What is Buried Under the Sites of Large Roman Battles?

[IMP GALLIENVS AVG]

Hello all, this is a question that I've been wondering for some time.

What did the Romans do with their dead from battle? Were they buried underground, somehow mass cremated, or rather just left out there? If the latter, wouldn't we find hundreds of thousands of Roman legionary skeletons (and maybe even some enemies!)? Has this ever happened?

Andrew

P.S. Also as a side note, are there many original Roman legionary gear left around? I would imagine that there probably isn't much for scutii, pili (maybe the tips? and am I using the plural correctly? If it's a masculine or neuter noun, I think I am right? *goes to check Latin binder for notes*) etc. as those were made of wood, if I recall. But I have seen some helmets, gladii, and I think some lorica segmentata and the like? If anyone has pics of original Roman military gear, I would love to see some pictures here. Thanks.

[stevesarak]

I believe they cremated the dead, and yes there is relatively a lot of legionary gear still around. You can find them in museums or private collection. Do a search on museum in this forum and I’m sure you’ll be surprised not only on what’s still around, but on the quality of it.

Go to consumerguide at the top of this web page. You’ll see a lot of gear that’s been found.

[Dan Diffendale]

scutii, pili (maybe the tips? and am I using the plural correctly? If it's a masculine or neuter noun, I think I am right? *goes to check Latin binder for notes*)

Nope, 2nd declension neuter plurals end in -a.

scutum nominative singular
scuta nominative plural

pilum nom. sing.
pila nom. pl.


For your question, browse through the threads here at RAT, you'll find plenty of discussion of original equipment. For helmets, we have a handy-dandy database with pictures and everything HERE

[Kate Gilliver]

Though cremation was a fashionable way of burying the dead at times during antiquity, the mass cremation of the fallen from a battle would have been a massive logistical task that would have required a considerable amount of fuel and would probably not have been an option after many battles. Appian (who is using an eye-witness account to write his history) states that after Pharsalus Caesar's dead were buried in a mass grave; the centurion Crastinus, who had distinguished himself by his valour, was buried separately - a singular honour.

In Greek warfare, a pitched battle was often followed by a negotiated agreement for the disposal of the dead of both sides; in Roman warfare, more often it was the case that the winner - ie: the controller of the battlefield after battle was done - could dispose of their dead. The enemy dead would be despoiled, and then who knows? After Aquae Sextiae, the bodies of the dead Cimbri seem to have been left around to rot, and subsequently to be used as fertiliser.

[Matthew Amt]

Bones and skeletons have been found at Kalkriese, the Teutoberg Forest battle site. They may have turned up on other sites, though I can't recall any specifically, offhand. Surprisingly few ancient battlefields have been positively identified, though siege sites are easier to nail.

The survival of bones depends a lot on soil conditions, for one thing. It is quite possible for them to desintegrate completely over 2000 years. We also don't know how many graves might have been found in the intervening centuries and removed, disbursed, or otherwise destroyed in some way. Bones that are excavated today often have to be treated and preserved quickly or they'll collapse into heaps of whatever. So if a medieval farmer plowed up a Roman grave, the exposed bones could have gone away in a matter of days.

Valete,

Matthew

[L C Cinna]

I'm actually surprised that Kalkriese is the only Roman battlefield excavated except for sieges. I mean what abotu Pharsalos, Kynoskephalai, Cremona? I mean the areas are kind of known, at least better than the Teutoburg Forrest location was.

[mcbishop]

I'm actually surprised that Kalkriese is the only Roman battlefield excavated except for sieges. I mean what abotu Pharsalos, Kynoskephalai, Cremona? I mean the areas are kind of known, at least better than the Teutoburg Forrest location was.

What matters here is the impact the battle had upon the archaeological record. As such, this was usually manifested pre-conflict (digging defences or obstacles etc) and post-conflict (demolishing said structures, burying the dead). Since the Romans do not normally seem to have buried the dead on a battlefield (or 'conflict zone' as I believe we're now supposed to call them... hence I still use battlefield ;-), preferring cremation, that doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for the archaeologiocal record to be disturbed by said battle. Anything edible will be eaten, anything portable removed, and what's left will then be subject to the actions of Darwin's chums, the earthworms, who if it is not buried, will still gradually move it down through the soil profile. If then you have any sort of agricultural activity, reshaping of the landscape etc., then it is hardly surprising that something as ephemeral as ancient battle leaves scarcely any trace.

One exception is Krefeld-Gellep where the dead horses from at least one and possibly two battles were rolled into pits dug next to them (you try moving a dead horse!).

Modern warfare (especially WWI) has a much more noticeable 'footprint' on the archaeological record and we must be careful not to transfer our impressions gained from the likes of the Somme back to earlier periods (who lives just down the road from a major medieval 'conflict zone' - Halidon Hill).

It is also worth remembering that only a tiny proportion of any landscape has been explored archaeologically and this tends to be just as true of battlefields and these day such work is almost invariably development-driven... as at Marathon. Oops!!

Mike Bishop

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

About Cremona something is doing, see the article in english in the Luca's site:

[url:t9g2acps]http://www.romanhideout.com/News/2005/20051018.asp[/url]

Valete,

[Caratacus]

The other thing that needs to be remembered is that, in the ancient world, metal was valuable. It took a great deal of effort to mine the ore and then to extract the metal from it. So much so that the winning of metals was an Imperial monopoly (hence the stamping of lead 'pigs' from Britain with the emperor's name). After any battle, the battlefield would be 'policed' by the winners, looking for any metal objects they could gather up. This would obviously include any weapons, but also armour, helmets, etc. Even today, you won't find very much on modern battlefields and I know the Somme area very well, so can vouch for this. All I've ever seen are a few strands of barbed wire and the screw posts for this. Of course, unexploded shells turn up there all the time but that's not something the ancients would have had a problem with!

Brass, in particular (from which the fitments of lorica segmentata armour were made) is particularly difficult to make, as it requires a batch process that depends for its success on exact control of temperature for the various stages. Bronze objects were easier to make (because the two metals, copper and tin, could be obtained separately). For brass, however, you need zinc and the Romans were incapable of producing this metal as such, as it's extraction requires a temperature that the Romans could not have achieved with their level of technology. The Romans called this alloy 'oricalcum' and used it for money. As (I think) Mike Bishop said in his book on the armour, the fitments for lorica segmentata were actually made from bullion!

The site at Kalkriese, vast though it is, has yielded very little in the way of metal objects. Paradoxically, one of the best preserved items that came from there was the upper chest plate of a set of lorica segmentata armour, which for once told us something about the early form of this stuff.

One of the other things that the excavators have found, however, answers (at least in part) the original question about human remains. They did find the mass graves that were filled by the troops under Germanicus in the punitive expedition following Varus' defeat. The bones were not in very good condition, but they were there. They had been buried beneath animal bones, presumably to prevent the human remains from being disturbed by scavenging animals, such as wolves and boar.

Dr. Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)