While not a historian, I am an archaeologist with an emphasis on the archaeology of the British Isles. The only thing we know for sure was that the wall was built as a “line in the sand.” Beyond the line, Rome did not desire to maintain its influence. Within the line it was Rome. Yes people and goods could easily come and go but it was still controlled. The notion that “Rome” or “Romanitas” was not an ideology is ridiculous. It was the concept of Rome that held the empire together when language and bloodlines were absent.
In the sense of a fortification, sure.
Beyond the line, Rome did not desire to maintain its influence. Within the line it was Rome.
Agreed.
Yes people and goods could easily come and go but it was still controlled.
Traffic was monitored, not controlled. In other words, the sentries were likely paying close attention to whom came and went, but unless someone was a "person of interest" in the eyes of the state, traffic was not controlled.
The notion that “Rome” or “Romanitas” was not an ideology is ridiculous.
It was, of course, never an ideology.
The very word Romanitas was unknown to the Romans - it was a concept invented after the decline of Imperial Rome by a non-Roman who wanted to mock non-Romans who aspired to being like Romans.
Was there a Roman culture? Absolutely. But there was no Roman "program" to Romanize non-Romans. This was not like Christianity, with Christians looking to convert non-Christians to their way of life. Nor was this like the Gallicization of revolutionary France, where linguistic and ethnic minorities were forced to adopt French language and culture.
The Romans were not ideological. Their policy, repeated everywhere they went, was simple: We are in charge. Abide by our laws or be punished. Speak your language, worship your gods, run your lives however you like. But make sure you pay your taxes and do not break the law.