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

-439-
7: 3
55. Blanchet 1898,75-77; 1899,140-41, for the plan and description
repeated in Cagnat 1913,534-35.
56. Trousset 1974,97. He seems. now to have changed his mind (1981b).
The plan in Figure 46 is based on a survey by Prof. Jones, P. Reynolds
and myself.
57. See note 46 above. The discovery is as yet unpublished.
58. Trousset 1974,102.
59. De Mathuisieulx 1904,16; 1912,60-61, followed by Cagnat 1913,557.
60. The wall is noted on the AMS map of 1964 as "ancient wall", but this
lead was first followed up by Brogan 1971b, 11; 1980,45-52.
61. Brogan 1980,45-52 for the primary publication and pers. obs. 1981.
62. Pers. comm. J. N. Dore, though he would not like to commit himself
on the important question of whether the dating is Severan or pre-
Severan without a larger and more representative sample of
pottery.
63. Cf above note 30.
64. See above pp. 158-59.
65. See now the truly excellent series of papers on these issues by
Trousset 1980a; 1981a; 1981b.
66. Garnsey 1978,232; Whittaker 1978,342-48, contra the earlier views of
Gsell 1933,149-66; Guey 1939,226-45 and others.
67. Trousset 1981b, forthcoming.
68. Van Berchem 1952,42-49; Fentress 1979,98-100,111-12.
69. This factor has been overshadowed by the impressive size of the
British and German frontier works.
70. St. Augustine, Letters, 46-47; Cod. Theod., VII, 15,1; Marichal 1979,
448-51.
71. Rebuffat 1977,405-07; 1979,230-32. But see Darmon 1964,7-23, for
instance, on the Zarai customs tariff.
72. Baradez 1949a, 153-55; 1967,200-210. This dating was confirmed by
Birley 1956,29 (after Baradez had shown him pottery and coins from the
fossatum
excavations).
73. Van Berchem 1952,42-49.
74. Guey 1939,226-45; Euzennat 1977a, 437-38; Trousset 1974,139-41 (the
same view is more cautiously put in 1981b).
75. To be fair Euzennat and Trousset show a far broader appreciation of
the issues, but the rhetorical influence of Gsell, Gautier and Guey is
still pervasive in the secondary literature.
76. Euzennat 1972,21-23; Trousset 1976,31; 1978,169-73; 1980a, 936-40.
77. One can presume I think that the Bir Oum Ali-type was not exactly
contemporary with the Tebaga-type or the Skiffa-Hajar type.
78. See Trousset 1978,167-68.
79. But in structural terms there are many differences in terms of the
towers and gates.
80. See note 5, above.
81. The lamp stamped "Augendi... " gives an apparent TPQ of late second/
early third century and there are other third century forms on the site,
see note 44 above. But given the clear evidence for major alterations
to the structure of the tower, I am not sure that one can rule out the
possibility of even earlier phases in the development of the clausura.
82. See 6: 2 above.
83. Fentress 1979,98-100,111-12, correctly anticipated this in her
discussion of the Tebaga gate.
84. In Algeria the fossata were evidently still in use in the fourth and
early fifth century A. D., Cod. Theod. VII, 15,1 (where they are
referred to as an ancient creation); Jones and Mattingly 1980,323-26.
85. See above 7: 2, note 26 and above note 62, for the ceramic data from
Medina Ragda and Hadd Hajar.