One of the things I’m finding more difficult in my PhD is a big chapter dealing with the archaeology of the houses of auxiliary Roman commanders at forts. It’s not that I’m exactly short of material – I’ve looked at excavation reports for upwards of 50 sites, each of which has varying numbers of forts, buildings, and rebuilds at each. In this I’m looking to define the sorts of features that these buildings had – the basic layouts, building materials, facilities (underfloor heating aka hypocausts, fancy baths, wall paintings?) from what are mostly the remains of foundations.

To not improve matters, many of these were excavated at the end of the C19 or the early C20, and so the records are of their time and can’t always answer my questions. Generally, I’m interested in what these structures can contribute to our views on their lives. This means firstly answering some pretty basic questions. Were there splendidly appointed bathing facilities? (Usually not.) Sumptuous mosaics? (Not at all.) A big water tank in the courtyard? (Yes often, I think so, and weirdly this point is controversial and much discussed in several papers that also try to define fort buildings.)

One thing that is clear is that there was not a standard build for these houses.  A basic form, with some patterns I can identify and tentatively seek to explain is probably the limit of this approach. Trying to categorise material remains in some way is a standard archaeological approach and can show how things change over time or in different places. It’s something that archaeologists have been thinking about and doing for a long time, as this lovely (and I hope out of copyright) picture of Roman nails by the famous archaeological illustrator Beatrice Potter* shows.

Archaeologists have tended to interpret the remains of Roman forts as though they have a standard format. Part of the confusion comes from applying the descriptions of much earlier temporary marching camps from Polybius’ Historiae and Pseudo-Hygenus’ De munitionibus castrorum (C2 BC,) and the much later Vegetius’ Epitome rei militaris (probably late C4 or early C5 AD but relying on sources as early as the middle republic). This approach, along with preconceptions about what Roman military practice must have been, has been a bit misleading.

I’m not suggesting that using typologies is a bad thing, but they can become quite rapidly outdated. With archaeology it’s not good but well, nobody dies. Unfortunately there seems to be a serious problem right now that really does matter. This is the method of typologising droplets by size, and then assigning risk of Sars- CoV-2  transmission on the basis of how far each type travels. However, the research is based on late C19 and early C20 papers.** Which frankly has horrified me since the first month of lockdown when I looked it up.  So I’m really happy that actual relevant serious and senior experts (which I’m definitely not) are delineating better what we need to know about stopping transmission both of this virus – and others we should expect to come. This is the paper. I think it’s well worth reading. BMJ 2020;370:m3223 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3223#ref-3

*Mostly famous for other things. But her scientific work ought to be better known. Some day I want to visit this museum: http://armitt.com/armitt_website/beatrix-potter

**i.e., about the time many of those Roman forts I’m studying were being excavated.