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!

Welcome to We Dig Vindolanda!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Period I - c. AD85 - c. AD92; Should this period be dated earlier?
Topic Started: Jan 22 2010, 08:04 AM (225 Views)
JohnBartram
Member
[ *  * ]
This is the reasoning for dating the period:
Quote:
 
Dating Period I is inexact, but AD85 is certainly close. Firstly, envisioning the string of forts as a consequence of Agricola's recall puts them shortly after AD83-84. But the very best clue comes from the pottery, particularly the samian ware. Samian is the beautiful, glossy, red-orange fine ware so typical at sites all over the Roman world. Its styles -- and its makers, who often stamped their products -- can sometimes be dated to within a year or two. A shipment of dozens of unused samian bowls & plates was found in the lowest level of the fort ditch. They had all apparently been jostled & cracked en route from their source in southern Gaul. One can imagine the conversation between the trader and the garrison's quartermaster! At any rate, such a loss for the garrison was a boon for archaeologists. The samian includes none of the older Form 29 decorated bowls found in Agricolan (c. AD80) camps in Scotland. Instead, they consist of the "new" Form 37s, c. AD85+. The makers' stamps show them to be extremely early Form 37s, putting them almost certainly in the year or two following Agricola's recall.

Assuming the date for the Samian ware is correct, its presence at the bottom of a ditch is merely an indication and not hard evidence for the date of construction. It allows an earlier period.

More weight should be given to the content of the excavated texts, for content should always have priority over archaeological dating methods.

Vindolanda Inventory No. 29,31:
Quote:
 
This text can now be recognised as a draft of a letter from Cerialis to Crispinus. The association with the correspondence of Cerialis is established by the identity of this hand with that of 227, where the name of Cerialis is to be found in the nominative. There are six other fragmentary texts (226,228-32) written by the same hand, and it may also be at work in the closure in 242.ii; see also 466. The hand, discussed in detail in the ed. pr., is very idiosyncratic and unlike those found in texts which we suppose to have been the work of "professional scribes"; for this reason we think it probable that it is the hand of Cerialis himself, although this cannot of course be proved.

and:
Quote:
 
The terms in which Cerialis writes suggests that Crispinus is an important man (note line 6, d]ominum meum) and well-placed to assist an equestrian prefect by interceding with the governor. He might therefore be of senatorial status, a laticlave tribune or a legionary legate (cf. 154.5-6 note).

I would appreciate learning your expert opinion on the possibility that this Cerialis could be Quintus Petilius Cerialis Caesius Rufus, appointed governor of Britain in 71, campaigned against the Brigantes of northern England in 74 and in 74, left Britain and returned to Rome as suffect consul.

Thank you and
Best regards,
John
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JohnBartram
Member
[ *  * ]
Many thanks for your detailed reply, which is both informative and helpful.

I agree that the firm date of the samian shows that the Period I fort was in use about 85-86 and though it does not show when it was built, I can understand the logic of early to mid 80s or early to mid 70s.

It's good to know that so much material has been recovered for Flavius Cerialis. Has this allowed identification with any of the high-ranking Romans with the cognomens Cerialis and Crispinus of the same period, in Rome?

Thanks again and
Best regards
John
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Excavation & General Archaeology Discussions - Open to All! · Next Topic »
Add Reply