Dutch Help!

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

Right.
I know there are multitudes of Dutch people out there... I need an expert! And its not some linguistic issue...more of an archaeological question.

Am writing up a section on Vechten at the moment (the Roman fort, not the lovely little town or the 19th century fortification :wink: ), and have come upon an interesting conundrum...

Most literature up to the mid 90's (summarized e.g. in Bechert & Willems, Die Römische Reichsgrenze... (1995)) seem to agree that the size of the earliest period fort can only (cannot?) be guesstimated because not all of it is known, but for phases 2 & 3 they give a size of about 2.6ha...

Now Maarten de Weerd in his "Archäologische Beobachtungen anhand der Fundmünzen aus Kalkriese und aus den tiberischen Lagern Vechten and Velsen" (in Kontinuität & Diskontinuität... 2003) suddenly comes up with periods 2 & 3 measuring 4.5ha:o :? !

Have I missed sth here? Have there been new ground breaking and revolutionizing excavations in the last ten years? Please help!

Btw. - while I'm at it - has anything new (anything??) been done on Levefanum (Wijk bij Duurstede/Rijkswijk?)

Sorry for the broadside of questions, and thanks in advance...
C.

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, I'll have a look at what I've got lying around..

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

thank you!!!! much appreciated!

[Robert Vermaat]

There hasn't been any groundbreaking new developments at Fectio/Vechten, and from all my maps and articles I can only come to the conclusion that he may have got his periods mixed up. It's the older periods that show the largest (wooden) forts, but without any secure estimates, like you say. It's the younger phases that are smaller, estimated at 2.6 ha.

My guess is that someone has estimated the older phases to have been 4.5 ha (and if you know the maps then you know the amount of guesswork), and that in the publication this was mixed up with the younger phases, who are very well-defined I'd say, and unlikely to have 'grown' that much.

Does Maarten de Weerd give any refeences for his article?

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

Robert!

Thank you so much for looking into it. The de Weerd article is extremely helpful in not actually specifying any references for Vechten when arguing for it as 4.5ha... (see reference in post above, pp. 196) All he says is that Vechten measured 4.5ha.

I think you're right though, as Bogaers & Rüger - Der Niedergermanische Limes (1974) actually say on pp. 62 that the earliest period may have measured 4.5ha...

Would have been nice if good old de Weerd had specified this, though :evil: !

Anyway, thanks a lot for the help!
C.

[Robert Vermaat]

My pleasure, Christoph. Glad I had some articles ready.