people and spaces in roman military bases || site selection and data processing

Cambridge Books Online

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/

People and Spaces in Roman Military Bases

Penelope M. Allison

Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600248

Online ISBN: 9781139600248

Hardback ISBN: 9781107039360

Chapter

4 - Site selection and data processing pp. 50-64

Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600248.005

Cambridge University Press

4 Site selection and data processing

INTRODUCTION

Fundamental to the objectives of this study is the suitability of artefact dis-

tribution inside Roman military bases for analysing socio-spatial behaviour

within and between sites. There are a number of reasons why Roman mili-

tary sites are particularly appropriate for such spatial analyses. This chapter

presents the logic behind the choice of military sites, per se, as well as the

factors that are important for selecting sites, and for selecting these specific

case studies in Germany.

THE SUITABILITY OF MILITARY SITES FORARTEFACT DISTRIBUTION ANALYSES

One of the main reasons why military sites are suitable for intra- and inter-

site analyses of socio-spatial behaviour is their apparently formulaic layout.

Not only are they, by archaeological definition, physically bounded by a

fortification wall, but they also tend to have a certain amount of structural

conformity in their internal layout. The consistency of this structural con-

formity has sometimes been exaggerated in the presentation of excavated

sites, by reconstructing its assumed existence in poorly preserved or unex-

cavated areas of military sites (e.g. at Oberstimm: see Schonberger 1978:

figs. 65–6; and Rottweil: see Franke 2003: plan 14). Nevertheless, each known

military base has at least some of the recognisable components. As discussed

in Chapter 2, there is a general perception that this systematic layout dic-

tated a systematic use of space within these sites. As well as this bounded

internal space, a military base can include an external settlement – outside

the fortification walls – whose function is widely assumed to have been that

of a civilian settlement, attached to the military base but with contrasting

functions to those inside the fort proper. This relative conformity of layout

and dichotomised approach to the use of space makes these military bases

ideal for this type of analysis. In his concern for the suitability of GIS tech-

niques for analyses of archaeological sites Stanton Green asked (1990: 4)50

Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 216.165.126.139 on Tue Nov 26 07:49:12 WET 2013.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600248.005

Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2013

Suitability for artefact distribution analyses 51

‘Can one partition human behaviour into spatial packages?’ Current per-

ceptions of the organisation of Roman military bases indeed imply that they

constitute a series of in-built ‘spatial packages’, within a complete ‘spatial

package’. Testing for the veracity of such perceptions through GIS-assisted

analyses would seem appropriate. This study concentrates on sites dating

to the first and second centuries, a period when these military bases were

considered to be most systematic (see Gardner 2007a: esp. 107), segregated

and dichotomised. Of vital significance for the identification of meaningful

artefact distribution patterns at such sites are also good understanding of the

depositional processes and general taphonomic conditions. Ideal sites are

those which were short-lived and rapidly abandoned, and which have been

extensively and well excavated with specific attention paid to taphonomy

and artefact context.

Abandonment and depositional processes

Many Roman military bases were long-lived, continuously occupied sites

which often developed into towns and even cities (e.g. Colchester, London

and Cologne). Other military bases, which did not become towns, were also

frequently long-lived as military establishments before their final abandon-

ment. Many of these, which may originally have been built in the first and

second centuries, continued in use into the third and fourth centuries. An

example is the site of Vindolanda where a military presence was recorded

from the late first until the end of the fourth century ce (Birley 2009).

However, because of military aggression and disillusionment, expan-

sionary policies, and changing imperial strategies during the early empire

(see Maxfield 1987b; Sommer 1999a), there are also numerous first- and

second-centuries military bases that were short-lived installations in fron-

tier regions which experienced rapid abandonment and which were never

built over again and which potentially provide useful sites for this study.

Even so, many such sites had several building phases, or phases of occu-

pation, and complex depositional processes, prior to and during the final

abandonment. As intimated in the previous chapter, the main such depo-

sitional processes that impact on how artefacts were left behind on such

Roman military bases comprise loss, reuse, discard, and abandonment of

such items and the decommissioning of a fort by the departing troops so

that nothing of use was left for the enemy.

Many of the key artefacts used for this study (e.g. jewellery, hairpins,

brooches and items for personal hygiene) are the types of items that were




likely to have been lost during daily activities. Because most buildings and

spaces within military bases, particularly during the early empire, were often

not paved, one might expect a higher probability for lost items to be left in

situ in this context than in more urban sites. While such lost items might have

been systematically cleaned out, at least from dwellings and paved buildings,

and possibly dumped in designated refuse areas as well as in street and open

areas and related ditches, comparisons with other archaeological contexts

suggest that they could often have been located within the vicinity of the

structure. For example, at the aboriginal mission station at Wybalenna, on

Flinders Island (Bass Strait, Australia), Judy Birmingham discussed evidence

for sweeping detritus to immediately outside the cottages (Birmingham

1992: esp. 57 and 183–4); and, under the verandahs that surrounded the

nineteenth-century Old Kinchega Homestead, in outback New South Wales,

Australia, were found many artefacts associated both with these verandahs

and their adjoining structures (see Allison 2003: esp. 182–4).

Important among the depositional processes that affect an artefact’s loca-

tion of end use, is the general disposal of rubbish. Excavations of many mil-

itary bases have indicated that the rubbish of routine occupation was often

dumped in the fortification ditches and ramparts. Some such rubbish might

also be dumped in disused areas of the fort or used to provide levels for

new buildings, as has been argued for the fort at Ellingen (see Chapter 10,

p. 235), and so could be relocated within the fort. Rubbish could also be

disposed of in pits and wells within the fort, often in close proximity to

location of use (e.g. pits between barrack buildings at Dangstetten [Finger-

lin, pers. comm., July 2003; see Fingerlin 1970: fig. 28; 1986: 13]; see also

Shaft 6 at Ellingen [Chapter 10, p. 241]). Gardner has argued that small, and

seemingly valuable, items such as coins might be found in such accumulated

refuse (2007a: 71–9). This apparent unintentional dumping of these types

of artefacts away from their place of use, and especially in the fortifications

and disused parts of the fort, needs to be taken into account in this study.

It is also important to note that artefacts, particularly of metal, could be

kept as scrap for reuse. Bishop (1986) emphasised the deliberate discarding

of material, most notably military equipment, which was not therefore lost

or abandoned, but rather was found in its place of end use as scrap. Such

scrapped items can sometimes be associated with specific buildings, and so

can provide either general or more specific contextual information on the

activities (e.g. metalworking) carried out within the associated structure

or area. Again many of the types of small, often complete, items used for

this study are unlikely to have been recycled in this manner. However, it




is conceivable that some of the larger fragments of metal (such as combat

equipment) could have been discarded material ready for reuse.

When a military base is rapidly abandoned, or destroyed, one might

expect much more material to have been left in its location of use. How-

ever, there is also likely to have been more inadvertent dropping of items in

streets and open areas than during more normal occupation. At sites with

less rapid abandonment, the systematic evacuation and decommissioning

of a military base can result in the relocation of artefacts away from place

of use. For example, at Inchtuthil in Scotland, the complete removal and

subsequent deposition of building material in a 1.8 metre-deep pit, perhaps

for later retrieval, was reported (see Pitts and St Joseph 1985: esp. 279–80;

for other examples: Hanson 1978: 302–5; see also Bishop 1986: esp. 721).

Conversely, sites where metal remains and particularly building materials

(e.g. nails) are reported are likely to have been more rapidly abandoned, less

methodically dismantled and therefore less likely to have experienced the

type of relocation of artefacts that results from more systematic decommis-

sioning. Even at sites which were systematically demolished, though, one

might expect rubbish to be left in situ and for buildings to be pushed over

in place, rather than for such rubbish to be moved to other parts of the site.

For example, at sites where military units come and go, such decommis-

sioning can include the relaying of earth floors, and the dumping of rubbish

between these floors by departing soldiers, potentially sealing a deposit (e.g.

at Vindolanda – see van Driel-Murray 1995: 8 and 1997: 57; Birley 2009:

esp. 45–6 and 53). Such occupation surfaces, both inside and outside build-

ings at such sites, have the potential to include many lost, discarded and

abandoned items left at or near their location of use.

As well as the usual depositional processes which can impact on the spatial

distribution of artefacts inside Roman military bases, some artefacts could

potentially have been ‘ritually’ deposited and this ‘symbolic value need not

reflect [their] practical use’ (Clarke and Jones 1994: esp. 119), although

this is probably the least likely scenario. Nevertheless, it can be found in

settlement sites, notably in wells and pits (see Allason-Jones 1996a), as well

as in burial contexts. An important factor in the analyses of the sites included

in this study was the recording of the contents of wells and pits.

There are other taphonomic conditions that can impact on the distri-

bution of artefacts, especially at abandoned sites that are not continuously

occupied. The most significant of these is erosion, which can remove occu-

pation layers, but which can also move artefacts around the site, as is evident

at Hesselbach, discussed below.




While all these depositional processes and taphonomic conditions poten-

tially impact all Roman military sites, sites were chosen for this study where

their impact was likely to be minimal and where these factors could be

accounted for. However, it is important to note that it is extremely difficult

to identify any diurnal or seasonal activities through this study of artefact

assemblages.

Excavation procedures

Careful excavation using modern procedures can effectively identify these

depositional processes and taphonomic conditions, and so trace the end use

of artefacts as related to their location of use, and phases of occupation, even

at military sites that became largely civilian settlements, were methodically

decommissioned or suffered from erosion and other environmental impact.

However, most modern excavation is generally development-led, piecemeal

excavation of former Roman military bases within modern towns and cities

(e.g. Colchester: see Crummy 1992) and restricted by limited funding and

more stringent approaches to site preservation and excavation strategy. Such

excavations almost never involve the open-plan excavation of an entire

military base, as is desirable for more comprehensive spatial analyses of

artefact distribution. This means that few well-excavated and well-recorded

sites, excavated over the last half century, are suitable for the types of analyses

in this study. Potential exceptions are Elginhaugh (Hanson 2007) and also

Vindolanda, with more extensive excavation than most and with good

conditions for artefact preservation (e.g. of leather and wood) that have

yielded a great range of artefactual material from across both the inside

and the outside of the military base. However, by no means all of the

excavations at Vindolanda have paid rigorous attention to the recording of

precise artefact context (see Birley 2009), resulting in doubt being cast on

van Driel-Murray’s findings.

Many of the military sites that were relatively rapidly abandoned and

which did not later become towns have long been easily identifiable in

the landscape, and were therefore excavated in the nineteenth and ear-

lier part of the twentieth centuries by scholars, often with more classical

than archaeological training, and without careful attention to all deposi-

tional conditions and to precise artefact contexts, although often exposing

extensive areas of the site (e.g. South Shields on Hadrian’s Wall: see Dore

and Gillam 1979). This applies particularly to military bases with substan-

tial stone structures. It is less true for more ephemeral, frequently early




imperial, wood and earth-built camps which have often only more recently

been identified, largely through aerial photography, and so have not gen-

erally been excavated and whose identifiable structural features are usually

limited to the fortifications (see Jones 2011, 2012).

Despite more modern standards of excavation, however, some of the

easily identifiable sites that were more extensively excavated in the early to

mid-twentieth century are indeed the most suitable for this study. This is

largely because they were often short-lived and rapidly abandoned sites. So,

irrespective of the less than ideal quality of the excavation procedures at

such sites, they often provide comprehensive coverage of the site, with at

least some attention to the depositional processes and with artefact data sets

which run into the thousands,1 thus allowing spatial analyses of artefact

assemblages across different components of these sites.

That said, though, there is, sadly, a lack of early imperial sites where

both the extramural settlement and the military base itself have been sub-

stantially excavated with adequate attention to artefact deposition. The

early, but extensive, excavations of military bases have generally paid little

attention to the extramural settlements of these sites. There are excep-

tions, however, such as Saalburg and Zugmantel in Germany, but these are

unsuitable for the current study as discussed below. Since the 1970s there

has been more concern for the excavation and study of such settlements

(e.g. Vindolanda: Birley 1977: 29–30; for further examples in Germany:

Sommer 1997). At Vindolanda, though, no first- and second-century extra-

mural settlement to compare with the contemporary fort has yet been

excavated, only in the third- and fourth-century occupations which are

outside the concerns of this study.2 This lack of attention to settlements

outside the fort walls during periods of more extensive excavation mean

that few sites which include both an extramural settlement and an intra-

mural site have been comprehensively excavated. Also few early imperial

sites excavated with modern methods have comprehensive coverage that can

be used for comparative analyses (compare Housesteads: Rushworth et al.

2009).

1 Tens of thousands would be preferable but such data sets are not currently available in a useable

form.2 Andrew Birley (Director of Vindolanda Excavations) has confirmed that: ‘[t]here is very little

evidence from the second-century extramural settlements at Vindolanda as most of the

excavations in these levels have focused on the forts themselves thus far’ (A. Birley, email,

4 April 2012). His investigatons of some of the artefact patterning between the third- and

fourth-century forts and extramural settlements at Vindolanda have, however, produced

significant patterns (Birley n.d).




For many of these reasons – notably re-occupation, early excavation, and

lack of attention to taphonomy and systematic recording of finds – the

Italian peninsula, Cisalpine Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula are not partic-

ularly suitable for this study. Also in the eastern empire and North Africa

there are few suitable early imperial sites with appropriate depositional and

excavation histories (see Kennedy 1996: Pollard 2000: esp. 11–15). In the

north-west frontier, however, early imperial sites have tended to be better

preserved, have appropriate depositional and occupational conditions and

have been more comprehensively excavated and published. Most notable are

those in Germany (see Tac. Hist. 4.21–5). Good potential examples are the

forts and fortresses that resulted from Augustus’ expansion of military force

into the Lippe Valley and Tiberius’ subsequently withdrawal, but there are

also other military bases in the Rhine and Danube regions which are useful

for this study. As discussed below, though, none are ideal. Most notably

the techniques of excavation in Germany (i.e. in levels rather than strati-

graphically) mean that, while these sites have been extensively excavated, the

precise depositional processes are not always noted and carefully recorded.

AVAILABILITY OF USEABLE DOCUMENTATION

Because the best sites for this study are those that were extensively excavated,

those from older excavations often have the potential to be more useful

than sites that have been more recently excavated, despite the less rigorous

excavation procedures and recording methods. That said, the objectives of

these past excavations, as of some more recent investigations, have been

principally to isolate the structural remains to develop an understanding of

the chronology of these sites and of the types of units stationed at them. Most

have only published material pertinent to these aims. This means that, in

terms of artefact recording, there has been a propensity to concentrate only

on the site-wide recording of diagnostic pottery and military equipment,

or the documentation of exceptional finds (e.g. silvered horse harness from

Vetera I – Jenkins 1985). For few such excavations have the types of precise

contextual information on artefacts and artefact distribution, desired for

this study, been comprehensively recorded. Crucial requirements in the

selection of extensively excavated, short-lived sites for this synthetic study,

then, are the availability of appropriate documentation of the excavation

processes, depositional processes, and artefact contexts, as well as relevant

chronological information.



Availability of useable documentation 57

My analyses of artefact distribution in Pompeian households required

time-consuming archival research of unpublished, hand-written, excava-

tion reports (see Allison 2004a, 2004b, 2006a). For this study’s synthetic

approach more accessible excavation reports with useable plans of the

site and its excavations, and comprehensive and contextual artefact cat-

alogues, with good artefactual illustrations, were needed. For this reason,

the remains of the first- and second-century forts at Vindolanda are not

suitable as much post-excavation artefact analysis is still being carried out

to characterise this material and to re-contextualise the assemblages from

this site. For this reason, sites in Germany were chosen for this study because

there is a tradition in Germany of comprehensive publication of archaeo-

logical excavations. Each regional archaeological monuments’ authority, or

‘Bodendenkmalpflege’, has its own series in which such excavations have been

published (e.g. Archaologie im Rhineland; Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor-

und in Fruhgeschichte in Baden-Wurttemberg). Particularly important for

this study is the Limesforchungen series of the Romisch-Germanische Kom-

mission des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. These publications are

generally in a traditional format (see Allison 1997). They tend to involve a

comprehensive interpretation of the structural remains and, as mentioned,

use the ceramics and other significant artefacts to date the various phases

of the site. Other artefacts are recorded in a catalogue but rarely used in the

interpretation of the site. This type of relatively extensive, and often lavish,

publication has received criticism (e.g. Gechter 1998). Given its usefulness

for this type of study, though, such criticism seems unwarranted.

Indeed, the extensive excavation and publication of these sites in mod-

ern Germany, and limited interpretative presentation of the artefacts, make

them the most suitable case studies for this study.3 More recent piecemeal

excavations in Germany can also be useful, because of the comprehensive

publications of artefact catalogues giving detailed contextual information

on artefacts and artefact assemblages. However, as noted above, these exca-

vations and excavation reports are not without their problems. Until quite

recently there has been a lack of stratigraphical excavation of Roman sites

in Germany, with many excavations having been carried out in a series of

spits or levels (Planum or Flache) that can cut through specific depositional

3 Putting aside the later dates for many Roman military sites in Britain, a lack of comparable

funding for their excavations and publications and a need to focus limited resources on

developing research agenda around development-funded archaeology (James and Millett 2001:

esp. ix) are among some of the reasons why Romano-British sites have not usually been so

extensively excavated and published (although see Hanson 2007).




features and occupation layers (see e.g. Zanier 1992: esp. 69 nn. 249–53; see

also discussion in Chapter 10, p. 236).

As outlined above, ideal sites for this study would have been military bases

that comprise both a fort, or fortress, and an accompanying and contem-

porary extramural settlement, a vicus or a canabae. Sebastian Sommer has

carried out a detailed study of such sites in Germany where military bases

with extramural settlement have been excavated (Sommer 1988). However,

none of these sites have appropriate and accessible artefact reports. While

Saalburg and Zugmantel might seem appropriate for this study, with exten-

sive excavation of both fort and extramural settlement, the provenance

information for these forts is not currently available in a useable form.4

Besides the reasons given above for the selection of the particular sites in

this study, the data in the published reports needed to be in a systematic

format that could be easily collated and analysed spatially, using GIS-assisted

techniques. As has been discussed elsewhere (Allison 2008b; see also Witcher

2008), and was apparent for my previous Pompeian studies (e.g. Allison

2004a, 2006a), these printed ‘legacy data’ from more extensive open-plan

excavation than is often feasible today proved more useful for the aims of this

study than more recent, piecemeal, digitised or unpublished excavations.

SELECTION OF INDIVIDUAL SITES

Five sites were selected for this study on the basis of all these criteria – the use

of the site, the depositional processes, the extensiveness and rigorousness

of the excavation and recording procedures and the quality and format of

its publication. These sites are, in chronological order: the double legionary

fortress of Vetera I, near the town of Xanten in the Lower Rhine region; the

legionary fortress and cohort fort, Forts I and II, at Rottweil on the Neckar

River (a major tributary of the Upper Rhine); the supply fort at Oberstimm

in the Upper Danube Region; the numerus or auxiliary fort at Hesselbach,

4 When I selected sites for this study, during the initial stages of this project in 2003, the records

of artefacts excavated at Saalburg, held at the Saalburg Museum, consisted of hand-written

cards which lacked easily identifiable contextual information. Miriam Etti (Saalburg Museum)

has since commenced collation of the old excavation reports of the fort and extramural

settlement at Zugmantel (Etti n.d.). Investigation of the recording processes used for other

extensively excavated sites in Germany (e.g. Dangstetten, Vindonissa, Oberaden and Anreppen)

revealed that, at least in 2003, appropriate cross-referenced digital and geo-referenced data were

not easily accessible and neither did such sites have printed artefact and provenance data that

could be easily prepared for digital analyses by procedures used in this study.



Selection of individual sites 59

on the limes in the Oldenwald, 40 km north-east of Heidelburg; and the fort

at Ellingen, also in the Upper Danube Region (Figure 1.1).

The four main sites – Vetera I, Rottweil, Oberstimm and Ellingen – were

short-lived, seemingly fairly rapidly abandoned, lacking systematic demo-

lition or erosion and had relatively well-preserved and well-documented

deposits. The fort at Hesselbach has a similar quality of publication but was

not rapidly abandoned, would appear to have been systematically decom-

missioned, has evidence of a later non-military settlement and suffered from

erosion. This fort therefore serves as a control for the quality of the data and

for the character of the artefact assemblages at the other four sites.

Four of these five forts have been extensively excavated by open-plan

excavation, while Forts I and II at Rottweil were excavated by a series of

more recent, development-led, piecemeal excavations. Four of the sites were

mainly excavated since the mid-1960s. The other, Vetera I, was excavated

in the early twentieth century but has recently been reinvestigated and its

excavated artefacts and their provenances comprehensively published.

For each selected site, the published artefact catalogues are illustrated

and have provenance information that locates the find spots of the artefacts

on the published site plans. Many excavation reports, where the artefact

catalogues are organised typologically, do not include easily identifiable

provenance information for each artefact. That said, not all the data from

all the selected sites are of equal quality. A brief description of these sites,

and their excavation and recording procedures is given here, with further

discussion on the histories of these sites and on the excavation procedures

and resulting documentation in the relevant chapters.

Vetera I

Vetera I is predominantly a first-century double legionary fortress, covering

an area of c. 58 hectares (Figure 6.2). It was relatively short-lived, lasting

from c. 13 bce until c. 70 ce. The first legions at Vetera I were probably the

Legio V Alaudae and the Legio XXI Rapax (Lehner 1930: 7, after Tac. Ann.

1.45), the latter being replaced by the Legio XV Primigenia in 43 ce (see

Hanel 1995: 5–7).

The central area of this fort was extensively excavated in the first decades

of the twentieth century by Hans Lehner, in a series of 1 m wide trenches

(e.g. Lehner 1907, 1912, 1930). These trenches were ostensibly to trace the

walls of the last Claudian–Neronian fortress but Lehner also identified the

remains of the fortifications of at least three earlier fortresses and recorded,




particularly in his earlier excavations, numerous pits and their association

with different phases of the fortress. The find spots of the artefacts from

these excavations were relatively well recorded, often including particular

depositional characteristics (e.g. ancient surface finds, or finds from pits),

although these were not initially published. Catalogues of these artefacts and

the site plans were comprehensively published more recently by Norbert

Hanel (1995). Hanel’s catalogues include illustrations of these artefacts and

provenance information that can be co-ordinated with that in the site plans.

Because the excavations focused on the central area of this large fortress,

little is known of the barrack buildings, however, and evidence for any

external settlement is minimal (see Hanel and Song 2007). Despite its early

excavation, these excellent, provenanced artefact catalogues published by

Hanel (1995), which comprise over 12,000 artefacts, including many non-

combatant remains and some potentially associated with women, make

Vetera I suitable for such artefact distribution analyses.

Rottweil

On the Neckar River at Rottweil there were five Roman forts and fortresses

and a civilian settlement, identified as the Arae Flaviae (see e.g. Planck

1975) (Figure 7.2). Most were on the east bank of the Neckar and have been

excavated throughout the twentieth century. The two used in this study,

Forts I and II, are on the west bank. This fort and fortress were the last of a

series of short-lived military bases constructed in the Rottweil area during

the first and early second centuries. The earlier of the two, Fort I, covered

c. 17 hectares, is identified as a legionary fortress dating from the beginning

of Vespasian’s reign, and probably housed the Legio XI Claudia (Franke 2003:

143, 158). Fort II was constructed inside Fort I, probably for a cohor milliaria

or a legionary vexillatio when Legio XI Claudia was recalled to Vindonissa

in c. 85 ce (Franke 2003: 158). With the exception of the excavation of

a bath complex, first excavated in the nineteenth century and then more

extensively in 1967 (Klee 1988), the excavations of these forts, Forts I and

II, comprised urban rescue excavations, carried out between the early 1980s

and the mid-1990s and compiled and published by Regina Franke (2003),

showing close attention to depositional processes.

Oberstimm

The fort at Oberstimm covered an area of c. 1.75 hectares, inside the for-

tification ditches (Figures 8.1–8.4). The main central building was first



Selection of individual sites 61

excavated by D. H. Witz between 1909 and 1926 (Witz 1911, 1923–9). Much

of the rest of the fort was subsequently excavated by Hans Schonberger

between 1968 and 1971, using open-plan excavation, and published in

1978 (Schonberger 1978). These excavations, combined with those of Witz,

exposed some 75 per cent of the fort which had been occupied in two differ-

ent phases between c. 40 ce and c. 120 ce. Some precise artefact find spots

and depositional processes are recorded, while many other artefacts can

usually be ascribed to a particular area of the fort and to particular building

phases. Schonberger has suggested (1978: 150) this fort had functioned as a

supply station for troops further to the east.

Ellingen

The fort at Ellingen covered c. 0.9 hectares (Figure 10.1). Limited exca-

vations were carried out here in the late nineteenth century, but it was

comprehensively excavated by open-plan excavation in the 1980s and pub-

lished by Werner Zanier (1992). The fort had two main building phases,

between c. 120 ce and the end of the second or beginning of the third cen-

tury. The discovery of much structural material, especially nails, suggests

that this fort’s abandonment had been rapid and unmethodical. Again some

precise artefact provenances and depositional characteristics are recorded

and other artefacts can be ascribed more generally to particular areas and

building phases. Not all pits and wells are clearly documented but their

depositional processes can often be reconstructed. It is unclear what units

were stationed here. Zanier (1992: 164–70) deduced that in the earlier phase

of occupation the fort housed either a service vexillatio, as a detachment

of either the Ala Auriana or Ninth Batavian Cohort at Weissenburg. In the

second phase he thought it probably housed a Pedites singulares who were a

half-cohort-strong part of an auxiliary infantry unit.

Hesselbach

The fort at Hesselbach was extensively excavated between 1964 and 1966,

using open-plan excavation (Baatz 1968, 1973). It covered an area of

c. 0.56 hectares and dated between c. 95 ce–165 ce (Baatz 1973: 66–7)

(Figure 9.2). Dietwulf Baatz identified it as a numerus, or auxiliary fort,

to secure the border (1973: 11), possibly a Numerus Brittonum (1973: 70).

In contrast to the other sites in this study, this early second-century fort

appears not to have been rapidly abandoned. The almost complete absence




of any metal remains is comparable to the evidence at Inchtuthil in Scotland

and suggests that this base was decommissioned (Baatz, pers. comm., 13

July 2005). This contrasts with the extensive metal assemblage excavated at

Ellingen (Zanier 1992: 195–7). In addition, erosion was reported at the fort

at Hesselbach, from the north-eastern part of the fort to the south-west, but

not at any of the other forts in this study. Thus, this fort’s abandonment pro-

cedures and recorded preservation do not meet the criteria required for this

study but are useful as a control to compare the comprehensiveness of the

assemblages and the spatial representativeness of the artefact distribution

at the other four sites in the study.

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYTICALPROCEDURES

The specific data used in this study are, therefore, published reports of

excavations carried out from the early to late twentieth century at military

sites in Germany, in particular the artefact catalogues, artefact illustrations,

and site plans in these publications. The criteria for site selection were: that

the forts had evidence for a short occupancy and relatively rapid abandon-

ment without substantial reoccupation; that they were relatively extensively

excavated with at least some attention to the depositional processes; that

the excavation reports have site maps and plans, clearly showing excavated

areas; and that they have relatively comprehensive artefact catalogues with

provenance information. Each entry in each artefact catalogue needed to

have at least some information about the find spot, or provenance of that

particular artefact.

Sites with digitised and geo-referencing data would have been desirable,

but this was not essential (see Allison 2008a). Specific procedures were

developed so that GIS-assisted techniques could be used to spatially analyse

the distribution patterns of the artefacts and their activity and identity asso-

ciations, represented by these non-geo-referenced ‘legacy data’. Preparing

these data for these analyses involved capturing and digitally formatting the

printed artefact catalogues; capturing the numeric and graphic information

from the printed plans and digitally redrawing them; importing these dig-

ital plan data into a GIS environment; capturing the co-ordinate system of

the relevant features produced by the GIS environment; and merging these

data with the provenance information from the digitised artefact catalogues

so that the artefact distribution patterns could be plotted onto a GIS map.

While relatively straightforward, these procedures were time-consuming

(for details of procedures: Allison et al. 2008).



Data presentation and analytical procedures 63

None of the four main selected sites is perfect for these analyses but their

significance is their relative suitability, the accessibility of their documenta-

tion, and also their inclusion of appropriate artefacts that can be categorised

through the processes discussed in Chapter 5. As outlined above, a number

of taphonomic factors at each site needed to be taken into account. Also,

as indicated above, the provenance information in the artefact catalogues

in the printed excavation reports for these sites is of varying precision.

While these variations in depositional processes and recording methods

were accounted for, as best as possible, in the analyses, the impact of each

specific item on the main identifiable patterns is relatively minimal (see

Eckardt 2005: 142). This study is not essentially concerned with the precise

location in which each artefact was found, or the verifiable relationship of its

find spot to the artefact’s end use, or indeed the true geo-referencing of this

material. An advantage of spatial analyses of artefact distribution patterns

across these less-than-perfect sites is that the specific provenances of each

deposited, or redeposited, artefact become less significant. More significant

are consistent, or habitual, patterns within and between these sites. Thus,

GIS-type environments are useful for data of this nature and quality and

the aims of this study.

Basic statistical analyses were also used to test the robustness of the

data (see Appendices B–F). These involved analyses of the percentages and

densities of all artefacts within each space (e.g. building or street area)

at each site, and of the more prolific types of artefacts not included in

the main analyses (i.e. coins and ceramics). A relatively uniform overall

artefact density suggested that the data are fairly robust in that specific

depositional processes (e.g. systematic discard or post-depositional erosion)

or excavation strategies in particular areas of the fort have not had a major

impact on the overall spatial distribution of artefacts across the site. Within

such a uniform artefact density, any variation in density of the selected

types of artefacts suggested that their spatial distribution was likely to be

related to the location of use and to the socio-spatial practices within the

military base. This is by no means a precise statistical analysis, and densities

were noticeably low, but these analyses gave a general impression of the

suitability of spatial analyses of these data for interpreting social practices.

Correspondence analysis was used for Vetera I and demonstrated that the

artefact distribution patterns identified through GIS-assisted analyses were

also apparent in multivariate analysis.

These statistical analyses required specific decisions to define boundaries

between specific spaces, whereas GIS-assisted analyses do not demand such

strict spatial separation. GIS techniques are, therefore, not being used here

to enhance precision. Rather, they are used to aggregate these data into a




range of assemblages, and to visually represent them and their different

groupings – rapidly and from a number of different perspectives – for

largely intuitive analyses of their distribution patterns. In this, as outlined

in Chapter 3, these techniques are used somewhat atypically – for small-

scale intra-site analyses and as a relational tool to conceptualise a number of

different scenarios and to analyse the fuzziness of socio-spatial relationships

as represented by these artefact distribution patterns. Guidelines for viewing

these data and the distribution maps compiled for the following analyses

are provided in Appendix A.

As also outlined in Chapter 3, this study constitutes a synthesis of data

from previous excavations. It is therefore dependent on well-published

reports. As such it demonstrates how full publication of excavation material,

and the application of digital methods, can lead to more comprehensive

analyses and to more available data for inter-site comparisons. One of the

major issues for this current study is that, to date, these types of analyses

have not been done at other military sites that might be usefully used

as comparisons to support the conclusions. It is hoped that this study

can provide a useful starting point for this type of research towards more

informed understandings of socio-spatial practices inside Roman military

forts.



people and spaces in roman military bases || site selection and data processing

Documents