Seminar report: "Rome's most northerly frontier: the Antonine Wall"

On Thursday 12th February 2015, the Archaeology Society welcomed Prof. Bill Hanson from the University of Glasgow for an insightful talk about the Antonine Wall, Rome’s most northerly frontier in Scotland. After explaining the political context that triggered the building of the wall, Prof. Hanson went on to present the wall’s layout and organisation, drawing comparisons with Hadrian’s Wall further south, and the vallum Traiani, a linear frontier fortification built on the Danube in the 2nd century AD. Prof. Hanson also considers the Roman notion of "frontier" and the way imperial rule extended beyond the physical linear barrier of the walls. Throughout his talk, Prof. Hanson used a variety of evidence ranging from epigraphy to excavations, numismatics and ancient sources, showing the archaeological wealth of this period of the past. 

Source: Scottish Archaeological Research Framework. More on the Antonine Wall here.

The Antonine Wall crosses Scotland at the level of the firth of Forth, it is some 37 miles long and takes its name from the emperor Antoninus Pius, who reigned from AD138 to AD 161. The construction of the wall started soon after his accession to the throne. At the time, Hadrian's wall (built during the reign of the previous emperor, Hadrian) was still being built. The wall was however abandoned and the frontier line moved further north, into modern-day Scotland. The reason for this choice needs to be considered within the wider imperial context of the time. In order to stay in power - and to stay alive! - Roman emperors needed the support of the army, something which required them to have some military experience. Upon accessing the throne, Antoninus Pius had none. His campaigns in Britain to "conquer" the lands north of Hadrian's Wall gave him an easy victory and the support from the troops. A series of coins was minted in AD 142-144, hailing the emperor as being "twice" Imperator. (Roman emperors received the title imperator upon accessing the throne, and then again for every major military victory). In addition to the British campaigns, Antoninus Pius also moved the German frontier by about 24km and built part of the Limes (the line of fortifications along the eastern frontier of the Empire). 

Source: Wikimedia

Whereas Hadrian's wall was eventually built in stone, the Antonine wall is a turf rampart, of which relatively little survives nowadays as a result of its being located in the most densely populated area of Scotland. It is erected on a cobble base with draining channels. We do not know how high it was initially, it survives best at Rough Castle with an elevation of 1.5m. The most prominent feature surviving to this day is the ditch in front of the wall, which is some 40ft wide and 15ft deep. Along the line of the wall, a number of forts were erected. Unlike at Hadrian's Wall, were the forts were initially built behind the wall (and then relocated on the wall), the forts on the Antonine Wall were primary and part of the overall construction plan. They were built ca. 8 miles apart. In addition to forts, some fortlets were also built, as the equivalent of the milecastles on Hadrian's wall. However, the full sequence of forts and fortlets is not known as they do not always survive, many of them being turf and timber structures. At Rough Castle, cippi survive in front of the wall: they are small pits, closely packed together, which contained bushes and acted as a sort of Roman "barbwire line" (as opposed to the lilia, which contained stakes or metallic spikes and were, as Prof. Hanson put it, more like the Roman equivalent of a "mine field").

Cippi at Rough Castle

Other features of the wall are less well understood. For instance, a series of small enclosures exist, whose function we do not know and only one has been dug. Another enigmatic feature are the so-called "extensions",which occur in pair and are perhaps part of the signalling system of the frontier.  Like Hadrian's Wall, the Antonine Wall was not built according to one single plan: we see dramatic changes during the construction process.  For instance, extra forts were added, spaced by only 2 miles. At Croy Hill, a fort was added only 80m from a fortlet - primary, ie. built at the same time as the wall. Why build them so close together? We need to consider the wider socio-economic impact of the wall. Drawing a parallel with the Berlin Wall, Prof. Hanson explained how the construction of such a physical barrier would have disrupted the lives of native communities both in terms of social relationships and trading. A hostile reaction from the locals may have followed, thus triggering the reinforcement of the frontier with extra forts, and defence mechanisms like the cippi  mentioned above. A hint for this can be glimpsed through some of the depictions of the time. Unique in the Roman world are the so-called "distance slabs", recording which legions or units worked on the contruction of the Antonine wall, and which lengths of it they built.Some of these slabs are decorated by carved scenes, some representing captive "barbarians", a stock-motif of Roman imperial imagery (see for instance similar carvings from Gaul or Germany).

The wall in its wider context 

Finally, Prof. Hanson gave us some insight into the Roman view of their frontier. Beyond the Antonine wall, a series of outpost forts existed, as far north as Perth, where the fort of Bertha stood. The wall itself was not the frontier: imperial control expanded beyond it. There were however different levels of control and linear barriers such as the Antonine or Hadrian's wall were built to increase the level of control and the intensity of security. The vallum for instance, a large ditch behind (south of) Hadrian's wall, had not a defensive function but it was probably there to demarcate a military zone. The has been a long debate on whether or not Hadrian's wall was defendable: was there a walkway on the wall, like on a mediaeval castle? Maybe. But considering the length of the wall, the number of soldiers needed to defend it would have been too big. Furthermore, there was no need to defend the actual wall, when watch towers were built at very regular intervals, where legionaries could see possible assailants from afar. It seems that neither Hadrian's or the Antonine wall were meant to defend the Empire against major incursions. We do have evidence from Hadrian's wall of forts being destroyed by attacking forces from the north. The walls were however, efficient in repelling small-scale attacks. We do have an inscription from the eastern frontier, on the Danube, which records the building of the wall there in order to prevent small raids and thefts.

The Antonine wall does not seem to have been occupied after the 2nd century, with, among other sources of evidence, the latest date coin being from AD164-169. An inscription from Hadrian's wall records its refurbishment in AD 158. How this relates to the abandonment of the Antonine Wall is debated but in any case, what is sure is that the withdrawal from the Antonine wall was a deliberate one. It was dismantled and buried (this explains for instance, why the distance slabs are so well preserved). At Barhill, a well was found that was full of building material from the fort (including a column!). The exact reason behind the abandonment of the frontier is unknown. Some argue that it was a Brigantian revolt (the tribe living just south of the wall). What is interesting however, is that this abandonment coincides with the years surrounding the death of Antoninus Pius (AD 161): the wall had been his monument, it was no longer such a necessity once the emperor was dying. And so the troops were brought back to the first wall, Hadrian's wall.

The Society would like to thank Prof. Hanson for such an interesting seminar and wishes him the best of luck for his official retirement in September.

By Alexandra Guglielmi

Seminar report: "Debating theories of Roman Imperialism" by Dr. Andrew Gardner, UCL

For the penultimate talk in our seminar series, we were given food for thought in the form of a theoretical debate where Dr. Gardner tackled the current issues in the relationship between theory and Roman archaeology, giving us an overview of its evolution within the discipline, and some ideas on how theory can be used . develop our understanding of the Roman Empire.

Contrary to other archaeological disciplines, Roman archaeology has tended to neglect theory, largely as a result of the incredible amount of data available which led to a focus on empirical studies. In 1991, the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC) was created and one of the first issues it addressed was that of “Romanisation”, a concept over which debates have raged through the following decade. Indeed, some established approaches took Rome as the focal point and viewed the relationship between the Empire and its conquered territories in colonial terms, with the acculturation of the defeated and their conversion to the superior Roman culture. This was complemented to a certain extent by traditional historical explanations and core/periphery model.

However, the rise of post-colonial discourse – e.g. Said, Babha... - meant that the focus was shifted and more weight was given to the “others”, the non-Romans and a more “nativist” point of view was adopted. This perspective was variously influenced by Marxism, feminism and post-structuralism. It paid attention to evidence for resistance in the conquered provinces, and concepts such as discrepant identities and hybritidity were developed in the 1990s (see works by Van Dommelen, Mattingly below). In this way, the theoretical discourse in Roman archaeology went beyond the simplistic Roman/native dichotomy. However, this reversal of focus also resulted in some problems, notably the overemphasis laid on the literary sources, and the lack of attention paid to issues of power and violence: the multicultural nature of the Empire got highlighted, but the violence inherent to the processes of conquest and imperial rule has been minimised.

Globalisation theories have stressed the connectivity and communication aspects of the Empire, highlighting the role of material culture and consumption. Within this framework, concepts such as hybridity/hybridisation and “glocalisation” – the idea that within a global network of exchange, artefacts take on a local meaning in different parts of the network – have been developed to address satisfactorily the huge variety of interactions present within the Roman Empire and its provinces. Some argue however, that globalization is   a Western post-mediaeval phenomenon and cannot be applied to the study of past societies. The different is one of scale and intensity of communication though, for it can be shown that the different part of the ancient world were connected by trading and diplomatic links, even prior to the emergence of the Roman Empire.

Post-colonial theories stress a marginal – bottom-up - approach, globalisation theories on the other hand stress a systemic –top-down- perspective: the distinctive features of institutional articulation of power, identity and Empire are thus lost in the middle. For this reason, Dr. Gardner argued for the adoption of an “institutional archaeology” to gain a better understanding of cultural change in the past. By studying traditions and innovations in practice, we can understand the relationship between communities and institutions and the nesting of identities within power-flows, inside an overarching spatial and temporal reality.  Dr. Gardner used to case-studies to illustrate his argument: the bathhouse in the military fortress at Caerleon, Wales,  and the rural settlement of Cotswold community.

At Caerleon, the fortress was built according to the standards of military architecture, with a strict hierarchy of space, e.g. a large house for the centurion, smaller rooms for the legionaries. In addition to the living quarters, other buildings in the fortress served regimental practices, such as the bathhouse. Bathing played an important unifying role within the soldier community – a community composed of men coming from various provinces of the Empire. But at Caerleong, in the 4^th century, we see a change in the use of space: the pool of the bathhouse goes out of use and is used as a rubbish dump. This in turn tells us something about changes in practices within the unit: bathing as a social activity went into disuse: what can this tell us about different dynamics within the military community? This interaction of actors and institutional structures is rather easy to see in the case of the military because we know what the standard situation would be, but Gardner’s study of the rural settlement at Cotswold community showed how this could be applied to a different scenario. There, it is the analysis of artefact distribution across the site which could inform the archaeologist about changing practices over time. And with changing practices come changing relationships, and changes in identity construction.

To conclude, practice theories have proven their worth in illuminating the material, social and temporal aspects of life in the past. It is a useful theoretical framework to address issues of cultural change and identity studies. Post-colonial studies in Roman archaeology are quite different than in other disciplines: no other empire has been studied in this way, probably because of the role Rome took as an example for modern nations’ own colonialism in the 19^th century. The study of the Roman Empire is thus not just that of a past civilisation, it is intertwined with our understanding of our present society.

On behalf of UCD School of Archaeology and the Archaeology Society, I would like to thank Dr. Gardner for such an interesting talk. The argument he presented to us can be found in his latest paper published in Britannia (see below for references).

By Alexandra Guglielmi

Some references for further reading:

Gardner, A. (2012). Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal of Social Archaeology, 12.2, 145-166.

Gardner, A. 2013. Thinking about Roman Imperialism: Postcolonialism, Globalization and Beyond? Britannia 44, 1-25

Gosden, C. 2001. Postcolonial archaeology. Issues of culture, identity, and knowledge, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 241-261

Hingley, R. 2010. Cultural diversity and unity: Empire and Rome, in S. Hales and T. Hodos (eds) Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 54-75

Mattingly, D. 2010. Imperialism, Power and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire, Princeton University Press

Van Dommelen, P. 2005. “Colonial interactions and hybrid practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian settlement in the ancient Mediterranean” in G. Stein (ed.) The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives. Oxford: School of American Research

Woolf, G. 1997, “Beyond Romans and natives” World Archaeology 28(3), 339-350

Seminar: "Debating theories of Roman imperialism"

Dear everyone, 

What a week awaits us! After the Relay for Life this Wednesday and Thursday, we will welcome Dr. Andrew Gardner from UCL (London) to give us a talk entitled "Debating theories of Roman Imperialism". 

The seminar will take place 

Thursday 10th April 

5:30pm 

Newman building, Room A109. 

This promises to be an extremely interesting seminar, which will address theoretical concepts widely applicable to archaeology, not just the Roman period.
Don't miss out !

Seminar report: "Roman bathing and its legacy on Crete" by Dr A. Kelly

Our 2014 seminar series began with Dr Amanda Kelly (UCD school of Classics) who gave a talk on “Roman bathing and its legacy on Crete”. This talk focused on the early Byzantine period (5-6^th century) of the Island and how the tradition of public baths had survived from roman times into later periods. Dr Kelly is a former student of the college, having completed both her undergraduate degree and her masters here.

The talk was based off of Dr Kelly’s 2004 PHD work surveying the island, during which she managed to locate at least 55 roman bath sites on the island of Crete. It is a testament to the results of Dr Kelly’s research that no bathhouses had been identified prior to her work and goes to show that Crete has a vast archaeological heritage beyond the Minoan culture it is so famed for.

Of great interest was the relationship between the topography of the land and the location of roman bathhouses. The Cretan terrain was well suited to building of Roman aqueducts, the sloping terrain providing the gravity necessary to provide water to settlements and their bathhouses.

Dr Kelly’s work is highly inspired by the work of Italian Giuseppe Gerola’s work surveying the island in 1904, who although he was focused on surveying the Venetian impact on the island, provided extensive information on repurposed sites.

Of interest was what Dr Kelly described as the symbiosis of Roman bath and Early Byzantine church architecture – with the ecclesiastical community having baths named after saints and overall showing a tolerance of the bathing tradition, even into later periods.

Dr Kelly’s lecture was an interesting look into a period of Cretan archaeology that is often overshadowed by the legacy of Minoan archaeology on the island. The UCD archaeology society and the department of Archaeology would like to thank Dr Kelly for taking the time to present her work and wish her the best of luck in future research. 

By Stephen Domican

The Societies goes to Portugal !

This year, the Society went to Portugal for its annual trip. And here is what happened...

See all the photographs of the trip on our Flickr gallery

"We arrived in Lisbon on Monday the 13th of January, it was late when we got in so we immediately travelled via the metro to our accommodation at a hotel called Residencial Joao XXI in Lisbon city centre. The rooms were really nice for the given price and wonderfully located near all public transport and shops.

Tower of Belem - E. Fennelly 2013

The following day we began our tour around the Belem region, one of the most important regions in Lisbon. Our tour guide, Cristina showed us around Jeronimos Monastery, a huge 15th century Manueline-style complex including a cathedral, a museum and a cloister. We then visited the Discoverer's Monument across the road and on to the Tower of Belem which is probably the most recognisable structure in Lisbon, a fortified tower built in the 16th century and used during the age of discoveries. We wrapped it all up by visiting the Archaeological museum of Lisbon which had a great exhibition on Roman sculptures.

Jeronimos monastery - E. Fennelly 2013

On Wednesday we payed a visit to the Alfama region which is the oldest region in Lisbon it's most prominent landmark being the Castle of St. George, a Moorish castle dating to the Medieval period. Given the huge size of the castle we spent most of the day there while also visiting Lisbon Cathedral and taking a ride on the cities oldest tram line which was an experience in itself.

Cloisters - E. Fennelly 2013

On Thursday we took a day trip to Conimbriga, a Roman city which is the largest and probably most important archaeological site in Portugal. We took a two hour bus journey to the site which is still being excavated today and not even close to being completely unearthed. Notable features of this city included the large walls, a fountain complex, the baths and a re-constructed forum. The sewer system was also easily seen. Once we were done with our tour around the city we took time to visit the associated museum which included many of the finds of the site. Finally we payed a quick visit to the University of Conimbra near the Roman ruins. This University, one of the oldest in Europe included a fantastic chapel and unique library.

Roman villa - E. Fennelly 2013

On Friday, the day of our departure we split up to pursue our own interests. I myself went to see even more Roman ruins unusually located beneath a bank in Lisbon city center a long with a few others. I was amazed by the size of the complex given it's location. The ruins were of a Roman factory used for the manufacture of garum (a sort of paste made from fish, salt and spices) which was what made the city wealthy during the Roman period.

Discoverer's monument - E. Fennelly 2013

We returned later that day exhausted but fulfilled at the same time.

I'd like to thank all who came on this trip with me and I hope you had a good time lie I did."

By Emmet Fennelly
Trip Officer 2013-2014

Seminar series 2013, lecture 1 of semester 2: "Roman bathing and its legacy on Crete"

Next week is the first seminar of the semester: Dr Amanda Kelly who has stepped in at short notice to talk to us about Roman bathing and its legacy on Crete. Hope to see some of you there!

Steve Davis

This seminar will take place next Thursday at 5.30pm in room A109 of the Newman building. To read about the rest of the seminar programme for this semester, please click here.