Empty Areas and Roman Frontier Policy

Empty Areas and Roman Frontier PolicyAuthor(s): David PotterSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 113, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 269-274Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295560 .

Accessed: 19/12/2014 15:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:36:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/295560?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


EMPTY AREAS AND ROMAN FRONTIER POLICY

There was no consistent pattern to the growth of Roman frontiers. It has long been recognized that geography and the cultural develop- ment of border regions, as well as military necessity, determined the form that the "frontier" would take in any area.1 A further influence upon Roman behavior, that of indigenous ways to represent power, has not, however, received much attention. The purpose of this note is to explain references in Tacitus and Dio to uninhabited zones just beyond the frontiers between the Romans and the German barbarians in terms of Germanic customs. I will argue that these zones served both a military and an ideological purpose, and that the latter function was derived from German practice.

The earliest reference to such a zone occurs in Tacitus' account of events on the Rhine in A.D. 58. According to Tacitus, a long period of inactivity on the part of the garrison in lower Germany gave rise to the rumor that the legates had been deprived of the right to lead their forces across the river.2 The Frisians under their kings Verritus and Malorix therefore moved some of their peoples to the riverbank in the area opposite Cologne, where they settled in "empty fields" maintained there by the Romans: eoque Frisii iuventutem saltibus aut paludibus, imbellem aetatem per lacus admovere ripae agrosque vacuos et militum usui sepositos insedere (Ann. 13.54.1).3 In 13.56 Tacitus says that this same land was occupied by the Ampsivarii, a German tribe, later in the summer after the Romans had removed the Frisians.4 The Ampsivarii,

'See Ed. Frezouls, "Les fluctuations de la frontiere orientale de l'empire romain," La geographie administrative et politique dAlexandre d Mahomet. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 14-16juin 1979 (Universite des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg) Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le proche-orient et la grece antiques 6 (Leiden 1981) 177-225; see also my remarks in BMCR 1 (1990) 35-41.

2Tac., Ann. 13.54.1: ceterum continuo exercituum otio fama incessit ereptum ius legatis ducendi in hostem.

3The location is secured by Tacitus' reference to the territory of the Tencteri in this context (see note 4). For the location of this tribe north of the Chatti see Tac., Ger. 32: Proximi Chattis certum iam alveo Rhenum quique terminus esse sufficiat Usipi ac Tenc- teri colunt. For more see Koestermann's note on Ann. 13.56.2; Chilver on Hist. 4.21.12.

4Ibid. 55.1: eosdem agros Ampsivarii occupavere . . ; 56.2: Avitus scripto ad Curtilium Manciam superioris exercitus legatum, ut Rhenum transgressus arma a tergo ostenderet, ipse legiones in agrum Ten(ct)erum induxit.

American Journal of Philology 113 (1992) 269-274 ? 1992 by The Johns Hopkins University Press



DAVID POTTER

who had been driven from their own lands by the Chauci, asked that they be allowed to settle there as a reward for services they had once given to Rome. They admitted that Rome had the right to keep these fields empty, but they said the Romans would be better served by having friendly peoples as neighbors rather than a wasteland.5 The Romans clearly did not agree. They reminded the Ampsivarii that the gods of the Germans left the decision about what to do with this land to Rome,6 and threatened to use force if the Ampsivarii did not leave.

In his note on Tacitus' reference to the agri vacui at 13.54.1, E. Koestermann observes that such a zone may be parallel to zones at- tested in Dio's account of Marcus Aurelius' wars with the Germans and similar to the agri decumates. He further suggests that they may also be prata legionum, the land that was given over to legions for their immedi- ate support.7 The parallel with Dio is apt. But the parallels with the agri decumates, which were an inhabited frontier zone, and the later prata, settled territories that could be leased out by the legions that controlled them, are not relevant. There is more to be said on this question.

The next references to a strip of empty land beyond the Roman frontier, established by the Romans, occur in Dio's accounts of the negotiations conducted by Marcus Aurelius (and later Commodus) with the Quadi and the Marcomanni in 175 and 181. In an important recent study of Roman policy towards these peoples, it has been suggested

5Tac., Ann. 13.55.2: servarent sane receptus gregibus inter hominum famem, modo ne vastitatem et solitudinem mallent quam amicos populos.

6Tac., Ann. 13.56.1: id dis, quos implorarent, placitum, ut arbitrium penes Ro- manos maneret, quid darent quid adimerent, neque alios iudices quam se ipsos pateren- tur:

7 For prata legionum see 0. Hirschfeld, Die Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis aufDiocletian2 (Berlin 1905) 143-44 (not mentioning this passage). In the Severan period these lands had become quite extensive, and a number of inscriptions attest the leasing of

prata legionum to civilians. Tacitus' usui militum should not, however, be pressed as evidence that this arrangement went back as far as the age of Nero as, unlike the territory in the Severan inscriptions, it is clearly beyond the area regularly patrolled by Roman legionaries (which is why the Frisians, and then the Ampsivarii, thought that they could move in). Further, it was clearly not being leased out; the whole point is that this land was devoid of civilian habitation, as the Ampsivarian ambassador says at 55.2: quotam partem campi iacere, in quam pecora et armenta militum aliquando transmitterentur Tacitus' phrase indicates that this was no more than territory where troops would go to forage for

supplies. H. Schonberger, "The Roman Frontier in Germany: An Archaeological Sur- vey," JRS 59 (1969) 152 describes this area simply as "a strip of land on the right bank of the Rhine, obviously relatively wide, [that] remained under the surveillance of the Roman military authorities and was made use of by them."

270




that this "neutral zone" was "probably only short-lived." An examina- tion of Dio's language suggests that this was not so.8 The negotiations of 175 are described as follows: 6oL Toig MaQxoau6voLg jtgeo3,Peoaov, OTt Jrcavxa zx JtQooTaxO?VTca o(iot XaXeUtJSg L?Ev xCat o6Xtg, ?Jtoiroav 6' oiv, To xe fiL(J Ttv xi XC0Cag Tg et0oEiac; avTIxev, (ioxe caLTOig OXTCO

tov xal TQLaxovTa cxTaL6ovg aiuo ToL "ITTQOv a&JrolxEv, xcat xa X(oQia Tag T? 1J[L?Qa gTrig E3TL[Lliag a(C@4QLO?E (6QOTEQov yCaQ oV 6exEXQLVTO), TO tg TE 6dirQovg i.kXaVcaTo (Dio 71.15). In the course of his adjustment of Marcus' treaty with these people, Commodus is said to have con- ceded that he would not maintain any outposts in their territory beyond those in the "neutral zone": EJt LEv TolTotLg oV'UvYkkX6yq, xaL TaC T?

@Qo6QL@ta jxavT Ta ?v T, Xcbau acTcov dJ&iQ TCYV ?E0oQoactv TiV &ao- T?TLq~v[vV ovTa /?'?kMtev (Dio 72.2.4).9 In both cases it appears that the policy of establishing a "neutral zone," 9i ?0ooQta, is discussed in the same terms as the Roman policy of limiting trade with the barbarians, which we know to have been a feature of Roman dealings with the northern barbarians as early as the reign of Nero.10 Indeed, the reference to the ager vacuus in the passage of Tacitus' Annales 13.54.1 shows that such zones were Julio-Claudian developments.

The information that Dio provides about I te0oQoia points to an- other question that arises in connection with Tacitus' account of the events in 58. How did the Frisians and, later, the Ampsivarii know when they had crossed into Roman territory, which Tacitus explicitly says they knew that they were doing? In Dio's account it is plain that there was a clearly marked limit to the aE0oQita, at first ten miles, then five in

8L. F Pitts, "Relations between Rome and the German 'Kings' on the Middle Danube in the First to Fourth Centuries A.D.," JRS 79 (1989) 50-51.

9Compare 72.3.2: ovvqrlXXkayr O(LOV 6jgpoiug kacpov xai aLiXadktoTovug jtraa TE tiiv BoQc()v ... q.]T' EVOLX1ioELV JtOTE [L>X' ewVVEieV TEooaQOaxovtLa totc6ia Tfg XcQactg O()CDV TTg @QOg ITn Aax?lg ovolg.

'?For restrictions on trade see E. A. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians, The Decline of the Western Empire (Madison 1982) 10-15 (to the evidence collected there add Dexippus' account of Aurelian's negotiations with the Vandals, FGrHist 100 F 7). Evi- dence for these restrictions in the early Empire is provided by Tac., Hist. 4.64: nam ad hunc diem flumina ac terram et caelum quodam modo ipsum clauserant Romani, ut conloquia congressusque nostros arcerent, vel, quod contumeliosius est viris ad arma natis, inermes ac prope nudi sub custode et pretio coiremus. Pitts (note 8 above) 53-58, collects archaeological evidence for what penetration there was by Roman goods in the Danubian lands, but this does not seem to have had a significant impact on living stan- dards and habits beyond the frontier, cf. J. F Matthews, The Roman World of Ammianus (London 1989) 306-22.

271



DAVID POTTER

the time of Marcus. Likewise, when Commodus made his concession, there must have been a distinction between forts that were in solo bar- barico, and forts that were in this border area beyond the Danube. In Nero's time there must also have been some indication beyond the Rhine for people who did not have maps, and who thus would have no other reason for knowing that they were entering "empty Roman territory." Ammianus mentions what were believed to be boundary stones between Roman and Burgundian territory well west of the Rhine (and long irrelevant) in 359, which must also have marked the limit of a zone of control, rather than the area where the main Roman troop concentra- tions were. 1 I think, therefore, that it is fair to assume that there must have been watch-towers, or boundary stones, in this area, as there were in the similar areas across the Danube in the second century and across the Rhine in the fourth century, to let people know that when they passed beyond a certain point they were in territory the Romans claimed to rule.12 That the Frisians thought that they could move onto

l"Amm. 18.2.15: postque saepimenta fragilum penatium inflammata et obtrun- catam hominum multitudinem visosque cadentes multos aliosque supplicantes cum ven- tum fuisset ad regionem, cui Capellatii vel Palas nomen est, ubi terminales lapides Ro- manorum et Bugundiorum confinia distinguebant .... For discussion of the location see Matthews (note 10 above) 524, n. 8-9. Matthews defends the reading Alemannorum in place of Romanorum, which appears in G (an early printed edition). The best manuscripts (VE) and other early editions give Romanorum, which is surely correct. This leaves the possibility that Ammianus was wrong about whose stones these were, but it is significant that he thought that a boundary could be marked this way.

12 For a possible example of fortifications that were erected to serve the "symbolic" purpose as marking the edge of Roman territory see R. G. Goodchild, "Oasis Forts of Legio III Augusta on the Routes to the Fezzan," PBSR 22 (1954) 67 = J. Reynolds, ed., Libyan Studies. Select Papers of the late R. G. Goodchild (London 1976) 57, "It is also noteworthy that the two surviving fortresses both have very elaborate gates and relatively simple curtain walls. The use of elegant ashlar facing on the exposed surfaces of the gates seems to reflect a desire to make these fortresses as impressive as possible. It was perhaps intended that the traveller on the caravan routes should become immediately aware that he had entered Roman-controlled territory, and that his liberty of action was now under definite restrictions." Professor D. Mattingly has pointed out to me that a similar function may have been served by the combination of the Cleavan dike and the Black Hill watch-tower east of the Inchtuthil fort in Scotland. Even if the dike is not a Roman structure (a point that is still open to question), the combination of these two structures serves to mark off the only open access route to the fort and thus to mark the edge of a military zone. For details of this area see L. F Pitts and J. K. St. Joseph, Inchtuthil. The Roman Legionary Fortress (London 1985). Professor Mattingly also suggests that this function may be served by the palisade lines that have recently been discovered north of

272




the land opposite Cologne and begin farming suggests further that this land was not left as virgin forest. It would make sense that the Romans should try and clear the underbrush for reasons of security, and Tacitus' description of these fields as being usui militum may suggest that the troops regularly foraged in them, and, possibly, that they exploited them for materials to use in their various projects. This situation is also implied by the tone of the plea of the Ampsivarii, who described this land as "pasture for flocks among starving people": ... servarent sane receptus gregibus inter hominum famem (Tac., Ann. 13.55.2).

How large might such a zone be and what was the point of its existence? In the first case, the answer for the mid-first century must be left vague, but it was plainly a reasonably extensive area: the territory that the Frisians invaded was clearly enough to support a small German tribe. In the second century, Dio suggests that it ranged in depth from five to ten miles (71.15). One point of this zone along the Danube was clearly to keep barbarians away from the main frontier line, except at specified places and at specified times. Further, such a zone made it easier to enforce treaty terms forbidding navigation on the river, and the garrisons in the watch-towers could act as scouts to provide warnings of unauthorized meetings by the barbarians. Commodus, for example, forbade them to meet more than once a month, and ordered that a centurion be present at all such assemblies.'3 But were these the only reasons? Here I think that the answer may be no.

At the beginning of his account of his campaigns in 55 B.C., Julius Caesar made the following observations: publice maximam putant esse laudem quam latissime a suis finibus vacare agros. hac re significari magnum numerum civitatum suam vim sustinere non potuisse. itaque una

Hadrian's wall, for which see G. B. D. Jones, "The Solway Frontier: Interim Report 1976-81," Britannia 13 (1982) 285-95. As Jones points out, this was also the function of the great wooden palisade that ran from the Rhine to the Danube, for which see the survey by D. Baatz, Der romische Limes (Bonn 1977). These lines were perhaps as useful for symbolic purposes as they were for defensive ones, showing the barbarians where the Roman writ ran, and giving rise to the feeling, evident in the literature of the second century and later, that the inhabitants of the empire lived in a fortress. On these notions see D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sybilline Oracle (Oxford 1990) 288-89.

'3Dio 72.2.4: JxQooE?tEcaE y EVTOL oi OLtva 'ViUT e joTC kkxxg i-teE toXXkkaXov TxC X6cbag &0QooiWovra, akk' &aCa Ev ixaoxa l0 TIVL xoai ig t6ov eva exovTaQXov I VOg; 'Pcotaiou nxcaQovog. For the military use of these towers see also E. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (Baltimore 1976) 66.

273



DAVID POTTER

ex parte a Suebis circiter milia passuum sescenta agri vacare dicuntur (BG 4.3.1). The Frisians moved into the agri vacui north of the Rhine because they felt that Rome no longer had any interest in projecting its might across the river. 14 Their movement into this area was a symbolic act. To the German mind the ability to maintain such a zone was a reflection of military power. It is also clear that the Romans saw the situation the same way; for when the challenge was offered they used military force to drive off any Frisians who did not accept their offer of new land elsewhere, and they later used military force to keep the Ampsivarii away.'5 Both sides recognized that the zone symbolized Rome's claim to be the preeminent power in the area.

Students of Roman frontiers have come to think of them not as simple boundaries, but as complex zones in which a variety of methods were employed to assert control. These frontiers were established both for military convenience and to drive home a point about the nature of Roman power. The techniques chosen for the latter purpose had to be able to express this message in terms that would be readily comprehen- sible to native peoples, and to this end native customs could be-and were-exploited. When the Tencterian ambassadors complained in 69 that the Romans were closing off the rivers, the earth, and the sky, the natural forces that they imbued with divine power,16 they were reflect- ing the ideological message they received from the Roman frontier sys- tem in their area. To judge from the report of Caesar (BG 4.3.1, quoted above), the Romans had learned from the Germans themselves how to send this message.'7

DAVID POTTER UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

'4See note 1 above. 15Tac., Ann. 13.54.4: atque illis aspernantibus auxiliaris eques repente immisus

necessitatem attulit, captis caesisve qui pervicacius restiterant. Ibid 56.2: illi (the Ampsi- varii) Bructeros, Tencteros, ulteriores etiam nationes socias bello vocabant: Avitus

scripto ad Curtilium Manciam superioris exercitus legatum, ut Rhenum transgressus arma a tergo ostenderet, ipse legiones in agrum Ten(ct)erum induxit, excidium minitans, ni causam suam dissociarent.

'6For the Tencteri see note 6 above. For German religion see Tac., Ger. 9-10; Matthews (note 10 above) 312-13.

17I am grateful to Professors Ludwig Koenen and David Mattingly for discussing an earlier draft of this paper with me and suggesting a number of improvements.

274



Documents

Empty Areas and Roman Frontier Policy