THE ROMAN CAMPS AT NUMANTIA N - Historia Antigua

THE ROMAN CAMPS ATNUMANTIAA REAPPRAISAL IN THE LIGHT OF A CRITICALANALYSIS OF POLYBIUS' DISCOURSE ON THEROMAN ARMYTWO VOLUMESVOLUME ONESubmitted by Michael John Dobson to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy in Archaeology in the Faculty of Arts, January 1996.This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright materialand that no quotation from the thesis maybe published without proper acknowledgement.I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified andthat no material is included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me.N

ABSTRACTOne of the main sources of archaeological evidence for Late Republican camps is acomplex of installations at Numantia in Spain, excavated by Adolf Schulten in the earlypart of this century. Schulten's interpretation of the sites has generally been acceptedwithout question and his reconstructions usually form the basis of discussion about thegeneral form of Late Republican Roman camps. This thesis reassesses Schulten'sarchaeological record and concludes that much of the interpretation proposed by himshould in fact be questioned. The result is that for several of the sites, radically-differentalternative reconstructions are offered from those of Schulten. Alternative dates are alsooffered for some of the sites and a different course for the Scipionic circumvallation andwhich camps lay along it is proposed.To aid the alternative interpretation of the sites and place them in context, the thesisdiscusses what can be proposed for the theoretical organisation of armies and their art ofcastrametation for the period of the Numantine Wars. This discussion focuses on a criticalreappraisal of the Polybian account of the Roman army and camp, in part becauseSchulten believed that much of what is described by Polybius would be present atNumantia. But M fact it is not possible to explain the whole of the Numantine complex interms of a rnanipular-based army. The discussion therefore also looks at the chronologyand processes of the change from the Polybian manipular structure to the cohortorganisedlegion, and the corresponding changes in the form of the camp used. Theconclusion of this discussion is that for the early part of the Nurnantine Wars the armywould have been a rnanipular one, but by the time of the successful Scipionic siege, acohort-organised force would have been used.The re-interpretation offered for the camps indeed supports the presence of bothmaniples and cohorts at Numantia. The earlier sites can be reconstructed for manipulararmies, with, as Schulten suggests, elements of the Polybian camp being present. The latercamps seem however better suited for armies based around the cohort, with a noticeablydifferent barrack layout compared to the earlier sites. Hence added importance can begiven to the sites at Numantia, for they not only form the main source of archaeologicalevidence for Late Republican camps, but provide evidence for the form of camp for boththe late manipular army and the early cohort one.2

CONTENTSVOLUME ONEList of illustrations 13Acknowledgements 18Definitions 19INTRODUCTION 20CHAPTER ONE - THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND LITERARYEVIDENCE RELATING TO NUMANTIA 27The history of the identification of Numantia 27The archaeological evidence from Numantia - the work of Schulten 28The chronology and extent of the excavations 28The publication of the excavations 30The excavation archive 31The excavation technique 32The recording methods - plans and photographs 34The recording methods - the finds 35The dating evidence of the finds 36Pottery 36Campanian ware 36Coarse pottery 37Amphorae 37Lamps 38Brooches 38Coins 38The dating of Lager V 40The literary evidence for the Numantine Wars 45Summary of the military aspects of the Numantine Wars ascertainablefrom the literary evidence 473

ContentsCHAPTER Two - THE THEORETICAL FORM OF ARMIES OF THE PERIOD OFTHE NUMANTINE WARS: THE ARMY OF THE SECOND CENTURY BC 51The evidence of Polybius 52The general form of the 'Polybian army' 52The organisation of the Polybian legionary infantry 52The main infantry — the hastati, principes and triarii 52The legionary skirmishers — the velites 53The size of the legionary infantry 53The legionary cavalry 54Command of the legions — the tribunes 55The allies 56Command of the allies — the praefecti sociorum 58Foreign troops 59Polybius' source for his digression on the army 60The date of the 'Polybian army' 61Changes to the Polybian army after the Second Punic War 62The size of armies 62Double-legion armies 62Single-legion armies 6.4Forces smaller than a legion operating independently 65Allied forces operating independently 65Changes to the organisation of the infantry — the replacement ofmaniples by cohorts 66The composition of cohorts 70Changes to the organisation of the cavalry 72Changes to the allies 73Changes to foreign troops 73The degree of correspondence between the theoretical armies ofthe second century and those at Numantia 74CHAPTER THREE - THE THEORETICAL LAYOUT OF CAMPS OF THE PERIOD OF THENUMANTINE WARS: CAMPS OF THE SECOND CENTURY BC 77The Polybian camp 78The Polybian camp — what is Polybius describing? 78Terminology for the side, front and back of the camp 79The measurement system used by Polybius 81The grid system used for the camp 81The layout of the Polybian double-consular camp 83The praetorium, forum, quaestorium and the principia 83The tribunes' accommodation 89Accommodation for the praefecti sociorum 904

ContentsThe via principalis 91The disposition of the legions 91The layout of the tents of the legionary maniples 94The layout of the tents of the legionary cavalry 100The disposition of the main force of allies 103The cavalry 103The infantry 104The position of the delecti extraordinarii and evocati 106The position of the extraordinarii 107Foreign troops 108The junction of the two halves of the double-consular camp 108Defences 109Entrances 110Porta praetoria 111Porta principalis 111Porta quintana 112Porta decumana 112Changes to the Polybian camp after the Second Punic War 114The single-consular manipular camp 114The position of the delecti extraordinarii and evocati 119The disposition of the legions 120The layout of the main force of allies 120The location of the tribunes, praefecti sociorum and legates 121The location of the extraordinarii and foreign troops 121The intervallum 123Names for parts of the camp 123The single-consular cohort camp 123The layout of the legionary infantry 124The layout of the legionary cavalry 130The main force of allies 131The cavalry 131The infantry 131The praetorium range, the delecti extraordinarii and evocati 131The tribunes, praefecti sociorum and legates 132The extraordinarii 132Foreign troops 132Streets and entrances 132Camps for single legions with allies 132Camps for single legions on their own 133Camps for forces smaller than a legion 133The degree of correspondence between the theoretical camps ofthe second century and those at Numantia 1345

ContentsCHAPTER FOUR — THE SITES IN THE AREA OF NUMANTIA 135The construction technique of the buildings 135Renieblas 136Introduction 136Relative dating of the camps 137Lager I and II 138Lager I 138Description 138Defences 139Ditch 139Rampart 139Towers 139Entrances 139Internal Features 139The intervallum 140General conclusions about the internal layout 140Lager II 141Description 141Defences 141Ditch 141Rampart 141Towers 141Entrances 142Internal Features 142General conclusions about the internal layout 142Lager III 143Description 143Defences 144Ditch 144Rampart 144Towers 144Entrances 145Internal Features 146Building row K - legionary cavalry barracks 147Building row A - legionary infantry barracks 151Building row B - legionary infantry barracks 153Building row C - legionary infantry barracks 156Tribunes' Houses 156Building row D - allied cavalry barracks 157Building row E - allied infantry barracks 159Buildings G and H - allied cavalry barracks 1646

ContentsBuildings of rows K' to E' — barracks? 165Row K' 165Row A' 166Rows B' and C' 167Row D' 167Row E' and E" 168Building P — praetorium ? 168Buildings to the north-east and north-west of P — barracks 169Areas F and F' — barracks ? 170Areas Q and Q' — quaestorium? 172Buildings T, R, S, s and 13 173Streets 173The intervallum 175General conclusions about the internal layout 175The annexe to Lager III — Lager VI ? 177Description 177Defences 178Ditch 178Rampart 178Towers 178Entrances 178Internal Features 179Streets 180General conclusions about the internal layout 180Lager IV 180Description 180Defences 181Ditch 181Rampart 181Towers 181Entrances 181Internal Features 182General conclusions about the internal layout 182Rampart to the west of Lager IV — Lager VII? 183Lager V 184Description 184Defences 184Ditch 184Rampart 184Towers 184Entrances 187

ContentsInternal Features 186Buildings 1 to 12, Q and Q' — barracks 186Buildings l' to 12' 190Buildings 1" to 6" 191Triclinienhduser — barracks? 191Area P 194Area F 194Buildings 1 to 10 and 1' to 10' —tribunes' houses 195Granaries 196Building remains to the south of the tribunes' houses 197Streets 197General conclusions about the internal layout 198Numantia 199Castillejo 199Introduction 199Phasing 200The defences of all three phases 201Ditches 201Ramparts 201Towers 206Entrances 206The Blue Phase 208Description 208Internal features 209The construction technique of the buildings 209Street a 211Street b 211Street c 212Building d 212Buildings e and f 213Buildings g to p 213General conclusions about the internal layout of the Blue Phase 214The Red Phase 214Description 214Internal features 215North-south street 215Buildings a to s' 215General conclusions about the internal layout of the Red Phase 219The Black Phase 219Description 219Internal features 2208

ContentsStreets 220Accommodation for the tribunes and praefecti sociorum 220Buildings 1 to 10 and 17 to 18- barracks 221Buildings 19 and 20 224Buildings 13 to 16 - barracks 224Buildings 24 to 32- barracks? 225Buildings 12' to 17' - barracks ? 226Praetorium and forum - barracks? 227The size of the barrack blocks 230Building 12- granary 231Building 11- Red Phase? 232Buildings 33 to 40- Blue Phase? 232General conclusions about the internal layout of the Black Phase 234Travesadas 237Introduction 237Description 237Defences 237Ditch 237Rampart 238Towers 238Entrances 238Internal features 239Building C 239Buildings D and E 240Building G 241Buildings F, K and H 241Walls to the north of the modern field path 241General conclusions about the internal layout 242Valdevorron 242Introduction 242Description 242Defences 243Ditch 243Rampart 243Towers 243Entrances 243Internal features 243Area 1 - granaries? 243Area 2 244Area 3 244Areas 4, 7 and 8 2459

ContentsArea 5 -fabrica ? 245Area 6 245General conclusions about the internal layout 245Saledilla 245Introduction 245The results of the excavations 246A Numantine suburb 246Buildings B, C and a Roman rampart ? 246Barrack block 248The form of the camp 249Pena Redonda 250Introduction 250Description 250Defences 251Ditch ... . 251Rampart 252Towers 252Entrances 252Internal features 253The construction technique of the buildings 254Buildings 1 to 10 and the Roman villa - barracks and praetorium ? 254Buildings 11,12 and 13 263Buildings 14 to 34 265Buildings 35 and 36 268Building 37 270Buildings 38 and 39 270Buildings 40 and 41 271Buildings 42 and 43 272Building 44 272The area to the south of buildings 41 and 44 273Feature 36a 273Artillery platform - weapons store? 273The intervallum 274Streets 274General conclusions about the internal layout 275Molino 277Introduction 277Description 278Defences 278Ditch 278Rampart 27910

ContentsVega 291Introduction 291Description 291Defences 291Internal features 291General conclusions about the site 292Relating the Numantine sites to the historical evidencefor the Numantine Wars 292The camps at Renieblas 292The camps around Numantia 296Castillejo 296Travesadas 297Valdevorron 297Saledilla 297Pefia Redonda 298Molino 298Raza 298Dehesilla 300Alto Real 300Vega 300The sites relating to the Scipionic siege 300CONCLUSION 302APPENDIX ONE — A summary comparison of Schulten's interpretationand that offered in this thesis 312APPENDIX Two — A comparison between this thesis and Roman RepublicanCastrametation: with Special Reference to the Republican Stone-Built Camps inSpain, PhD thesis by John Pamment-Salvatore examined and accepted 1993,University of Birmingham 320BIBLIOGRAPHY 327VOLUME TwoFigures 1 to 13912

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSVOLUME TWO1. The location of sites on the Spanish peninsula.2. The location of Nuirtantia and Renieblas.3. Reconstruction of the Polybian manipnlar double-consular camp.4. A schematic reconstruction of the development of the praetorium,forum and principia5. Civilfora and basilicae.6. Civil fora and basilicae.7. The principia, praetorium and possible basilica in the Hauptlager at HaItem.8. The principia and praetoria at Marktbreit and Oberaden.9. Conjectural reconstruction of the layout of the areas occupied by a maniple of triariiand a turma of legionary cavalry.10. Conjectural reconstruction of the layout of the areas occupied by a maniple of hastatiand principes.11. Conjectural reconstruction of the layout of the areas occupied by a 'cohort' ofmanipular allied infantry.12. Detailed reconstruction of the 'south-western quarter' of the Polybian manipulardouble-consular camp.13. Reconstruction of the Polybian single-consular camp.14. Simplified reconstruction of the camp described in De Metatione Castrorum.15. Reconstruction of the cohort-organised, single-consular camp of the late secondcentury BC.16. Reconstruction of the accommodation of the centuries of a cohort.17. Reconstruction of the layout of the area occupied by a cavalry turma in the earlycohort camp.18. Reconstruction of the cohort-organised, single-legion camp with allies dating to thelate second century BC.19. Reconstruction of the cohort-organised, single-legion camp without allies/allied'legion' operating independently, dating to the late second century BC.20. Sites of the camps around Numantia and the course of the Scipionic drcumvallation.21. Topography and location of the remains at Renieblas.22. Remains from Renieblas. 1) The north-western entrance of Lager I. 2) Schulten'sconjectured artillery platform of Lager 1.3) The southern, eastern entrance of LagerW. 4) Building in the northern part of Lager V, thought by Schulten to be later thanLager V. 5) Buildings on the northern side of the praetorium of Lager V. 6) The northsouthstreet on the side of the praetorium of Lager V.13

List of illustrations23. The plan of Lager I and II according to Koenen and Lammerer.24. Plan of Lager III and its annexe/Lager VI.25. Schulten's reconstruction of the layout of Lager III.26. The defences and entrances of Lager III.27. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the north-western corner of Lager III.28. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the middle portion of the northernside of Lager III.29. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the north-eastern corner of Lager III.30. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the middle portion of the eastern sideof Lager III and the junction of it and its annexe/Lager VI.31. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the southern part of the eastern sideof Lager III and the northern part of its annexe/Lager VI.32. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the south-eastern corner of therampart of Lager III and the southern portion of the annexe to Lager III/Lager VI.33. Remains at Renieblas attributed by Schulten to the middle portion of the southernside of Lager III, with remains interpreted as the praetorium and a length ofconjectured southern rampart.34. Schulten's reconstruction of the north-western corner of Lager III.35. Schulten's reconstruction of the middle portion of the northern side of Lager III.36. Schulten's reconstruction of the north-eastern corner of Lager III.37. Schulten's reconstruction of the middle portion of the eastern side of Lager III andthe junction of it and its annexe/Lager VI.38. Schulten's reconstruction of the southern part of the eastern side of Lager III and thenorthern part of its annexe/Lager VI.39. Schulten's reconstruction of the remains in the south-eastern corner of the rampartof Lager III and the southern portion of the annexe to Lager III/Lager VI.40. Schulten's reconstruction of the middle portion of the southern side of Lager III, withremains interpreted as the praetorium and a length of conjectured southern rampart.41. An alternative reconstruction of the north-western corner of Lager III.42. An alternative reconstruction of the middle portion of the northern side of Lager III.43. An alternative reconstruction of the north-eastern corner of Lager III.44. An alternative reconstruction of the southern part of the eastern side of Lager III andthe northern part of its annexe/Lager VI.45. An alternative reconstruction of the remains in the south-eastern corner of therampart of Lager III and the southern portion of the annexe to Lager III/Lager VI.46. Plan of barracks 3,4 and 5 of rows K and A of Lager III.47. Plan of the barrack blocks at the western end of rows B and C in Lager III.48. Plan of Schulten's conjectured elephants' stable block associated by him with LagerIII and plan of the buildings interpreted by Schulten as tribunes' houses of Lager II.49. Plan of some of the barracks of row D of Lager III.50. Plan of the remains in the area of barrack block 1 of row E of Lager III.51. Plan of the remains in the area of buildings G and H in Lager III.14

List of illustrations52. Plan of the remains in the area of barracks 9 and 10 of rows K' and A' in Lager III.53. Plan of the remains attributed by Schulten to the praetorium of Lager III, situatedwithin the north-eastern corner of Lager V.54. Plan of the remains to the east of Schulten's conjectured praetorium of Lager III.55. Remains in the eastern part of Lager III. The remains to the east of the areainterpreted by Schulten as the forum. Plan of the building interpreted by Schulten asthe accommodation of the quaestor. Plan of Schulten's conjectured quaestorium.56. Drawing of the Horrea Lolliana from the Severan marble Capitoline city plan,presented by Schulten as supporting evidence for his interpretation of buildings Qand Q' in Lager III.57. Plans of buildings from Neuf g and Carnuntum generally regarded as being storesbuildings, presented by Schulten as supporting evidence for his interpretation ofbuildings Q and Q' in Lager III.58. Reconstructions of the barracks of Lager III by Schulten.59. Alternative schematic reconstruction of the barracks of Lager III.60. Schulten's interpretation of a two-legion camp based on Polybius.61. Plan of the building interpreted by Schulten as being cavalry barracks in the annexeto Lager III/Lager VI.62. Plan of the buildings interpreted by Schulten as being infantry barracks in the annexeto Lager III/Lager VI.63. Schulten's schematic plan of Lager IV.64. Entrances of Lager IV.65. Schulten's plan of the remains and his excavation trenches (in and to the south-eastof area P) at Lager V.66. Schulten's reconstruction of the layout of Lager V.67. The defences of Lager V.68. Remains attributed by Schulten to the middle portion of the northern side of LagerV and the north-western corner of Lager V.69. Remains attributed by Schulten to the north-eastern corner of Lager V.70. Remains attributed by Schulten to the south-eastern area of Lager V.71. Remains attributed by Schulten to the middle area of Lager V.72. Remains attributed by Schulten to part of the south-western area of Lager V, in thearea of Schulten's conjectured western row of tribunes' houses.73. Schulten's reconstruction of the middle portion of the northern side of Lager V andthe north-western corner of Lager V.74. Schulten's reconstruction of the north-eastern corner of Lager V.75. Schulten's reconstruction of the south-eastern area of Lager V.76. Schulten's reconstruction of the middle area of Lager V.77. Schulten's reconstruction of the remains in part of the south-western area of LagerV, in the area of his conjectured western row of tribunes' houses.78. An alternative reconstruction of the middle portion of the northern side of Lager Vand the north-western corner of Lager V.15

List of illustrations79. An alternative reconstruction of the north-eastern corner of Lager V.80. An alternative reconstruction of the south-eastern area of Lager V.81. Schulten's plan of barracks 6 and 12 of Lager V.82. The 'Triclinierthauser' at Renieblas.83. Remains in the eastern and western parts of the Triclinienhauser of Lager V.84. Plans of the buildings interpreted by Schulten as tribunes' houses in Lager V.85. The granaries of Lager V.86. The topography of Castillejo.87. The remains of all three phases at Castillejo superimposed and Schulten's suggestedlocation for the praetorium, via praetoria and via praetoria for each phase.88. Rampart remains at Castillejo.89. Plan and section across the northern side of Castillejo near the north-east corner.90. Plan and section of part of what Schulten believed to be the Red Phase northernrampart at Castillejo.91. Remains proposed by Schulten as the northern gate of the Red Phase at Castillejo,together with a section of what Schulten interpreted as the Black (Scipionic) Phaserampart.92. Remains interpreted by Schulten as the southern gate of the Red Phase at Castillejo.93. The Blue Phase at Castillejo according to Schulten.94. An alternative interpretation of the extent of the Blue Phase remains at Castillejo.Incorporated are the rampart and structures 32-40 associated by Schulten with theBlack Phase. Also included is Schulten's Red Phase northern gate.95. Features of the Blue Phase at C_astillejo as interpreted by Schulten.96. One of the structures of the Blue Phase at Castillejo with possible post-pads along theinner side of the walls. Structure 4 of area d, viewed from the west.97. The Red Phase at Castillejo according to Schulten.98. An alternative interpretation of the extent of the Red Phase remains at Castillejo,incorporating Schulten's Black Phase building 11.99. The remains in the area of building a of the Red Phase of Castillejo, as photographedand interpreted by Schulten.100. The western portion of the Red Phase at Castillejo.101. The Black Phase at Castillejo according to Schulten.102. An alternative interpretation of the extent of the Black Phase remains at Castillejo.103. Schulten's reconstruction of remains in the western half of the Black Phase atCastillejo.104. Plan of the features in the area of the Black Phase building 18 at Castillejo as recordedby Fabricius.105. Buildings in the eastern part of the Black Phase at Castillejo. A) The interpretationaccording to Schulten. B) An alternative interpretation, incorporating building 29.106. The remains along the eastern half of the northern side of the Black Phase at Castillejoas interpreted by Schulten, with a detailed plan of area a in building 29.16

List of illustrations107. The 'praetorium' and 'forum' areas of the Black Phase at Castillejo as interpreted bySchulten and Schulten's reconstruction of the praetorium area.108. A reconstruction of part of the western area of the Black Phase at Castillejo.109. Building 36 at Castillejo.110. Schulten's schematic reconstruction of the barracks of the Black Phase at Castillejo.111. Schulten's reconstruction of the layout of the Black Phase at Castillejo.112. A reconstruction of the layout of the Black Phase at Castillejo.113. The remains at Travesadas.114. Plan of buildings C to K and Schulten's conjectured western gateway at Travesadas.115. General plan of the remains and Schulten's excavation trenches at Valdevorron.116. Buildings at Valdevorron. 1) Sc_hulten's conjectured western gateway. 2) Remains inarea 2. 3) Schulten's artillery platforms, but reinterpreted as granaries.117. Features from area 5 at Valdevorron. 1) Hearth. 2), 3) and 4) Section, plan andphotograph of the wall and paved floor of the conjectured curing chamber.118. Plan of the remains at Saleclilla.119. The south-eastern area of Saledilla.120. The topography of Pena Redonda.121. Plan of the surviving remains excavated by Schulten at Peria Redonda.122. Schulten's reconstruction of the overall shape and building positions of PenaRedonda.123. Schulten's schematic reconstruction of the internal layout of Pena Redonda.124. Alternative reconstruction of the overall shape of Pena Redonda and circumvallationby the camp, with a semi-schematic reconstruction of the internal layout.125. Features at Pena Redonda. A) and B) The proposed eastern defences. C) Schulten'sconjectured western artillery platform.126. The northern gate at Pena Redonda.127. Schulten's plan and reconstruction of buildings 2 to 36 at Peria Redonda with thebuilding interpreted by Schulten as a villa.128. Schulten's plan of buildings 37 and 38 at Pena Redonda.129. Schulten's plans of buildings 40 and 41 at Peria Redonda.130. Schulten's plan of buildings 44 at Peria Redonda.131. Semi-schematic reconstruction of the barracks for a cohort at Feria Redonda.132. Fabricius' plan of Schulten's excavations at Molino.133. Plan made by Fabricius of remains at Molino.134. Schulten's reconstruction of the remains at Molino. 1) General plan of the barracks.2) A contubernium of building G.135. Semi-schematic reconstruction of the remains at Molino.136. The camps at Raza and Molino.137. Schulten's plan of Dehesilla.138. The remains at Alto Real.139. The remains at Vega.17

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMy thanks are offered to the many archaeological colleagues both in this country andabroad who have helped and encouraged me during the period of my research. Inparticular to Dr M. Blech for comments on Schulten's notebooks at Madrid; Mr P.Connolly and Mr M. Hassan for discussion on stables; Dr C. van Driel Murray forcollaborative work on the reconstruction of tents; Dr F. Hassel for giving me access toSchulten's notebooks at the RGZM, Mainz; Dr L. Keppie for comments on Viseu anddiscussion on various aspects of the Republican army and its camps; Dr M. Luilc forinformation on the current state of research on the smallfinds from Numantia; Mr A.Marvell for unpublished material on stables at Usk; Dr G. Midler and Dr Ch. Reichmannfor their discussion on fort stables in Germany; Prof. H. SchOnberger for discussion on apossible stable block at Oberstimm; and Prof. G. Ulbert for comments on Caceres.At Exeter University thanks are due to Dr D. Braund, Dr S. Braund and Prof. P.Wiseman for help with Latin and Greek; to Mr S. Goddard and Mr M. Rouillard for helpwith preparing photographs and drawings; to Dr R. Higham for comments on Viseu; andProf. M. Todd for general help.I am very grateful to the late Lady R.G. Taylor, the Sir Mortimer Wheeler Fund andthe Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst for financial help towards fieldwork.Thanks are extended to Kathryn Dobson for her support and understanding.My special thanks however are to Dr Valerie Maxfield, who through her supervisionand friendship has exercised patience and encouraged me throughout.Particular mention must be made of my parents, who provided much-neededsupport and encouragement.The whole though would not have been possible without the constant support andunderstanding of my wife, and it is to her that I extend my deepest gratitude andappreciation.18

DEFINITIONSFor convenience, quotes from classical sources are usually translated into English, unlessthe form of the Latin or Greek words is critical to the discussion in hand. Most Englishtranslations are from Loeb editions and these are acknowledged where used.Latin classical works are referred to by their Latin titles where these are known,otherwise the usual English forms are used, e.g. Tacitus Annals. The titles of Greek worksare given in their usual English forms for convenience.Where measurements are given in Roman feet, one Roman foot is taken to equal0.296 m19

INTRODUCTIONBetween 1902 and 1933 the German archaeologist Adolf Schulten carried out an extensiveprogramme of excavation and fieldwork in Spain. The most important part of his workwas carried out at Numantia l, between 1905 and 1912. Here Schulten uncovered acomplex of Roman camps which he dated mostly to the second century BC. This made thecamps the earliest known archaeologically; Schulten's work indeed still provides theearliest archaeological evidence for Roman camps. Of particular significance was the factthat the sites overlapped in date with Polybius' discourse on the Roman army and camp(Polybius History2 6.19.1 - 6.42.6). This text had long been recognized as fundamental tothe understanding of the Roman Republican army, and formed one of the importantelements of military studies from the Renaissance period, with analysis of the text goingback to at least the fifteenth century (Nissen 1869,23 n. 1; Fabricius 1932). It also featuredheavily in the work of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century German 'school' ofresearch into the Roman Republican army, e.g. Marquardt (1881), Mommsen (1893 and1900), Stolle (1912), Fischer (1914), Veith (in Kromayer and Veith 1928), Fabricius (1932),Oxe (1909 and 1939) and Schulten himself (1905-1933b). Schulten's discoveries consequentlyhad added importance at the time as they gave the first and vital insight on the groundinto what Polybius described.Numantia is also important in the history of research into the Roman army in thatSchulten's excavation supervisors included such notables as Barthel, Dragendorff, Fabriciusand Koenen and assistance was also given by Jacobi and Kahrstedt. The work of one ofthese men, Ernst Fabricius, was to prove highly influential in the development of ideasabout the form of the Polybian/Republican camp. Fabricius noticed similarities betweenwhat he had seen in Spain and the description of the camp by Polybius. This led him to1. Phrases such as "around Numantia", "at Niunantia" and "the Numantine sites" are used hereto mean the Roman camps both in the immediate vicinity of the city of Numantia and nearbyat Renieblas. Specific camps at Renieblas will be referred to simply by using Schulten's namesof Lager I, Lager II, Lager III etc, i.e. not preceded by the name Renieblas. The sites encirclingthe city of Numantia will be referred to using Schulten's practice of the name of the hill or areawhere they are situated, e.g. Castillejo, Travesadas etc. For the location of these sites see fig. 2.2. For convenience, hereafter this work is referred to simply as Polybius.20

Introductionproduce a reconstruction of the layout of the Polybian camp. It was published in theJournal of Roman Studies in 1932. It has become the generally accepted interpretation of thePolybian camp. Hence Fabricius' plan is still reproduced directly or in a copied form inmany works dealing with the Roman army3. The re-evaluation of the Polybian campbelow in Chapter Three suggests however that Fabricius' interpretation is questionableand may in fact display a basic misunderstanding of what Polybius is actually describing.The importance of Schulten's work has not diminished since its publication between1905 and 1933. Any discussion about the Polybian camp and the general form of laterRepublican camps is still usually based upon Schulten, with little questioning of hisinterpretation. Such ready use of Schulten should however be discouraged. This is partlybecause his reconstructions are arguably too closely influenced by his interpretation ofPolybius. This interpretation, influenced by the views of Nissen (1869 and eta!. 1904), Oxe(1909), Stolle (1912) and Fischer (1914), is discussed at some length by Schulten during hisdiscussion of Lager III (Schulten 1929, 119 ff.; fig. 60). Much of what Schulten says can beagreed with. His strong interest in Polybius however caused him to tend to fit thearchaeology to Polybius, rather than having a more objective approach of using Polybiusmerely as an aid in the interpretation of the remains; this will be seen particularly in hisreconstruction of Lager III. Indeed adopting such a 'bias' is precisely how Schulten is ableto present such a confident interpretation of the features on the ground, as closelyreflecting elements of the theoretical form of camps occupied by the Polybian army. Thisis not to denigrate Schulten's use of Polybius. He is to be agreed with in recognising thatthe close coincidence in date of the Numantine and Polybian material was an idealsituation, with the archaeological and literary evidence offering the potential of aiding theinterpretation of each other. For this very reason, almost as much attention is given in thisthesis to a re-evaluation of Polybius as to the archaeological evidence from Numantia.The close connection between the archaeological and literary evidence can be seenin ascertaining the nature of the armies that occupied the sites. If reliance had to be placedsolely on the archaeological evidence, few details of troop organisation would beapparent. Here Polybius can help. As will be shown below in Chapters Two and Threehowever, the help is not without its problems. Despite these it will be suggested thatarmies based on the Polybian manipular system occupied camps at Numantia and theinternal details of these armies' organisation can be proposed. However, the picturebecomes more complicated. Even as Polybius was writing, the army was starting tochange its tactical organisation, from a manipular-based structure to one of cohorts. Asdiscussed below in Chapter Two, the exact process and chronology of this transition tocohorts is unfortunately uncertain. By using incidental references in literary sourcesbesides Polybius, it can nevertheless be suggested that the transformation was probably3. Fabricius' whole article has even been reprinted in a recent translation of Polybius' descriptionof the Roman camp (Miller and DeVoto 1994). This translation is not referred to in the body ofthis thesis, as it contains many inaccuracies.21

Introductioncomplete by the beginning of the first century BC. The occurrence of the developmentduring the second century however means that potentially some camps at Nurnantiacould have been occupied by manipular-organised armies and others by cohort-basedones. This raises the question that two distinct patterns of camp layout may be apparentat Numantia and attributable to the different requirements of a manipular and cohortorganisedarmy (below, Chapter Four); without the literary material, direct awareness ofsuch a question would not be possible.The literary evidence, including Polybius and the main source for the NumarttineWars, written by Appian within his Spanish Wars (below, Chapter One), also makes it clearthat foreign troops comprised part of the armies that occupied the camps at Numantia.The archaeological evidence on its own would be unlikely to reflect this aspect of thearmies so directly, if at all. As discussed below in Chapter Two, the general use of foreigntroops by Rome is referred to by Polybius and other authors. Their presence specificallyat Numantia is attested by Appian. He is unfortunately imprecise about the structure ofthese forces and where they were accommodated. In this case the literary evidence isfrustrating; it is known that foreign troops were present, they clearly neededaccommodation, but with the details of their organisation not being known and thelimited nature of the archaeological record, it will be shown that relating such troops toparticular buildings or potentially to a whole installation is not possible, with theexception of a building just outside Lager III.As with Polybius' description of the army, his account of the camp is vital in leadingto an interpretation of the Numantine sites, but its value has to be qualified. Fundamentally,there is dispute amongst scholars about the general form of the camp described — is it atwo-legion camp or half of a four-legion one, and if the latter what is the form of the twolegioncamp? A solution to these questions will be proposed in Chapter Three, butPolybius' text still leaves some details of layout unclear. Even with an interpretation of thetheoretical form established, there is the problem of knowing how many features of thesetheoretical camps were used at Numantia. In part this problem is caused by the period ofthe army and hence of the camp described by Polybius being probably slightly earlier thanthose at Numantia. It is likely however that at least some aspects of army organisation andso also of camp layout would continue into closely succeeding periods. As a result it isarguably legitimate to see if features on the ground comply with the Polybian manipularcamp. Aspects of particularly the early phases at Numantia will indeed be shown belowto exhibit clear signs of features referred to by Polybius, though a complete and straightforwardtheoretically-formed Polybian camp does not seem present. More importantly,without Polybius' text the interpretation of many features at Numantia would be lessobvious and it would certainly not be possible to suggest the type of manipular-organisedtroops that occupied particular buildings. Hence the value of Polybius in reconstructingNumantia.However Polybius alone cannot provide all the answers. For example, the detailedarrangements of the tents of each unit are not clear from his text. Here the archaeology of22

IntroductionNumantia can help, plus in this case literary evidence in the form of the later tract DeMetatione Castrorum4. The date of this text is uncertain and has often been discussed (e.g.Grillone 1977; Dobson 1979; Frere 1980; Birley 1982). It was certainly not written before theFlavian period. A possibility is Domitian, but as Birley (1982) has pointed out, De MetationeCastrorum probably represents a compilation of material from various periods. It isconceivable therefore that the tract describes some practices which were no longer in useat the time of writing, and some which are a suitably adapted form of ones originating inan earlier period. Clearly it is hazardous identifying such early material within the tractand there is the uncertainty of establishing the original period and form of such features.Potentially though, De Metatione Castrorum could in places reflect Republican practicesand so be legitimately used, with caution, as a source for castrametation in the mid-secondcentury BC. Hence its use below.To reconstruct the detailed arrangements of some areas of the camp however, andparticularly the central administrative range, it will be seen in Chapter Three that neitherPolybius nor the archaeology from Numantia can help. To reconstruct these areasrecourse has to be made to other literary sources and retrospectively projecting featuresfrom later sites.The analysis of the sites below in Chapter Four will show that the direct value ofPolybius diminishes for the later phases at Numantia, for these differ noticeably from thePolybian form. Schulten too was aware that the later sites did not comply so readily withthe Polybian scheme. As will be seen, these phases need not be regarded as questioningthe validity of Polybius, but, as Schulten also proposes, instead might reflect the changesin the structure of the army from maniple to cohort. This organisational developmentpresumably meant that the 'Polybian' camp had to be adapted accordingly, causingfeatures convenient specifically to maniples to be replaced by arrangements more suitablefor cohorts. The later phases of the Numantine camps consequently will be claimed toprovide evidence for the nature of the changes involved. Schulten also believed that someof the later sites (e.g. Lager V and Peria Redonda) displayed evidence for changes in layoutcaused by moving to cohorts. He however believed that only a form of proto-cohort waspresent at Numantia, whereas it is argued below that fully-fledged cohorts were in use.As a result, Schulten's reconstruction of the later sites presents a far less radical departurefrom the Polybian scheme than is proposed here.In the case of these cohort-based camps at Numantia, the roles of the literary andarchaeological evidence change compared to the earlier phases at Numantia; thearchaeology helps to overcome the absence of literary evidence for the form of the post-Polybian, cohort camp. The overall reconstruction must still though rely on the literature4. The title of De Metatione Castrorum, as used by Grillone in his edition of the text (1977), is adoptedhere in preference to the commonly used De Munitionibus Castrorum (e.g. in the 'classic' 1887edition of von Dornaszewski and in Lenoir's edition of 1979), since, as Grillone points out (1977,viii f.), the text is more about measuring out a camp than fortifying one. The tract is also notreferred to here as Hyginus, since the authorship of the work is disputed.23

Introductionto provide information on the organisation of a cohort-based army, which the layout ofthe camp would obviously reflect. As a result, from this evidence and by retrospectivelyprojecting features of sites of the early Empire, theoretical forms for the various types ofearly-cohort camps can be reconstructed (below, Chapter Three).In conclusion, the evidence from Numantia consequently will be seen as reflectingnot only the 'pure' Polybian rnanipular camp, but also the move away from this as thearmy departed from its manipular form to one based around cohorts. The camps atNumantia will consequently be claimed to move the picture beyond Polybius and looktowards the military organisation of the closing century of the Republic. There is thus littleneed to emphasise their high importance for the study of the Roman Republican militarysystem.With the importance of the sites at Numantia, and particularly their relationship toPolybius, it is surprising that no modem re-assessment of Schulten's interpretation hasbeen published. 5 There has also been no further excavation in the area of Numantia,despite the sites being damaged by present agricultural activity. Indeed, since the workearlier this century in Germany, research into the Roman army and camp described byPolybius, and the Republican military system in general, has been on a much smaller scaleand contrasts starkly with the amount of effort that is given to the study of the Romanarmy of the Empire and its camps, fortresses and forts; notable exceptions of work on theRepublican army are the studies of Harmand (1967), Sumner (1970), Connolly (1978 and1981) and Keppie (1984). It can only be hoped that the Republic will receive more weightin the future, particularly since so many of the features of the Imperial army have theirorigins in the Republic.The only published work since Schulten, other than just modem copies of his plansand synopses of his text, are some aerial photographs published by Blazquez (1986),whose value is unfortunately limited due to their poor quality, a very importantreworking of the coin evidence by Hildebrandt (1979; below, Chapter One) and some ofthe finds are commented on by Ulbert (1984) during his discussion of Câceres el Viejo. Thesites outside of the immediate area of Numantia identified as Roman camps by Schultenhave also not been re-examined, with only a few exceptions; the nearby site of Almazanwas excavated in 1968 (Gamer and Frias 1969), Alpiarca in Portugal was re-examined byKalb and Hock (1983 and 1986) and Schulten's excavations at Ckeres el Viejo werepublished by Ulbert in 1984 (for location of these sites see fig. 1).5. The PhD thesis by John Pamment-Salvatore, entitled Roman Republican Castrametation: WithSpecial Reference to the Republican Stone-Built Camps in Spain, submitted to the University ofBirmingham in 1992 and examined and accepted in 1993, included a re-assessment of parts ofsome of the sites at Numantia. Knowledge of this was received after this thesis had essentiallybeen completed and consequently it is not referred to in the body of the text. A summarycomparison between Pamment-Salvatore's thesis and this one is presented as Appendix Two.24

IntroductionDue to the near complete lack of published research on Numantia since Schulten,present knowledge of the sites is almost totally dependent on his work. 6 It is consequentlyfortunate that the quality of Schulten's fieldwork is good relative to the practices of thetime and his publication of it was quite thorough. This, and the importance of the sites,caused his work to be readily accepted by scholars, many of whom simply used his plansof the reconstructed layout of the sites without examining the accompanying text anddetailed plans of what was actually found. However the review of Schulten's excavationand post-excavation methodology below in Chapter One, reveals the archaeologicalrecord to be partially unreliable and shows that there should not in fact be such openacceptance of Schulten's reconstructions. Indeed as will be shown below, much ofSchulten's interpretation of the camp layouts is questionable and in some cases radicallydifferentreconstructions can be offered. Even Schulten's dating of some of the camps canbe disputed and as a result, for example, a different set of camps for the Scipionicdrcumvallation can be proposed.As well as working at sites close to Numantia, Schulten excavated a Republicancamp at Caceres el Viejo (fig. 1). The camp is however of limited value in aiding theinterpretation of the Numantine sites, partly because Ulbert's re-assessment of the findsrecovered by Schulten shows that Caceres el Viejo was much later than all the Numantineinstallations (see Chapter One; Ulbert 1984), and because the details of its internal layoutare too uncertain to be applied retrospectively to the Numantine sites.Schulten also carried out a brief investigation of a camp at Almazan, 34 km to thesouth of Numantia (Schulten 1929, 187 ff.; fig. 1). He suggested that it was associated withthe Numantine Wars, and specifically Nobilior's campaigns of 153 (1929, 189). The campis unfortunately of little help in aiding the interpretation of those at Numantia as nothingof its internal layout is known. Further, its association with the Numantine Wars is nowquestionable, as dating evidence recovered in the 1968 excavations carried out by Gamerand Frias (1969) can be interpreted to suggest that the site dates to the first half of the firstcentury BC, i.e. it is much later than the Numantine sites. Gamer and Frias were in factunable to decide from the datable pottery whether the camp dates to the second half of thesecond century or the first half of the first century BC (Gamer and Frias 1969, 183 f.). Sincehowever sherds of Campana B black-glaze ware, type Lamboglia 5, were recovered fromthe body of the rampart and the same type was found at Caceres el Viejo but not at6.Hence the discussion in Chapter Four on the Numantine sites relies mainly on Schulten'spublished material. A number of Schulten's notebooks survive in Germany and Spain, andseveral of these were examined, but they were found to be of limited value (see Chapter One).The sites themselves were not visited nor fieldwork carried out, since little survives today aboveground to be very informative. Similarly, the few artefacts from Schulten's excavationssurviving in museums at Mainz and Soria were not examined as this would be of little directbenefit to the aims of this thesis.25

IntroductionNumantia (Ulbert 1984, 168 ff.), the implication is that Almazan is later than theNumantine camps and also possibly contemporary with Caceres el Viejo. A surface findof a sherd of a Celtiberian dolium, dating to 133-75 BC (Gamer and Frias 1969, 183), mayalso support Almazan being later than the Numantine camps, though clearly the sherd'sdating significance is limited by it being unstratified. A sherd of Dressel 1A amphorafound on the surface at Almazan (Gamer and Frias 1969, 182), though of a type presentat Numantia but absent from Caceres el Viejo (Ulbert 1984, 187), may nevertheless also beconsistent with Almazan dating to the first half of the first century, since although Dressel1A dates mainly to the second half of the second century, it continued in use into the firsthalf of the first century BC (Ulbert 1984, 184; Peacock and Williams 1986, 87).Other sites exist in Spain, which are cited by Schulten in particular as being Romancamps associated with the Numantine Wars, contemporary with them or earlier, e.g.Aguilar de Anguita, Almenara, Alpanseque, Alpiarca, Sobrado, Tentellatge and Viseu(fig. 1). A re-assessment of the remains at these sites suggests however that an interpretationas Roman camps is highly dubious. Consequently they cannot reliably assist with theinterpretation of the installations at Numantia.26

Chapter OneIberian culture (Schulten 1931, 12). From this he hoped to further knowledge in threespecific areas: the Roman art of war; Iberian antiquities; and the siege and defeat ofNumantia (Schulten 1931, 13). It was intended that the work would be completed by 20workers in 20 days (Schulten 1931, 14). In reality, Schulten carried out annual excavationsbetween 1905 and 1912, with a team sometimes 60 strong, digging up to 11 hours a dayand he spent a total of 22 months in the field (Schulten 1931, 33 n. 5; 36). Further, minorexcavations occurred in 1927 (Schulten 1929, 143 and 169 n. 2).The series of excavations began on 12th August 1905, within the city of Numantia,under the supervision of Schulten and Koenen (Schulten 1931,16; 1933b, 157). During theafternoon of the first day the burnt remains of the expected Iberian city were discoveredunder the Roman city — "The city destroyed by Scipio in 133 BC, the famous Numantia,had been found!" (Schulten 1931, 17). The excavations continued until 10th Novemberwhen snow and cold prevented their continuation that year (Schulten 1931, 19). Theyrecovered a large quantity of Iberian material, and revealed many buildings and sectionsof the defences and street layout. Evidence for a Roman siege was recovered in the formof ballista balls and sling stones (Schulten 1931, 20).The first excavation season was not limited to just the city. In the last few weeksSchulten investigated the surrounding area, looking for the Scipionic circumvallation.Sections of this were successfully found at Valdevorron and Pena Redonda, with both hillsalso revealing remains of Roman camps (Schulten 1927b, 217; 1931,20; for the location ofthe sites around Numantia see fig. 20). At Castillejo, field walking was carried out whichyielded evidence suggestive of the presence of a camp, and two (unsuccessful) trialtrenches were dug (Schulten 1927b, 167). Schulten also investigated the hill Gran Atalaya5.5 km to the east, by the modern village of Renieblas, in an attempt to find the campoccupied by Nobilior 24 stadia (4.44 km) from Numantia, referred to by Appian (Schulten1929, 4; 1931, 20; Appian Spanish Wars 46; figs 2 and 21). The results of this visit seemedat the time to suggest prehistoric rather than Roman occupation; it was not until 1908 thata sequence of Roman camps was found here by Schulten (Schulten 1929, 4; 1931, 20).By the end of the first year, Schulten had consequently collected more than sufficientinformation to be able to claim quite safely that here lay the site of Numantia. There isindeed little cause to doubt Schulten's identification of the site; the archaeological andliterary evidence support each other entirely. The results also encouraged Schulten tocontinue his work with more seasons of excavations, field walking and surveying (thelatter was carried out by Major Lammerer, director of the Bavarian Topographical Bureau).This work took place as a series of seasons, on average three months long, eachsummer from 1906 to 1912, with a minor season in 1927 (Schulten 1931, 27 ff.). All weredevoted to the area around Numantia. The lack of further work in Numantia itself was duemainly to the Spanish authorities, who did not want foreign excavations to continue in thecity (Schulten 1931, 21 f.). The Spanish themselves carried out excavations in the city in1906. Schulten was horrified by this work and declares that it destroyed more of Numantiathan did Scipio (Schulten 1931,23 ff.). Schulten comments that the excavations basically29

Chapter Onesought pottery and smallfinds and were little interested in observing and recording thestratigraphical development of the site (Schulten 1931,23 f.). As a result, much informationwas lost.The results of Schulten's nine seasons provided him with the information he set outto gain — proving the location of Numantia, establishing details of the Roman militarycampaigns at Numantia and learning about the Roman army of the period (Schulten 1931,33). He was pleased with his achievement and rightly so.THE PUBLICATION OF THE EXCAVATIONSSchulten published the results of each season as a series of interim reports in ArchdologischerAnzeiger (Schulten 1905, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1927a). The main interest inthese is showing how Schulten's thoughts and interpretations changed and developed asthe work progressed; the 'factual' archaeological information is more fully presented inthe final publication. Fabricius, who supervised some of the excavations, also publisheda discussion in Archdologischer Anzeiger and questioned some of Schulten's interpretations(Fabridus 1911; the differences are also noted by Schulten in his final publication). Themain publication was as four large volumes, each with the main title Numantia. DieErgebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1905-1912. These were published between 1914 and 1931. Thevolumes included not just the publication of his excavations, but a study into theorganisation of the Republican Roman army and a thorough survey of the history andtopography of the area of Numantia:Volume One (1914) The Celtiberians and their war with RomeThe Celtiberians, their origins and their territoryThe Celtiberian Wars and the siege of NumantiaVolume Two (1931) The city of NumantiaHistory of the study of Nurnantia and Schulten's own workTopography of the area around NumantiaResults of the excavations in the city (topography of the hill; prehistoricsettlement; Iberian city; Roman city; the Numantine people)Volume Three (1927) The camps of ScipioHistory of the siege of NumantiaOrganisation of the Roman armyCircumvallationCamps around NumantiaVolume Four (1929) The camps at RenieblasTopography of the hill La Gran AtalayaDescription of Lager Ito V, including a discussion of the Polybian camp.30

Chapter OneCamps to the south of Nuraantia at Almazan, Aguilar and AlpansequelSmallfinds from Numantia and RenieblasThese four volumes form a very thorough publication of Schulten's research andfieldwork, comprising approximately 1,300 pages of text, almost 200 pages of photographsand drawings, and two large folios of over 80 plans and maps. The bulk of informationalone is commendable, but the published record is worthy of even more credit as it is ofexceptional high quality for the period.Schulten published an abridged form of the four volumes, as a book of 170 pagesentitled Geschichte von Numantia, in 1933.THE EXCAVATION ARCHIVEComparatively little of Schulten's excavation archive remains. Some of his notebooks(entitled simply Noten) survive at the ROmisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum, Mainz. Theyconsist of 21 small volumes, each containing up to about 80 pages, and cover the entireperiod of each of Schulten's annual fieldtrips between 1905 and 1912 2. They are mostlywritten in pencil, with some entries in ink. The handwriting is unfortunately not alwaysvery legible, with the volumes from 1907 onwards being particularly difficult andsometimes impossible to read due to a change in the style of Schulten's handwriting. Thecontents include notes on the excavations at Nu.mantia and Renieblas, fieldwork carriedout elsewhere in Spain and in North Africa (in 1910), things of interest (not onlyarchaeological) on the route to and from Spain each year and details about whom met,letters received, the weather, etc., - in effect they are a combination of field notebook anddiary. As regards providing information about the archaeological work at Numantia andRenieblas, the notebooks provide little extra to the published record, as the text is in a verycondensed note form with hardly any details being given; e.g. 30th September 1905"Raining, but mild, circumvallation excavated at Valdevorron.", and 27th August 1906"Pefia Redonda. Better foundations." - but no other details are provided. It is not evenalways clear where work referred to was being carried out (e.g. the entries for much of the1. Schulten carried out small-scale fieldwork at these sites while on his numerous tours of Spain.The sites were included by Schulten in his publication on Numantia as they were seen by himas being associated with the Numantine Wars. This association can be questioned for all threesites. Dating evidence from the 1968 excavations at Almazan suggests that it was not associatedwith the Numantine Wars, but later activity (see Introduction). The remains at Aguilar are moreprobably those of a pre-Roman native cast-7-os, rather than a Roman camp. Similarly Alpansequewas probably not a camp but a civil settlement, possibly also pre-Roman in date.2. 1905 four vols, 2nd August -14th December.1906 five vols, 15th May -16th November.1907 three vols, 11th July -28th October.1908 two vols, 2nd April - 12th June.1909 two vols, 23rd July -30th October.1910 three vols, 25th July - 1st October.1911 two vols, 27th July - 1st October.1912 two vols, 26th July - 23rd October.31

Chapter Oneearly part of September 1905), so the notebooks cannot be used without problem evensimply to reconstruct the general course of the work, let alone establish in detail how siteswere investigated.The notebooks also contain a large number of sketch plans and sections of theexcavations. These are usually just of portions of buildings. Frustratingly it is not alwayspossible to work out which building is being shown and sometimes it is not even alwaysdear which site they are from (e.g. drawings of walls under entries for 10th, 11th and 19thto 23rd August 1906). Unfortunately the drawings rarely have any accompanying text orannotations. Occasionally however the sketches very usefully contain information notincluded in the published plans, e.g. detailed measurements about 'room' 4 of area d ofthe Blue Phase at Castillejo (entry for 29th April 1908, where there is also unusually sometext accompanying the plan) and the nature of the south-eastern corner of Lager III (entryfor 5th September 1910; below). There are also instances where the sketches revealSchulten was clearly having problems reconstructing the remains, with, for example,various possibilities for the layout of the barracks and the 'praetorium' area at PeriaRedonda being drawn (entries for 22nd and 24th May 1908). Such 'uncertainties' are nothinted at in the final published account; it demonstrates that caution should indeed beexercised with Schulten's seemingly very 'confident' published reconstructions. Thesevarious reconstruction attempts and other comments by Schulten in his notebooks arefurther useful in providing an insight into the way Schulten was thinking and how hechanged his thoughts as the work progressed; e.g. at what point he decided he had foundsufficient evidence to support the location of a campOverall, however, it can be concluded that the notebooks are of very limited valuein adding to the published record. As a result, they are rarely referred to in this thesis.Some of Schulten's excavation day-books also survive. There is a single volume atthe Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Madrid, covering some of the excavations for 1905and 1906 (Blech pers. comm.) and a few others survive in private hands in Berlin(Pamment-Salvatore 1992). Unfortunately it has not been possible to examine any of theseas part of the research for this thesis. The Madrid example seems however to be verysimilar in form and content to Schulten's Noten, since Pamment-Salvatore comments thatit mentions visits to sites at Numantia and Renieblas and has basic notes and sketches ofwork undertaken. Pamment-Salvatore's overall comment about the book was that it hadlittle that was readily intelligible.Some of the smallfinds, including the coins, are kept in the ROmisch-GermanischesZentralmuseum, Mainz and the provincial museum in Soria.With so little surviving, it is consequently fortunate that Schulten's publishedrecord of the excavations is so full.THE EXCAVATION TECHNIQUEBecause of the scale of the excavation programme, Schulten had to be content mostly withuncovering just the main walls of buildings and could completely excavate only the32

Chapter One"important" buildings (Schulten 1931, 37). Schulten does not however always make itclear which buildings were singled out for complete excavation. An exception is the campat Castillejo. Here, and despite the large proportion of the site investigated, Schulten saysthat the only buildings completely excavated were (those interpreted by him as) cavalrybarrack block 18, triarh barrack block 2, barrack block 13, the granary and the northern sideof the praetorium of the Black Phase, the praetorium of the Blue Phase and building a of theRed Phase (Schulten 1927b, 167). As a result of this limitation on the thoroughness of theexcavations, Schulten's main excavation strategy was to chase the walls of buildings andpile up the spoil in the interior of the rooms so revealed (Schulten 1931,37); as can be seenin many of Schulten's photographs.This strategy of concentrating on chasing the main walls could be defended,according to Schulten, as experience showed that smallfinds occurred mostly by the walls,especially at corners (Schulten 1931, 37). Clearly this excavation approach is flawed in thatmuch information will not be recovered, particularly as some of the plans indicate that theentire width of the wall was not necessarily exposed, but just one face of it. This could wellcause, for example, minor internal dividing walls and details of a room's layout to bemissed. One benefit however is that the room interiors remain for future excavation,though their stratigraphical link with the walls will have been severed.Despite the inherent flaw in the main excavation methodology, as a generalobservation Schulten's excavations were of very high quality. This also makes a reassessmentof the excavations plausible and indeed worthwhile. The excavation methodis also to be credited with revealing a very large area of buildings, considering therestrictions placed on excavation by the available finances.On the negative side it can be suggested that Schulten's excavations must havemissed much, not only because few building interiors were thoroughly investigated. Forexample, there is a complete absence in the report of any post-holes having been found.Neither are any pits stated as having been noticed, except for a stone-lined pit at Molino(below, Chapter Four). The 'real' absence of such features is highly unlikely, since theyproliferate on other Roman military sites. Their not being found could be due to the abilityof the excavators /supervisors, or the dry conditions simply meant that negative featureswere not visible. Nevertheless it means that two complete categories of information arelacking. This clearly influences any proposed interpretations of the internal details of thecamps.Even with the best intentions Schulten could only obtain limited results, as farmingactivity had caused considerable damage to most of the sites. For example, the camps atRenieblas that extended into the southern part of the Gran Atalaya hill had suffered dueto ploughing and stones being removed to build field walls. Farming may also account fora lack of features in the middle part of Castillejo and definitely caused few remains tosurvive at Travesadas and Valdevorron. At Saledilla the site had suffered from bothploughing and limestone extraction. The survival of Pefia Redonda had been helped byonly the southern third of the site being farmed, but erosion of the spur's sides may have33

Chapter Oneencroached into the area of the camp. The effects of both ploughing and erosion were alsoobserved at Molino. Dehesilla suffered the unfortunate fate of the excavated internal wallsbeing robbed by local farmers before they could be planned.A further negative aspect about the excavations is the extent of Schulten'sunderstanding of stratigraphy. Schulten certainly knew about the existence of differentlayers within archaeological deposits, since, for example, he criticises the Spanishexcavators of the city of Numantia in that they "neglected the more important task ofinvestigating the stratigraphy (Schichten)" (Schulten 1931, 23 f.) and he also refers to thecontrasting quality of Koenen's section drawings of the stratigraphy (Schichtenbliitter) ofNumantia compared to the (few) drawings produced by the Spanish (Schulten 1931, 24).A measure of stratigraphical awareness by Schulten can be seen in the excavations at themulti-phase camp of Castillejo, but he is inconsistent (below, Chapter Four). For example,in the area of the north-eastern rampart of this camp Schulten seems oblivious of thesignificance of the order of features as regards their relative dating. Related to this is thathe was not always able to notice the existence of more than one phase, for example inbuilding a of the Red Phase at Castillejo. Unfortunately, as a result of this degree ofinconsistency, Schulten's phasing on multi-phase sites should be accepted with caution.Further, where he has identified only a single phase, there is the possibility that otherphases may not have been noticed.THE RECORDING METHODS - PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHSSchulten published a generous number of plans. These comprise area plans at 1:10,000,general site plans at 1:2,500, individual camps at 1:1,000 and many plans of individualbuildings published at the large scale of 1:200 and even some buildings and features at1:100 (a large proportion of these are included in Volume Two of this thesis, but throughrestrictions of space unfortunately have to be at a reduced scale). The amount of detail onthe large-scale plans is particularly high, with, for example, the individual stonescomprising the walls being shown.A consequence of the quality of the plans' execution and reproduction is that theylook reliable. The degree of reliability should however be questioned. A comparison of thesame areas shown in the large-scale and small-scale plans reveals inconsistencies in somecases. This occurs at Lager III and Pena Redonda, for example (fig. 26, C and D and figs129 and 130). There are even differences between large-scale plans which show the samebuilding, e.g. one of the east-west walls of building 36 at Pena Redonda is shown completein plan XVII-XIX with no walls leading south from its western end, whereas in plan XXthe wall is broken and there are two walls from the south joining the western part of it.Where inconsistencies occur, there is no confident way of knowing which version, ifindeed any, is completely reliable. Hence arguably all plans should be treated with somecaution. Clearly this makes any interpretation based on the reading of plans hazardous.Although the quantity of area plans is good there is a paucity of section drawings.The few provided include two reasonably drawn sections through the rampart/conjectured34

Chapter Onerampart of Castillejo (figs 88 to 90), a stylised view through a tower of Lager III (fig. 26),a not very informative section through building 36 of Castillejo (fig. 109) and a gooddetailed section of area 5 at Valdevorron (fig. 117, 2). In addition, Schulten published anumber of topographical profiles across several of the sites, but these are of little valuearchaeologically (for this reason none is included in Volume Two of this thesis). From themixed quality of those sections that were published, it is questionable that if more hadbeen presented they would in fact be of much value. Not only is this because of the actualquality of the drawing, but, as with the area plans, there would have been the unanswerablequestion of the degree of reliability.Schulten published many photographs of the excavations, the general area ofNumantia and of some of the finds. Those of the excavations are particularly valuable forre-assessing what was found; for example, in respect of the nature of the rampart remainsat Castillejo and Feria Redonda (figs 88, 125 and 126) and of the sequence of phases ofbuilding a of the Red Phase of Castillejo (fig. 99). They are also very useful in providinga degree of check for the plans and often help in clarifying and amplifying Schulten's text.THE RECORDING METHODS - THE FINDSMany objects were recovered during the excavations. Unfortunately the location of thesewas recorded with a wide variation in precision. At the worst Schulten could be as vagueas saying that objects came from the camp, with no indication of an association with aparticular building or even area of the camp. This applies, for example, to the finds fromLager I and some from Valdevorron. It also applies to most of the finds from Castillejo,which means frustratingly that it is not even possible to associate finds with particularphases. The usual method, however, of recording an object's location was to associate itwith a specific building. For example, at Lager III buildings 3,4 and 6 of row K have objectsspecifically associated with them, as do two of the tribunes' houses in Lager V. OccasionallySchulten goes beyond this and specifies a particular room of a building for an object'sposition. Examples of this are in the description of Lager III, where finds are located inroom 5 of the eastern block of barrack 3 of row A and during the account of Pena Redondathe position of all the finds from building 35 are stated precisely; there are also the entriesfor 13th and 18th August 1911 in one of Schulten's notebooks, where there is the uniqueexample of plans showing the exact findspots of a number of objects in rooms of barracksof rows D and E of Lager III. Alternatively Schulten could be more vague and associatefinds with a group of buildings, resulting in it being unclear from which building inparticular the object(s) came. For example, a pilum head is stated having been found atPella Redonda in one of the buildings 38, 39 or 43.With such a range in the quality of the provenance information, there is obviouslya corresponding range of potential usefulness that the finds have in aiding the reinterpretationof the function of buildings and the dating of the sites (below). The valueof the finds in respect of identifying the type of troops in buildings is also limited, sincethe items of military equipment have received only partial study and publication since the35

Chapter Onework of Schulten. Ulbert (1984), for example, comments on some of the material forcomparative purposes for finds from Caceres el Viejo and Bishop and Coulston (1993)include a brief discussion of the equipment from Numantia; all the surviving sn-tallfindsare however now being worked on by Martin Luik of the Deutsches Archtiologisches Institut,Madrid (Luik pers. comm. September 1994). As a result, caution should be exercised withSchulten's identification of the equipment and his attribution of items to specific types oftroops. Hence Schulten's use of equipment to support the location of particular unitswithin specific buildings should not be accepted without question.THE DATING EVIDENCE OF THE FINDSJust over 270 coins and a large quantity of pottery and metalwork were recovered duringSchulten's excavations. The post-excavation work on the coins was carried out forSchulten by Haeberlin, the pottery was processed by Koenen and the metalwork byGroner and Jacobi. All the specialist reports were published in the fourth volume of theexcavations at Nurnantia (Schulten 1929, metalwork 203-233, coins 234-83, pottery 284-305).POTTERYKoenen's discussion of the pottery unfortunately can contribute very little as datingevidence, for he was heavily influenced by Schulten's historically-derived dates to helpdate the pottery rather than use the pottery to help provide dates for the sites. This isillustrated, for example, in his introduction to the pottery report, where after a paragraphstating Schulten's dating of the camps he says "The whole pottery assemblage found inthe camps must accordingly have been used in the period from 195 to 74 BC..." (Koenenin Schulten 1929, 284). In general, little work has been done on the pottery since that ofKoenen, with the exception of Ulbert (1984), who analyses the Numantine material toprovide comparative material for Caceres el Viejo. Even the general study of SpanishRoman pottery published relatively recently by Beltran (1990), unquestioningly acceptsSchulten's dating and uses this as a criterion for dating other Spanish pottery (1990, 17).The value of this work by Beltran, as regards the pottery evidence from the Numantinecamps, is further limited by his references to types of pottery being too vague to be ableto link them back to Schulten's report or to specific sites at Numantia.Campanian wareMany sherds of Campanian black-glaze wares were found by Schulten. Ulbert commentsthat despite much modem study of this type of pottery, "It is surprising that in discussionsof Campanian pottery the Nurnantine material has been completely ignored" (1984, 172).Even Morel's important work on Campanian pottery (1981), which includes an exhaustivetypology, refers to Numantia only once. This is to an example of Morel's form 2122a,which dates to the end of the second century BC (1981, 138). However, Morel's reference36

Chapter Oneto Schulten's fourth volume on Numantia cites a page and pot number (page 725 and pot493) that do not exist and an illustration (Taf. XVIII) that does not show any pottery.Consequently it is not obvious which vessel Morel is thinking of, let alone establish whichcamp it came from and hence use it to aid the camp's dating.Ulbert discusses some of the pieces from Numantia and publishes a whole page ofdrawings of them (1984, 162 ff.; Abb. 34). He concludes that from the way it is describedby Koenen, it is all of type Campana A. In contrast, the material from Caceres el Viejo istypologically quite different, and all of the later type Campana B. Ulbert concludes thatthis difference supports placing Caceres el Viejo in the first half of the first century BC(1984, 172) and presumably hence all the Nuinantine sites in the second century BC.Coarse potteryLarge quantities of Celtic and Celtiberian coarse pottery were found. Little study of thesetypes of pottery has however been carried out for the Roman Republic in Spain, with nopublished corpus existing for the third to first centuries BC. The exceptions are Koenen'sdiscussion of the coarse pottery from the Numantine camps, within his report for Schulten(1929, 285 ff.), and a study of the material from the city of Nurnantia by Wattenberg (1963)(Ulbert 1984, 173). Wattenberg's work is unfortunately of limited value as regards thepottery from the camps, not only because he deals solely with the material from the city,but his dating of the pottery is heavily influenced by Schulten's historical interpretationof the Numantine sites. Significantly in this respect, Wattenberg readily accepts Schulten'sview that Pompeius camped at Renieblas in 75 BC, in the context of the campaigns againstSertorius (below; 1Vattenberg 1963, 27). Wattenberg then links this to a destruction layerfound in the city of Numantia which is later than the one reasonably reliably dated toScipio's action in 133 BC. Wattenberg proposes (1963, 21) that the later layer was the resultof Pompeius destroying the city, since Pompeius is attested demolishing other Celtiberiancities between 72 and 77 BC; he has to admit though that Nuraantia is not specificallyattested as one of the cities so destroyed (1963, 27). Hence Wattenberg uses the demolitionlayer as a watershed to date pottery to pre-- and post-75 BC (1963, 30 and 35). Clearly, withthe weakness of the historical link between the demolition and Pompeius, such a datingprocedure is highly questionable. Hence even if Wattenberg had considered the potteryfrom the camps, his dating of it could not readily have been accepted.In part as a result of the limited study of the coarse pottery and because typesseemingly lasted for very long periods, the dating of this material is very general, and thecoarse pottery from Numantia and Caceres el Viejo cannot be dated any closer than theperiod second half of the second century/first century BC (Ulbert 1984,174 ff.). Hence thispottery is of little dating value for the camps.AmphoraeDespite much modern research into amphorae, the material from Numantia has been littlelooked at (Ulbert 1984, 187). Ulbert presents a discussion and drawings of the Numantine37

Chapter Oneexamples (1984, 187, Abb. 36). He categorizes them as Lamboglia 2 and 4, Dressel lA anda few fragments of Beltran 85. Although there is some overlap with the amphorae atCaceres el Viejo, in that both have Lamboglia 2 and Beltran 85, more significantly Caceresel Viejo lacks Dressel 1A, but has Dressel/Lamboglia 1B and 10 5. Hence the amphoraefrom Numantia are generally much earlier than those from Caceres el Viejo, and further,support dating the Numantine sites to the second century and Caceres el Viejo to the first(Ulbert 1984, 187).Closer dating evidence from the amphorae is provided for Lager III by a stampfound in room 3 of the southern range of rooms along the eastern side of Schulten'sconjecturedforum (fig. 55, B; Schulten 1929, 106). The same stamp occurs in the destructionlevels of Carthage, dating to 146 BC, and consequently provides an approximate date forLager III (Schulten 1929, 106).LAMPSUlbert's comparison of the lamps from Numantia and those from Caceres el Viejoconcludes that the two assemblages are different in character and that those fromNumantia are earlier, though the precise dating is uncertain other than second/firstcentury BC (1984, 159 ff.).BROOCHESThe brooches from Numantia (found mainly at Castillejo, Pena Redonda and Lager III) areconcluded by Ulbert to be much earlier than those from Caceres el Viejo and date to thesecond century, whereas those from Caceres el Viejo date to the first half of the firstcentury BC (1984, 50 ff.).COINSAn important re-examination of the coins was published by Hildebrandt (1979) and theresults from this were also used during his examination of the coins from Caceres el Viejo(in Ulbert 1984, 257 ff.).Hildebrandt's methodology for ascertaining when the coins were deposited, andhence date the camps, was based on their relative weight and condition. His premise wasthat the average weight of bronze coins minted in Rome is known to have declined duringthe first two centuries BC. Hildebrandt believed that the bronze coins minted in Spainwould have experienced a similar rate of decline during the same period. Hence the3- Dressel 1A replaced Lamboglia 4 in the mid-second century BC. The change from Dressel 1Ato 1B occurred during the early first century BC. Dressel 1B continued until about the seconddecade BC. Dressel 1C dates to the first century BC and probably the first half of it. Lamboglia2 continued in use into the first century BC, but possibly not beyond the middle of it. Beltran 85dates from the second half of the second century to the mid-first century BC. (Ulbert 1984, 184ff.; Peacock and Williams 1986)38

Chapter Oneweights of the closely dated coins minted in Rome could be applied to the coins fromNumantia as a relative scale for refining the period of some of the coins minted in Rome,which could otherwise only be placed in a very broad period, and also for dating the coinsfrom Spanish mints which have an uncertain chronology. From this weight comparisonand by using various statistical techniques to take account of coin weights being affectedby the degree of wear, Hildebrandt was able to propose periods for several of the camps.The dates for the camps derived by Hildebrandt (1979, 270) compared to theessentially historically-derived ones of Schulten (discussed in Chapter Four) are:HILDEBRANDT SCHULTENLager III 157 - 146 BC 153 BCLager V 135- c. 130 BC 75/74 BC(only one coin was found in Lager I, but is of uncertain Iberian type, and no coins arereported to have been found in Lager II and IV - Hildebrandt 1979, 245)"The Scipionic camps" 141 - c. 130 BC 134/133 BC(i.e. Castillejo, Travesadas, Valdevorron, Pena Redonda, Molino - Hildebrandt 1979,245 ff.; no coins are listed having been found at Saledilla, Raza, Dehesilla, Alto Realor Vega)With the exception of Lager V, Hildebrandt's dates can be seen to correspond closelyto Schulten's and indeed give a measure of support to the historical contexts proposed bySchulten. Hildebrandt's results have however met with a mixed reception. Ulbert (1984,67 and 172), for example, readily accepts all of Hildebrandt's dates including that of LagerV. Crawford rejects them, in part because he questions Hildebrandt's identification ofasses and semisses; he is against Hildebrandt grouping together the coins from the Scipionicsiege camps and a small sample was being used for the chosen methodology (Crawford1985, 90, note 14). A fault of Crawford's though is that he accepts unquestioningly all ofSchulten's historically-derived dates and uses these as a check for the date of the coins, e.g."coins from the camps at Numantia are mostly earlier than the dates of the camps" (1985,90) and "The finds from Numantia make it clear that the Iberian denarius coinage beganbefore 137, the date of the reoccupation of Camp III by C. Hostilius Mancinus" (1985, 91ff.; and similar in 1969,5 - the dates referred to being Schulten's). Others are also 'guilty'of using Schulten's dates in this way to date coinage (Hildebrandt 1979, 239). Hildebrandt'smethodology of dating the bronze coins has also been questioned by Knapp, who believesthat dating coins from the Spanish mints on the basis of declining weights is unreliable,as although a decline did occur during the second and first half of the first centuries BC,it was not smooth, as indeed it was not with the mints in Rome (Knapp 1987, 19 f.).Because of this criticism of Hildebrandt, and indeed because of the lack of agreementbetween numismatists for the dating of Republican coinage in Spain (illustrated byCrawford 1985, 84 ff.), dearly Hildebrandt's results should not be accepted unquestioningly.In Hildebrandt's defence however is that his overall methodology is objective and notswayed by Schulten, his dates do not conflict with the albeit limited pottery dating39

Chapter Oneevidence, and with the exception of Lager V his results do not conflict with Schulten's.Consequently his results may not be grossly in error and so are arguably of value.The dating of Lager VSchulten associates Lager V with the campaigns of Pompeius against Sertorius in 75/ 74BC (1929, 144 and 182). This period for its construction is derived by Schulten mostly fromhistorical reasoning. He supported it with 'archaeological evidence' in the form of hisinterpretation that cohort rather than manipular barracks had been found, there were noallies present and the site lay in a less-defensible location compared to the other camps.The last of these arguments caused Schulten to suggest that Lager V post-dated the fallof Numantia and the other two aspects meant that the camp was first century BC andspecifically post-dated 90 BC (1929, 180 ff.). Using the location of the camp to justify itsperiod is tenuous, since the more southerly location compared to the other camps, maysimply have been to avoid the remains of the earlier installations (fig. 21). The camp alsoincluded the highest part of the hill and strong defences existed on the surviving northernand eastern sides (below, Chapter Four), indicating that it was far from a defensibly weakcamp. Hence the location cannot be used to date the camp after Scipio's siege of Numantia,and arguably location alone says little concrete about the date at all. The presence ofcohorts in the manner reconstructed by Schulten is questionable, so this argument for thecamp's date is dubious and the idea that allies were absent cannot be proved either way,since the complete layout of the camp is not known (below, Chapter Four).Schulten believed the pottery from Lager V supported his proposed date (1929, 181f.). The dating of the pottery is however seemingly not based upon any firm foundation;Koenen appears to exercise a rather subjective judgement in claiming that the materialfrom Lager V was considerably later than that from Lager III and the Scipionic siege camps(Schulten 1929, 181 and 284 ff.), for there seems to be no supporting evidence which couldfirmly date the pottery.The conflict between Hildebrandt and Schulten over the date of Lager V dependsheavily on the interpretation of one coin. This is an uncia found "in the Triclinienhauserto the east of the praetorium" (Schulten 1929, 182 note 1; precise location is not given).Haeberlin dated this coin to 82 BC, which Schulten believed supported his proposed datefor the camp (Schulten 1929, 181 f., 262, coin no. 201). Crawford places the coin in the latesecond century BC and perhaps 108 or 107, but admits to uncertainty about the mint (1969,5, 40 notes to Table XI and 145; 1974, 318; 1985, 91). He is nevertheless happy about thecoin supporting Schulten's date for Lager V. In contrast, Hildebrandt, although acceptingCrawford's revised date for the uncia, rejects the dating value of the coin. This is becauseit is significantly later than the other 15 coins from Lager V and he is uncomfortable aboutits provenance. Hence he believes that only the other coins should be used for dating thecamp. The bulk of these he interprets as suggesting the period c. 135 - c. 130 for Lager Vand that occupation was shortly after the Scipionic siege (1979, 266 f.).40

Chapter OneAs a result of this difference in interpretation, clearly the dating of Lager V isquestionable, though the evidence may favour a slightly revised form of Hildebrandt'sview.If Schulten's date of 75/74 is accepted, Lager V would be near contemporary withCaceres el Viejo. The pottery and brooches suggest that Caceres el Viejo was occupiedduring the first half of the first century BC, and the coins refine the period and length ofoccupation to between c. 90 and c. 80 (Ulbert 1984). Against the two camps beingcontemporary however is that there is almost no overlap in the character of finds from thesites at Numantia and Caceres el Viejo (above). Instead, the datable Numantine materialis all distinctly earlier and supports a second century date for these sites, in contrast to thelater finds from Caceres el Viejo which support a first century date for this camp; Ulbert(1984) makes this point repeatedly. An exception is that Lager V and Caceres el Viejo bothhave amphora type Beltran 85, but this cannot be used to demonstrate contemporaneityas the type has a wide date range, from the second half of the second century to the midfirstcentury BC (Ulbert 1984,186 f.). The difference in date between Lager V and Caceresel Viejo is brought out particularly by the coins. If just the coins from Roman mints arecompared (to remove the uncertainties of the dating method of the Spanish mints), fromLager V only one coin out of the 10 is within a decade of the first century, the uncia of 108/107. In contrast, at Caceres el Viejo 10 of the closely datable 31 coins date to between 110and 82, and potentially more since there are 48 coins which have the wide date range of211-82 (dates from Hildebrandt in Ulbert 1984, 259 ff.).On the basis of the coins, Crawford, in contrast, places Lager V and Caceres el Viejoboth in the period 124-92 BC, with the other Nurnantine sites dated to 208 - c. 150 BC (1969,144 f.). The only reason for this grouping must be the uncia from Lager V, for Crawfordcomments that the coins from the N-umantine sites "are all of the same period, with thesingle exception of the uncia of about 110 BC from the camp of 74 BC" (1969, 5; againrevealing his dependence on Schulten's dates). The different coin distribution either sideof 100 BC from Lager V and Caceres el Viejo surely speaks against Crawford's suggestedcontemporaneity of the two sites.With such an absence of overlapping material between Lager V and Caceres el Viejoand the general strength of second century finds from Numantia, Hildebrandt couldindeed be correct in rejecting a first century date for Lager V and any hint of it being closein date to Caceres el Viejo. Supportive of Hildebrandt placing Lager V within the secondcentury and specifically close to the period of Scipio is that two sherds of a similar typeof Campanian black-glazed ware, one from the Scipionic circumvallation and one fromLager V, both had the same decorative stamp (Koenen in Schulten 1929, 300 f., Taf. 79, no's15 and 24, described as Teller and Schale respectively). The common stamp presumablymeans that the two plates /dishes were produced within a relatively short period of oneanother and hence Lager V can be dated close to the Scipionic period.If Hildebrandt's date of the 130s for Lager V is accepted, there remains the problemof the uncia of 108 or 107. Hildebrandt's dismissal of it because of uncertain provenance41

Chapter OneLAGER VRI 174. Sm 17.70g 9 206-195R 175. Qua 4.75g 2 169-158R 176. As 25.02g 5 169-158R 177. D '; 211-156R 178. As 32.76g 6 211-146R 179. As 23.93g 7 211-146R 180. As 27.68g 9 211-146R 181. As 24.17g 5 211-146R 182. Sx 7.75g 7 211-146R 183. LI 4.65g 1 108/107S 184. As arsaos 10.15g 1 145-133S 185. As belaiskom 12.41g 7 141-130S 186. Sm belikiom 3.68g 1 141-130S 187. As bolskan 9.54g 7 141-130S 188. As bolskan 8.99g 5 141-130S 189. As sekaisa3200I150 100 BC, 1200 150 100 BCSCIPIONIC CAMPS'CASTILLEJ05R 207. T 7.40g 8 169-158R 208. As 42.98g 8 211-146R 209. Qua 7.97g 8 211-146S 212. As iltirta 12.90g 3 158-142S 213. As iltirta 11.17g 2 158-142VALDEVORRONS 214. As arsaos 11.54g 6 145-133S 215. As bolskan 7.94g 6 141-130PEA REDONDAR 196. T 11.02g 7 189-180R 197. Sm 13.58g 6 189-180R 198. T 6.42g 8 179-170S 199. As arsaos 1725g 3 169-146S 200. As arsaos 12.32g 5 169-146S 201. As arsaos 11.62g 5 169-146S 202. As arsaos 12.82g 2 169-146S 203. As barskunes 15.90g 3 before 130S 204. As segia 8.75g 5 141-130S 205. As segia 8.55g 5 141-130S 206. As seteisken 10.64g 1 145-133MOLINOR 216. V - 211-170S 217. As sekaisa 10.10g 3 145-1331200 150 100 BCTable 1A. Hildebrandt's dating of the coins from Lager V and the 'Scipionic Camps'. For explanation see p. 43.42

Chapter OneSCIPIONIC CAMPS, UNPROVENANCED6R 218. As 41.25g 7 206-195R 219. As 36.17g 8 194-190R 220. As 38.00g 6 189-180R 221. As 36.24g 7 189-180R 222. As 29.25g 6 169-158R 223 As 37.19g 8 211-146R 224 As 36.72g 7 211-146R 225 As 35.92g 6 211-146R 226 As 27.80g 7 211-146R 227 As 25.12g 8 211-146R 228 As -7 211-146S 229. As arsaos 9.94g 2 145-133S 230. As arsaos 9.77g 5 145-133S 231. As arsaos 920g 2 145-133S 232. As arsaos 8.41g 4 145-133S 233. As belikiorn 8.20g 3 141-130S 234. As bolskan 10.72g 3 141-130S 235. As bolskan 9.10g 1 141-130S 236. As bolskan 8.65g 5 141-130S 237. As bolskan 8.09g 3 141-130S 238. As bolskan 6.00g 3 141-130S 239. Ae bolskan 3.72g8200 150 100 BC200 150 100 BCTable 1B. Hildebrandt's dating of the unprovenanced coins from the 'Scipionic Camps'.1. The information provided is: Mint - R denotes coins minted in Rome, S in Spain; Hildebrandt's coinnumber; coin type; Spanish mint name where relevant; coin weight; coin condition, with 1 beingexcellent and 9 very poor; coin date in BC (all data from Hildebrandt 1979).• Only a frag-ment was found (Hildebrandt 1979, 244).3.Not dated as badly damaged (Hildebrandt 1979, 244).• The order presented here differs from Hildebrandt's and reflects that used elsewhere in this thesis, withthe sites being ordered clockwise starting from Castillejo.5. This list excludes two coins from the Empire (210. As c. 27 BC and 211. Ae 2 351-352 AD), whichrepresent later activity on the site (Hildebrandt 1979, 246 and 266).6. Of the 22 coins listed, 14 of them relate to those mentioned by Schulten in his discussion of the sites butcannot be linked to Haeberlin's list of coins, so the relevant 14 cannot be established (Hildebrandt 1979,247):Castillejo 4 Roman AssesTravesadas 1 As (mint not specified)Valdevorron 1 Roman AsPena Redonda 1 Roman Asses, 7 Spanish 'bronzes'7. Too badly corroded and damaged for the weight to be meaningful (Hildebrandt 1979, 247 and Table 3).8. Coin type and date uncertain (Hildebrandt 1979, 248).43

Chapter Oneis not convincing, as its location is described in the same (vague) manner by Schulten asall the other coins and so all the Numantine coins would have to be regarded asunstratified if this argument was accepted. The coin could however be later than the camp,since, as Hildebrandt suggests, the other 15 coins from the site are all much earlier (Table1A - above, p. 42). Of these, nine coins (one silver, eight bronze) were minted in Rome anddate to 211-146, and six (all bronze) were minted in Spain and are dated to 145-130 byHildebrandt (1979, 244). If Hildebrandt's dates for the six Spanish minted bronze coins areaccepted there was consequently a 22 year gap between them and the uncia. In itself, thegap need not be significant, but it is when compared to the general overlappingdistribution of the other coins (Table 1A -above, p. 42). The result is that the uncia appearsvery atypical for the site and hence supports Hildebrandt's suggestion that it was notassociated with the camp. Further support for this is provided by the bulk of the Lager Vcoins having an almost identical date distribution to those from the Sdpionic camps, i.e.without the uncia, a date of the 130s would be the natural assumption for both (Tables 1Aand 1B - above, pp. 42 and 43).If the uncia is accepted as being later than Lager V and the camp belongs to the 130s,there remains the question of how the camp relates to the Scipionic camps. Hildebrandtplaces Lager V after Scipio because of the comparative weight and condition of the coins.His conclusion and methodology can be questioned however. Of prime significance is thatHildebrandt groups together all the coins from the sites around Numantia. This ignoresthe presence of two pre-Scipionic phases at Castillejo, which Hildebrandt is aware of(1979, 246 notes 207-213). From the way the location of the coins is recorded by Schultenit is not possible to place them in a particular phase at Castillejo. As a result, Hildebrandtcould be including pre-Scipionic coins in his sample. This clearly weakens any datingargument based on relative weights of coins, since earlier, potentially heavier coins willbias the sample; particularly as the heaviest 'Scipionic' coin is an as from Castillejo (42.98gms, from a Roman mint - Hildebrandt no. 208) and is 25.73 gms heavier than the nextheaviest provenanced coin, also an as, from Peria Redonda (17.25 gms, from a Spanishmint - Hildebrandt no. 199) (Table 1A - above, p. 42). Hildebrandt further biases hissample by including the coins which Schulten just records as coming from the Scipioniccamps, but without specifying which (Hildebrandt no's 218-239; Table 1B - above, p.43- with note 6). Ten of these (all asses from Rome, weighing between 41.25 and 25.12 gms)comprise the heaviest coins in Hildebrandt's list (1979, Table 3; this data is included herein Tables 1A and 1B - above, pp. 42 and 43), with only the as of 42.98 gms from Castillejobeing heavier. Since there is the potential that some of these could come from the first twophases of Castillejo, clearly the weights of the unprovenanced coins should not be usedto date the Scipionic camps. As a result of this methodology, Hildebrandt's date range forthe Scipionic camps could be biased too early and hence also erroneously suggest that theywere slightly earlier than Lager V.In favour of placing Lager V earlier than the Sdpionic camps is perhaps the relativeproportion of asses minted in Rome from the two 'sites'. Asses ceased being minted in44

Chapter OneRome between 146 and c. 114 BC, but appear to have continued during this period inSpain, though there is the question of whether they are asses or semisses (Hildebrandt 1979,270 and 265; Crawford 1985, 90 note 14, and 183). Hence the site with the greaterproportion of Roman asses could be expected to date nearer to 146. The proportions ofcoins are shown below, with the sunprovenanced coins' from particular sites (Table 1B -above, p. 43 - note 6) shown in brackets:Roman mint Spanish mintsLager V 5 5Castillejo 1 (+4) 2Pena Redonda 0 (+1) 8 (+7, if asses)Valdevorron 0 (+1) 2Molino 0 1The Roman and Spanish examples from Castillejo should not be used in anydiscussions of comparisons, since they could come from pre-Scipionic phases. If thesecoins from Castillejo are ignored, it means that just under a fifth of the asses (and only aninth, if the unprovenanced Pefia Redonda bronzes were asses) from the Scipionic campswere from Rome, in stark contrast to half from Lager V. Hence Lager V can be suggestedas being earlier than Scipio, and not as Hildebrandt suggests, later.The dating of Lager V is clearly still uncertain, particularly with the questionablesignificance of the late second century uncia. The bulk of the evidence however suggeststhat Lager V was not first century in date and that it was not closely contemporary withCAceres el Viejo. It also seems to favour placing Lager V in the 130s and conceivablyslightly before Scipio (a possible historical context is discussed below in Chapter Four).THE LITERARY EVIDENCE FOR THE NUMANTINE WARSThe main surviving classical source for the Nurnantine Wars is the Spanish Wars ofAppian's History of Rome, written during the first half of the second century AD. Therelevant sections of Livy and Polybius unfortunately do not survive, but references to theWars occur in a number of sources including Livy Epitome 54-57 and 59, Obsequens 24,26and 27b, Valerius Maximus (1.6.7 and 3.7.5), Velleius Paterculus (2.1.3 f.) and fragmentsof other historians (Astin 1967,4 and 139). A particular loss is a work written by Polybiusspecifically on the Numantine Wars, the existence of which is only known about througha reference to it by Cicero (ad Familiares 5.12.2; Schulten 1927b, 8). Although Appian ingeneral appears reliable (Astin 1967, 4), a weakness of having to rely on him is that he oftenlacks details or the information is very vague. This is in part associated with his absenceof interest in chronology and a poor knowledge of Roman institutions (Usher 1969,245;White 1912, xi). The problem of few or vague chronological statements is eased to someextent for the Numantine Wars by the action centring around named consuls. This allows45

Chapter Onethe chronology of events to be established approximately with reference to other sources.The brief and often vague comments about the actual events of the campaigns and thearmies associated with the consuls prior to Scipio however must remain largelyunexpanded. As a result, Appian is only of limited value in providing information aboutthe location and physical form of the camps associated with these wars. He is also of littlehelp when trying to assess the size and organisation of the armies. As a result, it is difficultto associate particular armies with camps when they are found archaeologically. Appianis also of no help with respect to the question of whether the armies were organised asmaniples or cohorts; he simply does not use either term. This in turn creates difficultiesinterpreting the evidence on the ground of potential barracks.In contrast to the activities of the consuls prior to Scipio, the campaign of Scipioreceives a relatively large amount of detailed attention from Appian; though as might beexpected, not quite enough to be completely informative. Perhaps the quantity of materialreflects the availability of a better source or simply that Appian felt it deserved morecoverage since this was the final and at last successful climax of a very thorny problem forRome. The amount of details that are given for Scipio's siege of Nurnantia suggest a degreeof reliability and that Appian used an informed source. This could well have beenPolybius. Appian is known to have used Polybius, since Appian quotes him in his historyof the Punic Wars (Punic Wars 132). Polybius indeed could have been the obvious choice,since he probably accompanied his friend Scipio to Numantia when he served underLucullus in 151-150 (Appian Spanish Wars 49; Polybius 31.23.6; Walbank 1957,4; 1966,42;Astin 1967, 3) and so would have witnessed part of the Numantine Wars. Polybius is notthe sole possible source however. For example, Rutilius Rufus served under Scipio in thewars and wrote about them in a form known to Appian (Spanish Wars 88) and SemproniusAsellio was also present (Astin 1967, 4 with note 4). Whichever source or sources wereused, all had first-hand experience of the wars and knew those involved. This, and Appianseeming in general to be accurate, means there is consequently a reasonable degree ofreliability in using Appian's Spanish Wars as a source for these wars.Despite the increased information from Appian about the Scipionic campaign, itlacks important details. For example, the precise composition and organisation of Scipio'sarmy are uncertain, only a few pieces of general information are given (below). Thelocations of Scipio's command centre and that of his brother during the actual siege arenot clear; all Appian says is that Scipio placed his brother in command of one camp andhimself of another (Spanish Wars 90). Further, Appian regrettably provides no light on thebasic matter of how the installations associated with the siege were garrisoned, beyondstating the obvious that the army was divided to provide adequate defence around thecircumvallation (Spanish Wars 90 ff.). This is frustrating as the archaeological remains giveinsufficient indication about the specific composition of garrisons. At a basic level it is notclear even whether a site was occupied by just legionaries, allies or foreign troops or acombination of all or part of these. It is consequently not known how many maniples/cohorts or turmae of legionaries or allies, or potentially irregular foreign units were at a46

Chapter Onecamp. This in turn creates problems with interpreting buildings which the archaeologicalevidence suggests were barracks or even identifying buildings as potential barracks. Thetype of troops that occupied the barracks, even sometimes whether infantry or cavalry,is not always clear; literary evidence for the type of units stationed at the installation couldpotentially help here. With so little factual information about the nature of the troops ineach camp in the area of Numantia, reconstructing the camp layouts is consequentlyhazardous. In some cases reconstruction is impossible, particularly when a site has poorlysurviving archaeological remains.SUMMARY OF THE MILITARY ASPECTS OF THE NUMANTINEWARS ASCERTAINABLE FROM THE LITERARY EVIDENCE195/4 BCCato's campaigns in Spain may have involved activity at Numantia, but this is far fromcertain (below, Chapter Four).153 BCNobilior was sent with a consular army of nearly 30,000 men (Spanish Wars 45) against theArevad, with their strongpoint at Numantia, and their allies. This marked the beginningof the main period of the Numantine Wars. It is probable that warfare started in fact in theyear or two before 153, in both Hispania Citerior and Ulterior, with matters under theresponsibility of praetors (Astin 1967, 37). Although the wars continued to be conductedby praetors in Ulterior, in Citerior hostilities became so serious that consular armies wererequired (Astin 1967, 37).Appian provides no details of the composition of Nobilior's army. Nobilior pitchedcamp 24 stadia (4.44 km) from Numantia (Spanish Wars 46), but no other details of thelocation are given. Here Nobilior was joined by 300 allied cavalry and 10 elephants, sentto him by Masinissa (Spanish Wars 46) plus some cavalry from a tribe near to Numantia(Spanish Wars 47). Nobilior spent the winter in camp (Spanish Wars 47). The exact locationof this camp is not entirely clear from Appian's text, but it seems to be the same as thesummer one near Numantia. From Appian's description of events, it seems that spendingthe winter in camp was not really what Nobilior had intended:Then Nobilior in despair went into winter quarters in his camp, shelteringhimself as well as he could. He suffered much from scantiness of supplies,having only what was inside the camp, and from heavy snowstorms andsevere frost, so that many of his men perished while outside gathering wood,and others inside fell victims to confinement and cold.(Spanish Wars 47; Loeb translation)152 BCNobilior was succeeded by Claudius Marcellus (Spanish Wars 48). He brought with him47

Chapter One8,000 infantry and 500 cavalry (Spanish Wars 48). No details about the organisation of thisforce are given by Appian, nor does he state what this made the total size of the army.Marcellus pitched camp 5 stadia (925 m) from Numantia (Spanish Wars 50), but noother details of the location are given. After a conference with the Numantine leader,hostilities ceased (Spanish Wars 50).143 BCThe Numantine Wars resumed. Caecilius Metellus was sent with "a larger army" (SpanishWars 76; Loeb translation), but Appian does not state its actual size, though by implicationit was the 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry inherited by Metellus' successor Pompeius.It is not mentioned if Metellus was active in the vicinity of Numantia.141 BCMetellus was succeeded by Quintus Pompeius (Spanish Wars 76). The army is said to haveconsisted of 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry (Spanish Wars 76), but no other details aregiven. Pompeius "encamped against Numantia" (Spanish Wars 76; Loeb translation), butno details about where are given. The length that Pompeius' army stayed at Numantia isnot mentioned, but clearly it was for some time, since Appian refers to him fighting awayfrom Numantia with part of the army during the summer and then returning to the siegeof the city, which continued into the winter (Spanish Wars 77 f.). Pompeius presumablyconstructed some siege works, for Appian mentions that troops were attacked whilediverting the course of a river (Appian does not say which one) "in order to reduce the cityby famine" (Spanish Wars 78; Loeb translation) and while digging a ditch (Spanish Wars 78)(it is not stated where).During the siege, Pompeius received a large number of new recruits from Rome toreplace those in his army who had served six years (Spanish Wars 78). Pompeius' illconsidereddecision to stay in camp over the winter with these new troops was disastrousas many died of cold and dysentery (Spanish Wars 78; discussed below in Chapter Four,Castillejo). This and further losses to the enemy (Livy Epitome 59 speaks of Pompeiusbeing thoroughly beaten by the Numantines), caused Pompeius to break off the siegeduring the winter and spend the rest of the season in towns (Spanish Wars 79). Hostilitiesceased during diplomatic negotiations (Spanish Wars 79).138 BCHostilities resumed under Marcus Popilius Laena (as proconsul, since he had been consulin Spain the previous year; Schlesinger 1959, 53 n. 8). Appian (Spanish Wars 79) says thatPopilius achieved nothing. This may be misleading, as Livy Epitome 55 indicates hesuffered a bad defeat by the Numantines, though no details are given.137 BCPopilius was succeeded by Gaius Hostilius Mancinus. Appian says that he:48

Chapter Onehad frequent encounters with the Numantines...and finally, after great loss,took refuge in his camp. On a false rumour that the Cantabri and Vaccaei werecoming to the aid of the Numantines, he became alarmed, extinguished hisfires, and spent the whole night in darkness, fleeing to a desert place whereonce Nobilior had his camp. (Spanish Wars 80; Loeb translation)No details about the location of these two camps are provided. The strength of thedefeat is echoed by Livy Epitome 55, which states that Mancinus "was both defeated by theNumantines and stripped of his camp" (Loeb translation); the defeat is also referred to byObsequens (24).Hostilities ceased after a treaty was negotiated, but were resumed soon afterwardsaway from Numantia by Aemilius Lepidus, who relieved Mancinus (Spanish Wars 80).135 BCAppian says that Quintus Calpurnius Piso did little of note in the Numantine Wars(Spanish Wars 83), but Obsequens (26) suggests he was involved in a major Roman defeatin the area of Numantia: "before Numantia there was bad management and the Romanarmy was crushed" (Loeb translation) (Astin 1967, 135 with note 4). Nothing more canhowever be established about this, so the nature of his army and its camps are not known.134 BCPublius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus was appointed consul for the Numantine Wars(Spanish Wars 84). Scipio did not recruit a fresh army in Rome for Spain, partly becausethere were troops already there, but took with him 4,000 men comprised of volunteers sentby cities and kings friendly with Scipio and including 500 of his "clients and friends"whom he grouped together into a "troop of friends" (Spanish Wars 84; Loeb translation).No details about the organisation of these troops are given. The overall size of Scipio'sarmy at this point is not clear.After extensive training of the army in Spain, Scipio "moved his camp near toNumantia" (Spanish Wars 87; Loeb translation). Appian does not state how far this wasfrom the city nor give any details as to its location. From the camp, Scipio observed theenemy and collected provisions from the surrounding area for the forthcoming siege(Spanish Wars 87 ff.).Scipio spent the winter of 134/133 I3C within the territory of Numantia, but Appiandoes not make it clear whether this was in the same camp as that occupied during thesummer or elsewhere. During the winter he was joined by forces from Africa, in the formof twelve elephants and a group of archers and slingers (Spanish Wars 89).133 BCProbably in the new year after the rigours of winter had passed (Appian is imprecise aboutwhen), Scipio pitched two camps (crrpatOnsOa) "very near" to Numantia, with his brotherMaximus in charge of one and he the other (Spanish Wars 90). The exact location of the49

Chapter Onecamps is not given. The establishment of these two camps seems to have been thepreliminary stage to constructing the enclosing siegeworks around Numantia. The firststage in this was placing seven forts (4)po6pta) around the city (Spanish Wars 90). Appiandoes not give any indications where these were located. While this was being done, Scipiosent to allied tribes for more troops (Spanish Wars 90), resulting in an army 60,000 strong;the details of its composition are not given. When the allies arrived, the construction of aditch and palisade encircling the city was undertaken, followed by a second one behindthe first (Spanish Wars 90). Then a wall eight feet wide and ten feet high, with towers every100 feet was built around the city (Spanish Wars 90). Appian is not entirely precise abouthow the palisades related to the wall, but the implication is that they formed a protectivebarrier while the wall was under construction and so would have stood either side of thewall. The result of this massive undertaking was to complete a defended enclosing circuit,50 stadia (9.25 km) long (Spanish Wars 93). The reward was the defeat of Numantia.Surprisingly Appian does not specify how long the siege lasted, though clearly it was along affair. It probably ended sometime during the summer of 133, since there are nocomments about the winter cold and Velleius Paterculus comments that Munantia wasdefeated within 15 months of Scipio's arrival in Spain (History 2.4.2).Relating this historical data for the Numantine Wars to the archaeological evidenceis clearly hazardous, but, as indicated below in Chapter Four, a number of the sites canbe placed within specific contexts of the historical framework with some degree ofconfidence, tentative attributions can be made for some of the others, and the context ofonly a few is completely uncertain.50

CHAPTER TWOTHE THEORETICAL FORM OFARMIES OF THE PERIOD OF THENUMANTINE WARS: THE ARMY OFTHE SECOND CENTURY BCAs can be seen from the small amount of information presented at the end of the previouschapter about the composition of armies involved in the Numantine Wars, few details canbe established about their organisation from the literary evidence which directly refers tothe Numantine Wars. The archaeological evidence from the Numantine sites is alsolimited in this respect and on its own is inadequate to establish much of the nature of theoccupying forces. This lack of information can in part be rectified by resorting to otherliterary sources, from which can be formed a picture of the type of armies that existedduring the second century BC and hence could have been present at Numantia. The mainstarting point for any reconstruction is Polybius' lengthy digression on the army in BookSix of his History (the surviving portion is 6.19.1 to 6.42.6). This not only forms the earliestreliable literary source on the Roman army,' but without it much would be uncertainabout the structure and practices of the late Republican army.I. There are indeed references in classical works to the army and its camps before the secondcentury, even to the earliest days of Rome's history. There are also surviving pieces ofequipment from the pre-Polybian period. Several scholars have attempted to establish somethingof the pre-Polybian military system from this literary and archaeological material, e.g. Sumner(1970), Connolly (1978 and 1981) and Keppie (1984), but all are forced to conclude that thearchaeological evidence is too limited and the literature too unreliable to be able to establishmore than a few glimpses into the early period.51

Chapter TwoTHE EVIDENCE OF POLYBIUSTHE GENERAL FORM OF THE 'POLYBIAN ARMY'The basic structure of the army described by Polybius is one which is commonly referredto today as a double-consular manipular army and is regarded as the 'classical' form ofthe Republican army. It consisted of four legions with accompanying allies whichoperated together (Livy 8.8.14) and was controlled by a shared command held by the twoconsuls (Livy 3.70.1). An army of this type may have existed from the second half of thefourth century, though its exact structure in the period before that described by Polybius,which was perhaps the late third century (below), is uncertain (Sumner 1970,70 f.; Keppie1984, 19 f.).THE ORGANISATION OF THE POLYBIAN LEGIONARY INFANTRYTHE MAIN INFANTRY - THE HASTATI, PRINCIPES AND TRIARIIPolybius relates that there were four types of legionary infantry (6.21.7 ff.). Three of thesehe refers to as EcrtCcrou;, rcp(rctirac and Tptaptouc (6.21.9). From Latin sources (e.g. Livy8.8.3 ff.; Varro De Lingua Latina 5.89) it is clear that Polybius is straightforwardly usingtransliterated terms for the equivalent of hastati, principes and triarii. The Latin sourcesindicate that in the line of battle, the hastati , principes and triarii formed separate rows, onebehind the other, with the has tati at the front and the triarii at the rear forming a reserveforce. This relative order is reflected in the order in which Polybius describes the types ofinfantry (6.23.1 ff.). These three groups of infantry formed the main fighting force of thelegion.Polybius states that each of the rows was divided into ten maniples (6.24.3).Polybius does not actually use a transliterated form of manipulus when referring to theseunits comprising each of the rows. This is however clearly the tactical unit being referredto, as he usually calls them by the Greek word crri [mkt, meaning a body of troops underone standard or flag. This would equate to one of the meanings attributed in antiquity tomanipulus (Isidorus Etymologiae 9.3.50; Keppie 1984, 19 n. 3). He also speaks of thesesubdivisions of the legion as having a bipartite structure, with two centurions (6.24.1 ff.),i.e. a unit made up of two centuries, which corresponds to a maniple (Isidorus Etymologiae9.3.50). The hastati , principes and triarii of the Polybian legion thus comprised 30 maniples,the number regarded in antiquity as being the theoretical strength of a legion (e.g. Cinciusapud Genius Noctes Atticae 16.4.6).Polybius (6.21.9) states that there were 1200 hastati, 1200 principes and 600 triarii ina normal size legion (though larger legions could also exist; below). With each of the threePolybian rows being divided into ten maniples, it means that the maniples of hastati andprincipes each contained 120 men and those of the triarii each only 60 men.52

Chapter TwoTHE LEGIONARY SKIRMISHERS - THE VELITESPart of the legion consisted of a force of skirmishers. Polybius refers to these as7p ocrcOokixoyc (e.g. 6.21.7), derived from To 6a4)oug, which is the name he uses for the typeof spear that these troops used (6.22.1). The description of the To ocr4)ophouc implies thatthey are the same as the skirmishers referred to as velites by Roman authors from theperiod of the Second Punic War, e.g. Livy 21.55.11 and 26.4.4 (Veith 1928, 309), defined byFestus as troops who moved about very freely, as if they were flying — velites dicunturexpediti milites quasi volantes (Festus De Si gnificatu Verborum 26L). An alternative, but notso frequently used term for these troops was rorarii (Livy 8.8.8; Festus De SignificatuVerborum 13L and 323L; Varro De Lingua Latina 7.58). This was probably an earlier formof the name for the skirmishers, which may have changed to velites in the latter part of thethird century (Veith 1928, 309). The use of the name rorarii does not however totallydisappear from the sources from after this period, as it is still used until the end of thesecond century BC (VValbank 1957, 701), though this usage could simply be anachronistic.Whereas Polybius gives the actual number of has tati, principes and triarii that werein each legion, for the number of velites he merely says that they made up the rest of thecomplement of the legion (6.20.8). The size of a normal strength legion is given by Polybiusas 4,200 infantry (6.20.9; below). If the total number of hastati, principes and triarii aresubtracted from this total, the number of velites results in being 1,200.The velites were not formed into maniples (Polybius 6.24.3). Instead, for administrativepurposes (Keppie 1984, 35) and possibly also as regards the position of their accommodationin camp (below, Chapter Three), they were attached to all the other maniples, accordingto Polybius "in proportions appropriate to the size of their host maniples" (6.24.4). Thispresumably means that the maniples of has tati and principes had twice the number ofvelites as the maniples of triarii, since the maniples of triarii were half the size of the othertwo types of infantry. This would result in each maniple of hastati and principes having 48velites and each one of triarii, 24.THE SIZE OF THE LEGIONARY INFANTRYDuring Polybius' digression on the army he says that the normal size of the legionaryinfantry was 4,200 (6.20.8). He uses this number at one other point in his History (2.24.13).Otherwise he more commonly rounds the number to 4,000 (1.16.2 and 6.21.10), butindicates in one instance that this figure is actually an approximation (3.107.10). Livy(21.17.5) also refers to legions of 4,000 infantry, during the Second Punic War, but this maynot necessarily be independent corroboration for Polybius' figure, since Polybius was oneof Livy's sources for this period.Polybius (6.20.8 and 3.107.11) states that in times of necessity, the legion's strengthcould be increased to 5,000 infantry. The additional troops were apparently placed in theranks of only the hastati and principes, with the strength of the triarii remaining unchanged(Polybius 6.21.10). This would result in the front two rows each gaining 400 men,assuming an equal distribution of the extra troops, increasing the strength of these rows53

Chapter Twoby a third and raising the size of each century from 60 to 80. Livy likewise refers to legionsof 5,000 infantry (22.36.3, at the battle of Carmae in 216), but again, this figure may derivefrom Polybius rather than support him.Polybius (2.24.3) also refers to a legion of 5,200 infantry, in the context of the Gallicthreat of 225. This is the only instance where he uses such a strength. If it is reliable andnot simply a mistake for 4,200, it was perhaps merely a unique response to unusualcircumstances, the existence of which is indicated by each consul being given commandof four legions, which is not attested occurring at any other time.Towards the end of the Second Punic War, in the context of preparations for takingan army across to Africa in 204, Livy refers to legions with strengths of 6,200 infantry(29.24.14). The discussion of these preparations, particularly 29.25.1-4, indicates that Livyfound his sources conflicting as regards the numbers of troops involved. As a result, thestrength of 6,200 may be unreliable and is merely an inflated figure. Livy also mentionsa legionary strength of 6,200 in connection with an emergency in Spain in 193 (35.2.4). Thecontents of this episode however suggest that it contains a degree of invention and thusthe existence of a legion of this size may have no substance.Legions of 6,000 infantry are mentioned regularly from the 170s (e.g. Livy 42.31.2and 44.21.8; Walbank 1957, 702 f.). Rather than being an accurate reflection of legionarystrength, this figure may derive from some sources believing that a legion of 60 centuries(30 maniples) would contain 60 x 100 men, 100 being the nominal complement of a century(e.g. Isidorus Etymologiae 9.3.48). This however was probably not the case in practice(Keppie 1984, 64 f.; above). Legions of this size are consequently unlikely and in realitythey probably rarely, if ever, exceeded 5,000 infantry.The available evidence therefore suggests that from at least the beginning of theFirst Punic War the normal legionary infantry strength was 4,200 (Polybius 1.16.2, for 263BC). Increasing the size of manipular legions from this figure of 4,200 to 5,000 is notattested prior to the Second Punic War (Polybius 3.107.11, at the Battle of Cannae in 216),with the possibly unique exception of an increased legion in 225 (above). It is possibletherefore that these larger legions did not occur, or were simply not required, until thelatter part of the third century. This arrangement probably continued during the secondcentury. Perhaps though, the larger size legion became the more usual, for this is theapproximate size that can be suggested for the restructured legion that resulted from thereforms attributed to Marius at the end of that century (below).THE LEGIONARY CAVALRYPolybius states that 300 cavalry were assigned to each legion (6.20.9 and 1.16.2). In twoplaces however, he says that a legion had a force of 200 cavalry. The first of these is in thecontext of the Gallic threat of 225, when he states that there was a reserve force of twolegions in Sicily and Tarentum, each with a 'normal' strength of 4,200 infantry and a54

Chapter Twocavalry component of 200 (2.24.13). The second occurrence is during the discussionleading up to the battle of Canrtae in 216, when he comments (3.107.10) that the usualRoman army had legions of 4,200 infantry and 200 cavalry, but (3.107.11) these strengthscould be increased to 5,000 and 300 respectively in times of necessity. Livy nowherementions a complement of 200, but always 300, regardless of the size of the infantry —21.17.5 with 4,000; 22.36.3 and 26.28.7 with 5,000; 42.31.2 with 5,200; 42.31.2 and 44.21.8with 6,000; 29.24.14 and 35.2.4 with 6,200. The consistency of Livy suggests that thelegionary cavalry usually numbered 300 and not 200. Even if Livy's figures are derivedfrom Polybius, 300 remains the more frequent number cited. Perhaps the cavalry in Sicilyand Tarentum were below strength, as they were a reserve force, but this is questionablesince the infantry were up to strength. Stating their strength as 200 was perhaps simplya reflection of an error in Polybius' source or he himself made a mistake. An error byPolybius can also be suggested to explain his statement (3.107.11) that the cavalry wasincreased from 200 to 300 to match an increase in the infantry. An error here seems likely,for in the same section in Book Six where increasing the infantry is discussed, the size ofthe cavalry component of each legion is stated, yet increasing it or it having a complementof 200 is not mentioned (6.20.8 f.). It can be suggested therefore that the legions, regardlessof their size, were accompanied by a force of 300 cavalry from at least 263 BC (Polybius1.16.2).In the army described by Polybius, the cavalry attached to each legion wasorganised as ten units of 30 men, each with three decurions (Polybius 6.20.9 and 6.25.1),of whom the first selected commanded the whole unit (Polybius 6.25.2). Each unit wasknown as a turma (Varro De Lingua Latina 5.91; Isidorus Etymologiae 9.3.51); Polybiusactually refers to these units by the equivalent Greek term of aa.t. The presence of threedecurions and the size of a turma being 30 men implies that each turma was composed ofan amalgamation of three decuriae. Hence also Varro's derivation for the word turma asmeaning three times ten men (De Lingua Latina 5.91) and Isidorus' explanation of how aturma was composed (Etymologiae 9.3.51). The presence of ten turmae in each Polybianlegion meant that the number of turmae matched the number of maniples of each type ofinfantry.Livy's references (above, ranging between 218 and 168 BC) to a force of 300 cavalryper legion show that it continued into the second century. It perhaps retained this size andthe turma-based structure until it seemingly disappears from active service in the latterpart of the second century; it is last mentioned during the Jugurthine War and does notreappear until the Empire, but then in a different form (Keppie 1984, 79; below).COMMAND OF THE LEGIONS - THE TRIBUNESThe most senior officers directly associated with the legions were the tribunes. Each of thefour legions had six tribunes attached to it (Polybius 6.19.7 ff.). This number of tribunes55

Chapter Twoper legion had probably been in existence for some time prior to the period of the Polybiandouble-consular army and may even date from the end of the fourth century (Sumner1970, 71). It remained the standard number of tribunes attached to each legion for theremainder of the Republic and during the Empire (Keppie 1984, 39 f. and 176).The duties of the tribunes were mainly administrative rather than military. Muchinformation is given by Polybius about the duties of the tribunes. They included raisingthe levy (Polybius 6.20.1 ff.), administering the oath of loyalty and honesty (Polybius6.21.1 ff.; 6.33.1 f.), the organisation of duties and overseeing the day-to-day running oflife in the camp (Polybius 6.33.3 ff.) and relaying the orders of the consul to the decurionsand centurions (Polybius 6.34.5). Polybius says that the six tribunes were "divided intopairs, and each pair was on duty in turn for two months out of six, supervising all fieldoperations" (Polybius 6.34.3; Loeb translation).THE ALLIESThe legions were supplemented by allied forces (Polybius 6.26.1 ff.). These troops wereprovided to Rome by areas in Latium which came under Roman control and by states whohad treaties with Rome (Keppie 1984,21 ff.). Collectively and simply they were known associi, but they were also referred to as alae sociorum (Livy 31.21.7), which reflected theirposition on the wings of the army, the location they occupied in the army described byPolybius (6.26.9).In the Polybian army, the number of allied infantry equalled that of the citizentroops (3.107.12; 6.26.2), but there were three times as many allied cavalry than citizen(3.107.12; 6.26.7). These ratios given by Polybius must however have been only theoretical,for Polybius himself and also Livy cite allied forces with numbers which indicate that inpractice, there was no fixed correspondence in size between allies and citizens in eitherinfantry or cavalry. These figures also suggest that there was often and even usually moreallied infantry than Roman, e.g.:Allies RomansPolybius 2.24.3 7,500 5,200Polybius 3.72.11 5,000 4,000Livy 42.31.2 ff. 6,000 5,2008,000 6,000and often less than three times as many allied cavalry than citizen, e.g.:Polybius 2.24.3 500 300Livy 21.17.5 900 300800 300500 300The overall trend of the ratios from the third century onwards indicates an increasein the importance of non-citizen forces, which in the case of the cavalry was to replacetotally the Roman horse by the first century BC (below).56

Chapter TwoPolybius provides few details about the organisation of the allied forces, but thegeneral impression is that it was very similar to the legions. The internal divisions of themain body of infantry are referred to (Polybius 6.30.4) with the same terminology as thelegionary maniples, implying that the allied infantry also had a manipular structure. Livyalso implies that the legions and allies had a similar organisation, and further, that thissimilarity had occurred by the mid-fourth century (8.8.14 ff. — though this passage maynot be completely reliable; Rawson 1971,26 ff.). With the correspondence in size betweenthe Roman and allied infantry, it would consequently mean that each ala would have 20maniples of each type of infantry. Also, the equivalent maniples in the legion and alliedinfantry were most probably the same in size.These 20 allied maniples were divided into two groups according to quality(Polybius 6.26.6). The higher quality group was known as the extraordinarii (IsidorusEtymologiae 9.3.33). Polybius uses exactly this term, in its transliterated form —stapaopbtvap too; (e.g. 6.26.6). The inclusion of the word ala in the full name of theextraordinarii indicates however that they still fought on the wings with the rest of the allies(Livy 40.31.3). Polybius states that a fifth of the allied infantry were selected for theextraordinarii (6.26.8). This presumably means that four maniples of each type of infantryformed the extraordinarii in each ala, leaving 16 in the main force.An unspecified proportion of the extraordinarii infantry and cavalry were appointedas bodyguards to the consuls and quaestors (Polybius 6.31.2 f.). This force was known asthe delecti extraordinarii (Livy 42.58.13). They were supplemented by an unspecifiednumber of veterans who enlisted especially for such service and were known as evocati(Polybius 6.31.2 f.; Isidorus Etymologiae 9.3.54; Walbank 1957, 714). One possibility for thesize of the delecti extraordinarii infantry is that in each ala two maniples of hastati, principesand triarii were selected, to create two viable formations (later to correspond to twocohorts). These would appropriately provide one formation for the consul and one for thequaestor in each half of the double-consular army. The cavalry component of the delectiextraordinarii is discussed below.No details are given by Polybius as to the internal organisation of the cavalry. It islikely however that it was very similar to the Roman cavalry. This is suggested by Livy'scomments about the similarity between the organisation of the Romans and allies in themid-fourth century (8.8.14 ff.) and Livy refers to turmae of allied cavalry in 181 BC (40.30.4;assuming that this term is being used correctly by Livy). Consequently the structure of thePolybian allied cavalry could have been organised as a number of turmae, each containingthree decuriae.Since the Polybian allied cavalry was theoretically three times the size of the Roman,it would mean that each ala contained 60 turmae compared to the 20 turmae of the twolegions forming each half of the army. These allied turmae would have followed thepattern of the units of allied infantry in being divided into a main force and theextraordinarii, of which part formed the delecti extraordinarii. Polybius states that a third ofthe cavalry were selected for the extraordinarii (6.26.8). This would correspond to 20 turmaein each ala, leaving 40 turmae in the main force. The proportion of the extraordinarii cavalry57

Chapter Twothat formed the delecti extraordinarii is not given. A possibility is that one turma wasattached to the consul and one to the quaestor in each half of the army. Supportive of thisdivision is that the remaining 18 turmae in the ordinary extraordinarii could be accommodatedvery straightforwardly on the southern side of the maniples of the ordinary extraordinariiinfantry, where Polybius places them (below, Chapter Three).COMMAND OF THE ALLIES - THE PRAEFECTI SOCIORLIMPolybius states that the senior officers of the allies were known as npa14)eictot (6.26.5). Thisis simply a transliterated and abbreviated form of the Latin praefecti sociorum (e.g. Livy33.36.5). In function, these officers equated with the legionary tribunes with largelyadministrative rather than military duties (Polybius 6.26.5; Veith 1928,276; Walbank 1957,-709). Polybius speaks of twelve praefecti being involved with the allies of a double-consulararmy (6.25.5). This has often been regarded as meaning that there were at that time threepraefecti per allied force attached to each legion. It has been suggested however (e.g. Veith1928, 276 and Keppie 1984, 23), that there were in fact six praefecti sociorum attached to theallies of each legion (i.e. a total of 24 praefecti in the double-consular army). The mainreason behind this suggestion seems to be that such a number would then correspondwith the six tribunes, which were the normal complement per legion (above). Thepresence of six praefecti sociorum per allied unit could indeed be supported by Polybiushimself by a possible interpretation of his comment of how the duties of the praefectisociorum were arranged in relation to the tribunes. Immediately after explaining thesystem of only two of the six tribunes in each legion being on duty at a time (above; 6.34.3),Polybius says that the praefecti sociorum "divide their duties on the same system" (6.34.4;Loeb translation). One interpretation of this comment is that there were six praefectisociorum attached to each group of allies encamped at the front and back of each half ofthe camp (fig. 3; the location of the allies in camp is discussed below, Chapter Three) andtwo officers from each of the six were on duty at a time, i.e. just like the tribunes. Thismeans that Polybius' earlier statement that there were twelve praefecti sociorum in totalwould be wrong, since six at the front and back of each half of the camp would result in24 for the whole double-consular army.If however the statement of Polybius is acceptable for other details, perhaps heshould be believed, as for example by Walbank (1957, 709), in that there were only twelvepraefecti sociorum in total. A solution to the apparent discrepancy within Polybius aboutthe number of praefecti sociorum is perhaps to question the normal assumption that for theperiod of the four-legion army that Polybius is describing (below), there were two alae ineach half of the army, they were regarded as separate units and indeed actually 'attached'to a legion. As already stated, the allies fought on the wings of the army. These werereferred to quite simply as the ala sinistra and ala dextra (Livy 31.21.7). The evidencesuggests that each ala was regarded as a single unit, with a form of subdivision being58

Chapter Twocreated by the extraordinarii, but other than those selected from this group to act as thedelecti extraordinarii, these still acted on the wings (above). If the provision of twelvepraefecti sociorum is accepted, these were presumably divided into two groups of six, oneper wing. The result is simply the continuation of the command structure of the six seniorofficers (the tribunes) per legion, i.e. six officers in each major unit (for which an ala canbe regarded as equivalent to a legion as being a 'unit'). Hence also there was an armycomposed of legions and allies, but not allied units actually attached to legions.Relating this type of army to the camp described by Polybius (fig. 3; below, ChapterThree), in order to preserve the relative battle-line location of the allies it would be logicalto locate the ala dextra in the half of the camp occupied by the legions whose turn it wasto fight on the right-hand side of the battle formation (below) and conversely place the alasinistra in the half of the camp occupied by the left-hand legions. Since each half of thecamp seems to be basically self-sufficient from the way it is described by Polybius, it wouldfollow that half of the praefecti sociorum would be in one half of the camp and half in theother. With Polybius' statement that there were twelve praefecti sociorum in total, thiswould result in each half of the camp having six praefecti sociorum attached to it andobviously the six in the ' dextra' half would be those who commanded this wing in battleand vice versa for the other six praefecti. Hence Polybius' statement that the duties of these(six) officers were arranged the same as the (six) tribunes per legion.With however the preference towards two single-consular, two-legion armiesrather than one double-consular, four-legion army from the late third century (below), theoverall number of praefecti sociorum can be suggested as increasing, since now there weretwo armies each with their own left and right alae. The continuation of the commandstructure of six senior officers per major unit would be expected to be continued,particularly since six tribunes remained the future complement attached to legions(above). Hence each allied wing of a single-consular, two-legion army would have sixpraefecti sociorum. The overall number of praefecti sociorum consequently would only nowbe 24, the same as the number of tribunes attached to the four legions.FOREIGN TROOPSDuring the description of the Roman camp, Polybius indicates that the citizen forces werealso supplemented by foreign troops (6.31.9). Units which came under this category werepresumably those supplied by areas which were not classed as socii. This would includetroops sent by foreign kings and tribes who were either friendly to Rome or under treatyto supply troops. This practice had probably always occurred and is found happeningthroughout the Republic and into the Empire. For example, Masinissa sent 300 cavalryand ten elephants to j oin the Roman army in Spain in 153 BC (Appian Spanish Wars 46) andunder a peace treaty of 152 BC in Spain the tribe of the Nergobriges was required to send100 cavalry (Appian Spanish Wars 48). Such troops doubtless used their own systems of59

Chapter Twointernal organisation in this period, with a 'regular' romanised structure not occurringuntil the reforms of the auxilia by Augustus. The numbers of such troops would clearlyhave varied according to demand and availability.POLYBIUS' SOURCE FOR HIS DIGRESSION ON THE ARMYFraccaro (1934, 158) suggests that the source used by Polybius for his digression on thearmy was some form of military manual, but does not specify its nature more closely.Rawson (1971, 15) extends this idea by suggesting that the manual was a commentarius fora military tribune. Her reason for this is that Polybius' account is biased towards theinvolvement of the tribunes in all aspects of the army. For example, the tribunes are thesubject of most of the verbs, they play the major role in levying the troops and they appearto have more duties within the camp than anyone else. The functions of the centurionsreceive little mention. Even the position of the consuls seems to be played down. Forexample, during the description of the camp, the layout of the praetorium receives thebarest of attention. In contrast the disposition of the tribunes' quarters is described in somedetail (below, Chapter Three). In this respect there is also more about the provision andfunctions of men serving and guarding the tribunes in camp than those of the consul; thereare nine sentences for the tribunes (6.33.1-90), but only one for the consul (6.33.12).This particular feature of Polybius' account is unusual in literature of this type, forthe part of the commander of the whole army is normally brought out as being the mostimportant or the narrative is written from his point of view (Rawson 1971, 14). In contrast,at this time, a tribune was just concerned with the command of a legion. The bias towardsthe tribunes seems to be real and not a case of emphasis resulting from a true reflectionof the relative amount of activity expected of the tribunes. Other officers in the army, suchas the equivalent to the tribunes in the alae, the praefecti sociorum, and the centurions in boththe legions and the allies must surely have had more involvement than Polybius indicates.The rejection of a bias towards the tribunes would leave unexplained why in thedescription of the features of the camp, the tribunes' quarters receive so much attentionwhereas areas with which they had little involvement and needed to have only an idea oftheir form or relative position, such as the praetorium, forum and quaestorium, the areas ofthe allies and the layout of the soldiers' tents, are dealt with so cursorily. The amount ofinformation provided about these areas would however be quite in keeping with acommentarius which told the tribune responsible for surveying and laying out the camp,the location and overall size of all the areas to be marked out (Polybius 6.41.1). The use ofsuch a source by Polybius may also in part explain the general approach taken by Polybiusin describing the camp (below, Chapter Three).The use of a general source by Polybius should consequently be rejected in favourof one associated with the tribunes, possibly in the form of a commentarius . This means thatwhat Polybius writes about the army can be attributed a high degree of reliability. The60

Chapter Twolevel of accuracy is raised further by the additional information Polybius himself wasdoubtless able to add from his own knowledge gained from his direct contact with thearmy (Walbank 1972); hence a possible origin for the comments about how what hedescribes in the digression differs from the practice of his own day (below).THE DATE OF THE 'POLYBIAN ARMY'It is thought that the section of Polybius' History containing the digression on the armywas written by Polybius in c. 160 (Rawson 1971, 13 f.). The wording of the digressionhowever suggests that the system he describes probably dates to a period somewhatearlier than when he was writing.The contents of the digression indicate that as well as deriving information from hisown experience and probably from his acquaintances in the Roman army (Walbank 1972),he seems to have used a written source, the contents of which, if not the source itself,derived from an earlier period (Rawson 1971, 14 f.). The dated character of the literarysource is shown for example, in Polybius describing the enrolment of the infantry asoccurring before that of the cavalry, but then he explains that in his day the order wasreversed (6.20). He also describes the old and current form of cavalry equipment (6.25).The discrepancy of his source from his own period is also reflected by the description ofthe army and its encampment being essentially of a double-consular army of four legionswith allies. Such an army seems to have ceased being the typical form of the Roman armyduring the Second Punic War (below). Perhaps however, the sources still regarded thefour-legion double-consular army as the theoretical norm.It is possible that the military system that Polybius describes, as well as beinggenerally correct for his own period, may reflect the state of the army as it emerged fromthe end of the Second Punic War in 201 (Keppie 1984, 33). Perhaps though, the accountreflects the organisation of the army during the early stages of the Second Punic War,which is where the digression is placed within the History, at the end of the events for theyear 216. This would comply with Polybius' attention to detail and accuracy. A date earlierthan c. 216 for what is described in the digression is questionable. This is suggested byPolybius mentioning that the tribunes administered a formal oath to the levy (6.21.1 ff.)and Livy says that this practice was introduced in 216 (22.38.1 ff.). Livy may however notbe reliable over this and also the tribunes could have been involved with administeringsome earlier form of oath (Rawson 1971, 17), so this terminus post quem for the digressionshould be accepted with caution.Dating the system described in the digression to c. 216 would explain why thesections dealing with the structure of the legion contain no mention of cohorts. Polybiusfirst mentions this tactical unit during his account of the Spanish campaigns of 206 andactually explains to his Greek readers that it consisted of a group of three maniples(11.23.1). If this unit was in use in 216 it might be expected that Polybius would have61

Chapter Twomentioned it in Book Six, for he clearly knew of its existence. Perhaps therefore itsappearance was new or relatively recent in 206, which is why it is not mentioned until thenand is introduced with an explanation as to what it is.The implication is therefore that Polybius included in the digression in Book Six onlythe material relevant to the period where the digression occurred, but also took theopportunity to indicate some of the differences from his own day that existed. Polybius'description being appropriate to the early Second Punic War would also account for whyhe described the army in terms of a four-legion, double-consular army, for this would stillhave been the 'normal' army at this time (below).Consequently it can be suggested that the organisation of the Roman armydescribed by Polybius in Book Six is essentially an account of the structure that the armyhad reached at the beginning of the Second Punic War. This presents the problem ofknowing how much of the Polybian material relates to the armies of the Numantine Wars,since these began about 60 years after the proposed date for the description of the army.This uncertainty is rectified to some extent by Polybius' comments about how what hedescribes differs from the practice at the time he wrote. These comments of Polybiusclearly provide a more reliable insight into the military situation of the mid-secondcentury BC, i.e. the period of the Numantine Wars, but not a complete picture. Filling thegaps and reconstructing how the 'pure' Polybian army developed during the century andwhat form it had during the Numantine Wars has to rely upon extrapolating from otherliterary sources, including other references of Polybius, and unfortunately straightforwardconjecture.CHANGES TO THE POLYBIAN ARMY AFTERTHE SECOND PUNIC WARTHE SIZE OF ARMIESA fundamental development from the late third century onwards was that the doubleconsular,four-legion army described by Polybius in his digression ceased to be the normalarmy used. It was replaced by smaller and more numerous campaign forces.DOUBLE-LEGION ARMIESEven within the digression, Polybius mentions that the double-consular army wassometimes split into two halves, each commanded by one of the consuls (6.26.3; 6.32.8),but he quickly passes over the point. The reason why it received little attention in the62

Chapter Twodigression was probably because it was not common for the period of the army underdiscussion. The division of the army into two, single-consular armies, for when it wasnecessary to fight in two regions, is admittedly recorded by Livy as occurring from theearliest days of the Republic, but such references are probably anachronistic. Combinedactions by both consuls, using all four legions and accompanying allies, were still thenorm during the First Punic War (e.g. Polybius 1.17; 1.38; 1.42) and during the periodbetween the end of that war and the beginning of the Second (e.g. Polybius 2.11 in Myriain 229; 2.34 in northern Italy in 222), with the exception of during the threatened Gallicincursion in 225, when Polybius (2.24.3) says that each of the consuls commanded fourlegions. During the Second Punic War however, the proportion of combined operationsto single ones falls noticeably. During this period, double-consular armies appear to havebeen used only where a very large amount of force was required, such as at the battles bythe Trebia and at Carmae in 218 and 216 respectively and at the siege of Capua in 211.Otherwise, the usual size of an operational force was an army of two legions with allies.Each of these two armies was usually commanded by one of the two consuls. Duringthe Second Punic War there was a need to fight in more than two areas during the SecondPunic War. The result was that the 'standard' four-legions were increased in number andcommand of armies was extended to praetors, proconsuls and propraetors, e.g. for theyear 213 Livy (24.44) lists the commands of the two consuls, plus those of three praetors,two proconsuls and four propraetors. These commands, like those of the consuls, usuallyeach had armies consisting of two legions plus allies, e.g. the praetor Lucius Manliusoperating in Gaul in 218 (Livy 21.17), though occasionally the command might be of onlyone legion, e.g. the proconsul Varro and the propraetor Marcus Valerius in 213 (Livy24.44).After the Second Punic War, the two-legion army with allies remained the norm andthese were usually commanded by a consul except when more than two armies wererequired (below). Hence Polybius could write:(The Romans) give each of the consuls half of the allies and two legions whenthey dispatch them to the field, and most of their wars are decided by oneconsul with two legions and.. .allies, it being only on rare occasions that theyemploy all the forces at one time and in one battle.(Polybius 3.1(17.13; Loeb translation)Livy, for example, refers to several such two-legion armies after the Second Punic Warwhen listing the disposition of troops at the beginning of a year; e.g. for 195 BC (33.43.3ff.) and 180 BC (40.36.6). In Spain, Appian gives examples of this type of army being takenthere by new commanders (e.g. Appian Spanish Wars 65 and 67 for 145 and 142 BCrespectively); though unfortunately this precise information is lacking for the Numantinearmies (above, Chapter One). It was also the 'Roman' element in the force sent intoMacedonia at the beginning of hostilities in 171 (Livy 42.31.2).Although double-legion armies remained the 'standard' battle group throughoutthe remaining part of the Republic and indeed into the Empire, combined operations or63

Chapter Twoarmies consisting of more than two legions did not totally disappear, though theirmention in the sources becomes increasingly infrequent. For example, in 177 a doubleconsulararmy was operating against the Histrians (Livy 41.10), in the period 105 to 101the combined army of a consul and a proconsul campaigned against the Cimbri (LivyEpitome 67 and 68) and even later, during the Empire, four legions formed Augustus'battle group on the Rhine and the Claudian invasion force of Britain. Also, wherecircumstances demanded, much larger forces could be assembled, e.g. Sulla had sixlegions in 88 BC and Pompeius had ten legions in Syria in 63 BC.One change in these armies during the second century was in the nature of who hadoverall command of them in the field. As the century progressed, praetors, propraetorsand proconsuls increasingly were used to take overall command. In part this was simplydue to more than two armies being required at a time. Throughout the period howeverquaestors remained with the armies, accompanying each army commander to hisprovince and being second in command (Mommsen 1893, 180 ff.; Harmand 1967, 172 ff.)and having responsibility for the financial affairs and supplies of the army (Tacitus Annals11.22; Polybius 6.31.1; 6.39.15 — referring to the officer by the equivalent term of rau.iac;Keppie 1984, 36).SINGLE-LEGION ARMIESDuring the second century, legions not only operated in pairs, but also individually. Thishad begun in the third century, but appears to have become more common as the secondcentury progressed. For example, the provinces of Nearer and Further Spain are regularlyreferred to by Livy as each having a single legion (195 BC — 33.43.7 f.; 189 BC — 37.40.12;180 BC — 40.36.8 ff.).These single-legion armies were usually accompanied by a force of allies, just asdouble-legion armies were. For example, the Spanish single-legion armies are alwaysstated as having a force of allies with them. The single legion sent to Sicily in 189 BC ishowever not stated by Livy as having allies, but is said to have gone there with the fleet(37.40.9). A single legion, with no accompanying allies being mentioned, was alsodispatched to Corsica in 174 BC (41.21.2). The form in which the military allotments aredescribed by Livy suggests that he or his source used some form of 'official' record ofdispositions. The absence of allies in the armies in Sicily and Corsica may be genuinetherefore and not simply an omission by Livy. The absence of allies would however makethese armies rather unusual as the bulk of references which refer to legions normallyinclude a mention of accompanying allies.The proportion of allies to citizens in single-legion armies might howev er sometimeshave been smaller than in double-legion ones. In Spain, for example, the allied componentvaried between 2,000 and 7,000 infantry, with 200 or 300 cavalry (Livy 33.43.7 f.; 37.40.11f.; 40.36.8 ff.). These non-citizen forces may well have been supplemented by foreigntroops (below) and this may account for the small number of allies for some of the armies.Perhaps the relatively smaller complement of the allies was because they were in the army64

Chapter Twomerely to provide extraordinarii, with the foreign troops providing the main force for thealae.FORCES SMALLER THAN A LEGION OPERATING INDEPENDENTLYAs well as armies with the size of a legion being referred to during the second century,there are also many references to smaller forces operating. A common size mentioned istwo thousand infantry. In some cases these troops were clearly allies. For example, in 170BC a praetor raised such a force in the part of Italy that faced Myricum and sent them tothe legate at Issa (Livy 43.9.5). On other occasions however, it is not clear whether the twothousandstrong force was composed of citizens or of allies (e.g. Livy 42.36.10; 42.67.8;Appian Syrian Wars 16).Forces smaller than two thousand men are also mentioned during the secondcentury. For 178 BC, Livy mentions an allied cohort from Placentia operating independently(41.1.2). For 168 BC, during the Macedonian Wars, Livy refers to three allied cohorts andtwo turmae of allied cavalry being placed in a praesidium which was guarding the maincamp (44.40.5). To collect gold and silver from the cities of the defeated Epirus in 167 BC,Livy states that the army of Paulus was despatched by cohorts (45.34.2). There is also areference in the Epitome of Book 68 of Livy, datable to the period 102-101 BC, to a cohortin a castellum by a river during the campaign against the Cimbri. These references tocohorts operating in this manner may be genuine, but on the other hand may merely beLivy using the term cohort anachronistically, possibly simply as a convenient device tomean a small force (below). Regardless of this it implies that during the second centuryit became the practice for relatively small bodies of troops to be called upon forindependent action.ALLIED FORCES OPERATING INDEPENDENTLYThe second century also saw allied forces starting to be used independently from thelegions. The allied troops not only campaigned by themselves, but also sometimes hadtheir own winter quarters (e.g. Livy 43.9.3 for 170 BC; 45.12.11 for 168 BC). The size of theseforces varied according to circumstances. Commonly they corresponded approximatelyto a legion in size, being composed of four or five thousand infantry. In 191 BC, forexample, in Greece the legate Appius Claudius operated with four thousand men, whilethe consul was elsewhere in the country with the rest of the two-legion consular army(Livy 36.30.6).This development can be seen as the allies starting to be given the same level ofresponsibility as the legions. The upgrading of the allied units into legions after the SocialWar was the natural conclusion of this development. In some ways however, with theallies already basically operating as legions, this change in the early first century could beregarded merely as an alteration in status, with little practical change in the way the troopswere used. In effect, the Social War simply gave the allied troops the political and socialrewards they deserved.65

Chapter TwoCHANGES TO THE ORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY -THE REPLACEMENT OF MANIPLES BY COHORTSBy the mid-first century BC the main tactical unit of the Roman army was not the maniple,but the cohort. This latter type of unit comprised the amalgamation of three maniples(Polybius 11.23.1; discussed in detail below). The chronology of the replacement of themaniple by the cohort is uncertain, as there are no contemporary references to it. Thetraditional theory was to attribute the change to Marius and caused by the need for achange in tactics to counter those of the Celts who threatened northern Italy in the closingyears of the second century (e.g. Delbriick 1975; Parker 1958, 27; Carney 1961, 31 f.). Thedevelopment now appears to have been more complex and although Marius may haveplayed a part in it, this was perhaps only at the closing stages of a process that had begunduring the Second Punic War (Bell 1965; Rawson 1971; Keppie 1984).Livy uses the term cohort from his second book (e.g. 2.11.8; 2.20.6), but such usageis doubtless anachronistic. The earliest reliable reference to the use of a cohort is probablythat for 210 BC (Livy 25.39.1; Bell 1965, 405). Polybius twice mentions the use of cohorts(using the transliterated form xotipti.c), both in 206 and both in Spain (11.23.1; 11.33.1).Rawson (1971) believes that at this stage the cohort was a tactical unit rather than one ofadministration and this explains why it is not included in Polybius' digression on thearmy. Rawson may be correct with the status of the cohort in the late third century, butthis reason may not be valid to explain the absence of the cohort from the digression; thelevel of detail in Polybius' description of the army suggests that such an omission isunlikely. Possibly its absence is simply because the army described by Polybius in BookSix belongs to an earlier date, when cohorts were perhaps not in use as a tactical unit; itmay nevertheless have existed as an administrative unit for the allies (below, ChapterThree).Bell (1965, 404) has detected 17 references by Livy to cohorts in the period 210-195in Spanish contexts. Since many of these references probably come from Coelius, one ofLivy's sources, who pre-dated Marius, they are unlikely to be anachronistic as regards theuse of the term cohort in relation to the period of Marius (Bell 1965, 404). Together withthe evidence of Polybius the references from Livy show that the cohort must have beenin use as a tactical unit before Marius, seemingly from the latter part of the third century.Bell (1965, 409) sees the weight of the references, not only from Livy and Polybius but alsofrom Appian and Frontinus, coming from Spanish contexts as evidence for the cohortbeing a Roman practice peculiar to Spain, with only the maniple being used outside of it.There is an argument in favour of the cohort being used initially perhaps only in Spain,but not to the total exclusion of the maniple. Livy includes one reference to has tati andprincipes (34.15.6; 195 BC) and possibly also one to triarii (28.3.14; 207 BC) in Spain. Bell(1965, 404) dismisses the use of these manipular terms as a slip by Livy in the case of thefirst reference and the second because it lies in an area of text the reading of which isdisputed. Surely however, the two references to the existence of maniples can be accepted,simply by suggesting that the units of cohort and maniple existed contemporaneously in66

Chapter TwoSpain, with the cohort being called upon when required, but with the maniple remainingas the main administrative, if not also tactical unit. Possible support for this co-existenceis that Front° quotes a passage of Cato in which Cato mentions both maniples and cohortsin the context of training his troops (in Spain in 195; Astin 1978, 37) (interea unamquamqueturmammanipulum cohort em temptabam quid facere possent; Cato quoted by Fronto (Makovati1953, Cato frag. 35)), though clearly here there is the problem of knowing whether Frontoquotes Cato accurately.Archaeological evidence in the form of the internal layout of Lager III and thereconstruction that can be given to the Red Phase of Castillejo suggests that in Spain themaniple remained in use until the mid-second century, though perhaps co-existing witha quasi-cohort organisation for the allies (below, Chapter Four). The mid-second centurycould however have been the 'change over period' from maniples to cohorts in Spain, forthe camps which can be associated with Scipio's campaign against Numantia, in particularthe Black Phase at Castillejo, Pena Redonda, Molino and Lager VI display a pattern ofbarracks which would be entirely in keeping with legions organised as cohorts (below,Chapter Four).It was certainly possible for the maniple and cohort to co-exist, as indicated bySallust's description of the Jugurthine War in which both terms are used and indeed at onepoint (Bellum lugurthinum 51.3), when the army was still under the command of Metellus,he reveals that by this stage an army was trained to change formation from maniple tocohort in the field as circumstances dictated. For the army to be able to perform such amanoeuvre, it must indicate that the cohort was a regularly-used formation by this timeand thus also a formation which pre-dated Marius (Bell 1965, 415 f.).The last reference to maniples is in the campaign of Metellus against Jugurtha in 109BC (Sallust Bellunz Jugurthinum 49.6). This contributed to the traditional view that Mariuscaused the removal of maniples in 106 or perhaps slightly later, in the period 104-102 whenhe was preparing his army for campaigns against the Celts in northern Italy and for whomdifferent tactics were required (Keppie 1984, 63). It is perhaps unlikely that specificallyCeltic tactics would have caused a move towards the cohort, but more that the generalpattern of warfare during the second century was revealing an increasing weakness in themaniple. Such a problem can be suggested as occurring first in Spain. Here the Romansfaced a very forceful charge. Against this the manipu 'far formation was too open and adeeper, more concentrated and continuous front was required, which cohorts wouldprovide (Bell 1965, 410 f.). Also in Spain guerilla warfare was encountered (StraboGeography 4.4.2). The legion was too large to be effective against guerilla tactics. DecimusJunius Brutus, for example, came to discover this in 138 BC against Viriathus in Spain andso he attacked the guerillas' home towns (Appian Spanish Wars 71). The maniple wasconversely too small to act as an effective unit against such tactics. In contrast a cohort orgroup of cohorts could provide an ideal sub-unit of the legion for dispersed operations(Bell 1965, 412). This is perhaps how the dispersed army of Manlius had been operatingin Spain in 182 BC, before it was collected into one place for the winter (Livy 40.16.10).67

Chapter TwoFor the same period in Greece the situation was slightly different. Here, in theMacedonian Wars of 198 to 149, Rome was still facing a phalanx-type opponent, for whichthe mobility and flexibility of maniples was ideal on the battlefield. In Greece as in Spainhowever, dispersed operations were required, though not against guerilla tactics. Forexample, in 189 BC Livy refers to a tribune operating with "a moderate sized force" (cummodica manu; 38.13.4; Loeb translation) which was part of a consular army; for 171 BC Livysays that 2,000 infantry (their exact composition is not specified) were despatched underthe command of a legate to hold Ambracia (42.67.9); and an identical number was also sentto occupy the strongholds of the Dassaretii and of the Illyrians (42.36.9). It is conceivablethat such forces could have been composed in terms of cohorts as the type of activityperformed by these forces is similar to that performed by cohorts in Spain. Hence Livy'sreference (44.40.5) to a praesidium being occupied by three allied cohorts and two turmaeof cavalry in 168 BC during the Macedonian Wars may be reliable.For northern Italy there are also references to cohorts during the first half of thesecond century. For example, for 178 BC in a campaign against the Histrians, Livymentions an allied cohort, from Placentia, occupying a praesidium (41.1.6).Although the use of the term cohort by Livy may be reliable, his use of it in generalsuggests that the references should be accepted with a degree of caution. For example,Livy does not restrict his use of the term to Roman armies and refers to cohorts withinarmies of the Greeks (37.40.7; 190 BC) and the Illyrians (43.18.11; 169 BC). Further, in 198BC Livy refers to a cohors Romana breaking through a breach in the wall of Elatia (32.24.3).This might be accurate or Livy may simply mean part of the Roman forces. Thesereferences and all those prior to the late third century may indicate that as well as Livyprobably knowing exactly what constituted a cohort, he may also have felt it legitimateto use it merely as a term to mean a 'body' of troops, with no precise definition beingmeant.It is unfortunate that in many cases from the late third century there is no way ofknowing if Livy is using cohort with its correct technical meaning. Some of the referencesare presumably correct however, since cohorts were in use from the late third century.This could imply therefore, that the use of the cohort soon spread beyond Spain duringthe first half of the second century. The continued mention of maniples until the end ofthe century nevertheless shows that Rome continued to use the older formation. The veryheavy defeats of Roman armies between 113 and 105 against the Celtic tribes of northernItaly however, must have increasingly revealed a basic flaw with the maniple as a suitabletactical unit to match the concentrated charge being increasingly encountered by Rome(Carney 1961,31 f.); the natural conservatism of organised armies may have prevented theneed for change to have been fully recognised as early as it should have been. The inabilityto bring Jugurtha to heel may have been the final lesson required and tipped the balancein favour of the cohort as being the 'standard' unit to be used both tactically andadministratively. The period of the late second century as being the final replacement ofthe maniple by the cohort may thus have been purely coincidental with Marius beingconsul and he should therefore not be credited with a major reform. However, the extent68

Chapter Twoof military reforms with which he is accredited in the sources indicates that he had amilitaristic mind and would consequently probably have seen the benefit of the cohortand readily would have organised his army around this formation.In favour of the final move towards structuring the legions around the cohortoccurring during the latter part of the second century, conceivably specifically during theperiod of Marius' consulships, is also that it would tie in with a change in the socialcomposition of the army and the provision by the state of the soldiers' equipment. Thesedevelopments during the second half of the second century were both caused by the needto find sufficient troops. During the second century, the wealth of the middle class, whoprovided the bulk of the army, declined. The size of the population also fell (Gabba 1976,9 f.). There were consequently fewer men capable of serving. To overcome this it appearsthat the minimum financial level required for qualification to serve in the army wasprogressively reduced so that poorer groups became eligible for service (Gabba 1976,1 ff.).In addition, the Gracchan law of 133 allocated land to poorer citizens, so that the numberof citizens eligible for service could be increased, and a second Gracchan law in 123included the state agreeing to bear the cost of soldiers' clothing and weapons. The finalpart of the progressive reduction in the property bar for service was carried out by Marius,when to gain extra troops for his Jugurthine campaign, he asked for volunteers from thecapite censi (Sallust Bellum lugurthinum 86.2), i.e. those who were so poor that they wereplaced below the "Servian' classes (Livy 1.43.8). The most likely date for this is 107 BC(Gabba 1976, 13). Marius did not remove the property qualification rule, but merely founda way round it by making use of the laws of 123 allowing the state to equip poor troops(Keppie 1984, 61). In practice however, the rule disappeared after 107 (Keppie 1984,61 f.).Marius' reform has often been regarded as a radical move. Plutarch (Life of Marius 9.1), forexample, stated that it was "contrary to law and custom". An appeal to the tumultus hadoccurred before however and what Marius did simply removed the formal link betweenthe census classes and service, in effect regularising and concluding what had begun inthe late third century (Gabba 1976, 12).The result of these developments was to cause a steadily increasing proletarianelement to join the army and move the composition of the army away from the middleclass. The poor welcomed an opportunity to serve as it provided a way out of their difficultfinancial position and their future seemed good, with promises of rewards of land inreturn for service (Gabba 1976, 17). The new group of recruits thus had no real desire fordischarge, unlike the citizen middle class militia whose main interest was at home. As aresult the army became increasingly composed of men who welcomed long service,irrespective of its location, whose livelihood was provided by their military life. In effect,by the end of the century a professional standing army had been created.These changes during the second century would have resulted in a more sociallyhomogeneous grouping, which was therefore more cohesive and in an army that couldhave been almost completely uniformly equipped. As a result there would have been nodifference between the ranks except in the ages of the men. This equality would have69

Chapter Twomade the complete transition to the cohort viable, since an army organised in this waywould be most successful if all the cohorts were of as equal strength as possible.The account of the Jugurthine War by Sallust and Livy's reference to an allied cohortfrom Placentia (Livy 41.1.2), for example, indicate that it was not only the citizen legionsthat were organised as cohorts from the second century, but also the 'legions' composedof allies. References to cohorts in the sources suggest that there was no difference betweenthe two types of 'legion' as regards the chronology of the gradual adoption of the cohortas a tactical formation from the period of the Second Punic War. The archaeologicalevidence from Lager III suggests though that the allies may have provided the 'inspiration'for the actual composition adopted by the cohort, from the form of encampment used bythe allies in camp (below, Chapter Three).Once standardised, the cohort, subdivided into centuries, remained the basictactical and administrative unit of the legions for the rest of the Republic and into theEmpire. Certainly the legions underwent change, but this was in relatively minor wayssuch as the composition of the senior officers, length of service and different equipment;the basic legionary structure remained unaffected.THE COMPOSITION OF COHORTSPolybius, in a context of 206 BC, explains to his Greek audience that a cohort was thegrouping of three maniples and he phrases the definition in such a way that it seems thevelites were not incorporated into this larger unit, but remained as a screen in front of theheavy infantry as they did when the legions were arranged in maniples:Then taking himself from the right wing and Lucius Mardus and MarcusJunius from the left, the leading three turmae of horse and placing in front ofthem the usual number of velites and three maniples (this body of infantry theRomans call a cohort), he advanced straight on the enemy...(Polybius 11.23.1; Loeb translation)Polybius does not specify which types of maniple were grouped together to formeach cohort. The evidence of the titles held by centurions in cohorts indicates however,that each cohort comprised a maniple of hastati, one of principes and one of triarii (vonDomaszewski 1981, 90 f.; Keppie 1984, 64). This would make perfect sense as then eachcohort would have equal composition and therefore equal strength, granting the maximumpossibilities of flexibility as regard deployment of the legion. Since there were 30 maniplesin each legion, there were consequently ten cohorts per legion, confirmed for example byGellius (Noctes Atticae 16.4.6). In the army of the Second Punic War such a tactical groupingwould thus form a body of men 300 strong, there being 120 hastati, 120 principes and 60triarii per maniple (above). During the Empire, the size of the cohort was larger than this(excluding the even larger 'double first cohort' that seems to have existed for a period inat least the latter part of the first century AD—Breeze 1969; Frere 1980), for the 60 centuriescomprising the legion (Genius Noctes Atticae 16.4.6; Isidorus Etymologiae 9.3.47) eachconsisted of 80 men (De Metatione Castrorum 1), resulting in ten cohorts each of 480soldiers.70

Chapter TwoWhen the increase in the size of the cohort from 300 to 480 men occurred is uncertain,but it can be suggested that it was in part associated with the development of longerservingsoldiers during the second century BC. The growing practice of professionalismin the army during the second century, with soldiers serving for longer periods (above),must have resulted in there being more troops of an older comparative age and with moreexperience, who would have qualified to be in the ranks of the triarii. As a consequence,the centuries of triarii could have been increased in size, rising from the Polybian numberof 30 towards the 60 found in the centuries of hastati and principes. It is possible therefore,that by the end of the second century all the types of heavy infantry could have hadcenturies of approximately equal size, namely 60 men each. If this was so, it would haveresulted in cohorts each of 360 men by this period. Within a cohort structure, having allthe centuries with the same number of men would indeed probably have been desirable,since then the cohort would have been comprised of six uniformly-sized sub-units, which,like all the cohorts themselves having equal strength (above), would have given all thecenturies equal capability, thus offering maximum flexibility in deployment.The increase in the size of the cohort to 480 men may also be associated with the fateof the velites. With the potential of there being six centuries of 60 men in each of the threemaniples that were combined together, it means that a further 120 men would be requiredto bring the size of the cohort up to that of the Empire. It is perhaps no coincidence thatthe six centuries comprising each cohort would have possessed a total of 120 velites.Polybius states that the velites were distributed among the maniples in proportion (6.24.4).If this is broken down in terms of centuries, it could mean that each century of the has tatiand principes had 24 velites and the triarii 12. If the size of the triarii did gradually increaseduring the second century, to become the same size as the other maniples and if Polybius'comment about the proportional distribution of velites was applied literally, it wouldmean that their allotment would change, resulting in each century having 20 velites 'on itsbooks'. The 'full' size of each century by the end of the second century could thus havebeen 80 men, the number known to have existed during the Empire. The creation ofcenturies each of 80 heavy infantry could thus simply have been arrived at by incorporatingthe velites into the main body of the century and converting them into heavy infantry. Theconversion would not have been a problem since the state could provide the equipment(above) for these men who traditionally comprised those who were so poor that they couldprovide only minimal arms (Polybius 6.22.1 ff.).When the assimilation of the velites into the centuries occurred is uncertain, in partas the evidence is conflicting. It is commonly held that Marius was responsible for theabolition of the velites (Bell 1965, 419 ff.), on the basis that their last mention is in thecampaigns of 109-108 of Metellus in Africa (Sallust Bellum lugurthinum 46.7). As Bell (1965,421) points out however, there is a seemingly reliable reference to velites for 86 BC(Frontinus Strategemata 2.3.17), but none later. If the interpretation suggested below inChapter Four for the Scipionic barracks around Numantia is correct though, the velitesseem to have been absorbed into the main body of the centuries already by the 130s. A71

Chapter Twoconclusion is perhaps simply that armies had different practices during a transitionalperiod. A reason behind this difference may be linked with what was required/availablein particular areas in respect to the provision of light infantry.During the second century, particularly in Spain, the velites would have becomeincreasingly vulnerable, as the throwing weapons being used by Rome's enemies hadlonger ranges than those used by the velites (Be111965, 419). This was countered by Romeby the growing use from the late second century of non-citizen forces such as archers andslingers who were abetter match for the weapons of the opponents (Bell 1965, 419 ff.). Inhurt this would have also encouraged the removal of the velites and their subsequentincorporation into the main body of the century. Hence an explanation for the situationsreported by Sallust and Frontinus could indicate that foreign light infantry was notavailable and had to be provided by Rome. In contrast at Numantia, it can be suggestedthat either light infantry was not needed at all or it was provided by foreign troops; thesecond possibility is perhaps what occurred, as Appian comments that Scipio had archersand slingers some of which at least came from Africa (Spanish Wars 89 and 92).The trend of the evidence nevertheless suggests that the removal of the velites, andtheir incorporation into the main body of the century, was in progress during the latterpart of the second century and had been completed by the end of the second decade of thefirst century at the latest. It is possible therefore that the 'standard' Empire size of cohorts,excluding the period of the double first cohort, of 480 heavy infantry could have come intoexistence by the end of the second century BC or very near the beginning of the first.With ten cohorts each of 480 men, the legion now consisted of theoretically 4,800infantry. The evidence suggests that this remained the size of the legion for the rest of theRepublic and for most of the Empire. A legion of this size represents an increase of 600 overthe standard Polybian size. Some classical authors give the size of the cohort legion as6,000 infantry, but this is most probably wrong (Keppie 1984,64 f.). This figure was mostlikely derived from the notion that a century, as the name would imply and as hadprobably been the case originally, contained 100 men (e.g. Isidorus Etymologiae 9.3.48).The manipular army did not however contain centuries of this size and De MetationeCastrorum (1) states that 80 was the usual size of a complete century. It is probabletherefore, that there would not have been 100 men per century in the cohort legion andhence also not 6,000 infantry per legion.CHANGES TO THE ORGANISATION OF THE CAVALRYThere is no evidence to indicate that the cavalry were re-organised when the infantrychanged from a manipular to a cohort-based system. If the reconstruction that is proposedbelow in Chapter Four for Pena Redonda is accepted, it supports the lack of change for thecavalry. Here the infantry are in barracks appropriate for a cohort-based structure. To thesouth of these however are barracks similar to those identified as being for cavalry in the72

Chapter Two`manipular-organised' Lager III, i.e. suitable for turmae containing three decuriae in theTolybian manner'.The reduction in references to legionary cavalry during the second century suggestsits usage declined. Indeed, references to it disappear completely by the beginning of thefirst century BC and they are not mentioned again until the Empire (e.g. Josephus JewishWars 3.6.2; the decline in the legionary and allied cavalry is discussed below). It is notknown what happened between these two periods. Potentially the cavalry may even havedisappeared temporarily from active service. The reconstruction of regular, triple cavalrybarracks at Pena Redonda, if valid, does however indicate that legionary or allied cavalrywere used during the Numantine Wars.CHANGES TO THE ALLIESDue to the legions and the allies sharing the same organisation in the manipular army, thechanges to the citizen infantry and lack of change to the cavalry during the second centuryare likely to have been reflected in the organisation of the allied forces. As a result, by theend of the century the allied infantry would have had the same cohort organisation as thelegions, and the allied cavalry would have retained its tripartite turmae. The size of the reorganisedmain force of allies in the now common battle-group of a single-consular armycould have remained with a theoretical strength of eight cohorts and 20 turmae in each ala.The theoretical complement of allies that served in the extraordinarii and delectiextraordinariicould also have continued as before, merely their internal structure would have beendifferent. Hence the extraordinarii cavalry of each ala would have remained as ten turmae,with one of the turmae from each ala forming the delecti extraordinarii cavalry. Similarly,two cohorts could have continued to form the theoretical strength of each ala of theextraordinarii infantry, with one of the cohorts from each ala comprising the delectiextraordinarii. The allied component could however have been much larger than this inreality, for during the second century, in part due to the increasing resentment of citizensto serve, the ratio of allies to citizens steadily increased, so that by the end of the centuryit was two allies to every citizen (Brunt 1971, 677 f.).This allied army structure could have continued until the end of the second centuryand into the first century BC, but not beyond the period of the Social War (91 -88 BC), whenall the former allied units became fully-fledged citizen legions.CHANGES TO FOREIGN TROOPSDuring the second century the only apparent development concerning foreign troops wasthat their use increased. In part this was made possible by Rome's growing sphere ofinfluence around the Mediterranean, which provided an ever-growing area from whichtroops could be procured. As a result, an army could have quite a complex form. For73

Chapter Twoexample, as early as 190 BC, the composition of a single-consular army fighting in Greeceis given as the standard two legions with two alae of Latin allies, plus foreign forces ofinfantry and cavalry of Eumenes, Achaean 'targeteers', Trallians, Cretans, Macedoniansand Thracians, producing a total of 6,800 foreign troops (Livy 37.39.7 ff.).Foreign forces provided more cavalry in particular, for during the second centurythe weakness of Roman and allied cavalry became increasingly apparent (Keppie 1984,78f.). The sources for the second century contain frequent references to Roman commandersprocuring cavalry from either local friendly tribes, as in Spain (e.g. Appian Spanish Wars47 and 48— both refer to the Numantine Wars) or from more distant regions (e.g. for theSpanish campaigns from Africa — Appian Spanish Wars 46 (Numantine Wars) and 67). Incontrast, references to Roman citizen cavalry become increasingly sparse during thecentury. Even comments relating to cavalry supplied by Rome's Italian allies reduce infrequency, with the last mention of allied cavalry occurring during the Jugu_rthine wars(Sallust BeIlum lugurthinum 95). From the first century BC, cavalry seems to have beendrawn exclusively from foreign powers, in particular from Gaul, Spain and Germany(Keppie 1984, 79; Parker 1958, 43). The organisation of these troops was presumablyirregular initially. The frequent use of some cavalry forces would doubtless have causedthem to become increasingly iroinanised' as the first century progressed. This would haveled naturally into the formalisation of turma-based auxiliary units by Augustus.THE DEGREE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THETHEORETICAL ARMIES OF THE SECOND CENTURYAND THOSE AT NUMANTIAFrom the material discussed above, it can be seen that by using a variety of sources, muchcan be suggested about the composition and development of the army during the secondcentury. From this picture however, there remains the question of assessing how it wasreflected in the armies that fought in the Numantine Wars.As regards the basic issue of the general form of the armies involved, the evidencepresented above suggests that the usual form of army used in the Numantine Wars wouldhave consisted of two legions, two allied alae and foreign troops. Evidence for the use ofsmaller armies than this however suggests that the basic double-legion army need nothave been the only form of force in use during the Wars. It is possible therefore that thedouble-legion army need not always have acted together, but was deployed in a varietyof subdivisions for specific smallscale operations distant from the main force. Alternativelyor in addition, independent single-legion armies (citizen and/or allied 'legions') couldhave been used, particularly as there are examples of these being used in Spain (above),though admittedly no direct evidence for them in the Numantine Wars. The command ofthese armies in the Numantine Wars seems always to have been by consuls, except forPopilius who acted in 138 as proconsul (above, Chapter One). Command by lesser74

Chapter Twomagistrates, such as praetors, which generally increased during the second century(above), is attested for the contemporary wars in Hispania Ulterior and praetors may haveexercised command initially in the Numantine Wars (above, Chapter One), but none ismentioned in association with Nu_mantia after the appearance of the consul Nobilior in153. An exception could have been Scipio's brother, who exercised command over part ofthe army (Appian Spanish Wars 90), but his status is not specified. Below the overallcommander, throughout the period, the second-in-command was a quaestor and thispractice is to be expected during the Numantine Wars. Similarly, below both of these anddirectly in charge of each legion and each ala of allies would be six tribunes and six praefectisociorum respectively.Much can be suggested about the internal organisation of the legions involved in theNumantine Wars. The chronology of the move from the maniple to the cohort suggeststhat for the early part of the Wars a manipular organisation would have been used for thelegionary infantry in the manner described by Polybius. For the later part of the Warshowever, the infantry could have been structured around cohorts. The archaeologicalevidence from the sites at Numantia indeed supports the use of both types of organisationand their relative chronology. The size of the legionary infantry could also have changedduring the period of the Wars, from just over 4,000 to nearer 5,000, as a consequence ofboth the move to the cohort and longer-serving troops swelling the ranks. The Polybiancomplement of 300 cavalry per legion, organised as turmae, may have remained in thisform throughout the Wars.As regards the allies involved in the Numantine Wars, their organisation and theway this changed, probably mirrored that of the legions. The proportion of allies in eacharmy is less certain though. Initially it could have followed the Polybian pattern of theallied and legionary infantry being equal in number and the allied cavalry being threetimes that of the legionary. During the period of the Wars these proportions could havechanged however and generally increased, if they followed the trend detectable in otherareas.The nature and quantity of some of the foreign troops is known for the NumantineWars; e.g. Nobilior had 300 Nomad cavalry and ten elephants plus an unknown quantityof cavalry from a tribe near to Numantia (Appian Spanish Wars 46 f.) and Scipio had anunspecified number of troops, but included twelve elephants, archers and slingers fromAfrica, sent to him by cities and kings friendly with him (Appian Spanish Wars 84 and 89).The actual complement of foreign troops present at any time during the Wars is howevernot clear, but the general evidence from the period suggests it would have been larger inthe latter part of the Nu.mantine Wars. A particular uncertainty as regards the foreigntroops is how they were used during the Scipionic siege. Appian does say that slingers andarchers were placed in forts (Spanish Wars 92), and these were presumably foreign troops.It is not known however if foreign troops were stationed in all the forts /camps, only someof them or were even the sole garrison of an installation. This in turn adds to thecomplications and uncertainties in interpreting what was found at the sites.75

Chapter TwoDespite what can be proposed for the various elements of the armies in theNtmiantine Wars and the organisational changes these may have undergone during theWars, it is still not possible to say for certain what the proportion of legions, allies andforeign troops was in each army and indeed even whether all three types of troops werepresent in each. As a result Appian's bare numbers for the overall size of armies mustremain in their uninformative state in this respect.76

CHAPTER THREETHE THEORETICAL LAYOUT OFCAMPS OF THE PERIOD OF THENUMANTINE WARS: CAMPS OFTHE SECOND CENTURY BCJust as Polybius forms the starting point for establishing the nature of the army of thesecond century, he is also the starting point for the theoretical form of the camp. Similarly,since the description of the army and the camp both date to the late third century, thereis the problem of knowing what features of the camp continued during the second centuryand particularly the Numantine Wars. It can be suggested however that many elementsof the Polybian camp continued in use throughout the second century, and indeed for therest of the Republic and into the Empire. Further, several elements from the Numantinesites help clarify and enlarge upon what Polybius describes. This creates the rather ironicalsituation of Polybius being needed to understand the Numantine sites, but also vice versa.This 'mutual dependence' is clearly hazardous as there is the danger of notcomparing like with like and creating circular arguments. It is however probablyadmissable to use particularly the evidence of Lager III and V and the Red Phase atCastillejo in connection with the Polybian camp. These, although being later than thePolybian camp, have a general form very close to the single-consular army camp touchedon by Polybius; this uses substantial elements of the earlier double-consular camp andwas also for a manipular-organised army. It is also probably in order to compare thedescription of the Polybian tented camp and the stone sites at Numantia, since the lattercould have been just stone-built winter or 'siege-length' versions of what would have beenlaid out with tents in temporary summer marching camps. Arguably the ground plan ofthe stone structures simply corresponded to the tented equivalents, with perhaps onlyminor differences; for example, the open arma in front of tents would have been enclosed77

Chapter Threein the barrack block to provide better storage. There is indeed no obvious reason why thelayout of a stone or timber installation should have been substantially different from thatof tents in a camp of the same period; both had to satisfy the same accommodationrequirements for the same type of troops and size of units and, to avoid confusion, keepeach area in the same relative location at all times. Supportive of this, and indeedsuggestive that Polybius is not necessarily describing merely a temporary summermarching camp, but simply camps in general, is his comment that "one simple plan ofcamp was adopted at all times and in all places (6.26.10; Loeb translation).THE POLYBIAN CAMPTHE POLYBIAN CAMP - WHAT IS POLYBIUS DESCRIBING?One of the main problems with Polybius' account is establishing exactly what type ofcamp he is describing. This issue has been frequently discussed (e.g. Stolle 1912, 86 ff.;Fischer 1914, 72 ff.; Schulten 1929, 119 ff.; Fabricius 1932; Fraccaro 1935). The difficulty iscreated by Polybius seemingly giving an account of a two-legion camp (6.27.1 to 6.32.5),saying that two of these are joined back to back to form a four-legion camp, but then statingthat a two-legion camp has important differences from what he has described, whichwould seem to contradict what has gone before:Whenever the two consuls with all their four legions are united in one camp,we have only to imagine two camps like the above placed in juxtapositionback tobac.k, the junction being formed at the encampments of the extraordinariiinfantry of each camp... (Palybius 6.32.6; Loeb translation)Whenever both consuls encamp together they adopt this arrangement; butwhen the two encamp apart the only difference is that the market, quaestorium,and praetorium are placed between the two camps.(Polybius 6.32.8; Loeb translation)Fabricius (1932) suggested that the confusion caused by the last statement (6.32.8),results from this sentence being a later interpolation and should thus be omitted. Hetherefore concluded that the main part of Polybius' description indeed concerns a twolegioncamp. Walbank believes such an interpolation is unlikely (1957, 711), and indeedFabricius' solution, in effect simply removing the point of difficulty, is arguably toocontrived or convenient to be convincing.The problem is created by deciding on how to translate crroccro4Sow, the last wordin the sentence 6.32.8. The Loeb edition chooses 'camps', but the word can also mean'armies' (e.g. Herodotus History 1.76; 9.51) or 'legions' (e.g. Polybius 1.16.2; 6.20.8)(Walbank 1957, 711) and indeed legions is the normal sense meant by Polybius (Fischer78

Chapter Three1914, 73). A meaning of 'camps' or 'armies' seems quite implausible, as this would meanthat the forum, quaestorium and praetorium would be distant from the troops they servedand in an isolated position without protection, which would be nonsense. The remainingpossibility is thus 'legions'. If however it is regarded that the description prior to thissentence concerns a double-legion camp, translating awaTontScov as legions createsconfusion and contradiction, with two different forms for a two-legion camp being given,despite Polybius saying that one simple plan of camp was adopted at all times and in allplaces (6.26.10).A plausible answer to this problem is that the camp described in detail by Polybiusis not that of a two-legion, single-consular army, but is one half of the camp occupied bya four-legion, double-consular army (Stolle 1912, 86 ff.; Schulten 1929, 119 ff.; Fraccaro1934). Polybius clearly regarded the double-consular army as the 'typical' army, for hisaccount of the levying and structure of the army (6.19.1 ff.) is rendered in these terms(Fraccaro 1934,157 ff.; Walbank 1957, 711). This type of army was indeed probably still theusual one at the beginning of the Second Punic War, the possible period of Polybius'digression. The use of single-consular armies had however probably started by this time,though they were not yet the more frequent form (above, Chapter Two). Consequentlyperhaps Polybius felt that the layout of their camps only merited a brief statement (6.32.8),which unfortunately was never to be elaborated later in the History.The reason for Polybius choosing to describe only one half of a four-legion camp wasperhaps merely for convenience and economy of words. It could also be a consequenceof the possible source for the digression being a tribune's commentarius (above, ChapterTwo); this would need to provide a tribune with detailed information for only one half ofthe camp. The absence of an explanation of Polybius' method of presenting the camp inthe preamble to the account of this (6.26.10 ff.) is though perhaps a little unexpected, sincegenerally he takes pains to make his narrative as clear as possible by explaining what isto follow and why it is included. Possibly an explanation is missing as Polybius regardedone as superfluous, for there is nothing prior to this to imply that he has anything but adouble-consular army in mind, and to him, the statement at the end (6.32.6) clearlyindicates that what he has described is a mirror-image half of a four-legion camp (fig. 3).The confusion is perhaps only the creation of the modern reader.TERMINOLOGY FOR THE SIDE, FRONT AND BACK OF THE CAMPPolybius refers to each half of the camp having a 'front' (6.27.6; 6.291). The way in whichthis is defined would mean that in terms of the alignment and reconstruction shown infig. 3 it would correspond to the northern end for the upper half of the camp and thesouthern end for the lower. Polybius also refers to the back part of each half of the camp,and this was situated at the junction of the two halves of the camp (6.32.6). The conceptof the camp having a front, back and sides clearly existed in the minds of the Romans. Forexample, Caesar speaks of troops being drawn up ante frontem castrorum (Bellum Civile79

Chapter Three3.37). The notion of the back or rear of the camp is attested by the location of one of theentrances, the porta decumana, being regarded as being at the rear of a camp (below).Similarly there also existed a left and a right-hand side, indicated by the names of theentrances at either end of the via principalis (below) and by Frontinus who speaks of troopsbeing placed ad latus castrorum (Strategemata 2.5.37).The way Polybius defines his term of the 'front', however suggests it is his owninvention and not necessarily used by the Romans in this way — "a direction of which I willalways speak as 'the front' (6.27.6; Loeb translation); "the side of the camp. ..which wedecided to call the front of the whole" (6.29.7; Loeb translation). As well as the phraseologyof Polybius' definition hinting at it being his own usage, more forcefully against it beingwhat the Romans actually understood by the term and its corresponding back, left andright, is that it would result in the mirror-image arrangement of a double-consular camphaving confusingly two fronts, backs that lay within the body of the camp and half of thecamp's left side being the other's right and vice versa. Such a situation would not have beenviable. More sensibly, the 'real' front can be suggested as being the direction in which bothpraetoria faced, i.e. east and at right-angles to the long axis of the camp (below). As a result,the camp has only one front and also only one right-hand and left-hand side and a backactually at the rear of the whole camp (fig. 3).The concept of a camp having a front, back, a left-hand and a right-hand side maysimply have resulted from the practical requirement of having terms with which to referto the various parts of the camp. Since however, the sides of the templum were referred toin the same way (Varro De Lingua Latina 7 .7;Dilke 1971,32 f.) and there are probable linksbetween the praetorium /forum /principia and the tern plum (below), it can be suggested thatthere was a derivation of the military terminology from augury, for this had influencedthe equivalent civil surveying terminology (Duke 1971, 33) and both seem to have affectedthe nature of castrametation (below).Hence each half of the camp, corresponding to two legions and one ala (below),would in one case become the right-hand half and in the other the left-hand. The forcesin each half could then correspond to the right and left halves of the battle formation. SincePolybius attests that the two halves of the army alternated daily between which was onthe left and which on the right of the battle formation (6.40.4 ff.), the alternation wouldpresumably continue in camp. How this worked in practice is however uncertain, forwhen the army arrived at a site one half of it was on the right of the formation, but whenleaving the camp the next day, the other half would be on the right.To avoid confusion with Polybius' term of front and the corresponding back, leftand right-hand parts of each half of the camp and what has just been suggested as beingthe 'real' front, back, left and right of the whole camp, in the discussion that follows,cardinal points will be used, With east being regarded as the direction in which the praetoriafaced. Consequently the long axis of the whole camp is regarded as being north-south (fig.3). The account will also follow Polybian practice of referring generally to only one half ofthe camp. This will be the southern half. The understanding is that the other half willsimply be a mirror image.80

Chapter ThreeTHE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM USED BY POLYBIUSThe type of measurement system used by Polybius cart be established from informationhe gives about the praetorium, the area occupied by a consul (below). He says that itoccupied a square with sides of 200 feet which corresponded to an area measurement offour ItAapa (6.27.2). It is often assumed that Polybius gives his dimensions of the campin terms of Roman feet, but as Oxe (1939, 48 ff.) has illustrated, the feet are more likely tobe Hellenistic than Roman. The two types of feet differed in length, with the Roman being0.296 m and the Hellenistic 0.355 m, so that 1.2 Roman feet equal 1 Hellenistic foot (0)(61939, 51). Oxe argues his case by pointing out that Polybius is writing for a Greek audienceand takes trouble to use Greek terms wherever possible, so that his Greek readers willmore easily comprehend his narrative. As a result, all Roman weights, distances and sumsof money, for example, are converted into their Greek equivalents. Hence the same wouldbe expected for the dimensions of the camp.The use of Hellenistic feet by Polybius is illustrated in the measurements he givesfor the praetorium (Oxe 1939, 52). Polybius specifies the size of this in terms of the GreekrazOpov. This was a square area with sides of 100 Hellenistic feet (Oxe 1939, 52),corresponding to 1260.25 m 2. Hence Polybius describes the area for the praetorium ashaving its sides 100 feet from a central flag (6.27.2), i.e. a square measuring 200 x 200 feet.These feet must be Hellenistic and not Roman, to agree with Polybius, who says (6.27.2)that there was a correspondence between the linear dimensions and an area of four It 40 pa(5041 m 2). An area 200 x 200 Roman feet would only equal 2.8 nXsepa (an area of 3504.6m2, whereas an area 200 x 200 Hellenistic feet equals 5041 m 2). What Polybius appears tohave done in this instance is to have converted the Roman unit of an heredium into its Greekequivalent. One heredium was a square area 240 x 240 Roman feet, made up of four actusquadrati each 120 x 120 Roman feet. Due to the ratio of Hellenistic to Roman feet, 100Hellenistic equal 120 Roman, so the 7asOpov and actus quadratus are identical in physicalsize. Hence Polybius can describe the area of the praetorium in terms of four icAsepa, withcomplete accuracy.THE GRID SYSTEM USED FOR THE CAMPThe correspondence of the dimensions given by Polybius to fractions or multiples of the120 Roman foot actus is not limited to his description of the praetorium. The dimensionselsewhere are given as 50, 100 or 200 feet, no other numbers being used. As dimensionsin Hellenistic feet, these equate exactly to 60,120 and 240 Roman feet. It seems more thanpurely coincidental that these correspond precisely to the lengths of half, one and twoactus respectively. The origin of a unit 120 feet long and its name is agricultural, notmilitary. Actusmeant'a driving' and was the distance oxen yoked to a plough were drivenbefore they were turned (Dilke 1971, 82). An area with sides of this length was known asan actus quadratus (Varro De Lingua Latina 5.34). This unit was the basic one used for81

Chapter Threesurveying the civil rectangular grid system, based around orthogonal axial streets,attested from the second half of the fourth century (Boéthius and Ward-Perkins 1970,97f.; Dilke 1971,88 and 115 f.; Castagnoli 1971, 100 ff.; Ward-Perkins 1974, 28). From the formof the rectangular grid system described by Polybius for the camp and the associationbetween its dimensions and that of the actus / actus quadratus, it can be suggested that thecamp system was substantially based upon the civil scheme, if not actually directlyinherited from it. The civil system of orthogonal axial streets creating a quadripartitedivision, associated with augury (Nissen 1869,3; Scullard 1967,75; Dilke 1971,32 f.), canalso be suggested as being present in each half of the camp in the form of the via praetoria,via principalis and the street dividing the two legions (fig. 3; below).Hence the camp's grid system seems not to have been a military invention, but wassimply transferred from a civilian to a military context. If the army had introduced theconcept, it might be expected that the theoretical dimensions of each area would have beenselected with a closer regard to the ideal required for a unit's tents, which would notnecessarily correspond to a square of 120 feet or convenient multiples or fractions of this.Perhaps it was more convenient and safer as regards the successful use of the scheme oncampaign to take on a well-practised surveying system, based on the actus rather thandevelop a new one. The actus quadratus as a basic unit of area clearly however could nothave been quite unsuitable in that it either cramped or provided an unnecessary amountof space for units, otherwise an alternative would have had to have been found. Anyinconvenience was probably repaid by the small expenditure of effort required inadopting a ready-made proven planning system.The adoption of a rectangular grid and axial road system was not simply the resultof the army bowing to fashion, but it offered material benefits to the functioning of thearmy. The scheme arranged all units, irrespective of their composition, behind oneanother, allowing a regular system of streets to spread across and up and down the camp.This would have allowed easy, direct and rapid communication throughout the camp,which would have been beneficial to the functioning of the army and would have easeddeployment of troops. The ordered and regular arrangement rendered possible by therectilinear grid would probably also have appealed to the army, as "military men areseldom averse to rigidity" (Haverfield 1913, 41). It would have promoted the ideals ofdiscipline and regimentation, making the army a more effective fighting machine.Discipline and authority could also be increased as a consequence of the natural focusingeffect caused by the intersection of the orthogonal axial streets in the grid system. Byplacing the centre of authority, in the form of the praetorium, by this intersection (fig. 3;below), attention would be naturally addressed towards it, thereby increasing theeffectiveness of that authority. Hence the common occurrence of fora by the intersectionin towns and the position of the headquarters by the equivalent intersection in the camp(below).During the following description of the Polybian camp, the dimensions cited will bein Roman feet, converted from Polybius' figures.82

THE LAYOUT OF THE POLYBIAN DOUBLE-CONSULAR CAMPTHE PRAETORIUM, FORUM, QUAESTORIUM AND THE PRINCIPIAChapter ThreeThe first area of the camp to be discussed by Polybius is that occupied by the capatmoliamivil (6.27.1), the commander's tent. Polybius is presumably referring here to thepraetorium, since this was the term for the area where the consul had his accommodation(Festus De Significatu Verborum 249L; Isidorus Etymologiae 15.2.29) and his offices, inwhich meetings could be held (Isidorus Etymologiae 15.2.29; Caesar Bellum Civile 76) andfrom where instructions could be issued (Festus De Significatu Verborum 249L; BellumAfricum 31). Nowhere however does Polybius use the transliterated form of this Latinterm.The only information that Polybius provides about the praetorium is the type oflocation favoured for it, the dimensions of the square plot allotted to it (above) and itsrelative location within the camp. No details are provided about its internal layout. Morethan just a tent occupied by a consul should however no doubt be envisaged as existingin this area (below). Archaeological evidence is unfortunately of little help in establishingthe physical form of the praetorium of this period. The areas interpreted by Schulten asbeing the praetoria at Pena Redonda and Castillejo may well have been just barracks; a'villa' at Pena Redonda could be part of the praetorium, but this re-interpretation istentative and too little of the building is known for much to be established about its overallform. In Lager III and V, Schulten's interpretation of a building in each as the praetoriummay be valid, but so little was recovered that little of the overall physical form can beconcluded (below, Chapter Four).Since Polybius is describing one half of a mirror-image camp, the inclusion andposition of the praetorium show that there must have been two praetoria within the wholecamp and that these were spaced some distance apart. Livy confirms the practice ofseparate praetoria (e.g. 8.11.7; 22.42.2). The implication of this is that although the twoconsuls technically had a shared command of the whole army, in practice the impressionis of two commanders with their own armies camping together. In this sense, there weretwo camps in one. This concept perhaps existed in the minds of the Romans and mayaccount for such installations generally being referred to as castra, not castrum. In time, theword castra must have lost its sense of plurality, for the term continued to be used forcamps after the period when such installations had ceased to be occupied by specificallya double-consular army and instead accommodated a single army under one command.The type of location favoured for the praetorium was that which gave the best generalview and was most suitable for issuing orders (Polybius 6.27.1). If this were applied inpractice to both praetoria, it would have raised an insuperable problem, since onepraetorium would be bound to have a better location than the other. This was perhaps nota problem in reality, if one praetorium was deemed to have been more important than theother. The senior one could then have been given the best position without the occupantof the other having valid reason for complaint. The more important of the two could havebeen the one associated with the consul whose turn it was to be the senior and who83

Chapter Threeconsequently would have taken the auspices, for which the best view would have beennecessary (below). Clearly so much importance was placed on the location of thepraetorium, that its position seems to have taken precedence over that of maintaining theideal theoretical plan for the rest of the camp. This is implied by Polybius stating that thelocation of the praetorium is fixed first and then the location of the legions is determinedrelative to this (6.27.2 f. and 6.41.2). If this were applied literally in respect of both praetoriaand both were given good positions, the irregularities of topography would nearly alwayshave prevented the implementation of the theoretical plan of each half of the camp beinglocated back-to-back and forming a rectangle; more likely, irregular 1J-shaped campswould have resulted. It seems unlikely that the Romans would have accepted such aprocedure since it would so obviously have prevented the theoretical form of camp fromever being achieved in practice. With however the praetorium of the senior consul actingas a pivot point for the construction of both halves of the camp, the theoretical rectangularform would be conceivable in practice. Hence Polybius could claim that, "one simple planof camp was adopted at all times and in all places" (6.26.10). This ability to put thetheoretical scheme into practice perhaps gives some support to the suggestion of onepraetorium being senior to the other. There is admittedly though, no direct evidence for thispractice.Allotting the praetorium an area of specifically one heredium may simply have beenbecause this was the amount of area required for the various tents and functionsassociated with the praetorium. The selection of this particular size of area and also theorientation and arrangement of the praetorium may however derive from religiouspractices.Oxe (1939, 53) has suggested that there may have been a link between the size of thecomitium in Rome and that of the praetorium. Both areas were square with sides of 240Roman feet (Oxe 1939, 53), though the shape and size of the comitium has often beendisputed (Sear 1982, 15). The comitium, where the people of Republican Rome assembledfor legislative and judicial purposes, was founded as a tern plum, a plot of groundconsecrated by augury with its four sides orientated according to the points of thecompass (Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopaedia 1901, 'Comitium' ; Platner 1929, 134 f.). Similarternpla were established at the centre of all towns and were connected with the foundationritual of the town and subsequent religious and civil activities (Scullard 1967, 75; Nissen1869).A temp/urn was associated with augury and existed in two forms. The temp/urn minuswas a square area marked out on the ground by the augur. The person who had the rightto ask for auspices, the ius auspiciorum, which according to circumstances could be eitheran augur or the senior magistrate present, placed themselves in the midst of the tern plumminus to receive them (Pease 1949; Ogilvie 1969, 56). Taking the auspices consisted ofobserving the way in which birds flew in a designated quarter, called sinistra , dextra , posticaand antica, of the temp/urn caeleste, which was the area of the sky in the middle of whichthe observer was positioned (Varro De Lingua Latina 7.7 f.; Oxe 1939, 53). Once a sign had84

Chapter Threebeen seen, this would be interpreted by an augur or by the magistrate himself if no augurwere present (Ogilvie 1969, 56). Taking the auspices was not limited to the templa in towns.In camp it was necessary to seek approval from the gods before undertaking anyoperation (Livy 23.36.9 f.; Valerius Maximus Factorum Ac Dictorum Memorabilium 1.6.4).Originally, the auspices would have been taken in the traditional way by observingportents in the sky. This method was however gradually replaced by interpretation of theway sacred chickens fed within the ternplum (Oxe 1939, 53). This practice is attested by Livyas occurring in camp from the late third century BC (22.42.3 for 216 BC; 41.18.14 for 176BC) and is mentioned by Cicero (De Divinatione 1.35 for 217 BC).Perhaps the need to have a good all-round view for taking the auspices in thetraditional way by observing the sky, lies behind Polybius saying that the praetorium wasto be positioned on a commanding position and it was not simply so that the surroundingterrain could be observed for purely military purposes. The strength of connectionbetween augury and the commander and hence also between the physical requirementsof templa and the commander's accommodation, is illustrated by the alternative name ofaugurale for his tent (Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 8.2.8; Tacitus Annals 2.13 and 15.30). Theusual name was tabernaculurn (Festus De Significatu Verborum 249L), though this too wasthe name of the tent occupied by an augur (Cicero De Divinatione 1.33; 2.76). The link ofaugury with the praetorium is also attested by the mention of an auguratorium existing inthis area in De Metatione Castrorum (11). Augurale and auguratorium are identical inmeaning to tern plum and in a similar way, the word tern plum was used in towns for theaugurs' accommodation as well as the area outside it in which they stood to observe thesky (Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopaedia 1934 'Templurn'). The similarities with tern plumthus imply that the actual tent of the commander and the area outside, both had religioussignificance and so the whole praetorium can be regarded in effect as a ternplum. IndeedJosephus (Jewish Wars 3.82) says the commanding officer's quarters were like a temple andLivy (41.18.8) is presumably referring to the praetorium when he refers to consuls in a camptaking auspices inside and erroneously outside the tern plum. Because of this associationbetween praetorium and ternplum, it is conceivable that the rules for the arrangement of thepraetorium might derive from and also be the same or at least very similar to those for thearrangement of the ternplum in towns. Hence, as Oxe suggests (1939, 53), both are squarein shape, have a central location and the same dimensions for their sides.The rules for the orientation of the ternplum perhaps also applied to the praetorium.The orientation of the augur's templum minus was arranged according to the points of thecompass, with the augur or magistrate selecting one of these as the direction in which toface, usually east, though south and west are also mentioned in the sources (Dilke 1971,32 f. and 86 f.). Polybius makes no mention of positioning the praetorium using theseconsiderations. Indeed, he does not in fact specifically say in which direction the praetoriafaced at all. Perhaps this information was simply missing in his source. The reason for itsomission could have been that the orientation of templa and hence praetoria would havebeen so well known, it need not have been stated in the source he used. The existence of85

Chapter Threea theoretical aim to orientate the praetorium and thus also the camp to the east is howeverindicated by Vegetius, who includes in his comments on camp orientation (Epitoma ReiMilitaris 1.23) that the porta praetoria should face east. This gate existed in camps from atleast the late third century in single-consular camps and since the praetorium faced thisgate in this type of camp (below), it means that it too would have faced east. The selectionof this particular direction perhaps indicates an association with augury, since this wasone of the directions favoured by augurs. It is possible therefore, that the rules oforientation of civil templa also applied to military ones.Though the practice of orientating a praetorium to the east would be feasible in acamp with only one such area, assuming there were no topographical problems, there ispotentially an insuperable problem in a double-consular camp of the Polybian type.According to Polybius, the two halves of a double-consular camp were mirror-images. Asregards the direction in which the two praetoria faced, the resulting minor-image camp isnormally reconstructed with the two praetoria facing in opposite directions, towards thelegions in their respective halves of the camp. This would however create the impossibilityof giving both praetoria an eastwards orientation. The reconstruction is presumablyinfluenced by Polybius referring to this direction as the 'front' of each half of the camp. Asdiscussed above, however, use of this term in this way could be wrong and is consequentlymisleading as regards the alignment of the praetoria. The conflict can be simply removedby suggesting that the two praetoria both faced the long side of the whole camp, i.e. at rightanglesto their respective legions and to the 'real' front of the camp (fig. 3). An eastwardsalignment for both praetoria would in this way present no difficulty, excluding topographicalrestrictions. Indeed the relative location of each praetorium and itsforum and the involvementof the latter during the religious ritual (below) support this reconstruction.Polybius can be regarded as referring specifically to a forum being present in eachhalf of the camp, since he uses the equivalent Greek term of Ct.yopi. (6.31.1). The presenceof an &yop& in camp is also mentioned by Dionysius (Roman Antiquities 5.28) and byJosephus (Jewish Wars 3.83). The usage of the term forum / &Top& for an area in the camppresumably means that its function was similar to that offora in towns. Hence the troopswould assemble in it to hear addresses from the tribunal and it would be near to importantreligious areas (below). The comment by Festus, ubi rerum utensilium forum sit (DeSignificatu Verborum 309L), indicates that the military forum would also have had theequivalent of the civil fora tabernae around the outside of it, from which the troops couldacquire supplies (figs 4,A, 5 and 6).The reference to a forum in a camp is however very unusual in Latin sources (FestusDe Significatu Verborum 309L; Livy 41.2.11). The reason may be associated with the historyof the forum in camp. The probable correspondence between civil fora and militaryprincipia has been noted by von Petrikovits (1975, 140 ff.) and AlfOldy (1986, 71). Hence theforum in camp could have developed into the principia. The principia was the administrative,86

Chapter Threelegal and religious centre of the camp, in short the headquarters, and physically separatefrom the praetorium l . Some of the functions of the principia are however suggested belowas occurring in the praetorium. This 'difference' could result from the principia havingdeveloped out of a combination of the forum and the 'public' areas of the praetoriuin,leaving the accommodation portion of the praetorium as a separate unit (fig. 4). It isuncertain when this development occurred. It seems to have happened by the end of thefirst century BC however, since there are distinct praetorium and principia in Haltern,Oberaden and Marktbreit, all of which could date to the last decade of the first century BC(figs 7 and 8; von Schnurbein 1974, 77 ff.; Pietsch 1991, 303 ff.; Kiihlborn 1991). A periodof between Polybius and the late first century for the development could also be a reasonfor principia rather than forum being the more frequent term encountered in literarysources, as most of the surviving sources date from after the period of the praetorium /forum.The location of the forum is dealt with by Polybius at the same time as an area thatcan be regarded as the quaestorium (e.g. Livy 10.32.9; 41.2.11), since Polybius refers to it asthe quarters of the Taplac and the supplies over which he had charge. They are describedas being behind the tents of the tribunes "in the space around the praetorium" (Walbank1957, 714). Because of the location of the tribunes' tents being along the southern side ofthe praetorium (below; figs 3 and 12), the sense of "around the praetorium" would equateto the forum and quaestorium being located one on the eastern side of the praetorium andone on the western. Hence the Loeb translation, using Polybius' definition of the front ofthe camp, has "to right and left of the praetorium" for these two areas. This distribution isconfirmed by Polybius saying (6.31.2) that the delecti extraordinarii, placed diagonallybehind the last tribune's tent on either side of the camp (below), faced in one case the forumand in the other, the quaestorium. This relationship also suggests that the two areasprobably extended right the way along the back of the tribunes' tents up to the street thatprobably ran past the last tribune's tent and along the face of the delecti extraordinariicavalry and the evocati (below; fig. 3). It seems unlikely that the forum and quaestorium wereany deeper than the praetorium, for Polybius states that a street ran alongside the forum,praetorium and quaestorium (6.31.5; below), implying that the rear face of all of them was1. For example:Command centre — Digest 49, 16, 12; Tacitus Histories 3, 13, 1.Administration and central weapons stores (armamentaria) — epigraphic evidence fromLambaesis and Lanchester, plus finds from principia at Lambaesis, Niederbieber and Stockstadt(von Petrikovits 1975, 68 ff.; Fellmann 1983, 15 ff.; Johnson 1983, 108), but Mann (1992) suggestsartnamentaria may date from the third century AD.Legal matters and punishments — Livy Ab Urbe Condita 28, 24, 5 and Strategemata 4, 1, 16; 4,1, 26 - 28.Religion — Tacitus Annals 1, 39 and 4, 2; Histories 1, 36 and 3, 13; capitolium recorded inprincipia at Aalen (AlfOldy 1986,71); altar from central rear room of principia at High Rochester(RIB 1262).Principia separate from praetorium — Livy Ab Urbe Condita 7, 12, 12; 28, 25, 4; FrontinusStrategemata 2, 5, 30; inscriptions from Birdoswald (RIB 1912) and Rough Castle (RIB 2145).87

Chapter Threein a straight line. Hence, and from the widths that can be reconstructed for the legionaryareas to the south of the praetorium range (below), the resulting rectangular areas of theforum and quaestorium would have been 354 Roman feet from east to west by 240 feet fromnorth to south. This calculated dimension of 354 feet may indicate that its 'real' theoreticalform was in fact 360 feet. This would create areas with sides exactly in the ratio of 3:2 andareas exactly 3 x 2 actus quadrati.Polybius provides no information about the internal layout of theforum or quaestorium.A vague idea about the forum can be formulated by comparing it with civil fora (below).The form of the quaestorium is however uncertain. An indication of the physical form ofthe forum and quaestorium may be provided in Lager III by areas F and Q respectively, butSchulten's interpretation of these areas in this way is highly questionable (below, ChapterFour).Although it can be deduced from Polybius that the forum and quaestorium lay to theeast and west of the praetorium, he gives no indication as to which may have been on whichside. By attempting a reconstruction of the praetorium however, it can be suggested thatthe forum would have been on the eastern side of it and hence the quaestorium on thewestern.Although the internal layout of the praetorium in the camp described by Polybius isnot known, a reconstruction (fig. 4) can be proposed using a combination of other literarysources and the known practices of augury. The tract De Metatione Castrorum (11) says thatthe bottom part of the praetorium contained altars, an auguratorium on the right-hand sidenear to the via principalis and a tribunal on the left-hand side. In this context the tribunalwas used as a platform from which to announce the omens obtained from the augur a toriu mto the assembled troops:Aris institutis in praetorii parte ima, auguratorium parte dextra praetorii ad viamprincipalem apponimus, ut dux in eo aug-urium recte capere possit; parte laevatribunal statuitur, ut augurio accepto insu per ascendit et exercitum felici auspicioadloquatur. (De Metatione Castrorum 11; ed. Grillone 1977)The obvious place for the troops to be assembled to hear the omens and probablyalso importantly to witness the ritual, would be in the forum. It would consequently followthat this area would be on the same side of the praetorium as where the auspices were takenand the tribunal was situated. Since the auspices were taken facing east, it would makesense to place the auguratorium on the eastern side of the praetorium, to prevent the viewfrom being obscured by the consul's tent etc., which would consequently be placed on thewestern side of the praetorium. Hence the forum too would be on the eastern side of thepraetorium (figs 3 and 4,A). Placing the forum on the eastern side, as opposed to placing thequaestorium on this side, would also have aided visibility from the auguratorium, since incamp the forum would probably have been just an open area. In contrast, the tents andstores of the quaestorium would potentially have hindered the view. If east is regarded asthe front of the camp, the comment of De Metatione Castrorum that the auguratorium wason the right-hand side would mean more specifically that it lay in the south-eastern part88

Chapter Threeof the praetorium. This would also mean that the left-hand location in De MetationeCastrorum of the tribunal would place it in the north-eastern part of the praetorium (fig. 4,A).The altars in the praetorium referred to in De Metatione Castrorum (11) are said to bein praetorii parte ima. Tacitus refers to altars being in front of the augurale in camp (Annals15.30.1), by which he presumably means in front of the commander's tent. In additionValerius Maximus records a consul being ante praetorium when a snake appeared at thebase of the altar where he was sacrificing (Fact orum et Dictorum Memorabilium 1.6.4). Noneof these statements is entirely precise about the actual location of the altars relative to theedge of the praetorium area. The phrasing of their position and that of the auguratorium inDe Metaticme Castrorum, as well as the order in which the two features are mentioned inthe tract, could however be taken to mean that the altars, in contrast to the auguratoriumand the tribunal were not near the sides of the praetorium. A possible location for them isbetween the consul's tent and the auguratorium and tribunal, perhaps near the centre of thepraetorium (fig. 4,A). In support of this location would be that it would create a forecourtin front of the altars where appropriate rituals could be performed and both these and thealtars could be seen by troops in the forum without the auguratorium or tribunal obscuringthe view. If the altars were indeed located here, it would leave approximately the westernhalf of the praetorium area for the consul's tent and those of his servants (fig. 4,A).In support of the reconstruction for the praetorium is that it and theforum form a nearexactequivalent to the typical arrangement in cities of a temple, often the capitolium, lyingcentrally at one end of a rectangularforum and with a tribunal nearby (figs 5 and 6). Hencealso the link between fora and the principia, suggested by von Petrikovits and AlfOldy(above).THE TRIBUNES' ACCOMMODATIONAccording to Polybius (6.27.3), the tribunes' tents and those of the troops are placed onthe side of the praetorium "which seems to give the greatest facilities for watering andforaging". While this makes perfect theoretical sense, it must often have presentedpractical difficulties in a double-consular camp, for one half of the camp would probablyhave had worse facilities than the other. In reality probably little emphasis was placed onthese requirements, for to feed such large numbers, immediate forage would have beeninadequate and foraging parties from both armies doubtless had to range quite widely toprocure sufficient food.The side of the praetorium on which the tribunes and troops were placed wasprobably more determined by the topography of the site chosen. This could have allowedonly one way in which the camp could be arranged, if the theoretical scheme of two mirrorimagehalves with the main body of troops being at either end was to be adhered to asclosely as possible. In this connection the topography would also probably dictate theorientation of the camp, with theoretical considerations of, for example facing east(above), the enemy or direction of march (Vegetius Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.23; De MetationeCast rorum 56) being able to act only as guidelines. This can be seen in practice with known89

Chapter ThreeRoman military sites, which appear to have no pattern to their orientation, except that itseems to be dictated by the local topography or some important man-made feature suchas a road or frontier. Exactly the same thing occurred in practice with civil grid systems,where a dominant topographical feature would usually cause the theoretical ideals oforientation upon points of the compass to be overridden and the grid aligned accordingto the physical feature (Ward-Perkins 1974, 40).The twelve tribunes' tents in each consular army were arranged in a straight linealong the side of the praetorium on which the main body of troops was to be encamped(Polybius 6.27.5). The tents were placed 60 feet from the side of the praetorium and pitchedso that they faced the legions encamped before them (Polybius 6.27.5; figs 3 and 12). Thehorses, mules and baggage of the tribunes were placed between the rear of their tents andthe side of the praetorium (Polybius 6.27.5). The tents were pitched at an equal distancefrom one another and so spaced that they extended along the whole breadth of the legions(Polybius 6.27.7). This can be seen in practice in a form slightly adapted for a singleconsulararmy in Lager III and V (below, Chapter Four).Polybius does not state whether the row of tribunes' tents was interrupted anywherealong the side of the praetorium, forum or quaestorium in order to create side entrances intothese areas. For the sake of practicality it would be expected that such entrances existedand were perhaps formed naturally anyway by the gaps between the tribunes' tents (fig.12).ACCOMMODATION FOR THE PRAEFECTI SOCIORUMIn stark contrast to the amount of information given about the tribunes' quarters, Polybiusmakes no mention at all about the nature and location of the tents occupied by the praefectisociorum . This absence could not have been because Polybius did not know of theirexistence, for he mentions them during his description of the army. It is presumablysimply a reflection of the contents in the source that he used for information about thecamp.The location of the praefecti sociorum can be proposed as being in the equivalentlocation relative to the troops under their command as the tribunes. Consequently thepraefecti probably had their tents either side of the tribunes, opposite the allies (figs 3 and12). As there could have been six prae f ecti sociorum attached to each consular army (above),their tents were presumably divided with three on either side of the tribunes.Polybius mentions legati in connection with the arrangements for guards around thecamp (6.35.4; Walbank 1957, 717 f.). These officers, who were members of the consul'sconsilium, are not referred to elsewhere during the digression on the army and Polybiusdoes not state where in the camp these men had their quarters. Perhaps these staff officershad their tents somewhere along the row formed by the tribunes and praefecti sociorum.There would probably have been sufficient space, particularly in the part of the rowoccupied by the praefecti. Placing the legati within the same row of the camp as the tribunesand praefecti is conceivable as this location would be convenient as regards their proximity90

Chapter Threeto the consul and being grouped with the senior officers would be an appropriate positionto match their status.THE VIA PRINCIPAL'SAlong the front of the tribunes' tents was an open strip of ground, 120 feet wide (Polybius6.28.1). Polybius provides no other information about this area except to say (6.33.3) thatit was the general resort of the soldiers during the day, so great care was taken to keep itclean and damped down. This strip of ground was presumably a street, running rightacross the camp, though Polybius does not actually specify this. As such, its width impliesthat it was important, for only one other street, that running parallel to it on the other sideof the praetorium, has the same width. All the other streets are only half as wide. Of thesetwo 120-foot wide streets, presumably the one running along the front of the seniorofficers' tents and along the end of the legions would have been the more important.Hence Polybius could say that it was the centre of activity during the day. Of the campstreet names attested in classical literary sources, the one of via principalis, mentioned byLivy for example (10.33.1), would be appropriate for this street, since the name hasimplications of 'principal'. De Metatione Castrorum (14) suggests the name derived fromthe principia. This is possible, since after the split of the praetorium, and the creation of theprincipia out of part of it and the forum, this street would have passed along the front ofthe principia (below). Alternatively, since a principal street would have existed before theformal creation of the principia, perhaps the origin of the street name is simply a reflectionof its importance. Associating this name with this particular street in the double-consularcamp is supported by De Metatione Castrorum (12 and 14). Here the via principalis isindicated as the name of the street that ran along the front of the praetorium and across thewhole width of the camp. The position relative to the praetorium is admittedly differentfrom the street in the Polybian double-consular camp, but this is merely due to changesthat took place in the transition from the double to the single-consular camp (below).Hence the via principalis of De Metatione Castrorum and the main street between the legionsand the tribunes in the double-consular camp can be suggested as being essentially thesame.THE DISPOSITION OF THE LEGIONSEach turma and maniple was allotted its own area of ground on which to pitch its tents(Polybius 6.28.3). As a result, the turmae of legionary cavalry occupied a total of ten areasand each type of legionary infantry also occupied ten. These groups of ten areas werearranged as a series of north-south rows separated by a number of streets running throughthe camp from the via principalis to the southern side of the camp (below; figs 3 and 12).The square occupied by the first maniple or turma was that lying closest to the tribunes'tents (Polybius 6.34.10), i.e. next to the via principalis, and that occupied by the tenth layat the southern side of the camp by the rampart (Polybius 6.34.8; fig. 3). Polybius refersto the areas occupied by each maniple and turma as having a 'length' and a 'depth'. The91

Chapter Three'length' of the area occupied by each maniple and turma was regarded as the dimensionparallel to the street which the square faced and was 120 feet (Polybius 6.28.4). The 'depth'was the dimension at right-angles to the street and was usually the same as the length(Polybius 6.28.4). Hence Polybius calls the areas squares — ts-cp(xycovov (6.28.3). In the caseof the legions which were above normal strength (above), the length and depth of eachsquare were altered in proportion to provide sufficient space (Polybius 6.28.5). Other thanthis exception, the length of the squares was kept constant, resulting in the ten maniplesof each type of infantry and the ten turtnae forming a regular series of rows across the campand ensuring that a straight line was formed along the end of the units by the rampart,regardless of variations in the size between the different types of unit (Polybius 6.29.5).To compensate for this variation, the depth of the squares was increased or decreasedaccordingly (Polybius 6.29.5).The squares in each line 'faced' the north-south street along which they werearranged (Polybius 6.28.4), except for the tenth csrulaiat which were turned to face the"front of the camp" (Polybius 6.29.9), i.e. the rampart along the southern side. Polybiusnormally uses crrwaia to mean specifically maniple, using oacgiOc to mean turma (e.g.6.29.3 where the difference is clear), so his comment that the tenth ompafat faced the frontof the camp may mean that only the maniples faced this direction and the tenth turmaefaced the street dividing the two legions. The existence of this difference between theinfantry and cavahy is in fact supported by the arrangement of barracks in Lager III(below, Chapter Four). This site also suggests that the barracks of the first maniples weredifferently aligned as well, and faced the via principalis not the north-south street. In effectthe first and tenth maniples would consequently have been arranged in mirror image (fig.12).The rows of ten squares were interrupted between the fifth and sixth maniples andturmae by a street 60 feet wide, running right across the camp from east to west (Polybius6.30.5). Polybius states that this street took its name from the fifth unit and as a result wascalled 'fifth street' — icaXoiicst 7C617CTTIV (6.30.6). This equates to via quintana in Latin (Livy41.2.11; De Metatione Castrorum 17 and 19). The reason for a street here may simply be thatit provided a line of communication exactly halfway through the army. The way it isdescribed by Polybius however, could imply that its position was dictated by it comingafter the fifth maniple and had nothing to do with this being halfway through the block.There may be a connection here with the practices of civil centuriation, to which the gridsystem of camps was related (above), and which could be the origin for the via quintana .In the civil system, every fifth boundary between plots of land was known as a limesactuarius and was a road, theoretically twelve feet wide (Hyginus Gromaticus De LimitibusConstituendis 168 B). The intervening boundaries, the limites linearii, were just demarcationlines (Hyginus Gromaticus De Limitibus Constituendis 168 B) marked by a ditch (ServiusAd Georgica 1.126). The limites actuarii would have been necessary to have allowed themovement of farm vehicles around the fields. Similarly, equivalent roads would havebeen necessary to allow movement of troops around the camp. It is to be expected,92

Chapter Threeconsequently, that the civil system of regular streets every five units may have beenadopted by the military. The military and civil actuarii however did not share the samewidth. The reason for this difference is not difficult to suggest. In the civil context, the lessfarmland taken up by roads the better, so their width would have been kept to the practicalminimum. In camps, there was no such value on the land, but a greater value oncommunications. The streets therefore had to be wide enough to prevent any restrictionson the movement of troops, which consequently necessitated much wider streets thanthose adequate for simple and far less numerous agricultural traffic.The two legions of each consular army were placed on the opposite side of the viaprincipalis to the tribunes' tents (Polybius 6.28.1). The two legions were divided by a street60 feet wide (Polybius 6.28.1), which in effect acted as a line of reflection for the dispositionof the legionary and allied encampments on either side (fig. 3). This street ran at rightanglesto the via principalis and joined it opposite the praetorium, exactly halfway across thecamp from east to west (Polybius 6.28.2; fig. 3). The street was one of a number which ranat right-angles to the via principalis through the encampment of the legions and the allies,starting at the via principalis and ending by the rampart (Polybius 6.30.9; fig. 3). Polybiusdoes not state whether any of these streets had names. De Metatione Castrorum (13) refersto similar streets as viae vicenariae. This name implies an association with the numbertwenty. Hence it is applied to streets, which by deduction from the measurements givenin De Metatione Castrorum, are 20 feet wide. It is unlikely however that this term might havebeen used for their Polybian counterparts as these have no apparent association, either inrespect of their width in terms of Roman feet or their total number, with the numbertwenty. Walbank (1957, 713) says that the street dividing the two legions was the viapraetoria, but for the double-consular camp it can be suggested that this particular namedstreet was the one that linked the two praetoria (below). Since the dividing street ran to theporta decumana (below), it could have been called the via decumana. There is however noevidence for such a name; the common modern use of the term for the street leading tothe rear entrance of a camp, fort or fortress derives solely from its introduction by Schultenin 1927, but he admits there is no classical evidence for it (Schulten 1927b, 107).On either side of the dividing street between the two legions were placed the cavalryof each of the legions, with the turmae of one legion facing those of the other legion on theopposite side of the street (Polybius 6.28.2; fig. 12). Polybius does not specifically commenton the depth, i.e. east-west dimension, of the square occupied by the cavalry turmae. It isusually assumed that their areas were squares and so their depth would be 120 feet. Fromthe evidence of probable cavalry barracks in Lager III however, it can be suggested thatthe cavalry 'squares' were in fact approximately half-sized, with a depth of 72 feet and solike those of the triarii (below).The triarii were placed along the back of the cavalry, with no space between the twotypes of unit and with the triarii facing in the opposite direction to the cavalry (Polybius6.29.3; figs 3 and 12). Polybius states that the depth of the square occupied by each manipleof triarii was made half its length, i.e. 60 feet instead of the normal 120, since these maniples93

Chapter Threewere only half the size of the others and consequently required less room (Polybius 6.29.4).Evidence from Lager III, suggests that instead of a theoretical depth of 60 feet, the depthcould have been 72 feet (below, Chapter Four).The triarii faced a street which was 60 feet wide (Polybius 6.29.6). On the other sideof this street and also facing it, lay the principes (Polybius 6.29.6; figs 3 and 12). Along theback of the principes, with no space in between and facing the opposite direction were thehastati (Polybius 6.29.8; figs 3 and 12). Polybius makes no comment about the depth of thesquares allotted to the maniples of principes and hastati being different from their length,i.e. the two dimensions could be the same; the evidence from Renieblas indeed supportsthese areas being true squares with sides of 120 feet (below, Chapter Four).During his discussion of the legionary encampment, Polybius makes no mention ofwhere the velites had their accommodation. Polybius' comment that the velites wereattached to the maniples (above), could imply that their accommodation was also withinthe area occupied by these units. As Walbank indicates (1957, 718), it would be mostunlikely that these troops encamped outside the camp or along the intervallum as hassometimes been suggested (e.g. by Nissen 1869, 26 n. 2 and 84). The velites perhaps hadtheir tents as a row across the back of each square occupied by the maniple. This can besuggested from the layout of barracks in Lager III, from which a reconstruction of thelayout of the tents of the whole square occupied by each maniple can be formed (below;figs 9 to 11).From what can be ascertained about the Roman order of battle at this time (Keppie1984,38 f.), it appears that the relative position of the three types of infantry in battle, withthe hastati at the front and the triarii at the rear, was maintained in camp. This would makeperfect practical sense as then deployment for battle could be accomplished as smoothlyas possible and internal order would be stronger due to each soldier constantly beingreminded of his proper position.THE LAYOUT OF THE TENTS OF THE LEGIONARY MANIPLESThe only information Polybius provides about how the tents in each area were arrangedis the statement that in the area occupied by each maniple "the first tent on either side isoccupied by the centurions" (Polybius 6.30.5). Polybius' comment about the location ofthe tents of the two centurions in each maniple implies that they lay at the front end of tworows of tents which lay along either side of the square occupied by the maniple (figs 9 and10). With this arrangement, the two centurion's tents would indeed be the first that wereencountered and would lie "on either side" as the area was entered from the street. Eachrow of tents would presumably correspond to one of the two centuries that comprised themaniple and which each centurion commanded (Polybius 6.24.1 ff.). With rows arrangedin this way, it would be quite straightforward to add or subtract tents at the end of eachrow in order to alter the depth of the square, the dimension changed to make the size ofthe square appropriate for the size of unit occupying it (above).94

Chapter ThreeIn support of this reconstruction is the layout of barracks for legionary infantry inLager III. Here there is a row of tents appropriate for accommodating a century down eachside of the area and there are remains suitable for centurions' quarters at the street end ofeach row (below, Chapter Four).In the barracks at Lager III, a further row of contubernia can be interpreted as existingacross the rear of each area occupied by each maniple (below, Chapter Four). The numberof these would be appropriate for providing accommodation for the velites attached to themaniple. The result in each area is an arrangement which would correspond with theorganisation of the maniple. Down each side of the area occupied by a maniple and facingeach other would be the two centuries of heavy infantry. The titles of centurions suggestthat the centuries of each maniple fought as a prior and a posterior century (Keppie 1983,178 f.). Since the prior was the senior, it could have been on the northern side of the area,as this would correspond to the right-hand, i.e. the senior, side of the square with themaniple facing the street. Separate from the heavy infantry in each area, as they were inbattle, would be the light infantry, the velites (figs 9 and 10). In support of this reconstructionis that when the velites disappear, at the time of the creation of the cohort (above), it seemsthat the rear row of con tubernia also disappears and the pattern of closely-placed pairs ofbarrack blocks typical of the Empire emerges (below).This disposition of the tents was probably the only one that would have beenpossible using a grid of squares with sides of 120 feet. A single row aligned north-southin the square would have been prevented by insufficient space for the necessary numberof tents (below). Having two rows in each square parallel to the street is also unlikely, asdeployment of the rear row would be seriously impaired by the tents of the front one. Oneor more rows parallel to the street would also have removed the facility of adapting thesize of the square to the number of troops occupying it, unless the length, i.e. north-southdimension, of the square were altered, but Polybius says this was kept constant regardlessof variation in the size of units (above).The only literary source for the nature and arrangement of tents for infantry is DeMetatione Castrorum. Since this tract may be a compilation of material of different dates(above), it could contain material dating back to the Republic or describe things which hadtheir origin at that time. Conceivably therefore, practices of the double-consular armycould lie within this tract. Links back into the Republic are perhaps suggested by the tentsof a century in De Metatione Castrorum (1) being said to occupy a length of 120 feet, i.e.exactly the same as the depth of a 'standard' square of the Polybian manipular legions.Further, in De Metatione Castrorum (1) it is stated that each tent, known as a papilio, tegithomines VIII. This number may have been current for the manipular army, as it couldderive from the period of the pre-manipular phalanx. In this the files of hoplites eachconsisted of eight men (Pritchett 1971, 134 ff.; Connolly 1981, 37; Keppie 1984, 17).Consequently the tents described in De Metatione Castrorum (1) as being ten feet squarewith two feet allowed for guy-ropes, could also have been the size of tent used by the armydescribed by Polybius.95

Chapter ThreeThe author of De Metatione Castrorum, or his source, clearly believed that the tentshe described could each hold eight men at the same time, for he says that the 80 men inthe century required ten tents, which being twelve feet wide, could be pitched within theallowed distance of 120 feet (De Metatione Castrorum 1). Since however a quarter of thecentury were on night guard duty at any one time, only eight tents were needed (DeMetatione Castrorum 1), but still he must be assuming eight men asleep in each tent at thesame time. It is however impossible to see how a tent of this size could have accommodatedthis number of men simultaneously, though van Driel-Murray (1991) is of a contrary view.If any more than four men are placed across the tent, there would not be sufficient widthfor each one to lie down, let alone sleep. Even if four lie in a row, each man would onlyhave 2.5 feet (0.75 m) in width each, which would be barely sufficient for an adult to sleepin. Further, the tent would not have been big enough for two rows of four. The averageheight of the men must have been over five foot, which would mean that the legs of eachrow would have overlapped in a dovetail fashion. With four men in each row this wouldallow only about 1.25 feet (0.37 m) in width for each person's legs. This would not havebeen viable (unless no-one moved at all in his sleep!). The maximum number of men thatsuch a tent could have accommodated simultaneously is arguably only six. These mencould have slept with adequate room as two rows of three, one down either side of the tent,with their legs overlapping down the middle of the tent (figs 9 toll). Evidence from PenaRedonda and Lager III and V supports six men sleeping at one time in each contubernia.Here several rooms in the barracks contained what appear to have been a group of threecouches. This caused Schulten to interpret such rooms as triclinia. The couches canalternatively be reconstructed as the lower level of six bunk beds in a contubernium (below,Chapter Four). In effect these simply provide more spacious sleeping for two rows of threemen, avoiding the inconvenience of feet overlapping.Potentially against the interpretation of only six men per contubernium is thestatement of De Metatione Castrorum (1) that each tent tegit homines VIII. This is normallyinterpreted as each tent holding or accommodating eight men. The general meaning of theverb tegeo is to cover or shelter (Lewis and Short 1879, 1845 f.). Perhaps in the context ofDe Metatione Castrorum (1) it should be translated as "provided shelter for eight men", butnot with any sense of simultaneously. The potential conflict between eight and six can besimply removed if account is taken of how night guard duties would affect sleepingrequirements.It is stated in De Met atione Cast rorum (1) that in each century, one in four of the menwere on guard duty at night (De Metatione Castrorum 1). In the army of Polybius there wasalso nocturnal guard duty to be performed (Polybius 6.35.1 ff.). From the amount ofinformation that Polybius provides about the night guards it is not possible to ascertainhow many men per maniple were on duty during each watch of the night. Since howeverthere were four watches during the night (Polybius 6.35.11; Propertius Elegies 4.4.63;Frontinus Strategemata 1.5.17) and it would be sensible to distribute the duties equallyamong all the men, it can be suggested that the same proportion of men in the manipular96

Chapter Threearmy was on duty as given in De Metatione Castrorum. Equating this with how it wasoperated in practice, it can be suggested that each contubernium furnished a quarter of itscomplement, i.e. two men, for each watch of the night. This very simple system wouldspread the load fairly on all members of the contubernium and the century. It would alsomean that at any one time only six men of each contubernium would need beds. Hence DeMetatione Castrorum is correct in eight men per tent, but in the sense that eight men wereallocated to a tent, not slept in it at the same time.However, a conflict with De Metatione Castrorum still remains. Because of theproportion of men needed for night duty, the author of De Metatione Castrorum states thatalthough the full century would require ten tents, in practice only eight tents werenecessary. This left sufficient space for the centurion's tent to be fitted into the space of 120feet allowed for the century (De Metatione Cast rorum 1). If six men sleep in each tent, clearlythe eight tents would not provide enough space for the 60 men in the 80 strong centuryrequiring beds. Perhaps this discrepancy results in the author trying to reconcile a numberof sources.If these sources or the information contained within them are regarded as beingfrom different periods however, a different picture emerges. The size of the century wouldbe appropriate to the period after the introduction of the cohort in the late second centuryBC (above, Chapter Two). The information about the tents, on the other hand, would beexactly in keeping with the period of the manipular army described by Polybius andindeed a description of the tent layout for that period can be given using almost the samewords as in De Metatione Castrorum. Polybius attests that the centuries in the maniples ofhas tati and principes were accommodated in areas 120 feet deep and each of these centuriescontained 60 men. If all these men needed to sleep at the same time and since each tentslept six men, ten tents would be needed. Since these were twelve feet wide, ten wouldfit into the 120 feet allowed for the century. A quarter of these men would however be onnight guard duty. As a result only eight tents would be needed for the sleeping 45 men.This would leave sufficient space for the centurion's tent (fig. 10).This pattern of tent accommodation also works for the triarii in the Polybian legion.For these, if all the century wanted to sleep, five six-man tents would be required. Thesecould be pitched exactly within the 60 feet allowed. Since however a quarter would be onnight guard duty, only four tents would be needed, leaving a space for the centurion's tent(fig. 9). Applying the same system to the velites, the 48 in each maniple of hastati andprincipes would require six tents and the 24 with each maniple of triarii would need threetents (figs 9 and 10).Of the three types of heavy infantry and the velites only the velites divide exactly intocontubernia of eight men. For the hastati and principes there are 7.5 con tubernia per centuryand for the triarii 3.75. The existence of different-sized contubernia seems unlikely, as itwould create irregular-sized lines in battle, causing the depth of the maniple to beinconsistent. Perhaps therefore eight and four contubernia for the two sizes of heavyinfantry centuries should be envisaged. This would mean that the centuries of hastati and97

Chapter Threeprincipes were 64 men strong and those of the triarii 32. This compares to the 60 and 30respectively using Polybius' total figures of 1200 for the hastati and for the principes and600 for the triarii (6.21.9). The Polybian figures should as a result possibly be seen asapproximations of the true figures of 1280 and 640; perhaps Polybius was just simplifyingthings for his Greek audience.The barracks of rows A, B and C of Lager III support the suggested reconstructionfor the tents of the maniples of hastati, principes and triarii with their velites (below, ChapterFour). Of these barracks, row A exactly matches barracks for triarii , with ranges down theside of each area consisting of officers' quarters at one end and four contubernia. Thepresence of three contubernia for the velites can also be tentatively reconstructed in theareas of this row. Similarly rows B and C match the requirements of the hastati andprincipes , with side ranges of officers' quarters and eight contubernia and six contuberniaalong the back.With the suggested theoretical reconstruction of the number of tents required by themen in each type of century, the equivalent of two tents is left vacant for the centurion'stent in the centuries of hastati and principes , whereas only one tent is free in the centuriesof triarii. This should probably not be interpreted as the centurions of the triarii havingsmaller tents than those of the other centurions, as the centurions of the triarii would havebeen the more senior in status and so of any of the centurions, would be expected to havehad the larger tents. One possibility is that all the centurions had the equivalent area ofone contubernium for their tent, resulting in a vacant space in the rows of tents of the hastatiand principes . The evidence of Lager III suggests however that all the centurions had anarea equivalent to two contubernia (below, Chapter Four) and consequently this couldhave been the theoretical standard. This would mean that in practice (and indeed theory)the triarii could never have occupied an area 60 feet in depth, but instead 72 feet. Thedimensions of the areas of barracks in Lager III support the departure by the areas of triariifrom the Polybian depth of 60 feet and the existence, perhaps as standard, of the depth of72 feet. In Lager III the areas of the trbrii were approximately 22 x 38.5 m, i.e. 74.3 x 130.1Roman feet and those of the hastati and principes were about 38.5 m square, i.e. 130.1Roman feet square. These dimensions have relatively small margins of error fromtheoretical dimensions of 72 and 120 feet, namely 3.19% and 8.41% respectively. Incontrast, if the 74.3 feet was intended to have been 60 feet the error is very much larger at23.83%. Hence a depth of 72 rather than 60 feet as the 'real' theoretical depth of the triariican be proposed. If this is valid, it clearly means that Polybius unfortunately cannotalways be taken literally, which creates a problem of not knowing where errors might be.Polybius says (6.30.5) that the centurion's tent was at the end of the row occupiedby each century, but otherwise provides no other information about its form. De MetationeCastrorum also lacks information about this tent. All that this tract says is that space wasmade available for the centurion's tent by the two vacant pitches along the row of tents(De Metatione Castrorum 1). From the evidence of this tract alone, the centurion's tent couldhave been the same size as the men's tents, leaving a space between itself and those of the98

Chapter Threesoldiers, as reconstructed by von Domaszewski (1887, Tafel 1,6) and by Grillone (1977, fig.6). Alternatively it could have filled all the vacant space and have been up to twice thelength of the other tents, but of the same depth, as reconstructed by Johnson (1983, fig.126). A further possibility is given by McIntyre and Richmond (1934, 64), who citeevidence of turf screens from Cawthorn to suggest that the centurion's tents wereapproximately 20 feet square. They believe that this is confirmed by De MetationeCastrorum (1) allotting the width of two of the men's tents to the centurion's tent. Usingthis evidence and depictions of different types of tents on Trajan's column, McIntyre andRichmond reconstruct the theoretical scheme of a striga, the area occupied by a pair ofcenturies, as two mirror-image halves (1934, fig. 2). In this reconstruction the centurion'stent takes up the whole of the vacant space at the end of each row of tents and extendsacross the arma and iumenta that existed in front of the men's tents (below). Thisreconstruction parallels the plan of barrack blocks of the Empire, which if a literal.translation into timber of the layout of tented accommodation, makes the reconstructionconceivable, but contrary to McIntyre's and Richmond's claims is not specifically impliedby De Metatione Castrorum (1).Of these various options for the form of the centurion's tent, the evidence from LagerIII favours the Johnson model. At this site, the remains suggest that the centurion'squarters extended over an area equivalent to two contubernia (below, Chapter Four). Mostof the officers' areas in Lager III were the same depth as the neighbouring contubernia.Several however had a small projection, approximately 2 m square, to the front of the area.In two cases, in the northern range of barrack 1 of row B and in the equivalent range ofrow C a similar-sized room was enclosed in an overall larger-projecting officer's block,reminiscent of the common type of projecting officers' end-buildings found in timber andstone barracks of the Empire. In both cases in Lager III, these small square rooms can besuggested as stabling for the centurion's horse.Transferring this evidence to the tented form of centurion's accommodation, it canbe interpreted as indicating that the tent forming his accommodation was 10 x 20 feet, withthe long axis aligned parallel with the adjacent contubernia (figs 9 and 10). To the lengthof 20 feet must be added an amount for the guy-ropes. The comment in De MetationeCastrorum (1) about guy-ropes can be interpreted to mean that one foot was added oneither side of the men's papiliones (Dobson in van Driel-Murray 1991, 371). If however thecenturion's tent was double the length, it could also have been higher, which would meanthat longer guy-ropes would be needed and pegged further away from the wall of the tentthan those of the smaller papiliones. Consequently, as well as the tent itself being doublelength,the space occupied by the guy-ropes could also have been double the men's, i.e.two feet on either side of the tent. The overall space occupied by the centurion's tent wouldconsequently have been 24 feet, exactly double that of the men's tents. The centurion'shorse can be suggested as having been tethered outside the tent, rather than anywhereelse inside or outside the camp, so that it could be on hand immediately (figs 9 and 10).The tethering position then simply in effect became walled around when the centurion too99

Chapter Threewas in walled accommodation. A natural development of this would have been to extendthe officer's living area to the front face of the stable block, as seen in two of the barracksin Lager III. The origin behind projecting officers quarters in barracks of the Empireconsequently was perhaps at least in part simply the provision of enclosed stabling.The use to which the area in front of each maniple's tents was put can be proposedfrom information provided in the first section of De Metatione Castrorum. Here it is statedthat along the front of the tents was an area five feet deep, known as the arma, used forstoring arms and armour. This practice is also referred to by Dionysius (Roman Antiquities5.45). In front of the arma was a strip of ground nine feet deep and called the iumenta. Theuse of the word iumenta in De Metatione Castrorum for this area presumably indicates thatthe heavy baggage and pack animals were kept here, for the word literally means adraught animal or a vehicle (Lewis and Short 1879, 1017). The presence of pack animalsby the tents is implied also by Livy, who refers to them breaking their tethers in panicduring an enemy incursion into a camp when elephants broke down the tents (26.6.10).The remaining 12 feet of space between the two rows of tents in De Metatione Castrorumis allotted to con versantibus. Since the area occupied by the two rows of tents in De MetationeCastrorum is 60 feet wide, compared to the 120 feet of the Polybian scheme, in the latter theconversantibus would have been substantially larger, assuming that the arma and iumentawere the same size as in De Metatione Castrorum. For all the Polybian manipular areas theconversantibus would have been 72 feet from north to south. Since there was a row of velitestents across the rear of each area and these too would presumably have had arma andiumenta, the conversan films would have been 96 feet from east to west for the areas of hastatiand principes (fig. 10). For the areas occupied by the triarii the conversantibus would havemeasured 48 or 36 feet from east to west, according to whether a theoretical depth of 72or 60 feet for these areas is accepted (above; fig. 9).THE LAYOUT OF THE TENTS OF THE LEGIONARY CAVALRYPolybius provides no information at all about how the tents of the legionary cavalry werearranged. He does not even provide the location of the decurions, despite saying wherethe centurions had their tents; when talking about the centurions, Polybius uses the wordsarataiccv and Tc4ictpxot (6.30.5), which elsewhere (Polybius 6.29.3; 6.24.5) can be seen torefer only to maniples and centurions respectively. Unfortunately little can be derivedfrom De Metatione Castrorum as the details of the cavalry tents are not discussed in thesurviving portion of the text. All that is mentioned about cavalry encampments in thistract is that the decurions of the auxiliary cavalry had their own tents (De MetationeCastrorum 27). The only source of evidence for these areas is the remains in Lager III(below, Chapter Four).In Lager III, the barracks of row K can be reconstructed as a series of areas occupiedby legionary cavalry. Each of these areas seems to have consisted of three ranges, arrangedlike a horseshoe along the two sides and the rear of the area. The three ranges presumablycorrespond to the three decuriae making up the turma. The remains of each range allow a100

Chapter Threereconstruction of three contubernia with quarters about the same size as a contubernium forthe decurion at one end. The rear ranges seem to have contained one or two extradivisions. The layout of each contubernium would be appropriate for combinedaccommodation for three men in the rear part and their horses in the front. The stablingof horses within installations has often been questioned. It is likely however that it didoccur in both camp and fort. The occurrence of the practice in camp and specifically thatthe horses were kept within the area occupied by each turma, rather than elsewhere insideor outside of the camp, is attested by Polybius who says that during the day and the nighteach maniple of triarii guarded the horses of the turma behind it, made sure they did notget entangled in their tethers and ensured that they did not break loose to cause confusionin the camp (6.35.2; 6.33.10 f.). This would place the horses in a secure position, protectedfrom theft by the enemy and reducing the likelihood to stampede (Dixon and Southern1992, 194). In practice, placing the horses with the turma probably meant that the horsesassociated with the occupants of each tent would have been tethered in front of the tents.The area used for this could correspond exactly to the iumenta of the infantry areas, sincethis included having horses placed within it (above; fig. 9). This would have resulted ina very practical arrangement, with the riders always being near their mounts. Thecontinuation of this practice in barracks seems likely for the same practical reasons.Indeed it is being attested increasingly by the finding of buildings which can beinterpreted as combined barrack and stable blocks, for example at Dormagen (Muller1979), Krefeld-Gellep (Reichmann pers. comm.; Pirling 1986, 18), Usk (Marvell 1989 andpers. comm.) and pits in the Flavian phase of building 6 at Oberstimm (Schiinberger 1978)can be re-interpreted as being soakaways for stables, making it a combined barrack andstable block of the Dormagen type.Each range in Lager III could consequently accommodate the nine men and thedecuiion of a decuria. The one or two extra divisions in the rear ranges could have beenused as stabling for remounts or sick horses. The three ranges would consequently becapable of sleeping all the men of the turma at the same time. This differs from the infantry.The difference may be due to the cavalry not having any night guard duties to perform.This is possible as Polybius makes no mention of the cavalry having such guard duties,only that four men from the cavalry were involved with going the rounds (6.35.8). Sincethe contubernia of the cavalry barracks were similar in size to those of the infantry, placingonly three men in those of the cavalry in effect gave these men twice as much space. Asimilar difference occurs in De Metaticme Castrorum (26), where two-and-a-half times thearea is allotted to the cavalry compared to the infantry. This difference may reflect therelative status of the two. Alternatively it could have derived from shear practicality. Thecavalry would need to store bulky equipment, such as saddles and tack out of the rain.The area of the arma outside the tent would not have been suitable for this, but as an areait would probably still have been needed. The pieces of equipment needing dry storageconsequently could only be kept in the tent and would obviously take up much room,reducing the amount of space available for sleeping.101

Chapter ThreeIf it is assumed that the stone barracks in Lager III simply represent a 'walled form'of what would have occurred using tents, a picture of the tented practice can be proposed(fig. 9). Each area occupied by a turma would have consisted of three rows of tentsarranged as a horseshoe along the sides and rear of the area, with the rear row set backfrom the end of the side rows to provide optimum access. Each row would have containedfour tents, one for the decurion, who De Metatione Castrorum (27) attests had his own, andthree tents for the men with three men in each. Outside each tent would have been thehorses associated with the occupants of the tent. At one end of the rear row of tents, spareand sick horses could have been tethered.The tents could have been the same size as those used for the infantry, sinceprobably sufficient space for the dry storage of saddles would have been provided by onlythree and not six men sleeping in the tents. The relative size of the decurions' quarters inLager III suggests that the tents of the decurions would have been about the same size asthe contubernia, which would make them smaller than those of the centurions. Of the threedecurions present in the turma, the most senior had overall command of the turma and thesecond decurion commanded the turma in the absence of the first (Polybius 6.25.2). Thelocation of the first decurion's tent was perhaps next to the street on the northern side ofthe area and that of the second decurion opposite the first on the southern side. This wouldcorrespond to the practice proposed for the prior and posterior centuries of infantry(above). The third decurion would consequently be at the rear of the area, which beingequivalent to the location of the velites could be regarded as the j-uniormost locationaround the area occupied by either a maniple or turma.The areas occupied by the turmae in Lager III were the same size as those of the triarii.If these were laid out with the same margin of error as those of the infantry, which is likely,it would mean that the cavalry areas had a theoretical dimension of 72 x 120 feet. Thedepth, i.e. from east to west, of 72 feet is approximately half that usually interpreted asbeing allowed the cavalry by Polybius (below). A depth of this size would however beentirely appropriate for four tents down the side of the area and a row of tents across therear, with the rear row not obstructing access to the side tents (fig. 9). The length of 120feet, i.e. from north to south, would also be perfect for the proposed layout of tents: fourtents and the equivalent area of two tents for remounts across the rear of the area, a totalof 72 feet, plus the two side rows with their arma and iumenta, 24 feet on each side, makinga total of exactly 120 feet.As a result, the normal reconstruction of the Polybian camp with cavalry areas 120feet square can be questioned. Instead these areas should perhaps be regarded as being72 x 120 feet (fig. 9). A similar error by Polybius could be claimed also for the areasoccupied by the triarii (above). Perhaps however Polybius is not wrong, just misleadingor he has misunderstood his source. In the section where he discusses the shape and sizeof the areas occupied by the legions, he says:The manner of encamping the cavalry and the infantry is very similar, thewhole space occupied by the maniples and turmae being a square. This square102

Chapter Threefaces one of the streets or viae and is of a fixed length of one hundred feet (i.e.120 Roman feet),... (Polybius 6.28.3f.; Loeb translation)Perhaps what is really meant here is that a maniple of triarii and a turma togetheroccupy an area which forms a square. With each occupying an area 72 x 120 feet, theoverall shape is approximately square, being 144 x 120 feet. The usual understanding ofthis sentence is to think that Polybius is referring to the encampment of the whole legionas being a square. This interpretation can be questioned, as the meaning of "whole" withinthe sentence would then not make sense with the sentence that follows; this says that thesquare usually has sides of 120 Roman feet. Hence reconstructing the legionary cavalryareas as 72 x 120 feet may not in fact conflict with Polybius.THE DISPOSITION OF THE MAIN FORCE OF ALLIESThe cavalryThe hastati faced a street 60 feet wide and on the other side of this and facing it were theallied cavalry (Polybius 6.30.1). Polybius provides very little information about how thiswas arranged. He says that the length of the allied encampment, i.e. from north to south,was the same as that of the legions, starting from and finishing at the same points (6.30.1).He also points out that the number of cavalry in the main allied force, after a third of allthe allied cavalry had been deducted for the extraordinarii, was double that of the Romancavalry in each legion (above). To take account of this difference, while keeping the lengthof the encampment constant across the camp, the depth of the space allotted to the cavalrywas increased in proportion (Polybius 6.30.3). Polybius does not actually specify theresulting depth nor does he say how the space was arranged.Since after the deduction of the extraordinarii, the main force of allied cavalry wasdouble the legionary and the allied and legionary cavalry were probably both organisedaround the same turma structure, presumably it would mean that the resulting 40 turmaeforming the main force of allied cavalry in each ala would have been encamped as 20turmae down either side of the camp. It is uncertain how this may have been put intopractice. One possibility that would meet Polybius' comments about the allied cavalryencampment is that the allied cavalry were arranged on either side of the legions as twoback-to-back rows of ten turmae, with the layout of the tents of each turmae and the sizeof their areas being the same as those of the legionary cavalry (figs 9 and 12). In supportof this arrangement is that it simply continues the practice of back-to-back rows used inthe legionary encampment. The back-to-back arrangement would mean that one rowfaced the north-south street that ran past the front of the hastati. In order to create accessto and from the other row, it must have fronted a north-south street, presumably 60 feetwide like the others, running between it and the allied infantry (below; figs 3 and 12).Polybius does not mention the existence of such a street however. This could speakagainst the suggested overall interpretation for the allied cavalry. Alternatively theomission may simply be due to Polybius' source giving only the vaguest details about theallied encampment. This is a strong possibility, for compared to the legionary areas, thewhole section of the description dealing with the allies is rather sketchy in nature.103

Chapter ThreeThe proposed arrangement for the allied cavalry receives a measure of support fromthe reconstruction of Lager III. Here the barracks of row D would match those of a rowof allied cavalry arranged in the manner suggested, opposite the hastati (below, ChapterFour). A difference at Lager III however is that only a single row of ten turmae appears tohave been present. The lack of a second row could simply be due to the relative amountof cavalry being below the theoretical strength. The practice of having a row of back-tobackturmae may nevertheless have existed, as such rows can be reconstructed at Lager Vand at Pena Redonda (below, Chapter Four). This evidence is however of limited valuefor supporting the suggestion of a double row for the allied cavalry opposite hastati, as atthese two sites the rows are not in the relative location specified by Polybius and the siteat Pena Redonda may have been for a cohort rather than manipular-organised army.The infantryPolybius says that the main force of allied infantry was placed behind the allied cavalryand facing in the opposite direction, towards the defences down the sides of the camp(6.30.4). Polybius does not give any details about the layout of the infantry areas, otherthan merely saying that the depth of the space was in proportion to the number of infantry(6.30.4); what this was as an actual dimension is not specified however.Each ala of the main allied infantry force, after the extraordinarii had been deducted,comprised 16 maniples of each type of infantry (above). These were presumably dividedequally on either side of the legions, so that eight maniples of each type were encampedon the outer side of the main force of allied turmae. Since the allied encampment was thesame length as the legions, the presence of only eight rows of allied maniples would meanthat each maniple's area would have been 150 feet from north to south instead of 120 feet.This would not have caused any problems with preserving the line of the via quintana orthe straight line across the southern end of the rows of tents, since four 150 feet areas arethe same length as five 120 feet ones (fig. 3). The barracks of rows C and E in Lager III atRenieblas, in which barracks 1 to 5 of row C are opposite barracks 1 to 4 of row E (fig. 24;below, Chapter Four), indeed support this 'four against five' arrangement.The three types of maniples in these 150 feet areas could have been arranged as threerows either side of north-south streets in exactly the same manner as the three types oflegionary maniples. Evidence from Lager III and V suggests however that a differentpractice may have been used. At these two sites, by the rampart where Polybius says theallied infantry was located, the barracks form distinct areas which can each be interpretedas having been occupied by one of all three types of maniple with their velites (fig. 59,1;below, Chapter Four). The same arrangement can be reconstructed in a tented form andin areas which would comply with the theoretical 150 feet available from north to southin the Polybian camp (fig. 11). The dimensions of these areas compare favourably with theareas in Lager III. The theoretical tented areas are 44.4 x 78.1 m. The areas in Lager III wereon average 56 m by between 80 and 96 m. The differences between the two forms can beexplained by the areas in Lager III possibly having the range for the velites of the hastati104

Chapter Threeand principes placed between the side ranges rather than to the rear of them. If the tentedform also had the velites tents between the side rows, the areas would become 56.8 macross, i.e. basically the same as those in Lager III, but this would make them too wide forthe available theoretical width of 150 feet (44.4 m). The problem of the areas being too widein Lager III is in fact revealed by barracks 1 to 4 of row E taking up more space than thelegionary maniples 1 to 5 opposite them (fig. 24).In effect these areas containing one maniple of each type of infantry each correspondin composition to the later cohort (above, Chapter Two). The practice of encamping thesetroops together perhaps forms the origin to the use of cohors to describe such a unit oftroops. The word cohors literally meant a place enclosed around (Festus De SignificatuVerborum 146L, who refers to an enclosure, cohors, of Punic huts), a pen or yard (Varro DeRe Rustica 1.13.2). The arrangement of one maniple of all three types of infantry beingencamped or enclosed in one area could consequently be appropriately referred to by theterm cohors. Hence usage of the term could have developed to be applied to such agrouping of troops as an organisational and tactical concept. From this, since the legionsin the Polybian camp were still clearly arranged as maniples, it can be suggested that theallied infantry led the way in the creation of the cohort as a unit and the legions followed.Why the allies should have made the change first is however not clear. Perhaps theseembryonic allied cohorts emerged first in camp, as an efficient use of space (hence the useof cohors to describe this grouping of troops, i.e. a unit of troops within a defined/enclosedarea of the camp), rather than on the battlefield, but then it was realised that such acombination made a good tactical grouping as well. The efficiency of space in camp canbe seen in the overall east-west dimension, which using the legionary manner of threerows and a street would have been 370 feet, but in the all-in-one area was only 264 feet.If also the allies had been allowed three separate rows, the areas being 150 feet instead of120 feet from north to south would have openly given each allied maniple more space thantheir legionary counterpart. Such inequality is unlikely to have been allowed. As it was,the width of the velites of the hastati and principes, being 144 feet, was very close to the 150feet available and so there would have been no obvious indications of unfair treatment.In reality however the three allied maniples grouped together actually did have moresquare footage available — 39,600 compared to the total of 37,200 for the three equivalentlegionary maniples.It is not clear when the practice began of placing all three allied maniples into acohort, in the true sense of the word as a group enclosed in the same area. Its use in LagerIII attests its adoption by the mid-second century. It could have begun earlier than thishowever. Since the occasional tactical use of cohorts may have begun in the late thirdcentury (above, Chapter Two), the existence of allied cohorts in camp could also haveexisted at this time. The practice might consequently have occurred in the doubleconsularcamp as described by Polybius, which could date to this period (above). Perhapsallied cohorts also existed before this, but as just administrative units.105

Chapter ThreeTHE POSITION OF THE DELECTI EXTRAORDINARII AND EVOCATIDuring the description of the camp, Polybius refers to select allied cavalry, infantry andvolunteers (6.31.2 ff.). These presumably correspond to the delecti extraordinarii cavalry,infantry and the evocati (above). Since the sources do not suggest that the evocati werecomposed of just infantry or just cavalry, but both (Tsidorus Etymologiae 9.3.54; CaesarBellum Civile 1.3), presumably the 'volunteers' referred to by Polybius can be taken tomean both infantry and cavalry, though Polybius is not completely precise over this.From Polybius' description of the position of the cavalry of the delecti extraordinariiand the evocati, it appears that they lay on either side of the area occupied by thequaestorium, praetorium and forum, for they are described as facing on the one hand thequaestorium and on the other, the forum (6.31.2; fig. 3). Presumably the troops facing thequaestorium were attached to the quaestor and those facing the forum, to the commandingofficer. Polybius does not specify whether there was a street running between these troopsand the quaestorium or forum. A street here would however be required to allow access toand from the areas occupied by these troops. In effect the street would be a continuationof the one running between the hastati and allied cavalry (fig 3). Its existence would alsohelp explain Polybius' otherwise rather confusing comment that the delecti extraordinariicavalry and the evocati were placed at an angle to the rear of the last tribune's tent at eitherend of their row of tents (6.31.2).Polybius says that the infantry of the delecti extraordinarii and the evocati were placedback-to-back with the cavalry and faced the rampart down the sides of the camp (6.31.4).There was seemingly no space between the infantry and the cavalry (fig. 3).Polybius provides no information about how the areas occupied by the cavalry andinfantry of the delecti extraordinarii and the evocati were arranged nor even the relativeposition of the two groups within either the cavalry or the infantry area. The order in thesentence may however be indicative of their physical relationship to the tribunes, i.e. theevocati were further away than the delecti extraordinarii (fig. 3). Since the delecti extraordinariicavalry could have consisted of a single turma facing the quaestorium and theforum (above),their area could have been arranged identically to the legionary and other allied turmae.The long axis of this 72 x 120 feet rectangle would have been north-south since these troopsare said by Polybius to face either the quaestorium or the forum (fig. 12). The evocati cavalrymay also have occupied the same sized area, since the overall north-south dimension ofthe quaestorium, praetorium and forum block was 240 feet and the delecti extraordinariicavalry and evocati would also have had the same space in this direction; it was limited bythe row of praefecti sociorum tents to the south and a street ran right across the camp alongthe northern side of the quaestorium, praetorium and forum block (below; fig. 12). The delectiextraordinarii infantry, possibly being the equivalent of a cohort in composition (above),could have occupied an area of similar size and arrangement to the cohorts of the mainforce of allied infantry (fig. 12). If however the evocati infantry were similarly organised,the overall width of 240 feet available from north to south would have meant that if thetwo groups of infantry were given the same amount of space each, each cohort would have106

Chapter Threehad 30 feet less space in this direction than the main allied cohorts. In practice this maynot have been a problem, since it meant that only two tents of the velfies of the hastati andprincipes would have had to have been moved, for which there would have been space inthe conversantibus.THE POSITION OF THE EXTRAORDINARIIAn unnamed street, 120 feet wide, ran across the whole width of the camp along thenorthern side of the areas occupied by the delecti extraordinarii, evocati, quaestorium,praetorium andforum (Polybius 6.31.5; fig. 3). The ordinary extraordinarii were placed to thenorth of this street (Polybius 6.31.6). The disposition is unfortunately dealt with in sucha cursory manner by Polybius (6.31.6 ff.), that the precise nature of the arrangements ofthe extraordinarii is uncertain. Next to the broad east-west street and facing it, were thetents of the extraordinarfi cavalry (6.31.6). Back-to-back with these and facing north werethe tents of the extraordinarii infantry (6.31.8). Polybius states that the area occupied by thecavalry and thus by implication also that of the infantry, was divided by a 60 foot widestreet which ran at right-angles to the broad east-west street located directly behind thepraetorium (6.31.7). Presumably what Polybius is describing is a centrally-located streetwhich divided the extraordinarii. Its relative east-west location would correspond to thestreet dividing the cavalry of the two legions to the south of the praetorium (figs 3 and 12).The extent of the extraordinarii to the east and west of the north-south street thatdivided them is not clear. Polybius states that the extraordinath cavalry faced thequaestorium, praetorium and forum (6.31.6). This may be an indication of how far theirencampment extended to the east and west, i.e. no further than the sides of the quaestoriumand the forum. Certainly the extraordinarii could not have stretched right the way acrossthe northern part of the camp, because foreign troops were encamped either side of theextraordinarii (below). Perhaps the extraordirzath extended as far as a street which may haveexisted as a continuation of the one separating the hastati and allied cavalry and possiblyalso the delecti extraordinarii / evocati and quaestorium / forum (fig. 3). This would haveprovided the extraordinarii with an area measuring 440 feet from east to west on either sideof the dividing north-south street.Since the ordinary extraordinarii may have consisted of 18 turmae and two of eachtype of maniple (above), their encampment presumably consisted of them being dividedequally on either side of the north-south street, resulting in nine turmae and three manipleson either side. In order to fit into an area 440 feet from east to west and have at least someof the cavalry facing the broad east-west street, since Polybius comments that they facedthis street, a suitable configuration would be as three rows of three turmae (figs 3 and 12).The southernmost row would face the east-west street. Back-to-back with it and facingnorth would be the second row. The third row would then face the second, but separatedfrom it by a street in order to allow access. If the turmae were placed in the usual areas of72 x 120 feet, they would fit into the space of 440 feet with room to spare. The threemaniples on either side of the north-south street could have been arranged as a cohort, in107

Chapter Threethe manner of the units in the main force of allied infantry. This would not however be anefficient use of space. With the cohort facing north, in order to comply with Polybius'comment about the direction faced by the extraordinarii infantry, there would be a largevacant space to one side of it behind the extraordinarii cavalry. A better use of space wouldbe to arrange the three maniples side-by-side rather in the manner of the legionarymaniples (fig. 12). The three areas each being 120 feet from east to west would then exactlycorrespond with the space occupied by the extraordinarii cavalry.In support of this reconstruction for the extraordinarii encampment, to a limitedextent, is the interpretation of a similarly-arranged area in the eastern part of Lager III asbeing the barracks occupied by the extraordinarii in a suitably adapted form for a singleconsulararmy (below, Chapter Four).FOREIGN TROOPSAt the end of the section dealing with the extraordinarii, Polybius states that foreign troopsand any additional allies were placed in the remaining areas on either side of the camp(6.31.9). The details of how these troops were arranged are not provided. This ispresumably in part because they would have had to have been flexible in order to matchthe changing and possibly irregular composition of such troops. As a result, a detailedreconstruction of these areas is not possible and even the overall size of them can only besuggested by reference to the limits indicated by neighbouring areas (fig. 3).THE JUNCTION OF THE TWO HALVES OF THE DOUBLE-CONSULAR CAMPPolybius says that the junction of the two halves of the camp occurs by the areas occupiedby the extraordinarii infantry in each half of the camp (6.32.6). The exact nature of thejunction is not specified. Since the extraordinarii infantry of the two halves would havefaced one another, there would presumably have at least been a street separating the twogroups of infantry, to provide each with a means of access to and from their tents. It ispossible however that there was more than simply a street separating the two halves ofthe camp. When describing the direction in which the ordinary extraordinarii infantryfaced, Polybius says this was towards the rear of the camp (i.e. of one half of the doubleconsularcamp) and the palisade (xi5cpa) which was here (6.31.8). 13y palisade, Polybiuspresumably means simply some form of light fence, which would also correspond withthe notion of 'boundary', the presence of which in this position is referred to by Polybiuswhen discussing the position of the junction of the two halves of the camp (6.32.6);Polybius is unlikely to be referring to full-scale defences here as these would beinappropriate in such a location and a possible hindrance to movement in an emergency.The purpose of the boundary fence was perhaps to provide a physical line of demarcationbetween the two armies, clearly indicating where the authority of one set of officers endedand that of the other started. It was perhaps also designed to reduce the risk of inter-armyrivalry taking on an unpleasant physical form, by keeping the two armies apart andcontrolling movement between them.108

Chapter ThreeIt is uncertain how far the conjectured fence would have been from the extraordinariiinfantry of each army. Polybius says that a gap of 240 feet was left between the tents andthe palisade on all sides of the camp (6.31.11). This gap was known as the intervallum (DeMetaticme Castrorum 14). If by a gap of 240 feet being left 'on all sides' Polybius means thatthe rear of each half of the camp is to be included, and there is nothing to suggest that itshould not be, for at this point in the text Polybius is still speaking in terms of only halfof the double-consular camp, this would mean that the fence between the two armies lay240 feet from each group of extraordinarii infantry (fig. 3). Consequently the two armieswould have been as much as 480 feet apart. The provision of such a large gap between thetwo armies would agree with Polybius describing the four-legion camp as being oblongin shape with double the area and one-and-a-half times the circumference as theencampment that he has been describing (6.31.7). If the gap between the two armies wereany less than 480 feet, these statements about the comparative physical properties of thefour-legion camp could not be made, as the area would be less than double and thecircumference less than one-and-a-half times as much.The creation of such a large gap between the two armies seems to be quiteunnecessary, unless it were required for the cattle and booty brought into the camp for safekeeping during the night (6.31.13). Polybius says that these were kept in the area betweenthe tents and the defences (6.31.13). This may not however mean the intervallum down thesides and across the ends of the whole camp, because this area was used for assemblingthe troops before they advanced out of the camp (Polybius 6.31.12) and it was alsodesigned to take the tents beyond the range of missiles thrown over the defences (Polybius6.31.14). If the cattle and booty were placed in the vacant area behind the defences downthe sides and across the ends of the camp, they would have hindered possible troopmovement and also opened themselves to being struck by missiles thrown over thedefences. In practice therefore, perhaps the cattle and booty belonging to each army werekept in the gap between the extraordinarii infantry and the dividing fence, where theywould be out of the way of most troop movement and safe from missiles. Hence there mayhave been a need to have had the gap between the two armies so wide.DEFENCESPolybius refers to camp defences very little during the digression. He mentions a palisade(xCipa) to indicate the relative location of troops (6.30.4; 6.31.2; 6.31.4), when discussingthe width of the intervallum (6.31.11) and he says that the velites mounted guard along this(6.35.5). A discussion of the type of stakes used by the Greeks and Romans for the palisadeof a camp is presented by Polybiu.s in his discussion of Flarrdninus' campaigns in Thessalyin 198 BC (18.18.1 ff.) and shows that an early form of pilum murale was in use by this time(Caesar Bello Gallico 5.40; 7.82; and discussed in depth, for example, by Conrads (1927) andBeeser (1979)). A ditch is referred to in the context of how the troops were organised andsupervised to construct the defences (6.34.1 ff.) and when he compares the Greek andRoman approach to the provision of defences (6.42.5), but unfortunately no details of itssize or shape are given.109

Chapter ThreeAn idea of the physical form of the defences that could be provided around campsfrom the mid-second century BC, and conceivably also earlier, is provided by theNumantine sites. Raza and Lager IV, for example, suggest the slight nature of the defencesof a 'temporary' summer tented camp, contrasting with the substantial and relativelyelaborate stone-built defences of the winter quarters/siege camps of, for example, theBlue phase of Castillejo or Lager III and V (below, Chapter Four). For all the Numantinesites there are, however, no examples of ditches, just ramparts and entrances. This couldsimply be because Schulten failed to find or notice any ditches, rather than that they werenot actually present. Schulten's questionable ability to recognize ditches is indicated, forexample, at Almazan where he identified a hollow as the area from where stones for therampart had been extracted rather than a ditch (1929, 188); the 1968 excavations revealedthe same feature to be a 1.8 m deep, 'V'-shaped ditch (Gamer and Frfas 1969, 177). Schultendid however uncover ditches at Caceres el Viejo, though here they are still clearly visible,cut into the rock, so it would have been difficult to overlook them (Ulbert 1984, 17 ff.).ENTRANCESPolybius' discussion of the Roman camp includes only two references to entrances. Theseboth concern the guards, the velites, who were stationed at these points (6.35.5; 6.36.2).Neither reference states how many entrances there were, nor what their names may havebeen. Their physical form is not alluded to, except that, not surprisingly, they must havebeen much simpler in form to city gates. This is implied by when Polybius compares acamp with a city (6.41.10 ff.), he uses the word gaco }La, meaning 'gate', for the city'sentrances, but eicy o o c, literally 'entrance', with implications of simplicity of form, whenreferring to the passageways through the camp defences. In Latin, there seems to havebeen no such difference in terminology, for as defined by Isidorus (Etymologiae 15.2.22) allentrances whether in towns or camps were called porta.An indication of the physical form of entrances from the mid-second century, andconceivably earlier and used by double-consular armies, is provided by the Numantinesites. The presence of a titulus in front of an interruption along the rampart at Raza, LagerIV and VII, suggests that this was a common form of entrance for 'temporary' summercamps. The inclusion of a titulus at Lager VI also indicates that this defensive feature couldbe used for hibernae. The apparent absence at the other Numantine sites of tituli mayconsequently be due to lack of survival or they were not looked for carefully by Schulten.As yet there is no evidence for claviculae, as found in camps of later periods. The inturneddefended entrance passageways at Lager III also show that by the mid-second century,entrances could become quite elaborate when circumstances required.Despite the lack of information in Polybius, the position and name for the entrancesaround the double-consular camp can be suggested from other classical literary sources.110

Chapter ThreePorta praetoriaIn classical literary sources there are numerous references to a porta praetoria (e.g. Livy40.27.3; Caesar Bellum Civile 3.94). In De Metatione Castrorum this entrance is placed at thefront of the camp, with the via praetoria leading to it:item via, quae ducit ad portampraetoriam - a praetorio sine dubio via praetoria du citu r(De Metatione Castrorum 14; ed. Grillone)In this tract, the via praetoria runs at right-angles to the via principalis from oppositethe praetorium. In the Polybian camp the equivalent street is the one which divides the twolegions of each consular army. If this were called the via praetoria, according to thedefinition given in De Metatione Castrorum it would lead to the porta praetoria. This entrancein the double-consular camp is however more likely to have been called the porta decumanaand not porta praetoria (below). According to the definition of the via praetoria therefore, inthe double-consular camp it could not have been the street which ran between the twolegions; it would have led to the wrong entrance.The location for the via praetoria and the presence of a porta praetoria at one end of itas stated in De Metatione Castrorum may not have existed until the single-consular camp(below). In the Polybian double-consular camp, both may have existed, but with quite adifferent form.With the back-to-back arrangement of the two halves of the camp as described byPolybius, the streets which divided the ordinary extraordinarii of each consular armywould have joined one another and would have provided an uninterrupted route fromthe rear of one praetorium to the rear of the other (fig. 3). Because it linked these two areas,and De Metatione Castrorum says that the name of the via praetoria derived from praetorium,perhaps this linking street was the location of the street known by the name of via praetoriain the double-consular camp.With the via praetoria in this position in the Polybian camp, linking the two praetoria,there clearly could not have been a porta praetoria in the sense of an external entrance. Aninternal 'entrance' of this name could however have existed where the street passedthrough the fence that separated the two halves of the camp (fig. 3).Porta principalisThere would probably have been an entrance at either end of the street that ran along thesouthern side of the praetorium. It has been suggested above that this street was knownas the via principalis. In De Metati one Castrorum (14) it is stated that the street of this nameran between two entrances, known as the porta principalis dextra and porta principalissinistra. Livy also refers to entrances with these names (4.18.8; 34.46.7 and 9; 40.27.4 f.). Theprincipalis part of the name must derive from the location of the entrance at the end of astreet with that name. The 'suffixes' of right and left were presumably attached to thename to be able to distinguish between them. The appropriate entrance to which each ofthese suffixes was to be attached presumably corresponded to their position relative to111

Chapter Threesomeone standing outside the praetorium and facing the front of the camp. In the doubleconsularcamp however, since the camp's front can be suggested as being to the east andthe via principalis was aligned east-west (above), the adjectives of right and left for itsentrances could not have been used. Only with the introduction of the single-consularcamp would these terms comply with the orientation of the camp and so might date fromthat period, not any earlier. If any adjectives were to be applied to the entrances at the endof the via principalis in the double-consular camp the most likely would have been posticaand antica. There is however no evidence to confirm the existence of these terms.Porta quintanaIt is possible that there was an entrance at either end of the via quintana (fig. 3). This issuggested by De Metatione Castrorum (17), in which it is stated that the via quintana couldhave entrances at either end. The tract refers to these entrances as portae quintanae.Entrances of this name are also mentioned by Priscianus (De Figuris Numerorum 26) andby Festus (De Significatu Verborum 309L). As with the entrances at either end of the viaprincipalis taking their name from the street, it appears that those at either end of the viaquintana did the same. Unlike the portae principales however, the portae quintanae do notappear to have had distinguishing suffixes of left and right, despite the similarity of theposition of the two types of entrance. Perhaps the suffixes did exist, but are simply lackingin the available sources. If they were used, for the same reason as those attached to the viaprincipalis entrances, they would be unlikely to have come into use prior to the existenceof the single-consular camp.Both De Metatione Castrorum and Festus speak of the portae quintanae as being in therear part of the camp, behind the praetorium. In the Polybian double-consular camp the viaquintana and thus its entrances were to one side of the praetorium. The contrast can beaccredited to what happened when the double camp became a single one (below). In DeMetatione Castrorum (17) it is stated that portae quintanae need only exist, if the size of thearmy warranted it. In the double-consular Polybian camp there may not have been suchchoice and perhaps these entrances were standard. They would possibly always havebeen necessary due to the number of troops in each half of the camp, which wouldotherwise have had only three entrances through which to deploy. In contrast, the armyin De Metatione Castrorum had four entrances excluding the portae quintanae.Porta decumanaIn the sources there are many references to a porta decumana (e.g. Livy 3.5.5 and 10.32.9;Caesar Bellum Civile 3.69; Bello Gallic° 2.24). There was clearly a link between this entranceand the number ten, for Priscianus uses it as an example when discussing -anus endingsto Latin numbers (De Figuris Numerorum 26). Also, in De Metatione Castrorum (18) theproximity of the tenth cohorts to an entrance is offered as the reason for this particularname being given to that entrance. The concept of the porta decumana being located near112

Chapter Threeto the tenth units of the legion can be extended to the Polybian camp by suggesting thatan entrance of this name existed by the tenth maniples and turmae in each half of the camp.It presumably lay at the end of the street that divided the two legions, for this would thenplace what appears to have been the only entrance along this face of the camp exactlyhalfway across this face. This would result in giving both halves of each consular armyequal access to the entrance. Consequently the porta decumana would lie along thesouthern, right-hand side of the camp (fig. 3). In De Metatione Castrorum (18), the portadecumana lies not centrally at the side of the camp, but centrally at the rear. Livy also refersto the porta decumana as being at the rear of the camp (10.32.9), as does Vegetius (EpitonzaRei Militaris 1.23). This difference is accountable to the changes that probably occurredwhen the double-consular camp was converted into a single one (below). The positionsuggested for this entrance in the double-consular camp can thus be suggested as anearlier location.The suggested location for the porta decumana in the form of double-consular campas described by Polybius would agree with what is known and what can be reconstructedabout punishment procedures. The accused was tried before the tribunal (Livy 4.50.4;Bellum Africum 46), situated in the praetorium and later the principia. If found guilty, oneform of sentence entailed being led through the porta decumana to a place of punishmentoutside the camp (Vegetius Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.23), where for example, the convictedmight be executed (Caesar Bellum Africum 46) or compelled to stay in an unprotectedposition in disgrace outside the camp's defences until the misdemeanour had beencorrected (Polybius 6.38.3; Strategemata 4.1.16; 4.1.18; 4.1.19; 4.1.21).The association of particularly the porta decumana with the exit used by convictedmen perhaps derived from the position of this entrance lying at the end of the street thatdivided the two legions. Using an entrance located here would mean that the condemnedfollowed a route from the tribunal to the place of punishment which caused him to haveto pass through the middle of the legions. This would place him in the best position to bemade a clear example of to the other men and also for them to show their displeasure atwhat had been committed.The association between punishment and the porta decumana seems to have continuedthroughout the Republic and the Empire as well, since it is mentioned by Vegetius(Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.23), whose sources were mainly from the first two centuries ADand he is thought to have written his tract in the late fourth or first half of the fifth centuriesAD (Phillips 1944,2; Milner 1993, xxv ff.). Long before Vegetius wrote however, the portadecumana had ceased to be at the side of the camp and had 'moved' to the rear (below). Theporta decumana probably remained as the 'traitor's gate' of the camp simply because itmeant that the guilty still had to pass between their colleagues and all the terrors that thatentailed. There was perhaps also an additional degradation in that now a convicted manpassed out of the camp by means of the rear entrance, with possible overtones of not beingthought worthy enough to leave by the front or even side entrances.113

Chapter ThreeCHANGES TO THE POLYBIAN CAMP AFTERTHE SECOND PUNIC WARTHE SINGLE-CONSULAR MANIPULAR CAMPAs already mentioned, during Polybius' account of the camp he makes a passingcomment about the nature of the single-consular camp, which was the immediatesuccessor to the double-consular camp and indeed the current one when he wrote thedigression in c. 160. Polybius' comments about what changes were made to the plan of thedouble-consular camp to convert it into one for a single-consular army are unfortunatelyvery brief. He merely states that the only difference from what he has described is that theforum, quaestorium and praetorium were placed between the two legions (6.32.8; above).This implies that in the now quite physically independent camps occupied by each consulwith his two legions and accompanying allies, the two legions were no longer separatedby a 60 foot wide street as they had been in each half of the double-consular camp. Insteadthey were arranged either side of a block comprising theforum, quaestorium and praetorium.Polybius gives no indication why this change in plan took place. Presumably it wasdesigned to remove these three areas from what would have been relatively near thedefences along the former dividing line between the two halves of the double-consularcamp and place them in a more protected spot further away from the defences.Polybius does not specify how the forum, praetorium and quaestorium were placedbetween the two legions, i.e. were they side-by-side, one behind the other and what wasthe relative order. Their location can however be deduced from other literary sources andthe physical relationship which probably existed between the praetorium and the forum(above).It has been suggested above that due to religious reasons the praetorium faced eastand associated with this, the forum lay on the eastern side of the praetorium. Hence it canbe concluded that in which ever direction the praetorium faced, the forum will be on thatside of it. It is likely that the same religious considerations would have applied to theorientation of the praetorium and henceforum in the single-consular camp. The continuationof an eastwards alignment for the praetorium is consequently to be expected. Vegetiussupports this practice. In his list of criteria for the alignment of the porta praetoria, he placeseast first, then the enemy or the direction of march (Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.23). Thisparticular entrance is known to open to the via praetoria, itself leading to the praetorium (DeMetaticnie Castrorum 14; above). Hence an eastwards orientation for the praetorium isimplied. The porta praetoria is also placed in the front part of the camp in De MetationeCastrorum and, like Vegetius, it is similarly stated that this entrance should be orientatedtowards the enemy (De Metatione Castrorum 56). The practice of this entrance facing theenemy and/or the direction of march perhaps accounts for the porta praetoria beingdescribed by Festus (De Significatu Verborum 249L) as the entrance in a camp through114

Chapter Threewhich the army was led into battle. Taken collectively, these comments indicate that theporta praetoria lay at the front of the camp and this could face east. This would mean thatthe via praetoria lay on an east-west alignment, with the praetorium at the western end ofthe street, facing east.The occurrence in the sources of three considerations for a camp's orientation, i.e.to the east, the enemy or the direction of march, in practice would potentially produce aconflict, since clearly the direction of the enemy or the march may not be to the east.Perhaps the eastwards orientation was the ideal, with origins in augury (above). From amilitary point of view however, the more practical considerations of the location of theenemy and the ease of commencing the following day's march would probably have beenmore important. These practical aspects, as a result probably tended to be the overridingfactor in orientation, after restrictions of topography were taken into account. With thereduction during the Republic in the practice of taking auspices by looking at the sky andinstead using chickens (above), the importance placed on an eastwards alignment mayhave diminished considerably. Perhaps its mention in the sources was merely a vestigeof an earlier practice, which, as often occurred in the Roman army, was retained thoughits true significance had passed. This reduction in importance of an eastwards alignmentseems to have occurred by the mid-second century, as the sites at Numantia display awide range of orientations. Even in the same area different phases of camp were notalways given the same alignment, e.g. Lager III probably faced west whereas Lager Vcould have faced south (below, Chapter Four), indicating that orientation could sometimesbe independent even of topography.The practical considerations of a commander being able to observe the movementsof his enemy at all times, which would be easiest if his opponent lay to the front of the campand the direction in which the praetorium faced, may have given rise to the idea that theporta decumana, placed at the rear of a single-consular camp (below), should be placed ina higher position than the porta praetoria (De Metatione Castrorum 56). In effect this wouldmake use of a sloping site to give the praetorium a view which would have looked over thetop of the defences further down the slope in front of it. If also the porta praetoria faced theenemy, this would be a suitable entrance through which the commander could lead hisarmy to battle; hence the comment by Festus (above). Presumably it would only have beenpractical for part of his forces to leave by this route, and to ensure a rapid deployment, theother entrances, particularly the portae principales, must also have been used (as shown e.g.by Livy 34.46.9). Similar considerations would apply to the porta praetoria and its relativelocation in respect of commencing the day's march; hence the comments in the sourcesabout it facing in the direction of the march.It is possible to extrapolate the transformations involved in creating a singleconsularcamp out of, for example, the 'southern half of the double consular-camp fromthis evidence of camp orientation. The main change can be summarised as the areasoccupied by the troops being rotated clockwise through 90 degrees around the rangeformed by the praetorium, forum and quaestorium. The former western half of the troops'115

Chapter Threeencampment would be placed to the north of this range and the former eastern half to thesouth of it. The praetorium range would then lie, as Polybius says, between the two legions,with theforum next to the via principalis (fig. 13). Both the praetorium andforum could retaintheir theoretical double-consular sizes without the inconvenience of obstructing thecontinuity of the via quintana; the total length of the praetorium and forum could have been600 Roman feet in the double-consular camp (above) and placing them between the viaprincipalis and the via quintana in the single-consular camp would give them an areaidentical in length (figs 3 and 13).As a result of rotating and moving the troops in this manner, the whole orientationof this half of the former double-consular camp shifts clockwise by 90 degrees. The frontand eastern face of the single-consular camp now lies at the point where the two halvesof the double-consular camp joined, by the extraordinarii infantry. The rear of the singleconsularcamp is a former side of the double-consular camp, and lies by the tenth maniplesand turmae. This development agrees with the porta decumana being described as lying atthe rear of the camp (Livy 10.32.9; De Metatione Castrorum 18) or behind the praetorium(Vegetius Epitoma Rei Militaris 1.23; below). Likewise the via quintana would lie in itsattested location behind the praetorium (De Metatione Castrorum 17; fig. 13). Entranceswould presumably be retained at either end of this street in the single-consular camp sincethe same number of troops as before would require access in and out of this area of thecamp. The portae quintanae would now however be located on the left and right-hand sidesof the camp, rather than the front and back as before. A similar change in relative locationwould occur with the entrances at either end of the via principalis. Since they would lie onthe left and right-hand sides of the camp, the attested terms of porta principalis sinistra anddextra could now have started to have been used (above; fig. 13).The via praetoria of the double-consular camp can be suggested as staying in thesame location relative to the extraordinarii in the single-consular camp, but it would clearlylead to only one praetorium. In the proposed relative location of the praetorium and forumthe street would actually lead to the forum rather than directly to the praetorium. Namingthe street after the praetorium would however reflect the important area of the camp towhich the street was really leading. The rotation of the praetorium would result in the streetnow complying with its attested east-west alignment. In the single-consular camp, thisstreet would also comply with the literary evidence by ending at the front of the camp,where an external, rather than formerly possibly an internal porta praetoria would exist.The via praetoria would also now lead right through to the via principalis, rather than beingstopped short of it by the praetorium in the double-consular camp. As a result, the 'T'-shape djunction of the two main streets implie d by De Metatione Castr arum and characteristicof fortresses and forts of the Empire would be formed. Hence perhaps this feature owesits origin to the period when single-consular camps first appeared. The junction wouldoccur directly in front of the praetorium / forum. This positioning further gives support tothe form of the suggested move by the praetorium and forum in the creation of the singleconsularcamp, i.e. placing the forum by the via principalis and the praetorium behind it.116

Chapter ThreeThese relative locations would be entirely in keeping with the development of these twoareas into principia and praetorium, with the latter behind the former, and situated at thejunction of the via praetoria and the via principalis as seen in several fortresses and forts ofthe Empire (e.g. Caerleon (?), Haltern, Neuss, Hesselbach, Hod Hill(?) and Oberstimm).In many fortresses and forts, the praetorium is however not behind, but to the side of theprincipia (e.g. Vetera I, where two praetoria are proposed, Fendoch and Housesteads). Thiscan perhaps be interpreted as a shift from the 'true' rear position and was done in orderto create a more conveniently-shaped area in the rear half of the installation.In De Metatione Castrorum (14) the via principalis and the via praetoria are both thesame width. In the double-consular camp described by Polybius, the equivalent streets areof unequal width, being 120 and 60 feet wide respectively. When the single-consular formof camp was developed, this inequality could have changed and the via praetoria widened,to match that of the via principalis and so correspond to the situation given in De Metatione.Castrorum. This would be an appropriate reflection of the via praetoria now running fromthe exterior and front of the camp to the all-important praetorium. This upgrading of thestreet would doubtless have resulted in an increase in the amount of traffic using it,particularly as the army was led out to battle through the entrance at the end of this street.Hence an increased width would be desirable. In the single-consular camp, therefore, thevia praetoria can perhaps be reconstructed as being 120 Roman feet wide (fig. 13).Although this now results in both streets having the same width and in this waycorresponding to the situation in De Metatione Castrorum, in this tract the streets are only60 feet wide, i.e. exactly half the width of the single-consular camp form. The differencecan presumably be explained quite simply as the width of 120 feet for both streets beingfound in practice to be unnecessarily large and at some period the size of both streets washalved, in effect taking the via praetoria back to its original double-consular width. It is notknown when such a reduction could have occurred. The evidence from the Numantinesites is unfortunately inconclusive and so is of limited help in this respect. Lager V,probably a single-consular camp in form, had a street that could correspond to the viaprincipalis and may have been 30 m (101.4 Roman feet) wide (below, Chapter Four). Thisis obviously very close to the theoretical 120 feet (35.5 m). In Lager III however, what couldhave been the via principalis in a single-consular form of camp can be reconstructed ashaving been only about 13 m, i.e. 43.9 feet wide; the other streets from Lager III have asimilar width (below, Chapter Four). This indicates on the one hand that in practice thevia principalis need not be especially wide and on the other that the streets in this camp borea resemblance to the theoretical width of 60 feet. Other streets from the Numantine campshowever have a variety of widths and some are as narrow as 5 m (16.9 feet). There is nodiscernable pattern to the range encountered.The location of the quaestorium in the single-consular camp is likely to have been tothe rear of the praetorium / forum (fig. 13), as indeed had been the case in the doubleconsularcamp. This is implied by De Metati one Castrorum (18 f.) where it is indicated thatthe quaestorium is placed to the rear of the praetorium. In the camp described in this tract,117

Chapter Threethe quaestorium appears to have existed as an area in the rear part of the camp runninglengthways down the camp between essentially the porta decumana and the via quintana,with troops on either side. This type of position would be appropriate for Polybius' briefstatement about the position of the quaestorium in single-consular camps. There wouldalso be more than adequate space for the quaestorium in this area of the single-consularcamp, if the quaestorium retained the same size as in the double-consular camp (below; fig.13). Hence the arrangement described in De Metatione Castrorum could have originatedfrom the period of the Second Punic Wars, when single-consular armies started appearing.Placing the quaestorium to the rear of the praetorium in single-consular camps is alsoimplied by Livy. In his account of a Samnite attack on a Roman camp, the attacking forceis described as breaking in by the porta decumana at the rear of the camp and thenransacking the quaestorium, killing the quaestor before the alarm was raised (10.32.3 ff.).This could be taken to imply that the quaestorium was close to the rear entrance and so opento immediate attack by the invaders. A position for the quaestorium at the rear of the campand also near an entrance is also implied by references to a porta quaestoria (Livy 34.47.2f.; 40.27.7). During Livy's account (34.46.4 ff.) of an attack on a single-consular camp bythe Boi it is shown (34.47.1 f.) that the porta quaestoria was at the rear of the camp. In Livy'sdescription of a Roman camp under siege by a force of Ligurians (40.27.1 ff.), the portaquaestoria is also implied as being at the rear of the camp, for it is indicated as being on theopposite side of the camp to the porta praetoria, for which there is reasonable evidence toclaim lay at the front of camps (below).It seems therefore that both the porta quaestoria and the porta decumann lay at the rearof camps. Presumably the two terms were alternative names for the same entrance, ratherthan indicate the existence of more than one entrance along this face of the camp. Thepossibility of more than one entrance seems to be excluded by the camp under attack bythe Ligurians being specified as having four entrances (Livy 40.27.1); named as the portaprincipalis sinistra and dextra, porta praetoria and porta quaestoria . This indicates the existenceof only one entrance along the rear of the camp and suggests that a camp would notcontain both a porta quaestoria and a porta decumana. The name porta quaestoria presumablyderived either from the proximity of the quaestorium to this entrance, just as in the way thename porta decumana appears to have been derived, or the name arose from there beingdirect access to the quaestorium from this entrance, in the same manner as the name portapraetoria presumably evolved (below). With either derivation, the implication would seemto be that the quaestorium lay to the rear of the praetorium and near the back of the camp.With the quaestorium being placed in the area between the via quintana and the tenthmaniples / turmae, it would have 600 Roman feet of space available. In its double-consularform the quaestorium was theoretically perhaps only 360 Roman feet long. Since thefunctions of the quaestorium would be unlikely to have been any different in the singleconsularcamp from one half of a double-consular camp, it is unlikely that the quaestoriumwould have needed to expand into the extra 240 feet available in the single-consular camp.Perhaps the extra area was used for the safe-keeping of cattle brought into the camp, as118

Chapter Threewas the case in the camp described in De Metatione Castrorum (18), since the area wherethese may have been kept, between the two halves of the double-consular camp, no longerexisted.Archaeological support for placing the quaestorium in the central rear part of thecamp may be provided by area Q in Lager III, if Schulten's interpretation of this area asquaestorium is accepted (below, Chapter Four).THE POSITION OF THE DELECTI EXTRAORDINARII AND EVOCATIIt is uncertain how the delecti extraordinarii and evocati were affected in the creation of asingle-consular camp. Polybius makes no comment about them. A convenient location forthem would have been down the sides of the range formed by the praetorium etc., i.e.between the two legions. The delecti extraordinarii and evocati attached to a particular officercould then have been arranged on either side of his area; perhaps with the delectiextraordinarii on one side and the evocati on the other (fig. 13). This would result in thesetroops staying close to the officers on whom "they were constantly in attendance"(Polybius 6.31.3; Loeb translation). The parallel situation described in De MetationeCastrorum (6) supports this reconstruction to some extent. Here, troops with the equivalentfunction, the praetorian cohorts and the evocati, are placed on either side of the praetorium(fig. 14).As regards the detailed arrangement of the delecti extraordinarii and the evocati, theturmae of these units would presumably be placed on the protected, inner side of theinfantry. As a result, the turmae would lie on either side of the via quintana (fig. 13). Theycould have faced this street (as in fig. 13) or the one running along the front of the legionarycavalry. Of the two options, perhaps the former one was chosen, as the long axis of theturma area would then comfortably and efficiently fit with the area of the infantry behind.The infantry could have continued to be arranged 'in cohort', with the long axis of thecohort running down the side of the praetorium or the quaestorium and facing in one casethe via principalis and in the other the rear of the camp. In practice, these 'blocks'comprising a cavalry turma and an infantry cohort are simply a laterally moved versionof the former double-consular camp areas.To allow the legionary cavalry access to and from their areas and general movementdown the sides of the delecti extraordinarii and evocati / praetorium, forum and quaestorium,the former single 60 foot wide street that ran between the legionary cavalry of the twolegions in each half of the double-consular camp must have been replaced in the singleconsularcamp by two streets, one placed on either side of the central areas (fig. 13).Relating this to the route taken by the condemned from the tribunal at the front of thepraetorium to the porta decumana, the exit appropriate to the punished (above), presumablythe guilty passed along the street lying on the side of the praetorium which correspondedto their own legion or ala.119

Chapter ThreeThere is unfortunately no firm archaeological evidence to support the proposedarrangement of the delecti extraordinarii and evocati. The closest evidence is a possiblereconstruction of part of the central range of Lager III. Here barracks surviving to the eastof area P could have formed part of an area occupied by delecti extraorditwrii and evocati,but this interpretation is tentative (below, Chapter Four). If the interpretation is indeedvalid, it would mean that the delecti extraordinarii were placed behind the praetorium etc.,rather than in the proposed theoretical location of down either side. This could have beena situation unusual to Lager III and resulted from the reduction in the overall width of thecamp caused by the main force of allies taking up part of the front portion of the camp andforcing the ordinary extraordinarii also to the rear of the central portion of the camp (below,Chapter Four).THE DISPOSITION OF THE LEGIONSWith the absence of any indication by Polybius that any changes were made to thearrangements of how the legions were distributed in the single-consular camp comparedwith the double-consular one, it presumably means that these troops experienced littlechange in the details of their disposition. The main differences from the double-consularcamp were the rotation of the whole area occupied and the two legions being pushedfurther apart by the introduction of the three central areas between them (fig. 13). Thisneed not have affected the organisation and relative position of the squares in each half,particularly as the creation of two independent consular armies out of the double-consularbattle group appears not to have been accompanied by any changes in the structure of thelegions. One change that would have occurred however, is that in battle the two legionswould no longer have both formed the right or the left-hand side of the battle-line. Withnow only two legions in the battle group, clearly one must have formed the right-handside and the other the left-hand. Presumably this relative position would have beenechoed in camp. Hence the legion whose turn it was to be on the right side, was placedon the right in camp, e.g. legio II in fig. 13 and vice versa.In support of the proposed arrangement of two legions being separated by the threecentral areas, but retaining the manipular grid layout described by Polybius is the layoutthat can be reconstructed for Lager III (below, Chapter Four). From what survives in LagerV and in the Red Phase of Castillejo, the same arrangement could also have existed here(below, Chapter Four).THE LAYOUT OF THE MAIN FORCE OF ALLIESAs with the layout of the legions, in the creation of the single-consular camp, the detaileddisposition of the main force of allies could have continued as before after the rotation andmove about the praetorium etc., (fig. 13). Also like the legions, the allies would haveexperienced a change on the battlefield. The allies would no longer all form either the leftor right-hand ala, but must have been divided into two equal-sized groups to create bothwings of the smaller single-consular battle group. Maintaining this division in camp120

Chapter Threewould be very straightforward and involved no physical re-arrangement of the doubleconsularform of allied encampment. Simply all the allies (including the extraordinarii)who lay in the right-hand half of the single-consular camp could comprise the ala dextraand vice versa (fig. 13). In effect, this would have produced two alae which correspondedin size and composition to two legions, but with extra cavalry. The existence ofindependently-operating allied 'legions' by the late second century (above, Chapter Two)can consequently be suggested as gaining their embryonic form at the time of the creationof single-consular armies.As with the disposition of the legions, the layout that can be reconstructed in LagerIII and V (below, Chapter Four) supports the suggested arrangement and relative locationof the main force of allies.THE LOCATION OF THE TRIBUNES/ PRAEFECTI SOCIORUM AND LEGATESIn the single-consular camp, it can be suggested that the relative location of theaccommodation of the tribunes, praefecti sociorum and legates remained where it had beenin the double-consular camp, along the via principalis on the opposite side of this streetfrom the legions and allies (fig. 13). This is perhaps supported by the tribunes occupyingan area in an identical position in the camp described in De Metatione Castrorum (15).Support for this is also provided by areas interpretable as officers quarters existing inexactly this relative position in the single-consular form of camp at Lager III and V (below,Chapter Four).The arrangement of the tribunes' tents could have existed much as in the doubleconsularcamp. The only difference was probably that the tribunes commanding onelegion would have been more distant from those commanding the other legion, tocorrespond to their respective legions being further apart in the single-consular camp (fig.13).In the double-consular camp it was suggested above that three praefecti sociorumwere encamped at either end of the row of tribunes' tents. Since however the allies whohad comprised a single ala in a double-consular army were divided into left and righthandalae in a single-consular army and each ala could have had six praefecti sociorumcommanding it (above, Chapter Two), there would correspondingly be six tents for thepraefecti sociorum at either end of the row of tribunes' tents (fig. 13).The gap that existed between each group of tribunes and the via praetoria wasperhaps used for the tents of any legates attached to the army, since the extra number oftents for the praefecti sociorum may not have left sufficient space for them in what couldhave been their double-consular camp location (figs 12 and 13).THE LOCATION OF THE EXTRA ORDINARII AND FOREIGN TROOPSBy placing the praetorium, forum, quaestorium, delecti extraordinarii and the evocati betweenthe two legions, a completely vacant space would have been created between the row oftents of the tribunes and praefecti sociorum and the areas occupied by the ordinary121

Chapter Threeextraordinarii and the foreign troops. This space would have been quite superfluous. Itcould straightforwardly have been taken up by moving the extraordinarii and foreigntroops to behind the row of senior officers' tents (fig. 13). If the layout of the extraordinariiremained as before, as a series of rows parallel to the via principalis, these units could nothave been moved right up to the rear of the senior officers' area, for this would haveprevented access to and from the first row of extraordinarii cavalry. To ensure access, a 60foot wide street was presumably left between the troops and the officers (fig. 13), thisbeing the normal width given to streets within the camp according to Polybius. This streetwould in effect simply have been a reduced and slightly moved version of the 120 footwide street that was placed between the extraordinarii and the rear of the three central areasin the double-consular camp. This dividing street in the single-consular camp is possiblythe origin of the one that exists in De Metatione Castrorum (15), placed in the equivalentposition behind the tribunes and between them and the area occupied by the alae miliariae(fig. 14).By placing the praetorium etc., between the two legions, there would have been 480feet more space available across the area occupied by the extraordinarii and the foreigntroops in the single-consular camp than in the double-consular one (540 feet more if thevia praetoria was not widened to 120 feet). The layout of the extraordinarii could have beenaltered to take account of this and correspondingly reduced in depth/increased in widthin order to take up the extra space available. This is however unlikely, because a reductionin the depth of the extraordinarii would weaken the defensive buffer between the front ofthe camp and the praetorium. It is also arguably unlikely as only the extraordinarii cavalrywould have been able to move units to increase the width of their encampment; themaximum width of the infantry, as three side-by-side maniples, may already have beenachieved (above). Had the cavalry encampment expanded in width and the camp beenattacked at the front, it would consequently have left the cavalry without the usualprotection by infantry. Such a situation is unlikely to have been allowed.The extra space available in this part of the camp was presumably not somethingdeliberately sought after when this form of camp was designed, but was more likelysimply a side-effect of moving the three central areas between the two legions. Nevertheless,this extra space must have been welcome as it would conveniently coincide with theincreasing proportion of allies and foreign troops in Roman armies from the third century(above). Hence the areas in the double-consular camp allotted to "foreign troops or to anyallies who chance to come in" (Polybius 6.31.9; Loeb translation) could simply have beenexpanded into the available extra space of the single-consular camp (fig. 13). The resultwas a straightforward way of providing areas of accommodation for these extra troops,without the inconvenience of changing the layout of the camp as a whole.Direct supporting archaeological evidence for the suggested location of theextraordinarii in the single-consular camp is unfortunately lacking. In Lager III theextraordinarii can be tentatively suggested as being positioned not in the front part of thecamp, but to the rear of the praetorium / forum complex and between this and the122

Chapter Threequaestorium, in area F and F' (below, Chapter Four). This rear position may simply be aconsequence of the shape of the camp preventing the main force of allies from all fittingdown the side of the camp. Instead it had to spread across the front of the camp as well,into the area proposed as normally being occupied by the extraordinarii. Space for theextraordinarii could then have been made by moving the quaestorium into the (normally)empty area at the rear of the camp (where area Q might be the quaestorium) and placingthe troops between this and the delecti extraordinarii / evocati situated behind the praetorium.THE INTERVALLUMThe width of the intervallum in the double-consular camp is stated by Polybius as being240 feet (6.31.11). Presumably this theoretical width would have been retained for thesingle-consular camp. Evidence from the Numantine sites indicates however that such agenerous width was not used in practice. At these sites the intervallum seems nowhere tohave exceeded 29 m (98 Roman feet) and in some cases was as narrow as only 3 m (10.1Roman feet).NAMES FOR PARTS OF THE CAMPDe Metatione Castrorum uses the terms praetentura, Iatera praetorii and retentura to refer tothe front area of the camp, the middle block containing the praetorium and the rear arearespectively. This is the only source where such terms are attested, which is surprisingsince the equivalent areas are commonly found in fortresses and forts of the Empire.Usage of the terms may consequently not have been that widespread. Polybius makes noreference to such terms, but this could be explained simply because the double-consularcamp has no obvious tripartite division, either for the whole camp or each half. In thesingle-consular camp however, such divisions do exist. The area between the frontrampart and the via principalis would correspond to the praetentura; the north-south blockbetween the via principalis and the via quintana in which the praetorium was situated wouldequate to the latera praetorii; and the retentura is represented by the area between the viaquintana and the rear rampart. Usage of the three terms to describe the various areas of thecamp may consequently date from the period of the introduction of the single-consularcamp.THE SINGLE-CONSULAR COHORT CAMPSince the single-consular army remained the standard battle group throughout thesecond century, the single-consular form of camp was probably the main type of campduring this period. As the century progressed however the Tolybian' single-consularplan would require altering to take account of the adoption of the cohort and the possiblechange in the structure of the cavalry. Further alteration to the plan would have beencaused by the increasing proportion of foreign troops. The exact form that these changes123

Chapter Threetook is uncertain. Here, the evidence of the Numantine sites helps make up for the lackof literary evidence, and, together with extrapolating back from sites of the Early Empire,allows a reconstruction of the early theoretical form of cohort-based camp. The result isa camp that essentially retains the design of the single-consular camp as it first evolvedfrom the late third century (above; fig. 13), with the praetorium etc., being flanked by thelegions and allies and with the 'T'-shaped principal roads in front (fig. 15).THE LAYOUT OF THE LEGIONARY INFANTRYThe change to a completely cohort-based army need not have been accompanied by amajor alteration of the layout of the infantry from what it had been in the single-consularmanipular camp (fig. 13). All that may have happened is that the rows of tents occupiedby the infantry were reconfigured to correspond to the new composition.The form that the rows of infantry tents could have taken is suggested by evidencefrom the Black Phase at Castillejo, Pena Redonda, Molino and Lager VI which could allhave been occupied by cohort-based infantry (below, Chapter Four). The barracks at thesesites can be reconstructed with a form that suggests that each of the three maniples makingup the cohort were placed end-to-end. The result was to produce an arrangement thatphysically represented in camp the cohesive nature of the cohort in battle (fig. 131). Itconsequently comprised an appropriate contrast to the separate triple-row arrangementin camp of the former manipular organisation, which was relevant to that particular typeof battle formation with its three lines of different types of infantry.Presumably the desire to foster the concept of physical unity of the cohort was whythe end-to-end arrangement of barracks was adopted rather than the pattern of the'cohort' areas of the allies in the manipular single-consular camp. The allied system,although grouping the men forming a cohort into one area, would also have retained toomuch of the manipuLar structure, it would have provided now irrelevant space for velitesand would have kept the former triarii separate. This latter aspect would not have helpedpromote the idea that all the troops of the cohort were equal and worked on the battlefieldas a cohesive unit. This concept was dearly both important and effective, as shown by thecohorts of both the citizen legions and those of the allies soon becoming regarded asvirtually autonomous units well-capable of independent action, as the literary evidencefrom the second century onwards of cohorts acting in this way indicates (Livy 41.1.2;44.40.5; Epitome 68).Relating the cohesive end-to-end arrangement of the cohort back to the theoreticalreconstruction of the single-consular raanipular camp, it means that the street separatingthe triarii and principes would have been removed, in order for the three parts of the cohortnot to be interrupted. The relative positions of the three former maniples may haveremained as they were, with the hastati being on the outer side (relative to the centrallyplacedpraetorium range) and the triarii on the inner. The order may however have beenreversed. The centurions of cohorts retained their Republican ranking, resulting in thecenturions of the former triarii, the pilus prior and pilus posterior being the senior, followed124

Chapter Threeby those of the principes, the princeps prior and princeps posterior and finally those of thehastati, the hastatus prior and hastatus posterior (Keppie 1984, 174). It is likely that this orderwould have been reflected in camp. Hence the former triarii would have been placed onthe outer side of the principes, with the hastati on the inner, resulting in the triarii being inthe more prestigious position at the front of the cohort by the street that ran past the endof it (fig. 16,A). Associated with this, the principes would have had to rotate the line of theirtents down the side of each area through 180 degrees in order for the pattern of thecenturion being at the head of his men to be repeated throughout the length of the cohort(fig. 16,A).A further change to the areas of tents of each maniple would have been caused bythe velites being 'upgraded' and absorbed into the centuries of the heavy infantry (above,Chapter Two). In order to reflect this amalgamation in camp, the tents of the former veliteswould presumably have been moved to the end of the rows of each century, since theywere all now part of the same unit. This would have had the effect of removing the rearrows of tents in the areas of the former maniples, as well as lengthening the side ranges.With these rear rows now gone, having the tents of the centuries placed down either sideof an area as much as 120 feet wide, as they were in the manipular camp, could have beenregarded as unnecessary and over-generous. A reduction in the width of the areas couldconsequently have taken place (below).In support of this sequence of changes caused by the upgrading of the velites are thedifferences noticeable between the horseshoe-shaped manipular triple barrack blocks ofLager III and the cohort double barrack blocks of Pena Redonda and the Black Phase atCastillejo. In the latter two sites there does not appear to have been a long rear range ofcontubernia. Instead the evidence suggests that across the rear of each double barrack blockwas a range of rooms, similar in overall size to contubernia, but different in character fromthem. The function of these rear rooms is uncertain, but a combination of stores,workshops and kitchens is a possibility. The second main difference between the twotypes of camp is that the width between the side rows of tents of the two types of barracksis less in the double blocks than in the triple; at Pena Redonda and the Black Phase atCastillejo, the widths of the areas occupied by each pair of barracks varied between 22 and32 m, but most were between 25 and 27 m (84.5 and 91.2 Roman feet). This compares tomost of the triple blocks at Lager III which were very close to an average width of 38.5 m(130.1 Roman feet). The areas at Lager III are suggested above as having been intendedto have had the theoretical 'Polybian' width of 120 Roman feet (35.5 m). The variety ofwidths displayed at Pena Redonda and the Black Phase at Castillejo make proposing thetheoretical 'design width' hazardous, but they do suggest that the overall width occupiedby the maniples forming the cohort was less than the width they had had in the manipularcamp, though not as small as the width of 60 Roman feet (17.8 m) for a maniple attestedin De Metatione Castrorum (1).A suggestion for the theoretical width of the cohort areas can be derived from thepossible origin, location and size of the rear range of rooms /stores and how their position125

Chapter Threewas related to having all three maniples of the cohort placed end-to-end, whereas in DeMetatione Cast rorum the maniples seem usually to have been placed side-by-side (DeMet atione Castrorum 2; below). The original location of the rear rooms could have been asseparate structures/tents placed in the large open area between the ranges down the sidesof each manipular area and in front of the velites. Supporting evidence for such structuresis however limited. In Lager III these buildings may be indicated by the remains in thecourtyard area of the allied 'cohort' barracks of row E. These remains are suggestive of anumber of separate buildings, more than might be required to accommodate the triariiand their velites. At the same camp a structure found in the appropriate area of barrack 10of row B may also fall into this category. When cohorts were created and the rangeoccupied by the velites had been removed, these stores buildings /tents could have beenmoved into the vacated area. According to the size of these storage buildings/tents, itcould have allowed a reduction in the width occupied by the cohort, since the potentialobstruction in the courtyard area was no longer present. Clearly however, in the end-toendarrangement of the maniples forming the cohort, the stores would have had to havebeen moved right to the rear of the cohort area to prevent blocking the con versantibus (fig.16,A). As a result the rear range of rooms would have consisted of the stores areas for theequivalent of three maniples. The width occupied by these, would then be the limitingfactor in reducing the overall width of the area occupied by the cohort.The size of the conjectured storage areas is unfortunately uncertain, but can betentatively reconstructed from remains at Numantia and from the way cooking equipmentseems to have been allotted. The evidence from the rear portion of the barracks from theBlack Phase at Castillejo and from Peila Redonda suggest that the areas could have beendivided up into a row of rooms similar in size to contubernia, but the number of hearthsand internal divisions apparent suggests these areas were not for accommodation.Evidence from several sites of the Empire suggests that cooking equipment was allottedto centuries as well as to contubernia (RIB (II.2) 2415.58, 2415.59, 2415.66,a; Johnson 1983,199). The same method of distribution could have been used in earlier periods. This couldmean that potentially each manipular and cohort century would have required its ownstorage and cooking facilities. Combining this with the evidence of the form of the roomsat the rear of the barracks at Numantia, it can be suggested that each century used a tent/room the same in size as that used by a contubernium for storing its own equipment,cooking and possibly also as workshops. Hence a maniple would use two tents andcenturies grouped in a cohort would need six tents (fig. 16,A). In support of thisreconstruction is the length of some of the walls found in the courtyards of the barracksof the allied 'cohorts' of row E of Lager III, which would be appropriate for structuresequivalent in size to six contubernia (figs 41 to 43). Also the small structure found in thecourtyard of barrack 10 of row B in Lager III could have been equivalent in size to two, tenfootsquare tents (fig. 43). The small size of the manipular stores may also explain theirotherwise near-complete absence in the legionary areas of Lager III —they were simply toosmall to be revealed by the excavation technique126

Chapter ThreeIf this interpretation is valid, it would mean that in theory there should be six roomsat the rear of the barracks at Pena Redonda and the Black Phase at Castillejo and theywould be the equivalent of six, ten-foot square tents in overall size. This reconstruction ispossible, but unfortunately the nature of the remains would not completely exclude othernumbers and sizes of rooms.With this degree of uncertainty, reconstructing the theoretical arrangement in campis hazardous. However it can be suggested that the rear portion of the end-to-endarranged cohort in camp consisted of a range of six, 12 foot wide stores tents (includingthe space required for the guy-ropes). The evidence from Numantia suggests that thisrange was placed to the rear, rather than in between the contubernia down the side of thearea, with a gap between the storage rooms and the contubernia to allow access to thestores. If this is a reliable indication of the practice in camp, it means that six, 12 foot widestorage tents can be reconstructed along the rear of the area occupied by the cohort, withthe tents of the contubernia directly in front (fig. 16,A). The size of the gap between thestorage tents and the contubernia could have been equivalent to the width of the arma andiumenta of the contubernia, i.e. 24 feet in total could have been allowed for the storage tentsand the provision of adequate access. This arrangement would make the overall width ofthe area occupied by the cohort in camp theoretically 72 feet (21.3 m) across. Thisrepresents a reduction of exactly six tenths from the width of the manipular areas. Insupport of this 'design width' for the long, end-to-end double barracks is that most of suchbarracks from Peria Redonda and the Black Phase at Castillejo were between 22 and 27 mwide, which is arguably within an acceptable margin of error. The barracks at these sitesoutside of this range perhaps result simply from having to build on difficult topography,which could particularly have been the case at Pena Redonda.The theoretical length of these end-to-end arranged cohorts can in part be calculatedfrom the number of tents required. With each century of the cohort having a strength of80 men, it means that each would require ten, eight-man tents (above). This would createa total of 30 tents down each side of the cohort area. Three tents for the centurions wouldalso be required down each side (fig. 16,A). The rear storage tents could have added afurther 24 feet. The resulting length of the cohort encampment would have measured 456Roman feet (135.0 in). This compares favourably with the length of the cohort barracksthat can be reconstructed at Pena Redonda and the Black Phase at Castillejo, where somecould have been at least 100 m long (below, Chapter Four).From the reconstruction of the Black Phase at Castillejo (below, Chapter Four), it canbe suggested that in the single-consular camp the location of these long, end-to-endarranged cohort blocks essentially followed the pattern of the manipular camp and wouldhave been placed down either side of the praetorium range (fig. 15). Instead of each legionbeing three rows of ten maniples, each was now simply one row of ten cohorts. Thesimilarity between this arrangement and the manipular single-consular camp givesstrength to the idea that this was the normal layout, since a gradual change from aprevious form is more likely than a radical new layout. Exceptions to the norm are127

Chapter Threehowever to be expected. Pena Redonda may have been one of these. It may have consistedof all the cohorts being placed behind the praetorium range, with only delecti extraordinarii /evocati lying on either side (below, Chapter Four). This variant layout can be explained bythe topography of the site which was a long and thin spur. Too little is known of thelayouts of Molino and Lager VI to know to what extent these complied with the theoreticalscheme.If in the cohort camp it was desired to continue the practice of having the units ateither end of the legion face in one case the via principalis and the other the rear rampart,the only practical way of achieving this would have been to have the maniples formingthe outer cohorts arranged side-by-side. If one cohort was configured in this manner ateither end of the legion, each maniple of it would have had a width of 152 feet available,since the inner cohorts covered an area 456 foot long. This is unnecessarily generous,particularly as virtually the same number of troops only required 120 feet in the manipularcamp. A much more efficient arrangement would have been to have had two cohortsplaced side-by-side at either end of the legion (fig. 15, cohorts 1, 2, 9 and 10). Each manipleof these would then have had 76 feet (22.5 m) available, if the length of the century thatthey backed onto (i.e. 456 feet) was exactly divided into six areas. In practice the width wasperhaps made the same as the end-to-end cohorts, i.e. 72 feet (fig. 16,B). This would keepthings simple and all the legionary areas, both cavalry (below) and infantry, would havethe same width.The most convenient location for the two stores tents of each of the 'side-by-side'maniples would have been at the rear end of each row of the contubernia (fig. 16,B). Thiswould have provided more than adequate access to the storage tents, whilst only adding12 feet to the overall length occupied by each century. In contrast, a central positionbetween the two rows of contubernia would have added 24 feet to the overall length, inorder to provide access. The location of stores at the end of the contubernia is supportedby the occurrence in some barracks of the Empire, such as Bonn, Haltem, Hod Hill,Oberstimm and Vetera I, of projecting rooms different in character from contubernia andwhich could have functioned as stores, at the opposite end of the row of contubernia to theofficer's quarters (shown in schematic form and the relationship of tented and barrackaccommodation in fig. 16,C). This practice conceivably reflects earlier, Republican practice.With the storage tents being at the end of the contubernia of the side-by-side cohorts,the length of each area that they occupied would have been 156 feet (ten 12 foot tents plusone 24 foot centurion's tent plus one 12 foot storage tent) (fig. 16,B).The suggested arrangement of the end cohorts means that only six of the cohortsneed have occupied the long, end-to-end type of barracks (fig. 15). The via quintana couldstill however have remained and in the same relative position, but between the fifth andsixth cohorts rather than maniples (fig. 15). The porta decuinana could similarly still havebeen positioned near to the tenth unit, as the tenth cohort could have been located as thenearest cohort to this entrance (fig. 15).128

Chapter ThreeThe overall area occupied by the legion would have been 744 feet (220.2 m) from eastto west (front to back) excluding the via quintana and 456 feet (135.0 m) from north to south(left to right). This compares with the quite different dimensions of 1200 feet (355.2 m) by312 (92.4 m), excluding the streets, for the equivalent dimensions of the manipular legion.In terms of available area though, there was not a great difference between the two typesof encampment for the legion. The cohort legion occupied 339,264 square feet (29,727.0 m2)and the manipular 374,400 (32,820.5 m2).This layout of the legion in camp, as the maniples of six cohorts placed end-to-endand those of four cohorts placed side-by-side at the front and back of the legion, can besuggested as the form in use during the 130s, since elements of it appear in Scipio's siegecamps around Nurnantia. This may have been near the beginning of its use, as themanipular sites in the same area conceivably date to the late 150s and 140s BC (below,Chapter Four). How long this system of cohort encampment was in use is uncertain. Theremains at Caceres el Viejo are too slight to be conclusive about the internal layout of thiscamp and so cannot confirm either way whether the system continued into the firstcentury. This scheme of encampment had however been replaced by the Augustanperiod. This is indicated by sites such as Haltern, Oberaden and Dangstetten where theevidence indicates that the centuries forming the cohorts were aligned side-by-side asback-to-back pairs, i.e. the 'usual' form seen in sites of the Empire. The reason for thechange may have been that the very long end-to-end barracks proved impractical. One oftheir negative aspects would have been ease of movement. All the troops would have hadto pass the length of the cohort in order to leave the area. This could easily have causedcongestion. In contrast, in the side-by-side arrangement the troops could have deployedat three times the rate, since there were now three exits from the cohort. Another reasonfor the change could have been due to the legions not having accompanying allies afterthe Social War and consequently had to reconfigure their layout to provide a long enoughprotective curtain for the core of the camp. This particular requirement and its solution byarranging the cohorts side-by-side may in fact have started before the allies 'left the camp'and during the second century, when single-legion camps were required (below).One of the main features of the Polybian layout of the maniples in camp was thatit directly reflected the relative position of the three types of infantry in the threefold lineof battle. The beneficial effects of this have already been stated. Preserving the relativebattle position of cohorts when they were encamped however, would have been less ofa requirement since there was some flexibility in the way cohorts could be deployed inbattle. A common battle formation of the cohorts was in three rows (e.g. Caesar BelloGallico 1.24.2), with the cohorts arranged four-three-three from front to back (Keppie 1984,64). The cohorts could also be deployed as two rows (e.g. Caesar Bello Gallico 3.24.1) or asa single row (Bellum Africum 13.2). In Plutarch's Life of Sulla, during the Mithridatic Warscohorts are described as moving freely about in battle, with no fixed formation. There wasthus no rigid scheme of deployment, unlike for the three-row manipular army (Parker1958, 28). As a result, there was no pressing need to instill relative positions of cohorts in129

Chapter Threethe troops' minds by making the camp plan reflect the battle formation, since this wouldvary according to circumstances. Perhaps of more importance was the preservation of therelative status of units, with the first and senior one being closest to the via principalis. Thesuggested adaptation of the Polybian plan would have allowed this, as the system ofplacing the first maniple by the via principalis and the tenth by the rear rampart couldstraightforwardly have continued with the first and tenth cohorts being in exactly theequivalent position (fig. 15). There would thus have been potentially no difficulty incontinuing to use the Polybian plan, as the ten cohorts could be arranged within it withlittle major changes to the general scheme, thereby keeping the transition to the cohortorganisedlegion as smooth as possible.THE LAYOUT OF THE LEGIONARY CAVALRYSince there is no evidence to suggest that the organisation of the legionary cavalrychanged during the second century (above, Chapter Two), there is no obvious reason forthe nature of their encampment to have altered during this period. If however in thecohort-based camp the total length of the cavalry encampment continued to be the sameas the legionary infantry it would mean that the ten turmae would have had less space thanin the manipular camp. With the ten turmae divided by the via quintana into two groupsof five, each group would have had 372 feet available (the widths of three end-to-endcohorts plus the length of a pair of side-by-side cohorts). This results in each turma having74.4 feet (22.0 m) available. This dimension does not however follow the pattern of 12 footmodules that all the dimensions of the Polybian camp seem to use and which could wellhave continued into the cohort-based camp. It was consequently perhaps rounded downto 72 feet (21.3 m), the same as the width of the cohorts. This would result in theencampment of the five turmae on either side of the via quintana being 12 feet shorter thanthe infantry, but this would doubtless be small enough a difference to be acceptable.In this reconstruction, the area available to each turma was consequently muchnarrower than the 120 feet of the manipular camp. It would nevertheless have been largeenough for the basic imanipular' form of cavalry encampment to continue, with onlyslight adjustments (fig. 17). The four 12 foot wide tents of the rear decuria and the two 12foot wide areas for remounts would have fitted exactly into the 72 foot wide areas of thecohort-based camp The two decuriae down each side of the area would obviously be closertogether, but the resulting conversantibus, only 24 feet wide compared to 72 feet in themanipular camp, would probably have been sufficient for access. Clearly however theside ranges would now lie in front of the end thirds of the rear range and so an adequatespace between the side and rear ranges would be required to facilitate rear range access.The width of this space is uncertain, but since the layout of tents appears to have beenbased around a 12 foot module, perhaps the space was 12 feet wide. If this reconstructionis valid, it means that the cavalry areas in the cohort-based camp were each 84 x 72 feet,compared to 72 x 120 in the manipular camp.130

Chapter ThreeTHE MAIN FORCE OF ALLIESThe cavalrySince the allied cavalry seems to have been like the Roman cavalry in not changing itsorganisation during the second century (above, Chapter Two), the same minor changesexperienced by the legionary cavalry can be proposed for the allies (fig. 15).The infantryThe likely re-organisation of the allied infantry into tactical cohorts at the same time as theequivalent change amongst the legions would have affected the layout of their areas. Thealteration may however not have been that great, since the allies could already have hada form of cohort organisation at least in camp (above). The eight allied 'manipular cohorts'forming the main force of infantry in each ala could have continued their practice of facingthe outer rampart when they were re-organised into cohorts in the fullest sense, simplyby the maniples being arranged end-to-end in the manner of some of the legionary cohorts(fig. 15). Each of these allied cohorts would presumably have been the same length asthose of the legions, i.e. 456 feet, but would have been slightly wider, 93 feet (27.53 m)compared to 72, if they occupied the same overall area as the legions, which they didbefore, in the manipular camp.THE PRAETORIUM RANGE, THE DELECTI EXTRAORDINARII AND EVOCATIThe location of the forum, praetorium, and quaestorium need not have been affected by thechange to a cohort-based camp. Since however the east-west dimension of the legion was62% smaller than the manipular form, the sizes of the praetorium and the forum would needto be reduced appropriately to fit between the via principalis and the via quintana. It isunlikely that a strict mathematical reduction of 62% was used to calculate the new eastwestsizes of the praetorium and forum, as this produces awkward dimensions of 148.8 and223.2 feet respectively for the two areas. More likely is that the relative proportions of 2:3(240:360 feet) of the two areas in the manipular single-consular camp were maintained.Achieving this and at the same time giving each area the largest possible size in theavailable space results in practical dimensions of 144 feet for the praetorium and 216 feetfor the forum in the cohort-based camp. The 12 feet left over in the maximum available of372 feet, like the same amount for the legionary cavalry (above), could easily have beenignored.In contrast to the praetorium and forum, the east-west dimension of the quaestoriumcould have continued unaltered, but the potentially open area between the quaestoriumand the rear rampart would have been greatly reduced (compare figs 13 and 15).The delecti extraordinarii and evocati appointed as the bodyguard to the consul orpraetor etc. commanding the army and to the quaestor could have retained their formermanipular locations on either side of the praetorium range (fig. 15). The details of theirlayout may however have changed as a consequence of the new cohort organisation. Themaniples forming each cohort could have been arranged side-by-side and facing the street131

Chapter Threewhich ran between them and the legionary cavalry (fig. 15). They could not have beenarranged end-to-end as this would cause them to occupy too long an area. With the sideby-sidearrangement of the cohorts, the turmae of the delecti ex traordinarii and evocati wouldbe most efficiently arranged grouped together as a pair on either side of the praetoriumrange and facing the via quintana as before (fig. 15). They could have been placed on eitherthe praetorium or the quaestorium side of this street, but a more beneficial location wouldhave been the latter, since this would have created as much access as possible to the forumand potentially even allow the forum area to expand to the north and south in order tocompensate for its reduced east-west dimension.THE TRIBUNES, PRAEFECTI SOCIORUM AND LEGATESThe location of these officers along the eastern side of the via principalis in the manipularsingle-consular camp could have continued in the cohort-based camp without problem(fig. 15).THE EXTRAORDINARIIThe areas of the extraordinarii cavalry and infantry could have continued in their singleconsularrnanipular army location, but suitably re-configured for the cohort and bipartiteturma organisation (fig. 15).FOREIGN TROOPSThe areas occupied by foreign troops in the single-consular manipular camp could havecontinued in the cohort-based camp and indeed in a much larger form (fig. 15), appropriatefor the increase in this part of the army during the second century.STREETS AND ENTRANCESAll the streets and entrances of the manipular, single-consular camp could have continuedin the cohort-based camp and with the same names and relative locations (figs 13 and 15).The one exception is the street between the triarii and principes, which would havedisappeared (above).CAMPS FOR SINGLE LEGIONS WITH ALLIESAs well as a single-consular camp for two legions and allies being used during the secondcentury and into the first, a smaller camp would also have been in service for the armiesof a single legion with allies, attested as operating during this period (above, ChapterTwo). The form of this camp is however uncertain. There are no literary references to itsform. Some of the Numantine sites may fall into this category, but none can be firmlyidentified as being occupied by a single legion with allies. The form of the single-legioncamp can only be conjectured by assuming that it would have incorporated some of thefeatures of the double-legion camp in an appropriately adapted form. This 'inheritance'132

Chapter Threeis likely since the two-legion camp derived from the four-legion one and retained severalof the larger camp's basic elements. Further in favour of a degree of continuity is that itwould be more obvious to start from what already existed and adapt it than taking theradical step of starting from fresh; most military developments occur by a system ofevolution and not by the sudden appearance of a new species, so the occurrence of thisprocess also with the development of the Roman camp is probable.The general form of the single-legion camp might consequently have been thepraetorium range, in an appropriately scaled-down form to reflect the smaller size of army,flanked by the two halves of the legion, with the main force of allies on the outer side ofthese, i.e. essentially just continuing the pattern of the double-legion camp, but with thelegionary cohorts totally in the side-by-side arrangement rather than end-to-end in orderto provide a sufficiently long enough protective screen for the praetorium range (fig. 18).If the allied component was exactly half that of a double-legion one, there would not havebeen enough infantry to form the delecti extraordinarii, the ordinary extraordinarii andcreate four cohorts in the main part of each ala (i.e. half the size of each ala in the doublelegionarmy). Perhaps the delecti extraordinarii were removed from bodyguard duties andserved as ordinary extraordinarii. The escort functions would then have been performedsolely by the evocati. Hence perhaps just evocati were down either side of the praetoriumrange. As also in the double-legion camp, the via principalis and via praetoria could continueto form a 'T'-shaped pair of streets in front of the praetorium / forum. On either side of thevia praetoria, again as in the double-legion camp, could have been the tribunes, praefectisociorum, extraordinarii and foreign troops. A reconstruction of the cohort-based versionof this type of camp is attempted in fig. 18; since this reconstruction is largely hypothetical,there is little point entering into a detailed discussion of the layout.CAMPS FOR SINGLE LEGIONS ON THEIR OWNAs well as camps being required for single legions with allies, they would also be requiredfor legions without allies and for allied 'legions' operating on their own, since these areattested from the second century (above, Chapter Two). The form of these camps waspresumably a scaled-down version of the type for a single legion with allies. Anappropriate version of this could have been achieved simply by 'removing' the areasoccupied by the allies. A reconstruction on this basis is attempted in fig. 19. The resultinglayout means that the legions and the allied legions could have both occupied the samedesign of camp. Unfortunately, with the available evidence, there is no way of knowinghow valid the suggested reconstruction of a single-legion camp may be.CAMPS FOR FORCES SMALLER THAN A LEGIONThe form of the camps used by the units which were smaller than a legion, such as those133

Chapter Threeof only two thousand men (above, Chapter Two), is uncertain. Their layout could havederived from the familiar and so have been a scaled-down version of the double-legionform. Since however such installations could have been occupied by troops composed ina variety of ways, their layout could well have displayed a corresponding variety andindeed little regularity.THE DEGREE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THETHEORETICAL CAMPS OF THE SECOND CENTURYAND THOSE AT NUMANTIABecause of the 'mutual dependence' between the literary evidence for the form of campsand the archaeological record of the Numantine camps as regards reaching a betterunderstanding of the two, it is hazardous to propose to what extent the remains on theground will reflect the theoretical form of camps of the period suggested above. This isparticularly the case for the cohort-based camps, for which the literary evidence is poorand the archaeology suggests the theory — creating a weaker argument. More accuratelythe above discussion provides a defensible theoretical framework which allows anunderstanding of what was found at Numantia. Hence, in the following discussion of theindividual sites, elements of the 'pure' Polybian camp will be seen, for example, a gridbasedmanipular layout ordered in a Polybian mariner, but for a single rather than adouble-consular form of camp, plus post-Polybian features attributable to changes causedby the move to the cohort and heralding developments in the form of the cohort-basedcamp to follow the second century.There are still uncertainties however. In particular, the layout used for areas orpotentially even whole installations occupied by foreign troops. Since the organisation ofthese troops varied, there could have been little regularity in the layout of theiraccommodation, and this could be used to distinguish them. It is however hazardous toattribute specific buildings or installations to foreign troops purely on the basis ofirregularity; topography alone could simply account for departures by Roman or alliedforces from clinically-rectangular structures and well-ordered, theoretical layouts.Alternatively the foreign troops could have built, or had built for them, 'Roman-style'barracks and arranged in a 'Roman' manner, and so would be indistinguishable.A further level of uncertainty is introduced by the Scipionic sites associated with thecircumvallation around Numantia being built for a siege. The layout of these may beatypical compared to castra in general and so the above discussion of the layout of campscould be irrelevant; the smaller installations in particular could simply be a convenientgrouping of the accommodation etc., required by the particular garrison, with no directrelationship to the theoretical general model for camps. Alternatively, and perhaps morelikely, as the theoretical layout of smaller installations seems to share the basic featuresof the larger ones (above), these at least should occur in the siege camps, even the smallerones. As a result, applying the general theoretical model to the siege sites has somejustification.134

CHAPTER FOURTHE SITES IN THE AREA OFNUMANTIAFor the location and topography of the sites see figs 1, 2, 20, 21, 86, 118, 120, 132 and 136.These aspects are only mentioned in the following discussion when relevant to establishinghistorical context, where they may have affected the internal layout or influenced whatsurvived.Unless stated otherwise, Schulten's lettering or numbering of structures is used.For convenience, the sites are placed in two groups, those at Renieblas and thoseclose by Numantia.THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE OF THE BUILDINGSWhere camps contained internal buildings, they were usually constructed of the locallyavailable stone. An exception to this is the Blue Phase at Castillejo, where instead of thelocal basalt, sandstone was used, which occurs 5 km to the north of the hill (Schulten 1927b,175).Generally the walls had no foundation trenches, but were built directly ontobedrock (Schulten 1929,24); an exception is the Black Phase at Castillejo, where the relativeheight of paved floor surfaces and burnt material suggested to Schulten that some of thewalls must have been set in foundation trenches, though he does not comment that hefound the actual trenches (Schulten 19276,190). Where there was unacceptable unevennessin the surface of the bedrock at Renieblas, it was correspondingly built up or cut away(Schulten 1929, 24). Here also, the bedrock was also cut away in places to provide levelterraces for some rooms on the more steeply-sloping parts of the site. These terracesindeed allowed the plan of rooms to be found in some areas where the walls were missing(Schulten 1929, 24).135

Chapter Four — RenieblasThere were essentially three types of wall construction used, none of which waspeculiar to a particular phase and indeed some buildings were constructed using all threemethods (Schulten 1927b, 109; 1929, 24). The three methods were: two facing-walls withsmall stones forming the core; irregular-shaped stones in one or two rows; and squaredstones in a single row. There was little evidence for binding material between the stonesand where it did occur it was clay and seems to have been used more to block up draughtyholes, than hold the stones together (Schulten 1927b, 109, 190; 1929, 10). An exception tothe use of clay occurred at Perla Redonda, where a few traces of lime mortar were found(Schulten 1927b, 110). The width of internal walls varied between 0.27 and 0.3 m, andexternal walls were generally between 0.4 and 0.75 m (e.g. Schulten 1929, 25, 109), thoughat the Black Phase of Castillejo they averaged 0.29 m (Schulten 1927b, 190). Generally thewalls survived to a height of only one or two courses of stones, on average no more than0.5 m high (Schulten 1927b, 190; 1929, 26), but in the northern part of Molino, walls up toseven courses high were found, reaching a height of 0.75 m (Schulten 1927b, 233). Theinternal walls were very rarely bonded in with the external walls, but the corners of theexternal walls were always bonded (Schulten 1929, 25).Several of the buildings were found to have been well-appointed. For example,some were furnished with timber doors, from the evidence of iron door fittings found(Schulten 1927b, 110; 1929, 25). Also, traces of wall plaster were found at Pefia Redonda(Schulten 1927b, 110). Many stone hearths were found inside the buildings, a verynecessary feature with winter temperatures dropping to -10 degrees Celsius (Schulten1929, 27).The nature of the buildings' roofs is uncertain. There was presumably enoughtimber to provide sufficient roof beams etc., since, in contrast to the present scarcity oftimber in the area, Appian refers to the area around Numantia being dense woods (SpanishWars 76). Schulten makes no comment about tiles having been found, other than incontexts datable to the Empire, so presumably this form of roofing was not used in thecamps. Perhaps, as Pfretzschner suggests (in Schulten 1929, 26), roofs were similar tothose on the huts built by Schulten's local excavators. The frame of the roofs for these hutswas formed of unworked tree branches, on which were laid timber planks, stone shingles,earth and turf, to form a thick covering.RENIEBLASINTRODUCTIONSchulten's excavations resulted in him concluding that five different camps had beendiscovered, referred to by him as Lager I, II, III, IV and V. Re-interpreting the publishedevidence however allows the suggestion that some features associated by Schulten with136

Chapter Four - RenieblasLager III and Lager IV could instead be further phases of camp. These are referred to belowas Lager VI and VII (fig. 21).The quality of remains varied widely on the hill. Farming activities had greatlydisturbed the parts of camps that extended onto the southern portion of the Gran Atalayahill. In contrast, there was little disturbance on the northern part of the hill, as the steepand rocky nature of the ground, with little topsoil, meant that it was of little use for farmingand became common land (Schulten 1929,12 f.). An indication of the good survival of, forexample, the northern part of Lager III, where walls were quite clearly visible aboveground, can be seen in Schulten writing that he and his colleagues were able to "walk instunned amazement through the deserted alleyways and barracks of the camp" (Schulten1929, 4) and General Lammerer was able to make a plan of the buildings in 1909 withminimal excavation (Schulten 1929, 21),RELATIVE DATING OF THE CAMPSSchulten was able to establish the sequence of the camps from their relative location andintersections. On top of this sequence he was able to propose actual dates for the phases,tying them in with the historical record. Below is a discussion of the physical relationshipsof the camps. The absolute dating and historical contexts are discussed at the end of thischapter.The evidence given by Schulten for the relative dating of camps Ito V (fig. 21) andhis conclusions are as follows:The eastern parts of Lager I and II had been removed by Lager III. Lager IIImust be later than Lager I and II (Schulten 1929, 22). Lager II could howeverbe contemporary with Lager III if it was an annexe to III (below).The barracks of Lager I lay under the northern rampart of Lager II. Lager IIis later than Lager I (Schulten 1929, 22 and 39).The broad eastern rampart of Lager IV disturbed some barracks of Lager IIIand used them as building material. Lager IV must be later than Lager HI(Schulten 1929, 22 and 76).Lager V cut the south-western corner of Lager III and the southern edge ofLager IV. Lager V must be the latest in the sequence (Schulten 1929, 22).Although the published evidence and plans do not allow the evidence as presented bySchulten to be closely checked, his conclusions do seem viable from what is published.Schulten does not mention if any stratigraphical relationship existed between LagerIII and what he believed to be its annexe (referred to here as Lager VI). Since however heinterpreted 'Lager VI' as an annexe to Lager III, he regarded them as being contemporary(Schulten 1929, 111). It is suggested below that Lager VI was a separate and laterinstallation than Lager HI. In support of this is that the published plans (figs 24 and 30)suggest that the rampart of Lager VI butted onto that of Lager III, i.e. there was a137

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 1discernable stratigraphical difference. If these plans are reliable, this clearly indicates thatLager VI is later than III. It could still have been an annexe to Lager III however, andsimply constructed after the main camp. The evidence of the internal layout of Lager VIand the nature of its rampart suggest however that Lager VI was a camp in its own rightand later than Lager III (below).The physical relationship between Lager IV and the length of rampart to the westof it is not clear from the available evidence. Schulten believed that the two wereassociated. This is questionable; it can be suggested instead that the length of rampart wasa different phase of camp (Lager VU; below).LAGER I AND IISchulten publishes two plans of Lager I and II (fig. 23), besides the small-scale plansshowing all the camps on the site. Both are published at 1:1,000, but one is based on asurvey conducted at 1:200 by Koenen using an alidade and tape measure, whereas theother is the result of a tacheometric survey taken by Lammerer at 1:1000 (Schulten 1929,33; fig. 23, upper and lower respectively). Schulten acknowledges the discrepanciesbetween the two, but with some justification prefers the plan of the buildings shown onKoenen's plan, as this was produced from a more detailed survey. In contrast, because ofthe problems of correcting horizontal distances over the uneven ground, Schulten favoursLammerer's tacheometric survey for the overall shape of the surviving part of the camp(1929, 33). The reliability of either is however questionable, since as even Schultenacknowledges, the walls were generally badly preserved and as a result their location wasambiguous (1929, 33). This poor state of preservation is attributed by Schulten to all butthe heaviest stones being robbed for the construction of Lager III (1929, 33), which is apossibility.LAGER IDESCRIPTIONOnly the northern side and the northern sections of the eastern and western sides survived(fig. 23). The location of the southern side is completely uncertain. The surviving rampartdescribes a shape in the form of one end of basically a round-cornered rectangle. There isno way of knowing whether the southern part of the camp completed the rectangularshape or was more irregular. The surviving rampart and the area occupied by theassociated buildings show that the camp was about 345 m from east to west and at least290 m from north to south. It consequently had a minimum area of 10 ha.138

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IDEFENCESDITCHNo mention is made by Schulten about a ditch. It is not clear whether he looked for one,so the existence of a ditch is uncertain.RAMPARTThe stone rampart varied in width between 1.75 and 2.3 m (Schulten 1929, 34, n. 3). Itconsisted of two revetting walls formed of 0.4 m squared blocks, with a core of small stones(Schulten 1929, 34).TOWERSSchulten states that there was no evidence for towers along the rampart (1929, 34).ENTRANCESA gate, with a 2.8 m wide entrance, existed near the north-western corner of the camp(Schulten 1929,34; figs 22,1 and 23). The construction of the gateway was very simple andseems to have consisted of a revetted passageway through the rampart, with the rampartbeing strengthened either side of it by being gradually widened to 3.4 m (Schulten 1929,34; fig. 22,1). No other gates were identified along the surviving lengths of rampart.INTERNAL FEATURESWithin the area of Lager I Schulten found the remains of a number of buildings (1929, 35ff.; fig. 23). Since these remains lay within the area enclosed by Lager II and IV as well asI, conceivably they could belong to these camps rather than to just Lager I. Schulten ishowever probably correct in attributing the remains to Lager I rather than to Lager II orIV, as the area of II to the west of land the part of Lager IV outside of I appear to have hadno building remains at all, suggesting that these two camps, in contrast to Lager I, did notcontain stone buildings.Schulten interprets the walls found as a number of rows of barrack blocks. Each rowis regarded as consisting of a number of neighbouring rectangular areas with the actualbarrack blocks arranged around three of the sides of each area, to form horseshoe-shapedblocks (1929, 35 ff.; fig. 23, upper). Schulten deals in some detail with the form anddimensions of these blocks (1929, 35 ff.). He could be correct in his interpretation, but theremains are so poor in quality, that all that can really be concluded is that this campcontained a number of long, rectangular buildings which varied in their general alignment;their form and dimensions are however uncertain.A group of walls found near to the north-western gate and forming a structurewhich appears to have been parallel with the north-western rampart is interpreted bySchulten as being an artillery platform (1929, 35 f.; figs 22,2 and 23). Schulten could be139

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Icorrect, but such an interpretation seems unlikely, for the same reasons as given for therejection of a similar structure at Pefia Redonda (below). Instead, this structure is probablyjust an internal building, possibly barracks.The walls found in the area of Lager I by the north-western corner of Lager III aresuggested by Schulten as being the praetorium of Lager I (1929, 36). His suggestion is basedon this group of walls being the same distance from the northern, eastern and westernrampart, i.e. a 'central' position within the camp. Again Schulten could be correct, but theevidence is too insubstantial to be able to prove the point either way.Towards the southern extent of the remains of Lager I, close to the western rampartof Lager III, were walls of a building which seems to have consisted of a number of roomsdown either side of along, north-south wall (figs 23 and 48, left). The surviving remainsindicate that the building was at least 50 m long and 11 m wide (Schulten 1929, 90). Therooms varied between 6 and 7 m from north to south and 4 and 5 m from east to west(Schulten 1929, 90). Schulten states that the preservation of this building was so muchbetter than the remains elsewhere of Lager I, that he felt that it could not have been partof Lager I (1929, 37). If it had been part of Lager I, Schulten also felt that it would surelyhave been demolished by the construction of nearby Lager HI. He consequently concludedthat this building was part of Lager III. Schulten offers an interpretation of the buildingas being stables for elephants (1929,90). Schulten's reasons were that the size of the roomswould have been suitably large and the elephants were probably best kept outside thecamp, in part because their smell made horses restless (1929, 90). Schulten's interpretationcould well be correct. Supporting it to some extent is that Lager III can be associated withNobilior (below) and, as Schulten points out (1929, 90), Appian mentions that his armycontained ten elephants (Spanish Wars 46).Schulten comments that no 'significant' smallfinds occurred in the area of Lager Ior II (1929, 40). From the area of Lager I, Schulten lists the finds as an iron finger ring, anIberian coin and a Campanian plate (1929, 40). Since the area of Lager I intersected withLager II and it is not clear from which part of Lager I the finds came, they presumablycould be associated with either phase.THE INTER VALLUMThe extent of remains relative to the north-western, western and eastern sections of therampart suggests a degree of regularity for the location of the limit of the buildings relativeto the rampart. If this is a reliable indication of the actual building limit, it would mean thatthe intervallum was between about 15 and 20 m wide (Schulten 1929, 36).GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTLittle can be concluded about the layout of Lager I, other than it appears to have hadrectangular stone buildings, some of which are presumably barracks.140

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IILAGER IIDESCRIPTIONOnly the northern side of Lager II and the northernmost sections of the eastern andwestern sides survived (fig. 23). The overall size and shape of the camp are consequentlyuncertain. All that can be established is that the northern side displayed an irregular line,perhaps attributable to the influence of the contours of this part of the hill. The survivingportions of the defences indicate that the camp was at least 440 m from east to west and140 m from north to south. The minimum area was consequently 6 ha.DEFENCESDITCHNo mention is made be Schulten about a ditch. It is not clear whether he looked for one,so the existence of a ditch is uncertain.RAMPARTThe only comment that Schulten makes about the stone rampart is that it varied between1.85 and 2 m thick (Schulten 1929, 40). The absence of further discussion presumablymeans that the form of the rampart of Lager II complied with Schulten's general commentabout the ramparts of all the camps on the hill, i.e. that they consisted of an inner and outerrevetment wall constructed of large squared stones, with a core of small stones and earth(Schulten 1929, 26).TOWERSSchulten found evidence to suggest the presence of at least two towers along the northernrampart (1929, 40). One of these lay approximately 50 m to the east of the position of thewestern rampart of Lager I (fig. 23). It lay to the rear of the rampart and measured between4.4 and 6.7 m from front to back and 4.2 m from side to side (Schulten 1929, 40). The secondtower, again to the rear of the rampart, lay 53 m to the east and was 4 m deep and 3 m wide(Schulten 1929, 40). This tower is proposed by Schulten as being a flanking tower to agateway (below), though in his paragraph dealing with towers he does not mention thisand instead just comments that both the towers found were for heavy artillery.Schulten could well be correct with his interpretation of these features, but there istoo little published evidence, particularly in the form of large-scale plans, to be able toascertain how viable the interpretation might be. A degree of doubt is however raised byKoenen's plan showing two towers, but Larnmerer's four. Schulten admittedly commentson the questionable accuracy of Lammerer's plan (above), but this discrepancy mayindicate that the evidence for the towers was not as clear-cut as Schulten would lead us141

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 11to believe. Perhaps the 'towers' were in fact just arbitrary concentrations of stones fromthe rampart or buildings of Lager I.ENTRANCESSchulten believes that two entrances were found, both along the northern rampart (1929,40). One of these is placed by Schulten approximately midway along the northern side (fig.23). He interprets the gateway structure as consisting of a flanking tower, projecting to therear of the rampart, on either side of the entrance passageway, though only the easterntower appears to have survived (1929, 40). Such a gateway may have existed here and inthe form that Schulten proposes. Alternatively the 10 m break in the rampart at this pointmay post-date the camp and the presence of a tower here could be purely coincidental. Thesecond of Schulten's gates is more convincing. It lies about 40 m to the west of the northeasterncorner of the camp. The form of this gate is the same as that found in Lager I andconsists of a widened rampart either side of the 6 m wide entrance passage (Schulten 1929,40).Schulten does not comment on the interruption to the rampart by the north-easterncorner. He presumably regarded it as simply the result of disturbance. On the plans thebreak seems similar in form to the eastern of the two gates proposed along the northernrampart. This suggests it was also a gate. It is however rather close to its westernneighbour, which may mean that Schulten is indeed right to reject it as a gate.INTERNAL FEATURESNo internal features were found in the area of Lager II to the west of Lager I, which, asSchulten suggests (1929, 40), means that Lager II is likely not to have had any internalbuildings, but accommodation was in tents (Schulten 1929, 29). Consequently all theremains found in the area of the intersection of Lager I and II probably belong to LagerI rather than Lager II.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTWith no internal buildings being known from Lager II and so little having beingestablished about the overall form of this camp, little can be concluded about its internallayout.Schulten originally thought that Lager II was an annexe to Lager III (1929, 39).Confusingly, in the 1929 report he first (p. 39) rejects and then (p. 115) accepts thispossibility. His reasons for rejecting II as an annexe were that it was different in characterto III — for example, IT lacked stone buildings and had a thinner rampart — and it seemedunlikely that a heavily defended gateway (the western gate on the northern side of III)would lead into an annexe (1929, 39). Schulten then says however, that these reasons for142

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIrejecting the annexe idea are not forceful (1929, 115). In particular, the absence of buildingsin II could be due to this being a summer-occupied annexe, i.e. accommodation wouldhave been in tents; but precisely this (suggested by Fabricius) is rejected by him in theearlier discussion (1929, 39 note 2).Fabricius also believed that Lager II was an annexe to III and felt that the Lager IIrampart certainly could not pre-date Lager III, and hence not be an earlier camp, due tothe way it joined the rampart of III by the western gate on the northern side of III (Fabricius1911, 372 f.). The only information on the nature of the junction is a large-scale plan (fig.26,C). This suggests that the ramparts of Lager II and III were the same build, since thefront facing stones of the Lager III rampart do not continue across the end of that of LagerII. If the plan is reliable in this respect and the interpretation is correct it would indeedsupport Fabricius' view. Alternatively, the Lager II rampart could have been cut backprior to the construction of the Lager III rampart and the facing stones of III at the junctionof the two would then have been unnecessary, certainly for the surviving height of theLager II rampart. This scenario might account for why the western side of the Lager IIrampart does not align with the eastern side of the entrance passage, but slightly to thewest of it; if Lager II was indeed an annexe to III, a continuous alignment would be morelikely, or the annexe rampart would be slightly to the east of the gate, and certainly notimpinging into the passageway.From the available evidence there is clearly no way of being able to decide firmlyabout whether Lager II was a camp or just an annexe. In favour of it being a camp however,and as Schulten suggests, is the difference in character between II and III.DESCRIPTIONLAGER IIIThe northern and eastern sides of the camp were preserved entire (figs 24 and 25). Incontrast only the northern part of the western side survived and the southern side wasalmost completely missing, with only the start of it remaining by the south-eastern corner(figs 24 and 25). As a result, the exact shape and size of the camp are uncertain. Thetopography however supports Schulten reconstructing the line of the southern side asbeing close to that of a modern trackway near the 1090 m contour line and joining withan approximately straight western side (1929,47; figs 21 and 24). The overall shape of thecamp can thus be approximated to a square, but with an irregular and angled line toparticularly the eastern side, which was probably influenced by the topography of the hill.The overall dimensions can consequently be estimated as being 700 x 700 m. Thisproduces an area of 49 ha. As Sc_hulten suggests (1929, 42 ff.), the size and shape of thecamp may indicate that the camp was planned using an area of 20 x 20 actus (710.4 x 710.4m). Since however the exact course of the southern and western sides is not known, theproposal of such a 'design size' must remain conjectural.143

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIDEFENCESDITCHSchulten comments that a ditch was not present (1929, 51). Schulten's explanation for theabsence can probably be agreed with. He suggests that digging out the limestone bedrockof the hill to form a ditch would have required too great an effort to have been viable andthe absence of a ditch could have been well-compensated for by the ease with which theabundant supply of loose surface stone would have allowed a high rampart to have beenconstructed (1929, 51).RAMPARTThe stone rampart was generally 3 m wide, but in places was up to 3.9 m (Schulten 1929,50 f.). In many places the front and rear revetting walls were visible, with the front onebeing thicker than the rear (0.7 compared to 0.4 m) (Schulten 1929, 51). These revetmentwalls were dressed on their outer faces. Between them was placed a filling of small stonesand earth. In some places a third wall, within the body of the rampart was found, just asin the circumvallation around Numarttia near to the camps of Petia Redonda andDehesilla (Schulten 1929,51; fig. 26,G). Schulten could find no pattern to when the thirdwall was used (1929, 51).By tower 11, on the northern rampart, remains suggestive of the lower portion of anascensus in the form of a ramp or stairs were found (Schulten 1929,51; fig. 26,E). Schulten'sinterpretation of this feature could well be correct.TOWERSSchulten identified a total of 18 towers, placed, with two exceptions, along the rear of therampart (1929, 52 ff.; figs 24, 26 and 34 to 39). A further six towers were associated withgates (below). The two towers which did not lie to the rear of the rampart projectedforwards, rather like semi-circular bastions, in the area of the north-eastern part of thedefences (Schulten 1929,53; fig. 36, towers 16 and 17). Schulten comments that the remainsin the area of these two 'bastions' were so disturbed that the form of the structures wasunclear and he is a little uncertain about his interpretation. It is possible consequently, thatthese bastions were an illusion created by the particular distribution of the disturbedremains of the rampart and thus their existence is questionable.The spacing between the towers showed little regularity or pattern. The actualdistances between neighbouring towers varied between 14 and 220 m (Schulten 1929,52ff.). Schulten believed he could detect a spacing pattern of 29 m (100 Roman feet) (1929,56), but this rather stretches the evidence. It is possible however that there was a regularpattern, but it is not readily apparent due to the lack of survival or recognition of sometowers.The towers varied in size from between 2 and 6.7 m from front to back and generallybetween 3 and 7m across (Schulten 1929, 52 ff.). The tower between the eastern gate andthe south-east corner was unusually 11.35 m across (Schulten 1929, 53). This large size144

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIcauses Schulten to suggest that instead of being a tower, perhaps the structure was alatrine; there being parallels for latrines behind the rampart in much later sites (1929, 53).Unfortunately Schulten does not provide any detailed information about this particularstructure to be able to re-assess what its function may have been. The interpretation oftower 20, along the eastern rampart, is perhaps also questionable. Schulten does notdiscuss this feature. The plan (fig. 36) shows this structure as being separate from therampart, which in this particular area seems to have been disturbed. Since this structurewas distant from the rampart, and in contrast all the other features interpreted by Schultenas towers are shown joined to the rampart, perhaps 'tower' 20 should be regarded not asa tower, but as a building, of uncertain function, placed close behind the rampart.It is unclear in Schulten's description of the towers whether they were hollow orsolid structures. The plans (figs 26 and 34 to 39) however suggest there was a mixture ofhollow and solid towers, though the evidence of the gate towers (below) suggests that therendition of the towers as solid or open in the small-scale plans (figs 34 to 39) is not reliableas a true indication of their original form.ENTRANCESSchulten found good evidence for three gates, two along the northern side and one on theeastern side and possible evidence for a fourth gate along the western rampart (1929, 57ff.; fig. 24). The three well-preserved gates were all published with detailed plans, whichincluded numerous dimensions (fig. 26). These gates were very similar in form. All hadinward-projecting flanking towers, with those of the northern gates being similar in sizeand shape, but those of the eastern gate were shorter and wider in comparison (fig. 26).The flanking towers of the western gate on the northern side were divided along theirlength into at least two areas. Schulten refers to these areas as rooms (1929, 52). Thispresumably means that he believed the towers to have been hollow at ground level.Indeed, the provision of internal dividing walls would make little sense unless they wereto form usable rooms within the towers. The flanking towers of the eastern gate on thenorthern side could similarly have been open, since a revetting wall existed between thetowers and where they joined the rampart. The eastern gate towers could also have beenhollow, since traces of a revetment along the rear of the rampart were found in thesouthern tower. It seems likely that the northern tower of this gateway would have beensimilar to all the others, which would mean that traces of a revetment here perhaps simplyfailed to survive (fig. 26,H). Subdivisions similar to those found in the towers of thewestern gate on the northern side were not apparent in the other gate towers, but sincethey existed in one gateway, it is reasonable to suppose that they existed in the others,since there appears to have been general similarity in design between all the gates. Theabsence of subdivisions in the towers of the eastern gate on the northern side and in theeastern gate may consequently simply be due to the walls not surviving.The entrance passageways of the western gate on the northern side and the easterngate were both about 3 m wide. In contrast the passageway of the eastern gate on the145

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIInorthern side was as much as 4.8 m (fig. 26). A possible reason for this difference is thatthe wider gate lay at the end of the via quintana (below).No evidence in the form of pivot holes or sills was found to suggest where the doorsof the entrances may have been located (1929, 59).Schulten suggests that the gap to the south of tower 1 along the western rampartmay be associated with a gate (1929,57; fig. 34). The tower would then form the survivingnorthern member of a pair of flanking towers, to produce a design of gateway similar tothose elsewhere around the rampart. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the gap inthe rampart is simply the result of disturbance, since a modern gulley of about the samewidth as the interruption in the rampart runs into the camp at this point (the same gulleyalso accounts for the position of the western end of the Lager I rampart). The presence ofa gate here is consequently questionable.The gap shown in figs 24 and 34, 105 m to the south of the conjectured westernentrance by tower 1 is seemingly rendered in these plans as being a gateway. It is notshown in this manner in fig. 25. The form in fig. 25 is probably the more accurateinterpretation as the apparent end of the rampart at this point is due to it being cut andall traces of it to the south being removed by Lager V (fig. 21).No comment is made by Schulten about the short interruption along the northernrampart near to the north-western corner, by tower 15 (fig. 34). The presence of a towerto one side of the gap is suggestive of a flanking tower, similar to those found by the othergates. As a result there could have been another tower, which failed to survive, on theeastern side of an entrance at this point. Since however this gap in the rampart is ratherclose to the western gate on the northern side it may not have been yet another entrance,but is simply the result of disturbance.Similarly a gap which occurs along the rampart approximately 300 m to the northof the eastern entrance is not mentioned by Schulten. As with the northern gap, this toocould just be the result of disturbance and the way this section of the rampart is depictedin the plans could be interpreted as indicating disturbance. Alternatively it could be thelocation of a badly-preserved gate with flanking towers similar in form to the othergateways. In support of a gateway being at this point is that the layout of the buildingsinside the camp suggests that this part of the defences could have been at the end of a street(below).Due to the lack of survival of the southern rampart and part of the western rampart,the location and number of gates along these sections of the defences cannot be ascertained.INTERNAL FEATURESThe remains of many buildings were found inside Lager III. The quality of survival varied,with the best-preserved buildings lying to the north of a line between the eastern andpossible western gates (figs 24 and 27 to 33). In the south-eastern part of the camp modernfarming activity was more prevalent than to the north and this resulted in the removal of146

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIImuch of the remains in this area. Remains in the south-western area of the camp werecompletely absent due to a combination of the later Lager V and farming. Schulten offersa detailed reconstruction scheme for Lager III (1929, 64 ff.; figs 24,25 and 34 to 40). Someparts of this scheme can be questioned, but generally the evidence appears verysupportive of the reconstruction. The various areas are discussed below in the orderpresented by Schulten (1929, 68 ff.).BUILDING ROW K — LEGIONARY CAVALRY BARRACKSAbout a third of the way down the camp, from north to south, Schulten reconstructs aneast-west row of buildings (K), which he interprets as a row of cavalry barrack/stableblocks (1929, 66 ff.; figs 24, 35 to 36 and 46). The general form of the buildings andparticularly the complex character of their internal layout compared to barracks to thenorth of them support this reconstruction. Schulten can also be agreed with in that thesmallfinds, with a higher proportion of horse-related equipment than from most otherbuildings of this phase, support interpreting these buildings as cavalry barracks /stables.The finds included horse trappings (a phalera from barrack 2 and one from barrack 6; abridle fitting from barrack 3), spearheads (3 in barrack 3; 1 from barrack 4) and a metal pegwith a chain attached interpreted by Schulten as being used to secure horses (from barrack4) (1929, 71) and this is agreed with by Bishop and Coulston (1993, 63 f.), though clearlyother uses for the peg and chain are possible. The buildings also yielded good-qualitypottery, Campanian Ware, which, as Schulten suggests, would suitably reflect the degreeof wealth that the cavalry would have had (1929, 71). The spearheads are worthy ofcomment. The three from barrack 3 are described as a short socketed pilum (230 mm long),a 310 mm long spearhead which was socketed and had a long, slender square-sectionedpoint and another similar in character, but 245 mm long (Schulten 1929, 71). Thespearhead from barrack 4 is simply stated to have been 105 mm long (Schulten 1929, 71).The form of the 'spears' and 'pilum' is suggestive of the very slender type of speardescribed by Polybius as once being used by the Roman cavalry (6.25.5). By the way thisspear easily buckled, according to Polybius, it could have been very much like a pilum;hence Schulten could easily have interpreted one of the weapons as a pilum. The presenceof 'pilum-like' weapons in these barracks need not therefore suggest the presence ofinfantry, which would normally be the implied association. If the interpretation of theweapons as being the 'old' type of cavalry spear referred to by Polybius is valid, the coindating evidence from Lager III (above, Chapter One) means that such spears would havebeen in use up to the mid-second century BC. Polybius is imprecise about when this typeof spear was used, but it appears to have been at a time prior to when he was writing.Dating the spears to the mid-second century and interpreting them as 'old' cavalry spearsis just possible in relation to when Polybius wrote Book Six of his History, possibly in c.160 (above, Chapter Two).The evidence supports Schulten in reconstructing the row of barracks as consistingof a series of rectangular areas, each measuring 22 m from north to south and between 39147

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIand 40 m from east to west (1929, 66 ff.; figs 24,35 and 36). Schulten reconstructs 10 suchareas along the row, with a gap between areas 5 and 6 for a street. Even though the poorsurvival of some of the buildings of this row makes the actual areas indistinct in somecases, this reconstruction seems entirely viable in general terms, since the pattern of tenregular-sized areas appears to have been adopted for the barracks similar in characterimmediately to the north. In some places in row K however the layout may not have beenas regular as Schulten suggests, for example at the western end of the row (figs 42 and 43).The evidence agrees with Schulten placing a range of barracks along the northern, easternand western sides of at least blocks 2 to 10, to produce 'Hufeisenkaserne' (1929, 68) —barracks in the shape of a horseshoe; they could alternatively be referred to as 'triple'barracks, since they contain three ranges. Schulten reconstructs the form of these triplebarracks with the side ranges in each area joining the rear range and with the side range/rear range continuing right to the rear of the area (figs 35, 36, 46 and 58,6). This may havebeen what occurred. The nature of some of the surviving end cross-walls and the cleanexternal corner angle they form with the side walls (e.g. the northern end of the easternrange of barrack 3 /western range of barrack 4 and western end of the rear range of barrack5; fig. 46) suggest however that they represent the true extent of the length of that range;consequently Schulten may be wrong in reconstructing a longer building beyond thesewalls. The surviving remains consequently suggest that there was much less continuitybetween the three ranges and that the rear 'corners' of each area were not necessarilyoccupied by the buildings. In contrast to Schulten, consequently it can be suggested thatusually the side ranges stopped short of the rear of the area and instead aligned their endsclose to the front of the rear range. In their turn, the rear ranges seem rarely to have gonebeyond the end of the side ranges (figs 42 and 43). This layout would have resulted in amore practical arrangement, as the problems encountered by Schulten of creating accessto his (hypothetical) rear corner rooms are removed. This alternative reconstruction issupported by the layout of many of the triple barracks found elsewhere in Lager III,particularly G, and row D, the latter having very strong similarities with row K (figs 41to 43).It might be expected for row K, on the evidence of Polybius (6.29.9) that the tripleblock nearest the rampart would have had the open side of its area facing the rampart tothe east, just as the barracks immediately to the north do. The building remains of barrack10 however indicate that the open side was to the south. The difference with the blocksin the rows to the north supports a possible interpretation of Polybius that it is only themaniples and not the cavahy that faced the rampart (above, Chapter Three). This isperhaps further evidence in support of the barracks of row K being occupied by cavalry.In the case of block 1, there is little remaining evidence to decide on its form, but it is likelyto have been a triple block. Whether the open side of this triple block was to the south, likethe other blocks of the row, or to the west, like the equivalent blocks to the north is lesscertain however. Polybius provides no help here, for he implies that the various types ofunits lying at the end of the rows away from the rampart would face or back each other,148

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIwith no mention that the first units of cavalry or infantry would face at right-angles to therest of the row. The first barracks of the rows of probable infantry barracks in Lager III tothe north of row K clearly however did face at right-angles to their neighbours (below).The equivalent cavalry barracks could have done the same or, like the barracks by therampart, have been different in alignment from the infantry ones (hence fig. 42).The north-south blocks in neighbouring areas shared common dividing walls. Thedepth of each range appeared to be relatively constant and varied between only about 6and 7 m. Each range was subdivided along its length, by walls running generally all theway from front to rear of the range. The number of subdivisions is however uncertain.Schulten believed that each of the north-south ranges was divided into three areas and theeast-west ranges into four (1929, 68; figs 46 and 58,6). Reviewing the evidence, a morerepresentative interpretation can be suggested with commonly four areas existing alongthe side ranges and occasionally five or six particularly in the rear ranges in the alternativereconstructed form suggested above for these blocks. The subdivisions varied in size, buta width of about 4 m seems quite common. Within each area, other rooms of irregular sizeand number were often created, with seemingly, single, double and triple rooms beingconstructed; though the single-roomed main subdivisions may simply be the result of lackof survival of internal walls (fig. 46).Schulten comments that perhaps the first one or two main divisions along eachrange at the southern end of the north-south ranges and the western end of the east-westranges were for officers, as these areas were usually larger than the others, often weremore complex in arrangement and were better made (1929, 68; fig. 46, rooms number 1of Kaserne 3 -5 der Equites Romani). This interpretation conveniently fits Schulten's beliefthat these barracks were occupied by cavalry, with the first division in each rangeaccommodating the three decurions present in a turma and the second the three optiones(1929, 69). The higher quality construction of the end-sections of the ranges does supportSchulten's proposal that they were for officers, and a reconstruction that can be proposedfor the ranges (below), though different from Schulten's, also incorporates such aninterpretation.The exact arrangements of how the men and possibly their horses wereaccommodated within each triple block are uncertain, particularly as the survivingremains suggest there was some variety in the internal and even overall layout of eachrange. Schulten was able to propose a detailed reconstruction of the layout of a 'typical'triple barrack block (fig. 58,6), but this rather simplifies the evidence and is also based onthe seemingly wrong assumption about the number of con tubernia per range. WithSchulten's belief that the north-south ranges each had three and the east-west ranges fourmain areas, making a total of ten, after he had removed the officers' quarters (theequivalent of three areas), he concluded that eight areas remained for the 24 troopers ofthe turma (1929, 69). This is mathematically incorrect, as clearly only seven areas wouldin fact remain once those of the officers had been deducted. Schulten's conclusion, basedon his reasoning, that each area of the ranges would have accommodated three troopers149

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIeach (1929, 69) is consequently wrong. Nevertheless it can be suggested that the barracksdid indeed contain contubernia of three men each.Schulten suggests that the internal divisions partially surviving in area 2 of theeastern range of barrack 4 are a suitable width apart to have been dividing walls betweenhorses in a stable (1929,69; fig. 46). With horses at the rear of the area, presumably it wouldhave been impractical from the point of view of access, to have had men accommodatedin the front part of this area (despite Schulten's claims to the contrary —1929, 70). The wholearea may consequently have been stabling. Alternatively these remains could be misleadingas to being stables. Instead, their similarity with walls found elsewhere incontubernia at Lager III and V and interpreted as the sides of beds (below, Lager V —Tridinienhauser) could mean that these too should be interpreted in this way. Similarsmall walls can be suggested as surviving partially in room 2 of the western range ofbarrack 4 and room 1 of the rear range of barrack 5 in row K (fig. 46). Unfortunately theremains survive too poorly to be able to reconstruct the number of beds per contuberniumwith any certainty, but it is possible that they followed the infantry pattern of three beds.Hence three men could have been accommodated per contubernium. With the number ofcontubernia available this would have been adequate for accommodating a turma in eachrange without the need to propose bunk beds, as needed in the case of the infantrycontubernia (below). There would still have been sufficient space if Schulten's proposal isaccepted that the end section was occupied by the decurion, which the available evidencemakes highly likely, since the three contubernia remaining in each range, with three bedsin each would exactly match the nine men of the turma requiring accommodation,assuming the optio was not given separate quarters (hence fig. 59,4). In effect this grantsthe cavalry twice as much space as the infantry in each contubernium. This would fit theirrelative status and merely continues the pattern given in the Polybian camp of the 30 menof a turma having the same amount of ground as the 60 men of a maniple of triarii (above,Chapter Three; fig. 9).If Schulten's stabling is to be rejected in favour of the remains being beds, analternative location for the stables could have been in the rooms projecting into thecourtyards, visible in some of the triple blocks of this row, and/or in the large front roomsapparent in some ranges. Stabling, perhaps for remounts, could also have been providedin the potentially spare two subdivisions of the rear ranges (fig. 59,4), which possibly forthis very reason seem occasionally to have contained six rather than the four main areasapparent in the side ranges.It is unclear why there was variation in the design of the ranges of row K, with somecontaining projecting areas and others not, since the requirements of all decuriae wouldsurely have been the same and hence a degree of uniformity in layout of the ranges mightbe expected. Significantly in this respect, the similar barracks of row D and the regularlydesignedblocks G and H, all of which were probably occupied by cavalry, have a littlemore depth available and few projecting conjectured stable blocks were found; but thesewere much smaller and are attributable to stables for officers' rather than troopers' horses150

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager III(below; figs 41 to 43,49 and 51). Tentatively it can be suggested that projecting stables wereused where the proximity of the end of the rear range meant it would have beenimpractical, for reasons of access to the side range, to have constructed the side range longenough for 'in line' stables. This suggests that too little depth had been allotted to row K;by accident presumably.BUILDING ROW A - LEGIONARY INFANTRY BARRACKSTo the north of the proposed cavalry barracks (row K) and separated from them by anarrow passage appears to have been a further row of 10 barracks (Schulten 1929, 71 ff.;figs 35, 36, 42, 43 and 46). The surviving remains demonstrated that the barracks consistedof back-to-back, north-south ranges of contubernia. The cavalry blocks to the south wouldhave obliged the front, 'open' side of the barracks of row A to have been on the north ofeach area. An exception seems to have been barrack 10; the remains of this area of barrackssuggest that the open side faced east and the rampart. At the rear of each set of barracksthere could have been an east-west row of contubernia in the manner of the triple barracksto the north (below). Evidence for these rear ranges in row A was lacking according toSchulten (1929, 71), but it can be suggested that the group of walls found in the area ofbarrack 1 (below) can be reconstructed as forming part of a rear range (fig. 41). Theexistence of such rear ranges is likely, as Schulten acknowledges (1929, 71), since theyappear to have existed in all the other rows of barracks in this area of the camp. Since theside ranges of the blocks of row A went right to the back of the rectangular areas occupied,perhaps the rear ranges took the same form as the rear ranges of row K. This could havemeant that in order to provide adequate access to the rooms at the southern end of the sideranges, the rear range did not physically join with the side ranges, but stood as a separatebuilding some distance from the side ranges. Facilitating the provision of such a distanceis that these rear ranges could have been quite short. It can be suggested that this row ofbarracks accommodated triarii (below). Consequently the rear range may have consistedof just three of the typical eight-men contubernia, adequate for the 24 velites attached to eachmaniple of triarii (figs 9 and 59,3; above Chapter Three). Schulten's excavation method ofchasing walls may not have found remains for isolated and short ranges of this form. Thiscould explain their absence in the published records.It is uncertain whether block 1 faced west, like the two rows to the north, but thisis likely, since this row and the two to the north were probably associated as a group(below). Further, some walls found towards the eastern end of the area of barrack 1(below) would easily form a rear, north-south range, whereas they would not convenientlyfit a location along the southern side of a north-facing triple block (figs 35 and 42).Schulten makes no comment about the group of walls found along the southern sideof the first barrack block of row A, perhaps because they do not readily fit his orderedreconstruction of the rows of barracks in this area. Their angled alignment in respect ofthe buildings to the east can perhaps be explained by the change in the line of the slopeat the western end of row A. This would have favoured altering the building lines from151

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIInorth-south to more north-east/south-west. The same change of direction can be seen inthe line of the 'north-south' dividing walls along the southern range of barrack 1 of rowB, a 'north-south' wall of the northern range of barrack 1 of row K and the conjecturedtribunes' houses (figs 34, 35, 41 and 42). This extent of angled alignment suggests that theinfluence of topography was more widespread in this area than just affecting the tribunes'houses, which Schulten does acknowledge (below). As a result of this 'swing' in thealignment of the westernmost section of row A, it is possible that the western end of thefirst barrack lay further west than Schulten envisaged. The short length of wall found justto the west of Schulten's barrack 1 of row A and not commented on by him, mayconsequently be associated with barrack 1 (figs 35 and 42).The rectangular areas occupied by each triple block generally measured about 22 mfrom north to south and about 39 to 40 m from east to west (1929, 71). The east-westdimension of the north-south ranges seems to have varied generally between 4 and 6 m.The layout of the walls and the number of surviving east-west dividing walls suggest thateach range was divided into five main areas. Of these, the northernmost area comprisingbetween two and four rooms (Schulten's areas 1 and 2 in fig. 46) was probably officers'quarters (Schulten 1929, 72). This is suggested by these parts of the barracks being ofhigher quality construction compared to the rest of the block, which Schulten commentswas also generally much less well-made than the cavalry barracks (1929, 71). Further,some of the end-sections of the blocks possessed a room, about 2 m square, projecting intothe courtyard. Similar rooms were found in the same relative location in barracks to thenorth. All would have been of a suitable size to have been stabling for one or two horses.Since the centurions were mounted, each officer would presumably have required hishorse to have been nearby. Hence these rooms could have been stables for the centurions'horses. In turn, this supports the notion that the end-sections of the blocks of row A andin the blocks of the other rows as well, were officers' quarters. The area devoted to officers'quarters was generally double that compared to each of the four contubernia which existedto the south (Schulten 1929, 72). The contubernia generally each measured between 3 and4 m from north to south. Some contubernia had evidence for having been divided into tworooms, though the weight of the published evidence suggests that a single room may havebeen the norm. This may however be misleading, as the dividing walls in the rows ofbarracks to the north seem to have been rather slight in nature and consequently if thesame type of wall had been present in row A, they too may have been missed in theexcavation (below).Of note are the small walls found in room 5 of the eastern block of barrack 3 (fig. 46).These seem similar to the features found in other contubernia at Lager III and in Lager V,interpreted as the sides of the lower portion of three bunk beds (below, Lager V —Triclinienhauser), and so should perhaps also be interpreted in this way.Finds from these barracks included a vaguely leaf-shaped spearhead (100 mm long)and a socketed pi/um (340 mm long), some rings from mail and one phalera (exact locationfor these is not given) (Schulten 1929, 73). These are interpreted by Schulten as being152

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIevidence to support the idea that this row of barracks was occupied by triarii (1929, 73).The character of the finds would not conflict with them having belonged to triarii (thephalera could be explained as being from a centurion's horse or pack animal), but on theother hand they would not be completely out of keeping for cavalry. From the finds alonetherefore, cavalry could have been placed in the barracks of both rows K and A. Thecharacter of the barracks in these two rows however differs so noticeably that it is unlikelythat the same type of unit could have occupied both rows. The complexity of the barracksof row K would be appropriate for the mixed accommodation of men and horses.Conversely the simpler form of row A would suit infantry. Of the three types of manipularinfantry that could have occupied row A, the short length of the side ranges compared tosimilar barracks to the north (below) suggests that row A could only have been occupiedby triarii (above, Chapter Three, accommodation of the triarii; figs 9 and 22,3). HenceSchulten's interpretation of placing cavalry in row K and the triarii in row A seems valid.BUILDING ROW B - LEGIONARY INFANTRY BARRACKSTo the north of row A, the remains suggest that there was an east-west street with anotherrow of triple blocks along its northern side, row B (figs 35, 36, 42, 43 and 47). This row wasvirtually identical in character to the triple blocks of row A. There were essentially onlytwo differences, namely that the north-south ranges were almost twice the length of thosein row A and the 'open' side of blocks 2 to 9 faced south rather than north. The length ofthe north-south ranges varied between 38 and 39 m (Schulten 1929, 74). Since the east-westdimension of each triple block also shared these dimensions, the resulting areas occupiedby the triple blocks were basically square. The area of each triple block was generallyseparated from its neighbour by a gap of about 1.5 m, with possibly only blocks 4 and 5,and 9 and 10 sharing common dividing walls (figs 35 and 36). The evidence for suchpassageways being in the majority in row A is less conclusive, due to the quality of thesurviving evidence. In contrast, the cavalry barracks of row K seem on the whole not tohave had these passageways, whereas those of row D did and the infantry barracks of rowE also lacked them. The reason for the difference between the rows is not clear. It maysimply represent different practices favoured by the different types of unit occupying thevarious rows.In barrack 2 the rear range of rooms seems to have been separated from its adjacentrow by a small passageway (Schulten 1929,75; figs 35 and 47). This feature was also foundin barracks 1, 2 and 10 in the row of similar barracks immediately to the north (row C)(Schulten 1929, 75, n. 2; figs 35, 36 and 47). As Schulten suggests, the presence of apassageway would allow easy access to the end rooms of the side ranges (1929, 75).Schulten clearly felt that such passageways were not that common however as hereconstructs the overall plan of a triple barrack block with the side and rear ranges joining(fig. 58,5). It can be suggested however that the existence of a passageway, created simplyby stopping the rear range short of the side ranges, was the usual pattern (fig. 59,2). Thisobvious practical way of providing access to the end rooms of the side ranges can be153

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111reconstructed without problem in nearly all the blocks of both rows B and C (figs 42 and43). In these the form of the triple block appears to have consisted of the rear wall of therear range continuing uninterrupted across the passageway to join with the end wall ofthe side range. The passageway was consequently closed at the rear of the area occupiedby the triple block. The exceptions to where passageways can be easily reconstructed andalso where Schulten comments on the absence of a passageway (1929, 75) are seeminglyrow B, blocks 6 and 7 and row C, blocks 6 and 7. It is not clear why these particular blockswere different, assuming that the difference was indeed real and not the result of poorexcavation or mis-leading, poor-quality remains (the area of blocks 6 and 7 was found tobe badly disturbed by the eastern rampart of Lager IV).The layout given to block 1 of row B by Schulten can be questioned in respect of whathe regards as forming the rear range (fig. 47). The general pattern of the location of thesides of the areas occupied by the triple blocks of rows B and C suggests that they allaligned with one another. Schulten's reconstruction of the rear of block 1 of row B resultsin the limit of the area of this block not aligning with the limit between blocks 1 and 2 inrow C. This may indeed have been the reality, but since all the other blocks aligned itwould be expected that blocks 1/2 of row B would have aligned with blocks 1/2 of rowC. This feature of common alignment can be reinstated for blocks 1/2 by attributingSchulten's rear range of block 1 of row B to the western side range of block 2 (fig. 42). Theresulting seemingly near-total absence of remains from the rear range of block 1, with justone poorly-surviving east-west wall projecting from Schulten's rooms 2 and 3, can in partbe rectified by the suggestion that the rear wall of the western range of block 2 formed acommon dividing wall with the rear of the rear range of block 1. The presence of commondividing walls is admittedly unusual in these rows, but can be suggested for blocks 9/10(fig. 43). This shares the same characteristic with 1/2 in that the outer blocks (1 and 10)were at right-angles to their neighbours. This alone may have been the reason for theabsence of separate party walls.Schulten does not comment on the two north-south sections of wall found in thesouth-eastern part of barrack 1 (fig. 47). It is possible that the northern section wasassociated with the southern range of the barracks, particularly if the alignment of thisrange was slightly different from its neighbouring buildings (above). The southernsection of wall seems too far away from the barracks to have been directly associated withthem. Perhaps this wall represents the sole surviving element of a range of rooms placedagainst the side of the barracks, similar to those found along the via quintana (below).The depth of each range seems to have been similar to those in row A and wasbetween 4 and 5 m (Schulten 1929, 74). The evidence of dividing walls along the rangessuggests that they were subdivided into areas on average 3 m wide. This allows a generalreconstruction of ten areas along the side ranges and perhaps six along the rear ranges.The end portion of the side ranges at the front of the area occupied by each triple block wasprobably officers' accommodation (Schulten 1929, 74 f.). These quarters appear to haveconsisted generally of two of the typical 3 m wide areas found along the blocks oroccasionally a single, double-sized area (fig. 59,2). The high quality of construction of154

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIthese end-sections, compared to the low quality of the rest of the block (Schulten 1929, 74)supports the interpretation of them being officers' quarters. It is also supported by theend-section of the northern range of barrack 1 of row B projecting from the rest of the rangein the manner typical of later officers' quarters. With generally the end two areas beingfor officers, it meant that the remaining eight 3 m wide areas of the side ranges canprobably be interpreted as contubernia (Schulten 1929, 75). There is no published evidenceto suggest that the form of the rear ranges differed from the side ones, other than that theylacked any obvious officers' quarters. Schulten interprets the rear range of rooms as beingfor pack animals and used as utility areas (1929, 75). It is suggested above that they couldhave formed the accommodation for the velites. Consequently they were perhaps just sixmore contubernia. With the typical contubernia group being suggested above as consistingof eight men, the six contubernia would have corresponded exactly to the requirements ofthe 48 velites which were placed with each maniple of principes (above, Chapter Three), theprobable unit to have been accommodated in this row of barracks (below). The eightcantubernia down the side ranges would also be appropriate for the 60 men in each centuryof this type of unit.Schulten claims that there was little evidence to suggest the contu hernia weresubdivided (1929, 75). Some subdivisions are however indicated in the eastern range ofbarrack 4 (fig. 42). Consequently, although Schulten's statement about the generalabsence of divisions could be correct, it is possible that elsewhere they failed to surviveor were not noticed by the excavators, particularly as the excavation technique rarelyuncovered the internal areas of rooms, thus reducing the chances of finding anyephemeral internal dividing walls. It is possible therefore that more contubernia weresubdivided than the surviving evidence suggests.At the eastern end of the courtyard of barrack 10 was found a feature described bySchulten as an open-fronted room, measuring 2.5 x 2 m (Schulten 1929, 75; fig. 36).Schulten suggests it was a guard post or a latrine (1929, 75). This is possible. Alternatively,the remains could be from a partially surviving building that functioned as a combinationof stores building, kitchen and workshop (above, Chapter Three).In contrast to rows A and C, row B is shown on the published plans to have had nosurviving projecting 2 m square blocks, i.e. conjectural stable blocks (above), by thecenturions' quarters. This may be due to lack of survival or the stabling was moregenerally provided in an alternative form, within an overall larger-projecting officer'sblock, of the type indicated in the northern range of barrack 1 of this row and also in theequivalent range of row C (below; fig. 47). Indeed, perhaps the provision of enclosedstabling was at least part of the reason why officers' quarters in later barracks are generallydeeper than the neighbouring contubernia (above, Chapter Three).The finds from this row of barracks included a section of sword blade, 4 pila and 1phalera (all from barrack 2; no finds are given for the other barracks — Schulten 1929, 77).Schulten uses this evidence to support his interpretation that the barracks were occupiedby principes (1929, 77). The finds and the general character of this row of barracks would155

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIInot conflict with this interpretation. It is also supported by the Polybian-based overallreconstruction that can be proposed for the layout and garrison of the camp (below).BUILDING ROW C - LEGIONARY INFANTRY BARRACKSThe remains suggest that to the north of row B and separated from it by a narrowpassageway was a further row of triple barracks (Sc_hulten 1929, 73 ff.; figs 35, 36, 42,43and 47). These appear to have been virtually identical in form, number and size to row B,with the exception that blocks 2 to 9 faced north rather than south.In row C there was more evidence than in row B for projecting areas in theconjectured officers' end-buildings. In the northern range of barrack 1, the equivalent ofthe first two contubernia projected, with the westernmost one containing an approximately2 m square room in its south-western corner (fig. 47). In the western ranges of barracks2, 3 and 4, the form of the projection seems to have consisted of just an approximately 2m square room (figs 35 and 42). Schulten suggests that these projections were shelters forguards (1929, 73). Alternatively, as proposed above, perhaps the 2 m square rooms werestable blocks for the centurions' horses.Amongst the finds listed as having come from row C (Schulten 1929, 77), there areno weapons or equipment which are indicative as to the type of troops that occupied thesebarracks. Schulten could well be correct however in suggesting that hastati wereaccommodated here, particularly as the number of contubernia can be reconstructed asbeing suitable for this type of maniple (below; figs 10 and 59,2).TRIBUNES' HOUSESTo the west of the rows of barracks K, A, B and C Schulten found the remains of buildingswhich he interpreted as those of the houses of the six tribunes attached to the legion whichhe locates in the barracks to the east (1929, 78 f.; figs 34 and 48). Only two of these buildings,3 and 4, were quite well preserved, whereas 1 and 2 were completely absent and 5 and 6survived only very partially.Buildings 3 and 4 are reconstructed by Schulten as being about 15 m from north tosouth. From this he extrapolates all six buildings as being similar in size in this direction(1929,78; fig. 34). This seems valid for building 4, but the form of the south-eastern cornerof 3 may indicate that the building extended further south than Schulten envisaged. Forbuildings 5 and 6 the evidence is far too slight to be able to assess what their original northsouthdimension may have been. Since 15 m equates approximately to 50 Roman feet,Schulten proposes that buildings 3 and 4 and indeed all six of the conjectured houses werealso 15 m from east to west (1929, 78). There is no evidence to confirm or reject thissuggestion; the surviving remains only show that buildings 3 and 4 were respectively atleast 12 m and 10 m from east to west.Schulten describes the internal layout of the houses in some detail, suggestingfunctions for several of the rooms (1929, 78 f.). The internal features of note include arectangular hearth in building 4 and structures interpreted as benches along the walls of156

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIrooms a and c in buildings 4 and 3 respectively (Schulten 1929,78; fig. 48). No smallfindsare reported for these buildings. The general layout of buildings 3 and 4 certainly supportsan interpretation as houses. Due to the poor survival of the other buildings, their form isuncertain, though a degree of similarity is possible.With nothing surviving of Schulten's buildings 1 and 2, their existence is clearlyquestionable. Even whether the remains in the area of 5 and 6 represent two buildings,rather than one or more than two is not beyond doubt. Schulten's interpretation of theremains as being those of tribunes' houses is however conceivable, being supported bythe overall reconstruction that is possible for the camp (figs 25 and 41; below). Schultencomments that in his reconstruction the tribunes' houses do not extend over the full widthof the legion, but explains this by saying that if the alignment of the row of housescontinued any further north it would block access to the first barrack in row C (1929, 78).This would have been true if another house was placed directly to the north of his house6, but the problem conceivably could have been eased by moving the additional house tothe west of its southern neighbour. This in fact would have continued the general'westwards curve' that the alignment of the houses have. This curve can be suggested asresulting from the effect of the contours of the local topography. Schulten was alsorestricted as to placing a house to the north of his house 6 by his reconstruction for thelocation and width of the via principalis (figs 25 and 34). Placing a house to the north ofhouse 6 would have resulted in totally blocking this street, in the form as given it bySchulten. The angled line of the houses, in respect of the via principalis, is explained bySchulten as being due to the slope in this area (1929, 78). This idea about the nature of theslope affecting alignment can be extended to that of the street itself and allows a slightlydifferent course and width for it to be reconstructed (fig. 41). Combining this with a muchnarrower width for the street, the problem of obstruction is removed. In an alternativereconstruction for this street (fig. 41), Schulten's scheme for the relative location of houses1 to 6 is essentially accepted. The possibility of the tribunes' houses taking the form ofSchulten's houses 2 to 6 plus one to the north and west of 6 should however be borne inmind.The function and form of the building(s) associated with the three areas of wallsfound to the north of the conjectured tribunes' houses are uncertain (fig. 34, a, b and c).Schulten tentatively suggests that they could be the remains of three latrines (1929, 63),though there does not appear to be any real reason for this suggestion. Alternativelyperhaps these three areas are all that remains of the houses occupied by the praefectisociorum. Placing them here would be appropriate as it can be suggested that the alliedunits were accommodated in this part of the camp (below) and it is likely that the quartersof the praefecti would have been near the troops they commanded (above, Chapter Three).No finds are reported from these buildings, which might have suggested their function.BUILDING ROW D — ALLIED CAVALRY BARRACKSTo the north of a street running along the northern side of row C was found a line of triple157

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIbarracks (row D) similar in character to those in row K (Schulten 1929, 79 ff.; figs 35, 36,42,43 and 49). As with the rows of barracks to the south, Schulten was able to reconstructfive triple barracks to the west of the via quintana. To the east of this street the survival ofthese barracks was very poor. As a result, the details of their layout, size and even theirnumber are uncertain. If however they were similar in width to the others, the line of theeastern rampart would have meant that there would have been insufficient space for afurther five triple blocks and only space for at most four (Schulten 1929,80; fig. 43). SinceSchulten believed that ten blocks would have existed along this row, the solution heproposes to 'create' the tenth block was that the via quintana was straddled by a doublebarrack block (1929, 80; fig. 36, block 6). This seems highly unlikely, if only because thespace available either side of the street compared to that occupied by the other triple blockswould probably have been impractically small to have been used in this way. As a result,a maximum of nine blocks should probably be assumed for this row (figs 42 and 43).The areas occupied by barracks 1 to 5 varied in size from north to south between 26.2and 27 m (Schulten 1929, 81, n. 1). The east-west dimension of the same barracks wasbetween 37 and 42 m, with an average size of 38.4 m (Schulten 1929, 81, n. 2). The evidencefrom the blocks to the east of the via quintana is too poor to be able to confirm whether theyfitted this pattern, but the surviving remains do not conflict with it. The depth of eachrange was about 6 m (Schulten 1929, 81 f.).The arrangement of the horseshoe shape of the triple blocks of barracks 1 to 5 andprobably 6 to 8 (Schulten's blocks 7 to 9) indicates that these barracks opened to the southand the street running between rows C and D. In this respect the barracks at the westernand possibly eastern ends of the row (1 and 9) were similar to the equivalent barracks ofrow K (1 and 10) in not changing their orientation relative to the rest of the row; unlike thepractice in rows B and C and probably A.Row D seems to have had further similarities with row K in that the side/rear rangesdid not occupy the rear corners of each rectangular area of the triple block. Instead thesurviving walls imply that the side ranges ended close to the front of the rear range orextended only a small way beyond the front of it. Schulten acknowledges that the threeranges were separate (1929, 82), but arguably he wrongly reconstructs a typical form ofthem with the side ranges extending right to the rear of the area (fig. 58,3).As with the barracks to the south, each range was divided along its length into anumber of areas, some of which were further subdivided. Schulten believed that the sideranges contained four main areas and the rear ranges between four and six (1929,81; fig.58,3). The evidence does seem to support this. The size of these main areas and the natureof their internal subdivisions are similar in character to those of row K. It can thus besuggested that row K also accommodated cavalry and perhaps also with the officers, menand horses being distributed in the same way (fig. 59,4). A difference to row K is thepresence of small rooms projecting into the courtyard at the end of the probable officers'quarters of the side ranges of blocks 4 and 5, for example. These perhaps functioned asstable blocks for the officers' horses in the same way as can be suggested for similar-sized158

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIareas in the infantry barracks to the south (above). Schulten interprets these features asshelters for the infantry guard detail on duty at each turma (1929, 82).Block 5 seems, uniquely for this particular camp, to have consisted of two phases.This is suggested by the two lines of walls for the front of the side ranges (fig. 49). Schultendoes not comment on this.Significant smallfinds included spurs from the officer's quarters of the west rangeof barrack 1, a phalera and sword blade (at least 330 mm long) from the northern end of theeast range of barrack 1 and a socketed pilum head (135 mm long) from barrack 5 (Schulten1929,82 f.). Schulten regards the sword, spurs and phalera as evidence in support of cavalrybeing in this row of barracks (1929, 84). Although this is possible, the finds alone wouldnot exclude the possibility of infantry having occupied these barracks; the spurs andphalera would be appropriate for a mounted centurion, the pilum would normally beregarded as an infantry weapon and the sword could be either for cavalry or infantry. Infavour of cavalry being in this row of barracks however is the character and relativecomplexity of the buildings compared to the barracks of rows A, B and C. This wouldmake row D suitable for being combined cavalry barracks and stables. With thisinterpretation, the presence of the pilum can be explained as another example of the thincavalry spear referred to by Polybius (above).BUILDING Row E - ALLIED INFANTRY BARRACKSAlong the northern and western sides of the camp were found remains suggestive of a rowof barracks (E) (figs 34 to 36,41 to 43 and 50). This row displays similarities with rows Band C. The side ranges of the barracks of row E were however virtually double the lengthof rows B and C, On average they were about 80 m long and ranged from 80 to 96 m(Schulten 1929, 81). The overall width of each triple block was also larger, being all closeto an average dimension of 56 m (Schulten 1929, 81). There was a further and significantdifference from rows B and C in that row E seems to have had additional blocks withinthe courtyard of each 'triple' block. The quality of construction was also different, with Ebeing markedly inferior (Schulten 1929, 84 f.).The surviving remains indicate five triple blocks existed to the west of the viaquintana along the northern rampart (figs 34, 35, 41 and 42). To the east of the via quintana,as Schulten proposes, there may have been room for just one triple block, with the samecharacter as those to the west (Schulten's block 5; fig. 36). There is no firm evidence tosuggest which direction the easternmost triple block of this row faced. Schulten suggestsit faced north, like blocks 1 to 4 of this row (fig. 36). Since block 5 was at a corner it couldclearly have faced either the northern or eastern rampart. In support of it facing the easternrampart rather than the northern, is that it would provide a more appropriate amount ofspace for the long side ranges characteristic of this row of barracks and it would result insymmetry with the westernmost triple block of this row which faces west rather north(figs 41 and 43).159

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IllSchulten interprets the triple block in the north-western corner as consisting of twosets of barracks, rather than as one (1929,85; fig. 34, barracks 6 and 7). There is no obviousreason why Schulten should have interpreted these remains differently as they seem toreflect quite straightforwardly a triple block similar in form to the others in the row (fig.41). Schulten was perhaps influenced by the need to create an 'extra' triple block, becauseof the interpretation he placed on row E. He suggests, with some justification (below), thatthe barracks of row E would have been occupied by allied infantry. Following theimplication of Polybius' description of the organisation of the allies and their encampment,Schulten concludes that each ala would have consisted of ten cohorts. Hence each alawould have required ten blocks. He divides these cohort blocks into eight for the ordinaryallied infantry and two for the extraordinarii (1929, 80; above, Chapter Three). With hisreconstruction of his blocks 8 to 10 down the western rampart (fig. 34), it meant that hewas one block too few for the ten required. The opportunity for forming the additionalblock in 6/7 was provided to some extent by the overall width of this triple block being65 to 68 m wide rather than the usual 56 m. As a result Schulten was able to reconstructtwo triple blocks 34 m wide, with the angled and disjointed buildings within this areaforming the northern and southern ranges respectively of his blocks 6 and 7.Schulten's row E continues along the western rampart to the south of buildings Gand H, starting with Schulten's block E8 (fig. 34). Buildings G and H are quite different incharacter to the remains associated with the barracks of row E and, agreeing withSchulten, are consequently unlikely to be part of row E. Unfortunately most of thebarracks of row E to the south of E8 survived poorly (fig. 27), so their exact form andnumber are uncertain. Schulten's reconstruction of the limits of his blocks 8 to 10 could becorrect (1929, 87 f.; fig. 34). Alternatively they could all have been the same length asbarrack 8 (fig. 41). Further, the southern portion of Schulten's block 8 could have formedthe courtyard range of block 8 (compare figs 34 and 41). The southern range of 8 perhapslay along the northern side of the northern range of Schulten's block 9, with the twosharing a common dividing wall, as seems to have occurred with the other blocks of rowE. This would have resulted in block 8 having a width similar to the triple block in thenorth-western corner. Block 9 can also be reconstructed with this width. This would resultin the remains of Schulten's north-western corner of his block 10 forming the courtyardrange of block 9 and the 'disappearance' of block 10. The southern edge of block 9, withthis reconstruction, would lie approximately halfway down the camp from north to south(fig. 24). It is possible that the via praetor& ran along the southern side of this triple block,to place it in its theoretical central position (above, Chapter Three; fig. 41).The form of the barracks of row E was similar to that of rows B and C. There seemshowever to have been more variety in the relationship of the side and rear ranges at therear corners of each area, with the existence of all three possibilities: contiguous side andrear ranges; side range continuing to the rear of the area with the side range stoppingshort; and the rear range continuing to the side of the area with the side range stoppingshort. As in rows B and C, each range of row E was divided along its length into what are160

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIpresumably contubernia. These were generally between 2 and 3 m wide. Unlike in rows Band C, internal divisions within the contubernia were more evident, perhaps simplybecause the walls separating the front and rear rooms were thicker and consequentlysurvived better or were more obvious to the excavators. The number of con tu bernia downthe side ranges varied between about 18 and 26, but seems to have been generally at least20. Schulten believed that the side ranges averaged 24 contubernia (1929, 84). The numberof divisions along the rear ranges also varied and seems to have been up to at least 17, butwhat the average may have been is less certain, due to the nature of the evidence. Schultenbelieved that the rooms in the rear ranges varied between 10 and 12 in number (1929, 84).The rooms at the end of the side ranges nearest the rampart were probably officers'quarters. This is in part suggested by what appears to have been characteristic in thiscamp, of sinall blocks projecting into the courtyard which can be suggested as being stableblocks for centurions' horses (figs 41,42 and 50; above). The presence of officers' quartersat the rampart end of the side ranges is also supported by the quality of construction ofthe first room of the northern range of barrack 6/7 being noticeably superior to the restof the block (Schulten 1929, 86).Each courtyard of the barracks of row E appears to have contained one or morebuildings, which were physically quite separate from the side or rearranges. The evidencesuggests that these courtyard structures had a theoretical position down the centre of thecourtyard. The seeming irregular nature of their position however and the angledalignment displayed by the buildings in respect to the side ranges is probably due to theproblems of the terrain in this area (Schulten 1929, 85 f.). The courtyard structures seemto have consisted of rectangular buildings, similar in character to the side and rearranges.For example, they appear to have been divided along their length into rooms likecontubernia of a similar size to the other ranges and in some cases displaying divisions intofront and rear rooms, as found elsewhere in row E. The exact overall form of what canhence be suggested as being 'courtyard ranges' of contubernia is not clear. The characterof the remains in barracks 2 and 6/7 indicates however that they could have existed asmore than one structure (figs 41 and 42) and as shown by 6/7 the alignment of the twocould have been irregular, which in this particular case Schulten proposes was influencedby the topography (Schulten 1929, 86, n. 1).Schulten admits he is uncertain about the function of the courtyard ranges, butsuggests they were latrines (1929, 84 f.). An alternative is to propose that they wereaccommodation for troops, since their character is similar to the contubernia found alongthe side and rearranges. It would consequently be possible to refer to this row of barracksas 'quadruple' blocks, since each rectangular area could have contained four actual blocks.The type of troops that occupied the courtyard ranges and indeed also the side and rearranges, is however more speculative. It can be suggested that allied infantry wereaccommodated in row E (below). Polybius' description of the encampment of the alliedinfantry could imply that the triarii, principes, hastati and velites of the same numberedmaniple occupied a single rectangular area (above, Chapter Three). In effect this would161

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111represent the accommodation of a cohort and perhaps the practice of grouping andaccommodating the allies in this way may have given rise to the concept of the cohort forthe legions as well (above, Chapter Two). Hence all four types of infantry in an alliedimanipular cohort' would have been placed in the four ranges available in each quadrupleblock of row E and presumably in some logical order. Several possibilities exist for whichunit went where, but if the influence of battle order and the relative number of contuberniaper range is taken into account one particular distribution more readily presents itself.The composition of the hastati and principes was probably the same as regards thenumber of soldiers in each. It can probably be presumed therefore that the form of theiraccommodation would have been similar and indeed the similar character of rows B andC which can be suggested as being occupied by the legionary hastati and principes supportsthis. In row E the ranges that both contain sufficient number of contubernia and sharesimilar forms are the side ranges. Consequently these can be suggested as being occupiedby the hastati and principes. The disposition of these two types of infantry in these rangeshas two possibilities; either the maniple of hastati was placed down one side and themaniple of principes down the other or a century of hastati and a century of principes wereplaced in each side range. Of these two possibilities perhaps the latter is to be favoured(fig. 59,1). There is however only circumstantial evidence to support this. It wouldcontinue the practice shown in the legionary encampment of centuries of the samemaniple being placed opposite each other; and if the hastati were placed at the rampart endof the side ranges it would reflect the relative battle order of the two types of unit.Regardless of the relative location of the hastati and principes, proposing that two centuriesexisted end-to-end in each range would mean that centurions' quarters w ould be expectedto have been located approximately halfway down each range, at the head of the innercenturies. Evidence for this and thus also supporting the proposed disposition of twocenturies in each of the side ranges possibly exists in the form of the projecting structurefrom Schulten's room 10 of the western range of barrack 1 (fig. 50). This could have beenof a similar size to the conjectured stables for centurions' horses in the barracks of rowsA, C and the rampart end of other side ranges of row E. Consequently the feature in thewestern range of barrack 1 could also have been a stable outside a centurion'saccommodation and one of the few that survived or were noticed at the time of excavation(hence fig. 59,1).It is suggested above that the normal location of the legionary velites was in a rangeat the rear of the area occupied by the maniple with which they were associated. It wouldbe expected that the allied velites would have followed this scheme. Consequently thevelites attached to the allied hastati and principes can be suggested as being placed at therear of each quadruple block. The evidence from row E supports this scheme, since thenumber of contubernia that can be reconstructed at the rear of the quadruple blocks of rowE would be quite adequate for the velites from both maniples, with them arranged as asingle line (fig. 59,1). This aspect may indeed explain why the quadruple blocks of row Eare wider than rows A to C and why there could be at least double the number of162

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIcontubernia along the rear of row E compared to B and C. Further, the presence of velitesin the rear range of row E is supported by the finding of a narrow spearhead in the easternrange of barrack 6 (Schulten 1929, 87). This has a character that would fit the descriptiongiven by Polybius (6.22.4) of the spears carried by the legionary (and probably also by theallied) velites. Placing the velites from the two maniples together in an end-to-endarrangement would presumably not have conflicted with maintaining any importantpsychological link with relative battle location as they were probably grouped together ina loose formation to form the screen of skirmishers in front of the heavy infantry.With the hastati and principes in the side ranges and their velites in the rear, it leavesonly the triarii and the courtyard ranges unaccounted for. Perhaps not merely coincidentallythe size and number of contubernia of two of the courtyard blocks (the southern one ofbarrack 2 and the western one of barrack 6/7) are reminiscent of the side ranges of rowA. This row can be interpreted as being for the legionary triarii (above). Consequently thecourtyard blocks could be for the allied triarii. This position, quite separate from the hastatiand principes would also tie in with their battle position, in the rear as a reserve. Exactlyhow the two centuries of triarii were arranged in the courtyard blocks is not clear from thesurviving evidence. It does not seem that an attempt was made to continue the practiceof the legionary triarii, of placing the centuries of each maniple across a courtyard,presumably simply because practicalities of space would have prevented it. One possibility,suggested by the southern structure of barrack 2, is that the centuries were arranged backto-back(figs 42 and 59,1). This in some ways would mirror the arrangement of themaniples of legionary triari i. It would mean that centurions' quarters would be expectedat the rampart end of the courtyard blocks. In support of this practice is a projectingstructure at the western end of the westernmost block of barrack 617 and one near thenorth-western corner of the southernmost block of barrack 2 which are similar enough tothe conjectured centurions' stables in the rows to the south to be interpreted in the sameway.The velites attached to the allied triarii could have been accommodated together withthe other velites along the rear of the quadruple blocks, but the number of cent hernia heremay well have been insufficient. Instead perhaps the velites associated with the triarii wereaccommodated in a separate block nearby (fig. 59,1). This may explain in part why morethan one structure seems to have existed in the courtyards. Placing them near to the triariimay also have been more appropriate as it could well have been that the 'triarii velites' weremore prestigious than the others, though there is no actual evidence for this, and so theymight expect to be placed with their senior heavy infantry.The significant smallfinds from the barracks of row E, which support attributinginfantry to the row, included at least 10 pieces of socketed and tanged pilum heads frombarracks 1,2 and 9 (the exact locations are not given, but the plan in Schulten's notebookentry for 13th August 1911 shows a pilum head was found in the fourth contubernium fromthe western end of the southern range of barrack 2); mail from the officer's quarters at thenorthern end of the eastern range of barrack 2; and a heart protector (pectorale) in thenorthern range of barrack 6/7 (Schulten 1929, 86 f. and 88).163

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIBUILDINGS G AND H - ALLIED CAVALRY BARRACKSNear the north-western part of the camp were found remains suggestive of two sets oftriple barracks which faced south (figs 34,41 and 51). These were very similar in form tothe barracks of rows D and K and consequently an interpretation as cavalry barrackssuggests itself. Schulten however interprets the buildings as six houses for the praefectisociorum (1929, 88 ff.). His reasons for this are that the buildings lay near the allied units,there would have been no room by the via principalis for these houses and the quality ofconstruction was very high, including paved floors in the western block of building H(1929, 88). Schulten could be correct, but the overall form of these buildings is so like thoseof the barracks in rows D and K that an interpretation as barracks seems more viable. Theeastern block of H admittedly does not comfortably fit the pattern of the 'normal' barrackblock. It could simply be irregular, though there is no obvious reason why. Alternativelyit could still fit the pattern. The western half of this group of remains could be a barrackrange similar to the rest of G and H. The eastern half of the remains was perhaps a differenttype of structure, which backed onto the barrack range and fronted the via principalis, andwas similar to those against the barracks of row E by the via quintana (above; fig. 41).The area occupied by each triple block G and H, was larger than the triple blocks inrows D and K. The overall width of G was about 47 m and that of H 50 m (measuring tothe mid-point of the eastern block of H). The depth of the two barracks was approximately40 m. The individual ranges were all about 7.5 m across, but with lengths that variedbetween about 25 and 30 m. As with the ranges of barracks D and K, the side and rearranges of G and H were separate blocks. The gap between the rear and side ranges of Gand H was however seemingly larger than in the other two rows. As Schulten notes (1929,88), each range gave the impression of being divided equally along its length into fourmain areas which were approximately square rather than rectangular in shape (fig. 51).The rear range of G may have been an exception to this, as it appears to have had five areasand possibly one or more rooms to the rear of Schulten's area 3 (fig. 51). The eastern rangeof H may have fitted the pattern, but the evidence is inconclusive. Each area along theranges seems to have been arranged in virtually the same manner, as Schultenacknowledges(1929,88 f.). On the courtyard side of the area and in one corner of it was a room measuringabout 3 nt by about 3.5 in internally, the bounding walls of which give the impression thatit was almost a separate part of the area (fig. 51, rooms c) . Next to this was a room of similarsize (fig. 51, rooms a) which usually seems to have had a door leading to the main roomwhich extended across the entire rear half of the area (fig. 51, rooms b). The nature of thedoorway/dividing wall between rooms a and b suggests that these two were a relatedpair, in contrast to the 'more separate' room c. With the similarity between these blocksand those of D and K suggesting that G and H may have been accommodation for cavalry,it can be proposed that room c was a stable; its size would have been suitable for up to threehorses. Rooms a and b can be interpreted as the arma and papilla respectively of thetroopers whose horses were in the stable. Although Schulten acknowledges the similaritybetween the layout of G and Hand the cavalry barracks of rows D and K, he still favoursinterpreting G and H as houses for the praefecti sociorum (1929, 88 f.).164

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIThe projecting room from the eastern range of H was perhaps additional stabling,since its size and shape are similar to rooms c.The smallfinds from G and H included two well-preserved tanged pilum heads, one543 mm and the other 620 ram long, plus "fragments of a number of other pilum heads"(Schulten. 1929, 89). Two phalerae and a horse-bit were also found (Schulten 1929, 89). Theexact location of none of the finds is given. As with the barracks of row D and K, the findsalone do not restrict interpretation of the blocks as being cavalry barracks. On the contrary,the pila are more suggestive of infantry than cavalry being present in barracks G and H.Even the phalerae and the horse-bit could be attributed to centurions' horses. Thecomparative complexity of the blocks however, like in the interpretation of rows D andK, favours cavalry being accommodated in G and H. The presence of the pila is difficultto explain though, unless these weapons can be regarded not as infantry pila, but as theearly form of slender cavalry spear referred to by Polybius and also found in rows D andK, which could also have been for cavalry (above).If it is assumed that one turma of 30 men was accommodated in each of G and H, itwould presumably mean that each decuria occupied one of the ranges. Of the four mainareas in each range, one would probably have been for the decurion. For the side rangesthis was presumably the area at the southern end of the ranges. There is no clear evidenceto suggest at which end of the rear ranges was the decurion's accommodation. With onearea being occupied by the decurion, it would have left three for the nine troopers. Thesemen and their horses could have been conveniently accommodated in a regular mannerwith three men per area, similar to rows D and K. The rear range of G could have beenslightly different, as this range appears to have had five areas. Perhaps one of themprovided extra stabling, for remounts and was equivalent to the projecting conjecturedstable on the west range of H.BUILDINGS OF ROWS K', A', B', C', D' AND E" — BARRACKS?The remains in the southern part of the camp were badly preserved due to the area beingused for farming. This caused Schulten some difficulty in recovering sufficient evidenceto be able to reconstruct the layout of this area (Schulten 1929, 91 f.). Because of this,Schulten's proposal that the layout to the south of the eastern gateway was essentially amirror-image of the barracks of rows K to E (figs 24 and 25) should be treated with caution.The nature of the remains does however support the presence of barracks in this area. Thegeneral idea that this part of the camp was a mirror-image of the northern area of the campalso has some credence, since this would follow the Polybian model.Row K'From the limited evidence recovered, the buildings of this row seem to have shared thecharacteristics of row K. As with row K, these barracks were well-constructed (Schulten1929, 94). A thorough comparison is however not possible as it would be hazardous toattempt to reconstruct the precise internal layout of K'. Schulten reconstructs 10 barracks165

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIfor this row (figs 37,40 and 52). This may be correct, but the location of the east-west limitsof each triple block could easily have been different from what Schulten proposes, as theremains of blocks 1 to 5 in particular are so poor in quality. As a result row K' could havebeen of similar length to those reconstructed by Schulten to the south.The depth of the areas occupied by each triple block was perhaps shallower thanrow K, being about 17 m for K' compared to 22 m for row K (Schulten 1929, 92). The overallwidth of each triple block seems generally to have been within the range of 38 and 39 min the case of the better-preserved barracks 6 to 10 (Schulten 1929,92 f.), which is similarto row K.The smallfinds from this row of buildings included an item interpreted by Schultenas a horse tethering peg (1929, 93; not illustrated), two phalerae with one being gilded, aspur (from barrack 7), one square-sectioned spearhead, one leaf-shaped spearhead, adecorated bronze pin, five coins and Campanian pottery (Schulten 1929,93; other than forthe spur, the exact location of the finds is not given). The relative wealth of the barracks'occupants displayed by the finds and the horse-related equipment, together with thespears and the high-quality construction of the barracks support Schulten's suggestionthat cavalry occupied these buildings.Row A'Of the buildings of row A', essentially only remains of the eastern end of the row survived(figs 37,40 and 52). The exact form of the buildings is consequently uncertain. The remainsof row A' are however similar in character to those interpreted in the northern part of thecamp as the contubernia of infantry triple barrack blocks. Schulten proposes that A' wasthe exact equivalent of A, and occupied by triarii.If A' was exactly the same as A, the reconstruction of a viable plan is not howeverstraightforward, due to the position of remains attributed to B' (fig. 38). If block 10 of A'faced the eastern rampart, like the equivalent block of A, the southern range of 10 A'would coincide with the eastern range of Schulten's block 10 of B'. A way round this wouldbe to propose that the eastern range of B' in fact represents the back-to-back projectingcenturion's quarters of the southern range of 10 A' and the northern range of aneastwards-facing 10 B'. This however does not work, as the (Schulten-form) eastern rangeof 10 B' is too long and would go right across the courtyard of 10 B'. Schulten'sreconstruction however gets round these problems. He interprets the remains of block 10A' as suggesting that the north-south dimension of the row was markedly smaller thanA and perhaps only 11 m (Schulten 1929, 92). He also reconstructs block 10 as facing southand not, as in row A, the eastern rampart; similarly block 10 of B' does not face the rampart,but north (fig. 38; Schulten 1929, 94). Even this reconstruction should only be acceptedwith caution however, as block 9 is indicated on the published large-scale plan ascontinuing further south (fig. 52, south-west corner of room 2). If this continuation is 'real'and also not just a small projecting room/stable block it questions the existence of thestreet between A' and B' and even raises the possibility that A' and B' are in fact parts of166

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIthe same, southwards-facing row of triple barrack blocks. The six con tubernia in thenorthern range of 10 A' would indeed be appropriate for the velites attached to a manipleof hastati or principes and the combined length of the eastern ranges of A' and B' would alsomatch the ranges occupied by such heavy infantry in rows B and C in the northern partof the camp. If this were the case, clearly rows K' to E` could not have been an exact mirrorimage of the northern part of the camp; one possibility is that the southern half containeda legion which lacked triarii for some reason.However, in favour of Schulten's interpretation that row A' was specifically theequivalent to row A, i.e. barracks for triarii, is that the buildings of row A' displayed goodqualityconstruction, like those of row A. Also supportive are the smallfinds from A'.These included two slender spearheads 152 mm and 102 mm long, a phalera and twodecorated bronze vessel handles (Schulten 1929, 94; exact location of the finds is notgiven). As Schulten proposes, the nature and high-quality of the finds would agree withthe presence of triarii in these barracks (1929, 94). The form of the spears would not conflictwith this as they could be from the velites rather than the triarii themselves. Hence row A'could have had a form similar to A, and in the manner proposed by Schulten.Rows B' AND CISo little remained of rows B' and C', that Schulten's reconstruction of ten areas of triplebarracks with the typical dimensions seen in rows B and C of 37 - 39 m across, thoughconceivable must be regarded as very conjectural, as hinted at in the previous discussionabout the eastern end of row A' (figs 24, 25, 38 and 40).The smallfinds from row B' included "a whole nest" of weapons and iron objectsfrom barrack 6; these consisted of four leaf-shaped spearheads between 130 and 195 mmlong, three spear butts, part of a sword blade, a knife, a chisel and an iron plate (Schulten1929, 94). Schulten interprets this hoard as belonging to a smith which would explain whyspearheads occur in barracks supposedly occupied by principes who carried pila (Schulten1929, 94). This is possible, though the hoard may simply represent a store of equipment.The barracks of row B' also yielded two pila (Schulten 1929,94; exact location not given).From row C' came, amongst other things, a 190 mm long spear referred to by Schulten asbeing the type used by velites (1929,94; exact location not given) though without sayingwhy he believed this, mail and an item described as being a horse tethering peg (1929,94;not illustrated). The nature of these remains is arguably inconclusive as to the type oftroops that occupied these barracks.Row D'Schulten interprets the barracks of row D' as a line of ten triple blocks, with each tripleblock occupying an area 25 - 30 m wide by 40 m deep (1929,95; figs 24, 25, 38 and 40). Thismade them narrower, but deeper than the equivalent row D (1929, 95). Schulten could becorrect with this interpretation, but so little of these buildings was found, that their formis perhaps less certain than Schulten implies. There could nevertheless have been cavalrybarracks here, since this would mirror row D to the north.167

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111The smallfinds from this area included two spearheads, one of which was 165 mmlong and the other 240 mm (Schulten 1929,95; not illustrated and exact location not given).These finds would be in keeping with cavalry occupying these barracks, but are by nomeans conclusive in this respect.The line of the street, III', that Schulten places between rows C' and D' (figs 38 and40) is perhaps meant to be theoretical, since surviving remains actually lie over the street.A more plausible course for the street, which presumably would have existed betweenthese two facing rows of barracks, would be a line which curved to the south of Schulten'sat both the eastern and western ends of the street. Similarly, the street IV' placed bySchulten to the south of D' is questionable, due to the location of remains within it. It ispossible that a street did not exist here and instead the barracks of row E' either sharedcommon rear walls with D' or a small passageway existed between them; both of thesepractices occurred between D and E.Row El AND E"Only two areas of remains of E' and E" were found (figs 38 and 40). There is consequentlyno way of knowing whether Schulten's reconstruction of a row of six and a row of twobarracks is correct (1929, 95). The remains in the south-eastern corner of the camp arehowever suggestive of the narrow passageway between two neighbouring barrack blockscommon elsewhere in the camp. There could as a result, indeed have been a row ofbarracks along the southern side of the camp. Because of the distance from D' it seemslikely, as Schulten suggests, that there would have been two rows between D' and thesouthern rampart. How many barracks were in each row and how far west they extendedis however less clear.No smallfinds occurred in the area of E' and E" (Schulten 1929, 95).BUILDING P — PRAETORILIM?Near the centre of the camp Schulten interprets a group of walls that underlay some wallsof Lager V as the south-eastern corner of the praetorium of Lager III (Schulten 1929, 99 ff.;figs 25,40 and 53). This interpretation could be correct since they lay appropriately in acentral position, conceivably following the Polybian model of between two legions(above, Chapter Three) and on the highest part of the ground occupied by the camp. Sucha function for this building or at least it being occupied by men of some status, is supportedby the large quantity of high-quality pottery and four Asses which were found in theserooms (Schulten 1929, 101). Schulten is however over-ambitious to extrapolate from thefew surviving remains that they represent a specific corner of a large, rectangularcourtyard building. Indeed the nature of the walls arguably does not even categoricallyindicate a corner, unless the thick easternmost north-south wall is regarded as forming acorner buttress at its southern end rather than appearing to continue further south. Theform of the building with which these remains are associated, whether praetorium or not,should consequently be left open.168

Chapter Four — Renieblas, LagerBUILDINGS TO THE NORTH-EAST AND NORTH-WEST OF P — BARRACKSStarting approximately 65 m to the north-east of building P were found the remainscharacteristic of a triple barrack block, which faced west (figs 37 and 54). This occupied anarea at least 59 m from north to south and 54 m from east to west (Schulten 1929, 101).The northern range was between 6 and 7 m deep and the remains suggest that muchof its length consisted of double-roomed contubernia, with each room being about 3 msquare. Schulten interprets the rear range as consisting of three rows of rooms (Schulten1929, 101). An alternative interpretation is that the north-south range of remains consistedof usual double-roomed contubernia with another building, comprising the eastern row ofrooms, placed back-to-back to it. The form of the eastern-facing building and anyrelationship with building 9 to the east is unclear though. It can however be suggested asforming accommodation, by the presence and particular layout of the small walls in theroom to the rear of area 7 of the western range (figs 54 and 82,G), interpreted elsewhereat Renieblas as being associated with beds (below).The northern range of the west-facing barracks seems to have had at least 15contubernia, as Schulten proposes (fig. 54). Schulten reconstructs 11 rooms along the rearrange (fig. 54). This could have been the original number or alternatively the range couldhave continued further south, with further rooms. The southern range survived poorly,resulting in few details of its layout being certain. As with the rear range, Schultenreconstructs the southern one with contubernia consisting of three rows of rooms (1929,101; fig. 54). Similarly perhaps it too only had the usual practice of two rows. Thesouthernmost row was perhaps the start of another triple barrack block to the south,which shared a common dividing wall with its northern neighbour.Smallfinds from these barracks included a well-preserved sword, which was at least740 mm long, a spearhead, two phalerae fused together, a spur, a horse tethering peg, adecorated stilus, Campanian pottery and many pieces of amphorae (Schulten 1929, 102;exact location not given).Approximately 80 m to the north-west of building P was found a small group ofwalls which Schulten suggested were part of a range of barracks which stretched alongthe northern side of the praetorium (Schulten 1929, 102; fig. 35). Schulten could be correct,but so little of this building was found that the interpretation of its form and functionshould perhaps be left open.Schulten suggests that both these buildings near the conjectured praetorium wereoccupied by the cohors amicorum of the consul (1929, 102 f.). He rejects the idea that theywere for the delecti extraordinarii, which following the Polybian model would be likely tobe near the praetorium (above, Chapter Three), as the building to the north-east of buildingPat least appeared to be more complex in form than an ordinary triple barrack block (1929,102 f.). This belief was based in part on the interpretation that there were more than tworows of rooms in the rear and southern ranges. Schulten also felt that the high quality ofthe finds would be in keeping with the consul's followers. Schulten could be correct.Certainly the quality of the finds implies a degree of wealth by the occupants, but this169

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIwould also be appropriate for delecti extraordinarii. With the overall reconstruction of thelayout of Lager III that can be proposed (below; fig. 25), this area would be near the centralrange of administrative buildings and from the Polybian model of the camp it is likely thatthe delecti extraordinarii would be placed nearby. It is possible therefore that this was thetype of unit that was accommodated here. Although the amount of horse-related findsfrom this building could suggest that these delecti extraordinarii were cavalry, the barracksdo not display obvious signs of the stable/ contubernia configuration noticed elsewhere inthe camp. Instead the form is more suggestive of straightforward double-roomedcontubernia, of the type readily associated with infantry in the camp. Consequently, thebarracks can be suggested as being occupied by delecti extraordinarii infantry. The presenceof the horse equipment can be explained by attributing it to officers' horses. Perhaps thedelecti extraordinarii infantry in these barracks to the north-east of P were arranged like theinfantry in the barracks of row E, as an embryonic cohort. This would explain thesimilarities with row E in both the large number of contubernia down the side range andthe overall width occupied by the blocks.AREAS F AND Ff - BARRACKS?On the eastern side of the via quintana, behind the conjectured barracks for the delectiextraordinarii, appeared to be a large open area, approximately 100 x 50 - 60 m, withbuildings bounding it on all sides except that of the via quintana (Schulten 1929, 104; fig.37). Schulten may be correct in interpreting this as the forum (1929, 104; fig. 25). He couldhowever have overlooked the possibility of the open area being the result of remainshaving been removed by the construction of the eastern rampart of Lager IV (fig. 21). Asa result this area too could have been occupied by more buildings and was not an openforum.Along the eastern side of the conjectured forum, Schulten interpreted a group ofwalls as representing a long, slightly curving building which seemed to have consisted ofa northern and southern range (1929, 105; figs 37 and 55,A). The northern range wasreconstructed as being 40 m from north to south and the southern one as 50 m. The eastwestdimension of the southern range is given as just over 10 m (Schulten 1929, 106),whereas that of the northern range is not discussed. Schulten interprets the form of the tworanges as consisting of a sequence of double or triple rooms constructed along the lengthof each (1929, 105). The two ranges are interpreted by Schulten as being tabernae associatedwith the forum (1929, 105 f.). As an alternative to Schulten's interpretation it can besuggested that these buildings should be associated with barrack blocks; the dimensionsand character of Schulten's northern range discernible from the published plans (figs 37and 55,A) are suggestive of two sets of contubernia built either side of a common northsouthdividing wall. The southern range could also fit this pattern, if it is suggested thatthe eastern half of the back-to-back rows of contubernia survived poorly. This is possibleas the rendition of some of the walls of this building in the large-scale plan (fig. 55,A)suggests that their edges were indistinct and hence raises doubt about the amount of170

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111material that survived, despite Schulten's claim to the contrary that this range did survivewell (1929, 106). Even if these remains are more correctly interpreted as barracks, theiroverall form is however uncertain as no viable reconstruction readily offers itself due tothe nature of the remains in the area of F' as well as to the north and south of F and F'(below) and area F is completely devoid of features.Buildings a to e in area F' are regarded by Schulten as each being separate triplebarrack blocks with short projecting side ranges (1929,108; figs 37 and 55,A). The remainsare to some extent suggestive of contubernia, so Schulten could be correct in regardingthem as barracks, but the interpretation is not completely convincing. A tentativealternative interpretation is that the seeming irregularity of these buildings and indeed ofmany of the buildings in area F' may be explicable by suggesting that they were occupiedby irregular foreign troops; other than the irregular nature of the buildings however thereis no other evidence to support this suggestion. Because of the uncertainties, the natureof the buildings represented by these features is probably best left open.Schulten interprets the remains of buildings 1 to 6 in area F' as a sequence of triplebarrack blocks, which had their open side to the west and which shared common dividingwalls between neighbouring blocks (1929, 107; fig. 37). This view may however not becorrect. Against it is the unusual narrowness (from north to south) of the areas occupiedby each triple block compared to elsewhere in the camp; according to Schulten the overalldimensions of blocks 1 to 6 varied between 23 and 28 m from north to south and between23 and 25 m from east to west (Schulten 1929, 107). The blocks appear to have possessedtoo large a proportion of small rooms to be barracks and these rooms seem too small tohave been of practical use in barracks. Further, the general distribution of walls in the arearesults in very restricted space for easy troop movement and an unusual 'cluttered' feelcompared to elsewhere. Consequently the remains may be indicative of buildings otherthan barracks, though what is not clear.Along the northern side of areas F and F' was found a group of walls which areinterpreted by Schulten as the partially surviving side ranges of a row of triple barracks(1929, 107; fig. 37, buildings 7 - 9). The remains are certainly suggestive of contubernia.These barracks are however seemingly narrower in overall width than the others and inthis respect are similar to blocks 1 to 6. Schulten proposes that a similar row of threebarracks would have existed along the southern side of F and F' (buildings 10 - 12), ofwhich part of barrack 11 survives (1929,107; fig. 37). This overall interpretation for 7 to 12could be correct, but the same reservations as for all the remains in the areas of F and F'should probably be held and for the same reasons.Schulten groups together barracks 1 to 12 and suggests that they may have beenoccupied by the delecti extraordinarii infantry (1929, 107). Barracks a to e are proposed bySchulten as being for the delectiextraordinarii cavalry (1929, 108). With the Polybian schemefor a two-legion camp, this location for the delecti extraordinarii is possible (above, ChapterThree). The quality of the finds would support the idea that whoever was accommodatedhere was of a 'select' nature. The finds included a sherd of an amphora which had con-171

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111tamed good quality Greek wine (Schulten 1929, 106), a decorated bronze spur, two ironbrooches and Campanian pottery all from the building down the side of area F (Schulten1929, 106), a bronze finger ring and coins from buildings 8 to 9 (Schulten 1929, 107). Nofinds are reported to have come from buildings a to e or 1 to 6. However with theuncertainties surrounding the interpretation of these remains, their nature and whooccupied them should arguably be left open.AREAS Q AND Q` - QUAESTORIUM?A coherent layout for the remains found to the east of area F' does not readily suggestitself. Schulten suggests that there was an approximately 25 m wide gap between F' andthe buildings to the east (1929, 109; fig. 37). This may have been the case, but the gap maybe an illusion created simply by walls in this area not surviving. Schulten indeedcomments that the northern part of this central, eastern area of the camp was badlydisturbed by farming activities (1929, 109). Schulten however believed that it was possibleto discern two closely-positioned large rectangular areas which had a range of roomsalong each side (1929, 109; figs 37 and 55,C areas Q and Q'). The size of these two areaswas reconstructed by Schulten as being similar, namely about 74 m from north to southand 55 to 57 m from east to west (1929, 109). They are interpreted by Schulten as beingstores buildings which were part of the quaestorium (1929, 109). He cites as supportingevidence the Horrea Lolliana from Rome which had a similar form (fig. 56) and buildingsfrom Neuss and Carnuntum which also shared this layout (fig. 57). The Horrea Lolliana ishowever much later in date than Lager III, since it was built either by Marcus Lollius(consul in 21 BC) or his son (Rickman 1971, 164 f.). Consequently its form may not reflectearlier practice and so can only be used with caution as supporting evidence for theinterpretation of buildings Q and Q. The buildings from Neuss and Carnuntum are alsomuch later than Lager III, but more significantly their function is speculative, though thebuttressing down the side of the Neuss structure would agree with an interpretation ofstores building. As a result, the evidence Schulten presents to support his interpretationis questionable. The provision of two store buildings in Lager III is equated by Schultenwith the presence of two legions in the camp (1929, 110; below).Schulten could be correct with his interpretation of Q and Q', though the remainsof Q are so slight that any interpretation of its form must clearly be speculative. Thelocation of these areas within what may be the rear, central part of the camp wouldcertainly agree with the theoretical position that can be suggested for the quaestorium ina two-legion camp (above, Chapter Three). Alternatively the size and character of therooms would be suitable to be interpreted as barracks, though their overall layout seemsto have been unusually irregular compared to elsewhere in the camp. A function asbarracks could however more readily explain the occurrence of a spearhead in room 10of the southern range of Q' (Schulten 1929, 110).Building a in the courtyard of Q' contained much burnt material, two bronze pansfrom a pair of scales and a hammer (Schulten 1929, 110). Schulten suggests that these172

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIremains indicate that metal working was practised in this building (1929, 110). This couldbe correct. This may clarify the overall function of Q' and support Schulten's interpretation,as the potential metalworking shop would be appropriate for a central workshop(fabrica) / stores area for the associated legion. Arguably the workshop could simplyindicate that if Q' were barracks the unit occupying them was responsible for repairingand making its equipment. Hence also, possibly all triple or quadruple barrack blocks inthe camp would each have had such workshops, for which there is indeed some evidence(above, Chapter Two).The quality of the evidence from Q and Q' is however such that unfortunately it isnot really possible to suggest which of the two interpretations is the more viable.BUILDINGS T, R, S, S AND 13To the east of Q' Schulten interpreted a group of remains as three adjacent buildings whichconsisted originally of a range of rooms around the northern, eastern and eastern sides ofa courtyard (1929,110; fig. 37). Each building was approximately 30 m from north to south,but varied between 30 m and 67 m from east to west (Schulten 1929, 110), presumablyreflecting the angled line of the eastern rampart (fig. 37). Within the western part of thecourtyard of building S was a separate, two-roomed building, s (Schulten 1929, 110; fig.37). This building measured 9.5 x 6.5 m and was very carefully constructed (Schulten 1929,110). Schulten is not sure as to the function of these buildings, but suggests they werefurther stores buildings (1929, 110). This interpretation seems feasible. The buildingscould be triple barrack blocks, though against this is that Rand S and possibly also T hadtheir backs to the rampart, rather than the more usual position for barracks of facing therampart or at least being at right-angles to it.The function and exact plan of building 13 found to the south-west of Q' and at theside of the street leading to the east gate are uncertain (figs 37 and 55,B). Schulten suggestsit could have been the residence of the quaestor (1929, 111). The irregular nature of thebuilding's plan and its relative location within the camp would certainly support such aninterpretation. The interpretation is however based on a circular argument to some extent,in that it depends on the interpretation of Q and Q', which is far from indisputable. Nofinds are reported from building 13.STREETSThe location of a number of streets was implied by gaps between some rows of buildings.Schulten does not refer to any actual street metalling or kerbs having been found, sopresumably either none survived or the rocky subsoil was regarded as not requiring anysurfacing and hence no kerbs would be needed to keep the surfacing in place. Consequentlythe location of streets does rely on the acceptability of the interpretation of gaps betweenremains as being streets, rather than simply as being where walls failed to survive.The location and width of Schulten's east-west streets I, II and III seem viable,though the line followed by the buildings along the southern side of I indicates that this173

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111street was not as regular as Schulten suggests (fig. 25). The location of leading from theeastern gate (fig. 25), also seems acceptable, though like I, the position of surviving wallsindicates an irregular line, in contrast to the straight and even-width line of Schulten's. Thesame degree of acceptance and change can also be applied to II' and III'. The location ofIV' is purely hypothetical, but not implausible.There seems to have been only two main north-south streets. The line given bySchulten to the eastern of these, leading to the north-eastern gate, is quite plausibly placedby him between blocks 5 and 6 of rows K, A, B and C and between his blocks 6 and 7 ofrow D and blocks 4 and 5 of row E (fig. 25). The location of this street is suitable for it tobe regarded as having been the via quintana, as Schulten suggests (1929, 61; fig. 25). Thispart of the via quintana had several buildings along it which backed on to the adjacentbarracks and which generally each consisted of a row of single rooms. These areinterpreted by Schulten as being tabernae. They could alternatively have functioned asstores buildings, stables or sheds for large pieces of equipment such as artillery. Schultenreconstructs the course of the via quintana to the south of row K as a direct continuationsouthwards, down the western side of area F (fig. 25). The reality of the continuation ofthe street through area F however depends on the preferred interpretation for this area(above). To the south of the east-west street I' Schulten moves the via quintana about 80 mto the east (fig. 25). This move is possible, though the presence of surviving remains withinthe body of the street indicates that Schulten's width for the street is too generous. Suchan eastwards shift receives a measure of support in that the associated shift in the barracks,compared to the location of the same numbered barracks in the northern part of the camp,would cause the westernmost blocks to avoid the steeply-sloping ground which starts justto the west of Schulten's blocks 1 to the south of street I' (fig. 21).The second north-south street as reconstructed by Schulten ran as a very broadstreet over the area of the tribunes' houses (fig. 25). Schulten interprets this street as thevia principalis (1929, 60 f.). The width Schulten gave to it and its position was influencedby his interpretation of Polybius (Schulten 1929,60; fig. 60). There probably was a streetin this general location and it could well have been the via principalis, from the generalreconstruction that can be placed on the layout of the camp (below). The width thatSchulten gives it in the area of the tribunes however is unlikely, as is placing the tribuneswithin the street rather than the theoretical and practical location of along one side of it(above, Chapter Three). As an alternative, perhaps the street had a width for most of itslength which is reflected by the 13 m wide gap between blocks 1 and 6/7 of row E, whichsuggests the location of the street's northernmost location (fig. 41). This particular positionfor the street is however a little unexpected as it does not lead directly to a gate. The nearestgate is about 35 m to the east. There is no obvious reason why the gate should not havebeen at the end of the street, unless it was moved to make use of any defensiveenhancements offered by the eastern rampart of Lager II. It would have been possible fora 13 m wide street to continue to the south of row E if it took a more curving route thanthat proposed by Schulten (fig. 41). Curving the street in this way indeed is likely as itwould reflect the topography (fig. 21). It is possible that the via praetoria led westwards174

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager 111from the via principalis just to the south of the tribunes' houses (fig. 41), to place it in thetheoretical position near the middle of the camp, but there is no actual surviving evidenceto support this. The course of the via principalis to the south of the tribunes is less certainas there are no clear indications in the form of building lines to suggest a route. It couldhave curved eastwards towards the highest part of the camp, where the praetorium couldhave been situated. A south-easterly line from here could have been followed, to avoid thesteeply-sloping ground in the south-western part of the camp.The average width of the various streets can be suggested as being:Street Width in metres Width in Roman feetvia principalis 13 43.9via quintana 15 (5 by the tabernae) 50.7 (16.9)I 9.5 32.1II 13 43.9III 13 43.9I' 8 27.0II' 7 23.7III' 8 27.0There was consequently some variety. To conclude that the southern, east-weststreets were generally narrower than their northern counterparts should be accepted onlywith caution, as the evidence on which the widths of the southern group is based is verypoor. If the southern widths are discounted for this reason, it appears that the typical streetwidth could have been at least 13 m. This width differs from the theoretical width of 60Roman feet (17.76 m) stated by Polybius for all but the via principalis (above, ChapterThree). From the available evidence it appears that in Lager III the via principalis was alsonot given the Polybian theoretical dimension, of 120 Roman feet (35.5 m). This particularstreet further departs from the Polybian theory in that it appears not to have been anynoticeably wider than the other streets.THE INTERVALL umThe building limits implied by the surviving remains suggest that the intervallum variedbetween 5 and 29 m, but was generally between 25 and 29 m (Schulten 1929, 59). The mainrange correlates to 84.5 -98.0 Roman feet. This may indicate that the 'design width' of theintervallum may have been 90 Roman feet. This is somewhat smaller than the 240 Romanfeet mentioned by Polybius. It was perhaps derived from being three-quarters of the baseunit of 120 Roman feet/an actus, used as the basic 'building block' for the layout of thePolybian camp (above, Chapter Three).GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTSchulten believes that the remains found in Lager III reflect the arrangement for two175

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IIIirtanipular legions and allies when encamped following the scheme described by Polybiusif the comments of Polybius about the single-consular, two-legion camp are interpretedto mean that the praetorium, forum and quaestorium are placed between the two legions(Schulten 1929, 119 ff.; fig. 60; above, Chapter Three; fig. 13). A summary of Schulten'sreconstruction is presented in fig. 25. In general terms it seems that Schulten's conclusionabout the nature of the garrison of this camp and the reconstruction proposed for thecamp's layout are viable since the remains, particularly in the northern part of the camp,do indeed lend themselves to what can be reconstructed as the Polybian scheme ofencampment for a single-consular army (above, Chapter Three). One difference from thetheoretical scheme does however occur with the area of the allies in the northern part ofthe camp. The theoretical scheme for the main force of allied cavalry can be reconstructedas two rows of barracks, placed back-to-back (fig. 13). In Lager III there appears to havebeen only one row of barracks. Presumably this merely indicates that the allied cavalrywas below its theoretical strength. Dividing the main force of allied cavalry and infantryeither side of the via principalis, rather than having it in the theoretical location of alltogether on one side of this street (in Lager HI this would correspond to the eastern sideof it), is presumably simply attributable to the shape of this part of the camp preventingall the allies fitting into the available space to the east of the via principalis.Schulten's reconstruction can however be questioned for the central east-westportion of the camp, where the features survived poorly and are arguably too confusingto allow more than a cautious interpretation. Here, for example, the praetorium may be inthe general location that Schulten proposes, but it could have taken a different anduncertain form from Schulten's reconstruction, since so few remains were discoveredhere. The location of the forum as proposed by Sc_hulten is questionable, since it can besuggested that this area was occupied by barracks. Perhaps instead the forum lay to thewest of the conjectured location for the praetorium, between this and the via principalis. Thiswould place it in the theoretical location of in front of the praetorium (above, ChapterThree). The quaestorium could be where Schulten places it, since literary evidence suggestsit did lay near the rear of the camp (above, Chapter Three). Between the conjecturedquaestorium and praetorium in Lager III there is evidence to suggest that the delectiextraardinarii were placed here. This is dose to the theoretical position that can beproposed for these troops (above, Chapter Three). To the south of this central range, theevidence is too vague to give concrete support to Schulten's interpretation, but the generalprinciple of his reconstruction is nevertheless viable from what does remain andconsequently can be accepted as a working hypothesis.As well as the overall layout appearing to correspond to the Polybian scheme for asingle-consular manipular camp, there is an acceptable correlation between the sizes ofthe areas occupied by each maniple /turma with the theoretical Polybian sizes (discussedin Chapter Three) (see table 2, p.177). The margins of error are within an acceptable rangeconsidering the topography, the distances involved and probably a not entirely accuratemeasuring system; the large discrepancy with the allied infantry can be accounted for by176

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VIsuggesting that the velites were placed between the side ranges instead of the theoreticallocation of to the rear of them (above, Chapter Three).RowPossible unitoccupying rowmetresPolybian dimensionsRoman feet for unit in Roman feetA triarii 39 x 23 131.8 x 77.7 120 x 72*B principes 39 x 39 131.8x 131.8 120x 120C hastati 39 x 39 131.8 x 131.8 120 x 120E allied inf. 57 x 80 192.6 x 270.3 150 x 264*E (block 6/7) allied inf. 68 x 90 229.7 x 304.1 150* x 264*K legionary cav. 39 x 23 131.8 x 77.7 120 x 72*D allied cav. 39 x 27 131.8x 91.2 120* x 72*Table 2. The average dimensions of the various areas occupied by each type of triple block. Only the blocksin the northern half of the camp are presented, as the evidence from the southern half is too unreliable.Dimensions marked with *are reconstructed theoretical ones as opposed to being actually stated by Polybius;discussed in Chapter Three.THE ANNEXE TO LAGER III - LAGER VI?Close to the southern side of the eastern gate of Lager III, the rampart of Lager III wasjoined by another rampart coming from the south. This had a number of buildingsenclosed by it (figs 24, 36, 39, 44, 45, 61 and 62). Schulten suggests these formed an annexeassociated with Lager III (1929, 111 ff.). This interpretation is possible, but attributing theremains to a separate and indeed later phase of camp, (Lager VI) seems more viable.DESCRIPTIONThe exact course of the rampart of the conjectured Lager VI is not described by Schulten.Its northern limit seems to have been where it joined the eastern rampart of Lager III, nearto the eastern gate of this camp (fig. 31). There are no indications in the published recordthat the rampart of Lager VI continued to the west of Lager III's rampart at this point.There are also no obvious indications in the south-eastern part of the interior of Lager IIIof more than one phase. The implication therefore is that the Lager III rampart to the southof its eastern gate formed at least part of the western side of Lager VI. From the northernjunction of the ramparts of Lager III and VI, the published plans show that the easternrampart of Lager VI could be followed southwards for about 700 m without interruption.After a gap of about 150 m, presumably the result of lack of survival, it appears to havecontinued for a few metres, then turned sharply westwards and curved back on itself to177

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VIreturn northwards (fig. 21). The implication of the plan is that it was not possible to tracehow the rampart (presumably) re-joined that of Lager III. Perhaps the rampart followedapproximately the line of the 1100 m contour (fig. 21), to link with Lager III close to itssouth-eastern corner. This second junc tion with the rampart of Lager III maybe representedby the short length of wall found butting the south-eastern corner tower of Lager III (figs26,1 and 32). The published plans provide little detailed information about this length ofwall, but in Schulten's notebook entry for 5th September 1910 there is a good sketch plan.This shows the feature consisted of three stones forming a wall 2.9 m long and 0.56 m wide,which butted the eastern side of the south-eastern corner of Lager III and formed a facedstraight edge in line with the facing stones along the southern side of Lager III. The threeprojecting stones are similar in size and character to the facing stones of the Lager IIIrampart and so could also have had the same function. Consequently they could haveformed the outer facing of the Lager VI rampart, joining that of Lager III from the southeast.The resulting area of Lager VI was consequently irregular in shape and if thewestern rampart followed the suggested course, the form enclosed could be described askidney-shaped. In this form, its overall size was about 860 m from north to south and atthe surviving widest point, 250 m from east to west.DEFENCESDITCHSchulten makes no reference to a ditch, so the existence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTThe rampart was 3 m wide (Schultert 1929, 111). It used the typical construction methodof a loose earth and stone core faced on either side by a stone wall. Part of the rampart hadan additional wall, along the centre of the rampart (Schulten 1929, 111).TOWERSThree towers along the inside of the rampart were found, spaced almost equally apart(Schulten 1929, 111; fig. 38).ENTRANCESTwo entrances were found (Sthulten 1929, 111; figs 38 and 39). The northern of the twoseemed to have consisted simply of a 6.3 in wide interruption in the rampart, with no traceof defensive structures. The southern entrance was more elaborate. In front of the 4.5 inwide opening was a titulus (fig. 22,3). Perhaps the northern entrance also had a titulus, butthis failed to survive. The nature of the entrances was consequently quite different fromthose of Lager III, which all seem to have had towers and no tituli. This difference addsto the evidence suggesting that Lager VI was a separate camp from Lager III.178

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VIINTERNAL FEATURESSeveral buildings were found, but only along a strip of ground close to the northern halfof the eastern rampart (figs 38, 39, 61 and 62). Schulten suggests that the rest of the interiorwas not built over (1929, 113). It is more likely however that there would have beenbuildings over most of the interior. Perhaps they failed to survive in the western part ofthe area simply because this lay on the other side of a slight valley, which could haveexperienced a different level of farming. The same cause of disturbance was certainly thecase for the southern part of the area of Lager VI, where Schulten comments that farminghad removed most of the remains (1929, 114).Schulten identifies fourteen separate areas of buildings (1929, 112 f.; figs 38 and 39).The even-numbered buildings are interpreted by Schulten as closely-spaced, back-tobackbarrack blocks, whereas the odd-numbered ones are regarded as small triple barrackblocks (Schulten 1929, 112). Because of the alternation of these, Schulten suggests that theblocks either side of a triple block and the triple block itself each formed a unit (1929, 113).Schulten's general interpretation of these buildings being barrack blocks is probablycorrect. Certainly the even-numbered buildings display similar characteristics and roomdimensions to the buildings in Lager III interpreted as infantry barrack blocks. Analternative reconstruction can however be proposed. It is possible to reconstruct all thebuildings as a series of at least fifteen or sixteen closely-spaced, back-to-back doublebarrack blocks (figs 44 and 45). These generally had their long axis aligned east-west, withthe exception of the two northernmost ones (fig. 44, barracks a and b) which aligned northsouth.Of these two barracks, b can be reconstructed as consisting of three ranges, ratherthan the customary two which seems to have been the case elsewhere in this phase ofcamp. The presence of three ranges for b can perhaps be explained by the crampedconditions where it was placed. This may have obliged the creation of a shortened formof the western range, such that it had in effect to fold back on itself in order to provide therequired number of contubernia.This proposed scheme of reconstruction receives a measure of support in that itallows two streets to lead directly to the entrances, between barracks c and d and betweenk and 1 (fig. 45). In the case of the street between c and d it can be suggested that a seriesof rooms, ' tabernae', were built along the back of c. A similar feature occurred along the viaquintana in Lager III (above).The overall width of the double barracks can be reconstructed as varying betweenabout 20 and 30 m. The surviving length of the barracks indicates the east-west blockswere at least 45 m long and the north-south blocks at least 60 m, containing a minimumof 11 and 18 contubernia respectively. The character of the barracks is quite different fromthe more widely-spaced triple and quadruple blocks of Lager III. This supports the viewsuggested above that this area of remains is not part of Lager III. The reconstruction andthe irregular nature of some of the barracks' alignments in fact result in barracks whichare similar to the cohort barracks at Peria Redonda (below), i.e. quite different from thernanipular barracks of Lager III, and in turn suggests Lager VI was later in date than Lager179

Chapter Four - Renieblas, Lager IVAt the northern end of Lager VI, Schulten interpreted four lengths of wall as beingcontemporary with it and formed three enclosures (1929, 113; fig. 38; areas a, b and c).Schulten suggested the enclosures could have been for animals being kept for meat (1929,113). These enclosure walls could be contemporary with Lager VI and functioned asSchulten suggests, but alternatively they could be later field walls, which simply made useof upstanding Roman walls (hence their omission from fig. 44).No smallfinds are reported as having come from Lager VI.STREETSTwo streets, perhaps about 5 m wide, seem to have led into the interior from the twoeastern entrances, though their course beyond the eastern row of barracks is not known.With so little known about the layout of the camp, it would be hazardous to suggest ifthese streets corresponded to particular, named streets.The location of the barracks relative to the eastern rampart indicates that theintervallum generally varied between 3 and 6 m.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTWith so few remains having been found from within the interior, little can be concludedabout its overall layout. Nevertheless the camp appears to have consisted of a row ofperhaps at least fourteen double barracks along the eastern rampart, with a second rowof only two double blocks in the northern angle. There were presumably further rows ofbarracks in the western and southern parts of the camp. This layout is suggestive of therows of double barrack blocks at Pena Redonda (below).From the available evidence it is not possible to suggest the type or size of unit thatmay have occupied the camp, other than that the form of barracks may indicate infantryrather than cavalry. If the similarity between the barracks and those at Pena Redonda isvalid, it would mean that Lager VI was also occupied by cohort-organised troops. HenceSc_hulten's idea of 'Lager VI' being an annexe to the manipular Lager III is unlikely.LAGER IVDESCRIPTIONThe defences of Lager IV survived along its northern, eastern and western sides. Noevidence for the southern side was found (Schulten 1929, 139; fig. 21). Schulten'ssuggested line for the southern side (1929,139; figs 21 and 63) however has some validity,if it can be assumed that the distance from the northern corners to the northern entrancealong the eastern and western sides was similar to the distance from the southern corners180

Chapter Four — Reniebtas, Lager IVto the southern entrance along these sides. The course of the defences along the survivingsides was unusually straight compared with the other camps on the site. The resultingshape suggested for the camp is consequently regular and that of a trapezium orparallelogram, according to the line of the missing southern side.The surviving length of the eastern and western sides shows that the camp was atleast 700 m from north to south. The east-west dimension was about 840 m. The area ofthe camp was consequently at least 58.8 ha.DEFENCESDITCHSchulten makes no reference to a ditch, so the presence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTWhere the rampart remained it survived well (Schulten 1929, 139 f.). It was 3 m wide andconsisted of the usual form found at Renieblas, of a front and rear revetting wall of facedstones with a core of small stones (Schulten 1929, 139).TOWERSNo evidence for towers was found (Schulten 1929, 140). The good state of preservation ofthe rampart suggests that the absence of evidence for towers genuinely reflects that thecamp lacked such features.ENTRANCESTwo entrances were found on each of the surviving sides of the camp (Schulten 1929, 140f.; figs 21 and 64). Along the conjectured location for the southern side of the campSchulten found two stone structures which he believed corresponded to two gatewaysalong this side (1929, 142; fig. 64, entrances 6 and 7). The remains were interpreted bySchulten as single- portal entrances with flanking towers, and in the case of the conjecturedeastern southern gate, doors at both front and rear of the entrance passageway (1929, 142).The remains do not however readily suggest themselves as being those of gateways. Theeastern structure (Schulten's entrance 6) is perhaps better interpreted as an internalbuilding of Lager III. The western group of remains (Schulten's entrance 7) could bebuildings of Lager III and/or V, according to how many phases are present. The natureof the buildings represented is however not clear.The state of preservation of the entrances on the northern, eastern and western sidesof the camp varied, with the worst being the southern, western entrance, where essentiallyonly the titulus survived (Schulten 1929, 141). The relative location of the entrances alongeach side varied, with the pair on the eastern side being noticeably closer together than181

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager IVon the other two sides. The general form of each entrance was identical. The rampart oneither side of the entrance passageway simply stopped, though sometimes it widenedslightly towards the entrance (fig. 64). In front of each entrance passageway and atirregular distances from it was a titulus. The widths of the entrance passages varied(Schulten 1929, 141 f.):West side North 8.1 mSouth less than 10 m*North side West 14 mEast less than 9.8 m*East side North c. 5 mSouth 4.5 m*The dimension given is the width of the titu/us, as the passagewaywas badly preserved.The entrances on the eastern side consequently appear to have been noticeablynarrower than on the other two sides. This presumably denotes the relative lack ofimportance for the eastern gates. This could mean that the eastern side was the rear of thecamp. This might explain why the western entrance along the northern side was thewidest, since it would consequently have been the porta principalis dextra. The easternentrance along the northern side could then have been at one end of the via principalis. Oneof the western entrances would have been the porta praetoria presumably and similarly oneof the eastern entrances would have been the porta decumana. How the other westernentrance and indeed also the second, rear entrance related to the theoretical scheme ofstreets and entrances is however uncertain.INTERNAL FEATURESNo traces of internal buildings were found (Schulten 1929, 137). Schulten consequentlyand quite reasonably concluded that accommodation must have been in tents andoccupation was limited to the summer (1929, 29 and 137).GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTWith no evidence for the internal arrangements of the camp, little canbe safely concludedabout its internal plan. Schulten presents a schematic reconstruction, in which the campfaces south, since he regarded his western, southern stone gateway as the porta praetoria(1929, 140 ff.; fig. 63). The reconstruction can be questioned however, since if the aboveinterpretation of the status of the entrances is correct, it can be suggested that the campfaced west, not south.With a western orientation, the via principalis and via quintana can be proposed asrunning north-south in the location of the two entrances along the northern side of the182

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VIIcamp. How the troops were disposed around these streets and the exact location of the'central range' of praetorium, forum and quaestoriuin are however uncertain. Indeed thenature of the occupying army is not even clear. Schulten believes that two legions werepresent (1929, 143 f.). Using the Polybian model, Lager IV would certainly have been ofan appropriate size for an army of this type.RAMPART TO THE WEST OF LAGER IV -LAGER VII?A 600 m long straight stretch of rampart was found leading to the west of Lager IV, startingclose to the north-western corner of the camp and running parallel with the northern sideof Lager IV (Schulten 1929, 144 f.; fig. 21). The rampart had the same form of constructionas that of Lager IV, but was 2 m wide (Schulten 1929, 145) making it 1 m narrower thanthat of the camp. Along the rampart were two entrances, similar in size and character tothose of Lager IV and each defended by a titulus on the northern side of the entrancepassage (Schulten 1929, 145). The relationship of the western rampart to the rampart ofLager IV is not clear from the published record. Schulten states (1929, 144) that the westernrampart started 80 m from Lager IV, but his Plan I (fig. 21) and Plan II show that therampart survived poorly near to Lager IV but did connect with that of the camp.Schulten believes that the rampart to the west of Lager IV and Lager IV werecontemporary and the rampart was constructed as a defensive link, a bracchium, with thewater supply from the Merdancho river. He discounts the idea that the western rampartcould be the remains of an earlier camp cut by Lager IV (1929, 144). His reasons are: thatthe eastern entrance along the rampart to the west of Lager IV is a similar distance fromLager IV as the entrances of Lager IV are from the corners of Lager IV, implying anassociation; the rampart to the west of Lager IV is parallel with the northern side of LagerIV; and the entrances are all of the same character (1929, 144). Schulten could be correct.It is however difficult to see how the feature could have defended the route to theMerdancho, since no protection was offered from the south. Schulten himself observes(1929, 145), that a pair of ramparts protecting the route from both north and south wouldbe expected. He circumvents this by suggesting that an attack from just the north wasfeared (1929, 145). Alternatively, perhaps the western rampart does represent all thatremains of another phase of camp, Lager VII. This could have been earlier than Lager IV,since its eastern side could have been removed by Lager IV or it could have been re-usedas part of the western side of Lager IV; it is unfortunate in this respect that the relationshipof the junction of the conjectured Lager VII and Lager IV is so uncertain. The absence ofthe western side of Lager VII could be explained by erosion caused by the Merdanchoriver. The southern side could have been removed by a combination of Lager V and thesame post-Roman farming activity that removed the southern parts of most of the campson the site.183

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VIf the western rampart does represent a Lager WI, with so little of it surviving, littlecan be concluded about its plan. It does however seem to have been similar to Lager IVin having no internal buildings. It presumably contained tented accommodation and wasconsequently used during the summer. The date of Lager VII is uncertain. It is presumablyearlier than Lager IV because of the survival of the western side of Lager IV in preferenceto the eastern side of Lager WI. How much earlier Lager WI is than Lager IV is not clearas there is no physical relationship with any other phase of camp on the site.LAGER VDESCRIPTIONMuch of the northern, straight side of Lager V survived (Schulten 1929, 147; fig. 65). Theeastern side survived well as far as a modern road. Its continuation to the south of the roadcould in part be extrapolated from field boundaries which probably originated from therampart (Schulten 1929, 147). The southern side was found along most of the eastern halfof the camp and in places here the rampart survived up to a height of 0.5 m (Schulten 1929,147). The western side was the least well-preserved and could be found only towards itsnorthern end. Schulten based his reconstruction for the line of some of the remainder ofthe western rampart on field boundaries (1929, 147). The general form of the camp isconsequently known, with only the western part of the southern side and the southernpart of the western side being conjectured. The resulting shape was essentially oblong,with the long axis aligned approximately east-west. The dimensions of the camp wereapproximately 965 x 650 m, resulting in an area of 61.2 ha (Schulten 1929, 148).DEFENCESDITCHSchulten makes no reference to a ditch, so the presence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTThe rampart was unusually thick compared to the other camps on the site. It variedbetween 4 and 4.4 m (Schulten 1929, 148). Its construction consisted of 0.4 m thick revettingwalls, squared on the outer side of the camp, either side of a core of small stones (Schulten1929, 149).TOWERSRemains suggestive of at least 21 towers were found along the rear of the rampart, withthe densest concentration being along the northern side of the camp (Schulten 1929, 149184

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vff.; fig. 65). They were spaced at irregular distances, between as little as 13 m and as muchas 80 m (unless such a long distance is a reflection of one or more 'missing' towers), butwere generally between 20 and 45 m apart. The dimensions of the towers also varied, butthey were usually between 5 and 6 m wide, though some were up to 16.4 m wide. Theirdepth was more constant, being all about 2.8 m deep (Schulten 1929, 149 f.).The way in which the towers are depicted in the large-scale drawings (fig. 67)implies that they were generally constructed as an integral part of the rampart, with therear revetting wall of the rampart turning to go around and form the rear of the tower,rather than the tower being 'placed against' the rear rampart revetment. This indicatesthat the towers would have been solid at ground level, rather than hollow.ENTRANCESA gateway was found along the northern side of the camp, 240 m from the north-westerncorner (Schulten 1929, 151; fig. 73 (lower), entrance I and fig. 67,3). It consisted of anapproximately 9.0 m wide, revetted passageway through the rampart. The rampart didnot widen at the entrance, nor were there flanking towers; the nearest tower to the westwas about 6 m away and 12 m to the east an unexcavated mound could have been a tower(Schulten 1929, 151).A second gate along the northern side of the camp is proposed by Schulten as beingbetween towers 5 and 6, situated approximately mid-way along this side of the camp(1929, 151 f.; fig. 73 (upper), entrance II). Schulten's main reasons for placing a gate hereare that the pair of towers are an appropriate distance apart at 17 m for an entrance andit would create a gate in a suitable position to be the porta decumana along what he believedto be the rear of the camp (1929, 151 f.). There is however no clear indication that therampart was actually found to be interrupted at this point, unlike for the gate found to thewest, nor even is any hint given that excavation was actually carried out to test for agateway opening. Indeed in the published plans (figs 65 and 73) no interruption is shown,though this could be an error, as may be the case to the east, where Schulten states anopening was found by excavation but none is shown in the plan (below). Further, usingthe evidence of the towers to suggest the location of a gate is weak, since where a gate wasundoubtedly found, to the west, there was no obvious direct association between gate andtowers. The presence of a gate here is consequently questionable.Schulten proposes a third gateway along the northern side of the camp betweentowers 10 and 11 (1929, 152; fig. 74, entrance III). Schulten calculated that a gate shouldhave been here for similar reasons to the one suggested as being halfway along thenorthern side, namely the distance between the towers and the relative location wereappropriate (in this case a similar distance from the north-eastern corner as the westerngate was from the north-western corner) (1929, 152). Schulten states that he had some ofthe modern field walling removed between towers 10 and 11 and uncovered the westernside of the entrance passage (1929, 152), though he does not state where this was in relationto the towers. Unless it is simply due to an error, it is strange that this feature is not shown185

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vin the published plan (fig. 74); the rampart is shown as being continuous at this point. Itseems that the eastern side of this gateway was not looked for or at least was not found;Schulten makes no comment about it. The width of the passageway is consequentlyuncertain.Along the eastern side of the camp Schulten places a gateway between towers 18 and19 (1929, 152; fig. 74, entrance IV). No actual archaeological evidence for the existence ofa gate here is however given. Schulten suggests this location seemingly just because of thedistance between the towers and this point is a similar distance from the north-easterncorner as the gates along the northern side were from their respective corners. Thepresence of a gate here is consequently uncertain.A fifth gate is proposed where a modern track passes through the eastern rampart(Schulten 1929, 152; figs 21 and 65, entrance V). Schulten could be correct, but there is nosupporting archaeological evidence. A sixth gate, between a modern road and the southeasterncorner is purely conjectural (Schulten 1929, 152; figs 21 and 65, entrance VI).For the southern and western sides of the camp, no remains of entrances werefound, but Schulten suggests locations, with three on the western side and one on thesouthern (fig. 65, entrances VII to X). With the paucity of evidence for the layout of thewestern and southern areas of the camp, clearly the suggested locations must remainentirely conjectural.INTERNAL FEATURESThe interior of the camp was occupied by stone buildings. Generally these survivedpoorly, with the exception of a group of buildings in the eastern half of the northern partof the camp and a few buildings in the camp's southern area (figs 68 to 72).BUILDINGS 1 TO 12, Q AND Q' — BARRACKSIn the eastern half of the camp by the northern rampart were found a group of remainssuggestive of barracks. The southern side of these was formed by an unusually large wallfor one inside a camp. It was between 1.5 and 2.0 m wide, comprising two facing walls each0.4 - 0.5 in thick with a core of small stones (Sthulten 1929, 154). It is referred to by Sch ul tenas an Abschlussmauer — literally 'border wall'. It is unclear why such a large wall was builthere; Schulten makes no comment in this respect. Since however the ground slopes awaysteeply to the south of the wall, the wall's size would be appropriate with it forming theedge of a terrace. This function would also account for the wall being at an angle to thenorthern rampart and not, as might be expected, parallel to it, as it follows the line of theslope. Curiously, in all the published plans showing the Abschlussmauer, its unusual widthis not indicated and it is drawn with the same width as the other internal walls.Schulten reconstructs the remains of the buildings in this area as a series of triplebarrack blocks (1929, 154 ff.; figs 73,74 and 81). At the eastern end of the area Schulten186

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vprobably correctly reconstructs two eastwards-facing triple blocks (fig. 74, blocks 6 and12). Schulten reconstructs the remains forming the neighbouring east-west ranges ofblocks 6 and 12, as the northernmost row of rooms being of block 6 and the southern pairof rows as being of block 12 (1929, 156; fig. 81). Schulten does not regard the projectionsfrom the southern side of 12 as potential walls, but equates then to buttresses normallyfound on granaries (1929, 157); he does not, however, explain why this building hadbuttresses. The length of one of these 'buttresses' suggests though that all of them are thesurviving portion of 'normal' walls. Consequently they could represent a further row ofrooms, making a total of faiur rows of rooms (fig. 79). As a result, the contubernia of theseranges of both blocks 6 and 12 could have consisted of pairs of rooms which seems to havebeen typical for the contubernia of this group of barracks (below). This correspondinglyincreases the north-south dimension of block 6 from Schulten's 65 m to about 70 m andgives block 12 an average width of 64 m.To the west of barracks 6 and 12 the remains indicate that the barracks were alignednorth-south rather than east-west. These blocks are reconstructed by Schulten as a seriesof back-to-back triple blocks, with the northern row (figs 73 and 74, blocks Ito 5) facingthe northern rampart and the southern row (figs 73 and 74, blocks 7 to 11) facing into theinterior of the camp (fig. 66). Schulten rejected the idea that the north-south blocks couldbe a single row of triple blocks, because he felt they would have been far too long (1929,155). The lengths of the blocks, if it is assumed that the distance of approximately 15 mbetween block 6 and the rampart (i.e. the intervallum) was maintained for blocks 1/7 to 5/11,can be reconstructed as varying between about 90 m for block 1/7 and 124 m for block5/11 (figs 78 and 79). Blocks 6 and 12 also fitted within this range of sizes, with block 6being about 91 m and block 12 perhaps 115 m, if the intervallum on this side of the campwas also about 15 m. It is curious that Schulten felt able to accept the length of blocks 6 and12,but not the others, which were only up to a maximum of 9 m longer (block 5/11). Thelength of the other blocks was indeed long, but not unreasonably so, with, for example,the blocks of row E in Lager III being very similar in character, being 80 to 90 m long. Itis possible therefore in Lager V. that to the west of blocks 6 and 12, there were at least fivetriple blocks (1/7; 2/8; 3/9; 4/10; 5/11), all facing the northern rampart. This alternativeinterpretation also removes the rather awkward aspect of Schulten's reconstruction,where he has to suggest that the Abschlussmauer must have been interrupted to give accessto the blocks, despite it appearing to have been continuous (1929, 154). With thealternative reconstruction, this wall simply forms the rear of the rear range of the singlerow of barracks.The pattern of walls of barracks 1 to 12 bears a strong similarity to the barrack blocksof row E in the rtorthem part of Lager III, with ranges of contubernia down the sides of eacharea and a long range of contubernia across the rear. The blocks of row E in Lagerappeared to contain a range within the courtyard of what would otherwise have been justlong triple blocks. It is possible that similar courtyard blocks existed in the group ofbarracks along the northern part of Lager V. Some walls were found at the eastern end of187

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vthe courtyard of block 6 (fig. 74). These are interpreted by Schulten as those of a guard post(Schulten 1929, 157). They could however correspond to the conjectural ranges ofaccommodation in the courtyards of the barracks of row E in Lager III (above). WithSchulten's positioning of the east/west sides of the barracks of blocks 1/7 and 5/11 andthe available excavated evidence, there is seemingly little further evidence for courtyardblocks. If however the east/west boundaries are re-positioned, it is possible to create areconstruction in which such ranges can exist (figs 78 and 79). These however differ fromthose reconstructed for Lager III in that the evidence at Lager V seems to favour not justshort back-to-back courtyard ranges, but also long, single contubernium-width blocks.The remains found in the eastern part of block 1/7 are interpreted by Schulten asbeing of a building which was later than the camp (1929,158). His reasons are that the wallsare at an angle to the others and the building has a peculiar ground plan. No actual datingevidence is however presented to support a date later than the camp. Alternatively, theseremains could simply be the surviving portion of a courtyard range of contubernia similarto those suggested for row E in Lager III (fig. 78).The pattern of quadruple blocks across the northern part of Lager V can becontinued into the area of Schulten's buildings Q and Q' (fig. 73). These are interpretedby him as being associated with the quaestorium (1929, 158 and 170), though on no firmevidence. The characteristics of these remains seem more obviously to lend themselves tobeing interpreted as barracks (fig. 78).To the west of Q it is difficult to reconstruct the plan of the buildings represented,though the character of the remains is suggestive of barracks. Schulten suggests that thelarge, east-west aligned building could be a granary (1929, 158 f.; fig. 73). This is possible,though two east-west aligned, back-to-back barrack blocks more readily suggest themselvesfrom the available evidence (fig. 78). The building to the south is regarded as beinglater than the camp by Schulten (1929, 159; fig. 22,4), but for seemingly no reason otherthan the building's alignment and plan. The alignment need not exclude the buildingfrom being part of the camp, since some of the barrack blocks to the east are also slightlyirregularly aligned. The plan as reconstructed by Schulten (fig. 73) may also have mis-ledhim into thinking the building strange for a camp. It is possible that the remains are all thatsurvived of another barrack block, aligned approximately north-south, for which theoverall east-west width of these remains would be appropriate. Further, the Iberiandolium found in this building, since it is of a type known from Numantia (Schulten 1929,159), may indicate that the building is contemporary with the camp.If remains to the west of Q are indeed barracks, the presence and relative locationof the back-to-back east-west blocks suggest that a different scheme of barracks, comparedto the quadruple barracks from Q eastwards, existed in this area. The likelihood of adifferent scheme is implied by the presence of a gap, possibly a street, down the westernside of Q, which could signify that different types of unit were placed to the east and westof this line. It is possible to reconstruct the remains to the west of the street as two backto-backrows of triple barrack/stable blocks similar in size and general plan to those of G188

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vand H in Lager III (fig. 78). There could have been as many as eight such triple blocks tothe west of Q, with a limit possibly imposed by a street leading directly to the nearbynorthern gate (fig. 78). Consequently it can be suggested that cavalry and perhaps asmany as 24 turmae, if one barrack/stable range accommodated a single turma, occupiedthe area between the western, northern gate and the street down the western side of Q.There is unfortunately no artefact evidence from this area, so the suggested interpretationmust remain hypothetical.With the buildings to the west of Q being barrack/stable blocks it means that a totalof nine quadruple blocks could have existed in the eastern half of the northern part of thecamp. This reconstruction is obviously tentative, but in its favour is that each quadrupleblock results in having a reasonably constant width, of about 63 m, whereas Schulten'sbarracks vary in width between about 41 and 67 m. The width of 63 m for the conjecturedquadruple barracks compares well with the widths of blocks 6 and 12 and with the averagewidth of 57m for the quadruple blocks of row E of Lager III. With the dimensions of theseblocks being based upon such a tentative reconstruction, there is little value in assessinghow the dimensions may relate to the Polybian modular system of 120 Roman feet or toany other possible measurement system.The quadruple blocks of Lager V display a number of similarities with row E ofLager III. As with the blocks in Lager III, those in Lager V had a mixture of common andseparate dividing walls between neighbouring blocks, sometimes seemingly even withinthe same range. There was probably a gap between the rooms of the side and rear rangesof each triple block at the rear corners of each area, to allow easy access. To achieve this,the evidence suggests that the side ranges stopped short of the rear one, which continuedto the edges of the area occupied by the whole quadruple block. This was particularlynoticeable in blocks 6 and 12 in Lager V, where there was seemingly a 13 m gap betweenthe side and rear ranges (Schulten 1929, 156; fig. 81). It is uncertain whether a wall wasconstructed between the side and rear ranges to define the limits of the area occupied bythe quadruple block as was usual for example in Lager III, since a wall seems to have beenabsent in blocks 6 and 12, but the remains in the area of Q comply with the presence of one.Due to the common practice of such defining walls in Lager III and the possibility of onein area Q, they are included in the reconstruction of all the northern barracks of Lager V(figs 78 and 79).In this particular type of barracks in both Lager III and Lager V, there was goodevidence for the contubernia having been divided into a front and rear room (Schulten 1929,156 ff.). At the western end of the northern range of block 6 and the northern part of therear range of block 12 it seems that unusually the contubernia consisted of three rooms (fig.79). There is no obvious reason for this, unless perhaps these particular areas of roomsfunctioned not as accommodation, but as stores for example. As in Lager III, in Lager Vthe normal arrangement of two rooms generally had rooms of equal size and usually eachabout 3 m square (Schulten 1929, 156). The number of contubernia along each range varied,but for example in the side and rear ranges of block 6, there could have been about 20189

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager V(Schulten 1929, 156) and in the eastern range of 5/11 there seem to have been at least 27.This compares favourably with the average likely number of 20 contubernia in the rangesof row E of Lager III. Due to the close similarity between the character of the side and rearranges of block 6, Schulten suggests that the rear range could have formed contubernia,rather than as elsewhere having been stables (1929, 156). He does not however expand onthis to discuss how it may reflect on the type of unit occupying the barracks or how itwould have influenced the disposition of the troops of that unit.The character of the easternmost three contubernia of the northern range of block 6suggests that they formed an officer's end-building, complete with projecting stable blockof the type similar to those found in Lager III, but here placed against the eastern end-wall(fig. 79). Evidence for other potential stable blocks only existed about halfway along thenorthern range of block 6 and possibly halfway down the eastern range of the fifthquadruple block, counting from the western end of the row. The absence of such featuresin the other ranges is possibly simply due to the poor rate of survival of these buildings.Due to the close similarity between the northern quadruple barracks of Lager V andthose in the same location of Lager III, it can be suggested that those in Lager V also wereoccupied by allied infantry, grouped in effect as cohorts, with the maniples arranged inthe same way. This interpretation is supported to some extent by the smallfinds from thisgroup of barracks. The finds, like the barracks themselves, are also similar in generalcharacter to those found in row E of Lager III. All the published finds come from barrack6; none is reported to have come from the other barracks. The finds included two pilumheads; a spearhead; two bronze 'heart protectors'; a highly decorated bronze phalera; andthree coins (Schulten 1929, 157). If these barracks were indeed occupied by allied infantry,it is likely that the nearby conjectured barrack/ stable blocks to the west of Q would havebeen occupied by allied rather than legionary cavalry.Near the north-western corner of the camp two areas of walls were found (Schulten1929,158; fig. 73, lower). The character of the westernmost area of walls suggests that theywere part of barracks and, as Schulten proposes (1929, 158), they were the west-facingequivalent of barrack 6. With so little of this building being known, obviously such aninterpretation can be no more than tentative.BUILDINGS 1 1 TO 12'In the middle, east-west section of the camp to the south of barracks 1 to 12 and Q/Q',Schulten uses modern stone field walls and footpaths as a basis to reconstruct two rowsof back-to-back triple barrack blocks, 1' to 12', believing that these features could reflectearlier Roman wall and street positions (Schulten 1929, 159 f.; figs 65 and 66, shown asstippled lines). The only remains of wnlls actually found associated with the camp in thisarea were a small group of walls in the area of Schulten's barrack 1', to the south of barrack1/7 (Schulten 159; figs 66 and 76). With such little .evidence from this area, althoughSchulten's reconstruction may be correct, the interpretation of what buildings of the campwere located here should probably be left open.190

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VTo the west of Schulten's barracks l' to 12' was found a group of walls which spreadover a distance of about 117 m from east to west and about 8 m from north to south(Schulten 1929,160; figs 66 and 76). These walls are interpreted by Schulten as the remainsof barracks (1929, 160). This interpretation could well be correct, but there are too fewremains for this to be certain.A number of modern field walls running north-south near the western rampart arethought by Schulten to reflect the location of walls of barracks (1929, 160; fig. 65, shownas stippled lines). This may be true, but since the features do not seem to have been testedby excavation, the interpretation should remain speculative.BUILDINGS 1" TO 6"There is no archaeological evidence at all for Schulten's buildings 1" to 6", placed in theeastern half of the camp to the south of barracks l' to 12' (fig. 66). Schulten places sixbarracks here to complete the necessary number of barracks for his overall reconstructionof the camp, which he proposes was occupied by two legions organised as cohorts (1929,161 f.). Since there is no evidence for barracks 1" to 6", their existence is questionable. Thenature of the buildings that occupied this area is consequently uncertain.TRICLINIENHAUSER — BARRACKS?In a 70 m band from north to south, in the eastern half of the camp to the south of buildings1" to 6", Schulten found many fragments of buildings and two areas of relatively morecoherent remains (figs 65 and 75, areas a -n and x; and figs 82 and 83), Schulten interpretsthe remains as forming a grid of 14 by 4 houses, each with internal courtyards and triclinia,from which he derives the name for this area (1929, 162 ff.). Schulten was surprised thatthis area of buildings survived more in the form of slight internal walls, rather than thelarger main walls which would have been more expected (1929, 165). His explanation forthis, which seems reasonable, is that the main walls would have interfered with ploughingand so would have been removed, whereas the small internal walls would not haveformed a serious obstacle and so would be allowed to remain (1929, 165). In contrast, theabsence of such internal walls from most of the other excavated portion of the camp couldbe the result of Schulten's excavation technique of generally chasing the main walls ofbuildings and not uncovering the interior of rooms. It is possible therefore that theseinternal divisions could have been more widespread than the results of Schulten's workimply. It appears that buildings i and x were excavated quite fully, but the area betweenthe two was investigated merely by a trial trench (Schulten 1929, 165). It is possibletherefore that more main walls could have survived than Schulten's plans imply. It isunfortunate that larger-scale excavation did not take place, so that the interpretation ofthis area could have been based on more substantial evidence.The fragments of buildings found in this area are characterised by groups ofconnecting 'L'-shaped walls, all similar in length and general appearance. The walls191

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vsurvived in one case (Schulten's triclinia A in building f — fig. 82,B and D) to a height of0.4 m (Schulten 1929, 165). They were 0.15 -0.2 m thick and made from small stones andclay. Their thickness and character contrasted with the walls of larger stones which wereat least 0.27 m thick and which formed the actual walls of the buildings (Schulten 1929,165). The relative location of the 'L'-shaped walls to room walls and their general lengthsuggested to Schulten that they formed couches, generally 0.6- 1.0 m wide and about 1.8-2.0 m long (1929, 165 ff.). Further, the surviving evidence suggested there were three suchcouches per room and hence he interprets the rooms as triclinia. The size and height of theareas formed by these walls would certainly be suitable to function as couches for adultsto lie on. Schulten reconstructs the relative position of each of the three people as lying ontheir left elbows with their back to the room wall running along the rear of the couch, toleave the right arm free to collect food from a table that he believes would have stood inthe middle of the three couches (1929, 165).Near to several of the couches were found stone features, often rectangular in shape,about 0.6 x 0.75 m in area and in one case 0.3 m high (Schulten 1929, 165; fig. 82). Thesurface of these had traces of reddening caused by fire (Schulten 1929, 166). These featuresare interpreted by Schulten as altars (1929, 165 f.).Smallfinds from this area included five pila, five spearheads, a dagger, five coins andhigh quality, Campanian pottery (Schulten 1929, 167; exact location not given). Schultenuses this evidence together with the presence of the triclinia to suggest that the houseswere in effect miniature barracks and each occupied by about three or four men of wealth,specifically of the cohors amicorum of the commander (1929, 167 f.).Schulten's interpretation of the features in this area of Lager V could be correct,though the 'house' type of barracks he proposes seems unlikely. Suggesting an alternativeinterpretation is hazardous due to the paucity of available evidence, but suggestionsabout some of the features can be made.Some of the remains appear appropriate for infantry barracks. The arrangement andsize of the couches, together with the relative location of room walls allows a reconstructionin which the couches are contained at one end of pairs of rooms which were about 3m wideand 8.5 m long overall internally, with the actual room containing the couches being about4 to 5 m long. These dimensions are characteristic of what are interpreted as infantrycon tu bernia in the northern part of Lager V and in Lager III. The 'triclinia' are thus perhapssimply contubernia, with the couches being beds and located within triple barrack blocksof the type found in Lager III, rather than the house-barracks suggested by Schulten. Theidea of the couches being associated with dining may however not be totally wrong, ascivil couches could be used for both sleeping and dining (Ransom 1905, 15). It is worthnoting that exactly this combined function is placed on similar stone-built features foundin several contubernia of camps B, Fl and F2 at Masada and Milecastle 54 on Hadrian's Wall(Simpson and Richmond 1935, 240 with fig. 20; Richmond 1962, 146; Yadin 1966, 219).The couches in the Triclinienhauser of Lager V can probably also be regarded asdenoting the rear portion of the contubernia (from the available evidence in this area of192

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VLager V, it is not clear which may be the front or rear end of the contubernia), since froma purely practical point of view, the bed lying across the width of the contubernium wouldmake access from this end impossible. The altars of Schulten can be interpreted as hearths.They can be suggested as having been built in the rear rooms, near to or actually againstthe wall dividing the front and rear rooms of the contubernia; this is indeed the typicalposition for hearths in Roman barrack blocks of all periods.With this reconstruction, clearly there would have been sleeping space for onlythree men at a time. The evidence of De Metatione Castrorum (1) suggests that in eachcontubernium there would however have been eight men (above, Chapter Three). Thesleeping arrangements for the remaining five men are not clear. The hearth in the rearroom would have prevented further beds from being placed around the walls. Additionalbeds are unlikely to have been placed in the front room; this would correspond to the arma(De Metatione Castrorum 1) and so would have been used for storing equipment. A solutionto the provision of extra sleeping space is that the beds could have been bunk beds; thissolution is also suggested for barracks at Hesselbach, Kiinzing and ROdgen, for example(Baatz 1973, 59; SchOnberger 1975, 112; SchOnberger and Simon 1976, 32). There isadmittedly no published evidence for supports for the upper beds at Lager V. Supportingposts could however have stood on the ground next to the surviving walls on small stonepads, which if still present at the time of excavation may not have been noticed as beingsignificant and so were not recorded. Alternatively, the posts could have been set on topof the surviving walls and so might have left little trace. If the posts were set in small postholes,it is quite conceivable that the excavation techniques used by Schulten would nothave been sophisticated enough to have found them (above, Chapter One). Anotherreason for the absence of evidence for the supports could have been because the upperbunks were in part supported by beams set into and running between the main walls ofthe contubernium.The provision of bunk beds would have raised the accommodation to six men. Thiscould have been sufficient, for with night guard duties to perform, it is quite possible thata rotation of two men within the eight of the contubernium would have been on duty foreach of the four watches of the night (discussed in detail in Chapter Three).Although it is possible to reconstruct the location and alignment of a number ofcontubernia in this area of the camp, there is insufficient evidence for it to be worthwhileto propose the arrangement of the barracks in this area. It is conceivable even that this areacomprised barracks for both infantry and cavalry; the smallfinds alone do not restrictoccupation to either cavalry or infantry, since pila were found in barracks of Lager IIIwhich are interpreted as having been for cavalry (above). The problem of reconstructingthe barrack layout is made more difficult by the plan of the remains of Schulten's housesk and x (fig. 83). These buildings do not readily suggest themselves as being barracks,but complex, multi-roomed buildings of some size. It is possible therefore that this areawas not totally composed of barracks. The function of the 'non-barrack' buildings ishowever not clear.193

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VThe long, "T'-shaped feature in the area of Schulten's house d and to the south of it(fig. 75) is two lengths of water channel which join (Schulten 1929, 171). The channel wasconstructed of two upright rows of stones, spaced 0.29 -0.35 m apart (Schulten 1929, 71).The slope was to the south (Schulten 1929, 171), which would be expected, since thiswould take water running off the higher ground which lay to the north and east. Theseemingly strange angle of the channel to the south of d is entirely appropriate with givingit a course at right-angles to the contours in this area (fig. 21).A similar area of building fragments was found starting about 150 m to the west ofSchulten's houses of row n (Schulten 1929, 167; fig. 77). These too are interpreted bySchulten as a grid of houses (1929, 167). Alternatively, like the similar remains to the east,they could also be parts of infantry barracks. The arrangement of the conjectured barracksin this area is however not clear, due to the paucity of evidence.AREA PExcavations in the centre of the camp, area P, particularly in 1927 when a number oftrenches were opened here (shown as short-dashed lines in figs 65, 75 and 76), failed tofind anything except two small areas of walls, due to the amount of agriculturaldisturbance (Schulten 1929, 169). Schulten nevertheless proposes that the praetorium waslocated here, since it would place it in the centre of the camp (1929, 168 f.; fig. 66). Thissuggestion, although possible, clearly lacks supporting archaeological evidence.To the north of the conjectured praetorium were found the remains of two buildingsseparated by an 8.5 m wide, north-south street, the surfacing of which partially survived(Schulten 1929, 169 f.; fig. 22,5 and fig. 76). These buildings are interpreted by Schulten asbeing a pair of houses, probably of similar size and plan. Only the eastern one survivedto anything more than a very limited extent (fig. 22,5). Schulten believed that the limitsof this building had been established by the excavation and consequently could beregarded as measuring about 14.5 x 15 m (1929, 169). Its plan is proposed by Schulten asconsisting of a number of rooms around an internal courtyard. The occupants of these twohouses are thought by Schulten to be the officers associated with the cohors amicorumwhich he places nearby to the east and west of the praetorium (1929, 170). Schulten couldbe correct in that these remains are those of two houses and have the form that he suggests.Conceivably however the remains could be parts of much larger buildings than Sc.hultenenvisages, though what the form and function of these may have been is not clear. Nofinds from this area are reported, which could have helped with an interpretation of thefunction of the buildings. The interpretation of these remains is therefore best left open.AREA FExcavation in area F was prevented by dense coverage of bushes (Schulten 1929, 170; fig.65). The function of this area within the camp is consequently uncertain. Schulten'sinterpretation of it as being the forum is consequently entirely conjectural.194

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager VBUILDINGS 1 TO 10 AND 1' TO 10' - TRIBUNES' HOUSESApproximately 100 m from the southern side of the camp were found the remains of whatappear to have been an east-west row of houses (figs 65 and 75, buildings 1 -10 and fig.84). These are discussed in some detail by Schulten (1929, 171-7). From Schulten'sdiscussion it appears that only house 4 was completely excavated (1929, 176); the otherspresumably were investigated with his usual technique of just chasing the walls.The relationship of houses 2 and 3 suggests that the houses of the row were separatefrom one another. They appear to have all been similar in size, approximately 15 m fromeast to west and up to about 22 m from north to south. No two houses seem to have beenidentical in plan, but, as proposed by Schulten, they generally consisted of a number ofrooms around an internal courtyard (fig. 84). Houses 3 and 4 seem to have had a rangeprojecting from their southern side (Schulten 1929, 175 f.; fig. 84). It is uncertain howcommon such ranges were. These ranges are interpreted by Schulten as being stableblocks for the horses associated with the occupants of the houses (1929, 175 f.). Thesurviving evidence would be appropriate for such an interpretation, though does notopenly confirm it.Schulten reconstructs the arrangement of the houses as a group of three (fig. 75,houses 1 - 3), then a gap of just under 24 m, followed by a second group of three houses(fig. 75, houses 4 - 6) (1929, 172). These six houses are regarded by Sc_hulten as beingoccupied by the six tribunes associated with the legion he places to the north (1929, 172).To the east of these houses, Schulten reconstructs a further four (fig. 75, houses 7 - 10).These are proposed as being occupied by praefecti commanding the allied forces, thoughtby Schulten to have been present in the camp (1929, 172).Schulten could be correct in reconstructing ten houses along the row and placingtwo types of officer in them. It is possible however to suggest an alternative scheme of onlysix houses. Each house could have consisted of the building itself and a courtyard,sometimes if not always walled, of similar size to the house to one side of it (fig. 80). Thesecourtyards would account for the 'gaps in the remains' encountered by Schulten, theseareas being the open courtyards. It would similarly account for why no walls were foundin the interior of Schulten's house 1 (fig. 75), for example, since this could have been thecourtyard to house 1 in the alternative reconstruction (fig. 80). The circular feature shownin the plan in house 1, is thought to have been a hearth by Schulten (1929, 173 f.; fig. 80),which indeed it could have been in some form, but perhaps an outside one, conceivablythe base of an oven. This alternative reconstruction of six houses would match exactly therequirements of six tribunes for a legion, who can consequently be proposed as being theoccupants of these buildings. Supporting this interpretation to a degree is that the overallsize of the houses would be appropriate for the provision of 60 Roman feet (17.76 m) statedin Polybius (6.27.4 ff.) as the depth of the areas occupied by tribunes; it is unfortunate thatthe width of these areas is left rather vague in Polybius (see Chapter Three). The provisionof stables, if the interpretation of the southern projecting ranges of the houses can be195

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vaccepted, would also agree with the description of the tribunes' areas in Polybius. He says(6.27.5) that each area was given space for the tribune's horses, mules and baggage andthe implication is that this space was to the rear of the tent, since the tribunes' tents weredeliberately placed away from the front of the praetorium, according to Polybius, toprovide space for the animals and baggage, i.e. they were placed between the praetoriumand the tribunes' tents.The smallfinds from these houses do not contradict the idea of them being occupiedby tribunes, but neither do they obviously confirm it. The finds were:From house 3: an Iberian coin, a strigil (Schulten 1929, 175).From house 4: a stilus, a bronze handle, a spearhead (Schulten 1929, 176).From unspecified locations: a pilum head, two arrowheads, an iron axehead,a lamp, a horse tethering peg (Schulten 1929, 177).To the west of these houses, remains of two buildings were found which suggestthat another row of houses with a similar size and character, including the rangeprojecting to the south, existed in this part of the camp (figs 65, 77 and 84,3' and 4').Schulten consequently suggests that in this western area of the camp there would havebeen a second row of houses for tribunes and praefecti, associated with the legion and alliesplaced in his reconstruction in the western half of the camp (1929, 179 f.). With much lessof this conjectured row known about, clearly the reliability of any interpretation isreduced, but Schulten can probably be agreed with in that a second row of houses existedto the west of the first. As with Schulten's interpretation for the eastern row however, thewestern one can also be alternatively interpreted as consisting of merely six houses, eachwith accompanying external courtyard, for the six tribunes attached to a legion.The only smallfind from the western row of houses mentioned by Schulten is aspearhead, from house 3' (1929, 179).GRANARIESNear the south-eastern corner of the camp were found remains typical of Roman stonegranaries (figs 75 and 85). There appear to have been two granaries, placed about 16 mapart, with another building between them (Schulten 1929, 177 f.). The eastern granarywas 19.6 x 29.1 m and the western one at least 17.4 x 28 m (Schulten 1929, 177 f.); thoughthe western one can be reconstructed as being similar in size to the eastern one and alsowith five bays (fig. 80). Little survived of the building between the two granaries, so itsplan is uncertain (Schulten 1929, 178). Schulten is unable to offer an interpretation for thebuilding, other than that it reminded him more of barracks than of houses (1929, 178).Since the structure lay by the granaries, perhaps it was associated with storage and of nonperishableitems, as seemingly it did not have raised floors.196

Chapter Four — Reniebias, Lager VBUILDING REMAINS TO THE SOUTH OF THE TRIBUNES' HOUSESBetween the tribune's house numbered 3 by Schulten and the southern rampart in thewestern half of the camp, was found a small surviving section of a building (fig. 75).Schulten suggests that this was part of a granary, since he interpreted the projecting wallsto the west of the long north-south wall as buttresses (1929, 178). The walls however seemtoo insubstantial, compared to those of the granaries to the east of house 10, to have beenthose of a granary. Their character and relative positioning are more suggestive ofbarracks. Too little is known however for it to be worthwhile suggesting a reconstruction.The circular feature shown in Schulten's small-scale plan (fig. 75) 70 m to the westof these conjectured barracks and to the west of a north-south street was a well, which wasdemonstrated to have been at least 4 m deep (Schulten 1929, 171).STREETSSchulten reconstructs several streets in the camp, but most of these have little archaeologicalsupport and are instead based upon a combination of his conjectural reconstruction for theoverall plan of the camp and modern footpaths which are thought to originate in campstreets (1929, 152 f.; fig. 66). An exception is a north-south street near the western end ofthe conjectured eastern row of tribunes' houses (fig. 75). Schulten actually found an 80 mlong stretch of this street, with remains of the stone surfacing surviving to a width of 4 to5 m (1929, 171). A much shorter length of street on the same alignment was found to thenorth, at the western end of the Triclinienhauser (Schulten 1929, 171; figs 75 and 22,6).Schulten ignores the fact that the surviving form of this street may reflect its original widthand instead reconstructs it with a width of 15 m to agree with what he believes to be the50 Roman foot (14.8 m) width stated for streets in Polybius (1929, 171; above, ChapterThree). It is possible that these two lengths of street were parts of the same one, and onewhich led to a gate through the southern rampart. The finding of a gate in this part of thesouthern rampart is however not suggested either in Schulten's text or in his plans (e.g.fig. 75). Unless the apparent absence of a gate can be explained by poor quality ofsurviving rampart in this area, resulting in an opening or gateway structure not beingobvious, it would mean that this particular street may have had no particular significance.In Schulten's large-scale plan of Triclinienhaus x (fig. 83), down the western side ofthis building is shown two areas of what could be stone surfacing. Conceivably thesecould be parts of a north-south street. Little however can be deduced about its original sizeand extent to the north and south.The drainage channel found to the south of Triclinienhaus d and the apparentabsence of remains between the conjectured tribunes' houses and the Triclinienhausercould indicate the location of a broad east-west street, perhaps as much as 30 m wide. Ifthe interpretation of the tribunes' houses is correct, this street could correspond to the viaprincipalis and consequently be reconstructed, as Schulten proposes, as running the entire197

Chapter Four — Renieblas, Lager Vlength of the camp (fig. 66). If also the street was indeed 30 m wide, it would correspondclosely with the width of 120 Roman feet (35.5 m) stated by Polybius (6.28.1) for whatequates to the via principalis. The location of the other important streets is not clear.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTSchulten reconstructed Lager V as being occupied by two legions with allies. Since hedates the camp, more on historical than archaeological grounds, to 75 - 74 BC (below) thetwo legions are regarded as being organised in cohorts (1929, i80 ff.). Schulten's proposeddisposition of these and of the general arrangements within the camp are summarised infig. 66. This is essentially a layout reflecting the Polybian two-legion camp with the twolegions and allies being placed either side of a centrally-located range of praetorium, forumand quaestorium (above, Chapter Three).Schulten could be correct in that the army occupying this camp consisted of twolegions with allies, though his manner of encamping them can be questioned. In favourof Schulten's view about the general form of the occupying force is the location of thebuildings interpreted as tribunes' houses and the presence of remains indicative ofbarracks close to the north of these. These would be appropriate for allowing more thanadequate space for the Polybian two-legion scheme of a legion disposed on either side ofthe central administration range, if the legions were granted a similar amount of space towhat appears to have occurred in Lager III, for example. Whether these legions wereencamped as maniples or cohorts is uncertain from the available evidence, but in supportof a manipular organisation (in contrast to Schulten's cohorts) is the similarity in the formof the barracks between what can be reconstructed at Lager V and those particularly atLager III, where arguments in favour of a manipular organisation are stronger.If two legions had occupied similar space to those in Lager III, there would havebeen room for allied units down the eastern and western sides of the camp, just as in themanner of the Polybian scheme. With the alternative interpretation offered above for therange of barracks along the northern side of the camp, a further deviation from Schulten'sscheme occurs. Consequently, instead of (Schulten's) legionary cohorts being encampedalong this side of the camp, there is the possibility of a row of allied 'cohorts' with cavalrynear the western, northern gate. Placing these troops here would depart from the strictPolybian scheme, which suggests that the legions ran up to the rampart along this side ofthe camp (above, Chapter Three). Perhaps the situation at Lager V reflects the practiceadopted when a larger than normal complement of allied troops accompanied the legions.The area to the south of the tribunes' houses could have been occupied by the extraordinariiinfantry and cavalry, if the Polybian scheme was followed in this respect.Consequently a layout for Lager V can be reconstructed based on the Polybianscheme for two manipular legions with allies. It is however obviously very tenuous withthe paucity of remains.198

Chapter Four — Numantia, CastillejoNUMANTIACASTILLEJOINTRODUCTIONThe excavations on the hill known as Castillejo succeeded in finding remains of threephases, denoted by Schulten as Blue, Red and Black (1927b, 170). From Schulten'sdescription of the extent of the excavations (1927b, 167), it is apparent that most of the areaof the site was examined. The location of surviving remains was made initially by trenchesbeing dug over the site (Schulten 1927b, 167). Schulten states that these trenches were soclosely-spaced that his excavations would have been unlikely to have missed any but thesmallest features (1927b, 167). He believed that his excavation strategy probably yieldedvirtually everything that survived (1927b, 167). It is unfortunate that Schulten providesno plans showing the position of any of his excavation trenches. Further, he does not makeit clear how far out his trial trenches went, but it appears that he looked little beyond thedefences that he found. Consequently, the extent of phases could in places lie beyondwhat is indicated on the published plans. In addition, the effects of erosion by the riverTera on the western side of the side mean that the camps could have extended further inthis direction. The date of this erosion is not known. From the way Schulten writes, heclearly placed it before the camps were occupied. It is more likely however, that theerosion occurred after the siege, for the buildings approach uncomfortably close to theedge of the scarp and there are no traces of rampart on this side other than a short southwesternsection, which significantly ceases just into the main part of the scarp (fig. 86).The state of survival of remains over the site varied. Features were particularly wellpreservedalong the northern part of the area investigated. Schulten attributes this to thethickness of topsoil here, which in turn is probably the result of the site sloping down fromsouth to north (1927b, 168). In contrast, in the middle third of the camp (dividing the campfrom east to west) the trial-trenches, placed 2 - 3 m apart, found almost no remains(Schulten 1927b, 167). Schulten explains this because of the small amount of topsoil in thisarea, it having been eroded away on this the highest part of the hill (1927b, 168). Theabsence of remains in this area may not be the result of erosion, since the contour plan ofthe site shows that the band of missing features was not restricted to the top of the eastwestridge that lies in the southern part of the site, but runs northwards from it down theslope (fig. 86). Features were found to the east and west of this band (fig. 86), suggestingthat natural erosion may not be the sole cause of the absence. Perhaps it is the result ofdifferent agricultural methods being adopted in the middle group of the 27 parcels of landeach between 7 and 38 m wide, which ran from north to south and which divided the site(Schulten 1927b, 168). The same reason could explain the absence of remains apparent inthe published plans in the south-western part of the site (fig. 86).199

Chapter Four — Numantia, CastillejoPHASINGThe evidence for more than one phase having been found is indisputable, as Schultenfound several instances of walls cutting across one another and this is shown in thepublished plans and photographs (e.g. figs 87 and 99). The existence of no fewer than threephases is likely, as appropriately intersecting walls for three phases occur in a singlecomplex of walls found in the north-western part of the site (fig. 99). From suchintersections Schulten concluded that the Blue Phase was the earliest, followed by the Redand then the Black (1927b, 171 f.). There is nothing to suggest that this conclusion shouldbe questioned. The exact dating of the phases is discussed below. Schulten's phasing ofthe walls over the whole site is though of questionable reliability. From his discussion ofthe walls in the area of building a of the Red Phase and of the relationship of the wallsunderneath the surviving rampart in the north-eastern part of the site (below) it seems hewas not always able to recognize where more than one phase was present and could notalways appreciate the significance of stratigraphy as regards relative dating. This problemis to some extent circumvented by Schulten phasing some of the walls on the basis of theirstone type. Where relationships were obvious stratigraphically, Schulten was able toestablish that the earliest, Blue Phase was distinctive in that it used sandstone for itsconstruction (1927b, 175), whereas the other two phases mainly used basalt (1927b, 182and 190); the use of sandstone caused Schulten to suggest an alternative name for theearliest phase — das Sandsteinlager (1927b, 175). The presence of sandstone allowedSchulten to isolate the Blue Phase features, but would not have helped separate the Redfrom the Black. However in some cases he seems to have ignored the sandstone asevidence for the Blue Phase, for example with the phasing of the ramparts (below). Oneof Schulten's main methods for dating walls, particularly those that stood in isolation,seems to have been to compare their alignment with walls whose dating seemed cleareron the basis of stone type or stratigraphic relationship and to compare them with the lineof the surviving portions of rampart (1927b, 174). The other main method seems to havebeen to apply a theoretical plan on top of the remains. This plan was based on hisconclusions for where the position of the praetorium of each phase lay and the correspondingstreet pattern and troop layout that would have matched this using his interpretation ofthe Polybian camp. This would probably have caused a practice of 'joining the dots' toform sensible-shaped buildings of a form which fitted the desired ideal plan, i.e. he mayhave been biased in his selection of which dots to join with which. As the single phasecamp at Pena Redonda shows (below), building plans and alignments could be far fromregular or from what might be expected, so to use alignment as a dating device on a multiphasesite of this type would be hazardous. As a result, remains which differ in alignmentmay be of the same phase and conversely walls of similar alignment could even be ofdifferent phases, their similarity being purely coincidental.From Schulten's methodology of phasing he was able to produce three phase planseach complete with reconstructed street layout and troop dispositions (figs 93,97 and 101).The Blue and Red Phases have far fewer remains than the Black one, with the Blue Phase200

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejohaving few remains in the southern half of the site and the Red Phase having no remainsat all in the eastern two-thirds of the site. This unequal distribution may be correct, butSthulten seems to have been biased in his practice of phasing by believing that the lastphase would be the best preserved, as later phases would disturb earlier ones and so mostof the remains should be associated with the last phase (1927b, 171). He may thus haveattributed too many remains to the Black Phase. Schulten may be correct with his phasingof the remains, but with the methodology he used his conclusions should be viewed withcaution and in some cases can be openly questioned.THE DEFENCES OF ALL THREE PHASESDITCHESSchulten discusses the presence of a ditch only in respect of the Red Phase and concludesthat there was not one (1927b, 188). However, his conclusions are based on an interpretationof the evidence which is probably wrong, for what he believed to be the Red Phase rampartremains at the western end of the northern side are more likely to be those of a buildingand not of rampart (below). Schulten may however be correct in that the Red Phase didnot have a ditch, as the earlier Blue Phase rampart can be suggested as existing in ademolished form close to the front of it at least on the northern side of the camp (below).If a Red Phase ditch had been dug it would presumably have removed the Blue Phaserampart remains. Alternatively the ditch was much further out, which meant it must havebeen at least 4 m from the Red Phase rampart in order to clear the Blue Phase rampart (fig.89,b). Perhaps the Red Phase made use of a Blue Phase ditch by simply cleaning it out. Thissuggestion though must remain hypothetical as the presence of a Blue Phase ditch isuncertain. Schulten's trenches aimed at finding a ditch in front of this rampart did not doso (1927b, 191), but it is not clear how far out the trench extended and even if far enough,the dry excavation conditions may have prevented the recognition of a ditch. Theexistence of remains of the Blue and Red Phase ramparts similarly implies that thesurviving, probable Black Phase rampart (below) also did not have a ditch close by.Perhaps this phase too made use of a possible Blue Phase ditch cleaned out.RAMPARTSSchulten believed that he had found no defences which could be attributed to the BluePhase (1927b, 175). The rampart of the Red Phase is regarded by Schulten as beingrepresented by a bank, which survived at the time of excavation above ground and whichis shown on the published plans as a hachured line along the northern edge and on partsof the south-eastern area of the site (Schulten 1927b, e.g. 168,188 and 192; figs 87 and 97).The Black Phase rampart is interpreted by Schulten as having been found to the north ofthe surviving embankment and also along sections of the eastern and southern parts ofthe site (1927b, 191 ff.); it is shown on the published plans by a thick black line where it201

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejowas excavated with the intervening sections being indicated by a pair of dashed lines (fig.101). Schultert's interpretation of the evidence is questionable and an alternative sequencecan be suggested.Since the building remains indicate that all three phases occupied essentially thesame area of the hill, it would be expected that any surviving bank suggestive of being arampart would date to the last phase, since any ramparts not levelled by a vacating forcewould probably have been removed out of the way by the next army to occupy the area.Hence without any other evidence it would be thought that the surviving bank should beassociated with the Black Phase. With Schulten's arrangement, the surviving bank isplaced in the middle, Red Phase. This creates the rather nonsensical situation of an earlierrampart surviving to a height of at least 2 m (according to the published section, fig. 89)just inside a later one on the northern part of the site. This situation would have causedthe earlier, inner rampart to form an obstacle to the defending force and would have takenup a needless amount of space of the interior of the later camp. It is curious how Schultencould have reached the conclusion that the bank belonged to the middle phase and not tothe last, for along the northern side of the site, the bank is shown on the detailed plan (fig.106) as if it cut the northern side of some (if not indeed in reality all) of the buildings closeto the bank (e.g. 37, 38 and just to the east of 39) and on the section drawing the bank isshown as overlying the wall of building 34 (fig. 89). These walls are dated by Schulten tothe Black Phase. This is stratigraphic nonsense, for clearly the bank must be later than thewalls. Another example of Schulten reversing the archaeological sequence is in the southeasternpart of the site. Here a corner section of the surviving bank is shown crossing theline of Schulten's Black Phase rampart (fig. 86). From the way the plan is drawn it impliesthat the Black rampart does not cut through the surviving bank, but instead the reverse.Hence the surviving bank is later than the Black rampart. This order would make moresense as otherwise the Black camp would have had the unlikely situation of a length oframpart projecting into its interior. It, like the surviving portion of bank along thenorthern part of the site, should perhaps be attributed to the latest, Black Phase.Schulten describes the original form of the surviving bank as only being ascertainablealong the northern side of the site (19276, 187); regrettably Schulten nowhere describes thenature and material of the bank's composition, only seemingly what he found at thebottom of it. By Schulten's proposed northern Red Phase gate, near the western end of thenorthern side, he comments that the rampart consisted of an inner and outer revetmentwall each about 1 m thick (but of unspecified surviving height) and built of large piecesof basalt, with a core of small stones, producing a rampart 2.85 m wide (1927b, 187). Therevetment walls and core were presumably found outside of the area shown on Schulten'splan of this gate (fig. 91), for there is nothing on this plan that resembles what he describes.There is unfortunately no way of securely ascertaining whether the excavated rampartfeatures are indeed associated with the surviving bank. It is conceivable that they belongto an earlier phase and because of their location relative to the section of rampart whichcan be suggested as being of the Blue Phase, to the north of Schulten's Red Phase gate202

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo(below), and there is nothing to indicate in Schulten's description that they shared thesame, distinctive construction of the Blue Phase, they could date to the Red Phase. Thereis some evidence to support this from what Schulten found in a section excavated acrossthe surviving rampart near its north-eastern corner (below). If these remains are rejectedas being part of the surviving, Black Phase rampart it implies that the rampart may nothave been revelled. This is possibly supported by the published plan and section throughthe rampart near its north-eastern corner (fig. 89). Neither the plan nor section give anysuggestion that traces of revetment walls were found within the area of the survivingrampart. The original form of this rampart could therefore be similar to what is shown bythe profile of the surviving remains and was simply a pile of material about 9 m thick atits base and at least 2 m high with sloping faces at front and rear. Some form of breastworkwould presumably have stood on the top of the rampart.Near the north-western corner, though exactly where is not clear, but is presumablyin the westernmost area of hachures shown along the northern side of the site, Schultendescribes the surviving rampart as originally consisting of an inner revetment 1 m thickand an outer revetment of 0.9 m, spaced 3.65 m apart, resulting in an overall width of 5.55m (1927b, 187). A profile and plan of this area are published (fig. 90). It is questionablewhether these walls are those of a rampart. They produce a rampart which would beunusually and unnecessarily wide in this context. The character of the walls, consistingof two rows of stones either side of a core do not readily suggest themselves as beingrevetment walls, but their strong similarity to those of internal buildings on the siteimplies they are more likely to match this context. Interpreting the walls as those of abuilding might explain the seeming absence of any trace of core material between the twowalls; Schulten does not specifically mention that a core of small stones was found, unlikeelsewhere in his excavations. Since these walls presumably lay underneath the rampartmaterial that survived above ground, the building with which they were associatedshould date to the Red or Blue Phases. Since they are not stated as containing sandstone,they are perhaps more likely to be of the Red Phase. It is however uncertain to which typeof building they should be associated and how this related to the other Red Phasebuildings. The layers of gravel and charred material found to the north of the walls areregarded by Schulten as being contemporary with the walls and indicate to him theabsence of a ditch outside the rampart (1927b, 188; fig. 90). The lower position of the graveland charred material relative to the walls could indicate that they are earlier than the wallsand thus possibly of the Blue Phase. The location of the westernmost excavated sectionof Blue Phase rampart relative to the westernmost area of hachures shown on the plan (fig.87) indicates that the gravel and charred material would probably just lie within the BluePhase camp. The gravel could thus be a street, possibly even the via sagularis. The charredmaterial could be from when the camp was abandoned or could reflect cooking orindustrial activities against the back of the rampart.The remains attributed by Schulten to the Black Phase rampart are described insome detail by him (1927b, 191 ff.). The rampart along the northern part of the site was203

Chapter Pour — Numantia, Castillejoexcavated by a series of trenches along much of its length (Schulten 1927b, 192), thoughthe location of only two of these is shown on the plans by where surviving portions ofBlack Phase rampart are shown (fig. 101). Along this side the rampart consisted of an innerand an outer revetting wall of sandstone which were well-preserved in some places. Theplans and photograph of this feature (fig. 89,b and fig. 88,1) show that the outer wall atleast was made from dressed stones placed carefully together as a single course. The innerrevetment was also carefully constructed and of a single course, but the stones seem tohave been less-well dressed. The blocks are stated by Schulten to have been 0.6 x 0.3 x 0.15m (1927b, 192). Between the two revetments was a space of 0.8 - 1.0 m, which was filledwith small stones and earth, some of which spilled out as a 3 - 5 m wide deposit to the northof the outer revetment wall (Schulten 1927b, 191; fig. 89). The resulting rampart wouldhave been about 2.2 m wide.In contrast to the northern side, along the eastern and southern sides of the site theremains attributed to the Black Phase by Schulten were poorly preserved. At only one spotof the sections excavated, though exactly where is not stated, both reverting walls werepresent, forming a rampart 3.9 m wide (Schulten 1927b, 192). Otherwise all that was foundwere blocks of sandstone spaced irregularly, at different angles to one another andcovering a band 1.5 -2 m wide (1927b, 191 f.; figs 88,2 and 88,3). Schuller' interprets thisas the blocks having been thrown down to the ground from the rampart as it wasdemolished (1927b, 191). Whether or not the blocks were actually thrown down, theirgeneral untidy appearance indicates that they represent a demolished if not a partiallyrobbedrampart. Schultert is probably correct to associate the northern rampart with theeastern and southern sections, as they were all made from sandstone blocks of similar sizeand shared the same general characteristics despite the difference in the state of survival.Schuiten interprets the actual construction of his Black Phase rampart differently.About 1 m behind the inner revetment on the northern side of the site he found a furtherwall (1927b, 191; fig. 89,a). This innermost wall is interpreted by Schulten as being theinner revetting wall of the rampart. The other two walls to the north are regarded bySchulten as together forming a very strong outer revetment (1927b, 191). This form of therampart results in it being 4 m wide. Such a rampart construction, with in effect an inner,outer and middle reverting wall seems highly unlikely and has no parallels elsewhere onRoman military sites of any period. It is questionable whether the innermost wall shouldbe associated with the rampart. Frustratingly the material of this wall and the details ofits construction are not given. The way it is shown on the plan (fig. 89) however and thefact that Schulten never refers to it as being of sandstone (in stark contrast to the numberof times this description is used for the other two walls) suggest that it was of quite adifferent character to the northern pair of walls. This implies that it was associatedprobably with a structure other than the 'sandstone' rampart and conceivably was evenof another phase. Its rejection as being part of the sandstone rampart is possibly supportedby Schultert not commenting that it was found on the eastern and southern sides of thesite; it is not even clear just how frequently it was found along the northern side. The poor204

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejostate of preservation on these sides might explain the absence of the innermost wall, buthad it originally been there some suggestion of it seems likely, particularly at the spotwhere the inner and outer sandstone walls were found. The innermost wall of Schultenbeing part of the sandstone rampart can thus probably be rejected. The significance of thewall is however uncertain, but could be part of the Red Phase rampart (below).It can be suggested therefore that Schulten found remains of a sandstone rampartwhich consisted of an inner and outer revetment and which varied in width between 2.2and 3.9 m. It has been suggested above that the surviving bank is more likely to belongto the latest, Black Phase. Schulten's interpretation of the sandstone rampart as being ofthis phase is consequently cast into strong doubt. Schulten comments that the earliest,Blue Phase was typified by the use of sandstone (1927b, 175), in contrast to the otherphases which mainly used basalt (1927b,182 and 190). The material used for the sandstonerampart thus readily suggests that the rampart is of the Blue Phase; Schulten explains theuse of sandstone in for him the Black Phase rampart, as re-used material from the BluePhase (1927b, 192). Some support for this date is the alignment of the southern sectionsand particularly of the south-western length of the rampart, which are well-suited to thegeneral alignment of the buildings of this phase (fig. 94) and better suited to this phasethan to the Black Phase of Schulten's interpretation (fig. 101). The poor state of preservationof the eastern and to some extent the southern sections could then easily be explained bythe rampart in this area being levelled and robbed by the succeeding phases, the locationof the eastern and southern ramparts of which indicating that the Blue Phase rampartwould have been in the interior of the later camps and thus in the way.The form of the Red Phase rampart is the least well known, assuming that Schulten'sview of the surviving rampart being of this phase is rejected. It is possible that the remainsfound towards the western end of the surviving rampart are part of the Red Phase rampart(above). A wall similar in thickness to the revetment walls found here was revealed in thetrench excavated across the defences near the north-eastern corner (above). This particularwall could well be of the Red Phase; it is unlikely to be of the Black Phase since it lies outsidethe surviving Black Phase rampart and the possible absence of sandstone in it implies thatit was not of the Blue Phase. The wall was possibly not the rear revetment as there seemsto have been no traces found amongst the Blue Phase rampart of the corresponding frontwall; since both the conjectured Blue Phase walls are of sandstone and seemingly of adifferent character in construction to the Red Phase wall, it seems unlikely that one of thesewas the front Red Phase wall. The Red Phase wall could however have been the frontrevetment as the wall of Batterie 34 which is shown (fig. 89) apparently butting the RedPhase wall stops 1.2 m to the south of the wall, which is a suitable distance for where therear revetment wall could have been. If the rear revetment was also about 1 m thick, theoverall width of the rampart would have been 3.2 m. This compares favourably to the 2.8m found to the west (above). The absence of the rear Red Phase revetment in theexcavations near the north-eastern corner could be due to the wall's location being closeto the edge of the surviving above-ground rampart, the construction of which may haveinvolved the removal of obvious (to Sc_hulten) traces of the earlier rampart.205

Chapter Four — Nuinantia, CastillejoAnother section of the Red Phase rampart may be the length of rampart found 4 mto the south-east of Schulten's Black Phase south-eastern rampart (1927b, 181; fig. 101).Unfortunately this section is not described in detail by Schulten and there is no detailedplan. The fact that Schulten does not consider it as being part of his Black Phase (here redatedto the Blue Phase), presumably implies that it was of a different character to theremains of that rampart and thus can be excluded from being considered as being of theBlue Phase. It is also unlikely to be part of the surviving, Black Phase rampart as this isshown on the plans running 40 m to the north and the two do not align. This short sectionof rampart could therefore date to the Red Phase. It aligns vaguely with a small cornerlengthof rampart about 115 m to the east (fig. 98). This section is similarly not describedin detail by Schulten nor shown on a detailed plan. There is no firm evidence, but it couldform the south-eastern corner of the Red Phase. Schulten also dates these two shortrampart sections to the Red Phase, but for quite a different reason, as the location of thesouthern side of an enlarged form of the Red Phase camp (1927b, 181); the smaller-sizedsouthern side is regarded by Schulten as being represented by the long south-east cornersection of surviving rampart. With the alternative interpretation of the sequence of theramparts, the theory of two sizes for the Red Phase is not needed.TOWERSSchulten makes no comment about the square features shown in the Black Phase planagainst the rear of the rampart on the south-western side of the site (fig. 101). Thesefeatures are presumably associated with the rampart and thus date to the Blue Phase.They could be artillery platforms or towers, but since their construction and dimensionsare not discussed by Schulten and they are not shown on any large-scale plan, theirsignificance must remain uncertain.No evidence is presented by Schulten for towers for the Red or Black Phases andthere are no remains which with re-interpretation could be suggested as being those oftowers. It seems therefore that these phases did not have towers.ENTRANCESThere is no evidence for the location and form of entrances for the Blue Phase. The 3 mwide interruptions along the rampart near the eastern corner and on the south-easternside could be the location of entrances, but alternatively may simply be places where therampart failed to survive. Schulten does not comment on these particular interruptionsand they are not shown on any large-scale plan, which might ease interpretation, so theirsignificance must remain uncertain. For this phase, Schulten believed that he had notfound the physical remains of any entrances (1927b, 193), which may imply that none ofthe interruptions was suggestive as being an entrance. Schulten's attitude to theinterruptions may however have been coloured by none of them lying in positions wherehis conjectured street layout would have met the rampart, i.e. for him there was no needto consider whether they may have been entrances and indeed had they been, his schemefor the camp's layout would have been proved wrong.206

Chapter Four— Numantia, CastillejoSchultenbelieved that he found the northern gateway of the Red Phase approximately130 m from the edge of the scarp along the western side of the site (1927b, 185; figs 91 and97). The complex of walls is interpreted as two towers flanking a double-portalledentrance, with the towers lying on the line of the rampart and having the same width asit (1927b, 185; fig. 91). Schulten refers to a feature called the "rear wall of the gateway"(1927b, 185), which consisted of five rows of large sandstone blocks. He comments thatthese stones use the same material as is associated with the Blue Phase, but rejects themas being an in situ feature of the Blue Phase, believing instead that they have been re-usedin the Red Phase.It can be doubted if the complex of walls was the Red Phase northern gate. The waySchulten goes to some pains to justify his interpretation suggests that even to him thestructure was not obviously or indisputably a gate. His reasons for regarding this featureas a gateway were because it aligned with the northern end of his proposed via principalisand it lay in an appropriate position relative to nearby buildings (1927b, 185; fig. 97). Sincethe existence of this street in this position is highly questionable (below), it in turn throwsdoubt on Schulten using the street as evidence for the gateway; the relative position ofbuildings as evidence for the structure being a gate then becomes an irrelevance. Furtherargument against the structure being a gate is that it is highly questionable that the RedPhase rampart lay in this position, but was probably further north (above).The nature of what Schulten found in itself does not readily suggest a gate structure.Schulten refers to the portals having a rear wall, consisting of five rows of sandstoneblocks. The plan and photograph (fig. 91) show that the 'rear wall' was more complex.There seems to have been a line of single stones stretching right across the entrancepassages with a double row at right-angles within the gateway area. These stones werehigher or possibly rested on top of other rows of blocks running east-west on either sideand these lower rows possibly only went part-way across the entrance. The existence ofa rear wall, in whatever form, does not obviously agree with these features being portals,unless they had been blocked, but the single line of stones would be too insubstantial forthis. Instead of dating the remains to the Red Phase, perhaps the use of sandstone, not onlyfor the blocks in the area of the supposed entrance but also apparently in those of thetowers (Schulten 1927b, 185), should not be regarded as re-used material, but as evidencethat the features actually date to the Blue, sandstone phase. Since a length of what can besuggested as being the Blue rampart was found directly to the north of Schulten'ssupposed entrance passage (above; fig. 94), the complex of walls is unlikely to be thoseof a Blue gateway. They are consequently probably those of an internal building. Too littleis known however to be able to suggest what the building may have been.A complex of walls was found by Schulten at the southern end of his proposed RedPhase via principalis (figs 92 and 97). Like the walls found at the northern end of thissuggested street, they are interpreted by Schulten as the remains of a double-portal gatewith flanking towers of the Red Phase (1927b, 185 ff.). The reasons for this interpretationare that the remains lie at the southern end of the street, they are directly opposite the207

Chapter Four -Numantia, Castillejo Blue Phasenorthern gate and they cannot be associated with the Blue or Black Phases as no streetsof these phases met here (1927b, 185).The nature of the published remains does not readily suggest itself as being thoseof a gateway, but more likely to be those of an irregularly-shaped, multi-roomed building.As with the northern gateway, Schulten has to rely on the argument of street position tosupport the idea that the structure was a gate, rather than letting the walls speak forthemselves. This, again as with the northern gateway, implies that even Schulten felt thecomplex was not totally convincing as a gate. Interpretation of what was found iscomplicated by there being evidence from this area of occupation dating to the earlyEmpire; a coin of Decentius, dating to c. 27 BC (Hildebrandt 1979, 246), found -by thesouthern wall" (Schulten 1927b, 187) though it is not quite clear which wall Schultenmeans, and some samian pottery found in the western tower (Schulien does not specifythe type(s) of samian found, only that it dates to the Empire; 1927b, 187). Schultenacknowledges that at least part of the complex belongs to the Empire, particularly thecurved wall by the suggested eastern tower and the angled structure formed by the wallsa - c and the water channel d, with its associated roof tiles (fig. 92). Schulten does nothowever make any suggestion that the whole complex should be attributed to the Empire.He may be correct in associating part of it with the Red Phase particularly as it could lieon the line of the Red Phase southern rampart. The absence of comments by Schulten thatit contained sandstone suggests it is unlikely to be part of the Blue Phase. It wouldprobably also lie outside the Black Phase. The presence of the material dating to theEmpire however casts very strong doubts on arty assertions that some of the remains areof the Red Phase and it is consequently perhaps wise not to include them. Even if thecomplex was associated with the Red Phase it seems highly unlikely it is the remains ofa gate.There is no firm evidence for the location of gateways elsewhere along the line of theRed or anywhere along the surviving, Black rampart. There is a 4 m wide interruption inthe surviving rampart approximately 20 m to the east of Schulten's conjectured northerngate (fig. 97). Schulten makes no comment about this gap, which consequently makes itsinterpretation difficult. It could be a post-Roman feature, but conceivably might be theporta quaestoria / decumana of the Black Phase (below).DESCRIPTIONTHE BLUE PHASESchulten believed that the full extent of this phase is not known, for he was unable toassociate any defences with this particular phase (1927b, 175). Since however it can besuggested that his Black Phase rampart should be regarded as that of the Blue Phase(above), something of the Blue Phase's shape and size can be proposed. The known208

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Blue Phaselocation of part of the rampart circuit indicates that the overall shape of the camp couldhave been an irregular pentagon, but the exact shape is uncertain due to the lack ofevidence for the western side (fig. 94). At its widest points the camp would have beenabout 285 m from north to south and the known western extent of internal buildingremains indicates it would have been at least 320 m from east to west. Its area would havebeen correspondingly at least 7 ha.INTERNAL FEATURESTHE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE OF THE BUILDINGSThe construction of the buildings of the Blue Phase was unusual compared to both theother phases at Castillejo and the other Numantine sites. For these, the usual method ofconstruction was two facing-walls with a stone or earth core, or two rows of stones settogether (above). There were a few examples of these methods at the Blue Phase, but morecommon seems to have been comparatively thinner walls, with no core. In building elf,for example, several of the walls apparently consisted of a single row of squaredsandstone blocks forming a wall 0.3 - 0.4 m thick (19276, 178; fig. 95,2). Buildings 33 - 36and room a of building 29, which Schullen arguably wrongly dates to the Black Phase (fig.106; below), also seem to have shared this constructional technique from the way in whichthey are shown in the published plans. Room 4 of building d (fig. 95,3) seems to have beenslightly unusual in that its walls were of small pieces of limestone, but of a similar widthto e lfin being 0.32 - 0.35 m thick (1927b, 176).A further difference from the buildings elsewhere, was that several of the Blue Phasebuildings had circular or square stone plinths along the inner side of their walls, as if theywere intended to support posts or columns (Schulten 1927b, 176 ff.). These were found inroom 4 in building d (figs 95,3 and 96), buildings e and f (fig. 95,2), building 34 (fig. 106)and room a of building 29 (fig. 106); the last two structures are placed in the Black Phaseby Schulten, but there is good evidence to suggest they more correctly belong to the BluePhase (below).A feature of this phase seems to have been to have divided the main parts of each'building' into separate, self-standing units, for example room 4 in building d (fig. 95),buildings e and f (fig. 95) and buildings 33 - 34 (fig. 106). This meant that what were ineffect sometimes just single rooms had all external walls, with none shared by neighbouringrooms. This may explain the relatively high number of parallel walls placed close togethershown on Sc_hulten's small-scale phase plan (fig. 93) and why many structures weresimple rectangles with seemingly no walls leading away from them. The frequency ofthese simple structures suggests it is not merely a result of the lack of survival ofconnecting or radiating walls, but was more a deliberate constructional technique. Theunnecessary provision of individual external walls, rather than shared party walls, wouldclearly have been inefficient both in terms of labour and use of materials. Why it wasadopted is uncertain. It was certainly not a practice followed in succeeding phases orelsewhere in the Numantine sites.209

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Blue PhaseThe unusual occurrence of internal plinths and separate dividing walls perhapsdoes not merely represent simple buildings, but a more complex situation. Morel (1991)has suggested that some sites in Germany of the early Empire consisted of tents whichwere roofed over for the winter, with the roof supported by a number of posts. Perhapsthe features found in the Blue Phase at Castillejo represent something similar. A situationcould be envisaged in which the army arrived at the site in summer and pitched their tentsin the usual manner. The occupation could have turned into a siege which protracted intothe winter, but was expected to end without having to spend all the winter in camp. Thewinter climate in this part of Spain is particularly unpleasant, with very windy and coldweather starting in October, mid-winter temperatures of -10 degrees Celsius and snowlasting until April (Sc.hulten 1931, 56). As a result, accommodation just in tents would bequite unwise. The occupying troops would have been faced with a potential choice ofbuilding complete stone or timber structures which totally replaced the tents or puttingin less work and adapting the tents to withstand the cold and wind. It was perhaps thelatter option that was adopted, since with the occupation possibly not being intended tohave lasted the whole winter the provision of properly-constructed buildings may havebeen deemed unnecessary and a potentially wasted effort. Consequently a more makeshiftarrangement was more acceptable. The walls found could represent low or full-heightwalls built around the tents. Any walling would reduce the force of the wind and increasethe level of insulation. The duplication of walls between neighbouring tents was perhapsdue to the distance between tents. According to De Metatione Castrorum (1) there wouldhave been only two feet between each tent. Such a narrow gap would have allowed onlya single wall between each tent. The distance across the inner faces of neighbouringdividing walls of the Blue Phase is about 1.4 m on average (4.7 Roman feet). If the idea thatthe walls were built around the tents is accepted, the distance between inner faces showsthat neighbouring tents were about twice as far apart as stated in De Metaticme Castrorum.This increase of space was perhaps to allow more air to circulate between the tents, whichmay have been very necessary in the very hot summer conditions. With such a widedistance apart, if a single wall had been placed between the tents, it would have been toofar away from the sides of the tents to have been effective against the winter weather.Hence the provision of double walls.If the walls around the tents extended to full height, presumably a timber roof wouldhave been constructed. This was possibly thatched, since no roof tiles are mentioned bySchulten as having been found. If the tents remained inside these structures, the situationwould be like that practised by Caesar's troops in Gaul one winter, where the Latin of BelloGallia) 8, 5 allows a translation of "shelters hastily thatched over to cover the tents"(translation by A. and P. Wiseman 1980, 180). An alternative to full-height stone wallscould have been low ones, perhaps only as high as the sides of the tent, which could havebeen about 0.95 in high (van Driel-Murray 1991, 369). With this situation, the roof of thetents could have had thatch applied directly to give added insulation. The same passageof Bello Gallic° can also be translated to this effect: "thatch hastily collected for roofing the210

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Blue Phasetents in winter" (Loeb translation 1917, 523). Low walls with thatch on the roof of the tentwould probably have been effective against the elements. It may be the more likelytechnique adopted of the two. The reconstruction with full-height walls and timber roofwould have made the tent completely redundant and thus likely to have been removed.The tent probably could not have remained anyway because the walls would haveprevented the guy-ropes from being stretched out. It can be suggested however that thetents did remain within the walls, which means that the walls were unlikely to have beenfull-height. The presence of plinths found in some of the structures could well have beenused to give a firm base for the tent-poles. The positions of the plinths would certainly tiein with such a function. Their presence, if indeed used for this purpose, implies that thetent remained within the structure, for if the tent had been removed, so too wouldprobably have been the supporting stones. This favours the low wall-height reconstructionin which the tent stays. Low walls with tent inside would have been viable from thepractical point of keeping the tent up by means of the guy-ropes down the sides of the tent,as they could have passed over the top of the wall. Low walls and thatch would haveinvolved the least effort to achieve insulation and protection from wind. This may havecontributed to the favouring of such a construction method, particularly if the occupyingforce did not envisage spending the whole winter sub pellibus. A possible context for justsuch a situation is the activities of Pompeius in 140 BC (below).STREET AA gravelled street was found at the southern end of the remains attributed to the BluePhase (Schulten 1927b, 175; fig. 93, a). It was traced for a distance of 40 m, runningapproximately north-south. The street was 5 m wide and was bounded by walls on eitherside (Schulten 1927b, 175). This street is interpreted by Schulten as the via praetoria (1927b,175). This interpretation is possible, but should be viewed as highly conjectural with solittle of the camp being known. Even extrapolating from the known length of street toreconstruct a street running virtually the entire length of the area occupied by remains ofthis phase seems questionable, for there was no actual evidence for the street or clearbuilding edges in appropriate positions to confirm the course of the street beyond whereit was actually found.Schulten makes no comment about the gravelled area shown on the plan (fig. 93),which seems to be a street joining a from the west. The extent of this possible street isuncertain, but it could have linked with the street found at b.STREET BA street of similar character to a and sharing the same alignment was found 44 m to thewest of a (Schulten 1927b, 175; fig. 93,b). The width may have been similar to a, but this isuncertain as a bounding wall occurred only on the eastern side (Schulten 1927b, 175) andSchulten makes no comment about whether the western limit was clearly established. Aswith street a, there is no clear evidence to support Schulten's reconstruction of the streetas running almost the entire length of the area of remains of this phase.211

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Blue PhaseSTREET cSchulten proposes a further north-south aligned street the same distance from b as b isfrom a, for he believed there was a regular pattern of parallel north-south streets spaced150 Roman feet (44.4 m) apart (1927b, 175; fig. 93,c). He proposed this as he believed thewestern end of building g lay in a suitable position and there was an appropriately widegap between g and building h. A length of wall at n was interpreted as part of the easternside of the street. The existence of street c is questionable however. Interpreting the shortlength of wall at n as being the eastern side of the street is hazardous, since no traces ofstreet metalling were found nearby and the wall is isolated from any other features. Thisresults in the general context in this area being too unclear to be able to claim with anydegree of reliability where the wall might have been in relation to anything else. Thearrangement of the walls around building g shown in the plan suggests that the westernend of g was not found and that it continued further westwards than Schulten supposed.The conjectured gap between g and h may consequently not have been of the formSchulten proposed and indeed it is conceivable that g and h were parts of the samecomplex. Further, a little to the north of g the plan shows a short length of wall runningapproximately east-west and this would have run into the conjectured street, as indeedSchulten's plan shows. The gap for a north-south street in this position is thereforeunlikely and arguably is a creation of Schulten, to provide a street to fit his theoreticalscheme. If any street did exist in the area of g and h, it was possibly one running east-westalong the northern side of the wall lying just to the north of g/ h, for the plan shows an areaof gravel here, which could be street surfacing.BUILDING DAt the northern end of Schulten's street a was a complex of walls which Schulteninterpreted as a building consisting of a number of rooms lying around an internalcourtyard (1927b, 176 f.; figs 93 and 95). The building's shape was regarded as being asquare with sides of 35 m. This, Schulten pointed out (1927b, 176), probably meant thatthe building was designed around a plot with sides the length of an actus (120 x 120 Romanfeet 35.5 x 35.5 m). The quality of the walls' construction was much higher than otherwalls of this phase. They still contained the sandstone associated with the Blue Phase, soSchulten is probably correct to date them to this phase, unless the stone is re-used.The building is interpreted by Schulten as the praetorium. His reasons for this are thatthe building's plan conforms to that regarded as being typical of praetoria, its overall shapeand dimensions are appropriate for a praetorium, its construction is of unusual highquality and it is in a suitable position relative to street a. Schulten may be correct with hisinterpretation, but the evidence is far from conclusive. So little of the ground plan isknown that any reconstruction and interpretation would be hazardous. From the wallsshown in the plans, it is not even beyond doubt that Schulten established the overall limitsof the building; his shape for the building could have been influenced by the 'desire' tofit it neatly into an actus quadratus. The evidence of the relation of the building to street a212

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Blue Phaseto support the interpretation of the building is questionable as the existence of the streetitself is dubious in this area (above). If the building is the praetorium and if street a is thevia praetoria, it would be expected to find the via principalis on the southern side of thebuilding. There is no evidence for this and on the contrary the relevant area (whereSchulten places the tribunes' accommodation) appears to have been built over. Schultendoes not comment on this anomaly, perhaps not surprisingly as it would cast doubt onhis interpretation of building d. The interpretation of the complex of walls at d shouldtherefore be left open. Their quality of construction does however suggest a function forthis area which was not simply as barracks. Perhaps the building or buildings associatedwith these walls was accommodation for one or more senior officers, if indeed the wallswere not part of the praetorium. Finds from the area do not clarify things, for the onlycomment Schulten makes about what was recovered, was that in room 4 were a numberof knives and an area of burning.BUILDINGS E AND FSome of the walls found approximately halfway along the northern area of remains of theBlue Phase shared the characteristic of room 4 of building din having what appear to havebeen plinths projecting inwards from the walls (Schulten 1927b, 178; fig. 95) and in oneroom there seemed to be a self-standing plinth (fig. 95,2 e'). These walls were also similarto building d in being carefully constructed and made use of the sandstone so typical ofthis phase (Schulten 1927b, 178). Too little was recovered from this area to be able toproduce a reliable ground plan, though Schulten attempts one (fig. 95,2).The walls are interpreted by Schulten as forming part of the accommodation of thesix tribunes who Schulten believes would have been placed here at the head of their legion,encamped to the south (1927b, 178; fig. 93). The few remains found in the equivalent eastwestband across the camp, on the opposite side of street d, are also interpreted by Schultenas tribunes' accommodation, for the second of the two legions which Schulten believedoccupied this phase (1927b, 178 f.; fig. 93). There is no real evidence to suggest the natureof the army which occupied the Blue Phase, so Schulten's theory must remain conjectural.It is based on his ability to reconstruct a street pattern which allows a Polybian-based campfor two legions to be created. Since however the existence of the streets is questionable,so too is Schulten's overall reconstruction and hence of the position of particular units,officers and other features. There is consequently no way of knowing whether buildingse and/ and the walls to the east were occupied by tribunes.BUILDINGS G TO PThe various lengths of wall found to the south of Schulten's conjectured tribunes'accommodation are interpreted by him as being the barracks for the two legions and alliesof the army that he believes occupied the camp (1927b, 179 ff.). Schulten believes thatsufficient walls were found in this area to be able to establish that the design of the barracksconsisted of the two centuries of each maniple arranged opposite each other either side213

Chapter Four - Numantia, Castillejo Red Phaseof a courtyard and at right-angles down the line of the street (1927b, 179 ff.; fig. 93). He feltthis was particularly clear at g to m and o (fig. 93). Schulten may well be correct ininterpreting these remains as those of barracks, but so little was recovered that anyreconstruction of their general arrangement or detailed plan, let alone which type oftroops occupied each, would be too conjectural to be worth considering.In addition to the features attributed by Schulten to the Blue Phase, his Black Phasebuildings 33 to 40 are more likely to be part of the Blue Phase (below).GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNALLAYOUT OF THE BLUE PHASEToo little is known about this phase to be able to come to any valid conclusions about itsoverall layout. All that can be concluded is that the camp had sandstone structures, whichcould have been buildings or could have been protective screens placed around tents.These were divided by metalled streets. Some of these buildings, in the northern part ofthe area excavated, seem to have been of high quality, which suggests they may have beenfor senior officers.THE RED PHASEDESCRIPTIONWith the suggested re-interpretation of the rampart remains (above), it results inrelatively little being known about the location of the sides of the Red Phase. The locationof the eastern side is indicated vaguely by the south-easternmost right-angled length oframpart found. This length, together with the short section found about 120 m to the west,suggest the position of at least the eastern part of the southern side. The course followedby the remaining part of the southern side is not known. The location of the northern side,at its eastern end, seems to have been dose to the surviving Black Phase rampart in thisarea (above). Further to the west the position of the northern side is less certain, but wallsfound under the surviving westernmost portion of northern Black Phase rampart andwhich may be part of the Red Phase (above), indicate that the Red Phase rampart layfurther north than the Black Phase, though by how much is not known. From what isknown about the position of the northern and southern sides it can consequently beconduded that the camp was about 180 m across at its eastern end, but seems to havebecome wider to the west, perhaps as much as 250 m across in the main area of survivingremains (fig. 98). The western rampart position is completely uncertain, but the locationof Red Phase buildings near the edge of the western slope show that this phase extendedat least 350 m from east to west. The area of the camp could thus have been at least 7 ha.Its general shape could have been a vague rectangle, with a curved southern side, or it214

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Red Phasecould have been pentagonal, rather like the earlier pentagonal Blue Phase, if the southernside was more angular.INTERNAL FEATURESNORTH-SOUTH STREETSchulten found the remains of a carefully-constructed street running basically northsouth,down the eastern side of the easternmost buildings attributed to the Red Phase (fig.97). The main part of the street was metalled with gravel (Schulten 1927b, 182). Thewestern side of the street is described as having an 0.8 m wide kerb constructed of largepieces of the local basalt (Schulten 1927b, 182). The kerb, Schulten states (1927b, 182) wasparticularly well-preserved by buildings 8 and e (fig. 97). Schulten implies that he was notable to establish the width of the street, as he says that it probably corresponded to thewidth of the gateway openings and was thus 50 Roman feet (i.e. approximately 17m) wide(1927b, 182). This uncertainty is surprising as the plan seems to show quite clearly a kerbon either side of the street in the area halfway between buildings 8 and e. These two kerbssuggest that the street was about 4 m wide, which is substantially narrower thanSchulten's suggestion. Perhaps Schulten did not want to acknowledge this evidence, sothat he could create a street wide enough to be more in agreement with his interpretationof the street being the via principalis (1927b, 182). Schulten's main reason for thisinterpretation is seemingly because he could reconstruct it as running between twogateways. The street may have run between two gates, but not the two proposed bySchulten as these particular structures are unlikely to have been gates (above). There isinsufficient evidence to be able to decide whether or not the street was indeed the viaprincipalis.Schulten reconstructs the street on his plan as being straight (fig. 97). The locationof the various lengths of kerb and the general alignment of the adjacent buildings indicatehowever that the street had a noticeable curve. This was probably a response to thetopography of the hill. lithe street continued beyond the summit of the hill, and the samegeneral curve to the north continued to the south, the resulting street line would indicatea deliberate intention to align the street at right-angles to the contour lines of the hill (fig.86). This was probably a side-effect of the more important consideration of preventing thewalls of the buildings from having to go awkwardly up the slopes at an angle to thegradient. A similar consideration is indicated at Peria Redonda, for example (below).BUILDINGS A TO EfA series of multi-roomed buildings all similar in character were found along the westernside of Schulten's via principalis (fig. 97, a to s'). Of these, the northernmost building (a)is described in some detail by Schulten (1927b, 182) with both small and large-scale plans(figs 97 and 116). The other buildings (13 to e') are unfortunately described only very briefly215

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Red Phase(1927b, 182 f.) and are illustrated only at a small scale (fig. 97). A detailed discussion ofbuildings P to g' is consequently not possible.It is unfortunate that the two plans which show building a vary in detail. As a result,it is uncertain what was actually found and how much 'tidying up' the larger-scale planmay have received. The line of the conjectured via principalis confirms Schulten'ssuggestion that the easternmost north-south wall represents the eastern limit of thisbuilding (1927b, 182; fig. 97). Schulten believes that the northernmost east-west wallrepresents the northern limit of the building, seemingly because of the conjecturedproximity of the intervallum (1927b, 182). Both plans (figs 97 and 99) however show a wallcontinuing northwards, indicating that there was more of the building to the north,though how much is uncertain. The significance of the dotted area shown to the north ofthe building on the small-scale plan (fig. 97) is not clear; it could reflect a disturbed wallor street metalling and thus cannot be used as firm evidence for the northern limit of thebuilding. The large-scale plan (fig. 99) seems to confirm Schulten's view that the southernlimit of the building had been found, but the small-scale plan (fig. 97) suggests that thecorners may not have been as clear as the large-scale plan implies and the latter plan mayrepresent a degree of 'interpretation' in this respect. It is possible therefore that thebuilding continued further south than Schulten believed. The western limit is thought bySchulten to have been established because he found what he describes as an open pavedsquare (Platz) adjacent to the westernmost walls (19276, 182). The exact nature of thissquare is unclear, but it is presumably indicated on the plans by the area of short wavylines to the west of rooms I and II on the large-scale plan and the dots on the small-scaleplan. Schulten's interpretation could be correct, but this area appears rather narrow on thelarge-scale plan to be readily thought of as part of an open square. Instead it has a similarwidth to the crudely-constructed wall consisting of a double row of large stones, shownrunning along the southern side of the dividing wall between rooms II and III (fig. 99). Thisdouble-row stone wall seems to be regarded by Schulten as part of the dividing wall of theRed Phase building, being placed there to create an extra-strong wall intended to supportthe ridge of a double-gabled roof (1927b, 182). The published photograph of this building(fig. 99) suggests rather that the double-row stone wall is of such a different character tothe neatly-constructed wall which accompanies its northern side, that the two wallsshould be more correctly regarded as being of different phases. Schulten does not considerthis possibility, but merely observes that the crude wall was constructed of large boulders,in contrast to the other walls (19276, 182). The photograph suggests that the crude wallcontinued further to the west than Schulten's plans show and it seems to have extendedoutside of the Red Phase building. In the photograph, the 'paved square' seems tocontinue as far south as the crude wall and thus possibly the two are associated, with the'paved square' simply being more of the wall, but in a poorer state of preservation. Thephotograph implies that the Red Phase western north-south wall cut through the crudeeast-west wall. The crude wall and its possible associated 'paved square' wall would thusdate to before the Red Phase. They could consequently date to the Blue Phase. Schultenrefers to paving having been found inside rooms II and III (1927b, 182). From what is216

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Red Phaseshown in the photograph, this too could be Blue Phase walls in the case of the stones foundin room II and could easily include what is presumably being shown on the large-scaleplan as a tentative north-south wall on the northern side of the dividing wall betweenrooms II and III (fig. 99). The photograph suggests however that the 'paving' in room IIImay be genuine surfacing, but since it seems to be cut by the Red Phase north-south wall,could still be of the Blue Phase. With the paving down the western side of building a beingre-interpreted as coming from another phase, it consequently cannot be used as evidencefor the location of the western side of the building. The western walls attributed to this RedPhase building could nevertheless represent the western side of the building in the areaof rooms III and IV. For rooms I and II however the location of the walls by the 'paving',if they are indeed walls and of this phase, imply that the western limit was further westthan Schulten envisaged.The only feature of note in building a was a 1.2 x 1.7 m storage tank filled to a depthof 0.25 m with burnt material, in the north-eastern corner of room IV (Schulten 1927b, 182;fig. 99).Schulten rejects buildings a to s' as being barracks because he believes the buildingswere essentially divided into a number of large east-west rooms each approximately 13x 5 m, which in his view would make them too large to have been rooms in barracks (1927b,183). Since he believed that the via principalis ran down the eastern side of the buildings,by applying his interpretation of the Polybian scheme for a camp he concluded that forreasons of available space either side of the via principalis , the legions and allies would havebeen placed on the eastern side of this street (1927b, 183; fig. 97). This, so Schultenconcluded, would mean that buildings a to s would have been the accommodation for thetribunes and the praefecti sociorum of one of the two legions and alae that Schulten believedwere the occupying force (1927b, 183). Building s' is thought by Schulten to lie on thesouthern side of what he proposes as being the line of the via praetoria (1927b, 183; fig. 97),though there is no actual archaeological evidence for a street here. Schulten proposes thatbuilding s' can be grouped with the walls shown on the small-scale plans 20 m to the southof s'; these southern remains are not given any letter by Schulten nor discussed in detailby him (1927b, 183; fig. 97). Together, these two areas of remains are suggested bySchulten as forming part of the accommodation for the tribunes of the second legion(1927b, 183).Schulten discusses the remains to the west of buildings a to s' only very briefly(1927b, 184), with the features found close to the edge of the western slope not beingmentioned at all. What was found is shown merely on the small-scale plans of the site (e.g.fig. 100,A). As a result the details of what was uncovered in this area are uncertain.Schulten interprets the remains immediately to the west of a to 6' as two sets of barrackslying either side of a common north-south dividing wall (1927b, 184). On the eastern sideof this common dividing wall Schulten has barracks of the equites extraordinarii arrangedas a long hemistrigium. On the western side of the wall is one side of a double barrack blockfor the pedites extraordinarii, with the other half of the double block lying on the opposite217

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Red Phaseside of an open area approximately 20 m wide (1927b, 184; fig. 100,A). No interpretationis offered for the features near the edge of the western slope.Schulten's interpretation of buildings a to s' and the remains to the south and westcould be correct. Suggesting an alternative interpretation is hazardous, due to the qualityof the published evidence. The surviving remains however allow an alternative, tentativereconstruction of a more complex arrangement, of a grid of 'horseshoe-shaped' triplebarrack blocks with a form closely resembling the encampment of the northern legion inLager III, but with the velites' tents placed to the rear of the side ranges in the Red Phase,not between them as at Lager III (figs 41 to 43 and 100,B). Hence it can be suggested thatthese Red Phase barracks consisted of four east-west rows of triple blocks, occupied by amanipular-organised legion encamped in 'Polybian' fashion with the legionary cavalryand the triarii back-to-back, and on the opposite side of a street to the triarii, the principesand hastati back-to-back (fig. 100,B). The reconstruction includes the westernmost northsouthrow of triple blocks facing west (fig. 100,B), as if the western rampart were close by.This interpretation agrees with the nature of the remains near the western slope of the site,but clearly further north-south aligned rows of blocks could also be possible, accordingto wherever the western rampart lay. To make up the rest of the accommodation for thislegion, presumably more triple blocks would have existed to the east of the north-southstreet found along the eastern side of buildings a to s'.With the degree of uncertainty surrounding the alternative interpretation, due tothe large amount of extrapolation from surviving remains, discussion of the barracks'dimensions and details of their plan is limited and any conclusions must necessarily betentative. The reconstruction results in rectangular areas occupied by each triple blockwhich were 36 m (N-S) x 40 m (E-W) for the triarii compared to about 56 m (N-S) x 40 m(E-W) for the principes and hastati; with the exception of the conjectured west-facing tripleblocks, the distortion of whose areas meant that their dimensions were probably nottypical and so can be discounted for comparative purposes. With the degree ofreconstruction applied to these areas, comparison of their dimensions to the theoreticalPolybian ones and those at Lager III clearly requires caution. Accepting this, it can besuggested that the east-west dimensions of the areas is reasonably close to the 120 Romanfeet (35.52 m) of Polybius and basically the same as the 39 - 40 m for the equivalentdimension at Lager III. In contrast, the north-south dimensions of the triarii of the RedPhase are seemingly double the 60 Roman feet (17.76 m) of Polybius and 14 m more thanthe triarii areas at Lager III. Similarly contrasting, the principes and hastati areas are almostone-and-a-quarter times longer than the 120 Roman feet (35.52 m) of Polybius, and about17 m longer than the equivalent areas at Lager III. The degree of difference in the depthof the two types of area (i.e. the triarii and the hastati / principes) at the Red Phase and LagerIII is however similar —14 and 17 m — and could simply be due to the different location ofthe velites.Within these infantry triple barrack areas the blocks down the side of each area ofthe triarii could generally have been about 26 m long compared to about 45 m for the218

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseprincipes and hastati. The length of the rear velites' blocks could have all been about 40 m,if these blocks extended right across the width of the area occupied by the triple block.The arrangement of the walls of the infantry blocks suggests that the width of eachblock/depth of the contubernia varied between about 12 and 14 m. The width of theindividual contubernia seems to have been between 3 and 5 m. The number and size of therooms of each contubernia are uncertain, but a division into two rooms, sometimes ofequal, sometimes of unequal size, seems to have been common. Unlike at Lager III, theevidence for a third room/possible stable for a centurion's horse at the front of somecontubernia is seemingly absent, but this could be due simply to the generally poorsurvival of the front sections of the contubernia. Since the length of the Red Phase blockswas nowhere clearly established, the number of contubernia in each block is uncertain, butthe reconstructed lengths would allow eight or nine contubernia in the side blocks of theprincipes and hastati and about four or five in those of the triarii. This would be sufficientfor 'normal-sized' maniples, with one contubernia or its equivalent area being set aside forthe centurion in each block. The rear blocks could each have contained perhaps as manyas nine or ten contubernia for the velites, which would have been more than adequate forthe numbers attached to each maniple.The areas occupied by the legionary cavalry could have been about 26 m (N-S) x 44-50 m (E-W). If this reconstruction is valid it would mean that these areas are larger thanthe 60 Roman feet (17.76 m) x 120 Roman feet (35.52 m) of Polybius, but similar to the 22- 27 x 37 - 42 m cavalry areas at Lager III (rows D and K). In each of these Red Phaserectangular areas could have been three blocks similar to those reconstructed above forcavalry in Lager III, with each block consisting of a mixture of accommodation for the menand stables. At Castillejo these blocks could all have been of similar size to those at LagerIII, namely just over 20 m long and about 10 m deep.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNALLAYOUT OF THE RED PHASEWith essentially only information about the western part of the Red Phase being knownand even here the degree of certainty is questionable, little can be firmly concluded aboutthe overall layout of this phase. All that can be suggested is that the western part of thecamp was occupied by a grid of triple barrack blocks whose arrangement would beappropriate for part of a manipular-organised legion.THE BLACK PHASEDESCRIPTIONWith the above interpretation, that the surviving sections of rampart are from the BlackPhase, the location of the phase's northern, eastern and the eastern part of its southern side219

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseare known (fig. 102). The location of the western side is uncertain, but the existence ofbuildings of this phase 360 m from the eastern rampart indicates that it was at least thislong in this direction. The north-south dimension at the eastern end of the camp was about130 m. How representative this is for the north-south dimension for the rest of the campis unclear as the position of the southern rampart for much of its length is uncertain, butcan be conjectured (fig. 102). The southern extent of walls indicates however that thenorth-south dimension of the camp increased to at least 220 m plus intervallum in the areaof Schulten's building 19 (figs 101 and 102). With the location of the southern and westernramparts being unclear, the area of the camp is uncertain, but the surviving remainsindicate that the minimum possible size of the camp was 7 ha. The vagueness surroundingthe rampart location also prevents an accurate appreciation of the camp's general shape,but it could have been pentagonal, rather like the earlier, Blue Phase.INTERNAL FEATURESSTREETSFrom Schulten's small-scale plan of the Black Phase (fig. 101) it seems that the onlyremains of street metalling found were in the area of his buildings 3 and 4 (Schulten 1927b,203). From this he extrapolates a 12 m wide street running approximately east-west as faras the eastern rampart and is interpreted by him as the via praetoria (1927b, 193; fig. 111).This arguably stretches the evidence too far, for such a main street would surely leavemore traces than were found. In contrast, the extent of the metalling found is so limited,that a minor street or more likely simply a surfaced courtyard within what is probably adouble barrack block (below) is a more viable interpretation. Schulten's interpretation ofthe metalling was probably influenced by his reconstruction of the remains at the westernend of the site as being the praetorium with its front to the east (below). This meant that hewas 'obliged' to find a via praetoria to the east. The interpretation of these remains in thisway can be questioned, with an alternative interpretation of them as barracks being morelikely (below). There is thus no 'need' to have a via praetoria here. Combining this with thesparsity of metalling found, Schulten's interpretation becomes dubious.The via principalis that Schulten places in his reconstruction of this phase (1927b, 194;figs 101 and 111) has no archaeological support whatsoever in the form of finds ofmetalling or kerbs. This is strange for what would have been the main street of the camp.Its existence, like that of the via praetoria was doubtless influenced by Schulten's proposedpraetorium. Since the praetorium probably did not lie where Schulten thought (below), thereis no need for the via principalis to be in this location and indeed the complete absence inthis area of any metalling implies that it was not in this position. Instead this area can besuggested as having been occupied by barrack blocks (below).ACCOMMODATION FOR THE TRIBUNES AND PRAEFEC77 SOCIORUMSchulten believed that the garrison of the Black Phase was a single legion with allies(1927b, 188). The quarters for the corresponding six tribunes and praefecti sociorum were220

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseplaced by Schulten within his proposed via principalis (fig. 111). He felt that they could nothave been positioned directly by the praetorium, forum and quaesturium as they then wouldhave blocked access to these areas (1927b, 194). The position of these officers' buildingsin this area is highly questionable. There is no actual archaeological evidence for thebuildings, but this could be explained by lack of survival. More significantly, thepraetorium, forum and quaestorium probably did not lie where Schulten proposed andinstead the area consisted of barracks (below). The accommodation for these seniorofficers, even assuming that Schulten is correct with the type of force that occupied thecamp, is consequently unlikely to have been where Schulten proposed. Where theirquarters lay is uncertain however, as none of the excavated remains readily suggestthemselves as having been devoted to this purpose.BUILDINGS 1 TO 10 AND 17 TO 18 — BARRACKSJust west of the middle of the site Schulten found an area of remains extending almostcompletely across the camp from north to south, which all seemed to be associated withthe same type of building. Schulten, probably quite correctly, interprets the remains asbeing a series of back-to-back barrack blocks with neighbouring blocks not sharing acommon dividing wall, but having separate rear walls spaced about 1 m apart (1927b, 197ff.; fig. 103, buildings 1 - 10 and 17- 18, fig. 104).As Schulten proposes, blocks 1 to 10 seem to have had their long axis from east towest and blocks 17 - 18 from north to south (fig. 103). The change in direction for 17 and18 is presumably due to the proximity of the southern rampart and illustrates Polybius(6.29.9), who comments that the units placed next to the rampart face it, in contrast to theother units which are at right-angles to these so that they face each other across theintervening street. It is not clear what happened to the north of blocks 9 and 10. Theabsence of remains between these blocks and the northern rampart may indicate nobuildings and the presence of a triangular-shaped intervallum up to 30 m wide (fig. 101).The location of buildings relative to the rampart elsewhere of this phase suggests howeverthat the intervallum would not have been so wide. Probably therefore buildings did existhere and extended to within a few metres of the rampart, as seemingly with buildings 24and 29 near the north-eastern corner of the camp (below). The nature of the buildings tothe north of barrack 10 is clearly uncertain, but they may not have been a further pair ofbarrack blocks, since there would have been insufficient space; unless the form of thebarracks became increasingly distorted towards the northern side of the camp in order tocreate a vaguely rectangular shape of appropriate size along the rampart.Schulten reconstructs the double blocks 1 - 10 as being fairly constant in width,varying only between 25 and 27 m, with an average of 25.8 m (1927b, 198; fig. 103). Hisreconstruction for blocks 5/6 and 7/8 can however be questioned and the dividing wallsplaced slightly further north, where there are a suitable pair of east-west walls (fig. 108).This changes the widths from Schulten's 25.5 and 27 m to 31 and 22 m for blocks 5/6 and7/8 respectively.221

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black PhaseSchulten calculated the length of the blocks on the basis that the eastern end of blocks1 - 10 was indicated by the eastern wall of block 18 and the western end of blocks 1 - 10was shown by the finding of what he believed to be the westernmost walls of blocks 7 and9 (1927b, 198). From this he proposed an overall length of 48 m for the blocks, whichprobably meant a 'design size' of 160 Roman feet (47.4 m) (1927b, 198). He supports theproposal by demonstrating that if barrack 17 was the same width as 18, the two blockstogether with their separating alleyway, would produce a width of 48.3 m (1927b, 198).Schulten could well be correct in suggesting the blocks were this length, but thewesternmost walls found for blocks 7 and 9 are not indisputably the end-walls of theseblocks and it is thus conceivable that the blocks extended further in this direction.Schultert's argument of using blocks 17 and 18 to calculate the length has some plausibility,as it would be a logical and comfortable arrangement to fit blocks 17 and 18 into the samesizedarea as formed by the length of the blocks immediately to the north. This theoryhowever does not take into account that three or more north-south blocks could haveformed the row represented by 17 and 18, which would allow or correspond with the eastwestblocks to the north being much longer. Conceivably even, the east-west blocks couldlink with the remains found to the west, which Schulten interprets as the praetorium,forumand quaestorium (below), making the total length of the barracks over 100 m long.Schulten regards each pair of east-west blocks as being divided along their lengthinto two double blocks, hence the numbering of 1 to 10 (1927b, 198; fig. 103). He has twomain reasons for this interpretation (1927b, 198). Firstly the dividing walls between blocks17 and 18 create a passageway, which although not actually found in the blocks to thenorth, probably indicate a break at this point along the blocks. Secondly, since he hadfound blocks of this period no longer than 130 Roman feet (38.5 m) (from Renieblas) blocksof 160(47.4 m) feet would be unlikely. The first argument is curious as it so conflicts withthe archaeological evidence, as Schulten himself has to admit, that it gives the argumentlittle plausibility. The second reason is similarly weak, if only because there is no logicalreason why the 130 foot barracks from Renieblas should be regarded as not being capableof being surpassed in length. In contrast to Schulten's interpretation, the archaeologicalevidence is quite in agreement with these blocks being single, continuous structures.Each block was divided along its length into cont-ubernia all about 3 m wide andbetween 9 and 12 m deep. The internal dividing walls found by Schulten indicate that thecontubernia generally comprised two rooms and occasionally three (Schulten 1927b, 203;fig. 103). The relative size of these three rooms varied, but it seems to have been quitecommon for the rear and middle rooms to have been of near-equal size and the front roomssmaller. The third, front room in blocks 1 to 10 is interpreted by Schulten as a stable forpack animals associated with infantry, which he believed occupied these blocks, with themiddle and rear rooms being-the arma and papilio respectively (1927b, 203; fig. 110,A). Thisis possible. Alternatively the 'third rooms' could have been stables for centurions' horses,within units organised as cohorts (below), in the manner suggested above for the alliedbarracks in Lager III. For blocks 17 and 18 however, Schulten's interpretation of the three222

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaserooms is different from that of blocks 1 to 10, presumably because he believed legionarycavalry and not infantry were placed in 17 and 18. He proposes that the three areas of 17and 18 are living area, stables and open-fronted stable forecourt (1927b, 202; fig. 110,B).There is no firm evidence to disprove this idea, but the remains imply that the third, frontarea was not open, which to some extent casts doubt on Schulten's reconstruction.Schulten's arrangement though, even disregarding the exact nature of the front room,seems unlikely, as a forecourt would have been unnecessary and some of them wouldhave been too small to have functioned effectively in this way.Schulten could be correct with his interpretation of infantry being in blocks 1 to 10and cavalry in blocks 17 and 18, assuming that there was no difference in the form of layoutused for the barracks of these different units, for there is no noticeable difference betweenthe layout of blocks 17 and 18 and 1 to 10. There could however have been a different andmore complex layout for cavalry barracks due to stabling requirements, to result in thedifferent type of buildings noted, for example, at Lager III and interpreted above as beingfor cavalry. Since there is no apparent real difference between blocks 1 to 10 and 17 and18, other than overall alignment, it seems more likely that it was not a combination ofinfantry and cavalry in these blocks, but all the same type of unit. Since the internal layoutof these barracks is also relatively simple, they could have been occupied by infantry.Hence the same interpretation for the function of the three rooms for blocks 1 to 10 shouldbe applied also to blocks 17 and 18.It is unfortunate that finds and internal features do not clarify the nature of theoccupying troops, for little of significance was found. Few comments are made bySchulten about internal features or finds. An amphora was found in the northern blockof 4 (1927b, 204). The northern block of 7 contained a rectangular hearth (shown shadedin fig. 103), one of several found in the barracks of this phase (1927b, 191). In the courtyardof block 9/10 was found part of an oval walled feature, with a single stone block leadingaway from the northern side (fig. 103). This is interpreted as a table or hearth by Schulten(1927b, 191). The discussion of the equipment found from the site (1927b, 214 f.) isregrettably too vague as to location to be informative about the type of troops that wereaccommodated in the barracks.Schulten suggested a further row of contubernia lay across the rear of the area ofblock 18, as he found a group of walls with a layout which he felt closely resembled thecontubernia up the eastern side of the block and he saw parallels between block 18 and thetriple barracks at Renieblas (1927b, 201; figs 103 and 104). Schulten's comparison with theblocks at Renieblas may be valid, but he overlooks a distinct difference between the twosites in that the area occupied by each triple block at Renieblas is virtually twice the widthof the double blocks at Castillejo. This difference may mean that the overall design of theblocks from the two sites differed, rather than there being just space for half the numberof rear contubernia at Castillejo compared to Renieblas. The reason for the difference couldbe because this phase of Castillejo was occupied by a cohort-organised and not manipulararmy (below). Instead of interpreting this rear row of rooms at Castillejo as contubernia,223

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phase.they were perhaps used for storage and/or as workshops. In this way they could be thesame as the rear range of rooms reconstructed at the probably contemporary site of FeriaRedonda (below; figs 108 and 131; above, Chapter Three).If a rear range of contuhernia/stores was present in block 18, they were possibly alsopresent at one end of blocks 1 to 10 to the north. Schulten does not however propose themhere. There is indeed no archaeological evidence in the relevant areas of these blocks forsuch ranges. This may simply be because the form of these barracks was different fromwhat Schulten envisaged and they in fact extended much further west, where Schultenplaces his praetorium, and had their rear range here (below).BUILDINGS 19 AND 20A few walls were found close to the east of building 18 (fig. 103). These are interpreted bySchulten as the remains of two barrack blocks of the same plan as 18 (1927b, 202). Schultencould well be correct, but the remains are too meagre to be conclusive. An alternativeinterpretation of building 19 and possibly of 20 as well is as part of the central, praetoriumrange (below).BUILDINGS 13 TO 16— BARRACKSAt the eastern end of the camp were found walls whose layout is closely similar tobuildings 1 to 10 and 18 to the west (fig. 105). Not surprisingly and probably correctly theyare likewise interpreted by Schulten as back-to-back barrack blocks (1927b, 205 f.). As withthe blocks to the west, Schulten interprets buildings 13 to 16 as a number of two or threeroomedcontubernia around three sides of a rectangular courtyard. This interpretationcould be correct, but alternatively, as with blocks 17, 18 and 1 to 10, blocks 13 to 16 couldhave been double barrack blocks, with contubernia down each side of the long axis of eachpair and a range of stores /workshops along the rear, eastern end of each area.The north-south dimension of each triple block is proposed by Schulten as being 80Roman feet (23.7 m) (1927b, 205). This seems to have been derived by Schulten not so muchfrom the actual remains, but more by theoretical considerations for how he believed thisarea of the camp was divided (1927b, 205). If the actual remains are examined a morevaried picture can be suggested as regards the width of each area (compare figs 105,A and105,B). Schulten places the southern side of block 13 to the north of walls attached tobuilding 12. These 'attached' walls would however comply with being interpreted ascontubernia and so the southern side of this block can alternatively be regarded as havinga common dividing wall with building 12. Using Schulten's position for the northern sideof block 13, the new southern side results in the area occupied by block 13 being about 30m across. Schulten's location for the southern wall of block 14 is acceptable. The positionof the northern wall of 14 and the southern wall of 15 may be as Schulten suggests, butalternatively the evidence can be interpreted with these blocks sharing a common rearwall, represented by the east-west wall between Schulten's rooms 7 and 1 of blocks 14 and224

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phase15 respectively. The occurrence of both separate and shared rear walls on the same sitecould be viewed as unlikely, but it does occur at Pena Redonda and so could easily haveoccurred at Castillejo. The position of the northern side of block 15 could have been asproposed by Schulten. The form of block 16 could have been different from Schulten'sreconstruction. Its southern side could have been about 3 m further south than Schultenenvisaged and could have been a shared party wall with block 15, rather than the southernside lying in the location suggested by Schulten. This would allow the southern row ofcontubernia of block 16 to have their northern side along the line represented by thesouthern, short east-west wall near the western limit of surviving remains of this block.The northern row of contubernia could then be represented by the rest of these westernremains. The location of the northern side of block 16 is not clear, but could have beenabout 24 m from the conjectured southern side, to give it a width within the range foundat Castillejo (below). This reconstruction of blocks 15 and 16 removes the seeminglyunlikely arrangement of Schulten's, in which the courtyard of 16 is built over for much ofits width towards the western end of the surviving remains.The length of the long axis of each double block is regarded by Schulten as being 40m, for he believed that not only was the eastern end clearly defined, but that also thewestern end was indicated by what was found of blocks 14 and 16 (1927b, 205). Schultencan readily be agreed with as regards the location of the eastern end, but the western endseems far from having been clearly established. The length of 40 m should therefore beregarded as a minimum for these barracks; they were possibly much longer than Schultenenvisaged (below).BUILDINGS 24 TO 32 — BARRACKS?Schulten interprets buildings 24 to 32 as a series of barracks which ran east-west along thenorthern part of the camp (1927b, 209 f.). This series is believed by Schulten to haveconsisted of a row of single blocks placed end-to-end facing south (blocks 24 - 28), andsharing a common dividing wall with a similar row that faced north (blocks 29 - 32) (figs.101, 105 and 106). For both rows Schulten admits that only the easternmost andwesternmost blocks were found (1927b, 209). This may simply be due to lack of survivalof the middle blocks, but could also be because there was no actual link between 24/29 and28/32. What lay between these two sections of building is not clear, as the remains in thisnorthern part of the camp are confusing and seem also to have been wrongly phased bySchulten. Buildings 35 to 40 are regarded as secondary features of the Black Phase bySchulten, but they seem more likely to have been of the Blue Phase (below). It can besuggested however that buildings 24 and 28 at least, formed the northern part of anotherdouble barrack block in the sequence represented by blocks 13 to 16.As well as buildings 35 to 40 being placed in the Black Phase by Schulten, so too isroom a in building 29 and indeed it is believed to be part of this building itself (1927b, 210;fig. 106). The room is constructed of sandstone and contains four post-pads or columnbases on the inside of the walls (Schulten 1927b, 210). Room a is shown in the large-scale225

Chapter Four — Numantia, Cast illejo Black Phaseplan (fig. 106, inset) as having a single row of blocks for its southern wall and a double rowof smaller blocks either side of a core for the western wall. In the smaller-scale drawing(fig. 106) the western wall is shown as a single row, with a separate wall to the west. Thesmaller-scale drawing is perhaps the more reliable, in part because there seems no goodreason to change the construction technique between neighbouring walls and alsobecause a single row of stones for walls of this width is typical of the Blue Phase (above).The parallel wall nearby to the west would then fit the Blue Phase pattern of beingassociated with a neighbouring area, to the south of building 37. The use of sandstone andthe post-pads in room a are completely in keeping with the Blue Phase (above). Schultenacknowledges the similarity, but explains it away by saying that the stones were re-usedand the room's alignment is wrong for the Blue Phase (1927b, 210). The alignment isadmittedly different to neighbouring Blue Phase remains, but not so wildly different toprevent it being of the Blue Phase. The claim that the room's stones were re-used ispossible, but the room's characteristics are so close to Blue Phase features that it seemsmore feasible simply to place it in this earlier phase.How many of the other remains in this area along the northern rampart are alsowrongly-dated is uncertain as they are not described in detail by Schulten. The form of theBlack Phase buildings here is consequently not clear.Schulten could be correct in his interpretation of building 29 as a barrack block.Certainly the internal dividing walls would fit this. With Schulten's reconstructionhowever, the building faces the rampart and would be uncomfortably close to it to haveallowed ready access, particularly if it had had the typical width of a single block for itsentire length. As a barrack block, it would also have been unusual in not being part of adouble block, which seems to have been the norm in this phase from the availableevidence. As an alternative interpretation, since the nature of the remains of building 24complies with being barracks, perhaps it was the northern half of a double block north ofblock 16 (fig. 105,B). There are however no remains which can be clearly attributed to thesouthern row of contubernia of this conjectured northernmost block. Building 29 wasperhaps quite separate in function from the conjectured barrack block 24 and could havebeen, for example, simply a stores building erected against the back of 24 to make gooduse of a restricted space (fig. 105,B).It is not clear how barrack block 24 related to the remains Schulten found to the west,along the inner side of the surviving northern rampart. Perhaps some of the featuresrepresent further parts of block 24. Conceivably the east-west wall dividing Schulten'sbuildings 28 and 32 represents the western section of block 24, since it aligns well withwhat can be interpreted as the rear wall for most of this block. If this is correct, it resultsin block 24 being about 134 m long.BUILDINGS 12' TO 17' — BARRACKS?Close to the eastern end-wall of building 13 was found a parallel north-south wall (fig.105,A). A similarly-positioned wall with two walls leading off it to the east were found at226

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phasethe eastern end of building 24 (fig. 105,A). These are interpreted by Schulten (1927b, 205)as evidence for a further row of east-west aligned barracks to the east of and next to blocks13 - 24 (fig. 101). This interpretation is possible, but clearly with so little having been foundin this area there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the type of buildings with which theseremains should be associated. Consequently the interpretation of these features isprobably best left open.Schulten believed that his block 17' had been shortened at some point by theconstruction of two artillery batteries (1927b, 205; fig. 101, buildings 33 and 34). Thesebuildings however are more likely to date to the earlier Blue Phase (below). Block 17',whether barrack block or not, therefore extended at its north-western corner to as close as4 m of the northern rampart for all of its life. It would thus have aligned quite closely tothe northern limit of the conjectured stores building 29 to the west.PRAETORIUM AND FORUM - BARRACKS?Close to the western edge of the site Sc_hulten interpreted a group of remains as thepraetorium, forum and quaestorium (1927b, 194 ff.; figs 107 and 111). Schulten describesthese buildings in some detail and attributes actual functions to many rooms (1927b, 194-7). His reasons for interpreting particular remains as the praetorium, from which thereconstruction of forum and quaestorium follow, are that the layout of walls suggested anopen courtyard surrounded on three sides by buildings, with the open side significantlyfacing east (1927b, 194). Schulten was very keen on reconstructing camps facing east, thedirection of sunrise (1927b, 112). From the alignment in respect of sunrise of the proposedpraetorium and the street suggested by Schulten as being the via praetoria, he is able topropose that the camp was established in early October, possibly the 7th (1927b, 189).Schulten also supports his interpretation of the remains at the western edge of the site bystating that his praetorium lay at the end of the via praetoria and behind the via principalis(1927b, 194). This reasoning is slightly circular and therefore weak. It is also questionable,as the street interpreted as the via praetoria by Schulten is more likely to have been part ofa barrack courtyard and there seems to be no archaeological evidence for the suggestedvia principalis (above).Schulten may be correct with his interpretation of these remains, but his interpretationis brought into question and also any re-interpretation is rendered tentative by the waythe remains in this area are phased by Schulten. He has no Red Phase remains in the areaof the praetorium and forum whatsoever. There are however Red Phase remains to thenorth and east, but these stop almost exactly where Schulten places the Black Phasepraetorium and forum. Such a break seems unlikely and artificial, as the arrangement of thewalls in both areas of Red Phase buildings indicates that buildings of this phase wouldhave existed in the area of the conjectured Black praetorium andforum. It is likely therefore,that some of the Black walls in the area of the praetorium and forum should belong to theearlier Red Phase. Which walls is not however clear. It is tempting to explain the almostcurved line of the walls of rooms 2,3' and 5' of the praetorium as being of the Red Phase227

Chapter Four —Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseas they seem uncomfortable within their surrounding walls (fig. 107). The other walls allseem to share common alignments, so conceivably could all belong to one phase andindeed to the Black one as Schulten proposes, but caution should not be lost in such a view.With the uncertainties surrounding the phasing of the walls in this area and thepaucity of walls found particularly in the southern part of it, the exact form of the buildingsrepresented is uncertain. The remains in the area of Schulten's praetorium are howeververy reminiscent of the layout of the walls found elsewhere of this phase which areinterpreted as double barrack blocks. Here, as elsewhere, the long axis of the blocks seemsto have been east-west. The northern, east-west block is perhaps represented by Schulten'srooms 1 - 8 (figs 107 and 108). Its northern side could be reflected by the east-west wall thatruns along the southern side of a hearth, shown shaded in fig. 107 towards the eastern endof this area of remains. The east-west wall shown about 9 m to the west of the hearth andabout 1 m to the north of the conjectured northern side of this block would thenappropriately form the southern side of the neighbouring barrack block to the north. Thismeans that the hearth would belong to the neighbouring block to the north and also at thispoint the rear walls of the two blocks converged basically into a single wall. Such variationin double and single rear walls of neighbouring blocks is also found at Feria Redonda(below). The southern block of the 'praetorium pair' may be Schulten's rooms 1' - 5', butthis would result in an unusually wide block of at least 34 m. Perhaps rooms 1'- 5' are thenorthern block of a further double block to the south. The southern row of the praetoriumblocks could be represented by the short wall to the north of room 3', which Schulten evensuggests might be indicative of another row of rooms (19276, 195). This arrangementwould create a double block of the more usual width of about 27 m. Basing the locationof the southern row on merely a single wall is admittedly weak, but has support in thatit would result in a row that aligns exactly with the southern row of block 3/4 to the east.The northern praetorium block similarly aligns with the northern block of 3/4. Thepraetorium block and block 3/4 may have no connection other than the aspect of alignmentand they were quite separate structures, as the gap in the surviving remains between thetwo areas implies. The two areas of surviving remains could however have been parts ofthe same building and the missing portion is simply the result of a modern strip fieldhaving an agricultural practice which has removed remains of the walling, or it was notin fact an area available for excavation by Schulten (above). The form of the western endof this conjectured long double block praetorium /3/ 4 (P/3/4), could have consisted of arear range of stores/workshops of the type suggested as occurring in barrack 18 (above;fig. 108), but the detailed form of the western end of P/3/4 is uncertain. The location ofthe actual western end of P13/4 could be represented by the walls which Schulteninterprets as the western range of his praetorium. The form of these walls, particularlytowards their northern end 'suggests more readily however that they could be from afurther, neighbouring series of double blocks facing west, with at least two pairsrepresented which are slightly 'out of synchronisation' with the location of the blocks tothe east (fig. 108). Further parts of this western series could be represented by the remains228

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseshown on the small-scale plan (fig. 102) near the edge of the western slope of the site. Inthe area of P13/4 and its neighbouring block to the west it is not clear however how thewestern end of one related to the eastern end of the other. It is possible that the two lengthsof north-south wall in the area approximately mid-way between the pair of blocks of P/3/4 represent a common dividing wall between the rear ranges of the two rows ofbarracks. Alternatively this wall could be just from the blocks to the west, for which itslocation seems best suited, with the western end-wall of P/3/4 lying to the east, possiblyeven aligning with the western end of room 1' and not surviving. If the north-south wallwas the western end of P13/4, the surviving length of remains between it and the easternend of 3/4 would result in this pair of double blocks being at least 100 m long and if italigned with the eastern side of block 18 it would have been about 115 m.If rooms 1' to 5' are accepted as being the northern row of a double block to the southof P/3/4, a further row of contubernia would have existed to the south, in the area ofSchulten's forum. This would presumably have aligned with the southern row of 1/2,since the northern and southern rows of the 'forum double block' would presumably havelinked with 1/2, to form barracks F /1 /2; just as the neighbouring blocks to the north couldhave linked with 3/4. The remains are not however clear about the southern row of thewestern section of F /1/2, but it could be represented by wall e and the northern east-westwall of the two shown at the northern end of the eastern wall of room c on Schulten's plan(figs 107 and 108). This short surviving east-west wall lies approximately opposite thesouthern end-wall of block 1/2 and so could form the southern side of F/1/2 in this area,to create a pair of blocks of reasonably constant width along their overall length. As withthe western end of P/3/4 and the possible neighbouring blocks to the west, the preciseform and location of the western end of F/1/2 and its relationship with its westernneighbours are also uncertain. The two walls by f could however have formed part of arear range of storage/workshop rooms (figs 107 and 108).To the west of Schulten's room 1', in the northern block of F/1/2, were found twofeatures against a wall that Schulten interpreted as hearths, both about 0.8 m square(1927b, 196; fig. 107). The published photographs of this area, interpreted by Schulten asthe kitchen annexe to his praetorium (1927b, 196; Taf. 22,3 and 22,5), agree with thenorthern feature being a hearth, but suggest that the southern one was hollow and of aslightly different character. It perhaps was a storage tank rather than a hearth. The roomsassociated with these two features could well be part of a rear range at the western endof F/1/2 (fig. 108) and would support the general interpretation of the rear ranges in thebarracks of this phase as stores and/or workshops.To the south of rooms 4' and 5' Schulten found an oval setting of stones (1927b, 197;fig. 107,g). Schulten is uncertain about the function of this feature, but suggests that it wasa well; he presumably did not excavate down far enough to test this, from the degree ofhis uncertainty about the interpretation.The southern area of Schulten's forum, rooms a - d and h - i (fig. 107), wouldcorrespond in relative north-south location to blocks 17 and 18 to the east. If the pattern229

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseof the 'praetorium' and 'forum' being associated with the remains to the east is continuedwith these rooms, it results in them being part of one or more double blocks with a northsouthlong axis. With this reconstruction and with the position suggested above for thesouthern side of F/1/2, rooms a and c would form the northernmost rooms of this rowof double blocks. The form of this conjectured southernmost row of double barrack blocksto the west of building 18 is uncertain as so little of it existed. It is possible that thesurviving remains form part of a rear range of stores/workshops which existed at thenorthern, closed end of the barracks, similar to block 18. Supportive of this and alsosuggesting that the rooms had a function different from contubernia, is the number ofhearths (Schulten 1927b, 197; shown shaded in fig. 107) in comparison with 'normal'contubernia of this phase, where they occur generally only in the rear rooms.One possible arrangement of the rooms in this area is for c, d, h and i to form thewestern portion of one double block and rooms a and b the eastern part of an adjacentdouble block (figs 107 and 108). A measure of support for this scheme lies in that it wouldcreate four double blocks of regular width from block 18 to the southern 'forum' remains.A further two double blocks could have existed to the west, with rooms a and b being theeastern section of these two (below; fig. 112).THE SIZE OF THE BARRACK BLOCKSThe overall widths of the double blocks that emerge from the suggested reconstructionand measured from the large-scale published plans across the outer face of the externalwalls are:Block Metres7/8 22.018 24.014 25.015 25.59/10 25.5P/3/4 26.0F/1/2 27.013 30.05/6 31.0Blocks 16 and 24 are not included in the above table as the location of the division of thetwo is uncertain. The remaining blocks produce an average width of 26.22m (88.6 Romanfeet). The 'design width' of the blocks may consequently have been 90 Roman feet (26.64m), but with the quality of the evidence such a proposal must remain tentative.Establishing the length of the blocks is more problematical as the evidence is muchpoorer and no block appears to have survived entire. Assuming that block P13/4 was asingle block, the surviving remains indicate that this block was at least 100 m (337.8 Romanfeet) long and if it aligned with the eastern side of block 18 it could have been as much as230

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseabout 115 m (388.5 Roman feet). This may be a representative length for blocks F /1/2 andthose to the north, but the evidence is too vague to confirm this. There is sufficient spacebetween this north-south sequence of barracks and blocks 15 to 24 to the east that theeastern series could also have been of this length, leaving a gap of perhaps as much as 40m between the two rows (fig. 112). The original length of the east-west row of which blocks17 and 18 formed part is completely uncertain. For these barracks, not even the locationof the southern rampart can provide a guide for their maximum length, since its positionis not known. The same level of uncertainty surrounds the conjectured barracks to thewest of the row formed by F /1/2, where also the absence of a surviving rampart cannothelp establish a maximum possible length.With such degree of uncertainty about the length of the blocks, assessing their'design' length is limited and any proposals can be no more than tentative. It is possiblethat blocks F/1/2 to 9/10 and 13 to 24 were intended to have been 360 Roman feet (106.6m) long. If the suggested design width of 90 Roman feet is valid, this would give the blocksthe ratio of 4:1 for length to width. It is perhaps not merely coincidental that thesedimensions are either convenient multiples or fractions of 120 Roman feet, the dimensionwhich seems to have influenced camp design so much (above, Chapter Three).BUILDING 12— GRANARYIn the south-eastern part of the site, Schulten found rectangular buildings which hadunusually thick, well-buttressed outer walls and a wall running from end-to-end downthe centre of each, all of which were of limestone rather than the basalt used elsewhere(1927b, 207 f.; fig. 105). Such features are so typical of buildings interpreted as granaries(Gentry 1976), that Schulten's interpretation of these buildings as the remains of threegranaries (1927b, 207 f.) can be readily accepted. They were all about 20 m long, excludingthe buttresses, but varied in width between 7 and 8 m.On the northern side of granary II were the remains of what Schulten regards as atwo-roomed structure, which he believes was the accommodation of the horrearius (1927b,207; CIL VI 221; von Domaszewslci 1981, 14). Schulten may be correct in this, but the tworooms could easily be associated with walls jutting from the northern side of granaries Iand III and the V-shaped wall by the northern end of the structure attached to the easternside of granary III, and all could be part of the southern block of barrack block 13 (above;fig. 105,B).To the east of granary III was attached a building which was divided along its lengthinto essentially four equal-sized areas, some of which had clearly been subdivided (fig.105). Schulten interprets the building as housing guards (1927b, 208). Such provision forguards seems very elaborate and unlikely. Perhaps the building formed further storage,for produce or even equipment that did not require the dry and protected facilities of theraised-floor granaries.What lay to the east of granary III and its attached building is uncertain, as noremains of this phase are claimed to have been found between here and the eastern231

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phasedefences. It is possible that this range of buildings extended further east than the survivingevidence indicates. The probable proximity of the southern rampart means however thatany eastern continuation would have been obliged to have had its southern side furthernorth. Schulten clearly believed that no further granaries or stores buildings lay to thewest of granary I. This belief was probably influenced by him regarding the whole seriesof buildings to the north of and including building 12 as ending at this point (fig. 101). Ashas been suggested above for the barrack blocks to the north of building 12, it is possiblethat this range of buildings extended slightly further west than Schulten envisaged. As aresult, there could have been sufficient space for a row of adjoining stores buildings alongthe western side of the granaries, just as on the eastern side.BUILDING 11- RED PHASE?In the south-eastern area of the site, Schulten found a number of short lengths of wallwhich he interprets as a Black Phase barrack block (19276, 25; fig. 101). With the reinterpretationof the location of the southern defences (above), these remains would lieoutside the area of this phase of camp. They are consequently unlikely to belong to thisphase. Perhaps they should more accurately be dated to the Red Phase, whose southerndefences lay beyond this area (fig. 98). Placing them in this phase would in part make upthe otherwise curious total absence of Red Phase remains in the eastern half of Schulten'sRed Phase. The general alignment of the walls would be suitable to the Red Phase. Someother walls in this area are dated by Schulten to the Blue Phase. This was presumably dueto the presence of sandstone in them, though Schulten does not specifically mention this.These Blue walls also differ in alignment with the other walls and the two factors certainlyfavour placing Schulten's Black Phase walls in the Red, rather than the Blue Phase.Unfortunately so little of this conjectural Red Phase building was found that nothingcan be reliably concluded about its function and overall plan.BUILDINGS 33 TO 40— BLUE PHASE?Along the northern side of the site Schulten found a group of walls which seemed to himto be a series of rectangular structures which occurred as pairs, with the pairs being 33/34, 35/36, 37/38 and 39/40 (19276, 210 f.; fig. 106). Schulten dated these to being secondaryfeatures of the Black Phase (19276, 210). As regards their function, he interpreted them asartillery platforms, because of their thick walls and position close to what he regarded asbeing the Black Phase rampart (19276, 210 f.). This dating and function can be questionedand placing them in the Blue Phase and functioning as some form of accommodation ismore likely.The construction of building 36 is discussed in some detail by Schulten, withdetailed plans and a photograph (19276, 210; fig. 109). The western part of the buildingconsisted of large sandstone blocks. These are very similar in size and shape to those usedin what is suggested above as being the Blue Phase rampart, though Schulten strangelydoes not draw the analogy to the rampart (for him, of the Black Phase). The eastern half232

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseof the southern wall of building 36 is shown in the drawings as being much narrower andconsisting of much smaller stones, of unspecified stone type, lying on top of the largesandstone blocks which run from the western side of the building. The character of thesmall stone wall contrasts starkly with the sandstone one and could well indicate thatthere are two phases present. The sandstone construction hints strongly at being of theBlue Phase, whereas the small stone wall would be more appropriate for the Red or BlackPhases. Dating the whole to the Black Phase, as Schulten does, consequently is questionablewith so much sandstone present in what its general character suggests as easily being itsoriginal rather than re-used location. The form of the other buildings in this group isunfortunately not presented by Schulten in such detail, so their re-interpretation ishindered. From Schulten's general comments about the group however it seems they allshared the same constructional characteristics of thick, carefully-constructed walls. Theycould thus all have been built of sandstone. All should consequently perhaps be placedin the Blue rather than Black Phase. This re-phasing is supported at least by building 34,because the section drawing through the rampart at this point shows that the building layunder the rampart and seems to have been cut by a wall (a) (fig. 89). This relationshipimplies that building 34 belongs to the earliest phase, the Blue. Buildings 35 to 38 couldalso easily have been similarly stratigraphically related to the surviving rampart, from theway the walls are shown in the plans as running into the rampart; unfortunately there areno published sections through these areas of the rampart to support this suggestion. Afurther indication that building 34 should be more correctly placed in the Blue Phase is thatit also has bases for columns or posts along its eastern wall, which are features attested inthe structures associated by Schulten with his Blue Phase praetorium and building f(above). The evidence therefore favours these buildings being of the Blue Phase ratherthan of the Black.Schulten believed that buildings 33 to 40 were all self-standing, rectangular singleroomstructures. This rather distorts the evidence. Only 33 may have had this form. Thesurviving walls indicate that building 34 and possibly 39 consisted of at least two rooms.The northern extent and plan of the others is not known, so to claim anything about theiroverall form would be hazardous (fig. 106). The paired arrangement of these buildingsthat Schulten suggests is also questionable. In part it is perhaps the result of wronglydating the remains, which artificially isolates them from nearby Blue Phase features, toproduce a distorted and too simplistic picture. The nearby Blue remains with whichbuildings 33 to 40 may have been associated not only include the Blue areas d tof (fig. 94),but also features very close by. Close to the south of building 36, the drawing and largescaleplan (fig. 109) seem to indicate more walls built of large sandstone blocks and thusthey could be associated with building 36. Room a of building 29 has been suggested aboveas more likely being of the Blue Phase. This 'room' lies close to building 37 and couldconsequently be part of it. The complexity of Blue remains in this area could be furtherincreased if some of the remains shown between buildings 38 and 40 and to the west of40 in the area of Schulten's building 32 should also more correctly be associated with the233

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black PhaseBlue Phase. The dating of these features is however uncertain as they are not describedin detail by Schulten or shown in large-scale drawings or in photographs. Since howeverSchulten appears to have mis-dated some of the remains in the vicinity, it is likely that atleast some of the features in the area of buildings 38 to 40 are of the Blue Phase. The notionthat a series of simple, paired rectangular structures existed along the northern part of thecamp seems consequently untenable. Instead there seems to have been an area of one ormore multi-roomed buildings, of uncertain overall plan, which extended very close if notright up to the rampart. Schulten's buildings 33 to 40 can be suggested as being a dominantfeature of this building complex and could have formed one or more rows of seeminglyself-standing structures which varied between 4 and 5.5 m from east to west, but ofuncertain length from north to south. These were separated from each other to east andwest by a gap of between half and just under one metre. In turn, the most obvious featureabout these independent units was a room which covered the whole width of it and couldhave been like 33 and 34 in being 5.5 m from north to south internally. The function of thecomplex is uncertain, but the frequency of other Blue Phase buildings of similar size to 33- 40 elsewhere on the site (above; fig. 94) suggests an interpretation of the northernstructures as accommodation for troops, though not necessarily as 'fully-fledged' barracks(above).GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNALLAYOUT OF THE BLACK PHASESchulten believed that this phase of Castillejo was occupied by a single legion withaccompanying allies (1927b, 212) and he was able to produce a corresponding reconstructionof the camp's internal layout and detailed plan of the disposition of the units within it (figs101 and 111). Since Schulten's interpretation of some of the features can be questioned, hisreconstruction and location for the various units can be doubted, but nevertheless hissuggestion for the composition of the garrison seems plausible.Interpreting the layout of this phase, as with the two earlier ones is rendered difficultby the lack of evidence, even though comparatively more features and over a wider areawere found for the Black Phase. The re-interpretation of the building evidence asproposed above allows the suggestion that there were two north-south rows of doublebarracks which could have been very similar in form. The exact number of double blocksin each row is uncertain, but five in each is nevertheless possible (fig. 112, blocks A - D. Tothe south of the western of these two rows, there appears to have been a further row ofdouble blocks, running east-west. The number of double blocks in this row is completelyuncertain, but could have been as many as six, according to the location of the westernextent of the camp (fig. 112, blocks 0- T). A further north-south row of double blocks couldhave existed to the west of row A - E, with possibly as many as four being in the row,depending on their width and the location of the northern and southern ramparts whichis unclear in this area (fig. 112, blocks K - N). Further barracks could have existed to the234

Chapter Four — Numantia, Castillejo Black Phaseeast of row F - J, but the available space in this part of the camp certainly speaks againstthe existence of long barracks of the type A - J. Clearly however, shorter barracks or thoseof quite a different character are possible. One possibility is that of short triple cavalrybarrack blocks like those in Lager III.It is possible therefore to reconstruct 20 double blocks, the form of which would beappropriate for being interpreted as infantry barracks. Proposing the composition of thisforce and which barracks were allocated to particular parts of it is clearly conjectural, sincethe layout of the camp, on which any discussion of its garrison is based, is itself based onmuch conjecture. Accepting this, it can be proposed that the organisation of the infantryaccommodated in these barracks comprised a legion plus a similar-sized unit of allies.Since this phase probably dates to the Scipionic siege (below), it is conceivable thatthe legion and allied infantry could have been organised by maniples or by cohorts (above,Chapter Two). It can be suggested however that here they were arranged as cohorts. Thesimilarities and mirror-image arrangement of blocks A - j, in contrast to the moreawkward 'L'-shaped layout of blocks K - T might imply a close association between blocksA - J. The coincidence between there being ten double blocks in this group and a legioncomprising ten cohorts is arguably not mere chance. The length of each of these ten doubleblocks would be well-suited to the three maniples of each cohort, if placed end-to-end inthe manner that can be proposed for the early encampment of cohorts (above, ChapterThree). The blocks of each pair are also much closer together than might be expected formanipular legions, particularly when compared to the triple blocks at Lager III. Thisimplies that there was no necessity in the Black Phase at Castillejo for a long rear rangefor velites, present in a manipular legion but not in a cohort-based one. Hence also theevidence at Castillejo is more suggestive of 'double' rather than 'triple' blocks. Theevidence is also difficult to fit into a pattern of three rows of back-to-back triple barracks,which a manipular legion would be expected to follow.The remaining barracks, K - T, also conveniently number ten. They too, for the samereasons as A - J, could have been for a cohort-organised legion. The 'L'-shaped dispositionof K - T rather than a more convenient side-by-side and equal division like that of A - J anda location away from the middle of the camp could however indicate that although beingorganised in cohorts, the infantry in these barracks were an allied unit rather than a legion.With barracks A - J being of the suggested length a space is left up what wouldprobably have been the middle of the camp (fig. 112). The width of this space is uncertainas the exact location of the ends of the adjacent barracks is not clear, but it could have beenas much as 40 m wide. At the southern end of this area would be the remains numbered19 and 20 by Schulten (fig. 101). Schulten interprets these walls as barrack blocks (1927b,199). This interpretation may be correct, but the few walls found in this area are notconclusive as to the nature of the associated building(s). The remains, together with thestrip of ground to the north would have been in an area probably wide enough for theforum, praetorium and quaestorium if they were arranged one behind the other in themanner suggested for the theoretical arrangement of them in a cohort-organised, single-235

Chapter Four — Numantza, Castzllejo Black Phaseconsular camp (above, Chapter Three). This location would also comply with thetheoretical scheme in that it would place these three areas centrally within the body of thelegion, which in turn gives a measure of support to the suggested reconstruction for thisphase. With this reconstruction theforum would lay at the southern end of the three centralareas and the remains in the area of Schulten's buildings 19 and 20 could thus be part ofit. The praetorium, lying behind the forum, would consequently and probably quiteintentionally, be close to the highest part of the site occupied by the camp, ideal forobserving the besieged Nurrtantia to the south. The 'front' of the camp can hence probablybe regarded as being the southern side.The quaestorium could have adopted its theoretical position of being to the rear ofboth the praetorium and forum. This would result in it facing the northern rampart andaccording to how far northwards it extended, it could have been quite close to the rampart.It is thus perhaps not due to modern activity that along the surviving Black Phase rampartby Schulten's building 32 opposite and possibly near to where the quaestorium would havebeen, there is a break of a suitable width to have been an entrance (figs 101, 106 and 112).This 'break' should consequently perhaps be interpreted as the porta quaestoria / portadecumana.With the suggested disposition of troops there is a problem with where the viaprincipalis may have been. The theoretical design would have this street along the frontof the praetorium / forum. With the suggested location for these areas however, unless theline of the southern rampart turned south from a straight line extrapolated from theexisting section of southern rampart (fig. 112), there would have been no space for thestreet between the forum and the southern rampart. Perhaps the plan broke from thetheory and the southern intervallum doubled as the via principalis. This would haveresulted in no space for the via praetoria, though there could have been a porta praetoriaopposite the praetorium / forum on the southern side of the camp. As well as the viaprincipalis and via praetoria possibly being absent, the arrangement of the barracks wouldhave resulted in there being no via quintana.If the via principalis corresponded to the intervallum, it would not have been possibleto place the tribunes' quarters in the theoretical position on the opposite side of the viaprincipalis to the legions. There is no obvious archaeological evidence to indicate thelocation of these quarters. Perhaps they lay to the east of the praetorium between thesouthern rampart and the west of the granary.To allow necessary troop movement, there would presumably have been streets,running probably the whole way between the northern and southern ramparts, on eitherside of the praetorium,forum and quaestorium (fig. 112). Due to the uncertainties surroundingthe location of the boundaries of most of the buildings and the absence of archaeologicalevidence for the position of the streets themselves however, their exact position and widthare uncertain. The only other street that may have existed, due to the relative location ofthe barracks, would have been the via sagularis / intervallum. The width of this is uncertainas only in the north-eastern part of the camp is there evidence for how close buildings were236

Chapter Four — Numantia, Travesadasto the rampart. Here, the northern side of building 29 approached the rampart to withinabout 4 m. Due to the paucity of evidence, there is no way of knowing how representativethis width for the intervallum might be.TRAVESADASINTRODUCTIONThe location and extent of Schulten's excavation trenches at Travesadas are not clear fromhis report. The result of the excavations were disappointing, with only a few remainsbeing recovered, due to agricultural activity having damaged the site (Schulten 1927b,222; 1935, 25).DESCRIPTIONTraces of the Scipionic circumvallation were found in the area of the camp and indicatethe camp's western limit (Schulten 1927b, 222; fig. 113). The position of the camp's othersides is not known. The overall size and shape of the camp are consequently uncertain.Schulten states that the extent of the excavated remains indicate however that the campwas at least 120 m from east to west and 120 m from north to south (1927b, 222). On thebasis of walls found by the circumvallation near to the modern footpath from Garray toRenieblas (fig. 113, Weg nach Renieblas) being the porta praetoria and placed centrally alongthe western side of the camp, Schulten reconstructs the camp as being 200 m from northto south (1927b, 222). The identification of these remains as the porta praetoria is howeverhighly dubious (below) and so they cannot form a reliable basis from which to calculatethe size of the site. Schulten proposes that the camp would also have been 200 m from eastto west, resulting in an area of 4 ha (1927b, 222). Schulten does not include within the areaof the camp the walls found to the north of the modern footpath, to the east of thecircumvallation (fig. 113, Feldweg; below). If these walls were part of the camp it means thatit measured not 200, but at least 244 m from north to south. The camp could therefore havebeen larger than Schulten suggests, though the overall dimensions still remain uncertain.DEFENCESDITCHSchulten states that he looked for a ditch, but found none (1927b, 223). It is unclear whetherby this he meant he excavated for one or merely sought surface indications. The presenceor absence of a ditch should consequently be left unproven.237

Chapter Four — Numantia, TravesadasRAMPARTTraces of only the western rampart were recovered. This side of the camp coincided withthe circumvallation. Even here the rampart survived at most only one stone course high(Schulten 1927b, 222). Schulten describes the surviving rampart as being generally 0.75 -1.0 m wide and 0.45 m high (1927b, 222). It is stated as being in places up to 1.75 m wide,comprising a layer of small stones on the western side of a wall (Schulten 1927b, 222).Schulten interprets the small stones as the remains of a core and the wall as the easternrevetment to it (19276, 222 f.). With a western revetment of similar width to the eastern,Schulten believes that it results in the whole wall being originally about 4.0 m wide, whichis what he interprets it to be elsewhere around the siegeworks (1927b, 222). Thisinterpretation does not however agree with the published plan of the conjectured westerngateway (fig. 114). In this it seems to be quite clearly shown that what was found was awall approximately 1.8 m wide, consisting of a revetment at both front and back of a stoneand earth core. The spread of small stones that Schulten saw in places was perhaps theslumped remains of the core where the revetment had been robbed. It can be suggestedtherefore that the width of the rampart on this side of the camp and perhaps also on theother sides where it was not found, was about 1.8 m, and not 4.0 m as Schulten suggests.TOWERSIt can be suggested that a tower was found by the western rampart/ circumvallation nearthe modern path from Garray to Renieblas (below). Other interval towers probablyexisted, since they would have been particularly useful with the low-lying position of thecamp.ENTRANCESSchulten interprets a group of walls found by the western rampart/circumvallation nearthe modern path from Garray to Renieblas as the western gate of the camp and specificallythe porta praetoria (1927b, 223; figs 113 and 114, inset). He proposes that the gatewayconsisted of two flanking towers, measuring 4 x 2.6 m and 4 x 2.2 m (fig. 114, inset a andb) , joined at their rear by the sill of the gates (fig. 114, inset c). This produced an in-turnedentrance passage 5.0 m wide and about 6.0 m deep (Schulten 1927b, 223). The angled walld found on the western side of the rampart is interpreted by Schulten as a flanking bastionadded later (1927b, 223). The tank found on the southern side of the proposed gateway(fig. 114, inset a') is thought by Schulten to have been used for storing the stone balls usedby catapults placed on top of the gate towers (1927b, 223).Schulten's interpretation can be questioned. From the plan there seems to be noevidence to support the existence of tower a. The front revetment of the rampart, in frontof the conjectured tower a, appears on the plan to go beyond the northern side of the towerand shows no signs of stopping in front of the supposed entrance passage. With therampart seemingly being so well preserved in this area, if this were a gateway it would238

Chapter Four - Numantia, Travesadassurely be expected that a revetment wall closing the end of the rampart, in line with thenorthern side of tower a, would have been visible in the excavation. It is possible therefore,that there was no interruption and hence no entrance through the rampart at this point.Feature c appears to be identical in character to the walls on the other two sides of thesupposed entrance passage. Perhaps therefore it was not a sill, but the remains of a wall;this would agree with Schulten's comment (1927b, 223) that evidence for two portals wasabsent, which suggests that Schulten himself could really find nothing unusual whichindicated that this line of stones was not simply another wall. The plan shows a numberof stones within the area of the proposed entrance passage. Their presence here may beof no significance, but alternatively may indicate that the area was filled with earth andstones originally, with the walls (c and those joining it at right-angles) being revettingwalls. What Schulten found may thus have been a solid interval tower and not in any wayassociated with a gateway.The plan suggests that evidence for a wall may have been found on the northern sideof Schulten's area b (fig. 114, inset). This wall may have been associated with theconjectured interval tower, possibly forming the edge of a ramp up the side of it, or maybe from quite a separate structure, built against the back of the rampart and possibly alsomaking use of the side of the tower. The tank a' to the south of the tower is perhaps morelikely to have been for storing water, very necessary for the troops in the hot summerclimate, than as Schulten proposes, for storing ammunition. The wall d to the west of thetower is perhaps nothing to do with the camp and may even be post-Roman. Its alignmentdiffers from the camp walls, its character is quite different as it seems to be built of muchlarger stones than the other walls and it is difficult to see what function it could have hadin the context of the camp.INTERNAL FEATURESBUILDING CSc_hulten interprets the walls at C (fig. 114) as a barrack block, since the remains suggestedto him a rectangular building, running east-west, divided along its length into pairs ofrooms or contubernia (1927b, 223 f.). This view could well be correct from the availableevidence. With so little of the barrack block surviving however, conclusions about itsoverall character are limited.The surviving contubernia suggest that the barrack could have been divided intocontubernia which were approximately 3.5 m wide and comprised a front and rear roomof about equal size. The southern rooms of contubernia 1 and 4 contained hearths (Schulten1927b, 224). At Castillejo and Pefia Redonda for example, hearths are normally found inthe rear rooms of contubernia. This implies that barrack block C at Travesadas faced north.The excavated remains show that block C was at least 17.0 m from east to west and 7.2 mfrom north to south. The building could not have extended any further eastwards, as tothe east of contubernia 1 Schulten found a stone-edged drainage channel and beyond this239

Chapter Four — Numantia, Travesadasa gravel street (1927b, 224; figs 113 and 114). The maximum westwards limit of the blockwould be set by the western ramparticircumvallation. If the line of the rampart to thesouth of the interval tower was in a straight line from the section to the north, it wouldresult in a maximum length for block C of about 85 m, possibly slightly more or lessaccording to the width of the intervallum. This compares well with the blocks interpretedas being for infantry at the Black Phase of Castillejo (above) and Pena Redonda (below).Hence it might indicate that infantry occupied barrack block C. The relatively simplecharacter of the layout of the contubernia would also support this interpretation. Incontrast, Schulten reconstructs the length as between 35 and 40 m, since he places a streetbetween buildings D-E and G and extents this southwards (1927b, 224; figs 113,B and 114;below). Because of the length of the block and how it compares to his reconstructions atCastillejo and Pella Redonda, Schulten interprets block C as being for cavalry (1927b, 224).With the limited extent of surviving evidence either interpretation is possible, though thecharacter of the contubernia compared to the other Numantine sites would favour areconstruction as infantry rather than as cavalry barracks. There are unfortunately nosignificant smallfinds from C which might support a particular interpretation.About 10 m to the north of building C a length of wall was found, e, which shareda similar alignment to the north-south walls of C (fig. 114). Schulten interprets this wallas the eastern end of a barrack block which formed a pair with block C (1927b, 224); hencethe reconstruction shown in fig. 113,B. This interpretation is possible, but clearly mustremain tentative with so little of the building associated with wall e being known.Close to the north of wall e a circular hearth, d, was found (Schulten 1927b, 224; fig.114). The only comment that Schulten makes about this is that it must have been situatedoutside his building D and within the street found to the east of C, which he reconstructsas running northwards from C (1927b, 224; fig. 114). It is equally possible that the hearthwould have been within a building. This can be simply achieved, without really infringingon the street which indeed could have run north in the manner proposed by Schulten, byextending building D slightly further east than Schulten supposes to include the hearthinside this building.On one of the small-scale published plans (fig. 113,B), a wall is shown 4 m to thesouth of C. This is not mentioned by Schulten. Its significance is uncertain. More walls areshown even further south, beyond the Weg nach Renieblas (fig. 113,B). These too are notcommented upon by Schulten, but the plan implies that he associates them with theRoman road from Uxama to Augustobriga. This association is possible, but alternativelythey might be parts of the camp, though what is not clear.BUILDINGS D AND ELittle survived of building D. Its walls formed a 6.6 m square. The plan shows a gap in thesouthern wall of D, possibly reflecting the position of a door (fig. 114). Against the outerface of the eastern side of D was a rectangular hearth (Schulten 19276, 224; shownhachured in fig. 114).240

Chapter Four— Numantia, TravesadasEven less remained of building E, with only an `L'-shaped length of wall surviving(fig. 114).Schulten interprets the remains of both D and E as the western ends of two back-tobackdouble cavalry barrack blocks, with separate rear walls (1927b, 224; fig. 114). Theevidence does not obviously conflict with such an interpretation, but with so little of thebuildings surviving, clearly it should only be accepted with caution.BUILDING GThe only feature of note within the remains of area G was an Iberian dolium, found on theinner side of two walls forming the south-eastern corner of these remains (Schulten 1927b,224; fig. 114). The overall size of the building represented by these walls is uncertain, butthe remains show it was at least 15 m from north to south and 18 m from east to west.Schulten suggests that the walls belong to an officer's house (1927b, 224). This is posible,but the layout of the walls is really not distinctive enough to be able to suggest anyinterpretation with confidence.Schulten interprets the 6 m wide gap between DIE and G as a street (1927b, 224; fig.114). He does not comment whether any gravel was found in this area, as there was forthe street located to the east of C (above). With the absence of street metalling to confirmSchulten's interpretation, it is possible that a street did not in fact exist here, but the gapwas merely the result of walls not surviving. As a result, buildings D, E or G could haveoriginally extended into this area.BUILDINGS F, H AND KThe various walls in areas F, H and K are not discussed in detail by Schulten, but he doescomment that a circular hearth made of stone and broken pottery was found in this area(1927b, 224; fig. 114, a). Schulten interprets these walls as two barrack blocks with theirlong axis running basically north-south, with F forming the eastern range and H/K thewestern (1927b, 224; fig. 113,A). In contrast to Schulten's text, his published plans (figs 113to 114) show a variety of reconstructions for these remains, with most confusingly, in fig.113,B, reconstruction lines running from the southern part of F into the area of buildingsD and E. Schulten may be correct in that the buildings in this area were barrack blocks, buttoo little is known to be able to accept this readily or to be able to propose an alternativeview. As a result the interpretation of these features should remain open.About 11 m to the west and south-west of K two lengths of walling are shown in oneof the small-scale plans (fig. 113,13). These are not discussed by Schulten. Their significanceis not known.WALLS TO THE NORTH OF THE MODERN FIELD PATHIn both of the small-scale plans of Travesadas (fig. 113) a number of walls and what appearto be gravel areas are shown about 130 m north of F/H/K, beyond a modern field path.241

Chapter Four — Numantia, ValdevorronThese remains are not mentioned by Schulten. They could be part of the camp, but as withthe angled wall d to the west of Schulten's conjectured gate, they too could belong toanother phase. If they are associated with the camp, too little is apparent to be able tosuggest the type of building(s) with which they were associated.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTAll that Schulten's excavations allow to be concluded is that the interior of the campcomprised a number of stone buildings. Interpreting the form and function of thoseuncovered is hazardous, but some (C and wall e) might be infantry barracks and others(D and E) cavalry barracks. The nature of the force occupying the camp is consequentlyuncertain; there are no significant smallfinds which might help establish this.VALDEVORRONINTRODUCTIONThe location and extent of Schulten's excavations are indicated in fig. 115. The remains ofthe camp were unfortunately poorly preserved as they lay close to the surface and hadsuffered from plough damage (Schulten 1927b, 217 f.). Schulten could only really find anyfeatures in the southern half of the hilltop (1927b, 218; fig. 115).DESCRIPTIONIt appears that Schulten was not able to establish the course of the defences by eithersurface observation or excavation. He nevertheless proposes a course for them (1927b,217; fig. 20). The location of the western side is based upon the position of a drainage canallocated by excavation and interpreted as running through a gateway (fig. 115, area 9;below). Schulten believes the southern side is indicated by a group of buildings that wereexcavated (fig. 115, area 1) and by a hollow in which a modern path lies. The northern sideis positioned relative to the "slightly sharper defined edge to the hilltop" (Schulten 1927b,217) which exists at this part of the hill. The eastern side is located in respect of the easternslope of the hill and the extent in this direction that features were found (fig. 115, areas 4to 6). Schulten believes that his conjectured area for the camp is likely to be correct sincefinds were made within this entire area. The length of the camp is calculated by Schultenas being 360 m and the width 260 m, producing an area of 9 ha (1927b, 218). DespiteSchulten's confidence, with the absence of any trace of the defences, their course and thusthe shape and dimensions of the camp are probably best left uncertain.242

Chapter Four — Numantia, ValdevorronDEFENCESDITCHSchulten makes no comment about whether a ditch was recognised or looked for byexcavation, so the presence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTSc_hulten refers to rampart remains only in connection with a proposed gateway, but theirsignificance in this respect is questionable (below). The lack of discussion about therampart suggests that no appropriate remains were found elsewhere. The absence ofsuitable features could be due either to the effects of ploughing, or the excavation trenchesnot extending far enough down the sides of the hill.TOWERSInterval towers are not discussed by Schulten, so their presence is uncertain.ENTRANCESOn the western part of the hill Schulten found a stone-lined drainage channel with a wallon its southern side (1927b, 217 f.; fig. 115, area 9 and fig. 116). These features areinterpreted by Schulten as the remains of a gateway, specifically the porta praetoria (1927b,217).The 7.0 m long and 0.6 m wide 'L'-shaped wall by the drainage channel is regardedby Schulten as being the remains of a gate tower. Specifically, the projecting part of the 'L'is interpreted as the end of the front revetment wall of a 4.0 m wide rampart and the easternend of the straight part of the 'L' is interpreted as one side of an inward-projecting tower(1927b, 218; fig. 116). Schulten could well be correct in these remains being those of an inturnedgate, but the nature of what survives does not clearly show that a 4.0 m widerampart existed. In favour of the remains being part of a gate, as Schulten points out, isthat the presence of drainage channels running through entrance passages is common(1927b, 218). Certainly the line of the channel would fit this view, with the section to theeast of the wall neatly running along the edge of the intervallum and the section to the westbeing angled to reduce the rate of flow down the hillside, as Schulten comments (1927b,218). The length of the wall would also be appropriate for an in-turned entrancepassageway and the side of a flanking tower. Beyond this however, too little is reallyknown to be able to discuss the detailed form of the gateway. Similarly, since so little ofthe camp's interior was established, to conclude, as Schulten does, that this gate was theporta praetoria would be hazardous in the extreme.INTERNAL FEATURESAREA 1- GRANARIES?Several associated stone walls were found on the south-western side of the hilltop (1927b,219; fig. 115, area 1 and fig. 116). Schulten interprets the walls as comprising four separate243

Chapter Four — Numantia, Valdevorronbuildings. The longest surviving east-west wall was 9.6 m, indicating the minimum lengthof possibly all four buildings (Schulten 1927b, 219). Each of the buildings was 7.7 m wide,with an internal east-west wall dividing the interior into two approximately equal-sizedhalves (fig. 116). Schulten states that between each building there was a gap of 4.5 m(1927b, 219), but his plan (fig. 116) shows two gaps of approximately this size and one ofjust under 2 m (between buildings 3 and 4). On the northern side of buildings 1 and 2 werethe remains of buttresses (19276, 219; fig. 116). The eastern wall of building 1 wascontinuous, but that of 2 and 3 each had two interruptions, which Schulten interprets asentrances into each half of the building (1927b, 219).Schulten compares these remains to those found along the rear of the northernrampart at Castillejo, where he interprets them as artillery batteries (1927b, 219; above).Schulten applies the same interpretation to the remains in area 1 at Valdevorron, with eachbuilding forming a battery for two artillery pieces (1927b, 219). This interpretation issupported, so Schulten believes, by a ballista ball being found 5 m from the northernbuilding, by the walls being slightly thicker than elsewhere and by the buildings beingsituated on the Numantia side of the camp (1927b, 218 f.). Schulten's interpretation couldbe correct, but the nature of the remains is very suggestive of granaries. Schulten indeednotes that the buttresses present on the northern sides of buildings 1 and 2 are like thoseof granaries (1927b, 219). He rejects this interpretation though, because he claims thattypically granaries do not have entrances at ground level and are not divided into twohalves. Building 1 does not however have a ground level entrance and therefore couldhave had a raised floor and been a granary. The 'entrances' of buildings 2 and 3 shouldperhaps alternatively be interpreted as allowing air to flow freely under a raised floor.Hence these particular buildings could have been granaries. For Schulten to reject theremains as being granaries because of their apparent twofold subdivision is weak,particularly so as he himself identifies granaries divided in this way in the contemporaryBlack Phase of Castillejo (above). Consequently these remains could have been granariesor stores buildings, rather than artillery batteries. This alternative interpretation wouldwell account for the large amount of pottery, including amphorae, found here (Schulten1927b, 218). Whether there were four granaries however, is not clear from the availableevidence, since the remains of Schulten's structures 3 and 4 could conceivably be parts ofthe same building.AREA 2Area 2 contained remains of walls which survived only one course high and formed twocorners (Schulten 1927b, 220; figs 115 and 116). As Schulten states (1927b, 220), too littlewas found to be able to suggest the type of building associated with these remains.AREA 3Three stones spaced 4.8 and 4.5 m apart and measuring 0.2 x 0.2 m were found in area 3(Schulten 1927b, 220; fig. 115). Schulten interprets these as probably being post pads244

Chapter Four — Numantia, Saledilla(1927b, 220). This interpretation may be correct, but the type of structure with which theywere associated is not known.AREAS 4, 7 AND 8Short lengths of wall were found in areas 4, 7 and 8, but what they were part of is notknown (1927b, 220, fig. 115).AREA 5- FABRICA?A stone-edged hearth, 0.65 m in diameter and with an opening for the removal of ash wasfound in area 5 (Schulten 1927b, 220; fig. 117). Approximately 1.5 m to the east of the hearthwas a clay wall next to part of a surface formed of heavily burnt clay slabs, which eachmeasured 0.43 x 0.26 x 0.07 m (Schulten 1927b, 220; fig. 117). No stone walls were foundin the area of the clay wall and surface (Schulten 1927b, 220). Schulten does not offer aninterpretation for the clay-built remains other than to say they are not commonly foundin camps (1927b, 220). They are very small in extent to be able to come to any conclusions,but they are very similar to those found in the fabrica at Oberstimm (SchOnberger 1978,38ff.) and at Krefeld (Bechert pers. comm.), where they have been interpreted as curingchambers. Perhaps therefore, Valdevorron also had such a structure. If this is so, area 5may reflect the position of a fabrica at Valdevorron. The stone 'hearth' found near to theclay structure may have been part of this building and this would correspond with itsfairly sophisticated form, suggestive of a furnace.AREA 6All that was found in area 6 was a thick layer of burnt material containing muchoccupation debris, including a spearhead and a number of arrowheads (Schulten 1927b,220; fig. 115). The significance of these finds is uncertain.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTToo little is known to be able to conclude what the internal layout of Valdevorron mayhave been, other than that granaries/stores buildings may have existed in area 1 and afabrica may have stood in the locality of area 5. The garrison is uncertain as the smallfindsare inconclusive about the type of troops present; the smallfinds included high-qualitypottery, a spearhead, a spearbutt, a horse trapping and artillery ammunition (Schulten1927b, 221, exact locations are not given).SALEDILLAINTRODUCTIONThe exact extent of Schulten's excavation trenches is not clear, but the small-scale general245

Chapter Four — Numantia, Saledillaplan of the site (fig. 118) indicates that the excavations were quite widespread over the hill.The remains of several buildings were found. These were however badly disturbed byploughing; Schulten comments that walls that they were following, on many occasionsjust petered out (1931, 158). The middle part of the hill had also experienced limestoneextraction, which resulted in the top of the hill comprising a depression between two slightpeaks (Schulten 1931, 103 f.). Despite these intrusions, the excavations showed that thesite had been occupied by an Iberian settlement contemporary with Numantia and by aRoman military installation. The latter is interpreted by Schulten as an isolated cavalrybarrack block connected with a garrison that Scipio left behind at Nurnantia after thesuccessful siege (1927b, 242). Such an interpretation is unlikely. As an alternative, it canbe suggested that Saledilla was one of the camps built by Scipio along the drcumvallation.THE RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONSA NUMANTINE SUBURBThe remains of several buildings and a large quantity of smallfinds were recovered. Theplan and general character of all of the buildings, with the exception of one in the southeasternpart of the site (below), were identical in character to those found in Numantiaitself, being constructed of baked clay bricks, at times with the bricks placed on basalt sillwalls (Schulten 1931, 158). In the north and east of the site, these buildings wereconstructed against a defensive perimeter wall, similar to the practice at Numantia(Schulten 1931, 127). In contrast to Numantia however, the defensive wall was much lesssubstantial and instead of being 6 m wide was only about 0.45 m wide, constructed of tworows of small basalt stones (Schulten 1931, 127). The pottery and smallfinds associatedwith the buildings and perimeter were all Iberian, with most of the pottery dating to thelatest period of pre-Roman pottery found in Numantia (Schulten 1931, 159 f.). No singlesherd of Roman pottery was found (Schulten 1931, 159). The only Roman finds were twoclay sling shots, of the type found in Numantia, an arrowhead and a ballista bolt (Schulten1931, 159). All the remains were associated with a layer of burnt red material, which wasthe same in character to that found in Numantia (Schulten 1931, 158).With the weight of association between the remains at Saledilla and those atNumantia, Schulten is probably correct in interpreting Saledilla as being the site of adefended 'suburb' of pre-Roman Numantia (1931, 127 ff. and 157 ff.). The date of thepottery, together with the layer of burning, the sling shots and the ballista bolt could alsomean that Schulten is correct in associating the destruction of the settlement with Scipio'ssiege (1931, 129 f.).BUILDINGS B, C AND A ROMAN RAMPART?In the south-eastern part of the site, dose to the eastern side of the perimeter wall of theNumantine settlement, Schulten found two buildings (here called B and C) placed 12 m246

Chapter Four — Numantia, Saledillaapart which he described as towers (1931, 127 f.; fig. 119, B and C). Both buildings hadwalls which varied between 0.7 and 1.1 m thick, constructed of large stones (Schulten 1931,127 f.), of unspecified type. Building B consisted essentially of a rectangular roommeasuring approximately 10 x 6 m. The eastern north-south wall appeared to continuebeyond the main room to the north, suggesting the presence of at least one more room onthis side (Schulten 1931,127; fig. 119). The east-west walls both continued a short distanceto the west of the main room, but stopped short of the perimeter wall around theNumantine settlement (Schulten 1931, 127). As a result, Schulten concluded that thebuilding must have been later than the perimeter wall and indeed added to the settlementto increase its defences at the time of the war with Rome (Schulten 1931, 127).Schulten's interpretation of building B can be questioned. The physical form of theremains suggests a more complex structure than Schulten supposes. Hence hisinterpretation as specifically a tower may not be correct, though the sturdiness of the wallswould be appropriate for some defensive function. Further, the relationship of thebuilding to the perimeter wall was probably not as Schulten envisaged. The nature of theremains attributed by Schulten to the perimeter wall by building B was different fromelsewhere and they may not in fact be part of the Numantine perimeter. Here there wasa baked clay brick wall, one brick thick and against its eastern side was another wall. Thiswas constructed of two rows of squared blocks either side of a core of small stones,producing a wall 1.3 m wide (Schulten 1931,127; fig. 119, D). This stone wall is describedas being constructed of sandstone in Schulten's text (1931, 127), but in the caption to aphotograph of the feature it is referred to as being made of limestone (Schulten 1931, Abb.37). Of the two, probably limestone is the correct description, since the Saleclilla hill wasformed from limestone. The limestone wall is interpreted by Schulten as strengthening tothe Numantine settlement perimeter wall (1931, 127 f.). This seems unlikely, as Schultencomments that the Numantines never used squared stones for their walls (1927b, 241).Associating the clay brick wall with the Numantine settlement also is questionable, sinceelsewhere the perimeter wall was made from basalt and not clay bricks (above). Thiswould mean that the squared limestone wall by building B cannot be associated with theNumantine settlement. The appearance and construction technique of the wall howevercompare very well with walls found in the camps and the circumvallation aroundNumantia. A Roman rather than Numantine association therefore seems more likely. Thismay better explain the gap between this wall and building B. The gap may not be, asSchulten suggests, due to B being a later addition, but results from the limestone wallcutting through and removing the western portion of the walls of B.The matter is however not completely straightforward. Dragendorff, who excavatedthese features, observes that the clay wall (Lehmmauer) that rests along the western sideof the limestone wall was not burnt, but rested on burnt material (Schulten 1931, 128 n.1). From this Dragendorff concluded that clearly not every burnt deposit need beassociated with Scipionic destruction. Although he does not directly state it, he mustconsequently have regarded the wall as Numantine. It is unfortunate that Dragendorff247

Chapter Four — Numantia, Saledilladoes not specify the relationship of the limestone wall to the burnt layer, unless byLehmmauer he meant the whole wall complex, nor does he attempt an explanation of therelationship of the clay and limestone walls. As a result, the relative chronology of the twowalls is uncertain. It is possible that Dragendorff is wrong with his dating of the burntlayer and it should indeed by associated with Scipionic destruction. Hence both wallsneed not be associated with the Numantine settlement. This is supported by the line of theclay wall being to the east of the line of the Numantine perimeter wall to the north andsouth of this area (fig. 119). Hence both clay and limestone wall could be Roman andindeed possibly both associated with Scipio's siegeworks, if they are contemporary. Thepresence of the baked clay 'facing' would however make this wall unusual within aScipionic context and as such raises a measure of doubt about exactly what is representedby the remains, though the overall width and solidity of the structure would beappropriate for being a rampart. Perhaps the day bricks were added as extra defensivecladding, which could have been regarded as necessary with this location being onlyabout 350 m from Numantia. Further uncertainty about the interpretation of the featuresin this area is caused by the relationship of building B to the burnt layer not being specified.The suggestion that the limestone wall cuts B, clearly would mean that B is earlier, but initself gives no indication of by how much. The rough character of B's constructionhowever suggests that it should be associated with the Numantine settlement, rather thanany Roman context.Building C was smaller than B and was approximately 5 m in both directions(Schulten 1931, 128; fig. 119). Its construction technique was the same as B. Walls on thenorthern, eastern and southern sides could be found, but not on the western (fig. 119).Schulten believed that this meant that building C, which he regarded as a tower, was openon the western side and therefore could not have been constructed by an enemy ofNumantia (1931, 128). Schulten does not entertain the possibility that the western sidesimply did not survive. A possible reason for it not surviving is that the line of the clayand limestone wall found by building B, if extended southwards, would cut throughbuilding Cat the point where its east-west walls stop. It is possible therefore that buildingC suffered the same fate as the northern one. Likewise, the same considerations aboutfunction and dating as applied to building B can be applied to C and with equaluncertainty.BARRACK BLOCKTo the east of the buildings B and C Schulten found a stone building which differed incharacter from elsewhere at Saledilla (fig. 119, A). Unlike in the area excavated to the west,there was no layer of burnt material (Schulten 1927b, 241). Similarly there were no burntbaked clay bricks and no Iberian pottery (Schulten 19276, 241). Further contrast was seenin the building material, which was not the basalt found elsewhere in Saledilla, butworked limestone (Schulten1927b, 241). Worked stone is not attested in native Numantinecontexts (Schulten 1927b, 241). The general plan and character of the building also showed248

Chapter Four — Numantia, Saledillalittle similarity to the other buildings at Saledilla or Numantia (Schulten 19271,, 241). AsSchulten concludes (1927b, 241), there is little evidence to link this building withNumantine occupation, but the character and construction technique is very similar to thebarracks of Pefia Redonda (below). Unfortunately, confirming evidence from smallfindsis poor, as the only smallfinds from the building were some sherds of amphorae, with noRoman military material being recovered. As Schulten points out though, these finds donot contradict the suggested interpretation (1927b, 241). It can probably be acceptedtherefore that this building is a barrack block and potentially contemporary with PalaRedonda, i.e. with the Scipionic siege (below).The barrack block survived to a length of 45 m and was up to about 11 m wide(Schulten 1927b, 241 f.; fig. 119). The contubernia were on average 3 m wide and had twoand possibly in some cases three rooms each. The total number of con tubernia is not knownas the original length of the barracks was not established.It is not known what existed around the barrack block. Schulten concluded that theblock was isolated, as excavation trenches placed around the building failed to yield anywalls (Schulten 1927b, 241). Since Schulten does not show the location of his trenches it isnot known how thoroughly he tested the area around the barracks. The conclusion thatthe block stood on its own is however questionable as it does not take into account theeffects of erosion and plough damage which could have removed remains. Consequentlyit is possible that this building is one of several and part of a camp.Schulten interpreted the barrack block as being for cavalry, as, amongst otherthings, it was not one of a pair and the contubernia were overall slightly deeper thanelsewhere in the camps around Numantia (Schulten 1927b, 241 f.). Schulten's reasoningis questionable, since the barracks may not have been a single block and the depth of thecontubernia is not that unusual. Further, the layout of this block does not have thecomplexity seen in blocks interpreted for cavalry for example at Renieblas (above) andPena Redonda (below). It is possible therefore that the barracks were for infantry, ratherthan cavalry.THE FORM OF THE CAMPWith so little of the conjectured camp at Saleclilla being known, clearly its overall form isuncertain. If the western rampart is indeed represented by the limestone wall, it howeverindicates the limit of the camp in this direction. Since the layer of burnt material found inthe Numantine settlement is absent from the area of the barrack block and the conjecturedwestern rampart is within it but also close to the line of the Numantine perimeter wall, itcan be suggested that the camp was deliberately constructed outside the area of thedestroyed settlement, but approached it as close as possible. This makes sense from apractical point of view, since it avoided having to make good the area of the settlementand also placed the western rampart as close as possible to the top of the hill, granting ita good view of Nuraantia.249

Chapter Four — Numantia, Perla RedondaPE&A REDONDAINTRODUCTIONSchulten claims to have uncovered the whole of the camp's interior (1927b, 94), but thelocation of his excavation trenches is not shown on any of the plans, so his claim cannotbe verified. Schulten found the remains to be well-preserved, with some walls visibleabove ground level, helped by only the southern third of the camp's area having beenused for agricultural purposes (Schulten 1927b, 93 and 97). A single phase of camp wasfound, which was probably associated with Scipio's siege (below). This association is inpart suggested by the presence of the Scipionic drcumvallation approaching the campclose by to the north-east; no definite remains of the circumvallation could be establishedon the western side of the camp (figs 120 and 122).DESCRIPTIONIt was not possible to establish the complete circuit of the defences and essentially onlyin the southern half of the site and in a few places at the northern end were remainsrecovered which can be attributed to the rampart with some certainty (fig. 122).Schulten attributes to the camp all the sections of surviving rampart found along thewestern side of the southern part of the site. Beyond these sections Schulten suggests thatthe course of the northern part of the western defences followed the 1040 m contour(1927b, 95 and 101; fig. 122). This may be correct in general terms, but a literal followingof this contour would produce an unusually angular course for the rampart. It isunfortunate that so little of the western portion of the interior of the camp survived, fromwhich an indication of the limits of the camp could have been provided. A few lines ofhachuring are shown on Schulten's topographical plan of the site (fig. 120) which couldindicate the location of the western rampart and indeed Schulten regards one such featureas forming the north-western corner of the camp (fig. 122). In places however these linearhachured features are so numerous that not all could have originated from the rampart.Instead they might result from soil and rock slippage on this steeply sloping part of thespur, which was composed of loose limestone liable to erosion. Consequently attributingany of these features to the rampart is hazardous and even Schulten's north-westerncorner should be accepted only with caution.Further related to the course of the western rampart, a slightly different reconstructioncan be suggested from Schulten's for the surviving portions of western rampart in thesouthern part of the site. A section of rampart approximately 20 m long was found slightlyseparated from the rest of the main portion of surviving rampart in the southern part ofthe camp (fig. 120). Instead of attributing this short length to the camp's western defences,as Schulten does, it can be re-interpreted as having been part of the circumvallationaround Numantia, close to where it j oined the camp (fig. 124). Schulten places the join with250

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pella Redondathe western circumvallation much closer to the southern end of the camp, but there is noactual archaeological evidence for this (fig. 20). Placing the join in the proposed morenortherly position would make good topographical sense as then the circumvallationwould run down the ridge of a spur, just as it does to the north-east of the camp (figs 20,120,122 and 124). This course would also put it on a good line to j oin with Molino, the nextcamp to the west. Schulten's position is well-suited to his belief that Raza was the nextcamp in the chain, but this particular camp may not have been part of Scipio's siegeworks(below). With the revised location for the circumvallation at Pefia Redonda and usingsome of the hachured features in Schulten's topographical plan, a tentative course for thewestern rampart can be proposed (fig. 124).The location of the northern and north-eastern sides of the camp are indicatedapproximately by two gates (figs 120 and 122). The course of the rampart either side ofthese gates and along the northern half of the eastern side of the camp is however lessreliable. Schulten based his line for the rampart in these areas upon a series of standingstones, but these may not even be Roman let alone part of the rampart (below). it ispossible that erosion has removed the defences here (below) and thus their position couldbe different from what Schulten proposes. As a result, the line of the rampart between thenorthern and north-eastern gates was possibly a smoother curve. This would dispensewith Schulten's rather unlikely angular approach of the rampart to the eastern side of thenorthern gate. Similarly the line from the north-eastern gate to the surviving northern endof the eastern rampart could also have been smoother (fig. 124). With either Schulten'scourse for the western and eastern defences or a smoother line, the resulting overall shapeof the camp seems to have been roughly elliptical. This departure from the theoreticalrectangular plan was undoubtedly the consequence of the topography of the spur.Schulten gives the dimension of the camp from north to south, measured betweenthe outer faces of the walls as 587 m (1927b, 95). The widest point across the camp was 235m (Schulten 1927b, 96). Schulten calculates the area as 11.2 ha (1927b, 95). With theuncertainties surrounding the location of the camp's defences, clearly these dimensionshave limited reliability.DEFENCESDITCHSchulten states that a ditch was not present (1927b, 101). He does not make it clearhowever, whether he searched for one by excavation or merely reached his conclusionbecause of the absence of any visible hollow in the ground. It is possible that the stoneswhich formed a 3 - 8 m wide spread in front of the rampart (below) could have obscuredany evidence for a ditch; Schulten appears not to have excavated below this deposit.Consequently the presence of a ditch is uncertain.251

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pella RedondaRAMPARTThe remains of the rampart survived in places above ground as a 4 m wide stone ridge(Schulten 1927b, 100). On the outer side of this was a 3 - 8 m wide area of stones, whichsloped downwards away from the rampart (Schulten 1927b, 100). Schulten interprets thisstoney slope as an obstacle built to hinder an attack on the rampart (1927b, 100). It seemsmore likely that the stones are the tumbled material from the rampart itself.Where the lower part of the rampart survived entire, mainly in the southern part ofthe camp (fig. 122), it was found to consist of a stone and earth core placed between aninner and outer stone facing wall (Schulten 1927b, 100 ff.). These 0.4 m thick facing wallswere placed 3 m from one another, to produce a rampart which was approximately 4 mwide, measured across its outer faces (Schulten 1927b, 100 f.). Along the eastern side of thesite, where the ground sloped away steeply into a valley, Schulten did not find the remainsof the core and facing walls of the rampart, but a line of upright stones, rammed into theground and standing up to one metre high (1927b, 102; figs 123,1 and 123,2). Schulten doesnot say how far apart these stones were, but his photographs of them (figs 123,1 and 123,2)suggest they were several metres apart. They are interpreted by Schulten as the remainsof a breastwork. He believes this was constructed here rather than a complete rampart,because the steepness of the side of the valley would have rendered such a rampartunnecessary (1927b, 102). This is possible, but the absence of rampart remains may simplybe due to the effects of erosion of the valley sides. It is difficult to see how the upright stonescould have been incorporated into a breastwork and perhaps they are instead post-Romanboundary markers.At the southern end of the camp, a 14 m long length of wall ran eastwards from therampart (Schulten 1927b, 101; fig. 120). Schulten suggests that this was a bastion or anannexe (1927b, 101). The small amount of this feature recovered makes any interpretationhazardous, but the thickness of the wall indicated in the plan (fig. 120) compared to therampart of the camp implies that it had little defensive importance. With the amount ofpost-Roman agricultural activity in this area, it is more likely to have been associated withthis rather than with the camp.TOWERSSchulten makes no comment about interval towers along the rampart, so presumably noappropriate traces were found. It is possible therefore that in the areas where the rampartsurvived, no towers were constructed, perhaps because these parts of the camp wouldhave been behind the circumvallation, away from the enemy and thus towers would nothave been regarded as necessary. Clearly in the other areas of the defensive circuit wherethe rampart failed to survive, the presence or absence of towers is uncertain, but sincethese sections were on the 'Offensive' side of the camp towers might be expected.ENTRANCESEvidence for two entrances along the eastern side of the camp was found (fig. 122); these252

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pc/7a Redondawill be referred to as the north-eastern and south-eastern entrances. Of these, the southeasternentrance is described by Schulten as being simply a 6 m wide passageway throughthe rampart (1927b, 103). No large-scale plan or detailed description of this gate are given.The north-eastern entrance lay where the circumvallation running to the north of thecamp joined the camp. Schulten describes this as being 8 m wide, with a 3 m square toweron either side (1927b, 104). The published small-scale plans of the camp (figs 120 and 121),which are the only ones to show the gateway, suggest that this entrance was morecomplex than Schulten proposes, but the scale is too small to be able to elaborate onSchulten's interpretation. As Schulten suggests, a gateway at this point would have beennecessary to allow easy access to the circumvallation (1927b, 104).Remains of a gateway were recovered at the northern end of the site (figs 122 and126). This gate is interpreted by Schulten as consisting simply of a slightly taperingentrance passageway, which was on average 5 m wide, running through the rampart.There were no obvious signs of there having been flanking towers, but Schulten proposesthat there might have been timber ones erected on top of the revetted rampart ends (1927b,104). The remains of a stone-lined water channel were found running through theentrance passage (1927b, 104).A gateway was found at the southern end of the camp (fig. 122). This gate consistedof a 7 m wide passageway, which, like the other gates, appeared to have been essentiallyjust an interruption in the rampart (Schulten 1927b, 105). No large-scale plan or detaileddiscussion of this gateway are provided by Schulten.No remains were found of an entrance on the western side of the camp, butdoubtless at least one would have existed. Schulten suggests that the western gate wouldhave been situated opposite the eastern gate in the southern half of the camp (1927b, 104;fig. 122). Though this is a possible position, with the quality of the available evidence itcan remain merely a suggestion.INTERNAL FEATURESTowards the southern end of the camp, Schulten found buildings covering virtually thewhole width of the interior (1927b, 96). For much of the length of the camp however, itseemed that only the eastern half was built on (Schulten 1927b, 96; fig. 121). Schultenconcluded from this that the camp had been divided into two along its length and that thesteeply-sloping, western part of the camp had been left empty (1927b, 96). This empty areais interpreted by Schulten as an assembly area for the troops (1927b, 106 f.). Schulten seemsnot to have considered the possibility of erosion and its effects. Erosion is likely to haveoccurred however since the sides of the spur are both steep and composed of looselimestone. Hence the absence of buildings in the western half in the early 1900s waspossibly quite artificial and the camp originally contained many more buildings thanSchulten's plans indicate.253

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena RedondaSchulten devised a scheme for the general layout of the camp, based on his readingof Polybius and on the idea that only the eastern half of the camp was built on. Heconcluded that the camp must have faced northwards. In part this was because thesouthern end of the site was the highest, which literary evidence suggested would makeit the location of the porta decumana and this was also at the rear of the camp (Schulten1927b, 97). Schulten's proposed internal layout for Pena Redonda is convenientlysummarised in his schematic plan (fig. 123). His reconstruction departs quite significantlyfrom Polybius, for example in placing the tribunes and praefecti sociorum far from thepraetorium and having the cavalry and infantry on opposite sides of the praetorium /forumquaestorium. It is of course possible that the plan of Pena Redonda did stray from thetheoretical Polybian-based plan for whatever unit or units that occupied the site, butSchulten's version of the internal layout is questionable. This is not only because it maywell be based on only a portion of the original extent of the internal buildings, but theremains recovered by Schulten suggest the structures were different in form from whathe proposed; it could almost be claimed that Schulten tried to fit the evidence to his schemeof reconstruction rather than more correctly fit a scheme to the evidence.For convenience and to link the discussion below more easily to Schulten'sexcavation report, Schulten's practice of placing the letter N or S after the building numberhas been adopted to differentiate between the northern and southern row of buildingswhich seem to have consisted of two separate ranges, e.g. 3N means the northern rangeof building 3.THE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE OF THE BUILDINGSOf particular note at Pena Redonda is that the walls possess great irregularity ofalignment, straying far from the traditional idea that Roman military building alwaysused straight walls and perfect right-angles. The varied alignment may in part beattributable to poor building, but there seems to be a close correlation between majorchanges in a building's alignment and changes in the slope of the ground. This suggeststhat the prevailing topography was the most influential factor in the final, almostmeandering, form of some of the buildings. Not only does the general form of thebuildings display irregularity, but there is also much variation in the size and plan of therooms within each. The extent of irregularity increases the difficulty of interpretation,though the comprehensiveness of Schulten's reconstruction suggests that he did notexperience such problems.BUILDINGS 1 TO 10 AND THE ROMAN VILLA - BARRACKS AND PRAETORIUM?In the northern part of the excavated area of buildings, Schulten believed that ten doubleback-to-back barrack/stable blocks had been constructed, but these had survived inplaces only partially, due to a later Roman villa having been built in this area (1927b, 119ff.; buildings 1 -10 in figs 122, 123 and 127). Schulten's main reason for his interpretationseems to be that his theoretical scheme for the camp called for ten double barrack/stable254

Chapter Four — Numantia, Peria Redondablocks in this area to accommodate the ten turmae of Roman cavalry in a legion (1927b, 123ff.). As a result, the remains found in the area were perhaps rather enthusiasticallyreconstructed to fit the scheme, rather than let the archaeological evidence alone form thebasis of a more open-minded reconstruction. The degree of regularity that Schultenimposes upon the remains in this area also rather simplifies the variation in what wasfound. The neat and orderly-arranged parallel buildings in his reconstruction drawing(fig. 123) also play little respect to the alignment of the walls as found on the ground. Theactual alignment on the contrary indicates that some of the buildings had long axes whichwere far from straight. Schulten's interpretation of some of the buildings being doubleback-to-back barracks can nevertheless probably be accepted with some confidence, dueto the nature of the remains in this area, though their original form may have beendifferent from what he envisaged. In the case of his buildings 6 to 9 and the villa however,a radical departure from Schulten's theory can be suggested.Schulten comments that little survived of building 1, but suggests that some shortlengths of wall were part of the contubernia of 1N (1927b, 120). No large-scale plan of theselengths of wall is published and Schulten's text is not clear as to exactly which lengths ofwall he is referring. Presumably however it is to the walls shown approximately 30 m tothe south-west of the north-eastern gate (fig. 121). The slight nature of these remainsmeans that the form of the building or buildings represented by them is uncertain.Schulten may be correct however in suggesting that they came from barracks similar inplan to those to the south. With a revised interpretation of where blocks 2 and 3 began andended however (below) some of the remains which Schulten may have had in mind forbuilding 1 would result in them being part of 2N. It is also possible that building 1 was acavalry triple block of the type that can be reconstructed at the eastern end of the camp,rather than a double block like those immediately to the south (below).The form of building 2 is not readily apparent from the surviving remains, but thegeneral layout of the walls has similarities with most of the other buildings of this group(fig. 127), suggesting that it shared the same plan. Both the northern and southern limitsof building 2 are unfortunately not clear. Assuming that the building was similar to thoseto the south there would have been a common dividing wall with its southern neighbour.Schulten seems to believe that the common dividing wall with building 3 survives in partas the east-west wall running along the southern side of the shaded area, a hearth, shownin the large-scale plan near the eastern end of the remains in this area (Schulten 1927b, 121;fig. 127). This position is possible, but the next east-west wall to the north can also besuggested in this role. The consequence of this is that all of Schulten's building 2 becomes2S and his 3N and 2S become all 3N. This alternative reconstruction is perhaps more viablethan Schulten's, as it makes the overall width of building 3 approximately 24 m, which issimilar to the other double blocks of this group. It also removes the uncharacteristiccramped conditions for the contubernia of 2S.Barrack blocks 3 to 5 were better preserved than that of building 2 (fig. 127). Theproblem of the location of the northern side of 3N has been discussed above. The position255

Chapter Four — Numantia, Peria Redondaof the junction between 3S and 4N is probably as Schulten suggests and is the almostcontinuous double-course east-west wall shown on Schulten's large-scale plan (fig. 127).Schulten is probably also correct with his position for the wall separating 45 and 5N andthat dividing 5S from the neighbouring building to the south (fig. 127). With the morenortherly position of the northern side of 3N, the resulting average width of block 3 is 23m. The width of block 4 is about 20 m and of block 5,21 m.Schulten associates the three westernmost contubernia of 5S with building 12 (1927b,123; fig. 127). His reason seems to be to make 5S align with the western end of 5N, theposition of which he believes is reflected by the surviving length of remains of 5N (1927b,123). The plan of the three end-rooms seems similar enough to the rest of this building andto other rooms in the blocks of this group, that there appears to be no reason to excludethem from being associated with 5S. Schulten may also have been obliged to exclude thethree end-rooms of 5S to make the building short enough to fit his scheme of all the group(his buildings 1 to 10) being 140 Roman feet (41.4 m) long (1927b, 121 ff.). This length wasdeduced by him from the surviving length of common dividing wall between blocks 3 and4 and between 4 and 5. The surviving remains of 55 shown in the large-scale plan indicateit to have been at least 51 m long and the form of the north-west corner suggests that thebuilding continued further west. It was thus at least 10 m too long for Schulten's scheme.In the small-scale plan (fig. 121) there is an II-shaped length of wall shown a few metresto the west of the walls of the westernmost rooms of barrack 5S. This piece of walling isnot included in the large-scale drawing, perhaps because it would have conflicted with thepresence of an entrance which Schulten has at this point in his interpretation of building12 (below). This piece of 'L'-shaped wall appears suitable to have been part of 5S and thusthe minimum length of this block would have been about 56 m. It may have beensubstantially longer if it was in fact part of block 10 (below).Schulten believed that his contubernia number 1 for blocks 3,4 and 5 represented theeastern end of these blocks. This might be correct, as the buildings immediately to thesouth also seem to end at this point, creating the impression of a 'building line'approximately 25 m from the conjectured course of the eastern rampart. The line couldhowever be coincidental and misleading. In the small-scale site plan (fig. 121), stippledareas are shown to the east of building 11 and what can be interpreted as 14N (below).These areas are not discussed by Schulten. Within buildings 11 and 14N similarlydepictedareas seem likely to indicate disturbed walling The areas to the east of buildings11 and 14N could thus also be the remains of walls and indicate that these buildingsextended further east than Schulten envisaged. Alternatively, Schulten's proposedbuilding line could be genuine as the stippled convention is also used to denote a stonesurface, such as on the eastern side of the 'villa' (fig. 127). The stippled area to the east of11 and 14N could thus be the remains of a street, possibly the via sagularis.The location of the western end of blocks 1 to 5 may not be as Schulten proposes, forthe surviving remains do not obviously denote the ends of these buildings and indeedsome of these remains may link with those to the west, to form much longer ranges thanSchulten envisaged (below).256

Chapter Four — Numantia, Perla RedondaTo the west of his blocks 1 to 5 Schulten proposes a further group of blocks, 6 to 10(1927b, 120 ff.; figs 122, 123 and 127). Schulten could be correct with his generalinterpretation, but the form of the blocks may well have been different from what heproposed and indeed not all may have been barracks. Re-interpreting the evidence ishowever hazardous as most of the features found in this area were only published on thesmall-scale site plan (fig. 121). The precise form and position of the walls is consequentlynot as clear as would be ideal. Re-interpretation is further complicated by Schulteninterpreting some of the remains as those of a villa, rather than as part of the camp.Schulten could be correct in suggesting some of the walls are those of a villa, but this viewis not beyond question. There is thus a level of uncertainty as to which remains can reliablybe regarded as part of the camp.The main complex of walls attributed by Schulten to the villa lay about 14 m to thewest of building 2 (fig. 127). These walls are described as being from a well-preservedbuilding, the construction of which was noticeably superior in character to the otherbuildings excavated (Schulten 1927b, 119, 1931, 199 ff.). Schulten dates the villa to theEmpire and associates it with others of this date which had been found in the area ofNumantia (1927b, 119; 1931, 199 ff.). Schulten comments that no pottery or other datingevidence for the Empire was found from the supposed villa at Pefia Redonda, but hebelieves that this could simply be the result of chance (1931, 199). The absence of materialdatable to the Empire is however strange for a villa, particularly as it contrasts with theother villa sites in the area around Numantia, such as at Pena Altas and Merdancho, wheresamian and coins were found (Schulten 1931, 201) and comfortably place these sites in theEmpire. The smallfinds from the Pefia Redonda villa instead consisted of an arrowhead,an Iberian coin, an iron key and a small jug of unspecified date and type (Schulten 1931,199). The first two finds are dismissed by Schulten as indicating that the walls should beassociated with the Scipionic camp, since the finds "could come from the camp layer builtover by the house" (sie kiinnen aus der von diesem Hause iiberbau ten Schicht des Lagersstammen; 1931, 199). If this stratigraphical interpretation is correct, clearly the villa remainsshould not be re-interpreted as being part of the camp. However, Schulten's appreciationof stratigraphy is very questionable, as seen for example in his complete mis-understandingof stratigraphical relationships in the north-eastern rampart of Castillejo (above). Hencethe existence of a "camp layer" and being succeeded by villa features can be questioned.The degree of certainty of such a sequence is indeed questioned by Schulten relying moreon other, less factually-based and indeed partially contradictory arguments to dismiss thewalls from being part of the camp.Schulten's readiness to dismiss the Iberian coin and arrowhead in order to removethe walls from being associated with the camp was perhaps caused by problems whichwould be created with his interpretation of other buildings if the 'villa' became part of thecamp. The high quality of the walls and their general arrangement reminded Schulten ofbuildings he interpreted as tribunes' quarters, but since under his reconstruction these laysome distance away (indeed almost at the opposite end of the camp; below), Schulten257

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondaconcluded that this northern group of walls could not also be tribunes' accommodation(1931, 199). A further possibility presented itself in the walls being part of the praetorium,but again, as Schulten had placed this elsewhere it could not be here and more importantlyas regards the overall interpretation "how could a praetorium lie in this position!"(Schulten 1931, 199). Both these objections are weak in that they allow a theory to bias theinterpretation of the evidence rather than the evidence promote the theory. In addition,both Schulten's tribunes' quarters and his praetorium can be suggested as being simplybarrack blocks (below).Schulten further concluded that the 'villa' remains could not be associated with thecamp as they lay over his location for the via praetoria and barrack 2 (1927b, 119; 1931, 199).The proposed position for this street is questionable, since it is based not on actual remainsattributable to a street, of which there were none (below), but on Schulten's theoreticallayout of the interior (1927b, 107), which itself is open to doubt. It is curious how Schultencan claim that the villa overlay barrack 2 and thus must have been later than the camp, forthe remains of this barrack appear to stop at least 13 m away. In Schulten's 1927 discussion,barrack 2 is not mentioned in this context, but he proposes his double barrack blocks 6 and7 as lying at least in part within the area of the Roman villa, but all remains of these blocksare believed to have been destroyed (1927b, 120 f.). There is some contradiction andtherefore weakness in Schulten's argument for rejecting the villa remains as part of thecamp. The orientation of the villa is also proposed as excluding the remains as being partof the camp (1931, 199). This argument is also weak as the alignment of the camp buildingsdisplays much irregularity, not only between buildings but even within the samebuilding. It seems therefore, that there are no strong archaeological reasons for rejectingthese walls as being associated with the camp.It is possible that the 'villa' could be further barrack blocks, similar to blocks 1 to 5.Against this however is the contrasting superior form of construction that the villa wallspossess, plus the circular feature by its south-west corner (fig. 127,1) which is mostuncharacteristic of anything usually found in barracks. The villa might thus have had adifferent function from barracks. One possibility is that it was part of the praetorium.Placing the praetorium here would mean that it would directly face the city of Numantia,since this end of the camp literally pointed at the city (fig. 20). Such a location would givethe city's defenders a constant and clearly-visible reminder of one of the commandcentresand possibly the main one of the besieging power and thus have an importantpsychological impact upon them. Conversely the camp's commanding officer would begiven a dominating position within the camp and with a good view of the city, particularlyas the villa lay close to the north-western end of the crest of the spur, with the groundfalling away on all but the south-eastern side (fig. 124). Placing the praetorium here,opposite the northern gate arid with the sloping crest of the spur running virtually directlybetween the two, would also put the praetorium in a convenient and imposing position toreceive any communication from the city, since this gate lay at the head of a ridge whichran down to the Merdancho below the city and along which would be the most obviousroute and easiest ascent to the camp.258

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena RedondaNot only is support for this position for the praetorium given by the logistical senseof it, but the archaeological evidence from the site also allows it to comply with thetheoretical position that can be suggested for the praetorium within double or single-legioncamps. If the praetorium at Perla Redonda lay in the position of the villa it would place itapproximately in line with the north-eastern gate. If there was a corresponding northwesterngate, a street can be reconstructed as running from the north-eastern gate up theslope of this part of the spur towards the villa and then turning towards the west to passdown the opposite side of the slope (fig. 124). With the praetorium lying on the southernside of this street and the northern gate lying some distance away on the opposite side,the situation is easily created of the 'typical' arrangement of the 'T'-shaped intersectionof via principalis and via praetoria, with the praetorium at the head. Translating this to PeriaRedonda, the east-west street becomes the via principalis, with the north-eastern gate beingthe porta principalis dextra and the conjectured north-western gate the porta principalissinistra. The northern gate would consequently lie at the end of the via praetoria and be theporta praetoria (fig. 124).Since Pefia Redonda can be reconstructed as the type of camp occupied by a singleconsulararmy (below), in theory the forum and quaestorium would have been to the frontand back of the praetorium respectively (above, Chapter Three). There is unfortunately nosurviving evidence of what may have existed to the north/front of the villa/ praetorium.The presence of a forum here is consequently uncertain. Perhaps the very absence ofremains in this area is however due to it being an open space, commensurate with beinga forum. Remains to the south /rear of the villa /praetorium are difficult to interpret, buttheir very irregularity could be regarded as being appropriate for being part of thequaestorium (below).Placing the praetorium /forum / quaestorium complex in this vicinity may also accountfor why four of the six brooches from the site were found here, with two of them being ofvery high quality (1927b, 165), and high-quality pottery was found particularly in thisarea, described by Schulten as being at the western end of his barracks 6 to 10 (1927b, 166).The overall plan of the conjectured praetorium and its size must however remainuncertain, due to the nature of the published evidence. The remains of the villa/ praetoriumgo only so far as to indicate, as might be expected, that the complex consisted of a numberof irregular-sized rooms. The nature of the western end of these remains implies that thebuilding could have stretched further in this direction, but how much is not clear. Thesouthern side of the building could be as shown on the plan, but a small length of wallingat the south-eastern corner may indicate that the building extended further south. At theeastern end, the plans show a stippled area. Schulten makes no comment about thisfeature, but on the large-scale plan it is referred to as a metalled surface (fig. 127, Pflaster).There is the possibility therefore of a street running up the side of the praetorium /forum/quaestorium complex. This would have provided necessary access to these areas. Itsexistence indicates that the eastern limit of the praetorium is reflected by the survivingwalls. The small section of wall shown in the north-eastern part of the surfacing may beassociated with the western end of building 2 (fig. 127).259

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena RedondaTo the south and south-west of the villa /praetorium, between it and Schulten's block10, a number of groups of walls was found. These received a variety of treatment bySchulten. He rejected the walls found 20 m to the south of the villa (fig. 121) as being partof his barrack block 7, because they lay in the area of what would have been theconversantibus of this block, which, so he reasoned, therefore placed them later than thecamp (1927b, 121). With the re-interpretation of the villa as being part of the praetorium,the form of Schulten's block 7 as a reason to reject the walls as being part of the campbecomes irrelevant. There is therefore no reason why these walls to the south of the villa/praetorium could not be part of the camp. The walls shown starting about 20 m to the southwestof the villa/praetorium and extending as a narrow band over an area of about 40 mto the south of this are associated with the villa by Schulten, seemingly merely because oftheir orientation (1927b, 121). There appears to be no firm archaeological evidencehowever to favour them being rejected as part of the camp. Half of the complex of walls.extending between 30 and 40 m to the south of the villa/ praetorium is interpreted bySchulten as part of the camp and half as part of the villa (1927b, 119 f.). Block 9N and itsadjacent block 8S are regarded by Schulten as being represented by the walls to the westof what his small-scale plan appears to show as a sub-circular structure with triple wallson its northern side (1927b, 122 f.; fig. 121). This structure is associated with the villa bySchulten and is thought by him to have destroyed any further sections of both barracks8 and 9N (1927b, 122 f.). He dates the structure to the villa because its position relative tohis via praetoria means that for him the walls must be later than the camp (1927b, 119 f. and123). He also argues this dating because of the walls' alignment relative to neighbouringbuildings (1927b, 119). No other evidence is presented to support this dating. His use ofalignment to reject the eastern group of walls as being associated with the camp canperhaps be dismissed in part as he does not apply it consistently. The alignment of botheastern and western halves of the group of walls appears to be the same. Schulten musttherefore be wrong in accepting the western half of the complex as being part of a barrackblock (his block 8) while rejecting the eastern half, believing it to be a later structure (1927b,123), merely on the basis of alignment. The seemingly strange alignment of the groupcompared to neighbouring buildings can perhaps simply be explained by the practicedisplayed by several buildings on the site of trying to have the long axis of buildingsconform to the changing topography of the site, so that this axis lay close to being at rightanglesto the contours. It is unfortunate that Schulten does not publish a large-scale planof these remains, so that more might be available to assist re-interpretation. Nevertheless,using the same reasons as for accepting the northern parts of the villa as being part of thecamp, it is possible that all these walls could also be associated with the camp.These walls between the villa and block 10 are very difficult to make sense of. Thisin part may be due to them being published only in the small-scale plan, which rendersit difficult to establish the details of their form. Their alignment displays much variety andthis, together with the poor survival in places, causes them to form little coherent pattern.Only at Schulten's building 10 does a more obvious pattern to the walls emerge, partly due260

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondato a large-scale plan being published (fig. 127). Here they could be a pair of barrack blocksas Schulten suggests (below). The very irregularity of this group of remains to the northof building 10, which may have been the reality and not just an illusion caused by theamount of survival and the quality of the plans, perhaps agrees with them beingassociated with the praetorium and quaestorium in which little regularity might beexpected. Associating all this area with these functions would also agree with the qualityof the pottery and the proportion of brooches found here (above). Due to the difficultiesin establishing a coherent plan of the remains in this area, it is hazardous to suggest whichparts of them may have been associated with which of the two areas. Presumably howeverthe quaestorium occupied the remains immediately to the north of building 10. This wouldplace it at the theoretical location of to the rear of the praetorium. How far west thequaestorium extended is however unclear.With this overall interpretation it results in the 'central range' occupying an area ofperhaps 84 m from north to south by at least 30 m from east to west.The remains of building 10 display a strong resemblance to barrack blocks 2 to 5 (fig.127), implying that they represent a similar pair of facing ranges of barrack blocks.Schulten's proposed location for the northern side of block 10 seems likely, in part becausethis long surviving section of east-west wall would line up with the corresponding wallbetween blocks 4 and 5 to the east (fig. 127). Similarly Schulten's dividing wall betweenblock 10 and the one to the south seems viable (fig. 127). This results in an average widthacross the double block of about 22 m, which is comparable to blocks 2 to 5 to the east.The significance of the shaded area shown in the large-scale plan of building 10N,in Schulten's room 4 (fig. 127), is uncertain as it is not commented upon by Schulten. It isshown as walling in the small-scale plan (fig. 121) and so in the larger plan could representdisturbed walling, in just the same way as the same type of rendering is used in buildings11 and 14N, probably also for disturbed walling (fig. 127).The length of block 10 is uncertain as neither end was clearly established. Schultenbelieved that the easternmost pair of rooms of 10S (fig. 127, 10S, rooms 4) are part ofbuilding 12, which he interprets as the praetorium (1927b, 129; below). As for the threewesternmost pairs of rooms of 5S, the easternmost surviving rooms of 10S are sufficientlysimilar in character to blocks 2 to 5 and the rest of 10, that it would seem better to associatethese rooms with building 10S. With these rooms included in block 10, the survivingremains shown in the plans indicate that the block was at least 34 m long. It is possible thatthe block was much longer and indeed should not be regarded as a separate block, but partof the double block 5. This would give block 5/10 the same long, continuous form as theblocks to the south. The 'missing link' between 5S and 10S could be represented by the 'L'-shaped piece of wall in area 5 of Schulten's building 12, suggested above as being part of5S. This would result in this part of 5S/10S surviving no worse than some other parts ofit and thus to suggest such a link is reasonable. The link between 5N and lON may bereflected by a stippled area shown in the small-scale plan (fig. 121) between 5N and 10N,but which is omitted from the large-scale drawing (fig. 127). This feature is not commented261

Chapter Four — Numantia , Pella Redondaupon anywhere by Schulten. As with similarly-drawn remains by barracks 11 and 14 itcould indicate the remains of disturbed walling (above). It could consequently form partof the 'missing' con tubernia between these two blocks. Alternatively, it could representmetalling of a street, as to the east of the villa / praetorium (above), but here between the tworanges of barracks.Schulten believed that the surviving remains of blocks Ito 10 suggested that all wereof the same form and internal layout. This consisted of the ten short blocks being dividedalong their length into twelve contubernia, each with a threefold subdivision. These threeareas were reconstructed by Schulten as a rearmost room for accommodation, the middleone as a stable and in front of this an area used when cleaning the stable (1927b, 124 ff.).Schulten's interpretation can be doubted, though the presence of cavalry in some of theblocks does seem viable (below).Barracks 5 and 10 could have been different from Schulten's reconstruction, in thatthey could have been a long, continuous block. With the praetorium / forum / quaestoriumcomplex being proposed as lying to the north of the western end of barracks 5/10, blocks1 to 4 cannot be reconstructed with the same, long form as block 5/10. Even if theinterpretation of what lay to the north of 10 is rejected, the relative location and alignmentof the building remains to the west of blocks 1 to 4 do not readily suggest themselves asjoining with blocks Ito 4. The character of these western buildings also does not obviouslyseem to be barracks. To the north of block 5/10 there is consequently reasonable evidenceto support there being two areas of buildings, which had different form and function, inone case barracks in the other possibly praetorium / forum / quaestorium .Barrack block 5/10 appears to have been divided along its length into contuberniaabout 3 m in width and seemingly between 6 and 7 m deep. The surviving evidencesuggests that all the contubernia were subdivided into a front and rear room. The totalnumber of contubernia along each range is not clear, but could have been at least 25. Thenature of the troops who occupied these contubernia is uncertain. Unfortunately there areno smallfinds reported from these blocks, which could have aided establishing this. Thenumber and relatively simple character of the contubernia would however be in keepingwith this pair of ranges, like those to the south, accommodating a cohort of infantry(below).Blocks 2 to 4 are similar in character to 5 /10, suggesting that they too were occupiedby infantry. The much shorter length of blocks 2 to 4 implies though that the infantry herewere organised differently to those in 5/10. The smallfinds from this area included highqualitypottery and bronze items (one of which is stated to have come from barrack 3, butthe location of the other finds is less precise; Schulten 1927b, 123). As Schulten comments(1927b, 123), this indicates a degree of relative wealth for the occupants and hence heplaces cavalry here. Two spearheads were also found (exact location is not given), whichSchulten states further supports the presence of cavalry (1927b, 123). Instead of simplycavalry, perhaps the wealthy occupants were cavalry and infantry of the delecti extraordinariior evocati. In support of this is that this location on one side of the praetorium range would262

Chapter Four — Numantia, Peria Redondacorrespond to what can be suggested as their theoretical position in a single-consular typeof camp (above, Chapter Three). The number and layout of these barracks would also beappropriate for a 'unit' of cohort-organised delecti extraordinarii or evocati, comprising acohort and a turma. The cohort could have had its three maniples arranged in thetheoretical side-by-side arrangement (above, Chapter Three) and placed in blocks 2 to 4.The turma could have been accommodated in block 1, which could have been a triple blocksimilar to those that can be reconstructed at the eastern end of the site (below) and facingthe via principalis (fig. 124); though there is admittedly no firm evidence to support thisreconstruction since so little of block 1 survived. If the theoretical scheme for the delectiextraordinarii/ evocati was being followed, a further grouping like blocks 1 to 4 would alsohave existed to the west of the praetorium range. Remains were found here, but the formof the buildings they represent is uncertain.BUILDINGS 11, 12 AND 13The remains which Schulten regards as being buildings 11,12 and 13 are interpreted byhim as being the forum, praetorium and quaestorium respectively (1927b, 127 ff.; fig. 123).This interpretation is derived in part from the remains being situated one third of the wayalong the length of the camp and also because they would form the division between theRoman cavalry and the northern half of the legion in Schultert's overall scheme for thecamp's layout (1927b, 127). These factors seem to have been of more influence onSchulten's interpretation than the actual evidence on the ground. His text gives theimpression that he felt these were the sort of buildings which should have existed in thispart of the camp and so the various lengths of wall were appropriately joined up to formstructures of suitable design. As a result, Schulten was able to reconstruct building 11 asa structure which consisted of a row of paired rooms around each side of an openrectangular courtyard, a form which he parallels with urban fora and those identified atVindonissa and Carrtuntum (Schulten 1927b, 132 f.). To the west of the forum, Schultenreconstructed building 12 as the praetorium (1927b, 128 ff.). This, so he believed, consistedof an open entrance courtyard (fig. 127, building 12, area 5), flanked on one side by threepairs of rooms and on the other by a single pair (fig. 127, building 12, areas 1 -4, i.e. therooms proposed above as instead being parts of the southern range of barrack 5/10). Theentrance courtyard led into a covered hall, in the middle of which were two stone blockswhich seemed to Schulten to have come from a hearth (1927b, 129), but he does not statewhy he felt this. Around this hall were a number of rooms and corridors (fig. 127, building12,areas 7-22 and -8'), whose conjectured functions are described in detail by Schulten(1927b, 129 ff.). The complex of walls lying to the west of the praetorium, forming building13,is interpreted by Schulten as the various storage rooms and living quarters making upthe quaestorium (1927b, 133).Schulten's interpretation of these remains can be questioned. The interpretationhinges on building 12 being the praetorium. It seems unlikely that these remains could in263

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondafact be from this structure. Schulten disregards the existence of an 'L'-shaped length ofwall, shown in his small-scale plan (fig. 121), which would stand right in the entrancecourtyard of the conjectured praetorium (above; fig. 127 building 12, area 5). The entrancepassage to such an important building would surely not have been obstructed in this way.If indeed this piece of wall belonged to barrack 5/10S (above), it would mean that abuilding existed completely across the entrance passageway, which speaks completelyagainst the existence of the entrance. Schulten includes the areas immediately on eitherside of the entrance passageway as part of the praetorium, but there seems no good reasonfor this and these areas are probably more appropriately part of barrack block 5/10S(above). If at the very least 5S and 1 0 S were not part of the same continuous range, havingthe front of the praetorium partially built across in this manner is unlikely. If these twoblocks were however parts of the same range the possibility of building 12 being thepraetorium would be totally excluded. There is thus sufficient reason to doubt Schulten'sinterpretation of these remains as being the praetorium.If building 12 is not the praetorium it raises doubt on Schulten's interpretation ofbuildings 11 and 13. The large empty area within building 11 complies with the idea of thisbeing the courtyard of aforum, but the absence of walls in this area at the time of excavationcould be artificial and the result of disturbance. The disturbance and possibly even totalremoval of walls in this area is suggested by the hachured areas in Schulten's plan (fig.127), which presumably indicate areas of scattered stones or rubble, though Schulten doesnot actually state their significance. Instead of art interpretation of rooms around an opencourtyard it can be suggested that Schulten's buildings 11 to 13 are further back-to-backbarrack blocks, like those to the north and south.The exact form of the barrack blocks in area 11 to 13 is however uncertain, due to thedisturbed nature of the remains and those particularly in the western half of the areaforming no obvious coherent ground plan. This area of remains possibly consisted of apair of facing blocks (11/12/13N and 11/12/13S) and the northern block of 14/15/16(which in Schulten's scheme exists only as a single, southern range; fig. 123). For example,the remains in the eastern part of Schulten's building 12 can be appropriately interpretedas follows: rooms 8, 9, 10 and 10' as part of barrack range 11/12/13N; area 17 as the gapbetween this northern range and 11 /12/13S; rooms 18, 19 and 20 as part of 11 /12/13S; androoms 1' to 8' could be part of 14/15/16N (fig. 124). The features to the east of this areasupport such an interpretation for the existence and relative location of three ranges ofbarracks, though here as in the eastern part of Schulten's building 12, the exact locationof the boundary between 11/12/13S and 14/15/16N is uncertain. To the west howeverit is difficult to suggest an interpretation, as there appears to be no clear divisions betweenranges and even the typical arrangements of contubernia are not always readily apparent.Perhaps the confusion is due to part of the western portion of the remains forming rangesof rooms which ran across the rear of the area occupied by each set of double barracks, inthe manner that seemed to have existed in similar barracks to the south (below).264

BUILDINGS 14 TO 34Chapter Four —Numantia, Pena RedondaSchulten interprets the remains between his proposed praetorium and the south-easternentrance as a series of back-to-back barrack blocks with their long axis running east-west(1927b, 133 ff.). This general interpretation seems entirely feasible from the nature of thepublished remains. Discussing the detailed form of these blocks is however hazardous,due to the nature of the published evidence.Neighbouring double barrack blocks, as Schulten states, seem to have shared acommon east-west dividing wall, though sometimes separate dividing walls were alsoused, such as between blocks 23/24/25 and 26/27/28 and at least for part of the lengthbetween 26/27/28 and 29/30/31 (1927b, 139 ff.; fig. 127). It is not clear why there shouldhave been such variation, but may simply reflect different favoured styles of constructionby neighbouring units.The blocks are thought to have extended for about 95 m from east to west (Schulten1927b, 133 ff.). Schulten suggests that each pair of blocks consisted of three separatesections each approximately 30 m long (1927b, 133 ff.; figs. 122 and 123). The evidenceSchulten presents for this threefold division is a 3 m wide gap in the walls, 30 m from thewestern end of 14/15/16S and a similar gap, of 2.3 m, between 20S and 215 (1927b, 134;fig. 127). This provided Schulten with the correspondence with Polybius who is interpretedby Schulten as stating that the length of blocks was 100 feet (29.6 m) (1927b, 134). Schultenis unaware however that Polybius is speaking in terms of Greek feet not Roman (above,Chapter Three), so such comparison is invalid. Schulten extrapolates from the evidenceof two possible gaps, that all blocks in this series would have been similarly divided. Thisoverlooks the nature of the excavated evidence however. Schulten does in fact acknowledgethat row 32/33/34N seems to be continuous, but disregards it (1927b, 142). The continuityof 23/24/25S is remarked upon by Schulten, but he believes that breaks between eachblock of this row and of 26/27/28N are indicated by the changes in line of the paireddividing wall between the two ranges (19276, 139). There are however more changes indirection than there are blocks, so Schulten's argument is a little weak. The completeabsence of a gap in the plans between 21S and 22S is simply ignored, as along row 29/30/31S. He comments on the seeming absence of a gap between 14S and 15S, but says that onewould have existed here in part because it would line up with a gap between 20N and 21N(1927b, 136). Similar reasoning is used to 'create' the gap between 31S and 30S (1927b, 142).Between 20S and 21S Schulten says that "a gap seems to be recognisable" (1927b, 138), butnone is apparent in the published plan (fig. 127). The gap between 17S and 18S,commented upon by Schulten (1927b, 136), does however seem genuine. Unfortunatelyfor Schulten's argument there is another gap of similar width shown separating hiscontubernia 3 and 4 of block 18S, but this seeming contradiction in Schulten's interpretationis ignored by him, not surprisingly. The evidence suggests therefore that Schulten'sthreefold division of the buildings is valid for some blocks, but to claim it for all would beto over-generalise.The overall length of this group of blocks is uncertain regardless of how they mayhave been divided along their length, since, with the exception of the western end of block265

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redonda29/30/31 and 32/33/34, the location of either the western or eastern ends was not clearlyestablished. The surviving remains of 14/15/16 and 17/18/19 indicate however that theycould have been as much as 95 m long.Not only can Schulten's interpretation for the east-west arrangement of the blocksbe questioned, but so too can his north-south disposition, though much of it seems viable.With the change of buildings 11 to 13 being interpreted as barracks rather than as thepraetorium, forum and quaestorium, Schulten's single row of blocks 14, 15 and 16 become14/15/16S, with parts of 11, 12 and 13 forming the opposing 14/15/16N (above).Schulten's blocks 17 to 25 can be re-interpreted by removing the pair 20/21/22. This canbe replaced by an east-west street running between what are Schulten's northern andsouthern ranges of 20/21/22 (fig. 124). The former 20/21/22N becomes 17/18/19S andformer 20/21/22S becomes mainly 23/24/25N, but also a row of irregular rooms builtalong the rear of this block and along the side of the street, rather in the manner of therooms along the via quintana in Lager III (above; fig. 124). Support for placing a street hereis that it would create one exactly halfway along the sequence of this type of barracks,starting with 5/10 and ending at 32/33/34. Consequently, in effect it corresponds to thevia quintana, here between cohorts four and five (below). Further support for thereconstruction is that it removes Schulten's rather uncomfortable single blocks and anunlikely narrow block 23/24/25N and replaces them with a near-regular system ofdouble, back-to-back blocks.The form of Schulten's 32/33/34S to the east of building 36 is uncertain. Therewould have been sufficient space to the north of building 35 for the southern side of 32/33/34 to have been parallel with the common dividing wall between it and 29/30/31. Thewalls projecting to the north of building 35 were perhaps simply rooms constructed in thetriangular space created between 35 and 32/33/34, rather like those created in Lager IIIbetween the angled walls of the northern range of barracks/stables G and the southernrange of barracks E (above). These projecting walls are interpreted by Schulten as stablesfor the horses of the tribunes whom he (probably wrongly; below) places in building 35(Schulten 1927b, 153).The overall width of the resulting disposition of double blocks varied, with thedegree of variation heightened by the rows being often far from parallel. The three doubleblocks 14/15/16, 17/18/19 and 23/24/15 all however seem to have been between 28 and32 m wide. Double blocks 29/30/31 and 32/33/34 were slightly narrower in being onlyabout 24 to 25 m wide. Narrower still, at about 22 m is double block 5/10, which theproposed reconstruction suggests was part of this whole group of barracks. The resultingaverage width is 27 m. This is however of little value in assessing what the 'design width'may have been, due to the uncertainties surrounding the reliability of the reconstructionfor all the barracks, the general variation in the widths and the variation caused by therows not being parallel. Hence there is no way of knowing how representative the widthof 27 m is in relation to the intended design width.The overall length of the barracks is not certain, due to their eastern and westernlimits not being firmly established. The surviving remains of 14/15/16S and 17/18/19N,266

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondafor example, indicate however that the blocks could have been at least 95 m long, i.e. atleast 320 Roman feet. Due to the degree of uncertainty surrounding this dimension, it isof little value assessing how it might relate to a 'design length'.As Schulten suggests, the walls of this range of barracks indicate that the contuberniaeach consisted generally of two and occasionally three rooms (1927b, 146). There wasmuch variety in the width (east-west) dimensions of the contubernia, but an average widthof about 3.0 m can be suggested. The overall depth of the contubernia similarly varied, butdimensions of between 7 and 8 m seem typical. There appears to have been littleconsistency in the relative size of the rooms of each contubernium. The number ofcontubernia that existed along the length of any of the blocks is uncertain, but the survivingdividing walls and potential overall length of the blocks suggest that there were at least26. There are no obvious indications in the surviving remains where officers' quarters mayhave been within the blocks nor of the relative extent of the blocks occupied by thesequarters.Schulten interprets the projecting rooms at the western end of 19S, 28N, 31S and 34Nas guardrooms situated at the entrance into each double block (1927b, 137,141 f. and 144).The remains at the western end of 31, in particular, are interpreted by Schulten asguardrooms either side of a double-portal entrance (1927b, 142). Schulten does notspecifically say why he thought a double-portal entrance lay here, but presumably he wasinfluenced by two of the areas having a stone surface. Schulten could be correct inbelieving that an entrance lay here. This would mean that the north-south line of stonesalong the western edge of the stone surface was not a wall, but kerbing. The function ofthe east-west row of stones down the middle of the stone surface could have been toprevent slippage of the stones northwards down the sloping ground. Alternatively, theline of stones could have been the remains of a wall. This would mean that the north-southsequence of rooms may not have been interrupted, but formed a range across the rear ofthe area occupied by this set of double barracks. A similar situation is proposed asoccurring in barracks of the probably contemporary Black Phase at Castillejo (above).With this possibility, the stone surfacing at the western end of 31S could simply be asurfaced floor, just as found in two rooms in building 35 (below).Further rear ranges of rooms canbe proposed at the western end of some of the otherbarracks. In barrack 32/33/34 the rooms between and including 8,9 and a of 34N and 34S(fig. 127) could be part of a range of rear rooms at the western end of this pair of blocks.Room a at the western end of 28N could be part of a range of rear rooms for 26/27/28. Thewalls grouped midway between the two blocks at the western end of 23/24/25 could befrom rear rooms, but conceivably these could be 'ordinary' contubernia of 25N. Thewestern end of 17/18/19 seems to have had surviving rear rooms at the western end of19S, by Schulten's room 8 (fig. 127), but little can be established about their plan and extent.The nature of the western end of 14/15/16 is unclear, mainly due to the uncertaintiessurrounding its relationship with 11/12/13. It is possible however that Schulten's roomse and f of his building 13 and rooms 5 to 9 of 16S could be part of an area of rear rooms.The form of the western end of the surviving remains of building 11/12/13 is uncertain,267

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondabut rooms g and h of Schulten's building 13 could be parts of rear rooms. The walls shownby areas 10 at the western end of barrack 5/10 (fig. 127) could be associated with rearrooms. How far east the conjectured rear rooms extended is uncertain. The availableevidence suggests they were similar in size to the contubernia and perhaps only a singleroom in depth. A possible reconstruction is that they extended right across the width ofeach pair of barrack blocks and the side ranges of contubernia stopped short to allow accessto the rooms (fig. 131). The function of the rear rooms is uncertain. There are no associatedpublished smallfinds to suggest a function. Perhaps they were stores areas or workshops(above, Chapter Three).The unusually wide dimension of the wall by the western side of room 5 ofSchulten's block 22S (fig. 127) causes him to reject it as being part of the camp. Instead heassociates it with a Neolithic settlement, which he believes is attested on the site by pottery(1927b, 139). There may indeed have been a Neolithic settlement on the hill, but the widthof the wall alone should arguably not be used as the sole evidence to associate this wallwith such a settlement. From the available evidence there seems to be no good reason toreject the wall from being part of barrack block 25N. It is possible even, that what Schultenactually found were two walls either side of a narrow passageway and the materialbetween them was not part of the wall, but simply unexcavated fill.The form of this group of barracks would be suitable for being occupied by infantry,particularly if organised as cohorts (below). There is unfortunately only limited supportfrom smallfinds for the barracks being occupied by infantry. The only smallfinds thatSchulten specifically mentions as having come from buildings 11 to 34 are a tanged, 700mm long pilum head and a spur, which were found together in 27N (1927b, 165). The piluinwould be appropriate for infantry. The spur however implies the presence of someonewho was mounted. This need not necessarily be cavalry since it could have been worn bya centurion. It is possible therefore that barracks 11 to 34 could have been for infantry.BUILDINGS 35 AND 36Schulten interprets the remains which he numbers as buildings 35 and 36 as lying on thenorthern side of the via principalis and each being three tribunes' houses, providingaccommodation for the six tribunes present in a legion (1927b, 149 ff.; figs 123 and 127).A detailed interpretation of the various rooms of building 35 is provided bySchulten, who sees the building as comprising three atrium-type houses (1927b, 151 ff.).The quality of the construction of building 35 was apparently superior to the otherbuildings excavated, with carefully built dressed stone walls, evidence for timber doorframes and metalled floors (Schulten 1927b, 150 and 153). This quality was also echoed inthe type of finds from this building. These included fine pottery, spurs, two arrowheads,two spear butts, two horse bits, brooches, pens and a third of all the coins found in thecamp (Schulten 1927b, 153; exact location in the rooms is given).The interior of building 36 is in contrast dealt with very cursorily by Schulten, withessentially only a statement that three divisions were apparent and these were narrower268

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondathan those of building 35 because of the junior status of the tribunes occupying thisbuilding (Schulten 1927b, 154).Schulten's interpretation of buildings 35 and 36 was based in part on the idea thathe felt they were too short to have been barracks (Schulten 1927b, 150); building 35survived to about 28 x 12.5 m and building 36, 29 x at least 15 m. Schulten made noallowance for the possibility that what he found was all that survived, rather than theoriginal length. He does admit that the houses were much smaller than buildingsidentified as being tribunes' houses at other sites, but explains this as being due to thecramped nature of Pena Redonda (1927b, 153 f.). Schulten presents the character ofbuilding 35 and its associated finds as being particularly supportive of his interpretation(1927b, 151). He however ignores the discrepancy with building 36, which seeminglylacked such marks of distinction, though this difference could simply be due to the poorerstate of survival of this building. Schulten further supports his interpretation by arguingthat the buildings' locations would be appropriate for tribunes, being by the via principalisand at one end of the legionary barracks (1927b, 150 f.). He overlooks however that thePolybian plan would have the tribunes on the opposite side of the via principalis from thelegions. He acknowledges that the praetorium is in the wrong relative position, butovercomes this by saying that the arrangement would conveniently sandwich the troopsbetween the commanding officer and the tribunes (1927b, 150).Schulten's threefold division of both building 35 and 36 can be questioned. Theremay have been such an arrangement, but the plan of the walls, particularly of building 36does not readily suggest it. It can be wondered whether Schulten was influenced in seeingthreefold divisions because he needed to have six houses for the six tribunes of the legionwhich he believed occupied this camp. Rather than seeing these buildings as beingtribunes' houses, the finds from building 35 and the complexity of its internal layoutwould be in keeping with this building having been occupied by cavalry. From what littleof building 36 was found, the internal layout of buildings 35 and 36 could have beensimilar. As a result both buildings could have been for cavalry.The remains of building 35 suggest that rather than ha vingjust three divisions alongits length it had six (corresponding respectively to Schulten's 11,2,3; 14,5,6; 11 1,2,3; 114,5;1111,2,3; and 1114,5 - fig. 127). Most and perhaps all of these appear to have had at least threesubdivisions from front to back. In the rear rooms of two of the main areas (1,4 and 111,4),there was evidence for couches of the type found, for example, in Lager III and V (Schulten1927b, 152; above). For building 35, these features can presumably also be interpreted asbeds. Extrapolating from this, the building can be reconstructed as being similar to thecavalry/stable blocks in Lager III. Hence it can be proposed that the easternmost area wasoccupied by the decurion, with his horse(s). The couches in rooms 1,4 and 111,4 indicate thatthree troopers, with their horses stabled in the front room of each area, could have beenaccommodated in these two areas (i.e. I 4,5,6 and III 4,5). The remaining three troopers ofthe decuria which could have occupied this block could have been accommodated in areaII 1,2,3 since this shares a similar layout to the two areas containing couches. Areas 11 4,5and 1111,2,3 appear different from the other areas, with 114,5 having its large rear metalled269

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondaroom and 1111,2,3 its relatively smaller rear room. These differences may indicate that theywere not a barrack/ stable complex. Instead perhaps they provided stabling for remounts.A similar situation presumably also occurred in building 36. Because a decuria can becomfortably accommodated in each of buildings 35 and 36, perhaps the east-west extentof the buildings as presented in the published plans was the original length and Schultenwas indeed correct to presume this.The decuria accommodated in barrack/stable blocks 35 and 36 could have beenassociated with two different turmae, which occupied both these two buildings and theremains associated with building 37 (below).BUILDING 37Schulten regards building 37 as surviving to a length of 55 m, but would have beenoriginally 74 m long if it extended as far as the street which he proposes ran into the campfrom the southern gate (1927b, 156; figs 122 and 128). He suggests that the general planof the building could have consisted of a middle portion (areas II and III in fig. 128), whichwas about 14 m from front to back, with a projecting section at either end (areas /, IV andV in fig. 128 and the remains in fig. 121 shown to the north of area IV! V), between 21 and22 m deep (1927b, 156). The three portions backed against a common east-west dividingwall with building 38 (fig. 128). The projecting sections are interpreted by Schulten asguard chambers (1927b, 156). Schulten rejects this building as being a barrack blockbecause it is too wide in comparison to the blocks elsewhere on the site and its whole plancontradicts such an interpretation (1927b, 156). Schulten favours interpreting the buildingas being subdivided into five houses occupied by praefecti sociorum (1927b, 156 f.; fig. 128,hence areas I - V).Proposing an alternative interpretation to Schulten's is hazardous as there are noreported smallfinds from this area, which could have suggested a function for thebuilding. The surviving remains and indeed the gaps in them are suggestive of the triplecavalry barrack /stable blocks placed around an open-sided courtyard in Lager III andalso the back-to-back triple blocks of this type reconstructed in Lager V (above). Hence thenorthern half of building 37 could have formed a barrack/stable block facing andassociated with block 35, with the intervening courtyard facing east (fig. 124). The rearrange of this triple block seems not to have survived. A second triple block could haveexisted which backed onto 35/37 and opened onto a street which could have led to thesouthern gate (below). This triple block could have taken the form of building 36 and thesouthern half of 37 comprising the two facing side ranges and the remains a few metresto the south-east of 36 being part of the rear range (fig. 124).BUILDINGS 38 AND 39The surviving remains of building 38 on the southern side of the common dividing wallwith building 37 are too few to be certain about the original form of this building (fig. 128).Schulten suggests that building 38 was a barrack block (1927b, 158). The nature of the270

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondaremains would not exclude this possibility. The block could have been parts of twonorthern ranges of a pair of back-to-back cavahy triple barrack/stable blocks of the typereconstructed above for buildings 35,36 and 37.Remains attributable to possibly the rear ranges of these two conjectured tripleblocks could be reflected in the walls found approximately 20 m to the south of building38 (fig. 121). Schulten presents conflicting interpretations about these walls. In hisdescription of building 38 the walls are associated with this building, with the commentthat one of the rooms had a metalled floor (1927b, 159). The photograph of this flooredroom is however captioned as being from building 39 (Schulten 1927b, Taf. 11, 3). Thisroom also falls within the area of 39 in Schulten's location plan of his buildings (fig. 122).Further, in his description of building 39 he refers to the northern side of 39 having beenfound (1927b, 159), and the only possible walls to which he could be referring are thoseabout 20 m to the south of 38.Remains associated with the southern range of the eastern of the two back-to-backtriple blocks in this area could be those on the southern side of Schulten's building 39, ifthey are interpreted as rooms of 39 and 40 sharing a common rear dividing wall (fig. 121).The western limit of the western southern range could be reflected by the group of wallsfound in this area 87 m from the eastern rampart and which could form a building line withthe blocks to the north down the side of a north-south street (below; figs 121 and 124).BUILDINGS 40 AND 41The remains of building 40 are not well published by Schulten. They receive only a singleparagraph of description (1927b, 159) and only those walls in the southern part of thisbuilding are published at a large scale (figs 121 and 129). Schulten interprets building 40as a double barrack block, specifically for the equites sociorum (1927b, 159). The remainscould however have been part of a further triple cavalry barrack/stable block (below).Building 41 is dealt with more fully, with a large-scale plan being published for mostof the remains associated with it by Schulten (fig. 129). The walls forming a 1Y-shapedstructure seemingly aligned quite differently from the rest of building 41, at the southwesterncorner of the surviving remains, are interpreted by Schulten as being an artilleryplatform, mainly because of the walls' alignment (1927b, 103 and 160; fig. 129). Thisinterpretation of these differently aligned walls is dubious, if only because it is highlyimprobable that such a platform would have been placed away from the rampart insidethe camp. The form of the eastern end of these walls suggests that it joined with the restof building 41 nearby and the character of construction is similar to 41, implying a degreeof association. The alignment in itself is arguably insufficient evidence to reject the wallsfrom being part of building 41, since the alignment of the walls of many of the buildingsof the camp is far from regular.Schulten interprets the remains of building 41 as consisting of three ranges of roomsaround a courtyard, with the fourth, western side of the courtyard being open (1927b, 159f.; fig. 129). He considers the possibility that the building could have been barracks and271

Chapter Four - Numantia, Perla Redondaspecifically for cavalry, similar to the triple blocks found at Renieblas (1927b, 159 f.). Hehowever rejects this, mainly because it would make these barracks so different from theothers at Pefia Redonda. Instead he favours an interpretation of the building as being forstores (1927b, 160).• With so little of both buildings 40 and 41 surviving and the varying quality ofpublication that they received, proposing an alternative interpretation is hazardous. It ispossible however that Schulten's consideration that the area was cavaliy barracks was notin fact so incorrect and both of Schulten's buildings should be regarded as a further set ofback-to-back triple cavalry barracks/ stables of the form lying to the north; though herethe layout of the eastern triple block is slightly irregular due to the encroaching line of theeastern rampart (fig. 124). In support of placing cavalry here and thus also to some extentstrengthening the suggested reconstruction, is the finding of spurs in the eastern rangeof building 41 (using Schulten's form for the building) and a spear in its northern range(Schulten 1927b, 160).BUILDINGS 42 AND 43The remains of walls found to the south-west of building 36 are suggested by Schulten asbeing parts of a further row of houses occupied by praefecti sociorum (1927b, 157; fig. 121and area 42 in figs 122 and 123). The few walls found to the south of these, groupedtogether by Schulten into building 43, are interpreted by him as being from a doublebarrack block similar in form to those down the eastern side of the camp (1927b, 159; figs121 to 123). Too little survived in the area of these buildings for an interpretation to haveany degree of certainty and the reconstruction of what lay here is probably best left open.BUILDING 44The remains of building 44 appear to consist of three ranges of rooms around anirregularly shaped courtyard (fig. 129). The exact form of the building is uncertain due tonot only the layout being incomplete, but also because the two published plans of theremains that were found differ noticeably (fig. 130). Consequently the form of even whatwas found is questionable. Schulten is unusually uncertain about what he felt the remainsrepresented, but includes a horseshoe-shaped granary and fabrica among the possibilities(1927b, 160 f.). Although the plan of the building is unclear, from what was recovered thelayout does not display the typical pattern of a series of closely-spaced parallel walls orcolumns for floor supports as found in military granaries, including at Castillejo andLager V (above). There are admittedly three closely-set walls in the eastern range ofbuilding 44, but there is little indication that such walls were constructed elsewhere in therange. The shaded area on the plan at the northern end of the eastern range, whichunfortunately Schulten does not comment upon, may be a hearth, since hearths areusually indicated in his plans in this manner (fig. 130). If it is indeed a hearth it furtherspeaks against this building being a granary. Schulten's suggestion that the building wasa fabrica may be valid, but there is insufficient evidence to prove it either way. An272

Chapter Four - Nuinantia, Pena Redondaalternative interpretation is that the horseshoe-shaped form of the building is suggestiveof a triple cavalry barrack/stable of the form lying to the east of this part of the camp andwhich here faced south (fig. 124).The alternative interpretation for buildings 35 to 44 creates the possibility that muchof the southern portion of the camp was occupied by cavalry. Possible evidence for thisin addition to the cavalry-related finds from buildings 35 and 41 (above), is the finding ofa weapon described by Schulten as a 110 mm long, socketed pilum (1927b, 165; notillustrated). The exact findspot of this weapon is uncertain, as it is stated by Schulten tohave been found merely "in the barracks of the pedites sociorum" (1927b, 165). Schultenplaces these particular troops in buildings 38, 39 and 43 (fig. 123). The shortness of thisobject, in combination with it being socketed, suggest that instead of being a pilum, it ismore likely to have been a thin spearhead and consequently could be associated withcavalry rather than infantry. The presence of the weapon may therefore support the ideathat one and potentially all of buildings 38,39 and 43 were cavalry barrack/stable blocksand part of a series of such blocks beginning with 35 and 36 and surviving as far south asbuildings 41 and 44.THE AREA TO THE SOUTH OF BUILDINGS 41 AND 44It is not known what existed to the south of buildings 41 and 44, between them and thesouthern gate. Schulten places an assembly area -Alarmplatz- here (1927b, 106 f.; fig. 123).Such a large open area in this part of the camp seems unlikely. Probably further buildingsexisted here and the absence of their remains can be attributed to agricultural activity inthis area (above). The form and function of the buildings here are however speculative.FEATURE 36AAbout 17 m to the west of building 36 Schulten found a circular setting of stones, with anexternal diameter of 3.7 m, an internal diameter of 2.5 m and surviving to a height of 0.7m (1927b, 155; fig. 121, 36a). The nature of the interior of the circle is not discussed bySchulten. This feature is interpreted by Schulten as being the camp's tribunal, since it layclose to buildings 35 and 36 which he regarded as being the tribunes' houses and was alsosituated on the edge of the Alarm platz (1927b, 155). Since buildings 35 and 36 are unlikelyto have been tribunes' houses and the existence of an Alarm platz is also questionable, thereasons for Schulten's interpretation of the stone circle become invalid. With so few detailsof this feature having been published, an alternative interpretation does not readilysuggest itself.ARTILLERY PLATFORM - WEAPONS STORE?Schulten suggests that a group of walls found 32 m to the west of the villa /praetorium(marked as ap on fig. 121) were an artillery platform constructed by the western end of hisbuilding 6 (1927b, 12 f. and 120; fig. 125). The interpretation of these walls as being part273

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondaof an artillery platform rests primarily on the finding of four ballista balls amongst thewalls (Schulten 1927b, 102, fig. 125 a - d). Schulten also compares the structure with similarremains at Valdevorron and Castillejo, which he interpreted M the same way (1927b, 120).At these two sites however, his interpretation can be doubted (above), as indeed it can atPeria Redonda. Schulten believed that an artillery platform was placed here, as it was inan ideal position to be able to fire over the rampart into the valley on the western side ofthe camp (1927b, 102). Such a purpose would surely have been better achieved by placingthe artillery actually on the rampart, as any mis-fires would not have endangered men andbuildings within the camp. Schulten comments that approximately 20 arrowheads werealso found in and around these walls (1927b, 102 f.). The combination of these and theballista balls suggests that a more viable interpretation is that this structure was a weaponsstore. Whether such a store was a separate structure or as part of a barrack block is notknown, as so little evidence from this area survives. Further difficulties of interpretationare created by the uncertain relationship between this building and the remains shown inthe small-scale plan to the north, south-east and west (fig. 121). These features are notcommented upon by Schulten. The form of the buildings from which they derive isuncertain.THE INTERVALLLIMThe width of the intervallum is uncertain in most places as often it was not clear whetherthe true extent of a building had been recovered. In addition the location of the actualrampart was not widely established. The available evidence suggests however that theinterval/urn was between 12 and as much as 25 m. With such potential variation and so littleof the intervallum width being firmly known, it is not worthwhile suggesting what thetypical width or the 'design width' were.STREETSSchulten reconstructed the location of several streets within the camp (1927b, 107 f.; fig.123). The existence of all but one of these can however be questioned.Schulten proposes that the via praetoria ran north from building 12, since thisbuilding is interpreted by him as the praetorium (1927b, 107; fig. 123). He states that therewere no traces of metalling for this street, but explains the absence because of the rockynature of the site which would have made metalling unnecessary (1927b, 107). Sincebuilding 12 is probably better interpreted as a barrack block rather than as a praetorium andthere were probably also barrack blocks running over the area to the north of building 12(above), the existence of the via praetoria in this location can be rejected. Schulten couldhowever have been vaguely correct in that this particular street could have run from thenorthern gate, but instead stopped further south than he envisaged, near the villa/praetorium (fig. 124).There is no real evidence to support Schulten's location for the via principalis. Indeedthe revised interpretation of buildings 35 and 36 make such a street in this location274

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena Redondauntenable. As an alternative to Schulten's location for this street it could have runapproximately east-west from the north-eastern gate (above; fig. 124).The one readily acceptable street of Schulten's is his via decumana, running into thecamp from the southern gate (fig. 123). The line of a terrace edge leading north from thesouthern gate may in part originate from such a street (fig. 120). The 6 m wide gapapparent in the plan between buildings 39/40 and 44, if genuine, may indicate the courseof this north-south street at this point. The street could thus have sensibly followed thecontours to take a level course. The eastern side of the gap/street between 39/40 and 44aligns with the probable western end of barracks 29 /30 /31 and 32 /33 / 34. The street couldthus have continued this far with the same comfortable line. It is possible that all theeastern group of barracks ended at a similar point at their western ends and so the streetcould have continued northwards as far as the via quintana, suggested above as existingbetween barracks 17/18/19 and 23/24/25 (fig. 124). Potentially the north-south streetcould have continued north of the via quintana, but the western ends of the barracks hereare less clear and do not readily denote a street 'frontage'.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTSchulten believed that the camp was occupied by a single legion with allies. He was ableto reconstruct the camp's internal layout for such an army in some detail (fig. 123). Sincehowever Schulten's interpretation of the archaeological evidence from Peria Redonda canbe quite seriously questioned, the validity of his reconstruction is doubtful. Suggestinganother form of overall reconstruction is however hazardous, since the quality of thephysical evidence creates many uncertainties in the detailed interpretation of individualareas.The villa and the remains immediately to the south can be suggested as being thepraetorium /forum / quaestorium complex, though the details of this arrangement are unclear(above; fig. 124). To the east of this complex were possibly three, back-to-back doubleinfantry barrack blocks (blocks 2 to 4) and a triple cavalry block (block 1). Because of theirproximity to the praetorium, they were perhaps occupied by delecti extraordinarii or evocati.The nature of what existed to the west of the praetorium complex is not clear, but morebarracks for delecti extraordinarii or evocati are possible, to create a protective shield on bothsides of the praetorium range.The via principalis can be reconstructed as running across the camp from the northeasterngate, past the front of the praetorium range (above; fig. 124). To the north of thisstreet there are insufficient remains to be able to reconstruct the type of structures thatexisted here with any degree of confidence. If the Polybian theoretical plan is applied tothis area, it would mean that the quarters of the tribunes, praefecti sociorum and any legatiwould be immediately on the northern side of the via principalis. In the remaining area tothe north of these the theoretical model has barracks for extraordinarii, but in practice here,there could have been some less-specific grouping of allied or foreign forces, perhapssome of the volunteers sent to Scipio by cities and kings (above, Chapter One).275

Chapter Four — Numantia, Pena RedondaTo the south of the praetorium range the evidence suggests that much of the area wasoccupied by barracks. Because of Schulten's interpretation of the form of the barracks heregarded the legion as being organised as cohorts (1927b, 134 ff.). Schulten however didnot compose his cohorts with each containing a maniple of the three types of manipillarinfantry, which is how cohorts are generally regarded as being constructed (above,Chapter Three). Instead, Schulten composed each cohort of three maniples of the sametype of manipular infantry. Hence for example, his blocks 14 to 19 were occupied by sixcenturies of triarii (fig. 123). The resulting overall composition of his legion was one cohortof triarii, two cohorts of principes and three cohorts of hastati (1927b, 148; fig. 123, shownin terms of maniples). The missing four cohorts are explained as being absent from thecamp due to being stationed elsewhere around the drcumvallation (1927b, 142).While Schulten can be agreed with in that the form of the barracks is well-suited toa legion organised as cohorts, the nature and disposition of these could easily be differentfrom what Schulten proposed. The degree of difference between the barracks at PefiaRedonda and Lager III, for example, implies that the troops stationed at both sites wereorganised differently. The manipular system seems to fit Lager III very well. Thedifference in barrack plan at Pena Redonda would consequently imply that a rrianipolarsystem may not have been used here. Indeed from the surviving evidence and theproposed interpretation of it, a manipular system does not readily fit at Pefia Redonda.In contrast the Pena Redonda barracks readily comply with a cohort organisation. Thenumber of contubernia in each range is uncertain, but could have been at least 26 (above).Using the number of contubernia required by the centuries of a cohort (above, ChapterThree), 30 contubernia plus accommodation for the centurions would be needed in eachpair of facing ranges to accommodate a cohort with its maniples placed end-to-end (fig.16,A). The threefold division that Schulten saw along the length of the ranges (above) mayconsequently have a degree of plausibility. It could derive from each of the three centuriesin the range building their own blocks, resulting in the gaps between blocks that Schultenbelieved existed in places. It could also explain why some ranges had a mixture ofcommon and separate dividing walls from their rear neighbour, i.e. each century used adifferent building method. Hence a reconstruction of the barracks at Pena Redonda ispossible with the three maniples of a cohort placed end-to-end and the quarters for thethree centurions, with a projecting stable in the manner of Lager III, at the head of eachcentury (fig. 131).With this interpretation of how the legion was organised and with the proposedreconstruction of buildings 5 to 34 all being back-to-back barrack blocks, it means thatthere would have been sufficient accommodation for eight cohorts (barracks 5/10; 11/12 /13;14/15/16;17/18/19;23/24/25; 26/27/28; 29/30/31; 32/33/34). This might meanthatthe legion was two cohorts under strength. Potentially these two units could have haddouble blocks aligned north-south to the west of the long north-south street in an areawhere there were no surviving remains and where the form of the camp is completelyuncertain. This location for the cohorts is questionable however, as they could easily have276

Chapter Four — Numantia, Mobeen given a more ordered position to the south of the eighth cohort; the topographywould have allowed the camp to have extended further south to facilitate this. Perhapstherefore, these two units were indeed not present, either, as Schulten suggests (above),they were stationed in other installations around the circumvallation or simply the legionwas under strength.In the southern quarter of the camp there appears to have been a number of triplecavalry barrack/stable blocks (above; fig. 124). The exact number of blocks representedby the remains is uncertain, but with the suggested reconstruction there were at least sixon the eastern side of the camp and one on the western side. Consequently much of thecomplement of ten legionary turmae could have been accommodated. Potentially all tenturmae could have been present if building 43 was a further triple block and two more laybetween the surviving blocks and the southern gate.As a result, it can be suggested that the force that occupied Peria Redonda was asingle legion with cavalry, with a small number of allied or irregular troops in the northernpart of the camp. For this period potentially this 'legion' could have been a true legioncomposed of citizens or a unit identical in structure, but comprised of allies (above,Chapter Two).MOLINOINTRODUCTIONUnusually, compared to the other Numantine sites, the location of Schulten's excavationtrenches at Molino are shown on the published plans (figs 132 and 133). These show thatthe trenches basically chased walls, with only the western end of the southernmostbuilding that was found being excavated completely. As a result of this technique and incombination with the destructive effects of ploughing particularly in the southern part ofthe site (Schulten 19276, 233 f.), only a piecemeal ground plan was recovered.The site lies on the lower terrace on the southern side of the confluence of the Dueroand the Merdancho (figs 20 and 136). The northern side of the area excavated slopes downto the Duero, which at the time of excavation flowed about 3 m below the level of the site(Schulten 1927b, 232; fig. 132). In winter the swollen river flowed right up to the edge ofthe terrace (Schulten 1927b, 232). Since the natural subsoil of the terrace is sand (Schulten1927b, 233), the northern edge of the terrace must have suffered badly from erosion andprobably the form seen by Schulten bears scant resemblance to its appearance in antiquity.The remains shown in Schulten's plan (fig. 20) of old courses of the Duero to the northwestof the river at Molino indicate how much the river's course could have changed sincethe Roman period. The topography suggests that the Merdancho has also changed itscourse. Schulten does not take into account how river erosion may have changed thetopography and how this might have effected the extent of surviving remains.277

Chapter Four — Numantia, MolinoOn the eastern and western sides of the area excavated were two hollows, 5 to 10 mwide and 3 m deep (Schulten 1927b, 232 and 234; fig. 132). Schulten believes that thesewere not natural features, but were originally ditches along the eastern and western sidesof the camp, which have been widened by the rivers in flood (Schulten 1927b, 234). Thisexplanation for the origin of these hollows is unlikely, since these gullies lie at the end ofvalleys running up the sides of the hill to the south (fig. 136). They could thus be naturalwater courses, which perhaps only become active in the autumn when there is heavy rainand in the short spring when the snows melt (Schulten 1931,54 f.). These water channelshave probably become more pronounced since the Roman period, with the erosive effectof many seasons of water gradually enlarging them. Their position may also havechanged and indeed the line of their valleys suggests that they have been graduallymoving towards one another. As a result, at the time of the camp's occupation, theyperhaps did not exist or they may have been only shallow depressions and possiblyslightly further away from the area excavated.DESCRIPTIONSchulten believed that the area of the camp was defined by the position of the edge of theterrace to the north, the hollows on either side of the site and the slope of the hill to thesouth (1927b, 234). As a result he concluded that the camp would have been a rectanglemeasuring 130 x 110 m (Schulten 1927b, 234). Schulten does not take into account how themovement of rivers and water courses may have changed the topography since the timeof the camp's occupation. If, as is likely, the ancient and modern topography weredifferent, the potential area for the camp could have been quite different from whatSchulten believed. The terrace probably extended further north than in the early 1900s,resulting in the area of the camp potentially spreading further in this direction thanSchulten thought. Indeed, appropriate LagerIceramik found on the northern side of the river(Schulten 1927b, 232) could have been carried and deposited by the river as its movingcourse took it through and eroded the northern part of the camp. The hollows on theeastern and western sides of the site could similarly have been further away from the areaexcavated, allowing the camp to extend more in these directions. It is likely therefore thatthe overall size of the camp was larger than Schulten envisaged, but it is not possible tobe more exact about its size and shape. All that can be concluded is that the excavatedremains of internal walls show that the camp was at least 110 m from north to south and100 m from east to west, giving it a minimum area of 1.1 ha.DEFENCESDITCHSchulten believed that the hollows on the eastern and western sides of the site had278

Chapter Four —Numantia, Molinooriginated as camp ditches (Sthulten 1927b, 234). This is possible, but as suggested above,these features are probably natural in origin. The movement of the rivers to the north ofthe site has probably removed traces of a ditch on this side. No comment is made bySc.hulten about a ditch being found on the southern side of the site. Had one existed, whichseems likely, perhaps it was not found simply because Schulten's excavation trenches didnot extend far enough southwards or the extensive effects of ploughing in the southernpart of the site (Schulten 1927b, 233 f.) had removed it.RAMPARTSc.hulten could not find the remains of a rampart at any point around the site (1927b, 234).River erosion and the water courses on either side of the site have possibly removed traceson these sides. The absence of remains of a rampart on the southern side may beaccountable to ploughing.TOWERSThere is no available evidence to confirm either the presence or absence of towers.ENTRANCESThe position and form of the entrances are not known.INTERNAL FEATURESIn the following discussion, Schulten's lettering of the remains is used, with the exceptionof the southernmost building excavated; Schulten always refers to this as 'cavalrybarracks', but here it will be called building G.BUILDING AMSchulten interprets building A as the southern end of a barrack block which had its longaxis aligned approximately north-south (1927b, 236f.; figs 133 and 134). This interpretationseems valid from the character of the remains. Building B is also interpreted by Schultenas a barrack block, specifically as the northern end of one lying to the north of block A(1927b, 236 f.; figs 133 and 134). This too is possible, though taken in isolation the remainsare not so obviously those of barracks compared to the remains of building A. Forexample, two tanks were found within building B (fig. 133, a and b), with one (b) containinghigh-quality pottery (Schulten 1927b, 238).Schulten interprets buildings A and B as two infantry barrack blocks, each 100Roman feet (29.6 m) long and each comprising nine contubernia (1927b, 237; fig. 134).Although this is possible, an alternative interpretation can be proposed. The easternmostnorth-south walls of A and B align with one another and the other north-south walls of279

Chapter Four — Numantia, Molinoboth A and B align reasonably closely (fig. 133). This indicates that A and B could be twoparts of the same building (fig. 135). Evidence to confirm this is however limited, due tothe near-complete absence of features being found in the excavation trenches between Aand B; this is perhaps due to the plough damage observed on the site (above). Only oneof the features shown in the trenches a few metres to the south of B is discusse d by Sch ulten(figs 132 and 133) and in this case (fig. 132, b) it is to comment that some Neolithic potterywas found (Schulten 1927b, 239). The remains shown just to the north of this pottery aresuggestive of a hearth (fig. 133). Its location relative to the line of the north-south walls ofbuildings A and B would be entirely appropriate for a hearth located in the typical positionof in the rear room of a contubernium and near the dividing wall between the front and rearrooms. The area of B north of the wall on which tank a lies was possibly not arranged ascontubernia, since it contains the two tanks and no dividing wall was found in the roomin which tank a lies. Perhaps instead of contubernia, this area of B was divided into anumber of irregular-sized rooms. A possible interpretation for the resulting area isofficer's quarters. This would perhaps account for the tanks (a could have been a watertrough for the officer's horse and b could have been a bath) and the high-quality potteryfound in this area (above).The excavated remains suggest that block A /B was on average approximately 7.8m wide. The overall length of the conjectured single block A /B is however uncertain. Thecharacter of the walls at the southern end of A suggests that this end of the block wasestablished in the excavation. The location of the northern end is less clear, thoughSchulten believed he had found it in the form of the remains of building B (1927b, 237). Thecharacter of B and the probably similar block D nearby to the east (below) suggest howeverthat B (and also D) extended further north than Schulten envisaged, though how far northis not obvious from the surviving evidence. The remains of A and B do nevertheless showthat the block was at least 60 m long. Conceivably A/B could have included the remainsfound directly to the north of it close to the northern edge of the terrace (fig. 132), makingit as much as 100 m long. This would have made the block similar in length to thosereconstructed for the Scipionic, Black phase at Castillejo and at Pena Redonda (above).If the comparison with these two sites is continued, it would mean that block A /l3at Molino would be likely to be one of a pair of facing blocks. The relative situation of blockC/D, just 1.3 m to the east (below), indicates that the other half of the pair to A /B wouldhave been to the west of A/B. Few remains were found in this area and they are notcommented upon by Schulten. The remains that were found would however beappropriately located to be from the mirror-image block to A /B, with a suitable passagewaybetween them (fig. 135). The remains shown to the west of the southern end of A couldin part be the linking wall running between the closed end of the pair of blocks (fig. 135),in the manner found at Castillejo and at Pena Redonda (above). A degree of validity isgiven to this overall reconstruction of a pair of blocks at Molino by them having an overallwidth, which was approximately 22 m at the southern end, comparable to those atCastillejo and Pena Redonda.280

Chapter Four — Numantia, MohnoThe surviving remains suggest that the contubcrnia were on average 3.0 m wide. Theposition of the dividing walls within them suggest that they had a front and rear room,of near-equal size. Since the length of A/B is uncertain, the number of contubernb is notknown. If the typical width of each contubernium was adopted throughout the length ofA/B and B is indeed correctly regarded as officer's quarters, there would have beensufficient space for about 14 contubernia in this part of the block (fig. 135).Schulten's discussion of the smallfinds from Mobilo (1927b, 238) is too imprecise asregards the location of the finds to be able to use this evidence to suggest the nature of thetroops that occupied A /B. Schulten comments that a pilum head was found (1927b, 238),but does not state at all where, so although it attests the presence of infantry, it cannotsuggest in which buildings they were accommodated. If the analogy with Castillejo andPena Redonda is continued further however, it can be suggested that block A /B and itsother half accommodated a cohort of infantry. The number of contubernia which can bereconstructed in A /B, together with the officer's quarters placed in area B of the blockwould be appropriate for a century of hastati with their centurion at their head (i.e. in thearea of Schulten's building B), encamped in the manner as suggested for Pena Redonda(above; fig. 131). The area to the north of B would then accommodate the principes, withthe triarii to the north of these.BUILDING CMThe walls of buildings C and D lay to the east of an approximately 1.3 m wide gap downthe eastern side of A/B (fig. 133). Building C is interpreted by Schulten as a barrack blockcontaining nine C011tubernia (1927b, 238: figs 133 and 134). The remains, though limited inextent, would be appropriate for an interpretation as barracks, though whether specificallyof nine contubernia is questionable (below). The third room, at the front of contubernia 5 and6, is suggested by Schulten as being a stable (1927b, 238). He does not comment whetherhe believed that such stables existed along the front of the other contubernia, though noneis shown in front of them in his reconstruction plan of this area (fig. 134), which mayindicate that he felt they were not common. Certainly the irregularity of two or threerooms in each contubernium, irrespective of whether they were for men or officers, is notunusual when compared to Castillejo and Pena Redonda, for example (above). Aninterpretation of the third room as a stable is indeed possible or perhaps it just providedextra storage or a utility area.The walls of building Dare not discussed by Schulten, but in his reconstruction planof this area (fig. 134) they are shown as a separate barrack block consisting of ninecontubernia. As with building C, an interpretation as barracks is possible, though theevidence is very limited in extent to be certain.Schulten's interpretation of C and D as being barracks may well be correct, but theymay have had a different form from what he envisaged. The alignment of the north-southwalls of C and D indicates that like A/B, C and D could be areas of the same building andnot separate ones as Schulten suggests (fig. 135). Indeed the general similarities between281

Chapter Four — Numantia, MolinoA /B and C/D mean that they could have been identical in form. This would result in ClD being one half of a pair of facing blocks. This must remain conjectural however, as nofeatures which could be securely attributed to that of a barrack block were found in thearea to the east of C/D where its eastern range may have stood, assuming that this pairof blocks had a similar overall width to A/B. The features shown approximately 22 m tothe east of C (labelled a in fig. 132) are excluded from being part of an eastern range of Cas they were three Neolithic pots (Schulten 1927b, 239).The northern limit of C/D is uncertain, but like A /B could have extended as far asthe modern edge of the terrace. The location of the southern end of CID is also uncertain,but was presumably similar to that of A/B. It is conceivable therefore that A/B and C/D were similar in length.The three shaded areas shown on the published plan at the northern end of area Care not commented upon by Schulten (fig. 133). Their significance is thus uncertain, butthey could be disturbed walls associated with C.The 'T'-shaped feature shown on the published plan in the south-eastern part of Cis described by Schulten as being constructed of small stones and containing a faced'cooking pit' (1927b, 238; fig. 133). Exactly what Schulten found is not dear and unfortunatelythe feature is not shown in a large-scale plan or photograph. Perhaps it was related to someform of industrial activity, practised in what may have been a rear range of storage rooms /workshops of the type reconstructed at Pena Redonda for example (fig. 131).The same arguments presented above for the type of unit occupying barracks A/B can be applied to barracks C /D.BUILDING E/FThe remains marked on the published plan as E and F (fig. 132) are not discussed bySchulten, but his reconstruction plan of this area indicates that he believed they wereassociated with a barrack block with the same characteristics as his A to D (fig. 134). Thefeatures shown in the plan (fig. 132) do indeed seem to have similarities with those of Ato D and thus could be associated with the same type of building. Hence a similar revisedinterpretation from that of Schulten can be presented, with E and F being suggested asbeing parts of the same, north-south aligned barrack block. The detailed arrangements ofthis block are uncertain, though two-roomed contubernia, as in A/B and C/D, aresuggested by the form of area E. The remains suggest that the width of E/F was similarto A/B and C/D in being between about 7 and 8 m. The overall length of this block, likeA/B and C /D is not clear, but all were presumably similar and shared a near-commonalignment for their end-walls.The proposed block E/F was presumably one half of a pair, if it followed thesuggested pattern of A /B and CID. Due to the limited nature of the surviving evidenceto the east and west of E/F however, it is uncertain on which side the corresponding blockto E/F lay. It could have been to the east of E/F, since two short lengths of wall shown infig. 132 to the east and north-east of F would be in an appropriate position to bound a282

Chapter Four — Numantia, Molinosuitably-wide passageway between an eastern range and E/F and form the western sideof the eastern range. Supportive of regarding E/F as the western block of its pair is thatit would create a space between C /D and E/F for a further pair of blocks similar in widthto its neighbours (fig. 135). This reconstruction in fact shares much with that offered bySchulten (fig. 134). As with the conjectured eastern range to C /D, there is however no clearsurviving evidence to support the proposed pair of blocks between C /D and E /F, thoughthe large features to the north-west of F, not discussed by Schulten, could represent wallsof this pair which have been disturbed by ploughing (fig. 132).BUILDING GIn the southernmost area excavated was found a long rectangular building alignedapproximately east-west (fig. 132). The general character of the remains is suggestive ofa barrack block with a form similar to barracks A/13 to E/F. Schulten too interprets thebuilding as a barrack block (1927b, 235 f.).Sc_hulten believed that the surviving remains reflected the entire length of the block(1927b, 235). The nature of the walls at the western portion of what was excavated doindeed suggest that this could represent the western end. The location of the eastern endis less certain however. Schulten felt that the surviving eastern end of the long, nearcontinuous east-west wall represented the eastern end of the building, as it aligned withthe conjectured eastern side of building E/F (1927b, 235). The eastern limit of one may nothave aligned with the other however, since the position of the eastern side of the pair ofbarracks represented by E/F was further east than Schulten envisaged, and E/F and Gwere clearly on different alignments, suggesting that there need not be any directrelationship between the two. Consequently the position of the eastern end of G and hencethe overall length of the block should remain open. The surviving length of the east-westwall does however show that G was at least 74 m long.The length of the dividing walls between the contubernia suggests that fromSchulten's contubernia 3 eastwards, the building averaged about 8.0 m wide, but in areas1 and 2 it was narrower, being 6.2 m wide (fig. 133). Schulten explains this difference bysuggesting that areas 1 and 2 had to be shorter to prevent the street between A/C and Gfrom becoming impractically narrow (1927b, 236). This explanation may well be correct.Each contubernium was subdivided into two or more rooms. The plan suggests thatthe arrangement of these subdivisions was by paired contu bernia, with the pairs being 1/2,3/4 and 5/6 (fig. 133). The significance of this is uncertain, but perhaps represents howthe construction of the block was divided into work gangs. Contubernia 1 to 4 werecommon in that they each consisted of only two rooms and the east-west dimension ofeach was approximately 3.0 m. In contrast contubernia 5,6 and possibly 7 were divided intoat least three rooms each and their east-west dimension was 4.0 m. Contubernium 7 waswider still, being 4.4 m. It is not clear why this difference occurred. Since the overall lengthof building G is not known, the total number of contubernia is uncertain, but a minimumlength of 74 m for the block means that there could have been over twenty.283

Chapter Four — Nuinantia, MohnoSchulten does not discuss the features found inside the southern room of contuberniuin2, the northern room of 4 and the north-eastern room of 6 (fig. 133). Their significance isuncertain.The function of the length of wall shown shaded joining the northern wall ofcontubernium 1 is uncertain (fig. 133). This feature is not discussed by Schulten. Itpresumably represents a disturbed wall, but how it might relate to building G orconceivably even to A/C is not clear.Schulten interprets building G as a cavalry barrack block which faced north (1927b,235 f.). This seems primarily because he believes that the threefold division seen incon tubernia 5 to 7 was probably the normal arrangement for this building (1927b, 236; fig.134). The front area is regarded by Schulten as being an open courtyard, the middle oneas a stall for two horses and the rear one as the accommodation for the riders (1927b, 236;fig. 134). This interpretation can be questioned. The excavated evidence suggests that athreefold division of the contubernia was not the norm, since four of the seven areasuncovered, just over half, seem to have had only two rooms. In itself this need not excludeSchulten's interpretation of the block as being for cavalry, but also it does not prevent theblock being for infantry. Indeed, comparing this block to others at Numantia, the characteris more reminiscent of blocks interpreted for infantry than cavalry. It is unfortunate thatthere are no smallfinds reported as having come from the building, so this source ofevidence as a means of clarifying the nature of the troops that occupied the barracks isabsent.If building G is indeed an infantry block, the relative size of the rooms in each of thecontubernia and the straightness of the long east-west wall along the southern side of theremains imply that the block faced north, as also Schulten reconstructs it. This means thatG is unlikely to have been one of a pair of blocks, due to the character of barracks A/C toE/F and their location close to the north of G. This makes barrack G very unusualcompared to the barracks at the other sites around Numantia. Why it should have takenthis solitary form is not clear. It is unfortunate that what existed to the south of G is notknown, for this could help explain the form that G was given.STREETSThe location of none of the main internal streets of the camp is known. There waspresumably a street, albeit of uncertain overall course, between the southern end ofbarracks A/C to E/F and the northern side of G, to facilitate access to G.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTDue to the limited amount of building remains recovered by Schulten, little can beconcluded about the overall layout of the camp. The reconstruction proposed above forbarracks A/B to E/F indicates that a row of at least four double, back-to-back barrack284

Chapter Four — Numantia, Rawblocks existed in this part of the camp and the form of these barracks would be appropriatefor occupation by cohorts. To the south of this row seems to have been a single barrackblock, G, similar in character to the ranges of A/B to E/F and hence also occupied byinfantry. The seeming solitary nature of the block, i.e. not as part of a pair, means that itwas not occupied by a Cohort or at least not a cohort with a normal structure; the natureof the occupying unit is however not clear.SECOND *PHASE AT MOLINO?Blazquez and Corzo, in their survey of Republican camps in Spain, include an aerialphotograph of Molino supposedly showing a possible second phase of camp (Blazquezand Corzo 1986, 687, Abb. 6). The quality of the published photograph is however so poorthat it is not possible to make out the camp found by Schulten, let alone another one. Thereare no published references to this conjectured second site having been tested byexcavation. Its existence should consequently remain uncertain.RAZAINTRODUCTIONExcavation was carried out by Schulten (1927b, 231), but its extent or the position of thetrenches are not stated. The only published plan of the site is that included on Schulten'sgeneral topographical map of Numantia (fig. 20; shown in an enlarged form in fig. 136).Schulten's notebook entry for 16th September 1909 includes a detailed sketch plan of thenorthern entrance with its titulus, but this is the only detailed plan available for the site.The site is discussed only briefly by Schulten (1927b, 230 f.).DESCRIPTIONIt was possible to locate only one side of the camp, where the rampart could be traced for300 m (Schulten 19276, 230). This length of rampart could be identified as the eastern sideof the camp, because of tituli lying to the east of the rampart (Schulten 1927b, 230). Schultenoffers a reconstruction of the camp as being rectangular in shape and measuring 300 x 200m, with an area of 6 ha (1927b, 230; fig. 136). With the absence of evidence for all but theeastern side, this reconstruction must clearly remain entirely hypothetical, although thesurviving length of rampart does demonstrate that the camp was at least 300 m from northto south.285

Chapter Four — Numantia, RazaDEFENCESDITCHSchulten makes no comment about whether a ditch was recognised or looked for byexcavation, so the presence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTThe eastern rampart survived as a low ridge of stones (Schulten 1927b, 231). Schultendescribes the rampart as being constructed of two 0.3 m wide stone revetting walls eitherside of a stone and earth core, producing a rampart 2.85 m in width overall (1927b, 231).This descrirdon matches the sketch plan shown in Schulten's notebook entry for 16thSeptember 1909. It is consequently rather curious that Schulten should state that only onefacing wall survived (1927b, 231). Perhaps behind this is that Schulten felt the rampart wasslightly different in character from the rest of Scipio's siegeworks and thus may not belongto them, for he compares the remains of the rampart to those he found at Almazan, notto those elsewhere at Numantia (1927b, 231; below). Nevertheless Schulten includes Razaas part of Scipio's work.TOWERSSchulten makes no comment about the presence of towers, so presumably no suitableevidence was observed. Towers may consequently not have been constructed.ENTRANCESTwo entrances, both with a titulus, were found along the eastern rampart (Schulten 1927b,230; fig. 136). These lay 235 m apart, measured between the centrelines of each (Schulten1927b, 230). Each entrance was between 10 and 11 m wide (Schulten 1927b, 231). Therampart of both the tituli was 10 m long and the width of the southern one 2.6 m; it wasnot possible to establish the width of the northern one (Schulten 1927b, 231). The northerntitulus was 6.2 m from the camp rampart and the southern one, 3.7m (Schulten1927b, 231).INTERNAL FEATURESSchulten states that he excavated several trenches in the camp's interior, but found nobuilding remains or any pottery (1927b, 231); in his notebook Schulten records "Raza.Pottery is completely absent" (31st October 1906) and "Raza. Nothing found" (1stNovember 1906). He concludes from this, probably correctly, that the camp did notcontain stone buildings (1927b, 231).GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTSince no internal features were found, nothing can be concluded about the internal layoutof the camp other than that accommodation was probably in tents.286

Chapter Four - Numantia, DehesillaDEHESILLAINTRODUCTIONSchulten's 1907 interim report indicates that he excavated numerous trenches and thelocation of these included the highest part of the hill, but otherwise the nature of Schulten'sexcavations on the site is not clear (Schulten 190713, 478; 1927b, 226 f.). Schulten commentsthat much plough damage was encountered, with few remains being recovered in manyof the trenches (1907b, 478).DESCRIPTIONThe circuit of almost the entire rampart was visible on the surface (Schulten 1927b, 227).As a result the shape and area of the camp are known (fig. 137). The shape is irregular,although Schulten refers to it as an oval (1927b, 226). The small-scale and large-scale plans(figs 20 and 137) show discrepancies in the line of the north-eastern end of the camp, butpresumably the small-scale plan is just a simplification of what was seen. The shape of thecamp is doubtless due to the rampart following the contours of the hill, which would makemore practical sense than the theoretical rectangle being strictly adhered to. Schultengives the length of the camp as 640 m, the width as 310 m and the area as 14.6 ha (1927b,226).DEFENCESDITCHSchulten makes no comment about whether a ditch was recognised or looked for byexcavation, so the presence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTSchulten describes the rampart as consisting of a front and rear stone revetment to a stoneand earth core (1927b, 227). He states the width as being 4.0 m (1927b, 227). No plans orsections of the rampart are published to be able to re-assess the nature of the rampart.TOWERSThe presence or absence of towers is not commented upon by Schulten. It is consequentlynot known whether they existed.ENTRANCESA 6 m wide gap was visible along the western side of the rampart, approximately halfwayalong this side of the camp (1927b, 227; fig. 137). This is interpreted by Schulten as being287

Chapter Four — Numantia, Alto Realthe camp's western entrance (1927b, 227). From his lack of comment about it, presumablySchulten did not excavate in this area to check his theory or establish the details of theentrance's form. This gap may indeed have been the western entrance, but since it wasused by farmers as a field entrance (Schulten 1927b, 227) it could instead be a post-Romanfeature. The location of no other entrances was established.INTERNAL FEATURESSchulten excavated in several areas of the interior and found the remains of walls, whichin the 1907 interim report are stated to have included 3m square contubernia on the highestpart of the hill (Schulten 1907b, 478). Unfortunately, before these could be planned thelocal farmers broke them all up to remove the worked stones (Schuiten 1927b, 226 f.). Asa result Schulten was able to record only 'Roman walls' on his plan (1927b, 227; fig. 137).Consequently no details of the internal structures are now known.Schulten states that pottery, including amphorae, was found which was typical ofthe other Scipionic camps, but otherwise no smallfinds of any significance were recovered(190Th 478; 1927b, 227); no detailed comments are made about the pottery.THE INTER VALLUMSchulten comments that the intervallum was very distinct and was 9 to 10 m wide (1927b,227). With the limited nature of the published evidence, it is not possible to assess thevalidity of this statement.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNAL LAYOUTAll that can be concluded about the interior is that it contained stone buildings, but theirplan is now completely unknown.ALTO REALINTRODUCTIONThe location and extent of Schulten's excavations are not specified. They succeeded inrecovering only a few remains. The interpretation of these is less certain compared to theother sites at Numantia, though Schulten is probably correct in that they were associatedwith a camp involved with the Scipionic siege. Schulten attributes the paucity of remainsto the camp having been built badly and what was constructed having been damaged byploughing (1927b, 228).288

Chapter Four — Nunumtia, Alto RealDESCRIPTIONAcross the top of the hill Schulten found a 70 m long section of wall running north-westto south-east (1927b, 229; fig. 138). Schulten says that this was 1.5 - 2.0 m wide andconsisted of a single layer of stones (1927b, 229). He rejects it as being the southern rampartof a camp, as then its area would have been limited to just the topmost part of the hill andconsequently would have been unusually small (1927b, 229). The remains of the wallappeared to Schulten to reflect that it had been constructed in rather an irregular fashionand was not Roman in character (1927b, 229). He prefers to attribute this wall to aprehistoric settlement which is attested on the hill by pottery (1927b, 229). Schulten'srejection of the wall being Roman and the rampart of a camp is perhaps more because hefelt that such a relatively small installation would have been unlikely, rather than thewall's character really was 'not Roman'. From the published plan (fig. 138) and comparingthe remains with others around Numantia, they could conceivably have been a Romanrampart damaged by ploughing or robbing; this would account for the 'irregularcharacter' seen by Schulten. It is thus possible that these remains reflect the south-westernside of a camp.Schulten believes the northern side of the camp that he proposes existed here, isindicated by some terracing part-way down the slope of the hill (1927b, 229; fig. 20). Theeastern side is placed by Schulten partially along a modern footpath, which forms a slightterrace on the hillside (1927b, 229; fig. 20). The other sides of the camp are reconstructedby Schulten without recourse to any visible features. The conjectured outline forms acamp 300 m long and 200 m wide, with an area of 6 ha (Schulten 1927b, 229). SinceSchulten's design for the shape of the camp is based upon no identified Roman remainsobserved either by excavation or on the surface, it must be regarded as purely hypothetical.Even if the 70 m long wall is the south-western side of a camp, there is little evidence fromwhich to conclude its overall size or shape, so these must remain uncertain.DEFENCESDITCHSc_hulten makes no comment about whether a ditch was recognised or looked for byexcavation, so the presence of one is uncertain.RAMPARTIt is possible that the 70 m length of wall found by Schulten could be the south-westernrampart of a camp (above). Schulten states that this wall was 1.5 - 2.0 m wide (1927b, 229).The plan (fig. 138) suggests however that the remains are disturbed and possibly facedrevetting walls have been robbed, as occurs elsewhere in the camps around Numantia.The structure could consequently have been wider and with a slightly different form fromwhat Schulten envisaged.289

Chapter Four — Numantta, Alto RealTOWERSThe evidence presented in the published plan of the possible south-western rampart issuch that it would be unwise to conclude that towers were absent or present along thissection. There is no evidence for the other camp sides, so it is not possible to ascertainwhether or not towers were constructed.ENTRANCESNo entrances are known. Their form and location are consequently uncertain.INTERNAL FEATURESSchulten found the remains of several stone walls to the north of the conjectured southwesternrampart (fig. 138). Schulten suggests that four rooms were represented (fig. 138,a to d), with possibly the southernmost room actually being two (fig. 138, a and a'). Thereis no evidence in the published plan to suggest why room a should be proposed as beingtwo rooms and Schulten's reason for doing so seems merely to fit his idea that there werefive almost equal-sized rooms here (1927b, 228). Schulten has difficulty in accepting thatthe irregular line of some of the walls complies with them being Roman work and suggeststhat these structures may have been prehistoric ones re-used by Roman troops (1927b,229). He accepts nevertheless that they were in use during the Scipionic siege, because ofthe amount of Roman pottery found amongst them (1927b, 229). Since the prehistoricpottery dates to the Neolithic (1927b, 229) it seems highly unlikely that these structurescould date to this period, let alone be re-used by Roman troops. The poor line to some ofthe walls is probably better attributed to bad building and does not necessarily excludethem being Roman, particularly as similar irregularly constructed walls occurred at PeriaRedonda, and the general character of the walls at Alto Real is like those from the otherNumantine sites. The walls therefore could be associated with a camp. The remains arehowever too fragmentary to be able to suggest the type of military building(s) to whichthey belonged and hence little can be established about the internal layout of the camp.Schulten mentions that numerous irregular-shaped hollows were found cut into thesoft sandstone of the hill (1927b, 229), These are presumably the hachured areas shownon the plan (fig. 138). They contained little Roman material (Schulten 1927b, 229). Schultenoffers no interpretation for these features. They are perhaps natural features, the result ofpost-Roman robbing of walls or agricultural activity, but seem unlikely to be associatedwith the camp.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SITEThe character of the buildings and the explanation for the nature of the 'rampart' wouldsupport Schulten's idea that a camp existed at Alto Real. Unfortunately the smallfinds are290

cfriapter tour —Numantza, vegaof limited value in this respect. Schulten comments that much Roman pottery, includinga near-complete amphora, was found (1927b, 228 f.; notebook entries for 11th - 18thSeptember 1906), but does not provide any details. No military equipment is reported ashaving been found. With Schulten's better knowledge of the type of pottery recovered, hissuggested context for the remains at Alto Real as being a Scipionic siege camp could wellbe valid. Even if this view is correct however, little of the camp's layout and type ofgarrison can be established.VEGAINTRODUCTIONThe location and extent of Schulten's excavations are not specified. From the remains ofwalling and pottery recovered, Schulten concluded that an installation was built here byScipio to guard the area of the nearby confluence of the Duero and Tera (1927b, 240).Schulten's interpretation of the remains may be correct, but so little was uncovered by theexcavations, that really it is impossible to form any confident interpretation.DESCRIPTIONSince the position of defences is not known (below), the shape and size of the conjecturedcamp are uncertain. Schulten believes that the southern and eastern sides of the campwould have been close to the rivers Duero and Tera respectively (1927b, 240). This maybe correct, but since the ancient course of these rivers could have been different from theirmodern form, their present position should not be used without caution as beingindicative of the location of the defences.DEFENCESSchulten makes no comment about observing remains associated with defences, sopresumably this means that there were no surface indications and his excavation trenchesfailed to recover any appropriate remains. The location and form of any defences are thusnot known.INTERNAL FEATURESSchulten describes the internal features recovered as consisting of badly damaged lengthsof wall (1927b, 240; fig. 139, area A). No other details are provided except that in the area291

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesof these walls were found a millstone, a piluin head, an arrowhead or the tip of a pilutn,an amphora and Campanian pottery as well as Iberian, Hallstatt and Neolithic pottery(1927b, 240; notebook entries for 20th, 21st and 27th August 1906). The notebook entry for12th August 1906 also records finding coins, but no details are given. The published planof the remains is at such a small scale that it is not possible to establish the form of any ofthe buildings represented (fig. 139). Near to these remains, the modern footpath toTardesillas cut through a length of "well-constructed ancient wall" (Schulten 1927b, 240;fig. 139, area B). Schulten does not offer an interpretation for this wall, other than to includeit as part of the conjectured riverside installation.GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SITEThe finds and walls suggest that Schulten is correct in proposing that Vega was the siteof a military installation, and the pottery would be in keeping with Schulten's belief thatthe site was associated with the Scipionic siege. The layout and form of the installation arehowever not clear. Perhaps as Schulten suggests (1927b, 240), it was a fort guarding thenorthern side of the confluence and the western bank of the Tera.RELATING THE NUMANTINE SITES TO THEHISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THENUMANTINE WARSSchulten was very adept at linking the various camps to historically-derived events of theNumantine Wars. He also enlarged upon the available literary evidence, to proposegeneral army movements in the area. The result was to give a very convincing contextualinterpretation of the sites and provide quite a full picture of the Wars themselves.Needless to say, aspects of the interpretation are questionable, but in general much seemsplausible. In the following discussion, Schulten's historical contexts for each group of sitesare re-assessed using the information provided by Appian, the modern re-working of thecoin evidence (above, Chapter One) and the re-interpretation of the evidence on theground.THE CAMPS AT RENIEBLASIn formulating a date for Lager I, Schulten believes that since the archaeological evidenceshows it to pre-date Lager III, which he dates to 153 BC, Lager I can only date to the292

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitescampaigns of 195- 179 (1929, 37), i.e. pre-dating the main period of the Numantine Wars.Of this group of campaigns, Schulten suggests that only the campaign of 195 by Cato canbe appropriate for Lager I, since the activity of the following years could not haveextended as far as the Duero river. Cato's campaign of 195 would also be relevant for LagerI, so Schulten believed, as it would lie on a suitable route for his move from Segontia tothe Ebro and would be of a suitable size for the seven cohorts of Cato's force (1929, 37; Livy34.19.10). Schulten admits however that against this dating would be that Cato wouldhave used marching camps, without stone barracks. He counters this by saying that it isnot known how long Cato may have stayed near Numantia; i.e. it may have been longenough to warrant stone buildings.Schulten's association of Lager I with Cato is arguably very questionable. The onlyindication that Cato even went to Numantia is the title of one of his speeches, Numantiaeapud Equites (Malcovati 1955, Cato fragments 17 and 18). The exact context of the speechis however not clear (Astin 1978, 45 f.; Knapp 1980,43); the two short surviving sectionsare an exhortation to the cavalry, but say nothing about what happened or when. Thespeech may relate to an episode at Numantia in Cato's move from Segontia to the Ebro,but the exact route taken in this move is uncertain and one via Numantia is not the onlyone possible (Astin 1978, 46). Even if Cato did stay at Numantia on this march, his forcewould surely have been too small for an assault on the city to have been contemplated(Astin 1978, 46) and this area was anyway not hostile to Rome at the time (Knapp 1980,43). It is unlikely therefore that Cato spent much time at Numantia and so a tentedmarching camp rather than the stone-built Lager I would have been used. Alternatively,the speech could have been associated with unrecorded activities relating to the attempton Segontia, which was probably modern Siguenza, 80 km to the south of Numantia,(Astin 1978, 44). Since the main thrust was against Siguenza, however, activities atNumantia are likely to have beeen short-lived and not require a stone-built camp. Thereis consequently little evidence to support Schulten's association between Lager I andCato. There is however no evidence to be able to suggest an alternative historical contextpre-153 BC and so the attribution of this camp must remain uncertain.In dating Lager II, Schulten (1929, 40) regards it being between Lager I and LagerIII, i.e. he does not mention the possibility of Lager II being an annexe to III (above).Further, since Lager II displayed some similarities to Lager I, Schulten proposes that it isclose in date to Lager I (1929, 40). He goes so far as to suggest that it also dates to thecampaign of Cato and represents a stay lengthened beyond winter, which required asummer, tented camp (1929, 40). The similarities in style, particularly that of the thicknessof rampart and the form of the gateways, may indeed suggest that the two camps wereclose in date. But this closeness need not necessarily be specifically 194 BC for Lager II orbe as close as Schulten proposes, for the sequence as proposed by him seems highlyunlikely; Astin (1978, 46) also finds Schulten's sequence hard to accept. If an army hadgone to the lengths of constructing a stone winter camp, it would be a waste of effort todemolish it, merely to place a tented camp on top. Due to the absence of archaeological293

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesdating evidence from Lager II and the possibility that it could be an annexe to Lager III,the date of Lager II should probably be left open.Schulten dates Lager III to Nobilior, who Appian records spent the winter of 153 -152 BC encamped 24 stadia (4.44 km) from Numantia (Schulten 1929, 116 ff.; AppianSpanish Wars 47). Schulten argues this primarily on historical grounds. The context isindeed possible, since the general area of the camps at Renieblas would be the appropriatedistance from Numantia. All the camps at Renieblas would however fit the context ifmerely distance from Numantia was used as supporting evidence. In favour however ofspecifically Lager III being Nobilior's camp and supporting Schulten is the coin evidence.This suggests occupation was within the period 157 - 146 BC. The amphora stamp fromLager III would also agree with this period (above, Chapter One). Lager III would indeedbe appropriate for the size of Nobilior's army, since the camp can be reconstructed witha suitable size and its internal layout suggests occupation was by two legions with a largeallied contingent. Further, there is appropriate accommodation near to the western sideof Lager III for the ten elephants in Nobilior's army (above).Lager IV and V are felt by Schulten to be similar in form and consequently close indate. He proposes that Lager IV was the summer camp and Lager V the winteraccommodation for the same army, specifically that of Pompeius against Sertorius in 75/74 BC (1929, 144 and 182; above, Chapter One). Schulten also mentions the possibility thatLager IV and V were associated with Scipio, as it was proposed by Fabricius thoughwithout any firm supporting evidence (Fabricius 1911, 379 ff.; Schulten 1929, 183).Fabricius suggested that Lager IV could have been occupied during the summer of 134 BC,the year prior to the siege of Numantia, with Lager V being one of the large camps builtbehind the circumvallation in 133. Schulten totally discounts this dating for the twocamps. He does not discuss why Lager IV should be excluded from this possibility. LagerV is rejected primarily because he felt it would have been far too large, and besides, he hadfound all the necessary camps around Numantia itself (1929, 183). Curiously Lager V isrejected not because of the archaeological dating evidence in the form of the pottery andcoins from Lager V. This may be an indication of the degree of confidence Schulten placedupon it.Schulten could however be correct in rejecting an association between Scipio andLager V, as a re-interpretation of the coin evidence suggests that Lager V, although datableto the 130s, could pre-date Scipio (above, Chapter One). A possible context in the 130sprior to Scipio for Lager V is Mancinus. For 137 BC Appian states that Mancinus retreated"to a desert place where Nobilior once had his camp" (Spanish Wars 80; Loeb translation);this retreat was probably from very near Numantia. The "desert place" consequentlycould have been Renieblas. The impression from what Appian says, is that the army couldhave stayed for some time in the area to which it had retreated, for not only did Mancinusspend time negotiating with the Numantians, but Aemilius Lepidus, who relievedMancinus, is described as becoming tired of idleness while awaiting instructions fromRome (Spanish Wars 80). Lager V could consequently have been constructed by the armyinitially under the command of Mancinus and then Aemilius.294

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesThe alternative date for Lager V clearly effects the dating of Lager IV. The similaritiesbetween Lager IV and V are not as obvious as Schulten implies and a close relationshipbetween the two may not be true. Lager IV could thus have been some years, rather thanmonths, earlier than Lager V. How many years earlier is however not clear other than thatit was later than Lager III. The dating of Lager IV is consequently uncertain, but it can beplaced in the 140s or 130s BC, the period between Lager III and Lager V. Perhaps it wasassociated with Pompeius who started operating against the Numantians in 142 (AppianSpanish Wars 76). Appian is vague about the location of Pompeius' camp, but it was clearlyin the vicinity of Numantia (Spanish Wars 76), and Lager IV would be a suitable locationfor the type of open operations of Pompeius described by Appian. The siege of Numantiaby Pompeius in 140 BC, referred to by Appian (Spanish Wars 78; above, Chapter One) andwhich included digging a ditch, for which there is no known archaeological evidence,occurred after a period away from the area. A possible course of events is that Lager IVwas abandoned when the army moved against the Termantines in 141, and when itreturned to conduct its siege of Numantia it occupied a more suitable, closer position toNumantia, such as possibly Castillejo (below).The dating of Lager VI is uncertain as no coin evidence is known from this area, butthe suggested stratigraphical relationship with Lager III means that it is later than III. Theform that can be suggested for the barrack blocks of Lager VI and the construction methodused for the rampart, however, are very similar to those associated with Scipio aroundNumarttia, as Schulten himself observes (1929, 111; below). The irregular shape and sizeof Lager VI are also reminiscent of Pena Redonda, datable to Scipio (below).Scipio arrived in the area of Numantia in 134 BC and went into winter quarters atthe end of that year's operations, "near" (Ctyxoii) to Numantia (Appian Spanish Wars 87 to90). It is possible that Lager VI could have been Scipio's hiberna of 134/133 BC. The hibernareferred to by Appian is probably not one of those placed close to Numantia and formingpart of the siege works. These are more in agreement with Appian's statement (SpanishWars 90) that Scipio moved his camp "very near" (Ccyxot&no) to Numantia (in 133 BC) andthen began constructing the siegeworks (below). Spending the winter at Renieblas wouldbe appropriate for the observation of Numantia, the skirmishing and the foraging in thelocality that Appian describes (Spanish Wars 87 ff.). Indeed it would have been a generallyideal location from which to plan the forthcoming siege and from which to advance theshort distance to occupy the siege positions. It is possible therefore that Lager VI can beassociated with Scipio and dated to 134/133 BC.The absolute dating of Lager VII is uncertain. Since however the archaeologysuggests that Lager VII may be earlier than Lager IV, and Lager IV is earlier than LagerIII, the proposed dating of Lager III would mean that Lager VII dates to the 130s BC at thelatest. Perhaps it can be associated with Metellus in 143 BC, though there is littlesupporting evidence for this. The implication of Appian (Spanish Wars 76) is that he carriedout operations against Numantia, but the nature of these is not clear.295

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesTHE CAMPS AROUND NUMANTIACASTILLEJOSchulten concluded that since there was no known Roman military activity at Numantiaafter the successful siege of Scipio, the Black Phase must date to that siege (19276, 171). Forthe dates of the other two phases, Schulten believes that only the periods of Marcellus (152BC) and Pompeius (142 - 140 BC) can be considered and they are accordingly attributedby him to the Blue and Red Phases respectively (19276, 172). Schulten (19276, 172)probably quite correctly rejects Nobilior as being involved with the first phase, since theevidence favours him being at Lager III. Schulten accepts Marcellus for the earliest phase,as Appian (Spanish Wars 50) states that he encamped five stadia (925 m) from Numantia.This distance could well agree with a camp at Castillejo, which lies 1300 m from Numantia.So too however would the camp at Raza, which lies 1400 m from Nuinantia. Schulten doesnot consider this possibility, presumably because he includes Raza within the Scipionicsiege, but this can be questioned (below).Schulten may be correct in associating the earliest phase at Castillejo with Marcellus.The period of some of the coins from Castillejo, combined with their heavy weight (above,Chapter One), do not openly conflict with occupation as early as Marcellus. It isunfortunate that no coins were found at Raza, so there is no dating evidence todemonstrate that this site should be favoured over Castillejo for Marcellus' camp.If Raza is however accepted as the site of Marcellus' camp, there is no problem infinding three historical contexts for the three phases at Castillejo. Metellus probablyoperated against Numantia in 143, Pompeius encamped there in 142 and besieged the cityover the winter of 140/139, Mancinus fought against Numantia in 137 and finally Scipiosuccessfully besieged the city in 133 (Appian Spanish Wars 76 ff.). The known course of theScipionic circumvallation leads towards Castillejo (fig. 20) and therefore one of the phasesthere can be fairly confidently associated with Scipio, as Schulten proposes. Schulten isprobably also correct in believing that Scipio's occupation is probably the last (Black)phase that was found, since there is little dating evidence to suggest later military activity(only two coins from the post-Scipionic period are known, one dating to 27 BC and oneto 351-352 AD; Hildebrandt 1979, 246). For the earlier two phases (Blue and Red) there areconsequently the possible contexts of Metellus, two of Pompeius and one of Mancinus.The nature of the evidence is too imprecise to make a reliable selection from thesepossibilities. Schulten could however be correct in placing Pompeius at Castillejo, thoughnot in the Red Phase. The description by Appian of Pompeius' campaign of 140 can belinked with the archaeological evidence of the Blue Phase (below). If this is accepted, itmeans that the Red Phase would be associated with Mancinus, since he was the last tooperate at Numantia before Scipio.It is always hazardous tying archaeological evidence to events for which there isliterary evidence, but in Appian's description of the various campaigns against Numantiahis account of Pompeius' activities in 140 BC seems to agree with the suggestedinterpretation of what was found for the Blue Phase at Castillejo:296

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesPompeius, being ashamed of his disasters, and desiring to wipe out thedisgrace, remained in camp in the winter time with these raw recruits. Thesoldiers, being exposed to severe cold without shelter, and unaccustomed tothe water and climate of the country, fell sick with dysentry and some died....Pompeius, having met with so many mis-fortunes, marched away with hissenatorial council to the towns to spend the rest of the winter...(Appian Spanish Wars 78 - 79; Loeb translation)This passage implies that proper buildings were not constructed and that tents wereused. Perhaps Pompeius stayed on at Numantia into the winter in the hope that he couldredress the defeats of the summer quite quickly and without having to spend the wholeof the winter in camp. Hence proper buildings were not constructed. With such coldwinter conditions it would be only natural that the troops would have taken the initiativeto adapt their tents to increase the level of insulation as best they could. Building low wallsand possibly placing thatch on the roofs would have been an obvious measure to havetaken. Pompeius paid the price of this risk from the effects of the weather, but matters weremade worse by a further defeat in battle. This defeat seems to have tipped the balance andPompeius abandoned the operation.TRAVESADASThe presence of the circumvallation along the western side of this camp supports Schultenassociating this site with the Scipionic siege. The coin evidence from Travesadas is also inkeeping with this.VALDEVORRONSchulten associates this camp with the Scipionic siege. There is no direct evidence for thisin the form of the surviving nearby lengths of circumvallation, as this was not found inthe area. The coins however support this association, as does the pottery, according toSchulten (1927b, 221).SALEDILLAThe context given by Schulten for the barrack block found at Saledilla is within a guardpost established by Scipio after the siege to watch over the conquered city (19276, 242).Schulten does not directly say on what he bases this conclusion, but it is presumablybecause he regarded the barrack block as being an isolated one, i.e. not part of a largercamp, and it cannot be associated with the siege itself, since he reconstructed the line ofthe circumvaLlation much further south and east (fig. 20). It can be suggested however thatwhat was located here was in fact another of the Scipionic siege camps. All that was foundof this camp however was a barrack block and possibly part of its western rampart, if theclay and limestone wall excavated by building B can be accepted in this context. Bythemselves, such remains may seem too few to proffer an interpretation of beingassociated with a camp, but the same relative quantity of material and even less is usedby Schulten to propose camps at Valdevorron, Alto Real and Vega.297

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesIn support of placing a camp at Saledilla is the line of the circumvallation projectingnorthwards from Pefia Redonda (fig. 20). This runs down the ridge of a spur towards theMerdancho. At this point Schulten reconstructs the circumvallation as turning east andtaking a long route round to Valdevorron (fig. 20). There is however no archaeologicalevidence to support this route. A more direct route to Valdevorron, via Saledilla can besuggested. Immediately to the north of the spur running down from Peria Redonda, onthe other side of the river, is a similar spur. It would have been appropriate to continuethe circumvallation up this spur, as the two spurs funnel the width of the river valley atthis point. Consequently placing the circumvallation on both spurs would be a veryconvenient way of restricting movement along the valley. The circumvallation could thencontinue northwards along the ridge of the Saledilla hill, for which the conjecturedlimestone rampart would be appropriately situated to be part of it. This strategicallystrong location for the circumvallation could be maintained by having it run north closeto the 1050 m contour line and then turning east along a slight ridge to the camp atValdevorron (fig. 20). One advantage of this route over Schulten's is that it is slightlyshorter. More importantly it would be more efficient at blocking movement along theMerdancho. This aspect would be strengthened by a camp at Saledilla and indeed a campat Saledilla would be needed to rectify weaknesses of Pefia Redonda. Schulten commentsthat the Saledilla hill dominates this part of the valley with good views along it (Schulten1931, 104) and so troops stationed in the camp would be well positioned to observemovement along the valley. Further, they could easily descend into the river valley ifrequired. In contrast, Pena Redonda lacks good views eastwards along the valley andtroops in Pella Redonda would be less able to respond quickly to danger in the valley, asdirect routes down from the camp would be too steep.Unfortunately no coins are reported from Saledilla, so such potentially supportivedating evidence for the suggested interpretation of the site is lacking.PES1A REDONDAThe proximity of the circumvallation to Pena Redonda and coin evidence supportSchulten associating the camp with the Scipionic siege.MOLINOThe course of the circumvallation near to the north of Molino and coin evidence supportSchulten associating the camp with the Scipionic siege.RAZASchulten includes the camp at Raza as part of Scipio's siegeworks, but there is evidenceto suggest that it should instead be placed in an earlier period. Unfortunately anydiscussion of the site's date cannot make use of coin evidence, since none is reported fromRaza.298

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesThe absence of internal stone buildings and pottery make this site unique of thoseexcavated by Schulten around Numantia. It is unlikely that their absence is due to erosionor disturbance by ploughing, since the eastern rampart survived so well. Accommodationcan consequently be suggested as having been in tents. It is unlikely that just one ofScipio's camps should not have had buildings erected inside it. Perhaps therefore this sitewas not part of Scipio's siegeworks. Instead it could have been a relatively short-occupiedsummer camp of the Numantine Wars prior to Scipio's siege; for the troops to havewithstood the rigours of the winter in this area, tented accommodation would have beenimpractical and so the absence of buildings within the camp probably exclude it fromhaving been occupied over the winter, unless it was the camp unwisely occupied into thewinter by Pompeius (above). Interpreting the site as a summer marching camp would alsofit with the absence of pottery.Of the known campaigns against Numantia prior to that of Scipio, the historicalevidence causes some to be rejected as a context for Raza, but three are possible.Occupation by Nobilior is unlikely as the site is only 1.4 km from Numantia, not the 4.44km (24 stadia) attested for Nobilior's camp in Appian (above). The earliest possible contextis seemingly Marcellus' assault on Numantia in 152, for Appian suggests it was a briefevent and certainly did not extend over a winter (Spanish Wars 50). The distance of about1.4 km of Raza from Numantia is also not that different to the 5 stadia (0.925 km) thatAppian states was the distance of Marcellus' camp from Numantia (Spanish Wars 50). Thesiege by Pompeius between 141 and 140 is a possible context, as the absence of buildingsat Raza would account for the disasters Pompeius suffered during the winter; the BluePhase at Castillejo is also a possible site for this event (above). The third possible historicalcontext is the first camp occupied by Hostilius during his confrontation with theNumantines in 137, for he was in it at some point during the summer (Appian SpanishWars 80). Of the three possible contexts, the similarities of the distance of Raza toNumantia and that specified by Appian for Marcellus' camp make this the most attractive.This should however be accepted with caution as the distances of Pompeius' andHostilius' camps are not known and may too have been about one kilometre from the city.Placing Raza outside the context of Scipio's siege perhaps explains why Schultenfound no trace of the circumvallation in the area of the camp at Raza (Schulten 1927b, 231).The line of the circuirwallation shown on the published plan is entirely conjecturalbetween the camps at Pena Redonda and Molino (fig. 20). Perhaps it lay further north,running directly from Peria Redonda to Molino near to the edge of the lower terrace of theMerdancho, as indeed considered, but rejected by Schulten (1927b, 230; fig. 20). EvenSchulten seems to have had some doubts about Raza being part of Scipio's siegeworks,for he takes trouble to reject the idea that it could have been earlier, possibly attributableto Pompeius (1927b, 230). He rejects this because Raza lies exactly halfway between PetiaRedonda and Dehesilla and hence would be part of Scipio's siegeworks (1927b, 230). Suchan argument is weak for it does not take into account the site at Molino between Raza andDehesilla and the distance between all the camps is in fact irregular.299

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesPlacing Raza in the context of Scipio's siege is consequently questionable. Morelikely is that it was associated with an earlier phase of the Numantine Wars, possiblyassociated with Marcellus, Pompeius or Hostilius.DEHESILLASchulten's association of Dehesilla with the Scipionic siege is supported by the proximityof the circumvallation to the eastern rampart (fig. 137). Unfortunately there is nocorroborative coin evidence, as none was recovered from the site. The pottery, however,supports interpreting Dehesilla as a Scipionic camp, as Schulten implies it was similar toother Scipionic sites (1927b, 227), as indeed was the character of the walls at Dehesilla(Schulten 1927b, 227).ALTO REALSchulten's interpretation that a Scipionic camp was placed at Alto Real is supported by thecourse of the circumvallation to the south. The material from the site is however not totallyconclusive, though the character of the buildings is similar to other Scipionic camps. Thereare unfortunately no coins from the site and Schul ten is vague as to the exact character ofthe Roman pottery found.VEGAThe finds from Vega are in keeping with Schulten placing a Scipionic camp here, thoughwith so little material from the site, this should be accepted only with caution. There isunfortunately no coin evidence from the site and no corroborative support from thecircumvallation, as it could not be traced to the north-west of Numantia.THE SITES RELATING TO THE SCIPIONIC SIEGEIt is suggested above that after Scipio trained his army, and "moved his camp near toNumantia" (Appian Spanish Wars 87; Loeb translation), the camp referred to was LagerVI. From here, over the winter of 134/133, he could have observed Numantia and plannedthe siege in the manner described by Appian (Spanish Wars 87 ff.; above, Chapter One).The next stage of operations was to pitch two camps (atpat67ts5a) "very near"(6.yxotato)) to Numantia (Appian Spanish Wars 90; above, Chapter One). Appian does notstate where these two initial camps were in relation to the city, nor what was meant by"very near". All that can be concluded is that they were presumably closer than the campestablished dining the previous year which is described as being only "near" (Cryxot)) tothe city. The construction of these two camps was followed by seven forts (4)poiT tot)around the city (Appian Spanish Wars 90; above, Chapter One). Appian gives no indicationof where the forts lay.300

Chapter Four — The dating of the sitesSchulten believed that the two camps were temporary installations situatedsomewhere near to Castillejo and Pena Redonda, but not actually represented by theremains found at these sites (1927b, 17). These remains, he believes, represent two of theseven forts built by Scipio and to which the troops in the two camps would have moved(1927b, 17). This view is based upon Schulten rejecting the idea that by Appian firstmentioning two camps and then seven forts he meant two camps were built first and thenseven forts, with all nine installations being in use together (1927b, 19 f.). This rejection bySchulten rests mainly on the idea that camps were self-standing installations and couldnot be part of siege operations (1927b, 19). Hence he concludes that Appian did not meanthat seven forts were added to two camps, but that the seven forts replaced the camps(1927b, 20). These seven forts are regarded as being represented by the remains found atCastillejo, Travesadas, Valdevorron, Pefia Redonda, Raza, Dehesilla and Alto Real (fig.20). In addition Schulten has two Uferkastelle, at Molino and Vega (fig. 20).Schulten's interpretation of Appian can be questioned. There seems no good reasonto reject the sense of Appian's text as meaning that seven forts were added to two camps.This is the sort of detail typical of Polybius, which is Appian's likely source, andconsequently can probably be accepted as reliable. As a result, the presence of nineScipionic sites around Numantia can be presumed, and all in use at the same time. Apossible set is Castillejo, Travesadas, Valdevorron, Saledilla, Pena Redonda, Molino,Dehesilla, Vega and Alto Real (fig. 20), though which were the camps and which the fortsis not clear. This list clearly overlaps with that of Schulten. Saledilla is not included inSchulten's list, as he does not consider this to be the site of a camp or fort; this view ishowever questionable (above). Raza is excluded from the alternative list as there isreasonable evidence to suggest that this is better associated with an earlier campaign(above). In the alternative list, Molino and Vega are 'upgraded' from Schulten's Uferkastelle.They may indeed have been forts guarding the river, but giving them a differentcategory, i.e. Uferkastell as opposed to simply Kas tell, as Sc_hulten does, seems unnecessary;he may have been obliged to 'reclass' them, for with his idea that there were only seveninstallations around Numantia and not nine, he had too many sites and so needed a devicein effect to exclude them from Appian's seven forts.The route of the circumvallation was partially established by Schulten (1927b, 70 ff.).Where it could not be found, he suggested a reconstruction (fig. 20). With the abovesuggestion of there being an installation at Saledilla, Schulten's reconstructed line of thecircumvallation between Valdevorron and Petia Redonda is no longer tenable and a morewesterly route is required (above; fig. 20). The re-dating of Raza to an earlier campaignmeans that Schulten's reconstructed line for the circumvallation between Pena Redondaand Molino also needs revising (above; fig. 20). To the north of Vega, Schulten proposesa route which hugs the river right up to the site at Castillejo (fig. 20). This may be correct,but the course of the river in this area need not reflect the course at the time of the siege.A possible alternative route here is that the circumvallation crossed the river further souththan Schulten proposes, so that it could take advantage of the stronger position on theridges running to the south-west of Castillejo (fig. 20).301

CONCLUSIONAt the outset of this thesis it was argued that Polybius was vital as an aid in understandingthe nature of the Roman armies and their camps at Numantia. The discussion of Polybiushowever raised a number of questions about the text itself and consequently what itslimitations might be in respect to Numantia. As regards the degree of Polybius' reliability,it was concluded that the text was probably trustworthy, since there was good evidenceto suggest that its source was a tribune's commentarius. The period described by Polybiusin Book 6 is more speculative, but comments within the text itself indicate that it was notcontemporary with the time the digression was written, probably in the 160s BC (Rawson1971). Exactly when before this period it was written is not clear. It can however besuggested that what is being described dates to c. 216 BC, since the army described is afour-legion, double-consular one, and literary evidence suggests that such armies ceasedbeing the usual form of army from the early part of the Second Punic War, plus alsoPolybius' digression occurs in his History at this part of the War. As a result, the conclusionis that Polybius' digression uses material which dates to a period approximately sixtyyears before the Numantine Wars and describes a size of army no longer commonly in useby then. Despite this, it can be claimed that many elements described by Polybius wouldstill have been in use at Numantia and certainly for a large part of the Numantine Wars,for arguably the essential change during the Second Punic War was just the normal sizeof battle groups, not their internal organisation; it was not until the move to cohorts,suggested here as occurring during the second half of the second century BC, and onlybeing evident at Numantia for the sites dating to the latter part of the Wars, that Polybiusloses any real value.Polybius consequently provides important information about the internal structureof the army in use for much of the Numantine Wars. He cannot be used alone however,for other literary evidence has to be employed, for example, to clarify the Latin terminologyof the components of the army, since it is apparent that Polybius does not just usetransliterated forms of the Latin terms, but also appropriate Greek words. The sameliterary sources also provide useful corroboration of Polybius in general.From this combined literary evidence it can be proposed that each of the four legionsof the double-consular army usually consisted of approximately 4,200 infantry. Most of302

Conclusionthese were heavy infantry, and organised as ten maniples each of hastati, principes andtriarii, with the maniples of hastati and principes each containing 120 men and those of thetriarii 60 men. Each maniple comprised two centuries, commanded by two centurions andone of these had overall command of the maniple. The legion also had a complement oflight infantry, the velites. The number of these is not stated in the sources, but can beproposed by deducting the number of heavy infantry from the known overall size of thelegion, to result in there correspondingly being 1200 velites per legion. Polybius impliesthe velites were attached to the maniples, but it is not exactly dear how this was done,though Polybius can be interpreted to mean that they were distributed proportionally.Hence it can be suggested there were 48 velites per maniple of hastati and principes and 24per maniple of triarii.The four legions were accompanied by 1200 Roman cavalry divided into fourgroups of 300. Each group was composed of ten turmae, with 30 men in each. A turma wassubdivided into three decuriae, commanded by decurions, with one decurion havingoverall command of the turma.The Roman troops were accompanied by two allied alae. Unlike for the legions,Polybius gives very limited information about their organisation, and essentially givesjust the size of the allied complement of cavalry and infantry and the proportion of eachthat formed an elite unit, the delecti extraordinarii. Since however similar terminology forthe citizen and allied troops is used by Polybius and other sources, it can be proposed thattheir organisation was similar, i.e. infantry organised as different types of maniple andcavalry divided into turmae. Part of the delecti extraordinarii is said by Polybius to form abodyguard to the consul and quaestor. The size of this bodyguard is not however given.It is suggested here that the consul and quaestor each had a maniple of hastati, principesand triarii plus one turma.The command of each legion, from the evidence of Polybius, was quite clearly by sixtribunes. Polybius states that the allies were commanded by 12 praefecti sociorum. Thisnumber has been suggested by some scholars as being wrong and Polybius should havesaid 24. In can be argued, however, that Polybius is correct and what was being describedwas that there were six praefecti per ala and in this sense the ala corresponded to a legionas being a 'major unit'. The doubt expressed about Polybius' figure seems to derive fromerroneously seeing a legion as having part of the allies attached to it, rather than simplythe allies consisting of two alae. This view results in four allied 'units' and hence thesupposed requirement for 4 x 6 praefect-i sociorum.Polybius provides some comments on how this double-consular manipular armydiffered from the army of his own day, but the amount of information still leaves questionsabout how the Numantine armies compared with the army of Polybius' digression. Thesituation is complicated by it being known from other literary evidence that there was atransition from manipular- to cohort-organised legions sometime between the end of thethird and the mid-first century BC. The nature of the change to cohorts is basically clear,even Polybius mentions it (11.23.1). It involved amalgamating a maniple of hastati,303

Conclusionprincipes and triarii to form a cohort. The reason for the change is not clear, but could havebeen to provide larger and fewer subdivisions of the legion. The evidence can beinterpreted to suggest that this occurred potentially first in Spain, to meet new tacticalrequirements including dispersed operations against guerilla tactics. It can also besuggested that the form of the change may have been inspired by the way the alliedinfantry was organised in the manipular army; by combining the evidence of Polybius andfrom Nurrtantia, 'cohorts' (meaning literally an enclosure) consisting of groups of one ofeach type of allied infantry maniple can be suggested as existing at least in camp.The fate of the velites in the change to the cohort is uncertain. It is suggested here thatthey were upgraded to heavy infantry and amalgamated into the cohort. This could havebeen facilitated by changes in the laws (most notably the Gracchan laws of 133 and 123)which allowed poorer groups to serve and for the state to equip them. Also suggested hereis that growing professionalism in the army during the second century caused an increasein the number of older troops. This in turn could have increased the size of the triariimaniples from the Polybian 60 to 120, to match those of the hastati and principes. The resultof this is that the size of cohorts was initially not 300(120 hastati + 120 principes + 60 triarii),but 360 (120 hastati + 120 principes + 120 triarii). The larger size would have had thebeneficial effect of having equal-sized maniples/centuries within each cohort, making itmore homogeneous and tactically effective. The cohorts may have been even larger than360 men, if the former velites were indeed incorporated into them. An equal distributionof the velites would have resulted in 120 being added to each cohort, making a totalcomplement of 480. It is perhaps no mere coincidence that this is the size of cohortsattested in the Empire. Hence it can be suggested that the origin of the Imperial cohort sizemay stem from the second century BC 'cohort reform'. Hence also the origin of theImperial century size of 80 may also have occurred at this time, with the additional 20' velites' to the 60 in each former imanipillar' century (assuming an increased triarii centurysize from the Polybian 30 to 60).The chronology of the transition to cohorts is however less certain than theorganisational changes involved. It is suggested here as occurring during the second halfof the second century, and first in Spain. The perceived advantages of it in Spain thenperhaps caused it to spread to other areas by the end of the century, with the final movefrom maniples occurring during the Jugurthine War, which is the last attested use ofmaniples. If this proposed chronology is accepted, it means that both manipular andcohort armies and camps could occur in the context of Numantia. Indeed the revisedinterpretation of the Numantine camps presented in Chapter Four reflects this, with LagerIII which may well date to 153, having quite a clear manipuLar plan and the Scipionic sitesof 134/133 being more suited to a cohort-based layout.There has been much- discussion about the nature of the camp described byPolybius. It is concluded here that Polybius describes the theoretical layout of one half ofa double-consular camp for four legions and allies. It is also assumed that there is nothingspecial about the layout of camp described, since Polybius states that "one simple plan of304

Conclusioncamp [was] adopted at all times and in all places" (6.26.10). If this concept of consistencyof plan is extended to tented marching camps and timber- or stone-built hibernae, it canbe argued that the layout of both would essentially have been the same. This indeed wouldhave made perfect practical sense, if only to avoid confusion within the army, and thereis no obvious reason why the layout of the two types of installation should have beendifferent.The double-consular type of camp clearly however could not have been the usualform by the time that Polybius wrote, for he and other sources show that single-consular,two-legion armies were the norm after the Second Punic War, and indeed the usual formof army involved in the Numantine Wars. The layout of the single-consular camp isunfortunately uncertain, as Polybius provides few clues about it and how it differed fromthe larger, double-consular camp. Consequently in Polybius there is immediately theproblem of not knowing how much of his four-legion camp can be used as a basis forestablishing the theoretical form of the two-legion one and hence what might be expectedat Numantia. Despite this, much can be proposed about the theoretical form of the twolegioncamp, since Polybius implies that the four-legion camp formed the basis of thesmaller two-legion one. One sentence (6.32.8) in particular can be interpreted to mean thatPolybius states the major difference between the two types of camp. The significance ofthis sentence has however been the subject of much debate, though much of this arguablyrests on creating unnecessary difficulties in the mind of the modern reader. Theinterpretation favoured here for the sentence results in the two-legion camp beingbasically half the four-legion form with the only real modification being that the forum,praetorium and quaestorium were between the two legions instead of at one end of them.Consequently, much of the layout of the maniples and turmae referred to by Polybiusduring his description of the four-legion camp can be assumed to have applied to the twolegioncamp and hence also occur at Nurnantia (as it indeed does at Lager III and perhapsalso the Red Phase of Castillejo).Polybius indicates quite clearly that the camp was laid out on a rectilinear grid. Thedimensions given by Polybius strongly suggest that the grid was based on multiples of50 feet. The 'feet' are usually assumed by scholars to be Roman feet. It is argued here,however, that Polybius used Greek and not Roman feet. Hence it is proposed that the gridused multiples of 60 Roman feet (60 Roman feet =50 Greek feet). In turn this can besuggested as deriving from the agricultural and civil surveying unit of the actus quad ratusof 120 Roman feet square.In his description of the camp, Polybius in effect just indicates the relative positionof units and administrative areas within the grid and provides few details of how each'square' of the grid was arranged. There is also uncertainty about even the general layoutof some parts of the camp, particularly the allied areas. Such absence of information issuggested as being commensurate with the source being a tribune's commentarius, inwhich many of the details and the arrangement of the allied areas would be largelyirrelevant.305

ConclusionIn order to create a reconstruction of the Polybian camp and partially clarify theareas of uncertainty, recourse can be made to other literary sources and the remains atNumantia. This in turn creates a close inter-relationship between Polybius and Numantiaas regards understanding them.Almost no information is provided by Polybius about the forum, praetorium andquaestorium. Only the size of the praetorium is given and Polybius states that theforum andquaestorium were on either side of it, though it is not clear which was on which side. Thereis unfortunately little reliable evidence for these areas from Numantia, for althoughSchulten interprets a number of structures in this way, such an interpretation is eitherhighly questionable or too few remains are known for a reconstruction to be of value. Evenif the revised interpretation of the 'villa' at Petia Redonda as being associated with thepraetorium is accepted, too little is known about its layout for anything conclusive to beestablished about its overall plan. A reconstruction of the theoretical form of the Polybianand Numantine forum, praetorium and quaestorium is however possible by combiningliterary sources, primarily De Metatione Castrorum, the practices of augury andretrospectively applying archaeological evidence from Imperial principia and praetoria.Hence the praetorium can be suggested as containing not only accommodation forthe consul and his staff, but also religious areas associated with augury. The forum wasessentially an open meeting area, but also had tabernae around it. Part of the function ofthe forum was for the troops to assemble in it to witness the auspices being taken. As aresult the forum would have been located on the side of the praetorium by the auguratorium.This idea can be extended to present a theory for the origin and development of theImperial praetorium and principia out of the 'Polybian' praetorium and forum, with theprincipb suggested as being an amalgamation of the forum and religious areas of thepraetorium, itself now limited to just being accommodation for the commanding officerand his staff.The importance given to the direction faced by the praetorium because of itsassociations with augury can be used to suggest that the front of the camp was the sameas that faced by the praetorium. Consequently this would have been at right-angles to thelong axis of the four-legion camp, to the side of the praetorium where the forum lay. Thisconclusion is contrary to accepted interpretation, which uses Polybius' location of thefront by the tenth maniples. It is suggested here that Polybius' front and rear are his termsand are used simply for convenience to refer to the sides of just half the four-legion camp;hence his 'rear' of the camp lies where the two halves of the camp join and not at the truerear of the whole camp.When the forum, praetorium and quaestorium moved between the legions to form thetwo-legion camp it can be suggested that the relative order and orientation of these areasremained, and the two legions in effect were rotated around them by 90 degrees. This hasthe result of the tenth maniples moving from a side position in the four-legion camp, tothe rear of the two-legion camp. Hence only now does the porta decumana acquire itsattested position of being at the rear of the camp; related to this it can be suggested that306

Conclusionthe reason for the porta decumana being the exit for the condemned was not because it layat the rear of the camp, but because the route to it from the tribunal meant passing throughthe body of the army, both in the four- and two-legion camp. The move of the legionswould also have involved the via principalis moving from down the side of the forum,praetorium and quaestorium to run along the front of the forum and intersect there with thevia praetoria. The introduction of the two-legion camp in the late third century canconsequently be proposed as forming the origin of the 'T'-shaped intersection of the viapraetoria and via principalis, so typical in fortresses and forts of the Empire. In contrast, inthe four-legion camp the via praetoria could have been the street that linked the twopraetoria and did not in fact touch the via principalis. Other significant changes in layoutfrom the four-legion scheme were that the location of the delecti extraordinarii and evocatiforming the consul's and quaestor's bodyguard moved down either side of the forum,praetorium and quaestorium, and the quarters of the tribunes' and praefecti sociorum nowfaced the praetorium across the via principalis rather than being on the same side of thisstreet. Validity for this reconstruction can be suggested from the plan of Lager III, wheremany of the features of this layout are present.Polybius provides few details about the internal layout of each 'square' occupied bythe Roman cavalry and infantry. The layout of these areas can however be reconstructedusing a combination of De Metaticme Castrorum and remains from Numantia, particularlyLager III. This obviously combines evidence of tented camps and stone- or timber-builtinstallations. Such a combination can be justified, as the stone or timber-built structurescan be regarded simply as being a more comfortable version of tents and hence there waslittle real difference between the two types of installation as regards internal layout andthe arrangement of facilities.Polybius says that the units by the rampart faced it rather than the interveningstreets. The layout of the barracks at Lager III indicates that just the infantry areas and notthose of the cavalry faced the rampart. In addition, Lager III indicates that the maniplesalong the via principalis faced this street and not the intervening streets, i.e. the areas weresymmetrically opposite to those by the rampart. Polybius gives no indication of this.Polybius does not say how the tents in each area were arranged or how many tentswere used. In contrast, this aspect of the camp is discussed in some detail in De MetationeCastrorum. This evidence can be combined with evidence of the number and size ofcontubernia at Lager III and how night guard duties were managed, to reconstruct thetheoretical scheme of a horseshoe-shaped arrangement of three rows of tents in eachinfantry area (figs 9 and 10). Much of this reconstruction is based on a re-interpretation ofDe Metatione Castroru in, and the idea that an infantry tent had eight men allotted to it, butonly six slept in it at any one time. In support of this, is that internal walls in the contuberniaat a number of the sites at Numantia can be interpreted as forming the lower portion ofthree bunk beds, i.e. this was the more comfortable version in a stone-built installation oftwo rows of three men on the ground of a tent. The reconstruction also proposes the newidea of accommodating the velites in the rear ranges found in the infantry areas. This view307

Conclusioncontrasts with that of Schulten, who favoured these rear ranges being for storage or utilityareas; he was in fact uncommitted as to the location of the velites' accommodation.The cavalry areas are similarly reconstructed as a horseshoe-shaped arrangementof three rows of tents (fig. 9). Here, three and not six men per contubernium are proposed,since space inside the tents would have been required for the dry-storage of a greaterquantity of equipment than was the case for the infantry. It is suggested that the horsesbelonging to the occupants of the tent would have been tethered in front of eachcontubernium. In the stone barracks of Numantia, this arrangement can be seen instructures which can be reconstructed as composite stable and accommodation blocks.The nature of the quarters allotted to centurions and decurions can be proposed bycombining the evidence of Polybius, De Metatione Castrorum and Numantia. This suggeststhat centurions and decurions had their own quarters at the end of their correspondingrow of contubernia. Further, the size of the areas occupied by centurions seems to havebeen twice that of a con tubernium, whereas those of the decurions were the same as acontubernium. The reason for this is not clear, unless it is merely an indication of the relativestatus of the two types of officer. The nature of the remains at Numantia suggests that boththe decurions and centurions stabled their horses in the front part of their areas. Thispractice can indeed be proposed as the origin to the projecting portion of officers' endbuildings found in many Imperial barracks.In support of the reconstruction of the number of tents present in the areas of thehastati and principes is that it matches Polybius in respect of his 120 x 120 feet squares forthese maniples. As regards the triarii, Polybius states that their areas were half the depthof the other infantry maniples, i.e. 60 x 120 feet. Because of conclusions about the numberof tents in each area of the triarii however, it can proposed that each was instead 72 x 120feet; they are usually reconstructed as exactly half-depth. Polybius is not over-clear aboutthe dimensions of the cavalry areas. They are usually reconstructed as full-sized squares.The reconstruction of the cavalry tent/stable arrangements however results in areaswhich were 72 x 120 feet. A comment by Polybius (6.28.3) which can be translated to meanthat an area occupied by a turma and by a maniple of triarii together formed a square, i.e.both the triarii and cavalry occupied half-depth areas, supports this reconstruction. Insupport of half-sized cavalry areas, and indeed also of the size of the other areas, is thatthe dimensions of the corresponding areas at Lager III are within a 10% margin of errorof the proposed theoretical sizes.Polybius is particularly vague about the arrangements of the allied areas, merelyindicating that the infantry were on the outer side of the cavalry in the main allied force.Remains at Lager III and V in particular, however provide an indication of what thepractice may have been. Hence it can be suggested that the allied cavalry occupied areasidentical in layout to the Roman cavalry. In order to accommodate the theoretical size ofthe main allied cavalry component, there must have been two rows of horseshoe-shapedranges of tents/barracks arranged back-to back; two rows are not evident at Lager IIIthough, presumably because the cavalry were simply under-strength. To allow access,308

Conclusionthere must have been a street between the outer cavalry row and the allied infantry. Thisstreet is not mentioned by Polybius however. The layout of the main allied infantryappears to have been noticeably different from the legionary. It can be suggested that theallies encamped as 'cohorts', comprising one of each type of maniple and their velites (fig.11). The size of these cohort areas meant that conveniently eight would both providesufficient accommodation for the theoretical size of the main allied infantry force andcorrespond exactly in length to the ten legionary maniples, to produce a straight lineacross the front and rear of this part of the camp. This same cohort and cavalryarrangement also allows a convenient arrangement of the extraordinarii and delectiextraordinarii within the theoretical scheme of the two-legion camp; possibly supportingthis practice are areas in the central eastern portion of Lager III, though the interpretationof some of these remains is questionable.As regards the nature of camp defences, Polybius limits himself just to mentioninga ditch and palisade during the digression on the camp, and later describes a form of pilutnmurale (18.18.1 ff.). An idea of mid-second century marching camp defences can howeverbe formed by the ramparts found at Lager IV, VII and Raza, but no ditches were foundor noticed by Schulten at these sites, so their form remains uncertain. The solid nature ofhiberna and siege camp ramparts is indicated by Lager III and the Scipionic sites aroundNumantia, but again there is no published evidence about their ditches.Polybius is even more vague about camp entrances, not even giving their numberor position, let alone details of their physical form. Deductions about the name andlocation of entrances can however be made from a variety of other literary sources. Thesites at Numantia indicate the physical form of mid-second century camp entrances, withnot only seemingly just simple interruptions in the rampart, but also titula at the marchingcamps of Lager IV, VII and Raza and the hiberna Lager VI, and relatively elaborateinturned entrances with flanking towers in the hiberna Lager III.Polybius gives no idea about the theoretical layout of a cohort-based camp. It isargued here that it probably developed out of the manipular camp, since evolution froman existing form was more likely than complete change and innovation. How theevolution occurred is suggested by buildings at particularly the Black Phase of Castillejo,Pena Redonda and Molino, which can be reconstructed as groups of three pairs of barrackblocks arranged end-to-end and suitable for a cohort. Hence the theoretical form of thedouble-legion, cohort-based camp can be proposed, but is one which retains much of therelative position of areas in the Polybian manipular camp (fig. 15). In addition, areconstruction is also presented for camps for a single legion, with and without allies (figs18 and 19), since these would have been required with the increased use of smaller-sizedarmies during the second century. More obvious similarities with later Imperial fortressescan be seen in these camps, compared to the Polybian manipular camps. In particularthere are double infantry barrack blocks rather than triple, and in groups of six. Some ofthese can be reconstructed arranged back-to-back, rather than end-to-end, in order to facethe rampart, and it can be suggested that this practice formed the origin of the Imperial309

Conclusionarrangement of barracks, since it was more practical than the long groups of end-to-endbarracks.Since there appears to have been no change in the organisation of the cavalry duringthe period of the cohort reform, no change in the layout of their areas would be expected.With the reconstruction proposed for the theoretical layout of the infantry, it would meanthat the only change necessary for the cavalry would be for the side rows of tents/stablebarracks to move in front of the rearrange, as now the overall area available for the turrnaewas slightly less than in the manipular camp. The reconstruction proposed for the cavalrystable barracks at the cohort-based Pena Redonda supports no real change in the layoutof the cavalry.As regards the re-interpretation presented here of the archaeology of Numantia, itis acknowledged that the nature of the evidence limits what can be discussed and thatsome issues must remain uncertain. The limitations are in part caused by Schulten'sarchaeological record. In general this was well-published, and on the whole, the text,plans and photographs recording the physical nature of what was found seem reliable,though frustratingly vague at times (particularly in respect of a near-total lack of precisionabout the findspots of smallfinds). The main weakness of Schulten is his interpretation ofthe data, affected by his inconsistent use of stratigraphy and being too willing to matchPolybius to what was found. The other limitation to re-interpretation is caused simply bythe partial survival or recovery of remains. A summary comparison between Schulten andthe re-interpretation offered here is presented in Appendix One.A particular point of difference between this thesis and Schulten is the dating!phasing of some of the installations. For example, Schulten's dating of 75/ 74 BC for LagerIV and V is questioned and an alternative date of the 130s is proposed. Schulten's annexesto Lager III and IV are proposed as being separate phases of camp, associated respectivelywith Scipio in 134 and possibly Metellus in 143. A significant departure from Schulten isin the camps associated with the Scipionic siege of Numantia. Schulten believed thatAppian (Spanish Wars 90) did not mean that seven forts were added to two camps, but thatthe seven forts replaced the camps. The two camps, according to Schulten, lay nearCastillejo and Pefia Redonda, and have not been found. He proposed that the seven fortswere Castillejo, Travesadas, Valdevorron, Peria Redonda, Raza, Dehesilla and Alto Real.In addition there were two Uferkastelle, at Molino and Vega. Schulten reconstructed acourse for the circumvallation based on surviving stretches and his hypothesis on thenumber of installations along it. Schulten's interpretation of Appian can be questioned.There seems no good reason to reject the sense of Appian's text as meaning that seven fortswere added to two camps. As a result, the presence of nine Scipionic sites aroundNurnantia can be presumed, and all in use at the same time. These can be suggested asbeing Castillejo, Travesadas, Valdevorron, Saledilla, Pena Redonda, Molino, Dehesilla,Vega and Alto Real, though which were the camps and which the forts is not dear. Fromthis sequence of installations, a different and shorter course from that of Schulten's for thecircumvallation can be reconstructed. The camp at Raza is suggested as being from anearlier campaign, and nothing to do with Scipio.310

ConclusionAs regards reconstructing the overall internal layout of the camps, the availableevidence arguably allows none of the camps at Numantia to be reconstructed entirely withany degree of confidence, and for some, virtually nothing of the internal plan is known.This contrasts rather with Schulten's seemingly confident reconstructions. Only at LagerIII, the Black Phase of Castillejo and Pena Redonda can a worthwhile attempt be made atreconstructing a reasonable portion of the interior. The evidence is also biased towards theform of the barracks. For example, the evidence for fabricae, attested in the Empire, isinconclusive at Numantia; Polybius is no help here as he does not mention them — unlesshis very silence can be interpreted to mean that such areas did not exist. Particularlyregrettable is that there is no clear evidence for the layout of the forum, praetorium andquaestorium.Although there is no clear and full evidence for a Polybian two-legion manipularcamp at Numantia, sufficient survives to be able to suggest that elements of the theoreticalPolybian manipular plan did occur here. This is particularly the case in Lager III, wherea Polybian barrack layout readily suggests itself, and the same can also be claimed for theRed Phase of Castillejo.There is also sufficient evidence to see that several differences from Polybiusemerge. For example, the intervallum of all the sites where it could be reconstructed wasmarkedly narrower than Polybius (Polybius = 240 feet, Numantia = 10.1 - 98 feet).Similarly the streets were generally smaller, some as narrow as just under 17 feet, with twopossible exceptions: the suggested via principalis in Lager V was approximately 101 feetwide, compared to the Polybian 120; and in Lager III, several streets were approximately44 feet wide, which is close to the theoretical width of 60 feet, though at this site, the viaprincipalis was also this wide, not double the width of the Polybian scheme. The reductionfrom the theoretical widths for both the intervallum and the streets was presumably simplybecause they proved unnecessarily generous. The theoretical rectangular shape for thecamp was also seemingly rarely adhered to, with only Lager IV and V potentiallyfollowing this scheme. The reason for this is quite straightforward to suggest and was thatlocal topography had an overriding influence when planning a camp.The most notable difference from Polybius is the layout of the barracks at particularlyPena Redonda, the Black Phase at Castillejo and possibly also at Lager VI and Molino, i.e.the relatively later, Scipionic camps. In contrast to Schulten, these barracks are interpretedas being for cohorts rather than maniples.The proposed presence of cohort-based sites is of prime significance. Formerly thesites at Numantia were thought only to offer an insight into the Polybian manipular camp.The re-interpretation offered here, now means that Numantia displays the earliestevidence for cohort-based camps as well. Further, the presence of both types of campprovides evidence for the transition from manipular to cohort organisation, and showsthat at least in Spain the move to the cohort had taken place by the 130s. The importanceof Numantia for the study of the Late Republican army as a result takes on an addeddimension. In consequence a modern programme of fieldwork and excavation at thesesites to clarify the issues raised here can only be hoped for.311

APPENDIX ONEA SUMMARY COMPARISON OF SCHULTEN'SINTERPRETATION AND THAT OFFERED IN THIS THESISRENIEBLASSdiulten's interpretationLAGER IBuilding remains are a series of horseshoeshapedbarracks and a praetorium.The large and well-preserved building in thearea of Lager I, near to the western rampart ofLager III, is a stable block for elephants associatedwith Lager III.LAGER HNo internal buildings, so accommodation waspresumably in tents.The possibility that Lager II was an annexe toLager III is rejected.LAGER IIITwo bastions near the north-eastern corner.Regular spacing of towers.Gateway on western side.Buildings of row K are horseshoe-shapedtriple stables/barracks for legionary cavalry.Buildings of row A are barracks for triarii.Buildings of row B are barracks for principes.Alternative interpretationRENIEBLASLAGER IRemains too inconclusive to attempt any reconstruction.Schulten's interpretation accepted.LAGER IISchulten's interpretation accepted.Schulten's interpretation of towers and anentrance is questionable, though one entranceseems plausible.Schulten's interpretation accepted.LAGER IIISchulten's reconstruction of the missing portionsof the southern and western sides seemsviable.Disturbed rampart.Insufficient evidence for this conclusion andthe surviving towers are anyway irregularlyspaced.Schulten's interpretation questionable.Additional entrances to those proposed bySchulten are possible from the relationship oftowers and gaps in rampart. Alternative locationfor the porta praetoria proposed.Schulten's interpretation accepted, thoughslight differences from Schul ten over the detailsof the layout of each turma area.Schulten's interpretation accepted, thoughdifferences from Schulten: there was sufficientevidence for a rear range in each manipulararea; slightly different arrangement of whatconstituted each group of three blocks, particularlyat the western end of the row; and projectingstable blocks by centurions' quarters.Schulten's interpretation accepted, thoughdifferences from Schulien: slightly different312

Appendix OneBuildings of row C are barracks for hastati.Tribunes' houses.Buildings to north of tribunes houses werelatrines.Buildings of row D were combined stables/barracks for allied cavalry.Buildings of row E were barracks for alliedinfantry.Buildings G and H were houses for six praefectisociorum.Rows K', A', B', C', lY and E' are a mirrorimageset of barracks to the rows in the northernpart of the camp.Building P was the praetorium.Remains immediately to the east of buildingP were a triple barrack block which faced west,with the rear and southern ranges consisting oftriple-roomed contubernia. Occupied by thecohors amicorum.arrangement of what constituted each group ofthree blocks, particularly at the western end ofthe row; possibly more internal subdivisions ofthe contubernia existed originally than Schultensupposes; rear range was accommodation forthe velites, rather than as Schulten suggestsstabling for pack animals or utility areas; thestructure at the eastern end of the courtyard ofbarrack 10 could have been a workshop orstores building, rather than as Schulten suggestsa guard-post or latrine; a possible enclosed,projecting centurion's stable blockpresent in barrack 1.Schulten's interpretation accepted, thoughwith differences similar to those for row B.Schulten's interpretation accepted, but differentreconstruction of the form and locationof the houses, in part due to reducing the widthand changing the course of the via principalisfrom that proposed by Schulten.Houses for the praefecti sociorum.Schulten's interpretation accepted, but quitea different reconstruction of the location of theblocks in the eastern part of the row, e.g. noblock straddling the via quintana and nine blocksrather than Schulten's ten. Also different layoutof each triple block, with ranges separate nottouching. Projecting blocks by decurions' quartersproposed as being stables for decurions'horses, instead of Schulten's idea that they wereguard-posts.Schulten's basic interpretation of the buildingsbeing for allied infantry accepted, but amarkedly different reconstruction of the numberand plan of the blocks and interpretation of thefunction of each of the ranges.Allied cavalry stable/barracks.Schulten could be correct, but a reconstructionis not really possible due to the poor natureof the surviving evidence.Reconstruction and interpretation of thisbuilding are uncertain as too little was recovered,but it could have been the praetorium dueto the relative location within the camp.The remains could have been more complexthan just one triple barrack block. The third rowof rooms in the rear range may have been therear portion of an adjoining building whichfaced east; this could have been accommodation,perhaps barracks, due to the presence ofremains interpretable as couches/beds withinsome of the rooms. The southern range is similarlyinterpreted as two adjoining buildings,with the one to the south perhaps being afurther triple barrack block that faced west.Both of the westward-facing triple blocks could313

Appendix OneThe few remains in areas F suggested toSchulten that the area was originally open andwas the forum.Buildings a to e in area F' were a series oftriple barrack blocks for the delecti extraordinariicavalry.Buildings 1 to 12 in area F' were barracks forthe delecti extraordinnrii infantry.Areas Q and Q' were two rectangular storesbuildings of the quaestorium .Buildings T, R, S and s were possibly furtherstores buildings.Building 13 was possibly the quaestor's accommodation.have been occupied by the delecti extraordiruzriiinfantry.Lager IV rampart could well have removedremains in this area and consequently it was notthe forum. Hence the buildings on the easternside of the area were not as Schulten suggests,tabernae, but the surviving portion of furtherbuildings covering the area. These buildingscould have been barracks, but their plan andform are uncertain due to poor survival.The plan of these buildings is more irregularthan Schulten implies, and no obvious reconstructionsuggests itself. The irregularity in itselfcould be interpreted to mean that the buildingswere accom-modation for foreign troops.Interpretation of buildings is uncertain asthey appear rather irregular in layout, and contraryto Schulten's view, buildings 1 to 6 do notreadily suggest themselves as barracks. Schul tencould be correct in that some form of selecttroops were accommodated here, as thesmallfinds reflect a degree of wealth for thebuildings' occupants.Schulten's interpretation is possible but theevidence is inconclusive; the buildings couldeven simply have been barracks. Building a inthe courtyard of Q' could have been a workshopsince much burnt material was foundhere; this could mean that Q' was a fabrica, orjust barracks with a small workshop in thecourtyard.Schulten's interpretation is possible, but theevidence about the function of these buildingsis inconclusive.Interpretation of building uncertain.Streets — Most of Schulten's are acceptable inthe northern part of the camp, except for thewidth and line of via principalis and a newposition is proposed for the via praetoria. Schulten'sstreets in the southern part of the camp arequestionable, if only because several go throughbuilding remains, but arguably too little evidencesurvived in this area to be able reconstructthe street layout.LAGER ra ANNEXEWestern part of site had no buildings originally.LAGER VISchulten's Lager III annexe is proposed asbeing a different phase of camp, Lager VI,which was later than Lager III.Course for missing part of defences and junctionwith south-eastern corner of Lager III suggested.Buildings were here, but failed to survive dueto different fanning practice in this area — thecause that Schulten acknowledges to accountfor the removal of buildings in the southernpart of the camp.314

Appendix OneEven-numbered buildings were closelyspaced,back-to-back double barrack blocks,whereas the odd-numbered ones were smalltriple barrack blocks.Small enclosure walls at the northern end ofthe site were animal pens associated with thecamp.LAGER IVNo internal buildings, so accommodation wasin tents.LAGER IV ANNEXELAGER VBuildings 1 to 12, Q and Q' were twelvebarracks (two back-to-back rows of six triplebarrack blocks) and two stores buildings of thequaestoriumTriple barrack blocks for cohort-organisedinfantry in the main eastern area of the camp -barrack blocks 1' to 12' and 1" to 6".The Triclinienhãuser in the south-eastern partof the camp were houses for the cohors amicorum .Area P was the praetorium.Buildings immediately to the north of area Pwere houses for officers of the cohors amicorumAll the buildings were long, end-to-end doublebarracks for cohort-organised infantry.The walls could indeed be associated withkeeping animals, but perhaps post-date thecamp.LAGER IVSchulten's reconstructed line of the southerndefences is plausible.Two proposed entrances on the southern sideare questionable. The remains are more likely tobe internal building of Lager III and/or V.though of unclear type.Schulten's interpretation accepted.Schulten's schematic reconstruction of thecamp's layout is questionable, since no internalfeatures were found and the reconstruction isbased on the camp's orientation being south,but the relative status of the entrances (based onwidth) suggests that orientation was west. Consequentlythe internal layout should remainuncertain.LAGER VIIThe surviving length of rampart, interpretedby Schulten as an annexe to Lager IV, is suggestedas being a different phase of camp, LagerVII, which was perhaps earlier than Lager IV.The size of the camp is uncertain as only thenorthern side survived. No internal buildings,so accommodation was presumably tented.LAGER VSchulten's course of missing sections of defencesis plausible.Existence of Schulten's gate midway alongthe northern side, and all on the eastern side arequestionable.A series of nine quadruple barracks for alliedinfantry, facing the rampart, with a row of fourback-to-back triple cavalry barracks at the westend.Schulten's interpretation is highly speculativeas virtually no evidence was found in thisarea. The interpretation of this area is best leftopen; likewise for Schulten's reconstruction ofthe equivalent area in the western part of thecamp.The remains can be interpreted as bunk bedsand hearths of contubernia, but the overall layoutof the barracks is uncertain.Insufficient evidence for Schulten's interpretation.Nature of building(s) represented by theremains is best left uncertain.Insufficient evidence to decide on the functionand layout of the buildings.315

Appendix OneArea F was the forum.Buildings 1 to 10 and 1' to 10' were tribunes'houses with stables to the rear, thus matchingPolybius' description of the tribunes' areas.Two granaries lay to the east of the tribunes'houses. Structure between the granaries hasuncertain function.Schulten's interpretation is pure speculationas the area was not excavated.Schulten's general interpretation is accepted,but buildings 1 to 10 are reconstructed as justsix houses, each with a neighbouring courtyard.Buildings 1' to 10' could also be tribunes'houses, as Schulten suggests, but there is insufficientevidence to be able to reconstruct thewhole row.Schulten's interpretation accepted, but with aslightly different reconstruction of the westerngranary to give it the same five bays as theeastern one. Structure between the granariespossibly for storage of non-perishable items.Streets —Location of most of Schulten's streetshave no supporting evidence and result fromhis overall reconstruction of the camp layout.The exceptions are where there was survivingevidence, in the form of street surfacing immediatelyto west of the Triclinienhãuser and theeastern row of tribunes' houses, and the viaprincipalis, the position of which is suggested byan absence of building remains along the frontof the tribunes' houses and by a drainage channel.NUN4ANTIACASTILLEJOThere were three phases of camp, beginningwith the Blue Phase, then the Red and finally theBlack.Erosion of the western side of the hill is placedbefore the camps were occupied.Defences:Blue Phase — none found.Red Phase — the surviving bank and twophases, reflecting an enlargement of the originalcamp.Black Phase — partially-excavated sandstone-facedrampart.Castillejo — Blue PhaseNUMANTIACASTILLEJOSchulten's phasing accepted.The very close proximity of buildings to edgeof the western slope suggests erosion postdatesthe camps. Hence the camps could haveextended further west than Schul ten envisaged.Defences:Blue Phase — partially-excavated sandstone-facedrampart.Red Phase — single phase, represented bya surviving bank in the southern part of the siteand possibly parts of the northern rampartwere uncovered by excavation.Black Phase — the surviving bank.Schulten's Red phase northern and southerngates are questionable. The northern structureis more likely an internal building, but of uncertainfunction and phase, though possibly theBlue Phase. Part of the southern building remainsdates to the Empire (Schulten acknowledgesthis) and part could be the Red Phaserampart.Castillejo — Blue PhaseSchulten's interpretation of all the Blue Phasestructures is questionable (particularly thepraetorium and the tribunes' houses). His reconstructionof the overall camp layout is corn-316

Appendix Onepletely rejected, since there is insufficient evidenceto support it.Some of the remains could be 'tent barracks',i.e. tents adapted to withstand the rigours ofwinter by building low stone walls aroundthem and possibly roofing them over in someway.Some structures along the northern rampartplaced in the Black Phase by Schulten are movedto the Blue Phase.Castillejo — Red PhaseCastillejo — Black PhaseTRAVESADASWest gate with flanking towers and forwardprojectingbastion.Barracks were found and layout reconstructed.VALDEVORRONPossible evidence for a western gate wasfound and interpreted as the porta praetoria.Artillery platforms.SALEDILLASite had been an Iberian settlement associatedwith Numantia, followed by a Roman garrisonleft by Scipio after the siege; garrison is representedarchaeologically by an isolated cavalrybarrack block.Castillejo — Red PhaseSchulten's Red Phase layout is completelyrejected as there is insufficient evidence to supportit. The western area of the camp is reconstructedinstead as triple barrack blocks for partof a manipular legion arranged in Polybianform.Castillejo — Black PhaseSchulten's Black Phase layout and his interpretationof virtually all the buildings is rejectedentirely. Instead a completely differentreconstruction is offered, of two rows of end-toendcohort double legionary barrack blockseither side of a north-south range of forum,praetorium and quaestorium, with barracks forallies in the western and south-western parts ofthe camp.TRAVESADASSchulten's reconstruction of the size and shapeof the camp is questionable.Probably not a gate, but just interval towersand the 'bastion' is possibly later than the camp.Remains of barracks were probably found,but their layout is less certain than Schultenimplies and is best left open.VALDEVORRONSchulten's reconstruction of the size and sizeof the camp is questionable.Remains could indeed be that of a gateway,but there is insufficient evidence to be able tointerpret it as the porta praetoria.Granaries.A hearth and a structure comprising of bakedclay slabs, possibly a curing chamber, might befrom afabrica (Schulten offers no interpretationof the clay slab structure).Too little evidence to reconstruct camp layout;even Schulten does not attempt this.SALEDILLAExistence of Iberian settlement contemporarywith Numantia accepted. Barrack block is reinterpretedas an infantry block. Rather thanassociating this with a post-siege garrison, it,and possible remains of a western rampart, are317

Appendix Oneproposed as being one of the camps built byScipio along the circumvallation as part of thesiege installations.PESIA REDONDARampart survived well in the southern part ofthe camp. Location of defences at the northernend of the site is reflected by two entrances, oneof which was near to a surviving length of thecircumvallation. North-eastern rampart survivedin the form of a line of standing stones.The rest of the course of the defences and thejunction of the circumvallation on the westernside of the camp could be reconstructed.Main elements of the internal layout consistedof (from north to south): cavalry barracks;forum,praetorium and quaestorium; infantrybarracks for an early-form, cohort-organisedlegion; tribunes' houses; allied infantrybarracks; allied cavalry barracks; and a large,open Alarmplatz down much of the westernside of the camp.MOLINOAll four sides of the camp are reconstructed.Surviving buildings were a series of northsouthinfantry barrack blocks with a cavalryblock along their southern end.No overall camp layout attempted.RAZARectangular shape of camp reconstructed.No internal buildings, so presumably tentedaccommodation.One of Scipio's siege camps.DEHESILLAShape and size of the camp are indicated bythe rampart surviving above ground for muchof the defensive circuit.The layout of the camp is uncertain, as theremains were removed before they could beplanned.PEA REDONDAOnly the southern rampart and the two northernentrances are genuine. The standing stonesare probably post-Roman boundary markers.A different reconstruction for the line of themissing lengths of defences and of the junctionwith the western circumvallation is proposed.Almost nothing of Schulten's interpretationis accepted. Main elements of the layout arereconstructed as (from north to south): forum,praetorium and quaestorium (a building interpretedby Schulten as a Roman villa is proposedinstead as being part of the praetorium); barracksfor the delecti extraordinarii cavalry andinfantry to the east and west of the forum,praetarium and quaestorium; cohort double barrackblocks; and triple cavalry barracks at thesouthern end of the camp.MOLINOSchulten's camp shape and size are rejected,as he ignores the effects of river erosion on thenorthern part of the site and interprets what arearguably natural features, as the east and westdefences. With the absence of reliable evidence,the camp shape and size are uncertain.The north-south buildings were indeed infantrybarracks, but are reconstructed as a series ofcohort double barrack blocks . Thebui Id ing alongthe southern end was probably for infantryrather than cavalry, but is difficult to interpretbeyond this.There is too little evidence to be able to reconstructthe general camp layout.RAZAThe shape and size of the camp are uncertainas only the eastern defences were found.Schulten's interpretation accepted.Not associated with Scipio, but with an uncertainearlier period of the war.DEHESILLASchulten's reconstruction accepted. His interpretationof a western gate is however questionable,since it could be just a modern fieldentrance.Layout clearly is uncertain.318

Appendix OneALTO REALA length of wall is rejected as being part of therampart.Course of defences reconstructed.Building remains in interior may not be Romanbut prehistoric.VEGAThe site of an installation built by Scipio toguard the area of the nearby confluence of theDuero and Tera.ALTO REALThe character of this piece of wall would notexclude it being part of the rampart. It couldconsequently be the southern side of the camp.Schulten's reconstruction is dubious as it isbased on very tenuous evidence.Character of remains and finds from the areasuggest the walls are Roman and the site wasone of Scipio's camps, but too little survived tobe able to interpret the plan and function of thebuildings or the camp's layout.VEGASchulten's interpretation of the remains maybe correct, but so little was uncovered by theexcavations (just a few lengths of internal walling),that a confident interpretation is not possible.COURSE OF SCIPIONIC CIRCUMVALLATION ANDNUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS ALONG ITAppian (Spanish Wars 90) did not mean thatseven forts were added to two camps, but sevenforts replaced two camps. The two camps laynear Ca stillejo and Pefia Redonda, and have notbeen found. The seven forts are Castillejo,Tray esadas, Valdevorron, Pena Redonda, Raza,Dehesilla and Alto Real. In addition there weretwo Uferkastelle, at Molino and Vega.A course for the circumvallation is reconstructedbased on surviving stretches and hypothesis.COURSE OF SCIPIONIC CIRCUMVALLATION ANDNUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS ALONG ITThere seems no good reason to reject Appianas meaning that seven forts were added to twocamps. As a result, nine Scipionic sites aroundNumarttia can be presumed, and all in use at thesame time. These were Castillejo, Travesadas,Valdevorron, Saledilla, Pena Redonda, Molino,Dehesilla, Vega and Alto Real, though whichwere the camps and which the forts is not clear.A different and shorter course from that ofSchulten's for the circumvallation is reconstructed.SiteLager ILager IILager IIILager IVLager VLager VILager VIICastillejoBlue PhaseRed PhaseBlack PhaseTravesadasValdevorronSaledillaPena RedondaRazaMolinoDehesillaAlto RealVegaDATING OF THE SITESSchulten's dating195/4 Cato194 Cato153 Nobilior75 Pompeius74 PompeiusAnnexe to Lager IIIAnnexe to Lager IV152 Marcellusc. 142 Pompeius133 Scipiopost-133 Scipio133 ScipioAlternative datingUncertainUncertain153 Nobilior141 Pompeius?137 Mancinus?134 Scipio143 Metellus?141 Pompeius?137 Mancinus133 ScipioI/152 Marcellus? or 141 Pompeius?133 Scipio/II/319

APPENDIX TWOA COMPARISON BETWEEN THIS THESIS AND ROMAN REPUBLICAN CASTRAMETATION:WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE REPUBLICAN STONE-BUILT CAMPS IN SPAIN, PHDTHESIS BY JOHN PAMMENT-SALVATORE EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED 1993, UNIVERSITYOF BIRMINGHAM. UNPUBLISHED.Knowledge of the thesis by Pamment-Salvatore was received after this thesis hadessentially been completed. In consequence only passing reference is made to it within thebody of this thesis. The material presented by Pamment-Salvatore would however notprompt arty of the arguments and interpretations presented in this thesis to be altered. Asummary comparison of the two theses is presented here to show that although the twolook at similar material, the degree of overlap between Pamment-Salvatore's thesis' andthis one is in fact slight.An essential difference between the two theses is their overall aim. PS is primarilyinterested in the layout and planning of Republican camps in general and so discussesonly those sites at Numantia where significant portions of the internal layout wererecovered and the camp at Caceres el Viejo. MD concentrates on re-evaluating the remainsfrom all of the Roman installations excavated by Schulten at Numantia and so much moreof the archaeology is dealt with by MD and in more depth than by PS. Perhaps related tothis different level of treatment, PS tends to accept Schulten's interpretation of the remainsmore readily than MD, who in contrast often differs from Schulten, and radically so inplaces. Both PS and MD discuss the Polybian account of the Roman army and its art ofcastrametation, and what can be deduced from literary evidence about the chronologyand processes of the change from maniple to cohort. This is because for both PS and MDan appreciation of the theoretical form of armies and their camps is vital in abling anyunderstanding of what was found on the ground. The discussion by PS is however lesswide-ranging, and MD and PS reach different conclusions in places, for example, aboutthe nature of the camp described by Polybius and the evidence for the cohort in Spain. Theresults of the review of the archaeological and literary evidence are brought together byPS to propose some overall conclusions about the planning and layout of Republicancamps. PS also uses Schulten's interim reports in Archaologischer Anzeiger to discuss insome depth the history of the excavations and how Schulten's thoughts on the siteschanged as the sequence of work unfolded; as a result PS brings out the influence thatPolybius had on Schulten more directly than MD. In contrast, MD's conclusion is limitedto what can be established about the form of the armies at Numantia and the layout of the1. Hereafter referred to as PS. This thesis will be referred to as MD.320

Appendix Twocamps there, and how they compare to the theoretical forms proposed from the literaryevidence.One notable point of difference between the two theses is the interpretation of someof the barracks. PS recognizes a difference between Lager III and the Scipionic siege campsin the barrack layout and type. He suggests that the reason for the different layout of thetwo types of site was due to them having different functions. He is uncertain though whythere were different types of barracks, but suggests it may be due to topography givinginsufficient space in the siege camps or a chronological development. Unlike MD, PSmakes no mention of the move from maniples to cohorts as an explanation. PS does reviewthe maniple /cohort question in Spain, but concludes there is no evidence for cohortbarracks before the Augustan period. In contrast, MD concludes that the Scipionic siegecamps very importantly provide evidence for the form of camp adopted by the earlycohort-organised army.A SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE TWO THESESPAMMENT-SALVATOREDOBSONTHE ARMY AND CAMP OF POLYBIUSPolybius discussed, but no detailed analysisof the Polybian camp and the ramifications ofthe single-consular form; no attempt at a reconstructionfor either double or single-consularcamps.Polybius describes a situation earlier than thetime of writing and probably the late thirdcentury BC.Discusses the change in practice from doubleto single-consular armies.Polybius describes one half of a four-legion,double-consular camp, but the 'half' is a mobilisationcamp for a single-consular army, whichcould be joined to that of the other consul toform a double-consular camp. It was not howeverreally a form of camp used on campaign;hence the Polybian plan would not be seen atsiege camps, e.g. Numantia.The Polybian foot = Roman pes Monetalis(0.296 m). Hence no mention of an associationof the camp grid to the Roman civil systembased on the achis quadratus, though PS doesdiscuss the civil origins of the military systemand draws parallels between camp layout andearly colonia.PRAETORIUM/PRINCIPIADiscusses the relationship of the praetoriumand principia merely in a footnote (Chapter 4,THE ARMY AND CAMP OF POLYBIUSDetailed discussion of Polybius, with reconstructionsof camp layouts.Polybius describes a situation earlier than thetime of writing and probably the late thirdcentury BC.Discusses the change in practice from doubleto single-consular armies.Polybius describes one half of a four-legion,double-consular camp used, as Polybius says,at all times and in all places (6.26.10).The Polybian foot = Hellenistic foot (0.355 m).Converting this into the Roman pes Monetalisallows direct association between the campgrid and the Roman civil system based on theactus quadratus. Further parallels are possible,between camp layout and early colonia.PRAETORIUM/PRINCIPIADiscusses the relationship of the praetoriumand principia at some length, with associations321

Appendix Twonote 8), with the conclusion that the principia isa feature only of the Empire.THE ADOPTION OF THE COHORTDiscusses development of the cohort, withsimilar conclusions about chronology to MD.The allied infantry did not have a manipularorganisation like the legions, but were alwaysbased around cohorts and this form of organisationwas extended to the legions.During the cohort reform, the citizen andallied cavalry gradually disappeared duringthe second century.being made to religious practice.THE ADOPTION OF THE COHORTDiscusses development of the cohort in moredetail than PS, but with similar conclusionsabout chronology to PS.The allies had a manipular organisation, butencamped as cohorts and this could have formedthe inspiration for tactical cohorts for both legionaryand allied infantry.Discusses the fate of the cavalry during thecohort reform in more detail than by PS, but thesame conclusion is reached, i.e. that the citizenand allied cavalry gradually disappeared duringthe second century.THE CAMPSLists the proposed Republican camps in Spainoutside Numantia, with a summary about each.Schulten's dating and interpretation of themare largely accepted.Lager ILager I dates to 195-179, not just 195 as proposedby Schulten, but gives no reason for why.Questions Schulten's reconstruction, but offersno alternative.Lager IIDiscusses briefly. Accepts Sc_hulten's interpretation.Lager IIIDiscusses location of groma and surveying ofcamp at length.Accepts Schulten's reconstruction of camplayout.Accepts Schulten's interpretation of thecouches in the barrack blocks as being diningroom triclinia.Accepts Schulten's interpretation of guardroomsby the centurions' blocks in row A.Rejects Schulten's idea of there being officers'quarters at the end of the triarii barracks, as therooms here look too much like contubernia.Rejects existence of rear range of row A, butaccepts some in rows B, C, and E, and suggeststhat these were used for storage, though possiblythey could be contubernia.Rejects existence of barracks of row D to eastof via quintana as the topography is unsuitable.THE CAMPSComments on the sites in Spain outsideNurnantia which have been proposed as beingRoman camps earlier or contemporary withNumantia and reject all as being Roman camps.Sites proposed as being camps later thanNumantia are largely ignored, on the groundsof being outside the scope of the thesis.Lager!Date of Lager I is uncertain.Questions Schulten's reconstruction, but offersno alternative.Lager IIDiscusses in more detail than PS, with someof Schulten's interpretations being questioned.Lager IIISurveying/planning of camp not discussed.Accepts Schulten's reconstruction of camplayout only in part.Interprets couches in barrack blocks as thelower portion of bunk beds.Reconstructs features by centurions' quartersas projecting stable blocks for the centurions'horses.Accepts officers' quarters at the end of thetriarii barracks.Accepts Schulten's proposal of rear ranges inall rows, but interprets them as acconunodationfor velites, and not as Schulten suggests, forstorage.Reconstructs barracks in row D to east of viaquintana.322

Appendix TwoRe-interprets blocks 6 and 7 of row E as asingle block.Detached buildings in courtyards of row Ewere cookhouses or officers' quarters.The evidence of the allied barracks (row E)supports the allies not having a manipular structure,but larger units (of unspecified type). Thereason for this suggestion is that the rear rangeof the barracks were contubernia in the alliedareas, but not contubernia in the legionary areas.Rejects Schulten's interpretation of buildingsG and H as being houses of the pracfrcti socionim,but suggests they were for allied officers.Accepts Schulten's interpretation of barracksto east of the praetorium as having three rows ofrooms, and proposes that the rooms of thethird, rear row were communal dining rooms.Suggests these barracks were for the extraordinarii.Uncertain who the buildings of area F werefor, but could be for "ancillary, non-fightingtroops" or the velites. Little discussion given tothis area.Questions Schulten's praetorium, but the interpretationis possible.Accepts Schulten's reconstruction of the tribunes'houses.Accepts the line and size of Schulten's viaprincipalis.Seems to accept Schulten's interpretation ofthe forum and quaestorium, but gives these areaslittle discussion.Rejects stabling occurred in rows D and K, asthere are no drains, the ground slopes into theliving areas and the buildings do not look likeImperial type stable blocks. Instead prefers thatthe horses were in a corral, possibly in thesouth-western part of the camp or an annexe inthe form of Lager II.Believes there is no value in discussing thenumber of men per conhibernium.Does not really discuss the south-westernand southern parts of the camp or the remainsof row E along the western side of the camp.No discussion of the defences.Gives much attention to Schulten's changingthoughts on Lager III, as revealed in the interimreports in Archiiologischer Anzeiger, and howforceful he was in making the camp fit Polybius.Lager III annexeLager HI and its annexe could be contemporary,as Schulten suggests, or the 'annexe' waslater than Lager Ill, though unlike MD, PS doesRe-interprets blocks 6 and 7 of row E as asingle block.Detached buildings in courtyards of row Ewere accommodation for the triarii.The barracks of row E were occupied by alliedinfantry organised as maniples, but grouped ascohorts.Interprets G and H as allied cavalry barracks/stables.Suggests the remains to the east of thepraetorium represent two, back-to-back barracksfor the delecti extraordinarii.Reconstruction and interpretation of area Funcertain.Questions Schulten's praetorium, but the interpretationis possible.Accepts the tribunes' houses, but proposes arevised layout.Proposes an alternative course and width forthe via principalis.Discusses Schulten's interpretation of theforumand quaestorium at some length. QuestionsSchulten's interpretation, with areas possiblybeing just more barracks.Accepts Schulten's interpretation that D andK are barracks/stables, though offers a differentreconstruction.Discusses the number of men per contuberniumat some length and proposes numbers.Discusses the south-western and southernparts of the camp and the remains of row Ealong the western side of the camp at somelength. Questions Schulten's reconstruction andsuggests an alternative for the western area ofthe camp, but leaves the reconstruction of thesouthern part of the camp uncertain.Discusses form of defences at some length.Not discussed.Lager VIProposes the annexe as being a separate andlater phase of camp from Lager III, perhapsassociated with Scipio.323

Appendix Twonot commit himself completely to the annexebeing a separate and later phase of camp.The topography prevented buildings extendingfurther west than the area covered by thesurviving remains.Suggests the barracks were triple blocks, eachconsisting of three parallel ranges. AcceptsSchulten's idea of them being a mixture ofcavalry and infantry barracks, or the 'cavalry'blocks were officers' quarters.Lager IVQuestions Schulten's date of 75 BC and suggeststhe camp post-dates 90 BC.Discusses camp very briefly. Accepts Schulten'sinterpretation.Rampart to the west of Lager IVNo reference to the rampart extending to thewest of Lager IV.Lager VSuggests Lager V dates to the late second orearly first century BC on the basis of the coinevidence and, as Schulten comments, the camplies on a less defensive position (lower downthe slope) which means it would post-date thefall of Numantia.Questions Schulten's reconstruction of thelayout and offers an alternative, particularly ofthe northern area of remains.Suggests the Abschlussmauer along the southernside of the barracks in the northern part ofthe camp is the southern rampart of Lager IV.Interprets the east-west blocks at the easternend of the row of barracks in the northern partof the camp as a series of parallel centurialblocks.Little detailed discussion of the main part ofthe northern row of buildings, but recontructsthem as double blocks occupied by cohorts,though not necessarily legionary.Questions Schulten's quaestorium and suggeststhe remains could be barracks, but with nofurther comment or reconstruction.No comment on Schulten's later buildings inthe northern part of the camp.Only discusses the barracks in the northernpart of the camp.CastillejoNo discussion of the Blue and Red Phases.Does not discuss the relative chronology ofthe three phases and simply accepts Schulten.The buildings could have extended furtherwest than in the area found.Reconstructs most of the buildings as double,back-to-back cohort barrack blocks.Lager IVRejects Schulten's date of 75 BC and insteadincludes the camp within the main period of theNumantine Wars in the mid-second century.Discusses camp in more detail than PS. Questionssome of Schulten's interpretations.Lager VIISuggests rampart to the west of Lager IV ispart of another phase of camp and not, asSchulten suggests, a bracchium associated withLager IVLager VQuestions that the coin evidence suggests thecamp post-dates the fall of Numantia and rejectsthe location of the camp as being in aparticularly weak position. Dates Lager V tobefore the Scipionic siege, but still in the 130s.Questions Schulten's reconstruction of thelayout and offers an alternative (and differentto PS), particularly of the northern area of remains.The Abschlussmauer is a terrace wall of LagerV.Reconstructs blocks as horseshoe-shaped,quadruple barrack blocks.Much discussion of the main part of the northernrow of buildings and reconstructs them asquadruple blocks occupied by cohorts, probablyof allies.Questions Schulten's quaestorium and suggeststhe remains could be barracks, possiblyfor cavalry, and offers a reconstruction of thisarea.Includes Schulten's later buildings as part ofthe barracks.Discusses all of the camp.CastillejoDiscusses all phases.Proposes alternative dating of the three phasesfrom Schulten's.324

Appendix TwoAccepts Schulien's reconstruction of the shapeof the Black Phase.No mention of possible erosion of the westernside of the site; Schulten also does not take thisinto account.No discussion of the Black Phase praetorium,forum, quaestorium, defences or granary andsimply accepts Schulten.Questions SchuIten's overall Black Phase interpretation,but offers no alternative.TravesadasLittle discussion.Accepts Schulten's reconstruction of the areaof the camp.Questions Schulten placing cavalry in thebuildings, but accepts the buildings as beingbarracks.SaledillaAccepts Sc_hul ten's idea that the barrack blockpost-dates the Scipionic siege as it is too close toNumantia and therefore vulnerable.Only discusses the barrack block and rejectsSdiulten's interpretation that it accommodatedcavalry.Peria RedondaAccepts Schulten's shape for the camp andthe existence of an open area in the western halfof the camp.No discussion of the defences.Accepts Schulten's civil buildings withoutdiscussion and leaves them off the plans.Accepts Schulten's praetorium without discussion.Accepts Sc_hulten's form for the buildings inthe north-eastern part of the camp. Discussesthe potential officers' quarters at length. RejectsSchulten's idea that the buildings were for cavalry,and instead places infantry in them, thoughdoes not commit himself to which type of infantry.Accepts Schulten's north-south division ofthe infantry barracks to the south of the praetorium,but suggests an alternative east-westdivision, replacing Schulten's threefold divisionalong the buildings with contubernia alongthe entire length and with officers's quarters atthe east end; hence rejects Schulten's 'cohort'arrangement and favours a manipular organisationfor the infantry.Accepts Schulten's interpretation of buildings35 and 36 as tribune's accommodation, butincludes no detailed discussionProposes a noticeably different scheme fromSchulten's for the shape and nature of the defencesof all three phases.Erosion may have removed part of the westernarea of all three phases.Discusses Black Phase praetorium, forum,quaestorium, defences and granary. Proposesdifferent interpretation from Schulten's for allbut the granary.Proposes a radically different reconstructionfor the camp layout from Schulten.TravesadasFull discussion.Doubts validity of Sc_hulten's reconstructionof the area of the camp.Schulten's interpretation could be correct,but the evidence is inconclusive.SaledillaProposes Saledilla is the site of one of Scipio'ssiege installations and suggests a different linefor the circumvallation accordingly.Wide-ranging discussion of the remains atSaledilla . Suggests barrackblock accommodatedinfantry.Peria RedondaQuestions Schulten's shape for the camp andopen area. Proposes an alternative reconstructionfor the layout of the camp.Discusses form of defences.Re-interprets civil buildings as part of thepraetorium complex.Re-interprets praetorium complex as barracks.Proposes a completely different reconstructionfor the north-eastern part of the camp, asbarracks for delecti extraordinarii.Offers a completely different interpretationfrom both PS and Schulten for Schulten's praetoriumcomplex and the barracks to the south,reconstructing the remains as long, doublebarrack blocks for cohort-organised infantry.Interprets buildings 35 and 36 as cavalrybarracks/stables, with full discussion and reconstruction.325

Appendix TwoQuestions Schulten's interpretation of buildings40,41 and 44, but offers no alternative anddoes not include a detailed discussion.MolinoNo discussion of the defences and shape ofthe camp.Rejects cavalry being in building G.No re-interpretation of any of the buildings.RazaAccepts Schulten's association of Raza withScipio.Accepts Schulten's reconstruction and makesno reference to only three sides having beenfound.Valdevorron, Dehesilla, Alto Realand VegaOnly mentioned, with no discussion.Caceres el ViejoLimited discussion.Interprets buildings 40, 41 and 44 as cavalrybarracks/stables, with full discussion and reconstruction.MolinoQuestions Schulten's interpretation of the formof the defences and the shape of the camp.Rejects cavalry being in building G.Buildings re-interpreted as long, cohort doublebarrack blocks.RazaSuggests Raza pre-dates Scipio.Questions Schulten's reconstruction, sinceonly one side was found.Valdevorron, Dehesilla, Alto Realand VegaFull discussion.Caceres el ViejoNot discussed, as all the camps at Numantiaare proposed as dating to the 130s or earlier,compared to Caceres el Viejo, which Ulbert(1984) dates to between c. 90 and c. 80. Also thedetails of the internal layout of Caceres el Viejoare too uncertain to be applied retrospectivelyto aid the interpretation of the Numantine sites.326

BIBLIOGRAPHYSELECT CLASSICAL LITERARY SOURCESAmrnianusThe Surviving Books of The History of Ammianus Marcellinus, trans. J. Rolfe, Loeb (London, 1950and 1952).Antipater, Sisenna, Quadrigarius et al.Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, ed. H. Peter, Teubner (Stuttgart, 1967).AppianAppian's Roman History, trans. H. White, Loeb (London, 1912).The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria ed. and trans. H. White (London, 1899).CaesarThe Battle for Gaul, trans. A. & P. Wiseman (London, 1980).The Civil Wars, trans. A. Peskett, Loeb (London, 1914).The Gallic War, trans. H. Edwards, Loeb (London, 1922).Caesar (?)Alexandrian, African and Spanish Wars, trans. A. Way, Loeb (London, 1955).CiceroDe Divinatione, trans. W. Falconer, Loeb (London, 1923).De Oratore, trans. E. Sutton & H. Rackham, Loeb (London, 1948).The Letters to His Friends, trans. W. Williams, Loeb (London, 1954).Philippics, trans. W. Ker, Loeb (London, 1926).Corpus AgrimensorumDie Schriften der riimischen Feldmesser, eds F. Blume et al. (Berlin, 1848 and 1852; reprintedHildesheim, 1967).DigestCorpus Juris Civilis. The Civil Law, in C. Brand Roman Military Law (London, 1968), 170 ff.DioRoman History, trans. E. Cary, Loeb (London, 1961).Diodorus SiculusDiodorus of Sicily. Library of History, trans. C. Oldfather, Loeb (London, 1946).Dionysius of HalicarnassusThe Roman Antiquities, trans. E. Cary, Loeb (London, 1948-50).DonatusInterpretationes Vergiliarure, ed. H. George, Teubner (Stuttgart, 1969).EnniusRemains of Old Latin, ed. and trans. E. Warmington, Loeb (London, 1935).FestusDe Verbonim Significatu Quae Supersunt cum Pauli Epitome, ed. W. Lindsay, Teubner (Leipzig,1913; reprinted Stuttgart, 1965).327

FlorusEpitome of Roman History, trans. E. Forster, Loeb (London, 1929).FrontinusThe Stratagems, trans. C. Bennett, ed. M. McElwain, Loeb (London, 1925).GeniusThe Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius, trans. J. Rolfe, Loeb (London, 1927).HerodotusHerodotus, trans. A. Godley, Loeb (London, 1946).BibliographyHyginus (?)Hyginus Gromaticus. Liber de Munitionihus Castrorum, ed. and trans. A. von Domaszewski(Leipzig, 1887).Hyginus. De Metatione Castrorum, ed. A. Grillone, Teubner (Leipzig, 1977).Pseudo-Hygin. Des Fortifications du Camp, ed. M. Lenoir (Paris, 1979).Polybius and Pseudo-Hyginus: The Fortification of the Roman Camp, ed. M. Miller & J. DeVoto(Chicago, 1994).IsidorusEhimologiarum sive Originum, ed. W. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911).ItalicusPunica, trans. J. Duff, Loeb (London, 1949 and 1950).JosephusThe Jewish War, trans. H. Thackeray, Loeb (London, 1956).JuvenalThe Satires of Juvenal, trans. G. Ramsay, Loeb (London, 1957).LivyHistory of Rome, trans. B. Foster eta!., Loeb (London, 1936-83).Rome and the Mediterranean. Books XXXI-XLV of The History of Rome from its Foundation, trans. H.Bettenson (Harmondsworth, 1976).The Early History of Rome. Books I-V of The History of Rome from its Foundation, trans. A. deSelincourt (Harmondsworth, 1976).The War with Hannibal. Books XXI-XXX of The History of Rome from its Foundation, trans. A. deSelincourt, ed. B. Radice (Harmondsworth, 1976).LucanM. Annaei Lucani 'Pharsalia' ed. C. Haskins (London, 1887).The Civil War (Pharsalia), trans. J. Duff, Loeb (London, 1928).ManiliusAstronomica, trans. G. Goold, Loeb (London, 1977).MauriceStrategica. The Articles of War, in C. Brand Roman Military Law (London, 1968), 194 ff.NeposThe Great Generals of Foreign Nations, trans. J. Rolfe, Loeb (London, 1929).PlinyNatural History, trans. H. Rackham et al., Loeb (London, 1949-62).PlutarchLives of Famous Greeks and Romans, trans. B. Perrin, Loeb (London, 1920).PolybiusThe Histories, trans. W. Paton, Loeb (London, 1954).The Rise of the Roman Empire, trans. I. Scott-Kilvert (Harmondsworth, 1979).Polybius and Pseudo-Hyginus: The Fortification of the Roman Camp, ed. M. Miller & J. DeVoto(Chicago, 1994).328

PriscianusDe Figuris Numerorum, in Grammatici Latini, ed. H. Keil (Hildesheim, 1961).PropertiusThe Elegies, trans. H. Butler, Loeb (London, 1912).PrudentiusPsychomachia, trans. H. Thomson, Loeb (London, 1949).BibliographyRuffusEx Ruffo Leges Militares. Military Laws from Ruffus, in C. Brand Roman Military Law (London,1968), 147 ff.SallustC. Sallusti Crispi .Historiarum Reliquiae, ed . B. Maurenbrecher, Teubner (Stuttgart, 1891; reprinted1967).The Jugurthine War, trans. S. Handford (Harmondsworth, 1963).The War with Jugurtha, trans. J. Rolfe, Loeb (London, 1947).Sallust: Fragments of the Histories and Pseudo-Sallust: Letters to Caesar, trans. J. Carter. LACTOR6 (London, 1970).SenecaThe Epistles of Seneca, trans. R. Gummere, Loeb (London, 1967).Moral Essays, trans. J. Basore, Loeb (London, 1935-65).ServiusIn Vergilium Commentarius, ed. G. Thilo, Teubner (Stuttgart, 1878).SuetoniusThe Lives of the Caesars, trans. J. Rolfe, Loeb (London, 1914).The Twelve Caesars, trans. R. Graves (Harmondsworth, 1957).TacitusDe Vita Agricolae, eds H. Furneaux & J. Anderson (Oxford, 1922).Agricola, trans. M. Hutton, revised R. Ogilvie, Loeb (London, 1970).The Annals, trans. J. Jackson, Loeb (London, 1951-70).The Histories, trans. C. Moore, Loeb (London, 1962-8).The Histories, trans. K. Wellesley (Harmondsworth, 1975).Valerius MaximusFactorum et Dictorum Memorialium, ed. C. Kempf, Teubner (Stuttgart, 1966).VarroOn Agriculture, trans. W. Hooper, revised H. Ash, Loeb (London, 1934).On the Latin Language, trans. R. Kent, Loeb (London, 1938).VegetiusEpitoma Rd Militaris, ed. C. Lang, Teubner (Stuttgart, 1885).Military Institutions of Vegetius, in Five Books, trans. J. Clarke (London, 1767).Les Institutions Militaires de Flavius V egetius Rena tus, trans C. Bongars, ed. M. Nisard (Paris, 1860).Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science, trans. N. Milner (Liverpool, 1993).Velleius PaterculusCompendium of Roman History, trans. F. Shipley, Loeb (London, 1924).VirgilAeneid, trans. H. Fairclough, Loeb (London, 1960).Georgics, trans. H. Fairclough, Loeb (London, 1967).The Minor Poems, trans. H. Rushton Fairclough, Loeb (London, 1960).VitruviusOn Architecture, trans. F. Granger, Loeb (London, 1931-34).329

SELECT GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHYBibliographyAdcock, F. 1940 The Roman Art of War Under the Republic (Cambridge, U.S.A.).Alarcio, J. de 1988 Roman Portugal. 3 vols (Warminster).Albrecht, Ch. 1938 Das Riimerlager in Oberaden und das Uferkastell in Beckinghausen an der Lippe. Vol.1 (Dortrnund).AlfOldi, A. 1968 (Centuria) procum patricium, Historia 17, 444-60.Alfiildy, G. 1986 Die Inschriften aus den Principia des Alenkastells Aalen (Vorbericht). Mit einemBeitrag von Vera Weinges, in C. Unz (ed.) Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Roms III (Stuttgart),69-72.Alvarez, J. 1975 Notas sobre el campamento Romano de SasamOn (Burgos), Pyrenae 2, 127-32.Anderson, J. 1961 Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley).Astin, A. 1967 Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford).Astin, A. 1978 Cato the Censor (Oxford).Baatz, D. 1973 Kastell Hesselbach. Limesforschungen 12 (Berlin).Baatz, D. 1985 Hibernacula, Germania 63, 147-54.Badian, E. 1966 The Early Historians in T. Dorey (ed.) Latin Historians (London), 1-38.Bath, T. 1981 Hannibal's Campaigns (Cambridge).Becker, A. & Marquardt, J. 1853 Handbuch der riimischen Altertiimer 3.2 (Leipzig), 309-26.Beeser, J. 1979 Pilum Murale?, Fundberichte aus Baden-Wiirttemberg 4, 133-43.Bell, M. 1965 Tactical Reform in the Roman Republican Army, Historia 14, 404-472.Beltran, M. 1990 Guia de la Cenimica Romana (Zaragoza).Birley, E. 1982 The Dating and Character of the Tract De munitionibus castrorum, in G. Wirth (ed.)Romanitas-Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der reimischen Kaiserzeit(Berlin), 277-81.Bishop, M. 1985 The military fabrica and the production of arms in the early Principate, in M.Bishop (ed.) The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. Proceedings of theSecond Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar. British Archaeological Reports S-275(Oxford), 1-42.Bishop, M. & Coulston, J. 1993 Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome(London).Bloch, R. 1963 The Origins of Rome. 2nd ed. (London).Bldzquez, J. & Corzo, R. 1986 Luftbilder rtimischer Lager aus republikanischer Zeit in Spanien,in C. Unz (ed.) Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Roms III (Stuttgart), 681-91.Blume, F. et al. (eds) 1967 Die Schriften der rOmischen Feldmesser (Corpus Agrimensorum). 2 vols.Reprint of 1848 and 1852 edition of vols 1 and 2 respectively (Hildesheirn).Boethius, A. & Ward-Perkins, J. 1970 Etruscan and Roman Architecture (Harmondsworth).Brand, C. 1968 Roman Military Law (London).Breeze, D. 1969 The organization of the Legion: the First Cohort and the Equites Legion is, Journalof Roman Studies 59, 50-55.Breeze, D. 1983 Roman Forts in Britain (Princes Risborough).Brink, C.O. & Walbank, F.W. 1954 The Construction of the Sixth Book of Polybius, ClassicalQuarterly NS 4, 97-122.Briscoe, J. 1971 The First Decade, in T. Dorey (ed.) Livy (London), 1-20.Briscoe, J. 1973 A Commentary on Livy. Books XXX/-XXXIII (Oxford).Briscoe, J. 1981 A Commentary on Livy. Books XXXTV-XXXVII (Oxford).Brunt, P. 1971 Italian Manpower 225 B.C. - A.D. 14 (Oxford).Burck, E. 1971 The Third Decade, in T. Dorey (ed.) Livy (London), 21-46.Bury, J. 1909 The Ancient Greek Historians (London).330

BibliographyCampbell, J. 1984 The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC- AD 235 (Oxford).Ca.-ney, T. 1961 A Biography of C. Marius. Proceedings of the African Classical Associations,Supplement No. 1.Cary, M. 1949 The Geographical Background of Greek and Roman History (Oxford).Castagnoli, F. 1971 Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity (London).Caven, B. 1980 The Punic Wars (London).Clarke, J.R. 1991 The Houses of Roman Italy 100 BC- AD 250. Ritual, Space and Decoration (Berkeley).Collingwood, R. & Wright, R., (Frere, S. & Tomlin, R. eds) 1991 The Roman Inscriptions of Britain.Vol. II Instrumentum Domesticum. Fascicule 2 (Stroud).Connolly, P. 1975 The Roman Army (London).Connolly, P. 1978 Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome (London).Connolly, P. 1981 Greece and Rome at War (London).Connolly, P. 1988 Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Cavalryman (Oxford).Connolly, P. 1988 Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Legionary (Oxford).Conrads, A. 1927 Pila Muralia und ihre Verwendung,, Germania 11, 71-3.Crawford, M. 1969 Roman Republican Coin Hoards (London).Crawford, M. 1974 Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge).Crawford, M. 1978 The Roman Republic (Glasgow).Crawford, M. 1985 Coinage and Money under the Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Economy(London).Crawford, M. 1987 Iberian denarii in action, in A.M. Burnett & M.H. Crawford (eds) The Coinageof the Roman World in the Late Republic, British Archaeological Reports S-326, 38-41 (Oxford).Curchin, L. 1990 Living Conditions of the Roman Soldier in Spain, in H. Vetters & M. Kandler (eds)Akten des 14. Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntum, 295-299 (Vienna).Curchin, L. 1991 Roman Spain. Conquest and Assimilation (London).Davies, R. 1989 Service in the Roman Army ed. D. Breeze & V. Maxfield (Edinburgh).Delbriick, H. 1975 History of the Art of War within the Framework of Political History. Vol .1 Antiquity.Translated by W. Renfroe from Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte(Berlin, 1920) (London).Devijver, H. 1977 Prosopographia Militiarum Equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum(Leuven).Develin, R. 1980 The Roman Command Structure and Spain 218-190 BC, Klio 62, 355-67.Dilke, 0. 1971 The Roman Land Surveyors (Newton Abbot).Dixon, K. & Southern, P. 1992 The Roman Cavalry (London).Dobson, B. 1974 The Significance of the Centurion and 'Primipilaris' in the Roman Army andAdministration, in H. Temporini (ed.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der Riimischen Welt 2.1 (Berlin),392-434.Dobson, B. 1978 Die Primipilares (Köln).Dobson, B. 1979 Review of A. Grillone (ed.) Hyginus. De Met atione Castrorum (Stuttgart, 1977),Durham University Journal.Domaszewslci, A. von 1981 Die Rangordnung des rOmischen Heeres. 3. Auflage. B. Dobson (ed.)(Köln).Dorey, T. 1966 Caesar: the 'Gallic War', in T. Dorey (ed.) Latin Historians (London), 65-84.Dorey, T. (ed.) 1966 Latin Historians (London).Dorey, T. (ed.) 1969 Tacitus (London).Dorey, T. (ed.) 1971 Livy (London).Driel-Murray, C. van 1990 New light on old tents, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1,109-137.331

BibliographyDriel-Murray, C. van 1991 A Roman tent: Vindolanda I, in V. Maxfield & M. Dobson (eds) RomanFrontier Studi ,s 1989 (Exeter), 367-72.Drury, P. (ed.) 1982 Structural Reconstruction. Approaches to the Interpretation of the ExcavatedRemains of Buildings. British Archaeological Reports 110 (Oxford).Duncan-Jones, R. 1980 Length-units in Roman Town Planning: The Pes Monetalis and the PesDrusianus, Britannia 11, 127-133.Evans, E. 1994 Military Architects and Building Design in Roman Britain, Britannia 25,143-164.Fabricius, E. 1911 Ober die Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archdologischer Anzeiger, 370-82.Fabricius, E. 1932 Some notes on Polybius's description of Roman camps, Journal of Roman Studies22, 78-87.Fischer, W. 1914 Das Rdmische Lager insbesondere nach LiZYTUS (Leipzig).Fraccaro, P. 1934 Polibio e l'Accampamento Romano, Athenaeum New Series 12, 154-61.Frere, S. 1980 Hyginus and the First Cohort, Britannia 11, 51-60.FrOhlich, F. 1889 Das Kriegswesen Ciisars (Zurich).Gabba, E. 1976 Republican Rome. The Army and the Allies (Oxford).Gamer, G. & Frias, T. 1969 Neue Beobachtungen am riirnischen Lager bei Alrnazin (Prov. Soria),Madrider Mitteilungen 10, 172-184.Garlan, Y. 1975 War in the Ancient World: A Social History (London).Gentry, A. 1976 Roman Military Stone-Built Granaries in Britain. British Archaeological Reports 32(Oxford).Gimpera, P. & Bleye, P. 1935 La Conquista de Espafia por Roma, in R. Pidal (ed.) Historia de Esparta.Tomo II. Esparia Romana (Madrid), 1-283.Girao, A. de 1944 Cava de Viriato. Novos elementos para a sua interpretacao, Beira Alta 3.1,69-75.Grillone, A. (ed.) 1977 Hyginus. De Metatione Castrorum (Stuttgart, 1977).Grimal, P. 1983 Roman Cities. Translated and edited G. Woloch (London).Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1977 Grain storage and supply in the Valkenburg castella andPraetorium Agrippinae, in B. van Beek et al. (eds) Ex Horreo (Amsterdam), 226-240.Groenman-van Waateringe, W. 1991 Valkenburg ZH 1: fabrica or praetorium?, in V. Maxfield &M. Dobson (eds) Roman Frontier Studies 1989 (Exeter), 179-83.Gurlitt, W. 1868 ROmisches (?) Lager bei Vizeu in Portugal, Archiiologische Zeitung 26, 14-15.Hackett, J. (ed.) 1989 Warfare in the Ancient World (London).Hanson, V. 1989 The Western Way of War. Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Oxford).Hanson, W. 1978 The organisation of Roman military Timber-supply, Britannia 9, 293-305.Harmand, J. 1967 L'Armee et le Soldat a Rome de 107 a 50 avant notre ere (Paris).Haverfield, F. 1913 Ancient Town-Planning (Oxford).Hawkes, C.F.C. 1929 Reviews of Schulten (1927) and (1929), Journal of Roman Studies 19, 99-102.Hildebrandt, H. 1979 Die ROmerlager von Numantia. Datierung anhand der Miinzfunde,Madrider Mitteilungen 20, 238-71.Holder, P.1980 The Auxilia from Augustus to Trajan. British Archaeological Reports 5-70 (Oxford).Humble, R. 1980 Warfare in the Ancient World (London).Hyland, A. 1990 Equus: The Horse in the Roman World (London).Johnson, A. 1983 Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD in Britain and the German Provinces(London).Jones, M. 1975 Roman Fort-Defences to A.D. 117. British Archaeological Reports 21 (Oxford).332

BibliographyJones, R. 1976 The Roman military occupation of North-West Spain, Journal of Roman Studies 66,45-66.Junkelmann, M. 1986 Die Legionen des Augustus. Der reimische Soldat im archiiologischen Experiment(Mainz).Junkelmann, M. 1990-92 Die Reiter Roms. 3 vols (Mainz).Kahrstedt, U. 1933 Lager mit Claviculae, Bonner JahrbUcher 138, 144-52.Kalb, P. & HOck, M. 1983 El Alto do Castello, Alpiarca (Distrito de Santarem, Portugal) - Uncampamento Romano?, Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia16, 829-30.Kalb, P. & Wick, M. 1986 Alto do Castelo, Alpiarca - em n rOmisches Lager in Portugal, in C. Unz(ed.) Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Roms III (Stuttgart), 696-9.Keay, S. 1988 Roman Spain (London).Keegan, J. & Holmes, R. 1985 Soldiers. A History of Men in Battle (London).Keppie, L. 1984 The Making of the Roman Army from Republic to Empire (London).Keppie, L. 1987 Review of Ulbert (1984), Britannia 18, 401-2.King, A. 1990 Roman Gaul and Germany (London).Knapp, R. 1980 Cato in Spain, 195/194 B.C.: Chronology and Geography, in C. Deroux (ed.) Studiesin Latin Literature and Roman History II, 21-56 (Brussels).Knapp, R. 1987 Spain, in A. Burnett & M. Crawford (eds) The Coinage of the Roman World in theLate Republic, British Archaeological Reports S-326, 19-37 (Oxford).Kpopatscheck, G. 1908 MOrserkeulen und Pila Muralia, Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich DeutschenArchiiologischen Instituts 23, 1908, 79-94.Kromayer, J. & Veith, G. 1928 Heerwesen und Kriegsfiihrung der Griechen und ROmer. Handbuch derAltertumswissenschaft 4.3.2 (Munchen).KUhlborn, J. 1991 Die Lagerzentren der rOmischen Militdrlager von Oberaden und Anreppen, inB. Trier (ed .) Die riimische Okkupation nOrdlich der Alpen zur Zeit des Augustus (Miinster), 129-40.Lenoir, M. 1977 Lager init claviculae, Mélanges d'Archelogie et d'Histoire 89, 697-722.Lenoir, M. 1979 Pseudo-Hygin. Des Fortifications du Camp (Paris).Lewis, C. & Short, C. 1879 A Latin Dictionary (Oxford).Luce, T. 1977 Livy. The Composition of His History (Princeton).Magie, D. 1920 Augustus' War in Spain (26-25 BC), Classical Philology 15, 323-339.Malcovati, H. 1955 Oratorum Romanorum. Fragmenta Liberae Rd Publicae 2nd ed. (Turin).Mann, J. 1992 Armamentaria, Archaeologica Aeliana 5th Series 20, 157-8.Marvell, A. 1989 When is a legionary fortress not a legionary fortress?, Current Archaeology 113,184-6.Marquardt, J. 1881 ROmische Staatsverwaltung 2. Auflage (Leipzig).Martin, R. 1981 Tacitus (London).McElwain, M. (ed.) 1925 Frontinus The Stratagems, trans. C. Bennett, Loeb (London).McIntyre, J. & Richmond, I. 1934 Tents of the Roman army and leather from Birdoswald,Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Anticfuarian and Archaeological Society 34, 62-90.Meiggs, R. 1973 Roman Ostia. 2nd ed. (Oxford).Meiggs, R. 1982 Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford).Miller, M. & DeVoto, J. 1994 Polybius and Pseudo-Hyginus: The Fortification of the Roman Camp(Chicago).Milner, N. (trans. and ed.) 1993 Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science (Liverpool).Momigliano, A. 1966 Procum PatTicium, Journal of Roman Studies 56, 16-24.Mommsen, T. 1893 Abriss des rtimischen Staatsrechts (Leipzig).Momrnsen, T. 1900 Praetorium, Hermes 35, 437-42.333

BibliographyMommsen, T. 1908 The History of Rome. 5 vols (London).Morel, J.-P. 1965 Ceramique a Vernis Noir du Forum Romain et du Palatin, Melanges d'Archeologieet d'histoire Supplement 3 (Paris).Morel, J.-P. 1981 Cêramique Campanienne: Les Formes (Rome).Morel, J. 1991 Tents or barracks?, in V. Maxfield & M. Dobson (eds) Roman Frontier Studies 1989(Exeter), 376-86.Nicolet, C. 1980 The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (Berkeley).Nissen, IL 1869 Das Tem plum (Berlin).Ogilvie, R. 1965 A Commentary on Livy Books 1 - 5 (Oxford).Ogilvie, R. 1969 The Romans and their Gods (London).Ogilvie, R. 1976 Early Rome and the Etruscans (Glasgow).Oleiro, J. 1959 Subsidios para o estudo do acamparnento Romano de Antanhol, Biblos 35,599-652.Ortego, T. 1980 Numancia (Madrid).Owens, E. 1991 The City in the Greek and Roman World (London).Oxe, A. 1909 Die dlteste Truppenverteilung im Neusser Legionslager, Bonner Jahrbiicher 118,75-99.Oxe, A. 1939 Polybianische und vorpolybianische LagermaRe und Lagertypen, Bonner Jahrbiicher143/4,47-74.Pamment-Salvatore, J. 1992 Roman Republican Castrametation: With Special Reference to the Stone-Built Camps in Spain. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. Unpublished.Parker, H. 1958 The Roman Legions (Cambridge).Paul, G. 1966 Sallust, in T. Dorey (ed.) Latin Historians (London), 85-114.Peacock, D. & Williams, D. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy. An Introductory Guide (London).Pease, A. 1949 Auspicium, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford), 126.Pelham, H. 1893 Outlines of Roman History (London).Petrikovits, H. von 1974 ROmisches Militiirhandwerk Archiiologische Forschungen der Letz ten Jahre(Wien).Petrikovits, H. von 1975 Die Innenbauten riimischer Legionslager wiihrend der Prinzipatszeit (Opladen).Phillips, T. 1943 Roots of Strategy (London).Phillips, T. (ed.) 1944 The Military Institutions of the Romans. Flavius Vegetius Renatus (Harrisburg,U.S.A.).Pidal, R. (ed.) 1935 Historia de Espana. Tomo II. Espana Romana (Madrid).Pietsch, M. et al. 1991 Das augusteisc_he Truppenlager Marktbreit, Bericht der Riimisch-GermanischenKommission 72,264-324.Pinto, A. 1964 A Cava de Viriato, Beira Alta 23.1, 57-70.Pitts, L. & St. Joseph, J. 1985 Inchtuthil. The Roman Legionary Fortress. Britannia Monograph Series6 (London).Platner, S. 1929 A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford).Plommer, H. 1973 Vitruvius and Later Roman Building Manuals (Cambridge).Potter, T. 1987 Roman Italy (London).Pritchett, W. 1971 Depth of Phalanx, The Greek State at War Part I, 134 43 (Berkeley).Pritchett, W. 1971 Width of the File in the Phalanx Army, The Greek State at War Part I, 144-54(Berkeley).Ransom, C. 1905 Couches and beds of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (Chicago).Rawson, E. 1971 The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Army, Papers of the British School at Rome39, 13-31.334

BibliographyRichardson, J. 1986 Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC(Cambridge).Richmond, I. 1961 A new building inscription from the Saxon Shore fort at Reculver, Kent,Antiquaries Journal 41, 224-8.Richmond, I. 1962 The Roman siege-works of Masada, Israel, Journal of Roman Studies 52, 142-55.Richmond, I. 1982 Trajan's Army on Trajan's Column (London).Richmond, I. & Birley, E. 1930 Excavations on Hadrian's Wall, in the Birdoswald-Pike Hill Sector,1929, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological SocietyNew Series 30, 169-205.Rickman, G. 1971 Roman Granaries and Store Buildings (Cambridge).Robertson, D. 1929 A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture (Cambridge).Salmon, E. 1967 Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge).Salmon, E. 1969 Roman Colonization under the Republic (London).Siinchez-L,afuente, J. 1979 Aportaciones al estudio del Campamento roman° de "La Cerca"(Aguilar de Anguita-Guadalajara), Wad-al-Hayara 6, 77-82.Savory, H. 1968 Spain and Portugal. The Prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula (London).Schleiermacher, W. 1949 Principia, Trierer Zeitschrift 18, 243-8.Schnurbein, S. von 1974 Die riimischen Militiiranlagen bei Haltern. Bodenaltertiirner Westfalens 14(Miinster).Schtinberger, H. 1975 Kasten Kiinzing-Quintana. Limesforschungen 13 (Berlin).SchOnberger, H. 1978 Kastell Oberstimm. Die Grabungen von 1968 bis 1971. Limesforschungen 18(Berlin).Schemberger, H. 1979 Valkenburg Z.H.: Praetorium oder Fabrica?, Germania 57, 135-41.SchOnberger, H. & Simon, H. 1976 ROmerlager ROdgen. Limesforschungen 15 (Berlin).SchOnberger, H. et al. 1988 Die Ostliche Umwehrung des Kastells Oberstirrun und Schiffemediterraner Bauart auf seiner Westseite, Gemeinde Manching, Landkreis Pfaffenhofen a.d.Ilm, Oberbayern, Das archiiologische Jahr in Bayern 1987 (Stuttgart), 106-108.Schulten, A. 1905-12 Noten (notebooks of the fieldwork and excavations in Spain between 1905and 1912), 21 vols, unpublished, kept at ROmisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz.Schulten, A. 1905 Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archdologischer Anzeiger, 162-6.Schulten, A. 1907a Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archaologischer Anzeiger, 3-35.Schulten, A. 1907b Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archiiologischer Anzeiger, 461-86.Schulten, A. 1908 Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archaologischer Anzeiger, 477-98.Schulten, A. 1909 Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archaologischer Anzeiger, 526-48.Schulten, A. 1911 Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archiiologischer Anzeiger, 3-39.Schulten, A. 1912 Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archiiologischer Anzeiger, 81-99.Schulten, A. 1913 Ausgrabungen in Numantia, Archiiologischer Anzeiger, 1-14.Schulten, A. 1914 Numantia. Die Ergelmisse der Ausgrabungen 1905-1912. Band I. Die Keltiberer undihre Kriege mit Rom (Miinchen).Schulten, A. 1926 Sertorius (Leipzig).Schulten, A. 1927a Forschungen in Spanien 1927, Archiiologische An.zeiger, 196-235.Schulten, A. 1927b Numantia. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1905-1912. Band III. Die Lager desScipio (Miinchen).Schulten, A. 1928a Ein rOmisches Lager aus dem zweiten punischen Kriege, Berliner PhilologischeWochenschrift 7, 221-2.Schulten, A. 1928b ROmische Lager in Spanien, Forschungen und Fortschritte 4, 41-3.Schulten, A. 1929 Numantia. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1905-1912. Band IV. Die Lager be!Renieblas (Miinchen).Schulten, A. 1931 Numantia . Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1905-1912. Band II . Die Stadt N umantia(Miinchen).335

BibliographySchulien, A. 1933a Forschungen in Spanien 1928-1933, Arckaologische Anzeiger, 513-566.Schulten, A. 1933b Geschichte von Numantia (Munchen).Schulten, A. 1962 Los Cantabros y Astures y su Guerra con Roma (Madrid).Scullard, H. 1967 The Etruscan Cities and Rome (London).Sear, F. 1982 Roman Architecture (London).Sherk, R. 1974 Roman Geographical Exploration and Military Maps, in H. Ternporini (ed.)Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rdmischen Welt 2.1 (Berlin), 534-62.Simpson, F. & Richmond, I. 1935 Randylands Milecastle 54, Transactions of the Cumberland andWestmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society New Series 35, 236-44.Spaulding, 0. 1937 Pen and Sword in Greece and Rome (Princeton).Speidel, M. 1970 The captor of Decebalus, Journal of Roman Studies 60, 142-53.Staveley, E. 1953 The Significance of the Consular Tribunate, Journal of Roman Studies 43, 30-6.Stevens, C & Whit-tick, G. 1949 Frontinus, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford), 371-2.Stevenson, G. 1949 Quaestor, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford), 753.Stillwell, R. (ed.) 1976 The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton).Stolle, F. 1912 Das Lager und Heer der Riimer (StraBbourg).Suolahti, J. 1955 The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period (Helsinki).Sumner, G. 1970 The Legion and the Centuriate Organization, Journal of Roman Studies 60, 67-78.Sutherland, C. 1939 The Romans in Spain 217 B.C. - A.D. 117 (London).Tarradell, M. 1978 Un forti roma a Tentellatge (Naves, Solsones), Els pobles pre-Romans del Pirineu2 Colloqui Internacional d'Arqueologia de Puigcerda, 245-250.Taylor, M. & Collingwood, R. (eds) 1929 Roman Britain in 1929, Journal of Roman Studies 19,180-218.Thompson, E. 1966 Ammianus Marcellinus, in T. Dorey (ed.) Latin Historians (London), 143-158.Treves, P. 1949 Consul, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford), 231-2.Treves, P. 1949 Praetor, Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford), 726-7.Ulbert, G. 1984 Caceres el Viejo. Ein spiitrepublilcanisches Legionslager in Spanisch-Extremadura.Madrider Beitrdge 11 (Mainz).Usher, S. 1969 The Historians of Greece and Rome (London).Vasconcellos, J. 1904 A Cava de Viriato, 0 Archeologo Portugues 9, 11-16.Veith, G. 1928 see Kromayer & Veith 1928.Walbank, F. 1957-79 A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 1 1957, vol.2 1967, vol.3 1979(Oxford).Walbank, F. 1966 Polybius, in T. Dorey (ed.) Latin Historians (London), 39-64.Walbank, F. 1971 The Fourth and Fifth Decades, in T. Dorey (ed.) Livy (London), 47-72.Walbank, F. 1972 Polybius (London).Walsh, P. 1961 Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge).Walsh, P. 1966 Livy, in T. Dorey (ed.) Latin Historians (London), 115-142.Wal thew, C. 1978 Property-Boundaries and the Sizes of Building-Plots in Roman Towns, Britannia9, 335-347.Walthew, C. 1981 Possible Standard Units of Measurement in Roman Military Planning, Britannia12, 15-35.Wamser, L. et al. 1988 Neue Untersuchungen irn friihrOmischen Legionslager bei Marktbreit, Dasarcheologische Jahr in Bayern 1987 (Stuttgart), 92-102.336

BibliographyWamser, L. 1991 Marktbreit, em n augusteisches Truppenlager am Maindreieck, in B. Trier (ed.)Die ramische Okkupation nOrdlich der Alpen zur Zeit des Augustus (1\4i:ulster), 109-27.Ward.man, A. 1976 Rome's Debt to Greece (London).Ward-Perkins, J. 1970 From Republic to Empire: Reflections on the early provincial architectureof the Roman west, Journal of Roman Studies 60, 1-19.Ward-Perkins, J. 1974 Cities of Ancient Greece and Italy: Planning in Classical Antiquity (London).Ward-Perkins, J. 1988 Rom (Stuttgart).Watson, G. 1969 Review of J. Harmand L'Armee et le Soldat a Rome del07 a 50 avant notre ere (Paris,1967), The Classic Review New Series 19, 214-6.Watson, G. 1969 The Roman Soldier (Bristol).Wattenberg, F. 1963 Las Cercimicas Indigerws de Numancia Biblioiheca Praehistorica Hispana 4(Madrid).Webster, G. 1969 The Roman Imperial Army (London).Webster, G. 1985 The Roman Imperial Army. 3rd edition (London).Wells, C. 1977 Review of S. von Schnurbein Die rOmischen Militiiranlagen hei Haltern (Minster,1974), Britannia 8, 463-6.Wells, C. 1984 The Roman Empire (Glasgow).White, H. 1899 The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria (London).White, H. 1912 Appian's Roman History, Loeb (London).Wild, J. 1969 A note on titulum, Archaeologia Cambrensis 117, 133.Wiseman, A. & P. 1980 Julius Caesar. The Battle for Gaul (London).Wuilleumier, P. & Bonniec, H. (eds) 1962 M. Anna eus Lucanus 'Bellum Civile' Liber Primus (Paris).Yadin, Y. 1966 Masada, Herod's Fortress and the Zealot's Last Stand (London).337