Melvadius

Using the Vindolanda tablets as a primary source for answering the question of how Roman soldiers may have been addressed was brilliant, Melvadius. But, unless I'm missing something somewhere (?), I'm not seeing a lot of praenomina on that list, which appears to be composed mostly of cognomina. (And, I also love that episode of Up Pompeii with "Ivy" the legionary. ) -- Nephele You may well be right - Even when I was in the Auxilia I never could tell my praenomina from my cognomina Mind you thinking that for part of the time that I would also end up being called 'Ivy' may have had something to do with that Seriously though when I looked at them I only quickly looked at a few of the tablets which fall into the category of military reports rather than personal correspondence - the name listing covers all types of correspondence. The report on work identified as being led by Marcus obviously leapt out but other reports may not have the same formula. The other caveat is of course that the tablets, in most cases are fairly fragmentary often with one side or the other damaged, so anyone doing this sort of research will need to look carefully at which elements have survived to see if there is any discernable emphahsis on praenomina or (the more likely?) cognomina. Melvadius

I suspect that Faustus is correct about the extent to which the eye of the NCO's would invariably fall on the man who made the mistake of making his presence known. Despite being totally unauthentic for the 'real' Roman army I always think of the Up Pompeii episode where the slave Lurcio got drafted into the Roman military and given the 'legion' number of IV (pronounced 'Ivy' of course ). Of possibly more appropriateness is to consider how individuals were referred to in Roman military records - if I'm not mistaken the Vindolanda tablets seem to run more to praenomen than anything else c/f - http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLink2/4D...p;submit=People The report of men given various tasks with 'Marcus the medical orderly' listed by name and reports signed by an optio' such as Candidus are almost invariably a single name, which no matter how common must logically have been sufficient to identify them for military purposes. By extension probably a single name (although possibly a nick-name in some instances) must have sufficed at the level of a century. Of course the usual caveat that these are the remnants of records from an Auxiliary unit rather than Legionary records apply but how men were listed in official roll calls must give a strong indicaion of how they were normally identified as individuals by their officers. Melvadius

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the thought that any marching camp could have a vicus associated with it. By its very definition a marching camp would not be in existence long enought to atract a permanent settlement. I also can find no mention of Wanborough having had a permanent fort in any of my reference books and neither such listed in the Ordnance Survey map of Britian that I have (admittedly dating from 1994). If it has been confirmed by recent excavations I would like to know what evidence/ information the sites and monuments office in Swindon have for it. Having said that there is no conflict with a civilian settlement being walled during the late 2nd or 3rd century, although I would expect that any possible 'fort' in the area would more likely have had an auxilliary garrison than legionary. There is as you indicated good evidence for Wanborough being at a trading nexus - being on several important roads as well as local potteries and a mining/quarrying area. From what I have read there is also a suggestion that the locations on the Antonine Itinery (which lists Durocornovium) may have been supply bases or possibly taxation centres rather than forts - which may explain any evidence of walls at such sites. Melvadius

I have had another thought or two on the original question. As GoC suggested the site could have been used a the location of an earlier medieval manor - there is actually a lot of evidence for multi-phase use of sites in the medieval period - including even major buildings such as manor houses moving from one location to another and even more than one such site being in use at the same time within fairly small settlements. I couldn't get a feel for how Alkborough itself developed from the maps and aerial photographs I can currently access or even how large the site under discussion is. It might help if someone could post what the acreage of the site is as that could give a stronger indication of it's potential military usage in the Roman period. However I couldn't see any sign of crop marks in standing crops which may indicate a southern entrance in the aerial photograph that is on Multipmap - Google Earth currently has the field partially harvested which doesn't help. As to multiple embankments on Roman military sites this can happen where a fort has shrunk in size from when it was first laid out - just look at Rough Castle but as far as I know the ditch and embankment system there is an unusual survival of the usual Roman rebuilding practices. I think I am still coming down on the side of it probably being earl;ier (some Iron Age field systems incorporate emabnkments and are fairly regular in shape or more likely later than Roman. The presence of a coin hoard and kilns in the area although a good indicator of nearby Roman occupation do not confirm a military aspect to the site. As you say more research may be indicated. BTW have the results of the excavations not been made available through the local sites and monuments register - if they have then there should be some indication of the profile of the ditch if it was included in the test trenches? Melvadius

A few years back on a trip to Tunisia a local archaeologist stated his view that it was the Berbers who by curring down trees for firewood were responsible for the desertification of parts of Tunisia that during Roman times extremely fertile. Now this may have simply been an example of long term local rivalries however it is true that on a trip to Thuburbo Majus there were several olive oil presses installed within the ruins of the Roman town that because of their location must have been in operation when the town went into decline as a major population centre in the area One I saw was actually built within a temple with the counter weight of the press using sections of a decorated friezes. Although it doesn't show the counter weight c/f 4th picture showing the press itself at: http://www.cavazzi.com/roman-empire/articl...rticle-038.html There were apparently edicts made during Roman times that required large parts of what is now modern Tunisia to change over from cereal prodction to olives and olives are still a major industry in Tunisia. We did go through several areas in Tuniisa where there were signs of olive groves extending into areas that were now desert but it was impossible to tell by eye when they had been in operation. Melvadius

I recently attended a lecture by Antonio De Simone, who is actively involved in the excavations at Herculaneum. He added some interesting details about the Villa in the following extract from the abstract of his talk: "The level of the Villa studied in the 18th century stands at an altitude of 11 metres. Since the ancient ground level was about 5 metres deeper, we should fix the height of the main floor in antiquity at 16 metres above sea level. On the contrary, open air excavation has shown 4 different architectural levels, including the main one. The levels underlying the main one are adapted to the natural slope, showing progressively smaller dimensions. These rooms are probably for household activities..." In his conclusion he suggested that: "We know today that the villa is much wider than 40 metres and has 4 levels, thre of them preserved as they appeared at the time of the eruption in 79A.D.......the position of the papyri during the discovery and at the position of the portable cabinets, we can hypotize that part of the the collection was being moved along an escape route through the rooms of the underlying levels, leading to the beach; so we can imagine the presence of other rolls along the path." Melvadius

Sorry, I read only part of the thread and picked up the second reference which was to Swindon rathet than the original to Humberide - a slight matter of 100 or so miles apart oops However from some additional reading I would be unhappy classifying Countess Close as a Roman fort if Pevenser's description of it as an earthwork is at all correct : "...roughly square, broken by an entrance on the North. Other sources say it is medieval, perhaps the remains of a fort." A single entant entrance would tend to be a strong initial arguement against the site being based on a Roman military fort or marching camp. Any extensive archaeological research should ideally have comprised a test excavation for any gates on the other cardinal points if not a geophysical survey of the earthworks to see if there was any evidence for more gates, which any reasonably size fort would have had. Only the smallest of Roman military installations i.e. watchtowers like those on the Gask Ridge and along the Yorkshire coast or something the size of the Hadrian's Wall milecastles would have had only one entrance. Melvadius

Sorry I have just re-read your original posting and what I should have made clear is that the fountains being the main public source of water in Roman society always took priority followed by the baths and only then private supply. However the Pompeii example is a simplified model and the castellum divisiorae could contain multiple pipes, as at Nimes where I believe there were 10 outlets, which were all controlled by sluices. The inclusion of sluices is an essential technique which allows water to be released or contained for both maintenance as well as extended supply purposes. As to your question the inlet is usually directly from an aqueduct so would have a larger cross-section than the outlet pipes. I would also say that a lot of Vitruvius' writing falls very firmly into the area of having been based on practical examples. The difficulty, for our interpretation, is that the drawings which would have originally accompanied the text may not have been included in published translations. In the majority of technical writing examples from the Roman period, there would normally have been accompanying drawings but often these have either been lost during earlier copying, possibly misdrawn or else simply deemed too difficult to reproduce in 'modern' text books based on them so ignored. Melvadius

The article at the attached link and especially Figure 7, which shows the reconstruction of the castellum divisorium at Pompeii, gives a good idea of how the system would work in practice. http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/0113/007010113.pdf Melvadius

In archaeology there is often limited time to carry out a site investigation and the ususal technique is to decide what will provide the maximum value in the form of site 'context'. The excavation is then targeted at specific areas which will provide the most evidence for a sites use and general history - only being extended as time allows and where there are unexplained features that need to be chased and documented. I have worked on some sites where there was over three feet of soil and top soil that needed to be removed to get down to 13th century layers, while in other sites there was a layer of Roman material within a matter of a few inches of the surface. It is becoming usual practice on large scale excavations to remove the top soil by machine, which a la Time Team is done in careful slices with an archaeologist observing who will stop the removal at the first sign of an occupation layer or in situ archaeological material. Within an excavation trench it is usual to trowel down in layers to determine its use through a sample of finds - it is not always possible to catalogue, let alone store, everything that might be found on a site. If a thorough investigation has been made of one area and a suitable sample/ picture of use drawn it may have become a lot deeper than other parts of the site. in this circumstance a decision may be made to rapidly remove the overburden on unexcavated areas before the excavation continues down into an older occupation layer. In these circumstances shovels (more likely the use of mattocks to take off a small spit of soil at a time followed by shovelling to remove the spoil) is the obvious method to remove the overburden. However this should always be done within a single 'context' (a singly identifiable soil composition; colour and texture as well as significant inclusions; mortar, wall, distribution of stones, etc.). However if during this process something unexpected or of obvious archaeological (&/or intrinsic) value is discovered or a change in context becomes obvious, a return to careful excavation will immediatly occur while the feature is identified and a decision made on how it will affect further excavation in the trench. Melvadius

If you check Rowland, I.D. & Noble How, (1999) Vitruvius: Ten Books of Architecture Cambridge University Press, there is a clearer illustration of what is meant by Vitruvius (Fig 108, pg 279). There is often only one large inlet pipe and you need to raise the height of the outflow pipes up towards the top of your illustration, the two outermost slightly higher than the middle pipe and just above the top most part of the divisions. That way when the water level is low only the central pipe will receive water but if there is a good flow of water then all three sections will fill up and the two outermost pipes will also receive a supply.

In any archaeological excavation the normal practice is to 'section' a number of significant features within the site. This normally entails digging a trench(s) at right angles across what could be ditches of embankments or part of parchmarks if they look like they may be forming part of a building. By cleaning the face of the excavation you can determine the profile of any ditches and by the position of wallls (either in situ, robbed out or collapsed) you can posibly work out what their original size, shape and use may have been. In the case of ditches the Roman military used a number of distinctive types including the 'punic' ditch which can be used to date military sites including marching camps even where there si no datable finds such as pottery or brooches. As has ben noted marching camps tend to have a distinctive shape especially in Scotland where there can be a number of distinctly Roman entrance patterns including the 'Strathcaro' pattern which are designed to funnel attackers together into restricted space in front of the gateways making it easier for the camp occupants to fight them off. If an excavation has found no distinctive ditch shape and no finds then the archaeological conclusion has to be that Roman military occupation is unlikely or at best unproven. As far as marching camp in the South East of England are concerned there have been very few proven even as far west as Swindon. By the 1st century AD the tribes in the South East of England were to a great extent friendly to the Romans and in most cases the Romans simply passed them by and built their first line of fortifications a bit further north and west than Swindon, with the few known forts inside that area soon abandoned as the Roman military expanded their zone of control. Melvadius

The reason for the survival of the ships and their contents is the same as at any other waterlogged location, especially when covere bay a lair of mud. The absence of air means that the rate of deterioration of timber and other organic material is slowed almost to a stop. As to the question about why the ships were abandoned as the article indicates this may have been due to a sudden storm overwhelming the ships in the harbour making them waterlogged and sinking them before the crew could save the ships. In some conditions this can even happen when a ship is tied up to a quayside. By analyzing pollen found in the mud covering the ships, archaologists have determined that there is evidence for at least 4 major flood events from the Bronze age onwards as four distinct layers covered the ships. There is no guarantee that the ships were lost during one of these events as any sudden storm can lead to a ship being sunk but they do give an indication of how sever some storms could be on the Arno. Melvadius