Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:53:23.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Organisation of Roman Military Timber-Supply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

W. S. Hanson
W. S. Hanson*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow
*
I am grateful to Professor G. D. B. Tones, Professor S. S. Frere, Dr D. J. Breeze and Mr R. Meiggs for their comments on an earlier draft of this article, although this does not imply that they necessarily agree with the conclusions. I would like to thank Dr J. H. Dickson for discussing the botanical evidence with me.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman army has long been regarded as the epitome of organised self-sufficiency in both ancient and more recent literature. That the army acted as engineers as well as soldiers is so amply attested that it needs no comment here. The manufacture of tiles by the military is well known and the quarrying of stone both by the soldiers themselves and under military supervision is attested; but there is little evidence for the supply of building timber to the army. Since throughout the first and for a large part of the second century the majority of forts in Britain were built wholly or partly of timber, this represents a considerable gap in our knowledge of military building. This article is an attempt to consider the problems of timber-supplies for military purposes in Britain during that period.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 9 , November 1978 , pp. 293 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © W. S. Hanson 1978. 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 Vegetius, 2. II; R. Macmullen, Soldier and Civilian in the later Roman Empire (1963), 24.

2 Y Cymmrodor xli (1930), I f.; Trans. Cumb. & Westm. Antiq. Arch. Soc. lxv (1965), 163 f.Google Scholar

3 Trans. Cumb. & Westm. Antiq. Arch. Soc. lxviii (1968), 22 f.Google Scholar; RIB 998-1016; H. von Petrikovitss Das römische Rheinland (1960), 116; ILS, 2907.

4 The fort at Trennfurt and earthwork at Ohrenbacher have been identified as possible sawmills (Macmullen op. cit. (note 1), 27 and Saalburg-Jahrb. x (1951), 29 f.Google Scholar, but the associated inscriptions are all third-century in date (CIL, 6618, 6623 and 11781).

5 W. Pennington, The History of British Vegetation 2nd ed. (1974), 60; A. G. Tansley, The British Isles and their Vegetation (1949), 162-3; J. G. Evans, The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles' (1975)) 82. ‘Climatic climax’ vegetation is the final stage of a natural succession under approximately constant climatic conditions.

6 Strabo, iv, 5. 2.

7 Caesar, B.G. iv, 32; v, 15; v, 19; v, 21; see also Dio Cassius lx, 19, 5.

8 A. L. F. Rivet (ed.), The Roman Villa in Britain (1969), 197.

9 Forestry Commission, Census of Woodlands 1947-1949 (1952). 30.

10 Proc. Prehist. Soc. xxxix (1973), 332 f.Google Scholar; W. H. Manning in J. G. Evans, S. Limbrey and H. Cleere (eds.), The Effect of Man on the Landscape of the Highland Zone (C.B.A. Res. Rep. II, 1975), 112 f.; Proc. Roy. Soc. B 161 (1965), 352.Google Scholar

11 Ibid 310 f. and 352.

12 Ibid. 348.

13 Ibid. 349-50.

14 Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. lxxiii (1938-1939), 151.Google Scholar

15 H. M. Steven and A. Carlisle, The Native Pinewoods of Scotland (1959), 49.

16 J. S. Wacher, Excavations at Brough-on-Humber, 1958-61 (1969), 221.

17 Arch. Journ. cxxv (1968), 188 f.Google Scholar

18 D. N. McVean and R. A. Ratcliffe, Plant Communities of the Scottish Highlands (1962), 10 f. and D. N. McVean in J. H. Burnett (ed.), The Vegetation of Scotland (1964), 144 f.

19 Forestry Commission, op. cit. (note 9), 31.

20 Anderson, M. L., A History of Scottish Forestry ii (1967). 556.Google Scholar

21 Tacitus, Agricola, 25.1; 26.2; 31; Herodian iii, 14.10; Dio Cassius lxxvi, 13.1.

22 W. G. Hoskins, The Making of the English Landscape (1955), 29; L. Dudley Stamp, Man and the Land (2nd ed., 1964), 172; H. C. Darby in T. W. Watson and J. B. Sissons (eds.), The British Isles. A Systematic Geography (1964), 198.

23 G. W. Dimbleby in J. G. Evans et al. op. cit. (note 10), 128.

24 E. M. Jope, Studies in Building History (1961), 25; Frere, S. S., Verulamium Excavations i (1972), 10Google Scholar; Richmond, I. A., Hod Hill ii (1968), 119–20Google Scholar; M. Todd, The Roman Fort at Great Casterton, Rutland (1968), 26; J. S. Wacher, Roman Britain (1978), 35, 174.

25 Forest Products Research Laboratory, Record No. 4 (1938), 2 f.

26 E. Levin, Wood In Building (1971), 19.

27 E. G. Blake, The Seasoning and Preservation of Timber (1924), 21.

28 L. F. Salzman, Building in England down to 1540 (1952), 237 f.

29 R. G. Bateson, Timber drying and the behaviour of seasoned timber in use (1952), 12. Timber is expected to move between 0·02-0·04 inches per foot for every 1% change in moisture content, the greatest movement taking place in a radial direction. Movement along the grain is negligible.

30 I am grateful to Mr G. H. Pratt, Building Research Establishment, Princes Risborough, for his helpful comments.

31 Contra Vitruvius, III, iv, 2.

32 Theophrastus, v, iv, 5; Pliny, , N.H. xvi, lxxvi, 197.Google Scholar

33 Forest Products Research Laboratory, Record No. 30 (1959), 7 f. This applies to heartwood only. All sapwood is perishable contra Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. lxxxvi (1951-1952), 105.Google Scholar

34 Pliny, , N.H. XVI, lxxiv, 192Google Scholar; lxxiv, 219; Vitruvius, II, ix, 3; Faventinus, XII; Palladius, XII, 15.

35 H. E. Desch, Timber, its structure and properties (1968), 193.

36 Theophrastus, v, v, I; Pliny, , N.H. xvi, Ixxxi, 222Google Scholar; Cato, xxxi, I.

37 Pliny, , N.H. xvi, Ixxxi, 196Google Scholar; Cato, xxxi, 1; Theophrastus, v, ix, 5; Palladius, XIII, 15.

38 Theophrastus, v, iv, 3; Pliny, , N.H. XIII, xxx, 99Google Scholar. This is still done in the naval dockyard at Chatham.

39 Pliny, , N.H. XIII, xxx, 99.Google Scholar

40 Cato, xxxi, I; xxxix, I. I am grateful to Professor A. L. F. Rivet for pointing out to me that vere sicca is a rationalisation of the hapax legomenon virisicca in the MS.

41 Columella, I, 6, 19. I am grateful to Mr R. Meiggs for drawing my attention to this reference.

42 Theophrastus, v, iii, 5; v, 4.

43 Vitruvius, II, viii, 20.

44 Ibid II, ix, 8 and 11. It could be argued that Vitruvius is here speaking philosophically about the nature of timber, for in the same passage he refers to the other basic elements of life: earth, fire and air. But this estimation of the differing nature of tree species seems to be based upon physical manifestations, for he goes on to say with reference to oak: Ex eo cum tangitur umore, non habens foraminum raritates propter spissitatem non potest in corpus recipere liquorem, sed fugiens ab umore resistit et torquetur. In similar vein, he continues with reference to elm and ash: Sum in operibus, cum fabricantur, lentae et ab pondere umoris non habent rigorem et celeriter pandant.

45 For oak: Vitruvius, II, ix, 8; VII, i, 2; Pliny, , N.H. XVI, lxxix, 218Google Scholar; for elm and ash: Vitruvius, n, ix, II; Pliny, , N.H. XVI, lxxix, 219Google Scholar; Faventinus, XII. For cypress and pine: Vitruvius, II, ix, 12.

46 Vitruvius, IV, vii, 4.

47 Caesar, B.G. v, 40.

48 Arch. Cambrensis (1940), 105.

49 C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs der Traiansäule (1896-1900), scenes XV-XVIII, XX, LXVIII, CXXVIII.

50 These calculations are based on the detailed evidence from the fort at Pen Llystyn, Caernarvonshire; Arch. Journ. cxxv (1968), 101 f.Google Scholar The following assumptions have been made: that the main uprights of the palisade were spaced at ten-feet intervals round the perimeter, sunk to a depth of six feet and standing six feet high; that the gates and towers were two storeys high; that the internal buildings were single-storeyed with uprights at three-feet intervals, except for the granaries. Reconstruction of the latter follows Manning in Saalburg-Jahrb. xxxii (1975), 112.Google Scholar

51 This figure is based on the following assumptions: that porticos and verandahs had lean-to roofs, and all other roofs were quarter-pitched; that a simple couple roof was used for spans up to twelve feet and a double roof with purlins for spans above that, with common rafters at eighteen-inch intervals; that the scantling of the timbers was as follows: wall-plates and common rafters 4 by 4 inches; ridge poles 9 by 2 inches; purlins 9 by 4 inches.

52 Forestry Commission, op. cit. (note 9), 145-6. The hoppus foot equals 1·273 cubic feet but thev are taken as equal in value to allow for loss in conversion from standing timber to squared beams.

53 Ibid., 135.

54 Ibid., 139.

55 Richmond, I. A. in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. lxxiii (1938-1939), 151Google Scholar; Hobley, B. in Current Archaeology 24, 17.Google Scholar

56 All references are to timber or charcoal identifications in structural contexts.

57 Post-hole is an ambiguous term which has been used to signify both the hole dug to receive the post and the mark left by the post within that hole. For clarity, the term ‘post-impression’ has been adopted for the latter case. Standard sizes tend to be measured in whole numbers. Allowing for approximation and inaccuracies, any attempt to standardise around a particular measurement is, therefore, more likely to be revealed by the use of Imperial measurements because of their close approximation to Roman ones. Thus all measurements quoted in this paper are expressed in feet or inches.

58 There are a surprising number of sites which have produced numerous post-impressions or post-holes, but without sufficiently detailed comment in the excavation report, notably Ardoch, Balmuildy, Cadder, Mumrills, and Old Kilpatrick. The scale of the published plans is too small to allow reliable estimates of post-spacing to be obtained, although the general impression is not one of uniformity.

59 Unless stated otherwise all posts are square with postdimensions in inches.

60 Trans. Cumb. & Westm. Antiq. Arch. Soc. liv (1955), 184Google Scholar; Ibid, liii (1954), 212.

61 After the early excavations two different postdimensions sizes were published: Y Cymmrodor xxxi (1923), 21Google Scholar, and Arch. Cambrensis lxxvii (1922), 267.Google Scholar Recent excavations indicated a post n-8 inches square; ibid. cxiii (1974), 57.

62 M. Todd op. cit. (note 24), 27.

63 JRS xliv (1954), 84.Google Scholar

64 Saalburg-Jahrb. xxxii (1975), 106 and 109, fig. I.Google Scholar

65 Ibid. III.

66 Current Archaeology 24, 17 and Mus. J. 74 (1974), 152.Google Scholar The principle has recently been extended to include a granary at Crawford; Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 104 (1971-1972), 167. Cf. Wacher, op. cit. (note 24).Google Scholar

67 As has been noted by Richmond, Frere and Limbrey; Richmond, I. A., Hod Hill ii (1968), 76Google Scholar; Britannia v (1974), 13, n. 16; S. Limbrey, Soil Science and Archaeology (1975), 308-9.Google Scholar

68 B. W. Cunliffe (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (1968), 232. Two posts in one hole have been noted at Hod Hill, Crawford and Inchtuthil; Richmond, I. A., Hod Hill ii (1968), 71Google Scholar; Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 104 (1971-1972) 163Google Scholar; JRS xliv (1954), 84.Google Scholar

69 Ar.h. Aeliana 4 xxxvii (1959), 83Google Scholar; ibid, xlix (1971), 18; M. Todd op. cit. (note 24), 24 and 29; B. W. Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishboume 1961-1969 (1971), 40 and 41; Britannia iii (1972), 66Google Scholar; ibid, v (1974), 13.

70 But the necessary reduction in the height of a gate has been noted at Longthorpe; Britannia v (1974), 17.Google Scholar

71 A photograph of the timbers from Vindolanda in situ has been published in Current Archaeology 43, 233. The writer would like to thank Mr R. Birley for the opportunity provided to examine the timbers in detail after their removal. Valkenburg see: W. Glasbergen, De Romeinse Castella te Valkenburg Z.H. (1972), 28.

72 Unless stated otherwise posts are square with dimensions in inches. For the relevant data from granaries, see Manning, op. cit. (note 50), 121-9.

73 Evidence from three excavations; J. Chester Arch. Soc. xxxviii (1951)Google Scholar, 5; ibid, liv (1967), 1-2; ibid. Ivii (1970-71), 5. Greater variation is illustrated on the plan (fig. 2) of the last report quoted than is indicated in the text.

74 Ibid. Ivii (1970-71), 13. Earlier excavation (ibid. xxxviii (1951), 15), produced a post 12 in. square.

75 I am grateful to Mr J. P. Gillam for making the original site-plans available and taking the time to guide me through them. Most of the detailed evidence quoted is gleaned from this source.

76 All distances are in feet.

77 Measurements taken from large-scale plan: A. S. Robertson, Birrens (Blatobulgium) (1975), fig. 3.

78 R. S. Conway (ed.), Melandra Castle (1906), 56. It is possible, however, that the blackened appearance of decayed timber was mistaken for the effects of charring. Such a mistake seems to have been made with the gate-timbers at Oakwood which do not appear to show any signs of having been burnt; Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. lxxxvi (1951-1952), 105.Google Scholar

79 Whitchurch, ; Arch. Journ. cxxv (1968), 198.Google ScholarCrawford, ; Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 104 (1971-1972), 16.Google ScholarCastleshaw, ; Trans. Lancashire Antiq. Soc. 77 for 1967 (1974), 4.Google Scholar

80 I. A. Richmond in E. M. Jope, Studies in Building History (1961), 25; J. S. Wacher, op. cit. (note 24).