a comparative study of a Roman frontier province. - Historia Antigua

-431-
7: 1
26. See Jones et al 1983,64-67 and Welsby 1983,57-64, for preliminary
reports. The main survey was carried out by Dr. Welsby, R. Grove and
myself.
27. Goodchild 1954a, 54; Welsby 1983,60.
28. Goodchild 1954a, 53 for the plan and isometric elevation.
29. For the Lambaesis gate (A. D. 177) see Cagnat 1913,456-63; for Bu Njem,
Rebuffat 1967,71-84.
30. Goodchild 1954a, 51 (fig 12); Welsby 1983,61.
31. It is significant that even the ground floor of the gate towers was
not constructed throughout in ashlar blocks. This seems conclusive
proof that the upper floors in small masonry were contemporary.
32. Bu Njem, Remada, Sadouri and Lambaesis all have only two gate types.
For the detailed arguments concerning the circular burgus see above 6: 3.
33. Dr. Welsby deserves full credit for identifying these features. For the
parallels for the angle towers see Seston 1927,155,162 and Christofle
1938,120-21 on Rapidum in Mauretania Caesariensis. The type may have
been a development from the double corner towers ( ) at Gemellae and
Lambaesis, Cagnat 1913,458; Trousset 1977a, 571,573 (figs. 1 and 3).
34. Welsby 1983,61-62. Alternatively, if the type did develop from a
double tower, the arrangement may have been two pairs of windows with
a gap between.
35. Jones et al 1983,58,64-67, for the features on the west side of the
oasis. Three possible temples were recorded east of the fort (G. G.
2-4). The vicus is plainly visible on the air-photograph.
36. The fort is almost exactly double the size of Bu Njem and was large
enough for a garrison equivalent to a cohors milliaria.
37. Lyon 1821,65-66. Compare Rebuff at 1969,202-03.
38. Richardson 1848,443-45, noted the presence of the vicus around the fort.
39. Bartoccini 1928b, 50-58.
40. Goodchild 1954a, 47-50.
41. Further publications are forthcoming in the Libya Antiqua series (the
praetorium, double granary, temple of Mars Canapphar, south necropolis
and an updated overall plan; also the ostraca and other epigraphic
discoveries).
42. Rebuffat 1967,54-55; 1970a, 10-11,87.
43. Rebuffat 1967,71-84; 1969,199-203 (east); 1975b, 214-15 (south);
1967, pl. xxxv.
44. Lyon's drawing has been frequently reproduced, Cagnat 1913; Goodchild
1954a; Rebuffat 1967 and as my frontispiece. Modern excavation has in
general confirmed Lyon's evidence, Rebuffat 1969,202-03.
45. Rebuffat 1970b, 129-30, pl. xxviid; the same applies to Gheriat for
which Welsby 1983,62, makes the point.
46. Rebuffat 1970a, 10-11 and pers. obs. of kite air-photographs.
47. Principia: Rebuffat 1967,85-92; 1969,204-06; 1970a, 14-17; 1970b,
107-21; 1972a, 336-37; 1975b, 189-209; Praetorium: Rebuffat 1975c, 502-
04 (and pers. obs. ); Baths: Rebuffat 1970a, 13-14; 1970b, 121-33;
1972a, 331-35; 1975b, 208-14; 1975c, 503.
48. Rebuffat 1970b, 127-33; 1975,210-211.
49. Duveyrier and Lyon both noted a well close to the north gate, Cagnat
1913,556.
50. Rebuffat 1970a, 11-13. My Figure 26 is produced from Rebuffat's
previously published plan, updated from vertical kite air-photographs
taken by Professors Jones and Rebuffat, J. R. Burns and myself in 1980.
It is accurate enough for the purposes of the present discussion.
51. This would be a reasonable inference from the fort's size alone,
cf. Hassall 1983,96-131.