Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:35:50.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Roman Fortified House near Cardiff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

R. E. M. Wheeler
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Modern students of Roman Britain have been taught to recognize the sharp line of cleavage, both social and regional, which intervened between the military and the civil zones of the province. Such recognition is essential both as a corrective to the indiscriminate marchings and counter-marchings of the earlier historians and as a safeguard against confusion in dealing with a comparatively restricted geographical area. The general validity of this distinction, however, is now so widely accepted that it is permissible to modify it in detail without risk of misunderstanding.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 11 , November 1921 , pp. 67 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © R. E. M. Wheeler 1921. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

References

page 67 note 1 There is indeed reason to regard this rampart as an original feature of the town.

page 67 note 2 Coulanges, , La Gaule romaine (1891), p. 243Google Scholar.

page 69 note 1 It is possible, however, that the surface has been mostly destroyed by agricultural operations, and further excavation would be required to settle the matter definitely.

page 70 note 1 Cardiff Nat. Soc. Trans. xxvi, pp. 125–8 (fragmentary plan); Antiquary xxix, p. 234; xxx, p. 46, 208; Arch. Camb. 1894, p. 326; B.A.A. 1, p. 326; Builder, lxvii, p. 244. The most complete summary (with sketch plan) was published by Mr. John Ward, F.S.A., in the Cardiff Nat. Soc. Trans., L, pp. 24–44, but Mr. Ward was working from second-hand material, and his report, like the others, contains several errors.

page 72 note 1 As at Birrens, Great Chesters, Birdoswald, Housesteads, Haltwhistle Burn, Poltross Burn, Castleshaw and Gellygaer.

page 72 note 2 After two months' continuous drought, water was found in this stone filling.

page 73 note 1 Other examples are collected by K. M. Swoboda, Römische und romanische Palaste, pp. 90 ff.

page 73 note 2 Kropatscheck, G., ‘Das römische Landhaus in Deutschland,’ in Kaiserliches Arch. Inst. VI Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission, 1910–11, p. 59Google Scholar; and Swoboda, as cited, pp. 111 ff.

page 77 note 1 There are what seem to be slight traces of a former ditch extending southwards from the southeast angle of the enclosure, as indicated on the plan. It was not possible to excavate this, and the superficial indications are here obscured by modern alterations of the ground.

page 78 note 1 A coin of Carausius was found in the filling over the W. wall of Building II, but was less clearly stratified.

page 78 page 2 This statement is based primarily upon a comparison of the Ely pottery with that from the latest occupation of Segontium c. A.D. 350–330.

page 79 note 1 Cardiff Naturalists' Society's Trans. xxvi (1893–1894), p. 129Google Scholar. Full analyses, kindly prepared by Mr. R. W. Atkinson, B.Sc., will be published shortly in the Transactions of that Society.

page 81 note 1 For references, see Cymmrod. Soc. Trans. 1920–1, pp. 81 ff.

page 81 note 2 Arch. Camb. 1888, p. 414. See also Cardiff Naturalists' Soc. Trans. xx (1888), pp. 50 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 82 note 1 Antiquaries Journal ii, p. 368.

page 82 note 2 Cymmrodorion Soc. Trans. 1908–9, p. 158 1920–1, p. 93; Antiquaries Journal ii, p. 369.

page 83 note 1 Arch. Journal xxxii (1875), p. 135Google Scholar.

page 83 note 2 Arch. Camb. 1907, p. 175. Cymmrod. Soc. Trans. 1908–9, p. 162.

page 83 note 3 Royal Commis. Hist. Mons. Essex Inventory i, p. 4.

page 83 note 4 Swoboda, as cited.