No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘Prata Legionis’ in Britain
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2011
Extract
AN important though infrequently discussed aspect of Britain's legionary fortresses is the existence, on the analogy of the arrangements made in other provinces, around each of them of a large tract of land which came under the direct control of the resident legion. As a citizen body headed by a deputy or legatus of the emperor a legion could ‘possess’ a territory on behalf of the Roman People and, for administrative and legal purposes, be regarded as a locally sovereign respublica in just the same way as a chartered town or a formally constituted native civitas, as is evidenced by instances where the boundaries of civil territoria run with those of army lands, implying equivalent status. Although lands were also allotted to auxiliary units, overall control of such areas is likely to have rested with the legate of the closest legion, a situation which not only stemmed from the fact that the auxilia were both in theory and in reality auxiliaries to the legions but which also reflected their origin in a period when the legions could be contrasted as wholly citizen bodies with the overwhelmingly peregrine auxilia.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © D.J.P. Mason 1988. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 Schulten, A., ‘Das Territorium legionis', Hermes xxix (1894), 481–516Google Scholar ; Egger, R., ‘Bemerkungen zum Territorium pannonischer Festungen', Anzeiger der oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 88 (1951), 206–32Google Scholar ; Mócsy, A., ‘Das Territorium legionis und die canabae in Pannonien’, Acta Archaeologica Akademiae Scientarum Hungaricae iii (1953), 179–99Google Scholar ; idem, ‘Zu den prata legionis’ in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms: Vortrage des 6 Internationalen Limeskongresses in Süddeutschland (Bonner Jahrbücher Beiheft 19, Cologne, 1967), 211–14; idem, ‘Das Problem der militärischen Territorien im Donauraum’, Acta Antiqua Akademiae Scientarum Hungaricae xx (1972), 133–62; von Petrikovits, H., Das römische Rheinland. Archaeologische Forschungen seit 1945 (Bonner Jahrbücher Beiheft 8, Cologne, 1960), 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; MacMullen, R., Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge. Mass., 1963), 7–11Google Scholar ; Salway, P., The Frontier People of Roman Britain (Cambridge, 1965), 188–89Google Scholar ; Rüger, C.B.. Germania Inferior (Cologne, 1968), 51–55 and 72–74Google Scholar; Sommer, C.S., The Military Vici in Roman Britain, BAR 129 (Oxford, 1984). 13–14.Google Scholar
2 ILS 2454, 2455. 5969.
3 For example, RIB 1049 at Chester le Street.
4 ILS 2454, 2455, 5969, 5970 and l'Année epigraphique 1946 nos. 11, 17, 18 and 19, all of which are listed together with others from Northern Spain in Garcia y Bellido, A., Archivo Español de Arqueologica xxix (1956), 184ffGoogle Scholar , nos. 1–14; ILS 5968 = CIL iii 13250 (Burnum); CIL iii 10489 (Aquincum); ILS 7111 = CIL iii 1437010 (Castra Regina) ; Weiss, J., Jahreshefte des Oesterreichischen Archaeologischen Instituts (Vienna) xvi (1913), col. 209–10.Google Scholar
5 See works by various authors cited in note I; also F. Vittinghoff, ‘Die Bedeutung der Legionslager für die Enstehung der römischen Städte an der Donau und in Dakien’ in Studien zur europäischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Jankuhn, Festschrift H., Neümunster, 1968), 132–42Google Scholar ; idem, Chiron i (1971), 299ff.
6 Jones, R.F.J., JRS lxvi (1976), 49–50.Google Scholar
7 See note 4.
8 Garcia y Bellido, op. cit. (note 4); idem, Archivo Español de Arqueologica xxxiv (1961), 114fr, especially 118 fig. 1.
4 ILS 5968.
10 Wilkes, J.J., Dalmatia (London, 1969), 103–5 and 459.Google Scholar
11 ‘Zu den prato legionis’ in Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms: Vorträge des 6 Internationalen Limeskongresses in Süddeutschland (Bonner Jahrbücher Beiheft 19, Cologne, 1967), 211–14.
12 See Breeze, D.J. in Clack, P. and Haselgrove, S. (eds.), Rural Settlement in the Roman North (Durham, 1982), 148–65, 150.Google Scholar
13 Annals XIII, 54.
14 Annals XIII, 55.
15 Overall supervision of a legion's herds appears to have been the responsibility of soldiers designated as pecuarii- CIL iii 10428 and 11215, viii 2553, xiii 7695.
16 Mócsy, works cited in note 1; Vittinghoff, works cited in note 5; Mason, D.J.P., The Canabae and Vici of Roman Britain (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Liverpool, 1984), 228–48.Google Scholar
17 Weiss, op. cit. (note 4), col. 209–10.
18 ILS 7111 = CIL iii 1437010.
19 Bonner Jahrbücher clxiii (1963), 76–150 ; Staehelin, F., Die Schweiz in römischer Zeit (3rd edition, Basel, 1948), 136–7. 176 and 200.Google Scholar
20 Von Petrikovits, op. cit. (note 1), 61–3; Rüger, op. cit. (note 1), 51–5.
21 Gardner, W., Arch. Camb. lxxx (1925), 313–15.Google Scholar
22 Boon, G.C. in Nash-Williams, V.E., The Roman Frontier in Wales (2nd edition rev. Jarrett, M.G., Cardiff, 1969), 62.Google Scholar
23 C.A. Gresham in V.E. Nash-Williams, op. cit. (note 22), 106; but see also White, R.B., ‘Excavations at Brithdir, near Dolgellau, 1974’, Monographs and Collections (Cambrian Archaeol. Assoc.) I (1978), 62 note 18Google Scholar , where doubt is cast upon the supposed discovery of a leg. II Aug. Anto, tile at Pennal.
24 Thomas, E.B., Römische Villen in Pannonien (Budapest, 1964). 132 and 207.Google Scholar
25 This may have been the status of the ‘possessores vinearum el agrorum’ who dwelt in the immediate vicinity of the fortress at Lambaesis in Numidia – l'Année epigraphique 1964 no. 196.
26 Tacitus, Agricola, 19.
27 See Manning, W.H. in Evans, J.E., Limbrey, S. and Cleere, H. (eds.), The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Highland Zone, C.B.A. Research Rep. 11 (London, 1975), 112–16Google Scholar ; N. Higham in P. Clack and S. Haselgrove (eds.), op. cit. (note 12), 105–22.
28 CIL viii 4322.
29 Nowotny, E., ‘Das Territorium legionis von Camuntum’, Der römische Limes in Osterreich (Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna) 18 (1937), 129ff, 147.Google Scholar
30 Kandier, M. in Fitz, J. (ed.), Akten des Xl Internationalen Limeskongresses (Budapest, 1977), 145–53.Google Scholar
31 Mócsy, A., Pannonia and Upper Moesia (London, 1974), 143–47.Google Scholar
32 ibid., 144.
33 Mócsy, A., Acta Antiqua Akademiae Scientarum Hungaricae xx (1972), 133–62Google Scholar , especially 145–47; and Mócsy, op. cit. (note 31), 141–43.
34 A boundary-marker stone found in 1970 on the left bank of the River Sieg some 3 5 km from its confluence with the Rhine and not far from the legionary fortress at Bonn bears the inscription ‘[L]egio prim[a] Minerv[ia] [p]ia fideli[s] prata [A]vrelian[a] [a]dampliav[it]. Bogaers, J.E. and Rüger, C.B., Der Niedergermanische Limes (Cologne, 1974), 26–28.Google Scholar Although legio I Minervia was clearly involved in establishing the boundaries of the newly-enlarged ‘prata Aureliano’ the inscription, by itself, does not prove a direct military interest in these prata for, because of their surveying skills, it was common practice for legionary personnel to be seconded as arbitrators in civil boundary disputes, e.g., CIL iii 2882, 2883, 8472, 9832, 9973, 12794.
35 See Webster, G., The Cornovii (London, 1975), 25–32.Google Scholar
36 Richmond, I.A., ‘The four coloniae of Roman Britain’, Arch. Journ. (1946), 57ffGoogle Scholar ; Whitwell, J.B., Roman Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1970)Google Scholar ; Todd, M., The Coritani (London, 1973), 34–5.Google Scholar
37 Richmond, op. cit. (note 36), 65.
38 ibid., 61.
39 Hull, M.R., Roman Colchester, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rep. XX (Oxford, 1958), 1Google Scholar ; Dunnett, R., The Trinovantes (London, 1975), 39.Google Scholar
40 Wilson, D.R., Britannia viii (1977), 185–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Clifford, E., JRS xlv (1955), 68ffGoogle Scholar ; Wacher, J.S., The Towns of Roman Britain (London, 1974), 152–55Google Scholar ; Hurst, H. in Branigan, K. and Fowler, P.J. (eds.), The Roman West Country (London, 1976), 63–80, esp., 76–79.Google Scholar
42 Hucclecote, – Trans. Bristol and Gloucs. Arch. Soc. lv (1936), 350Google Scholar ; Hill, Dry – JRS xlv (1955), 72Google Scholar ; Ifold, – JRS xlv (1955), 69Google Scholar ; Frocester, – Trans. Bristol and Gloucs. Arch. Soc. lxxxix (1970), 19.Google Scholar
43 Wacher, op. cit. (note 41), 152–4. This evidence is not, however, convincing.
44 Richmond, op. cit. (note 36), 65; Whitwell, op. cit. (note 36), 39; Todd, op. cit. (note 36), 34–5; Wacher, op. cit. (note 41), 135.
45 op. cit. (note 36), 39.
46 ibid., 23–24. Source of such raw materials need not, however, have been included in a territorium.
47 Richmond, I.A., PSAS ixxiv (1940), 37–48Google Scholar ; and Collingwood, R.G. and Richmond, I.A., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (2nd rev. ed.London, 1969), 73.Google Scholar
48 Pitts, L.F. and Joseph, J.K.S. St., Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress, Britannia Monograph No. 6 (London, 1985), 258.Google Scholar
49 ibid., 258–60.
50 W.F. Grimes, Holt, Denbighshire, the Works-Depot of the Twentieth Legion at Castle Lyons (Y Cymmrodor 41, 1930); D.F. Petch in V.E. Nash-Williams, op. cit. (note 22), 42–44.
51 Atkinson, D., Petch, J.A. and Taylor, M.V., Flintshire Historical Society Publications x (1925)Google Scholar ; Petch, J.A., Arch. Camb. xci (1936), 74–92Google Scholar ; Davies, E., The Prehistoric and Roman Remains of Flintshire (Cardiff, 1949), 124–47Google Scholar ; Tylecote, R-F., Metallurgy in Archaeology (London, 1962), 76–77.Google Scholar
52 Davey, P.J. and O'Leary, T.J., Flintshire Historical Society Publications xxvii (1978), 139–51.Google Scholar
53 ibid.., 151.
54 Taylor, M.V., Flintshire Historical Society Publications ix (1922), 58–92, 68–71Google Scholar ; E. Davies, op. cit. (note 51), 226–38 ; Room, R.E., Flintshire Historical Society Publications xxiii (1968), 82–84Google Scholar ; Kelly, R.S., Bulletin Board Celtic Studies xxvii (1976) 127–47.Google Scholar
55 Room, op. cit. (note 54), 84.
56 Davies, op. cit. (note 51), 231.
57 Where there appears to have been a succession of forts and a thriving civil settlement, the extramural bath-house incorporating legio XX tiles and antefixes in its fabric- Newstead, R., Arch. Camb. xcii (1937), 208–32 and xciii (1938), 175–91Google Scholar ; Britannia viii (1977), 358–59, xii (1981), 314 and xvi (1985), 252–53 ; Blockley, K., AW 24 (1984), 51–53 and 25 (1985), 29.Google Scholar
58 e.g. D.F. Petch in V.E. Nash-Williams, op. cit. (note 22), 33–42, 35.
59 Carrington, P., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., lx (1977), 35–42Google Scholar and Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., lxviii (1986), 5–22.
60 CIL vii 1204 and EE vii 1121 = Wright, R.P. and Richmond, I.A., The Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester (Chester, 1955)Google Scholar , Nos. 196 and 197.
61 CIL vii 1204; Watkin, W.T., Roman Cheshire (Liverpool, 1886), 162.Google Scholar
62 EE VII 1121; Watkin, op. cit. (note 61), 163; Shrubsole, G.W., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., newser., i (1887), 76–90, 77–81.Google Scholar
63 op. cit. (note 58), 35.
64 Carrington, P., Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin x (1986), 102–5, 103.Google Scholar
65 See Carrington, P., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., lx (1977), 37–38Google Scholar ; Hartley, B.R. in Anderson, A.C. and Anderson, A.S. (eds.), Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe, BAR S123 (Oxford, 1981), 239–47.Google Scholar
66 See Whittick, G.C., Britannia xiii (1982), 113–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar , 120–21 comparing CIL vii 1204 and EE VII 1121 with CIL vii 1205 and EE IX 1264.
67 See Frere, S.S., Britannia (2nd rev. ed.London, 1978), 322Google Scholar and G.C. Whittick, op. cit. (note 66), 118–21 both discussing CIL vii 1203 and Webster, G., Flintshire Historical Society Publications xiii (1953), 5–33, No. 29.Google Scholar
68 op. cit. (note 67), 10–14.
69 See Frere, op. cit. (note 67), 322–23.
70 For mining in Britain – Webster, op. cit. (note 67); Liversidge, J., Britain in the Roman Empire (London. 1968), 203–9Google Scholar ; Frere, op. cit. (note 67), 323–24; Salway, P., Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 570, 595, 632–35.Google Scholar In Spain – Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., Roman Civilization. Sourcebook II: The Empire (New York. 1966), 188–94Google Scholar for translated extracts from detailed regulations governing the operation of mines at Vipasca; also Domergue, C.. Archivo Español de Arqueológica de Arqueológica xxxix (1966). 41–72.Google Scholar In Danubian provinces – Mócsy. op. cit. (note 31), 131–34 ; Alföldy, G., Noricum (London, 1974), 113–16Google Scholar ; Dusanic, S. in Temporini, H. and Haase, W. (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung II.6 (Berlin, 1977), 52–94.Google Scholar Organisation in the late Roman period – Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284–602 (London, 1964), 838–39.Google Scholar
71 E. Davies, op. cit. (note 51), 187–91.
72 Petch, J. A., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., xxx (1933), 5–45Google Scholar ; Hartley, B.R.. Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. xxxix (1952), 1–20 and xli (1954), 1–14Google Scholar ; Hartley, B.R. and Kaine, K.F., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. xli (1954), 15–38Google Scholar ; Thompson, F.H., Roman Cheshire (Chester, 1965), 60–65Google Scholar ; D.J.P. Mason, ‘The Roman site at Heronbridge, near Chester, Cheshire: aspects of civilian settlement in the vicinity of legionary fortresses in Britain and beyond’. Arch. Journ. forthcoming.
73 Mason, D.J.P., Britannia xviii (1987), 143–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 Hartley, B.R., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., xxxix (1952), 13.Google Scholar
75 ibid., 14.
76 Davey and O'Leary, op. cit. (note 52), 151.
77 Room, op. cit. (note 54), 83.
78 Newstead, R., Arch. Camb. xcii (1937), 227Google Scholar , fig. 9 no. 2 and xciii (1938), 184, fig. 4 nos. 13 and 17.
79 Newstead, R., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., xxxiii (1939), 78Google Scholar and 91, also xxxvi (1948), 71–2,78, 87, 97, 114, 116 ; Whitwell, J.B. and McNamee, S., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. li (1964), 12–16Google Scholar ; Kelly, D.B., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. lii (1965), 13–18Google Scholar ; Robinson, D.J. and Ward, T.E., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. lviii (1975), 46Google Scholar ; Mason, D.J.P., Excavations at Chester, 11–15 Castle Street and Neighbouring Sites, 1974–78. A Possible Roman Posting-House, Grosvenor Museum Archaeological Excavation and Survey Reports No. 2 (Chester, 1980), 33,38, 51.72–3.Google Scholar
80 Hartley, , Journ. Chester Arch. Soc., new ser., xxxix (1952), 9.Google Scholar
81 Bohn, O., Germania x (1926), 25–36.Google Scholar
82 See works by A. Mócsy cited in note I, also op. cit. (note 31), 139–43; those by F. Vittinghoff cited in note 5 and in Legio VII Gemina (hsg. v. Cátedra de San Isidoro, Instituto Leonés de Estudios Romano-Visigóticos, Leon, 1970), 337–52; and H. von Petrikovits, op. cit. (note I), 61–63.
83 See Campbell, B., JRS lxviii (1978), 153ff.Google Scholar
84 e.g. CIL iii 3505.
85 Mason, op. cit. (note 72).
86 Mócsy, op. cit. (note 31), 141–42.
87 Velera – von Petrikovits, H., Bonner Jahrbücher clii (1952), 41–161Google Scholar ; also Hinz, H. in Temporini, H. and Haase, W. (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung II.4 (Berlin, 1975), 825–69.Google ScholarNovaesium – von Petrikovits, H., Bonner Jahrbücher cli (1961), 449–81Google Scholar ; also Müller, G. in Ausgrabungen in Deutschland, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Monographien 1.1 (Mainz, 1975), 384–400.Google Scholar
88 Mócsy, A., Acta Archaeologica Akademiae Scientarum Hungaricae iii (1953), 179–99.Google Scholar
89 op. cit. (note 31), 140.
90 Bonis, E.B., Die spätkellische Siedlung Gellérthegy Tabán in Budapest (Budapest, 1969).Google Scholar
91 Todorović, J., ‘Praistoriska nekropola na Rospi cuprijii kod Beograda’, Godisnjak Muzeja Grada Beograda 3 (1956), 77–95.Google Scholar
92 Mócsy, op. cit. (note 31), 72–3.
93 Ulbert, G. in Bömer, F. and Voit, L. (eds), Germania Romana I: Römerstädte in Deutschland (Berlin, 1960).Google Scholar
94 Vetters, H. in Temporini, H. and Haase, W. (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, II.6 (Berlin. 1977), 355–79.Google Scholar
95 Mócsy, op. cit. (note 88), 189–99 and op. cit. (note 31), 221; also Mason, op. cit. (note 16), 249–67.
96 See Kennett, A.M. (ed.), Chester and the River Dee: An Illustrated History of Chester and its Port (Chester. 1982).Google Scholar
97 Margary, I.D., Roman Roads in Britain (3rd ed.London, 1973), fig. 13 route 6a.Google Scholar
98 ibid., 348–49.
99 Mason, op. cit. (note 73).
100 Mason, D.J.P., Cheshire Archaeological Bulletin ix (1983). 67–72.Google Scholar
101 Dodgson, J.M., Trans. Hist. Soc. Lanes, and Chesh. cxix (1967), 1–37, 32.Google Scholar
102 ibid., 32.
103 RIB 395; Morgan, O., Goldcliff and the Roman Inscribed Stone found there in 1878 (Caerleon and Monmouthshire Antiquarian Assoc., 1882).Google Scholar
104 Knight, J.K., Monmouthshire Antiquary 1(2) (1962), 34–36.Google Scholar
105 Boon, G.C., Isca: The Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon, Mon. (Cardiff, 1972), 17Google Scholar ; ibid., Monmouth shire Antiquary II(3) (1967), 125–26; ibid, in F.H. Thompson (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change, Soc. Ant. London Occas. Paper (n.s.) 1 (London, 1980), 24–36, 27–29.
106 Wacher, op. cit. (note 41), 33–35 and 375–404; Salway, op. cit. (note 70), 138 and 186–88; Davies, J.L. in Blagg, T.F.C. and King, A.C. (eds.), Military and Civilian in Roman Britain, BAR 136 (Oxford, 1984), 93–128, 94.Google Scholar
107 Vyner, B.E., Monographs and Collections (Cambrian Archaeol. Assoc.) I (1978), 25–34Google Scholar ; Britannia xv (1984). 270 and fig. 4 and xvi (1985), 260–63 and fig. 9; AW 23 (1983), 47–49 and 24 (1984), 57–58.
108 Allen, J.R.L. and Fulford, M.G., Britannia xvii (1986), 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
109 ibid., 115.
110 Manning, W.H., Report on the Excavations at Usk 1965–76: The Fortress Excavations 1968–71 (Cardiff. 1981), 46–47.Google Scholar
111 Arch. Camb. x (1855), 209; Britannia xv (1984). 270.
112 Nash-Williams, V.E., Arch. Camb. xciv (1939), 108–110.Google Scholar
113 Boon, G.C., AW 5 (1965). 17.Google Scholar
114 CIL vii 1202, with Whittick, op. cit. (note 66), 115–18; CIL xiii 3491.
115 CIL vii 1205 and 1206, EE IX 1264.
116 Ramm, H.G., The Parisi (London, 1978), 69–104Google Scholar ; Branigan, K. (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes (Sheffield, 1980), 18–27Google Scholar ; Jones, R.F.J. in Wilson, P.R., Jones, R.F.J. and Evans, D.M. (eds.). Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Univ. of Bradford/Yorks. Archaeol. Soc., 1984), 39–42.Google Scholar
117 Ramm, op. cit. (note 116), 3–5; R.F.J. Jones, op. cit. (note 116), 39–40.
118 RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), xxxv–xxxix, 49–58, 62–64Google Scholar ; Wacher, op. cit. (note 41), 156–77; P. Ottaway in Wilson et al., op. cit. (note 116), 57–64; Mason, op. cit. (note 16), 180–82, 260–65, 689–99.
119 RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), Monuments 20, 34e (with p. xxxvii), 46Google Scholar ;. JRS lii (1962), 166–67; Yorks. Arch. Journ. xli (1963), 13; xlii (1968), 117; xlviii (1976), 35–68; Britannia ii (1971), 309–10 ; Carver, M.O.H., Donaghey, S. and Sumpter, A.B., Riverside Structures and a Well in Skeldergate and Buildings in. Bishophill, The Archaeology of York vol. 4, fase. 1 (York, 1978).Google Scholar
120 RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), xxxvi.Google Scholar
121 The ‘praetorium’ mentioned on RIB 662, the latter found on the site of the building designated RCHM Monument 34, and Monument 19, either a bath-house or a building with an impressive bath-suite, one of the rooms in which was floored with tiles bearing the stamp of legio IX Hispana which suggests, but does not of course prove, an early and military origin for this building.
122 RIB 671, 673, 680; RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), Inscriptions etc. nos. 95 and 99.
123 Mason, op. cit. (note 73).
124 Britannia xvi (1985), 258–59.
125 RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), 101–107.Google Scholar
126 For discussions of the likeliest date for the implementation of the division of Britain into two provinces see. Frere, op. cit. (note 67), 203–05 and Salway, op. cit. (note 70), 222–32.
127 Evidenced by the altar erected at Bordeaux by the sevir augustalis of the York and Lincoln coloniae, Marcus Aurelius Lunaris – JRS xi (1921), 101–107.
128 Epitome de Caesaribus, xx, 27.
129 This would not only fit in with the major political and administrative reforms in Britain at this period but would also correspond with the extensive rebuilding and replanning that appears to have been happening at York in the late second/early third century – Britannia vi (1975), 236–37; Yorks. Arch. Journ. xlviii (1976), 35–68; Wacher, op. cit. (note 41), 161; Ottaway, op. cit. (note 118).
130 For an alternative possibility see note 142 below.
131 The existence of a ‘domus palatina’ at York is mentioned in the Life of Severus – Scriptores Historiae Augustae, XX, 7.
132 The suggestion by J. Bennett in Wilson et al., op. cit. (note 116), 35–38, that the settlement on the south-west bank was founded as a municipium by Hadrian is totally devoid of supportive evidence.
133 Mócsy, A., Pannonia and Upper Moesia (London, 1974), 221–25.Google Scholar
134 RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), Monuments 30, 31 and 34.
135 ibid., Monuments 18, 27, 32 and 35.
136 ibid., Monument 16.
137 RIB 677 and 678 (with JRS lvi (1966), 228).
138 Rivet, A.L.F., Town and Country in Roman Britain (London, 1964), 139.Google Scholar
139 For example, Ian Richmond in RCHM, Eburacum, Roman York (1962), Introduction, xxxvi; Collingwood, R.G. and Wright, R.P., The Roman Inscriptions of Britain I (Oxford, 1965), 215Google Scholar ; P. Salway, in K. Branigan, op. cit. (note 116), 8–17, 13; idem, op. cit. (note 70), 583.
140 op. cit. (note 70), 583.
141 Barcócki, L., Acta Archaeologica Akademiae Scientarum Hungaricae III (1953), 201–203Google Scholar ; Mócsy, op. cit. (note 88); idem, op. cit. (note 130), 217–25; Mason, op. cit. (note 16), 249–67.
142 RIB 648.
143 Rodwell, W., Britannia vi (1975), 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But cf. Mann in Britannia xviii (1987), 285–86.
144 ibid., 98–99.
145 Although on present evidence less convincing, an alternative sequence for the successive advances in the status of York's civilian community can nevertheless be constructed. This would envisage the bestowal of the rank of municipium at some time during the second half of the second century, most probably during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. While there is an empire-wide lack of evidence for the promotion of extramural settlements to municipia before the time of Severus this would theoretically have been possible at York because, owing to a combination of factors already described above, a large section of the canabae legionis had grown up on the opposite bank to that occupied by the fortress and so the usual obstacles to the municipalisation of the canabae were not present. Of course, in this scenario, the suburbs on the north-east bank of the Ouse would not have become part of the municipium. The second and final stage in the process will have occurred under Severus or Caracalla when the remainder of the canabae legionis would have been formally incorporated into the chartered town, the whole community receiving the rank of colonia. Alternatively, the two may have continued to be independent of one another administratively with the canabae being given chartered status also and becoming the municipium Eboracense and the old municipium being upgraded to become the colonia Eboracensis, an arrangement which although on the face of it very unlikely is nevertheless exactly that adopted at Apulum in Dacia, though here, as at Aquincum, Carnuntum and Viminacium in the Hadrianic period, it was the community lying a few kilometres from the fortress that was granted chartered status under Marcus Aurelius – see Vittinghoff, F. in Studien zur europaischen Vor- und Frühgeschichte (Jankuhn, Festschrift H., Neumunster, 1968), 135–39Google Scholar ; Mason, op. cit. (note 16), 136 and 250–51.
146 Mócsy, , Acta Archaeologica Akademiae Scientarum Hungaricae iii (1953), 179–99Google Scholar ; idem, op. cit. (note 130), 217–25.
- 10
- Cited by