| Abstract: |
The Nijmegen Conference was held in 1987 and is introduced by M C Bishop (1-11) with 'O Fortuna: a sideways look at the archaeological record and Roman military equipment', examining the mechanisms by which military equipment was lost (concealment, rites, battles, etc) and raising some doubts about the real extent of our knowledge of the Roman soldier. Lindsay Allason-Jones (13-24) in 'Introductory remarks on native and Roman trade in the north of Britain' puts up a hypothesis that finds from the northern military zone suggest the Romans were not selling goods to the native population north of the Wall, but that native 'factories' on both sides of the Wall were sending their goods to the forts. C Sebastian Sommer (25-9) writes of 'The inner and outer relation of the military vicus to its fort', finding a symbiotic relationship at least in the northern provinces. J C Coulston (31-4) in 'The value of Trajan's column as a source for military equipment' suggests that most of the sculptors' information came from Rome rather than the war-zones, and is less useful than one might hope. Gotz Waurick examines (45-60) the evidence for weaponry from sculptures, tombs, etc in 'Die militarische Rüstung in der römischen Kunst: Fragen zur antiquarischen Genauigkeit am Beispiel der Schwerter des 2 Jahrhunderts n Chr'. What the Roman soldier wore under his belt is discussed by Hannsjörg Ubl (61-74) in 'Was trug der römischen Soldat unter dem cingulum?' with the answer being 'the fascia ventralis' or belly-band. Turning to horsegear, Georgette van Boekel (75-121) examines 'Roman terracotta horse figurines as a source for the reconstruction of harnessing', finding these useful for riding and draught horses, and showing great variety. Sylvia Palágyi (123-42) also discusses horsegear reconstructions in 'Rekonstruktionsmöglichkeiten der Pferdegeschirrfunde aus Pannonien'. In the Netherlands, Willem J H Willems (143-56) concludes, in 'An officer or a gentleman? A late-Roman weapon-grave from a villa at Voerendaal (NL)' that the equipment was for hunting, not warfare. J A Waasdorp (157-66) presents a mailshirt and other gear in 'Roman military equipment from the Hague, Holland', while J-M A W Morel & A V A J Bosman (167-91) report 'An early Roman burial in Velsen I' which was a fully clothed body with fine dagger in a well, early 1st century AD. C A Kalee (193-226) describes 'Roman helmets and other militaria from Vechten' - these are cavalry sports types. P Connolly (227-34) provides 'A note on the origin of the imperial Gallic helmet', suggesting that no pattern of evolution is visible. The last of the helmet articles in this volume comes from Julian Bennet (235-45) who describes the unprovenanced 'Ossorio helmet', combining 'Roman' and 'Celtic' characteristics, in 'A Roman helmet in the Dominican Republic'. Experiments in 'Testing plumbatae' have been done by John Eagle (247-53) who found the range approaching seventy yards, with consistency and accuracy readily achievable. W B Griffiths (255-79) discusses 'The sling and its place in the Roman army' for throwing glandes, cestros, and calthrops. C van Driel-Murray (281-318) has examined 'The Vindolanda chamfrons and miscellaneous items of leather horse gear': the Vindolanda set is the third and most complete of the British examples, dating to AD 95-105. She also discusses the Valkenburg saddle, the Castleford fragment, and other examples. The topic of S Winterbottom (319-36) is 'Saddle covers, chamfrons and possible horse armour from Carlisle', while M Dawson (337-66) offers 'A review of the equipment of the Roman army of Dacia'. |
