Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T02:41:40.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Urban Defences in Earthwork

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

S. S. Frere
S. S. Frere
Affiliation:
Netherfield House, Marcham, Abingdon, Oxon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Urban defences in Roman Britain and the dates of their erection have been discussed by various writers during the last three decades, and the subject has received renewed attention in three recent publications. The last of these has put forward views concerning both date and motivation which a wider consideration of the evidence makes hard to accept. In general, however, the outline of events is clear. Although certain cities received earthworks in the first century or masonry defences from early in the second, the great majority remained open until, in the second half of the second century, a very large number of earth-work circuits was erected in what, all are agreed, must be either a concerted programme or a chain reaction. This embraced not only the cities (the civitas capitals) but also a great variety of minor centres. Beginning quite early in the third century, or even at its outset, and continuing for 70 or 80 years, a long series of towns was receiving walls in masonry. Where earth ramparts already existed the front was normally cut back to receive the wall; elsewhere fresh banks were piled behind the new work. Free-standing walls appeared only in the fourth century and are found at very few towns, for most were already defended. Another development of the same period was the addition of external towers to existing walls: most of these towers seem to date from the third quarter of the fourth century, but some were earlier, beginning, perhaps with Verulamium, c. 265–70.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 15 , November 1984 , pp. 63 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © S. S. Frere 1984. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Corder, P., Arch. Journ. cxii (1955), 20–42Google Scholar. Wacher, J. S., Arch. Journ. cxix (1962), 103–13Google Scholar; idem in J. S. Wacher (ed.), The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain (Leicester, 1966), 60–9; idem, The Towns of Roman Britain (London, 1975). Frere, S. S., Britannia, A History of Roman Britain (3rd ed., London, 1978)Google Scholar; idem, Verulamium Excavations ii (London, 1983). Salway, P., Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 261–5.Google Scholar

2 Maloney, J. and Hobley, B. (eds.), Roman Urban Defences in the West (C.B.A. Research Report No. 51, London, 1983)Google Scholar. Frere, S. S. and Joseph, J. K. St., Roman Britain from the Air (Cambridge, 1983), 147–81Google Scholar. Hartley, B. R., ‘The Enclosure of Romano-British Towns in the Second Century a.d.’, in Hartley, B. R. and Wacher, J. (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces (Gloucester, 1983), 84–95.Google Scholar

3 Frere, S. S., Verulamium Excavations ii (London, 1983), 17.Google Scholar

4 This has been argued by Salway, (op. cit., note 1, 263) for sites where earthworks were accompanied by stone gateways or towers; if so, inertia or lack of resources delayed implementation overlong.Google Scholar

5 Bidwell, P., Roman Exeter: Fortress and Town (Exeter, 1980), 60Google Scholar, still doubts that a bank cut back to receive a wall is evidence for two distinct phases. But the occurrence in the wall's foundation-trench of pottery later than that in the body of the bank is too widespread a phenomenon to be thus easily brushed aside. Similarly when the profile of the original bank can be established (as e.g. at Silchester), it can be seen that the wall-builders have not merely removed the front spills of the bank but have cut away up to one-third or more of the width, right back to the crest or beyond: an extravagant procedure if wall and bank were under simultaneous construction. See Frere, S. S., Antiquity xxxix (1965), 137–40.Google Scholar

6 op. cit. (note 3), 44–9.

7 op. cit. (note 2), 85–91.

8 Frere, S. S. (op. cit., note 3), 1.Google Scholar

9 Manuel d'Archéologie v: Archéologie Gallo-Romaine i (Paris, 1931), 281.Google Scholar

10 Atti del Settimo Congresso internaz. di Archaeologia Classica iii (Rome, 1961), 195–202.Google Scholar

11 op. cit. (note 2), 92–3.

12 Drinkwater, J. F., Roman Gaul (London, 1983), 151.Google Scholar

13 ibid., 131.

14 In fact, however, Drinkwater has misunderstood his source. Duval and Quoniam (Gallia xxi (1963), 162) are merely making a general (and misguided) comparison between the layout of Autun and that of a fortress.Google Scholar

15 In Maloney, and Hobley, (op. cit., note 1), 1.Google Scholar

16 Dio lxxv, 10.

17 Histories iv, 50.

18 See Stevens, C. E. in Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. and McManners, J., France, Government and Society (London, 1957), 22Google Scholar on the novelty of the solution reached in organizing the Gallic tribes as administrative civitates. Cf. also Drinkwater, (op. cit., note 12), 22, 104.Google Scholar

19 CIL xii 3151. Imp. Caesar Divi f. Augustus cos. xi trib. potest. viii portas muros col(oniae) dat. Private persons also, if of sufficient wealth, might pay for city walls, as did the rich physician Crinas at Marseilles probably in the reign of Nero: Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxix 5. 9. Marseilles is noted as a civitas foederata by Pliny, ibid., iii, 34.

20 For Chichester see Britannia xiv (1983), 332–3Google Scholar. The additional candidates listed by Hobley in Maloney, and Hobley, (op. cit., note 2), 79, at Cambridge, Godmanchester, Ilchester and Neatham may all be dismissed as boundary-ditches (none is over 3 m wide) or as misunderstandings of his sources. And none is a city.Google Scholar

21 op. cit. (note 2), 87, 92.

22 Josephus, , Jewish Antiquities xix 7. 2.Google Scholar

23 CIL xiii, 3202 = ILS 5594.

24 Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 40, 6; 46, 5–6. Pliny, Epistulae x 23; see Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), 593.Google Scholar

25 Digest i 16. 7.

26 Digest i 8. 1.

27 Digest xliii 6. 2.

28 See Pliny, Epistulae x 50, where Trajan writes solum peregrinae civitatis capax non sit dedicationis quae fit nostro iure.

29 Digest xliii 6. 3.

30 Digest l. 10. 3.

31 CIL iii 6818 = ILS 1017 dated by Syme to the reign of Domitian: JRS lxvii (1977), 38 ff.

32 Pliny, , Epistulae viii 24.Google Scholar

33 CIL xiii 1697 ( = ILS 7019), Bituriges Vivisci; 3528 ( = ILS 7054), Suessiones; 2950, Veneti (a.d. 198–209); and perhaps 3067 (Orleans) and 2658 (Autun).

34 AE 1920, No. 45.

35 CIL ii 6278 = ILS 5163.

36 Drury, P. J. in Rodwell, W. and Rowley, T. (eds.), Small Towns of Roman Britain, B.A.R. No. 15 (Oxford, 1975), 170.Google Scholar

37 Eddy, M. R. with Turner, C., Kelvedon, The Origins and Development of a small Roman Town (Essex County Council, Occasional Paper No. 3, Chelmsford, 1982), 11.Google Scholar

38 CIL iii 1979, 1980.

39 Johnson, S., Late Roman Fortifications (London, 1983), 22.Google Scholar

40 Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae iv, No. 1962.

41 ibid., iii, 1, No. 878. At Stara Zagora (Augusta Traiana) there are municipal coins of Marcus and Verus (hence earlier than a.d. 169) showing a city gate: Mihailov, G., Studi Urbinati xxxv (1961), 48–9.Google Scholar

42 Startin, D. W. A. has calculated that the Silchester rampart could have been built by 300 men in 100 days of 10 working hours: Fulford, in Maloney, and Hobley, (eds.), Roman Urban Defences in the West (C.B.A. Research Report No. 51, London, 1983), 88.Google Scholar

43 Fulford, (op. cit., note 42), 87, fig. 84.Google Scholar

44 Similarly at Cirencester a wide gap may have been left in the rampart while the gate was being built and only thereafter filled, thus causing the stratigraphical relationship which was interpreted in a contrary sense: Antiq. Journ. xli (1961), 65.Google Scholar

45 op. cit. (note 2), 85–91.

46 Charlesworth, in Butler, R. M. (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (Leicester, 1971), 159.Google Scholar

47 Arch. Cambrensis ciii (1954), 54–65Google Scholar; cf. Frere, , Britannia, a History of Roman Britain (1978), 299.Google Scholar

48 Sussex Arch. Colls. xc (1951–1952), 196Google Scholar with Wilson, A. E., The Archaeology of Chichester City Walls (Chichester, 1957), 7.Google Scholar

49 Bidwell, P., Roman Exeter: Fortress and Town (Exeter, 1980), 65–6.Google Scholar

50 ibid., 66.

51 P. Leach, Ilchester i, Excavations 1974–5, Western Archaeological Trust Excavation Monograph No. 3 (Bristol, 1982).

52 Fulford, M., Silchester: Excavations on the Defences 1974–80 (Britannia Monograph No. 5, forthcoming).Google Scholar

53 Arch. Cant. lxxxiii (1968), 55–104.Google Scholar

54 op. cit. (note 52).

55 The Archaeology of Canterbury vol. ii, Frere, S. S. et al. , Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury (Maidstone, 1982), 51–6 with fig. 18Google Scholar. This section is also printed as fig. 34 in vol. i (Frere, S. S. et al. , Excavations at Canterbury Castle (Maidstone, 1982)). The samian was not listed in the site report as being irrelevant to the question of date.Google Scholar

56 Birley, A. R., Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 135–6 takes the view that the strategos who was killed was the governor.Google Scholar

57 Maloney, J. in Maloney, and Hobley, (eds.), Roman Urban Defences in the West (London, 1983), 104.Google Scholar

58 I am grateful to Professor P. A. Brunt for discussing with me some questions about the Digest; but he would not wish to be held responsible for the conclusions I have drawn from it. I have also derived much profit from his privately-circulated Select Texts from the Digest with translation and commentary.