, metal working and construction tool subgroups. Perhaps tools, which may in some instances be considered military equipment (e.g., the dolabra), were stored in the headquarters along with weapons. The game items, consisting mostly of gaming pieces, could relate to more than the board games popular in the Roman empire (Shelton 1988:309). They could have been used as accounting markers in the offices in the AP composite headquarters, for instance.

The percentage means of the Utilitarian sub-groups in the workshops (Tables 14 and 15, both on the next page) also reveal the activities which went on in the workshops. The most predominant of the sub-groups from the workshops are 'other' and fire. Most prevalent after them are the glass and game sub-groups. This Utilitarian sub-group pattern from the composite workshops resembles that of the AP composite granaries in some respects, with metal working in the AP composite granary pattern replaced by glass working in the AP composite workshop pattern. The workshop composite pattern reflects the use of these buildings as general storehouses as well as for glass working and some metal working. However, the composite workshop pattern is formed from only two forts (see Table 8, page 52) and more data on workshops are needed to confirm this conclusion. A Utilitarian sub-group which is not broadly distributed is the lamp sub-group (Table 14, below). These items comprised 16.7% of the hospital, 14.3% of the intervallum and 2.4% of the annexe Utilitarian assemblages. The lamps, according to the excavator of Wallsend, are "frequently found as grave furniture" (Hodgson 2003:140) and are believed to be linked to death and religion. They are not often found at Hadrian's Wall forts and perhaps show one of the functions of the hospital at Wallsend (Hodgson 2003:140). The lamps in the intervallum come from Crawford, and that found in the annexe comes from Cramond near the location of a small infant burial (Holmes 2003 :31). The lamps in the intervallum were most likely used for lighting. They are made of metal, unlike the pottery lamps from the hospital at Wallsend (Croom 2003:227). However, it is at least possible that the lamps in the intervallum were related to religious functions and the intervallum at Crawford was used at one point for honoring the dead.

The AP composite granaries, which have the highest Utilitarian percentage mean (see Figure 16, page 62) from the buildings of the AP composite fort, have items in the metalworking, fire and 'other' sub-groups (Tables 14 and 15). The fire sub-group is made up of items which indicate hearths or fire pits, not the burning of a building (e.g., by accident, warfare or with rebuilding or abandonment), although it can be difficult to differentiate the two. If these buildings were used exclusively for storage, then it seems unlikely that metalworking items and the hearths that are needed for metalworking would have been present in the granaries. The hearths, however, might have been used for keeping grain dry. The 'other' sub-group includes objects such as locks and keys, pulleys, ropes, buckets, discs, barrels, bungs, grappling hooks, bells, etc (see Table 1, page 46, for more information). The high percentage mean of this sub-group in the AP composite granaries supports the notion that more was stored in these buildings than foodstuffs.

There were several Utilitarian sub-groups from the AP composite fort which did not have enough objects to merit listing in Tables 14 and 15 (see Tables 64-68, pages 157-161). The antler working sub-group was 5.0% of the Utilitarian group assemblage from the AP composite roads and 2.4% of the Utilitarian group assemblage from the AP composite intervallum. Leather working subgroup items comprised 26.1% of the Utilitarian group assemblage 'outside' the AP composite fort, 7.1% of the Utilitarian group items in the annexe and 0.3% of the Utilitarian group items in the barracks. The leather

The AP composite commander's house has less Utilitarian group items than the granaries and headquarters, but more than the barracks. Many of the Utilitarian group items from the commander's house relate to textiles, writing and games. Also well represented are the fire and the stud sub-groups. Evidence for working with glass or metal or wood is low in the commander's house. This pattern in Utilitarian subgroups from the AP composite commander's house most 23 The stud sub-group is a catchall category for small clothing, armor and harness fittings (see previous page and Table 1, page 46).

60

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

Ut ilitarian Sub-Groups, Stratified Finds 24 Percent age Means of AP Utilit arian Group Part 1

Locat ion

Other

St ud

Text

Tool

Wood

Write

Met al

Lamp

Glass

Game

Furnishings

Fire

Const ruct ion

Location

Utilit arian Sub-Groups, St rat ified Finds 25 Percentage Means of AP Ut ilitarian Group Part 2

overall (15)

14.1

17.7

6.1

0.4

2.7

1.2

barracks (11)

24.3

15.2

4.1

0.3

4.1

1.5

overall (15)

4.2

6.5

3.0

15.2 1.4

1.5

19.5

com. house (7)

4.0

11.3

37.5

1.6

0.8

12.5

barracks (11)

0.9

22.4 6.7

12.8 0.3

0.0

3.7

headquarters (8)

0.0

30.7

0.0

0.0

4.0

8.0

com. house (7)

0.0

15.8 0.0

11.6 0.8

0.0

4.0

workshop (2)

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

headquarters (8)

10.7

4.0

28.0 1.4

0.0

14.7

granaries (4)

23.6

8.3

8.3

0.0

2.8

2.8

workshop (2)

0.0

33.3 0.0

16.7 16.7 0.0

0.0

hospital (1)

16.7

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

granaries (4)

0.0

16.7 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

37.5

roads (8)

5.4

16.4

4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

hospital (1)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.7 33.3

gates (4)

0.0

12.5

18.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

roads (8)

1.4

15.7 7.1

16.1 0.0

0.0

28.6

ditches (8)

19.0

0.0

4.8

4.2

8.3

16.7

gates (4)

25.0

25.0 12.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.3

drains (3)

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

18.2 0.0

ditches (8)

2.4

29.2 0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

13.1

intervallum (8)

9.5

14.3

3.6

0.0

1.8

0.0

drains (3)

4.5

4.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.7

ramparts (4)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

intervallum (8)

17.9

8.9

2.4

9.5

0.0

14.3 15.5

bath (fort) (2)

10.0

20.0

20.0

0.0

10.0 0.0

ramparts (4)

0.0

50.0 0.0

50.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

bath (ann) (1)

0.0

7.1

64.3

0.0

14.3 0.0

bath (fort) (2)

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

20.0 0.0

10.0

annexe (3)

0.0

7.1

2.4

2.4

7.1

8.1

bath (ann) (1)

0.0

0.0

7.1

7.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

40.0 4.8

2.4

0.0

2.4

13.8

'outside' (4) 1.4 4.0 1.4 0.0 0.5 Table 15: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort, Part 2

0.0

annexe (3)

'outside' (4) 0.0 20.0 0.5 8.8 0.0 0.0 Table 14: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort, Part 1

37.3

0.0

0.0

are only three textiles known from the forts included in this study.

working items 'outside' the fort are almost entirely due to the finds from Housesteads, where the excavator believes rubbish from the fort was thrown over the ramparts (Crow 1988:65,73). 0.3% of the Utilitarian group assemblage in the AP composite barracks was composed of clay working objects. Clay working items appeared nowhere else.

Figure 17, page 64, shows that Clothing group items are generally scattered widely over the communal areas of the AP composite fort, albeit they comprise only a small part of the total assemblages from these areas. The result for the AP composite ovens is probably spurious, being provided by a single shoe found at Strageath. There were no clothing group items found on the AP composite ramparts or in the AP composite latrines. In the AP composite fort the baths, the commander's house, gates, and granaries all have higher Clothing group percentage means than the workshops, headquarters, barracks and intervallum.

Clothing Group Clothing group artifacts consist of brooches, pins, fasteners, leather clothing, shoes, finger rings, intaglios, hair ornaments, belts, purses, buckles, shoes, collars and more (see Table 1, page 46, for a complete listing); artifacts that often are small and perhaps easily lost. Textiles also comprise part of this group; however, there

The Clothing group percentage means from the AP composite fort are broken down into sub-groups in Table 16, page 63 (see Table 1, page 46, for more information on the Clothing sub-groups). In general the jewelry sub-

24 The percentages in this table are internal to the Utilitarian group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Utilitarian group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

25 The percentages in this table are internal to the Utilitarian group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Utilitarian group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

61

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 16: Utilitarian Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

62

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

group comprises the highest percentage mean of Clothing group items from most areas of the AP composite fort. The jewelry sub-group consists of rings, intaglios, bangles, hair ornaments, armlets, brooches, charms, inlays, and hair pins and is further discussed in Chapter 7 (page 76) with respect to the question of the presence of women in the fort.

cloak fasteners, clothing tags, etc (see Table 1, page 46). There seem to be no significant trends in the distribution of percentage means from the 'other' sub-group in the AP composite fort.

Clot hing Sub-Groups, Stratified Finds 26 Percent age Means of AP Clot hing Group

The Commerce group consists mostly of coins, although coin molds, weights for measuring, and coin blanks are also included in the group. The distribution of the Commerce group in the AP composite fort is given in Figure 18, page 66. The high percentage mean in the AP composite commander's house is influenced by the finds from the Severan composite commander's house, where 80% of the finds were coins. This high percentage is not echoed in other periods; in the second century the assemblage from the composite commander's house was only 3.0% Commerce items, and in the Antonine period that number was 2.8%.

locat ion

Clothing Jewelry

Other

Shoe

overall (15)

3.8

69.4

7.0

19.7

barracks (11)

0.0

75.9

14.1

10.0

com. house (7)

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

headquarters (8)

0.0

55.6

33.3

11.1

workshop (2)

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

granaries (4)

0.0

70.0

30.0

0.0

hospital (1)

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

ovens (3)

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

roads (8)

0.0

66.7

33.3

0.0

gates (4)

0.0

94.4

5.6

0.0

ditches (8)

16.7

22.2

0.0

61.1

drains (3)

0.0

87.5

0.0

12.5

intervallum (8)

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

baths in fort (1)

0.0

91.7

8.3

0.0

bath (annexe) (1)

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

annexe (3)

1.9

59.6

0.0

38.5

'outside' (4)

0.0

84.2

3.5

12.3

vicus (1) 0.0 66.7 33.3 Table 16: Clothing Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort

Commerce Group

The fairly high Commerce group percentage mean from the AP composite headquarters is not surprising. The sacellum, one of the rooms in the rear-range in the headquarters, held the unit's treasury, standards and shrine (Johnson 1983:112-113). It is likely the unit's soldiers were paid from the headquarters. Figure 18, page 66, makes it clear that in the AP composite fort Commerce group items are only present in low amounts in open public areas such as the roads. The Commerce group percentage mean from the intervallum also is low. The open public areas of the fort may have been selectively gleaned for lost coins, resulting in the low percentage means of Commerce group items from those areas. There are stratified coins found in the roads and gates at Newcastle and Wallsend in the fourth century (see Tables 47 and 48, pages 140 and 141). The occurrence of these coins reflects the presence of markets at these forts during this time, according to the excavators (see page 55).

0.0

The 'clothing' sub-group, composed of textiles and pieces of leather tunics and neck-bands (see Table 1, page 46), is found in the AP composite ditches and in one case, the AP composite annexe. These areas also have high percentage means of the shoe sub-group (shoes and hobnails). It is not surprising that wet areas, such as ditches, where the preservation of leather and textiles is favorable, show higher percentage means of the clothing and shoe sub-groups.

The Commerce group is probably over-represented in the non-stratified data which are included in Appendix 5 (pages 125-165), as coins were some of the first items to attract archaeological attention. One of the sites in the study, Carrawburgh, has a temple in its vicus which was explored in the nineteenth century. Over 13,000 coins came from this temple, but unfortunately all these coins were unstratified, and thousands were lost when workmen took them and when J. Collingwood Bruce had the defaced bronzes melted down to make a statue (Allason-Jones and McKay 1985:50-52).

The 'other' sub-group of the Clothing group (Table 15, above) is comprised of leather ties, furs, toggles, purses, bags, satchels, belts and buckles, button-loop fasteners, 26 The percentages in this table are internal to the Clothing group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Clothing group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

63

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 17: Clothing Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

64

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

The AP composite annexe, baths in the annexe, vicus, ditches, roads and hospital all have high percentages of the military apparel sub-group (Table 17, above). It might be expected that the AP composite barracks would have a fairly high percentage of military apparel items, but they do not. It is possible apparel items were recovered more often upon loss in the AP composite barracks. The higher percentages of apparel sub-group items in the AP composite annexe and vicus suggest that these items might have been stored in those areas.

Military Group The Military group pattern for the AP composite fort is presented in Figure 19, page 68. The Military group percentage means from the AP composite headquarters, granaries and workshops are relatively high. All of these buildings may have been used to store Military group items (see pages 39 and 51-52). Military Sub-Groups, Stratified Finds 27 Percent age Means of AP Military Group Location

Apparel

Housing

Weapons

overall (15)

27.6

10.3

62.2

barracks (11)

8.5

6.7

84.8

com. house (7)

14.3

0.0

85.7

headquarters (8)

0.0

25.0

75.0

workshop (2)

3.6

0.0

96.4

granaries (4)

3.7

0.0

96.3

hospital (1)

100.0

0.0

0.0

ovens (3)

0.0

0.0

100.0

roads (8)

50.0

0.0

50.0

ditches (8)

83.3

0.0

16.7

intervallum (8)

0.0

0.0

100.0

ramparts (4)

100.0

0.0

0.0

baths (in fort) (2)

0.0

100.0

0.0

bath (annexe) (1)

66.7

0.0

33.3

annexe (3)

90.0

6.7

3.3

'outside' (4)

11.9

11.9

76.2

vicus (1) 75.0 0.0 Table 17: Military Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort

The housing sub-group of the Military group includes tents and pieces of tents, spikes and tent pegs (see Table 1, page 46). The only AP composite buildings to hold housing sub-group items were the headquarters, barracks and baths (see Table 17, above). The housing sub-group items from the AP composite baths were comprised of two spikes. It is probable that these spikes from the baths were not used for military housing, but rather served another function. The weapons sub-group of the Military group consists of spears, arrows, bows, swords, daggers, slings, sling bullets, arrowheads, catapult bolts, shields, dagger sheaths and knives if they were given a military attribution (see page 43 for more on knife classification). Most locations in the AP composite fort produced items from the weapons sub-group. Those locations with high percentage means of the weapons sub-group include the AP composite workshops and granaries. These buildings also had the highest percentage means of Military group items in the AP composite fort (see Figure 19, page 68), and, as mentioned above, page 65, probably served as storage areas for these items. It is possible weapons were made or repaired in the AP composite granaries (see page 60).

25.0

Transportation Group

The division of the Military group into sub-groups is presented in Table 17, above. The apparel sub-group includes armor, helmets, military belts and fittings, etc (see Table 1, page 46). This sub-group may be underrepresented, as belts also appear in the Clothing 'other' sub-group and small pieces of armor or belt or strap fittings might be found in the Utilitarian stud subgroup. When an object was classed by the excavator or small-finds expert as military it was included in the Military group. If the exact function was unknown the object was put into one of the groups mentioned previously.

The distribution of the Transportation group throughout the AP composite fort is given in Figure 20, page 70. Transportation group items never form a very large percentage mean of the assemblage from any of the AP composite buildings or areas. The areas with the highest percentage means of Transportation group items inside the AP composite fort are the gates and roads. The commander's house produced the next highest ranking inside the AP composite fort, perhaps due to the small stables attached to some of these buildings, as at Housesteads (Charlesworth 1975:26-27). For more on Transportation group items in the barracks see page 49.

27 The percentages in this table are internal to the Military group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Military group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

65

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 18: Commerce Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

66

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

The vast majority of the Transportation group items from the AP composite fort consist of harness, as can be seen in Table 18, below (see Table 1, page 46, for more on Transportation sub-groups). The cart sub-group is found in the Transportation group assemblages from the AP composite roads, gates, ditches, granaries, barracks and annexe. Carts would have been used to transport goods on the roads and through the gates. Those goods would have been unloaded at the granaries, and the carts may have been stored in the annexe or near the granaries.

The distribution of Health Care group percentage means in the AP Composite fort is given in Figure 21, page 71. In the AP composite fort the granaries and headquarters have larger Health Care percentage means than the barracks, and the barracks in turn have a higher percentage mean than the commander's house. The AP composite baths in both the fort and the annexe have smaller percentage means of Health Care objects than the AP composite intervallum. As suggested in Chapter 5 (page 54) the higher percentage mean from the AP composite intervallum could be due to the discard of broken bottles or perhaps activities like washing and doctoring.

Transport ation Sub-Groups, Stratified Finds 28 Percent age Means of AP Transportat ion Group locat ion

Cart

Farrier

Harness

Other

overall (15)

30.3

0.0

69.2

0.3

barracks (11)

5.7

0.8

93.6

0.0

com. house (7)

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

headquarters (8)

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

workshop (2)

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

granaries (4)

33.3

0.0

66.7

0.0

roads (8)

50.0

0.0

50.0

0.0

gates (4)

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ditches (8)

50.0

0.0

50.0

0.0

intervallum (8)

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

bath (annexe) (1) 0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

annexe (3)

12.5

12.5

75.0

0.0

'outside' (4)

0.0

0.0

100.0

0.0

The Health Care group percentage mean from the AP composite hospital (see Tables 33 and 34, pages 126 and 127 in the appendices) is 17.5%. This is computed from stratified data from excavation reports which do not include good ceramic analyses and is therefore not directly comparable to the numbers presented in Figure 21, page 71. However, it is instructive that the Health Care group percentage mean from the AP composite hospital is by far the largest of all the buildings and areas in the AP composite pattern. Almost all of the Health Care group objects fall into the body sub-group (Table 19, below, lists the areas that have items from the other Health Care sub-groups). This subgroup includes items concerned with body care: cosmetics, unguent jars, perfume jars and bottles, mirrors, brushes, small glass bottles, combs, tweezers, ear picks, ligulae (which can also be placed in the surgical subgroup), nail cutters, etc (see Table 1, page 46).

vicus (1) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Table 18: Transportation Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort

Healt h Care Sub-Groups, Stratified Finds 29 Percentage Means of AP Healt h Care Group

The farrier sub-group of the Transportation group is composed of horseshoes and farrier equipment. A very small amount of farrier sub-group items was found in the AP composite barracks, and there is some from the AP composite annexes as well. The 'other' sub-group of the Transportation group is composed of one item, an ox goad found at Strageath in a building that could have been a workshop, storehouse or stable.

Location

Body

Bone

Surgical

Wash

overall (15)

97.7

0.0

0.7

1.6

barracks (11)

96.5

0.0

2.1

1.4

hospital (1)

71.4

0.0

0.0

28.6

'outside' (4)

95.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

vicus (1) 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 Table 19: Health Care Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort (Areas with 100% Body Sub-Group Not Included in this Table)

Health Care Group

28 The percentages in this table are internal to the Transportation group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Transportation group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

29 The percentages in this table are internal to the Health Care group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Health Care group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

67

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 19: Military Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

68

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

The next most prevalent sub-group after the body subgroup is the wash sub-group (see Table 19, previous page). This is composed of washing basins, strigils, jars or vessels or beakers for pouring water, olive oil containers for the baths, bath flasks and so on. There was one item in the surgical sub-group, which consists of surgical instruments, found in the AP composite barracks.

Outside the fort there was an infant burial (burial subgroup in Table 20) in the annexe at Cramond. No stratified tombstones (tombstone sub-group) were found, although there are unstratified tombstones from Ardoch, Birrens, Bar Hill, Housesteads, Carrawburgh and Mumrills (see Tables 33 and 34, pages 126 and 127). Of possible religious significance are the lamps found at Crawford, Wallsend, and Cramond. These are discussed with the Utilitarian group on page 60 above.

None of the items in the bone sub-group, which consists of human bones, were found inside the AP composite fort. The vicus at Housesteads produced the only adult human skeletons in this study. They were a male and female, buried in a house under a thick layer of clean clay. A sword was found with them and was apparently the means by which they were killed (Birley, Charlton and Hedley 1933:87-90).

Religion Sub-Groups, Stratified Finds 30 Percent age Means of AP Religion Group Locat ion

Altars

Burials

Tombst ones

Other

overall (15)

12.5

0.0

0.0

87.5

headquarters (8)

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

Religion Group

barracks (11)

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

ditches (8)

25.0

0.0

0.0

75.0

Very few Religious items were found stratified in the composite forts or composite fort environs. The Religion group pattern from the AP composite fort is shown in Figure 22, page 72. Little can be said about this pattern of distribution, except that the AP composite headquarters is the only building where religious items were found, which is not surprising considering one of its rooms held the unit's shrine. The Religion group percentage mean from the AP composite corner towers is quite high in comparison to other areas of the AP composite fort. This may be an anomaly; the result comes from one fort (Cramond). When considering all stratified items, not just those included in reports with good ceramic analysis, there are also some religion group items found in the AP composite vicus (0.7%, see Tables 33 and 34, pages 126 and 127) and there is one religion group item from the AP composite barracks, comprising 0.03% of the assemblage from that building.

ramparts (4)

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

roads (8)

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

intervallum (8)

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

corner towers (2) 0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

'outside' (4)

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

annexe (3)

0.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

vicus (1) 100.0 0.0 0.0 Table 20: Religion Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort

0.0

Animal Group Animal Remains, Percent age Means of Total Animal Assemblage AP Composite Fort sheepgoat

other

seafood

pig

0.7 0.9

0.3

7.3

9.4

deer

horse

5.0

all 43.5 1.6 1.1 6.2 21.7 4.6 4.2 8.2 Table 21: Animal Remains, Percentage Means of Total Animal Assemblage, AP Composite Fort

8.9

75.4

fowl

0.5 0.5

stratified

dog

bovine

87.5% of the Religion group assemblage from the AP composite fort belongs to the 'other' sub-group (Table 20, below). This sub-group includes priapii, small statues, tazza, figurines, etc (see Table 1, page 46). Table 20 shows that the other 12.5% of the Religion group assemblage from the AP composite fort belongs to the altar sub-group. The stratified altars came from the AP composite ditches, intervallum and vicus. Unstratified altars also came from the AP composite headquarters, barracks, roads and 'outside' the fort (see Tables 33 and 34, pages 126 and 127). Many of these were reused, especially those in the barracks and roads, and it is unlikely that any of these are in original contexts, with the probable exception of those from the headquarters buildings.

As discussed in Chapter 5 (page 47), the animal group data are of limited utility because the faunal analyses from the excavation reports used in this study are not complete. The distribution of this group across the AP 30 The percentages in this table are internal to the Religion group, and not directly comparable to the Kitchen/Food group percentages. Therefore data from all stratified Religion group items, not just those from forts with good ceramic reports, are included in this table.

69

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 20: Transportation Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

70

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

Figure 21: Health Care Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

71

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 22: Religion Group Distribution in the AP Composite Fort (drawn by J. N. Giles)

72

Chapter 6: Patterns in Functional Groups

composite fort is not reliable. Therefore, no distribution tables or figures are given here, although Tables 54 and 55, pages 147 and 148 in the appendices, lists what animal data was found in the composite forts. Some accumulative data on type of animal are available, and the results are given in Table 21 page 69 .

Patterns In Functional Groups: Summary Functional group and sub-groups distribution patterns were examined in this chapter in order to determine the locations and types of activities within the AP composite fort. These patterns are taken to be the result of the cultural transforms which created primary and secondary deposits within the forts and which are discussed in Chapter 5. The results in this chapter broadly confirm those of the previous chapter. In most cases, the function of a building in the composite fort is confirmed by the functional subgroups found within it. However, nuance and detail are revealed by these sub-groupings and discussed in the pages above. The data gathered and computerized for this study can be used to create distribution patterns for artifact attributes other than function. The next chapter discusses the presence of women in the forts through an examination of the distribution of shoes, women's jewelry and textile equipment. The question of the status of the forts' inhabitants is also discussed through examination of the distribution patterns of various kinds of ceramics.

73

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

74

children, and shoes in these sizes are amongst the artifacts included in the study database. Unfortunately the most common shoes found are used cast-offs deposited in the ditches and pits of the forts; these are unlikely to be in a primary context.

Chapter 7 : Further Questions The database developed for this study includes many different formal attributes of the artifacts discovered in Romano-British forts (see Table 30, pages 89-90). The formal attribute of function was used in Chapters 5 and 6 to develop patterns based on artifact function and spatial dimension. Formal attributes other than an artifact's function can be used to explore different aspects of the cultural system operating in Roman forts and the AP composite fort which represents them in this study. In this chapter the question of the presence of women (and to a lesser degree children) amongst the fort inhabitants is explored. The status of the inhabitants of different areas of the AP composite fort also is examined.

All Known Shoes from t he AP Composite Fort Stratified Shoes Location

Total

Women's and Children's

#

Women in Roman Forts There is evidence for women, coming from "every social stratum and every province of the Empire" (AllasonJones 1989:50), associated with the Roman army in Britain. The wives and families of commanding officers and junior officers such as centurions and decurions are known, through textual and tombstone evidence, to have lived with their husbands. For example, amongst the fill of a boggy area in the central range of the fort at Vindolanda were found letters sent by the wife of the commander to various friends (e.g., Bowman 1994:51ff, 127-128). Tombstones survive which mention the wives of soldiers; several tombstones at the cemetery outside the fort at Brougham were put up by wives for their husbands (Fitzpatrick 2004:432).

#

% of Tot al

Headquarters

1

0

0

Barracks

2

0

0

Ditches

4

1

25%

Ovens

1

0

0

Drains

1

0

0

Unknown within Fort

26

0

0

Annexe

20

2

10%

'Outside'

14

0

0 All Shoes

Location

Total

Women's and Children's

#

Burials and cremations of women and children are amongst the best evidence we have for their presence in a community. There are very limited amounts of this type of evidence in the study database; an infant burial was found in the annexe at Cramond (Holmes 2003:31; see pages 60, 69), and a woman was buried under a floor alongside a man in the Housesteads vicus (Birley, Charlton and Hedley 1933:87-90; and see page 67). Women's, children's and infants' cremations were found at the cemetery at Brougham Roman fort in amounts which suggest they were an important part of the community which centered around the fort and its associated settlement. There were 27 known female, 24 known male and 38 infant or immature cremations identified out of a total of 227 from the cemetery at Brougham (Cool 2004b:309).

#

% of Tot al

Headquarters

1

0

0

Barracks

2

0

0

Ditches

6

1

16.7%

Ovens

1

0

0

Drains

1

0

0

Unknown within Fort

1000

48

14.8%

Annexe

20

2

10%

'Outside' 14 0 0 Table 22: All Known Shoes from the AP Composite Fort

The AP composite fort buildings produced very low amounts of shoes from stratified contexts (see Table 22, above). None of the stratified women's and children's shoes were found within the ramparts of the AP composite fort, although some were found in the AP composite ditches. The overall percentage of women's and children's shoes from the AP composite fort is 2.8%. If all discoveries of shoes are considered (see Table 22), whether stratified or unstratified, the percentage of women's and children's shoes in the AP composite fort rises to 14.7%. In the annexe of the AP composite fort, 10% of the shoes found were in sizes suitable for women or children.

Another type of evidence for women and children are artifacts worn by them. For example, there are some sizes of shoe which can only have been worn by women and

The evidence of epigraphy, texts, burials, cremations and 75

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

shoes discussed above shows that women and children were present in or around Romano-British forts, but with the exception of officer's families, the precise location of where these women and children lived is unknown from this evidence. It is generally assumed that soldier's wives and families, apart from those of the officers, lived in the settlements around the forts (Allason-Jones 1989:60) as opposed to inside the fort itself.

was used by a woman, and so hair pins were flagged as possibly belonging to women when entered in the Jewelry sub-group. Also flagged as possibly belonging to women were bangles, armlets, earrings, bracelets, and hair-rings. Table 23, above, lists the percentages of jewelry sub-group items flagged as possibly belonging to women from each area and building of the AP Composite fort. Results are given for both stratified and all (stratified and unstratified) jewelry sub-group items.

Two other types of evidence might provide clues as to where women lived within and around the forts. One type of evidence is jewelry items which might have belonged to women. The other is textile equipment. Unfortunately, both of these types of evidence do not usually indicate children and there is little other evidence in the database developed for this study for children beyond shoes and the infant's burial from Cramond (see previous page). A baby feeding bottle was found in the ditch at Mumrills (Steer 1961:122), and a possible toy ax was recovered from a ditch at Cramond (Holmes 2003:112).

Textile Equipment : Percent ages of Utilit arian Group From t he AP Composit e Fort Location

Jewelry Sub-Group of Clothing Group: Possible Women's It ems from the AP Composite Fort (percentage of tot al Jewelry Sub-Group) Location

St rat ified Finds

All Finds

Headquarters

33.3%

25.0%

Commander's House

12.2%

11.6%

Barracks

2.4%

20.0%

Granary

0.0%

0.0%

Workshop

25.0%

25.0%

Bath

0.0%

12.5%

Bath in Annexe

40.0%

5.2%

Ditch

0.0%

0.0%

Rampart

0.0%

33.3%

Drains

0.0%

0.0%

Roads

66.7%

45.5%

Intervallum

33.3%

33.3%

Gates

50.0%

54.5%

Corner Towers

N/A

0.0%

Undetermined Location

13.3%

8.7%

'Outside'

4.2%

4.0%

Stratified

All Finds

overall

6.1

13.1

barracks

4.1

14.5

commander's house

37.5

28.0

headquarters

0.0

2.3

workshops

0.0

0.0

granaries

8.3

12.5

ovens

0.0

0.0

hospital

0.0

0.0

roads

4.3

5.5

gates

18.8

18.8

ditches

4.8

21.3

towers/corners

0.0

11.4

drains

0.0

0.0

intervallum

3.6

2.8

ramparts

0.0

0.0

latrines

0.0

0.0

baths (in fort)

20.0

15.4

bath (annexe)

64.3

37.6

annexe

2.4

2.0

'outside' the fort

1.4

0.6

0.0 0.0 vicus Table 24: Textile Equipment: Percentages of Utilitarian Group from the AP Composite Fort

There are, by percentage, more possible women's items amongst the jewelry found in public areas of the AP composite fort, the roads, gates and intervallum, than in the private buildings. There is a relatively large percentage of these items in the AP composite headquarters building and they also occur in the commander's house, which is to be expected from the textual evidence discussed on the previous page. A small amount of stratified women's jewelry sub-group items was found in the AP composite barracks. When

Annexe 16.7% 85.7% Table 23: Jewelry Sub-Group of Clothing Group: Possible Women's Items from the AP Composite Fort (Percentage of Total Jewelry SubGroup)

An attempt was made to distinguish items in the jewelry sub-group of the Clothing group which might have belonged to women. For example, a hair pin most likely 76

Chapter 7 : Further Questions

unstratified items are included, the amount of women's jewelry in the AP composite barracks rises to 20%, which is greater than that from the commander's house (11.6%).

Spindle-whorls are 33.3% of the stratified textile items and 64% of all textile items from the AP composite barracks. Spindle-whorls, and spinning, were closely associated with women. Spinning was "strongly genderrelated and centered socially and economically on the home" (Wild 2002: 9).

Table 24, previous page, shows the distribution of textile equipment (as percentages of the Utilitarian group) in the AP composite fort. For the purposes of this study this equipment includes items used to make textiles, such as spindle-whorls, loom-weights and carders, sewing items like needles, pins and shears, and items used to finish textiles and wash textiles, such as linen smoothers. This equipment, with the exception of spindle-whorls (see below), can not be assigned to women without reservation; it is quite possible that men were using these items.

The two different types of evidence for women presented in the previous pages can be drawn together to give a tentative picture of their presence in the AP composite fort. From the evidence of jewelry and textile equipment women were present in all the public areas of the fort. Women were amongst the inhabitants of the commander's house and were present in other buildings such as the headquarters, the workshops, the baths and the granaries. The textile equipment pattern shows that public areas such as the intervallum and roads were not generally used for textile production or textile cleaning. The inhabitants of the barracks spun thread, judging from the large amount of spindle-whorls lost there. As this was an activity strongly identified by the Romans with women (Wild op. cit.), it is reasonable to suggest that women were present in the barracks. The women in the barracks were presumably the wives of the officers in charge of the century or turma assigned the barracks. Unfortunately it was not possible, from the evidence included in this study, to determine where in the barracks these items were found.

Pins are about one fifth of the textile sub-group and their classification in this group is admittedly problematic. Pins can be functionally classified under the Clothing group jewelry sub-group as well as the Utilitarian group textile sub-group as they are in this study. In many cases, given the information from the artifact reports, it is difficult to differentiate between a pin used to work with textiles or to hold clothing and a pin used as a hair pin. Unless the artifact was specifically said to be a hair pin, it was considered to be a textile/clothing pin for the purposes of this study. The AP composite baths in the annexe and those in the fort have a large percentage of textile equipment, which seems unusual, although the sample size is quite small and the results may be distorted. These items include smoothers which were used in drying and finishing damp linen garments. It is possible that the baths, a source of running water, were used for washing textiles. Also found in the AP composite baths were pins and a bone weaving comb. Allason-Jones notes that many pins are found in the baths in Roman Britain, and seem to have been lost by women from their hair while bathing or dressing (1989:139).

Status in Roman Forts Percentages of the Tot al Ceramic Assemblage by Type from Buildings wit hin the AP Composit e Fort Location Com. House

There is a large percentage of textile equipment in the AP composite commander's house. This is not unexpected as women were known to have lived in these houses. Most of the textile finds from the commander's house were pins.

Samian Coarseware Mortaria Amphorae 58.2

34.1

6.0

1.7

Headquarters 22.7

48.4

21.9

7.0

Barracks

24.9

49.4

23.8

2.0

Granary

24.6

41.0

24.6

9.8

Workshop

31.5

41.1

27.4

0.0

Bath

29.4

61.4

3.9

5.2

Gates 18.4 51.0 24.5 6.1 Table 25: Percentages of the Total Ceramic Assemblage by Type from Buildings within the AP Composite Fort

The AP composite gates also have a fairly large percentage of textile items, while other public areas, such as the AP composite roads and intervallum, do not. There are very few of these items in the AP composite headquarters, even when looking at unstratified finds. They do appear, however, in the AP composite granaries and the barracks in both stratified and unstratified contexts. Found in the barracks were pins, needles, shears and spindle-whorls.

Ranking and status are inherent in a military situation, where certain classes of people have control over others. We may hypothesize that if people of different status or rank lived in discrete areas of the fort, the artifact assemblages from those areas should reflect this. One of the possible indicators of status is the presence of samian, the fine red ceramic which was produced in Gaul during 77

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

the first several centuries of the Roman occupation of Britain (Willis 1997:39). The distribution of samian and other types of ceramics can be computed easily from the database developed for this study, and the relative percentages of the different types of ceramics are given in Tables 25, above, and 26, below. In these tables the percentages of 'unknown' type ceramics are not included. All the percentages were computed from stratified finds.

They were a standard part of the culinary equipment of the Roman army (Alcock 2001:118). Hartley (1973:39) believes the popularity of mortaria in the province grew as Roman culinary methods and tastes spread beyond the army; by A.D. 100 most of the mortaria found in Britain were made in that province. Why this type of ceramic is not present in larger amounts in the AP composite commander's house is an interesting question. Mortaria are associated with Roman cuisine and methods of food preparation, as noted above. It would seem logical that the commander and his family would eat food prepared in a Roman manner. One possible explanation is that the commander's food was prepared elsewhere, but this is contradicted by the evidence summarized in Table 13, page 59, listing the kitchen/food sub-groups; this table shows that there is a sizable percentage mean of food preparation items in the commander's house. Perhaps the food was cooked in the commander's house but mixed or assembled elsewhere?

Samian comprises 58.2% of the ceramic assemblage from the AP composite commander's house (see Table 25, previous page). No other building or area in the AP composite fort has this large a percentage of samian, although samian is present everywhere. Furthermore, Table 13 (Kitchen/Food sub-groups), page 59, shows that the percentage mean of the eating sub-group (i.e., tableswares, including samian) is not as large in the AP composite commander's house as in the barracks. This further reinforces the argument that samian is an indicator of status; the AP composite commander's house has less tablewares than the AP composite barracks (see page 57), but more of the tablewares it does have are samian.

Possibly bread and cheese were provided to the commander's house by breadmakers and cheesemakers who worked with mortaria elsewhere in the fort or vicus. For example, a series of mortaria in graduated sizes was found in the vicus of the fort at Lancaster, and may have belonged to a bakery (Alcock 2001:30). The paucity of mortaria from the Commander’s house, therefore, may be another indicator of higher status.

Percentages of the Tot al Ceramic Assemblage by Type from Areas wit hin the AP Composit e Fort Locat ion

Samian Coarseware Mortaria

Amphorae

Outside

21.6

72.7

5.8

0.0

Ditches

22.4

70.2

5.7

1.6

Rampart

23.7

57.9

13.2

5.3

Drains

32.8

41.4

20.7

5.2

Roads

20.0

69.7

8.1

2.2

Intervallum

25.6

56.4

16.5

1.5

Ovens

42.9

57.1

0.0

0.0

Tanks/Wells 16.8

70.3

8.9

4.0

Summary The analysis and discussion in this chapter demonstrate the effectiveness of using computerized aggregate data to answer questions other than those concerning the cultural transforms which created the basic primary and secondary refuse deposits found within Roman forts. There is far more artifact information in the database that can be used to create patterns to explore other aspects of the lives of the inhabitants of Roman forts than their gender and status, and hopefully such work will be undertaken in the future.

Unknown 31.0 60.2 15.8 3.3 Table 26: Percentages of the Total Ceramic Assemblage by Type from Areas within the AP Composite Fort

The AP composite commander's house is also differentiated from most other buildings or areas by the low amount of mortaria within its assemblage (6.0%). Only the baths, 'outside' the fort, the ovens and the ditches are lower. Mortaria are generally taken to indicate classical methods of food preparation (Swan 1988:20). Mortaria were gritted bowls made in varying sizes, and could be used for mixing dough, making cheese, and grinding fibrous vegetables, herbs and fruit (Alcock 2001:31,61-69). Mortaria were introduced to Britain by the Romans and quickly became popular in the province. 78

natural transforms which may have acted to create the archaeological records from Roman forts were sought and found in the distribution patterns from the composite forts (see Chapters 5, 6, and 7 and below, pages 79-81).

Chapter 8: Conclusions This study originated in the desire to examine Roman forts using concepts, methods and techniques developed by the New and Processual schools of archaeology in order to build a 'social history' of the occupants of those forts. Excavations of Roman forts can produce large amounts of artifact data relating to those forts' occupations. An analysis of the patterns of distribution of artifacts across Roman forts should reveal details of the lives of those living within and around the forts, their artifact kits and activity areas. Another, secondary, desire was to make the data contained in older excavation reports useful in a computerized format in order to assess the extent to which older excavation data is usable when combined with information from newer, better recorded, archaeological excavations.

The search for cultural transforms evident in the patterns in artifact functional group distribution within the composite forts was greatly helped by the literary and epigraphic traditions of the Roman empire. For example, texts and inscriptions have given us at least a rudimentary understanding of the functions of the buildings and areas in Roman forts. Roman literature also supplies quite a bit of information about the workings of the Roman army and how Roman soldiers lived within their forts. This information can be used as 'local expertise' (see page 35) to develop cultural transforms to explain the patterns observed in the composite forts. In order to achieve the secondary goal of this study, the utilization of older site reports, special attention was paid to the type of information available from excavation reports (see pages 42, 44 and Tables 31 and 32, pages 9192) while developing the database used in this study. Types of spatial information available from older excavation reports were considered during the development of this study's system of standardized locations; that system recognizes both large and small scales and also allows the utilization of non-stratified data. Although the data from these older reports is necessarily coarse-grained, it is useful to gain an overall broad picture of the artifacts within Romano-British forts (see the tables in Appendix 5, pages 125-165, and the tables in Chapter 7, pages 75-78).

Methodology In order to process and manipulate the large amounts of data from Roman forts a codified system of artifact information which could be analyzed by computers had to be developed. A standardized way of locating artifacts within and around a typical fort was created (see pages 39, 41) based upon the ways the Romans themselves had organized their forts and named the areas and buildings within those forts. A database was created to store and manipulate these location codes and other artifact attributes such as material, type, form, date, etc (see Table 30, pages 89-90). It is this system, which can serve to codify and computerize any data from Roman forts and analyze it on any scale by simply changing resolution with scripts, which is the most important development of this study.

Results Functional Group Patterns

The artifacts, once entered into the database, were grouped according to function and those groups were organized by artifact location. This protocol, inspired by the work of Stanley South (see South 2002) and described in detail in Chapter 4, involved the creation of composite forts representing an agglomeration of function group and location data for each period of occupation from all the forts under study. An overall 'All Period' (AP) composite fort was also created. Patterns were recognized in the distribution of percentage means of artifacts in different functional groups across these composite forts.

The differences in artifact functional group distribution patterns detected from the composite forts can be taken to be the result of various cultural and natural transforms which created primary, secondary and, to a far lesser extent, de facto refuse deposits.31 Cultural transforms (natural transforms are discussed on page 81 below) which acted to form these deposits within Roman forts are identified in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. The differences in functional group patterns between composite forts of different periods, the AP composite 31 Primary refuse is composed of artifacts discarded at their location of use. Secondary refuse is composed of artifacts which have been moved, sometimes more than once, from their location of use (Schiffer 1995:31). De facto refuse is the result of abandonment and consists of abandoned usable materials and artifacts (Schiffer 1995:56).

The resulting patterns within the composite forts were analyzed within the framework of Schiffer's concepts about the formation of the archaeological record (see pages 35-36 and Schiffer 1976, 1987, 1995). Cultural and 79

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

fort, and the various buildings and areas of the composite forts have, in general, been taken in this study to show differences in primary refuse deposits, those which reflect the usage of the building or area. For example, the percentage means of the Kitchen/Food group are lower in areas or buildings with restricted status or function, such as the commander's house or the headquarters (page 57). The lower Kitchen/Food group percentage means may be due to the various functions of the buildings and the activities undertaken within them, although it is unclear whether more cleaning or less food activity created these lower percentage means.

Functional Group Patterns Analyzed by Period In Chapter 5 the differences between composite fort patterns created from artifacts associated with the various periods of occupation within the Roman forts under study were analyzed. Although there were fewer early forts to analyze, there does seem to be a real change from the patterns found in composite forts of the early (Flavian, c. A.D. 70-100, and Hadrianic, c. A.D. 120-140) periods to those of later periods (see pages 48-52). These differences in pattern also are evident within some buildings from the composite forts. For example, the Flavian composite barracks have higher Military and Transportation percentage means than the AP composite barracks (see pages 49-50) and the barracks of the composite forts of later periods.

Patterns within the functional groups (see Chapter 6) were analyzed and revealed even more about activities within Romano-British forts. The patterns within the Utilitarian group (pages 59-61), for example, varied a great deal amongst the buildings and areas in the AP composite fort. The AP composite granaries contained fairly high percentage means for the fire and metalworking Utilitarian sub-groups. This seems counterintuitive, but does support the argument that the granaries were used for far more than food storage (see page 60). The AP composite commander's house, on the other hand, had high percentage means of the textile, game and writing Utilitarian sub-groups. This pattern reflects the activities of the inhabitants of the commander's house (see page 60).

The reasons for these differences in the period composite fort patterns are not known, but they may include changes in the Roman army's cultural system or system of supply. It has been proposed in this study that cultural transforms operating during the abandonment and reoccupation phases of the Flavian and Hadrianic forts may help account for these differences (pages 49-50, 55). The abandonment of these forts would have resulted in the deposition of de facto refuse as well as the retention of primary refuse deposits which would be reflected in the Flavian and Hadrianic composite fort patterns. When the Romans re-inhabited the Flavian and Hadrianic forts they leveled much of the forts' interiors (e.g., Strageath and Crawford, pages 114 and 97 in Appendix 4, Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer) and the buildings within these forts were reconstructed. This reconstruction activity may have sealed the de facto and primary refuse deposits of the earlier forts, leaving them relatively undisturbed.

The character of secondary refuse deposits was also revealed by the analysis of functional group patterns. In Chapter 5, for example, the composition of the artifact assemblage from the AP composite ditches was discussed. The artifact functional group pattern from the ditches of the AP composite fort does not directly correspond to any patterns from the buildings or areas within the composite fort. This shows that the artifacts in the ditches went through various transforms before, and after, being deposited as secondary refuse. It was suggested in Chapter 5 pages 52-54 that the rubbish from the interior of the fort had been selectively gleaned of Military, Transportation and Commerce items before being deposited in the ditches.

Questions of Status and Gender The methodology developed to research the functional group patterns with the composite forts can be used to explore other aspects of life within Romano-British forts. The presence of women in the fort was detected using several strands of evidence compiled from the study database. Women were shown by jewelry and textile tools to have been present in the commander's house, the barracks and the common areas of the fort such as the roads, gates and intervallum (see pages 75-77).

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 present more functional group patterns from the composite forts and discuss more cultural transforms than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Some of the transforms suggested in these chapters include those that formed primary refuse deposits such as loss of items along routes to water sources, breakage and/or loss of items during normal usage, hoarding, loss of items stored for safekeeping, etc, and those transforms that formed or modified secondary refuse deposits such as cleaning, gleaning, inadvertent tracking of rubbish from building to building, and so on.

Social status in Roman forts was briefly explored in Chapter 7 (pages 77-78) using the distribution of different ceramic types. The commander's house in the AP composite fort had a much higher percentage of samian ware than other buildings or areas in the fort. Samian is a 80

Chapter 8: Conclusions

ceramic type which is generally taken to be high status, and the relatively high percentage of from the commander's house reflects the status of the commander and his family.

and the results are available in the tables in Appendix 5 (pages 125-165). Natural transforms (see page 35) were sought during the research and analysis phases of this study, although few were found. Most of the archaeologists whose work was used in this study, even those working in the early period of archaeological research, were sophisticated enough to detect obvious large-scale natural transforms. For example, some sites had been partially destroyed by erosion, and others had been covered by tree plantations with subsequent degradation of the archaeological record (e.g., Birrens and Castledykes pages 93 and 97 in Appendix 4). In all these cases, the archaeologists investigating the sites recognized the problem. Other, smaller scale natural transforms do not seem to have been detected and are perhaps obscured by the long period of occupation on many of the fort sites.

Older Excavation Reports The system developed to computerize older excavation reports (see page 79) worked very well. What data there is available from these reports were codified and artifacts found in these excavations were located at least somewhat precisely. This codified data helped create the artifact distribution patterns of the AP composite fort, even when that data was not useful in creating such patterns from the period composite forts or buildings. Unfortunately much of the information from older excavation reports is unstratified and the artifact data included within these reports are incomplete; these factors always have to be kept in mind when data from these reports are analyzed. Artifact distribution patterns formed with unstratified data were not used very often in this study, with the exception of Tables 22-24, pages 7576, in Chapter 7 and the tables in Appendix 5 (pages 125165). However, this unstratified data could prove very useful in future studies, especially meta-analyses of trends in archaeology.

Future Research The methodology developed for this study can be applied to a wider range of Roman sites than forts, such as villas and towns. It also would be beneficial to enlarge the corpus of cultural transforms acting upon Roman sites by a more detailed examination of the literature of the Roman Empire and ethnographic and archaeological studies on formation processes. The corpus could then be evaluated using the methods developed here.

Problems of Scale and Natural Transforms The goals of this study changed as data were explored and collated. One of the original goals was to discover artifact toolkits, but it proved impossible to discern individual toolkits from the mass of primary and secondary deposits left within Roman forts. The spatial scale was simply too large, on the order of buildings rather than rooms, and the depth of time over which occupation occurred was so long that in many cases small-scale artifact associations were obscured. This also made it difficult to detect small scale cultural transforms. However, one possible case of a small scale transform is the high percentage of 'unknown' sherds found in the baths of the AP composite fort. These sherds might have been small enough to fall down the drains or through cracks in the floor into the hypocausts of the bath to remain trapped until found by the archaeologist (see page 59).

The techniques developed in this study can be used to examine further the differences between the abandonment processes evident in differences between the functional group patterns of Flavian, Hadrianic, Antonine and late Roman composite forts. For example, recent work at Birdoswald has found occupation stretching into the early seventh century A.D. (Wilmott 1997:408). The differences between gradual abandonment after the formal withdrawal of Roman support from Britain, as typified by results from Birdoswald, and the abandonments that happened during the various advances and withdrawals of the Roman occupation would be worthwhile to pursue. The database developed for this study contains far more information than was used in the preceding chapters (see the database attributes Table 30 pages 89-90). Detailed examination of the distribution within the composite forts of various artifact types (for example, black burnished ware or glass bangles) can be accomplished using the database. Studies concentrating on one type of building or area within the typical Roman fort can be usefully undertaken with the information in the database. Chronological studies of activity areas within the

Another goal of this study was to examine the differences between the settlement areas outside a typical Roman fort and that Roman fort itself. It was quickly determined that, unfortunately, there were not enough data available on outside settlements from the excavation reports included in this study to make meaningful comparisons between the settlements and the forts. What data exist for settlements outside the forts were entered and analyzed 81

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

composite forts and buildings can be accomplished easily with the database, and are a natural 'next step' to take. Data for each individual fort included in this study, and the patterns resulting from that data, were also developed although not included here. Therefore actual fort to fort comparisons can be undertaken, albeit cautiously because the individual forts seldom have corresponding areas excavated. These fort to fort comparisons might reveal subtle differences in artifact assemblages caused by the different ethnicities of garrison units, such as at Housesteads where pottery in a Germanic type was produced by Germanic soldiers in the third century A.D. (See Jobey 1979; Crow 2004:80). Hopefully this study and its associated database can provide the foundation for new questions and research which will continue to illuminate the lives of the inhabitants of Roman forts. The theories and works of New and Processual archaeologists provided the impetus for the development of the methods and techniques used in this study. Although theory has moved on from these schools, research into new questions in archaeology still needs to be grounded in basic processual and behavioral quantitative techniques. Applying these techniques to Roman military forts has shown how useful it can be to quantify the rich assemblages from these forts to illuminate the lives of those who lived, worked and died for Rome.

82

Appendix 1: Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia

Roman Emperors and Governors of Brit annia Emperor

L. Trebius Germanus unknown (c. A.D. 127) Sextus Iulius Serverus c. A.D. 131 - c. 133

Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia Governor (s)

Claudius Otho/Vitellius A.D. 41 - 69

various

Vespasian A.D. 69 - 79

Quintus Petillius Cerialis A.D. 71 - 74

Publius Mummius Sisenna c. A.D. 133 - c. 135 or later

Period Name/Not es (no conquest in Northern Britain)

Antoninus Pius A.D. 138 - 161

Flavian

Sextus Iulius Frontinus A.D. 74 - 77

Quintus Lollius Antonine Urbicus customarily broken c. A.D. 138 - c. 144 down into Antonine I (c. A.D. 140 - 155) Gnaeus Papririus and Antonine II (c. Aelianus A.D. 158 - 161+) c. A.D. 145- c. 147 Unknown governors c. A.D. 147 - c. 157

Gnaeus Iulius Agricola A.D. 77 - 84

Gnaeus Iulius Verus c. A.D. 154 - c. 158

Titus A.D. 79 - 81

Longinus c. A.D. 158 - 161

Domitian A.D. 81 - 96

Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Statius Lucius Verus A.D. Priscus 161 - 169 unknown (c. 161)

Sallustius Lucullus A.D. ?84- c. 89

Publius Metilius Nepos c. A.D. 96 - c. 97

Trajan A.D. 98 - 117

Tiberius Avidius Quietus A.D. 97 - c. 101

Unknown governors c. A.D. 166 - c. 175 Marcus Aurelius A.D. 169 - 180

Trajanic

Commodus A.D. 180 - 192

Unknown governors c. A.D. 103 - c. 115

Unknown Governor c. 180-82 Ulpius Marcellus c. A.D. 181? - c. 184

Marcus Appius Bradua A.D. ?115 - ?118 Quintus Pompieus Falco A.D. ?118 - 122

Quintus Antistius Adventus ? A.D. 175 - ?178 Caerellius? uncertain (c. A.D. 178 - ?181)

Lucius Neratius Marcellus c. A.D. 101 - c. 103

Hadrian A.D. 117 - 138

Late Antonine sometimes called Antonine III

Sextus Calpurnius Agricola c. A.D. 163 - c. 166

Unknown A.D. c. 89 - c. 96 Nerva A.D. 96 - 98

Period Name/Notes

Nepos A.D. 122 - c 125

The table which follows shows the emperors, governors if known (the governor sequence is not complete), and period names for the province of Britannia. At several points Britannia, or the 2 to 4 or 5 provinces eventually formed from Britannia, was under the control of usurpers; they are noted as well.

Emperor

Governor (s)

P. Helvius Pertinax A.D. 185? - c. 187

Hadrianic

Unknown Governor c A.D. 187 - c. 191

Aulus Platorius

D. Clodius Albinus

83

Albinus was an

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia

Roman Emperors and Governors of Brit annia

Emperor

Emperor

Governor (s) c. A.D. 191 - c. 197

Period Name/Not es imperial usurper

Maximinus A.D. 235? - 238

Virius Lupus Severan c. A.D. 197 - . c 201 Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus c. A.D. 202

Gordian, I, II, III A.D. 238 - 244

Nonius Philippus unknown (c. A.D. 242)

c. A.D. 213, Britannia divided into two provinces, Superior and Inferior. Governors in this table after this point refer to those of Britannia Inferior, which included northern Britain.

Philip I A.D. 244 - 249 Decius Traianus A.D. 249 - 250 Decius II A.D. 250 - ? Gallus and Volusianus A.D. 251

Marcus Antonius Gordianus? unknown (c. A.D. 216)

Valerian and Gallienus A.D. 253

Macrinus A.D. 217

Severus Alexander A.D. 222 - 235?

Maecilius Fuscus unknown (c. A.D. 238 - 244) Egnatius Lucilianus unknown (c. A.D. 238 - 244)

Lucius Alfenus Senecio c. A.D. 205 - c. 207

Elagabalus A.D. 218 - 22

Claudius Apellinus unknown (c. A.D. 222 - 235) T(?)uccianus unknown (c. A.D. 237)

acting governor

Gaius Valerius Pudens unknown (c. A.D. 205)

Caracalla , after Gaius Iulius Marcus killing his brother, unknown (c. A.D. Geta A.D. 212 - 217 213)

Period Name/Notes

Fulvianus unknown (c. A.D. 222 - 235)

Pertinax, Didius Iuliunus, Pescennius Niger A.D. 193 Septimius Severus A.D. 193 - 211

Governor (s)

Gallenius alone A.D. 259 - 268 Modius Iulius unknown (c. A.D. 219)

Octavius Sabinus unknown (c. A.D. 260 - 269)

Gallic Empire (c. A.D. 260 - 273) in control of Britain, set up by Postumus (A.D. 260 - 268)

Ti. Claudius Paulinus unknown (c. A.D. 220)

Claudius II A.D. 269 - 270

Gallic Empire: Marius (A.D. 268), Victorinus (A.D. 268 - 270)

Marius Valerianus unknown (c. A.D. 221 - 2)

Aurelian A.D. 270 - 275

Gallic Empire: Tetricus I and Tetricus II (A.D. 270 - 273)

Claudius Xenophon unknown (c. 223)

Tacitus A.D. 275 - 276

? Maximus unknown (c. 225)

Probus A.D. 276 - 282

Calvisius Rufus unknown (c. A.D. 222 - 235)

Carus A.D. 282 - 283

84

Appendix 1: Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia

Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia

Roman Emperors and Governors of Brit annia

Emperor

Emperor

Governor (s)

Period Name/Not es

Numerian and Carinus A.D. 283

Constantius Chlorus, Caesar from A.D. 293, Augustus A.D. 305 306

'British Emperors' Carausius (A.D. 286 - 93) and Allectus (A.D. 293 6)

Constantine III: usurper A.D. 407 - 411

British provinces under the 'British Emperors' until defeated by Constantius Chlorus in A.D. 296

A.D. 410 end of Roman rule in Britain

The two provinces now divided into four. The northern frontier fell into the new province of Britannia Secunda.

Constantine A.D. 306 - 337 Constantine II A.D. 317 - 340 Constans A.D. 333 - 50 Magnentius, rebel emperor (A.D. 350 351), probably removes troops from Britannia.

Julian, Caesar from A.D. 355, Augustus A.D. 360-363 Jovian A.D. 363 - 4 Valentinian I A.D. 364 - 75 Gratian A.D. 367 - 83 Valentinian II A.D. 375 - 92 Theodosius A.D. 379 - 95

Magnus Maximus recognized as Emperor of the west A.D. 383 388.

Honorius, Western Emperor A.D. 395 - 423

Marcus proclaimed emperor by the army of Britain in

Constantine III also arose from the army in Britain.

Honorius' letter to the people of Britain, telling them they were on their own. Table 27: Roman Emperors and Governors of Britannia (Sources: Frere 1987; Breeze and Dobson 2000)

Galerius, Caesar from A.D. 293, Augustus A.D. 305 311

Constantius II A.D. 324 - 361

Period Name/Notes A.D. 406; Gratian proclaimed emperor by the British army A.D. 407.

Diocletian A.D. 284 - 305 Diocletian and Maximian A.D. 286 - 305

Governor (s)

85

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

86

Appendix 2: Forts Included in This Study

Fort s I ncluded in t his St udy: Hadrian's Wall Syst em and Lowland Scot land Locat ion/Syst em Fort/Period

Hint erland

Hadrian's Wall

Lowland Scot land

Hardknott Newcastle Housesteads Carrawburgh Wallsend Birrens Bewcastle Crawford Castledykes

Early Flavian Agricolan/Flavian

X

Late Flavian Trajanic

X?

Hadrianic

X

X

X

X

X

X?

Antonine

X X

X

X

Severan

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

rd

Late 3 C

X

X

X

X

X

Early 4th C

X

X

X

X

X

th

X

X

X

X

th

X

X

X

X

Mid 4 C Late 4 C

X?

X

rd

Mid 3 C

X?

X

X?

Early 3 C

X

X

Late Antonine

rd

X

X X?

th

Early 5 C X? X? X? Table 28: Forts Included in this Study: Hadrian's Wall System and Lowland Scotland Fort s I ncluded in t his St udy: Antonine Wall Area and North Location/System Fort /Period

Antonine Wall Rough Castle

Bar Hill

Gask Ridge Mumrills

Ardoch

Strageath

Agricolan/Flavian

X

X

Late Flavian

X?

Tay and Beyond Carpow

Fendoch

Edinburgh Cramond

Early Flavian X

Trajanic Hadrianic Antonine

X

X

X

X

X

X

Late Antonine

X?

Severan

X

No Post-Severan Occupation Table 29: Forts Included in this Study: Antonine Wall Area and North

87

X

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

88

Appendix 3: Attributes in the Database

Database Tables, Fields and Artifact Attribut es Field Name

Databases are made up of 'fields' of data which are organized into 'entries' which are then organized into 'tables' as shown in Table 30, below. Each of the tables in the database used in this study corresponds to a type of artifact material generally found in the artifact catalogs of Romano-British excavation reports. Each entry in the database table corresponds to one artifact, or if more than one of a specific type of artifact is found in a specific context, then each entry can indicate that with the 'number' field. The fields in Table 30 generally correspond to an artifact's formal or spatial dimensions. The 'number' or 'number vessels' field corresponds to an artifact's frequency dimension (see pages 42-44).

woman/child

Was the artifact used, worn, etc, by a woman or a child?

notes

Any notes about the artifact

Fields Common to Amphorae , Mortaria , Coarse Ware and Samian Tables

Dat abase Tables, Fields and Art ifact Attributes Field Name

number sherds

How many sherds of a specific vessel were found? This number is not always supplied in the reports.

number vessels

How many vessels of this type were found? That is, number of vessels within a specific context, sub_context, etc.

exact

Is the number of vessels an exact number, or an estimate from number of sherds, etc?

multi_context

Was the vessel found in more than one context?

shape/type

The type or shape of the vessel, if the vessel is found in a standard typology, then that type is given

date

The date given to the vessel typologically, if known

origin/source

The area of manufacture for the vessel, if known

Attribut e

Fields Common t o All Database Tables artifact_id

Internal identifier number for each artifact (unique)

dig_id

Identifier number for excavation which produced the artifact, this links back to the site of the excavation

stratified

Was the artifact found in a stratified context?

context

The main context of the artifact's location (trench or pit, usually)

sub_context

The sub-context in which the artifact was found, if needed

feature

The feature in which the artifact was found, if needed

level

The stratigraphic level in which the artifact was found, if needed

other_context

In general, the period assigned the artifact by the excavator

report_id

Attribute

Field Common to Amphorae , Mortaria and Samian Tables stamp/potter

The die stamp or potter, if known

Field Common to Coarse Wares and Mortaria Tables fabric

The fabric from which the vessel was made Fields Used for Glass Table

number shards

How many sherds of a specific glass object were found? This number is not always supplied in the reports.

number objects

How many objects of this type were found? That is, number of objects within a specific context, sub_context, etc.

The artifact's id number in the excavation report

exact

Is the number of objects an exact number, or an estimate from number of sherds, etc?

current_loc

The current location of the artifact (museum, collection, etc)

multi-context

Was the vessel found in more than one context?

sector

This value is supplied by the scripts which take the location data specified above (context, sub_context, etc) and transfer it into the building or area as specified in this dissertation

shape

Shape of the object: drinking cup, bottle, plate, etc

color

Color(s) of the glass

date

Date of the glass object typologically, if known

source

Source of the glass, if known

func_category1

The functional group of the artifact

func_category2

The second functional group of the artifact, if any

func_category3

The third functional group of the artifact, if any

Fields Used for Coins Table number

89

Amount of coins of a specific type and ruler found in a specific context

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Dat abase Tables, Fields and Art ifact Attributes Field Name

Attribut e

ruler

Ruler shown on the coin

type

Type of coin (denarius, sesterius, etc)

mint

Mint at which the coin was manufacture, if known

condition

Database Tables, Fields and Artifact Attribut es Field Name shape/type

Condition of the coin

Number of bones of a specific species/part in the context

species

Species of animal from which the bone(s) originated

part

Body part of the bone(s)

How many worked bone/antler items found of this type in this context

material

Is the item bone or antler?

type

What is the item? (needle, hairpin, knife handle, etc)

date

Can a date be given, typologically?

species

What type of animal contributed the antler or bone? Fields Used for Leather Table

number

How many items of a specific shape and type found in a specific context

shape

Shape of item, e. g. heel of shoe, flap of tent

type

Type of item, e. g. full shoe, tent, etc Fields Used for Metals Table

number

How many items of that specific type and material found in a specific context

material

Specific metal, e. g. bronze, silver, etc

type

Type of item, e. g. knife, pin, peg, fitting, etc

date

date of item typologically, if known

source

source of item, if known Fields Used for Textiles Table

number

Number of pieces of a specific type of textile found in a specific context

material

Type of textile, linen, wool, silk, etc

type

Form of textile, shirt, sock, fragment, etc

weave_type

The type of weave in the textile Fields Used for Wood Table

number

number

Number of items of a specific material and type found in a specific context

material

What is the item made of? stone, ceramic shard, glass (if window glass), iron (if construction nails), etc

type

What is the item? sculpture, altar, window glass, spindle whorl, etc

date

Date of item, if known

source Source of item, if known Table 30: Database Tables, Fields and Artifact Attributes

Fields Used for Worked Bone/Antler Table number

What is the object? a shovel handle, a hoe, a beam, etc

Fields Used for the Miscellaneous Table

Fields Used for Animal Table number

Attribute

Number of pieces of a specific type and material of wood found in a specific context

species of origin Species from which the wood originated, if known

90

impossible to determine if all the artifacts have been recorded in a report. The assumption in general is that all the artifacts are reported unless the specialist says otherwise. Different artifact reports can have different ratings (e.g., all the samian was reported but only part of the coarse ware) and that leads to multiple ratings for an excavation report. 'Calc' indicates that the number and types of ceramics had to be calculated from tables given in the excavation reports.

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer Excavation Information Tables 31 and 32, below, present information on the quality of the excavation reports used in this study. The quality of the report is based on the extent and quality of that report's artifact catalogs and analyses and the techniques and methods used in the reported excavation. These values, excellent, very good , good and poor, are subjective and reflect the needs of this study.

For more information on artifact report ratings, please contact the author via the publisher.

The columns labeled 'good', 'part' and 'all' indicate whether the excavation report included information on all the stratified ceramics and objects found ('good'), information on part of the stratified ceramics and few unstratified ceramics but all the other artifacts found ('part'), and information on everything found, including unstratified ceramics and objects ('all'). It is often Excavat ion Report Information Site

Years

Qualit y

Good

Part

All

Calc

Bib. Ref.

Not es

Ardoch

1896-97 poor

X

Christison and Cunningham 1898 Very few finds in the report, excellent site diagram

Bar Hill

1902-05 Good

X

Robertson, 1975

Bewcastle

Survey

Very good

X

Collingwood 1922

Bewcastle

1937

Good

Bewcastle

Scott

and

Keppie Finds re-cataloged and published in 1975

X

X

X

Richmond, Hodgson Joseph 1938

1977-79 Very good

X

X

X

Austen 1991

Bewcastle

1949-56 Very good

X

X

X

Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993

Birrens

1962-67 Excellent

X

X

X

Robertson 1975

Birrens

1895-96 Poor

X

Christison 1896

All finds reported in Robertson 1975

Birrens

1936-37 Good

X

X

Birley, E 1938

Finds reported also in Robertson 1975

Carpow

1961-62 Good

X

X

X

Birley, R 1963

Carpow

1964-79 Excellent

X

X

X

Dore and Wilkes 1999

X

X

X

Breeze 1972

Carrawburgh 1967-69 Very good

and

St.

Carrawburgh Pre 1900s

Poor

X

Budge 1907

Museum catalog, not complete

Carrawburgh Pre 1900s

Very good

X

Allason-Jones and McKay 1985

Finds from previous excavations re-cataloged and republished

Castledykes

1950-55 Excellent

X

X

X

Robertson 1964

Cramond

1954-66 Very good

X

X

X

Rae and Rae 1974

Cramond 1998 Very good X Table 31: Excavation Report Information: A – CRA

X

X

Masser 2006

91

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Excavation Report I nformation Sit e

Years

Qualit y

Good

Part

All

Calc

Bib. Ref.

Notes

Cramond

1975-81 Excellent

X

X

X

Holmes 2003

Crawford

1961-66 Very good

X

X

X

Maxwell 1972

Fendoch

1936-37 Good

X

X

Richmond and McIntyre 1936

Hardknott

1958-69 Very good

X

X

Hardknott

1889-93 Poor

Hardknott

stray

--

Hardknott

Stray

--

Hardknott

X

Bidwell, Snape and Croom 1999

Some of the samian is missing

X

Ferguson, Dymond Calverley 1893

X

X

Fair 1924

X

X

Collingwood 1928

1959-69 Good

X

X

Charlesworth 1973

Housesteads

1931

Poor

X

X

Birley, Charleton and Hedley Only coins reported 1932

Housesteads

1933

Poor

X

X

Birley and Charleton 1934

Some small finds reported

Housesteads

1959

Good

X

X

Wilkes 1960

Partial finds report

Housesteads

1960

Good

X

X

X

Wilkes 1961

Housesteads

1967

Very good

X

X

X

Charlesworth 1975

Housesteads

1898

Poor

X

Bonsanquet 1904

Unable to determine if all finds reported

Housesteads

1968

Good

X

X

Smith unpub.

Area already dug by Bonsanquet

Housesteads

1932

Poor

X

X

Birley, Charleton and Hedley Finds report is minimal, only coins 1933 given in full

Housesteads

1934

Poor

X

Birley and Keeney 1935

No catalog of finds, just casual mentions in report

Housesteads

Pre 1900s

Poor

X

Budge 1907

Museum catalog, not complete

Housesteads

1984

Excellent

Crow 1988

Ceramic fabric tables, only rim sherds given

Mumrills

1923-28 Good

Mumrills

1958-60 Very good

Newcastle

1970s96

Very good

Newcastle

1972-3

Excellent

Rough Castle 1957-61 Excellent

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Harbottle 1974

X

X

X

McIvor, 1980

X

X

and

Thornton Interim report on leather only

MacDonald and Curle 1929 Steer 1963 X

Snape, Bidwell et al 2002

Thomas

and Breeze Includes finds excavations

Rough Castle 1903

Poor

X

Buchanan, Christison Anderson 1905

Rough Castle 1933

Poor

X

MacDonarld 1933

X

X

Frere and Wilkes 1989

X

X

Hodgson 2003

X

Corder 1912

Strageath

1973-86 Excellent

Wallsend

1997+

Excellent

Wallsend

c. 1912

Poor

X

and Finds published in Bidwell Snape and Croom 1999

Table 32: Excavation Report Information: CRA - WA

92

from

other

and Trial excavation, recorded

few

finds

Only coins and some small finds reported

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

fort were large amounts of leather. The survival of large amounts of leather from a Romano-British fort is unusual. In the 1970s, Robertson, Scott and Keppie (1975) cataloged all the finds from Bar Hill, which had been well kept in the Hunterian Museum. The site was excavated again in 1978-82 by Keppie, however, I have not been able to find a complete site report for this excavation.

Site Gazetteer The gazetteer which follows includes basic information about each site used in this study. 'Location' refers to the current (as of writing) British county or council area and country. If the fort was part of one of the Wall systems, that is indicated as well. 'Periods' refers to the Roman periods during which the forts were occupied. 'References' include all the works used in this study to glean information about the forts. There are very brief notes given for each site.

Bewcastle Location: Hadrian's Wall Outpost Fort, Cumbria England (see Figures 7, 9, 11, pages13, 16, 21)

All of the site figures for this study were drawn by J.N. Giles after those given in the excavation reports. Oftentimes, more than one figure for each fort was combined to create an overall picture of the fort.

Size: c. 6 acres (2.4 hectares) Periods: Hadrianic, late Antonine - early 4th C (see Figure 25, page 96)

Ardoch

References: Gillam 1954; Gillam 1949; Collingwood 1922; Richmond, Hodgson and St. Joseph 1938; Austen 1991; Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993; Sainsbury and Welfare 1990

Location: Tayside (Perth and Kinross) Scotland (see Figures 5 and 8, pages 10 and 14) Size: c. 6 acres (c. 2.5 hectares)

Notes: Bewcastle is unusual in shape. It has 5 sides instead of being the normal 'playing card' shape of a Roman fort. There is a Medieval castle and church built into the ramparts, and the church's graveyard sits partially upon the raised hypocaust floor of the bath of the Roman fort (Gillam, Jobey and Welby 1993:19). The site was first excavated in 1937 and there was a series of excavations between 1949 and 1954 on the bathhouse.

Periods: Flavian, Antonine (see Figure 23, next page) References: Christison and Cunningham 1898; Steer 1964; Richmond 1936; Breeze 1973 Notes: Ardoch is probably one of the most impressive Roman forts still extant, with several very deep ditches and ramparts. There are also annexes and temporary camps in the area. Ardoch was excavated in 1896-97. There were no artifacts from Breeze's excavation (Breeze 1973) as he excavated outside the fort. There is a Medieval chapel on the site.

Birrens Location: Hadrian's Wall Outpost Fort, Dumfries and Galloway Scotland (see Figures 5, 7, 8, pages 10, 13, 14)

Bar Hill

Size: 4.86 acres (1.97 hectares)

Location: Antonine Wall Fort, East Dunbartonshire Scotland (see Figure 8, page 14)

Periods: Flavian, Hadrianic (see Figure 27, page 99), Antonine I (see Figure 28, page 100), Antonine II (see Figure 29, page 101)

Size: 3.18 acres (1.29 hectares)

References: 1975

Periods: Antonine (see Figure 24, page 95) References: Robertson, Scott and Keppie 1975; Keppie et al. 1985; Keppie 1986; Macdonald and Park 1906

Christison 1896; Birley 1938; Robertson

Notes: Birrens was excavated in 1896, 1937 and 1962-67. The excavations of 1962-67 showed that many archaeological deposits with good stratigraphy remained, despite the whole-scale excavations of 1896 (Figure 26, page 98). The southern wall of the fort has been eroded and is partially lost.

Notes: Bar Hill was excavated in 1902-05. The finds from the well, which was 4 feet in diameter and extended down 43 feet and was located within the headquarters, were exceptional. Also preserved in the ditches and pits of the 93

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 23: Ardoch (drawn by J. N. Giles after site plan in Christison and Cunningham 1898)

94

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 24: Bar Hill (drawn by J. N. Giles after Robertson, Scott and Keppie 1974: Figure 4)

95

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 25: Bewcastle (drawn by J. N. Giles after Collingwood 1922:Figure 2; Richmond, Hodgson and St. Joseph 1938:Figure 4; Austen 1991:Figure 2; Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993:Figure 1)

96

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Periods: Severan (see Figure 30, 102)

was little different than the Flavian in internal arrangements and size. The site was excavated in 1937 and 1939, and again from 1950 to 1955. The fort has had a large plantation of trees planted on it, and this made the stratigraphy of the site very difficult. Although Robertson did an excellent job of interpreting this stratigraphy, she admits tree roots made excavation difficult in the interior of the fort (see Robertson 1964).

References: Birley 1963; Dore and Wilkes 1999

Cramond

Notes: Carpow was a vexillation fortress for part of a legion and associated auxiliaries. This site was occupied during the Severan period only.

Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (see Figures 8, 10, 11 pages 14, 20, 21)

Carrawburgh

Periods: Antonine, Severan (see Figure 33, page 105)

Location: Hadrian's Wall Fort, Northumberland, England (see Figures 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, pages 13, 16, 20, 21, 23)

References: Rae and Rae 1974; Masser 2006; Holmes 2003

Carpow Location: Perthshire, Scotland (see Figures 10, 11 pages 20, 21) Size: 26.9 acres (10.89 hectares)

Size: 4.8 acres (1.9 hectares)

Notes: The Roman fort at Cramond was completely covered by a Medieval fishing village. In later years the cottages of the village were cleared away to make a park (Rae and Rae 1974:163). This clearance removed Roman levels as well. Outside Cramond fort are several annexes. The one to the north held the baths of the fort, the one to the southeast held a Roman industrial complex. Evidence for shoe making, carpentry and leather working was found in the industrial complex.

Size: 3.9 acres (1.56 hectares) Periods: Hadrianic, post-Antonine to early 5th Century A.D. (see Figure 31, page 103) References: Breeze 1972; Birley 1961; Budge 1907; Allason-Jones and McKay 1985 Notes: Carrawburgh was first excavated in 1876 by John Clayton (see page 27). Clayton found a shrine to the nymph Coventina near the fort. The artifacts that Clayton excavated from the shrine and the fort are in the museum at Chester. Budge (1907) wrote the first catalog of these artifacts. Allason-Jones and McKay produced another catalog examining the discoveries from the shrine. Amongst these were over 13,000 coins. Breeze excavated in the center of the fort in 1967 to 1969.

Crawford

Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland (see Figures 5, 8, pages 10, 14) Size: c 2 acres (0.8 hectares), enlarged to 2.66 acres (1.2 hectares) in Antonine II period Periods: Flavian (see Figure 34, page 107), Antonine I (see Figure 35, page 108) and Antonine II (see Figure 36, page 109)

Castledykes

References: Maxwell 1972

Location: South Lanarkshire, Scotland (see Figures 5, 8, pages 10 and 14)

Notes: Crawford is on the right bank of the River Clyde. Excavation was somewhat difficult on the site, because of gardens, a medieval castle and a road (Maxwell 1972:149). The internal arrangements of the fort at Crawford in the Flavian period were unusual (see Figure 34, page 107). The fort is aligned along the short axis. The very small Flavian fort was probably garrisoned by a detachment of a full unit.

Size: 6.9 acres (2.8 hectares) Periods: Flavian, Antonine (see Figure 32, page 104) References: Robertson 1964 Notes: Nearby to the fort at Castledykes are temporary camps and annexes. The Antonine period fort at Castledykes 97

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 26: Birrens, 1895 Excavation Results (drawn by J. N. Giles after Christison 1896:Plate 1; Robertson 1975:Figure 1; Birley 1938:Figure 2)

98

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 27: Birrens, Hadrianic Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Robertson 1975:Figure 20)

99

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 28: Birrens, Antonine I Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Robertson 1975:Figure 21)

100

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 29: Birrens, Antonine II Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Robertson 1975:Figure 24)

101

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 30: Carpow (drawn by J. N. Giles after Birley 1963:Figure 1; Dore and Wilkes 1999: Illustration 5)

102

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 31: Carrawburgh (drawn by J. N. Giles after Breeze 1972:Figure 1; Allason-Jones and McKay 1985:Figure 2)

103

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 32: Castledykes (drawn by J. N. Giles after Robertson 1964:Figures 9, 5, 48)

104

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 33: Cramond (drawn by J. N. Giles after Holmes 2003:Illustration 2; Rae and Rae 1974:Figure 3)

105

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Housesteads sits on a spectacular remote site at the edge of a promontory. It is the iconic Hadrian's Wall fort; much of the fort and its environs were left undisturbed by later ages until the early nineteenth century when the first archaeological investigations at Housesteads began. In 1898 the fort underwent systematic archaeological investigation which exposed the whole of several of the central buildings and parts of the buildings in other areas of the fort. However, there are still enough archaeological deposits left to allow repeated excavation between the early twentieth century and now. The results of some of these excavations are yet to be published; although, the excavations of the 1950s to 1980s should soon be published as The Grandest Station (edited by Dr. Alan Rushworth, and to be published by English Heritage Archaeological Reports). The vicus (see Figure 40, page 113) at Housesteads was explored in a series of archaeological excavations during the 1930s.

Fendoch Location: Tayside (Perth and Kinross) Scotland (see Figure 5, page 10) Size: 5 acres (c 2.03 hectares) Periods: Flavian (see Figure 37, page 110) References: Richmond and McIntyre 1936, 1939 Notes: The fort was inhabited only during the Flavian period. It is one of a series of Roman forts set at the mouths of eastern Highlands glens known as 'glen-blocking' forts.

Hardknott Location: Cumbria, England (see Figure 7, page 13)

Housesteads has an unusual configuration for a fort on Hadrian's Wall. It is aligned with the wall on its long, rather than short, side. It also does not project, despite being a primary fort (see page 9) because it is situated right at the edge of a steep escarpment.

Size: 1.3 ha (3.2 acres) Periods: Hadrianic (see Figure 38, page 111) References: Bidwell, Snape and Croom 1999; Charlesworth and Thornton 1973; Ferguson, Dymond and Calverley 1893; Collingwood 1928; Fair 1924; Cowper 1893; Charlesworth 1963; Wright 1965

Mumrills Location: Antonine Wall Fort, Falkirk, Scotland (see Figure 8, page 14)

Notes: Hardknott was dug between 1885 and 1894 by the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. Collingwood excavated in the north tower c. 30 years later. Most recently the site has been excavated, cleared and consolidated (1958-1969). Nearby the fort is a Roman parade ground.

Size: c. 6.5 acres (2.6 hectares) Periods: Antonine (see Figure 41, page 115) References: MacDonald 1915; MacDonald and Curle 1929; Smith 1939; Steer 1961 Notes: The original excavator of Mumrills, Sir George MacDonald, thought that Mumrills had a Flavian fort somewhat to the west of the later, Antonine, fort. However, later excavators (see Steer 1961) discovered that the supposed Flavian fort was simply an annex to the Antonine fort (see Figure 41, page 115). The fort itself survives in only fragmentary, underground remains. The site has suffered from later development. Parts of the annexe of the fort were excavated in 1960 (Steer 1961).

Housesteads Location: Hadrian's Wall Fort, Northumberland, England (see Figures 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, pages 13, 16, 20, 21, 23) Size: c. 5 acres (2.02 hectares) Periods: Hadrianic (see Figure 39, page 112) postAntonine to early 5th Century (see Figure 40, page 113)

Newcastle

References: Birley, Charlton and Hedley 1932, 1933; Birley and Charlton 1934; Birley and Keeney 1935; Birley 1937; Wilkes 1960, 1961; Charlesworth 1975; Bosanquet 1904; Smith unpub.; Budge 1907; Crow 1988, 2004

Location: Hadrian's Wall Fort, Newcastle, England (see Figures 11, 12 pages 21, 23) Size: unknown, the fort has never been completely exposed, nor have all the ramparts been found.

Notes: 106

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 34: Crawford, Flavian Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Maxwell 1972:Figures 9, 3)

107

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 35: Crawford, Antonine I Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Maxwell 1972:Figure 11)

108

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 36: Crawford, Antonine II Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Maxwell 1972:Figure 13)

109

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 37: Fendoch (drawn by J. N. Giles after Richmond and McIntyre 1936:Figure 2)

110

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 38: Hardknott (drawn by J. N. Giles after Bidwell, Snape and Croom 1999:Figures 8-10)

111

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 39: Housesteads (drawn by J. N. Giles after Bosanquet 1904:Plate XIX)

112

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 40: Housesteads Vicus (drawn by J. N. Giles after Birley and Keeney 1935:Plate XXIII)

113

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

undergoing slow destruction by agricultural plowing when excavated from 1973 to 1986. The goal of the excavation was to understand as much of the fort's interior as possible; therefore, little attention was paid to the ditches, ramparts, gates and intervallum. The goal of the excavation at Strageath coincides with the needs of this study for detailed information from the interior of a Roman fort, and the excavation report concerning Strageath was very useful. Strageath is not known to have been excavated before 1973, although it was known to early antiquarians.

Newcastle (cont) Periods: Severan to end of Roman Britain (see Figure 42, page 116) References: Snape, Bidwell et al. 2002; Harbottle 1974 Notes: The site of the Roman fort at Newcastle has been occupied, probably continuously, since Roman times. In 1080 Robert Curthose built a Norman keep on the site of the former Roman fort, which became the center of the medieval city of Newcastle. The site is still completely covered with 18 centuries worth of development which leads to a very complex stratigraphy. Newcastle is unusual as a Hadrian's Wall fort in that it was built in the Severan period with slightly different internal arrangements that earlier forts (see page 41).

Wallsend Location: Hadrian's Wall Fort, Tyne and Wear, England (see Figures 7, 9, 11, 12, pages 13, 16, 21, 23) Size: c. 4.4 acres (1.8 hectares) Periods: Hadrianic (see Figure 47, page 121), postAntonine to early 5th century (see Figures 48, 49 and 50, pages 122, 123, 124)

Rough Castle Location: Antonine Wall Fort, Falkirk, Scotland (see Figure 8, page 14)

References: Hodgson 2003; Corder 1912; Daniels 1980

Size: c. 1.5 acres (0.6 hectares)

Notes: Wallsend was excavated from 1975 to 1984 under the direction of Charles Daniels. It was again excavated from 1997 to 1998 when the site was consolidated for presentation in coordination with the building of a new museum. The latest excavations have been published. The excavations by Daniels have not yet been published, although that report is in preparation. Unfortunately, the coarse ware from the 1997-98 excavations is to be included in the report on the Daniel's excavations, and therefore was not available for inclusion in this study.

Periods: Antonine (see Figure 43, page 117) References: Buchanan, Christison and Anderson 1905; MacDonald 1933; MacIvor, Thomas and Breeze 1980 Notes: Rough Castle was one of the Antonine Wall forts added to that Wall after the Wall was built. The site was overgrown with trees when first excavated in 1903. Rough Castle was neglected after the first excavations in 1903, when the remains were left exposed to the elements. During the 1950s and 1960s the fort was excavated and consolidated for display.

Strageath Location: Perthshire, Scotland (see Figures 5 and 8, pages 10 and 14) Size: c. 4 acres (1.6 hectares) Periods: Flavian (see Figure 44, page 118), Antonine I (see Figure 45, page 119) and Antonine II (see Figure 46, page 120) References: Frere and Wilkes 1989 Notes: This fort, situated on the banks of the River Earn, was 114

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 41: Mumrills (drawn by J. N. Giles after MacDonald and Curle 1929:Figure 1; Steer 1963:Figure 2)

115

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 42: Newcastle (drawn by J. N. Giles after Snape, Bidwell, et al. 2002:Figure 6)

116

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 43: Rough Castle (drawn by J. N. Giles after McIvor, Thomas and Breeze 1980:Figure 1; MacDonald 1933:Figure 11; Buchanan, Christison and Anderson 1905:Figure 1)

117

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 44: Strageath, Flavian Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Frere and Wilkes 1989:Figure 66)

118

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 45: Strageath, Antonine I Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Frere and Wilkes 1989:Figure 67)

119

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 46: Strageath, Antonine II Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Frere and Wilkes 1989:Figure 68)

120

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 47: Wallsend, Hadrianic Period (drawn by J. N. Giles after Hodgson 2003:Figure 9)

121

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 48: Wallsend, c. A.D. 160-192 (drawn by J. N. Giles after Hodgson 2003:Figure 10)

122

Appendix 4: Excavation Information and Site Gazetteer

Figure 49: Wallsend, early third century (drawn by J. N. Giles after Hodgson 2003:Figure 11)

123

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Figure 50: Wallsend, c. 225-35 to early fourth century (drawn by J. N. Giles after Hodgson 2003:Figure 12)

124

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Tables of Data: Composite Forts

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Functional group distribution patterns in the AP and period forts are in the following tables (Tables 33-50, pages 126-143). The sites used in this study produced no 'good' (see above) stratified data from 5th century forts; therefore, this data is presented without comment (Tables 49 and 50, page 142, 143).

This appendix presents the data gathered for this study. As in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 the data are presented as functional group percentage means from each building or area of the fort.

The Animal group percentage means for all the composite forts are shown in Tables 51 and 52, pages 144 and 145. These distribution patterns, as mentioned in Chapter 5 (page 47), are not very reliable as many excavation reports included no, or very limited, faunal analyses.

Abbreviations/Notations The following abbreviations are used in this study. Some buildings in the fort may have had several functions. Those are noted as well. Good stratified  sites with complete, stratified ceramic data. Stratified  sites with stratified data, but not necessary complete ceramic data. All  all the stratified and unstratified data collected for this study. Com. House  Commander's House Bar/Other  A building the function of which was undetermined by the excavator who assigned a function of barracks or other. Work/Etc  A building, not a barracks, which is either a workshop or stable or storehouse.

Buildings and Areas Chapter 4 (pages 35-47) discusses the buildings and areas found in the composite forts. Please refer to these pages for an in-depth discussion of the buildings and areas of the Roman fort. In all of the following tables 'Towers' refer to the towers often found in the corners of Roman forts.

Functional Groups Information about the various functional groups and their sub-groups listed in these tables can be found in Table 1, page 46 and pages 42-44 in Chapter 4.

125

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Commerce

Healthcare

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Oth

Granaries

Workshops

Work/etc

Baths

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Clothing

Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

Overall

AP Composite Fort :

all

6.9

1.9

6.4

3.5

3.4

7.3

2.0

4.4

3.9

0.0

2.2

3.6

stratified

3.7

2.1

4.6

2.2

3.4

3.5

2.1

4.5

4.9

0.0

2.5

2.6

good stratified

2.0

1.7

6.5

1.6

3.4

4.7

2.1

4.5

3.6

0.0

n/a

3.0

all

4.1

16.3

22.2

8.8

11.9

15.1

7.8

3.2

11.5

0.0

22.2

3.9

stratified

7.9

18.8

16.4

4.6

11.9

16.9

1.6

3.2

10.9

0.0

22.5

6.1

good stratified

4.5

11.7

17.1

4.1

11.9

0.3

1.6

3.2

0.0

0.0

n/a

2.2

all

1.7

2.5

1.4

2.8

0.0

5.0

0.0

0.6

3.2

0.0

17.8

1.1

stratified

2.5

2.8

0.5

2.9

0.0

8.2

0.0

0.6

3.4

0.0

17.5

1.3

good stratified

1.6

3.7

0.7

2.6

0.0

9.1

0.0

0.6

0.6

0.0

n/a

1.5

all

68.8

45.0

60.1

72.6

64.4

52.7

73.6

75.9

78.7

96.9

37.8

76.7

stratified

69.3

60.5

68.4

79.3

64.4

48.6

79.6

76.4

75.6

96.9

37.5

76.3

good stratified

81.9

66.0

65.6

83.6

64.4

63.0

79.6

76.4

85.6

93.8

n/a

80.0

all

0.5

6.8

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

stratified

0.2

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

good stratified

0.3

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.3

all

7.3

14.2

1.5

2.6

8.5

6.3

12.1

2.5

0.2

0.0

2.2

0.4

stratified

2.9

4.6

0.6

2.5

8.5

6.8

12.4

2.5

0.6

0.0

2.5

0.4

good stratified

2.5

6.2

0.8

2.1

8.5

9.1

12.4

2.5

1.2

0.0

n/a

0.5

all

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.2

3.4

1.9

0.5

3.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

stratified

0.7

0.5

1.0

1.3

3.4

0.8

0.5

3.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

good stratified

0.7

0.7

1.4

1.3

3.4

1.0

0.5

3.2

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.4

all

5.7

10.5

6.2

7.1

6.8

10.8

3.5

9.5

1.5

3.1

15.6

8.8

stratified

7.6

8.1

7.5

6.1

6.8

13.3

3.2

9.6

3.0

3.1

15.0

9.7

good stratified

5.4

8.7

6.5

3.5

6.8

12.1

3.2

9.6

6.0

6.3

n/a

9.9

all

4.1

1.8

1.3

1.0

1.7

0.8

0.5

0.0

0.8

0.0

2.2

2.3

stratified

5.2

2.2

1.0

1.0

1.7

1.9

0.5

0.0

1.5

0.0

2.5

3.0

good stratified

1.1

0.9

1.4

0.9

1.7

0.7

0.5

0.0

3.0

0.0

n/a

2.2

all

17

11

7

11

1

4

2

1

2

2

1

10

stratified

15

8

7

11

1

4

2

1

2

2

1

8

1

3

2

1

1

1

0

7

good stratified 12 6 5 8 Table 33: AP Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

126

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Commerce

Healthcare

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

Clothing

Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

Ramparts

AP Composite Fort :

all

0.2

5.9

1.2

1.6

6.7

6.6

4.4

2.0

1.6

33.5

4.3

9.3

stratified

0.0

7.7

1.2

1.4

6.7

9.7

0.0

4.2

2.4

8.3

4.3

5.6

good stratified

0.0

3.3

0.6

0.9

10.0

5.6

0.0

2.2

1.4

8.6

n/a

4.9

all

1.0

11.1

8.0

6.6

11.1

18.3

1.5

11.3

4.6

1.6

83.0

3.5

stratified

0.0

5.6

9.3

9.1

11.1

20.7

0.0

0.4

0.6

0.0

83.6

5.4

good stratified

0.0

0.0

3.1

1.5

16.7

8.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

n/a

4.9

all

2.9

0.0

2.2

2.5

0.0

1.4

3.9

0.8

3.0

0.3

2.1

1.3

stratified

5.0

0.0

2.5

3.2

0.0

0.9

0.0

1.5

3.4

1.7

2.1

4.7

good stratified

5.0

0.0

0.8

2.3

0.0

1.1

0.0

1.1

3.7

1.7

n/a

0.4

all

74.2

73.3

68.4

73.2

75.6

58.6

67.5

57.8

81.2

57.0

4.3

69.0

stratified

76.4

75.1

73.4

68.6

75.6

51.4

91.7

66.3

84.5

53.3

4.3

65.1

good stratified

76.4

87.7

86.6

80.6

63.3

65.3

83.3

87.6

86.4

51.7

n/a

83.0

all

0.5

0.0

1.6

0.2

0.0

0.0

3.1

3.0

0.1

0.0

1.4

0.7

stratified

1.3

0.0

1.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

8.3

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.7

0.1

good stratified

1.3

0.0

1.1

0.3

0.0

0.0

8.3

0.0

0.1

0.0

n/a

0.1

all

5.3

0.0

0.8

2.6

6.7

1.9

1.7

10.1

1.6

0.8

2.8

4.8

stratified

1.3

0.0

0.5

3.6

6.7

0.0

0.0

1.2

1.4

5.0

2.9

1.7

good stratified

1.3

0.0

0.3

3.2

10.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

1.3

5.2

n/a

2.7

all

0.0

0.0

7.4

0.3

0.0

1.3

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.7

0.5

stratified

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.5

0.0

1.5

0.0

0.3

0.6

3.3

0.7

1.4

good stratified

0.0

0.0

1.8

0.5

0.0

2.1

0.0

1.1

0.4

3.4

n/a

0.0

all

11.7

8.1

8.8

12.2

0.0

10.6

12.6

11.9

4.5

5.2

1.4

4.5

stratified

7.3

11.6

8.8

12.4

0.0

15.9

0.0

21.0

3.5

23.3

1.4

4.5

good stratified

7.3

9.0

5.6

9.7

0.0

17.9

0.0

5.6

3.6

24.1

n/a

2.6

all

4.3

1.6

1.6

0.9

0.0

1.2

4.7

2.8

2.8

1.2

0.0

6.3

stratified

8.8

0.0

1.6

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.1

3.5

5.0

0.0

11.5

good stratified

8.8

0.0

0.2

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

2.4

5.2

n/a

1.4

all

7

3

8

11

3

5

4

7

3

3

1

16

stratified

4

3

8

8

3

4

2

4

3

1

1

10

2

3

1

1

3

1

0

5

good stratified 4 2 7 8 Table 34: AP Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

127

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Clothing

Overall

Flavian (AD 70s - 90s) Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

all

1.2

4.2

n/a

1.7

12.5

4.2

4.8

10.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

1.2

4.2

n/a

1.7

12.5

4.2

4.8

10.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

1.6

4.2

n/a

2.6

12.5

4.2

4.8

10.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

4.0

4.2

n/a

10.1

37.5

1.4

0.0

10.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

4.0

4.2

n/a

10.1

37.5

1.4

0.0

10.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

4.9

4.2

n/a

15.1

37.5

1.4

0.0

10.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

3.1

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

8.3

0.0

3.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

7.3

stratified

3.1

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

8.3

0.0

3.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

7.3

good stratified

3.9

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

8.3

0.0

3.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

7.3

all

70.3

63.3

n/a

73.1

37.5

79.2

76.2

63.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

84.2

stratified

70.3

63.3

n/a

73.1

37.5

79.2

76.2

63.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

84.2

good stratified

75.8

63.3

n/a

59.6

37.5

79.2

76.2

63.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

84.2

all

0.1

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.1

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.1

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

2.6

0.0

n/a

5.5

12.5

2.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

2.6

0.0

n/a

5.5

12.5

2.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

2.3

0.0

n/a

8.2

12.5

2.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

2.1

0.0

n/a

7.0

0.0

0.0

4.8

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

2.1

0.0

n/a

7.0

0.0

0.0

4.8

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

2.6

0.0

n/a

10.4

0.0

0.0

4.8

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

6.3

28.3

n/a

2.7

0.0

1.4

14.3

13.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

2.2

stratified

6.3

28.3

n/a

2.7

0.0

1.4

14.3

13.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

2.2

good stratified

6.1

28.3

n/a

4.0

0.0

1.4

14.3

13.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

2.2

all

10.4

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

2.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.3

stratified

10.4

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

2.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.3

good stratified

2.7

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

2.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.3

all

5

2

0

3

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

2

stratified

5

2

0

3

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

0

2

good stratified 4 2 0 2 1 2 Table 35: Flavian (AD 70s-90s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

128

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

Clothing

Ramparts

Flavian (AD 70s - 90s) Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

18.2

71.4

n/a

100

100

n/a

100

85.7

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

18.2

71.4

n/a

100

100

n/a

100

85.7

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

18.2

71.4

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

100

85.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

81.8

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

81.8

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

81.8

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

100

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

100

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

stratified

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

good stratified 0 1 1 0 0 1 Table 36: Flavian (AD 70s - 90s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

129

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Clothing

Overall

Hadrianic (AD 117 - 138) Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percent age Means, Part 1

all

4.6

4.8

12.5

7.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

2.7

stratified

8.8

0.0

0.0

7.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

2.7

good stratified

3.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2.7

all

1.6

4.8

6.3

3.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

1.9

0.0

9.1

3.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

2.7

4.8

6.3

3.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

3.6

0.0

0.0

3.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

2.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

73.6

66.7

62.5

58.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

81.1

stratified

66.0

75.0

90.9

58.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

81.1

good stratified

80.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81.1

all

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

6.8

4.8

6.3

10.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

7.0

0.0

0.0

10.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

1.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

1.6

0.0

0.0

3.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

1.6

0.0

0.0

3.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

5.8

4.8

6.3

13.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

6.2

12.5

0.0

13.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

2.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

3.3

9.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

16.2

stratified

4.8

12.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

16.2

good stratified

9.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

16.2

all

3

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

stratified

3

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

good stratified 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 37: Hadrianic (AD 117 - 138) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

0

0

0

0

1

Number of sites

130

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

Clothing

Rampart

Hadrianic (AD 117 - 138) Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percent age Means, Part 2

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

17.8

0.0

n/a

42.1

n/a

2.3

stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

13.7

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.8

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

12.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

31.6

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

15.6

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

2.1

stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

4.8

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.8

all

77.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

87.5

28.9

87.5

n/a

5.3

n/a

89.6

stratified

77.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

71.3

good stratified

77.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

80.9

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

6.7

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.4

stratified

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.1

good stratified

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.8

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

2.2

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

15.6

12.5

n/a

10.5

n/a

2.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.8

all

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

13.3

0.0

n/a

10.5

n/a

3.6

stratified

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

7.1

good stratified

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.9

all

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

2

stratified

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

good stratified 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 38: Hadrianic (AD 117 - 138) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

0

0

0

0

1

Number of sites

131

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Clothing

Overall

Ant onine (AD 140 - 160s) Composit e Fort : Functional Group Percent age Means, Part 1

all

9.5

1.6

16.0

1.2

2.0

1.1

2.1

3.2

6.3

n/a

6.7

6.1

stratified

6.2

2.2

16.0

1.2

2.0

1.1

2.1

3.2

6.3

n/a

6.7

7.8

good stratified

5.0

2.2

16.0

1.2

2.0

1.1

2.1

3.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

7.8

all

6.7

6.9

2.8

3.4

8.0

0.0

2.1

1.6

21.9

n/a

40.0

0.2

stratified

8.6

5.6

2.8

3.2

8.0

0.0

2.1

1.6

21.9

n/a

40.0

0.4

good stratified

4.3

5.6

2.8

3.2

8.0

0.0

2.1

1.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.4

all

4.5

5.9

1.8

3.2

0.0

6.7

0.0

0.0

6.3

n/a

26.7

1.0

stratified

4.5

7.9

1.8

3.0

0.0

6.7

0.0

0.0

6.3

n/a

26.7

1.6

good stratified

1.9

7.9

1.8

3.0

0.0

6.7

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.6

all

63.2

49.3

54.7

84.3

68.0

66.8

78.6

79.4

65.6

n/a

13.3

77.7

stratified

66.4

61.2

54.7

84.9

68.0

66.8

78.6

79.4

65.6

n/a

13.3

80.7

good stratified

75.4

61.2

54.7

84.9

68.0

66.8

78.6

79.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

80.7

all

0.1

0.4

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.1

good stratified

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.1

all

3.0

11.6

2.1

2.1

8.0

13.4

14.6

3.2

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

2.1

6.6

2.1

2.1

8.0

13.4

14.6

3.2

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.1

good stratified

2.4

6.6

2.1

2.1

8.0

13.4

14.6

3.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.1

all

0.7

3.4

2.9

1.0

4.0

1.6

0.0

4.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

5.6

stratified

0.5

2.2

2.9

1.0

4.0

1.6

0.0

4.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

0.6

2.2

2.9

1.0

4.0

1.6

0.0

4.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

10.8

17.9

16.1

3.4

8.0

10.4

2.1

8.7

0.0

n/a

13.3

8.3

stratified

10.3

12.2

16.1

3.4

8.0

10.4

2.1

8.7

0.0

n/a

13.3

7.5

good stratified

8.9

12.2

16.1

3.4

8.0

10.4

2.1

8.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

7.5

all

1.5

3.0

3.6

1.4

2.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

1.1

stratified

1.2

2.3

3.6

1.2

2.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

1.8

good stratified

1.4

2.3

3.6

1.2

2.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.8

all

9

4

2

5

1

3

2

1

1

0

1

5

stratified

8

3

2

5

1

3

2

1

1

0

1

3

good stratified 7 3 2 5 1 3 2 Table 39: Antonine (AD 140 - 160s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

1

0

0

0

3

Number of sites

132

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Vicus

Unknown

Number of sites

Bath/Ann

Unassigned

Annexes

Utilitarian

Outside

Transportation

Tower

Military

Gates

Religion

Ovens

Kitchen/Food

Intervallum

Health Care

Roads

Commerce

Drains

Clothing

Rampart

Ant onine (AD 140 - 160s) Composit e Fort : Functional Group Percent age Means, Part 2

all

0.8

8.3

1.1

2.4

10.0

12.5

n/a

0.0

0.1

95.6

n/a

14.1

stratified

0.0

8.3

1.2

1.5

10.0

12.5

n/a

0.0

0.1

n/a

n/a

7.9

good stratified

0.0

8.3

1.2

1.5

10.0

12.5

n/a

0.0

0.2

n/a

n/a

7.5

all

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

16.7

0.0

n/a

0.0

8.5

0.0

n/a

1.5

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

16.7

0.0

n/a

0.0

4.9

n/a

n/a

7.7

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

16.7

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.2

n/a

n/a

6.3

all

10.0

0.0

1.4

1.6

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.7

0.0

n/a

1.3

stratified

20.0

0.0

1.4

2.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.7

n/a

n/a

3.8

good stratified

20.0

0.0

1.4

2.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

1.1

n/a

n/a

0.3

all

76.9

87.5

92.5

75.4

63.3

76.7

n/a

47.1

72.7

4.4

n/a

70.8

stratified

60.0

87.5

92.3

78.1

63.3

76.7

n/a

77.6

77.3

n/a

n/a

74.5

good stratified

60.0

87.5

92.3

78.1

63.3

76.7

n/a

77.6

94.5

n/a

n/a

77.1

all

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.1

stratified

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

10.0

0.0

n/a

34.0

4.8

0.0

n/a

1.6

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

10.0

0.0

n/a

1.3

4.8

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

10.0

0.0

n/a

1.3

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

n/a

0.7

0.2

0.0

n/a

0.2

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

n/a

1.3

0.2

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

n/a

1.3

0.4

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.8

4.2

3.7

16.9

0.0

8.5

n/a

18.2

7.5

0.0

n/a

8.5

stratified

0.0

4.2

3.8

14.0

0.0

8.5

n/a

19.7

6.6

n/a

n/a

4.6

good stratified

0.0

4.2

3.8

14.0

0.0

8.5

n/a

19.7

2.7

n/a

n/a

6.8

all

11.5

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

5.4

0.0

n/a

1.9

stratified

20.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

5.4

n/a

n/a

1.6

good stratified

20.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.9

n/a

n/a

2.1

all

2

1

4

6

2

2

0

2

3

1

0

6

stratified

1

1

4

5

2

2

0

1

3

0

0

4

1

2

0

0

3

good stratified 1 1 4 5 2 2 0 Table 40: Antonine (AD 140 - 160s) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

133

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Overall

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

2nd Century Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

all

3.5

4.8

17.1

3.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.7

2.7

stratified

5.6

0.0

10.8

3.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.7

2.7

good stratified

3.1

n/a

21.7

1.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2.7

all

3.4

4.8

4.6

12.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

27.8

0.0

stratified

3.6

0.0

6.1

12.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

27.8

0.0

good stratified

1.2

n/a

3.0

5.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

2.9

4.8

4.9

3.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

20.4

0.0

stratified

3.4

0.0

1.8

3.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

20.4

0.0

good stratified

1.8

n/a

3.6

6.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

64.9

66.7

52.6

61.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

31.5

81.1

stratified

61.1

75.0

66.8

61.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

31.5

81.1

good stratified

85.8

n/a

42.8

69.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81.1

all

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

0.2

n/a

0.0

0.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

2.0

4.8

5.2

3.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

0.0

stratified

2.1

0.0

2.1

3.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

0.0

good stratified

0.7

n/a

4.2

1.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.6

0.0

0.3

1.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

0.6

0.0

0.3

1.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

0.3

n/a

0.6

1.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

13.2

4.8

11.6

12.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

13.0

0.0

stratified

13.4

12.5

8.4

12.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

13.0

0.0

good stratified

3.6

n/a

16.9

9.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

9.4

9.5

3.6

1.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

16.2

stratified

10.2

12.5

3.6

1.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

16.2

good stratified

3.2

n/a

7.2

5.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

16.2

all

6

1

2

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

stratified

6

1

2

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

good stratified 2 0 1 1 0 0 Table 41: 2nd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of Sites

134

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Rampart

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

2nd Century Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

all

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17.8

3.0

n/a

42.1

n/a

1.5

stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

3.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

9.1

good stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

all

0.0

n/a

2.9

2.1

33.3

12.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

31.6

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

2.9

2.1

33.3

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

2.1

33.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.0

n/a

8.5

4.2

0.0

0.0

15.6

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.8

stratified

0.0

n/a

8.5

4.2

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

2.7

good stratified

0.0

n/a

5.3

4.2

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.1

all

81.8

n/a

59.8

79.2

66.7

87.5

28.9

50.7

n/a

5.3

n/a

94.4

stratified

81.8

n/a

59.8

79.2

66.7

n/a

n/a

56.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

82.2

good stratified

81.8

n/a

84.2

79.2

66.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

92.4

all

0.0

n/a

2.6

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

2.6

2.1

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

5.3

2.1

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

9.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.7

2.2

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.1

stratified

9.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

2.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.6

good stratified

9.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.2

all

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.0

n/a

17.3

6.3

0.0

0.0

15.6

20.5

n/a

10.5

n/a

0.9

stratified

0.0

n/a

17.3

6.3

0.0

n/a

n/a

14.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.8

good stratified

0.0

n/a

5.3

6.3

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.2

all

9.1

n/a

8.8

6.3

0.0

0.0

13.3

23.6

n/a

10.5

n/a

2.3

stratified

9.1

n/a

8.8

6.3

0.0

n/a

n/a

23.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

4.6

good stratified

9.1

n/a

0.0

6.3

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.2

all

1

0

2

1

1

1

1

2

0

1

0

3

stratified

1

0

2

1

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

3

good stratified 1 0 1 1 1 0 Table 42: 2nd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

0

0

0

0

0

2

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of Sites

135

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Overall

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Severan (AD 192 – 211) Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percent age Means, Part 1

all

6.1

4.5

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.6

4.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.9

4.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

7.4

9.1

50.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

7.4

4.0

80.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

10.9

4.0

80.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

73.1

86.4

50.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

stratified

79.9

76.0

20.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

good stratified

78.3

76.0

20.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

all

0.2

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

2.4

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

2.7

16.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

4.1

16.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.2

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

9.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

8.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

4.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

1.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

stratified

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

good stratified 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Table 43: Severan (AD 192 – 211) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

0

0

0

0

1

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

136

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Rampart

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

Severan (AD 192 – 211) Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percent age Means, Part 2

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

35.1

n/a

n/a

11.9

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

35.1

n/a

n/a

1.3

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.3

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

22.6

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

10.4

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

24.1

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

6.7

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

24.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.7

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.2

n/a

n/a

2.7

n/a

n/a

0.4

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.4

n/a

n/a

2.7

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

33.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

61.3

n/a

n/a

18.9

n/a

n/a

66.3

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62.1

n/a

n/a

18.9

n/a

n/a

81.5

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

62.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

81.5

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.4

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

33.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

5.4

n/a

n/a

4.2

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

5.4

n/a

n/a

6.6

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.6

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.2

n/a

n/a

5.4

n/a

n/a

0.2

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.4

n/a

n/a

5.4

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

33.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.5

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

3.8

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.9

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

3.9

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.9

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.2

n/a

n/a

32.4

n/a

n/a

2.3

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

32.4

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

stratified

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

good stratified 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Table 44: Severan (AD 192-211) Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

0

0

0

0

2

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

137

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Overall

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

3rd Century Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

all

6.5

0.0

0.0

5.1

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

6.5

0.0

0.0

5.1

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

14.8

46.4

0.0

9.6

n/a

92.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

14.8

46.4

0.0

9.6

n/a

92.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

29.2

46.4

0.0

16.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

6.7

0.0

0.0

5.1

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

6.7

0.0

0.0

5.1

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

53.9

53.6

100

62.8

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

53.9

53.6

100

62.8

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

66.7

53.6

100

83.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

3.3

0.0

0.0

3.2

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

3.3

0.0

0.0

3.2

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.6

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.6

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

11.8

0.0

0.0

11.5

n/a

7.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

11.8

0.0

0.0

11.5

n/a

7.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

1.6

0.0

0.0

1.9

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

1.6

0.0

0.0

1.9

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

4

1

1

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

stratified

4

1

1

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

good stratified 1 1 1 1 0 0 Table 45: 3rd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

138

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Rampart

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

3rd Century Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

15.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

12.5

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

15.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

12.5

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4.5

n/a

n/a

n/a

12.5

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4.5

n/a

n/a

n/a

12.5

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

37.5

stratified

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

68.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

37.5

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

4.2

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

4.2

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

10.4

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

10.4

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

9.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

22.9

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

9.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

22.9

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

stratified

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

good stratified 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 46: 3rd Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

139

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Overall

Headquarters

Com. House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

4th Century Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

all

7.4

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

7.4

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

33.9

n/a

20.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44.4

stratified

33.9

n/a

20.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

44.4

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

2.8

n/a

0.0

2.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

2.8

n/a

0.0

2.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

2.8

n/a

n/a

4.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

48.3

n/a

60.0

95.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

33.3

stratified

48.3

n/a

60.0

95.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

33.3

good stratified

95.8

n/a

n/a

91.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

1.7

n/a

0.0

2.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

1.7

n/a

0.0

2.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

1.4

n/a

n/a

4.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

5.3

n/a

20.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11.1

stratified

5.3

n/a

20.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11.1

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.6

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11.1

stratified

0.6

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11.1

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

4

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

stratified

4

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

good stratified 1 0 0 1 0 0 Table 47: 4th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

140

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Rampart

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

4th Century Composite Fort : Funct ional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

all

n/a

0.0

5.9

1.9

n/a

19.4

n/a

13.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

5.9

1.9

n/a

19.4

n/a

13.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

0.0

25.1

32.7

n/a

66.7

n/a

5.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

31.3

stratified

n/a

0.0

25.1

32.7

n/a

66.7

n/a

5.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

31.3

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

0.0

4.8

8.2

n/a

0.0

n/a

5.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

4.8

8.2

n/a

0.0

n/a

5.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

12.5

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

100

46.9

45.7

n/a

5.6

n/a

73.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

62.5

stratified

n/a

100

46.9

45.7

n/a

5.6

n/a

73.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

62.5

good stratified

n/a

100

100

87.5

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

0.0

0.9

1.9

n/a

0.0

n/a

1.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.9

1.9

n/a

0.0

n/a

1.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

0.0

0.2

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.2

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

0.0

15.7

9.6

n/a

8.3

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.3

stratified

n/a

0.0

15.7

9.6

n/a

8.3

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

6.3

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

0.0

0.5

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.5

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0

1

3

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

stratified

0

1

3

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

good stratified 0 1 1 1 0 0 Table 48: 4th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

0

0

0

0

0

1

Clothing

Commerce

Health Care

Kitchen/Food

Religion

Military

Transportation

Utilitarian

Unassigned

Number of sites

141

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Headquarters

Com House

Barracks

Bar/Other

Granaries

Workshops

Work/Etc

Bath

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Clothing

Overall

Early 5t h Cent ury Composit e Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

all

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

43.5

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

43.5

100

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

2.9

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

2.9

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

47.1

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

47.1

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

6.5

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

6.5

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

stratified

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

good stratified Commerce

good stratified Health Care

good stratified Kitchen/Food

good stratified Religion

good stratified Military

good stratified Transportation

good stratified Utilitarian

good stratified Unassigned

good stratified Number of sites

good stratified Table 49: Early 5th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 1

142

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Drains

Roads

Intervallum

Ovens

Gates

Towers

Outside

Annexes

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

Clothing

Rampart

Early 5t h Cent ury Composit e Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

88.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

88.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

5.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

5.9

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

94.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

94.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

11.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

stratified

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

good stratified Commerce

good stratified Health Care

good stratified Kitchen/Food

good stratified Religion

good stratified Military

good stratified Transportation

good stratified Utilitarian

good stratified Unassigned

good stratified Number of sites

good stratified Table 50: Early 5th Century Composite Fort: Functional Group Percentage Means, Part 2

143

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Latrines

Hospital

Ditches

Early 5th C

Bath

4th Century

Work/Etc

3rd Century

Workshops

Severan AD 192 - 211

Granaries

2nd Century on Hadrian's Wall

Bar/Other

Antonine AD 140 - 160s

Barracks

Hadrianic AD 117 - 138

Com. House

Flavian AD 70s - 90s

Headquarters

AP

Overall

Animal Group Percent age Means from the Composit e Fort s, Part 1

all

7.7

0.1

0.0

8.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

87.5

7.7

stratified

13.4

0.0

0.0

8.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

89.0

1.4

good stratified

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

1.6

all

3.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

10.3

stratified

3.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

10.3

good stratified

3.7

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

10.3

all

30.3

0.0

0.0

46.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

stratified

30.3

0.0

0.0

46.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

good stratified

1.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

9.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

80.8

6.8

stratified

9.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

80.8

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

14.3

0.0

0.0

22.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

87.2

0.0

stratified

14.3

0.0

0.0

22.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

87.2

0.0

good stratified

0.2

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

0.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.5

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

23.4

0.0

0.0

31.6

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

23.4

0.0

0.0

31.6

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified Table 51: Animal Group Percentage Means from the Composite Forts, Part 1

144

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Bath/Ann

Vicus

Unknown

Early 5th C

Annexes

4th Century

Outside

3rd Century

Towers

Severan AD 192 - 211

Gates

2nd Century on Hadrian's Wall

Ovens

Antonine AD 140 - 160s

Intervallum

Hadrianic AD 117 - 138

Roads

Flavian AD 70s - 90s

Drains

AP

Rampart

Animal Group Percent age Means from the Composit e Fort s, Part 2

all

0.9

0.0

0.0

5.4

0.0

1.5

0.0

9.9

13.0

16.4

0.0

2.1

stratified

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

1.5

0.0

18.1

2.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

good stratified

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.0

n/a

0.1

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

18.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.4

stratified

18.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.4

good stratified

18.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.8

all

0.0

0.0

0.0

9.8

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

2.8

0.7

n/a

0.5

stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

2.8

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

4.2

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

15.4

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.1

stratified

15.4

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.1

good stratified

15.4

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.2

all

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.1

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.8

stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.3

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

3.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

all

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

good stratified

n/a

0.0

0.0

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

all

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

good stratified Table 52: Animal Group Percentage Means from the Composite Forts, Part 2

145

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Tables of Data: Functional Sub-Group Patterns in the AP Composite Fort Sub-group patterns for each functional group from the AP composite fort are included in this section (Tables 54-70, pages 147-163). As discussed in Chapter 5 (page 47), the number of sites which contributed data towards the percentage means from an area or building in the composite forts is a rough indicator of reliability. Therefore this data is presented in Table 53 below.

Areas/Buildings in the AP Composite Fort : Number of Sit es Excavated Good Stratified All Stratified Overall

12

15

17

Headquarters

6

8

11

Com. House

5

7

7

Barracks

8

11

11

Granaries

3

4

4

Workshops

2

2

2

Bath

1

2

2

Latrines

1

2

2

Hospital

0

1

1

Ditches

7

8

10

Rampart

4

4

7

Drains

2

3

3

Roads

7

8

8

Intervallum

8

8

11

Ovens

2

3

3

Gates

3

4

5

Towers

1

2

4

Outside

1

4

7

Annexes

3

3

3

Bath/Ann

1

1

3

Vicus

0

1

1

Unknown 5 10 16 Table 53: Areas/Buildings in the AP Composite Fort: Number of Sites Excavated

146

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Animal Group, Part 1 Cat Good Stratified Stratified

Bovine (Cattle/Oxen) All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Deer Good Stratified Stratified

Dog All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

0.0

0.0

0.0

80.9

75.4

43.5

0.0

0.5

4.2

0.0

0.7

1.6

Headquarters

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Com. House

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Barracks

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

46.6

47.8

n/a

1.8

1.9

n/a

2.1

2.2

Bar/Other

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Granaries

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Workshops

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Work/Etc

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bath

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

55.6

56.7

n/a

0.3

0.3

n/a

0.3

0.3

Ditches

0.0

0.0

0.0

30.8

30.8

66.5

0.0

0.0

3.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Outside

n/a

0.2

0.2

n/a

80.1

80.1

n/a

1.3

1.3

n/a

2.6

2.6

Annexes

0.0

0.0

0.0

40.0

40.0

47.1

4.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

31.0

n/a

n/a

2.3

n/a

n/a

1.2

Vicus

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Unknown

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

30.5

0.0

0.0

9.5

0.0

0.0

6.3

Table 54: Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Animal Group, Part 1

147

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Animal Group, Part 2 Fowl Good Stratified Stratified

Fox All

Good Stratified Stratified

Horse All

Good Stratified Stratified

Pig All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

0.9

0.9

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

6.2

5.6

7.3

21.7

Headquarters

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

33.3

Com. House

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Barracks

n/a

1.2

1.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.7

0.7

n/a

16.5

16.9

Bar/Other

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Granaries

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Workshops

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Work/Etc

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bath

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

0.3

0.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.6

0.6

n/a

10.5

7.6

Ditches

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.2

15.4

15.4

7.1

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

33.3

Towers

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Outside

n/a

0.4

0.4

n/a

0.1

0.1

n/a

1.0

1.0

n/a

6.0

6.0

Annexes

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

20.0

20.0

22.3

Bath/Ann

n/a

n/a

0.2

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

52.8

Vicus

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Unknown

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.6

0.0

0.0

27.0

Table 55: Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Animal Groups, Part 2

148

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort : Percent age Means of Animal Group, Part 3 Other

Seafood/Fish

Sheep/Goat

Good Stratified All Stratified

Good Stratified All Stratified

Good Stratified All Stratified

Overall

10.9

9.4

4.6

0.0

0.5

8.2

1.6

5.0

8.9

Headquarters

n/a

n/a

50.0

n/a

n/a

16.7

n/a

n/a

0.0

Com. House

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Barracks

n/a

13.1

4.6

n/a

3.9

5.6

n/a

14.0

19.1

Granaries

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Workshops

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bath

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

10.5

11.5

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

21.9

22.6

Ditches

53.8

53.8

12.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

16.7

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

0.0

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Outside

n/a

0.1

0.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

8.2

8.2

Annexes

4.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

32.0

32.0

25.0

Bath/Ann

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

1.4

n/a

n/a

11.0

Vicus

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Unknown

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

4.5

0.0

0.0

13.2

Table 56: Animal Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Animal Group, Part 3

149

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Clothing Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort : Percentage Means of Clothing Group Clot hing Good Stratified Stratified

Jewelry All

Good Stratified Stratified

Other All

Good Stratified Stratified

Shoe All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

5.0

3.8

2.8

78.3

69.4

59.3

2.9

7.0

6.3

13.8

19.7

31.7

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

0.0

83.3

55.6

43.3

0.0

33.3

50.0

16.7

11.1

6.7

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

75.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Barracks

0.0

0.0

4.2

83.4

75.9

80.7

3.2

14.1

8.4

13.3

10.0

6.7

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

70.0

70.0

85.7

30.0

30.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

0.0

0.0

0.0

57.1

57.1

57.1

42.9

42.9

42.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

83.3

91.7

92.9

16.7

8.3

7.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

100.0

100.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

16.7

16.7

8.3

22.2

22.2

40.3

0.0

0.0

4.2

61.1

61.1

47.2

Rampart

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

100.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Drains

0.0

0.0

0.0

75.0

87.5

87.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

12.5

12.5

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

66.7

68.8

50.0

33.3

31.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

33.3

100.0

100.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

94.4

93.3

0.0

5.6

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

87.5

n/a

n/a

12.5

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

84.2

84.7

0.0

3.5

2.7

0.0

12.3

12.6

Annexes

3.8

1.9

1.9

65.4

59.6

61.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

30.8

38.5

37.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

63.5

0.0

0.0

36.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

66.7

66.7

n/a

33.3

33.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

0.0

0.0

0.5

79.2

70.5

54.8

0.0

0.0

5.6

20.8

29.5

39.1

Table 57: Clothing Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Clothing Group

150

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Health Care Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort : Percent age Means of Health Care Group Body Good Stratified Stratified

Bone All

Good Stratified Stratified

Surgical All

Good Stratified Stratified

Wash All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

98.9

97.7

93.5

0.0

0.0

3.5

1.1

0.7

1.8

0.0

1.6

1.2

Headquarters

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Com. House

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Barracks

97.5

96.5

97.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.5

2.1

1.8

0.0

1.4

1.0

Bar/Other

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Granaries

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Work/Etc

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

71.4

75.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

28.6

25.0

Ditches

100.0

100.0

96.7

0.0

0.0

3.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rampart

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

100.0

100.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

100.0

100.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

Towers

n/a

n/a

100.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

100.0

95.0

98.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

1.1

Annexes

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

100.0

100.0

90.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Vicus

n/a

33.3

33.3

n/a

66.7

66.7

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

100.0

100.0

92.4

0.0

0.0

6.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

Table 58: Health Care Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Health Care Group

151

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Kit chen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Kit chen/Food Group, Part 1 Drink Good Stratified Stratified

Eat All

Good Stratified Stratified

Preparation All

Good Stratified Stratified

Storage All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

11.0

12.2

8.6

34.9

33.4

31.1

24.5

29.5

26.3

17.9

16.7

15.8

Headquarters

9.7

7.2

5.0

25.3

33.5

35.1

34.1

27.7

23.5

27.3

20.4

23.1

Com. House

15.0

15.5

15.7

36.8

32.0

35.2

35.8

36.0

25.0

9.9

9.9

17.3

Barracks

8.1

11.5

12.4

44.5

40.6

38.1

25.6

27.9

30.0

18.6

16.0

0.0

Bar/Other

2.6

2.6

2.6

26.3

26.3

26.3

50.0

50.0

50.0

21.1

21.1

21.1

Granaries

18.8

14.1

17.3

18.6

38.9

21.1

26.9

20.2

27.1

33.7

25.3

29.6

Workshops

9.4

9.4

7.6

44.7

44.7

40.5

34.4

34.4

40.5

6.2

6.2

6.1

Work/Etc

8.3

8.3

8.3

26.7

26.7

26.7

40.8

40.8

40.8

23.3

23.3

23.3

Bath

9.1

11.7

11.7

23.8

45.2

51.1

10.5

14.8

13.5

11.2

5.6

3.2

Latrines

6.7

3.3

3.3

40.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

52.3

52.3

33.3

20.5

20.5

Hospital

n/a

13.3

11.8

n/a

26.7

29.4

n/a

40.0

41.2

n/a

13.3

11.8

Ditches

9.5

10.4

7.8

33.3

33.0

31.6

30.4

26.8

25.8

25.7

22.5

31.4

Rampart

12.7

12.7

22.6

38.0

38.0

38.0

18.2

18.2

17.7

29.4

29.4

20.9

Drains

3.3

2.2

2.2

48.9

32.6

32.6

16.0

21.8

19.0

30.7

42.7

37.1

Roads

14.3

13.8

13.4

37.5

41.4

41.4

25.6

27.8

28.5

12.1

10.9

9.6

Intervallum

5.3

5.3

9.0

29.1

22.9

26.1

38.9

47.2

36.8

22.7

22.7

26.7

Ovens

37.5

25.0

25.0

50.0

40.0

40.0

0.0

13.3

13.3

12.5

21.7

21.7

Gates

6.2

10.9

5.5

22.3

16.8

37.4

25.3

25.2

17.1

40.7

30.5

23.1

Towers

0.0

0.0

10.8

40.0

40.0

26.6

20.0

30.0

21.6

40.0

30.0

22.3

Outside

3.8

11.4

8.2

33.3

47.1

25.8

17.9

25.0

10.2

29.5

12.3

27.9

Annexes

13.0

15.1

12.4

43.9

39.3

36.9

11.3

18.9

25.0

20.8

19.2

18.5

Bath/Ann

23.3

21.9

11.8

26.7

25.0

27.4

16.7

25.0

20.0

30.0

25.0

11.1

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

33.3

33.3

n/a

50.0

50.0

n/a

16.7

16.7

Unknown

6.5

8.9

6.2

36.6

28.9

27.5

19.9

31.3

23.7

26.5

18.8

20.2

Table 59: Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Kitchen/Food Group, Part1

152

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Kit chen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Kit chen/Food Group, Part 2 Food Good Stratified Stratified

Knife All

Good Stratified Stratified

Other All

Good Stratified Stratified

Unknown All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

0.0

0.0

0.3

1.0

1.8

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.6

6.3

16.8

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

2.4

0.7

2.6

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

8.5

6.8

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

5.0

5.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

1.7

1.8

Barracks

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

1.4

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

2.6

3.5

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

1.0

4.4

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.8

3.8

3.8

Work/Etc

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.7

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

44.1

22.0

20.1

Latrines

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.8

3.8

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

6.7

5.9

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

6.4

1.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.9

1.7

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.2

1.7

1.7

0.2

Drains

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.7

9.1

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.0

0.1

0.1

9.8

5.2

6.5

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.4

1.3

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.4

Ovens

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.3

4.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.6

10.4

12.2

Towers

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.6

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.8

5.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.8

3.4

22.6

Annexes

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.1

6.5

6.5

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

3.1

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

28.7

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

0.0

0.0

0.3

2.0

2.4

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.4

9.7

20.2

Table 60: Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Kitchen/Food Group, Part 2

153

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Milit ary Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort: Percentage Means of Milit ary Group Apparel Good Stratified Stratified

Housing All

Good Stratified Stratified

Weapons All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

26.9

27.5

17.0

13.4

10.3

6.2

59.7

62.2

76.8

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

0.0

75.0

75.0

100.0

Com. House

14.3

14.3

7.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

85.7

85.7

92.9

Barracks

1.6

8.5

7.2

8.3

6.7

5.6

90.1

84.8

87.2

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Granaries

3.7

3.7

10.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

96.3

96.3

89.3

Workshops

3.6

3.6

2.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

96.4

96.4

97.2

Work/Etc

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

75.0

75.0

75.0

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

100.0

100.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

83.3

83.3

80.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.7

16.7

20.0

Rampart

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

0.0

50.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

50.0

50.0

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Ovens

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Gates

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

100.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

100.0

Outside

0.0

11.9

7.9

0.0

11.9

7.9

100.0

76.2

84.1

Annexes

91.7

90.0

82.7

4.2

6.7

9.6

4.2

3.3

7.7

Bath/Ann

66.7

66.7

85.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

14.5

Vicus

n/a

75.0

75.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

25.0

25.0

Unknown

90.0

45.0

13.7

0.0

0.0

6.8

10.0

55.0

79.5

Table 61: Military Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Military Group

154

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Religion Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percentage Means of Religion Group Altar Good Stratified Stratified

Burial All

Good Stratified Stratified

Other All

Good Stratified Stratified

Tombstone All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

15.0

12.5

36.3

0.0

0.0

8.3

85.0

87.5

39.3

0.0

0.0

16.1

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

20.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

79.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

Com. House

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Barracks

0.0

0.0

41.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

58.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bar/Other

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Granaries

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Workshops

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Work/Etc

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bath

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Ditches

25.0

25.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

75.0

75.0

75.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

0.0

0.0

33.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Towers

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Outside

n/a

0.0

92.9

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

100.0

7.1

n/a

0.0

0.0

Annexes

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

n/a

n/a

100.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Vicus

n/a

100.0

50.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

50.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

100.0

100.0

42.7

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

25.4

0.0

0.0

21.8

Table 62: Religion Sub-Group, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Religion Group

155

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Transport ation Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort : Percentage Means of Transportat ion Group Cart Good Stratified Stratified

Farrier All

Good Stratified Stratified

Harness All

Good Stratified Stratified

Other All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

40.4

30.3

34.5

0.3

0.3

9.2

58.9

69.2

54.6

0.3

0.3

1.7

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

83.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Barracks

7.6

5.7

4.5

1.0

0.8

20.6

91.4

93.6

75.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

33.3

33.3

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.7

66.7

83.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

80.0

80.0

83.3

20.0

20.0

16.7

Bath

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Ditches

50.0

50.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rampart

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Drains

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Roads

100.0

50.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

100.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

0.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Annexes

0.0

12.5

10.0

0.0

12.5

10.0

100.0

75.0

80.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

100.0

100.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

n/a

0.0

27.7

n/a

0.0

11.5

n/a

100.0

58.4

n/a

0.0

2.4

Table 63: Transportation Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Transportation Group

156

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Ut ilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Utilit arian Group, Part 1 Construction Good Stratified Stratified

Fire All

Good Stratified Stratified

Furnishing All

Good Stratified Stratified

Games All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

4.9

4.2

3.5

16.3

6.5

7.4

2.8

3.0

9.1

10.2

15.2

13.9

Headquarters

13.3

10.7

6.6

5.0

4.0

2.8

0.0

0.0

4.7

35.0

28.0

31.1

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

21.1

15.8

12.6

0.0

0.0

4.0

15.5

11.6

9.3

Barracks

0.6

0.9

0.7

37.3

22.4

18.6

6.5

6.7

6.6

19.4

12.8

12.1

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

22.2

16.7

13.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.3

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

28.6

0.0

0.0

14.3

16.7

16.7

14.3

Work/Etc

13.3

13.3

13.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

10.0

7.7

0.0

0.0

15.4

Latrines

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

2.9

2.4

2.4

35.0

29.2

20.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

2.4

2.4

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

20.0

Drains

9.1

4.5

6.3

9.1

4.5

6.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Roads

0.0

1.4

1.1

33.3

15.7

15.4

8.3

7.1

7.1

16.7

16.1

16.6

Intervallum

20.8

17.9

13.9

10.4

8.9

5.6

0.0

2.4

7.4

11.1

9.5

7.4

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

33.3

25.0

25.0

33.3

25.0

25.0

16.7

12.5

12.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

4.8

n/a

n/a

33.3

n/a

n/a

9.5

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

60.0

20.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.2

20.0

8.8

1.0

Annexes

2.6

2.4

1.0

40.0

40.0

25.5

5.3

4.8

2.0

2.6

2.4

2.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.7

7.1

7.1

1.5

7.1

7.1

8.0

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

0.0

0.0

2.2

12.5

6.5

6.7

0.0

0.0

10.3

20.8

10.5

12.5

Table 64: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 1

157

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Ut ilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Utilit arian Group, Part 2 Glass-working Good Stratified Stratified

Lamp All

Good Stratified Stratified

Metal-working All

Good Stratified Stratified

Other All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

2.4

1.4

1.5

1.8

1.5

2.4

19.6

19.5

11.8

11.8

14.1

9.1

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

18.3

14.7

13.3

0.0

0.0

10.5

Com. House

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.4

4.0

3.2

5.4

4.0

7.2

Barracks

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.1

3.7

3.9

4.3

24.3

20.9

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

37.5

37.5

20.4

23.6

17.9

Workshops

16.7

16.7

14.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

28.6

Work/Etc

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

Bath

20.0

20.0

15.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

10.0

7.7

10.0

10.0

15.4

Latrines

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

16.7

14.3

n/a

33.3

28.6

n/a

16.7

14.3

Ditches

0.0

0.0

5.4

0.0

0.0

4.2

15.7

13.1

14.1

22.9

19.0

13.3

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

40.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

45.5

22.7

31.3

0.0

50.0

50.0

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

28.6

28.6

0.0

5.4

7.1

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.7

14.3

11.1

9.7

15.5

17.0

8.3

9.5

14.1

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

4.8

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.0

37.3

36.6

0.0

1.4

17.3

Annexes

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

2.4

34.3

11.9

13.8

13.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.1

0.0

0.0

2.1

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

0.0

0.0

1.5

4.2

2.5

1.8

26.4

21.8

5.8

0.0

0.0

6.1

Table 65: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 2

158

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Ut ilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Utilit arian Group, Part 3 Stud Good Stratified Stratified

Text ile Equipment All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Tools Good Stratified Stratified

Wood-working All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

12.6

17.7

11.1

8.4

6.1

13.1

0.5

0.4

2.2

3.3

2.7

5.5

Headquarters

13.3

30.7

16.4

0.0

0.0

2.3

0.0

0.0

4.4

5.0

4.0

2.3

Com. House

15.1

11.3

29.0

16.7

37.5

28.0

2.2

1.6

1.3

1.1

0.8

0.6

Barracks

10.2

15.2

13.5

4.0

4.1

14.5

0.6

0.3

0.3

6.9

4.1

3.4

Bar/Other

25.0

25.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

25.0

Granaries

0.0

8.3

11.6

0.0

8.3

12.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.7

2.8

2.3

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.3

13.3

13.3

Bath

20.0

20.0

15.4

20.0

20.0

15.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

10.0

7.7

Latrines

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hospital

n/a

33.3

28.6

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

0.0

0.0

6.7

5.7

4.8

21.3

5.0

4.2

0.0

10.0

8.3

6.3

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

36.4

18.2

6.3

Roads

8.3

16.4

15.1

0.0

4.3

5.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

16.7

14.3

6.7

4.2

3.6

2.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.1

1.8

1.1

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

16.7

12.5

18.8

0.0

18.8

18.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

4.8

n/a

n/a

11.4

n/a

n/a

6.7

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

4.0

13.9

0.0

1.4

0.6

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.5

0.2

Annexes

5.3

7.1

7.1

2.6

2.4

2.0

2.6

2.4

1.0

7.9

7.1

3.0

Bath/Ann

7.1

7.1

11.3

64.3

64.3

37.6

0.0

0.0

2.9

14.3

14.3

2.9

Vicus

n/a

100.0

100.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

15.3

13.2

13.4

20.8

23.5

15.8

0.0

0.0

3.4

0.0

0.0

5.4

Table 66: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 3

159

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Ut ilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Utilit arian Group, Part 4 Writing Tools Good Stratified Stratified

Leat her-working All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Antler-working Good Stratified Stratified

Clay-working All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

5.3

1.2

1.9

0.1

5.1

4.4

0.0

1.2

1.7

0.1

0.1

0.6

Headquarters

10.0

8.0

5.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Com. House

16.7

12.5

4.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Barracks

2.5

1.5

1.2

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.0

2.9

1.9

0.6

0.3

1.1

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

3.7

2.8

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

6.7

6.7

6.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

14.3

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

0.0

16.7

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.3

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.0

Drains

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

3.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

13.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

24.8

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

26.1

13.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Annexes

8.6

8.1

5.0

7.9

7.1

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.8

0.0

0.0

0.7

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

0.0

20.0

3.7

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.0

2.0

7.1

0.0

0.0

0.5

Table 67: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 4

160

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Utilit arian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort : Percent age Means of Utilit arian Group, Part 5 St one Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

0.0

0.0

0.7

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

0.0

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

Barracks

0.0

0.0

0.8

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

0.0

0.0

0.0

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

0.0

0.0

0.0

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

0.0

0.0

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

Annexes

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.0

Vicus

n/a

0.0

0.0

Unknown

0.0

0.0

1.3

Table 68: Utilitarian Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Utilitarian Group, Part 5

161

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Unassigned Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Unassigned Group, Part 1 Worked Bone Good Stratified Stratified

Antler All

Good Stratified Stratified

Ceramic All

Good Stratified Stratified

Glass All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

12.9

8.6

1.6

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.5

22.7

17.7

11.4

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.7

16.7

12.5

Barracks

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

38.1

28.6

22.9

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

41.7

31.3

26.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.0

Rampart

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

12.5

6.7

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

25.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

8.3

Outside

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

50.0

22.2

Annexes

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.8

1.5

1.3

12.8

11.5

11.3

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

4.2

0.0

0.0

4.2

Vicus

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Unknown

0.0

0.0

1.5

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

1.7

0.0

20.0

7.8

Table 69: Unassigned Sub-Groups, AP Composte Fort: Percentage Means of Unassigned Group, Part 1

162

Appendix 5: Tables of Data

Unassigned Sub-Groups, AP Composit e Fort : Percent age Means of Unassigned Group, Part 2 Leather Good Stratified Stratified

Metal All

Good Stratified Stratified

Stone All

Good Stratified Stratified

Wood All

Good Stratified Stratified

All

Overall

0.0

8.0

9.0

64.4

65.7

70.3

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.0

0.0

5.1

Headquarters

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

87.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Com. House

0.0

0.0

0.0

83.3

83.3

62.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

Barracks

0.0

0.0

0.0

61.9

71.4

77.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bar/Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Granaries

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Workshops

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Work/Etc

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bath

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Latrines

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hospital

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

100.0

100.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

n/a

0.0

0.0

Ditches

0.0

0.0

0.0

58.3

68.8

52.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

Rampart

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.7

66.7

83.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Drains

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

100.0

Roads

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

87.5

93.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Intervallum

0.0

0.0

0.0

50.0

50.0

75.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ovens

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Gates

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

100.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Towers

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

91.7

n/a

n/a

0.0

n/a

n/a

0.0

Outside

0.0

47.8

31.9

0.0

2.2

45.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Annexes

8.3

4.4

3.8

66.1

72.6

73.8

10.0

10.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Bath/Ann

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.7

66.7

60.4

33.3

33.3

6.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

Vicus

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Unknown

0.0

0.0

5.7

100.0

80.0

71.6

0.0

0.0

7.6

0.0

0.0

3.8

Table 70: Unassigned Sub-Groups, AP Composite Fort: Percentage Means of Unassigned Group, Part 2

163

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

164

Appendix 6: Glossary

Dignitatum. See Goodburn and Bartholomew 1976 for more on the Notitia and Collingwood and Wright 1965 and Todd 1999 for inscriptions.

Appendix 6: Glossary ala/alae: The Roman term for an auxiliary unit composed entirely of cavalry. The units had nominal strengths of 500 or 100 men, and were called quingenaria or milliaria, respectively (Webster 1985:145-149).

central range: The center part of a Roman fort containing the headquarters, the commander's house and the granaries. The central range was called latera praetorii by the Romans (see page 39 and Figure 13, page 38).

amphora/amphorae: A type of Roman pottery typically used to hold foodstuffs such as wine, olive oil and sauces. These large jars generally had narrow mouths, long necks and a point on the bottom to facilitate storage, stacking and lifting.

century: The basic division of the Roman army. Centuries were 80 men strong and commanded by a centurion. Both the legions and the foot auxiliaries were formed into centuries.

antonine: A term referring either to the family of emperors composed of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138 - 161), Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161 - 180) and Commodus (A.D. 180 - 192) or to the period of time during which those emperors reigned. In Britain, Antonine can refer to the Wall built by Antoninus Pius in Scotland. In this study, Antonine generally refers to the period during which the Romans occupied the Antonine Wall (A.D. 140 - early 160s). See Antonine I, II, III below.

civitas/civitates: Generally the capital town or city of a regional or local government division. In Roman Britain the local government divisions were usually based on the pre-conquest tribal divisions. Many times the names of these towns can be ascertained through historical references and and surviving itineraries or maps, such as the Antonine Itinerary (early third century A.D.) (Rivert 1970) and the Ravenna Cosmography (c. A.D. 700) (Rivet and Smith 1979; Frere 2001). These include the names of some military installations as well.

antonine I/II/III: Periods of occupation on the Antonine Wall derived from textual sources. Antonine III has been discarded, as archaeology does not support it. There seems to have been a change of garrison, or perhaps a brief abandonment, between Antonine I (A.D. 140 to the mid or later 150s) and II (mid to later A.D. 150s to early 160s). See Chapter 2 page 12.

coarse wares: Ceramics, in this study usually manufactured in Roman Britain, which are generally not brightly colored like samian or other 'fine' wares. In this study coarse wares are considered to be all ceramics except samian, amphorae, and mortaria. Specific types of coarse ware are fairly diagnostic for dating, such as the black burnished wares produced in southern Britain (early second to late fourth century A.D.) and traded up either side of the island to the frontier region (see Gillam 1970, 1988, also see Webster (ed) 1976 and Tomber and Dore 1998).

auxilia: A class of Roman army units composed of nonRoman citizens (see auxiliaries below). In the late Roman army, auxilia were a type, rather than a class, of unit. auxiliaries: A class of Roman army units composed of non-Roman citizens. The soldiers of auxiliary units were given Roman citizenship upon the end of their terms of service (usually 20 to 25 years) (Johnson 1983:20). Oftentimes these troops were specialists: archers, slingers, boatmen, etc (Goldsworthy 1996:19). In general there were three types of auxiliary unit: infantry (cohors peditata), mixed infantry and cavalry (cohors equitata) and cavalry (ala). Each type had nominal strengths of 500 (quingenaria) or 1000 (milliaria) men (Webster 1985:145-149).

cohors/cohortes: The Roman name for either an auxiliary infantry or an auxiliary part mounted unit. Legions also were also divided into cohorts, which were composed of six centuries (Webster 1985:109-112), Goldsworthy 1996:13-16). cohors equitata/cohortes equitatae: Part mounted auxiliary units. These had two strengths, either nominally 500 men (quingenaria) or 1000 men (milliaria). These units were used for scouting and skirmishing (Davies 1971:760).

castrum/castra: The permanent installation of a Roman auxiliary unit or irregular unit. These installations are conventionally called 'forts' and are the subject of this study. Many times the names of the fort and the unit inhabiting it, can be deduced from inscriptions, diplomae and listings in itineraries, on maps, or on the Notitia

cohortes milliariae equitatae: Part mounted auxiliary units with a nominal strength of 1000. colonia/coloniae: Towns or cities founded for and by veterans of the Roman legions.

165

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

comitatus/comitatenses: Late Roman field armies (in place by the late third to early fourth centuries A.D.). The late Roman army was divided into field armies (comitatenses) and frontier troops (limitanei). The field armies were stationed strategically at some distance behind the frontier (Elton 1996:64). The comitatus had existed under Diocletian (A.D. 284-305) but it seems to have been a small force reinforced when needed by detachments (vexillations) from the frontier armies. Under Constantine (A.D. 306-337) the comitatus was enlarged by permanent detachments from the frontier armies and the raising of new troops (called auxilia) (Jones 1986:607-608).

and Domitian A.D. 81-96), or the years in which they reigned. foederatus/foederati: Barbarian tribes settled within the Roman Empire by treaty arrangement which had to supply irregular troops to the Roman army (Esmonde Cleary 1989:6). They were allowed to retain their leaders and laws in return for service in the Roman army (Jones 1998:33). hadrianic: A term referring to the span of years during which Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) reigned. horreum/horrea: A granary. This term, as used by the Romans, refers to a storehouse which could hold more than grain. See page 41.

contubernium/contubernia: The smallest unit of organization in the Roman army. A contubernium was made up of 8 men who shared a tent in the field and a pair of barracks rooms while not in the field.

intervallum: The area between the walls of a Roman fort and the road (via sagularis) which was just behind the walls (see Figure 14, page 40).

cuneus: A Roman irregular cavalry unit which, unlike the ala/alae, was not standardized as to size and organization (Southern 1989:81). A cuneus (the cuneus Frisiorum) served at Housesteads in northern Britain in the third century A.D. (Crow 2004:65-67).

irregulars: A term used to refer to the units of the Roman army which were not legions or auxiliaries. These irregular units were typically entitled numerus, cuneus, foederatus, laetus, etc. Irregular units appeared during the first century A.D. and had become an established part of the army, as attested by epigraphic evidence, by the reign of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180). These units were generally recruited from tribes in the provinces or from newly subdued tribes (Southern 1989:86-88). Several irregular units served in northern Britannia, including the numerus barcariorum Tigrisiensium at South Shields (Breeze and Dobson 2000:274) and the numerus Hnaudifridi and cuneus Frisiorum at Housesteads (Crow 2004:65-67).

dextra: The Roman term for 'right'. diploma/diplomae: A document given to an auxiliary soldier upon discharge to prove his Roman citizenship, often inscribed on bronze. One copy of the document was given to the discharged soldier or trooper and a master copy was sent to Rome. These documents were first issued under Claudius, and are an important source of information. The documents give evidence not only about individual soldiers, but also about unit histories, recruitment, locations of units, officers and governs and patterns of settlement after discharge (Campbell 1994:193-194). There are about 400 diplomae known from the Empire as a whole (Roxan 1994; see also Roxan 1978, Mann and Roxan 1988, and see Holder 2006 for a recent analysis of diplomae). When citizenship was granted to every free inhabitant of the Empire by Caracalla in A.D. 212, the diplomae ceased to be issued (Campbell 1994:194).

laetus/laeti: A tribe or part of a tribe of barbarians which had surrendered to the Romans (Esmonde Cleary 1989:6) and was then drafted into the Roman army. Laeti were settled under Roman governance in the depopulated areas of the Empire (Jones 1998:33; Goldsworthy 2003:204). They are mentioned briefly in some of the stant sources (Notitia Dignitatum Occ. XLII, XXXIV, XXXV, c. early fifth century A.D.) as having been stationed in Gaul, on the Danube and in Italy and are inferred by the evidence of burials and grave goods to have been present in other areas (MacMullen 1990:52-53).

equitata/equitatae: A term used in the titles of Roman auxiliary units to indicate that they were composed of part mounted and part infantry troops.

latera praetorii: The central range of a Roman fort, which usually held the headquarters, commanders house and granaries (see page 39 and Figure 13, page 38).

equites: A late Roman term for a cavalry unit, or the cavalry section of a legion. fabrica/fabricae: A workshop. See page 41.

legion: The largest Roman army unit. The legion was made up of Roman citizens and generally performed as heavy infantry although they did have a small cavalry component. Legions were sub-divided into centuries. Six

flavian: A term referring to the Flavian family of emperors, Vespasian (A.D. 69-70), Titus (A.D. 79-81) 166

Appendix 6: Glossary

centuries made a cohort, and there were 10 cohorts in a legion. The first cohort of the legion was nearly doubled, some time in the first century A.D., resulting in a size of five centuries of 160 men each. Each legion comprised a little over 5000 men, total (Webster 1985:109-112 and see Goldsworthy 1996:13-16 for more on the organization of the legion).

samian: A type of Roman pottery with a red-gloss slipped surface. It can be decorated with classical designs and figures and was manufactured in Gaul. Samian potters often signed their work. Studies of the manufacturing sites in Gaul make it possible to identify these individual potters or their workshops and trace the distribution of their pottery all over the Empire. Collections of samian are very sensitive date indicators; some can be dated to within a decade or two. The trade in samian pottery slowly stopped during the third century A.D., ending about A.D. 260 (de la Bedoyere 1988:7, 9, 41-43, also see Webster 1996 and de la Bedoyere 1988).

limitanei: A late Roman term for frontier troops. The late Roman army was generally divided into the comitatenses (field troops) and the limtanei (frontier troops). Jones (1986:607-608) postulates that the limitanei were reduced in size over time and eventually sank in prestige, but see contra Elton (1996:68).

severan: A term referring to the Severan family of emperors, Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211), Caracalla (A.D. 212-217), Elagabalus (A.D. 218-222) and Severus Alexander (A.D. 222-235), or the years in which they reigned.

marching camp: A camp built by units of the Roman army while in the field. Typically the camp was slightly fortified with a ditch and a rampart built from the earth upcast from digging the ditch.

sinistra: The Roman term for 'left'. milliaria/milliarae: A term used to indicate that an auxiliary unit has a nominal strength of 1000.

terra sigilata: Samian pottery (see above).

mortarium/mortaria: A type of Roman pottery used as a mixing or grinding bowl. The bowl had a gritted surface with a wide lip on the rim and often a pouring spout. Collections of this type of pottery can be used to date sites See Chapter 7, pages 77-78, Swan 1988 and pages 61 and 117-118 in Alcock 2001 for more on mortaria.

turma/turmae: The equivalent, in a cavalry unit, of a legionary or auxiliary century. The turma was composed of 32 men who lived together in the same barracks building, and were commanded by a decurion. The cavalry sections in mixed units (cohortes equitatae) were also organized in turmae, although the infantry sections in those units were the standard century in size and organization (Webster 1985:112-113, 146, 148-149).

numerus/numeri: A irregular unit of the Roman army, composed of infantry soldiers. It was not standardized as to size or organization (Southern 1989:81).

vexillatio: Part of a roman army unit detached from its parent unit.

peditata/peditatae: A term used in the titles of Roman auxiliary units to indicate that they are infantry only.

vexillation: see above. This term also refers to the fortress, fort or marching camp in which the detachment was stationed.

porta/portae: The Latin word for gate. See Figures 13, 14, pages 38, 40.

via/viae: The Roman term for road. praetentura: The area of a Roman fort situated in front of the headquarters building. See Figure 13, page 38.

vicus/vici: The settlement typically found outside a Roman fort. These settlements were the homes of the families of the soldiers stationed in the fort and grew in size because of commerce centered around the fort and its associated civilians (Wacher 1975:21; see also Sommer 1984).

praetorium: The Roman term for the commander's house in a fort or fortress (see page 41). principia: The Roman term for the headquarters in a fort or fortress (see page 39). pugio: A knife used by Roman legionaries. quingenaria: A term used to indicate that an auxiliary unit has a nominal strength of 500. retentura: The area of a Roman fort situated behind the headquarters building. See Figure 13, page 38. 167

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

168

1991 Bewcastle and Old Penrith: A Roman Outpost Fort and a Frontier Vicus. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series no. 6, Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd, Stroud

Bibliography Abbreviations

AA Archaeologia Aeliana BAR British Archaeological Reports CW Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society JRS Journal of Roman Studies MoLAS Museum of London Archaeological Sciences PSAS Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland PSAN Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle

de la Bedoyere, Guy 1988 Samian Aylesbury

Ware.

Shire

Archaeology,

1989 The Finds of Roman Britain. BT Batsford Ltd, London 2001 Eagles over Britannia: The Roman Army in Britain. Tempus, Stroud Bidwell, Paul 1999 'A Summary of Recent Research on Hadrian's Wall' in Hadrian's Wall 1989-1999: A Summary of Recent Excavations and Research. edited by Paul Bidwell, pg 7-36. Titus Wilson and Son, Ltd, Kendal

Alcock, Joan P. 2001 Food in Roman Britain. Stroud:Tempus Publishing Ltd Aldhouse-Green, Miranda and Peter Webster (editors) 2002 Artefacts and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World. University of Wales Press, Cardiff

Bidwell, Paul (editor) 1999 Hadrian's Wall 1989-1999: A Summary of Recent Excavations and Research. Kendal:Titus Wilson and Son, Ltd

Allason-Jones, Lindsay 1988 'Small Finds from Turrets on Hadrian's Wall' in Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. edited by J. C. Coulston, pp 197-233. BAR International Series 394, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Bidwell, Paul, Margaret Snape and Alexandra Croom 1999 Hardknott Roman Fort, Cumbria. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series No. 9. Titus Wilson and Son, Ltd, Kendal

1989 Women in Roman Britain. British Museum Publications, London

Bidwell, Paul and Margaret Snape 2002 'The History and Setting of the Roman Fort at Newcastle Upon Tyne' AA5 XXXI:251-283

Allason-Jones, Lindsay and Bruce McKay 1985 Coventina's Well. Trustees of the Clayton Collection, Chesters Museum, Chesters

Binford, Sally J and Lewis R. Binford (eds) 1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago

Allison, Penelope M. 1999 'Labels for Ladles: Interpreting the Material Culture of Roman Households' in The Archaeology of Household Activities. edited by P. M. Allison, Chapter 5. Routledge, London

Bintliff, John and Mark Pearce (eds) 2011 The Death of Archaeological Oxbow, Oxford

Theory?

Allison, Penelope M. (editor) 1999 The Archaeology of Household Activities. Routledge, London

Birley, Anthony 1973 'Petillius Cerialis and the Conquest of Brigantia' Britannia IV 179:190

Anderson, A. C. and A. S. Anderson (editors) 1981 Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe Part i. BAR Int Series I 23(i), British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Birley, Eric 1937 'Fifth Report on Excavations at Housesteads' AA4 xiv:172-184 1938 'Excavations 72:275-347

Austen, Paul S. 169

at

Birrens,

1936-7'

PSAS

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

1961 Research on Hadrian's Wall Titus Wilson and Son, Kendal

Carrawburgh, 1967-1969' AA4 l:81-144 1973 128

'Excavations at Ardoch 1970' PSAS 102:122-

Birley, Eric and John Charlton, with a note on the coins by W. Percy Hedley. 1932 'Excavations at Housesteads in 1931' AA4 ix:222-237

1987 'Britain' in The Roman World. vol I. edited by J. Wacher, Chapter 9. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

1934 ‘Third report on excavations at Housesteads’ AA4 xi:185–205

2003 'John Collingwood Bruce and the Study of Hadrian's Wall' Britannia 34:1-18

Birley, Eric, John Charlton and Percy Hedley 1933 'Excavations at Housesteads in 1932' AA4 x:82-96

Breeze, David J. and Brian Dobson 1985 'Roman Military Deployment in North England' Britannia 16:1-19

Birley, Eric, Brian Dobson and Michael Jarrett (editors) 1974 Roman Frontier Studies 1969 University of Wales Press, Cardiff

2000 Hadrian's Wall. 4th ed Penguin Books, London

at

Buchanan, M., D. Christison and J. Anderson 1905 'Report on the Society's excavation of Rough Castle on the Antonine vallum' PSAS 39:442-99

Birley, Robin 1963 'Excavation of the Roman Fortress at Carpow, Perthshire 1961-2' PSAS xcvi:184-207

Budge, E. A. Wallis 1907 An Account of the Roman Antiquities Preserved in the Museum at Chesters Northumberland. Gilbert and Rivington, London

Birley, Eric and G. S. Keeney 1935 ‘Fourth report on Housesteads’ AA4 12:204–59

excavations

1993 'Introduction' in Vindolanda: The Early Wooden Forts. Vindolanda Research Reports, new series vol III, edited by C. Van Driel-Murray, pp ixxii. Vindolanda Research Reports, Bardon Mill

Calverley, W. S 1895 'The Roman Fort at Hardknott known as Hardknott Castle' CW1 13:449-452 Campbell, Brian 1994 The Roman Army 31 BC - AD 337 Sourcebook. Routledge, London

Bishop, M. C. And J. C. N. Coulston 2006 Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome. Oxbow, Oxford

Casey, P. J. (ed) 1979 The End of Roman Britain. BAR British Series 71, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Bosanquet, R. C. 1904 'Excavations on the Line of the Roman Wall in Northumberland: The Roman Camp at Housesteads' AA2 xxv:193-300

Charlesworth, Dorothy 1963 'The Granaries at Hardknott Castle' CW2 63:148-152

Bowman, Alan K. 1994 Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier. British Museum Press, London

1975 'The Commandant's House: AA5 iii:17-42

Bowman, Alan K. and J. David Thomas 2003 The Vindolanda Writing Tablets; Tabulae Vindolandenses III. British Museum Press, London

at

the

Roman

Fort

Housesteads'

Charlesworth, Dorothy and J. H. Thornton 1973 'Leather found on Mediobogdum, the Roman fort of Hardknott' Britannia 4:141-152

Braund, David 1984 'Observations on Cartimandua' Britannia XV:1-6 Breeze, David J. 1972 'Excavations

A

Childe, V. Gordon 1956 Piecing Together the Past. Praeger, New York

of

Christison, D. 170

Bibliography

1896 'Account of the excavation of Birrens, a Roman station in Annandale undertaken by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1895' PSAS 30:81-199

214 Cottam, Sally, David Dungworth, Sarah Scott and Jeremy Taylor (editors) 1994 TRAC 94: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 1994. Oxbow, Oxford

Christison, D. and J. H. Cunningham 1898 'Account of the excavation of the Roman Station at Ardoch, Perthshire, undertaken by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1896-97' PSAS 32:399-476

Coulston, John C. (editor) 1988 Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. BAR International Series 394, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Clarke, David L. 1978 Analytical Archaeology. 2nd ed. Methuen and Co, Ltd, London

Cowper, H. Swainson 1893 'Hardknott Castle' CW1 12:228-233

Clarke, David L. (ed) 1972 Models in Archaeology. Methuen and Co, Ltd, London

Croom, A. T. 2003 'The Finds' in The Roman Fort at Wallsend (Segedunum): Excavations in 1997-8. edited by N. Hodgson, pp 183-240. Tyne and Wear Museums Archaeological Monograph 2, Newcastle

Clarke, Simon 1994 'A Quantitative Analysis of the Finds from the Roman Fort of Newstead -- some preliminary findings', in TRAC 94: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 1994. edited by Cottam, Dungworth, Scott and Taylor, pp 72-82. Oxbow, Oxford

Crow, James 1988 'An Excavation of the North curtain Wall at Housesteads' AA5 xvi:61-124 2004 Housesteads, A fort and Garrison on Hadrian's Wall. Tempus, Stroud

Collingwood, R. G. 1922 'The Roman Fort at Bewcastle' CW2 22:169185 1928

Croxford, Ben, Hella Eckardt, Judy Meade and Jake Weekes (editors) 2004 TRAC 2003. Oxbow, Oxford

'Hardknott Castle' CW2 28, 314–52

Collingwood, R. G. and R. P. Wright 1965 The Roman Inscriptions of Britain vol I. Claredon Press, Oxford

Croxford, Ben, and Helen Goodchild, Jason Lucas and Nick Ray (editors) 2006 TRAC 2005. Oxbow, Oxford

Cool, H. E. M. 2004a The Roman Cemetery at Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67. Monograph Series 21, London

Daniels, Charles M. 1980 ‘Excavation at Wallsend and the fourth century barracks on Hadrian’s Wall’ in Roman Frontier Studies 1979. edited by W. S. Hanson and L. J. F. Keppie, pp 173-93. BAR Int. Series 71, Oxford

Brougham, Britannia

2004b 'A Note on the Age and Sex Categories Used in the Analyses' in The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67. edited by H. E. M. Cool, pp 309. Britannia Monograph Series 21, London

Darling, Margaret J. 1989 'Nice Fabric, Pity about the Form' in Journal of Roman Pottery Studies. edited by Rob Perrin, pp 98-101. Oxbow Books, Oxford

Cool, H. E. M, G. Lloyd-Morgan and A. D. Hooley 1995 The Archaeology of York 17/10: The Small Finds. Finds from the Fortress. York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research and the Council for British Archaeology, York

Davies, Gwyn, Andrew Gardner and Kris Lockyear 2001 Trac 2000: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 2000. Oxbow, Oxford Davies, R. W. 1971 'Cohortes Equitatae' Historia 20:751-763

Corder, W. S. 1913 'Segedunum - the Last Phase' PSAN3 5:209171

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

1989 Service in the Roman Army. University Press, Edinburgh

Edinburgh

Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2004 'The Tombstones and Inscribed Stones' in The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67. edited by H. E. M. Cool, pp 405-435. Britannia Monograph Series 21, London

Detsicas, Alec (editor) 1973 Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery. CBA Research Report no. 10, Council for British Archaeology, London Dixon, Karen R. and Pat Southern 1992 The Roman Cavalry. London

Forcey, Colin, and John Hawthorne and Robert Witcher (editors) 1998 TRAC 97. Oxbow, Oxford

B.T. Batsford, Ltd, Frere, Sheppard 1987 Britannia:A History of Roman Britain. Guild, London

Donaldson, G. H. 1990 'A Reinterpretation of RIB 1912 from Birdoswald' Britannia 21:207-214

2001 'The Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain Between the Walls' Britannia 32:286-292

Dore, J. N. and J. J. Wilkes 1999 'Excavations directed by J D Leach and J J Wilkes on the site of a Roman fortress at Carpow, Perthshire, 1964-79' PSAS 129:481-575

Frere, Sheppard and J. J. Wilkes 1989 Strageath: Excavations within the Roman Fort. Britannia Monograph Series No 9, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London

Dornier, Ann 1974 'The Reorganization of the North-Western Frontier of Britian in AD 369: Ammianus Marcellinus and the Notitia Dignitatum' in Roman Frontier Studies 1969. edited by Eric Birley, Brian Dobson and Michael Jarrett, pp 102-105. University of Wales Press, Cardiff 1982 260

Funari, Pedro Paulo, Sian Jones and Martin Hall 1999 'Introduction: Archaeology in History' in Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. edited by Pedro Funari, Sian Jones and Martin Hall, Chapter 1. Routledge, London Funari, Pedro Paulo, Sian Jones and Martin Hall (editors) 1999 Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. Routledge, London

'The Province of Valentia' Britannia 13:253-

Dyson, Stephen L. 1985 The Creation of the Roman Frontier. Princeton University Press, Princeton Elton, Hugh 1996 Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Indiana University Press , Bloomington

Gardner, Andrew N. 2001 'Identities in the Late Roman Army: Material and Textual Perspectives' in Trac 2000: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 2000. edited by Gwyn Davies, Andew Gardner and Kris Lockyear, pp 35-47. Oxbow, Oxford

Esmonde Cleary, A. S. 1989 The Ending of Roman Britain. B.T. Batsford Ltd, London

Garlick, Tom 1985 Hardknott Castle Roman Fort 5th ed, Fretwell and Brian Ltd, Keighley, West Yorks

Fabricius, Ernst 1932 'Some Notes on Polybius' Description of Roman Camps' JRS 22:78-87

Gidney, L. J. 200 'The Animal Bones from the Hospital and Barrack XII' in The Roman Fort at Wallsend (Segedunum): Excavations in 1997-8. edited by N. Hodgson, pp 231-240. Tyne and Wear Museums Archaeological Monograph 2, Newcastle

Fair, M. C. 1924 'Addenda Antiquaria: Finds from Hardknott' CW2 24:370-71

Gillam, J. P. 1949 'Trial Trenching at Bewcastle' CW2 49:216218

Ferguson R. S., C. W. Dymond and W. S. Calverley 1893 The Roman Fort on Hardknott known as Hardknott Castle CW extra series 1 Titus Wilson and Son Ltd Kendal

1954 172

'The Roman Bath-house at Bewcastle' CW2

Bibliography

54:265-267

Hanson, W. S. and L. J. F. Keppie (eds) 1980 Roman Frontier Studies 1979 BAR Int. Series 71, Oxford

1970 Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain. 3rd ed. Oriel Press, Ltd, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Hanson, W. S. and Gordon Maxwell 1983 The Antonine Wall: Rome's North West Frontier. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

1981 'Part II: Roman Pottery and the Economy' in Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe Part i. edited by A. C. Anderson and A. S. Anderson, pp 9-24. BAR Int Series I 23(i), British Archaeological Reports, Oxford pp 9-24

Harbottle, Barbara 1974 'Excavation and Survey in Newcastle-uponTyne 1972-73' AA5 2: 57-79

Gillam, J. P., I. M. Jobey and D. A. Welsby 1993 The Roman Bath-House at Bewcastle, Cumbria CW Research Series No 7, Titus Wilson and Son, Ltd, Kendal

Harding, D. W. (editor) 1976 Hillforts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland. Academic Press, London Harris, David R. (editor) 1994 The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Goldsworthy, Adrian 1996 The Roman Army at War 100 BC - AD 200. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000

Hartley, Brian 1972 'The Roman Occupations of Scotland: the Evidence of the Samian Ware' Britannia III 1-55

Roman Warfare. Cassell and Co , London

2003 The Complete Roman Army. Hudson, New York

Thames and 1973 'The Marketing and Distribution of Mortaria' in Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery. edited by Alec Detsicas, pp 39-51. CBA Research Report no. 10, Council for British Archaeology, London

Goodburn, R. and P. Bartholomew 1976 Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum. BAR International Series 15, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Haverfield, Francis 1912 The Romanization Claredon Press, Oxford

Grahame, Mark 1998 'Redefining Romanization: Material Culture and the Question of Social Continuity in Roman Britain' in TRAC 97. edited by Colin Forcey, John Hawthorne and Robert Witcher, pp 1-10. Oxbow, Oxford

of

Roman

Britain.

Hepple, Leslie W. 2002 'John Dee, Harleian MS 473, and the Early Recording of Roman Inscriptions in Britain' Britannia 33:177-181

Greene, Kevin 2002 'Pots and Plots in Roman Britain' in Artefacts and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World. edited by Miranda Aldhouse-Green and Peter Webster, pp 235-256. University of Wales Press, Cardiff

2004 ''The Camden Connection': Revisiting the Origins of Romano-British Archaeology and Its Historiography' in TRAC 2003. edited by Ben Croxford, Hella Eckardt, Judy Meade and Jake Weekes, pp 147-156. Oxbow, Oxford

Gwilt, Adam and Colin Haselgrove (editors) 1997 Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71 Oxbow, Oxford

Hind, J. G. F. 1977 'The 'Genounian' Part of Britain' Britannia VIII:229-234

Hanson, W. S. 1987 Agricola and the Conquest of the North. BT Batsford, London

Hobley, Andrew S. 1989 'The Numismatic Evidence for the PostAgricolan Abandonment of the Roman Frontier in Northern Scotland' Britannia XX:69-74

Hanson, W. S. and D. B. Campbell 1986 'The Brigantes: From Clientage to Conquest' Britannia XVII 73:89

Hodder, Ian 1972 'Locational 173

Models

and

the

study

of

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Romano-British Settlement' (ed) 1972

pp 887-909 in Clarke

Holder, Paul 2006 Roman Military Diplomas V. Classical Studies, London

1974 'Some Marketing Models for Romano-British Coarse Pottery' Britannia 5:340-359 1999 The Archaeological Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford

Process:

Holmes, Nicholas 2003 Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, Edinburgh. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Monograph 23, Edinburgh

An

2001 'Introduction: A Review of Contemporary Theoretical Debates in Archaeology' in Archaeological Theory Today. edited by Ian Hodder, pp 1-13. Polity Press, Cambridge

Honore, Tony 1987 'Scriptor Historiae Augustae' JRS 77:156-176 Hyland, Ann 1993 Training the Roman Cavalry From Arrian's Ars Tactica. Grange Books, London

Hodder, Ian (editor) 2001 Archaeological Theory Today. Polity Press, Cambridge

Jarrett, Michael G. 1985 'History, Archaeology and Roman Scotland' PSAS 115:59-66

Hogdson, G. W. I. 1972 'Animal Remains' in 'Excavations at the roman Fort of Carrawburgh, 1967-1969' AA4, edited by D. Breeze, p 144.

Jobey, Ian 1979 'Housesteads Ware - A Frisian Tradition on Hadrian's Wall' AA5 7:127-43

Hodgson, N. 1995 'Were there Two Antonine Occupations of Scotland?' Britannia XXVI:29-49

Johnson, Anne 1983 Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD in Britain and the German Provinces. Adam and Charles Black, London

2003 The Roman Fort at Wallsend (Segedunum): Excavations in 1997-8. Tyne and Wear Museums Archaeological Monograph 2, Newcastle 2003a 'The Stanegate: Britannia 31:11-22

Institute of

Johnson, Matthew 1999 Archaeological Theory: Blackwell, Oxford

A frontier Rehabilitated'

An Introduction.

Jones, A. H. M. 1954 'The Date and Value of the Verona List' JRS 44:21-29

Hoffman, Brigitta 1994 'Use of Space and Variability of Ground Plans: a study of legionary centurions' quarters' in TRAC 94: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 1994. edited by Sally Cottam, David Dungworth, Sarah Scott and Jeremy Taylor, pp 8389. Oxbow, Oxford

1986 The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (volume I). reprint. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Jones, Barri and David Mattingly 1990 An Atlas of Roman Britain. Oxford

2001 'Archaeology versus Tacitus' Agricola, A 1st Century Worst Case Scenario' Roman Gask Ridge Project. Electronic Document, http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk /Pages/Introduction/Tacitus.html, accessed May 29, 2008.

Jones, M.E. 1998 The End of University Press, Ithaca

Roman

Blackwell,

Britain.

Cornell

Jones, R. F. J. 1981 'Change on the Frontier: Northern Britain in the Third Century' in The Roman West in the 3rd C. edited by Anthony King and Martin Henig, pp 393404. BAR International Series 109(ii), British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

2004 'Tacitus, Agricola and the Role of Literature in the Archaeology of the First Century AD' in Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries. edited by Eberhard Sauer, pp 151166. Routledge, New York

174

Bibliography

Jones, Sian 1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. Routledge, London

Mann, J. C. 1979 'Hadrian's Wall: The Last Phases' in The End of Roman Britain. edited by P. J. Casey, pp 144151. BAR British Series 71, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Keppie, Lawrence 1981 'Mons Graupius: The Search for a Battlefield' Scottish Archaeological Forum 12:79-88

1989 'The Creation of Four Provinces in Britain by Diocletian' Britannia 29:339-341

1986 Scotland's Roman Remains. John Donald Publishers Ltd, Edinburgh

Mann, John C. and David J. Breeze 1987 'Ptolemy, Tacitus and the Tribes of North Britain' PSAS 117:85-91

Keppie, Lawrence J. F., et al 1985 'Excavation of the Roman Fort at Bar Hill, 1978-82' Glasgow Arch. J. 12:49-81

Mann, John C. and Margaret M. Roxan 1988 'Discharge Certificates of the Roman Army' Britannia 19:341-347

King, Anthony and Martin Henig (editors) 1981 The Roman West in the 3rd C. BAR International Series 109(ii), British Archaeological Reports, Oxford Laurence, Ray and Joanne Berry (editors) 1998 Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. Routledge, London

Masser, Paul 2006 Cramond Roman Fort: Evidence from Excavations at Cramond Kirk Hall 1998 and 2001 Scottish Archaeological Internet Report 20, 2006. Electronic Document, www.sair.org.uk/sair20/ index.html accessed August 20, 2007.

Luttwak, Edward N. 1976 The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Maxwell, Gordon 1972 'Excavations at the Roman Fort of Crawford, Lanarkshire' PSAS 104:147-200

MacDonald, George 1915 'Some recent discoveries on the line of the Antonine Wall' PSAS 49:123-128

1981 'Agricola's Campaigns: the Evidence of the Temporary Camps' Scottish Archaeological Forum 12:25-54

1933 'Notes on the Roman forts at Rough Castle and Westerwood, with a postscript' PSAS 67: 243-77

McCarthy, Mike 2002 Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway. Tempus Ltd, Stroud

1934 The Roman Wall in Scotland. Clarendon, Oxford

McGuire, Randall H. and Robert Paynter (editors) 1991 The Archaeology of Inequality. Blackwell, Oxford

MacDonald, George and Alexander Park 1906 The Roman Forts on the Bar Hill, Dumbartonshire. James Maclehose and Sons, Glasgow

Meadows, Karen, Chris Lemke and Jo Heron (editors) 1997 TRAC 96: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. OxBow, Oxford

MacDonald, George and A. O. Curle 1929 'The Roman Fort at Mumrills near Falkirk' PSAS 63:396-572

Meskell, Lynn 1999 Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Class et cetera in Ancient Egypt. Blackwell, Oxford

MacIvor, Iain, M. Clare Thomas and David J. Breeze 1980 'Excavations on the Antonine Wall fort of Rough Castle, Stirlingshire, 1957-61' PSAS 110:230285

Miller, M. C. J. and J. G. DeVoto (trans and eds) 1994 Polybius and Pseudo-Hyginus: The Fortification of the Roman Camp. Ares Publishers, Chicago

MacMullen Ramsey 1990 Changes in the Roman Empire. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Millet, Martin 1990 The Romanization of Britain. Cambridge 175

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

University Press, Cambridge

Reed, Nicolas 1976 'The Scottish Campaigns Severus' PSAS 107:92-102

Milner, N. P. 1996 'Introduction' in Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science. 2nd revised edition, edited by N. P. Milner, pp xii-xliii. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool

Septimus

Renfrew, Colin 1972 Emergence of Civilization. Routledge Kegan Paul, London

Milner, N.P (translator) 1996 Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science. 2nd revised edition, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool

Reid, J. Jefferson, Michael B. Schiffer and William L. Rathje 1975 'Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies' American Anthropologist 77(4):864-869

Peacock, D. P. S. 1982 Pottery in the Roman World: An Ethnoarcheological Approach. Longman, London Peacock, D.P.S. and D. F. Williams 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Longman, London

of

Ritchie, Graham and Anna Ritchie 1981 Scotland, Archaeology and Early History. Thames and Hudson, London

Economy.

Richmond, Ian A. 1936 'Ardoch' Arch. Journal 93:312-14

Pearce, Mark 2011 'Have Rumours of the 'Death of Theory' been Exaggerated?' in The Death of Archaeological Theory? edited by John Bintliff and Mark Pearce pp 80-89 Oxbow, Oxford

1950

Richmond, Ian A, K. S. Hodgson and J.K. St. Joseph 1938 'The Roman Fort at Bewcastle' CW2 38:195237

Pearson, Andrew 2002 The Roman Shore Forts: Coastal Defences of Southern Britain. Tempus, Stroud

Richmond, Ian and James McIntyre 1936 'The Roman Fort at Fendoch in Glenalmond: A preliminary Note' PSAS lxx:400-406

Perrin, Rob (editor) 1989 Journal of Roman Pottery Studies. Oxbow Books, Oxford

'Hadrian's Wall, 1939-1949' JRS 40:43-56

1939 'The Agricolan Fort at Fendoch' xlliii:110-154 Rivet A .L. F. and Colin Smith 1979 The Place-Names Batsford Ltd, London

Pitts, Lynn F. and J. K. St. Joseph 1985 Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress Excavations 1952-65. Britannia Monograph Series No. 6 Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, London

of

Roman

PSAS

Britain.

Robertson, Anne S. 1964 The Roman Fort at Castledykes. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh

Ptolemy 1991 The Geography. translated and edited by Edward Luther Stevenson, Dover Publications, New York

1975 Birrens (Blatobulgium). T and A Constable Ltd, Edinburgh

Rae, Alan and Viola Rae 1974 'The Roman Fort at Cramond, Edinburgh: Excavations 1954-1966' Britannia 5:163-224

Robertson, Anne S. and Margaret Scott and Lawrence Keppie 1975 Bar Hill: A Roman Fort and Its Finds. BAR British Series No. 16, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

Reece, Richard 1988 My Roman Britain. Cirencester

Cotswold Studies III,

2002 The Coinage of Roman Britain. Stroud

Roxan, M. 1978 Roman Military Diplomas Institute of Archaeology, London

1954-1977.

Tempus, 1994 Roman Military Diplomas Institute of Archaeology, London 176

1985-1993.

Bibliography

Sainsbury, Ian S. And Humphrey G. Welfare 1990 'The Roman Fort at Bewcastle: Analytical Field Survey' CW2 90:139-46

of Newcastle upon Tyne An Snape, Margaret, Paul Bidwell, et al 2002 The Roman Fort at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. AA5 31, Society of Antiquaries Newcastle-uponTyne, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Sauer, Eberhard (editor) 2004 Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries. Routledge, New York Schiffer, Michael B 1972 'Archaeological Context and Context' American Antiquity 37:156-65

Sommer, CS 1984 The Military Vici in Roman Britain. Aspects of their Origins, their Location and Layout, Administration, Function and End British Archaeological Reports British Series 129, Oxford

Systemic

1975 'Archaeology as Behavior Science' American Anthropologist 77(4):836-48 1976 Behavioral Archaeology. New York

Sorensen, Marie Louise Stig 2000 Gender Archaeology. Cambridge

Academic Press,

1995 Behavioral Archaeology: First Principles. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake Life

of

Human

Press,

South, Stanley 2002 Method and Theory in Archaeology. (new edition) Percheron Press, New York

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake

1999 The Material Routledge, London

Polity

Southern, P. 1989 'The Numeri of the Roman Imperial Army' Britannia 20:81-140

Beings. Spradley, Kelly 2001 'Small Finds: Problems and Possibilities' in Trac 2000: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, London 2000. edited by Gwyn Davies, Andew Gardner and Kris Lockyear, pg 104-111. Oxbow, Oxford

2000 Social Theory in Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake Scott, Eleanor 2006 '15 Years of TRAC - Reflections on a Journey' in TRAC 2005. edited by Ben Croxford, Helen Goodchild, Jason Lucas and Nick Ray, pg 111115. Oxbow, Oxford

Steer, K. A. 1960 'The Antonine Wall: 1934-1959' JRS 50:8493

Shelton, Jo-Ann 1988 As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. Oxford University Press, Oxford

1961 'Excavations at Mumrills Roman Fort, 195860' XCIV:86-132

Shotter, D. A. 1980 'The Roman Occupation of North-west England: The Coin Evidence' CW2 lxxx:1-22

1964a 'John Horsley and the Antonine Wall' AA4 xlii:1-39

1964

'Ardoch' Archaeological Journal 121:196

Swan, Vivien G. 1988 Pottery in Roman Archaeology, Aylesbury

1993 Romans and Britons in North-West England. Centre for North-West Regional Studies, Preston Smith, Samuel 1939 'An Indeterminate structure and a hearth found outside the Roman Fort at Mumrills' PSAS 73:319-325

Britain.

Shire

1999 'The Twentieth Legion and the History of the Antonine Wall Reconsidered' PSAS 129:399-480 Syme, Ronald 1968 Ammianus and Claredon Press, Oxford

Smith, D. J. unpub (1954) ‘Excavation at Housesteads 1954’ manuscript at the Museum of Antiquities, University 177

the

Historia

Augusta.

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Tacitus 1970 Agricola translation by H. Mattingly, revised by S. A. Handford. Penguin Books, New York

Guide. 3rd ed. CBA Research Report No 6 Council for British Archaeology, London

Thomas, Charles 1997 Celtic Britain. Thames and Hudson, London

Webster, P. V. 1996 Roman Samian Ware in Britain. Council for British Archaeology, York

Todd, Malcolm 1999 'The Latest Inscriptions of Roman Britain' Durham Archaeological Journal 14-15:53-58

Wells, Peter S. 1984 Farms, Villages University Press, Ithaca

Tomber, Roberta and John Dore 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A Handbook. MoLAS monograph 2, Museum of London, London

Wild, J.P. 2002 'The Textile Industries of Roman Britain' Britannia 33:1-42

Trigger, Bruce G. 1989 A History of Archaeological Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Cities.

Cornell

Wilkes, J. J. 1960 ‘Excavations at Housesteads in 1959’ AA4 38: 61–71 1961 ‘Excavations in Housesteads fort, 1960’ AA4 39:279–300

Thought.

1994 'Childe's Relevance to the 1990s' in The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe. edited by David R. Harris, pp 9-34. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Willis, S. 1997 'Samian: Beyond Dating' in TRAC 96: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. edited by Karen Meadows, Chris Lemke, and Jo Heron, pp 38-54. OxBow, Oxford

Van Driel-Murray, Carol 1993 'The Leatherwork' in Vindolanda: The Early Wooden Forts. edited by C. Van Driel-Murray, pp 176. Vindolanda Research Reports, new series vol III. Vindolanda Research Reports, Bardon Mill

Wilmott, Tony 1997 Birdoswald, Excavations of a Roman Fort on Hadrian's Wall and it's successor Settlements: 1987-92. English Heritage, London

Van Driel-Murray, Carol (editor) 1993 Vindolanda: The Early Wooden Forts. Vindolanda Research Reports, new series vol III. Vindolanda Research Reports, Bardon Mill

Woolliscroft, D. J 1993 'Signaling and the Design of the Gask Ridge System' PSAS 123:291-313

Wacher, John 1975 The Towns of Roman Britain. BT Batsford Ltd, London Wacher, John (editor) 1987 The Roman World. vol I. Kegan Paul, London

and

Woolliscroft, D. J. and B. Hoffman 2006 Rome's First Frontier: The Flavian Occupation of Northern Scotland. Tempus, Stroud

Routledge and

Woolf, Greg 1998 Becoming Roman: Provincial Civilization in University Press, Cambridge

Webster, Graham 1981 'The History and Archaeology of Roman Britain in the 3rd C' in The Roman West in the 3rd C. edited by Anthony King and Martin Henig, Chp 12. BAR International Series 109(ii), British Archaeological Reports, Oxford

The Origins of Gaul. Cambridge

Wright, R. P. 1965 'A Hadrianic Building-Inscription Hardknot, Cumberland' CW2 65:169-175

from

Yentch, Anne and Mary C. Beaudry 2001 'American Material Culture in Mind, Thought and Deed ' in Archaeological Theory Today. edited by Ian Hodder, Chp 9. Polity Press, Cambridge

1985 The Roman Imperial Army. 3rd ed. Barnes and Noble, Totowa Webster, Graham (editor) 1976 Romano-British Coarse Pottery: A Student's 178

attributes........................................................................... artifact.......................................................................89

Index A. Platorius Nepos..........................................................9

auxilia.........................................................................165

Agricola............................................................................ governor......................................................................5 marching camps..........................................................5

auxiliaries....................................................................165 Bar Hill....................................................12, 29p., 39, 93

Allectus.........................................................................19

Bar Hill............................................................................. bathhouse...................................................................41 shoes..........................................................................53

Allison, P................................................................32, 43

barbarian conspiracy.....................................................24

Ambleside.......................................................................9

barracks............................................................................. chalet.........................................................................22 Strageath....................................................................41 'chalet' style'...............................................................18

ala/alae........................................................................165

Ammianus Marcellinus.................................................22 amphora/amphorae...............................................31, 165

baths.................................................................................. eating activity............................................................57

Analytical Archaeology................................................30 annexes.........................................................................39

Bearsden.......................................................................12

antiquarians...................................................................27 early...........................................................................27

Behavioral archaeology..........................................32, 35

antonine......................................................................165 antonine I/II/III........................................................165

Bertha..............................................................................6

Antonine Wall................................................................... abandonment.............................................................15 building of...................................................................9 chronology.................................................................29 construction...............................................................12 modified plan............................................................12 Moorish war..............................................................34 occupation periods....................................................29 periods of occupation................................................12 sequence of occupation.............................................32 first plan...................................................................12

Bewcastle.......................................................................... baths..........................................................................59

archaeological record....................................................35

Brigantes.......................................................................12 revolt.........................................................................12

Bewcastle....................................9, 15, 18, 22, 24, 37, 93

Binford, Lewis..............................................................30 Birdoswald..........................................................9, 17, 24 Birdoswald........................................................................ rebuilding............................................................19, 22 Birrens...................................................5p., 9, 12, 29, 93 black burnished ware....................................................31

archaeology, Romano-British........................................... current state...............................................................33

Britannia Inferior.....................................................17pp.

Ardoch..........................................................6, 12, 39, 93

Britannia Prima.............................................................22

areani............................................................................24

Britannia Superior.........................................................17

army, Roman.................................................................... depleted by usurpers..................................................24 mutiny.......................................................................17 withdrawal from Scotland...........................................6

Britannnia Secunda.......................................................22 Brougham......................................................................... cemetery..............................................................33, 75 Camden.........................................................................27

artifacts............................................................................. unstratified.................................................................39

Caracalla.......................................................................17 Carausius......................................................................19

artifacts, Roman................................................................ study of.......................................................................... advances...............................................................28

Carlisle.............................................................5p., 19, 24 Carpow....................................................................17, 97

Attacotti........................................................................24

Carpow.............................................................................. 179

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

severan.......................................................................12

Clothing Group Distribution.....................................64 Clothing sub-groups..................................................63 Commerce group.......................................................63 Commerce Group Distribution..................................66 Health Care group.....................................................67 Health Care sub-groups.............................................67 Kitchen/Food Group Distribution.............................58 Kitchen/Food Sub-Groups........................................59 Military Group Distribution......................................68 Military sub-groups...................................................65 Religion group...........................................................69 Religion sub-groups..................................................69 stratified animal remains...........................................69 Transportation group.................................................65 Transportation Group Distribution............................70 Transportation sub-groups........................................67 Utilitarian group........................................................59 Utilitarian Group Distribution...................................62 Health Care Group Distribution...............................71 Religion Group Distribution....................................72

Carrawburgh.................................................9, 28, 30, 97 Carrawburgh..................................................................... Coventina's Well.......................................................30 Carvetii............................................................................. civitas capital.............................................................19 Castledykes.............................................6, 12, 15, 29, 97 Castlesteads....................................................................9 castrum/castra.............................................................165 central range...............................................................165 century........................................................................165 ceramic assemblage by type......................................77p. ceramics........................................................................42 ceramics............................................................................ studies............................................................................ amphorae.............................................................34 fabric....................................................................34

composite forts................................................................. areas outside..............................................................55 areas outside the fort.................................................54 areas within the fort...................................................52 barracks.....................................................................49 buildings and areas....................................................49 commander's house...................................................51 Commerce.................................................................48 ditches....................................................................52p. Flavian.......................................................................48 Hadrian's Wall system...............................................49 Hadrianic...................................................................48 headquarters..............................................................51 Intervallum................................................................54 Kitchen/Food.............................................................48 miscellaneous buildings............................................52 period patterns...........................................................48 roads.......................................................................53p. second century...........................................................48 Utilitarian..................................................................48

Chesters........................................................................27 Childe, V. Gordon........................................................28 civitas/civitates...........................................................165 Clarke, David................................................................30 Clayton, John................................................................27 Clodius Albinus............................................................17 coarse ware...........................................................31, 165 coarse ware....................................................................... black burnished ware.................................................31 cohors equitata.................................................................. cohortes milliariae equitatae.............................18, 165 cohors equitata/cohortes equitatae..............................165 cohors milliaria equitata...............................................18

computer........................................................................... analysis......................................................................36 Database queries........................................................36 spreadsheet................................................................36

cohors/cohortes...........................................................165 Coins.............................................................................28 Collingwood Bruce, J.............................................28, 34

Constans........................................................................22

Collingwood, R. G..................................................28, 34

Constantius.............................................................19, 22

colonia/coloniae..........................................................165

Constantius II................................................................24

comitatus/comitatenses.........................................22, 166

Constantius III..............................................................24

Commodus........................................................................ war.............................................................................15

contubernium/contubernia..........................................166 Corbridge...............................................................5p., 19

composite fort, AP............................................................ Clothing group..........................................................61

Cramond......................................12, 15, 17p., 34, 39, 97 180

Index

Cramond........................................................................... annexe.......................................................................39 infant burial..........................................................75 bathhouse.............................................................39, 51 fort.............................................................................17 industrial complex.....................................................17 severan.......................................................................12

dextra..........................................................................166 dimension, artifact............................................................ formal........................................................................35 frequency...................................................................35 relational....................................................................36 spatial........................................................................35 diploma/diplomae.................................................32, 166

Crawford.............................................................6, 12, 97

emperors........................................................................... of Britannia................................................................83

Crawford........................................................................... Flavian.......................................................................50 workshop...................................................................52

epitoma rei militaris......................................................37

Cremations........................................................................ female........................................................................33

equitata/equitatae........................................................166 equites...................................................................22, 166

cultural transforms............................................................ abandonment.............................................................50 barracks......................................................................... recovered, military apparel items........................65 baths.............................................................................. function................................................................52 building......................................................................... function................................................................73 cleaning.....................................................................55 clothing and shoe sub-groups........................................ preservation.........................................................63 commander's house....................................................... function..........................................................51, 60 composite buildings...................................................... functions..............................................................55 direct loss..................................................................55 discard.......................................................................55 ditches........................................................................... rubbish from the fort............................................53 secondary deposits...............................................53 selective gleaning................................................53 gleaning.....................................................................55 intervallum.................................................................... disposal of rubbish...............................................54 markets......................................................................55 primary refuse deposits.............................................80 reoccupation..............................................................50 roads.............................................................................. retrieval of valuable items...................................54 scavenging.................................................................55 workshops..................................................................... function..........................................................52, 60 secondary refuse deposits.........................................80

ethnic theories................................................................... and Roman military studies.......................................34 excavation information.................................................91 fabrica/fabricae...........................................................166 faunal................................................................................ analysis......................................................................31 animal remains..........................................................47 faunal remains...........................................................42 Fendoch............................................................6, 39, 106 field army......................................................................24 in Britain....................................................................24 Flavia Caesariensis.......................................................22 flavian.........................................................................166 Flavius Vegetius Renatus.............................................37 foederatus/foederati....................................................166 formal dimension.............................................................. database entry................................................................ attributes..............................................................42 formation processes.......................................................... cultural.......................................................................35 natural or non-cultural...............................................35 forts, Roman..................................................................... annexes......................................................................39 archaeology................................................................... 1920s to the 1940s...............................................29 1950s through the 1970s......................................29 1960s and 1970s..................................................31 early twentieth century........................................29 last decades of the twentieth century...................34 mid-nineteenth century........................................28 barracks.....................................................................41 basics.........................................................................37 bathhouses.................................................................41 buildings.................................................................39p.

Culture History.......................................................28, 30 cuneus.........................................................................166 cuneus Frisiorum..........................................................18 De munitionibus castrorum..........................................37 Decorative/Architecture................................................47 181

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

central range........................................................37, 39 commander's house...................................................41 computerized codes...................................................39 contubernium.............................................................41 Cramond....................................................................34 ditches.......................................................................39 fabricae......................................................................41 granaries....................................................................41 headquarters..............................................................39 horrea.........................................................................41 hospitals.....................................................................41 internal elements.......................................................37 latera praetorii...........................................................37 latrines.......................................................................41 layout.........................................................................37 Newcastle..................................................................34 praetentura.................................................................37 praetorium.................................................................41 principia.....................................................................39 retentura.....................................................................37 roads..........................................................................39 schematic...................................................................38 stables........................................................................41 storebuildings............................................................41 storehouses................................................................41 Wallsend....................................................................34 workshops.................................................................41

Hadrian's Wall................................................................6 3rd century A.D............................................................. frontier control.....................................................18 border control............................................................17 composite forts..........................................................49 construction.................................................................9 date............................................................................27 destruction levels.......................................................15 development..............................................................29 first phase of the Wall.................................................9 forts, conserving........................................................27 frontier installations, end...........................................24 function.....................................................................17 milecastles.............................................................9, 22 modification..............................................................15 outpost forts...................................................15, 18, 22 abandonment........................................................24 primary forts................................................................9 purpose.............................................................28p., 34 rebuilding..................................................................22 Repairs and reconstructions......................................18 research.....................................................................31 restoration..................................................................22 restored......................................................................15 third century A.D......................................................18 turrets.........................................................................22 turrets,..........................................................................9 Vallum...................................................................9, 18 vici.............................................................................19 wall periods...............................................................29

frequency dimension......................................................... methodology.................................................................. ceramics...............................................................44 glass.....................................................................44

hadrianic.....................................................................166

functional analysis............................................................ critique.......................................................................43 database.....................................................................43

Handbook to the Roman Wall......................................28 Hardknott..........................................................9, 29, 106 Hartley, Brian...............................................................29

Gask Ridge....................................................................... frontier system.............................................................6

Haverfield, Francis.......................................................28 The Romanization of Roman Britain........................28

gates.................................................................................. eating activity............................................................57

headquarters...................................................................... eating activity............................................................57 medical supplies........................................................51

Gibson, J. P...................................................................29 Gillam, J. P...................................................................31

Helvius Pertinax...........................................................17

glossary.......................................................................165

historical archaeology...................................................32 material culture..........................................................32

Gordon, Alexander.......................................................27 governors.......................................................................... of Britannia................................................................83

Historical archaeology..................................................30 historical record............................................................35

granaries............................................................................ eating activity............................................................57

Hodder, Ian...................................................................31 Hodgson, N.............................................................12, 29

granary.............................................................................. granaries and storerooms...........................................57

Honorius.......................................................................24

Greene, K......................................................................33

horreum/horrea...........................................................166

182

Index

Housesteads................................9, 17pp., 24, 27pp., 106

functional groups.......................................................42 functional groups and sub-groups.............................46 functional sub-groups................................................43 future research...........................................................81 good stratification......................................................47 methodology, research..............................................35 older excavation reports............................................81 older site reports........................................................79 patterns in artifact function.......................................79 problems of scale.......................................................81 quality of the excavation...........................................36 relational dimension..................................................44 secondary goal...........................................................79 skewing.....................................................................47 spatial data.................................................................41 spatial dimension.......................................................36 standard deviations....................................................47 standardized functional group...................................43 system, spatial data entry..........................................42

Housesteads...................................................................... skeletons....................................................................69 vicus..........................................................................69 Hyginus.........................................................................37 Inchtuthil.........................................................................6 intervallum..................................................................166 irregulars.....................................................................166 jewelry sub-group.........................................................76 laetus/laeti...................................................................166 latera praetorii.............................................................166 legion..........................................................................166 limitanei................................................................22, 167 local expertise...............................................................35

Millet, M.......................................................................33

MacDonald, Sir George................................................29 Roman Wall in Scotland...........................................29

milliaria/milliarae.......................................................167

Maeatae.........................................................................17

Models in Archaeology................................................30

Magnentius...................................................................22

mortarium/mortaria.....................................................167

Magnus Maximus.........................................................24 marching camps....................................................37, 167

mortarium/mortaria........................................................... commander's house...................................................78 uses of........................................................................78

Marcus Aurelius...........................................................15

Mumrills...........................................................6, 12, 106

Marcus Aurelius............................................................... outpost forts...............................................................15

natural transforms.........................................................81

markets.............................................................................. Newcastle and Wallsend...........................................63

natural transforms............................................................. ditches........................................................................... better preservation...............................................53

Maxima Caesariensis....................................................22

New and Processual archaeology.................................30

Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology......30, 42

New and Processual Archaeology................................30

methodology.................................................................79 artifact reports...........................................................42 basic research considerations....................................36 ceramic reports..........................................................44 problems..............................................................47 comparing percentages..............................................44 composite forts..........................................................79 computers..................................................................36 cultural and natural transforms..................................79 database.....................................................................43 artifact attributes..................................................89 excavation reports...............................................42, 47 faunal analyses..........................................................47 formal dimension......................................................42 forts included.............................................................87 forts, choice of...........................................................36 frequency dimension.................................................44

New Archaeology.........................................................30 hypothetico-deductive method..................................30 Roman army..............................................................31 scientific method.......................................................30 New Perspectives in Archaeology................................30 Newcastle..................................9, 15, 17, 34, 37, 41, 106 Newcastle.......................................................................... fourth century................................................................ markets.................................................................49 market........................................................................55 Newstead................................................................15, 43 Notitia Dignitatum..................................................19, 22 Notitia Dignitatum............................................................ new style unit............................................................19 183

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

old style units............................................................19

Commerce...........................................................48, 63 composite buildings...................................................... functions..............................................................55 Decorative/Architecture................................................ problems..............................................................47 differences from other periods...................................... Flavian and Hadrianic..........................................55 ditches.......................................................................53 annexe, comparison to.........................................53 fort's interior, comparison to................................53 fifth century...............................................................49 flavian............................................................................ workshop.............................................................52 Flavian..............................................................48p., 80 fourth century............................................................49 granaries........................................................................ Antonine..............................................................52 Flavian.................................................................52 Health Care..........................................................52 Military................................................................52 military, weapons sub-group...............................65 Utilitarian.............................................................52 Hadrianic..........................................................48p., 80 headquarters.................................................................. Antonine..............................................................51 AP........................................................................51 Commerce............................................................51 Commerce group.................................................63 Health Care..........................................................51 Kitchen/Food.......................................................51 Kitchen/Food preparation sub-group...................57 religious items......................................................69 Severan................................................................51 Utilitarian.............................................................51 Utilitarian sub-groups..........................................60 Headquarters.............................................................51 health care..................................................................... body sub-group....................................................67 bone sub-group....................................................69 surgical sub-group...............................................69 wash sub-group....................................................69 Health Care................................................................67 hospital......................................................................52 Commerce............................................................52 Health Care..........................................................52 Utilitarian.............................................................52 intervallum.................................................................... Antonine..............................................................54 AP........................................................................54 Health Care..........................................................54 Kitchen/Food sub-groups....................................57 Utlitiarian, lamp sub-group..................................60 Kitchen/Food preparation sub-group..................57 Intervallum................................................................54 Kitchen/Food.......................................................48, 80 Kitchen/Food.................................................................

numerus barcariorum Tigrisiensium.............................22 numerus Hnaudifridi.....................................................18 numerus/numeri....................................................22, 167 pattern recognition............................................................ in Roman forts...........................................................35 patterns, functional groups...............................47, 57, 79 analyzed by period....................................................80 Animal.......................................................................69 annexe.......................................................................54 Antonine........................................................................ workshop.............................................................52 AP.................................................................................. baths.....................................................................52 granaries...............................................................52 workshop.............................................................52 Areas Outside the For................................................54 barracks......................................................................... Antonine...........................................................49p. Commerce............................................................49 Flavian..............................................................49p. fourth century......................................................49 Hadrianic.............................................................50 Kitchen/Food.......................................................49 Kitchen/Food sub-groups....................................57 Military................................................................50 religion group......................................................69 second century.....................................................49 Utilitarian.............................................................49 baths.............................................................................. Clothing...............................................................52 Kitchen/Food.......................................................52 Military................................................................52 Utilitarian.............................................................52 baths in the annexe....................................................51 clothing.......................................................................... Clothing sub-groups............................................61 jewelry sub-group................................................63 shoe sub-group.....................................................63 'clothing' sub-group.............................................63 'other' sub-group..................................................63 Clothing.....................................................................61 commander's house...................................................50 Antonine..............................................................51 Clothing...............................................................51 Kitchen/Food.......................................................50 Kitchen/Food eating sub-group...........................57 Severan................................................................51 Utilitarian.............................................................51 Utilitarian sub-groups..........................................60 Kitchen/Food preparation sub-group..................57 commerce...................................................................... non-stratified data................................................63 184

Index

drink sub-group...................................................59 eating sub-group..................................................78 Kitchen/Food storage sub-group.........................59 preparation sub-group..........................................57 'unknown' sub-group............................................59 Kitchen/Food ............................................................57 military.......................................................................... apparel sub-group................................................65 housing sub-group...............................................65 sub-groups...........................................................65 weapons sub-group..............................................65 Military................................................................49, 65 Newcastle...................................................................... Commerce............................................................53 other buildings...........................................................51 ovens............................................................................. Kitchen/Food drink sub-group............................59 primary refuse deposits.............................................80 religion.......................................................................... altar sub-group.....................................................69 burial sub-group...................................................69 tombstone sub-group...........................................69 'other' sub-group..................................................69 roads..........................................................................53 Religion group.....................................................53 Transportation......................................................54 roads and intervallum.................................................... Commerce group.................................................63 second century........................................................48p. secondary refuse deposits..........................................80 sub-groups.................................................................57 Kitchen/Food.......................................................57 summary..............................................................73 Summary...................................................................55 transportation................................................................. cart sub-group......................................................67 farrier sub-group..................................................67 harness sub-group................................................67 'other' sub-group..................................................67 Transportation..................................................49p., 65 Unassigned................................................................47 Utilitarian......................................................48, 59, 80 Utilitarian...................................................................... antler working sub-group....................................60 Clay working sub-group......................................61 game sub-group...................................................60 lamp sub-group....................................................60 Leather working sub-group.................................60 stud sub-group.....................................................60 sub-groups........................................................59p. writing sub-group................................................60 vicus.............................................................................. religion group......................................................69 workshop....................................................................... military, weapons sub-group...............................65 workshops.....................................................................

Utilitarian sub-groups..........................................60 Kitchen/Food preparation sub-group..................57 ............................................................................59, 61 'outside' the fort.........................................................54 Pausanias........................................................................9 Peacock, D. P. S............................................................31 peditata/peditatae........................................................167 Picts........................................................................22, 24 pins.................................................................................... classification..............................................................77 Polybius........................................................................37 Pompeii.........................................................................32 porta/portae.................................................................167 Post Processual Archaeology........................................31 praetentura..................................................................167 praetorium...................................................................167 principia......................................................................167 Processual Archaeology...............................................30 provincialisation...........................................................33 pugio...........................................................................167 Q. Lollius Urbicus..........................................................9 quingenaria.................................................................167 Quintus Petillius Cerialis.................................................. and Brigantes...............................................................5 Governor of Britannia.................................................5 Ravenglass......................................................................9 Reece, R........................................................................33 refuse................................................................................ de facto......................................................................79 primary......................................................................79 secondary...................................................................79 Renaissance..................................................................27 retentura......................................................................167 Richmond, Ian..............................................................29 Roman Britain................................................................... new enemies..............................................................19 romanization...........................................................28, 33 Romano-British Studies.................................................... artifact function.........................................................43 Rough Castle.........................................................12, 114 Roy, William................................................................27 185

Roman Soldiers and the Roman Army: A Study of Military Life from Archaeological Remains

Rudchester......................................................................9

terra sigilata................................................................167

samian...................................................................32, 167

textile equipment..........................................................76

samian............................................................................... commander's house...................................................78 indicators of status.....................................................77

textual evidence............................................................32 Textual metaphor..........................................................32 The Rise of the Roman Empire....................................37

Schiffer, M. B.........................................................32, 35

Theodosius,...................................................................24

Scots .............................................................................24

Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference..............33

Senecio..........................................................................17

Trajan..............................................................................6

Septimius Severus...................................................15, 17 campaigns..................................................................17 Campaigns.................................................................15 marching camps........................................................17 occupation of Scotland..............................................17

transforms......................................................................... cultural.......................................................................35 non-cultural...............................................................35 turma/turmae...............................................................167

settlement patterns............................................................ Romano-British.........................................................31

Ulpius Marcellus...........................................................15 Unassigned....................................................................47

severan........................................................................167

Valentia.........................................................................24

Severan campaigns.......................................................12

Vallum............................................................................9

shoes.............................................................................75

vexillatio.....................................................................167

Simpson, F. J................................................................29

vexillation...................................................................167

sinistra.........................................................................167

via/viae........................................................................167

Site Gazetteer................................................................93

vicus/vici.....................................................................167

small finds.....................................................................42

Vindolanda..............................................................17, 19 women........................................................................... letters...................................................................75 writing tablets.........................................................32p.

South Shields....................................................19, 22, 24 South, Stanley.........................................................30, 42 Stanegate.........................................................................9

Virius Lupus.................................................................17

Stanegate........................................................................... frontier.........................................................................6 Roman road ................................................................6

Wallsend..................................................9, 18p., 34, 114 Wallsend........................................................................... barracks.....................................................................41 fourth century................................................................ markets.................................................................49 hospital......................................................................41 market........................................................................55

status in Roman forts..............................................77, 80 storeroom.......................................................................... granaries and storerooms...........................................57 Strageath.....................................................6, 12, 31, 114 Strageath........................................................................... barracks.....................................................................41 bathhouse...................................................................41 Flavian.......................................................................50 hospital......................................................................41 workshop...................................................................52

women in Roman forts...........................................75, 80 women in Roman forts..................................................... artifacts worn.............................................................75 barracks......................................................................... spindle-whorls.....................................................77 baths.............................................................................. textile equipment.................................................77 Burials and cremations..............................................75 commander's house....................................................... textile equipment.................................................77 evidence for women..................................................77 gates...............................................................................

Tables of Data................................................................... Composite Forts......................................................125 Tacitus.............................................................................. Agricola.................................................................5, 32 Histories......................................................................5

186

Index

textile items.........................................................77 jewelry items.............................................................76 officers........................................................................... wives and families...............................................75 shoes..........................................................................75 spindle-whorls............................................................... evidence for women.............................................77 textile equipment.......................................................77 Tombstones...............................................................75 women's and children's shoes....................................75 York........................................................................22, 43 yorkshire coast.................................................................. watchtowers...............................................................22

187