Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:23:07.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The wall-top of the Late-Roman defences at Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges: interim report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2015

Jason Wood
Jason Wood*
Affiliation:
Heritage Consultancy Services, Carnforth, Lancs., [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between 1993 and 2001 a British team led by S. Esmonde Geary, M. J. Jones and the author examined the Late-Roman defences of the ‘ville haute’ of Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (SW France). The project fell within the overall theme of studying the transition from the classical to the late antique/early mediaeval town, a principal objective of the international Trojet Collectif de Recherches’ at Saint-Bertrand. The primary aim of the British investigation was to document and analyse the construction of the Late-Roman defences and their subsequent development through a combination of architectural survey and excavation. During the nine seasons of fieldwork, the architectural remains of the entire wall circuit were analysed and 11 separate trenches excavated. The evidence obtained from these excavations dates the wall's construction to the early years of the 5th c.

The architectural survey included collating old photographs and unpublished excavation records; preparing a plan showing the surviving original and rebuilt stretches of the walls; making a general survey of the principal external and internal elevations, and recording the outline of all visible Roman facing and corework, vertical and horizontal breaks, offsets, tile courses, drains, re-used masonry and later building and repairs; making stone-by-stone drawings of the best surviving elevations and features; making a detailed analysis of the wall fabric, interpreting its building periods and phases of construction, and identifying changes in alignment of the defences, the presence of external towers, work-gang divisions, and so on. For ease of reference, the circuit was divided into 26 sectors on the basis of criteria such as change of alignment and state of preservation.

Type
Archeological Reports and Notes
Information
Journal of Roman Archaeology , Volume 15 , 2002 , pp. 297 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C. 2002

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 Work is well advanced on the final report, which will be submitted in 2002 for publication in the series Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges: Etudes d'Archéologie Urbaine in 2003. For a description and interpretation of the preliminary findings for 1993-97, an assessment of the significance of the defences at Saint-Bertrand, and discussion of their place within the debate on the functional and symbolic aspects of Late Roman urban fortifications, see Cleary, S. Esmonde, Jones, M. and Wood, J., “The late Roman defences at Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges (Haute-Garonne): interim report,” JRA 11 (1998) 343–54Google Scholar. See also Jones, M. J., Cleary, A. S. Esmonde and Wood, J., “Les remparts de la ville haute de Saint- Bertrand-de-Comminges 1993-1997: rapport préliminaire,” Aquitania 14 (1996) 65–71 Google Scholar.

2 The methodology for the architectural survey was devised by the author: see Wood, J. (ed.), Buildings archaeology: applications in practice (Oxford 1994)Google Scholar, id., “Le Castrum de Tours: étude architecturale du rempart du Bas-Empire,” Recherches sur Tours 2 (1983) 11–60; id., “The fortifications,” in A. Northedge, Studies on Roman and Islamic Amman, 1: history, site and architecture (Oxford 1993) 105–27.

3 The features have now been concealed by a temporary covering of geotextile and masonry to ensure their protection against frost damage.

4 Render has also been discovered (in the excavations of 1995 and 1997-98) applied to the internal face of the wall substructure. A sondage excavated in 2000 against the external face of S part of Sector 21 revealed evidence for render applied to that face of the wall substructure.

5 For comparison see Darles, Badie and Malmary on Saint-Lézer (below pp. 317 ff.).

6 Analysis of the render by G. Morgan (Univ. of Leicester) confirms the presence of a whitewash coating rather than a natural calcite film, although in some areas there is evidence of both.

7 General discussions of wall-walks and crenellated parapets on Greek fortifications can be found in Lawrence, A. W., Greek aims in fortification (Oxford 1979) 355–62Google Scholar; and Adam, J.-P., L'architecture militaire grecque (Paris 1982) 36–43 Google Scholar. For the Roman period in Gaul, see Blanchet, A., Les enceintes romaines de la Gaule (Paris 1907) 260–61Google Scholar; Grenier, A., Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romaine, 1 (Paris 1931) 519–23Google Scholar; and P. Varène, L'enceinte gallo-romaine de Nîmes: les murs et les tours (Gallia Suppl. 53, 1992) 144-45. For Britain and Germany, see P. Bidwell, R. Miket and B. Ford, “The reconstruction of a gate at the Roman fort of South Shields,” in iid. (edd.), Portae cum turribus: studies of Roman fort gates (BAR 206, Oxford 1988) 200–7.

8 Blanchet (supra n.7) 213.

9 Grenier (supra n.7) 520.

10 Varène (supra n.7) 144.

11 Darles, Badie and Malmary, below.

12 Richmond, I. A. and Holford, W. G., “Roman Verona: the archaeology of its town-plan,” PBSR 13 (1935) 75–76 Google Scholar.

13 Johnson, S., Late Roman fortifications (London 1983) 37 Google Scholar.

14 RCHM, An inventory of the historical monuments in the city of York, 1: Eburacum, Roman York (London 1962) 8–9, 10–11 Google Scholar.

15 Bidwell, Miket and Ford (supra n.7) 176; Bidwell, P. and Holbrook, N., Hadrian's Wall bridges (Eng. Heritage Arch. Rep. 9, 1989) 36 f., 135 Google Scholar.

16 Strickland, T. J., “Recent research at the Chester legionary fortress: the curtain wall and the barrack veranda colonnades,” in Johnson, P. with Haynes, I. (edd.), Architecture in Roman Britain (CBA Res. Rep. 94, 1996) 106–7Google Scholar; LeQuesne, Ch., Excavations at Chester: the Roman and later defences. Part 1: investigations 1978-1990 (Chester 1999) 95–96, 110–14Google Scholar.

17 Der Obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Römerreiches, B, 36 (1900) 5–7, figs. 1-2Google Scholar.

18 Welsby, D., “The defences of the Roman forts at Bu Ngem and Gheriat El-Garbia,” in Bidwell, , Miket, and Ford, (supra n.7) 65–66 Google Scholar.

19 Grenier (supra n.7) 520.

20 Blanchet (supra n.7) 260.

21 The function of traverses is discussed by Winter, F. E., Greek fortifications (Toronto 1971) 139 Google Scholar and Lawrence (supra n.7) 361. It is agreed that their primary function is structural — i.e., to buttress the parapet and merlons and bind them more firmly together — rather than to protect defenders from lateral fire that might come through the embrasures.

22 Thédenat, H., Pompéi: vie publique (Paris 1906) 12 Google Scholar; Maiuri, A., “Studi e ricerche sulla fortificazione di Pompei,” MonAnt 33 (1930) 113–290 Google Scholar.

23 Darles, Badie and Malmary, below.

24 Lehner, H., “Die römische Stadtbefestigung von Trier,” Westdeutsche Zeitschr. 15 (1896) 222 Google Scholar; Grenier (supra n.7) 520-21.

25 Bertaux, C., “L'état des recherches sur l'enceinte de Grand (Vosges),” in Burnand, Y., Etudes d'architecture gallo-romaine (Nancy 1983) 82–83 Google Scholar.

26 Baatz, D., “Town walls and defensive weapons,” in Maloney, J. and Hobley, B. (edd.), Roman urban defences in the west (CBA Res. Rep. 51, 1983) 139 Google Scholar.

27 Strickland (supra n.16) 111-12; LeQuesne (supra n.16) 95-96, 110-14.

28 J. Maloney, “Recent work on London's defences,” in Maloney and Hobley (supra n.26) 109-10.

29 See Bidwell, Miket and Ford (supra n.7) 204-5. A reconstruction drawing of the town defences at Rottenburg also shows traverses: Filtzinger, P., Planck, D. and Cämmerer, B. (edd.), Die Römer in Baden- Württemberg (Stuttgart 1976) 125 Google Scholar. The evidence for these comes again from coping stones.

30 Maiuri (supra n.22); Baatz (supra n.26) 137.

31 Richmond, I. A., “The relation of the Praetorian Camp to Aurelian's Wall of Rome,” PBSR 10 (1927)Google Scholar; Richmond, I. A., The city wall of imperial Rome (Oxford 1930) 59, 69 Google Scholar.

32 Richmond and Holford (supra n.12) 75-76.

33 Christie, N. and Gibson, S., “The city walls of Ravenna,” PBSR 56 (1988) 164–67Google Scholar.

34 Christie, N. and Rushworth, A., “Urban fortification and defensive strategy in fifth and sixth-century Italy: the case of Terracina,” JRA 1 (1988) 75–78 Google Scholar.

35 Février, P.-A., Fréjus (Forum Julii)… (Itinéraires Ligures 13, Cuneo 1977) 83 Google Scholar.

36 Lenoir, E. and Rebuffat, R., “Le rempart romain d'Aléria,” Archeologia Corsa 8-9 (1983-84) 93 Google Scholar.

37 Tatton-Brown, T., “Canterbury,” Current Archaeology 62 (1978) 80–81 Google Scholar; Frere, S. S., Stow, S. and Bennett, P., Excavations on the Roman and medieval defences of Canterbury (Maidstone 1982) 84 Google Scholar.

38 ORL (supra n.17).

39 G. Precht, “The town walls and defensive systems of Xanten-Colonia Ulpia Traiana,” in Maloney and Hobley (supra n.26) 33-34.

40 Bidwell, Miket and Ford (supra n.7) 204-5.

41 Baatz (supra n.26) 139.

42 Lehner (supra n.24) 222; Grenier (supra n.7) 520-21.

43 Bertaux (supra n.25) 82.

44 Strickland (supra n.16) 107-10; LeQuesne (supra n.16) 95-96, 110-14.

45 Maloney (supra n.28) 110.

46 Bidwell, Miket and Ford (supra n.7) 174-75.

47 Balil, A., “Las murallas romanas de Barcelona,” Anejos del ArchEspArq II (1961)Google Scholar; Johnson (supra n.13) 125.

48 Duval, P.-M., Cherchel et Tipasa: recherches sur deux villes fortes de l'Afrique romaine (Paris 1946) 138 Google Scholar.

49 Gregory, S. (ed.), Roman military architecture on the eastern frontier 1 (Amsterdam 1995) 131 Google Scholar.