07-06-2016, 10:42 AM
Thanks, Lupianus, for the source of the term Ripa Gothica. However, your other comments only raise more questions:
Firstly, it's always been a mystery to me why so many people refer to the rearward-facing ditch on Hadrian's Wall as the 'vallum', when that term is surely misapplied, and should describe the actual wall itself. Bede may indeed refer to it as a 'murus', but murus and vallum are interchangeable in Latin as descriptions of a rampart/defensive-wall. And of course, the modern English word 'wall' is directly derived from the Latin word 'vallum' - the letter 'v' in Latin was pronounced as a 'w', so 'vallum' was pronounced as 'wallum, and English has simply dropped the Latin ending. Here's what Webster's dictionary says:
"Wall: Middle English from Old English 'w(e)all', meaning 'rampart', from Western Germanic, borrowed from Latin 'vallum', meaning 'rampart set with palisade stakes'. See also Latin 'vallus', meaning 'palisade-stake'."
Similarly, the English word 'weal' means a 'ridge' (not a ditch). And although the 'rearward-facing ditch' behind Hadrian's Wall was accompanied by a pair of earth mounds, both mounds are thought to have been only about 6 feet high - less than half as high as the stone Wall in front of them. Nor have I heard any suggestion that those earth mounds were topped with palisade stakes (they may have been, but I haven't heard any evidence).
And here's what the dictionary says for a rampart: "A broad topped and usually stone parapetted defensive mound of earth." Which would make sense as a description for the actual stone wall of Hadrian, itself, but not so much for the rearward-facing ditch with its pair of earthen mounds. After all, the wall west of Birdoswald fort was originally built of earth, and only later completed in stone. Similarly, the 'vallum ditch' does not continue east between Newcastle and Wallsend, so is not a continuous part of the frontier. So if either the wall + frontal ditch or the rearward ditch + mounds deserve to be known as the 'vallum', then surely its the wall; and perhaps all these elements combined together. But not the rearward-ditch on its own.
As to the name used by the Romans, here is what Dr. Nick Hodgson says in his book: 'Hadrian's Wall 1999-2009', p.20:
"Vallum Aelium - the contemporary name of Hadrian's Wall?
"In 2003, metal detectorists found a copper alloy pan near Ilam in Staffordshire... this skillet or trulla is clearly part of a group of related vessels of which the Rudge Cup and the Amiens Skillet are the best known. Like those vessels, the new discovery has an inscription listing forts at the western end of Hadrian's Wall. A preliminary reading and discussion of the text has been published by R.S.O. Tomlin (Britannia 35, p.344-5): 'Rigore val(l)i Aeli Draconis Mais Congabata Uxelodunum Camboglanna'.
"There are two possible translations of the Latin: 'On the line of the Wall, [the product or property] of Aelius Draco...' or 'On the line of the Aelian Wall, [the product or property] of Draco...'. Tomlin concludes that 'The absence of a praenomen [to go with 'Aelius Draco'] is far from decisive, but it lends support to the idea of taking Aeli with val(l)i. It would then follow that Hadrian's Wall was literally so-called: Vallum Aelium.' There is a real possibility, then, that this object reveals the contemporary name of Hadrian's Wall. There are good parallels: most obviously there are two instances of 'pons Aelius'. The bridge in Rome and the name of the fort, plus its associated bridge, on Hadrian's Wall at Newcastle. And Jerusalem was refounded by Hadrian as Aelia Capitolina. The Draco of the inscription must have been the manufacturer or the owner (a retired soldier?) for whom it was made."
Firstly, it's always been a mystery to me why so many people refer to the rearward-facing ditch on Hadrian's Wall as the 'vallum', when that term is surely misapplied, and should describe the actual wall itself. Bede may indeed refer to it as a 'murus', but murus and vallum are interchangeable in Latin as descriptions of a rampart/defensive-wall. And of course, the modern English word 'wall' is directly derived from the Latin word 'vallum' - the letter 'v' in Latin was pronounced as a 'w', so 'vallum' was pronounced as 'wallum, and English has simply dropped the Latin ending. Here's what Webster's dictionary says:
"Wall: Middle English from Old English 'w(e)all', meaning 'rampart', from Western Germanic, borrowed from Latin 'vallum', meaning 'rampart set with palisade stakes'. See also Latin 'vallus', meaning 'palisade-stake'."
Similarly, the English word 'weal' means a 'ridge' (not a ditch). And although the 'rearward-facing ditch' behind Hadrian's Wall was accompanied by a pair of earth mounds, both mounds are thought to have been only about 6 feet high - less than half as high as the stone Wall in front of them. Nor have I heard any suggestion that those earth mounds were topped with palisade stakes (they may have been, but I haven't heard any evidence).
And here's what the dictionary says for a rampart: "A broad topped and usually stone parapetted defensive mound of earth." Which would make sense as a description for the actual stone wall of Hadrian, itself, but not so much for the rearward-facing ditch with its pair of earthen mounds. After all, the wall west of Birdoswald fort was originally built of earth, and only later completed in stone. Similarly, the 'vallum ditch' does not continue east between Newcastle and Wallsend, so is not a continuous part of the frontier. So if either the wall + frontal ditch or the rearward ditch + mounds deserve to be known as the 'vallum', then surely its the wall; and perhaps all these elements combined together. But not the rearward-ditch on its own.
As to the name used by the Romans, here is what Dr. Nick Hodgson says in his book: 'Hadrian's Wall 1999-2009', p.20:
"Vallum Aelium - the contemporary name of Hadrian's Wall?
"In 2003, metal detectorists found a copper alloy pan near Ilam in Staffordshire... this skillet or trulla is clearly part of a group of related vessels of which the Rudge Cup and the Amiens Skillet are the best known. Like those vessels, the new discovery has an inscription listing forts at the western end of Hadrian's Wall. A preliminary reading and discussion of the text has been published by R.S.O. Tomlin (Britannia 35, p.344-5): 'Rigore val(l)i Aeli Draconis Mais Congabata Uxelodunum Camboglanna'.
"There are two possible translations of the Latin: 'On the line of the Wall, [the product or property] of Aelius Draco...' or 'On the line of the Aelian Wall, [the product or property] of Draco...'. Tomlin concludes that 'The absence of a praenomen [to go with 'Aelius Draco'] is far from decisive, but it lends support to the idea of taking Aeli with val(l)i. It would then follow that Hadrian's Wall was literally so-called: Vallum Aelium.' There is a real possibility, then, that this object reveals the contemporary name of Hadrian's Wall. There are good parallels: most obviously there are two instances of 'pons Aelius'. The bridge in Rome and the name of the fort, plus its associated bridge, on Hadrian's Wall at Newcastle. And Jerusalem was refounded by Hadrian as Aelia Capitolina. The Draco of the inscription must have been the manufacturer or the owner (a retired soldier?) for whom it was made."
