Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

From Aug 2006 - Nov 2013 WeDig provided a live forum for diggers & fans of Vindolanda. It has now been mothballed and will be maintained as a live archive.

Here you will find preserved 7 years of conversation, photos, & knowledge about a site many people love. Vindolanda gets under the skin. (Figuratively and literally as a volunteer excavator!) It's a place you remember, filled with people you remember!

Thanks for 7 great years!

Two vicus questions for anyone in the know

Thanks for the explanation. So if I understand correctly, the idea is, that despite the inevitable defensive character of the wall, the frontier forts for a long time served as bases for a mobile, sometimes campaigning army. Until shortage in resources, changing politics and perhaps a more organised enemy made it necessary to have it all organised more defensively.

How about the other forts on or along the wall, do you know if archeology has delivered any evidence that their accompanying vicuses (not sure if this is the correct plural form, but you know what I mean) were abandonned or destroyed around the same time as Vindolanda's? If the hypothesis is right about the political/resources background of the withdrawal of troops and the decline of Vindolanda's vicus, then the picture should be the same for all the frontier forts and their nearby vicuses.

Thanks again.

Two vicus questions for anyone in the know

One thing that made me wonder about the vicus is that it is very close to the fort and seems to have had some fairly large, stone buildings. To me, that would indicate that the period in Vindolanda's history in which there was a vicus near the fort, was a peaceful one.
In times of war or threat I would imagine all objects near the fort would have been demolished by the Roman army in order to have a clear view or 'line of fire' from the fort.
If so, the decay of the vicus was not a gradual one. Your original posting dates from 2008; do you know if archeology has unearthed this issue already?