Sign in

About the project

This project will research the provincial materiality of Batavians, by focusing on their associated artefacts in Dacia. The link between people and objects will be explored/addressed, in order to overcome preconceived ideas on identity and instead resolve questions on Batavian background and its preservation within their later auxilia throughout the 2nd and 3rd c. AD: Was there a Batavian nucleus conserved, even during the 3rd C? Are the prominent Batavian military families still present in the auxilia during the late 2nd – 3rd centuries and can we find material traces of their presence? What did the Batavian troops materially bring from the Low Rhine, and why? Which artefacts are identity defining from our point of view, and which were from theirs? How did the troops influenced the (material) culture of their new homes, and (how) can we see the local recruitment and local specificities?

The theme of the presence of foreigners in the various provinces of the Roman Empire is not new in archaeological and historical research (Ivleva 2011). In immigrant communities, material culture will be a mean to project identity. Maybe the most challenging methodological and theoretical matter at this point is actually defining ’Batavian artefacts’. Of course, in context we can simply mean artefacts associated with the Batavian troops from Dacia – but the issue is much more complex. The fact is that the Batavians’ material culture is remarkably modest and unspecific. Dutch researchers use the term loosely to refer to material finds from the area they consider to belong to Batavian territory, but much of this is widespread in the area of the Lower Rhine. For comparison, the neighbouring tribe, the Cananefates (De Bruin 2019), distinguish themselves by retaining their traditional hand-made pottery at least until about 160/200 AD, but the Batavians change to imported pottery already early in the 1st C AD. Because Batavian material culture is likely to be quite elusive, a future comparison with the Cananefates from Dacia will perhaps show up differences in features such as the selection of pottery types available in Dacia that most resemble the types they used at home. Handmade pottery has been confused with Iron Age, pre-Roman pottery in other cases and it is not impossible to find similar situations in northern Dacia’s old bibliography as well: in Britain, at Birdoswald, the pottery made by the Frisian troops was for a long time considered to belong to an earlier Iron Age settlement, demolished by the Romans. Another feature at Birdoswald that confused the original excavators is that the Frisians built wooden houses. As well, an ala Tungrorum was also stationed in northern Dacia and a comparison is in order here as well, as the Batavi and Tungri had been stationed together in the past, at Vindolanda, and we could maybe see phenomena of continuity/evolution.

‘Identity’ is almost impossible to pin-point in the home area, as it is only in a foreign setting that people will focus on what is really important to them and what they see as identity forming and defining – names, festivals, gods (Hercules Magusanus), food, drink (with the afferent pottery forms and glass artifacts – we have an important number of cups), language. Which aspect comes to the fore is very much a matter of environment, but one cannot ever find a 1:1 relationship. That’s why local copies of pottery or fibulae are crucially important – and a site rich in locally produced pottery, as Războieni, can shed light on cultural trends. An important example in this direction is T. Ivleva’s research (Ivlaeva 2012), which traced British soldiers, mainly by means of fibulae, but also using other sources, and this will be a good comparison for my own approach on the Batavians, particularly as she also had to explore indirect means to identify Britons.

We will reflect on the realities of province Dacia, comparing them to the situation from the Batavians’ Lower Rhine native area, as well as referencing to other possible analogies. What we are trying to achieve is a methodological and theoretical framework for what we might call identity-defining artefacts for the Batavians of Dacia. As well, the current piece of research can be read as a project intention, as there are many aspects which have to be cleared out, or researched in more depth, in the future.