The Antonine Wall has two important characteristics that make its investigation extremely valuable in terms of comparative frontier studies. Firstly, it had a short life and so can be studied without too much concern for earlier and later complications. This also means that it provides an extremely valuable dating horizon for artefact studies across the wider Roman Empire. Secondly, it was the last linear barrier to be constructed, and so represents the ultimate expression of Roman frontier design at the zenith of their use.
It has been argued that the Antonine Wall is effectively an updated version of Hadrian’s Wall (Gillam 1975), albeit using different materials for construction and involving more frequent changes of alignment (see Planning and Building the Wall). Both frontiers contained a linear barrier consisting of a wall with a wide and deep ditch to the north. Both (that is Hadrian’s Wall in its second phase and the Antonine Wall in its first) had forts spaced a similar distance apart (12–13 km), if Gillam’s argument is accepted. Both had fortlets at about one Roman mile intervals, though this remains disputed for the Antonine Wall (see Fortlets). The Antonine Wall is different because it also possesses smaller enclosures and ‘expansions’/beacon platforms, but no towers (see Minor Installations), and had an integrated road, the Military Way, running along its length. When Hadrian’s Wall was constructed the Stanegate, the existing road across the Tyne-Solway isthmus immediately to the south, was considered sufficient.
One unique feature of the Antonine Wall was the addition of at least ten new forts while it was still under construction, though some argue they were part of the original concept (see Planning and Building the Wall). This resulted in the closest spacing of forts on any Roman linear frontier, with the possible exception of the Valu lui Traian in Dobrogea, Romania, whose date and development history remains poorly understood (Hanson and Oltean 2012). A further change, also made during the building process, was the addition of annexes to many of the forts, which may have been designed to serve the same function as the Vallum on Hadrian’s Wall (Bailey 1994, 305; see Annexes). Annexes are rare on the German frontier and may have served a different purpose there: that at Osterburken, for example, was built as the base for a military unit.
© Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart/Foto: Andreas Schaflitzl
The Antonine Wall is unusual among Roman frontiers for being built of turf, even though this was a common building material for fort ramparts. Other linear barriers tended to be simple timber palisades or earthen banks, with drystone additions in the case of the Fossatum Africae. The construction of Hadrian’s Wall in stone for much of its length was also unusual, though its western third was originally of turf too.
Another unique feature of the Antonine Wall was the provision of Distance Stones, sandstone inscriptions that record the length of rampart built by each legion. Several are also elaborately sculptured. Their distribution and configuration suggest that the most westerly four miles were the last to be constructed (see Planning and Building the Wall and The Distance Stones). A series of temporary camps form a complementary element hinting at how the work of building the Wall within each legionary sector was undertaken (see Camps).
The final distinctive feature is the apparent lack of towers on the Wall. These are found on every other frontier of the Roman Empire, with the exception of the Valu lui Traian, and might be expected to have been erected on the Antonine Wall. A few towers have been postulated, but their identification is highly questionable. It is possible, however, that timber towers were located within the rampart itself and still await discovery (see Minor Installations).
Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall have a distinct advantage over other linear frontiers in that the forts and fortlets were attached to the linear barrier. This has allowed the sequence of building the individual elements to be determined, though not always without dispute (see Planning and Building the Wall). Together with the various frontiers in Germany, they have also been subject to the most intensive and long-term archaeological research and are a major resource for understanding Roman frontiers more generally (Breeze 2011).
When the Antonine Wall was abandoned, there was no attempt to convert the re-occupied Hadrian’s Wall to follow a similar design pattern, other than the addition of a Military Way. Rather, Hadrian’s Wall was re-commissioned in the same form it had reached when abandoned. It took another generation before significant changes were made to its form.
Research issues
- Encourage further research into the relationship and development of the Antonine Wall in relation to other Roman frontiers, including in the context of the Wall-to-Wall project between Hadrian’s Wall and the Great Wall of China.
- Undertake a full comparative analysis of the Antonine Wall with the Valu lui Traian.
- Support wider comparative analysis of material culture, both as an aid to refining our understanding of artefact chronologies across the Empire and as a way of tracing the movements of soldiers between its different parts.