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

-440-
7: 4 V1CI
1. The study of vici has been neglected in most parts of the Roman
empire. For instance, Collingwood Bruce 1978, (the standard guide to
Hadrian's Wall) contains only five references to vici. Similarly
the recent study of forts by Johnson 1983 gives scant attention to the
vici. See now, the interesting and provocative paper by Jones and
Walker 1983,185-204.
2. For the strict legal definition, see Salway 1965. I have chosen
here to use vicus in a descriptive sense for any civilian settlement
beside a Roman fort. I would also like to acknowledge my debt to a fellow
research student of Manchester University, D. R. Evans. It is hoped that
he will be able to publish some of his remarkable ideas about vici in
the near
future.
3. There are many useful parallels in the modern period for the rapid
growth and decline of garrison towns. Even in cases where the settlement
moved on with the garrison, the short term effects on the region could
be quite significant.
4. O'Leary, 1982. Because of this apparent gap in his data he suggested
that "each wadi can be expected to have one centre of a size and
functional importance approaching that of the small towns. " (p. 78).
His rank-size figures (p. 117) include Bu Njem and Gheriat without
their vici and do not include the settlements such as Ain Wif, Medina
Doga, Ain Scersciara and so on.
5. I was fortunate enough to visit the site in 1980 and be shown round by
the director.
6. Richardson 1848,445, described the solid walls of the fort and noted
that the walls of "the city" were in comparison merely cement and small
masonry. The ruins of this "city" were "extensive". Cf Goodchild
1976a, pl. 221, for the air-photograph.
7. Rebuffat 1967a, 63; 1969,207-08; 1970a, 21-22; he has suggested that
the wall was either intended to delimit the settlement or to define
different areas within it, or perhaps simply to hold back the shifting
sands.
8. Rebuffat 1969,210-11; 1970a, 23-30,90-92 (plans); 1970b, 133-35,
161 (plan).
9. Rebuffat 1967a, 64-68; 1969,208.
10. Rebuffat 1967a, 68; 1969,207-08. But 1975,502, suggests that traces
of regularity are less common than was once thought.
11. Rebuffat 1970a, pl. IX, a-c and pers. obs.
12. Rebuffat 1969,210-11; 1970a, 90-92 (plans and sections)
13. Rebuffat 1969,210; 1975a, 165-87; 1977,410.
14. Rebuffat 1969,210-11.
15. Rebuffat 1977,408-09.
16. Rebuf f at 1969,208.
17. Euzennat and Trousset 1975,19-20 and fig. 3.
18. App. 3, no. 18.
19. Goodchild 1976a, pl. 23.
20. Jones et al 1983,64-67.
21. See Mercier 1953,17-47; Reynolds 1958,135-36; App. 3, nos. 101-04,
below.
22. The compass survey (fig. 27c) was made by G. D. B. Jones, P. Reynolds
and myself in May 1982.
23. Lecoy de la Marche 1894,399-402; Boizot 1913,260-62.
24. According to Boizot 1913,263-66, the baths contained four hypocausted
rooms and unlike the other excavated vicus buildings proved to have
substantial foundations. The building is today (1982) very dilapidated.
25. Lecoy de la Marche 1894,400-02; Heron de Villefosse 1894a, 469-81,
App. 3 nos. 13-14.
26. Hayes 1972, ARS forms 68 (1 rim); 70 (2 rims); 84 (or possibly TRS form 9).