Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:48:05.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Roman Frontier in Germany: an Archaeological Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

H. Schönberger
H. Schönberger
Affiliation:
Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt-am-Main
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My intention is to base the present summary on the discoveries which have been made in the field during the past twenty years, but obviously within the limits of the space at my disposal I can only indicate the main outlines. My main concern is with the provinces of Germania Superior and Raetia, but I shall also refer from time to time to the results of recent research in Germania Inferior. The main Map B (opposite p. 176) is supplemented by Map A (fig. 16), which shows the military sites of the Augustan-Tiberian period, and by Map C (fig. 23), which indicates the sites of the late-Roman period. Each map is supported by its own bibliographical list; these should be consulted when specific footnote-references are lacking in the text. These lists and footnotes, wherever possible, give references only to the most recent literature and have been reduced to a minimum. For the General Works to be consulted, and for the Abbreviations used, see lists below (pp. 196 ff.).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 59 , November 1969 , pp. 144 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © H. Schönberger 1969. 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 For the literary sources there is still considerable value in the collection edited by W. Capelle with German translations: Das alte Germanien. Die Nachrichten der griechischen und römischen Schriftsteller (1st ed. 1929; and ed. 1937).

2 The references (A 1), (B 1), (C 1), etc., after place-names in the text refer to these maps.

3 Particular gratitude is due to Dr. J. P. Wild for translating the German text and to Prof. S. S. Frere for his assistance with its presentation. For kind help and information I am grateful to the following: D. Baatz, T. Bechert, H. Beck, B. Beckmann, J. E. Bogaers, H. Brunsting, B. Cichy, G. Fingerlin, J. Garbsch, I. Huld, G. Illert, H.-J. Kellner, R. Koch, W. R. Lange, Ch. Léva, J. Mertens, H. v. Petrikovits, D. Planck, M. Radnóti-Alföldi, O. Roller, Chr. B. Rüger, H.-G. Simon, K. A. Steer, M. Vanderhoeven, H. R. Wiedemer.

4 H. v. Petrikovits RR 15 ff.

5 Kraft, K., JbRGZM 4 (1957), 90 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Ritterling—Stein, 87 ff.; H. v. Petrikovits, l.c.

7 See E. Ettlinger, Militärgrenzen 77 ff.

8 The place-name Xanten, regularly found in the literature, is in fact incorrect, for Vetera lies near the village of Birten. But I have kept the name nevertheless on maps A and B. In the text the place is only cited by its Latin name, viz. Vetera I (the fortresses on the Fürstenberg, dated to before A.D. 69–70) and Vetera II (the later fortress, to the east of Vetera I).

9 On Drusus' castella mentioned by Florus II, 30 see Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 151 ffGoogle Scholar. More pertinent: H. v. Petrikovits, RR 33 ff. and W. Schleiermacher, Analecta Archaeologica, Festschrift Fremersdorf (1960), 231 ff.

10 Ritterling—Stein, 87 ff.; Petrikovits, H. v., BJ 161 (1961), 468 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 Unpublished. I owe this information to the kindness of the excavator, G. Fingerlin.

12 XIII Gemina and XXI Rapax are involved: Ritterling—Stein, 90 f.; Kraft, K., JbN 2 (1950–1951), 12 fGoogle Scholar. Instead of XIII R. Syme and A. Radnóti propose XVI: JRS 23 (1933), 28 ffGoogle Scholar. and Aus Bayerns Frühzeit. Schriftenreihe zur bayer. Landesgeschichte 62 (1962), 139 ffGoogle Scholar.

13 Wells, C. M., American Journal of Archaeology 71 (1967), 196Google Scholar; Hübener, W., Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 2, 14 ffGoogle Scholar., with fig. 3 (Verlag Rombach & Co., Freiburg i. Br., 1968).

14 Ritterling—Stein, 91 ff.

15 Petrikovits, H. v., BJ 161 (1961), 468Google Scholar with note 16. See also BJ 164 (1964), 40 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 cf. note 12.

17 Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 156 ffGoogle Scholar.

18 Vanderhoeven, M., Helinium 7 (1967), 193 ffGoogle Scholar. with map, fig. 12 = Publikaties van het Provinciaal Gallo-Romeins Museum te Tongeren 12 (1968)Google Scholar; J. Mertens, Archéologie 1967, 93 f.

19 Cassius Dio 54, 33. In connection with Rödgen, mentioned below, see also Nierhaus, R., Das swebische Gräberfeld von Diersheim, Römisch-Germardsche Forschungen 28 (1966), 226Google Scholar. On the literary sources for the German wars: Marx, F. A., Klio 29 (1936), 202 ff.Google Scholar; K. Christ, Drusus und Germanicus, Der Eintritt der Römer in Germanien (1956); Timpe, D., Saeculum 18 (1967), 278 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Der Triumph des Germanicus. Untersuchungen zu den Feldzügen der Jahre 14–16 n. Chr., Antiquitas, Reihe 1, 16 (1968).

20 The possible course of the most important campaigns in Germania in the Augustan—Tiberian period is illustrated by K. Stade in F. W. Putzger, Historischer Weltatlas, 83rd ed. 1961, map 34–35.

21 John, W., RE XXIV, col. 951 ff.Google Scholar; further: Christ, K., Trierer Zeitschrift 28 (1965), 182 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 In The Roman fort of Great Casterton, Rutland compiled and edited by M. Todd (Nottingham, 1968), p. 27 with fig. 11, hollow towers are suggested for the east gate at Rödgen. I regard this view as wrong, since no consideration was paid to the L-shaped plan of the towers as established by the further pair of massive extra-deep post-pits on both N. and S. sides of the gate-structure.

23 On the coins from Oberaden, Rödgen and Haltern see K. Regling in Das Römerlager in Oberaden (1938), 31; Germania 45 (1967), 95 ffGoogle Scholar. (H.-G. Simon); Kraft, K., BJ 155–6 (1955–1956). 95 ffGoogle Scholar. The Haltern evidence is discussed in detail in C. M. Wells, The German Policy of Augustus (Clarendon Press, Oxford, forthcoming).

24 H. v. Petrikovits, RR 23 ff. with fig. 5.

25 Prähist. Zeitschr. 41 (1963), 210 ffGoogle Scholar.

26 Not yet published.

27 Not yet published. On the question of Augustan canabae legionis see H. v. Petrikovits, RE VIII A, col. 1816, 1822 ff.; RR 55 ff., esp. 70 f.; Baatz, D., Germania 42 (1964), 260 ffGoogle Scholar.

28 On these see H. Callies, 45 BerRGK 1964 (1965), 142 ff.

29 SJ 19 (1961), 37Google Scholar, note 4.

30 LF 2 (1962), 72 fGoogle Scholar.

31 The solution attempted by E. Ettlinger, Limes-Studien 45 ff., is certainly possible, but confirmation on the ground is naturally always desirable.

32 Comparison of Arretine forms in Ulbert, G., Die römische Keramik aus dem Legionslager Augsburg-Oberhausen, Materialhefte zur bayer. Vorgeschichte 14 (1960)Google Scholar, Beilage 1. See also Fellmann, R., ‘Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Topographie und Geschichte des römischen Basel’, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 60 (1960), 32 ffGoogle Scholar. with map fig. 10.

33 See also Wiedemer, H. R., JbSGU 53 (1966–1967), 63 ffGoogle Scholar., who has kindly informed me that Solothurn should not appear on his map figure 6, but should be a triangle on fig. 7.

34 E. Howald—E. Meyer, Die römische Schweis (1940), 365 f.; E. Meyer, Provincialia, Festschrift Laur-Belart (1968), 382 ff. An Arretine sherd from Uetliberg (Gem. Stallikon) near Zürich may belong to this context: Vogt, E., Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 25 (1968), 105 ffGoogle Scholar.

35 Ulbert, G., LF 1 (1959), 78 ffGoogle Scholar. with map fig. 16; idem, Der Lorenzberg 96 ff. with map Taf. G; H. R. Wiedemer, Helvetia Antiqua, Festschrift Vogt (1966), 167 ff.

36 There is certainly no evidence for this, but A. Radnóti has told me that he considers the tombstone of the centurion of a Cohors Asturum (CIL III, 5539) to belong to the pre-Claudian period.

37 Cf. note 13.

38 Kraft, K., JbN 2 (1950–1951), 21 ff.Google Scholar; G. Ulbert, Keramik Augsburg-Oberhausen (1960).

39 CIL IX, 3044.

40 Schleiermacher, W., Germania 31 (1953), 200 ff.Google Scholar; K. Kraft, Aus Bayerns Frühzeit (1962), 153 ff.

41 Ritterling—Stein, 92; J.-J. Hatt, Limes-Studien 51, gives an earlier foundation-date (A.D. 14) for the legionary fortress at Strasbourg.

42 This may possibly be the date of the later fort at Urmitz (A 16). But since it no longer existed after c. 40–50, it does not appear on Map B.

43 On the troops on the Lower Rhine see H. v. Petrikovits, RR 35 ff.; Mann, J. C., BJ 162 (1962), 162 ffGoogle Scholar.; Bogaers, J. E., Numaga 12 (1965), 10 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Militärgrenzen 54 ff.; Nesselhauf, H. and Petrikovits, H. v., BJ 167 (1967), 268 ff.Google Scholar; H. v. Petrikovits, Streitkräfte Niederrhein 11 ff.; G. Alföldy, Hilfstruppen Germania Inferior (1968).

44 SJ 14 (1955), 9Google Scholar.

45 H. v. Petrikovits, RR 54.

46 25–28 Jaarverslag (1940–44), 171 ff.; Acta et Dissertationes Archaeologicae Zagreb 3 (1963), 138 ffGoogle Scholar. Bogaers, J. E. expresses doubt, ‘Praetorium Agrippinae’, Bulletin van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond, 6 Ser., 17 (1964), 219 f.Google Scholar, 238 f.

47 H. v. Petrikovits, RR 54 f.

48 Baatz, D., LF 4 (1962), 87Google Scholar. Tacitus, (Hist, IV, 61Google Scholar) notes tha t Mainz and Windisch escaped unscathed.

49 Ulbert, G., LF 9 (1969)Google Scholar.

50 J.-J. Hatt, Limes-Studien 49 ff.

51 Hatt, J.-J., Germania 37 (1959), 226Google Scholar.

52 Kahrstedt, U., BJ 150 (1950), 78Google Scholar; H. v. Petrikovits, RR 69 f.

53 Bogaers, J. E., BerROB 17 (1967), 99Google Scholar.

54 Bogaers, op. cit., 110 f.

55 A small fort with a stone wall is known there in a later period: ORL B, no. 30 (1912), Taf. 1.

56 Nassauische Annalen 40 (1912), 81 ff.Google Scholar; Ritterling—Stein, 93 ff.

57 6 BerRGK 1910–11 (1913), 121. The situation at the Claudian fort of Rheingönheim (B 44) is similar. See also Hod Hill: Richmond, I. A., ‘Roman Britain and Roman Military Antiquities,’ Proc. Brit. Academy 41 (1955), 306 ffGoogle Scholar. with fig. 3.

58 Kraft, K., JbN 7 (1956), 43 f.Google Scholar; Baatz, D., BVBl 28 (1963), 189 fGoogle Scholar.

59 Tacitus, , Ann. XII, 27 f.Google Scholar; XIII, 56. At Okarben (B 80) the sherds published by Korfmann, M. in FH 4 (1964), 168 f.Google Scholar, still fall short of proving that the site was occupied earlier than Vespasian.

60 Ritterling—Stein, 93 ff.

61 E. Ritterling, RE XII, col. 1784.

62 Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 158Google Scholar.

63 On Oedenbourg and Kembs see p. 154.

64 Opposite view: Filtzinger, Ph., BJ 157 (1957), 191 ff. on Taf. 16Google Scholar; Heukemes, B., Römische Keramik aus Heidelberg. Materialien zur Römisch-Germanischen Keramik 8 (1964), 15 ff.Google Scholar, and more precisely in Die Stadt- und die Landkreise Heidelberg und Mannheim (1966), 151. D. Baatz expressed a similar view to mine in the case of Ladenburg, : BF Sonderheft I (1962), 29 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. R. Nierhaus, , Das swebische Gräberfeld von Diersheim. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 28 (1966), 187Google Scholar, note 8. A pre-Vespasianic fort was also once conjectured at Baden-Baden. But excavations carried out there by Nierhaus in 1951 gave not the slightest hint of this: Germania 30 (1952), 207 ffGoogle Scholar.

65 SJ 22 (1965), 28 ffGoogle Scholar.

66 Revellio, P., BF 2 (1929–1932), 340 ff.Google Scholar; Kuhn, F., BF 15 (1939), 79 ff.Google Scholar; H. Dragendorff, Bericht über den VI. Internat. Kongress für Archäologie in Berlin 1939 (1940), 557 ff.; Nierhaus, R., BF 17 (1941–1947), 182 ff.Google Scholar; Wiedemer, H. R., Argovia 75 (1963), 73 ff.Google Scholar; R. Laur-Belart, Helvetia Antiqua, Festschrift Vogt (1966), 245.

67 R. Nierhaus, Diersheim, 194 ff., 230 ff.

68 BJ 163 (1963), 76 ffGoogle Scholar.

69 BF 23 (1967), 133 ff.Google Scholar, nos. 2–3. On Augst (B 182) see note 94.

70 Bibliography in G. Ulbert, Der Lorenzberg 102. Augsburg first appears as a municipium on an inscription of the Hadrianic period.

71 Ulbert, G., LF I (1959), 78 ffGoogle Scholar. Aislingen (B 166) may have been built a little earlier.

72 Ulbert, G., LF I (1959), 84Google Scholar; idem, Der Lorenzberg, Taf. G; Tabula Imperii Romani L 32, Mediolanum (1966).

73 The presumed building-inscription of A.D. 77–8 proves in my opinion merely a later rebuild: W. Barthel, 6 Ber RGK 1910–11 (1913), 159; F.Vollmer, Inscriptiones Baiuariae Romanae (1915), no. 196; F. Wagner, 37–38 Ber RGK 1956–57 (1958), 229, no. 52.

74 SJ 15 (1956), 75 ff.Google Scholar; LF I (1959), 85 ff.Google Scholar; 2 (1962), 127 f., with map fig. 21; Kraft, K., JbRGZM 4 (1957), 91 fGoogle Scholar.

75 Filtzinger, Ph. states, BJ 157 (1957), 212Google Scholar, ‘Since the Raetian cohorts were already fighting against the rebellious Helvetii, the latter (i.e. the Helvetian militia mentioned by Tacitus, , Hist. I, 67Google Scholar) must have left their forts on the Danube in January, A.D. 69. Therefore we can date the destruction-layers of the Claudian Danube-forts to the period mid-January to February at the latest in 69.’ G. Ulbert on the other hand regards destruction possible in both 69 and 70: LF I (1959). 86 ffGoogle Scholar.

76 See note 43.

77 On military territory see H. v. Petrikovits, RR 55 ff.; Chr. B. Rüger, Germania Inferior 51 ff.

78 Ritterling—Stein, 100 ff.

79 See note 55.

80 Fischer, U., FH 3 (1963), 174Google Scholar; 5–6 (1965–66), 161, 162, 164.

81 Lischewski, H., FH 4 (1964), 170 ff.Google Scholar; Korfmann, M., FH 4 (1964), 165 ff.Google Scholar; 5–6 (1965–66), 39 ff.; idem, JbN 16 (1966), 33 ff.

82 E. Fabricius long ago rejected so early a date for Zugmantel (B 66): ORL A Strecke 3 (1936), 61.

83 But see note 64.

84 JbRGZM 7 (1960), 159 ffGoogle Scholar.

85 SJ 22 (1965), 48 fGoogle Scholar.

86 6 BerRGK 1910–11 (1913), 125 ff. Contra Ph. Filtzinger (BJ 157 (1957), Taf. 17), I have not included Hockenheim and Knielingen as supposed forts on Map B.

87 Hartmann, H.-H., SJ 26 (1969)Google Scholar.

88 Hertlein, F.—Goessler, P., Die Römer in Württemberg 2 (1930)Google Scholar, map; Tabula Imperii Romani M 32, Mogontiacum (1940); see also Nierhaus, R., BF 23 (1967), 152 ffGoogle Scholar.

89 CIL XIII, 9082.

90 CIL XI, 5271 ( = ILS 997). The final phrase is usually supplemented [ob res] in Germa[nia prospere gestas].

91 General account: W. Schleiermacher, ORL A Strecke II (1934), 26 ff.; see also H. Lieb, Militärgrenzen 94 ff., for the other epigraphic references.

92 Ritterling, E., Römisch-Germanisches Korrespondenzblatt 4 (1911), 41Google Scholar.

93 JbRGZM 7 (1960), 160 ffGoogle Scholar.

94 F. Staehelin, Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit 3 (1948), 214 ff.; R. Laur-Belart, Helvetia Antiqua 242; H. Lieb, Militärgrenzen 96 f.; idem, Provincialia 129 ff.

95 See also discussion by R. Rau in: Der Sülchgau, Jahresgabe des Sülchgauer Altertumsvereins Rottenburg (1967), 5 ff. I cannot agree with him in every particular.

96 See also LF 2 (1962), 112 ffGoogle Scholar. The date of the foundation of these forts is as problematical as that of their evacuation.

97 Goessler, P., Germania 9 (1925), 151Google Scholar, ventures a pre-Flavian date for the earliest structures at Rottweil. But it is doubtful if the relevant samian need be dated so early.

98 JbRGZM 2 (1955), 251Google Scholar. See in this connection a later road-post near Sigmaringen: Filtzinger, Ph., Kölner Jahrbuch 9 (1967–1968), 62 ff.Google Scholar, with fig. 1.

99 See note 73.

100 Remains of a building-inscription dated to the reign of Titus (79–81) were found in the area of the auxiliary fort south-west of the village of Eining: F. Vollmer, Inscriptiones Baiuariae Romanae (1915), no. 331.

101 Vollmer, op. cit., no. 257; cf. Fabricius, E., ORL A Strecke 15 (1932), 25 f.Google Scholar, with note 1.

102 6 BerRGK 1910–11 (1913), 174 f.

103 ORL A Strecke II (1934), 35, note 1.

104 JbRGZM 7 (1960), 162 ffGoogle Scholar.

105 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte 12 (1962), 207 ffGoogle Scholar.

106 Nesselhauf, H., Hermes 80 (1952), 222 ff.Google Scholar; idem, JbRGZM 7 (1960), 162 ff.; Christ, K., Gymnasium 64 (1957), 519 ffGoogle Scholar.

107 Braunert, H., BJ 153 (1953), 97 ff.Google Scholar; Syme, R., CAH XI (1936), 162 ff.Google Scholar, supposes an earlier ending to the war.

108 Fabricius, E., ORL A Strecke 3 (1936), 43 ff.Google Scholar; Strecke 4–5 (1936), 39 ff.

109 This is the area in which the Domitianic forts of Heddesdorf (B 57), Bendorf (B 58) and Niederberg (B 59) lie.

110 JbRGZM 7 (1960), 162 ffGoogle Scholar.

111 LF 2 (1962), 73 ff.Google Scholar, with further literature.

112 Hofheim: Schoppa, H., Germania 38 (1960), 184 f.Google Scholar, with fig. 1, no. 3 (against ray earlier view LF 2 (1960), 73Google Scholar top); Heddernheim: one or other of the ‘earth-and-timber forts’ which preceded the ala-fort; Okarben: possibly the newly discovered ditch, FH 4 (1964), 170 ffGoogle Scholar.; Friedberg: SJ 19 (1961), 40Google Scholar, note 16; Bad Nauheim: I have a suspicion that one of the ditches marked on FH 5–6 (1965–66), Beilage I, belongs to a marching-camp of this type. But naturally they might sometimes be labour camps for the building of the later permanent forts.

113 Its plan is comparable with that of Raedykes: O. G. S. Crawford, Topography of Roman Scotland (1949), 109, fig. 27.

114 Fabricius, , ORL A Strecke 3 (1936), 45Google Scholar. Syme, l.c. (n. 107), gives a different interpretation of Frontinus: ‘Over a front of a hundred and twenty miles he drove military roads deep into the broken and wooded country that hitherto had secured them immunity and thus opened access to their fortresses.’ On this passage, cf. also Simon, H., Germania 32 (1954), 325 fGoogle Scholar.

115 SJ 14 (1955), 30 ffGoogle Scholar.

115a SJ 22 (1965), 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

116 LF 2 (1962), 76 ffGoogle Scholar.

117 Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 164 ffGoogle Scholar. On the revolt of Saturninus, see now G. Walser, Provincialia 497 ff.

118 The archaeological indications are in no way so complete or reliable. Heddernheim can still be quoted as a classic example: G. Wolff, ORL B, no. 27 (1915), 19 ff.; Fischer, U., Germania 38 (1960), 190Google Scholar; 39 (1961), 462. Okarben and Wiesbaden must also be cited: G. Wolff, ORL B, no. 25a (1902), 9, and E. Ritterling, ORL B, no. 31 (1909), 68. On the destruction of the watch-towers see Fabricius, E., ORL A Strecke 2 (1936), 24 ff.Google Scholar; Strecke 3 (1936), 25 f., 46 f.

119 The exact date of the establishment of the two provinces is uncertain (Braunert, l.c. (n. 107), 101). Christ, K. (Gymnasium 64, 1957, 522Google Scholar) suggests the period 84–87 on numismatic evidence. In any case it must lie between 82 and 90 (Riese, A., Korrespondenzblatt der Westdeutschen Zeitschr. 14 (1895), 151 ff.Google Scholar). A diploma of 20 Sept., 82 (CIL XVI, no. 28) refers to troops in Germania, whereas the diploma of 27 Oct., 90 (CIL XVI, no. 36), refers to Germania superiore. Furthermore, the consular legate mentioned in the diploma of 90 appears in CIL III, 9960 ( = ILS 1015), as the earliest known holder of the office of leg(atus) consularis provinc(iae) Germ(aniae) superioris. An early date would be required if we follow H.-G. Pflaum's dating of a proc. Belgicae et duar. Germaniarum to c. A.D. 83: Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (1960), 54 ff., 960, 1056.

On the debatable western boundary of Lower Germany, see H. v. Petrikovits, Studien zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Festschrift Jankuhn 1968), 115 ff.; Chr. B. Rüger, Germania Inferior 32 ff.; Bogaers, J. E., BerROB 17 (1967), 101 ffGoogle Scholar.

120 Baatz, D., LF 4 (1962), 87Google Scholar.

121 Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 166 ffGoogle Scholar.

122 D. Baatz suggests that there may have been other cohort-forts besides Butzbach and Arnsburg on the Wetterau-limes by A.D. 100: SJ 22 (1965), 144 ffGoogle Scholar.

123 LF 2 (1962), 79 ffGoogle Scholar. Theoretically of course the earth-and-timber fort at Altenstadt (period 3) could also be the successor to the small earth-and-timber fort at Heldenbergen.

124 LF 2 (1962), 88 ffGoogle Scholar.

125 For sizes of legionary fortresses see LF 4 (1962), 80Google Scholar.

126 JRS 51 (1961), 160Google Scholar; 52 (1962), 162 f.; 53 (1963), 126 f.; 54 (1964), 153; 55 (1965), 200; 56 (1966), 198 f.

127 Nevertheless it should be mentioned here that T. Bechert, in an unpublished Frankfurt thesis (1969), believes on the basis of the form of the north-west gate that the fort perhaps belongs to the first half of the third century. But gates with towers projecting beyond the front of the wall are known in the Hadrianic fort at South Shields: JRS 57 (1967), 177Google Scholar (J. P. Gillam).

128 Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 166 ffGoogle Scholar.

128a As on all river-frontiers, there was no palisade or rampart and ditch, not even later.

129 Cohors I Ligurum et Hispanorum c.R. can now be claimed as the unit occupying the fort at Niedernberg (B 96) on the strength of a recently discovered tombstone: Hefner, L., Germania 44 (1966), 398 ffGoogle Scholar. It is of course not absolutely certain that they were stationed there right from the beginning.

130 The earliest known forehalls over the via principalis of an auxiliary fort were identified at Hesselbach an d the contemporary fort at Künzing (p. 163). This type of building was probably not a basilica equestris exercitatoria, but perhaps a roofed place where soldiers could fall in: Schleiermacher, W., Trierer Zeitschrift 18 (1949), 247 f.Google Scholar; R. Fellmann, Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa (1957–8), 170 ff. But see Davies, R. W., The Archaeological Journal 125 (1969), 75 fGoogle Scholar. Another forehall is now known in Britain at Ribchester: Jones, G. D. B., Northern History 3 (1968), 18 ffGoogle Scholar.

131 Oxé, A., BJ 146 (1941), 125 ffGoogle Scholar.

132 Cf. note 87 and LF 2 (1962), 104 ffGoogle Scholar.

133 In 1965 about 280 m. south-west of the front of the known stone fort the ditch of another fort— probably of earth and timber—was discovered.

134 CAH XI (1936), 167Google Scholar.

135 BJ 157 (1957), 201 ffGoogle Scholar.

136 BJ 157 (1957), 206Google Scholar.

137 LF 2 (1962), 113 ffGoogle Scholar.

138 JbRGZM 2 (1955), 245 ffGoogle Scholar.

139 BJ 145 (1940), 63 ffGoogle Scholar.

140 See map in Hertlein, F.—Goessler, P., Die Römer in Württemberg 2 (1930)Google Scholar; only partially included on the Tabula Imperii Romani M 32, Mogontiacum (1940). I agree with W. Barthel, 6 BerRGK 1910–11 (1913), 169, in presuming a pre-Trajanic fort at Faimingen, but it has not yet been located on the ground. On the dating of the road see also E. Fabricius, ORL B, no. 66a (1905), 31, and F. Drexel, ORL B, no. 66c (1911), 29.

141 E. Fabricius, ORL B, no. 66a (1905), 32 f.; Schleiermacher, W., ORL A Strecke II (1934), 39 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Kiechle, F., Historia II (1962), 185Google Scholar, where further information is given about the regio translimitana which I cannot deal with here.

142 ORL B, no. 62a (1937), 20 ff., with Taf. 2 and 3, 4.

143 See note 29.

144 BJ 138 (1933), 144 ffGoogle Scholar. C. Koenen assumed claviculae in the smaller later work at Urmitz (A 16): BJ 104 (1899), 48 ff.Google Scholar, Taf. 1. This was soon shown to be wrong: Lehner, H., BJ 105 (1900), 166Google Scholar.

145 Where the clavicula, in contrast to those in the earlier siege-works at Masada, was external: Y. Yadin, The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters (1963), 11 ff., fig. 3.

146 Limesführer 208, with fig. 39; Limes-Studien 156 ff.

147 SJ 22 (1965), 144 ffGoogle Scholar.

148 ORL B, no. 66c (1911), 28 ff.; also W. Barthel, 6 BerRGK 1910–11 (1913), 169 f. The presumed destruction of the legionary fortress at Strasbourg in 97 and its rebuilding under Trajan is another story: J.-J. Hatt, Limes-Studien 50 f. and Germania 37 (1959), 232Google Scholar.

149 E. Fabricius calculated that a number of cohorts were brought nearer to the limes under Trajan to improve frontier-control: ORL A, Strecke 4–5 (1936), 49. In general, Trajan may be seen as completing many of Domitian's schemes: Christ, K., Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Geschichte 12 (1962), 212 fGoogle Scholar.

150 A building-inscription of Domitian dating to 84–5, for example, was re-used under Trajan, who had the text changed to refer to himself: Drexel, F., Germania 13 (1929), 173 ffGoogle Scholar.

151 Fischer, U., Germania 39 (1961), 164 ffGoogle Scholar.

152 B 84, 86, 80, 81, and the later fort on the Salisberg near Hanau-Kesselstadt (B 90).

153 Fischer, U., FH 5–6 (1965–1966), 172Google Scholar.

154 LF 2 (1962), 86f.Google Scholar, 91.

155 Simon, H.-G., SJ 22 (1965), 49Google Scholar.

156 W. Schleiermacher, Neue Ausgrabungen in Deutschland (1958), 304; B. Heukemes assumes an occupation of the stone fort lasting into the third century: LF 2 (1962), 28Google Scholar, and Die Stadt- und die Landkreise Heidelberg und Mannheim (1966), 165, 170.

157 H. Schoppa, Die Funde aus dem Vicus des Steinkastells Hofheim. I. Die Keramik ausser Terra Sigillata (1961), 6; with reservations: Baatz, D., BVBl 28 (1963), 188 fGoogle Scholar.

158 Korfmann, M., FH 5–6 (1965–1966), 48 f.Google Scholar; Germania 44 (1966), 390 ffGoogle Scholar.

159 SJ 24 (1967), 53Google Scholar.

160 Jorns, W. and Meier-Arendt, W., SJ 24 (1967), 12 ff.Google Scholar; Simon, H.-G., SJ 25 (1968), 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

161 Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 170Google Scholar.

162 E. Ettlinger, RE IX A, col. 91 f. The legionary fortress was maintained thereafter for some time: R. Fellmann, ‘Die Principia des Legionslagers Vindonissa und das Zentralgebäude der römischen Lager und Kastelle,’ Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa (1956—57), 63 ff.

163 See note 43.

164 LF 2 (1962), 80 f.Google Scholar; Ritter, H.-W., JbN 13 (1963), 71 ff.Google Scholar; Bechert, T., JbN 17 (1967), 29 ff.Google Scholar; Baatz, D., Marburger Beiträge zur Archäologie der Kelten (Festschrift Dehn), FH Beiheft I (1969), 3Google Scholar. The year 139 is the latest date for the arrival of Coh. II Raetorum c.R. at the Saalburg (CIL XIII, 7462). It is probable that it occurred only shortly before, as I now prefer to accept in contrast to my earlier view.

165 LF 2 (1962), 97Google Scholar. At Butzbach (B 72) and Echzell (B 75) the defences of the forts, probably Hadrianic, were merely rebuilt in stone to the same plan: Müller, G., LF 2 (1962), 28 f.Google Scholar, 31, and Baatz, D., SJ 22 (1965), 140Google Scholar.

166 SHA, Hadrian XII, 6: ‘…Stipitibus magnis in modum muralis saepis funditus iactis atque conexis barbaros separavit.’

167 See now H. Callies, 45 BerRGK 1964 (1965), 130 ff.

168 See note 149.

169 Germania 35 (1967), 117 ff.Google Scholar, with fig. 1; Limesführer 218 ff., with fig. 40. The Ala I Flavia Gemina was not certainly stationed at Echzell (B 75)—the Ala Moesica Felix Torquata may have been there, if only temporarily: Simon, H.-G. and Baatz, D., SJ 25 (1968), 193 ffGoogle Scholar. The Coh. I Ligurum et Hispanorum c.R. is now attested at Niedernberg (B 96): see note 129.

170 LF 2 (1962), 96Google Scholar.

171 Limesführer 35 ff. Stone watch-towers are also found sporadically on the line of the Main between forts B96 and 118, ORL A, Strecke 6 (1933), 18 f., 21 f.

172 Germama 46 (1968), 40 ffGoogle Scholar.

173 SJ 25 (1968), 185 ffGoogle Scholar. The final report on the excavations is to appear in one of the next numbers of LF.

174 Christ, K., ‘Antike Münzfunde Südwestdeutschlands’, Vestigia 3, 1 (1960), 120 ff.Google Scholar; Nesselhauf, H., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 172 ff.Google Scholar, with note 39.

175 SJ 25 (1968), 191Google Scholar.

176 References: ibid. 190 f. For a recently discovered building-inscription with a new reconstruction of a stone tower: Baatz, D., BVBl 31 (1966), 85 ffGoogle Scholar.

177 Drexel, F., Germama 6 (1922), 31 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Thompson, F. H., Antiquaries Journal 48 (1968), 47 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

178 Fabricius, E., ORL A, Strecke 7–9 (1931), 49 ff.Google Scholar, with map.

179 CIL XIII, 6469, 6472.

180 CIL XIII, 6561.

181 See note 178.

182 Germania 35 (1957), 74 ff.Google Scholar; LF 2 (1962), 116 ffGoogle Scholar. F. Drexel, for example, sought too simple a solution to the problem: ORL B, no. 66c (1911), 56 f.

183 More recently D. Baatz has favoured a later dating for this group of tiles: SJ 24 (1967), 54 ffGoogle Scholar. I wish to revise my earlier view and would now exclude Jagsthausen (B 124) since there is no earlier samian ware from there.

184 ORL A, Strecke 7–9 (1931), 40 fGoogle Scholar.

185 LF 2 (1962), 117 ffGoogle Scholar.

186 Confirmed by the recent excavations of 46 (1968), 118 ff. (a list by A. Radnoti of all the D. Planck on the Nikolausfeld west of the Neckar.

187 D. Planck, ‘Das Römerbad von Rottweil’, in the monthly magazine Baden-Württemberg (1968), 19.

188 Ritterling—Stein, 185 f.

189 See note 162.

190 Germania 34 (1956), 75 ff.Google Scholar; 39 (1961), 93 ff.; 46 (1968), 118 ff. (a list by A. Radnóti of all the military diplomas found since the publication of the supplementary volume to CIL XVI); 47 (1969); BVBl 31 (1966), 89 ff.Google Scholar; 33 (1968), 92 ff.

191 LF 2 (1962), 131Google Scholar.

192 F. Wagner, 37–38 BerRGK 1956–57 (1958), 236, no. 81.

193 Limesführer 230 ff.

194 Kellner, H.-J., BVBl 30 (1965), 168 f.Google Scholar, with fig. 1.

195 On the Wetterau limes small posts were set out along the limes in advance of the forts at Butzbach (p. 165), Echzell, Oberflorstadt and perhaps Arnsburg: SJ 22 (1965), 14 ffGoogle Scholar.

196 Uslar, R. v., Germania 29 (1951), 44 f.Google Scholar, with fig. 1.

197 Historia II (1962), 171 ffGoogle Scholar.

198 The southern examples were not marked by W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 143 ff., fig. 3.

199 Klio 28 (1935), 294 ffGoogle Scholar.

200 Cf. LF 2 (1962), 74Google Scholar, note 40.

201 Germanic settlements that in their early stages may go back to the limes period have been identified about 10 km. NNE and about 15 km. NE of Öhringen (B 125) at Wülfingen, Gem. Forchtenberg, and at Ingelfingen just outside the limes. R. Koch reports on them probably in the forthcoming volume of Fundberichte aus Schwaben.

202 For Britain: P. Salway, The Frontier People of Roman Britain (1965).

203 Cf. LF 2 (1962), 92Google Scholar. For the vicus of Burghöfe (B 167) see p. 154.

204 Unpublished.

205 SHA, Marcus Antoninus VIII, 7 f., and Didius Iulianus I, 8. See now G. Alföldy, ‘Die Legions-legaten der römischen Rheinarmeen’, Epigraphische Studien 3, Beihefte der BJ 22 (1967), 38 ffGoogle Scholar.

206 G. Wolff, Die Römerstadt Nida bei Heddernheim (1908), 27 f.

207 Woelcke, K., Germania 15 (1931), 79Google Scholar.

208 LF 2 (1962), 98 fGoogle Scholar.

209 SJ 22 (1965), 140, 146Google Scholar.

210 Unpublished. Kind information from H.-W. Ritter.

211 Kellner, H.-J., Germania 41 (1963), 119 ffGoogle Scholar.

212 References: G. Alföldy, Legionslegaten, 39.

213 SHA, Marcus Antoninus VIII, 7Google Scholar.

214 F. Vollmer, Inscriptiones Baiuariae Romanae (1915), no. 291 = CIL III, 143702. On the destruction of Böhming, see most recently Fitz, J., BVBl 32 (1967), 40Google Scholar, n. 1. New excavations are needed in Böhming, particularly to establish a better chronology for the pottery of the second half of the second century.

215 BVBl 30 (1965), 154 ff.Google Scholar, with fig. 3.

216 For the tile-stamps of III Italica and of the other units in northern Raetia see now Spitzlberger, G., SJ 25 (1968), 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

217 CIL III, 11965; Spitzlberger, op. cit. 123 f.

218 A report is expected to appear in Germania 48 (1970)Google Scholar.

219 G. Alföldy confidently connects the passage in SHA, Commodus XIII, 5Google Scholar, with this revolt: Legionslegaten 45, note 232. More cautious: Simon, H.-G., SJ 25 (1968), 199Google Scholar.

220 See H.-G. Simon, ibid. J.-J. Hatt (Limes-Studien 53) imagines that the Strasbourg legionary fortress was gradually drained of troops after 120 in favour of the newly founded forts on the limes, but that in 175 there were still enough soldiers available to resist the attack. This idea rests in my opinion on a false interpretation of the excavation-results. Hatt did not repeat his view in this form in Germania 37 (1959), 231 fGoogle Scholar.

221 RE XII, col. 1813 f.; Ritterling—Stein, 114.

222 Cf. LF 2 (1962), 99Google Scholar.

223 CIL XIII, 6578, and 6582.

224 This numerus is not actually attested at Niederbieber before 221 (Ritterling—Stein, 263). If it really takes its name from Divitia-Deutz, then an early third-century bridgehead is to be anticipated on the site of the Constantinian fort (C 34). On this problem, see Ritterling—Stein, 260 ff., and G. Alföldy, Hilfstruppen Germania Inferior, 79.

225 SJ 22 (1965), 26 fGoogle Scholar. On Butzbach see now Simon, H.-G., SJ 25 (1968), 198Google Scholar.

226 Ritterling—Stein, 114.

227 A hoard of over 800 denarii which was found in 1944 at Obererbach, c. 15 km. NE of the fort at Arzbach (B 60) outside the limes, must have been buried about 195. Its historical interpretation is difficult: Hagen, W., Nassauische Annalen 74 (1963), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

228 Instinsky, U., Klio 31 (1938), 33 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

229 Nierhaus, R., Fundberichte aus Schwaben NF 14 (1957), 200 f.Google Scholar; H. Nesselhauf an d H. Lieb, 40 BerRGK 1959 (1960), 175, no. 140.

230 According to the Acta Arvalium for 11 August, 213, the emperor moved per limitem Raetiae against the enemy.

231 Ritterling, E., RE XII, col. 1317 ffGoogle Scholar.

232 LF 2 (1962), 34Google Scholar.

233 SJ 22 (1965), 146 fGoogle Scholar.

234 Kellner, H.-J., BVBl 25 (1960), 144Google Scholar, map BI.

235 Fabricius, E., RE XIII, col. 595, 602 fGoogle Scholar., 611, 614f.

236 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–30 (1951), 146 ff. (CIL XIII, 7443, 7465a, 7494d, 7616, 11972); for a different view see Fabricius, E., ORL A, Strecke 3 (1936), 49Google Scholar.

237 A. Radnóti, Die germanischen Verbündeten der Römer, Deutsch-Italienische Vereinigung, Frankfurt a.M. (1967), 12 ff. (privately published).

238 Schleiermacher, l.c.; for a possible earlier site cf. Germania 35 (1957), 70Google Scholar, note 54.

239 ORL A, Strecke 3 (1936), 37Google Scholar.

240 ORL A, Strecke 3 (1936), 37 f.Google Scholar, on folding map 1, below.

241 E. Fabricius, RE XIII, col. 603. See also ORL A, Strecke 7–9 (1933), 29 fGoogle Scholar.

242 E. Fabricius, RE XIII, col. 614 f.; ORL A, Strecke 14 (1933). 43 fGoogle Scholar.

243 Kellner, H.-J., BVBl 25 (1960), 143 f.Google Scholar; Roeren, R., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 237 ff.Google Scholar; see also Filtzinger, Ph., Kölner Jb. 9 (1967–1968), 63Google Scholar.

244 Christ, K., ‘Antike Münzfunde Südwestdeutschlands,’ Vestigia 3, 1 (1960), 139 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Franke, P. R.. SJ 15 (1956), 7 ff.Google Scholar; 17 (1958), 92 ff. For the legionary fortress at Strasbourg: R. Forrer, L'Alsace Romaine (1935), 72, and Hatt, J.-J., Historia 2 (1953–1954), 237 fGoogle Scholar.

245 CIL XIII, 7612.

246 The date of the end of Holzhausen certainly requires checking, since there is at least one antoninianus of Philip of 245 from the site: Nassauische Annalen 54 (1934), 248 fGoogle Scholar. It could of course have been lost in a short later reoccupation.

247 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 152 ff., with Beilage I. Research directed by K. Kraft for the Corpus Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland will undoubtedly lead to considerable improvements in these coin lists.

248 Schleiermacher, op. cit., 148 f., and SJ 13 (1954), 70Google Scholar. Opposite view, Franke, P. R., SJ 15 (1956), 10Google Scholar, and K. Christ, op. cit. 138 f.

249 Baatz, D., SJ 22 (1965), 146Google Scholar.

250 H. Jacobi once suggested a much earlier evacuation of the vicus in 211—12: Die Saalburg, Führer durch das Kastell und seine Sammlungen, 13th ed. (1936), 47. But this view is quite unacceptable.

251 Herodian, VI, 7, 2 ff.; Christ, op. cit. 141 ff.

252 Ritterling—Stein, 170 f., 255 f.

253 E. Hohl, RE X, col. 858 ff.; Ritterling, E., RE XII, col. 1343 ff.Google Scholar; Christ, op. cit. vol. 2, 71, note 32.

254 Baatz, op. cit.; at Kapersburg, the smashed and reused inscription CIL XIII, 7441aGoogle Scholar, cannot have been so treated until the death of Severus Alexander: Fabricius, E., ORL A, Strecke 4–5 (1936), 60Google Scholar.

255 CIL XIII, 7467, 11971.

256 CIL XIII, 6547.

257 CIL XIII, 11759.

258 CIL XIII, 6562; Fabricius, E., ORL A, Strecke 7–9 (1933). 120Google Scholar. note 1.

259 CIL XIII, 6552.

260 CIL XIII, 6566.

261 Zosimus I, 28; H. Koethe, 32 BerRGK 1942 (1950), 199 ff.; Schleiermacher, W., Historia 2 (1953), 105Google Scholar.

262 Baatz, D., SJ 22 (1965), 147Google Scholar, note 38.

263 CIL XIII, 9123.

264 CIL XIII, 9103, 9111.

265 Fischer, U., Germania 40 (1962), 76, 82Google Scholar.

266 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951). 154 f.

267 LF 2 (1962), 99 fGoogle Scholar.

268 Germania 31 (1953), 168 ff.Google Scholar; BVBl 25 (1960), 132 ffGoogle Scholar.

269 See also Kellner, H.-J., BVBl 30 (1965), 165Google Scholar, and Simon, H.-G., SJ 25 (1968), 21 fGoogle Scholar.

270 See BVBl 25 (1960), map B1 and B2.

271 Germania 18 (1934), 135Google Scholar.

272 BVBl 25 (1960), 144Google Scholar.

273 LF 2 (1962), 130Google Scholar.

274 SJ 21 (1963–1964), 83 fGoogle Scholar.

275 Keim, J. and Klumbach, H., Der römische Schatzfund von Straubing. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 3 (1951), 9Google Scholar.

276 See footnote 214.

277 F. Haug and G. Sixt, Die römischen Inschriften und Bildwerke Württembergs (1900), no. 30; F. Vollmer, Inscriptiones Baiuariae Romanae (1915), no. 202; CIL XIII, 5933. The findspot lies about 12 km. S. of the fort at Heidenheim (B 154).

278 Paneg. Lat. IV (8), 10, ed. Galletier, E. (1952)Google Scholar.

279 In this closing section only a short survey can be offered, shorter even than that of the preceding sections, containing only the main outlines. For this reason I shall not touch at all upon many still controversial questions, of which there are plenty even if we go no further than the chronology of late Roman fortifications. I am willing to admit that I am not a specialist in this period and I hope that at some future time it will be treated by someone who is.

280 SHA, Tyr. Trig, V, 4; H. v. Petrikovits, Festschrift Oxé (1938), 221 ff., and RR 76 ff.; Willger, H.-J., Studien zur Chronologie des Gallienus und Postumus, Inaugural-Dissertation, Saarbrücken, 1966Google Scholar.

281 Nesselhauf, H., BF 22 (1962), 79 ffGoogle Scholar. The findspot lies on the right bank of the Rhine almost opposite the fort at Seltz (C 65). The burgus of Liesenich mentioned below belongs to this period.

282 SHA, Tacitus III, 4Google Scholar.

283 SHA, Probus XIII, 7–8Google Scholar; XIV, 1.

284 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 156 ff.; Roeren, R., JbRGZM 7 (1960), 214 ff.Google Scholar, with map fig. 2. The Germanic settlements mentioned on p. 171 belong, of course, to a completely different category.

285 Alföldi, M. R., Schweizer Münzblätter 8 (1958), 63 ffGoogle Scholar.

286 Bersu, G., Das Wittnauer Horn (Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 4 (1945)), 86 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Schleiermacher, op. cit. (n. 284), 167 f., and E. Gersbach, Helvetia Antiqua, Festschrift Vogt (1966), 279. On further similar sites cf. Fellmann, R., Historia 4 (1955), 209 f.Google Scholar, and Kellner, H.-J., Militärgrenzen III fGoogle Scholar.

287 CIL XIII, 5203; H. Lieb, Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa (1948–9), 22 ff.; Ettlinger, E., RE IX A, col. 94Google Scholar.

288 CIL XIII, 11975–76; J. Hagen, Römerstrassen der Rheinprovinz 2 (1931), 426 ff.

289 CIL XIII, 4131.

290 Schleiermacher, op. cit. 168; Petrikovits, H. v., RR 72 ff., 83Google Scholar.

291 H. v. Petrikovits, Festschrift Oxé (193 ), 229 ff.

292 Oudenburg (C 15) belongs to a different system: Mertens, J., ‘Oudenburg et le Litus Saxonicum en Belgique’, Helimum 2 (1962), 51 ffGoogle Scholar. ( = Archaeologia Belgica 62).

293 J. Mertens and Ch. Léva, ‘Le fortin de Braives et le Limes Belgicus’, Mélanges d'Archéol. et d'Hist. offerts à A. Piganiol (1966), 1063 ff.

294 H. v. Petrikovits, RR 83 f., with note 148. Recently also H. Hinz, Archäologische Funde und Denkmäler des Rheinlandes: 2, Kreis Bergheim (1969), 91 ff.

295 See for the Constantinian or more likely Valentinianic period the so-called Ausonius Road between Trier (C 41), Bingen (C 51) and Mainz (C 52): Behrens, G., Germania 4 (1920), 12 f.Google Scholar; J. Hagen, Römerstrassen der Rheinprovinz 2 (1931), 365 ff.; Tabula Imperil Romani M32, Mogontiacum (1940). Compare the road protected by burgi from Augsburg (C 108) to Kempten (C 92) and Bregenz (C 90): L. Ohlenroth, 29 BerRGK 1939 (1941), 122 ff.

296 SHA, Probus XX, 2Google Scholar.

297 F. Wagner, 37–38 BerRGK 1956–57 (1958), 224, no. 30. According to H. Nesselhauf the inscription begins with the words: [restitutori pr]ovinciarum et operum [publicorum providen]tissimo…

298 In J. Garbsch's recent excavations a scattered coin-hoard, which was buried perhaps in 288, came to light inside the fort.

299 H.-J. Kellner, Limes-Studien 55 ff. A further coin-hoard of this period was found recently in the fort at Betmauer, near Isny (information from J. Garbsch).

300 CIL XIII, 5256.

301 CIL XIII, 5249. The inscription is now at Winterthur: Ur-Schweiz 32 (1968), 14 ffGoogle Scholar.

302 Fellmann, R., Busier Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 60 (1960), 39 ffGoogle Scholar.

303 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 172. In a paper to the 8th Congress of Roman Frontier Studies at Cardiff (1969) on new excavations here, Frau R.-M. Swoboda stated that the fortress was founded under Constantine I. In her opinion legio I Martia first took part in a reconstruction under Valentinian I. In the current view it would also be preferable to date the forts at Irgenhausen (C 83) and Schaan (C 89) to the period of Valentinian despite the earlier view (cf. Schleiermacher, op. cit. 173).

304 Paneg. Lat. IV (8), 2; VII (6), 4, 6, ed. E. Galletier (1952). Several coin-hoards in Switzerland are associated with the Alemannic invasion of 298: F. Staehelin, Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit 3 (1948), 282 f.

305 Th. Pekáry, ‘Zur Geschichte von Vindonissa in spätrömischer Zeit’, Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 1966 (1967), 12 f.

306 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 168 ff.

307 Petrikovits, H. v., Streitkräfte Niederrhein 12Google Scholar; he has kindly informed me that the words ‘at latest 298’ should be deleted from his comments on the funerary inscription CIL VI, 32943. At least under Constantine the mobile field army of Germania II comprised legio II Divitiensium and a legio Tungrecanorum (v. Petrikovits, l.c.).

308 Particularly in the interior, larger mobile units were collected together which could be sent speedily into action: D. van Berchem, L'Armée de Dioclétien et la reforme Constantinienne (1952), 113 ff.

309 CIL XIII, 8502. Christ, K. thinks that the building of forts on the Lower Rhine is to be dated to the years 306—310: ‘Antike Münzfunde Südwestdeutschlands,’ Vestigia 3, 1 (1960), 164 fGoogle Scholar.

310 Trierer Zeitschrift II (1936) Beiheft, 50 ffGoogle Scholar.

311 Trierer Zeitschrift 24–26 (1956–1958), 536 fGoogle Scholar.

312 Schindler, R., Germania 41 (1963), 35 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Varia Archaeologica, Festschrift Unverzagt (1964), 189 ff.

313 Die spätrömische Befestigung ‘Bürgle’ bei Gundremmingen, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10 (1964), 49 fGoogle Scholar.

314 The Felsberg lies c. 16 km. E. of the presumed earlier fort at Gernsheim (B 42).

315 Kempf, Th. K., Germania 42 (1964), 139 fGoogle Scholar.

316 Kellner, H.-J. and Ulbert, G., BVBl 23 (1958), 60 fGoogle Scholar.

317 H. v. Petrikovits, Festschrift Oxé (1938), 233 ff.

318 Amm. Marc. XXVII, 10.

319 Amm. Marc. XXVIII, 2, 1; XXX, 7, 6.

320 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 177 ff.

321 Schleiermacher, ibid. 183. For the two Alzey edicts of 15 Aug., 370, and 4 Apr., 373: O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste (1919), 107, 240, 244.

322 Hatt, J.-J., Limes-Studien 52, and Germania 37 (1959). 232Google Scholar.

323 Schleiermacher, op. cit. 179, 183.

324 Schindler, R., Saarbrüker Hefte 17 (1963), 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

325 Hinz, H. and Hömberg, I., ‘Ausgrabung eines spätrömischen Burgus in Asperden, Kr. Kleve’, Beiträge zur Archäologie des römischen Rheinlandes, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 3 (1968), 191 ffGoogle Scholar. Most of the watch-towers on the so-called Ausonius Road in Belgica I and Germania I probably belong to this period: see note 295.

326 Schleiermacher, W., Germania 26 (1942), 191 ffGoogle Scholar.

327 Amm. Marc. XXVIII, 2, 1.

328 F. Kutsch, Festschrift Oxé (1938), 204 ff.; W. Schleiemacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 181 f.

329 Amm. Marc. XVII, I, II; XXVIII, 2, 5. The question how far a Romanized population survived in the fourth century on the right bank of the Rhine and whether some sites there were occupied, if only temporarily, by Roman military forces, has often been discussed. I feel that at the moment no definite answers are possible. See H. Nesselhauf, Die spätrömische Verwaltung der gallisch-germanischen Länder (1938), 49 f.; Christ, K., ‘Antike Münzfunde Südwestdeutschlands’, Vestigia 3, 1 (1960), 148 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. B. Cichy's observations at Heidenheim (B 154), Fundberichte aus Schwaben, NF 18, 11 (1967), 90 fGoogle Scholar.

330 Malin, G., Jb. des Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein 58 (1958), 55, 58Google Scholar; E. Ettlinger, ibid. 59 (1959), 293 ff.; H.-J. Kellner, ibid. 64 (1965), 82 ff.

331 See note 305.

332 Kellner, op. cit. 83 f. with map, fig. 3.

333 See, for example, the watch-tower on the Mandacher Egg (not marked on Map C): H. R. Wiedemer, Brugger Neujahrsblätter (1963), 10 ff. For the West, see the watch-towers mentioned above, notes 295 and 325.

334 F. Staehelin, Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit 3 (1948), 296 f. with map, fig. 63. Because of the small scale none of these burgi is marked on Map C. See note 339.

335 Stehlin, K. and Gonzenbach, V. v., Schriften zur Ur- and Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 10 (1957)Google Scholar. The fortification of Ryburg is considered by E. Gersbach to be medieval: Helvetia Antiqua, Festschrift Vogt (1966), 271 ff.

336 CIL XIII, 11538; Stehlin and v. Gonzenbach, op. cit. 93 ff.

337 CIL XIII, 11537; Stehlin and v. Gonzenbach, op. cit. 114 ff.

338 W. Schleiermacher, 33 BerRGK 1943–50 (1951), 180.

339 Garbsch, J., BVBl 32 (1967), 51 ffGoogle Scholar. These burgi in Raetia I and II are not marked on Map C because of the small scale. A complete list of all burgi from Basel to Straubing with map can be found in Garbsch, op. cit. 79 ff.

340 Schleiermacher, op. cit. 178 f.

341 Amm. Marc. XXX, 3, 1 f.; Fellmann, R., Basel in römischer Zeit, Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 10 (1955), 73 ffGoogle Scholar. Because of the uncertainty over its siting the place is not marked on Map C.

342 H.-J. Kellner, Limes-Studien 57 ff.

343 References in Stein, E., Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches I (1928), 378 fGoogle Scholar.

344 Zosimus V, 46, 2.

345 RE X, col. 1348.

346 Eugippius, , Vita St. Severini 15, 20Google Scholar.

347 Kellner, H.-J. in Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte I (1967), 69 fGoogle Scholar.

348 F. Staehelin, Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit 3 (1948), 318 ff.; Fellmann, R., Historia 4 (1955), 214 ffGoogle Scholar.

349 H. v. Petrikovits, Festschrift Oxé (1938), 236 ff.

350 Claudian, De bello Gothico 416 ff.; Zosimus, VI, 2, 2.

351 OIL III, 3576.

352 For the archaeological finds of this period: Werner, J., BJ 158 (1958), 399 ffGoogle Scholar.

353 Schoppa, H., FH 2 (1962), 158 ff.Google Scholar; Alföldi, M. R., Bulletin du Cercle d'Études Numismatiques Bruxelles 5 (1968), 95 ffGoogle Scholar.

354 v. Petrikovits, op. cit. 239 ff.

355 If we follow Ewig, E. (Trierer Zeitschrift 21 (1952), 56 ffGoogle Scholar.), who suggests that Arbogastes, Comes Trevirorum in 475–6, was not a Frankish Gaugraf but a last representative of Roman authority in Trier. See also K. Böhner, ‘Zur Frage der Kontinuität zwischen Altertum und Mittelalter’, Aus der Schatzkammer des antiken Trier 2 (1959), 88 ff.