Xanten archaeological park APX

[Robert Vermaat]

Last week, Fectio visited the new (well, already 3,5 years old) museum in the archaeological park Xanten (APX), the former Colonia Ulpia Traiana. I've visited this place 6 times since 1991, and I like what they keep doing with the place. Currently they are recreating a few town houses, and the old road (still cut through here) will probably soon be removed. I guess archaeological surveys will continue as well - most Roman towns are built over, after all. Personally I'd like to see more attention being paid to the 4th c. settlement, all the focus is now on the 1st-2nd c. town.

Images here:
http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/dd28/...%20Xanten/

A few:

[agrimensor]

as always, nice pics Robert.

[PhilusEstilius]

Robert.

I think that maybe this is a problem in many situations with Roman history, even with reconstruction as well as re-enactment where people are more interested in the earlier periods. I wonder can it be that so many find the earlier times that much more glamorous, or can it be that the later periods are that much more difficult for so many to understand.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

What a coincedence, I just had been to Xanten, too, but the weekend of Feb. 10th so we still got to see the special exhibition "Gefährliches Pflaster" on criminality in Ancient Rome which was quite interesting. For me it had been the first time to the "new" museum as well and I enjoyed it a lot. Even my two friends who are not that much into Roman history as I am liked the museum. We spent hours there. Afterwards we went to the adjacent park, had close looks at the harbor temple and the amphitheater and warmed ourselves at the café with modern coffee/tea and cake.

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert.

I think that maybe this is a problem in many situations with Roman history, even with reconstruction as well as re-enactment where people are more interested in the earlier periods. I wonder can it be that so many find the earlier times that much more glamorous, or can it be that the later periods are that much more difficult for so many to understand.

Absolutely. Strange though, because when you look closer that later period is much closer to what we know today: street plans, names, remains above ground. Much of what existed during the 2nd c. looked more like earlier centuries and was much more alien to us.

[Robert Vermaat]

We spent hours there. Afterwards we went to the adjacent park, had close looks at the harbor temple and the amphitheater and warmed ourselves at the café with modern coffee/tea and cake.

We originally intended to go in November, but agenda's and health decided we had to postpone it a bit. You can't see it in the pictures, but it was quite cold! Snow fell when we were inside the museum (I think I'll go back next summer), and unfortunately the park closed a bit early (by 5, but they chased us out of the tower by 4 already). Also, a lot of pavillions (and the North Gate :evil were closed..

[D B Campbell]

I've visited this place 6 times since 1991, and I like what they keep doing with the place.

Fantastic. I visited in nineteen-eighty-cough :wink: and it has certainly changed since then!

[PhilusEstilius]

I was stationed in Germany with the RAF 1973--76 and saw Xanten when the reconstructions were only just starting to be built however I never have been able to go back there and things now look just great.

What has upset me since then of course is that I took part in the public enquiry for the building of the west gate at the fort of Arbeia, then when the archaeologists and the engineers were invited to Xanten they came back and built what we now have today at Arbeia.

Xanten was indeed a Colonia however the exact same gateway is now at Arbeia which I find it to be a bit rediculous, for at the outset I saw the original plans of what was to be built at Arbeia and that was to be only a two storey gate with crenelations that would indeed have been correct for Arbeia is no Colonia.
I have always felt that this was a very foolish influence and how people got away with it realy makes one wonder if those in charge understood the subject at all.

[Robert Vermaat]

I saw the original plans of what was to be built at Arbeia and that was to be only a two storey gate with crenelations that would indeed have been correct for Arbeia is no Colonia.

Do we know what the gate of a Colonia looked like?

[PhilusEstilius]

Robert.

That is a very interesting question however when we consider that Xanten was indeed a Colonia, this was a very inportant Roman establishment in an area of a province therefore one would expect there to be an impressive gateway into a City.

This is in fact just how the gateway at Xanten does look but when we consider Arbeia, this is simply a fort on the eastern end of a Limes and should look like most of the fort gates that we see along Hadrian's Wall and not the reflection of Xanten.

In fact a good example of what a Colonia gateway should look like may even be just what we see today in Rome itself.

[D B Campbell]

... but when we consider Arbeia, this is simply a fort on the eastern end of a Limes and should look like most of the fort gates that we see along Hadrian's Wall and not the reflection of Xanten.

If you were involved in the public enquiry, Brian, then you'll know more about it than I do: but please note that the full theoretical basis for the reconstruction was discussed in a seminar and published in a 1989 volume (entitled Portae cum Turribus).

[PhilusEstilius]

I did indeed take part in the public enquiry and it was held to give a fair hearing to the opinions of the for and against ideas about the building on the actual site of the original west gate.
The result was that to put it where it is the west gate had to be re-excavated and a raft put over the top of this so that the monument could be protected.
It was while excavations were being carried out that a few bits of roof tiles were found in the fort ditch, and this is where the idea that the towers may have had ridged rooves.
Then as I have mentioned ealier an invitation came along for people to go to Xanten where such kind of re-construction work was going on, then afterward it was built very much like an elaborate Colonia style gateway and nothing like a frontier fort that it should have been.

[PhilusEstilius]

Robert.

I do hope you will excuse this off topic discussion that has been taken away from Xanten to Arbeia.

[Robert Vermaat]

Not at all, I was wondering how they decided what the gate in Xanten would have looked like above ground. I mean, there are of course a few left (Trier, Rome), but those tend to be quite grand.

It's a question that has to asked with any modern reconstruction - how do we know how it looked when most of the time we have only the foundations?

[PhilusEstilius]

I would say that there are indeed some good examples of Roman gateways around (Treir, and Rome) as said, however Xanten was of course a Colonia the same for Eboracum that was the capital of Brittania Inferior and would have had tremendous gateways such as the reconstruction we do see at Xanten.
When we look at forts gates along Hadrian's Wall and also Arbeia the foundations just don't look strong enough to be able to support such massive three storey structures that we see today (Xanten yes Arbeia no)
I even don't like the reconstruction pictures we tend to see of such huge towers at the Milecastle north gates on Hadrian's Wall, for here people are running off with the idea of 10 meter plus height.
Indeed the structure of the milecastle north gate just west of Housesteads fort tells us they were not such massive towers.