The Plateau Zone East of G St

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
City Wall ◽  
Base Area ◽  
Early Approach ◽  
Open Ground ◽  
Roman Military ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

The N end of the city’s plateau zone E of G St, bounded by the N wadi, the river cliff, and the head of the inner wadi, comprising the remotest corner within the walls, also became part of the Roman military quarter. Here, as across the whole N part of the city, the stratigraphy is shallow, rarely deeper than a metre, with bedrock showing in places. Surface indications and magnetometry suggest that much of the region had been built up in pre-Roman times, although there may have been areas of open ground. The street grid had been substantially laid out here, especially H St which ran to the N city wall, but E of this line it seems partly to break down. In particular, in the nominal areas of projected block positions X1–X8, 10th St actually curved off-grid to the S, probably preserving the line of an early approach road to the N end of the Citadel before the stronghold was separated from the plateau by a great quarry and rebuilt. This far N region was presumably mostly residential before AD 165, except for two known sanctuaries beside H St: the so-called Dolicheneum in X7, and a temple of unknown dedication in X9. Under Roman rule it became dominated by insertion of the massive residence known as the ‘Palace of the dux ripae’, here referred to as the Roman Palace. Closures of both G and I Sts on the N side of 10th St, by the building of Roman structures across them, indicates that the zone N of this line became a military enclosure. This was accessible from the civil town only via an entrance on H St, and from the W part of the base area on the plateau, already enclosed by a boundary along the W side of G St, via a smaller entrance on the diverted line of ‘12th St’ at the N-most point of block E3. Within the re-entrant to the continuous base perimeter created by the G St and 10th St lines, more blocks appear to have been taken over by the military.

How Did the Base Work?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
Brick Wall ◽  
City Wall ◽  
Base Area ◽  
Routine Basis ◽  
Base Boundary ◽  
Four Blocks ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

We now consider how the military base area operated, as a zone where a large number of people lived and worked on a routine basis. On one hand, to function it required the affordances of its internal communications, connections with the civil town, and access to roads, river, and lands beyond the walls; on the other, there was a need for surveillance and control of activities within the base, and of movements across its boundary. The most obvious part of the base boundary (Plate XXII) is the substantial mud brick wall ploughed across four blocks from the city defences just S of Tower 21, and blocking Wall, A, C, and D Sts, with a gate established at B St. How the S boundary was defined E of D St has always remained an issue. If it was necessary to build a wall at the W end, why was this not simply continued all the way to, e.g., the S end of the Citadel? Across blocks F7 and F5 it seems that the boundary of the military zone simply comprised party walls between military and civilian-occupied structures. The same was true within block B2, by the Citadel, although the boundary probably comprised building frontages along Lower Main St. On the plateau, as the camp wall may have been a subsequent local enhancement, except where the amphitheatre formed part of it, the boundary may generally have comprised the rear walls of military-held houses lining the S side of 8th St—probably all properties from the city wall to H St. The course of the boundary along the W side of the inner wadi is unknown, but the base is suggested, as along 8th St, to have incorporated at least all properties lining the S side of the Wadi Ascent Road, if not encompassing all blocks on the wadi slope—in which case the boundary here may rather have comprised property frontages on K St. The base area was split by site topography into two major zones, the flat plateau, and the N branch of the inner wadi around the Citadel. Each was further subdivided.

Why Was the Base Where It Was, and As It Was?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
Second Century ◽  
Third Century ◽  
City Wall ◽  
The Third ◽  
Open Ground ◽  
Face Saving ◽  
Saving Measure ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City ◽  
The Temple

In the foregoing, it was argued that the unitary base area seen in the third century, encompassing the entire N part of the city from the W defences almost to the River Gate, resulted from expansion and coalescence of two later-second-century nuclei, one near the Temple of Bêl, the other focused on the Citadel. Subsequently, presumably increasing Roman troop numbers at Dura led to takeover of the far N part of the intramural area, linking up the military holdings. But why did it start as two nuclei? When Roman power became permanently established over Dura c.165, and a decision was made to station Palmyrene symmachiarii there, while the Realpolitik may have been that these were proxy forces holding the city for Rome, the option of sending in troops from a long-standing friend of Dura may have been chosen as a face-saving measure for the Durene elite. The Palmyrenes were likely presented as defending the newly ‘liberated’ city from Arsacid interference. Under such circumstances, a less obtrusive, peripheral location would have been appropriate. The zone around the Temple of Bêl appears at the time to have comprised only partially built-up city blocks offering open ground, with more free space along the city wall to accommodate the Palmyrene force with minimal disruption to civic life. The temple plaza also offered a ready-made military assembly space. It is further possible that the Palmyrenes attested in Arsacid Dura—visiting traders and soldiers, and resident expatriates—already tended to congregate in or use this zone, around the temple which, at least later, would become especially associated with Palmyrene Bêl. With subsequent arrival of regular Roman troops, and the proposed enrolling of the Palmyrene archers as the nucleus of the nascent cohors XX, the NW cantonment was then probably expanded as it was developed into a Roman auxiliary base. With regard to the inner wadi/Citadel zone, it was suggested above that the incoming Romans would have taken over the great inner stronghold by default, as part of the defensive circuit. They also used the flat wadi floor in its shadow as a campus.

The Plateau Zone West of G St

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
Wall Painting ◽  
Roman Period ◽  
Third Century ◽  
City Wall ◽  
Base Area ◽  
The Third ◽  
Military Community ◽  
Roman Military ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Temple

One of the first structures explored at Dura in 1920, this temple (or perhaps better, sanctuary: Buchmann 2016, 116) was subsequently completely excavated but never fully published. Preliminary accounts were written by the excavators (Cumont 1926, 29–41; PR 2, 11–12, 67–9 (Pillet), PR 4, 16–19 (Pillet); Rostovtzeff 1938, 68–75 and pl. VI) and it has been much discussed since (Downey 1988, 105–10 for overview and references; Dirven 1999, 326–49 for the Palmyrene evidence; Leriche et al. 2011, 28). It remained a temple through the Roman period, apparently no part of it other than, presumably, the upper levels of city wall Tower 1 being used for secular military purposes. However, its continued existence in the farthest corner of the military base, and its attested use for worship by the Roman military community, demand discussion here. Indeed one of the very first military discoveries was the Terentius wall painting on the N wall of the temple’s room A, depicting a Roman military sacrifice by cohors XX Palmyrenorum before a triad of its national deities and the Tychai of Dura and Palmyra (Pl. I; Breasted 1922; Cumont 1923; Breasted 1924, 94–101, pl. XXI). Cumont consequently called the sanctuary the ‘Temple of the Palmyrene Gods’ (Cumont 1926, 29). In recent decades it has been more usually known as the ‘Temple of (i.e. Palmyrene) Bêl’, following Rostovtzeff (1938, 51), although in Parthian times it was probably dedicated to Zeus (Welles 1969, 63; Millar 1998, 482; Kaizer 2002, 122). No evidence indicates Palmyrene worship in the Parthian-era temple (Dirven 1999, 327–8). There is no consensus on the name for the sanctuary, so I follow MFSED’s ‘Temple of Bêl’ (Leriche et al. 2011, 28; also now Kaizer 2016b, 37–41). Described as laying in ‘J3/5’ by the Yale expedition, it actually lies N of these blocks in an area MFSED has labelled J9 (Leriche et al. 2011, 28–30). During the third century when the temple lay within the Roman base area, it did become the focus of Palmyrene cults, likely ‘related to Palmyrene soldiers or people associated with them’ (Dirven 1999, 328).

Roman Military Units in Olbia

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. M. ZUBAR
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
First Century ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
Roman Military ◽  
The Military ◽  
Military Units ◽  
The City

Around the middle of the first century, Olbia was under siege from the Getae. It was either destroyed or abandoned shortly before its destruction. It was only inhabited at the turn of the first century AD. It is assumed that Roman interest over Olbia only started after the middle of the first century. This chapter discusses the existence of Roman military units in Olbia during the years AD 106–111. These military units were believed to be present in Olbia to protect the city from barbarian intrusion. This assumption is established by the existence of inscribed grave-monuments and epitaphs belonging to Athenocles, and the Bosporans: indications of the attempts of the Rome to maintain its political strength and to defend the city from barbarians. Accordingly, after the collapse of the Olbian-Samartian alliance, the Roman Empire provided occasional military aid to Olbian during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. Other evidences that provide proof of the dependence of Olbia to the military aid given by the Roman military units are the presence of a Roman legionary garrison in Olbia including Thracian dedicatory reliefs.

The Wadi Zone Campus, Citadel, and C3 Bath

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
Roman Period ◽  
Major Area ◽  
Military Base ◽  
Open Ground ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
Military Control ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City ◽  
The Temple ◽  
And Training

From the junction of H and 8th Sts, which gave access to the twin main axes of the military base zone on the plateau, H St led S to the bulk of the civil town and ultimately to the Palmyrene Gate, the steppe plateau W of the city, and the roads W to Palmyra and NW up the Euphrates to Syria. The fourth side of the crossroads followed a curving course SE, down into the inner wadi, then snaking through the irregularly laid-out old lower town to the now-lost River Gate, portal to the Euphrates and its plain. Of most immediate significance is that the Wadi Ascent Road also linked the plateau military zone with what can now be seen as another major area of military control, in the old Citadel, and on the adjacent wadi floor. The N part of the wadi floor is now known to have accommodated two military-built temples, the larger of which, the A1 ‘Temple of the Roman Archers’, was axial to the long wadi floor, which in the Roman period appears to have comprised one of the largest areas of open ground inside the city walls. This is interpreted as the campus, or military assembly and training ground, extension of which was commemorated in an inscription found in the temple. In 2011, what is virtually certainly a second military temple was found in the wadi close by the first, built against the foundation of the Citadel. This is here referred to as the Military Zeus Temple. Behind the Temple of the Roman Archers was a lane leading from the Wadi Ascent Road to the N gate of the Citadel. It helped define a further de facto enclosure, effectively surrounded by other military-controlled areas and so also presumed to have been in military hands. The Citadel itself, while in Roman times already ruinous on the river side due to cliff falls, still formed part of the defences. Moreover the massive shell of its Hellenistic walls now also appears to have been adapted to yet more military accommodation, some of it two storeys or higher.

Conclusion: Chiaroscuro

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
Archaeological Site ◽  
Aerial Photographs ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Military Base ◽  
French Academy ◽  
Base Area ◽  
The People ◽  
New Knowledge ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

This project has explored the archaeology of Dura’s imperial Roman military base, and also considered other material traces of the presence of soldiers in the city, e.g. at the Palmyrene Gate and creation of urban baths. As such it here synthesizes the archaeological evidence of a literal quarter (or more) of this globally important archaeological site. It offers an example of the still under-appreciated potential of ‘legacy data sets’ and archival archaeology, and of resurveying ‘old sites’, to generate significant new knowledge, making best use of limited resources. It also considers ‘legacy ideas’ as well as more recent publications to generate new understandings of garrison, base, and city. I hope that this volume will further constitute a useful contribution to the study of the Roman armies, and the soldiers in their ranks. I also hope that it will establish that the military aspect is a vital part of the story of Dura itself, especially for the Roman era, and that the military base and the people who lived in it cannot be treated as literally and figuratively peripheral to Durene studies. The foregoing presents what has been a visually led project, and also one of space and of movement within it. It was conducted through a combination of examining the largely image-based archival records of the Yale/French Academy expedition and direct observation of the fabric of the city, especially of the remains exposed by the original excavations as they were between 2005 and 2010. It has also generated entirely new data expanding the picture through geophysical prospection of the unexcavated portions of the base area and vicinity. Physically moving around the topography of the former city and, where it was still partially upstanding, through some of its spaces, provided many key insights. Others derived from considering plans, aerial photographs, magnetometry plots, and recent satellite images. Not least, interpretations arose from generating the new drawings, largely plans, featured in this book.

scholarly journals El Castillo de La Atalaya (siglo XVIII), en Cartagena (Región de Murcia, España). Análisis formal y constructivo

X ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Carta ◽  
Diego Ros McDonnell ◽  
Pedro Enrique Collado Espejo
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
The South ◽  
The West ◽  
City Wall ◽  
Ground Plan ◽  
The North ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

The Atalaya Castle (eighteenth century), in Cartagena (Region of Murcia, Spain). Formal and constructive analysisThe Atalaya Castle (eighteenth century) is one of the military fortifications that were part of the defense of Cartagena. The defensive system of the period was composed of an important walled enclosure, which surrounded the city, the arsenal, and a group of fortresses outside the city wall, located on the nearby hills. One of these defensive constructions is the Atalaya Castle or Fort, located to the west of the city from its position it protected the population from attacks both by land and by sea. To the north and west by land, through the Almarjal and the Pelayo mountains, the south by sea covered the possible landings in the bays of the Algameca Grande and the Algameca Chica. The building is a magnificently construction, the fort has a pentagon ground plan with five bastions at each angle. It has an interior building in U arranged on a solid bastioned platform the whole complex is surrounded by a dry moat. The fortification present certain formal elements used in other constructions that had been lifted in the city at that time, circumstance gave unity to the whole. The materials consisted of employed mainly stone and brick, the constructive elements introduce certain heterogeneity. The purpose of the communication is to present the results of the comprehensive analysis carried out in the Atalaya Castle as well as to contribute, through its dissemination to raise awareness of the need for its restoration and enhancement. Research has studied the characteristics of the formal and constructive system of the fortification currently in a state of semiabandonment, a proposal has also been conducted for a new cultural use as a guarantee of its correct recovery and conservation.

The Big Picture

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon James
Keyword(s):  
British Empire ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Wall Paintings ◽  
Military Presence ◽  
Ancient City ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
Roman Military ◽  
New Generation ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

It is now twenty years since Fergus Millar highlighted the importance of the spectacular archaeological discoveries made at the ancient city known today as Dura-Europos. While praising the energy of the original excavators, he set out the shortcomings of the limited available publications, and called for ‘the entire corpus of material from Dura’, published and unpublished, ‘to be systematically reviewed’ (Millar 1998, 474). Research and publication had, in fact, never entirely ceased, and a new generation of scholars was already busy on both archive and site when Millar wrote. Since then, both the scale and pace of work have sharply increased, effectively developing into a renaissance in Dura studies. It is hoped that what follows will constitute a significant contribution to this wider current enterprise, regarding a key aspect of the city in the final century of its existence: the highly obtrusive Roman military presence. Imperial soldiers were always central to the story of Dura- Europos on the Syrian Euphrates. Founded by soldiers of one empire, it was eventually destroyed in conflict between those of two more, and was even revealed to modern scholarship by troops of a fourth. In 1920 Indian soldiers of the British empire, on what we would now call counter-insurgency operations, camped in the ruins known as Salhiyeh, the ancient name of which was unknown. They started digging defensive trenches, and were surprised to discover wall paintings, one of which depicted a Roman auxiliary regiment making sacrifice (Breasted 1924). The military tribune Julius Terentius, named in Latin, is seen offering incense before three Palmyrene gods, and the Tychai of Palmyra and Dura. Thus the name—as it turned out, one of the twin names—of the city was rediscovered, as was the fact that it had a Roman garrison, here on the eastern fringe of Rome’s empire. Subsequent scientific excavations revealed its other name given by its original Macedonian soldier-settlers: Europos. They also revealed that, in the decades before Dura’s violent destruction by the Sasanians (AD c.256) and permanent abandonment, one of the most prominent features inside its walls was a sprawling Roman military base.

Crossing the Pomerium

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Koortbojian
Keyword(s):  
Social Practices ◽  
Civic Life ◽  
Public Monuments ◽  
Religion And Law ◽  
Mediterranean World ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

The ancient Romans famously distinguished between civic life in Rome and military matters outside the city—a division marked by the pomerium, an abstract religious and legal boundary that was central to the myth of the city's foundation. This book explores, by means of images and texts, how the Romans used social practices and public monuments to assert their capital's distinction from its growing empire, to delimit the proper realms of religion and law from those of war and conquest, and to establish and disseminate so many fundamental Roman institutions across three centuries of imperial rule. The book probes such topics as the appearance in the city of Romans in armor, whether in representation or in life, the role of religious rites on the battlefield, and the military image of Constantine on the arch built in his name. Throughout, the book reveals how, in these instances and others, the ancient ideology of crossing the pomerium reflects the efforts of Romans not only to live up to the ideals they had inherited, but also to reconceive their past and to validate contemporary practices during a time when Rome enjoyed growing dominance in the Mediterranean world. The book explores a problem faced by generations of Romans—how to leave and return to hallowed city ground in the course of building an empire.

scholarly journals Tufa und Armilausini

2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-213
Author(s):  
Ludwig Rübekeil
Keyword(s):  
Late Antiquity ◽  
Byzantine Empire ◽  
Migration Period ◽  
Linguistic Interference ◽  
History Of ◽  
Loan Word ◽  
Roman Military ◽  
The Military

AbstractThis article investigates the origin and history of two names dating from late Antiquity or the migration period. The first is the personal name Tufa, the second is the tribal name Armilausini. The two names can be traced back to a corresponding Germanic loan word in the Latin military language, tufa and armilausia, respectively, both of which are continued in the military language of the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Empire. The names are based on the appellative nouns. Both the appellatives and, even more so, the names turn out to be characteristic products of the multilingual background of the Roman military, as they show several signs of linguistic interference such as lexical reanalysis / folk etymology, morphological remodelling and semantic specialization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document