Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:50:56.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Possible Standard Units of Measurement in Roman Military Planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

C. V. Walthew
C. V. Walthew
Affiliation:
Department of Classics, University College, Dublin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent attempt to clarify the basis on which commercial and domestic buildings in Roman provincial towns were laid out, it was suggested that two different units of measurement had been employed in the planning of the Insula xiv timber buildings at Verulamium. It appeared that in Periods I, IIA and IIB the block had been planned in terms of the pes Drusianus, but that in Period IIC, c. A.D. 130, the pes Monetalis had been adopted and remained in use throughout subsequent periods.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 12 , November 1981 , pp. 15 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © C. V. Walthew 1981. 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 Walthew, C. V., Britannia ix (1978), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Augst, Insula xxiv may illustrate similar changes of measurement. For the purposes of this paper the modern equivalent of the pes Monetalis is taken to be 0·296 m (11·65 in.) and of the pes Drusianus 0·332 m (13·1 in.).

In a recent paper (Britannia xi (1980), 127–133Google Scholar) R. P. Duncan-Jones has criticized the subdivision of the Insula xiv buildings proposed by myself and by Professor Frere (Beiheft zu Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission lviii (1977), 87–103).Google Scholar Whilst acknowledging the difficulties raised, I do not think that they rule out the possible use of p.D. in Periods I to IIB or in the military contexts discussed below. At a more general level, it is not clear why in doubtful cases p.M. should be preferred to p.D., why the Arausio evidence should be allowed to control interpretations elsewhere and why north African and north Italian examples should necessarily reflect Roman practice in the very different conditions of the north-western provinces. The use of the actus in town-planning is not to be so readily dismissed. Finally, as shown below, the use of 15 pedes units (both Monetales and Drusiani) seems to be common on military sites and, pace Duncan-Jones, the planning of Longthorpe I, Barrack I in 15 p.D. units appears convincing. If 15 pedes units were common on military sites, then why not also in town-planning?

2 Walthew, op. cit. (note 1), 343 ff.

3 Maxwell, G., Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland civ (1971–1972), 165 ff.Google Scholar and figs. 9 and 10. The significance of 12 p.M. wide contubernia is fully discussed below.

4 id. 169 ff. and figs. 11 to 13. The Antonine II barracks were increased in length to c. 24·99 m (82 ft.) or exactly 75 p.D.

5 Giffen, A. E. van, Jaarverslag van de Vereniging voor Terpenonderzoek xxv–xxviii (1940–1944) publ. 1948, 148 ff.Google Scholar; Glasbergen, W. and Waateringe, W. Groenman-Van, Cingula xi (1974), 12 and Appendix 1, p. 22.Google Scholar

8 The uprights of Barrack 13 were spaced at 0·80 m (2½ p.D.) intervals: van Giffen, op. cit. (note 5), 154.

7 The contubernia of infantry barracks 2 to 9 were unquestionably planned in p.D. in Period 1 (see below, pp. 20–22). Glasbergen's and Groenman-Van Waateringe's figures (Appendix 1, p. 22) would suggest that they were replanned in p.M. in Period 2.

8 Glasbergen, W., Cingula i (1967) publ. 1972, 46 ff.Google Scholar and figs. 22–23. Cf. also Giffen, A. E. van in Jaarverslag van de Vereniging voor Terpenonderzoek xxix–xxxii (1944–1948) publ. 1950, plate 12.Google Scholar

9 Contubernia of the same dimensions are attested for the Period 2 Barrack 5 north of the principia: van Giffen, op. cit. (note 5), 112 f.

10 Baatz, D., Kastell Hesselbach, Limesforschungen xii (1973), 28 ff.Google Scholar; 38 ff. Dimensions of buildings not given in the text, and their p.M. or p.D. equivalents, are listed in the appendix.

11 Compare the 3·9 by 4·1 m (12·8 by 13·4 ft.) front rooms of the Künzing contubernia: Schönberger, H., Kastell Künzing-Quintana, Limesforschungen xiii (1975), III.Google Scholar

12 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 55.

13 Frere, S. S. and Joseph, J. K. St., Britannia v (1974), 17 ff.Google Scholar On Barracks 1 and 2 see further below.

14 JRS xliv (1954), 84 ff.Google Scholar and fig. 9.

15 ibid, xliii (1953), 104 f.

16 ibid, xlvii (1957), 198 f. and figs. 8–9.

17 ibid, li (1961), 160 and fig. 10.

18 ibid, xliii (1953), 104 f.

19 ibid, xlv (1955), 122 f. (most easterly tribune's house).

20 Frere and St. Joseph op. cit. (note 13), 33.

21 H. von Petrikovits, Die Innenbauten römischer Legionslager während der Prinzipatszeit (1975), 53.

22 Koenen, C., Bonner Jahrbücher cxi/cxii (1904), 140.Google Scholar

23 id. 143 ff.; Glasbergen and Groenman-Van Waateringe, op. cit. (note 5), 24; Petrikovits, op. cit. (note 21), 55 ff. and Bild 8.

24 Richmond, I. A., Hod Hill ii (1968), 74 ff.Google Scholar

25 Glasbergen and Groenman-Van Waateringe, op. cit. (note 5), 22; 35 f.; Glasbergen,, op. cit. (note 8), 46 and fig. 22; van Giffen, op. cit. (note 5), 136 ff. and op. cit. (note 8), plates 2 and 8.

26 Glasbergen, op. cit. (note 8), 46 and fig. 22 (Building 10).

27 Building 10 appears to contain rooms 12 p.D. deep by 10 or 5 p.D. wide. 12 by 10 p.D. is the size of the rear rooms of the contubernia.

28 Schönberger, op. cit. (note 11), 38 ff.; 49 ff.; 53 ff.; 111 f.

29 Schnurbein, S. von, Die römischen Militäranlagen bei Haltern: Bericht über die Forschungen seit 1899, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens xiv (1974), 56 ff. and Beilage 7.Google Scholar

30 See page 25.

31 Hobley, B., Trans. Birm. & Warwicks. Arch. Soc. lxxxvii (1975), 14 ff. and fig. 4Google Scholar; Britannia v (1974), 431 and fig. 10.Google Scholar The overall size of the building looks more like c. 40 by 30·48 m (c. 131 by 100 ft.) than the 33·52 by 30·48 m (110 by 100 ft.) stated by the excavator, but in either case the dimensions seem best interpreted in p.D., as 120 (or 100) by 90 p.D. For other Baginton buildings see the appendix.

32 This corrects the statement in Walthew, op. cit. (note 1), 344. The retentura barracks were quite clearly planned in p.M., as detailed discussion below will show. See Hobley, op. cit. (note 31), 10 and ibid., lxxxv (1972), 27.

33 Walthew, op. cit. (note 1), 345.

34 e.g. Butzbach, Oberstimm.

35 On the Roman army's adoption of mail armour and certain types of helmet of Gallic origin see H. Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (1975), 8; 45 ff.; 164.

36 von Schnurbein, op. cit. (note 29), 68 ff. and Beilage 6.

37 Frere and St. Joseph, op. cit. (note 13), 25 f. and fig. 14 (assuming this to be a barrack).

38 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 43.

39 Britannia iv (1973), 276.Google Scholar

40 Fox, A. and Ravenhill, W., Britannia iii (1972), 86.Google Scholar

41 Hurst, H., Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 39Google Scholar and fig. 7 (Building 1, 4).

42 Gillam, J., Arch. Ael.5 v (1977), 53.Google Scholar

43 Maxwell, op. cit. (note 3), 168.

44 Britannia v (1974), 402 and fig. 4; viii (1977), 361 and fig. 4.Google Scholar

45 Britannia vii (1976), 306 ff.Google Scholar and fig. 9; viii (1977), 371 f. and fig. 10.

46 L. J. F. Keppie in Bar Hill: A Roman Fort and its Finds, British Archaeological Reports No. 16 (1975), 16ff. and fig. 7.

47 Breeze, D. J., Britannia v (1974), 136.Google Scholar

48 Britannia vii (1976), 302.Google Scholar

49 Liber de munitionibus castrorum, i. See H. R. Wiedemer, Jahresberichte der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa (1962), 22.

50 In the retentura barracks immediately north of the praetorium, in those south of the via quintona in the western part of the fortress and in the pair of barracks west of the so-called ‘Sakralbau‘.

51 Wiedemer, op. cit. (note 49), 20 ff. and Abb. 8; ibid. (1961/62), 40 f. This refers to the earliest wooden barracks which were orientated differently from those of the two succeeding periods. For 12 p.M. wide contubernia in the latter see O. Lüdin, ibid. (1966), 24 ff. and Beilage 2.

52 T. Tomasević, ibid. (1962) (1963), 38 and Beilage iii; (1963) (1964), 18 ff. and Beilage iii; Lüdin, op. cit. (note 51), Beilage 1.

53 Koenen, op. cit. (note 22), 140.

54 At Chester what appears to be a wooden barrack of Flavian date with papiliones 12 by 15 p.M. and arma 12 by 10 p.M. was partially excavated on the Old Market Hall site (Petch, D. F., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. lvii (1970–1971), 5 ff. and fig. 2).Google Scholar For papiliones and arma of the same sizes in the stone-built barracks in the Deanery Field see Droop, J. P. and Newstead, R., University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology xviii (1931), plate vi.Google Scholar

55 G. C. Boon, Isca (1972), 86. On the Croft site papiliones 12 by 15 p.M. and arma 12 by 10 p.M. seem to occur in Period 2 barracks, conceivably of early-second century date (Threipland, L. Murray, Arch. Cambrensis cxvi (1967), 23 ff.Google Scholar and figs. 2–3). It is highly likely that the contubernia of the Period 1 (Flavian) barracks were planned on the same basis, but proof is lacking. Both the Prysg Field and Myrtle Cottage barracks contain arma and papiliones of the same sizes (Nash-Williams, V. E., Arch. Cambrensis lxxxvi (1931), 150, fig. 43Google Scholar; A. Fox, ibid, xcv (1940), 101 ff. and fig. 2, Barracks i, iv, v, vi, vii and ix).

56 Fox and Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 40), 80 ff. and fig. 15.

57 Glasbergen, op. cit. (note 8), 48 and fig. 23.

58 Hobley, op. cit. (note 32), 27.

69 Baatz, D., Germania xlvi (1968), 40 ff. and Beilage 2.Google Scholar

60 Richmond, I. A. and McIntyre, J., Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland lxxiii (1938–1939), 134 ff. and fig. 2.Google Scholar

61 Hogg, A. H. A., Arch. Journ. cxxv (1968), 134 ff. and fig. 5.Google Scholar

62 Frere and St. Joseph, op. cit. (note 13), 30 ff. and fig. 17.

63 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 81.

64 Ternes, C.-M. in Temporini, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii. 5.2 (1976), 812 ff. and Abb. 35.Google Scholar

65 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 39 ff. and Abb. 19, 20. It is worth noticing that the uprights of Barrack 4 were placed at 3 p.D. intervals (0·996 m; 3·28 ft.). In other words, there were four 3 p.D. spaces between uprights on the short sides of each contubernium and five such spaces on the long sides.

66 Glasbergen and Groenman-Van Waateringe, op. cit. (note 5), 24.

67 Schönberger, op. cit. (note II), III. It is noticeable that the uprights were placed at 3 p.D. intervals, as at Hesselbach (ibid. 27, 29, 35 and 59).

68 Baatz, D., Saalburg-Jahrbuch xxii (1965), 142Google Scholar; id., op. cit. (note 10), 55, note 125.

69 Fr. Hultsch, Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquiae (1864), 11, 58; 136 (Isidore).

70 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 79 and fig. 45a.

71 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 43 and Abb. 23.

72 Wilkes, J., Arch. Ael.4 xxxix (1961), 279 ff.Google Scholar

73 Simpson, F. G. and Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael.4 xix (1941), 25 ff.Google Scholar; Baatz, op. cit. (note 68), 142 ff. and Abb. 2.

74 van Giffen, op. cit. (note 8), plates 2–3; Glasbergen and Groenman-Van Waateringe, op. cit. (note 5), 22; W. Van Es, De Romeinen in Nederland (1972), 68.

76 Glasbergen and Groenman-Van Waateringe, op. cit. (note 5), 25. The overall size of Oberstimm is 132 by 108 m (433 by 354 ft.) and of Valkenburg 1 133 by 108 m (436 by 354 ft.) or 400 by 325 p.D. Cf. also Künzing, of which the overall size of 158 by 125 m (518 by 410 ft.) in Period 1 may be interpreted as 475 by 375 P.D.

76 Kandler, M. in Temporini, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ii.6 (1977), 654.Google Scholar

77 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 81 and fig. 45b.

78 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 37 noticed this, without realizing the full significance of the lengths of the Period 1 barracks at Hesselbach when interpreted p.D.

79 4·5 m (14·8 ft.) also occurs as a room width in the so-called ‘Koeppsche Kaserne’ south of the fabrica and in a small building to its south-east: von Schnurbein, op. cit. (note 29), 70 f. (‘genormte Kammerngröße’).

80 id. ibid. 68 and Beilage 6.

81 ibid. 70. Cf. also Building viii at Longthorpe, probably a cavalry barrack, which at 57·64 m long by c. 91·5 to 11·89 m wide (189 by c. 30 to 39 ft.) seems a likely candidate for 15 p.M. subdivisions, the length comprising exactly thirteen 15 p.M. units and the width of the contubemia range two units.

82 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 43 and Abb. 24.

83 Frere and St. Joseph, op. cit. (note 13), 30 ff. and fig. 17.

84 Fox and Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 40), 80 ff. and fig. 15.

85 Richmond and McIntyre, op. cit. (note 60), 134 ff.; Hogg, op. cit. (note 61), 134 ff.

86 Hyginus, op. cit. (note 49), ch. 1.

87 In this case the contubemia would comprise nine 12 p.M. wide units.

88 The published lengths of the Fendoch and Pen Llystyn barracks are 46·94 m (154 ft.) and 47.24 m (155 ft.) respectively. It is recognized that the calculations proposed above represent the ideal, not always achieved in practice. They do, however, provide the most rational explanation of the excavated evidence and are, moreover, consistent with the evidence from other sites.

89 Lüdin, op. cit. (note 51), 26.

90 Fox and Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 40), 80.

91 Keppie, op. cit. (note 46), 17 f. Cf. the Künzing granary for post-holes spaced at 6 p.M. intervals: Schönberger, op. cit. (note 11), 49.

92 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 79 and fig. 45a. Such a solution will not, however, account for those barracks where the contubernia were only 2·44 m (8 ft.) wide. It is noteworthy that cavalry barrack vii, 36·58 m (120 ft.) long and containing contubernia 10 p.D. wide, appears to comprise eleven 10 p.D. wide units overall.

93 Baatz, op. cit. (note 68), Abb. 2, 10.

94 id. op. cit. (note 10), Abb. 19, 20, 23.

95 Wilkes, op. cit. (note 72), 279 ff. For the details see the appendix.

96 Schönberger, op. cit. (note 11), 111 f.

97 Hultsch, op. cit. (note 69), 11. 136.4 (Isidore).

98 von Schnurbein, op. cit. (note 29), 56 ff. and Beilage 7.

99 Even if a Period 1 cross-hall is rejected, the 5 m (16·4 ft.) wide portico on the northern side of the courtyard plus the 4 m (13·1 ft.) wide interval separating it from the rear range of rooms produce the same total.

100 von Schnurbein, op. cit. (note 29), 59 ff. and Abb. 8.

101 ibid., Beilage 6.

102 ibid., 67; 65 (rooms 4·5 m or 14·8 ft. deep in the north range of the fabrica); 61 ff. and Abb. 9 (buildings north-east of the principia. This block appears to comprise two houses, the plans of which show a more than superficial resemblance to that of Praetorium I at Hod Hill. All three buildings share the same width. At the western end of the two Haltern houses are groups of rooms measuring overall 17·5 m (57·4 ft.) or 60 p.M. square and containing a number of walls at 30 and 15 p.M. intervals. The eastern part of the southern house also shows signs of 15 p.M. subdivisions).

103 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 86.

104 Boon, op. cit. (note 55), 76; Threipland, L. Murray, Arch. Cambrensis cxviii (1969), 95.Google Scholar The Period 2 wards were 4·42 m (14 ft. 6 in.) wide.

105 Schultze, R., Bonner Jahrbücher cxxxix (1934), 56.Google Scholar

106 Kandler, op. cit. (note 76), 637 ff.

107 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 86.

108 Richmond and McIntyre, op. cit. (note 60), 132 ff. and fig. 11.

109 Hogg, op. cit. (note 61), 133 f.

110 Gillam, J. P. and Tait, J., Arch. Ael.4 xlix (1971), 6 ff.Google Scholar and fig. 3 (Period 1 A).

111 A similar relationship, expressed in different dimensions, may be detected in Valkenburg 1. See page 22.

112 Frere and St. Joseph, op. cit. (note 13), 17 ff. and fig. 11.

113 These figures seem more accurate than the 48·77 m (160 ft.) square given in JRS xliv (1954), 84.Google Scholar

114 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 74 ff. and fig. 42b.

115 Hobley, B. in Pippidi, D. M. (ed.), Actes Du IXe Congrès International D'Études Sur les Frontières Romaines (1974), 368 ff.Google Scholar

116 Maxwell, op. cit. (note 3), 170 ff. and fig. 12.

117 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 78 f. and fig. 43. Cf. the two houses northeast of the principia at Haltern (note 102).

118 See note 31.

119 Baatz, op. cit. (note 10), 31 ff. and Abb. 14–17; 45 ff. and Abb. 26–29.

120 Another likely candidate for 12 p.M. subdivision is the Periods 1 and 2 hospital at Künzing: Schönberger, op. cit. (note 11), 53 ff. and Beilage 8. The overall dimensions (32·5 by 14 to 14·2 m or 106·6 by 45·9 to 46·6 ft.) would suggest nine by four 12 p.M. units. The central corridor was c. 7 m (23 ft.) wide (24 p.M.?), the rooms on the west side 3·8 m (12·5 ft.) wide(12 p.M.?) and the hall on the east side 3·5 m (11·5 ft.) wide (12 p.M.).

121 Fox and Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 40), 75 ff. and fig. 13; 71 ff. and figs. 10–11.

122 Hobley, op. cit. (note 31), 8 and fig. 2.

123 Maxwell, op. cit. (note 3), 165 ff. and fig. 10.

124 ibid. 168 f. and fig. 9.

125 Richmond, op. cit. (note 24), 76 ff. and fig. 44.

126 This measurement (18 p.D.; 5·98 m; 19·65 ft.) is by no means rare, occurring as the depth of the officer's quarters of Barrack 1 at Hod Hill and of the contubernia ranges in the Period 1 infantry barracks at Valkenburg.

127 Hyginus, , De Condicionibus Agrorum (Lachmann, 123, 9).Google Scholar Note also the discovery at Enns in Austria of the end-pieces of a measuring-rod marked in inches of the pes Drusianus (O. A. W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyors (1971), 73).

128 It is, for example, essential to know the distances separating post-holes in timber buildings, if distinctions between p.M. and p.D. are to be made with certainty.

129 Manning, W. H., ‘Roman military timber granaries in Britain’, Saalburg-Jahrbuch xxxii (1975), 107Google Scholar; 124.

130 This modifies the interpretation of Walthew, op. cit. (note 1), 341.

131 Manning, op. cit. (note 129), 107; 124.

132 On analogy with Fendoch and Pen Llystyn 156 p.M. may be a more likely figure.

133 This corrects the interpretation of Walthew, op. cit. (note 1), 345. The layout of the Valkenburg 1 praetorium (FIG. 5) can be seen to divide very precisely into 10 and 20 p.M. units.

134 It is clear from the plan (Schönberger, op. cit. (note 11), Beilage 8) that on the long sides of the building the posts were spaced at 6 p.M. intervals and on the short sides at 5 p.M. intervals.