The Early Roman Frontier in the Upper Rhine Area: Assimilation and Acculturation on a Roman Frontier 9780860546948, 9781407348421

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF CHARTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF PLANS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: STUDIES OF THE ROMAN FRONTIER
CHAPTER 3: THEORIES CONCERNING FRONTIERS AND THE SOCIAL PROCESSES AT FRONTIERS
CHAPTER 4: THE GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE UPPER RHINE
CHAPTER 5: AN OVERVIEW OF THE GENERAL CHRONOLOGY
CHAPTER 6: PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE UPPER RHINE
CHAPTER 7: MATERIAL, PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
CHAPTER 8: SOCIAL CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES
CHAPTER 9: THE MANIPULATION OF CULTURAL SYMBOLS
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
GAZETTEER
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

The Early Roman Frontier in the Upper Rhine Area Assimilation and Acculturation on a Roman Frontier

Marcia L. 0 kun

BAR International Series 547 1989

B.A.R. 5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 ODQ, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R. Walker, M.A.

BAR -S547, 1989: 'The Early Roman Frontier in the Upper Rhine Area'

© Jlarcia L. Okun, 1989

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 9780860546948 paperback ISBN 9781407348421 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860546948 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who have helped me with this dissertation. I would like to thank Dr. von Schnurbein for rightfully insisting that I needed a full year in Germany in order to view all the material relevant to my dissertation. During my year in Germany, several people gave me access to collections and unpublished works, without which this dissertation would had been impossible. I would like to thank Dr. L. Berger, Dr. T. Bloemers, Dr. A. Furger, Dr. A. Furger-Gunti, Dr. G. Fingerlin, Dr. F. Fischer, Dr. U. Fischer, Dr. G. Lenz-Bemahrd, Dr. Mannspreger, Dr. S. Martin-Kilcher, Dr. F. Muller, Dr. S. Rieckhoff-Pauli, Dr. K. Roth-Rubi, Dr. N. Roymans, Dr. W. StOckli, Dr. I. Stork, Dr. S. Summers, Dr. S. Tomasevic, P. Rau, M. Maute, G. Weber, S. Rothkegel, J.J. Wolf and the staffs of the museums that I visited for allowing me to see unpublished works and discussing their excavations with me. Special thanks to Dr. H.U. Nuber and the students of the Provinzial-Roman department, University of Freiburg, for their help and hospitality while I was in Freiburg. I would like to thank the many professors under whom I have studied over the years: Dr. Richard Reece, Dr. Frank Roy Hodson, Dr. Robert McC. Adams and Dr. Karl Butzer. They deserve much of the credit for the high standards of research that I have tried to achieve. I would like to thank those who listened while I talked. Dr. John Collis and Chris Cumberpatch have been helpful sounding boards over the last few summers. David Wigg was both a friend and sounding board while I was in Frankfurt. Dr. Anne Stahl spent many hours with me discussing ethnicity and acculturation. Most importantly, I would like to thank my family and friends, some of whom I have mentioned above. My parents and brothers have provided me with more support and understanding than I thought possible. I would like to thank Penny Ford, Kevin Butcher, Andrew Robley, Beatrice Fleury, Elizabeth Baquedano, Norah Maloney and Gretchen Schearer at the Institute of Archaeology. Sabine Damm was not only a good friend, but was very supportive and helped me learn German. I would like to extend especial thanks to Julian, for putting up with me, and Jane, for not only putting up with me, but for being the most understanding friend that a person could want.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION

1

2. STUDIES OF THE ROMAN FRONTIER

5

3. THEORIES CONCERNING FRONTIERS AND TIIE SOCIAL PROCESSES OF FRONTIERS 4. THE GEOGRAPHY AND SETTLEMENT HISTORY OF THE UPPER RHINE 5. AN OVERVIEW OF THE GENERAL CHRONOLOOY

28 44

6. PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE CHRONOLOOY OF THE UPPER RHINE

65

7. MATERIAL, PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

78

8. SOCIAL CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES

106

9. THE MANIPULATION OF CULTURAL SYMBOLS

128

APPENDIX 1 -- FIBULAE TYPOLOGY

138

APPENDIX 2 -- POITER Y TYPOLOOY

154

GAZETTEER

160

MASTER SITE LIST

161

SITE LIST 1

166

SITE LIST 2

191

SITE LIST 3

213

OTHER SITE LIST

228

COIN LIST

234

FIBULA LIST

245

POTTERY LIST

249

BIBLIOORAPHY

257

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

PAGE

5.1 Celtic coins at Breisach, Basel and Bem-Engehalbinsel

55

5.2 The proportion of Arretine services from early Roman levels

62

7 .1 The number of bronze, silver and gold coins from published sites

79

7 .2 Coin distribution by denomination for published sites

82

7 .3 The number of different constructions and types of fibulae represented in excavated assemblages

85

7.4a Range of Fabrics for Celtic Fine wares

89

7 .4b Range of Fabrics for Local Imitation Sigillata

90

7.4c Range of Fabrics for Tall forms

91

7.4d Range of Fabrics for Coarse wares

92

7 .5 The number of amphorae from various areas of production for excavated assemblages

93

7 .6 The number of wares, froms, types and varieties of pottery from published excavations, based on rim counts.

95

7. 7 The number of tall forms for each industry based on rim counts

96

8.1 The percentages of the major categories of animal bones from excavations

115

8.2 The approximate number of wine, oil, fish sauce and defructum amphorae

118

8.3 Sites with mortaria and pans

120

8.4 Summary of the changes from La Tene to Roman in the items and activities discussed in Chapter 8 and interpretations of these changes

126

LIST OF CHARTS

PAGE

CHART 3.1 Bartel's Matrix of situations of power dominations

26

5.1 Time Table of Chronological periods, dendrodates, historical dates and important small finds 7 .1 Histograms of the diameters of different La Tene bowls

45

98

7 .2 Histograms comparing the diameters of imported

99

terra sigillata bowls 7.3 Histograms comparing the diameters of imported

101

terra sigillata plates 7.4 Histograms comparing the widths of imported and local

102

sigillata bowls and plates 7 .5 Histograms comparing the diameters of local sigillata bowls

103

8.1 Histograms of the dimameters of wide forms for La Tene and Roman wares

124

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

IILUSTRA TION

PAGE

5.1 Sequanti potin types

54

6.1 An example of La Tene D 1 and D2 pottery forms

75

7.1 Fibulae outlines 7.2 Bowl and Plate forms referred to in Charts 7.1-7.4 and 8.1 Fibulae Typology

97 152

LIST OF MAPS

PAGE

MAP 1 The Upper Rhine Area

29

2 Late La Tene sites

33

3 Roman sites

35

4 All coins mentioned in gazetteer

243

5 All fibuolae mentioned in gazetteer

247

6 All pottery mentioned in gazetteer

253

7 All sites mentioned in gazetteer

255

LIST OF PLANS

PLANS

PAGE

1. Plan of Altenburg-rheinau

167

2. Plan of Augst

171

3. Plan of Basel-Gasfabri.k:

174

4 . Plan of Basel-MUnsterhUgel

176

5. Plan of Dangstetten

180

6. Plan of Laufen-Mushhag

184

7. Plan of Oberwinterthur

186

8. Plan of Vindonissa

189

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND A main goal of archaeology is to explain how society develops, functions and changes . Archaeologists are limited to looking at society through its material culture . One of the main advantage s to this type of information is that the data is not immediately distorted by perspectives of those involved, whether the people who made the object, used it, or the archaeologists themselves . One of the major disadvantages is that only some of the material culture survives and what does survive is necessarily evaluated within the framework of the archaeologist's culture. But this disadvantage is, in one form or another, a problem in all disciplines of the social sciences and, as long as it is recognized and its effect can be minimalized. In his seminal work, Wallerstein (1974) presents the concept of a world system in which the developed and undeveloped countries in the modern capitalistic world are interdependent. The problems of the underdeveloped countries are seen as the direct result of their historical relations to the developed countries (Rowlands 1987, 30). This theory presents a concern of social scientists since the second world war. How do societies affect each other? What are the mechanisms of social interaction and how do they function? Archaeologists, along with other social scientists, have addressed these issues for the last few decades . The results of their studies have been diversified, both in their approaches to the issues and the amount of information they shed on the processes involved. One advantage that archaeologists have over other social scientists when dealing with social processes is that they can look at a situation after the fact and, therefore, can supposedly recognize and control the biases of participant observation.

1

Frontiers represent easily defined situations in which societies can be observed. Though not all aspects of cultural and social functions occur at frontiers, many of the more fundamental functions do take place, such as exploitation of the environment, establishment of an administration system, imposition of culturally determined mores, and economic and social interactions with peoples from other systems. All of these functions and processes are complex. They are only available for study if some of the factors involved are limited or excluded; otherwise the complexity inhibits understanding. Because of the geographical limits of frontiers, which are identifiable and distinguishable, and their clearly deliminated temporal limits, frontiers are circumscribed units of study. Such limitations are not as easily arrived at when trying to look at the totality of a society. There are many types of frontiers and they are found throughout history. Some frontiers represent the advancement of new types of technology, such as that which occurs during the neolithic period with the introduction of agriculture. Other frontiers represent the introduction of new ideologies and religions. An example of this is the advancement of Christianity in the early medieval period. The most easily recognizable form of frontier is the political frontier that is found between two political entities, such as that which exists between modem countries. Since frontiers represent a circumscribed situation in which social processes can be observed, they present the ideal situation in which to address the issues of social interaction. Through attempting to understand how frontier processes and people interact at frontiers, social interaction can be better understood.

PURPOSE This work is concerned with one specific type of frontier--the military frontier. A military frontier is historically and archaeologically recognizable and is also recognized by contemporary peoples. For example, it is unlikely that the agricultural frontier in the Neolithic period was clearly recognized by the people involved in it. In addition, there are clear geographical limitations to a military frontier: one can say that one area is inside the frontier and that another is outside the frontier. The same cannot be said for ideological and religious frontiers, such as those which occurred with the spread of Christianity. Through the specific example of the early Roman frontier in Germania Superior, this book investigates some of the processes that occur at frontiers. In the past, Roman frontier studies have concentrated on the military history of the frontiers. Non-military investigations of frontiers have demonstrated that, in many cases, there are several forms of coexistent frontiers , such as technological and ideological frontiers. As a result, it is no longer acceptable that only one aspect of a frontier is addressed. Frontier studies in archaeology, specifically Roman archaeology, can no longer afford to limit itself to studies of the military history of the frontier. This work looks at the early Roman frontier in Germania Superior from a non-military view point and investigates social processes, such as economic and social interaction, at the frontier. The time period under consideration is from approximately 100 B.C. to 69 A.D .. The earlier date roughly coincides with La Tene D, which has been dated by various archaeologists to between 150 B.C. and 100 B.C.. The later date was made because of the advent of the Flavians, who instituted new expansive policies relating to the frontiers. Their policy resulted in a new series of forts along the limits of the Empire being

2

erected, usually built of stone. The period of the Roman Empire was chosen because there were several well documented, both archaeologically and historically, frontiers which were recognized by the peoples on both sides of the frontier. Many Roman archaeologists have recently studied some of the social processes that occur at frontiers. Two examples of the diversity of approaches and types of information available are Invasion and Response(Burnham & Johnson 1979) and NativesandRomans(Brandt & Slofstra 1983). The articles in these two volumes look at how the invading Romans affected local production, settlement patterns, trade, agriculture, social systems and information processing. As pointed out by several of the authors, there is still a great deal that remains to be understood about frontiers and frontier processes. The specific frontier of Germania Superior was chosen because its physical extent was not determined by the presence of geographical limitations, such as the desert in North Africa, or the Atlantic ocean along the west of the Roman Empire. The geographical area concerned is along the Upper Rhine, extending from Lake Constance westward to the Vosges and from the Jura mountains northward to the Black Forest. This area demonstrates a cohesive character archaeologically and is traditionally associated with the Helvetii and Rauraci. What happens when the Romans moved into the Upper Rhine area is investigated by looking at specific artifact types. The changes that occurred are illustrated and theories and models are suggested which explain these phenomena. Due to the large amount and diversity of material available from the Upper Rhine, it is impossible to evaluate the complete archaeological assemblages. Therefore , this study is limited to the investigation of three types of artifacts: coins, pottery and fibulae. These items are well represented and reflect various aspects of society: economy; cooking and eating habits; and clothing . In addition, Roman coins provide terminus post quem dates which are important for dating assemblage s and sites. Fibulae and pottery are also used for dating, though they cannot provide concrete terimnu s post quem dates .

OUTLINE OF CONTENT

A survey of works dealing with the Roman frontier is presented in Chapter 2. This survey concentrates on frontier works relating to the German provinces. The gaps in past research are discussed along with the more fundamental and influential works and advances made in Roman frontier studies. In Chapter 3, a discussion of frontier theories developed to explain Roman and non-Roman frontiers is presented. The first part of the chapter consists of a list of definitions of relevant concepts and terms. The following two sections are concerned with frontier theory and related theories, such as acculturation. The two chapters on Roman frontiers and frontier theories are followed by an overview of the geography, history and archaeology of the Upper Rhine area in Chapter 4. Together, these four chapters present a framework for the following analysis of the archaeology. Any analysis of archaeological material is based on the chronology of the material and cultures. Chapter 5 presents an overview of both the relative and absolute general chronologies of the late Iron Age

3

and early Roman periods in the Upper Rhine. The problems involved in the methodology of dating sites are discussed in Chapter 6. Many of the problems raised in this chapter cannot be resolved, but it is important to be aware of their existence when evaluating the archaeology. Having discussed the chronology of the area and its limitations, the groundwork is laid for discussing the archaeological material that is analyzed: the coins, fibulae and pottery. Chapter 7 focuses on the material -- how they was made and what functions the items probably fulfilled. Both the economic and social functions of these items are discussed, including their roles in the economy (coins), food (pottery), clothing (fibulae), etc .. Chapter 8 moves away from the materialistic characteristics of coins, fibulae and pottery in order to look at the social activities in which these object were produced and used The social activities and values which determine the form and function of the items are discussed, as well as those activities and values which are seen to affect the production, distribution, form and use of coins, fibulae and pottery are discussed. Theories to explain the patterns and trends that appeared in the earlier chapters and discussions of them are presented in Chapter 9. Two major theories which, together, seem to explain several of the observed changes and activities are: (1) the availability and perceived worth of acquiring power and prestige for the native; and (2) the dichotomy between public and private life. The effect of the perceived and real strength of this dichotomy on the processes of acculturation and assimilation are not necessarily the same, because they can be different for different societies or segments of society. In Chapter 9, these and other theories are raised and discussed. In addition, it is suggested how well they describe what occurred and whether or not they concur with those theories presented in Chapter 3. Finally, it is important to evaluate how much the ideas and theories presented in this work are specific to the situ_ation in the early Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine and what aspects of these ideas and theories are applicable, in general, to all frontiers. The ideas and theories presented in this work are only possible interpretations, and cannot explain all aspects of any frontier, even the early Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine. As mentioned, frontiers are complex and involve several factors. More than one society with its inherent peculiarities and complexities is involved. It is the nature of models and theories to simplify what they attempt to describe. All of the factors involved in frontiers cannot be accounted for by any model or theory. The theories presented in this work attempt to expand our understanding of at least one example of a frontier and suggest further ways to study other frontiers.

4

CHAPTER2 STUDIES OF THE ROMAN FRONTIER

In the past, Roman frontier studies have consisted of surveys of the military history of the frontiers. The emphasis has been on the placement and movement of the Roman army as demonstrated by the many forts, tile stamps, inscriptions and historical documents . The results of these studies have been detailed examinations of the legionary and auxiliary forts along the frontier, such as those produced in the Limesforschungen series. In these volumes, the layout of the forts and a catalogue of the small finds are presented. In some cases, the relation between small finds and architectural structure s is indicated . Several of the excavations of Upper Rhine forts have been published: Zurich ( 194); Basel ( 19, 20); Hiifingen (85) and Vindonissa (188).. The findings for these forts are described in the gazetteer. There are several surveys and reviews of different aspects of the Roman army and forts. One of the classical works on Roman forts is von Petrikovits, Die Innenbauten ramischer le2ionsla2er wahrend der Principatszeit (1975). Petrikovits' survey is limited to legionary forts. A. Johnson's book, Roman Eort.s. (1983), looks at both legionary and auxiliary forts in the Northwest provinces. Schl>nberger ( 1969) presents a survey of the military history of Germany. This work brings together both the historical and archaeological sources. A more recent work, which concentrates on the forts, is Baatz's Der Ramische Limes (1975). Many Roman forts can be historically dated; hence they are important in terms of dating the associated finds. For example, the two legionary forts, Haltem (77) (Loeschke 1909) and Hotheim (81) (Ritterling 1913), have been dated by the historical sources. Haltem is dated to the early Augustan period, approximately 9 B.C. to A.D. 9, and the earliest fort at Hotheim to the Claudian period. Therefore, pieces of pottery from Haltem are Augustan and pieces from the earlier levels at Hotheim are Claudian.

5

A large number of the works on frontier settlements, i.e. forts, concentrate on questions of chronology. In many cases, the historical sources are used to determine when a site was established or abandoned. Chronological developments of form types for pottery, fibulae, weapons or forts are derived from the excavated sequences of occupation at historically dated sites, such as Haltem and Hofheim. The finds from historically dated and well-excavated sites are correlated to produce a chronologically significant material sequence. A recent example of this tY]?e of chronological work is Barbara Pferdehirt's monograph: DieROmische Okkupation Gerrnaniens undRiitiensyonderZeitdesTiberiusbiszuroTode Trajans(1986). In this work, Fferdehirt brings together all examples of South Gaulish decorated terra sigillata. Using historically dated forts and accepted sequences of development in the potters stamps and forms of Gaulish terra sigillata derived from assemblages in south and central Gaul, she presents a well argued chronology for the terra sigillata and, as a corollary, approximate dates for forts without historical dates. Other works on the Roman frontier have tended to concentrate on describing and explaining the changes in the line of the frontier and, in some cases, frontier policy and strategy. In The GermanPolicy of Au2ustus, Wells (1972) brings together the archaeological evidence of the German frontiers under Augustus. He coordinates the historical and archaeological material to present a detailed explanation of why and when forts were established along the Rhine river. The result is a plausible explanation of Augustus' strategy in the Germanies. In his book, The GrandStrate2yof the RomanEmpire,Luttwak (1976) describes what he sees as a change in strategy from a hegemonic system of defense under the Julio-Claudian emperors to a linear, offensive military frontier during the Flavio-Antonine period and then to an in-depth, defensive military frontier during the later Empire. He suggests that there was a cohesive frontier policy that originated in Rome. Mann (1974) argues that there was no frontier policy and that, therefore, there was no coherent strategy:

It is easy to fall into the error of regarding the final known form of the frontier in any particular sector as the end product of a logical and coherent application of something called 'frontier policy', pursued over generations, as if each stage represented a refinement and improvement of a well-thought-out basic disposition, and as if the empire had always been working towards its actual greatest extent, as the ideal in size and definition. This is manifestly not the case. (Mann 1974, 514)

Consequently, Mann believes that the change in the disposition of troops at the frontier was not the result of a change in policy because there was no frontier policy. The changes that occurred in the disposition of forts along the frontier were the result of a gradual change in the function of the frontier, which was not perceived by those involved, the Romans. During the early Empire, forts were placed at strategic points along the frontier. As the need for economic and political control increased, forts were dispersed along the frontier in order to perform their bureaucratic functions (Ibid 512). These authors raise an important question: were frontier activities the result of those involved reacting to what occurred at the frontier or the result of a coherent policy toward the frontier which originated in Rome? The variety of actions under each Emperor and his military commanders toward the different Roman frontiers suggest that there was no coherent policy applied to all of the frontiers at any

6

one time. Though basically expansionistic, Augustus' actions on the frontier seem to have been reactive, concentrating on those frontiers where there was unrest or possibility of success. Tiberius, on the other hand, might have had a policy of consolidation, if he was following Augustus' deathbed statement that his heirs should maintain the boundaries of the empire as they were at his death. In A.D. 48, Claudius ordered the withdrawal of the Roman forces to the west bank of the Rhine immediately following moves by the commander of Germania Inferior into the area of the Chauci, partially in response to the opinion of some senators in Rome that the risks were too great (Tacitus Annales XI, 18). At almost the same time, A.D. 43, and again influenced by the political climate in Rome, Claudius annexed Britain (Ibid XI, 29). These examples of frontier action suggest that the existence or implementation of any frontier policy depended on the Emperor and the political situation in Rome. The Emperor determined whether or not a frontier was pushed forward, the disposition of troops and appointment of military commanders. One aspect of frontier policy not addressed by Luttwak or Mann is that of "acculturation". Romanization is considered the norm: natives embraced it and Emperors enforced it. In fact, the actuality is no less complex than the situation concerning other aspects of frontier policy. We know from Tacitus (A2ricola) that during the Flavian period there was a concerted effort to "romanize" the natives , specifically the local elite. There are no literary references to a similar policy under the Julio-Claudian emperors, although any sons of chiefs or princes taken as "hostages" were indoctrinated to the Roman way of life . In addition, under each emperor, "Romanness" was probably rewarded. Therefore, "romanization" was not always actively pushed or sought; but it would have always been rewarded. The affect of this policy will be discussed more fully later. Many works dealing with the Roman frontier approach the topic in terms of the frontier economy, which consists of how the Roman army was supplied and its effect on the local economy. Since army supply depends on the basic economic structure of the Roman Empire, these works discuss the form of the Roman economy. Finley (1973) and A.H.M. Jones (1974) have presented a view of the Roman economy as being circumscribed, embedded and based on agriculture. Trade was modest and status was achieved through the possession of land. On the other hand, Hopkins (1983) suggests a more dynamic economy, with increased surplus production resulting from political change and technological and social innovations. At this time, there is no consensus as to which explanation is more accurate. 1 The Roman army supplied itself through a combination of the confiscation of local goods and produce, such as when Caesar demanded com levies from his allies (BG 1.16), and trade with established producers through the armies own middle men, referred to as negotiatores (Kolnik 1978; RIBW 159-60). There are many works which deal in detail with the supply of the Roman army in Britain (Middleton 1979; R.F.S . Jones 1987). It seems reasonable to assume that how the army was supplied varied from region to region, depending on the size and type of troops concerned and the local economy. In addition, how the army was supplied in each area would have affected both the soldier's relationship with locals and the type and quantity of non-local goods available to the locals. In other words, the form of army supply is an important factor in how soldiers and locals interacted. The corollary to this is that the social processes that occurred at each frontier were determined, in part, by how the troops in each frontier were supplied. Recently, there has been a shift away from a purely military perspective to one which looks at cultural and historical processes occurring at frontiers. Individual papers dealing with how the Romans and natives interacted can be found in various volumes of the Limeskongress. An early example is 1see also Finley 1973, Jones 1974 and Greene 1987.

7

Davies' (1974) investigation of the Roman occupation of Wales. A compilation of papers looking at frontier processes from different points of view for the case of Roman-Britain are presented in Invasion andResponse(Burnham and Johnson 1979). Though not dealing exclusively with frontiers, Balsdon (1979) looks at how Romans viewed non-Roman people. 2 Not surprisingly, the peoples of northwest Europe were seen as barbarians, a point made earlier by AlfOdi (1952). Whittaker (1983) looks at the effect a frontier has on people outside the frontier. He suggests that frontiers were lines transecting homogeneous groups and that, therefore, the areas on each side of the frontier develop with interdependent roles in the over-all economy. Though these papers deal with situations and problems which can probably be applied to most frontier situations, at least during the Roman Empire, none of them deal directly with the German frontiers. One very impressive work which looks at the frontier in Germania Inferior is Willems ' (1986) work on the Roman frontier in the Netherlands Eastern River Area. This work combines several forms of information and research derived from a program of archaeological surveying and excavating and a concurrent geographical survey program. The combined results present a detailed and thorough picture of the settlement history of the Eastern River Area from the late Iron Age through to the Middle Ages. Willems' work is, -to date, the largest and most extensive published example of the several projects currently in progress on the Roman frontiers in the Netherlands. Looking at over one thousand years, Willems is able to suggest some explanations for the observed temporal changes in settlement patterns. Some of these changes were caused by variations in water level, which affected the availability of land and the amount of flooding. Others result from changing agricultural and manufacturing practices due to the introduction of new technologies. Still other changes were the results of changing definitions concerning settlement sizes and functions. As a result, the number, size and placement of settlements changed radically from period to period. At this point, it should be pointed out that large settlements can only occur if the concepts of space and of living near a large number of people are culturally accepted. Nucleation of settlement is as much a result of economy and the need for security as of cultural values. One reason for the paucity of information from the La Tene in many areas might be because nucleation of settlement was not culturally desirable. If La Tene people lived in dispersed settlements, then one affect of the Roman occupation of an area would have been the creation of nucleated settlements. Most mediterranean cultures believed that town life was the most desirable and preferred type of existence. As a result, the Roman occupation may have resulted in a change of attitude regarding the desirability of nucleation and densely populated settlements. Certainly in Germania Superior, Roman towns and cities were usually larger than their earlier Iron Age proto-types. It is only possible with an in-depth survey, such as Willem's (1986) work in the Netherlands, to confirm or repudiate changes in settlement patterns which may be reflections of underlying changes in cultural values. In "A Survey of Roman Coin Distribution on the Frontier with Free Germany", Davies (1983) looks at the changes in coin usage patterns over time on both sides of the frontier. He presents a series of maps showing the density of coin finds from different periods. This work is a good example of what can be done when looking at the distribution of one type of material over a large region. Of course not all material is as easily dated as coins and, therefore, cannot be as easily analyzed in this manner, but Davies' work and the more recent work by Wigg (1988) on the entrenchment of a monetary system in Germania Inferior demonstrate that analyses of coin distributions can be informative. Therefore, if the 2Toe issue of how the Roman's viewed non-Romans was earlier looked at by Alfodi (1952).

8

distribution of more than one artifact is analyzed, for example coins, fibulae and pottery, questions about social interaction can be both asked and answered. It is impossible to discuss every article or book dealing with the Roman frontiers. Instead, this survey of recent works on frontiers has concentrated on studies dealing with the Northwest Empire, specifically Germania Superior. Many of these works dealing with the Roman frontier in Britannia and Germania Inferior were discussed because they shed light on many of the processes which occurred at the Roman frontier in southern Germania Superior. Other works were not discussed because either they did not present insights substantially different from those discussed, or because their geographical and historical situations were different, which suggests that their results were not applicable to the specific situation in southern Germania Superior. The majority of works dealing specifically with the Roman frontier in Germania Superior concentrate on the military history of the frontier. There are several works which review the occupation, settlement and development of the area, such as the Die RQmer in Baden-Wiirttembem (1986). This book presents a survey of the history and archaeology of Baden-Wiirttemberg and, in addition, a gazetteer of sites. With few exceptions, these works concentrate on the military history or deal with the end of the Roman Empire. Only recently have archaeologists have started to address other aspects of the frontier. The result of this shift in focus is a broadening of our understanding of frontiers, what occurred at specific locations to both the military and civilian populations, local and immigrant, and a better understanding of some of the more general characteristics of frontiers and frontier processes. In the following chapters, some of the avenues of research suggested by works on other Roman frontiers are investigated. As will be demonstrated, there is no reason that frontier studies cannot go beyond studies of chronology and typology to address questions about cultural and social processes.

9

CHAPTER3 THEORIES CONCERNING FRONTIERS AND THE SOCIAL PROCESSES AT FRONTIERS

Frontiers are boundaries, often between two societies. A frontier can also exist between two subsistence systems, geographical areas, or cultures. Sometimes such boundaries are represented by differences in language, religion and cultural practices. Many theories have been developed to explain the various types of frontiers and the processes that occur along them. These theories tend to address specific types of frontiers, such as military, technological or ideological frontiers, and the issues specific to the type of frontier being considered, as opposed to frontiers in general. In this chapter, several theories which deal with issues relevant to Roman military frontiers are discussed, even though most of these theories have not been directly applied to Roman frontiers. Most of these theories were developed to explain non-colonial, simplex situations. A Roman frontier is a colonial, complex situation. Nonetheless, these theories help us to understand the characteristics of a frontier and the types of problems involved in any investigation of a frontier. First, some of the more important concepts and terms used in frontier theories are defined. Then, frontier theories are discussed, followed by a brief discussion of a few related concepts. There are many processes which occur concurrently at different levels at a frontier. As a result, it is difficult to investigate a frontier thoroughly. The level or scale of study determines which aspects of the frontier are recognized and investigated . Many of the social processes that occur at frontiers , such as the process of acculturation, which results when cultures interact, are not well understood . There are probably other processes in action which we, as archaeologists, have not yet recognized. Some of these processes can not be detected at the level at which the archaeological material is significant or

10

manageable. At too low a level, the quantity of archaeological material is statistically insignificant; at too high a level, the quantity of material is too large and diverse to allow recognition of patterns and processes. In other words, some processes can be studied on the scale of a single site, others at an intraor inter-regional level. For example, agricultural practices can be studied at the site or intra-regional level. Frontier policies, on the other hand, need to be studied at an inter-regional scale which includes both sides of the frontier, encompassing people within the frontier and those beyond it.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

FRONTIER

Owen Lattimore (1962) defines a frontier as a zone of differentiation between two communities. "Frontiers are of social, not geographic origin" (1962, 471). A linear frontier can only exist as a concept, not as a physical reality. For example, physical lines, such as the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's wall, only symbolizes the frontier. In reality, the frontier is a zone which incorporates both the "line" and the peoples on each side of it (Lattimore 1962). What maintains the frontier is the identification of the people on each side of the frontier as belonging to the groups found on each side. They are marginal to their society and, therefore, are not culturally closely affiliated with the central regions of their society. As Lattimore points out, these communities are often more similar to each other than to the main society to which each politically belongs. Sometimes the integrity of the groups of people at a frontier, and the frontier itself, are maintained through the demonstration of force by the society through the presence of immigration, customs or military posts.

CORE AND PERIPHERY

The concept of "centre and periphery" derives from Wallerstein's model of a world system in which "the underdevelopment of peripheral areas was not a result of their archaic social structures but a product of their historical relations with the developed world" (Rowland 1987, 3). The concept of a core and periphery perceive the core or centre as a more developed and complex area than the periphery. Often, there is a concentration of population and functions. In comparison, the periphery is underdeveloped and has a lower concentration of population than the centre. This concept has been adopted by archaeologists in explaining the processes that occur between the centre and the edges of a society. The concept of core (centre) and periphery can be used to address various aspects of the Roman Empire: core, semiperipheries, peripheries and external area. Several examples of the application of core and periphery theory to the Roman Empire are presented in the volume Centreand Peripher_y (Rowlands et. al. 1987). Daphne Nash (1987) looks at imperial expansion at the frontier. Colin Haselgrove (1987) looks at cultural processes in the Northwest provinces and Lotte Red.eager (1987) looks at the interaction between the Romans and the barbarians across the frontier. These articles demonstrate the fact that, in relation to Rome, all Roman frontiers in the western half of the Empire were peripheral areas. A different situation existed in the eastern half of the Empire, where the older Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek

11

civilizations, which had long traditions of complex, urban societies, had existed . What the applications of core/periphery theory to the Roman Empire demonstrate is that the frontiers or other peripheral areas are factors that must be considered when evaluating the events and processes that occurred during the Roman Empire.

COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM

Colonialism and imperialism are not the same concepts, although they share many features. For example, both colonial and imperial settlements are usually frontier settlements. Both exist where there is "a form of domination-control by individuals or cultural associations over a combination of territory and behavior of other individuals and social groups" (Bartel 1980, 14). They are created when a society or nation purposely expands and incorporates new territory. New areas are incorporated into the society with the expectation that they will act as the economic periphery of the homeland area. Examples are the English, Spanish and French settlements in the Americas and the Roman provinces. Whether the form of expansion is colonial or imperial depends on the objectives of the expanding society. The major differences between colonialism and imperialism are the presence and quantity of settlers. In colonial situations, there is a transfer of population whose objective is to permanently settle on the land, such as the people who emigrated to the English colonies in North America. In imperial situations, only limited groups of people from the core area, whose objective is to extt.act an economic swplus for the homelands use move into the frontier (Bartel 1980, 15; Lewis 1985; 1984). Examples of this type of frontier can be found in Central and South America under the Spanish and Portuguese. A major difference between colonial and imperial settlements is the amount of energy needed for the maintenance of each form of control, which reflects the differences in the relative amounts of force and power being utilized (Willems 1983, 105). Force is the physical display by an individual or group of their ability to enforce their will, whereas power is the implicit perception by others of an individual or group's ability to enforce their will (Luttwak 1976; Willems 1983). Colonialism requires the use of force, often in the form of a military presence which enforces the colonial policies and protects colonial settlers. It is an expensive form of settlement because of the costs involved in the maintenance of a military presence is expensive. On the other hand, imperialism requires the use of power, which is implicit. As a result, the presence of large military forces, and, hence, maintenance costs, are not necessary (IBID 106).

ASSIMILATION

Assimilation occurs when cultural objects or attributes are adopted, but the general cultural system is not affected by the process. Assimilation can occur between cultures of different levels of social and economic complexity because it does not need face-to-face interaction. It can occur over great distances, such as through the existence of trade between the two cultures.

ACCULTURATION

Acculturation has been defined as "the continuous process of interaction between two or more autonomous cultural systems and the resulting change" (Bloemers 1983; 159). Characteristics of one

12

culture are adopted by another culture, sometimes resulting in fundamental changes, such as when coins were adopted in Europe by some of the La Tene tribes. Over time, acculturation effects most aspects of society, but to different extents, depending on the degree of interaction between the two cultural systems and the level at which it takes place. The incorporation of non-Roman soldiers in the Roman army was a highly effective and rapid mechanism of acculturation, whereas on their own, economic and administrative institutions were not effective or rapid mechanisms of acculturation (Bloemers 1983, 203). The process of acculturation is gradual and not always perceived by those undergoing the process. Nonetheless, it is also the inevitable result of cultural contact.

ROMANIZATION

Romanization is a one-sided form of acculturation in which a local, non-Roman culture adopts "Roman culture". Rayman further defines Romanization as "an integration process of less complex tribal societies to the complex Roman state system" (1983, 56). Both of these definitions place the process of Romanization in the context of acculturation. In contrast, many Roman historians and archaeologist view Romanization in a more restricted framework. To date, there are many works which portray Romanization as a one-way process which occurred unilaterally and at a steady rate throughout the Roman empire and beyond, with the possible exception of the Hellenized part of the Roman Empire . The reality is not so simple . CELTICIZATION

Celticization is the reverse of Romanization. It occurs when the intrusive Roman population adopts the local Iron Age culture . As with romanization, in reality there was no whole -sale complete adoption of local celtic culture by the intruding Romans.

These terms are fundamental to frontier theory and related theories and are encountered in both the following discussion of frontier theories and later when evaluating the Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine area. The early Roman frontier in southern Germania Superior was a military frontier. During the early Empire, the frontier was represented by the Rhine river. The frontier was really a zone, not a line, and, in this case, consisted of the Upper Rhine valley and surrounding areas. This area was the outer northern edge of the Roman Empire. As such, it was a peripheral part of the Roman Empire in which Rome was the centre. It is not clear at first glance whether or not Roman expansion in southern Germania Superior was colonial or imperial. There were some settlers, which suggests colonialism. The identification of Germania Superior as a colonial or imperial province will be discussed more fully in Chapter 9. The traditional interpretation of Roman expansion and its affect on local people is that Romanization was pushed by the Romans and wholeheartedly accepted by the locals. As the above definitions suggest, what actually occurred was not so clear cut Some degree of Romanization occurred and, very likely, some degree of Celticization occurred. In fact, both assimilation and acculturation took place. Therefore, the questions that need to be asked about Roman frontiers are: what amount of assimilation and acculturation occurred? To what degree were people romanized or celticized? In this paper, these questions are asked about the early Roman frontier along the Upper Rhine.

i3

FUND AMENT AL FRONTIER THEORIES

Two very influential, fundamental works on frontiers are: Frederick Jackson Turner's ~ Si2nificance of the Frontier in American History (1893/1949) and Owen Lattimore's Studies in Frontier History (1962). Neither of these works were developed to explain Roman frontiers. Turner deals with the North American frontier and Lattimore with Chinese frontiers. Nevertheless, they are important and influential works which need to be discussed because their authors originated many of the concepts and assumptions found in later frontier studies.

FREDERICK JACKSON TURNER

In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner presented a paper to the American Historical Association entitled The Si2uificance of the Frontier in American History. For the first time, an historian suggested looking at a historical process from the perspective of the frontier , the periphery of a society, instead of the homeland/core area. Turner's main thesis was that: "The existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development" (Turner 1983/1949). Borrowing the 'germ theory' from politics, he described the development of the U.S. as 'European germs' that developed in an American environment, stressing the 'American factors'. Two other concepts presented are "the laws of continuity" and the "law of development". These laws suggest a continuous movement of the frontier westward. There was a development of increasing complexity of socio-economic systems in an area presenting a spectrum of systems from the frontier in the west eastwards. In other words, there were several bands of progressive frontier areas that existed, moving from the eastern seaboard to the western one. A continuous series of specific types of frontier passed through each area and, as a result, each area displayed a similar history of development. First, the Indians, who were hunters, occupied an area; then traders, representatives of a state society, occupied the area; then ranchers moved in and practiced various forms of husbandry; then sparsely settled farmers practicing unrotated agriculture; then dense farming involving intensive cultivation, market towns and an increased population density; and, finally, they were replaced by manufacturing and industrialization and the associated types of settlements. Each of these stages is considered a frontier that passes through an area at its own rate, preparing the area for the next stage. So not only was the frontier continually moving outward, but each area developed from a peripheral, simple economy into a centralized, complex economy.

OWEN LATTIMORE

Owen Lattimore (1962) studied the historical and modern examples of China and Chinese expansion. In Studies in Frontier History, several essays dealing with different time periods and aspects of the Chinese frontiers are presented. According to Lattimore, the problems and situations observable at the Chinese frontier affected not only the frontier area, but was a main factor determining Chinese history. In addition, the problems and situations of the Chinese frontier reflect processes inherent in all frontiers. Lattimore defined two basic types of frontier: a frontier between two similar groups and a frontier

14

between two different groups. A conquering society can choose to employ one of several mechanisms of expansion which determines how local peoples at a frontier are incorporated. Local people can be: absorbed, becoming culturally indistinguishable from the expanding society; incorporated, retaining their original culture, but treated as equal to members of the expanding society; or subjugated, treated as socially inferior. The mechanism used by a conquering society depends on that society's economic and administrative organization, which are interdependent and depends on the geography of the area. Lattimore emphasizes the importance of geography as an underlying factor in social and economic organization and history, a fact that many historians and archaeologists tend to overlook. The effect of geography is not a fixed constant. Rather, its effect on a society is different in each developmental phase of a society. Different parts of an environment are 'workable' or 'marginal' at different stages of development, depending on technological changes and innovations, as well as on social organization. The ability to organize a large number of people to work together opens up possibilities in terms of exploiting the land in ways impossible for individuals, such as irrigation systems and hence agriculture in semi-arid lands. Also important is the fact that the ways in which a society exploits the environment in turn affects the environment. The results of this causal relationship can sometimes look like natural events. According to Lattimore, the reason that a society expands, and why this expansion stops where it does, creating frontier zones, is the need to increase the national surplus. What is meant by surplus is the produce and goods left over within a family or community context after the amount of produce and goods needed for the group's maintenance, such as food for eating and material for food preparation, clothing and seed for the next year's planting, as well as other goods insuring the following year's production. Lattimore's theory, that expansion is caused by a need to increase the national surplus, rests on the assumption that a national surplus existed, even in pre-industrial societies. The concept of a surplus was developed to explain the economy of the industrial world in which there is a surplus which is consciously produced for the market. If there was extra produce leftover after the necessities in a pre industrial society, it does not necessarily follow that the people who produced it conceived of it as surplus, or that they had purposely set out to create a surplus and used it as such. Lattimore argues that in pre-industrial societies a national surplus, which was primarily absorbed by the regional markets before it could reach the national market, did exist. Consequently, in order to increase the amount of national surplus an increase in production and ultimately in the amount of labor was needed. Lattimore presents two ways in which pre-industrial societies could increase their surplus: one way was to increase the number of people working the land, which was limited by the form of agriculture or industry being practiced and the amount of people that could be maintained; the other way to increase the surplus was to increase the amount of land in use. According to Lattimore, this last method is limited by the interaction of several units, with different functional ranges. These units are the military, civil administration and economic units. The functional units of civil administration determine the geographical range of administrative control. The limit of the effective size of a nation is determined by the relative strength of the regional and national administrations. Regional tendencies tend to be stronger the farther away an area is from the centre. Technology and the means of communication effect these tendencies. It is easier in the modern world to unify large areas, because there is no time lag in communications between the centre and periphery. Modern long distance communication systems allow more detailed information to be exchanged faster over greater distances than earlier forms of long distance communications. For example, there is a great difference in the amount of information and the speed and distance at which it can be

15

exchanged using smoke signals versus telephones. The type of economic units within a society are another important factor influencing the amount of expansion that is economically desirable. A major factor in the establishment of the great wall of China and the inability of the Chinese empire to incorporate successfully land beyond the wall is that the Empire practiced intensive agriculture and the people beyond the wall practiced extensive agriculture. Intensive agriculture means that the agricultural potential of the land, in view of the technology of the society, is fully exploited, such as irrigated agri_culture or year round rotation of crops. In contrast, extensive agriculture might consist of slash and burn agriculture or other forms of agriculture which do not fully, intensively, exploit the land. Because of the physical geography (altitude, slope, etc.), and climate north of the China wall and the societies' technology, the region could not support intensive agriculture. The differences in agricultural practices resulted in different economic systems. The resulting social organizations, which reflected these differences, that created a socio-economic frontier. The wall merely symbolized it As first noted, most frontiers are not linear entities, but rather zones which are occupied by a graduated series of social groups. The frontier areas are peripheral to the main society because the people on each side of the 'frontier' are more similar to each other, more closely associated or identified with each other than with their homelands. In quiet times, this causes no difficulty. In disruptive times, the people of the inner frontier can be the agents of change. One important aspect of a frontier recognized by Lattimore is that frontiers are cyclical. There is an ebb and flow across a frontier: invasion and response; conquest and reassertion; sinicization (or Romanization) and tribalization. In other words, frontiers are not static. The relationship between people on each side of a frontier and between the frontier people and their center are continually changing and developing. Sometimes a frontier does not remain a peripheral area. Another important point made by Lattimore is that although geography plays an important role in the creation of frontiers, frontiers are seldom geographical in origin; they are social. The geographical boundaries that are frontiers are frontiers because the people on each side of the boundaries perceive them as frontiers. A frontier's location is determined by social and economic factors which are, in tum, shaped by geographical factors and the society's technologies. A geographical feature itself, such as a river or mountain range, is not in itself a frontier, but can be used to define a frontier.

CURRENT FRONTIER THEORIES

MOBILE VERSUS STATIC FRONTIERS

The idea of mobile and static frontiers was introduced by John Alexander (1978; 1984a; 1984b) to explain the type of pre-industrial technological frontiers that exist when a new technology is introduced into an area, such as the introduction of agriculture into previous non-agricultural areas. A mobile frontier is defined as a moving frontier that continually moves forward. It exists until all usable land has been settled, or in the case of an agricultural frontier, until the climatic tolerance of the domesticated plants and animals is reached. If the indigenous people are still in the area, a static, stationary frontier

16

succeeds the moving frontier. Alexander uses the model of mobile and static frontiers to explain the expansion of agriculture in Neolithic Europe (1978), Neolithic Eastern Africa (1984b) and 19th century South Africa (1984a). The moving frontier has two successive phases. In the first phase, the pioneering agriculturalists use nature, but do not strongly affect or change the environment. In the next phase, the agriculturalists subdue nature and incorporate large tracts of land, either through negotiation or conquest. Each of these phases leaves archaeologically detectable traces. Although Alexander's model explains the advancement of agriculture in Neolithic Europe and Africa, it best explains the more recent situation in South Africa, where the intruding people pushed the indigenous people before them, not absorbing or incorporating them. There are technological differences between modem 18th and 19th century situations and older prehistoric or historic conditions. Before the invention of gun powder, the intruding people would not have had the military superiority or, possibly, the numbers to subdue the local people in the manner of 18th and 19th century colonists in South Africa. The comparative levels of weapon technology between the intrusive and indigenous groups effect how these groups perceive and interact with each other. Prehistoric agriculturalists would have been on an equal level with the hunter-gathering locals in terms of their weaponry and, hence, would have probably needed to interact in a less hostile manner with the local hunter-gatherers. Consequently, hunter/gathereragricultural frontiers would had been mosaics of interaction; pockets of hunter-gatherers would have continued to exist. Although the Romans had some advantages over their neighbours, in most cases they were technically on or near the same level. In the Northwest part of the empire, the exceptions are the Germans and Picts. Even given technological and military advantages, the Romans were not able to permanently conquer and control these people. The reason was the differences in social and political organization. In virtually all instance~ of Roman conquest, the Romans did not push the conquered people ahead of them, but absorbed them. In Alexander's model the "conquered" people are pushed out of the conquered area, which is why technological and military superiority is needed by the conquering people. When "conquered" people are absorbed, organizational similarities between the conquered and conquering are more important than technological or military superiority. Also looking at the agricultural frontier in Prehistory, Robin Denells (1985) adds to the concept of a moving and a static frontier by suggesting four different types of moving frontiers. The first three types are porous: there is a transference of (1) people, (2) resources and (3) technologies across the frontiers. These moving frontiers are defined as: agricultural expansion through hunter-gatherer migration; agricultural expansion through hunter-gatherer acquisition; and agricultural expansion through resource migration (Denell 1985). Resource migration assumes that domesticated forms of plants and animals independently migrated into hunter-gatherer areas. Archaeologically, this situation is indistinguishable from exchange and, also, seems unlikely to have occurred. All three models rest on two basic assumptions. The first assumption is that the geographical catchment size of a hunting-gathering community is larger than that of an agricultural community. Hence, interaction between the huntergathering and agricultural communities will tend to occur at the site of the agricultural community. The second assumption is that the hunter-gatherers that come into contact with agriculturalists will be young adolescent and adult males. This last assumption is supported by similar ethnographic situations.

17

The last, fourth, type of mobile frontier is nonporous, agricultural expansion without hunter gatherer participation. Such a situation existed in 18th and 19th centuries with the American colonies and the colonization of South Africa and seems unlikely to have existed in prehistory. Two types of static frontiers are suggested: an open and a closed frontier. The first type consists of a static , nonadvancing frontier where the people on both sides of the frontier interact , usually economically. Modem frontiers tend to be open static frontiers. The second type consists of a static, non-advancing frontier in which there is no communications or interaction across the frontier. These models of mobile and static frontiers were developed to explain the expansion of agriculture, which was a technological frontier between two simple societies . As such, they do not explain the situation between two complex societies, which is what existed in the eastern half of the Roman Empire, or the situation in the western half of the Empire, where the frontiers were between complex and simple societies. But aspects of these models can be applied During the Republican and early Empirial periods, Roman hegemony was expanding. The Roman frontiers were mobile. However, from the late Augustan period onwards, most of the Roman Frontiers were static. They were always porous. As with the agricultural frontier in Prehistory , new technologies were introduced into the incorporated areas. Most likely each method of informational and technological diffusion under the Romans occurred through population movements, such as the soldiers and traders. Therefore, many of the mechanisms and concepts advanced by Alexander and Denell are applicable to the situations found in the Roman Empire. Since Roman frontiers were both technological and military frontiers, the above concepts concerning the forms of expansion and the diffusion of information and technology can be used to evaluate aspects of the Roman frontiers.

FRONTIER

EXPANSION

As Lattimore ( 1962) stated, frontiers are cyclical, advancing and then standing still. A frontier does not divide the people on each side of it as long as the frontier is porous. Often a frontier serves as an economic focus for people on both sides. Each side has an invested interest in the frontier. In addition, the continued interaction between people on both sides results in the dispersal of ideas and objects and, eventually, assimilation and acculturation. The result is that the people on each side of the frontier become more like each other. Sometimes they are culturally more similar to each other than to their core cultures. Meanwhile, the core area is continually trying to incorporate homogeneous units which results in an impulse to move the frontier forward, such as kept happening during the Republic and first century of the Empire . At the same time, there is often a desire for the people in front of the frontier to move behind it, into the Empire. The barbarian invasions of the late Roman Empire can be interpreted as an illustration of the latter tendency (Whittaker 1983). The German barbarians had been incorporated into the Roman Empire's economy and, when there were shortages and famines, looked to the Empire for food and other goods. The impulse to extend a frontier to include the people just beyond it was investigated by Kirk (1979) for the case of the Northwest frontier in British India. Over time, the people immediately beyond the frontier became incorporated into the British economy. These people were, of course, interacting with people even farther away from the frontier. As they became incorporated into the British system, their interaction with their far neighbours affected the British economy. It became advantageous for the British

18

to protect the border groups from their distant neighbours in order to stabilize events. As a result, the British continually tried to advance their frontier, even when advance was strategically unwise. Kirk has used historical documentation concerning the Northwest frontier to illustrate this situation. Looking at supply records, military orders, battle records and personal letters. he developed a picture of the Northwest frontier in India. An analysis of this material demonstrated several instances where the British conducted campaigns beyond their frontier in order to aid their border allies or stabilize situations, even when these campaigns were logistically unsound and depended on strained supply lines. As mentioned above, one reason that there was a need for continual forward movement and campaigns to protect "British Interests" was the assimilation of an Inda-British culture by the local people. Another reason for the forward momentum was the different perspectives of the regional and homeland military elite. The military commander on the border viewed the military needs and objectives of the army differently from his superior's view at the colonial capital, or the capital of the Empire. The border official sees the need to protect the people immediately beyond the frontier from the people farther away and is aware of any tension or instability inherent in maintaining the status quo. As a result, he is continually trying to incorporate homogeneous groups of people and geographical units, such as complete valley systems and mountain passes, in order to create a more strategically sound frontier . In contrast, core officials see the economic drain of the frontier, in terms of men, animals and strained supply lines. To them, the frontier is often just a line on a map that is often disassociated from its geography. As a result, they see little need to advance the frontier unless there is a clear prospect of profit, whether economic or political. Many of the processes just described can be recognized in the Roman historical literature. The types of actions that Kirk attributes to border commanders in India are reminiscent of Caesar's actions in Gaul which resulted in the Gallic Wars and the incorporation of Gaul. There are probably other examples of these processes which might be revealed by a detailed comparison of both frontier social processes and military actions. Such a study would explain some of the causes for some of the actions undertaken by the various groups of people on both sides of the Roman frontier at different times.

INSULAR AND COSMOPOLITAN

FRONTIERS

One model which deals with frontiers between complex and simple societies is that of insular and cosmopolitan frontier colonies, which was employed by Lewis (1985; 1984) to describe the American colonial frontier in South Carolina. The main factors in the establishment of insular or cosmopolitan frontier colonies are the economic objectives of the homeland. The purpose of a colony is to produce commodities for the homeland, the resultant goods being directed back towards the homeland/core area. In an insular frontier, there is a large and permanent establishment of settlers, with vested interests in the development of the frontier region. In contrast, cosmopolitan frontiers have small, temporary settlements (1984, 16). Lewis associates an insular frontier with the agricultural expansion of a complex society, such as European expansion in the Americas. Because this type of frontier exists when settlements are permanent and some of the produce is reinvested in the colony over time, there are progressively fewer and fewer links between the colony and homeland. As a result, there is extensive social, economic and political development and change. In his investigation of the insular colonization of South Carolina, Lewis

19

illustrates how insular frontiers change and how they can be observed archaeologically. He maps the different types of settlements at different points of time and interprets the changing settlement patterns as indicative of insular frontiers. In South Carolina, the initial settlement pattern was dendritic, with a main entrepot site whose function was to transport material either back to the homeland, in the case of South Carolina, or directly into the homeland's market system. At first, new settlements clustered near the entrepot, then new settlements were established further away, their location dependent on the transportation technology (steam, rail, airplanes). As the population increased, the settlement pattern became more evenly distributed. The pattern moves from random, to clustered, to even spacing. Although the development of an insular frontier explains this development, Lewis does not prove that such a sequence cannot be explained in another way, nor does he assert that this sequence of settlement patterns must always be the result of an insular frontier. Unlike the insular frontier, the cosmopolitan frontier is short-term and economically specialized. It is more closely tied to the national economy of the homeland. Examples of this type of frontier are trading, mining and ranching frontiers, such as that found in India and South America in the last century. Lewis (1984) considers military frontiers to be cosmopolitan frontiers. Though some military frontiers certainly have the characteristics of cosmopolitan frontiers, they are often accompanied by civilian populations which give them traits more characteristic of insular frontiers. In fact, many cosmopolitan frontiers eventually evolve into insular frontiers. Because cosmopolitan frontier colonies are more closely tied to the homeland economy, none of the produce is reinvested into the frontier and, hence, the cosmopolitan frontier does not develop or change in the same manner as the insular frontier. Instead, aspects of the homeland are transplanted to the colonies, sometimes inappropriately. An example of this is the practice of afternoon tea in India. For both insular and cosmopolitan frontiers, the main factors determining their establishment are the economic needs of the core area. Frontier colonies are established as peripheral areas whose main functions are to produce raw materials for the core. Most of the Roman frontier provinces had this type of relation with Rome. There are many examples throughout history of insular frontiers, such as the American frontier in South Carolina, America and cosmopolitan frontiers, such as the Yucatan, Mexico. Usually the geographical features of an area determine where and which type of frontier is established. Insular frontiers tend to be established in environments similar to that of the homeland, whereas the existence of cosmopolitan frontiers depends on the availability of certain natural resources, such as minerals for mining or animals, like beaver, for trading. Although the geography and environment of the Northwest provinces were more temperate than Rome, for the most part they were similar enough to Italy and to Rome to have been insular provinces. Mining and specialized production were established in the area, but whole provinces were not solely established for such specialized purposes. In general, frontier provinces were more insular than cosmopolitan in that their economies were not specialized and their occupation was not short-term. The types of settlers found in each situation differs. Insular frontiers tend to be colonized by complete family units whereas only those people necessary for the functioning of a cosmopolitan frontier settle in these areas, usually for short periods of time. It is not always possible to say whether or not the movement of large numbers of people are involved in the establishment of frontiers. Except for the obvious movement of people in military frontiers, without historical documentation there is no way to determine if the people involved in a frontier are local, from the homeland, or from both areas.

20

It is not clear what type of frontier existed in Germania Superior, because the number of settlers 1 that moved into the area is not known. At first, there was a military frontier which, according to Lewis, was a form of cosmopolitan frontier. Because there were developments and reinvestments into the area, it seems likely that the area developed into an insular frontier. The sequence from a cosmopolitan to an insular frontier may be a natural progression and seems to have occurred at several of the Roman frontiers. One reason for this progressions was that in the early Empire the line of the frontier kept advancing. The military frontier advanced and the area that had been along the line of the frontier became part of the frontier's hinterland. Therefore, the area was no longer a military area or, consequently, a cosmopolitan frontier. Although the types of material from the Upper Rhine area is not as extensive as that from South Carolina and, therefore, all of the methods of analysis used by Lewis in his examination of colonial South Carolina cannot be applied, some of them are applicable and others might become so in time as more material is excavated and published. Therefore, an awareness of the methods of recognizing and analyzing insular frontiers presented by Lewis may indicate whether the Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine was an insular or cosmopolitan frontier.

SURPLUS FLOW FRONTIERS

In his analysis of the diachronic relationship between a central and peripheral area, Paynter (1985 ; 1981) presents several concepts which are useful when considering frontiers. He uses a cultural materialistic approach, which is based on the concept of surplus, to identify the different types of diachronic landscapes that could occur between core and periphery. In other words, he evaluates the changing relations between centre and periphery. In the process, Paynter evaluates surplus flow from the frontier. The amount and direction of this flow are determined by four factors: 1) the local environment ; 2) the frontier primary producers; 3) the regional elite; and 4) the core elite. Though it is by no means clear that a surplus existed before or during the Roman Empire, the above four factors did exist and did influence events at the frontier. Therefore, it is useful to look at how Paynter defined these factors and their influences on events. The first factor, the local environment, places constraints on production. Homeland agricultural practices and production procedures might or might not be appropriate in certain environments . In some cases, their use might bring about ecological catastrophes. Ultimately, it is the environment that limits the amount of surplus. Primary producers, the second factor, are the people, the work force, who work the land and produce any agricultural, industrial or mineral surplus. This work force can be organized in many ways dependent on the social system, such as cottage industries, share-cropping or plantations . Often several modes will coexist in an area. The modes of production employed are linked to the local environment and to the frontier and homeland elite.2 1It is unlikely that any settlers or immigrants into Germania Superior were homesteaders . 2 Paynter (1985) points out that the needs of the primary producer were first quantified by Wolf. Looking at the peasant household in Europe, Wolf identified four funds in which the peasant had to invest. These were the caloric fund, used to meet the biological needs of the peasant ; the replacement fund, or the overhead cost such as feed for the livestock and seed for next years planting; the ceremonial fund, both secular and religious ceremonies and functions; and the rent fund which went to the elite in form of taxes

21

There are two types of regional elite who are not primary producers but, rather, are supported by the primary producers. In the case of the Roman Empire, regional elite were often the local upper classes or native elite. They were the descendants of the chiefs and princes that the Romans defeated. One type of elite is called the dependency elite. They are dependent on the core. Their position of privilege is maintained by channeling surplus to the core. The power and prestige of the other type of elite, the development elite, rests on their ability to keep the surplus in the frontier and reinvest it. By definition, these two types of regional elite are at cross purposes. As the term suggests, the homeland elite reside in the core area. In the Roman Empire, the homeland elite were the Emperor, the Senate and their families, all of whom resided in or near Rome. Homeland elite benefit from the extraction of surplus from the frontier but, unlike the regional elite, are not heavily dependent on the frontier. The homeland elite do not have the same need to reinvest in the frontiers as do the regional elite. During the Empire, some of the homeland elite, especially the Emperor, owned land throughout the Empire. Most of the profits from these estates would had gone to Rome. Sometimes only some of the homeland elite depend on and invest in the frontier. The changing political influence and situations of various homeland elite determines frontier policies. There are inherent tensions between these different factors. The developmental regional elite are continually trying to make the frontier area independent of the core. The developmental regional elite are often the leaders of the primary producers in cases of resistance and revolt, when there is a lack of surplus, and the people who reinvest in the frontier, when there is enough surplus. One reason that developmental regional elite were often leaders in revolts and rebellions was that they were descendants of past local leaders and elite and, at least for the first few generations after the Roman conquest, remembered that their forefathers had been independent leaders. They also were adversely affected by the economic drain on the frontier to supply the homeland. In contrast to the developmental regional elite, the dependency regional elite are continually trying to maintain the status quo. These people could either be locals, from another province, Roman or Italian immigrants. The latter would have had more of an invested interest in Rome and Roman ways than in the welfare and development of the frontier area. In such a situation, the development of an area depends on which group of elite acquires control of an area. If the developmental elite are successful, then the frontier assumes some of the characteristics of a centre. If the dependent elite are successful, the frontier remains peripheral and its relation to the centre is maintained. The factors identified by Paynter in his analysis of diachronic landscapes are easily recognized within the Roman Empire. The existence of the local environment and primary producers is self-evident. The concepts of regional and core elite and the tensions in the relations between these groups are found in the form of local magistrates and other functionaries at the frontiers, and the Emperor and senators in Rome. It is only possible to distinguish between dependent and independent regional elite in those situations where independent regional elite have led local revolts, such as Julius Floros in the second decade of the first century A.D. (Annales III.42). Many of the tensions and developments inherent in Paynter's model can be identified, such as native revolts. Maybe with a closer examination of the Roman Empire and its frontiers, the type of diachronic landscape suggested by Paynter will also become evident.

and tribute. Paynter argues that when the primary producer cannot meet all of these needs that a crisis situation develops which brings about change whose form is determined by the actions of the elite.

22

SOCIAL PROCESSES

ASSIMILATION

AND ACCULTURATION

There are two processes which occur at frontiers: the process of assimilation and that of acculturation. Assimilation occurs when aspects or traits of one culture are adopted by another. Acculturation is when there is "the continuous process of interaction between two or more autonomous cultural systems and the resulting change"(Bloemers 1983; 159). Neither process necessarily results in the loss of identity, but rather in a change in the criteria used for the definition of an identity. Assimilation tends to be easier to recognize than acculturation in the archaeological record . Although the end results of each process are identifiable archaeologically, the causes and mechanisms are not easily identified. Assimilation is the exchange and adoption of objects, whereas acculturation is the result of both the adoption of objects and absorption of information related to the objects. Both processes occurred in each of the Roman provinces. Usually assimilation occurred first, followed by acculturation, which continued long after the Roman's left an area. Determining the degree to which each process took place in the Upper Rhine area , as well as when they took place, is one of the main objectives of this investigation .

INFORMATION PROCESSING

In "Acculturation as information processing", van der Leeuw (1983) suggests that the process of acculturation depends on how two cultures or societies communicate. Cultures and societies are composed of cultural institutions, which are information processing systems . The amount of information being shared and the number of people involved limits the functional ability of the cultural institution. If the initial situation is an homogeneous plane where everyone has access to "information ", then, as the amount of information increases, groups of people who only share parts of that information evolve. As the differences between the information groups posses increases, interaction between groups , i.e. communication, requires an increased expenditure of time and energy. The information flow potential between fields looks like isostats . The cost, i.e. the amount of time and energy needed to move between fields, is dependent on the different values of the fields and on the similarity of their information processing institutions. A potential exists when there is a difference in the amount of a given commodity between two fields. Flow between the two fields occurs when there is a large potential , the exploitation of which is perceived as profitable . The greater the difference in the information processing capacity of each field, the greater the potential. Two variables inv9lved in interaction are the organizational ability of a system, which is important in terms of potential size and information processing ability, and the flexibility of a system, which determines ·how it reacts to new information. Van der Leeuw presented three different forms of reaction to new information, as represented by the diffusion of an object or class of objects. The first was diffusion of objects alone. The material object travels without its associated meaning. As a result, the object is not necessarily used in the recipient culture as it was used in the original culture. The types of objects that occur in these situations tend to be all-purpose objects like beads, which are put to different uses in different cultures. Or they are objects that are used in a similar way in both cultures, such as weapons or alcoholic beverages. The diffusion of objects without their associated meanings occurred long before the Romans occupied the Upper Rhine

23

area. Exchange with the Mediterranean dates as far back as the fifth century B.C. 3 The second form of information exchange is diffusion of objects with their symbol/meaning. This form of diffusion can only occur when there is face-to-face contact between the two groups, such as occurred after the Roman occupation. One result of face-to-face contact is that some of the meanings attached to an object are transferred along with the object. The rate of information diffusion is at a lowlevel and slow because the information concerning how the transferred object was used in the original culture is transferred with the object. This form of diffusion is only possible if some degree of assimilation is also talcing place. An example is the assimilation of western clothing by aboriginal people in Australia. They adopt various western articles of clothing and how we, in the West, wear them, i.e. a shirt is worn as originally intended and not used as a mat or for some other purpose. A similar situation probably occurred in both the areas immediately bordering the Roman provinces and in all newly conquered and established provinces. Face-to-face contact with Romans, mostly soldiers, and the presence of Roman objects beyound the frontier indicates diffusion of information on both sides of the frontier.4 As more objects and their associated symbols/meanings are transferred, the structure in which they

are evaluated changes. At first, the objects are evaluated from the perspective of the recipient culture's cultural framework. As more symbols/meanings are transferred, the new objects are viewed in terms of the concepts/symbols attributed to them by the donor culture. "Evaluation becomes more difficult, more encompassing, and requires more energy and information processing capacity" (van der Leeuw 1985, 24). At this point, the form of diffusion becomes integration. Objects are used as they were originally intended to be used by the donor culture. Depending on the material and conceptual organization of the recipient culture, there are several ways in which this integration can occur. Over time, integration must have occurred in the Roman Provinces. The long term presence of the Romans in an area would result in a continual exchange of cultural information. One type of integration is incorporation: the new element is integrated into the existing cultural framework. It does not alter the framework. In other situations, the new objects replace the existing objects, such as polished axes replacing flaked axes. Another form of integration is syncretism, in which two systems are perceived as more or less the same. Some elements are adopted and, in some situations, the recipient systems modified. Other elements are not incorporated and, therefore, the cultural framework is not modified. Instead, the objects are kept within a separate subsystem of the cultural system, isolated from the rest of the system. At first glance, it is impossible to say whether incorporation or syncretism occurred in the Roman provinces. In the Upper Rhine, some objects were definitely integrated and the local culture was changed. But, there were continuities which might indicate syncretism. Most likely, the degree and type of integration that occurred depended on the mode of contact and exchange. Contact and exchange could be peaceful, repressive, or limited to economic or religious aspects of society. In addition, each strata or sub-group of society would probably react differently to new pieces of information or objects. Consequently, there 3 wens (1985; 1980) looks at Mediterranean imports in Central Europe during the Iron Age and evaluates their impact on Halstatt and La Tene culture. Dehn and Frey (1979) describe the types of Italian imports found in Central Europe and their relation to the Halstatt and La Tene chronology of the area. This information is summarized in Chapter 4 for the La Tene period. 4 see Wheeler (1955) and Brogan (1936) for the types of objects found outside the Roman Empire. Cosack (1979) looks at the types of "Roman" fibulae found in free Germany.

24

would be some degree of both incorporation and syncretism, but no standardized response to the new objects and their associated symbols/meanings. Van der Leeuw's final form of integration is reactive adaptation, where "the recipient system may use the culture of the donor system, ...as something to offset itself against"(van der Leeuw 1983, 25). This form of integration is represented by the various cases of native revolt and resistance in both the Roman Empire and the more modern examples within the British Empire. When Postumus created the Gallic Empire in the third century, his rhetoric was Roman, as was the concept of an empire. There are several examples of this form of integration in the Roman Empire, although, again, it did not occur in all provinces or with all social groups within a province.

SOCIAL DOMINATION As mentioned above, colonialism and imperialism are forms of social domination. Each employs a form of social domination in order to exploit the inhabitants of an occupied area. In his article "Colonialism and cultural responses: problems related to Roman provincial analysis" , Bartel (1980) investigates the political processes involved in colonialism and imperialism and the types of cultural responses by the local people for the case study of Upper Moesia. He presents a matrix which illustrates the various results that occur from the implementation of three different strategies or policies of dominating control under colonialism and imperialism. One of these strategies he labels as "acculturation", defined as "the change of values brought about by exposure to, and acceptance of, new customs and traditions" (1985, 15). The other two strategies are eradication and equilibrium . According to Bartel, acculturation has occurred when a transect of all social classes and groups has been transformed. In other words, if only one stratum of a society has been transformed, acculturation has not taken place. Using the definitions presented at the beginning of this chapter, such an event would suggest acculturation if there were fundamental cultural changes. If not, then such an event would suggest assimilation . The key criteria for acculturation is not whether or not all social classes and groups are transformed, but whether or not the culture or society as a totality is transformed. It is possible for acculturation to occur without all strata or groups of a society being transformed. Bartel (1980) describes several ways in which acculturation can take place. When incorporating an area into the colonial administrative system, an intrusive power will usually make use of the local power structure. In this type of situation, there would be changes in the technology and systems , not in the ideology or social systems ( i.e. kinship structure, marriage patterns). If the dominating group wants to break up the local power structure, religious and ideological values might be imposed on the local people, such as the building of the Imperial temple at Camulodunum. In an imperial situation, the economic sector of the native people might be changed to fit into the imperial system , though the general structure will often be maintained, such as the use of regional markets in North Africa (Bartel 1980, 16). In most historical and ethnographic cases, what actually occurs is assimilation and localized amount of acculturation among the local elite, which, over time, slowly trickles downwards. If the strategy employed is one of eradication, then there would be a population vacuum.

An

alternative to eradication is population resettlement. The historical sources indicate that these policies were sometimes used by the Romans when local groups were unmanageable . There is no evidence of

25

COLONIALISM (settlers

IMPERIALISM (no settlers)

ERADICATION

abrupt cultural change (replacement)

regional 'empty

ACCULTURATION

slow indigenous culture change

slow indigenous change in economics

EQUILIBRIUM

settlement '2 cultures'

indigenous maintenance

CHART

3.1:

enclaves

Bartel's Matrix of from Bartel (1980,

cell'

cultural

situations of power dominations Fig.1) based on Horvath (1972).

their use in the Upper Rhine area. 5 If the last type of strategy, equilibrium, is used, then the intruding people will live in enclaves within the local population. Examples of enclaves are frontier forts. On long term military frontiers, they are often the result of an equilibrium policy (i.e. nonexpanding). In several areas, this last strategy seems to have been the one employed by the Romans, at least during the early Empire. Romans lived in forts and the local populations lived in various settlements around and between the forts. Sometimes enclaves are the result of economic concerns and are similar to the cosmopolitan frontiers mentioned above. As with cosmopolitan frontiers, imperial policies and enclaves may have been a phase that all Roman frontiers passed through. It is important to consider the policies and perspectives of the groups involved in a frontier situation. More than one policy may have been employed and there may have been a sequence of policies that were employed. The type of policy would dictate the amount and mode of information exchange, as well as the type of frontier area. Therefore, certain policies would encourage assimilation and acculturation while others would inhibit these processes.

CONCLUSION

The theories and studies presented in this chapter have demonstrated several characteristics of frontiers. For example, frontiers are not static but are continually changing areas which serve to unit 5 Most known cases of eradication and resettlement in the Northwestern provinces took place under Augustus. See Tacitus' Historiesfor examples of eradication and resettlement in Germania Inferior. Mocsy (1974) reviews the sources for cases of eradication and resettlement in Pannonia.

26

the people on both sides of the line of the frontier. Although frontiers are often created for economic and exploitative reasons and are meant to serve the central area, over time, the exchange of information between the various people at the frontier and investment of resources into the area by local people, both elite and non-elite, result in the development of the frontier into an insular, colonial or semiperipheral area, depending on which model one chooses. The early Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine displays several of the characteristics and processes described in the various frontier theories presented in this chapter. The Roman frontier was not a line between two distinct societies, but a geographical area in which members of two cultures came face-toface. The frontier was more than a military line. It was also an economic, social line which, as identified by Lattimore (1962) and Kirk (1979), stimulated interaction between the peoples on both sides of the frontier. In addition, there was technological and economic reinvestment in the area, which Bartel (1985; 1980) and Lewis (1985; 1984) suggested occurs at insular and colonial frontiers , respectively. Cultural contact with Roman soldiers, technological exchanges and economic reinvestment in the Upper Rhine ultimately resulted in both assimilation and acculturation. The mechanisms involved in these processes are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9.

27

CHAPTER4 THEGEOGRAPHY ANDSETTLEMENT HISTORYOF THEUPPERRHINE

This chapter contains an overview of the geograph y, hi ('tory and archaeology of the Upper Rhine area. The geography is discussed first. Then the area during the La Tene period is described. This is followed by an account of the major historical events in the area. The Roman occupation is discussed as well as changes in the settlement pattern. A more detailed list of settlements can be found in the gazetteer.

GEOGRAPHY The Rhine River flows westward from Lake Constance, bending northward at Basel (19, 20). The river valley is narrow, bordered by hills and mountains on both sides. To the south of the Rhine are the Alps and Jura mountains. The Alps are a high band of mountains reaching from the Mediterranean coast eastward to the Karawaten mountains. They run along the southern edge of the area under consideration. The Italian side of the Alps is sharp and steep, whereas the northern side descends more gradually. There are mountain lakes and plateaus scattered throughout the Alps with connecting rivers providing avenues of transportation. There is a major plateau between the Alps and Lake Neuchatel, running north from Lake Geneva to Solothurn (162). To the northwest, a lower, gentler band of mountains runs roughly parallel from north of Lake Geneva and Lake Neuchatel up to the area around Basel (19, 20). This range is called the Jura and divides western Switzerland from France.

28

MAP 1: The Upper~ 12 Augst 13 Avencbes 20 Basel 33 Bregenz 69 Chur 44 Dangstetten 68Geneva 85 Hiifingen 91 Kembs 198 Laussane

Area

75Lyon 111 Mandeure 76 Martigny 127 Nyon 148 Rottweil 158 Sierentz 169 Strasbourg 18 8 Vindonissa

29

Lake Zurich is surrounded on three side by mountains. The Limmat River runs from its northern end. The Limmat joins the Aarau River which flows into the Rhine River. The modem city of Zurich, as well as the Roman vicus of Turicum (194), are located where the lake and river meet. The Aarau river flows from above Bern through the central plateau past Solothum (162), Olten (134) and Vindonissa (188) where it joins the Reuss. This river originates in the Zuger See. The legionary fortress of Vindonissa was placed where the Reuss and Aarau Rivers meet. After being joined by the Limmat River, the Aarau flows into the Rhine river, just downstream from Zurzach (195). The Rhine river originates in the Alps. The first section of the river flows north into the eastern edge of Lake Constance, one of the largest of the Swiss lakes. The river then flows out the western edge of the lake. At Basel (19, 20) it turns northward. The tum is known as the Rhine knee. The area north of the lake and within the Rhine knee is known as the Black Forest. It consists of steep hills covered by dense coniferous forests and narrow river valleys with flat bottoms. The sources of both the Danube and Neckar rivers are within the forest. The area around the source of the Danube is rather flat and marshy. Both this area and the Neckar valley are agriculturally productive lands. To the east of the Black Forest and north of the Danube is a hilly area known as the 'Schwabische Albs'. To the west is the flat area of the Rhine valley. There are a few rivers and valleys that run from the hills of the Black Forest to the Rhine, such as the Dreisam. The flat relief is broken by the Kaisersttihl in Breisgau, a hilly area on the right bank of the Rhine. The western part of the Rhine valley, north of the Jura, is wider than the eastern part. It is crossed by several rivers. The most important river is the Ill which runs parallel to the Rhine, joining it at Strasbourg (169). The western part of the Rhine valley, which includes the Ill valley and catchment areas of other rivers, is extremely productive agriculturally, partially as a result of periodic flooding. The area is bordered on the west by the Vosges, a mountain range that runs north/south almost to the Jura. These mountains are less sharp in relief than the mountains of the Black Forest and are covered by deciduous forests. Until recently, all of the river areas were subject to flooding. Modern engineering has canalized many of the rivers and reduced the risk of seasonal flooding, which historically occurred frequently due to the fact that most of the rivers originated in the mountains, such as the Aarau, the Ill and of course the Rhine itself. In several instances all that we have of Iron Age and Roman dated sites are flood deposits, such as at La Tene (101) and Ehl (51). In addition, the courses of the rivers have from time to time changed. For example, there is evidence that in historic times the Rhine surrounded parts of the Kaisersttihl, Breisach-Mtinsterberg (35) and Sasbach (151), making these hills islands, which would had made them ideal defensible locations.

THE PEOPLE OF THE IRON AGE

The people in the Upper Rhine area during the late Iron Age, the La Tene period, are called Celts, Gauls and, sometimes, Germans by the different classical authors. At times, the classical authors seem to use the terms Celt and Gaul interchangeably. Strabo calls the Roman province of Gaul "the country of the Celti" (7.1.2). He distinguishes between two major groups of people in temperate Europe--the Gauls, who are mainly found in Gaul, and the Germans, who are found outside of Gaul. Apparently, there is not a great deal of cultural difference between these people. In fact, they are kin (4.4.2). Caesar, on the other

30

hand, distinguishes between the peoples on the left and right banks of the Rhine. Those on the left bank are Gauls, those on the right bank Germans. Diodorus Siculus distinguishes between Celts and Gauls. In contrast with the other ancient sources, Diodorus Siculus identifies the Gauls as a segment of the Celts (Bk.V,24). The Celts dwelt in the interior above Massala. The peoples beyond this area to the north and along the Hercynian Mountains are Gauls (Bk. V.31). As mentioned in the previous chapter, he says that there is a distinction between the two groups which most people do not know about, resulting in the Romans placing all these people into one category. Writing almost one hundred years later, Tacitus uses Caesar's definitions, placing Gauls on the left of the Rhine River and Germans on the right side (Germania 1). Whether called Celts, Gauls or Germans, various distinct groups of La Tene people occupied the Upper Rhine. These peoples are usually referred to as tribes by the archaeologists. It is not clear if they fit the anthropological definition of a tribe since we do not know their political structures. Nonetheless , they are ethnically distinctive units in which individual members of a group identified with the group as a whole. The peoples found in the Upper Rhine area are the Helvetii, Raurici , Tulingi, Latobrigi and Sequani. The exact location of each of these people is unknown. Tacitus mentions that at one time "the country between the Hercynian forest and the rivers Rhine and Main was occupied by the Helvetii" (Germania 28). Strabo and Caesar place this tribe south of the Rhine, from Lake Constance east of Basel (19, 20) and southwest along Lake Neuchatel to Lake Geneva. These authors also said that between the Rhine and the Vosges were the Sequani. Caesar writes that at the time of the Gallic Wars this tribe was one of the most powerful Celtic tribes (BG 1.3). None of the historical sources are clear as to exactly where the Raurici were located. Strabo mentions them as associated with the Helvetii. The name of the colonia near Basel -- Augusta Raurica (12) -- suggests that the Rauraci were located in this area. They were apparently sandwiched between the Helvetii and Sequani. The relationship between tribes varied. Some tribes seem to have been subordinate to others, such as the Tulingi, Latobrigi, Raurici and Boii who were subordinate to the Helvetii and, hence, migrated with the Helvetii (BG 1.29). There were continually new alliances or conflicts between tribes. Some of these relationships are described by Caesar in De BelloGallico.We also know from Caesar and other authors that sometimes whole tribes or sections of tribes would migrate. Often they established themselves within the areas of other tribes, such as when the Aedui petitioned Caesar for his permission to let the Boil settle within their (Aedui) territory (BG 1.28). This might be one way in which one tribe became subordinate to another. The internal organization of a tribe varied from tribe to tribe. All of the classical authors describe the Celts and Gauls (depending on the authors' respective definitions) as aristocratic societies with one or several upper classes, a common class, and slaves. The definitions of these classes vary from author to author. By the period about which Caesar wrote, society in Iron Age Europe seems to have been in most places aristocratically structured with a recent increase in the distinctions between the upper and lower classes. Caesar mentions two upper classes: Druids and warriors. Strabo mentions three: Bards, Druids and Vates or Diviners . Diodorus Siculus mentions the Bards and Druids, whom he refers to as philosophers. The Bards, as the name suggests, were singers and seem to have been important in transmitting information and the oral history of the society. The Druids were philosophers and religious leaders. They oversaw sacrifices and other religious practices. The Vates described by Strabo were in charge of divination. The functions performed by Bards, Druids and Vates overlapped. It is possible that they were one group or that the differences in terminology are the results of temporal or geographical differences in the authors' sources. The elite who belonged to the classes called "Bards", "Druids" and "Vates" did not fight, whereas the

31

other elite were warriors. Some of these warrior-elite became warleaders, kings and magistrates, depending on which tribe or period one is discussing. Caesar mentioned magistrates and chiefs in 1k BelloGallico.The latter position was hereditary position. Magistrates were elected annually (BG 1.16). When discussing a man's power and prestige in Germany and Gaul, all of the ancient authors state that power and prestige were determined by a man's charisma, ability at arms and the size of his retinue, dependents and followers. Tacitus mentioned that in Germany divination was practiced by heads of families and kings. Germans did not have Bards, Vates or Druids. Instead, the Germanic upper class consisted of Kings and Warriors. In Germany the common people were scarcely better than slaves. Caesar said that this was also the case in Gaul. Strabo, talking about the same issue, said that the common people used to be better off and used to participate in the government, but that recently the common people were reduced to slavery. The actual slaves were even worse off than the common people but were better treated than Roman slaves. Tacitus went into great detail about the difference between German and Roman slaves. The system he described resembles share-cropping and land tied peasants (Germania 24-5).

SETTLEMENTS

LA TENE SEITLEMENTS

There are several types of Iron Age sites found in Europe. The largest sites were defended hill tops with earth ramparts and trenches. Caesar called these defended hill sites "oppida". Other large sites were enclosed by a combination of rivers and ramparts. Oppida walls were constructed of a combination of earth, wood, stone and/or rubble. Later walls often consisted of a framework of wood filled with earth and rubble faced with a dry stone wall. Caesar called this type of wall a murus gallicus, a gallic wall. He suggests that the murus gallicus was the form of wall commonly used in building oppida. AltenburgRheinau (8) and Bem-Engehalbinsel (22), to the south of our area, both had muri gallici, whereas Breisach-Hochstetten (34) and Basel-Gasfabrik (19) did not have any type of ramparts or walls. They were open settlements that may have been replaced by a defended oppidum on nearby hills. There were some open settlements such as Sierentz (158) which were neither near rivers nor hills. These types of settlements had no defensive walls and were not replaced by defended settlements. Archaeologists have borrowed Caesar's term 'oppidum' for both types of large defended sites. Both, the defended hill settlement at Basel-Miinsterhilgel (20) and the area enclosed by the rivers and ramparts at Bem-Engehalbinsel (22), are called oppida. These and other oppida were social, economic and probably political centres. Based on the evidence of craft production and minting found at several oppida, these sites have been interpreted as proto-urban (Collis 1984; 1975). Based on Caesar's definition, oppida are considered to be central points. Several seem to have been important marketing/trading centres. Large numbers of wine amphorae were found on the sites of BaselGasfabrik (19) and Altenburg-Rheinau (8). Examples of Campanian ware and Italian terra sigillata were found. The excavators of these sites, Furger-Gunti (Furger-Gunti & Berger 1979; Furger-Gunti pers. comm.) and Fischer (1977; 1974a; pers. comm.) respectively, have suggested that these sites functioned as trade entrepot. Both sites are located on the Rhine. Fischer (1985a; 1977; pers. comm.) suggests, on the basis of the large number of wine amphorae found on these sites and the continual references to the

32

•

Celts' love of wine in the historical literature, that these sites, especially Altenburg, were entrepots, i.e. redistribution sites. Goods were brought by river and land from the Rhone valley to these points where they were broken down into smaller units and redistributed. The next type of site is the small hill fort, a small defended hilltop settlement with no signs of being an important proto-urban centre. There are also undefended lowland sites. It is not clear which of these types of sites are the "vici" mentioned by Caesar. Many sites are only known by the remains of bridges, flood deposits or kilns such as La Tene (101), Ehl (51) and Sissach-Bruhl (160), respectively, which are thought to have been associated with settlements, possibly vici. It seems likely that small isolated rural sites, farms, also existed from this period, although there are no known examples. 1 Religious sites consisted of temples and a type of earthwork called "Viereckschanze" (Planck 1985; 1982; Schwarz 1975; 1960). These earthworks are rectangular earth enclosures with ramparts and trenches. Most Viereckschanzen have gates, often on the east side. Many contain shafts, some several meters deep. The shaft's function is not always clear. In some cases, such as Fellbach-Schmiden (59), it functioned as a well. In other cases the shafts do not seem deep enough to have been wells. It has been suggested that since offerings and in some cases sacrifices have been found in the shafts that they might have had a religious significance. For example, carved wooden statues were found in the shaft at Fellbach-Schmiden. Building remains were also found inside some of the Viereckschanzen. Traces of a wooden structure were found in the southwest corner of the Viereckschanze at Esslingen. 2 At Hardheim-Gerichtstetten, both post-holes from a wooden building and the remains of a stone building were found in the northwest section of the Viereckschanzen. Many of the Viereckschanzen and other religious sites had temples built on them during the Roman period, indicating continuity in the function of the site. There are few late La Tene period cemeteries in this area. Some of the mid-La Tene cemeteries, such as Mtinsingen, might have continued into the late La Tene. One late La Tene cemetery was found to the northeast of Basel-Gasfabrik (19). This cemetery consisted of approximately one hundred inhumations, some of which were multiple burials. Preservation was poor and the full extent of the cemetery is unknown. It might have been larger. Around 40 percent of the graves had grave goods, mostly pottery. Bronze and iron tools, weapons and jewelry were found in some graves (Major 1940).

ROMAN

SETTLEMENTS

There are several legally defined types of Roman cities and towns. The most prestigious category is the colonia. This type of settlement was created in order to reward veterans with land and in some cases to create Roman strong holds in new territories. Augst (12) may have been created for this pmpose. The inhabitants of the coloniae had Roman citizenship which gave them certain privileges and tax exemptions. Municipia were native settlements which acquired recognition as a Roman town. Along with the status of municipium, the town's magistrates became Roman citizens and the town acquired certain privileges. There does not seem to be any municipia in the Upper Rhine area, but immediately west the native settlement at Mandeure (111) seems to have become a municipium during the second 1There is a distortion in our knowledge of the settlements in this area in favour of those with stone walls, which means that little is known about small and rural La Tene settlements. Consequently, it is not possible to say much about settlement patterns or changes in settlement patterns. 2 Both Esslingen and Hardheim-Gerichtstetten are Viereckschanzen in Baden-Wilrttemberg but outside the area under consideration. Because neither is well published, they have not been included in the gazetteer.

34

•

• •

•

•

•• •

•

•

•

•

century A.O .. Other towns and cities did not possess Roman citizenship. Their legal status did not mean that they could not be large major administrative centers. Most civitates, which were tribal centers, were the administrative centers of their associated tribal area and could be quit large population centers. The majority of Roman urban centers were vici, small undefended settlements. Most of the vici were street villages with houses on both sides of a main thoroughfare. Some grew in association with forts. There were vici at Vindonissa (188), Basel (20), Zurich (194) and Hiifingen (85). Still others, like Baden (14), flourished because of the presence of a spa. Many vici, like Vitudurum (133), had temples. Others, such as Lenzburg (107), had theatres. Several of these were centres where pottery, metal, leather, and other goods were manufactured.3 A large number of small rural settlements were established. The richer ones are called villa. A number of villae, for example Laufenburg (104), were established during the second half of the first century A.O .. These early villae consisted of simple wooden buildings. The earliest phase at LaufenMiischhang (103) was a wooden building and was built during the mid-first century. The building was later rebuilt in stone. Some of the rooms were given hypocausts, mosaics and wall paintings. Most of the villae from the middle period of the Roman Empire were built of stone and had with hypocausts, mosaics and wall paintings. Only a few villae dating to the early Roman period have been excavated and published, the best example being Laufen-Miischhang (103). The majority of known villae are second century or later. They were discovered because their stone walls, hypocausts, tile and pottery were recognized when they were uncovered during construction work. Wooden buildings seem to be found only during archaeological excavations. The fact that stone or brick buildings are more easily noticed might explain why so few early villae have been found. The remains of post-holes, wooden floors and other remains of wooden buildings are difficult to recognize under the best conditions.

HOUSES

LA TENE HOUSES

There is little information on La Tene houses from the Upper Rhine area, although some of the shallower pits from Basel-Gasfabrik (19) are thought to have been houses (Major 1940).4 At other sites, the clusters of pits and post-holes cannot be deciphered sufficiently to determine what La Tene houses looked like. As with other types of information, any opinions about La Tene houses in the Upper Rhine area are based on inferences from other European sites with discemable house outlines. Based on these sites, it is possible to say that most European La Tene houses were rectangular, and usually had only one large room, although larger rooms with smaller rooms at each end or partitions along the short axis existed (Collis 1984; Tanguy 1986). Examples of these types of structures were found at Manching, Verberie and Quimper. 5 Sometimes, as at Hrazany, Bohemia, the main house was enclosed in a compound, which included a place for the animals, storage pits and work areas (Collis 3 See Gazetteer. 4 1t is difficult to determine how accurate this interpretation is from the excavation report 5 A survey of house structures are given in Collis (1984) and Daolous (1986). For Manching, see Kramer (1962) and Maier (1986). Verberie and Quimper are illustrated in Au Tempsdes Celtes.

36

1984).

ROMAN HOUSES In contrast, there are several examples of Roman buildings in the Upper Rhine. At most sites, houses were initially built of wood and later rebuilt in stone. The later versions tend to be larger and more elaborate. Most such houses were erected after AD. 70 and elaborated during the third century. The houses from vici tend to be simpler, although the excavated house outlines from Zurzach (195) consist of several rooms, as do those from Baden (14). On the other hand, the houses from both Oberwinterthur (133) and Lenzburg are simple, rectangular structures. At Augst (12), houses were rebuilt and expanded to include other houses several times over the course of the centuries. A typical house is presented by Insula XXX (Ewald 1968). Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the outline of the earliest wooden structure, but it appears to have been a rectangular structure with several rooms. By the third century, the house consisted of the whole insula, had a central courtyard and was embellished with mosaics. Many Roman buildings have cellars. There are several examples from Augst. In contrast, neither cellars nor inside storage pits are found in La Tene settlements. Although houses at vici and most early Roman houses are simple rectangular structures, there seems to be an increase in the number of rooms within a house. Several of these rooms seem to have had special functions. For example, most of the animal bones from Laufen-Miischhag (103) came from room 2 in building 1 and, at OberwinterthurRomerstrasse 186 (133), the hearth was in the front room and a storage area was in the back. Houses were composed of several rooms, each of which had a special, individual functions. As a result, Roman houses were more complex than La Tene houses. During the La Tene period, food was stored outside the houses in storage pits or in amphorae, which could had been placed inside. In the Roman period, food was stored in a part of the house specifically set aside for food storage -- the cellar. This change in practice indicates changes in ideas concerning houses and private property. In the Roman period, a special room in the house was set aside to store food, which not only means that the organization of the houses in the Roman period was more complex than during the La Tene houses, but that the individual had more control over his private property, since it was stored within his house.

BURIALS

LA TENE BURIALS The majority of late La Tene burials in Europe were cremations. One example from south of the Upper Rhine area is the single um cremation from under the inner-southern Wall at Bern. All of the grave goods were burnt. They included a painted pot, bowl, fibulae fragments and animal bones. There seem to have originally been five fibulae, four of which were Nauheim fibulae (Miiller-Beck 1961/62, 500). No other definite cremations dating to the late La Tene have been discovered in the Upper Rhine

area.

37

The only excavated late La Tene cemetery in the Upper Rhine comes from Basel-Gasfabrik (19). Approximately 90 inhumations were found north of the city. The graves overlap and are in various orientations, presenting a confused picture. Bones were often mixed and few complete skeletons were preserved. There was no evidence of coffins. Approximately 40 percent of the graves originally had grave goods. The majority of grave goods consisted of pots: cooking pots, polished pots and painted pots. There were also fibulae, arm, ear and finger rings, pendants and other items. The general pattern, where there were grave goods, was of a pot placed near the head, often on both sides of the head. Small bronze, glass and bone rings and pendants were strung on some type of cord or chain across the breast. There was usually only one fibula, near the left shoulder, found in a grave (Major 1940, 168). Three late La Tene graves have been found at Milllerwiese im Kappelerhof (123) near Baden 6 (14). The graves were in a row, from south to north near two deposits of late La Tene pottery . One grave contained a grown woman with chased fibula and Ringperle, as well as fine-ware pots. The second was a full grown man with an iron sword and spear. The third grave contained a child. Given their placement in terms of each other, it seems likely that they were a family group.

ROMAN BURIALS

The earliest Roman graves are Tiberian. Several small cremation cemeteries have been found. The largest, to date, comes from Aarauerstrasse at Vindonissa (188), where 203 cremations dating from the Tiberian to the early Flavian period have been uncovered (Simonett 1938). A cremation cemetery of similar date has been uncovered at Augst-Rheinstrasse 32 (12). There were 22 cremations, six of which were in urns, the rest in small pits. All, with one exception, had grave goods. The most common vessels were terra sigillata cups, Helvetian imitation terra sigillata and fine-ware beakers. Jugs and shoulder pots are the next most commonly represented forms, followed by plates and other terra sigillata forms. Amphorae were found in several graves. In one burial there was a statuette of Venus. Three graves had lamps. Very few of the graves contained fibulae. Only Langton-Down and Aucissa fibulae were found. Other types of jewelry and metal goods were found, including single bronze coins. Based on the burnt bone remains, Tomasevic (1974) has identified most of the cremations from Augst-Rheinstrasse 32 as male, all of which contained fibulae. Several small cremation cemeteries have been found near Basel, on both sides of the Rhine. The largest is on the left side at Allschwil (7), where approximately 70 cremations dating from 25 to 60 A.D. were discovered. With one exception, all the cremations were buried in urns and have grave goods. The exception was buried without an urn (Ettlinger 1944/77, 13). The grave goods consist of eating and drinking vessels, jugs, oil flasks, fibulae, knives and a large number of nails. Unlike the cremations from Vindonissa (188) and Augst (12), there were no oil lamps. A large proportion of the eating and drinking vessels are imported terra sigillata or local Helvetian imitation terra sigillata. There are a few late La Tene pieces and no Flavian pieces. Weil (184) and Btzingen(32) are on the right side of the river. Weil consists of 93 cremations, which date from the early Claudian period to the second half of the second century (Asskamp 1985, 127). Most of the cremations have drinking and eating vessels; several have jugs and some glass vessels. The pottery in the earlier cremations is usually local imitation terra sigillata and hand made coarse ware. Terra sigillata is more common in the later graves. Fibulae are only found in the early graves. All those with 6 The discovery of these graves is published in the Badener Tagblatt, 13 Juli 1985.

38

more than one fibula were female. Botzingen is smaller than Weil, with only 25 cremations. The types of small-finds from these two cemeteries are similar. One similarity is the large amount of animal bones found in many of the cremations. Neither cemetery has produced lamps. According to Ettlinger and Asskamp, respectively, Allschwil and Botzingen were associated with villae which have not yet been found. The most obvious difference between the La Tene and Roman burials in this area is that the La Tene burials are inhumations, whereas the Roman ones are cremations. The other major difference is the presence of beakers and plates in Roman graves. Other types of vessels have been found in graves from both periods. In all cases, few fibulae were found. The location of the single La Tene fibula near the left shoulder in the burials from Basel-Gasfabrik (19) suggests that, in these instances, the fibulae were used to fasten cloaks. Unfortunately, the sex of the skeletons is not known. Only the female's grave at Milllerwiese contained a fibula. The cemetery at Augst-Rheinstrasse 32 produced strongly arched fibulae, which is to be expected if the inhabitants were strongly romanized. All of the skeletal remains from these burials were identified as male. Several of the cremations from Weil and B0tzingen contained fibulae, some more than one. Those burials which contained fibulae from these cemeteries tended to be early.

ROMAN ROADS

As the Romans conquered, they built roads. They probably also re-worked and re-surfaced existing roads. The Romans built several roads in the Upper Rhine area. One of the major roads went from Avenches (13) to Rottweil (148), passing through Vindonissa (188), crossing the Rhine at Zurzach (195) and heading north to the Danube at Hilfingen (85) and then finally Rottweil. A major west-east road went from the municipium at Mandeure through Sierentz (158) to Augst (12), Vindonissa, Oberwinterthur (133) and then on to Lake Constance. Another road went up along the Rhine, passing through Kembs on its way to Strasbourg (169). There is also a possible later Roman road running along the right side of the Rhine. Stork (1979) argues for the existence of a road which crossed the Black Forest from Breisach (34, 35) to Hilfingen, and then probably joined the Danube road. In addition to these primary roads, there would had been secondary and tertiary roads. It is not clear when these various roads were built. Many Roman roads were probably laid out along older routes. Some of the primary roads were probably built immediately after the area came under Roman control. Others might not have been built until the second or third centuries.

HELVETIC MIGRATION

The major historical event that took place in the Upper Rhine area during the first century B.C. was the Helvetic migration in March of 58 B.C .. Caesar described the migration of the Helvetii in his lli Bello Gallico. Thanks to his account of the event, the Helvetic migration can be described in detail. Initially, the idea of emigration was the result of the Helvetian Orgetorix's ambition and desire for kingship. "He persuaded the community to march out of their territory in full force" (BG 1.2) Caesar

39

commented that Orgetorix had no trouble convincing the Helvetii because they were hemmed in by mountains and rivers. In addition, the Helvetii "persuaded their neighbours, the Raurici, the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi, to adopt the same plan" (BG 1.5). As mentioned earlier, it is not clear how these tribes were related to the Helvetii. One cause of the migration seems to have been the desire for more land due to population pressure and "their renown of courage in war" (BG 1.2). Before setting out, the Helvetii "determined to collect what they needed for talcing to the field, to buy up as large a number as they could of draught-cattle and carts, to sow as much com as possible so as to have a sufficient supply thereof on the march, and to establish peace and amity with the nearest communities" (BG 1.3). Then, immediately before setting out, they burnt "their strongholds {oppida) and villages (vici)" (BG 1.5). Caesar stated that the Helvetii had 12 oppida and 400 vici, all of which were burnt immediately before their immigration. Currently, only some of the 12 oppida and a small number of the 400 vici of the Helvetii have been discovered The Helvetii were located along the Upper Rhine.7 When describing the events leading up to the Helvetic migration, Caesar described the territory of the Helvetii as being between the Alps and the Jura. In order to leave their area, the Helvetii had either to go north and pass between the Jura and the Vosges through the territory of the Sequani or go south past Lake Neuchatel and Lake Geneva and around the oppidum at Geneva (68). Julius Caesar wrote that on March 28th the Helvetii chose to leave their territory via the southern route and go through Geneva. On hearing of this, Caesar stationed a legion at Geneva. The Helvetii sent a delegation to Caesar requesting passage through Geneva and Roman Provence. Caesar played for time by saying that he would consider their petition and he asked them to return on the 13th of April. He then built defenses and concentrated his forces. Any attempts by individuals to cross the Rhfme or the lake were checked. When the Helvetii returned on the 13th of April, Caesar refused them passage and burnt the bridge over the Rhone river. The Helvetii then turned northward. With the help of the Aeduan Dumnnorix, who acted as an intermediary, they persuaded the Sequani to let them pass through the land of the Sequani. The Helvetii entered Gaul from the north of the Jura near the source of the Doubs River. According to Caesar, the Helvetii intended to march into southern Gaul and permanently settle there. After crossing the territory of the Sequani into the territory of the Aedui, they "engaged in laying waste their [Aeduan] lands", removed children into slavery and captured towns (BG 1.11). The Aedui asked for Caesar's help. Caesar marched after the Helvetii and caught up with them while they were crossing the Saone river. A quarter of their forces still had to cross the river. Caesar "attacked the quarter not crossed and killed many" (BG 1.11). He then moved on to Bibracte (27), where a large, well-defended Aeduan town was situated. The Helvetii met Caesar in battle at Bibracte and were defeated. After the battle, Caesar "commanded the Helvetii, Tulingi, and Latobrigi to return to their own borders". Since these people would have no means, at first, with which to feed themselves, Caesar ordered "the Allobroges to give them a supply of corn". He also ordered the Helvetii, Tulingi and Latobrigi "to restore with their own hands the towns and villages which they had burnt. His chief reason for so doing was that he did not wish the district which the Helvetii had left to be unoccupied, lest the excellence of the farmlands might tempt the Germans who dwell across the Rhine to cross from their own into the Helvetian borders ..." (BG 1.28). Many of the hill forts and oppida in the Upper Rhine must have been rebuilt after 58 B.C.. Some 7 See Appendix 3 for a discussion of the other historical sources and the identification of the groups which lived in the Upper Rhine area.

40

new sites might have been established, such as at Breisach-Miinsterberg (35) and Basel-Miinsterhiigel (20). Renewed settlements might have been smaller due to the small number of people that returned in 56 B.C .. The La Tene CID oppidum at Bem-Engehalbinsel (22) might be an example of the decrease in population. The walled area occupied by the later oppidum was smaller and more concentrated than the earlier settlement. There is a definite trend toward easily defensible sites. The walls of some river sites might have been built at this time. After conquering Gaul, Julius Caesar ordered the establishment of several coloniae, possibly as an inexpensive way to secure the border areas. Two coloniae were established in the territory of the Helvetii, Colonia Julia Equestris at Nyon (127) and Colonia Augusta Raurica at Augst (12). The latter was apparently established in 44/43 B.C. by Munatius Plancus after the death of Julius Caesar, although there is no archaeological evidence dating to this early a foundation (Berger 1968).

THE ROMAN MILITARY OCCUPATION

In 15 B.C., the area south of the Upper Rhine became part of the Roman Empire through the campaigning of Tiberius, stepson of Augustus, in the area. He moved from west to east where he fought several naval battles on Lake Constance. From there he moved northward to the source of the Danube river (Velleius Paterculus). Tiberius' campaign was part of an attempt to extend Roman territory to the River Elbe. While he pushed northward, his brother Drusus was campaigning on the Lower Rhine and trying to push north and eastward towards the Elbe. As they moved forwards, each general established forts along the Rhine. Traces of forts dating to this period have been found at Sasbach (151), Basel (20), Vindonissa (188), Zurich (194), Dangstetten (44) and also near the source of the Danube at Hiifingen (85). These early Augustan forts were made of wood and earth and were irregular in plan. The forts at Sasbach and Basel-Miinsterhtigel were established within the earlier La Tene oppida. Once the Upper Rhine was part of the Roman Empire, a legion was permanently stationed in the area at Vindonissa. The earliest archaeological evidence from the Colonia Augusta Raurica (12) comes from this period. Several other non-military settlements were established, such as the vicus Vitudurum at Oberwinterthur (133). The area became part of the military imperial province of Germania Superior. In A.D. 14, Augustus died. On his death bed, Augustus is reported to have written a last will and testament the ResGestae.Along with a list of Augustus' accomplishments, the Res Gestae contained a list of national resources, the numbers of regular and auxiliary troops in the Roman army, the strength of the navy, statistics concerning the provinces and dependent kingdoms in terms of taxation, expenditure and gifts. Augustus set out how the empire should be ruled. He wrote that "the empire should not be extended beyond its present frontiers" (Tacitus, Annales I.9-11). It has been suggested that it was a a result of this statement that Augustus's successors, up to Claudius, did not try to expand the borders of the Empire but, rather, concentrated on consolidating the Empire. A period of unrest followed Augustus' death. Some of the unrest was due to problems concerning the army, which wanted more money. As soon as his death became known, Roman troops in the provinces of Upper and Lower Germany as well as Illyricum mutinied. They wanted Germanicus to be "Caesar", as well as concessions, grants of land or money, from the new Caesar. Instead, Germanicus forced the various military units to take oath to Tiberius and return to their winter quarters (Ibid I.29-36). Tiberius then turned the armies' energies outward towards the Germans. Most of the German campaigns

41

under Tiberius occurred in the Germania Inferior.Other problems were related to the talcing of a census and the imposition of tax.es. Two results of tax.es were debt and graft, which fed into each other. These, in turn, often led to tax revolts. According to Tacitus, in the year A.D. 21 heavy debts caused the Gallic communities to rebel (Ibid III.37). The Sequani, in alliance with the Aedui, were one of the groups of Gauls which rebelled. The general of Upper Germany, Gaius Silius, crushed their resistance and ravaged their villages (Ibid 111.43). Under Claudius, the frontier was pushed further north and new forts were built, such as that at Hiifingen (85). The Claudian fort was built on the site of the previous oppidum. Except for Vindonissa (160), the sites of the earlier Augustan forts along the Upper Rhine were not reoccupied. This advance suddenly stopped in A.D. 47 when Claudius "forbade further aggression against the Germans, and even ordered the withdrawal of our [the Roman] garrisons to the west bank of the Rhine" (Ibid XI. 18).

In 68 A.D., the Emperor Nero died. His death set off a year of confusion and unrest. There were four emperors within one year: Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian. The Upper Rhine was affected by the dissension. Legions and auxiliary units followed different 'Emperors' and clashed. The Roman army fought among itself. According to Tacitus, there was a growing distinction between the frontier troops and the civilian populations within the frontier. "Thus the troops came to look upon the Sequani, Aedui and a series of wealthy communities as their enemies" (Histories 51). Galba succeeded Nero as emperor but reigned for less than seven months (Suetonius VII.22). He was murdered by his successor--Otho. Not all of the troops gave oath to Otho. First the troops in Lower Germany and then those in Upper Germany pledged to Vitellius, who was the commander of Lower Germany (Suetonius VIII). According to Tacitus, some people used these uncertain times to cause more trouble and to settle past grievances. One of these people wa~ Caecina, a Roman military legate. He had fallen out with the Helvetii. Tacitus recounts that the Helvetii, knowing nothing of Galba's murder, refused to recognize Vitellius as emperor. In addition, further trouble was caused by the Legion XXI which was stationed at Vindonissa (188). Apparently, Legion XXI had stolen the pay money of an auxiliary troop stationed at a fort near the Rhine "which the Helvetii had long maintained with their own levies and at their own expense" (Histories 67). Tacitus may be referring to the fort at Zurzach (195) or Hiifingen (85). The Helvetii reacted to the theft of their pay by detaining "some dispatches which were being delivered in the name of the army of Germany to the legions in Pannonia, and put the centurion and his small escort under arrest" (Ibid). Caecina used this event as an excuse to move against the Helvetii. "He devastated the countryside and plundered a spa [Baden (14)] " (Ibid). At the same time, he ordered the auxiliary forces in Raetia to attack the Helvetii from the east. The encounter was fatal in that the Helvetii were unprepared and "their forts were now crumbling and decayed" (Histories 68). Hemmed in on all sides, the Helvetii fled to "the depths of the Mons Vocetius" (Ibid). One possible translation of the Mons Vocetius is the Oetliberg (177), a large hill near Ziirich, which has been occupied at different times during the Roman Empire. The Helvetii were not allowed to remain there. A cohort of Thracians was sent to dislodge them and the German and Raetian troops then tracked them down. "Many thousands fell, and as many were sold into slavery" (Ibid). The Roman forces then marched towards the capital of the Helvetii, Aventicum (13). The fate of this city was left in Vitellius' hands, who decided to spare it. After the encounter with the Helvetii, the Roman troops pledged to Vitellius crossed the Alps and met with Otho's troops. At the battle of Cremona, Vitellius' troops defeated Otho's troops. At the same time, the Roman troops in the provinces of Moesia, Pannonia, Syria and Judaea pledged themselves to Vespasion, who declared himself emperor. Vespasian and his forces moved towards Italy. He met Vitellius at Cremona where another battle was fought. Vespasian won the battle and became emperor.

42

Vespasian's reign and those of his two sons, Titus and Domitian, are known by their family name as the Flavian period. During this period, military activity concentrated in other parts of the Empire. There were several campaigns east of the Upper Rhine along the Danube which affected this area indirectly in terms of troop placements. Troops were reassigned and some new permanent forts were built. One result was the abandonment of the fort at Hiifingen (85) and the building of a fort further north at Rottweil (148). A new legion, the 11th, was posted to Vindonissa (188), replacing Legion XXI, which had caused so much trouble. The new legion rebuilt the fort in stone.

CONCLUSION

The above description of the geography, history and archaeology of the Upper Rhine area and the peoples who occupied it during the late Iron Age and early Roman period provides a framework for the following chapters. Not only were the rivers and other major geographical features of the area described, but the main types of settlements for each period were presented, such as oppida, coloniae, forts, vici and villae. A brief description of the system of roads which connected these sites was presented. In addition, within the limits of the literary sources, a detailed history of the area was given. The main historical points for this area are the Helvetii migration in 58 B.C., the Roman occupation of the area in 15 B.C. and the tumultuous year of A.D. 69, following the Emperor Nero's death. Further chronological divisions are discussed in the next two chapters. More detailed information about each settlement is presented in the gazetteer. The major purpose of this chapter was to give the reader the background for the following discussions of the changes and continuities of the archaeology from this area. The geography of the region affected the settlement. The presence of navigable rivers with difficult mountainous terrain in between resulted in a clustering of settlements during each period along the rivers. Often the Romans reused La Tene sites. Examples of reuse where the Romans built forts on earlier La Tene settlements can be found at Basel (20), Hiifingen (85), Vindonissa (188) and Ztlrich (194). 8 Roman civilian sites were also built over La Tene sites, such as at Bern (22) and Sierentz (158). The historical sequence of events for the region presents a framework in which the settlements and their material can be placed. A comparison of the history of an area and its archaeology demonstrates that the effects of most historical events on the archaeology of an area is superficial. For example, few of the 12 oppida and 400 vici which, according to Caesar, the Helvetii burnt in 58 B.C. can be found and there is little evidence of Tiberius' campaigns in the area in A.D. 15. We know that the Helvetii migrated and that Tiberius campaigned in the area, but what did these events mean to the people in the area and their cultural identity? Was every person in the area included in the Helvetic migration? In short, "history" usually focuses on the political events and, when related, the economy and religion of the area. Consequently, it is necessary to know the history of the area. At the same time, the "history" of an area may be incomplete and not tell the whole story. It often does not explain what was happening on the side lines and how the average person lived. Having set out an historical framework, we can fill in the picture by looking at the archaeology of the area. First, the chronology of the area needs to be discussed.

8Todd (1985) presents examples of such reuse in other parts of the Empire.

43

CHAPTERS AN OVERVIEWOF THEGENERALCHRONOLOGY

Before discussing the development of the Upper Rhine and the social processes which took place there, an understanding of both the relative and absolute general chronology of the late Iron Age and early Roman periods is needed. Consequently, an overview of the chronology of these periods for the Upper Rhine is presented in this chapter. How finely occupation levels within settlements and the settlements themselves can be dated will limit any analysis of processes, which, by definition, are temporal. In addition, in order to analyze social processes, one needs to look at a given society over a length time, the longer the better. Changes in the archaeological record can only be recognized if the record is placed in a chronological framework. Therefore, an overview of the general chronology of the Upper Rhine is presented. First, the terminology used for the various divisions of these periods is discussed; next the absolute dates given by dendrochronology are given; and then the chronology of important material such as amphorae is presented. The dates assigned to most of the sites in the Upper Rhine area are based on analyses of material sequences. However, specific historical dates, such as the founding of the colonia at Augst (12) in 44/43 B.C. by Munatius Plancus and the Tiberian campaign in the area in 15 B.C. are known from historical documents. 1 The documents describing the Roman occupation of Western Europe included not only the literature discussed in Appendix 3, but also numerous inscriptions. We know from historical records when certain troops were stationed at Vindonissa (188), for example, and, from this information, we can 1Berger ( 1968) reviews both the archaeological Augst.

and historical sources concerning the foundation of

44

use the presence of legionary stamps on bricks and tiles to date the sites where they occur, such as the villa at Laufenburg (104) (RIBW 398). 2 In addition to dates derived from historical documents and stamps on tile, or even pottery, independent absolute dates are given by the use of dendrochronology on wood from archaeological contexts.

TERMINOLOGY

The increased number of iron tools and weapons found in burials and hoards around 700 B.C. led into the full Iron Age, which has been divided into two periods named after the cultural assemblages from two sites: Halstatt and La Tene. The materials from these sites are representative of the types and styles of material found in the early and late Iron Age, respectively. These site-names have become synonymous with the early and late Iron Ages, each of which has been further divided. The Halstatt period, or early Iron Age, is outside the time period under consideration and, therefore, the chronology of this period will not be discussed in detail. The La Tene period is characterized by an artistic style which utilizes new motifs, such as palmettes, lotus buds and mystical beasts. These motifs originally originated in the orient and reached Europe, primarily via northern Italy starting sometime during the fifth century B.C .. Chronological subperiods for the late Iron Age, or the La Tene period, have been developed in different areas. In the nineteenth century, Tischler divided the Late Iron Age into early, middle and late phases based on the changes in fibula morphology (Hodson 1968; 1964). The La Tene period in Germany and northern Switzerland was divided into four sequential periods called La Tene A, B, C and D by Reinecke (1909/1965). These subdivisions were based on cultural assemblages, mostly from graves . Reinecke's work has been elaborated, but his terminology is still used. As a result, his periods La Tene C and D have been further divided into C1, C2, D1 and D2, The sites from the La Tene A period consist of rich graves which have been dated by the presence of imported attic red figure ware to 450 - 400 B.C ..3 The next period, La Tene B, consists of larger, less rich inhumation cemeteries and has been dated approximately to 400 - 250 B.C.. In the subsequent period, La Tene C, which is dated to around 250 - 100 B.C., burials begin to disappear and settlements to appear. The final period, La Tene D, is the one which concerns us. It goes from about 100 B.C. to the Roman occupation of the area in 15 B.C .. There are few burials for this period. The cultural assemblage for La Tene Dis based on the material from settlements, especially oppida. The oppidum is the type site of this period. The last two periods, La Tene C and D, are further subdivided. La Tene Cl is from approximately 250 to 150 B.C. and C2 from 150 to 100 B.C .. La Tene D1 broadly coincides with the period before Caesar's gallic wars, 100 to the 50's B.C., and D2 with the period after Caesar's wars to Augustus' consolidation of the area, from the 50's to 15 B.C .. (see Chart 5.1) 2Tile stamps of the 21 legion were found at Laufenburg (104). Since the 21st legion was stationed at Vindonissa (188) between A.D. 43 and 69, it is likely that the villa at Laufenburg was first built during this period (Rothkegel in prep; RIBW 398-401; Samesreuther 1940). 3All dates are approximate. Beginning and end dates for each period vary from area to area.

45

100

R.AVIAN PERIOD

Dendrodates

Historical Dates

Si' ~ Jg~ - [

i

w~,

Vespasian 69-79

fl)

-.J

Year of the

i;;

.

fi

tr.,

Four F.mperors Nero

(D

69A .D.

54-68 Claudius 41-54 tliche Anderung zeigt einen tiefen Umbruch in der Gesellschaft an. Das Auftreten der Reibschale markiert in Mitteleuropa das Ende prahistorischer Lebensweisen und zugleich den Beginn einer neuen Epoche, die unter dem Zeichen Roms stand (1977, 155).

However, for all that the mortaria seems to have been introduced by the Romans, there is no positive proof that the La Tene people did not use some of their larger bowls for mixing and grinding. There are many examples of large, simple, in-turned rim La Tene bowls, which are the same size as many mortaria and may have been used to mix and grind food, although none of the La Tene bowls have roughened interiors and the largest examples only measure 34.5 cm in diameter, in comparison to the largest Roman mortaria which measures 40.5 cm.

SITE Augst Basel-Gasfabrik Basel-Miinsterhiigel Dangstetten Oberwinterthur Laufenburg Vindonissa Laufen-Miischhag Zurzach

TABLE 8.3:

Mortaria X

Pan X X

Pompeian pans X

X X X X

X X

X X X X X X X

X

Sites with mortaria and pans.

While the appearance of mortaria suggests the introduction of new food preparation practices, the amount of information is too small for any definite interpretations about methods of food preparation in each period. On the one hand, there may have been fundamental changes caused by new practices introduced by the Romans, in which case the introduction of the mortaria is just one of many new items 22of course, Apicius is only talking about Italy and does not claim to be describing practices outside of Italy.

120

introduced by the Romans. On the other hand, there may have been no real changes and the mortaria may have been a new version of a long used type of vessel.

COOKING In contrast to food preparation, there is an adequate amount of evidence concerning how food was cooked. In addition to Apicius' cookbook and other literary references to cooking, there are hearths, ovens and the vessels in which food was cooked. 23 An evaluation of these sources will indicate the basic forms of cooking practiced in each period. There are burnt areas from both La Tene and Roman settlements which have been interpreted as cooking hearths. The La Tene examples have been found both inside and outside buildings (Collis 1985). The best examples of probable La Tene dated hearths in the area come from Basel -Gasfabrik (19), where two pits consisting of burnt clay and stone were uncovered. One possible hearth was in Grube 4, which was rectangular and measured 60 X 90 X 10 cm. It consisted of a thin layer of burnt clay over a small part of the surface near the middle and to one side of the pit. Major (1940) interpreted the pit as the remains of a house with a fireplace (1940,13). Another pit of similar construction was Grube 15. In both cases, a deposit of burnt and shattered stones laying between pieces of pottery and bones were found in the pits. Major suggests that cooking pots had been placed upon the stones (Ibid). Identifiable cooking hearths have been recovered from Oberwinterthur-R~merstrasse 186 (133). In bauphase A and bauphase B, the hearth was located in the middle of the biggest room, which was consequently interpreted as the main room of the house (Rychner & Albertin 1986). Hearths have also been found at other Roman settlements in the area (see Gazetteer). No cooking ovens have been found at La Tene dated sites in the Upper Rhine, although there are examples from other sites, such as Quimper (Daulous 1986). The ovens from Quimper were constructed of clay and loam. Several ovens have been found at Augst (12) and Vindonissa (188). The oven from Vindonissa was made from tile. Moosbrugger (1960) suggested that this oven was a bread bakers oven (1960, 15). The ovens from Augst were made from either baked clay and/or tile (Berger 1977). Evidence from Pompeii and other Italian sites demonstrates that ovens were a definite part of Roman cooking. Although no published examples of ovens exists from any of the vici and villae in the Upper Rhine area, the examples from the larger settlements at Vindonissa and Angst and from other areas indicates that ovens were used to some extent in the northwest Roman Provinces. The scanty evidence suggests that the main type of cooking facilities used in both periods was the hearth or some form of open fire. While excavations of ovens of both periods are known from outside the Upper Rhine area, only examples from the larger Roman settlements are known from within the area. Hence, it is possible that ovens were rare or absent at the majority of smaller settlements during both periods. An evaluation of the forms of cooking vessels used in both periods is more informative then that of hearths and ovens because the former are more plentiful and have been found at sites of all sizes and periods. Depending on the material used, cooking containers are often specialized to the extent that certain forms are used primarily for boiling, frying or baking. Ceramic containers tend to be more 23 There are several examples of metal cooking vessels (Harcum 1921) and there is no reason to believe that other types of containers were not used. Because they are the best preserved cooking vessels, only the ceramic cooking vessels will be considered here.

121

versatile than those made from other materials. A clay pot can be used both on top of a fire and in an oven. Even with this versatility, there are specific shapes for each method of cooking. Consequently, any changes in the shapes or relative proportions of cooking containers found at a site should, to some extent, reflect changes in how foods were cooked, as well as changes in cooking places, i.e. hearths, stoves, ovens or open fires. The most common form of cooking vessel, which was probably used for wet cooking on hearths or fires in both the La Tene and Roman period, was the cooking pot, a simple, coarse-ware, shouldered vessel with a wide mouth. Large quantities of this cooking pot are found at settlements from both periods. A variety of clays and tempers were employed in each period, which are presented in Table 7.4. Any differences in the shape of the La Tene and Roman versions of this pot are minimal. There were minor changes in the rim and shoulder over time, which can be interpreted as being due to the normal stylistic development of any item over time. There does not seem to have been any change in how the vessels were used, such as for boiling food. Charred examples of pots and the large number of pots that seem to have been refired suggest that the pots were often placed directly in the fire . Unfortunately, it is not possible to say what was boiled in the pots. It seems likely that the pots were used to cook grain potages, porridges and meat stews , all of which are mentioned in Apicius' cookbook (Apicius 1984). Another type of cooking vessel is a flat dish with vertical sides which is similar to the modem cake tin. The inside of this shape often is often coated in red. The~e pans are referred to as Pompeian ware in the literature. The coating of the inner surface may have been a special finish to make sure that food did not stick. The shape suggests that the pan could had been used for dry cooking, such as blanching, sauteing or baking. Some of the pans are charred on the outside, which, like the above cooking pots, were probably placed directly on or in a fire. Table 8.3 lists the sites with these dishes. The majority of these dishes were found in Roman datedsites. The various types of cooking pots from La Tene and Roman contexts in the Upper Rhine suggest that boiling was the main form of cooking in both periods. The presence of the flat pan, or dish, on Roman sites argues for the concurrent practice of frying and baking in the Roman period. 24 Although these methods of cooking may have been used in the La Tene period, there is a lack of similar shaped pans from the earlier period. The appearance of these shapes in the first century A.D. indicates that frying and baking were more common, if not first practiced, after the Roman occupation of the area. While the introduction of mortaria and pans indicates the introduction of new methods of food preparation, the continued presence of the traditional, simple, cooking pots which are well represented in both periods, indicates a large degree of continuity. ·In fact, new methods of cooking were absorbed. They did not replace traditional methods, rather they supplemented them.

DINING PRACTICES What becomes clear from having evaluated what foods were exploited, and how they were prepared and cooked in each period, is that while the Romans introduced new food stuff and practices, there was a large degree of continuity. Another practice that continued was that of banqueting, social dining. But 2 4 The practice of frying is further confirmed by the discovery of metal frying pans in Egypt (Harcum 1921).

122

there were also fundamental differences in how the Celts and Romans dined, which should be reflected in the tableware, the various dishes, platters and containers used in serving and eating their respective meals. Therefore, any changes in local practices would result in changes in the tableware. Athenaeus described Celtic eating as communal (IV 151). Drinking vessels and eating bowls were shared. The few containers that were used to serve food at the table were large, communal bowls. In addition, there were no individual table settings (Ibid). In contrast, individual tablesettings, as well as several dishes being served for each coarse, were the norm at Roman dinners. One result was that a large number of serving and eating containers were used during a meal. A description of the various wares and forms of pottery found in the Upper Rhine were presented in Chapter 7. The series of histograms for the diameters of various forms within the different wares illustrated that the Roman tableware, terra sigillata, reflected Roman dining habits. There was a wide range of forms which, visually, were of distinctive sizes. In contrast, there were no clear distinctions between the fewer La Tene forms. While there was a large number of forms in the locally produced Roman ware, Helvetian imitation sigillata, there was no strong correlation between size and form. A series of consolidated histograms giving the diameters of wide forms for 1) La Tene, 2) imported terra sigillata from northern Italy and southern Gaul, 3) Helvetian imitation and other local sigillata and 4) other Roman fine-wares is presented in Chart 8.1. The histogram of imported terra sigillata forms leans more towards the smaller end of the scale than any of the other ones. In contrast, the distribution of the local sigillata diameters more closely resembles the distribution of La Tene measurements than that of imported terra sigillata, as does the distribution of the non-sigillata Roman fine-ware . The distribution of these proportions suggests that, although Roman forms were quickly adopted, old patterns of use continued. The elaborate Roman table ware, in which each bowl held a different dish of food and where several dishes were on the table at the same time, was not adopted in the Upper Rhine . It is even possible that communal eating continued to be practiced, at least in the homes when Italians or other foreigners were not present. On the other hand, such habits may have been abandoned, since they were probably viewed as uncivilized and barbarian. There is a transition from imitation to imported terra sigillata over time at Oberwinterthur, which might indicate the eventual adoption of Roman eating habits and table manners. There is also the possibility that the local Helvetian Imitation ware became more Romanized over time, in terms of their dimensions and uses. Mostly likely different types and degrees of changes occurred at different settlements and, even though La Tene eating habits may have been discontinued at most places, there is no evidence that Roman practices were fully adopted. As with clothing, the local people seem to have dropped their "barbarian" practices and, instead of adopting Roman ones, created their own compromises.

SUMMARY Given the possible explanations for the observed changes and continuities in the pottery assemblage presented here, it must be remembered that the quantity of material from different levels and the different lengths of occupation and function of sites make it difficult to evaluate chronological changes in tableware. It is possible that, as a result of the scale at which the available information can be evaluated, the interpretation presented here is an oversimplification of what may have happened.

123

120 100

BO

C 0

u n t

60 40 20 0 5

13

9

17

21

25

29

LA TENE FINE

37

33

41

45

WARE

120 100

BO

C 0

u n t

60 40 20 0 5.0

12.0

19.0

26.0

33.0

40.0

33.0

40.0

TERRA SIGILLATA BO

60 C 0

u

40

n

t

20

0 5.0

12.0

19.0

2 6. 0

IMITATION

SIGILLATA

50

40 C 0

30

u

n

t

20

10

0 5.0

12.0

2 6 .o

19.0

33.0

40.0

OTHER ROMAN FINEWARE

CHART 8.1:Histogram

of

the

diameter

of

wide

124

forms

for

La Tene

and

Roman wa res.

The general picture presented by the above discussion is that there was a large degree of continuity both in what and how people ate. New foods and methods of food preparation were introduced by the Romans. But these new practices supplemented rather than replaced traditional practices. As a result, an even greater variety of foods were available during the Roman period. The only exception to the absorption of new practices into the existing system is where new techniques and technologies were concerned, such as those related to animal husbandry. New practices seem to have replaced the old ones, probably because these new techniques and technologies resulted in higher crop and produce yields. Although it is not possible to say what these new techniques were, the result of their adoption is observable through the increase in the size of Roman animals. In terms of eating habits, there are several observable major changes. One is the adoption of sigillata. On closer inspection, many of these changes do not seem to have necessarily changed how people ate. Rather, the new practices co-existed alongside the older ones. Some people continued to eat in the traditional manner, sharing cups and dishes, while others probably became completely Roman in their eating habits and still others were somewhere inbetween, combining traditional and new practices.

CONCLUSION

Several changes concerning how coins, fibulae and pottery were used have been identified in this chapter. Suggestions were made as to how these changes reflected changes in the social system in which the artifacts were used. Table 8.4 presents a summary of the changes identified in this chapter, as well as possible meanings of these changes. The continued presence of certain items, such as cooking pots, demonstrates that there were also continuities. In many instances, the quantity of material or our understanding of the material is too small to identify or interpret any changes in the archaeological record. This is, unfortunately, the situation concerning burials. Sometimes apparent changes in the archaeological record actually reflect continuities in social values and practices. For example, although the coins of each period were different, the quantities and values of coins found at settlements suggest the presence of a similar economic system in each period. Although the local dress changed, .Roman dress was not adopted. Rather, a new, idiosyncratic costume appeared, indicating the continued separate identity of the people involved. While the appearance of a local sigillata industry suggests the adoption of "Roman" pottery industries, especially the technology involved in making sigillata,an evaluation of the sizes of the forms in each industry indicates a continuity in how vessels were used. New forms were adopted, but not necessarily the associated practices. Still other examples of changes and continuities are presented in Table 8.4. The general picture that emerges is that the local inhabitants of the Upper Rhine area ceased those local habits and practices which were viewed as "barbarian" and "uncivilized", but they did not replace these habits and practices with Roman ones. Instead, aspects of Roman habits and practices were adapted and modified. The result was that new patterns of behavior were created which incorporated both aspects

125

Item/ Activity

Before

After

Change

Interpretation

Coin production

regionally controlled

Roman production

centralized control

standardization

Whole, halved &

halved & quartered

Roman coins

quartered AE

AE replace potins

modified to fit

legionary forts,

fewer entrepots

colonia & municipia

becomes more

production AE coins

AE and potins

local values Entrepots

oppida

organization

hierarchical

Trirl!

Economy

raw bulkgoods,

raw goods, taxes,

no slaves, taxes &

Still exchange of

slaves/ luxury

& tribute/

tribute introduced,

raw and fmished

& prestige goods

manufactured goods

new sources

goods

regional markets

part of Empire -wide

incorporated into

no fundamental

market network

larger system

changes change

Dress: local men

tunics, breaches

gallic coat

new costume

Roman men

toga

toga

no change

local women

long sleeved bodice

same

no change

inhumations,

various practices

& tunic Burials

inhumations

no need to change

cremations

greater variety of practices suggests several ethnic groups

Animals

Plants Imported Foods

cow, pig, sheep,

cow, pig, sheep,

Roman animals

goat, etc.

goat, etc.

larger

in husbandry practices result of

possible changes

spelt, emmer,

millet, emmer,

new plants

eikom, barley?

bread-wheat, etc. wine, oil, fruits,

grown decrease in wine

taxes?

wine, fruits

fish sauce

oil & fish sauce

in relationship

introduced

with Rome &

affect of change

introduction of Roman cuisine continuity &

traditional

frying, baking, etc.

adoption of new

practices

open fires, ovens

practices introduction of

suplemented

grinding & sauces

practices

adopted superficial

Food

boiling, roasting,

preparation

baking, open fires, ovens ?

mortaria

boiling, roasting,

Some Roman

Dining/

communal eating

smaller dinners

Roman table wares

Banquets

& shared dishes

& indivual settings

traditional sizes

change in eating practices

Storage

pits, amphorae, etc.

cellars, special

special structures

changes in access & control

buildings, dolia etc. Houses

simple rectangles

simple & multi roomed houses

increase in variety & complexity

more highly specialized

TABLE 8.4: Summary of the changes from the La Tene to Roman in the items and activities discussed in Chapter 8 and interpretation of these changes.

126

of local traditional and intrusive Roman habits and practices. Hence, the immediate changes that occurred were more apparent than real. The changes noted in this chapter do not reflect substantial modifications of the social system, but rather superficial changes. Many of the new items indicating change were only found at Vindonissa (188) and Augst (12), Roman cultural strongholds. The picture presented at the smaller Roman sites indicates fewer changes. What appears to have happened is that most changes occurred in highly visible areas, such as funerals or houses. Behavior was modified so as not to be reactionary and so as to appear compliant with the new regime. But few of these changes suggest new social beliefs or practices in the home, involving the structure or organization of the basic social unit -- the family. In fact, the fundamental social structure seems to have remained unchanged. Only towards the end of the first and beginning of the second centuries A.D. do more fundamental changes in how people dressed and ate seem to have occurred, such as demonstrated by the drop in the number of fibulae recovered and the increase in terra sigillata as opposed to local imitation terra sigillata pottery. But, outside of the imposition of new settlements and the presence of the army, the immediate effects of the Roman occupation on the area were superficial.

127

CHAPTER9 THE MANIPULATION OF CULTURAL SYMBOLS

The previous chapters have identified changes and continuities in the archaeological record from the late La Tene and early Roman periods in the Upper Rhine. The social settings in which these changes occurred were described in the last chapter. It was suggested that many of the observed changes were superficial and did not reflect fundamental changes in the social system. In this chapter, a few models which explain the material and cultural changes are considered. 1 First, an interpretation and identification of the frontier and some of the processes which occurred at the frontier will be discussed.

FRONTIER IDENTIFICATION

Between 15 B.C. and A.D. 70, the Upper Rhine area was a military frontier, resulting in a strong Roman military presence in the area. According to Lewis (1985; 1984), military frontiers are cosmopolitan frontiers, which he defines as short-termed, economically specialized with small, temporary 1See Chapter 3 for a discussion on frontier theories and social processes.

128

immigrant settlements. According to Bartel (1985; 1980), this definition of a frontier describes an imperial frontier. But he also defines the presence of a large military force as more characteristic of a colonial frontier, which requires the use of force, whereas imperial frontiers use an implied power which must be recognized by all concerned in order to function. The key determinant as to whether or not the frontier in the area was insular or cosmopolitan, colonial or imperial rests on the presence and size of any immigrant population. None of the historical sources indicate that the local people of the Upper Rhine were exterminated or expelled when the Roman army occupied the area in 15 B.C .. Tacitus (Histories 67-8) mentions that during the unrest of A.O. 69, when Caecina took advantage of the unrest of those times to revenge himself against the Helvetii, a large number of Helvetii were killed and sold into slavery. The Helvetii could not have been completely obliterated, since they sent envoys to the Emperor Vitellius. In another reference to the inhabitants of the Upper Rhine made by Tacitus in Germania (29), he states that the area between the Rhine and Danube, agri decumates, had been settled by Gauls. Nuber (1984) interprets Tacitus' reference in Germania to the agri decumates as suggesting that the area north from the Upper Rhine, southern Baden-Wilrttemberg, was empty before this period and was colonized by Gauls and other non-locals during the Flavian period. The actual area of the agri decumates seems to have been the area of the Upper Danube and Neckar rivers, possibly including the Black Forest and Schw~bische Albs. It is just north of the area under discussion and it is not clear if or when the settlement of the area described by Tacitus took place. There are no other literary references to immigrants into either the agri decumantes or the area to the south. If there was a large number of immigrants into the Upper Rhine area, then according to Lewis (1985; 1984), the area was an insular frontier but, according to Bartel (1985; 1980), the area was a colonial frontier. Key characteristic of each these types of frontiers as defined by each author, respectively, can be identified for the early Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine. They are an economic reinvestment in and development of the frontier region, demonstrated by the municipal structures and elaborate villae built in the area and the development of towns like Baden, which became major production centres.

Roman frontiers were not solely military frontiers. They were also technological frontiers, as demonstrated by the introduction of new techniques and the establishment of new fibula and pottery industries. In addition, all Roman frontiers were porous. They allowed the diffusion of information, goods and people through. It is not possible to determine which type of porous frontier identified by Denell (1985) existed at any given period of the Roman frontier. The Roman and Italian products found on late La Tene sites indicate that there was a transference of information long before the Roman occupation, as well as a transference of people, resources and technologies. It is likely that a religious and ideological frontier co-existed with the military and technical frontiers, but the presence of these types of frontiers are difficult to identify. Nonetheless, the changes in the material suggest a diffusion of knowledge and ideas, both before and after 15 B.C., which suggests the presence of at least an ideological frontier and probably a religious one.

129

ASSIMILATION

As defined in Chapter 3, assimilation is the adoption of cultural traits and attributes. Face to face contact is not necessary for assimilation to take place. It can occur at a distance . When assimilation occurs without direct contact, there is an introduction of new objects without their associated symbols/meanings (van der Leeuw 1983), whereas when assimilation occurs in a situation of direct contact, some of the information associated with an object is transferred with the object. The presence of new, foreign objects and, hence, assimilation, is easily recognized, but the presence or absence of any associated information is harder to perceive. The presence of imported artifacts in the late La Tene contexts indicates assimilation of new objects over great distances through the mechanism of long-distance trade. Although objects acquired in this manner are disassociated from their symbols/meanings, their introduction into a system can cause social changes. P. Wells (1980) argues that the existence of long distance trade in the early Iron Age resulted in a more strongly stratified society. Restricted access to mediterranean products, many of which seem to have been luxury goods, allowed the people in control of any exchanges to acquire status and power. With the occupation of the Upper Rhine area by the Romans and face-to-face contact between Romans and locals, new objects together with their associated symbols/meanings were introduced into the area. Van der Leeuw (1983) argues that face-to-face contact resulted in at least some of the meanings and information attached to an exchanged object being absorbed by the receiving culture. One result of this type of exchange in the Upper Rhine was the introduction of new techniques and the development of new, local pottery industries, such as Helvetian Imitation ware. According to van der Leeuw, as the amount of information absorbed increases, the new symbols/meanings confronting the local culture can no longer be evaluated within the structure of the original recipient culture. New ways to evaluate this information are required. As a result, continued face-to-face contact and exchange eventually lead to radical modifications of the receiving culture, in other words acculturation.

ACCULTURATION

Unlike assimilation, when acculturation occurs the cultural system is modified. Not only are new objects absorbed, but they are either modified to fit the existing cultural system or cause changes in it. In addition, in reaction to the introduction of new objects apparently unrelated parts of the cultural system are modified, due to the stress that these changes cause in the system. The result is the gradual appearance of new objects and cultural practices that combine aspects of each contributing culture. During the La Tene period, when the region was a semi-autonomous economic region supplying most of its needs and wants from within, most objects were produced by local craftsmen using local material in accordance with local ideas or templates. Some objects were imported. These objects

130

were created by non-local craftsmen using non-local material based on non-local ideas. One possible affect of the Roman occupation was the introduction of non-local craftsmen in the area. Whether or not they were brought into the area as part of the army, the result of their presence was the production of non-local types using local material so that both immigrant and local craftsmen could exchange ideas. By the end of the period under consideration, there were objects being produced in the Upper Rhine area which were similar to objects produced in the central part of the Empire, within the limits of the quality of the material and climate. In addition, aspects of the new and old types were combined, producing objects which were neither purely local nor imported, but were hybrids. Overtime, as the cultural system adopted to the increasing amount of new information, these changes in technology and production caused changes in other parts of the cultural systems. Some of the changes identified in the archaeological material were the result of changes within the population existing in the area. One result of the Roman occupation was the sudden presence of a large, military population in the area. This new population consisted of at least one Italian legion and several auxiliary units, some of whom probably consisted of local, warrior bands. The result of this influx was the introduction of well over five thousand Italian soldiers and other non-local soldiers in the area, as well as camp followers, traders and merchants. The majority of the new people ~at moved into the area were men. Although some female camp followers probably moved into the area, they would have been a small proportion of the new population. Some of the new Roman objects and structures found in the area can be attributed to the appearance of this new population. The presence of these people in the area would have also increased the amount of face-to-face contact between them and the locals and, hence, the rate of acculturation.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Lattimore (1962) discusses several ways in which conquered people are incorporated into the conquering society. The conquered local people can be absorbed, incorporated, or subjugated. 2 At first glance, the local people of the Upper Rhine seem to have been absorbed and the presence of Roman goods seems to have completely replaced the local material culture. In fact, what took place was a combination of incorporation and subjugation. The native upper classes were incorporated by the Romans, as demonstrated by the former's display of "Romaness" and the political power that they acquired. In contrast, the lower classes were subjugated. Until A.D. 212, when Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all free people of the empire, the lower classes in the provinces were not Roman citizens and had few legal rights. They were considered socially and culturally inferior. The social positions of the upper and lower classes are reflected in the settlement pattern of the provinces. There seems to be a difference in the amount of culturally Roman activities at Augst and Vindonissa, on the one hand, and at all the other Roman dated sites on the other hand. This difference might be the result of the respective wealths of the inhabitants of a colonia, vicus and villa which would, to some extent, reflect the activities that were carried out at each type of settlement. Administrative and 2see Chapter 3.

131

religious facilities, markets and public activities tend to occur at the larger settlements, such as coloniae and municipia. Consequently, the inhabitants of such towns would have had the opportunity to partake in activities which would result in the accumulation of wealth through control of trade and taxes. Such opportunities would not have been available to the inhabitants of the smaller towns and villages. Although, to a lesser extent, many of the functions of large towns are also found at villages, the villages controlled smaller hinterlands. In contrast, none of _these functions were found at villae, which, unlike towns and villages, were not social, religious, economic and political centres with dependent hinterlands. 3 Not only were there more functions concentrated in the larger towns, but, because these towns controlled larger areas, the ruling classes tended to live in them, at least for parts of the year. In addition, the upper classes probably owned the more richly furnished villae, which are often associated with the larger towns. For example, there are several rich villae in geographical proximity of Augst (12), which have been interpreted as the rural residences of wealthy residents of Augst 4 Therefore, the settlement pattern reflects the social structure, with the wealthier ruling class residing in the larger, more Roman towns and villae. At the same time, this pattern might reflect the different ethnicities of the majority of people who lived in the different settlements. Immigrant Romans, Italians and other Mediterranean people probably settled in Augst and Vindonissa (188) and, together with the local elite who had adopted Roman characteristics and habits, built most of the villae. On the other hand, the non-elite natives lived in the less ostentatious vici and farms. Consequently, the local elite were not only wealthier, but more romanized and, consequently, politically powerful. The lower classes were poorer, culturally more traditional and conservative and, in general, powerless.

POWER AND PRESTIGE

The Celtic elite used Roman imperialism to advance their own causes before the Roman occupation of an area, such as the existence of pro-Roman factions within many Celtic tribes before and during the Gallic Wars. After the Roman occupation of an area, some Celtic elite functioned as leaders of auxiliary units. As such, they were subordinate to legionary legates. Other elite were appointed to administrative positions in the local and provincial governments. These positions would have only been given to those elite who had proven their Roman allegiance and, probably, had Roman citizenship (Suetonius 11.47). Two examples of such elite are Julius Floros and Julius Indus of the Treveri and Julius Sacrovir of the Aedui (Tacitus, Annals III.40). There were several ways in which a person could indicate his Roman allegiance, either singly or in combination. One was military service, such as that apparently given by Q. Julius Togirix (Dayet 3The role of the villa changed overtime. It is possible that in the late Roman Empire or in certain areas the Roman villa may have fimctioned as a central place in a similar fashion to a Medieval manor. 4 see Schmid et. al. (1968) Provincialia. Festschrift ft1r Rudolf Laur-Belart , which contains several articles on Augst 's hinterland. Interim reports on villae can be found in Jahresberichte aus Augst und Kaiseraugst and JBSGU.

132

1962). Another was initiating and supporting pro-Roman policies. A third way was the adoption of Roman practices and customs, such as living in a "Roman" house, with "Roman" eating and dressing habits. This last way of proving one's Roman allegiance, and hence suitability for important positions, was the only way available to all non-fighting elite after the Roman occupation of an area. The literary sources suggest that the Romans employed local elite when they occupied an 5 area. Although the positions held by the local elite had prestige, they had no real power. It was the army that had the real power. This situation is confirmed by the fact that few local elite were made Roman citizens after the Gallic Wars and that there was no wholesale adoption of obvious Roman practices and habits. It was only when the local elite viewed the possession of administrative positions as profitable that they began to adopt the more visible, and expensive, aspects of Roman culture. Therefore, it was not until after the army moved out of the area, near the end of the first century A.D., that visible examples of a widespread local adoption of Roman ways of living, such as baths, began to appear. At the same time, there is evidence of increased wealth for some segments of society, represented by the presence of exotic and elaborate artifacts and that a large number of houses were rebuilt in stone, many also were rebuilt with mosaics, marble, wall-paintings and other forms of Roman architectural decoration. These structures and the changes in dressing and eating identified in Chapters 6 and 8 suggest that following the removal of the armies present in the area, the administrative positions available to local elite had sufficient associated power and prestige to make them desirable acquisitions . As a result, the elite quickly adopted visible indicators of their "Romaness" in order to procure these positions

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPHERES

One way to express one's "Romaness" was through participation in certain public activities, such as bathing. Other activities might reflect one's ethnicity or profession . Politically ambitious natives would have needed to adopt the practice of social activities closely linked with a Roman lifestyle , such as bathing, theatre going, public religious practices, and how one lived. Although some of these practices took place within a person's home, many required the building of public structures . In fact, the financing of such structures was a prime indicator of both a person's "Romaness" and his social standing.

PUBUC SPENDING

By the second century of the Roman Empire, provincial magistrates were required to use their own money to finance municipal projects, such as the building of fora, curiae, basilicas, theatres, baths, and temples (A.H.M. Jones 1974). There were ideals as to what a Roman town should have and what the buildings should look like. The largest concentration of public buildings and, hence, public spending in the Upper Rhine was at Augst (12). A curia for the meetings of the town magistrates, a forum, theatre, amphitheatre and several temples were built at Augst. In addition, there were two public baths. Most of 5seeLevick (1985) The Government of the Roman Empire (London, Croom Helm) for a collection of incriptions relating to the government of the Empire. Also see Tacitus' Annals and Histories for references to local kings and elites maintained as administrators under the Empire.

133

these buildings were rebuilt several times, becoming larger and more elaborate over time. The first phases of most of these buildings were pre-Flavian. 6 There are several examples of Roman municipal structures at vici in the area. An unusually large theatre was built at Lenzburg (107). It could sit a far larger number of people than ever inhabited the vicus at one time. An elaborate bathing complex was built at Schleitheim (153), again out of proportion with the number of inhabitants of the vicus. A Gallo-Roman temple and baths were built at at Oberwinterthur (133), as well as other monumental buildings at other vici. Some of these would had been financed by private citizens (A.H.M. Jones 1974). Others might have been financed by the government, or the local towns might have received help in kind, such as the possible loan of legionary architects and builders at Schleitheim. Most of these structures were built during the Flavian period. For example, based on the stamped legionary tiles from the structures, the theatre at Lenzburg and the baths at Schleitheim were built during the 60n0's.

BATHING Bathing, which consisted of one's immersion in a series of baths with different temperatures, from cold to hot, was a sure way to indicate one's Romaness. Baths also required special buildings, with either naturally heated springs, such as at Baden (14), Switzerland and Bath, England, or special rooms for heating the water and hypocausts to heat the rooms. As a result, it is easy to demonstrate the practice of Roman bathing by the presence of Roman baths. As mentioned above, Roman baths exist at Augst, Baden and Schleitheim, to name some of the known excavated examples. Although Roman baths suggest Roman practices, the presence of baths at Augst does not mean that local practices changed. After all, the occupants of Augst were Roman citizens. Neither do the baths from Baden, which have natural hot water springs, indicate the adoption of Roman bathing by natives, since Baden is thought to have primarily served the soldiers at nearby Vindonissa (Doppler 1983). In contrast, the baths at Schleitheim, a small vicus north of the Rhine, do suggest that here, at least, the local population bathed in Roman fashion. The vicus is not near a military station and was not established for retired soldiers. Although the baths seem to have been built by legionaries, since stamped tiles from the 21s t and 11th legion were found in the excavations of the baths, the inhabitants of the vicus who used the baths were natives. Unfortunately,to date only the baths at Schleitheim are published, so it is not possible to say what the rest of the settlement was like and whether or not there were other "Roman" structures. There are several baths built as part of villa complexes, but in many cases it is likely that the people who built the villae were either army officials, such as postulated for Laufenburg (104) (Rothkegel 1987, pers. comm.; Samcsreuther 1940), or immigrants from either Italy or other provinces. On the other hand, if a villa with baths was built by a native, than the presence of the baths indicates the adoption of Roman bathing practices by at least the native who had built the villa.

6seeGaretteer.

134

CONCLUSION

The areas of social activity in which assimilation and acculturation occurred in the Upper Rhine area were determined by the benefits that those involved acquired from adopting or adapting Roman culture. To some extent, assimilation of cultural practices is consciously chosen. In the case of the Roman Empire the question was: what practices and characteristics of Roman culture would be profitable to adopt? Unless imposed on a people, new ideological, religious and social practices are not quickly adopted. As a result, the first aspects of any intrusive cultural system that are adopted are any new techniques and technologies which do not, at first, change the recipient culture. Instead, the intrusive cultural practices are adapted and fitted into the local cultural system. Rather then replacing parts of the old system, they supplement it. Consequently, only those people in the Roman provinces who benefited from adopting new cultural practices were quickly Romanized. Other segments of society were more conservative, maintaining as many aspects of their traditional culture as possible. Overtime, as face -to-face interaction between members of both cultures occurs, more information is exchanged and more cultural characteristics and traits are adopted and adapted. Even if the assimilated traits are limited to new techniques and technologies, their presence in the cultural system will, over time, cause changes unforeseen by members of the society. As a result, although assimilation may be limited, the amount of acculturation that occurs is continually increasing, resulting in new practices. Examples can be found in the lower classes who, while not immediately adopting Roman practices like the elite, replaced many traditional practices. Instead of adopting Roman practices they incorporated aspects of Roman and traditional practices to form new ones which were neither part of the indigenous nor of the intrusive cultures. Therefore, there is a difference in the degree and type of "Romanization" that occurred among the upper and lower classes. The local elite assimilated parts of Roman culture. The process was relatively quick, superficial and highly visible. In contrast, with the exception of technology, no assimilation occurred among the non-elite. Rather acculturation occurred which, while being slower, fundamentally modified the culture. This process is not as highly visible as the quicker process of assimilation. These different processes also occurred at urban and rural centres to various extents. Urban centres quickly demonstrated Roman characteristics, partially because the inhabitants of these centres tended to be Roman citizens and elite, and partially because they were administrative centres. Consequently, these settlements could both financially afford to and needed to demonstrate Roman characteristics to maintain their status as centres. On the other hand, rural centres not only could not afford to demonstrate Roman characteristics, but the inhabitants of these settlements had little incentive to spend their money romanizing their towns and villages. Of course, some municipal buildings were built, but nowhere on the scale of the larger centres. Another aspect of the influence of one's social position on whether or not assimilation or acculturation occurred is the difference in the degree of romanization between men and women. Men functioned in the public sphere. Their power and prestige was measured in terms of this sphere, whereas the women's sphere was the private home life and not as open to public scrutiny. Consequently, women would not benefit from changing their practices within the house. It did not matter how they ran their

135

kitchen, as long as they set a "Roman" table when entertaining company. In addition, there was no need for them to abandon their traditional dress, since, by maintaining it, they did not threaten the new authorities or undermine , their own ability to acquire power and prestige. As with the non-elite, women tended to be more traditional. There does not appear to have been the same amount of assimilation among women as among men, but rather a slower, more fundamental process of acculturation. The above discussion suggests that assimilation only occurs among those segments of society which will profit from adopting new cultural processes. Otherwise it is limited to those traits and practices which are seen as potentially profitable, such as new production techniques. The process is quick and superficial, usually resulting in the absorption of new practices which supplement the recipient system. Rarely do the new practices replace older ones. Assimilation is highly visible archaeologically , and recognizable by sudden, sharp changes and additions to the archaeological record. In contrast, acculturation is the result of long term face-to-face interaction between members of two or more cultures. Acculturation results in the adaption of new cultural practices which combine features of both cultures. Consequently, both cultural systems are modified. Acculturation is a long term process which fundamentally changes a culture. It is not a conscious process. Members of each culture may not be aware that it is taking place. Consequently, it is not highly visible. It does not result in any sudden changes in the archaeological material, but rather gradual changes in all aspects of the material culture. In the early Roman frontier in the Upper Rhine area, both assimilation and acculturation occurred. Cultural contact between the Upper Rhine and Rome goes back to long before the Roman occupation of the area. This contact resulted in the acquisition of new techniques and technologies and changes in trading practices. The Roman occupation of the area resulted in other cultural changes, but these changes were still limited to .technological and economic spheres. It was not until after the army left the area that a large degree of assimilation occurred, at which time positions offering power and prestige became available to the local elite. At the same time, acculturation was also taking place. Because it is a slower process, concrete evidence of acculturation does not appear until after the Romans had occupied the area for almost a century. In addition, the result of acculturation was not the adoption of a "Roman culture", but the modification of the local culture to include modified Roman practices. Therefore, only the elite became "Roman". The majority of the people in the Upper Rhine did not become "Roman", rather they became "Gallo-Roman". It is important to recognize that many of the highly visible cultural changes observed in archaeology and history are not the result of acculturation but of assimilation. What this means is that these highly visible cultural changes are superficial. Many of the "observed" cultural changes in archaeology and history are not the results of invasion, as once thought, or acculturation. Rather, they are the results of both the manipulation of cultural symbols by the stratum of society in a position to benefit from the adoption of these symbols and the adoption of new techniques and technologies by all parts of the society. To recognize fundamental cultural changes, such as those which occur when acculturation takes place, a diachronic view is necessary. It is recognized that in prehistory, where the amount of information is less detailed than that available for the historical period, acculturation might look like assimilation. This problem can be overcome by looking for the presence of new cultural traits which "combine" aspects of both of the original cultures. Of course, in many cases both of the original cultures are not known. Only further excavations will alleviate this lack of information .

136

By identifying these two processes of assimilation and acculturation. one can identify various aspects of the structure and organization of a given society. For example, the above investigation of the Upper Rhine area has demonstrated that there was a distinction. possibly a socio-economic one. between those people living in the larger towns and in the rural settlements. It has also demonstrated that there was a strong distinction between the material cultures of the elite and non-elite. which suggests limited access to economic wealth and control for the majority of the population. Another identified feature of the cultural system was the difference in gender roles: the male and female spheres of interaction were distinct. Further information concerning the social structure of the area would probably be forthcoming if a longer time period was investigated. What this study of the social processes that occurred in a frontier situation indicate is that social interaction is a complex process which can only be properly studied diachronically. The implications are that modem instances of social interaction can not be properly understood because we do not have the historical perspective necessary to identify and understand the fundamental cultural changes taking place. We can only recognize and identify the superficial changes -- those resulting from assimilation. Although acculturation is continually taking place. because the process is slow and accumulative, the affects of the process on any given culture can only be identified with hindsight.

137

APPENDIX 1 FIBULAE

TERMINOLOGY

Fibulae are a specific type of brooch, similar to a safety pin in construction. Their primary function is to hold clothes together, though they are also used as decoration. As a result, a variety of constructions were developed to achieve a secure fibula that would keep its shape, stay closed and follow current fashions. Below is an illustration of a general fibula. It consists of a head, bow, foot and pin. The head can be constructed in several ways. The example below is a spring fibula with wings and hook. This type is moulded in one piece and then shaped. The spring is made from spiralling the pin into tight loops which give tension to the pin and hold it in the foot. The number of loops can be anything from two to 30. The spirals start in the middle and go outwards. The wire, cord, is brought over or under the spirals to the other side to make the rest of the spirals going towards the centre. The cord can be either external, going outside the spring, or internal, going under the bow. In the above example the head has what is know as wings, extensions that cover the spring. Some people consider these winged fibulae as prototypes for hinged fibulae. Over time, the wings became larger until they surround the spring (hulsen) . The spring was finally replaced with a separate pin or rod. One reason for this development is that the material through which a fibula is put could get between the spirals and chord and pull it apart. An example of this can be seen in the British Museum. Both the hook, which holds the cord tightly to the spring, and wings were developed to prevent the spring from being pulled apart.

138

The other major construction type is the hinged head. In this category, the head consists of a tube with a rod through both the head and pin. These types are made from several pieces. Although hinged fibulae do not have the same tension on the pin that springed fibulae have, the heads of hinged fibulae cannot be pulled apart. In the above illusttation, the bow is a simple, wire bow. It is this part of the fibula that always shows when in use and, hence, appears in a variety of forms and with different methods of decoration. A bow can be strongly arched, flat, wide, thin or moulded. Beads are often added to the wire types. The bow can be decorated with incisions, moulding, enameling or other methods available to metal working .

bow

foot

I("§

11 ii

ii ii

~

head hook

pin

The foot also receives a lot of decoration. It consists of both the catchplate and the area above it, up to the bow. Sometimes the division between the bow and foot is clearly marked, as above . Sometimes a bulb, collar or a sharp change in angle separate the foot from the bow. There are several types of foot. The most common type of foot is a catchplate consisting of a sheet of metal which is turned up at the bottom to form a trough for the pin to rest in. The catch plate can be solid and plan, or decorated with perforations. More elaborate constructions sometimes have additions which lock the pin in place. In this section, only the more common terms have been mentioned. Any other terms encountered will be explained as they arise. Many of the fibula types do not have English terms. In these cases, literal translation were given, as well as the original name. Since fibula names are adopted from everyday language, literal translations do not always make sense.

139

FIBULA TYPOLOGY

In order to compare fibulae from various sites, they must be placed in a standardized classification. Below is a general typology based on technological and stylistic traits. No new fibula types were encountered, Therefore, instead of creating an entirely new typology, categories and terminologies from other typologies were consolidated. This typology does not contain all fibula types, rather only those types that were encountered. All the fiublae considered are bow brooches. Pennanular brooches were omitted. They do not change greatly through time. Also they are present before, during and after the period under consideration.

Sie kommen schon in der sp~tlatenezeit auf und sind durch die ganz r(jmische Periode zu verf olgen. In den frilhkaiserzeitlichen Kastellen erscheinen sie allerdings nicht allzu haufig (Ulbert, 1959, 69).

Plate fibulae are late fibulae whose bows are wide enough to .hid the head and pin. These fibulae have small heads and pins and seem to be more decorative than functional. Since plate fibulae do not begin to appear until the end of the first century A.O., they are not included in the typology. The following typology is strongly based on Ettlinger (1973) and Feugere (1981), whose typologies included most of the forms found in the Upper Rhine area. In each typology, classifications are primarily based on construction. Chronology is secondary, but tends to coincide. Where possible, the numbers from these typologies are given in Table 1. The main consideration of the following typology is also construction. The first division is based on how the head was constructed, whether spring, winged, sleeved or hinged. A letter was given to each type of head: 'A' for spiral, 'B' for winged, 'C' for sleeved and 'O' for hinged. Then, fibulae were divided in groups according to foot and bow types. Each of these types were given a number. The resulting categories are roughly chronological. Some forms occur with different types of heads, so have the same number but different letters. The one exception to this rule is type 8, whose shape is similar to 17a-c but is a springed fibula, whereas 17 a-c are sleeved. Types 1 through 8 are usually spring fibulae with no hook. Numbers 9 to 16 are springed fibulae with wings and hooks. Sometimes there are examples from these types without hooks, but the majority have both wings and hooks. Types 17 to 22 are sleeved fibulae. The rest are hinged. Only a few hinged fibulae are included in this typology because most hinged fibulae appear towards the end of the first century A.O. or later. 1 There is a wide range of fibulae within each type. The reason for this is that the main concern here is changes in usage and small differences in the arch of the bow or amount of perforation in the foot are 1A fuller example of the variety of hinged fibulae from Roman sites in the Upper Rhine are can be found in Riha, Emile 1979: Dieromischen FibelnausAu2stundKaiserau2st. (Augst, Forschungen in Augst, Bd. 3).

140

not characteristics. that affected a fibula's use. Where there are strong differences in decoration but the general shape is maintained, the fibulae are merely divided into subgroups.

Type 1: Pseudo La Tene II fibula Types la and 1b are Augustan fibulae reminiscent of middle La Tene fibulae. In the earliest La Tene forms the foot just touches the bow. This was later changed. The foot becomes attached to the bow with a collar . This returned foot is characteristic of the middle La Tene. Type la is a simple wire spring fibula whose foot doubles back towards the bow. It has an internal cord with four spirals, an elongated flat bow and open, triangular foot. The collar is sometimes decorated with ridges or punches . Sometimes the foot is attached, other times it is unattached. Type lb is similar but with a wider ribbon-like bow. It is decorated with parallel lines . This type is slightly earlier than type la and is called a Manchette fibula .

Type 2: Cross bow fibula The cross bow fibula is called an Armbrustfibeln in German. It has a spring construction with an exceptionally large number of spirals. One example from Giubiasco has 28 spirals (Ettlinger 1973, Taf.3,1). The bow is strongly arched. The total shape is supposed to be reminiscent of a crossbow. The cross bow fibula can have a variety of collars. Sometimes the collar is sceumorphic, marked by engraved lines and sometimes it is marked by a moulded bead or ridges. Like types la and lb, this fibula has a returned foot. It could be considered a sub-group of type 1, only it is a genuine La Tene type, not a Roman imitation.

Type 3: Mid La Tene type fibula This type has several names: drahtfibeln, midlatene schema fibel and Almgren 1. It is a simple, wire-like spring fibulae with internal cord and triangular returned foot. Type 3a is an early La Tene type with unattached foot and external chord. Type 3b is mid-La Tene and has an attached foot Rieckhoff-Pauli (1977) dates Type 3 from the Tiberian to Neronian period. Ulbert (1959) places it roughly in the first century B.C., ending by the mid first century A.D .. The reason for these dates is that Type 3 is found in early Roman forts. "Die Spiralfibeln mit umgeshclagenem Fuss (Almgren 1) findet sich in zahlreichen friihkaiserzeitlichen Zusammenhangen" (Planck 1975, 171). "Da die sildalpinen Spangen bis in die frilhe Kaiserzeit hineinreichen, schlagen sie auch eine zeitliche Brilcke zu den Fibeln in unseren Kastellen", i.e. Aislingen, Oberstimm, Kempten, Bregenz, Hilfingen, Vindonissa, Hofheim, Strassburg, Neuss and Camulodunum (Ulbert 1959, 64). Outside military sites, the mid La Tene type

141

fibulae is found in middle and southern Gaul, southeast France, western Switzerland, Wallis and Tessin (Rieckhoff-Pauli, 1977).

Type 4: Nauheim fibula and derivatives Type 4 is all late La Tene types. Type 4a consists of the various variations while 4b is the traditional Nauheim fibula. The Nauheim is the end result of the development of La Tene fibulae. The returned foot has become fused so that the foot is one piece, a simple open triangle. The bow is a long, narrow triangle. Only the upper third is decorated, with punched lines, sometimes reminiscent of a collar, or grooves. Some feel that the decoration is chronologically significant (Feuger 1981). There are always four spirals and an internal cord. Some examples are made of iron, since its shape allows it to be cast. The Nauheim is the main La Tene D fibulae type and is usually dated to the first half of the last century B.C., with later variations. As a result, it has received a great deal of attention . The actual date of the Nauheim is contested because most examples seem to come from open contexts or sites of uncertain stratigraphy. This is discussed more fully in Chapters 5 and 6.

Type 5: Shell fibula The shell fibulae (Schussel or spoon fibulae) is a late variation of the Nauheim. In most ways the shell fibula is similar. The main difference between a Nauheim and a shell fibula is the bow, which ends in a shell or dishlike shape spread over the spring to protect it on the shell fibula. Sometimes the bow is decorated with a few lines or chevrons, but usually it is left plain. Also like the Nauheim, the shell fibula is a late La Tene type, apparently ending with the Roman occupation (Ettlinger 1973, 14).

Man konnte erwagen, ob nicht die Bliitezeit der Schiisselfibeln erst in die Zeit nach dem Ende von Manching fallt, in eine Zeit also, das der Kradischt von Stradonitz, wie jetzt allgemein anerkannt wird, zunachst noch weiterbestanden hat (Kramer 1971, 123).

Type 6: Almgren 16 fibula Another spring fibulae with internal cord, the foot is different from the previous types. It is made from a sheet of metal turned up at the bottom, often terminated by a cylindrical bead. The foot and bow are well distinguished by a sharp change in angle, the bow is sharply arched, the foot straight. Decoration is restricted to punched rows on the bow.

142

Type 7: Knotted fibula There are many varieties of knotted fibulae (Knotenfibeln, Almgren 65). All are simple spring fibulae with external cords. The foot is either open or simply latticed. The variety occurs in the bows. All have knots or knobs, usually on the upper third of the bow. Sometimes there are more than one. These knots come in a variety of shapes and sizes. From the knot, the bow widens out to cover the spring. The fibulae is attributed to the late first century B.C .. There are also several regional varieties .

. .. Fibeln Almgren 65 sind auch in Manching vertreten, fehlen aber sonst im Hochrheingebiet vollig. Da Die offensichtlich in Oberitalien beheimatete Fibel Almgren 65, die mit dem von J. Werner zusammenfassend behandelten Bronzegeschirr der Spatlatenezeit... dass sie nordlich der Alpen erst gegen Ende der Laufzeit der Nauheimer Fibel erscheint. (Fischer 1966, 307-8)

Type 8: Simple Gallic non-interrupted fibula Type 8 is also known as the einfache gallische fibel. Its outline is the same as the Nauheim, but the simple Gallic non -interrupted fibula consists of a flat bow, which rises from the wings and continues straight to the foot and is latticed. It is an early roman type that continues well into the mid first century A.D.. As its name suggests, this fibula type is common in Gaul.

Type 9: Winged fibula Winged fibulae, Flugelfibel, developed from the knotted fibula, type 7. A major difference is that winged fibulae have hooks which secure the external cord to the fibulae and the bow tends to be wider and flatter. The knot has developed into a disk with "wings" or protrusions on each side. There are two major areas from which these come: Gaul, Type 9a, and Noricum and Pannonia, Type 9b or Almgren 238. "In Italien selbst fand sich die gallische FHigelfibel nicht". "Das Hauptverbreitungsgebiet muss im helvetisch -gallischen Raum gesucht werden" (Ulbert 1959, 65). The disk is the dominant feature of Type 9a. Type 9b is more elaborate. The wings overshadow the disk and the foot is latticed in a complicated manner. Both are early Roman (Garbsch, 1974; Ulbert 1959).

Type 10: Strongly profiled fibula There are many varieties of strongly profiled fibula, Kriiftig profilierte Fibeln, which are presented in Almgren's group IV. As in Type 9, a knot is still present, but the upper part of the bow has become more strongly accented, into a trumpet-like shape which covers the spring. In addition, there is a hook.

143

The bow is S-shaped in profile. The foot is usually closed and ends in a knob. According to Ettlinger (1973), this type is strongly influenced by Almgren 19 (Type 13). There are several sub-groups based on the finds from Cambodunum. They are from Upper Germany and the Danube area . . ..der aber fiber die Flusslaufe von Elbe, Oder und Weichsel auch im ganzen ostgermanischen Gebiet eine dichte Verbreitung erfahren hat. In Obergermania ist er seltener, aber fast immer vorhanden, sobald es sich um quantitative grossere Fibelkomplexe handelt. Westlich des Rheins finden sich nur noch Einzelstiicke. (Rieckhoff-Pauli 1977, 8)

They put in an appearance during the Tiberian-Claudian period, with a later version that appears in the Flavian period. Ettlinger (1973) dates the strongly profiled fibula to the Roman period.

Type 11: Norican-Pannonian double knotted fibulae Also known as Almgren 236n, Type 11 has a spring formation with hook and external cord. The fibulae is similar to Type 7, but has two knots. The bow spreads to cover the spring and is decorated with two knots. The foot is simple, sometimes opened, sometimes pierced and it usually ends in a knob. Type 11 originally comes from the east. There are examples in Switzerland that originated in Raetia (Ettlinger 1973) .

... war sie vor allem in norisch-pannonische Raum beheimatet. Dariiber hinaus erscheint sie in Raetien, vereinzelt in Vindonissa. In Obergermanien ist sie bis jetzt m.W. nur in Rheingonheim aufgetreten. Ausserhalb der romische Provinzen fand man pannonische Fibeln vor allem in den Gebieten, die Pannonian und Noricum nordlich vergelagert sind: in der Slowakei, in Bohmen, Maehren, Schesien und Westpreussen. (Ulbert 1959, 65-6)

Type 12: Eye fibula Eye fibulae, Augenfibeln, are from Almgren group III. They are called eye fibulae because the most striking feature of the fibula is the two holes set like eyes in the head. The "eyes" can appear either above or beside the hook, in pairs along the foot or bow. Sometimes the holes, eyes, are open and other times just punched. Although the bow tends to be sharply arched and the foot tends to be wide with a solid catchplate, any fibula with "eyes" is considered an Eye fibula.

144

Type 13: Kinked fibula This fibulae is Almgren 19. The German name is "geschweift". The main feature of the kinked fibula (geschweift ft.be/, Almgren 19) is the sharp rise of the bow from the spring. The spring has a hook and usually wings. The bow changes angles sharply a third of the way from the spring. This change is sometimes marked with a knob. Various types of simple feet are possible. This fibulae is definitely early Roman, possibly late La Tene. Ulbert (1959) places it in the first half of the first century A.O. "durch das Vorkommen in den augusteischen Lagern von Oberhausen und Haltern, andererseits durch das Auftreten in den Claudisch besetzten Kastellen von Hofheim und Wiesbaden gesichert" (Ulbert 1959, 64). But Kramer (1971) places the kinked fibula earlier. He sees Type 13 as a possible example of trade across the Alps.

W fillte man die Masstllbe unserer Latenechronologie an diese singulaeren Prachtfibeln aus italischen Werkstatt lege, dann miissten sie als "geschweifte Fibeln" ganz und das Ende der Sp:ttlatenezeit gesetzt werden ...Vielleicht ist auch dieses Fund ein Zeugnis fur den "Import" sildlichen Alpen, eine Erscheinung, der man gem auch in den Folgenden Jahrhunderten der rOmischen Kaiserzeit nach spiiren mochte (Kramer 1971, 131-2).

The majority of finds come from the middle Rhine area, but there are examples from outside this area: Vindonissa, Hilfingen, Manching and Lauterach (Ulbert, 1959; Kr:tmer, 1971).

Type 14: Collared fibula The general profile of this type is similar to the above type, but with a collar between the foot and bow. The foot is thin and pierced with simple forms. The bow is thin and leaf -like. There are six spirals and a hook with external cord. This type is generally from Gaul. It is from the early Roman period, although later variations are known.

Type 15: Almgren 20 This type is similar to Type 12, but there is a more gradual rise from the head and the knot is placed closer to the foot. As with Type 12, there is a spring with hook and wings. The bow, in cross -section, is a half-circle, while the foot is triangular in cross-section. Ulbert (1959) identifies Almgren 20 as a younger version of the Eye fibula. Almgren 20 is the most common type of fibulae found at Hofheim (23%) (Ritterling 1913). It is also found in northern Germany and the middle and lower Rhine (Reickhoff-Pauli, 1977). "Er war auch sonst in Obergermanien sehr beliebt. Oagegen ist er in den Donauprovinzen seltener zu finden" (Ulbert 1959, 65). Based on its presence in Hofbeim, it is dated to the mid first century A.O ..

145

Type 16: Almgren 22 The Almgren 22 fibula has a bow like a half circle with a knob parallel to the wings. The foot is pierced and ends in a knob. Type 16 comes from the Rhine provinces.

Type 17: Non-interrupted sleeved fibulae Type 17 is divided into three sub-groups. They are similar in profile to types 4 and 8, but are sleeved. Type 17a is exactly like type 8, except that the latter is winged and the former sleeved. In some cases, Type 17a has more decorations, usually incisions that point out the divisions of the parts of the fibulae. There is a younger version with a slightly more arched bow. Type 17b is the Nertomarus fibulae. It is like 17a, but very elaborately decorated. The ornamentation concentrates on the sleeve and consists of raised moulding, continuing linearly down the bow to a latticed foot. This type was first named by Wheeler (Ettlinger 1973, 21). Early versions appear at Oberhausen and Auerberg. "Die Nertomarusfibeln waren hauptsachlich in den westlichen Provinzen verbreitet. Die vereinzelten Vorkommen in Noricum und Pannonia wurden daher als westlicher Import angesehen" (Ulbert 1959, .64). Type 17b is more common than either 17a or 17c. Type 17c, the Langton-Down fibula, originates in England. The bow is wider than Types 17 a or b and decorated with incised lines. It does not arch at all, but goes up slightly from the sleeve, turns at an almost right angle and then goes straight to the foot. All subcategories of Type 17 are early Roman, starting at the end of the first century B.C. and circulating until the middle or end of the first century A.D.. They mostly appear in the western provinces. Type 17c is better represented in England than the other two.

Type 18: Sleeved fibula with wide foot In this type, the foot is emphasized at the expense of the bow. The bow is less than half the length of the foot, somewhat arched and sometimes widening into the sleeve. The bow is separated from the foot by a moulded ridge or two. The foot widens into a triangle, the base being as wide as the head. The catchplate can be either solid, pierced or open. Decoration is minimal, usually incised lines emphasizing the lines of the fibulae.

Type 19: Early small disk fibula There are several types of disk fibula (distelfibeln, Almgren 240). Each has a disk threaded onto the bow. Type 19 is sleeved and, without the disk, would look like Typel 7a. The disk is pushed parallel to the bow so that the profile looks layered. It is an infrequent precursor of Type 20. "Ahnlich den Nertomarusfibeln waren die Distelfibeln von Augustus bis Claudius vomehmlich in den westlichen Provinzen sehr beliebt" (Ulbert 1959, 67).

146

Type 20:

Small disk fibula

This fibula combines traits from Types 17 and 18. The bow is like Type 17, the foot is like Type 18 with a small disk in between. The sleeve is rectangular and closed on the sides. In other words, no spring can be seen. The disk itself can be filled with incised lines and circles or plain. It is an early Roman type which continues until the Flavian period.

Type 21: Large disk fibula The large disk fibula is a well represented type. It consists of a complicated blending of Types 14 and 17c. The foot comes from 14, the bow from 17c. Decoration can be quite elaborate with decorative extrusions from under the bow and completely covered surfaces of incised lines. Like all the disk fibulae, Type 21 is first century A.O ..

Type 22: Flat disk fibulae In contrast to Types 19, 20 and 21, with the flat disk fibula the disk is not added to the bow. Instead, the disk and bow are made of one piece of metal. The head is sleeved. As in Types 20 and 21, the foot widens, making a triangle. Decorative incised lines emphasize the sections of the fibulae. Type 22 is slightly later in date than the other disk fibulae.

Type 23: Hinged fibula with large leaf bow The hinged fibula with large leaf bow is an early form of the Aucissa fibula, Type 24. The head is hinged with a pin that sometimes has knobs at each end. The bow is so sharply arched that it is almost a half circle. The fibula is somewhat triangular in overview. The foot is closed and ends in a knob. It is sometimes high. Type 23 is a rare type that first appears in Augustan forts along the Rhine. It has a wide distribution, from England and Gaul in the west to the Danube in the east, with examples throughout southern Germany and Switzerland (Rieckhoff-Pauli, 1977).

Type 24: Aucissa fibula The Aucissa is one of the most common type of fibula found on early Roman forts. It is named after early examples which had the name 'Aucissa' inscribed on the sleeve. The main characteristics of this type are a hinge, a semi-circular bow, and a small solid foot ending in a knob. Most decorations consist of incised lines on the bow. As in the prototype, many have inscriptions on the sleeve, usually Italian names.

147

Although the Aucissa fibula has a wide distribution, due to the inscriptions, they are thought to have originated in northern Italy. There are two types of Aucissa: one with a wide bow, which tends to be Augustan in date; and one with a narrow bow, which is Claudian-Neronian in date. Only the former is included in Type 24, the later is included in Type 25. See Chapters 5 and 6 for a more detailed discussion of the dating of the Aucissa fibula.

Type 25: Aucissa varieties Included in this type is the later version of the Aucissa fibula with a narrow bow as well as other varieties. All have hinges, arched bows and catch-plate feet with knobs . The differences are in the width of the bow and size of foot knob. All of the varieties included in Type 25 are Claudian or later in date.

Type 26: Hinged fibula with knobs on side of bow Type 26 is a hinged fibula with a flat bow which has little knobs arranged symmetrically along each side of the bow. There can be one, two or several knobs. The earliest example is Claudian-Neronian

148

FIBULA TYPOLOGY

TYPE

NAME

ENTfLINGER

FEUGERE

A

fibula with returned foot

3

3bl

B

Manchetter fibula

5

3b 2

Crossbow fibula

6

Al

A2

A

Early La Tene wire fibula

B

Middle La Tene wire fibula

A

Nauheim fibula

B

variant of Nauheim fibula

A3

1

5

2

7

A4

AS

Shell fibula

A6

Almgren 16 fibula

A7

Knotted fibula

8

8

B8

Simple Gaulish fibula

9

14

A

Gaulish winged fibula

10

13

B

Norican-Pannonian winged fibula

11

B9

149

BlO

strongly profiled fibula

Bl 1

Norican-Pannonian double knotted fibula 14

B12

Eyed fibula

17

B13

Kinked fibula

18

B14

Collared fibula

19

BIS

Almgren 20

B16

Almgren 22

cs

Simple Gaulish non-interrupted fibula

9

14a

A

simple sleeved non-interrupted fibula

20,21

14b

B

Nertomarus fibula

22

14b 1

C

Langton-Down fibula

23

14b2

C18

Sleeved fibula with wide foot

27

18

C19

Early small disk fibula

25a

15

C17

C20

13

2516

Small disk fibula

C21

Large disk fibula

24

19

C22

Flat disk fibula

26

20

D23

Hinged fibula with large leaf bow

28

21

150

D24

Aucissa fibula

29,30

D25

Aucissa fibula with various profiled bows

D26

Other hinged fibula

151

22

~_____, Ala

-

....

AJ

A5 A7

A4a

89a

891t 810

Bl

812 813

811 Fibula Typology

CIS

c1,

CM

819

Cl7c

Cll

Cll

D23

APPENDIX2 POTTERY TYPOLOGY

Two typologies were devised in order to emphasize different aspects of pottery usage. The first typology emphasizes industries and wares, and within these categories, forms. It does not recognize small differences in rim or base construction. Rather it divides the pottery into general morphological groups, using the same divisions for each industry. The commonly accepted definitions of industries have been used. The typologies were devised with the usage of a computer database in mind. Where appropriate, weli-known examples fo the different types have been mentioned in the typology, such as Dragendorf 30, It should be kept in mind that while a Dragendorf 30 is designated here as 071 in typology 1, it is not the sole type of 071 vessel. Only a general form of each type has been given for the first typology. This is because each category is a general template, not a rigid category. In the second typology, form is emphasized. Industry and ware are not indicated. The described forms are, again, general types and, as with the first typology, do not represent rigid categories but general peramiters of vessel shapes. For this reason, each various type has not been presented. In both cases, the typologies have levels of identification so that sherds which ar~ not conclusively one form or another can still be identified to some level and included in the databases. Amphorae are not included in either of these typologies. In terms of the first typology, amphorae are type 06b. In the _second typology they would be type 11?, with various types of rims. Because amphorae present a unique situation, the commonly accepted terms, definitions and labels have been used. The published identifications are used whenever possible. When a sherd could not be attributed to a specific type, it has been identified as wine, oil, or another shape-type. Such definitions are not meant to indicated what the amphora carried, they do indicate the general form of the original _vessel.

154

POTTERY TYPOLOGY 1

The primary division is industry. Each industry is designated by a capital letter. The letters used to designate the industries are the following:

CELTIC: B =painted/ Bemaltet G = polished/Geglattet K = combed/Kammstrich g = graphite

BOTH: e = coated or slipped t = plain, tonig

IMPORTED: A=amphorae C=campana

ROMAN: S = terra sigillata R = terra rubra N = terra nigra P= pompeian

p = painted, not Bemaltet or coated

After a sherd is placed in one of the above categories, it is identified as either a tall or wide form . There are seven general categories, one catch-all category and one for rims that could be either pots or bowls. Each of these categories has a number. Within each general category there are specific subtypes based on body shape, rim or some other diagnostic trait. These sub-catgories are designated with small letters. The main categories and sub-groups are given below.

TALL FORMS 01 = Jar-like form, tall with wide neck and outward slanting rim. a--slim body b--globular body c--profiled neck. This type i~ common in the east, where the neck is heavily profiled. In the west, the number of waves tend to be few, or even single. d--high shouldered, almost s-profile e--offset neck with shoulder

02 = Barrel-like form with a wide mouth and inward slanting rim. The walls tend to be vertical. Type 02 is technically a jar-forms. a--slim b--bowed, ovoid c--low bellied d--high bellied e--offset neck, but no shoulder g--no lip

155

03 = Small jar or barrel-like form, usually considered a drinking vessel. a--cmved b--conical c--vertical d--squat pot, gobular, usually funnel neck

04 = Bottle -like form, tall with narrow neck and outward slanting rim. a--slim body b--globular body c--ovoid d--profiled neck, usually with waves (see Ole). e--double conical body f--larg neck, rather globular body g--small with long, narrow neck.

05 = tall forms with outward slanting rim. Indeterminable whether or not neck is narrow or wide. Could be either a bottle or jar.

06 = Flagon and jug-like forms, globular or cylindrical with wide neck. a--no spout, one vertical handle. b--no spout, two vertical handles. c--spout, usually one vertical handle.

WIDE FORMS

07 = Low, wide bowl-like forms. Sub-types "a"-"n" are with outward slanting rim, "i""j" has an inward slanting rim and "k"-"m" have vertical rims. a--shouldered, often convex bottom. b--S-shaped, usually flat bottomed. c--goblet -like, small bowl with tall foot. d--hemi-spherical without foot, sometimes convex bottom. e--hemi-spherical with foot ring (such as Dragendorf 37). f--strongly bellied, almost circular bowl. g--girthed hemi-spherical bowl with foot ring (such as Dragendorf 27) h--bowl with moulded, vertical walls, concave bottom and foot ring (such as Dragendorf 29). i--bowl with inward rounded or bent rim, semi -conical body and flat bottom . j --conical body with foot ring (such as Loescke 10a or Loescke 7). k--low vertical rim over conical body with foot ring (like Loescke 8). 1--tall, vertical sides over a flat bottom (like Dragendorf 30) . m--bowl with a flange , usually a foot ring .

156

n--small bowl or porringer (nap/). p--round and outward slanting rim (like Dragendorf 35). q- Between 07h and 071,similar to Ritterling 9.

08 = Low, wide plate-like fonns with, gene.rally,flat bottoms. Several forms have a footring. · a--nofoot ring, vertical sides (like Loescke 75). b--a foot ring and vertical sides. c--a foot ring and outward slanting sides and rim (such as Service 1). d--a foot ring and curved transition from base to side. e--a foot ring and facetted transition from base to side (such as Service 2).

09 = Special forms. a--Any wide forms with knobs at the narrowest point (such as lids). b--sieves or pots with several holes punced through the base . c-mortaria

0

01

C7

O&

04

03

02

07

06b

Pottery Typology

157

'

,-

L

08

7

POTTERY TYPOLOGY 2

The major emphasis of this typology is form. Industry is not indicated. The structure of this typology is hierarchical. Sherds are first identified as tall or wide forms, then mouth and type of rim are identified. Each of these identifications are given a number. The results is a series of three numbers which indicate the vessel's form: X 1X2X 3. A zero is given when a trait is unidentifiable, such as bases which could be from either tall or wide vessels and whose mouth, rim and neck are not determinable.

X 1 = proportions tall forms-- I wide forms--2 X2 = type of mouth narrow mouth -- 1 wide mouth--2 X 3 = slant of rim outward slanting-- I inward slanting--2 vertical--3

158

159

GAZETTEER

The gazetteer contains all known sites in the Upper Rhi~e area, as well as major sites outside the area whose materials are used as cross-references for the identifying and dating of material from sites in the Upper Rhine. The sites are divided into four lists: SITE LIST 1 contains all excavated and wellpublished sites in the Upper Rhine area and on its borders; SITE LIST 2 contains all well excavated but not fully published sites and all non-resident sites, such as kilns and cemeteries; SITE LIST 3 contains findspots which have produced architectural remains or other chance finds; SITE LIST 4 contains important, major sites outside the Upper Rhine area. In each list, the period (La Tene or Roman), type of settlement according to the excavator, and references are given. A list of the types of coins, fibulae and pottery from each site are given for those sites in which such information was available, mainly those sites in list 1 and 2. In addition, a summary of the excavations and finds for each site is given. The level of detail is determined by the quantity and availability of information on each site. Therefore, SITE LIST 1 is more detailed than SITE LIST 3. There is a general map which presents the locations of all sites and findspots. Numbers are given next to those sites in SITE LIST 1 and 2 which correspond to the numbers for each site listed in the MASTER SITE LIST. This list indicates in which SITE LIST a given site can be found. The presence of coins, fibulae and pottery from sites is indicated by an # for coins, t for fibulae and for pottery to the right of the site name. The terms and names used for the fibulae and pottery are explained in Appendix 1 and 2, respectively. Map 2 shows all La Tene sites and Map 3 shows all Roman sites. These maps are located in Chapter 4 in the sections on La Tene and Roman settlements. Distribution maps of known coins, fibulae and pot sherds are shown on Maps 4, 5 and 6. These maps are found at the end of their respective section of the gazetter. Map 7 is the master map of all the sites mentioned in the gazetteer and has the numbers for each site given in the MASTER SITE LIST and each SITE LIST and FINDS LIST. This map is located at the end of the gazetteer.

160

MASTER SITE LIST 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

AAOORF AARAU AARBURG AASEN ALDINGEN ALDINGEN-AIXHEIM ALLSCHWIL AL1ENBURG-RHEINAU ALTHEIM-HEILIGKREUZfAL ALTS1ETIEN-ZORICH AUGGEN AUGST AVENCHES AVENTICUM, see Avenches BADEN BADENWEILER BAD KREUZINGTON BALSTHAL BASADINGEN BASEL-GASFABRIK BASEL-M0NS1ERHUGEL BASSERSOORF BERN-ENGEHALBINSEL BERN-REICHENBACHW ALD BERN-TIEFENAU BETIENOORF BETILACH, Switzerland BETILACH, France BETTMARINGEN BIBRAC1E BIESHEIM BIL1ZHEIM BISCHOSZELL BISCHWIHR B61ZINGEN BREGENZ BREISACH-HOCHS1ET1EN BREISACH-M0NS1ERBERG BREI1ENBACH BROMBACH

coin list coin list coin list site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 2 site list 1 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3, coin list site list 1 other sites list other sites list site list 2 site list 3 site list 3 coin list site list 3 site list 1 site list 1 site list 3 site list 2 site list 2 site list 2 coin list, pottery list site list 3 site list 3 coin list other sites list site list 2 pottery list coin list coin list site list 2 other sites list site list 1 site Jist 2 site list 3 site list 3

161

38 39 40 41 42 69 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 74 74 77 78 79 80 81 82 197 83 198

BRUNSTATT BUR.GLEN BUCH AM IRCHEL BURGDORF BURNHAUPT-LE-BAS CHUR DALLIKON DANGSIBTTEN DANNEMARIE DESSENHEIM DILLENDORF

fibula list pottery list pottery list coin list pottery list other sites list site list 3 site list 1 coin list coin list coin list site list 3 coin list pottery list other site list site list 3 coin list coin list coin list pottery list site list 3 site list 2 other site list coin list coin list coin list site list 3 coin list coin list pottery list fibula list, pottery list other sites list coin list site list 3 coin list site list 3 pottery list pottery list site list 3 other sites list coin list coin list pottery list other sites list site list 3 coin list coin list coin list

DOGGINGWEN DONAUESCHINGEN DORNACH EHL ELGG E:MMENDINGEN EMMISHOFEN ENNETACH ENSISHEIM EN1WISEN ESCHENZ FELLBACH-SCHMIDEN FISCHINGEN FLAACH FREIAMT FREISEN FRIDINGEN FRIEDRICHS HAFEN GACHLINGEN GALFINQUE

GENEVA GOTILIEBEN GRANICHEN GREISSEN GRENZACH-WYHLEN, see Wyhlen HABSHEIM-EST HABSHEIM-OUEST HABSHEIM-SUD

HALIBRN REITEN HEIIBRSHEIM HERDERN HOFHEIM HOLDERBANK HORBOURG HORHEIM HOUSEN

162

84 85 85 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 44 100 101 102 103 104 105 198 106 107 108 75 109 110 111 200 112 113 76 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

HUTIWILEN HUFINGEN-KUMMER ACKER HUFINGEN-GALGENBERG HUFINGEN-MUHLOSCHLE INSEL WERO ILLFURTH ILLZACH ISIBIN KEGELRISS K.EMBS KIRCHZARIBN, see Tarodunum KIRCHZARIBN-BURG KLUFfEN KONSTANZ KRAPPENFELS KREENHEINSIBTTEN KREUZLINGEN KORNBERG KUSSABERG, see Dangstetten KUTIIGEN LA TENE LAUFEN LAUFEN-MUSCHHAG LAUFENBURG LAUPERSDORF LAUSSANE LAUSEN LENZBURG LOHN LYON

site list 3, coin list site list 2 site list 2 site list 2 site list 2 coin list site list 3 coin list site list 2 site list 2 site list 2 site list 3 coin list site list 2 site list 3 coin list coin list coin list site list 2 site list 3 site list 2 coin list site list 1 site list 2 site list 3 other sites list pottery list site list 2 site list 3 other sites list site list 3 other sites list other sites list site list 3 fibula list, pottery list site list 2 other sites list coin list site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 2 coin list, pottery list site list 3 site list 2 site list 3

MAIENBOHL MANCHING MANDEURE MARIN-LES-BOUGUIGNONES MARSTETIEN MARTHALEN MARTIGNY MENGEN MERDINGEN MERISHAUSEN MESSKIRCH-HEUDORF METIMENSTETTEN MEYENHEIM MQHLIN MONT TERRIBLE MULHOUSE MULLERWEISE IM KAPPELERHOF MUTTENZ NUENHOF

163

126 127 128 129 130 199 131 132 133 133 133 28 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154

NUNNINGEN

coin list other sites list other sites list pottery list pottery list coin list coin list pottery list site list 1 site list 1 site list 1 site list 3 site list 3 coin list coin list coin list coin list site list 3 coin list site list 2 pottery list coin list site list 2 coin list site list 2 coin list other sites list site list 3 pottery list site list 2 site list 2 site list 2 site list 3 site list 2 site list 3 site list 3 site list 2 coin list site list 2 site list 2 site list 2 coin list site list 3 site list 2 site list 3 coin list other sites list coin list

NYON OBERADEN OBERBUCHSITEN OBERDORF OBERLAG OBERRIMSINGEN OBERWIL OBERWIN1ERTHUR-KIRCHH0GEL OBERWINTERTHUR -ROMERSTR .186 OBERWINTERTHUR-UN1ERBUHL OEDENBURG, see Biesheim OLTEN OFLINGEN-BRENNET ONSINGEN PFOHREN PFULLENDORF PFULLENDORF-AACH-LINZ RADOLFZELL

RAN1ZWILLER RAPPERSWIL REICHENAU REINACH-BROEL RIEOOSCHINGEN RIEGEL

ROGG~

155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

ROTIWEIL ROTIWEIL-NEUKIRCH SAINT-LOUIS-LA-CHAUSSEE SASBACH SCHANIS SCHLEITHEIM SCHLIEREN SCHLIL '!WEISE SCHUPFART SEEB SIERENTZ SINGEN SISSACH-BRUHL SISSACH-FLUH SOLOTHURN STAFA SIBCKBORN STEIN AM RHEIN S1EINBRUNN-LE-BAS

167 169 170

SIBTIFURT STRASBOURG STOHLINGEN

164

171 92 172 173 174 201 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 · 188 133 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196

TAGERWILEN T ARODUNUM, see Kirchzarten TROSSINGEN TSCHUGG TUNINGEN

coin list site list 2 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 coin list coin list coin list site list 2 site list 3 pottery list site list 2 site list 2 coin list site list 1 site list 1 coin list site list 2 coin list site list 2, coin list pottery list site list 1 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 3 site list 2 site list 2 coin list

11.JRKHEIM TUTILINGEN OBERLINGEN 0E1LIBERG UMKIRCH UNGERSHEIM UNIBRWINDISCH UROORF VILLINGEN VINOONISSA, see Windisch VITUDURUM, see Oberwinterthur WALDKIRCH WEIL AM RHEIN WEINFELDEN WENSLINGEN WIL WINDISCH

WIN1ZENHEIM WfITENHEIM WOLFENWEILER-SCHALLST ADT ZIHLSCHLACTH ZOFINGEN ZURICH ZURZACH ZWIEFALTEN

165

SITE LIST 1

The following is a list of settlements that have been well excavated and published. A list of the types of coins, fibulae and pottery are given where possible. The abbreviations for fibulae are pottery are those presented in Appendices 1 and 2. When the specific type of vessel could not be identified, the ware and general form are given, such as K0l, which means a combed pot. Plans have been included where possible.

8 ALTENBURG-RHEINAU, La Tene D

Waldschut, W. Germany Oppidum

#t *

SU:rvTh1AR Y: Altenburg-Rheinau is a double ox-bow on the Upper Rhine river with earthworks located on the German/Swiss border. The German half of the oxbow is called Altenburg and the Swiss half Rheinau. There are earthwalls and trenches enclosing each peninsula, and another wall ran along part of the southern bank of Altenburg. No other features are visible. The Rheinau was excavated in the 1930's by both Kraft and Vogt. Kraft's excavation was in the middle of the town, under the Gasthof "Zurn Lowen". He recovered La Tene pottery, but no structures. Vogt excavated the earth works and found the remains of wood posts and a dry stone facing. In 1981, W. Drack re-excavated the Rheinau wall, confirming Vogt's findings. The first Altenburg excavation was undertaken in 1929/30 by F. Keller, who excavated a crosssection of the Schanze (wall) and trench. The Schanze was later reexcavated several times by F. Fischer, who first excavated in 1964. Several other excavations were carried out during the 1970's. In 1973, a cross-section of the wall and trench was excavated. A year later, Fischer excavated the earthwork on the southern edge of Altenburg, as well as several test trenches throughout the Altenburg to determine the extent of occupation within the earthworks. Excavations are still in progress. The 'Schanze' is 750 meters long and between three to five meters high (Fischer 1966, 288). The outer facing of the wall is steep and irregular, while the inner-side, facing the Rhine, is ramped. There were remains of wooden posts and a dry stone facing, which were similar to those found at Rheinau.

166

There are still traces of a trench which ran along the northwestern part of the wall and probably once ran along the total length of the wall. There is no evidence of a gate through the ramparts, though one might have existed at either end of the wall. The similarity in construction between the Rheinau and Altenburg walls has lead Fischer and others to conclude that Altenburg and Rheinau composed a single settlement (Fischer 1966, 290) . · The wall at the south end of the "Schwaben" is of a similair construction as the other walls, but is only 580 m long and 1.6 m high. There is no evidence that it went around the whole of Altenburg and the dimensions suggest that the primary purpose of the wall was not defensive. It seems more likely that it was built as a flood wall (Fischer 1985a, 104). No evidence has been found for a bridge connecting the two sides. The likeliest location for a bridg e is currently occupied by a modem bridge and has the remains of one dating to the later carolingian period,

167

which might explain why no earlier bridge has been found. It is also possible that during the Iron Age a ferry had been used instead of a bridge. Except for times of high flooding, the currents around the oxbows are not strong and a small, light boat could easily move between the two shores (Fischer 1966). · The results of Fischers test trenches were surprising. There were no indications of occupation near the southern wall. Most occupational debris came from just behind the Schanzen. The preservation of material varies in the area according to the type of underlying soil. The depth of humus is often shallow and the best preservation seems to be over the gravel deposits. Several of the excavations have been over gravel deposits which have produced a variety of material and structures, including a well, a possible kiln, and evidence of metal working, as well as evidence for the minting of coins and the manufacturing of fibulae. An early excavation produced the remains of a kiln which suggest that pottery was also produced in the area. The settled area appears to stop 60m from the wall and there is a midden only 35m behind the wall (Fischer 1985a, 104). The hundreds of post holes and trenches hint at a regularity which suggests that the site was planned. According to Fischer the settlement functioned as a redistribution point for trade, both along the Rhine and between the Alps and the area of the Danube (Fischer 1985a, 108; Ibid, 291). None of the Rheinau or Altenburg excavations have been fully published. Also, there are no published plans for either peninsula. All of the coins from the excavations up to 1974 at Altenburg have been published (Allen 1978b). The fibulae have been analyzed in an Masters thesis by Frau M. Maute at the University of Freiburg and all of the pottery from Altenburg, excluding the amphorae, are currently being analyzed by P. Rau, a doctoral student at the University of Tiibingen.

COINS: Bushel-Quinarii, Sequaner-potin, Vindia-potin

FIBULAE: Ala, A, A4a, A4b, AS, A7, B13 POTTERY: 1 G0I, G02, G03, G03, G07a, G07b, G07d B0l, B02, B04, B07 KOi Dr. 1, Dr. la, Dr. lb

REFERENCES: Allen, Derek F. 1978b: The Coins from the Oppida of Altenburg and the Bushel Series. In: Germania 56/1: 190-229. Bittel, K., W. Kimmig and S. Schiek (editors) 1981: Die Kelten in Baden-Wilrttemberg. (Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss Verlag GmbH) 290-296. Fischer, Franz 1966: Das oppidum von Altenburg-Rheinau. Germania. 44, 286-312. Fischer, Franz 1974a: Das Keltische Oppidum von Altenburg-Rheinau. Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1972 und 1973. Archru>logisches Nachrichten aus Baden. 13, 14-25. Fischer, Franz 1974b: Einige Neufunde aus dem sp:itkeltischen Oppidum von Altenburg-Rheinau. In: ArcMologisches Korrespcmdenzblatt. 4,158 -164. 1Although the pottery from Altenburg is unpublished and, for the most part, it is not possible to indicate quantities, it is possible to indicate the types of vessels.

168

Fischer, Franz -1975: Untersuchungen im spatkeltischen Oppidum von Altenburg-Rheinau. In Ausgrabung in Deutschland. gefl>rdertvon der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft 19501975. Monographien des RGKM 1, 1975, teil 1, 312-323. Fischer, Franz 1977: Zu den Befestigung bei Rheinau und Altenburg. In Stuber, K. and A. Zurcher (editors) Festschrift Walter Drack. (Zurich, Beitrage zur Archaologische und Denkmalpflege) 84-8. Fischer, Franz 1985a: Das Oppidum Altenburg-Rheinau, Gemeinde Jestetten, Kreis Waldshut und Kanton Zurich, Schweiz. In: Archaologische Ausgraben in Baden-Wtirttemberg. 101-108. Fischer, F. 1987: personal communications. Maute, M. 1987: Die Fibeln von Altenburg-Rheinau. ungedruckt Magisterarbeit (Freiburg, AlbertLudwigs-U niversitat). Maute, M. 1987: personal communications. Rau, P. in preparation: Die Keramik aus Altenburg-Rheinau. ungedruckt Doctoratarbeit (Tubingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universitat). Rau, P. 1987: personal communications.

12 AUGST, Liestasl, Baselland, Switzerland 15 B.C. - 3rd c. A.D. Roman name

#*t

colonia

= Apollinaris Augusta Emerita Raurica.

SUMMARY: There is no evidence for a Celtic settlement at Augst, although a few Celtic coins, fibulae and pottery were found scattered throughout the area of the colonia. Epigraphic evidence places the foundation of the Colonia Augusta Rauric~ to 44/43 B.C. by Munatius Plancus, under the orders of Julius Caesar, although there is no excavated material dating to this period has been found (Berger 1968). The earliest archaeological eivdence, arretine pottery, date the earliest phase of the settlement to the early Augustan period. The colonia was not named until 15 B.C. (Ibid). The earliest phase of the town seems to have been made of wood. Near the end of the first century A.D., houses began to be rebuilt in stone. During the second century, the town reached its full geographic extent. It flourished throughout the second and third centuries. The colonia may have suffered from German raids near the end of the third century, which would account for a fort being built 400 m to the north at Kaiseraugst. By the fourth century, the colonia seems to have declined. There is no evidence of destruction, but at some point the population of Augst left. During the second and third centuries A.D., the colonia had all the amenities of a proper Roman town. There was a forum and curia, as well as all the other types of administrative buildings found in Roman towns. In addition, there were several temples, a theatre and an amphitheatre. There were also at least two baths, apparently one for each sex (Ettlinger 1949). Most of the municipal buildings were existed by the end of the second century (see plan). Pottery kilns indicate that the colonia met some of its own industrial needs. The rich and diverse material and elaborate temples and theatres suggest that Augst was a rich town. There were several elaborate town houses in Augst, both in wood and stone. Some of these have been excavated. Partially published insulae include lnsula XX, XXIV, XXV, XXX and XXXI. lnsula

169

AUGUSTA RAURICA

~II

=t:"-4. -~

. .;_

.

~

"'

0 20

kc1

50

100

I

I

I

1 : 40C

PLAN 2: Site plan of Augst (courtesy of A. Furger , Director, Augst Museum).

t

~f I

~! -= tl:

I

ll.

~I===~~

.~, .,

~

l~--f~;,:i

y

,.

In ..

f ,,--~ .:,•r-:---•••-

I U

I_I . • ,Ji1 -- ; . . .jj

c;:,

..

17

r

~

rtlR . --

:t,r ~

r ~

JIDt

I;

_

"" •D

..

~~

.

n

.

~.... I

~

"·

.:::=:::

I~-~.. .. . I.. -:;..; r _I , ,•

-]L:JL: jtJ1.·-. . i •

r-

·-

I I

.

/' ·r=; i

i ~

200

::::cr::d ...

_.

XX was excavated by M. Martin and S. Martin-Kilcher . It contained an early wooden cellar, AugustanTiberian in date, in which pottery had been dumped. The finds were found in several clear levels dating to the Augustan, Augustan -Tiberian and Tiberian periods. These contexts contained arretine ware, both Services I and II, Helvetian imitation sigillata, and coarse wares, including cooking pots. The material from Insula XXX is currently being prepared for publication by Dr. A. Filrger, director of the museum at Augst, and Frau Fiinfschillinger. This insula was occupied from the early first to third centuries. The earliest levels consisted of a wooden house which have been described by J. Ewald (1968). The first stone buildings were built during the Flavian period. In the 3rd. century, a new mosaic floor was built. Only the northeast comer of lnsula XXXI has been excavated. The excavation revealed a house with a porticoed street front and garden. The house was occupied from the Tiberian period to the end of the fourth. century (Steiger et. al. 1977). Most of the material from Augst is housed at the Ri>merhaus Museum . In addition, there are excavations continually in progress in both Angst and Kaiseraugst. Only the more fully published excavations of the earlier levels have been mentioned here. For other excavations and articles on specific items see the museum's Jahresbericht.

CEMETERIES: Several cemeteries of various sizes associated with Augst have been excavated. Most of the burials were cremations. Sometimes they were elaborate urn burials containing large quantities of grave goods with structures and other times they were simple cremation burials without any containers or grave goods. Burials from every century are known, ranging from Tiberian to ones contemporary with the fort at Kaiseraugst.

INSULAXX: FIBULAE: 2 A3a, A3b POTTERY: G07b, KOi, B04, B07d, S03, S07h, S07j, S07k, S071, S07m, S08b, S08c, S08d,S08e, R07, R07e, R07h, R07j, R07k, R07m, ROS, R08a, R08b, R08c, R08d, R08e, N07, N07h, N07k, N07m, NOS, N08a, N08b, N08c, N08e, P08, t03, t06, t09c, Amphorae

2see Riha (1979) for a complete listing of the fibulae from all excavations prior to 1979.

INSULA31; COINS: Denarii, Quinarii, Sestertii, Asses FIBULAE:2 A3b, A4b, A6, A7, B8, B12, C17B, D24, D26

REFERENCES: Bender, Helmut

1975: Archaologische Untersuchungen zur Ausgrabung Augst-Kurzenbettli. (Basel, Schweische Gesellschaft fiir Ur- u. Friihgeschichte). Bender, Helmut and Ruth Steiger 1975: Ein r6mischer T6pferbezirk des 1. Jh. n. Chr. in AugstKurzenbettli. In: lkiJ:rage und Bibliographie zur Augster Forschung (Basel). Berger, Ludwig 1968: Die Griindung der Colonia Raurica und die Bedeutung der Mittelland-HauensteinStrasse. In: Provincilia: Festschrift fur Rudolf Laur-Belart. (Basel) 15-24. Berger, Ludwig 1969: Ein romischer Ziegelbrennofen bei Kaiser-Augst. In: Ausgrabungen in Augst III. (Basel, Stiftung Pro Augusta Raurica). Berger, Ludwig 1977: Ein gut erhaltener Backofen in Augusta Rauricum. In: Festschrift fur Elisabeth Schmid. 28-40. Berger, L. 1987: personal communication. Doppler, Hugo 1966; Miinzstempel und Miinzgussformen aus Augst. In: Jahresbericth aus Romerhaus und Museum. (Augst, Romerhaus) 3-10. Ettlinger, Elisabeth 1949: Die Keramik der Augster Thermen. Monographien zur Ur- u. Friihgeschichte der Schweiz Bd. VI (Basel, Schweizerische Gesellschaft fiir Urgeschichte). Ewald, J. 1968: Die frilhen Holzbauten in Augusta Raurica--Insula XXXI und ihre Parzellierung. In: Schmid et. al. (editors) Provincilia. (Basel, Stiftung Pro Augusta Raurica) 80-97. Furger, Alex 1986: Augst, 6 v. Chr.: dendrodaten und Fundhorizonte. In: Jahresberichte aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (Augst, Romermuseum) 5, 123-146. Forger, A. 1987: personal communication. Purger, A. and Fiinfschillinger in preparation: Augst, Insula XXX. Ftinfschillinger 1987: personal communication. Liidin, 0., M. Sitterding, R. Steiger and H. Doppler 1962: Ausgrabungen in Augst II. Insula XXIV, 1939-1959. (Basel, Stiftung Pro Augusta Raurica). Martin, Max 1981: Romermuseum und Romerhaus Augst. (Augst, Augster Museumhefte 4). Martin, M. 1987: personal communication. Martin, Max and Stephanie Martin-Kilcher in preparation: Augst. Insula 20. Martin-Kilcher, Stephanie 1987: Die Romischen Amphoren aus Augst und Kaiseraugst: Die Stidspanischen 6Iamphoren (Grup_pe (Augst, Forschungen in Augst 7/1). Martin-Kilcher, S. 1987: personal communications Martin-Kilcher, S., S. Schupbach, W. B. Stem and J. Ballie 1985: Keramikanalysen an romischen Olamphoren aus Augst, Kaiseraugst, Avenches und Lausanne-Vidy: Naturwissenschaftlicher und archaologische Aspekte. In: !b..S..G..U. 68, 173-204. Riha, Emile 1979: Die romischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. (Augst, Forschungen in Augst, Bd. 3). Sandoz, Yvonne 1987: Die romischen Fibeln aus Augst und Kaiseraugst -- Die Neufunde 1975-1984/5. Seminar Arbeit, Wintersemester 1986/87, fiir Ludwig Berger (Basel) . Schmid, Elisabeth, Ludgiw Berger and Paul Burgin (editors) 1968: Provinicalia: Festschrift fur Rudolf Laur-Belart. (Basel, Stiftung Pro Augusta Raurica). Steiger, Ruuth, G.T. Schwarz, R. Strobel and H. Doppler 1977: Augst, Insula 31. Ausgrabungen und Funde 1960/61 (Augst, Forschungen in Augst 1).

n.

172

Thomas, Sigrid 1964: Scheibenfibeln von Augst In: Jahresbericht aus Romerhaus und Museum Augst l_2M. 3-19. Tomasevic, Teodora 1973: Ein Terra-Sigillata-Teller mit Reliefverzierung. In: Jahresbericht aus Romerhaus und Museum Augst 1971. (Augst). Tomasevic, Teodora 1974: Grijber ander Rheinstrasse 32, Augst 1968. (Basel, Ausgrabungen in Augst N).

Tomasevic, T. 1987: personal communication.

19 BASEL-GASFABRIK, Basel, Switzerland La Tene C 1-D 1

#t*

open settlement

SUMMARY: During the beginning of this century the gas works to the north of the modem city of Basel near the river were rebuilt. Celtic remains were uncovered during the construction and archaeologist were allowed to move in and excavate. Several small excavations from 1911 to just before World War II were carried out in the area. The various excavations were published together in: Gallische Ansiedlunge mit Graberfeld bei Basel (Major 1940). The excavations indicate the presence of a large, open, late La Tene settlement. Several of the pits have been interpreted as houses--grubenhause . Although the postholes do not suggest any clear outlines, they were probably the remains of late La Tene houses. The jumble of pits and postholes suggests a long occupation with continual rebuilding. In addition to the mass of pits and postholes, there were several hearths and a large amount of burning which Major (1940) attributed to the Helveti migration. There was a ro~ghly rectangular area enclosed by a trench which has sometimes been described as a viereckschazne (Berger 1974/5). The earthwork consists of a rectanglular trench with rounded comers and two deep shafts near its southern edge. A skeleton was found in one of these shafts. The relative dating of the fill from these shafts and postholes and pits cutting the shafts and trench indicate that the area was later built over. The material from the Gasfabrik settlement was dated from La Tene Cl to D1 periods, which dates the site to the late second and early first centuries B.C .. Both the extensive burning and the difference between the material from Basel-Gasfabrik and Basel-Miinsterhiigel have been interpreted as meaning that Gasfabrik was one of the oppida abandoned by the Helvetii (or Rauraci) in 58 B.C. (see Chapter 6 for a discussion).

CEMETERY: There is a small cemetery to the north of the settlement. All the burials were inhumations and some contained multiple burials. Many of the graves were destroyed by medieval and modem building. As a result, few complete skeletons were found. Several of the inhumations were dispersed and the number of burials with grave goods was probably originally higher. The total number of burials is not known, although there were probably more than 100 burials. Only 90 graves had skeletal remains. Several were empty and only recognized by their rectangular outline

173

in the soil (Major 1940, 136). The graves were oriented roughly south-north. Forty percent of the burials had grave goods consisting of fibulae, annrings, pottery and tools. There were no weapons. The sex of the buried was determined by the associated finds: burials with bronze and glass jewelry were identified as females. Based on the pottery forms found in some of the graves, the cemetery has been dated to the La Tene C2/Dl period .

• •

__

_ I !

. ••

.....

••

, •

.

••

.... .• •~· •• •..... •• ••• • I

-;

0

•• •• • • •

• •• •

0

•

• •

• •

•

• • • •• •

• •• • •• • • ••

• ••

•

••

0

•••

.... -·~ . ••

•

0

•

0

•

0

•••

•• • ••

I

• IA$£L· -..UAMIIC

• ••

I'll

0 UNCERTAIN W

DRAl~E

•

DITCH

A·C SOtAFiS

-

•

.•... ,...

•

•

0 0 00

0

• • • •

0

••

• e

I

•

•

174

0

•••• • ••

COINS: DOCI SAM Quinri, Sequani potin, Leuci ptoin, Remi potin, Helveti potin FIBULAE: A3, A4, POTTERY: B0l, B02, B04, B07b, B07d, G0l, G02, G04, G07a, G07b, G07d, G07f, G07i, K0l, K0la, K0ld, K0le, Dr. la, other amphorae

REFERENCES: Berger, Ludwig

1974/5: Zu einem neuen Plan der spatkeltischen Siedlung von Basel-Gasfabrik. In: JbSGU. 58, 71-76. Berger, Ludwig and Andres Furger-Gunti 1981: Les Sites de L"'Usine a Gaz" et de la "Colline de la Cathedrale" a Bale. In: Les Structures d'habitat l'Age du Fer en Europe temperee. Furger-Gunti, A. and L. Berger 1980: Katalog and Tafeln der Funde aus der spatkeltischen Siedlung Basel Gasfabrik. (Solothurn, Basler Beitrage zur Ur- und Frilhgeschichte Bd. 7). Furger-Gunti, A. and H.-M. von Kaenel 1976: Die Keltischen Fundmiinzen aus Basel. In: SNR. 55, 35-76. Major, E. (editor) 1940: Gallische Ansiedlung mit Graberfeld bei Basel. (Basel, Frobenius A.-G.).

a

20 BASEL-M0NSTERH0GEL, La Tene D2 - Augustan, late Roman

Basel, Switzerland oppidum, fort, vicus

#t*

SUMMARY: The MUnsterhiigel is a small hill on the Rhine with three steep sides and a fourth, gently graded south side. As at many historical cities in Europe, there is an archaeological unit in Basel, the Landesdenkmalamt, which oversees all excavations in the city. Consequently, excavations are continaully being undertaken and only a few are fully published, such as the excavations at the Munster and Rittergasse excavated by Furger-Gunti in 1977n5 (Fuger-Gunti 1979) and 1971/72 (Furger-Gunti 1974n5) respectively, and the one at Augustinergasse excavated in 1968 and 1979 (Maeglin 1985). During the late La Tene, the MiinsterhUgel was an oppidum with a murus gallicus on the south side. Two phases of the murus gallicus were uncovered during the Rittergasse excavation, in which a major gate was found and a series of burnt levels in between the two phases of the murus gallicus. The first phase was probably built around the middle near the end of the first half of the first century B.C., possibly after the Helveti returned from their defeat at Bibracte in 56 B.C.. The second phase was probably built during the second half of the century. A main street ran from the gate in the murus gallicus through the middle of the oppidum. Sections of the street were uncovered by both the Rittergasse and Munster excavations. Several wooden buildings built along the street were found in the Munster excavation (Furger-Gunti 1979).

175

The oppidum existed until 15 B.C., when it was replaced by an early Augustan wooden fort which probably housed an auxiliary unit of 500 men, possibly Sequani (Furger-Gunti 1979, 155). The fort was built along the same alignment as the oppidum. The oppidum's main street was paved and reused as the fort's via principalis. New, military buildings replaced the earlier buildings, some in stone. Then, early in the first century A.O. the fort was abandoned. There is evidence for a first century A.O. vicus near the foot of the hill, which might have continued after the fort was abandoned (Helmig 1987a; 1987b).

N

t

.•

.• • ' '''\ I

'\

'

•

\ \ \

\

0 I

100 I

PLAN 4: Plan of Basel-Miinsterhiigel (after Furger -Gunti 1972).

176

Basel might have been the third and forth century street station Arialbinnum, which is identified in the Antonine Itinerary as being located on the Rhine between Angst and Kembs. This identification is supported by the evidence for a late Roman fort on the Miinsterhilgel, though the levels were largely destroyed by later medieval levels.

COINS: Bushel Quinari, DOCI SAM, Kaletdo Quinari, Sequani potin, Haduer potin, T. CANTORIS AE, OERMANUS INDUTILLI AE, T. CANTORIX potin, DOCI SAM potin, Denarii, NEMAUSUS AS FIBULAE: Ala, A4, A4a, A4b, AS, A7, BS, B13, B14, C17a, C20

POTTERY: 3 BOl, B02, B04, B07b, B07d, 001, 002, 004, 007a, 007b, 007d, 007i KOl, KOle S03,SO~. S07k, S08~S08c, S08e R07, R07e,R07h, ROS, R08c, R08e NOS, N08c t03, t03a, t03c, t06, t06a, t06b C07 P08 Lamboglia, Dr. la, Dr. lb, Dr. 20, Haltem 69, Haltem 70

REFERENCES: Berger, Ludwig and Andres Furger-Ounti 1981: Les Sites de L"'Usine a Oaz" et de la "Colline de la Cathedrale" a Bfile. In: Les Structures d'habitat l'Age du Fer en Europe temperee. Berger, L. 1987: Personal Communications. Purger, Andreas 1972: Das Spatkeltische Oppidum von Basel-Miinsterhilgel der Muros Oallicus von 1971. In: Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 2, 165-168. Furger-Ounti, Andres 1974/75: Oppidum Basel -Miinsterhilgel: Orabungen 1971/72 an der Rittgergasse 5. Jahresbericht der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft Ur- und Frtihgeschichte 58, 77-111. Furger-Ounti, Andres 1979: Die Ausgrabungen im Basler Munster. I. Die spatkeltische u. augusteisch e Zeit (1 Jh. v. chr.) (Solothum, Basler Beitruage zur Ur- u. Friihgeschichte, Bd. 6). Furger-Gunti, A. 1986: Personal Communications Furger -Gunti, A. 1987: Personal Communications. Furger-Gunti, A. and H.-M. von Kaenel 1976: Die Keltischen Fundmilnzen aus Basel. In: SNR. 55, 35-76. Helmig, Guido 1987a: Zurn Forschungsstand im romischen Vicus sildostlich des Miinsterhilgels. In: Archaologische Bodenforschung Basel-Stadt Jahresbericht 1986. sonderdruck aus BaAsler Zeitschrift filr Geschichte und Altertumskund Bd. 87; 224-233. Helmig, Guido 1987b: personal communications Maeglin, Thomas 1986: Spatkeltische Funde von der Augustinergasse in Basel. (Basel, Archaologisch e Bodenforschung Basel-Stadt).

a

fur

3Toe following only includes identifiable vessels.

177

34 BREISACH-HOCHSTE1TEN, South Baden, West Germany La Tene Ci-D 2

open settlement

#t *

SUMMARY: Breisach-Hochstetten is located on the flat river valley below the Milnsterberg (see Breisach Milnsterberg). During the early 1930's, Kraft (1935) excavated a large section of the settlement. The Landesdenkmalamt in Freiburg excavated an area west of Kraft's excavation in 1965. Both excavations uncovered a couple of shallow and narrow trenches running north-south and several pits and postholes. No major defensive walls or earthworks were found. The full extent of the settlement is not known. The various groups of pits and postholes are probably remains of houses. It is not known if the series of trenches transecting the excavated areas were defensive, structural or water canals. Coin moulds and kilns were found, which suggest coin and pottery production. According to Stork, the La Tene settlement was an undefended open settlement which probably functioned as a geographical trade centre (Stork 1979, 553) . Hochstetten flourished during the middle La Tene, maybe because it was not only a trade centre, but the centre of the Raurica. The earlier material is from the southwest part of the site, and the later from the northeast. The horizontal stratigraphy suggests that the site was originally settled in the southwest part in the La Tene C and shifted in La Tene D. At some point during the first half of the first century B.C., the settlement was moved up the Milnsterberg, which was more defensibile.

COINS: Stater, Lueci potin, Sequani poti FIBULAE: Ala, A3, A4, A4a, A4b, POTTERY: 4 B0l, B02, B04, B07d G0l, G02, G07a, G07b, G07d, G07i, G09b C07 Dr. 1a, other amphorae

REFERENCES: Bittel, K., W. Kimmig and S. Schiek (editors) 1981: Die Kelten in Baden-Wiirttemberg. (Stuttgart , Konrad Theiss Verlag GmbH) 318-319 .. Kraft, G. 1935: Breisach-Hochstetten. VorHiufiger Bericht Uber die Ausgrabungen 1931/34. In: Badische Fundberichte. Bd. III, heft 7/8, 225-304. Stork , Ingo 1975: Die r()mischen Amphoren und Keltischen Glasarmringe aus der mittel - und spatlatenezeitlichen Siedlung von Breisach-Hochstetten. ungedruck Magisterarbeit (Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat). Stork, Ingo 1975: Die Keltische Siedlung von Breisach-Hochstetten. Archaologische Nachrichten aus fulden. 15, 3-9. 4rhe following only includes identifiable vessels.

178

Stork, Inga 1979: Die mittel- und spi\tlatenezeitliche Siedlung von Breisach-Hochstetten. Doctoral dissertation (Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat). Stork, Inga 1987: personal communications.

44 DANGSTETIEN, Waldshut, W. Germany 15-9 B.C.

ungedruck

#t *

legionary fort

SUMMARY: The fort of Dangstetten was found during gravel extraction in 1967 near Rheinheim . The rescue excavations lead by G. Fingerlin, director of the Landesdenkmalamt, Freiburg, uncovered a large part of the eastern half of the fort and part of the associated vicus. The fort is an Augustan earth and timber fort which has been dated to 15-9 B.C. by Fingerlin (1971). The beginning date is based on the date of Tiberius' campaign in the area--15 B.C. (see Appendix 3). The end date is based on the coin series from the excavation and its similarity to the coin series from Oberaden. Fingerlin has suggested that the fort was originally between 12-17 hectares in area, and around 480 m on a side, sufficient to house half of a legion. It is typical of the early Augustan period in that it was an irregular, . wooden fort. A metal fitting inscribed "L XIX C III" indicates that the 19th legion was stationed at Dangstetten. In addition, there is indication of Celtic troops, "vielleicht aus der Gegend von Trier und orientalische Bogenschtitzen. Sie !assen sich anhand ihrer typischen Ausrtistung und ihrer sonstigen materiellen Hinterlassenschaft deutlich erkennen" (RIBW 279-80). One area of the fort was concerned with crafts, afabrica legionis. There is evidence for a kiln, which produced simple coarse ware, metal working, both iron and bronze and wood and leather working from this area (RIBW 379). It is uncertain whether the associated vicus was a 'military' vicus or civilian . Fingerlin suggests that it was a canabae (1982, 94). Unfortunately, the published material from the fort and vicus are mixed.

COINS: Remi potin, Aduatuci AE, Denarii, Quinarii, Dupondius, Nemausus Asses, Halved Asses FIBULAE: A3,A4,A6,B8,B14,Cl7c,C22,D23,D24,D25

POTTERY: B0l, B02, B04, B07d G0l, G04,, G07, G07d K0l, K0la, K0lb, K0le S03,S07j,S07k, S071, S08b, S08c, S08d R07, R07j, ROS, ROS, ROSc N07, N07j, N08 e06, e06a, p03,p03a,p03b,p03c,p06,p06a,p06b,

POS

179

\

I

'

\

\ \

\

' ' .......

0

.P

°

0

''

)

\__

'.

Jl II,

:;;;.-- .

o

q~

0

....--

0

\,

-~-..,..,

'~,o ....... ,, _,...--:-:

, 0

0 /\

,'

C,