C



The Antonine Wall

Aim:

• To overview the Antonine Wall – construction, purpose and significance

"He [Antoninus Pius] conquered the Britons through his legate Lollius Urbicus …… another wall of turf being built after the barbarians had been driven back, ..."

Above extract from the Augustan History - Life of Antoninus Pius

by Julius Capitolinus, translated by Anthony Birley

Antonine Wall: (Forth-Clyde frontier) c. 142 AD

Sources

• Antoninus’s biographer

• Archaeological evidence

Summary History

Hadrian’s nominated successor, L. Aelius, died in AD 138 and with Hadrian's death later that year Antoninus Pius became emperor. Immediately it seems the Romans penetrated again into Scotland. The new governor Lollius Urbicus had to campaign in the Lowlands, the recently built frontier from Tyne to Solway was abandoned and a new barrier was to installed along the Forth-Clyde isthmus.

With the immediate abandonment of Hadrian's Wall by the emperor Antoninus Pius we gain the impression that Hadrian's frontier was a failure. However, there may have been several reasons for an advance in northern Britain. The building of a similar frontier clearly indicates that Antoninus Pius accepted Hadrian's frontier policy. So a suggestion is that Hadrian's Wall was a tactical success just built in the wrong place (the Antonine Wall was about half the length of the southern barrier). There is also a convincing link to Claudius who started the conquest of Britannia. He needed a military success to settle himself to the imperial throne. The same seems appropriate for Antoninus Pius. He was not Hadrian's first choice and he had no military experience: so a successful campaign in Britain would give him the needed military prestige to secure his position (the army played always an important part concerning the maintenance of the emperor). Antoninus Pius only got two imperial acclamations for victories in Britain and Germany at the beginning of his reign. This fact indicates that he had to gain victories for his prestige and to settle himself in his position. On the other hand a campaign in Britain without any other reasons seems unlikely. The strategical advantage of the Antonine Wall (only 40.5 Roman miles from ocean to ocean) was mentioned above. Even economic reasons could have influenced the decision to advance further north, since the most fertile land in northern Britain are the Lowlands of Scotland (especially the territory of the pro-Roman Votadini). Maybe a minor unrest in Britain focused the emperor’s interest on this province and together with the strategical and economic advantages he decided to gain his victory in Scotland.

So probably still in AD 138 the advance north was planned and the governor Lollius Urbicus seemed to act very fast. In the Lowlands the fort distribution is basically next to Agricolan sites with a focus on the two main roads leading north (Dere Street in the east and the western road Annandale-Clydesdale). The forts in the Lowlands were to control the native population, especially the Dumnonii and the Selgovae who needed close supervision. The conquest of Lowland Scotland must have taken place between AD 139 and 142 since Antoninus Pius was claimed imperator for his victory in AD 142. Possibly the construction of the Antonine Wall started under Lollius Urbicus but it was definitely finished by his successor. After the new northern frontier was installed Hadrian's Wall was abandoned and opened to public traffic. Some wall forts remained obviously occupied because of military reasons (maybe they were occupied by legionaries). Now again the Stanegate became more important for the east-west communication.

Probably in AD 142 the building of the barrier from the Firth of Forth to the Clyde estuary began. Because of its physical nature the remains of Antonine Wall are certainly less impressive compared to its southern predecessor. The turf wall itself seldom survives as a visible monument; today the ditch is the most impressive feature of the farthest north Roman frontier.

The Wall ran from Old Kilpatrick on the Clyde over 37 miles (59 km) to Bridgeness on the Forth.

The walls course seemed to be more flexible compared to Hadrian's Wall and it certainly used advantages of the landscape (good views to the north over the whole distance). The two main rivers (Avon and Kelvin) were not crossed by the barrier itself, probably it was too difficult to built a turf wall over a river. The military way to the south seemed to be enough protection. The barrier was erected on a stone base. The width of 4.3 m to 4.9 m is relatively narrow compared to the average width of about 6m for Hadrian's Wall. This could indicate a shortage of material, but maybe it reflects an improvement of construction methods, since the stone base was a new feature. Thus the height might have been the same, probably between 3 m and 4 m (excavations counted 22 layers of turf that suggest a height of 3 m). Like on Hadrian's Wall there is no evidence for a walkway or a wooden breastwork, although the rampart was wide enough at its top. Anyway the two frontiers in Britain remain the only lines in the whole empire where patrolling on top of the wall could have been possible. Every 18 m - 20 m culverts were provided to allow water to drain away and to guarantee the stability of the rampart. Just north of the barrier ran the ditch with an average width of 12.2 m and a depth of 3.7 m. Material dug out of the ditch formed an outer mound. Ditch and rampart were divided by the berm (6 m – 9.1 m).

Along the whole length of the wall 18 forts were provided to supervise the boundary of the province. With the exceptions of Bar Hill and Carriden (free-standing), every fort was attached to the south of the barrier. All forts provided four main gates and the internal structures seem to indicate two periods of construction in most of the forts. Sometimes official buildings were built of stone and two forts were provided with ramparts of stone (Castlecary and Balmuildy). The wing-walls of the latter may indicate that originally Antonine Wall too was intended to be a stone barrier like Hadrian's Wall. Earlier scholars believed that the Antonine forts were all built on Agricolan sites and the frontier was constructed without modifications. But today there is clearly a distinction between two construction phases. Originally the frontier was modelled after its southern predecessor. The six or seven so-called primary forts (Old Kilpatrick, Balmuildy, Bar Hill or Auchendavy, Castlecary, Mumrills, Carriden) were evenly spaced along the frontier. With intervals of about eight miles the distances between the primary forts are comparable to the distances between forts on Hadrian's Wall. All primary forts were capable of accommodating a whole unit and the evidence indicates that those forts were built before the wall (Old Kilpatrick, Balmuildy, Castlecary) or that the wall builders at least knew the location of the forts (Mumrills). The fortlets of Antonine Wall are related to the turf milecastles on Hadrian's Wall, maybe they were an improved version. Although only nine fortlets have been found so far, the evidence points to a similar system of fortlets (like the milecastles on the southern frontier) attached to the barrier. The distribution was possibly not this regular, but 42 milecastles could have existed together with the primary forts. Again during the construction there was a change in plan. Additional forts (i.e. Bearsden, Cadder, Westerwood, Rough Castle) were built reducing the distances in-between to about 3,2 km (2 miles). About 11 secondary forts were added; their size shows that they could only accommodate vexillations of units. The building of the new forts nearly doubled the number of soldiers (from about 4000 to 7000 men) suggesting that threats from Caledonia demanded a closer supervision by forts.

The same three legions from Hadrian's Wall (legio II augusta, legio XX Valeria Victrix, legio VI Victrix) were also involved in the building of the Antonine Wall. The work proceeded from east to west as is indicated by temporary camps and the distance slabs. The evidence from both sources coincides suggesting that a building sector provided four temporary camps at each end to accommodate the building vexillation. Each part of the vexillation was working towards the middle while one group was digging the ditch and another built the rampart. At the very ends of each building sector two distance slabs were erected (one facing north, the other facing south) recording the building legion and the distance. From the 19 distance slabs only three were found in the eastern sector. One reason might be the more agricultural area in the east that probably destroyed more evidence and also the building sectors were longer thus providing fewer distance slabs. In the eastern sectors the distances on the slabs were recorded in paces (passus), but in the west where the sectors were shorter the distance is recorded in feet (pedes). Just to the south of the barrier ran the military way with an average width of 5,5 m. The distance to the rampart was just about 50 metres and it crossed most of the forts (bypasses were provided). The interests of the Romans projected even further north. Along the former Flavian Gask Ridge frontier a system of outpost forts was established including sites like Ardoch, Strageath and Bertha. Besides the military reasons for outposts they probably had to protect the fertile landscape in their rear.

Occupation and Retreat

Earlier this century scholars believed that there were even three different occupations of the Antonine Wall (AD 142-155, AD 158-180, AD 184-185). But the evidence of the Samian ware in Scotland showed that all sites north of Newstead were abandoned by the mid-160s. Thus until recently two Antonine occupations (first occupation from AD 142~155) and a second very brief occupation from AD 158~AD163) were considered. But now again there is a discussion pointing towards a single Antonine occupation. Structural changes in the forts indicate re-organisation, maintenance, repair and re-building instead of abandonment followed by a second period of occupation. Either way it seems clear that the Antonine Wall was abandoned very soon after the death of the emperor who had commanded it to be built in AD 161; certainly the recommissioning of Hadrian's Wall was well on its way under the governor Calpurnius Agricola (AD 163-166). The final abandonment was probably caused by several reasons. Troop withdrawals from Britain to the continent were certainly a major factor, but there must have been also native resistance to force the Romans to draw back to the Tyne-Solway frontier.

Sources for the Antonine Wall

Source A

Scriptures Historiae Augustae (c. 4th C. AD), Antoninus Pius 5, 4

Antoninus waged a large number of wars through his governors. Through the governor Lollius Urbicus he defeated the Britons, and having driven back the barbarians, he built another wall, this time of turf.

p92, ‘Roman Britain: A Sourcebook’ by S. Ireland © Reprinted by Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE

Source B

This slab, the most elaborate of any known from the Antonine Wall, was found at the east end of the Wall where it meets the Firth of Forth. The central inscription is flanked by two scenes. That on the left symbolises the Roman conquest and shows a Roman cavalryman riding over four naked Britons armed with swords and shields. One of the Britons is already beheaded and another has a spear shaft in his back. On the right is shown the suovetaurilia, a ceremony undertaken before important campaigns or in this case before the Wall was built. A bull, a sheep and a pig are waiting to be sacrificed. A musician is playing a double flute while a priest in a toga pours a libation on the altar watched by a group of soldiers one of whom holds a flag inscribed LED II AVC (Second Legion Augusta)

For the Emperor Caesar titus Aelius

Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius, father

of his country, the Second Legion Augusta

built (this work) for a distance of 4,652 paces.

p14-15, The Romans in Scotland, (Crown Copyright 1980, HMSO

Source C The ditch of the Antonine Wall at Watling Lodge

Photograph: Scottish Development Department, Ancient Monuments, reprinted on page 13 of The Romans in Scotland , National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, , (Crown Copyright 1980, HMSO

Source D shows the line of The Antonine Wall

Diagram on page 41 of A Gathering of Eagles: Scenes from Roman Scotland by Gordon Maxwell: Historic Scotland series: (Gordon Maxwell, printed by Canongate Books Ltd, 14 High Street, Edinburgh, EH11 1TE

Source E shows a coin issued in 144AD. It was issued to celebrate the successful reconquest of southern Scotland in the early 140s. It shows The Emperor Antoninus Pius on one side and Britannia on the reverse.

Reprinted on page 7 of Invaders of Scotland by Anna Ritchie and David J. Breeze

Sources F and G on the following page show the disposition of forts and the Antonine Wall in Lowland Scotland. The fact is that the forts are in similar sites to those of the late first century. There is a greater use of fortlets in the South-west in particular. Compare this map with the one beneath it. This source shows the forts which are known to have been occupied in the second phase of occupation. The garrison is considerably smaller.

[pic]

[pic]

Maps on page 41-2, Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 Edited by Peter G B McNeill and Hector L MacQueen.

Antonine frontier policy

Source H

When the legions marched north again almost 40 years later, new officers and new ideas had appeared in the field of military engineering, and the effect was noticeable. Authority decided that if a line now had to be drawn between Caesar’s land and barbaricum, the new line had to be a physical barrier which could fittingly express the superiority of Rome, rather than a chain of discrete garrisons. The Antonine Wall was certainly ‘physical’: for over 40 Roman miles its turf-faced rampart snaked, 10ft high and 14ft thick, along the escarpments and crags marking the southern side of the Central Scottish Rift Valley, with a massive ditch in front and a Military Way, behind. Abutting its southern side were at least 17 forts, about 40 fortlets, and an unknown number of lesser installations, while at intervals, embedded in each face, stood handsomely carved stone tablets, Distance Slabs that recorded the completion of successive sectors of Wall-building by individual legions.

p41, A Gathering of Eagles by Gordon Maxwell from the Historic Scotland series

Source I

The Flavian armies would never have dreamt that a continuous curtain of walling would one day replace the open frontiers, yet there were elements of the new Antonine frontier which they would have recognised. The most significant of these would have been the forts and intervening fortlets supplemented by occasional watch-towers. In its original form the frontier had six fort, set half a day’s march apart, linked not only by the curtain wall with its sentry-walk, but also, at roughly one-mile intervals, by fortlets. At an early stage this system had been strengthened by the addition of about a dozen forts, each about two miles apart.

p44, A Gathering of Eagles by Gordon Maxwell from the Historic Scotland series

Source J

The purpose of the Antonine Wall was essentially bureaucratic. It was to mark the difference between Roman and barbarian territory, prevent unauthorised entry to the empire and enforce the regulations which governed access to the guarded entrances (forts and fortlets). The new Wall was built in the most convenient geographical location, but it was not necessarily the frontier of the empire, for three or four outpost forts lay to the north.

p8 Invaders of Scotland by Anna Ritchie and David Breeze

Source K

The placing of forts on Hadrian’s Wall during its construction and the continuation of the pattern on the Antonine Wall obscured the operation of two different functions undertaken by the army: defence and frontier control. The purpose of the regiments on the Antonine Wall – and those in front and behind, linked to the Wall by roads – was to protect the province from attack as well as help police the neighbouring provincials. The Wall, however, was erected in order to aid frontier control. A linear barrier, such as Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall, was the most effective way of controlling the movement of people. Thus the walls were bureaucratic in concept, not military. This is not to say that they served no military purpose: they would certainly have slowed down an invasion of the province, but they would no more have stopped it than the Berlin Wall would have halted a major invasion.

p 69, Roman Scotland by David J. Breeze

Source L

The new frontier arrangements do not seem to have long outlasted the death of their initiator. Antoninus Pius died in 161, and the Antonine Wall at its attendant forts appear to have been abandoned shortly afterwards. The army returned to Hadrian’s Wall, which was recommissioned. The system of control now established over the Scottish lowlands was to last, with some modifications for 200 years.

p8 Invaders of Scotland by Anna Ritchie and David Breeze

Functions of the Frontier

Although the Antonine Wall provided a higher concentration of soldiers in comparison with Hadrian's Wall, it was also not intended to be a purely defensive border. For defence the wall would have taken another course, there were too many gates and even just a patrol track on top of the wall cannot be proofed. Anyway a major attack anywhere on the wall would certainly have succeeded. The tactics of the Roman army were optimised for the open battlefield, so that the Romans tried to deal with major threats certainly in advance (indicated by the outpost forts). So the frontier was certainly intended to control the movement of civilians in and out of the province as well as to discourage raiding parties. The frontier clearly marked the Roman province and should promote the Romanisation of natives south of the barrier. The new boundary seemed to be closer to the enemy and the secondary forts indicate that the threats were underestimated at first. The finished frontier was stronger in the west (6 forts capable of holding a whole auxiliary unit), but the eastern part (only 3 forts could accommodate a whole unit) was secured by the outpost forts as well. West of Antonine Wall the Clydebank was supervised by the fort at Bishopton and fortlets at Lurg Moor and Outerwards. On the Firth of Forth in the east the forts at Cramond and Inveresk guarded the estuary providing also a harbour for the supply.

If we compare Antonine Wall with Hadrian's Wall, the intention of the frontiers seem to be the same. They should secure or prevent minor threats, control movement and make a peaceful development of the provincial territory possible. Thus the Antonine Wall was modelled on its southern predecessor, certainly with modifications and improvements. Basically the concept of Hadrian to keep peace by stable frontiers was accepted by Antoninus Pius. The advance in Scotland is completely contrary to the rest of his policy, but must be seen in the context of difficulties at the beginning of his reign. The short Antonine occupation indicates that Antonine Wall was a failure, just promoted by Antoninus Pius who needed a military success. But the closer supervision of Lowland Scotland after the abandonment clearly shows the importance of control (with the third century Britain became a peaceful province). The Antonine Wall was certainly a logical strategical frontier, but its success was prevented by events elsewhere. The pressure on frontiers everywhere in the Empire (Upper Germany and Raetia) lead to the withdrawal of troops from Scotland. Britain was anyway never a “number-one-priority" province; threats on the continent were certainly far more dangerous for Rome.

TASKS

1. Outline the CONTEXT of the Antonine Wall – e.g. who built it, when it was built, length of occupation, date of adandonment.

2. Describe the Antonine Wall as a frontier system. Mention how it was constructed, its design, defensive features, forts (note primary and secondary phases), any associated structures e.g. outpost forts on Forth and Clyde/Gask Ridge forts.

3. Using the main text and the sources, make notes on the PURPOSES/FUNCTIONS OF THE ANTONINE WALL:

a. Personal prestige (1/2 side)

b. Symbol of Rome (1/2 side)

c. Military/strategic purposes (1 side)

d. Economic/bureaucratic purposes (1 side).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download