Roman Camps

[mcbishop]

So perhaps proper marching camps were rare in safe areas.

Alternatively it is an accident of survival and function of their location. 'Overnight' or 'marching' camps are the least substantial, following the classical descriptions cited above, yet the bulk of archaeological finds of temporary camps are those with defences that fall within the groups where an enemy posed a threat. In fact, in Britain, only one really falls into the slightest group and that is Arosfa Garreg in Wales (Davies and Jones 2006, 101–4)* with a 'ditch' only 1.5m wide and 0.5m deep (and, where excavated, even less substantial, a depression thought to be caused by trampling). This was found in an uncultivated upland environment (but note that such locations are still vulnerable to later peat cutting). Such sites are the most vulnerable in lowland, arable areas, so such lowland areas within the frontiers may have had their fair share of such camps, only for them to disappear with subsequent agriculture. It is a bit like arguing whether segmentata or hamata were more common in the army – you can't tell because the evidence is skewed.

The interesting thing that Arosfa Garreg shows is that ditches were not always complete (Davies and Jones 2006, 103 cite this example along with Bellshiel and Limestone Corner for incomplete ditches, and Cawfields for having no ditch except on one of the tituli).

Discussion of the whole issue of 'marching' camps can be found in Davies and Jones (2006, 5–7) along with consideration of the difficulties of classifying these things.

Mike Bishop

Davies, J. L. and Jones, R. H. 2006: Roman Camps in Wales and the Marches, Cardiff