Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors 9781407301143, 9781407320960

Citation preview

BAR 440 2007 GRANT ROMAN MILITARY OBJECTIVES IN BRITAIN UNDER THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS

B A R

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Alison E. Grant

BAR British Series 440 2007

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Alison E. Grant

BAR British Series 440 2007

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 440 Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors © A E Grant and the Publisher 2007 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407301143 paperback ISBN 9781407320960 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407301143 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2007. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL PHONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS

1

Illustrative Material

iv

Preface and Acknowledgements

v

Prologue

1

Background and Sources I: Roman Military History in Britain II: The Documentary Sources for Place-Names, and Dating

3 9

Part I ‘ALBION’: NORTH BRITAIN’S GEOGRAPHY AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE

15

2

Suggested Identifications and Groupings of the Place-Names of the Ravenna Cosmography in the Militarised North

17

3

The Native Situation: Tribal Implications of the Documentary Sources

39

Part II ‘BRITANNIA’: ROMAN ADVANCE, TOTAL CONQUEST AND WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTHERN SCOTLAND

63

4

Agricola’s Predecessors

65

5

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus

83

6

Under Domitian: Agricola and his Successors

99

7

Epilogue

117

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography and Antoninus Pius’ Objectives in Britain

119

Appendices

135

Maps

158

Bibliography

181

iii

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL Figures 1. 2. 3. 4.

The Tyne–Solway Line (Hadrian’s Wall) The Forth–Clyde Line (Antonine Wall) Roman Camps, Forts and River Crossings in Scotland The Diversa Loca: Section Six of the Ravenna Cosmography (eight place-names)

26 31 107 127

Appendices 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Antonine Itinerary: Place-Names and Suggested Identifications from Rivet and Smith (all routes) Notitia Dignitatum: Place-Names and Suggested Identifications from Rivet and Smith (northern England) Ptolemy’s Map: Place-Names in Tribal Groupings, with Suggested Identifications from Strang, Ian Smith, and Rivet and Smith Ravenna Cosmography: Place-Names and Suggested Identifications from Rivet and Smith, Richmond and Crawford, Shotter, Conquest, and Frere Ravenna Cosmography: Some New Identifications Ravenna Cosmography: Summary of the Antonine Evidence for Building Activity at the Place-Name Sites (forts and towns)

135 140 141 143 147 151

Maps 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Britannia: Ptolemy’s Map Britannia: Main Bronze Age Traditions from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries BC Ravenna Cosmography: Place-Name Identifications, according to Rivet and Smith Ravenna Cosmography: Sequence of Place-Name Identifications, according to Rivet and Smith Ravenna Cosmography: A New Regional Map (northwards, approximately from Bristol to Lincoln) Hadrian’s Wall Forts Antonine Wall: Primary Forts Britannia: Tribal Boundaries (northwards, approximately from Bristol to Lincoln) Southern Central Britannia: Tribal Areas and Place-Names Suggested by the Ravenna Cosmography Northern Central Britannia. The Brigantes and the Parisi: Tribal Areas and Place-Names Suggested by the Ravenna Cosmography Northern Britannia: Tribal Areas and Place-Names Suggested by the Ravenna Cosmography ‘Wales’: Late Bronze Age Metalwork Scotland: Relief Scotland: Land Quality North-East ‘Scotland’: Iron Age Unenclosed Settlement Distribution North-East ‘Scotland’: Iron Age Structures and Artefact Distribution Northern Britannia: Souterrain Distribution Northern Central Britannia: Certain and Possible Foundations under the Governorship of Petillius Cerialis, according to Caruana The Gask Ridge and Possible or Confirmed Flavian Installations on the Forth–Clyde Line Central Britannia: Encircling of Territories under the Governorships of Cerialis and Frontinus, according to Mason Northern Britannia: Encircling of Territories under Agricola’s Governorship, according to Mason Moray: Coastal Change Moray: The Postulated Roman Sites From the Tyne–Solway to the Tay: Antoninus Pius’ Early Refortification and its Relevance to the Diversa Loca Germania: The Limes

iv

158 159 160 161 162 163 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 177 178 179

PREFACE Since archaeology is an ongoing process, archaeological discoveries must repeatedly be reassessed in terms of a constantly developing historical context. This study attempts to do that, and, particularly, to reconcile the up-to-date archaeological record with existing documentary sources. The Prologue (Chapter 1) shows how traditional and contemporary approaches to the study of Roman military history in Britain have shaped accounts of the Flavian period (AD 69–96). It summarises fact and fiction regarding the achievements of Agricola’s seven-year governorship (AD 77–83), and demonstrates how recent discoveries are now beginning to present a new picture of first-century campaigning in northern Britain. It also introduces the documentary sources, especially the place-names and tribal areas on ‘Ptolemy’s Map’, the place-names in the British section of the Ravenna Cosmography, and the text of Tacitus’ Life of Agricola, which are used to examine the military zone (north of a line roughly from Bristol to Lincoln). Part I (Chapters 2 and 3) deals with the political and geographical structure of Britain — as far as possible from the native standpoint. Chapter 2 presents and discusses identifications for each place-name in the Ravenna list and advocates an accurate, ‘regional’ distribution of names. Chapter 3 builds upon this, by using the place-names, together with the information from Ptolemy’s map and other classical sources, to determine the tribal areas, which are vital for understanding the situation that the Romans encountered. Part II (Chapters 4, 5 and 6) superimposes the historical narrative; it shows how Tacitus’ account does indeed fit well with the geopolitical infrastructure of Britain, highlights the remarkably close correspondence between documentary sources and archaeological discoveries, and produces a greatly enhanced understanding of the Roman campaigns within northern Britain during the first century. However, the original Ravenna document was compiled no earlier than the second century, because it includes place-names associated with both Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall. The Epilogue (Chapter 7) looks at the dating issue, suggests a date c.142–3, and shows how the place-names can be used to explain the reasons behind the reorganisation of northern Britain and the renewed advance into Scotland as far as the Tay, which took place in the early years of the reign of Antoninus Pius (AD 138–61).

Acknowledgements I should like to thank my supervisor, David Shotter, for his help and guidance throughout the various stages of this study (both before and after completion of the original thesis); Tony Birley, for his comments and suggestions; and also the following, for their interest and encouragement over the years: Geoffrey Barrow, James Campbell, Ted Cowan, Christine Dade-Robertson, Nigel Dalziel, David Ditchburn, Ken Fowler, Jim and Mary Grant, Enid Gray, Ruth Hughes, Barri Jones, Ian Keillar, John MacKenzie, Hector MacQueen, Thomas and Meg Munck, Charles Philpin, David Sellar, Anne Shotter, Yvonne Simm, John Stevenson, John Todd, and all the members of Lancaster University’s History Department. In addition, I am grateful to the various authors and publishers who have kindly given permission to reproduce maps; individual acknowledgements are given in the captions for each of these in the map section, pp. 158–79 below. And finally, special thanks go to my husband, Sandy Grant, for his support and advice (usually heeded!), and to my parents, Anna and Arthur Walker, for their faith in me and for much more besides. JUNE, 2007

ALISON E. GRANT

v

PROLOGUE

‘After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke’. Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. I, chap. 1 (1776; Harmondsworth, 1995), 33

‘Improvements of every kind advance by slow degrees; and it is not until the first hints have been communicated to, and examined by many, that they are gradually brought nearer to perfection. Though . . . some new lights will be thrown on the temporary castrametation of the Romans, and the ancient geography of Northern Britain, yet there may still be found room for improvement. Some points the author may have mistaken entirely; and, in endeavouring to establish others, he may have leant too much to the probability of his own conjectures. If, therefore, from future discoveries of Roman works, or the better judgment of those who may choose to amuse themselves in researches of this kind, there should be found reason to depart wholly from, or to alter in any essential degree, his conclusions, the author’s views will be sufficiently answered in having induced others to undertake the subject, and contribute towards its perfection’. William Roy, The Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain (London, 1793), pp. xv–xvi

1. BACKGROUND AND SOURCES similarly ageing Roman Britain — with obvious results.3 Many new, general accounts of Roman Britain (or new editions) also fail to grasp the implications of the latest research for the historical context, or else they simply ignore that research (or the historical aspect of it) altogether.4

I: ROMAN MILITARY HISTORY IN BRITAIN The purpose of this interdisciplinary study is to determine the validity of the documentary sources in the light of the whole corpus of relevant archaeological evidence, and to employ both types of material in an integrated analysis of Flavian policy towards northern Britain. All too often there has been a mismatch between traditional understanding of classical sources and the new archaeological findings. Self-contained archaeological reports do not usually provide a satisfactory analysis of the historical context, and the systematic — almost mathematical — approach of some archaeologists means that they find it difficult to come to terms with anything other than a literal reading of the classical texts. If there is conflict between text and archaeology, the ‘facts’ of the latter are regarded (usually quite rightly) as infinitely superior. But it is the interpretation of classical texts which is important, and it is often the ‘accepted’ view of the text that is wrong rather than its classical author.

In addition, modern overviews have often been marred by an inability on the part of the authors to disregard the national boundaries of England, Scotland and Wales, which had no significance in first-century Britain. Admittedly, as geographical labels the modern country names are unavoidable — and they are used in much of what follows, though interspersed with alternative terms such as ‘northern Britain’ (which refers to northern England as well as Scotland), ‘beyond the Tyne–Solway’ or ‘the Forth–Clyde line’, as appropriate. But, obviously, no implicit political significance should be given to them. This issue is especially highlighted by statements to the effect that ‘Agricola entered Scotland’. Tacitus could not have said that, of course. Applying a modern concept of Scotland has caused frequent misunderstandings in the historiography of northern Britain in the Roman period (particularly in nineteenth-century writing), because the modern country does not equate with Tacitus’ Caledonia, which he clearly located in the far north of Britain.5 Some scholars have been careful enough to point this out,6 but it

Moreover, while regional histories and archaeological reports have genuinely moved the subject forward,1 broader histories of Roman Britain have tended to fall back on traditional ‘orthodoxy’. For example, twenty years of new thinking on the conquest in the north has meant that major revision of the most recent edition of Sheppard Frere’s Britannia was needed.2 It had been, and still is, often used as a main source for military campaigning in the 70s and 80s, as was Peter Salway’s

3 P. Salway, The Oxford History of England, i, Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981). E. James, Britain in the First Millennium (London, 2001), 32–3, presented the standard mid-1980s picture of first-century military campaigning in northern Britain. 4 M. Todd, Roman Britain, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1999); J. Wacher, Roman Britain, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1998); M. Fulford, ‘A second start: from the defeat of Boudicca to the third century’, in P. Salway (ed.), The Roman Era: The British Isles, 55 BC – AD 410 (Oxford, 2002); G. de la Bédoyère, Roman Britain: A New History (London, 2006). For a specific example, see p. 6 at nn. 29–30 below. There are a few recent exceptions, most of which, unsurprisingly, deal exclusively with Wales, or with Scotland: C. J. Arnold and J. L. Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales (Stroud, 2000); A. Kamm, The Last Frontier: The Roman Invasions of Scotland (Stroud, 2004). David Breeze also summarises the new material: D. J. Breeze, Roman Scotland: Frontier Country (London, 1996). The best general overview of Roman Britain is now D. Mattingly, An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC – AD 409 (London, 2006). 5 Tacitus, Agricola, X. 3. ‘sed transgressis immensum et enorme spatium procurrentium extremo iam litore terrarum velut in cuneum tenuatur’: ‘Those who have gone past this point [i.e. ‘Caledonia’] have found a huge and irregular expanse of land, projecting beyond the apparently outermost shore and tapering into a wedge-like shape’. Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. and trans. A. R. Birley (Oxford, 1999). All subsequent translations are taken from Birley’s edition. Later on Tacitus mentions the ‘inhabitants’ or ‘men’ of Caledonia’ only in connection with Agricola’s most northerly battles. See pp. 100, 109 below. 6 J. G. F. Hind, ‘Caledonia and its occupation under the Flavians’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxiii (1983), 373; A. A. R. Henderson, ‘Agricola in

1

For example, on Carlisle, see I. D. Caruana, ‘Carlisle: excavation of a section of the annexe ditch of the first Flavian fort, 1990’, Britannia, xxiii (1992); M. McCarthy, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway (Stroud, 2002); on Chester, see D. J. P. Mason, Roman Chester: City of the Eagles (Stroud, 2001); P. Carrington (ed.), Deva Victrix: Roman Chester Re-assessed (Chester, 2002); on Wroxeter, see R. White and P. Barker, Wroxeter: Life and Death of a Roman City (Stroud, 1998); for the north-west of England, see D. Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England (Lancaster, 1993), and revised editions published in 1997 and 2004; for the south-west Scottish border, see Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), Eastern Dumfriesshire: An Archaeological Landscape (Edinburgh, 1997); and, most recently, for central and northern Scotland, see D. J. Woolliscroft and B. Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier: The Flavian Occupation of Northern Scotland (Stroud, 2006). 2 S. Frere, Britannia: A History of Roman Britain, 3rd edn (London, 1987). This was extensively revised (1st edn, 1967; 2nd edn, 1978) and reprinted with minor corrections in 1991. Note that the 1991 reprint retains the same pagination; unless otherwise stated, all subsequent references are to this edition. Frere now accepts that the governor Quintus Petillius Cerialis was operating in Scotland up to the Forth– Clyde line in the early 70s. He does not, however, accept Cerialian activity as far north as Strageath: see p. 80 n. 177 below. For further detail on early Flavian Scotland, see pp. 75 ff. below.

3

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors has commonly been claimed that ‘Calidonia’ and ‘Calidonia silva’ (‘the Caledonian forest’) were used imprecisely in other classical sources; even so, it is always clear that the far north is intended. More often, as will be shown, the classical use of these terms has been pronounced inaccurate simply because of the way the historical context has been interpreted. In brief, the argument runs something like: ‘he [the classical author] cannot be referring to “Caledonia” because the Romans had not had any contact with the north of Scotland at the time’.7 In actual fact, the term ‘Caledonia’ is more commonly misused in modern works, where it is still erroneously applied to the whole of Scotland.8

and J. C. Mann made a first attempt in an article in 1968 to discuss the native political structure in Wales, while the native archaeology of the period for northern England and Scotland has, meanwhile, been covered by D. W. Harding.13 Most recently, evidence for Roman and native interaction in Scotland north of the Forth–Clyde line is presented by David Woolliscroft and Birgitta Hoffmann (directors of the Roman Gask Project).14 Finally, there has been an inability to step back and view the overall picture. During the early days of excavation, the sensible and systematic approach was to organise data under appropriate modern counties. As the pools of information expanded, it became increasingly difficult to interpret the findings in historical terms, and more comparative work across regional and county boundaries, and across academic disciplines was required. This is not to dismiss the pioneering work of historians, archaeologists — and even antiquarians — over the past three centuries. General William Roy, an eighteenth-century military man, was particularly influential, largely because his drawings are still of great value to the researcher. He provided a clear and careful survey, with illustrations of more than fifty Roman military sites of northern Britain, particularly the marching camps associated with Gnaeus Julius Agricola. He also made some very perceptive comments on Agricola’s ‘progress’ through Britain, despite the fact that many of the known forts and camps (particularly in Scotland) had not yet been discovered. For example, he outlined the likelihood of a march through northern Britain in two columns, one following the eastern Dere Street route from Corbridge towards Edinburgh and one following what is now the modern M74 from the Borders towards Glasgow.15 Obviously some of his observations were wrong (especially those derived from his belief in the fictitious work of Richard of Cirencester); he also maintained that the medieval construction at ‘Liddel-moat’, near Netherby, was Roman, even though the bath-house of Netherby’s Roman fort had already been discovered a couple of kilometres away. At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, it was Francis Haverfield who identified the inherent problems of data collection. Although his ‘database’ is clearly out of date, his methodology is still sound; in fact, his intention had always been to move away from county-based studies to produce a complete synthesis of Roman Britain.16

Another problem has been the treatment of Roman military history in Britain in a vacuum;9 there was virtually no mention of the indigenous peoples (except for a few references to ephemeral comments in the classical sources). Nor was there much attempt made to understand the existing political geography which would have been encountered by the invaders. In recent years, however, a much greater emphasis has been placed on the native population. Such an approach has certainly been useful for the later period of Romanisation where numbers of studies — and with them an understanding — of Roman and native interaction have steadily increased. James Curle, writing on Scotland, was one of the pioneers,10 but it was more than forty years before a major book on the subject appeared,11 with little else in a similar vein on north Britain until 1980.12 Michael Jarrett Caledonia: the sixth and seventh campaigns’, Echos du monde classique / Classical Views (EMC), xxix (1985), esp. 323. 7 The criticism in this composite ‘quotation’ is usually aimed at the brief statements by Pliny or Statius: on Pliny, see pp. 56, 78–9 below; on Statius, see pp. 57, 71, 72, 78, 80 below. 8 For example J. Curle, ‘Roman drift in Caledonia’, Jl Roman Studies, xxii (1932); but, more recently, D. Miles, The Tribes of Britain (London, 2005), 130. The issue of Caledonia and the Caledonii is discussed in depth on pp. 56–8 below. 9 But this is not to undervalue such studies. See, most recently, the important articles on Britain in R. J. Brewer (ed.), Roman Fortresses and their Legions (London, 2000), particularly M. Hassall, ‘Pre-Hadrianic legionary dispositions in Britain’; W. H. Manning, ‘The fortresses of legio XX’; and L. Keppie, ‘Legio VIIII in Britain: the beginning and the end’. 10 J. Curle, ‘Roman and native remains in Caledonia’, Jl Roman Studies, iii (1913). Curle’s contribution, and that of others is discussed in G. S. Maxwell, ‘ “Roman” settlement in Scotland’, in J. C. Chapman and H. C. Mytum (eds.), Settlement in North Britain, 1000 BC – AD 1000: Papers Presented to George Jobey (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 118, Oxford, 1983). 11 I. A. Richmond (ed.), Roman and Native in North Britain (Edinburgh, 1958). 12 K. Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes: The Impact of Rome on Northern England (Sheffield, 1980). The first edition of Malcolm Todd’s Roman Britain (London, 1981) described the tribes of England, but there was no mention of Wales or Scotland. The third edition (Oxford, 1999) included a short paragraph on Wales. Barry Cunliffe produced a detailed study of the Iron Age in 1974 but, despite its subtitle and revised editions in 1978, 1991 and the most recent in 2005, it still focuses predominantly on southern England and Wales:

B. Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest, 4th edn (London, 2005). 13 M. G. Jarrett and J. C. Mann, ‘The tribes of Wales’, Welsh Hist. Rev., iv (1968); D. W. Harding, The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and Invaders (London, 2004). 14 Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier. 15 W. Roy, The Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain (London, 1793), 79. For further discussion on the routes through northern England to Scotland, see pp. 53, 73–4, 86 below. 16 As early as 1907, at the time of his Ford lectures, he described how ‘harmful’ it was for local archaeology to be divided according to

4

Background and Sources Ironically enough, it could be argued that modern archaeology in the twenty-first century — particularly as portrayed by the media — is concerned with the day-today lives of ‘our ancestors’ rather than the bigger picture. Excavation and survey are, quite rightly, no longer the pursuits of the ‘gentleman-scholar’, and there has been a general upsurge in the popularity of archaeology both as a discipline and as a hobby. Funding for major projects, however, is limited, and not necessarily targeted towards those key sites which would, perhaps, provide the answers to some of the most tantalising questions about Roman Britain: such a practice can distort the importance of particular excavations. Also, for a variety of reasons, permission to dig on specific sites is not always granted by landowners or public bodies. In addition, much work is ‘rescue archaeology’, undertaken against the clock in advance of building development. This is, of course, of vital importance, but it is also frustrating in that it often throws up more questions than it answers.

Scott mocked the fashionable pursuit of all things Agricolan.19 As a result of this blinkered obsession, categorical statements were made about the historical context. This was true even of Curle’s otherwise admirable volume of 1911 which marked a new phase in the published presentation of archaeological material.20 Curle, who excavated Newstead (near Melrose) in the 1900s was convinced that this fort, confirmed as Trimontium, had an early foundation. However, he could only label the original fort ‘Agricolan’ and assign it to the year AD 80,21 because the accepted reading of Tacitus’ Life of Agricola at the time was that Roman troops under the governorship of Agricola first marched into Scotland in that year.22 This became an all too familiar circular argument. The Minimalist View of Agricola It had become clear for some time that Agricola could not possibly have been responsible for the planning and building of so many sites. William Hanson responded by sifting out everything which could not be unequivocally attributed to Agricola, while following Tacitus’ narrative as a framework for examining Agricola’s campaigning routes over his seven seasons as governor of Britain.23 The final chapter of his book presented Agricola’s achievements in a much more modest light. A quick glance at the chapter headings shows that Hanson’s chronological and systematic examination of Agricola’s campaigns promised to offer for the north of Britain what Graham Webster’s

The Traditional View of Flavian Military History Since the eighteenth century and into the later part of the twentieth, Flavian history — covering the period of the Flavian emperors: Vespasian (AD 69–79); Titus (AD 79–81); and Domitian (AD 81–96) — revolved around the sevenyear governorship of Agricola, which straddled all three reigns. Many of the camps and forts identified in northern Britain were attributed to Agricola simply as a matter of course, on the strength of very little evidence. ‘If it is first-century, it must be Agricolan’ was the usual cry, which led Barri Jones to remark as long ago as 1968 that ‘Agricolan is an overworked adjective’.17 With only Tacitus’ laudatory biography of his father-in-law and a few isolated pieces of Flavian pottery, nineteenth-century antiquarians found it very easy to overlook the work of Agricola’s scantily documented predecessors and successors. Even in fiction Sir Walter Scott’s Antiquary, Jonathan Oldbuck, was convinced not only that he had found yet another Agricolan site but that he had discovered the actual site of the battle of Mons Graupius. Oldbuck prided himself on having noticed what eminent antiquaries before him (‘Sir Robert Sibbald, Saunders Gordon, General Roy, Dr Stukely [sic]’)18 had not. Through him,

Bronze Age finds that he had illustrated and published were Roman, and Alexander Gordon’s Itinerarium septentrionale of 1726 claimed accuracy on the grounds of the author’s often inaccurate personal fieldwork. As previously mentioned, Roy’s work is still used today, while, as Stuart Piggott pointed out, William Stukeley’s ‘real contribution to British archaeology was unrecognized until O. G. S. Crawford discovered the potential of the manuscript sources still fortunately surviving’: S. Piggott, Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the Regency (London, 1989), 33. 19 Scott, Antiquary, i, chap. 4, p. 47: [Oldbuck] ‘I began to trench the ground, to see what might be discovered; and the third day, sir, we found a stone, which I have transported to Monkbarns, in order to have the sculpture taken off with plaster of Paris; it bears a sacrificing vessel, and the letters A. D. L. L. which may stand, without much violence, for Agricola Dicavit Libens Lubens’. [Lovel] ‘Certainly, sir; for the Dutch antiquaries claim Caligula as the founder of a light-house, on the sole authority of the letters C. C. P. F., which they interpret Caius Caligula Pharum Fecit’. 20 J. Curle, A Roman Frontier Post and its People: The Fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose (Glasgow, 1911). It was still in 1937 ‘the fullest monograph on any Roman site in Britain’: Collingwood and Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, 474. 21 Strictly speaking, AD 79 or 80, depending on whether Agricola’s governorship began in 77 or 78. For further discussion, see p. 84 at nn. 9–10 below. 22 Curle, Roman Frontier Post and its People, 7. 23 W. S. Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North (London, 1987; repr. with minor corrections, 1991).

county: ‘The divisions of our English counties correspond in no single case to any known division of Roman days’: F. Haverfield, ‘The study of Roman Britain: a retrospect’, in his The Roman Occupation of Britain: Six Ford Lectures, revised G. Macdonald (Oxford, 1924), 71; and R. G. Collingwood went on to reiterate the point in 1936 by listing a few works which had acknowledged ‘the necessity of taking a wider view and recognizing that county boundaries have nothing to do with Roman history’: R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1937), 467. 17 G. D. B. Jones, ‘The Romans in the north-west’, Northern Hist., iii (1968), 6. 18 Walter Scott, The Antiquary, 2 vols. (Waverley Novels, v–vi, London, 1895 edn), i, chap. 4, p. 47. Ironically, Sibbald was convinced that the

5

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors trilogy had provided for the invasion and early years of the Roman occupation in the south of England and Wales, AD 43–60.24 In many ways that promise was fulfilled. Hanson presented, for the first time, a coherent analysis of what was known for certain (his valuable work on the Forth–Clyde line was particularly impressive). He pinpointed all north British sites which were: (a) indubitably Flavian, though not necessarily Agricolan; (b) definitely post-Agricolan; and (c) possibly Flavian (and, therefore, possibly Agricolan). He was determined that only those sites which had produced indisputable evidence should be labelled ‘Flavian’; others were ‘possible’ and appeared with question marks on the maps. This system of ruthless categorisation, however, did not lend itself to critical analysis, and some believed that Hanson had gone to the other extreme. Charles Daniels, for example, concluded in his review of 1988: ‘We still lack an up to date, impartial assessment of Agricola’s life and work’;25 after all, both in physical and metaphorical terms, ‘Stripping away ivy should be done to reveal walls, not to destroy them’.26

that Scotland was abandoned in two stages rather than one, c.AD 87. In the case of (a), an early date for Carlisle would have made Cerialian penetration deeper into Scotland more likely; ironically this would have limited Agricola’s achievement even further. In 1989 Carlisle’s Cerialian foundation was confirmed by dendrochronological dating of the southern gateway of the fort, whose timbers were felled AD 72–3.29 Hanson did amend his earlier statement, but merely referred readers to the revised edition of Agricola and the Conquest of the North, rather than directly to the source of the new information.30 Regarding (b), Hanson’s whole explanation of the function and chronology of the series of watchtowers and forts in Perthshire, known as the Gask Ridge (which he saw as a later development),31 and for the systematic abandonment classic works as I. A. Richmond, Roman Britain, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth, 1963), 38, which took up Eric Birley’s suggestion (in an essay first published in 1950–1): see E. Birley, ‘The Brigantian problem, and the first Roman contact with Scotland’, in his Roman Britain and the Roman Army: Collected Papers (1953; repr. Kendal, 1976), 40–1. Hanson claimed, ‘Either the pottery evidence has been misinterpreted, though apparently confirmed by analysis of the coin evidence, or the earliest Roman presence was of a more ephemeral nature than has previously been assumed’: Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 61. He referred to Bushe-Fox’s list and descriptions of the pottery fragments, and to Shotter’s conclusions from the coin finds: see the Carlisle section in J. P. Bushe-Fox, ‘The use of samian pottery in dating the early Roman occupation of the north of Britain’, Archaeologia, xiv (1913); D. C. A. Shotter, ‘The Roman occupation of northwest England: the coin evidence’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxx (1980), 6. A more upto-date version of the latter, however, is D. Shotter, ‘Coin-loss and the Roman occupation of north-west England’, Brit. Numismatic Jl, lxiii (1993). 29 S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1989: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxi (1990), 320; M. R. McCarthy, Carlisle: History and Guide (Stroud, 1993), 3. 30 W. S. Hanson, ‘The Roman presence: brief interludes’, in K. J. Edwards and I. B. M. Ralston (eds.), Scotland after the Ice Age: Environment, Archaeology and History, 8000 BC – AD 1000, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 2003), 195. It was possibly because he initially received the dendrochronological information in an informal manner that, in this chapter, he used the material but gave his own 1991 edition as the reference. Even there, it is in the form of a short statement in the Preface with no further discussion (perhaps not permitted by the publishers). Fulford notes the detail, but the military account is thin in this short piece and the implications are not discussed: Fulford, ‘Second start’, 45. The same applies to his ‘Britain’, in A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, xi, The High Empire, AD 70– 192, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2000), 562. Todd’s failure to acknowledge the dendrochronological evidence from Carlisle in his discussion of Cerialis (published 1999) is a serious omission: Todd, Roman Britain, chap. 5. Nor was this rectified later: M. Todd (ed.), A Companion to Roman Britain (London, 2004; paperback edn, 2007). In fact, this volume contains very little on first-century northern England, largely because Todd’s own contribution, ‘The Claudian conquest and its consequences’, merely touches on the subject at the end, and Gordon Maxwell’s chapter, entitled ‘The Roman penetration of the north in the late first century AD’, deals almost exclusively with Scotland. 31 Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 153. Wacher still appears to believe this: see Wacher, Roman Britain, 33. David Woolliscroft’s work on the Gask Project is now essential reading for the whole Gask frontier system: see, for example, D. J. Woolliscroft, The Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge: Perth and Kinross. An Interim

Hanson’s strict use of archaeology in order to put Agricola’s achievements back into perspective made his ‘minimalist’27 account factual but non-intuitive. When he did speculate, it tended to be on the possible location of ‘missing’ sites and on the chronology of occupation per se. In his eagerness to dismiss what he considered to be impossible, his suggested scenario of strategy beyond the Forth did not really come to grips with what was going on. There were clearly some instances where he was unhappy with the logical conclusions of his own arguments. For example, he dismissed Jones’s postulated Roman sites in Moray; but, irrespective of whether the sites at Easter Galcantray (near Cawdor), Balnageith (west of Forres), Thomshill (south of Elgin) and Boyndie (west of Banff) ever prove to be Roman or not, his analysis implied a Roman presence up to the Moray Firth. And, in any case, the series of confirmed camps in the north-east of Scotland also point to such a possibility. Two key assumptions in his analysis of the conquest of the north had a knock-on effect for the rest of his interpretation: (a) a reluctance even to contemplate an early date for the foundation of Carlisle, despite the ceramic and numismatic evidence;28 and (b) the conviction 24

G. Webster, The Roman Invasion of Britain (1980); revised edn (London, 1993); G. Webster, Rome against Caratacus: The Roman Campaigns in Britain, AD 48–58 (1981); revised edn (London, 1993); G. Webster, Boudica: The British Revolt against Rome, AD 60 (1978); revised edn (London, 1993). All subsequent references are to the 1993 revised editions. 25 C. Daniels, ‘Review of W. S. Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xvi (1988), 261. 26 P. Biller, ‘Goodbye to Waldensianism?’, Past and Present, no. 192 (Aug. 2006), 18. 27 Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, ‘Preface’, 7. 28 Even though Cerialian Carlisle had already been favoured in such

6

Background and Sources of camps and forts north of the Forth, was based on his belief in a two-stage withdrawal. There is no evidence to support this; in fact the amount of destruction, combined with the scale of abandonment of materials, is much more likely to indicate total withdrawal, possibly south of the Forth, where there is evidence of post-AD 87 activity only at a few outlying forts in southern Scotland, notably Newstead, Dalswinton and, possibly, Castle dykes.32

It is highly unlikely that new primary literature will be discovered, except in the form of a few inscriptions and possibly writing tablets; nevertheless, reinterpretation of existing texts continues. The early interpreters of Tacitus’ Life of Agricola had, over the years, tended to regard it as a completely accurate account of events in Britain in the late AD 70s and early 80s. More recently the work has been treated with considerable scepticism,36 but it is still a useful source in its own right. The Latin text (with copious notes) edited by R. M. Ogilvie and Ian Richmond has remained the standard version of the Life of Agricola; it was reprinted in 2002. A new translation (with up-to-date notes) by Anthony Birley appeared in 1999, replacing the well-known and much-reprinted Penguin translation by Harold Mattingly of 1948.37

Moreover, in his final chapter Hanson seems systematically to discredit nearly every statement Tacitus made. This is surely going too far. If Tacitus had been so inaccurate in his analysis it seems unlikely that any of his contemporaries would have shown an interest in his work, and surely, at the very least, he would have been mocked for his incompetence, especially since, when the Life of Agricola was published, there would still have been many leading figures around who would have been fully conversant with the affairs of the province of Britannia.33 It has even been suggested that Tacitus may have served as a military tribune in Britain during the first years of his father-in-law’s governorship (AD 77–9), and so he may actually have had first-hand knowledge of the province, including the coastal geography, at least up to the Tay.34 It is, in any case, worth pointing out R. M. Ogilvie’s observation: ‘Wherever we can test the facts given by Tacitus, they are reliable’.35

Not all new interpretations are necessarily of value. Hanson’s reassessment of Agricola’s achievements may have been extremely negative, but it did not go as far as Martin Henig’s suggestion that the battle of Mons Graupius never took place at all (and, incidentally, Hanson did defend Tacitus here).38 On the other hand, the modern-day military strategist and amateur antiquarian is still very much alive. Thus Colonel J. E. Fletcher’s claim in 1999 to have located the battleground of Mons Graupius and to have reinterpreted the battle itself 39 commanded lengthy coverage in the Scottish press. And, although little archaeological evidence was cited in defence of Fletcher’s suggestions, there are a few archaeologists who would have been willing to give such speculations of a battleground in the Inverness area a chance — the late Barri Jones for one, who did much to support the theory that the battle of Mons Graupius took place much further north than had hitherto been suggested or implied. He was, of course, not alone in the general assertion,40 and, unlike many of his predecessors in other parts of Britain, he was looking initially for

The Future of Flavian Military History Hanson’s Agricola and the Conquest of the North is a pivotal point from which to move forward and modify the skeletal framework he provided as one interpretation of Roman policy in northern Britain in the later years of the first century. Archaeology is a living subject, and much information has been added to the database over the last fifteen to twenty years. Does Hanson’s picture of the past still hold true in general terms and, if not, are we any further forward in our understanding of the period?

36

See, for example, B. Hoffmann, ‘Tacitus, Agricola and the role of literature in the archaeology of the first century AD’, in E. W. Sauer (ed.), Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries (London, 2004). 37 Ibid.; Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania, ed. and trans. H. Mattingly (1948), revised S. A. Handford (Harmondsworth, 1970); Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley. A rather freer translation was also produced in America in 1967: Tacitus, Agricola, Germany, Dialogue on Orators, ed. and trans. H. W. Benario (1967; repr. Norman, 1991). 38 M. Henig, ‘Togidubnus and the Roman liberation’, British Archaeology, no. 37 (Sept. 1998), 9. See also Hanson’s reply, in ‘Letters’, British Archaeology, no. 40 (Dec. 1998), 14. 39 J. E. Fletcher, ‘Battle lost’, The Scotsman, 4 Dec. 1999, ‘Weekend’ section, 4. 40 It is interesting to note that much tourist literature has also taken up this assumption. More significantly, perhaps, Anthony Birley seems to think the same; with reference to the crossing of estuaries on the long march prior to the battle, he posed the question: ‘. . . could this mean not just the Firths of Forth and Tay, no longer novelties, but also the Moray and Dornoch Firths?’: Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 88 (on Agricola XXXIII). See pp. 104 ff. below.

Report on the Roman Gask Project, 1995–2000 (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 335, Oxford, 2002); and, most recently, Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier. For further discussion of the Gask Ridge, its chronology and function, see pp. 79–81, 90–1 below. 32 Daniels, ‘Review of Hanson, Agricola’, 261; G. D. B. Jones, ‘The emergence of the Tyne–Solway frontier’, in V. A. Maxfield and M. J. Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989: Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Exeter, 1991). 33 Similarly, with criticisms on the appropriateness of the term Calidonia, see p. 4 at n. 7 above, and pp. 57–8 below. 34 Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, p. xxii (editor’s ‘Introduction’), 70 (on Agricola, X); A. R. Birley, ‘The life and death of Cornelius Tacitus’, Historia, xlix (2000), 237–8. 35 Cornelius Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. R. M. Ogilvie and I. A. Richmond (Oxford, 1967), 18 (editors’ ‘Introduction’).

7

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors prehistoric, rather than Roman, remains in his survey work in Moray.

only a few pieces of the jigsaw, and not necessarily the key ones. Scholars have attempted integrated approaches, but either the work has been too superficial or it has concentrated on one particular area of Britain, with all the inherent disadvantages of regionalism already mentioned.

The latest book on the subject of Mons Graupius is that by James Fraser, in which he favours a battlefield much further south.41 There is much of interest in this work, but his contention that the battle of Mons Graupius took place on the Gask Ridge has little to recommend it, despite his remark that such a conclusion ‘seems, on the available textual, archaeological, linguistic and toponymic evidence, to be beyond reasonable doubt’.42 Moreover, the sheer number of illustrative plates of the ‘alleged battle site’ is very much reminiscent of the conviction of Scott’s Jonathan Oldbuck. Fraser’s account, which ignores the considerable amount of published material by David Woolliscroft,43 cannot be said to have produced a ‘balanced’ view. Fraser clearly wishes to stress the importance of linguistic analysis (which can be extremely helpful and should certainly not be ignored); but, as will be seen, place-name orthography cannot totally be relied upon without epigraphical corroboration — and even then, there are variants. Linguistic rules cannot be used as a straitjacket: there is no guarantee that the existing form has been transcribed correctly, or that its transcription, in numerous copyings, has followed a series of ‘logical’ steps.44

This study does not claim to provide definitive answers to the most tantalising questions on military campaigns in northern Britain, but it offers a different way of looking at the existing material. It deals almost exclusively with the militarised area of Britain — the area which did not succumb easily to Romanisation. The part of Britain under consideration is that running roughly diagonally from Bristol to the Wash, but, of course, special emphasis is placed on the north of England and Scotland. Agricola was principally concerned with the problematic areas of peripheral Britain, that is those parts of Britain furthest away from the south and east: north Wales, north-western England, south-western Scotland, and the far north of Scotland. It seems clear that the further the Romans penetrated from east to west the more resistance they encountered. A view from east to west, therefore, seems more useful than the normal south to north axis. It is necessary also to consider matters not just from the Roman point of view but from that of Britain’s indigenous population. Tribal groupings are, of course, unknown for certain (and in any case settlement patterns were subject to change throughout the Roman period, before and since, as a result not only of Roman imperatives, but also of inter-tribal conflict), but there is still much information that can be pieced together in a meaningful way.

Finally on the subject of Flavian military history in Scotland, Woolliscroft and Hoffmann have now produced their interpretation of events based on intensive excavations of the Gask Ridge area and, more recently, resistivity survey and systematic work on other Roman forts north of the Forth–Clyde line. This is, of course, very much an archaeologically orientated account, full of valuable information, but it dismisses parts of Tacitus’ text as ‘a triumph of applied waffle’.45 Whatever claims are made in this book, however, the site of the battle of Mons Graupius in Strathearn is, quite rightly, not one of them.46

It is true that, in the light of new excavation and study, more flesh can be added to the bare bones of Hanson’s ‘minimalist’ view of Agricola’s achievements, to the even more skeletal picture of Cerialis, Frontinus, and Agricola’s unknown successor(s), and to the changing imperial ‘frontier’ policy vis-à-vis Wales, northern England and Scotland. There have been new discoveries, leading to the necessary rethinking of the pattern of conquest in Britain, and all this additional material needs careful assimilation.47 What makes this study original, however, is its starting point: the combined use of the place-names of the two most important pieces of documentary evidence. ‘Ptolemy’s Map’ and the Ravenna Cosmography (which are discussed in detail in the second section of this Introduction) are used in order to discover what they reveal about military matters in the early part of a period which has been described merely as the ‘Roman interlude’ — at least as far as northern England is concerned.48 Literary evidence is also re-examined in

A New Approach In order to appreciate fully what was going on in firstcentury northern Britain, a new approach is needed. It is clear that strict adherence to Tacitus’ text alone does not produce an accurate picture of events; nor does a careful catalogue of archaeological excavation, which provides 41 J. E. Fraser, The Roman Conquest of Scotland: The Battle of Mons Graupius AD 84 (Stroud, 2005). 42 Ibid., 128. For further discussion, see p. 104 below. 43 Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge; also articles and annual reports published on-line at . 44 Fraser’s own view is clear enough from his comment: ‘It seems particularly unwise for the evidence of philology, for example, to be dismissed by non-philologists simply because they do not understand or “believe” it’: Fraser, Roman Conquest of Scotland, 128. 45 Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 176. 46 See p. 104 at n. 63 below.

47

The dendrochronological evidence from Carlisle is probably the single most significant breakthrough in an understanding of Flavian policy in northern Britain. 48 A chapter heading in N. J. Higham, The Northern Counties to AD 1000 (London, 1986), 182–234. Although in the nineteenth century Daniel

8

Background and Sources the light of new archaeological information. In the use of Tacitus’ Life of Agricola, emphasis is placed not only on what the historian chose to relate and how he described events but also on where particular comments appear in the narrative. A careful study of the juxtaposition of detail can lead to different conclusions about the overall historical sequence during the Flavian period. Some scholars do still see the merit in a parallel study of the archaeology of the Agricolan years together with Tacitus’ text. As one recent author put it:

structural sequences of a finite frontier rather than to speculate upon its function, although much effort has also been directed towards that aspect.50 The further one ventures into the second century the more obscure the picture becomes. Any study of military activity in Britain under the emperor Antoninus Pius, for example, has had to be based almost entirely on the archaeological evidence. There is no convenient classical biography of any one of the governors who served under him, and few hints of any kind as to what his priorities were, but there is a growing corpus of information on Antonine sites: camps, forts and fortlets. It is not surprising to find that there is no monograph on an emperor whose only tangible achievement in Britain was the building of the wall that bears his name.51 Nevertheless, his reign also heralded much reconstruction work elsewhere in Britain, and heavy refortification of south-western Scotland. The Ravenna Cosmography provides an insight into the priorities and early reorganisation of the province of Britannia under the first of the Antonines.

Archaeological research has greatly enhanced the rewards for those who pursue this approach, and, if we take the text at face value and trust in its credentials as an account of incursions into the British Isles and, in particular, of the campaigns of Agricola, then its value for reconstructing the history of that period is considerable.49

The Epilogue: Antoninus Pius and Britain This study focuses almost entirely on the Flavian campaigning years in Britain, but the Epilogue (Chapter 7) attempts to draw together what is known about the renewed advance into Scotland in the second century under Antoninus Pius (AD 138–61); light can be thrown upon that rather hazier period if it is argued that the British section of the Ravenna Cosmography originally dates to the early years of Antoninus’ reign.

II: THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES FOR PLACE-NAMES, AND DATING For any study of the military history of Roman Britain, the information contained in the documentary sources — particularly ‘Ptolemy’s Map’ in his Geographia, and the anonymous Ravenna Cosmography, but also the Antonine Itinerary and the Notitia Dignitatum — is vital. The single most important reference work which examines this and other extant material is that by A. L. F. Rivet and Colin Smith, first published in 1979 and still in print.52 This extensive ‘catalogue’ which includes detailed commentaries and interpretations of the documentary evidence is used here, in conjunction with the latest research on the appropriate sources and the current archaeological evidence,

Much of the work which has been done on the military aspects of the second-century is probably understandably skewed towards frontier development. The main focus has, of course, been on Hadrian’s Wall and on the Antonine Wall, although, more recently, some attention has been paid to the Trajanic frontier (the precursor of Hadrian’s Wall which runs slightly to the south of it, along the Stanegate). The Stanegate frontier may have been planned, or initially developed, during the late Domitianic period, and was operational during the reign of Trajan (AD 98–117); construction of the first stages of the later Wall built during Hadrian’s reign (AD 117–38), probably began in AD 122; and, under Antoninus, work on the more northerly Wall is usually thought to have started c.AD 142. In the absence of appropriate documentary evidence, it is obviously easier to study the

50

The most recent key texts on the British frontiers of the second century are (on Hadrian’s Wall): D. J. Breeze and B. Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 4th edn (Harmondsworth, 2000); D. J. Breeze, J. Collingwood Bruce’s Handbook to the Roman Wall, 14th edn (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2006); and (on the Antonine Wall): W. S. Hanson and G. S. Maxwell, Rome’s North West Frontier: The Antonine Wall (1983; repr. Edinburgh, 1986); A. S. Robertson, The Antonine Wall: A Handbook to the Surviving Remains, ed. and revised L. Keppie (Glasgow, 2001); D. J. Breeze, The Antonine Wall (Edinburgh, 2006). 51 The closest is Michael Grant’s The Antonines, in which he provided summaries of the reigns of the emperors in the Antonine period, AD 138–92, that is Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus and Commodus. He followed these with a section on various aspects of the culture of the time, but the short chapter on Antoninus Pius covered only fifteen pages: see M. Grant, The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition (London, 1994), chap. 1. More recently, Anthony Birley has presented what is known of Antoninus’ reign: A. R. Birley, ‘Hadrian to the Antonines’, in Bowman, Garnsey and Rathbone (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, xi, 149–56. 52 A. L. F. Rivet and C. Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London, 1979).

Wilson admitted that ‘the footmark of the Roman on the soil of England is indelible’, his views on Scotland were similar to those of Higham: ‘the Scoto-Roman invasion . . . affects only a small portion of the country, and constitutes a mere episode which might be omitted without very greatly marring the integrity and completeness of the national annals’: D. Wilson, The Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, 2nd edn, 2 vols. (London and Cambridge, 1863), ii, 25, 26 — the latter also quoted in G. S. Maxwell, The Romans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1989), 11. 49 K. Clarke, ‘An island nation: re-reading Tacitus’ Agricola’, Jl Roman Studies, xci (2001), 94–5.

9

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors in order to offer an interpretation of military campaigns and strategies in northern Britain.

Ptolemy’s Geographia and his Map of Britain What has become known to scholars of early British history as ‘Ptolemy’s Map’ (see Appendix 3 and Map 1)56 was reconstructed from the co-ordinates of the British section of the Greek text compiled by the mathematician and astronomer from Alexandria, Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy), in Geographia (c.AD 140–150). There are many manuscripts of the Geographia, although none is earlier than the eleventh century. They seem to derive from two recensions, both of which modified Ptolemy’s original text. There is no consensus of opinion as to the definitive version. Maps (of unknown date) are included with fourteen of the Greek manuscripts and thirty-eight of the Latin ones. The earliest representations of the map itself date only from the thirteenth century, but have been enormously influential over the centuries. The most comprehensive discussion of this material (from a technical point of view) has been undertaken by Alastair Strang;57 prior to that, the standard, and often quoted discussion and identification of the British sites was that by Rivet and Smith.58

The Antonine Itinerary and the Notitia Dignitatum For the purposes of the present study, the main value of the Itinerary and the Notitia, and also of a few artefacts relating to Hadrian’s Wall, is that they may sometimes provide corroborative evidence for the tentative identifications of places listed in the two main sources. The Antonine Itinerary dates possibly from AD 214–15, under the emperor Caracalla, but parts have been shown to have been earlier. It groups together 225 ‘itineraries’, tracing roads of the Roman Empire. The British section comes at the end of the list of land routes and just before the sea routes begin. Of the fifteen British land routes, nine (numbers I, II, V, VI, VIII, X, XI, XII and XIII) include place-names north of the line, roughly, from Lincoln to Gloucester (see Appendix 1).53 The document contains many names which equate with those featured in Ptolemy’s Geographia and in the Ravenna Cosmography. There are several fifteenth- and sixteenth-century copies of the Notitia Dignitatum which are believed to have been based on a Carolingian manuscript of c.825 which was itself copied from an original fifth-century document. It is in two parts (the British section appears in the Notitia Occidentis), and gives details of an administrative nature: military garrisons, including those of the fourthcentury Saxon shore forts in Britain (see Appendix 2).54 The Notitia is not chronologically coherent. The eastern sections, for example, are known to include fifth-century material, whilst the garrisons mentioned in the British section appear to come from different periods; some are apparently from the fourth century and post-date the third-century subsection dealing with Hadrian’s Wall. The information contained in the Notitia may not reflect the position in first-century Britain but it does have implications for a few of the place-names contained in the Ravenna Cosmography, particularly for the north of England. In addition, the almost identical inscriptions on the three artefacts known as the ‘Rudge Cup’, the ‘Amiens patera’, and the ‘Staffordshire Moorlands Pan’ (discovered respectively in Wiltshire in the early eighteenth century, in Amiens in 1949, and near Ilam, Staffordshire, in 2003), have also been of assistance in confirming the names and order of the Roman fort sites at the west end of Hadrian’s Wall, all of which are also named in the Ravenna Cosmography.55

The British section of the Geographia lists topographical features, names of tribes and co-ordinates for the ‘towns’, or poleis, contained within each tribal area of Albion (Britain) and Ivernia (Ireland). Despite Ptolemy’s obvious distortion which resulted in Scotland leaning severely to the right, his understanding of the geography of Britain is surprisingly accurate. Various attempts have been made over the years to explain Ptolemy’s calculations, and to correct the ‘lean’,59 which probably came about due to the mistaken belief of the early Greek geographers that life could not be sustained beyond 63ºN latitude.60 It is generally agreed that the tribal areas mentioned in Ptolemy’s listings have been fairly accurately positioned on the standard reproduction of the map. It is, therefore, interesting to note that a map of the main Bronze Age 56

Appendix 3 (below) gives the place-names and suggested identifications from Strang, Ian Smith, and Rivet and Smith; Map 1 (below) is reproduced from G. D. B. Jones and D. Mattingly, An Atlas of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1990), 19 (map 2:4). 57 A. Strang, ‘Ptolemy’s Geography reappraised’ (Univ. of Nottingham Ph.D. thesis, 1994), and his subsequent articles: A. Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, Britannia, xxviii (1997); A. Strang, ‘The analysis of Ptolemy’s Geography’, Cartographic Jl, xxxv, 1 (June 1998); A. Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map of Roman Britain with a detailed map for Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxviii (1998). 58 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 103–47, and under individual placenames. 59 J. J. Tierney, ‘Ptolemy’s map of Scotland’, Jl Hellenic Studies, lxxix (1959); G. D. B. Jones and I. Keillar, ‘Marinus, Ptolemy and the turning of Scotland’, Britannia, xxvii (1996); Strang, ‘Ptolemy’s Geography Reappraised’. 60 I. G. Smith, The First Roman Invasion of Scotland: A Geographical Review (Edinburgh, 1987), 47–8.

53

Appendix 1 (below) reproduces all Antonine Itinerary lists: from Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 155–78. 54 Appendix 2 (below) reproduces the northern place-names from the British section of the Notitia Dignitatum, which covers ‘England’ only: from Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 219–21. 55 For discussion on Ravenna’s Hadrian’s Wall section, see pp. 25–6 and Figure 1 below.

10

Background and Sources traditions in the eighth to the fifth centuries BC, based on artefactual evidence, seems to indicate dividing lines which, broadly speaking, remain valid in any discussion of late Iron Age and early Roman Britain (see Map 2).61 The ‘Carp’s-Tongue Sword’ tradition,62 for example, named after an assemblage of Bronze Age metalwork (end of the tenth century BC) displaying similarities with manufacturing techniques in western France, covers approximately southern England east of the Jurassic ridge, along which the later Roman road, the ‘Fosse Way’, was to run. Whilst this kind of observation can be self-evident, given the natural constraints of geographical boundaries which have until relatively recently affected demographic patterns in Britain, it also follows that there must be a high degree of continuity of settlement from the prehistoric period, through the Roman period and beyond for that very reason. Strategically important sites often continue to be so throughout history.

any kind of argument on early Roman Britain. These place-names have not been wholly reliable, however, since of the thirty-seven poleis named in the twelve most northerly tribal areas of Scotland, England and Wales, only eleven have been certainly identified, and only one of those is within the boundaries of modern Scotland (see Appendix 3). Alastair Strang’s research has greatly improved on this, however. His thesis empirically analysed Ptolemy’s original calculations with respect to Britain and Ireland, showed what lay behind the distortions, and corrected them; in so doing he produced a plausible list of identifications for Ptolemy’s place-names and topographical features. Strang’s in-depth case studies concentrated on Scotland and on the Danube region. The pinpointing of Ptolemy’s poleis in modern Scotland has always been something of a challenge primarily because of the severe dislocation of Britain north of the Solway. Strang compared Ptolemy’s map with a segmented version of the Ordnance Survey map of Britain. He based his calculations on Ptolemy’s place-names which have been positively identified, for example London (Londinium) and Newstead (Trimontium), and, in the case of Catterick (Caturactonium), Aldborough (Isurium) and York (Eboracum), on the spatial relationship between a group of known place-names. The mathematical adjustment necessary to make Ptolemy’s co-ordinates for the known place-names fit their actual ones was then applied in appropriately varying degrees to the unknown places. All this, of course, presupposed that Ptolemy’s map was essentially correct. Strang does indicate the ways in which errors could have occurred in orthography (that is, simple misreading), in the noting down of the coordinates, and in omission/misplacement.65 It has to be borne in mind that the texts and maps have undergone a long history of copying and recopying, not to mention translation: there are Greek, Latin and Arabic versions, whilst the first complete English translation of Ptolemy’s Geographia, with maps, was published only in the twentieth century.66 Having said that, Strang’s recent work has produced the most satisfactory explanation to date of Ptolemy’s co-ordinates, and it must now be regarded as the starting point for any future research on the subject.67 The names of all the poleis are listed in Appendix 3, under their respective tribal names, with the most recent identifications from Alastair Strang, together with those from Rivet and Smith, and from Ian Smith on Scotland for comparative purposes; the eleven positively identified modern places are indicated within square brackets in block capitals.

Ptolemy conveniently mentions all the northern tribes and poleis before proceeding further south. He begins in Galloway, which he believed to be the far north, by naming the Novantae, followed by the Selgovae, the Damnonii and the [V]Otadini.63 He then refers to the tribes of ‘the East’, that is the western isles and far north of Scotland: the Epidii, Creones, Carnonacae, Caereni, Cornavii, Caledonii, Decantae, Lugi and Smertae. Apparently none of these tribes has a ‘town’. Opinion is divided as to whether the poleis on the British mainland represent purely Roman-founded sites or a combination of Roman and native ones. Those labelled in Ivernia (Ireland), are usually taken to be exclusively native, despite the appearance every so often of articles arguing for a Roman invasion of Ireland.64 Clearly, Ptolemy’s sources did not have as much information on the far north of Scotland, and no permanent Roman military presence was ever established there. Ptolemy’s list continues in northern Scotland with the Vacomagi, the Venicones and the Taexali, then proceeds down into England with the Brigantes, the Parisi, the Ordovices, the Cornavii, the Coritani, and concludes with the names of the southern tribes. Ptolemy’s map provides something which most classical writers do not: tangible place-names on which to base 61

Map 2 (below) is reproduced from B. Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest, 3rd edn (London, 1991), 95 (fig. 5.1); map appears slightly differently in the 4th edition, 76 (fig. 4.4). 62 Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 4th edn (2005), 75–7 (all subsequent references are to the 2005 edition). 63 For locations of these and the following tribes on Ptolemy’s map, see Appendix 3 and Map 1 below. 64 Most recently, D. J. Robinson, ‘The Romans and Ireland again: some thoughts on Tacitus’ Agricola Chapter 24’, Jl Chester Archaeol. Soc., lxxv (1998–9). For further discussion on an invasion that was contemplated, but never carried out, see pp. 92, 95, 96–7 below.

65

Strang, ‘Analysis of Ptolemy’s Geography’, 33. Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, ed. and trans. E. L. Stevenson (1932; repr. New York, 1991). 67 As the leading authority, Strang modified the reproduction of Ptolemy’s map and explanatory detail for the second edition of the Scottish History Atlas: P. G. B. McNeill and H. L. MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 (1996; Edinburgh, 2000), 36. 66

11

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors A Note on the Dating of Ptolemy’s Map

was essentially a garbled list of places with limited use. They made frequent reference to interpretations by Richmond and Crawford, whom they saw as far ‘too trusting’73 at best, and, at worst, completely wrong; they believed that neither the Cosmographer nor his subsequent copy scribes provided any kind of coherent and systematic list of place-names for Britain. More recently David Shotter,74 Ian Smith,75 Robert Conquest,76 Sheppard Frere77 and Paul Holder78 have nevertheless tried to make sense of sections of the list (see Appendix 4).79 It is certainly a more enigmatic text because of its continuous format and obvious scribal errors, but it can be usefully examined in conjunction with Ptolemy’s map. Rivet and Smith did at least concede that there were some similarities between place-names given in both sources. It also follows that any miscopying is just as (or more) likely to have happened in the medieval period as in classical times. Strict adherence to classicist readings, therefore, is not always helpful. For instance, it is perfectly possible for the place-name Alavna Silva (amongst the south-west groupings in Ravenna) to have emerged over the years from Aquae Sulis (Bath).80 This could have happened by analogy with known words, rather than through some rigid linguistic formula which accepts certain changes in language and rejects others.

The map is particularly useful in any study relating to Agricola and to northern Britain since it is believed to have been based (at least in part, and certainly for northern Britain) on a detailed first-century military map of Britain, together with navigational maps for the plotting of coastal locations. These were probably compiled by the geographer Marinus of Tyre, perhaps based on information from the early 80s obtained by a certain Demetrius of Tarsus, who is thought to have accompanied Agricola on his northern campaigns. It is clear, however, that at least one modification was made to a copy or copies of the text after the Flavian period. This concerns the entry for York (Eboracum), where the fortress’ associated legion is given as VI Victrix. The Sixth Legion was not actually stationed in Britain until the second century, and is believed to have been brought over by Hadrian in AD 122.68 It should be stressed, however, that this detail does not automatically date Ptolemy’s original source material to the second century; it merely shows how a scribe could have inserted extra information during the preparation of new copies at some stage during the twenty years or so prior to the appearance of the Geographia. There are, after all, no other Hadrianic additions; nor, it would seem, did Ptolemy include place-names from any other later source. There is also clear evidence that some of the information on Ptolemy’s map is early Flavian in date. Caerleon, the legionary fortress in south Wales which was founded in the mid-70s is not included, but its predecessor, the fortress at Usk (Bullaeum) a few miles away, is correctly located.

Although Richmond and Crawford noted that ‘There are few groups of names mentioned by the Ravenna list in any part of Europe which do not correspond with the order of the Antonine Itineraries’, additionally they stressed that ‘The remainder also fall into well-marked geographical groups’.81 It is the geographical groups which are most important. Some do indeed appear to

The Ravenna Cosmography

73

Ibid., 192. Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England (1993), 107–9. The second edition of this book (1997) contains essentially the same information on pp. 113–15, but the typesetters of the table on p. 115 have placed several names under the wrong documentary sources, which makes the material confusing. The table in the original edition also has a few misplaced place-names, but the pattern of errors is not the same as that in the second edition. Note also that there is no table in the third edition (2004). Unless otherwise stated, all subsequent references are to the third edition. 75 I. G. Smith, ‘Some Roman place-names in Lancashire and Cumbria’, Britannia, xxviii (1997); he is mainly using the Antonine Itinerary, but also comments on Ravenna’s place-names for this area. 76 R. Conquest, ‘A note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland: an alternative approach’, Britannia, xxxi (2000). 77 S. Frere, ‘The Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain between the Walls’, Britannia, xxxii (2001). 78 P. Holder, ‘Roman place-names on the Cumbrian coast’, in R. J. A. Wilson and I. D. Caruana, Romans on the Solway: Essays in Honour of Richard Bellhouse (Kendal, 2004). 79 Appendix 4 (below) gives suggested identifications for the Ravenna place-names: from Rivet and Smith, Richmond and Crawford, Shotter, Conquest, and Frere. 80 Note that Bath appears as Aquae Calidae on Ptolemy’s map. This is a generic name, repeated throughout Europe; Bath may have acquired the more specific Aquae Sulis later. 81 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 2. 74

The Ravenna Cosmography is a compilation (probably dating from the late seventh century) of place-names, apparently from the whole of the known world, from India to Ireland.69 The British section was discussed in detail by Ian Richmond and O. G. S. Crawford,70 and their work, together with earlier research by Joseph Schnetz, and additional commentary by Louis Dillemann,71 formed the basis of identifications by Rivet and Smith.72 Following both Schnetz and Dillemann, who were writing as far apart as 1919 and 1979 respectively, Rivet and Smith maintained that the Ravenna Cosmography 68

A. R. Birley, ‘VI Victrix in Britain’, in R. M. Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, (Leicester, 1971) 82. 69 The most recent publication of the full text is: Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia et guidonis geographica, ed. J. Schnetz (1940; Stuttgart, 1990). 70 I. A. Richmond and O. G. S. Crawford, ‘The British section of the Ravenna Cosmography’, Archaeologia, xciii (1949). 71 L. Dillemann, ‘Observations on Chapter V. 31, Britannia, in the Ravenna Cosmography’, Archaeologia, cvi (1979). 72 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 185–215.

12

Background and Sources follow the Antonine Itinerary routes, but this is not as widespread as Richmond and Crawford believed. And, of course, there are no itinera north of High Rochester (Northumberland). Rivet and Smith’s admission that there was ‘a certain logic to Ravenna’s order, but it amounts to logic within a region’,82 surely emphasises the point that the Ravenna Cosmography is a regional survey of Roman Britain. Their identifications, which, in some cases, modified those of Richmond and Crawford, were presented in map form by Jones and Mattingly. The maps revealed some degree of coherence as far as much of what are now England and Wales is concerned but for most of Scotland no such pattern can be traced. This led to the conclusion that the ‘Scottish’ locations suggested by Rivet and Smith cannot all be correct (see Maps 3 and 4).83

tried to suggest identifications for the Ravenna placenames associated with southern Scotland, but he has not made any reference, in his comparisons with Ptolemaic names, to Strang’s conclusions. The alternative way of looking at the material, which is presented in the next chapter, does, however, incorporate some of the thinking to date. The place-names within each regional grouping all seem to follow from a main, or ‘centre’, point, although they do not necessarily follow a route as described by Richmond and Crawford. A definitive ‘solution’ to the Ravenna list is probably unattainable, but the aim here is to produce a framework which separates the names into workable groups, or, in some cases, ‘stand-alone’ places of particular importance. The ‘logic within a region’ of Rivet and Smith is fairly clear for the more southerly sections discussed, but the same principles are here applied to the north also (see Map 5 for the general pattern, and Appendix 5, below). Even if final identification of individual places is not possible, the logic of the overall structure — at least for northern Britain — aims to give some credit to the ability of the original compiler of the Cosmography. After all, twentieth- and twenty-first-century cartography, and list compilation are not without flaws; it is very easy to omit an entry when copying hundreds of names.84 If the resulting analysis is essentially correct (and this model does allow for the alteration of individual sites within the overall context), it has striking implications for the discussion of the stages of conquest in northern Britain. It may also have relevance to an understanding of what was happening in the Antonine period. For the purpose of this study, however, the main emphasis is on the Flavian years, and the analysis seems to indicate that chosen sites for forts in the initial stages of occupation were closely linked with the place-names as set down in Ptolemy’s Geographia. This phenomenon is clearest in the far north, where many of the groupings seem to be headed by one of Ptolemy’s poleis or by some kind of major centre. Some of these centres, of course, would be selfcontained and would not necessarily have had particularly

The Cosmography probably neither performed the same function, nor was produced from the same kind of data as the Antonine Itinerary. Any similarities are purely coincidental because Ravenna’s place-names do not provide a complete route map. Richmond and Crawford, nevertheless, had tried to make the entries conform to a pattern of this kind, but with modification. They suggested (and Shotter and Smith took up that suggestion) that the Cosmography represents a list of names including a series of ‘centre points’ from which routes can be traced. When returning to the ‘centre’ the name of that place is not repeated, but a further route is mapped out in a different direction. The main problem with this hypothesis is that where identifications are uncertain it is extremely difficult to determine the end of one route and the beginning of another, and the change of the ‘centre’ as one moves about the country. An examination of the place-names as regional groupings would seem a more sensible approach — in fact Robert Conquest made an attempt to do that with the ‘Scottish’ names. He began to construct a pattern based on what is known, assuming some kind of consistency which, after all, must have been there originally. However, faced with the large group of place-names apparently located between Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall, he did not offer suggestions for all of these. Trimuntium, Bremenium (High Rochester) and Alauna (Learchild) are clearly the same as those located by Ptolemy in the modern Border area of north-eastern England and Scotland. For the remainder of the place-names purporting to be in modern Scotland, south of the Forth–Clyde line, it is hardly surprising that they have not received much attention, since many are mentioned nowhere else in extant documentation. Most recently, Sheppard Frere has

84 At least three mistakes were noted in the labelling of the reproduction of Ptolemy’s map, undertaken by D. J. Breeze, W. S. Hanson, L. J. F. Keppie and G. S. Maxwell, for the 1996 edition of McNeill and MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History, 36, later revised by Strang and republished in 2000 (see n. 67 above). ‘Lanchester’ appears instead of ‘Lancaster’ on a map in the ‘fully revised and updated [fourth] edition’ of Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 93 (fig. 18). Also, an omission of one name in the list accompanying the map, ‘Northern Britain under Antoninus Pius’, caused confusion when comparing the two: see Frere, Britannia (1987), 130–1 (map 6). Several maps in Frere’s Britannia needed correction (altered in the 1991 reprint); even so, Lancaster and Malton on the map ‘Northern Britain under Hadrian’ still need to be transposed: Frere, Britannia (1991), 112 (map 5). And, finally, Maps 15 and 16 (see below) originally appeared under the wrong headings in my thesis: A. E. Grant, ‘Roman military objectives in Britain under the Flavian emperors: an integrated approach’ (Univ. of Lancaster Ph.D. thesis, 2006), 306–7, where they were originally numbered 12a and 12b.

82

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 195. Maps 3 and 4 (below) are reproduced from Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain, 33, 30–1 (maps 2:13, 2:14). The second map (here, Map 4) demonstrates how ‘random’ Rivet and Smith’s proposed order of sites for Scotland was, and, inevitably, the result is extremely confusing. 83

13

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors close associations with other places. In most cases the place-names seem to refer to Roman forts, but in some areas, particularly in the north of Scotland, they have been allocated to Roman camps. This may perhaps indicate where new forts were to have been built. Obviously in the more southerly parts of Britain longer occupation, the systematic development of roads, and the growth of rural and urban economies would have modified any pre-existing pattern. It is only in the north, and particularly north of the Tyne–Solway line, where that early pattern may still be discernible. If the material contained in both documentary sources can be shown to be consistent, not only does it provide the best evidence for native tribal boundaries but it may also shed light on the chronology of conquest and the organisation of occupied territory.

A Note on the Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography No definite date has been assigned to the original source (or sources) for the Ravenna list. The compilation apparently ‘exhibits no trace of post-Roman influence’,86 except, of course, for possible medieval scribal error. For places north of Hadrian’s Wall the sources were certainly fewer in number. Clearly those parts of the list relating to Scotland north of the Forth can only have been compiled from information originally obtained when Roman troops occupied those areas. That limits the choice to three: (a) the Flavian period up to AD 87; (b) the Antonine period from after AD 138 to the early 160s, when the Antonine Wall was abandoned; and (c) the reigns of Septimius Severus (AD 193–211) and his son Caracalla (AD 198–217). The most comprehensive information on Scotland north of the Forth must have been collected during the Flavian period, and used in a later context. Rivet and Smith favoured a revised edition of the Flavian information dating from Severus’ military activity in Scotland in AD 208–11 (and there is no reason to suppose that any of the northern place-names post-date that period), while J. C. Mann’s analysis of the ‘Antonine Wall’ place-names suggested that they, at least, reflect a position in the late second century.87 The analysis developed in the following chapters also emphasises a basis in first-century material, but with Hadrianic and early Antonine additions (most notably the forts on Hadrian’s Wall and the earliest forts on the line of the Antonine Wall, but also a few other early Antonine forts). Late Antonine (and later) foundations do not seem to be included in the Ravenna list. Only ‘status’ modifications, which can be attributed to later scribal copying (as has been noted with Ptolemy’s map), can be dated beyond AD 142. The case for, and the implications of, the dating of the ‘definitive’ Ravenna list to c.142–3 are presented in the Epilogue (Chapter 7). It is suggested there that the existing version is a revised copy of Antoninus Pius’ blueprint for the political organisation of Britain.

A discussion of Strang’s locations is combined with an interpretation of the Ravenna Cosmography’s list of place-names, since it can be argued that nearly all Ptolemy’s poleis for northern Britain appear in that list. In most cases the proposed equations either tally with Strang’s suggestions or they are relatively close to them; most fall within the parameters of his error margin calculations. In practice this means that, in England, locations of place-names may be anywhere up to a maximum of eight miles on an east–west axis and up to twenty-five miles on a north–south axis away from the identifications suggested; in the case of Scotland, however, the opposite applies (that is, twenty-five miles east to west and eight miles north to south) because its incorrect position vis-à-vis England causes latitudinal and longitudinal values to be reversed.85 By superimposing the Ravenna place-names on the Ptolemy layout proposed by Strang, it is possible to suggest what was happening in the Carlisle area, which was completely distorted by the ‘turning of Scotland’. Part I (Chapters 2–3) looks at specific place-name identifications and how these correspond to tribal areas. Ways in which such groupings could affect Roman strategy are then discussed within the historical context in Part II (Chapters 4–6).

86

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 3. Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 196; J. C. Mann, ‘Ravennas and the Antonine Wall’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxii (1992). See p. 119 below.

85

87

For a full explanation of this, see Strang, ‘Analysis of Ptolemy’s Geography’, esp. 32, 44.

14

PART I ALBION: NORTH BRITAIN’S GEOGRAPHY AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE

‘Britannia, insularum quas Romana notitia complectitur maxima, spatio ac caelo in orientem Germaniae, in occidentem Hispaniae obtenditur, Gallis in meridiem etiam inspicitur; septentrionalia eius, nullis contra terris, vasto atque aperto mari pulsantur’. (‘Britain is the largest of the islands known to the Romans. As regards its extent and situation, it faces Germany on the east and Spain on the west, while on the south side it is actually visible to the Gauls. Its northern parts, with no solid land confronting them, are battered by the harsh and open sea’.) Tacitus, Agricola, X. 2

‘olim regibus parebant, nunc per principes factionibus et studiis trahuntur. nec aliud adversus validissimas gentes pro nobis utilius quam quod in commune non consulunt. rarus duabus tribusve civitatibus ad propulsandum commune periculum conventus: ita singuli pugnant, universi vincuntur’. (‘In former times the Britons owed obedience to kings. Now they are formed into factional groupings by the leading men. Indeed, there is nothing that helps us more against such very powerful peoples than their lack of unanimity. It is seldom that two or three states unite to repel a common threat. Hence each fights on its own, and all are conquered’.) Tacitus, Agricola, XII. 1–2

2. SUGGESTED IDENTIFICATIONS AND GROUPINGS OF THE PLACE-NAMES OF THE RAVENNA COSMOGRAPHY IN THE MILITARISED NORTH Any assessment of the native situation in Albion1 before the Conquest by the Emperor Claudius in AD 43 will be very much the archetypal conqueror’s view of the barbarian, since all the literary evidence comes from classical sources. Archaeological evidence from the preRoman Iron Age may provide some clues about the indigenous population’s way of life, but little which can be directly related to tribal affinities, relationships with the Roman invaders, or the chronology and nature of diplomatic or military encounters. Nevertheless, an examination of the Ravenna Cosmography’s place-names and of what is known about pre-existing native political structures through Roman records can still be useful, and indeed is a vital preliminary to a detailed analysis of the impact of Rome.

conveniently produced inscriptional evidence3 to confirm that it is in fact Carriden (near Edinburgh), the first fort on the east side of the Antonine Wall, with no such topographical feature. It is possible to argue that all Ptolemy’s place-names for Britain north of Hadrian’s Wall are present in the Ravenna list, although some are admittedly less obviously equated than others. Most of Ptolemy’s place-names in northern England and North Wales are also distinguishable in the Ravenna list with the exception of Isurium (Aldborough) and Rigodunum (a Pennine fort), which may simply have been omitted unintentionally, or deliberately, by subsequent scribes because those sites were not in use at the time of compilation of the original source. In the case of Isurium, Rivet and Smith suggested that the name appears inadvertently in a corrupted river name given as Coguveusuron, although the entry could simply be referring to the rivers Coquet and Ure (or Ouse), which they also mention in their list of identifications for that section.4

It should be stressed that the identifications suggested in the following model are not based strictly on archaeological evidence (which in any case can be used only for those sites which have provided corroborating evidence in the form of inscriptions) nor on linguistic interpretation. The latter, although it can be valuable, is of limited use for many of the place-names simply because the original form is unclear and there is a tendency to read too much into a name. Many places were named after the river on which they stood, and they could also be named after geographical features, but this is by no means consistent — and in some cases there seems to be no connection whatsoever. In fact a rigid use of place-name analysis can be totally misleading: erroneous copying means that names cannot be expected automatically to follow the rules of linguistic evolution, nor can orthographical discrepancies be applied in a systematic fashion. Richmond and Crawford tried to determine the linguistic roots of each of the Ravenna place-names, in order to select the most appropriate identification. With the Antonine Wall site, Velunia, they suggested a possible derivation meaning ‘place on the winding stream’, and concluded that Balmuildy on the Kelvin (near Glasgow), which is a ‘very winding river’,2 was the most likely site. Since then Velunia has unusually and

A Few Comments on the ‘Southern’ Place-Names According to Rivet and Smith, those parts of the list giving names for the south of England may have been compiled from several conflicting and unknown sources. Ironically, it is true that the sections listing names associated with the south-west are more confusing than those of the north. However, although the authors have pointed out that there are many duplications and omissions/garbling, particularly amongst the southern names, this is not necessarily so. Designated coloniae5 and civitates6 apparently often appear more than once with modified names, leading to the conclusion that one original source must have given tribal affiliations, whilst another clearly did not. Noviomagno and Navimago Regentium were both equated with Chichester (Ptolemy’s Neomagus), although Richmond and Crawford regarded them as different places, pointing out that Noviomagus

3

I. A. Richmond and K. A. Steer, ‘Castellum Veluniate and civilians on a Roman frontier’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xc (1956–7). 4 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 213, 311, 379. For more discussion on Rigodunum and Isurium, see pp. 23 and 25, respectively, below. 5 Towns with ‘colonial’ status, i.e. established deliberately with a population of Roman citizens and former legionaries as flagships for Romanisation. 6 Native towns with an administrative role in their own tribal territory.

1

This is apparently the earliest known name for Britain; what the ancient Britons may have called themselves, of course, is unknown. The term Albion was later replaced by the Greek, Πρεττανία (Pretannia), which became Βρεττανια, and Britannia in Latin; see Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 39. Albion is also the name used by Ptolemy to refer to Britain. 2 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 48.

17

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ‘was very common in Gaul and Britain’.7 In any case there is another Noviomagus in the south-east of England mentioned in Iter II of the Antonine Itinerary, whilst further afield, the modern towns of Nijmegen (Netherlands) and Neumagen (on the Mosel, Germany) are both listed in Ptolemy’s Geographia and still reflect the name. Other place-names were repeated throughout the Empire, and on Ptolemy’s map of Britain alone several names recur, but these are all different places: Coria/Curia and Alauna were used more than once, as were Lindum and Camunlodunum/Camudolanum. Ravenna’s Landini and Londinium Augusti might both refer to London (Ptolemy’s Londinium), but there may have been recognised centres both north and south of the Thames. In addition to the main site of the later provincial capital, an early fort at Southwark is possible; major construction of high-status buildings there in the third century where the discovery of a marble inscription listing ‘names of some of the members of several legionary cohorts’ has remained unexplained.8 Rivet and Smith maintained that there are four different versions of what they have suggested is Sidford, in Devon: Melamoni, Milidunum, Moriduno, Morionio. Again, these could be genuinely different, if miscopied, place-names; one should perhaps be applied to Ptolemy’s Maridunum (Carmarthen), otherwise omitted from the list.9

written adjacent to it on a map’.11 Surely that is highly unlikely; the Cosmographer was perfectly clear over the point that the sites are linked together by a road. A better explanation may be that the ‘Antonine Wall’ names reflect the early Antonine frontier, and perhaps equate with a few sites from Agricola’s original line. This would explain why Camelon (near Falkirk, but about threequarters of a mile north of the Wall) is included in that line, assuming, of course, that it is indeed Ptolemy’s Colania and Ravenna’s Colanica. The Cosmographer has also been accused of misplacing three of the Hadrian’s Wall sites, but two — Lagubalumi (Carlisle) and Magnis (Carvoran) — if not all three of these sites were definitely part of the more southerly Stanegate (the pre-Hadrianic road which linked Carlisle and Corbridge); the third, Gabaglanda (Castlesteads), was originally detached from the line of the Wall and only later adjustments brought it in line with the main construction.12 The Source Itself, and Those Parts To Be Examined After a short ‘introductory’ list of four islands, the first section of the Ravenna Cosmography’s place-names begins in the south-west of England; it is then followed by a long list without break covering all the rest of England and Wales as far as Hadrian’s Wall. The named Wall sites are included in the next section, which lists place-names between the Walls. The fourth section gives sites on or around the Antonine Wall, and the fifth those beyond the Forth–Clyde line. The place-names are followed by a sixth section whose eight names seem to refer to northern areas of Britain; section seven is a list of river names, the last three of which appear as a separate group; and finally there is another section of island names, divided into two parts.

Whilst some Ptolemaic entries can be identified in Ravenna, the Cosmographer does not seem to have used the Geographia as a source, at least for the south. For example, the early fort of Bullaeum (Usk) is the only site named by Ptolemy in the tribal area of the Silures of south Wales. This does not appear in Ravenna, but its replacement fort Isca Augusta (Caerleon) does. Also, as previously mentioned, Bath appears as Aquae Calidae in Ptolemy, which could be an earlier or alternative name for the spa town. It appears in Ravenna only if Rivet and Smith correctly identified it as Apaunaris, or, as suggested above, if it is written as Alavna Silva.10

Appendix 5 and Map 5 (below) show the new way — which, for Scotland, is radically different from previous interpretations — of grouping the place-names.13 It is possible that the Ravenna Cosmography was compiled from a series of separate accounts of particular areas of Britain and this would explain why, in a couple of places, groupings seem to have been reassembled in the wrong order. It should be stressed that this does not happen often. The analysis below is concerned with the placenames rather than the geographical features (approximately 163 place-names, or around 70% of the total number),14

The ‘Walls’ There is much controversy over whether the ten sites listed as representing the Forth–Clyde line form a complete list of Antonine Wall sites at the time of Ravenna’s compilation. Apart from the dating implications already mentioned, it has been suggested that the Cosmographer was misreading these place-names from a map ‘as though they were forts of the Antonine Wall because they were

11

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 196. For discussion of the ‘Stanegate’ section of place-names, see p. 24 below. 13 Compare this with the various identifications made by other scholars (listed in Appendix 4 below). See also Map 5 for the general distribution of the groupings. 14 ‘Approximate’ only because it depends whether some single entries are regarded as two separate names, and, in other cases, whether two entries are combined. The full total is taken to be 234. 12

7

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 42. J. Wacher, The Towns of Roman Britain, 2nd edn (London, 1995), 105. 9 A suggestion also made by Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain, 33. The closest name, Moriduno (especially if it was a ‘standalone’ site) might well have appeared in the wrong section. 10 See p. 12 above. 8

18

Suggested Identifications and Groupings XIII and XIV, simply, as Isca, so it is clear that Ravenna’s Isca Augusta is referring to the same place. Its situation on the river Usk, combined with epigraphic evidence for the presence of the Second Augustan Legion at Caerleon makes its identification certain.19 Ptolemy did confuse Isca at Caerleon with Isca at Exeter, which he labelled ‘Isca. Legio II Augusta’, but Ravenna’s Exeter, though corrupt, is clear enough amongst the names of the first section as Scadu namorum, that is Isca Dumnoniorum, the civitas capital of the Dumnonii of Devon and Cornwall.

from about one fifth of the way through the second section, with the exception of two groups. The latter are clearly associated with the south-east: the first group lists places mainly south of the Thames and the second group those north of the Thames. Although these names are largely irrelevant to the present discussion, their position in the overall list is indicated in Appendix 5. In practice, the areas to the north and west of a line running from north of Bristol to the coast beyond Lincoln are examined, because this line marks a rough division between the Romanised south and the militarised north. The first groups of place-names are of particular importance to the discussion of likely military organisation along the whole of the modern Welsh border in the early stages of campaigning, for the years under the leadership of Julius Frontinus against the Silures of southern Wales in AD 74–7, and perhaps for discerning a pattern of occupation during Antoninus Pius’ reign.

The next fairly positively identified place-name is Brano. Genium. (5a), which heads the fifth group. This name appears on Ptolemy’s map as Brannogenium and has been equated with Bravonium of the Antonine Itinerary, although Richmond and Crawford did not find this, nor its identification as the town of Leintwardine (Herefordshire), totally convincing.20 This location, however, has now been confirmed as the most likely by Strang.21 All three positively identified places are in south-east Wales and the Welsh border area so it seems inconceivable that the place-names in the first few groups can be anywhere other than in this region.

Discussion of the Identifications Suggested in Appendix 5 The first place-name under discussion stands alone: it is Ventaslurum (1; Venta Silurum, Caerwent, Monmouthshire), a well-attested name, firmly located in southern Wales. It was the civitas capital of the Silures15 and lies between the rivers Usk and Wye. The second group begins with Iupania (2a; possibly Cardiff), followed by Metambala (2b) and Albinumno (2c), which are here equated with the forts upstream from Cardiff at Caerphilly and Gelligaer, respectively. Richmond and Crawford concluded that all three of these place-names must be somewhere between Caerwent and Gloucester, partly because of their modification of the name Metambala to something like *Nemetambala, which they saw as having an etymological link with the mouth of the river Wye.16 Rivet and Smith, agreeing with the nemet element, which is associated with water and shrines, and therefore common in religious contexts, suggested an identification at Lydney (Gloucestershire), a well-known Roman (and perhaps Iron Age) religious sanctuary, situated on the Roman road from Caerwent to Gloucester.17 This identification is highly unlikely, however, because the Lydney sanctuary seems to have been founded in the third century.18

In Group 3, Bannio (3b) more than likely equates with Gobannio of the Antonine Itinerary and is, therefore, Abergavenny, showing, perhaps, a progression northwards along the river Usk. As previously mentioned, the Roman site of Usk itself (Bullaeum on Ptolemy’s map), situated between Caerleon and Abergavenny, does not appear in the Cosmography, as it was replaced as a military site by Caerleon around AD 74, although, as shown above, it has been equated with Burrium in Iter XIII of the Antonine Itinerary. Two names in Group 3, Bremia (3c) and Alabum (3d), have been traditionally associated with Llanio (Cardiganshire) and Llandovery (Carmarthenshire); the latter is probably correct, but Bremia is more likely to be the site at Brecon Gaer (also known as Y Gaer), which falls between Abergavenny and Llandovery, at a crossroads of the Roman road which followed a south-west to northeast direction, later linking the coastal town of Neath with, presumably, the fort sites en route towards Hay on Wye. In any case, Llanio is an unlikely choice for an entry in the Ravenna Cosmography since it seems to have been abandoned under Hadrian, and not to have been reused.22 It would appear that its only link with Bremia is

The third group is headed by Isca Augusta (3a; Caerleon, Monmouthshire). It is also named in Iter XII of the Antonine Itinerary as Iscae leg. II Augusta, and in Itinera

19

V. E. Nash-Williams, The Roman Frontier in Wales, 2nd edn, revised M. G. Jarrett (Cardiff, 1969), 29. 20 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 25; Rivet and Smith, PlaceNames, 275: they returned to this suggestion. 21 Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. 22 Ibid., 20; a final date of occupation is not clear, but apparently ‘None of the samian found need be dated later than AD 105’: D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1972: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, iv (1973), 271.

15

For the civitas Silurum, see R. G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright, Roman Inscriptions of Britain (hereafter RIB) 311. 16 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 41. 17 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 424. 18 Despite Blagg’s suggestion of an earlier foundation, based on dating the style of stone carvings from the site: see T. F. C. Blagg, ‘Two decorative relief carvings at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire’, Antiq. Jl, lxiii (1983).

19

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors and where evidence of a Roman road has been discovered.29 It could equally well be assigned to a possible fort site further north, near Knighton. Unfortunately, knowledge of road systems hereabouts is incomplete.

the proximity of the river (Afon) Brefi, and the Welsh root, brev, meaning ‘roaring stream’. Surely that tag could apply to a part of any river. There is no clear evidence that it is connected with a specific river name; moreover High Rochester, known to be Bremenium and whose name displays the same root, is not thought to be named after its river, the Rede.

Three place-names come between Gloucester (Glebon. colonia) and the well-known site of Cironium Dobunorum (7), Ptolemy’s Corinium (Cirencester), which was to become the second largest town in Roman Britain. Because of its importance in its own right, Corinium probably does not form part of a group. This again means that the intervening names Argistillum (6b), Vertis (6c) and Salinis (6d) are somewhere in the vicinity, because both Gloucester and Cirencester are located in the Cotswold area. It is possible that Argistillum is a corrupted version of Ariconium of the Antonine Itinerary (Iter XIII), which is identified as Weston-under-Penyard,30 and that, moving along the same route, Vertis can be equated with Worcester (although Rivet and Smith denied that it has any direct link with the modern name),31 and Salinis with Droitwich, known as Saltwich in AD 718.32 The latter was certainly a salt-making centre and a fairly certain identification. It is not, however, the same as Ptolemy’s Salinae, in the tribal area of the Catuvellauni, which is located by Strang near Skegness.33

Cicutio (3e), the final name in this group, could be Loughor, because it may be a garbled form of the site which had the name Leucarum in Iter XII of the Antonine Itinerary, and which lies on the river Leuca (mentioned in Ravenna’s list of river names). Cicutio has traditionally been equated with Brecon Gaer purely on the basis of its situation on ‘a rounded spur which is strikingly like a female breast in contour and outline’,23 an identification which, on its own, is hardly convincing, as Michael Jarrett pointed out.24 Also, if the correct form of the place-name was closer to Leucarum such an interpretation would be ruled out. In Ravenna, the name precedes Magnis (4), also mentioned in Iter XII of the Antonine Itinerary and almost certainly Kenchester, just to the west of Hereford; this simply indicates that the Cosmographer has moved to a different part of the country. It is a stand-alone place-name, and its importance as such is perhaps highlighted by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon name for the Kenchester area of Herefordshire is Magonsaet: a possible reference to the town’s original, Roman, name.25

As stated above, the next part of the Cosmography covers the south-east of England, usually south of the Thames, though apparently ending with Alauna, which has been tentatively identified by Rivet and Smith as Alcester in Warwickshire,34 because of its position on the river Alne. Alchester in Oxfordshire, however, is closer to the regional group in which it has been placed; it is associated with the river Ray (originally part of the same family of river names to which the river Alne belongs).35 It is perhaps worth mentioning that amongst these southern names are Caleba Arbatium (Silchester), Duro averno Cantiacorum (Canterbury) and Rutupis (Richborough), Ptolemy’s Caleva, Darvernum and Rutupiae, respectively.

Moving north from Kenchester, the site of Leintwardine (Brano. Genium.) is reached. The three following placenames Epocessa (5b), Ypocessa (5c) and Macatonion (5d) seem to link with it before the head name of Group 6, which is Glebon. colonia (6a), another positively identified site at Gloucester and represented in Iter XIII of the Antonine Itinerary as Clevo. It has been claimed that the two names Epocessa and Ypocessa are the result of scribal modification and failure to delete the second version of the same name.26 This may well be, but if David Shotter is correct in his linking of similar names to a particular river in north-west England,27 then the same may apply here. These two sites could be identified as Caerau (also known as Beulah) and Castell Collen, both on tributaries of the river Wye, the former on the river Irfon, the latter on the river Ithon. The final name in this group, Macatonion, has been allocated to Hindwell Farm, a fort site which had an extra-mural settlement, or vicus,28

29 Ibid., 37, though not yet incorporated into the latest edition of Ordnance Survey, Historical Map and Guide: Roman Britain, 5th edn (Southampton, 2001). 30 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 257. An early fort is indicated here: see J. L. Davies, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales and the Marches from Claudius to the Antonines’, in W. S. Hanson and L. J. F. Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979: Papers Presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, internat. ser., 71[i], Oxford, 1980), 260, and n. 7. 31 Ibid., 496. 32 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 44. 33 Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. In fact, Salinae should probably be located on the southern shore of the Wash since the Skegness area would appear to be in Corieltavian territory (Skegness is just about due east from Lincoln). 34 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 207, 244 (Alauna2). 35 K. Cameron, English Place-Names (London, 1996), 95. On Alchester, see also p. 67 below.

23

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 28; Rivet and Smith, PlaceNames, 307. 24 Nash-Williams, ed. Jarrett, Roman Frontier in Wales, 48, where he referred to Richmond and Crawford’s identifications of 1949. 25 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 39. 26 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 199. 27 For later discussion on the sites possibly associated with the river Lune, see p. 23 below. 28 Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 58.

20

Suggested Identifications and Groupings name from such an important river, and the entry Sarva (variation: Sarna), in Ravenna’s river section, is believed to represent the Severn.44

After this detour around the south of England, the Cosmography returns to the Welsh/English border with the well-known and well-attested site given as Utriconion Cornoviorum (8a), the civitas capital of the Cornovii and which Ptolemy named as Viroconium. This is Wroxeter (Shropshire), which also appears in three of the Itinera of the Antonine Itinerary with slight variations in spelling. It is followed by the name Lavobrinta (8b). Richmond and Crawford favoured Forden Gaer for the latter site as it is on a route westwards from Wroxeter towards Caersws, which they had allocated to the following name Mediomano (9).36 In the current analysis, however, the second similar spelling Mediolano is linked with Caersws (Montgomeryshire), and so an alternative is suggested for Forden Gaer (see below). Lavobrinta could, instead, be Greensforge, where there was a whole series of forts, and from where a road has been postulated, via the fort at Leighton, directly to Wroxeter.37 The course of this road, due north from Droitwich to Greensforge, cannot be traced on the stretch between Greensforge and Wroxeter but is certainly heading for Wroxeter.38

The next group begins with Deva victris (12a), a clear reference to Ptolemy’s Deva, long confirmed as the legionary fortress of Chester and appearing in two routes of the Antonine Itinerary: Itinera II and XI.45 Of the following five place-names, the latter three, Derbentione (12d), Salinis (12e) and Condate (12f), are fairly certainly identified respectively as Little Chester (Derbyshire) on the river Derwent, and the salt-manufacturing sites of Middlewich and Northwich. Condate also appears in Itinera II and X of the Antonine Itinerary, in both cases close to Mediolano (Whitchurch). In Iter II, the route goes to Whitchurch via Chester and Bovio (probably the industrial site of Holt), whereas in Iter X it goes directly there.46 The second and third names of this group, Veratino (12b) and Lutudaron (12c) have not been positively identified but, again, they are clearly associated with this region and therefore the Roman sites of Chesterton, and Rocester or Wirksworth, are the obvious suggestions because they are situated between Chester and Little Chester. Rivet and Smith, however, tried to equate Veratino with Vernemeto of the Antonine Itinerary, which seems to be too far away on the Leicester to Lincoln road at Willoughby.47 Finds from Rocester include moulds for metalwork, and the evidence for Lutudaron does seem to point in this direction or towards Wirksworth, or even Matlock, north of Little Chester, because it is clearly associated with a group of inscriptions on lead pigs in connection with the Derbyshire mining industry.48

Rivet and Smith saw Mediomano as a duplication of Mediolano, and Saudonio as a ‘tribal adjunct’,39 but this is not necessarily so. Mediolano is clearly Ptolemy’s Mediolanium and is normally taken to be Whitchurch, an identification which is confirmed by Strang’s calculations. However, it is not impossible that the same name was given to both Whitchurch and to Caersws (the ‘alternative’ identification proposed by Richmond and Crawford).40 Here, the Ravenna form Mediomano (9) is regarded as a ‘stand alone’ place-name, and is equated with Whitchurch. The list then moves to north-western Wales and the names Seguntio (10a) and Canubio (10b), which have been identified as Caernarfon (on the river Saint, which developed from Caer Segeint in Old Welsh),41 and Caerhun. The latter is confirmed by the discovery of a milestone dated AD 122, found at Llanfairfechan and showing a distance of eight Roman miles to Kanovium.42 Mediolano (11a) and Saudonio (11b) then complete the names associated with modern Wales and are identified as Caersws and Forden Gaer, respectively. The former was described as being ‘in the centre of Montgomeryshire and the central pivot of the Welsh road system’,43 whilst the latter is situated on the river Severn, and may well be reflecting (albeit in garbled form) that river in its Ravenna name. No other fort is known to have taken its

The place-names continue into the midlands of England, beginning with Rate Corion (13a), Ptolemy’s Rate (Leicester), and the civitas capital of the Coritani/ Corieltavi. It is possible that the second place-name, Eltauori (also 13a), is, in fact, indicating the fuller name of Rate Corieltavorum for the town. Malcolm Todd wanted to see Eltauori as a garbled river name,49 but since the current model is based on the assumption that no river names were included in the place-name sections, the former identification is preferred. As will be discussed later, the original tribal name given by Ptolemy as Coritani is now widely believed to be Corieltavi. Next, Lectoceto (13b) is most likely to be the same as Etoceto in Iter II of the Antonine Itinerary, and is therefore Wall

36

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 8, 40. White and Barker, Wroxeter, 37 (fig. 15), 38. 38 G. Webster, The Cornovii, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1991), 60–1. 39 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 415–16. 40 It is used very frequently; Rivet and Smith mention ‘forty-two Mediolanum places’ outside Britain: ibid., 415. For other commonly repeated place-names, see pp. 17–18 above. 41 Ibid., 454. 42 RIB 2265, cited and illustrated in Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 38–9. 43 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 8.

44

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 450–1. Chester is also confirmed as Deva in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (hereafter CIL) XIII, 6221. 46 The two Itinera do not mention Salinis and the routes to Condate are slightly ambiguous so that opinions are divided as to whether Condate is Middlewich or Northwich: see T. Strickland, Roman Middlewich: A Story of Roman and Briton in Mid-Cheshire (Middlewich, 2001), 8–9. 47 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 495. 48 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 38. See pp. 44–5, 132 below. 49 M. Todd, The Coritani, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1991), 21.

37

45

21

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors unlikely.55 If Alūna equates with Ptolemy’s Olicana, then Strang’s identification is Elslack, a name which Rivet and Smith assigned to Olerica (amongst the place-names of the north-west Cumbria grouping).56 Ilkley, an alternative suggestion, is close enough to Strang’s Elslack to be the preferred location here, but either is possible: they are both on the same direct route from Manchester. The next Ravenna name, Camulo dono (16c), a place-name which may have been linked with the Iron Age hill fort of Almondbury,57 is clearly Ptolemy’s Camunlodunum and is usually applied to the nearby Roman fort at Slack, which is also on a direct route north-eastwards from Manchester. These Lancashire/ Yorkshire place-names (Group 16) should probably precede Ribchester, known to be Bremetenacum, clearly identified as Ravenna’s Bresnetenaci Veteranorum (21),58 and the likely ‘Yorkshire’ towns, Pampocalia (22a) and Lagentium (22b), which follow it (perhaps in the order 22, 21). The relocation of these three entries retains the geographical coherence of the list. Ribchester may stand alone rather than be specifically part of a group of names. It was probably important enough, and the area was certainly ‘separately administered as a regio [district]’ in the third century.59 It has been suggested that Pampocalia is a combination of two names, probably Campodonum — the location of a ‘royal residence’ in Deira (modern Yorkshire), according to Bede — and Calcaria (believed to be Tadcaster).60 The first name is likely to be the same as Camboduno which appears in Iter II of the Antonine Itinerary where it follows Calcaria; in this source it also precedes the place-name Camuloduno (Slack), indicating that the group should link with the route to Manchester. Doncaster has been suggested as a possible identification for Campodunum, but it is unlikely to be equivalent to Dano, which appears in Itinera V and VIII. Heading northwards, Dano precedes Legeolio (Castleford) in Iter V and, heading southwards, follows Lagecio (an alternative spelling for Castleford) in Iter VIII. In the Ravenna list, Pampocalia is followed by Lagentium (probably another variant for Castleford),61 but if Tadcaster is also included within the garbled ‘Pampocalia’, then Iter II, which unlike the other two itinera heads across the country towards Chester, provides the best evidence for an identification. Camboduno, if this is indeed the ‘Pampo’ element of the Ravenna name, should therefore be located somewhere south of Bradford in the region of Cleckheaton on the line of the Roman road between

(Staffordshire). The medieval town of Lichfield which grew up close by took its name from the Roman town.50 The final name in this group, Iacio Dulma (13c) has been equated with Lactodoro, mentioned in Itinera II and VI of the Antonine Itinerary, and is therefore believed to be Towcester (Northamptonshire). There then follows the second group of southern placenames, north of the Thames, beginning and ending with clearly identified sites: Virolanium, Ptolemy’s Urolanium (St Albans, Hertfordshire), and Venta Cenomum, Ptolemy’s Venta (Caistor St Edmund, Norfolk), the civitas capital of the Iceni of East Anglia. This group also contains Londinium Augusti and Manulodulo. colonia — Ptolemy’s Londinium (London) and Camudolanum (Colchester). Colchester’s form is certainly corrupt, but its regional position and its status as a colonia mean that it is a certain identification. The previous group ended in eastern England. The next place-name, another clearly recognisable Ptolemaic name, is also in eastern England: Lindum colonia (14a), Ptolemy’s Lindum, and the legionary fortress of Lincoln. Its name, meaning ‘lake’ or ‘pool’, was shown by Richmond and Crawford to be particularly suitable for Lincoln, a place which ‘dominates the marshes and pools of the Witham, in particular, Brayford Mere’.51 They also suggested that the following place-name, Bannovallum (14b), is Horncastle, again in Lincolnshire. This seems more than likely, though an alternative of Caistor (Lincolnshire) has also been proposed.52 The next group moves westwards. It begins with Nauione (15a), epigraphically attested as Brough-on-Noe in Derbyshire,53 and easily linked with its two satellites at Aquis Arnemeza (15b; Buxton) and Zerdotalia (15c; Melandra), both in Derbyshire. The former is clearly associated with the Roman thermal baths, and the latter, minus its superfluous initial ‘Z’, is generally agreed to be the name Ardotalia and the site at Melandra;54 it is easy to see how the miscopying may have occurred by the repetition of the ending of the previous entry. The following group begins with Mantio (16a), sometimes spelled Mautio (Manchester); the Antonine Itinerary supplies several more spellings in Itinera II (one variant: Mamucio) and X (two variants: Mamcunio or Mancunio). The entry in Ravenna is followed by Alūna (16b), which, in the past, has been identified as Watercrook (Kendal) — but such an identification would mean that it did not relate to either of its surrounding entries and so is most

55

Ibid., 208; the entry under Alauna8 in the alphabetical list (p. 246) contradicts this, stating ‘if not a misplaced repetition, apparently not far from Manchester’. 56 See pp. 23–4 below. 57 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 27. 58 Ribchester confirmed as Bremetenacum: RIB 583. 59 Frere, Britannia, 172. 60 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 57; see also Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, II. 14, IV. 23, trans. L. Sherley-Price, revised R. E. Latham (Harmondsworth, 1990), 132, 244. 61 See Appendix 1 below.

50

A. D. Mills, Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford, 1991), 210. In Welsh, llyn: see Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 38; for similarities with Stirling, see p. 34 below. 52 Ibid., 24. 53 Milestone found at Buxton, RIB 2243, with the text A NAVIONE M P XI. 54 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 256–7. 51

22

Suggested Identifications and Groupings installations over others at different periods in the Roman occupation. Since the general trend in the Ravenna Cosmography is to list Britain’s place-names from south to north, it would make sense for the Lune sites to begin with the most southerly, and perhaps the most important site: Lancaster. Because the itineraries are intended to indicate routes, the places in the Itinera ought to be listed in sequence, so it could be postulated that, reading south to north, Galacum, Alone and Galava should be Lancaster, Burrow-in-Lonsdale and Low Borrow Bridge respectively. Gallunio in Ravenna (or its variant, Galluvio) would appear to resemble Galava rather than Alone and should therefore be equated with Low Borrow Bridge. From there a route does indeed seem to lead to Watercrook (Medibogdo).66 Given the confusion between the letters ‘C’ and ‘G’, the final name in this group, Cantiventi (17d) is probably the same as Clanoventa in Iter X and Glannibanta in the Notitia, and is therefore Ambleside.

Tadcaster and Slack, or, alternatively, somewhere near Leeds.62 More straightforwardly, Lagentium is definitely Castleford, but a recently discovered inscription points to an amended spelling; the correct form is likely to be Lagitium.63 Ptolemy’s Rigodunum, usually taken to be Castleshaw, does not appear in this ‘Pennine’ section of the Ravenna Cosmography, perhaps because, according to the latest research, the site of Castleshaw seems to have been slighted and abandoned by the mid-120s and never reused after two phases of occupation in the Flavian and Trajanic periods (c.AD 79 and c.AD 105 respectively).64 Rivet and Smith’s basis for equating Rigodunum with Castleshaw was based solely on how they interpreted its ‘position’ on Ptolemy’s map. Strang’s work has now shown that the spatial relationships between the poleis may be quite different. He places Rigodunum near Lancaster, although he admits that this is ‘doubtful’;65 it could be that there is a mistake in Ptolemy’s co-ordinates at this point.

As Shotter has argued, there is really no reason to suppose that Iuliocenon (18a) and Gabrocentio (18b), probably Ravenglass and Moresby respectively, do not find their counterparts in the Notitia Dignitatum as Tunnocelo and Gabrosenti. Their positions within the latter document need not be a problem since the Notitia does not seem to be presenting its information as route maps (the list of garrisons connected with Hadrian’s Wall is a logical exception). From recent excavation work at Ravenglass comes the possibility that its garrison in AD 158, the cohors I Aelia classica, may also have been the same in the third century, at the time of the compilation of the Notitia; if so, Ravenglass is almost certainly Tunnocelo,67 perhaps modified to Itunocelum.68

Returning to Group 17, which begins with Calunio (17a) (almost certainly Ptolemy’s Calagum), there are several groups of North Lancashire/Cumbrian sites. Many of these sites are mentioned, somewhat tantalisingly with modifications, in Iter X of the Antonine Itinerary (see Appendix 1), and also in the Notitia Dignitatum (see Appendix 2). In Group 17, Calunio and Gallunio (17b) seem to bear a resemblance to Galava and Galacum in Iter X. It was the combination of the last two places and the place-name between them, Alone, which led Shotter to suggest that they were connected with the river Lune. In so doing he dismissed the previously held notion that Watercrook (on the river Kent) could be one of the identifications. Watercrook, on etymological grounds he suggested, should be Medibogdo (17c), which means ‘in the middle of a bow’: Watercrook’s position exactly, and its modern meaning.

The next grouping it is suggested here contains five sites in modern Cumbria under the possible jurisdiction of the first, Alauna (19a; probably Maryport, on the river Ellen). Its influence may have stretched to Bribra (19b; probably Beckfoot,69 and perhaps also the Briga of the Vindolanda tablets);70 to Maio (19c; probably Old Carlisle, and perhaps the same as Maglone of the Notitia Dignitatum,

The discrepancies between the different sources can be explained thus: either places were simply omitted, or else the documents reflect the predominance of some

66 P. Graystone, Walking Roman Roads in Lonsdale and the Eden Valley (Lancaster, 2002), 50–4. 67 Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 299. 68 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 380–1. 69 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 26; Rivet and Smith, PlaceNames, 268. More recently, see Holder, ‘Roman place-names on the Cumbrian coast’, 59–60, 62; Breeze, J. Collingwood Bruce’s Handbook to the Roman Wall, 385–7. 70 Bowman, however, believed that Briga lay close to Vindolanda: see A. K. Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and its People, 3rd edn (London, 2003), 42, 49, 52, 71–2. Anthony Birley argues for Kirkbride as Briga: see, for example, A. Birley, Garrison Life at Vindolanda: A Band of Brothers (Stroud, 2002), 137–8. Ravenna’s Bribra is unlikely to be Kirkbride, which appears not to have been reoccupied after c.AD 120: R. L. Bellhouse and G. G. S. Richardson, ‘The Trajanic fort at Kirkbride: the terminus of the Stanegate frontier’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxxii (1982), 49.

62

Higham favoured Cleckheaton: see N. J. Higham, The Kingdom of Northumbria, AD 350–1100 (Stroud, 1993), 85–6. Leeds itself was tentatively concluded by Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 292–3. For further discussion, see M. L. Faull, ‘The Roman period’, in M. L. Faull and S. A. Moorhouse (eds.), West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey to AD 1500, i, Sources, Environment and the County to AD 1066 (Wakefield, 1981), 145–6, 157–63. 63 The form LAGITIENSE appears on a small brooch found near Alford, Lincolnshire: see R. S. O. Tomlin and M. W. C. Hassall, ‘Roman Britain in 2000: II. Inscriptions’, Britannia, xxxii (2001), 396, and n. 53. 64 N. Redhead, ‘Edge of Empire: extra-mural settlement in a marginal context. Roman Castleshaw’, in M. Nevell (ed.), Living on the Edge of Empire: Models, Methodology and Marginality. Late Prehistoric and Romano-British Rural Settlement in North-West England (Manchester, 1999), 74. 65 Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 30.

23

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Vindolanda tablets.77 Despite its non-appearance on Ptolemy’s map (owing, almost certainly, to the distortion of the Border area), Luguvalio was a well-known Roman place-name by at least AD 83–4.78 It either stands alone or links with the next two Stanegate place-names, Magnis (23b) and Gabaglanda (23c) which are clearly Carvoran and Castlesteads respectively. As previously mentioned, these were most probably part of the pre-Hadrianic frontier system, or Stanegate, known to run between Carlisle and Corbridge, but which, it has been claimed, may have extended across the country from Kirkbride on the west to South Shields on the east.79 Gabaglanda (Castlesteads) is known to have been an early construction because the vallum for Hadrian’s Wall makes a detour around it to include it with the rest of the Wall; it may well be that it was linked by a road to the Stanegate.80 Magnis (Carvoran) was the only site on the stretch from Carlisle to Corbridge to merit a branch road south through Whitley Castle to Kirkby Thore. The following name, Vindolande (24a), must be the well-known site of Vindolanda (Chesterholm), whilst the next name, Lineoiugla (24b; Longouicio of the Notitia), is clearly Lanchester. The latter might have been expected to link with its neighbour to the north, the Roman fort of Ebchester, Vindomora on the Antonine Itinerary (Iter I). However, it would seem either that the two were not in operation at the same time, or that Vindomora was erroneously omitted because of its similarity to Vindolande which preceded it. Vindolanda was a Stanegate fort, and in some ways it is perfectly logical for it to follow on from Carlisle and the other Stanegate sites; on the other hand, given its links to the east rather than to the west,81 it perhaps ought to have appeared at the end of this section, along with Corbridge, the original terminus site of the Stanegate. If so, then Ebchester was intended earlier and can be satisfactorily linked with Lanchester.

rather than, as Richmond and Crawford suggested, a repetition of Maia71 (Bowness-on-Solway, on Hadrian’s Wall, which is listed in that section in Ravenna); and to Olerica (19d), perhaps Blennerhasset (also on the river Ellen) or its replacement at Caermote, rather than, as mentioned above, an intrusive Pennine name) — though another possibility in this area is the fort at Dalston (Cummersdale).72 Finally, in this group, Derventione (19e), must be Papcastle on the river Derwent; given its later prosperity, however, Papcastle may have been prominent in its own right.73 In his recent discussion of the Cumbrian coast sites, Holder has agreed that the most likely equations (with spelling modifications, and, here, given in the order in which they appear in Ravenna) are: Glannoventa = Ambleside; Itunocelum = Ravenglass; Gabrosentum = Moresby; Alauna = Maryport; and Bibra = Beckfoot. He has, however, followed Richmond and Crawford in seeing Maio (19c) as a duplication of Maia (31l; Bownesson-Solway).74 The next name, Ravonia (20a), which is restored as Bravoniacum (Braboniaco of the Notitia Dignitatum, and Brovonacis of the Antonine Itinerary [Iter II]), is identified here as Kirkby Thore, rather than its neighbouring fort at Brougham (Brocavo of the Antonine Itinerary [Iter V]). Both sites were clearly in operation at the same time because each appears on a separate route of the Antonine Itinerary. The itinera go in opposite directions and cover slightly different ground — one goes through Brougham and the other bypasses it. Brougham could have been omitted from Ravenna because of the similarity in names, or it may not have been so important when the list was compiled.75 As explained above, Ravenna’s next three names have been relocated,76 so that Ravonia now links with Valteris (20b) and Bereda (20c) in the continuation of Group 20, further down the list. These two are equated with Brough-under-Stainmore and Old Penrith respectively, since they are surely the same as (for Brough) Verteris of the Antonine Itinerary (Itinera II and V) and Uerteris of the Notitia, and (for Old Penrith) Voreda of Iter II.

The two names in Group 25, Vinovia (25a) and Lavaris (25b), both appear in the Antonine Itinerary (Vinovia in Iter I, and, with variation, Lavatris in Iter II, and Levatris in Iter V). Vinovia is Binchester, near Bishop Auckland, Durham, and Lavaris is Bowes on the Stainmore route. The latter name completes the circle of Roman sites on the western and eastern routes from Stainmore to the Stanegate.

The next place-name is Lagubalumi (23a), which is clearly recognisable as Luguvalium, and well-attested as Carlisle, not only from Itinera II and V, but also from the

77

Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier, 131–2; letter no. 27 (Tab. Vindol. II 250) has the name Luguualio. See also RIB 2015. The recently discovered milestone from Langwathby has LVG: see p. 39 n. 3 below. 78 A stylus tablet dating to this period was found at Carlisle, with the ‘address’ TRIMONTIO AUT LUGUVALIO’, indicating that its recipient (probably a soldier) was based at one of the two forts: see Caruana, ‘Carlisle: excavation of a section of the annexe ditch’, 106. 79 Most recently on the Stanegate, see N. Hodgson, ‘The Stanegate: a frontier rehabilitated’, Britannia, xxxi (2000), 18 (list and map). 80 Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 297. 81 The number of references to Corbridge in the Vindolanda tablets emphasise this. See n. 92 below.

71

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 39. For more on Dalston, see p. 72 at n. 87 below. 73 E. Birley, ‘Roman Papcastle’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxiii (1963), 113, 120. 74 Holder, ‘Roman place-names on the Cumbrian coast’, 62–3. 75 For a possible implication of the choice of Kirkby Thore rather than Brougham, see p. 132 below. 76 For the misplaced Ribchester to Castleford groupings, see pp. 22–3 above. 72

24

Suggested Identifications and Groupings something to do with the river Wiske which runs close to Thirsk and through Northallerton. Dixio is also more than likely to be the same as Dicti in the Notitia Dignitatum. But that does not mean that it had to be situated between Concangios (Chester-le-Street) and Arbeia (South Shields), which is where it appears in that list, and which led to a suggested identification of Wearmouth.87 The Notitia is not particularly reliable in its order, except for its list of Hadrian’s Wall forts. Lugunduno, meanwhile, ought to have some connection with the river Tees, since that river’s estuary is Dunum sinus on Ptolemy’s map. The site of a fort was indeed postulated at Middleton St George, just east of Darlington, on the crossing of the Tees.88 The line of the Roman road here leads from Brough-onHumber to Ravenna’s Coganges (29c), clearly the same as the Notitia’s Concangios, mentioned above; the site must be Chester-le-Street, for which the earliest recorded name (c.1050) is Cuncaceaster.89 These two places are the first and last points in the two groups on this road which finally reached Newcastle, with a branch to South Shields, both of which were later developments, and included in the Notitia as Ponte Aeli and Arbeia, respectively.

The next two names, each important in its own right, are on the route south from Binchester and their identifications are certain. They are Cactabactonion (26; Catterick) and Eburacum (27; York). But if this stretch of road is compared with Ptolemy’s map and the Antonine Itinerary listings, Ptolemy’s Isurium (Aldborough) seems to be missing: Iter II (heading south) reads: Cataractone, Isuriam, Eburacum; Iter II (heading north) reads: Eburaco, Isubrigantum, Cataractoni. It is possible that Isurium was simply omitted from the Ravenna list, or, as mentioned earlier, that it was mistakenly included in the list of rivers. On the other hand, the name Isurium on Ptolemy’s map may have originally been given to the fort site at Roecliffe, discovered in 1993 about a mile from Aldborough.82 This fort seems to have had two phases of Flavian occupation after which it was abandoned. There is no definite evidence for a military presence on the Aldborough site prior to the creation of Isurium Brigantum, which is thought to have taken place under Hadrian, or during the Antonine period around AD 140 or 150 (although the discovery of the remains of first-century timber buildings may nevertheless be connected with military occupation). Isurium was certainly known in this area in c.100 — but perhaps only as a staging post — because it is named on a journey which included Cataractonium and Vinovia.83

It may be postulated that CorieLopocarium (30a and 30b), almost certainly a combination of two names, represents Coria (Corbridge)90 and a garbled version of Epiacum (Whitley Castle),91 both probably important sites in their own right, but equally well linked together; access to Whitley Castle is much easier from Corbridge than from Carlisle. In any case, Coria can now certainly be identified as Corbridge, owing to an increasing number of clear references to it in the Vindolanda tablets.92

The Cosmography then moves to eastern Yorkshire, and what was to be a parallel easterly route to that from York to Hadrian’s Wall. The first name, Decuaria (28a), is almost certainly Petuaria on Ptolemy’s map (Brough-on-Humber). Devovicia (28b), when compared with the appropriate section of the Antonine Itinerary (Iter I), seems to be a combination of Derventione (thought to be Malton on the river Derwent) and Delgovicia, which Rivet and Smith suggested was a Roman settlement at Wetwang.84 However, aerial reconnaissance at Stamford Bridge (also on the Derwent) led to its being put forward as an alternative to the traditional identification of Derventione as Malton.85 Here it is suggested that the Ravenna name Devovicia combines Stamford Bridge and Malton. Deruentione of the Notitia, is also linked with this area since it is mentioned in the context of the Praefectus numeri superuenientium Petueriensium, clearly connected with Petuaria; it is, therefore, usually identified as Malton.86

Having covered the whole of England as far as Hadrian’s Wall, the Cosmographer then completed it with a list of the Wall sites from east to west. This section is important; not only does it show that the Cosmographer’s source was correct, but also that he was capable of transcribing the names reasonably accurately. The run of names from the Notitia, which omits only Banna (31i; Birdoswald), and inscriptional evidence confirm the order of most of these sites (see Figure 1 overleaf, and Map 6).93 87

Ibid., 339. M. V. Taylor and R. G. Collingwood, ‘Roman Britain in 1923: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Jl Roman Studies, xii (1922), 245–6. The bridge was on the road which linked York to Chesterle-Street and Newcastle upon Tyne, via Thirsk and Northallerton. 89 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 12, 29. 90 See n. 92 below, and, for further discussion on Coria = Corbridge, see pp. 50–1, 54–5 below. 91 A suggestion also made by J. G. F. Hind, ‘The Romano-British name for Corbridge’, Britannia, xi (1980), 168. 92 Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier, 16. Nine references are now certain; others are possible: for details, indexed under ‘Coria’, see A. K. Bowman and J. D. Thomas, The Vindolanda Writing-Tablets (Tabulae Vindolandenses II) (London, 1994), 394; Bowman and Thomas, The Vindolanda Writing-Tablets (Tabulae Vindolandenses III) (London, 2003), 176. 93 Map 6 (below) is reproduced from Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 49 (fig. 9). 88

Dixio (29a) and Lugunduno (29b), sometimes given together as one word, are most likely to be two separate placenames, somewhere in the area between Thirsk and Durham. It is just possible that Dixio could have 82

Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 402. Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier, 24. 84 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 155–7, 208, 331–4. 85 Mentioned as a possible fort in S. Johnson, ‘Excavations at Hayton Roman fort, 1975’, Britannia, ix (1978), 79; the settlement at Stamford Bridge was added to OS, Roman Britain (2001). See also pp. 74–5 below. 86 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 220, 334. See also Appendix 2 below. 83

25

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors

FIGURE 1 THE TYNE–SOLWAY LINE (HADRIAN’S WALL) ========================================================================================= RAVENNA NAME PRE-WALL TRAJANIC/ EARLY HADRIANIC LATE HADRIANIC HADRIANIC FORTS FORTS FORTS/ADDITIONS ========================================================================================= [South Shields]† Serduno Wallsend Newcastle‡ Condecor Benwell Vindovala Rudchester Onno Halton Chesters Celūno Chesters Brocoliti Carrawburgh Velurtion Housesteads Esica Great Chesters [Magnis]* Carvoran Banna Birdoswald [Gabaglanda]* Castlesteads Uxelludamo Stanwix Avalana Burgh-by-Sands Drumburgh‡ Maia Bowness-on-Solway ========================================================================================= NOTES

*

The Ravenna place-names in square brackets, Magnis and Gabaglanda, are inserted here for completeness. They appear in an earlier group with Carlisle. † The date for the origin of South Shields is uncertain. It probably had a fairly early foundation, but in what form is unclear; its heyday was during the third century, in the reign of Septimius Severus. ‡ Newcastle and Drumburgh are probably late Hadrianic (or later) additions. =========================================================================================

whereas one for c.AD 170 does.95 Until recently, only the Notitia attested to the existence of Congauata, but the discovery in 2003 of a copper-alloy vessel, known as the ‘Staffordshire Moorlands Pan’, includes the name (reproduced as COGGABATA) in its inscription.96 Ravenna’s list of Wall names ends with Fanocodi (31m), which, when expanded to Fano Cocidi, is now generally accepted to be Bewcastle because of the number of dedications associated with the site to the Celtic god Cocidius, an equivalent of Mars.97 Bewcastle would undoubtedly have been administered along with Hadrian’s Wall since it is an outpost fort which was clearly a terminus.98

The names from Serduno (31a; Wallsend = Segedunum) to Esica (31h; Great Chesters = Aesica) are all confirmed. Ravenna’s Condecor (31b) is Benwell (Condercum); Vindovala (31c) is Rudchester (Vindobala); Onno (31d) is Halton Chesters (Hunnum); Celūno (31e) is Chesters (Cilurnum); Brocoliti (31f) is Carrawburgh (Brocolitia); and Velurtion (31g) is Housesteads (Vercovicium). The inscriptions on the Rudge Cup and the Amiens patera show the correct order of sites from the western end, namely Maia (31l; Bowness-on-Solway), Avalana (31k; Burgh-by-Sands = Aballava), Uxelludamo (31j; Stanwix = Uxelodunum), Banna and Esica, including one addition — Camboglans, the Stanegate site which was incorporated into the Wall.94 There are only two Wall sites in the Notitia which do not appear somewhere in the Ravenna Cosmography. These are Ponte Aeli (Newcastle) to the east, and Congauata (Drumburgh) to the west; both were significantly smaller than all the other forts, and Newcastle, at least, was not part of the original plan. A map of military sites in northern England c.AD 130 does not include Newcastle,

95

Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 55 (fig. 11), 133 (fig. 23). See also ibid., 54 (table 3), where Drumburgh (for which no suggestion of unit can be given) is shown to be, at 2 acres (0.8 hectares), the smallest of the Wall forts. 96 The sequence omits ABALLAVA; it reads: RIGOREVALIAELIDRACONIS MAIS COGGABATA VXELODVNVMCAMMOGIANNA. Various explanations are offered for the text preceding MAIS, the most likely being ‘On the line of the Wall, the product [or property] of Aelius Draco’. R. S. O. Tomlin and M. W. C. Hassall, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: III. Inscriptions’, Britannia, xxxv (2004), 344–5 (illustrated as a frontispiece in this issue). 97 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 363. 98 Period I at Bewcastle is Hadrianic: see P. S. Austen, Bewcastle and Old Penrith: A Roman Outpost Fort and a Frontier Vicus, Excavations, 1977–8 (Kendal, 1991), 43.

94 A.MAISABALLAVAVXELODVMCAMBOGLANSBANNA is the actual inscription on the Rudge Cup, whilst the Amiens patera lists the same sites in the same order with the addition at the end of ESICA. Camboglans is the same as Gabaglanda (22c) mentioned above. All names on the Wall are as concluded by Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 297–9.

26

Suggested Identifications and Groupings cannot be one and the same. Frere was happy to accept the existence of another Lindum between the Walls, and described the far-flung identifications made by Rivet and Smith as ‘illogical’.103

Next the focus shifts to the area between the Walls. In many ways this is more difficult to disentangle, but from here onwards, it seems, nearly all the head places of each group are Ptolemaic place-names. There is no reason why the same general principles should not be applied to the sites north of Hadrian’s Wall, so these ought to be in regional groupings. Conquest and Frere both began their discussions of the Scottish place-names by taking the first sites across the Border at Carlisle and allocating the Ravenna names to them in sequence.99 The groupings between the Walls, however, seem to begin in the northwest of the area, working very roughly (with a few adjustments) in an anticlockwise motion to finish in the north-east, ready to begin the Antonine Wall list, which, incidentally, follows the Hadrian’s Wall pattern of reading east to west. This is a systematic coverage of Scotland, south of the Forth and the Border region.

From Loudoun Hill, the road reached the major fort site at Castledykes, later a crossroads in the Roman road network, and possibly Stodoion. Frere accepted Rivet and Smith’s conflation of Stodoion and Sinetriadum but rejected the equation with Pinnata Castra. Since Frere was following a northerly route from Carlisle at this point, his suggested identification was Birrens.104 In the present analysis, however, Birrens appears later in the list, and, instead, the fort sites of Bothwellhaugh on the road to the north-west,105 and Easter Happrew, near Peebles, on the road to the south-east are suggested for the names Sinetriadum and Clindum. Castledykes was certainly a large and important fort in both the Flavian and the Antonine periods, whilst Easter Happrew is situated on the Lyne Water and this may be reflected in its name. The Flavian installation was replaced in the Antonine period by a fort at Lyne itself on the opposite bank of the river; Clindum could refer to either site.

This first group begins with Brocara (32a), first suggested by Rivet and Smith to be a jumbled form of Ptolemy’s Vindogara,100 which has been located by everyone, including Strang, near Irvine on the Ayrshire coast. For the next name, Croucingo (32b), an etymological development from British *crouco- (as in Welsh crug, Irish crúach), meaning ‘hill’ or ‘mound’, was suggested but no attempt at identification was made.101 Brocara was, however, most probably linked by road to Loudoun Hill, also on the river Irvine, and that is therefore the likely location of Croucingo.

The next group is headed by Carbantium (34a), Ptolemy’s Carbantorigon, and here associated with the fort of Milton. Tentatively listed under this heading are Tadoriton (34b) and Maporiton (34c), identified here as a site at Dalmakethar, or nearby, and Ladyward, followed by another small group of two names, Alitacenon (35a) and Loxa (35b), located at Broomholm and Netherby, all of which precede the next Ptolemaic name, Locatreve (36a), which is equated here (for the first time) with Ptolemy’s Lucopibia.106 Strang located Ptolemy’s Carbantorigon at the fort of Raeburnfoot, on a cross-country route heading for the Hawick area. But Milton, which still falls within Strang’s error margins,107 is preferred here as it is the nearest major fort complex on the main western road into Scotland; it is built over a native enclosure,108 and has obvious strategic importance. Rivet and Smith suggested that Carbantorigon was probably Easter Happrew, and that the name may have subsequently been transferred to the replacement Antonine fort at Lyne. They concluded that the word probably meant ‘wagon-ford’ or ‘chariotford’, and were looking for an appropriate association with the river.109 Milton, itself, might provide a better example. There seems to be evidence that the crossing of the river Annan was very close to the fort, ‘possibly

Having convinced themselves that the place-names in Ravenna’s sections north of Hadrian’s Wall did not follow any pattern, Rivet and Smith put forward an elaborate theory linking the first two entries of the next group of three, Stodoion (33a) and Sinetriadum (33b). They suggested that the names concealed the words Pteroton Stratopedon, the Greek version of Ptolemy’s Pinnata Castra.102 Likewise, the next name, Clindum (33c), was equated with Ptolemy’s Lindum — a more obvious assumption to make, and one that has been made by most scholars. But, as far as Rivet and Smith were concerned at least, most entries from this point onwards could be anywhere in Scotland, and could even represent rivers, islands or tribes. It is argued here, however, that Ravenna’s list is perfectly clear when it comes to the general placing of sites. The inclusion of Pinnata Castra amongst the sites south of the Antonine Wall, in whatever garbled form, is surely unlikely, especially since Pinnatis actually appears in the Ravenna lists in the correct section, north of the Antonine Wall. Ravenna’s Clindum, too, whilst resembling Ptolemy’s Lindum, is in southern Scotland, rather than in the north, so they

103

Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’, 287. Ibid., 287–8. 105 See pp. 89–90 below. 106 See p. 28 below. 107 See p. 14 above. 108 L. Keppie, The Legacy of Rome: Scotland’s Roman Remains, 3rd edn (Edinburgh, 2004), 88. 109 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 300–1. 104

99

Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 347–8; Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’, 287. 100 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 501. 101 Ibid., 328. 102 Ibid., 197, 440.

27

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors directly overlooked by it’.110 The identification for Tadoriton is necessarily tentative since Dalmakethar is an unconfirmed Roman site,111 but it is almost exactly halfway between Milton and Ladyward, and the name Dalmakethar (also the name of the burn nearby) must surely contain the Gaelic word cath(a)ir, meaning ‘fort’. Although this fort could conceivably be of native origin, it is worth remembering that the Roman fort site of Stracathro contains the same element, and the old Gaelic name for Ardoch is Cathair Mhaothail (Muthil fort).112 Maporiton could well be Ladyward, the nearest fort to Lochmaben, since there is a possible link with one of the entries in Ravenna’s sixth section (eight enigmatic names of diversa loca, which seem to be place-names with a specific function);113 the name in question is Maponi. It is thought to be connected with either Clochmabenstone (near Gretna), a standing-stone used as a meeting point in the medieval period, or with Lochmaben. The names Alitacenon and Loxa are here linked with the Eskdale forts of Broomholm and Netherby. Conquest and Frere agreed with Eric Birley, who first pointed out that the name equated with Netherby in the Antonine Itinerary (Iter II), Castra Exploratorum, would seem to be a designation rather than the correct name for the fort.114 It is possible, therefore, that Netherby’s name has a connection with the river Esk. This may also explain the difficulty in the Notitia, where two names for Stanwix seem to be recorded: Petrianis and Axeloduno. It is just possible that the Axeloduno actually refers to Netherby, a fort which certainly should have been mentioned amongst those listed; the garrison named for Axeloduno is the cohors I Hispanorum, which is attested at Netherby at least in the third century, and may have been posted there when it was replaced at Maryport around AD 139– 40.115 As for Alitacenon (if it is Broomholm, on the Esk), it is interesting to note, though perhaps coincidental, that Iuliocenon (if Ravenglass, as stated above, and corrected by Rivet and Smith to Itunocelum) is also on the river Esk. There is, perhaps, a certain similarity between the names. Ituna is Ptolemy’s name for the Solway estuary, into which flow the Esk and the Eden; however, the Romans probably associated the river Eden with this estuary.

If Locatreve, the first name in the next group, equates with Ptolemy’s Lucopibia, then the place-name is in Galloway. Rivet and Smith, however, tried to link Lucopibia with the later name in the Ravenna list, Lucotion, identifying that as Glenlochar.116 All commentators have been in agreement that Locatreve has something to do with water and a dwelling, Welsh tref, but, until recently, they have not linked the name with Threave, where the medieval Douglas castle is situated on an island in a loch on the river Dee.117 The nearest Roman fort to Threave is Glenlochar, so it is possible that Rivet and Smith identified Ptolemy’s Lucopibia correctly but related it to the wrong Ravenna name. Strang’s identification for Lucopibia is at Gatehouse of Fleet,118 which is fairly close by, and, as is argued here, part of this regional group, which includes the next two place-names, Cambroianna (36b) and Smetri (36c). The former is perhaps located in the Newton Stewart area (where no Roman structural remains have been found, even though the Roman road runs that way); isolated finds have been reported, and it is suggested that a Roman installation might be sought there.119 The latter may be linked with Gatehouse of Fleet, the coastal fortlet which may or may not have had a larger installation further inland. The previous group seems to fit better with the other ‘Galloway’ names headed by the name Brigomono (40a), and therefore these will be discussed here. Group 40 is the only part of Ravenna’s section three which seems to have been misplaced. Rivet and Smith suggested that Brigomono could be a garbled version of Ptolemy’s Rerigonium, which therefore places it in the vicinity of modern Stranraer.120 It is interesting to note that nearby is the place-name Dunragit (which has, on occasion, been connected with Rerigonium, and with the later postRoman kingdom of Rheged). Apparently aerial photography has now confirmed ‘evidence of a more southerly Roman site [south of Stranraer]’;121 to date there is no further information on this. Other candidates are Cairnryan (but not the site of the modern village) and Innermessan on the east side of Loch Ryan.122

116

See under their suggested corrected name *Leucovia: Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 389–90. 117 Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 358; Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 394–5. See also A. Breeze, ‘Brittonic place-names from south-west Scotland, Part 2: Ptolemy’s Abravannus, “Locatrebe”, Cumnock, Irvine and Water of Milk’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxv (2001), 152–3. 118 Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. 119 Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 96. See also p. 89 below. 120 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 447, under Rerigonium. 121 A comment on G. S. Maxwell’s lecture entitled ‘Ptolemy and the map of Roman Britain’ delivered at the University of Leeds on 4 February 1994, cited in Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 21. 122 See M. McCarthy, ‘Rerigonium: a lost “city” of the Novantae’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxiv (2004), 125.

110

S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1987: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xix (1988): information from Gordon Maxwell, 430–1. 111 Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 88. 112 W. J. Watson, The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland (1926; repr. Edinburgh, 1993), 223. 113 The diversa loca in the sixth section are discussed later: in terms of tribal areas, at the end of Chapter 3; and, in terms of Antonine policy, in Chapter 7. 114 E. Birley, ‘The Roman fort at Netherby’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., liii (1953), 32; Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 347– 8; Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’, 287. 115 RIB 968, 978, quoted in S. S. Frere, ‘M. Maenius Agrippa, the Expeditio Britannica and Maryport’, Britannia, xxxi (2000), 26.

28

Suggested Identifications and Groupings (Newstead), and clearly includes other south-eastern Border sites amongst the entries which follow, it would appear that this set of six names must refer either to the north-east (Lothian) or to the south-west, the two areas which have not been covered so far. But, before taking this further, it is best to consider what is arguably the one area of the list of place-names from between the Walls about which there is certainty, the group beginning with Trimuntium. That is confirmed as Newstead, and the next place-name, Eburo caslum (42b) is most probably the site of Cappuck, travelling southwards along Dere Street. It is clear that the place-names are following a route here as the next point on the list is Bremenium (43a), Ptolemy’s Bremenium, known to be High Rochester. This name is probably the head name of another couplet, since Coccimeda (43b) is either a site at Chew Green, or elsewhere on the river Coquet. The name Coguveusuron from Ravenna’s river list, as previously mentioned, probably combines the rivers Coquet and Ure (or Ouse), and its form strengthens the argument for the identity of the place-name. The next place is Alauna (44a), as featured on Ptolemy’s map, and almost certainly Learchild on the river Aln, which is also identified as Ptolemy’s Alaunus flumen.129 The Roman road from Learchild goes directly towards the coast at Berwick, so that the final place-name in this group ought to be around Tweedmouth. The name Oleiclavis (44b) bears a strong resemblance to the name Poreo classis, which appears later in the list, linked with Carpow and clearly associated with the Roman fleet. Berwick would appear to be an ideal suggestion for this name; Conquest seems to have come to the same conclusion, as does Frere.130

Brigomono is followed by Abisson (40b) and Ebio (40c), perhaps Glenluce and Girvan, where Roman camps have been discovered. The latter, however, may be too far up the Ayrshire coast. It might be significant that Ptolemy names the rivers Abravannus and Ienus, which are equated by Strang with the Water of Luce and with Wigtown Bay,123 and may possibly link to these Ravenna names. Andrew Breeze argued on semantic grounds that Ptolemy’s river Abravannus should equate with Piltanton Burn, about a mile from the Water of Luce. There is clearly some kind of Roman development, other than a temporary camp, in the area, since Breeze also pointed out that around twenty coins from the first and second centuries, along with large numbers of later Roman coins, have been found close to the mouth of this burn since the late 1990s. He ruled out the possibility that the coins represent a hoard, and explained their presence in connection, perhaps, with ‘the site of a Roman beach-market’.124 Returning to the earlier group, Uxela (37a), the head place-name, is clearly Ptolemy’s Uxellum, which must be situated in the Border region. Rivet and Smith suggested Ward Law in Dumfriesshire for Uxellum, based on what was its apparent position on Ptolemy’s map, and Frere still agrees.125 However, this is now highly improbable, because Strang has totally relocated Uxellum to somewhere in the Upper Teviotdale area126 — in which case Richmond’s original suggestion that Uxellum might be connected with Rubers Law (Roxburghshire)127 appears most likely. Lucotion (37b), the next place-name, might also be found in this area, possibly at Oakwood, but there is little evidence that this fort was in use after the Flavian period.

However, Conquest went one step further with his analysis, suggesting that the final two place-names before the Antonine Wall are in the region of the Forth. He claimed that the two names Evidensca (45a) and Rumabo (45b) were in fact ‘hyphenated’ on an original source map, which meant that incorrect parts were merged together: so that instead of giving two names, Evidensca and the rather bizarre Rumabo, the result should have given three: *Evidenrum, *Sca and *Abo. The last two he identified as *Isca (Inveresk) and Cramond on the river Almond. He went on to modify *Evidenrum to give *Videnrum = *Votidenorum, and to suggest that this could be the tribal adjunct for Ptolemy’s Curia (that is, Votadinorum, which was to be located somewhere between Inveresk and Berwick).131 But Conquest’s emendations

The following group begins with Corda (38a), clearly the same as Ptolemy’s Corda,128 and located by Strang at Crawford. Since the forts along the modern M74 route through southern Scotland have already been covered, this group probably follows the more westerly route, which would mean equating Camulosessa (38b) with Drumlanrig, and Presidium (39) with Dalswinton. The latter, of great strategic importance, is well suited to the name (praesidium = a guard post, or point of defence), and could readily be regarded as a stand-alone fort. There then follows the second ‘Galloway’ group already covered above. The next set of six names is perhaps the most tantalising and difficult. However, given that the subsequent group begins with Trimuntium (42a), Ptolemy’s Trimontium

129

Alauna appears north of the Forth on Ptolemy’s map; Ogilvie and Richmond suggested that this was owing to a misread latitude, and that it ought to be connected with the river Aln: Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Oglivie and Richmond, 43. Strang’s calculations realigned the coordinates for this part of the country, and he confidently equates Alauna with Learchild: Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 13 (fig. 12), 28. 130 Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 348; Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’, 292. 131 Ibid., 348–9.

123

Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. 124 Breeze, ‘Brittonic place-names . . . Part 2’, 151–2. 125 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 483–4; Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’, 287, 289. Note that in this 2001 article Frere did not take account of Strang’s work. 126 Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 21. 127 I. A. Richmond, ‘Ancient geographical sources for Britain north of Cheviot’, in Richmond (ed.), Roman and Native in North Britain, 139. 128 Hind, ‘Romano-British name for Corbridge’, 167.

29

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors activity.140 Itucodon may have some connection with the name for the Solway estuary, Ituna, on Ptolemy’s map, which would pin the group firmly to this part of Scotland. The two remaining place-names are, therefore, either linked with this group or they are in some way connected with the area close to Trimontium where the subsequent group begins. It is argued here that they are both in Dumfriesshire; the first, Duabsisis (41e), is possibly Dumfries, or the site at Carzield, a few miles further north. It is unlikely that any earlier site could be confirmed in Dumfries itself where ‘deep deposits do not survive’.141 The final name, Venutio (41f), is equated with Ward Law, near Caerlaverock, to the east of the river Nith.142

are unnecessary. Evidensca should be Inveresk, which is believed to be the Urbs Giudi to which Bede refers132 (the first letters *Evid- may have produced the form *Viud-, hence Bede’s Giudi), while Rumabo, could represent the Curia of the Votadini — originally, perhaps, something like *Curiavo, and therefore Cramond.133 Frere also equated Rumabo with Cramond because he suggested that the ancient name of the river Almond might have been the Abus.134 Thus it seems clear that the last eight place-names in the section south of the Forth–Clyde line are in eastern Scotland or the far north-eastern part of England. That, therefore, leaves one other part of southern Scotland unaccounted for: the Dumfriesshire section of the southwest. This is the one major grouping which does not begin with a name from Ptolemy’s map — but it is the area most distorted by the turning of Scotland and, as such, it is not surprising that there is no Ptolemaic equivalent. One major place in this area which is unrepresented is Birrens, named as Blatobulgium on the Antonine Itinerary (Iter II). Just as with Netherby, the name Blatobulgium may have been an alternative135 (in this case a nickname), which is said to mean grain sack, referring to its granaries;136 the name may even have been applied (because of its shape) to the nearby, dominant, Burnswark hill, on top of which is an Iron Age hill fort. In that case, the original name for Birrens could have been something like the Coritiotar (41a) heading this group. If Birrens was also a ‘Corio name’, as was Corbridge, then it is possible that the nickname was used simply to distinguish between the two. It is also possible that this entry is connected with a tribe known as the Carvetii.137 Coritiotar perhaps ought to read something like *Coriocarvetiorum. Hind, too, suggested linking the name with a hill fort, although he proposed Traprain Law, suggesting that the name might have been Coria Votadinorum.138 The next name on the Ravenna list, Celovion (41b), may hide the rest of the designation *Coriocar[vetiorum]. On the other hand it could well be a place in its own right. If it is, it may be somewhere around Kirkpatrick Fleming, where there is a series of Roman camps, and the slightest ‘hint’ of a fort.139 The next two names, Itucodon (41c) and Maromago (41d) could represent Annan and Ruthwell. Three associated Roman camps have been discovered at Annan Hill, Annanfoot and Ruthwell; discoveries in the town of Annan itself may be indicative of further Roman military

After dealing with the Lothian area, as identified above, the Cosmographer then listed what he claimed to be the sites on the Forth–Clyde line, which, as mentioned earlier, have been interpreted, variously, as a later stage of the Antonine Wall, or simply as an incomplete list, since the missing sites have apparently become in some way embedded in the ‘between the Walls’ section. The list, like that for the sites on Hadrian’s Wall, begins on the eastern side. This is clear because the first name is known to be the eastern terminus of the Antonine Wall, at Velunia (46a; Carriden). Two possible identifications of Ptolemaic poleis seem to lie within the list. These are Colanica (46e; Ptolemy’s Colania and probably Camelon), and Cibra (46i; which may be a miscopying of Ptolemy’s Coria). The former is apparently confirmed by Strang’s analysis, and he placed the latter in Balgair, Strathendrick, north of the Antonine Wall. This does not mean that a Wall site cannot be suggested for Coria, since the distance between Balgair and the Wall is no more than twenty-five miles.143 Not many specific identifications have been made since the confirmation of Carriden as Velunia. Rivet and Smith tried to incorporate the names of Ptolemaic or other tribes into the list, suggesting that Volitanio (46b) could be linked with the Votadini, Pexa (46c) with the Picts, and Credigone (46j) with the Creones of north-western Scotland. They were also convinced that Litana (46h) must be Alauna and therefore Ardoch. Admittedly, they have noted that a variant of the word Alauna in Ravenna’s list of names for south-west England appears

140

L. J. F. Keppie, ‘Excavation of a Roman temporary camp at Annan Hill, Dumfriesshire, 1985–86’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxiii (1988), 18–19; A. Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in west Dumfries and Galloway: a field survey’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxiv (1989), 14. 141 Archaeologist D. P. Bowler, excavating 17 Castle St., Dumfries: in E. V. W. Proudfoot (ed.), Discovery and Archaeology in Scotland (Council for Brit. Archaeol. Scot., Edinburgh, 1987), 5. 142 The reasons for this suggestion are discussed in Chapter 4: see p. 76 below. 143 For Strang’s error margins, see p. 14 above.

132

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 14. 133 For the significance of this in terms of tribal territories, see pp. 54–5 below. 134 Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’, 292. 135 Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 347. 136 K. Jackson, ‘Note on the name Blatobulgium’, in A. S. Robertson, Birrens (Blatobulgium), (Edinburgh, 1975), 3–4. 137 See p. 39 at n. 3, and p. 51 below. 138 Hind, ‘Romano-British name for Corbridge’, 167. 139 McCarthy, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway, 74.

30

Suggested Identifications and Groupings

FIGURE 2 THE FORTH–CLYDE LINE (ANTONINE WALL) ========================================================================================= RAVENNA NAME AGRICOLAN REUSED/NEW FORTS, LATER FORTS FORTS* AD 139–42† (ADDITIONS) ========================================================================================= Evidensca Elginhaugh [Inveresk] Rumabo Cramond? [Cramond] Velunia Carriden Volitanio Kinneil/Bo’ness‡ Inveravon Pexa Mumrills? Mumrills Begesse Falkirk§ Colanica Camelon [Camelon] Rough Castle Medio Nemeton Castlecary? Castlecary Westerwood Croy Hill Subdobiadon Mollins Bar Hill (or Bar Hill (or Auchendavy)# Auchendavy)# Kirkintilloch Cadder? Cadder Litana Balmuildy Bearsden Castlehill Duntocher$ Cibra Old Kilpatrick Credigone Barochan [Bishopton] ========================================================================================= NOTES

*

Agricolan fort names which are scored through were abandoned between the Flavian and Antonine periods. Possible Agricolan sites are indicated with question marks. † Forts technically outside the Forth–Clyde line appear in square brackets; this does not mean that they were never regarded as part of an integrated system. ‘Primary’ Antonine forts (in existence before the Wall) are shown in BOLD. ‡ Kinneil/Bo’ness is a postulated site. § Falkirk is probably a ‘primary’ Antonine fort. # Either Bar Hill or Auchendavy is the ‘primary’ fort in this sector of the Wall. $ Duntocher was built before the Wall, but it was ‘structurally secondary to a small fortlet, itself built in anticipation of the Wall. Duntocher fort cannot then be considered as primary, in any sense of the word’: Gillam, ‘Possible changes in plan . . . of the Antonine Wall’, 52. =========================================================================================

A list of known, or possible, ‘Agricolan’ sites on the Forth– Clyde line was compared with a list of the Antonine primary forts. Cadder was then excluded (because it appears to be a ‘secondary’ Antonine fort)145 in favour of Balmuildy, while Mollins and Barochan, which were not reoccupied during the Antonine period, were replaced with their corresponding primary forts at Bar Hill or Auchendavy for Mollins, and at Bishopton (on the south side of the Clyde, and also known as Whitemoss) for Barochan. Another two possible primary forts were added on the eastern side, at Kinneil/Bo’ness and Falkirk. A fortlet is known at Kinneil, but a larger fort has long been suspected.146 W. J. Watson referred to a note

as Alatina, but to equate Litana and Ardoch means to deny any logical pattern in the Forth–Clyde section. Given the accuracy of Hadrian’s Wall, and the fact that the ‘Antonine Wall’ list begins in the east with a correctly identified site whose spelling tallies exactly with the inscriptional evidence, a refusal to believe in any pattern seems distinctly hasty. As has been noted, there are ten sites in this section and, working on the theory that the list dates to the early Antonine period, it is expected that either Agricola’s original line is reflected in some way, or the list is referring to the ‘primary’ forts, that is the forts which were built prior to their being linked to the actual Wall structure.144 Figure 2 (above) shows how the conclusions outlined here were reached.

L. Thoms (ed.), The Romans in Scotland (Scot. Archaeol. Forum, vii, Edinburgh, 1975). 145 See J. Clarke, The Roman Fort at Cadder (near Glasgow) (Glasgow, 1933), 9–10; confirmed and classed as a secondary fort in Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North-West Frontier, 90–1 (fig. 5.4e). 146 Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North-West Frontier, 86; see also B. Glendinning, ‘Investigations of the Antonine Wall and medieval

144

John Gillam discussed the significance of the ‘primary’ forts as a way of indicating that the overall plan of the Antonine Wall changed during its period of construction: see J. P. Gillam, ‘Possible changes in plan in the course of the construction of the Antonine Wall’, in

31

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors north of the later line. Medio Nemeton (46f), it is suggested here, is Castlecary. Scholars have tried to equate the name with some kind of native spring or well, which might link it to either Croy Hill or Bar Hill,155 or with an ‘ephemeral’ structure known as Arthur’s O’on (oven), near Camelon, which has been variously interpreted as a shrine or a Roman monument to Victory erected as a result of Agricola’s campaigns, those of Lollius Urbicus in the reign of Antoninus Pius, or (less likely) those of Septimius Severus. It was destroyed in 1743.156 Castlecary, however, could have been in the middle of an area which was known for its sacred springs; the fort itself is on a small hill, but certainly in the lowest-lying part of the Antonine Wall.157 The medio part of the designation may refer not so much to the precise centre of the Forth– Clyde line as to the fact that this was the main access point to the central Wall area from the south.158

on Blaeu’s map, mentioning the ‘Ruines of Cast Karig Lion’, which Watson thought might indicate the presence of a Roman fort (by analogy with Caerleon and the Welsh name for Chester, Caer Lleon, both of which stand for Castra Legionum). Apparently, he added, ‘Castle Lyon is said to have stood between Kinneil House and the sea, but has now totally disappeared’;147 that sounds like the loss, through coastal change, of a fort in the vicinity of Bo’ness, near Bridgeness (in the parish of Kinneil). At Falkirk, a new fort was discovered in 1991, but information about it is limited. However, Falkirk was probably a primary fort since the ditch alignment ‘suggests that the fort was earlier than the Wall and may have been demolished or realigned when the Wallbuilders arrived’.148 The result (highlighted in BOLD on Figure 2) is a list of ten forts, most of which are on the fixed Antonine line. These are Carriden, Kinneil/Bo’ness, Mumrills, Falkirk, Camelon, Castlecary, Bar Hill (or Auchendavy), Balmuildy, Old Kilpatrick and Bishopton.

Subdobiadon (46g) and Litana, according to Conquest, could be the secondary forts Bearsden and Castlehill respectively, although he admitted that these are mere possibilities. More importantly, his ‘approach’ dismissed previous attempts to use unprovable etymology alone in the process of identification (as in the case of ‘Litana = Ardoch’, discussed above), which had led to a denial of Ravenna’s internal coherence as a document. Instead, he accepted that the Ravenna list of ‘Antonine Wall sites’ should be exactly that.159 Subdobiadon and Litana are here equated with Bar Hill (or Auchendavy) and Balmuildy respectively. Bar Hill was thought at one time to have had an earlier, Agricolan, phase which has since been dismissed.160 It is unusual among the other Wall forts in that it is built quite separately from the rampart, on a hill to the south, and so it is not clear whether it pre-dates or post-dates the Wall.161 Balmuildy was an important site

Carriden, as mentioned earlier, is certainly Velunia,149 and it is probably primary. Its function may have mirrored Bishopton in the west, in that it is not technically attached to any known stretch of the Antonine Wall (which, owing to the discovery of a distance-slab there, appears to end somewhere near Bridgeness on the edge of the town of Bo’ness).150 Carriden is certainly associated with the Wall, and was confirmed as such in 1945,151 but it may never have been physically linked to it; even if it had been, some of the evidence may have been lost to coastal erosion.152 Kinneil/Bo’ness was, therefore, probably at the end of the Wall (at least in the time of Bede) and is here equated with Volitanio.153 Pexa and Begesse (46d) are here allocated to Mumrills154 and Falkirk since they both occur in order before Colanica, which Strang equates with Camelon, whose position is slightly to the

155

Feachem’s observations, quoted in Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North-West Frontier, 217. 156 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 416–17; Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 159–61. For further comment on ‘Arthur’s O’on’, see p. 96 below. 157 The land ‘falls away in all directions’, gradually on the east, steeply on the west; at the end of the southern slope there was ‘formerly . . . a morass enveloping nearly the whole of the southern front’: D. Christison, M. Buchanan and J. Anderson, ‘Excavation of Castlecary fort on the Antonine Vallum’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xxxvii (1902–3), 273. All four sides of the fort at Castlecary were clearly constructed before the Wall: RCAHMS, Stirlingshire, i, 103. 158 Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Oglivie and Richmond, 326–7. For the ‘Military Way from the South’, see G. Macdonald, The Roman Wall in Scotland, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1934), 245; see also Christison, Buchanan and Anderson, ‘Excavation of Castlecary fort’, 272 (fig. 1), 329. 159 Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 349. 160 Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland, 271–3; A. Robertson, M. Scott and L. J. F. Keppie, Bar Hill: A Roman Fort and its Finds (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 16, Oxford, 1975), 174; dismissed by Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 109. 161 Robertson, Scott and Keppie, Bar Hill, 175. Auchendavy was subsequently favoured as the primary fort in this sector because the enclosure underlying Bar Hill is now believed to be Antonine also: Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North-West Frontier, 106. 112. Points for and against Auchendavy were discussed in L. J. F. Keppie and

settlement at Kinneil House, Bo’ness, Falkirk’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxx (2000), 521; Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 132. The fortlet at Kinneil was built after the Wall: G. B. Bailey and J. Cannel, ‘Excavations at Kinneil fortlet on the Antonine Wall, 1980–1’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxvi (1996), 337. 147 Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 383–4. 148 S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1991: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxiii (1992), 262: information from excavations by G. Bailey; see also Robertson, Antonine Wall, ed. Keppie, 64. 149 See p. 17 above. 150 Robertson, Antonine Wall, ed. Keppie, 6, 15. 151 See J. K. St Joseph, ‘The Roman forts at Carriden and Brownhart Law’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxiii (1948–9), 167–8. 152 Excavations have not yet located any evidence for the course of the Wall towards Carriden: see Robertson, Antonine Wall, ed. Keppie, 49–51. 153 Bede believed that the Antonine Wall began ‘at a place which the Picts call Peanfahel and the English Penneltun’: Bede, Ecclesiastical History, I. 12 (trans. Sherley-Price, revised Latham, 59). The form Penguaul means ‘end of Wall’, and is known to be the place-name Kinneil. See also Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 347–8; McNeill and MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History to 1707, 63. 154 The wall ‘deviation’ around it confirms that Mumrills was a primary fort: RCAHMS, Stirlingshire: An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1963), i, 96–7.

32

Suggested Identifications and Groupings grouping apparently begins with a Ptolemaic name. It is argued here that the sequence of groups north of the Forth–Clyde line follows thus: first, groups nearest to the Wall; secondly a group immediately north of the Tay; thirdly, groups in the far north, beginning with the furthermost registered place-name; and fourthly, the Tay sites themselves — the nucleus for the proposed Romanisation of northern Scotland. In the analysis of the first two groups (47 and 48), and in the later groups (55 and 56), the head place-name for each group is located on what can be called the ‘inner ring’, in other words the only stretch of Roman road known north of the Antonine Wall; it runs from Camelon (Falkirk) to Bertha (Perth), and a little beyond. It is suggested that these four main sites (Stirling, Ardoch, Strageath and Bertha) were each linked with their western ‘satellites’ on the routes to the edge of the Highland massif, since direct communications between what are known as the ‘glen-blocker’ forts167 in the ‘outer ring’ would have been difficult, and indeed unnecessary, since their function would have been to prevent attacks on their lowland bases. Keppie described the route beyond the Forth as passing through Strathallan (Ardoch), Strathearn (Strageath) and the Tay region (Bertha), each area corresponding here to Groups 47, 56 and 55 respectively. All the place-names will now be examined individually and consecutively.

guarding the crossing of the river Kelvin; it is also a primary fort, since it had a complete encircling stone wall (as had Castlecary), whereas later secondary forts had ‘turf ramparts on a stone base similar in construction to the Antonine Wall itself’.162 The final two names in the list, Cibra and Credigone, ought to be at the west end of the Wall, a point with which Conquest agreed; he suggests Duntocher and Old Kilpatrick respectively.163 The analysis here excludes the secondary fort of Duntocher, and relates the primary fort of Old Kilpatrick not to Credigone, but to Cibra (especially, if it can also be related to Coria, the ‘tribal centre’). Old Kilpatrick is near enough to Dumbarton to be linked with that early medieval, if not also Iron Age, tribal centre, known as Al Cluith in Bede.164 Credigone is, therefore, identified here as Bishopton. It may, perhaps, be regarded as a primary fort, since it could not have been conventionally attached to the Wall.165 With the addition of Kinneil/ Bo’ness and Falkirk, all suggested identifications presented here are precisely those which are believed to have formed the original plan for the Antonine Wall (see Map 7);166 the total number is ten. The Cosmographer then listed those sites north of the Forth, and here there is little conventional evidence to substantiate any identifications. However, the sheer number of Ravenna names beyond the Forth–Clyde line alone calls for a radical reinterpretation. Following the logical placing of the names further south, the same must surely apply here. It is possible to show that nearly every

One of the most important early sites north of the Forth is that of Ardoch (which still displays an impressive ditch system), and it would make sense for Ravenna’s list to begin with it.168 Ptolemy’s Alauna Damnonium could well be represented by the place-name Iano (47a), sometimes rendered as Lano. Richmond and Crawford argued for a meaning of ‘flat plain’, which may perhaps indicate the lowland area,169 but the name is more probably associated with the Allan Water. Richmond had already noted the possible connection between this river and Ptolemy’s Alauna,170 perhaps following W. J. Watson, who pointed out that the river’s twelfth-century name, Alun, possibly ‘represent[ed] an early Alauna or Alaunos’.171 The next two names are Ardoch’s ‘satellites’ Maulion (47b) and Demerosesa (47c). Few suggestions have been put forward for these two Ravenna names, except that Rivet and Smith saw in Maulion a duplication of the later name in the list Matovion,172 and Conquest arbitrarily assigned a run of ‘glen-blocker’ forts to consecutive names in the Ravenna list.173 But it would make sense to identify them as Doune and Bochastle.

J. J. Walker, ‘Auchendavy Roman fort and settlement’, Britannia, xvi (1985), 32–3. Subsequently, Breeze and Dobson, whose book also has a sizeable section on the Antonine Wall, reverted back to Bar Hill: Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 111 (table 9, and subsequent note). Most recently, however, Keppie has cited geophysical evidence, which may indicate that Auchendavy was a primary fort after all: Robertson, Antonine Wall, revised and ed. Keppie, 30–1. See also F. Hunter, ‘Roman Britain in 2001: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 287–8 (including fig. 6). 162 Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North-West Frontier, 86. For the relationship between the fort and the later Wall, see S. N. Miller, The Roman Fort at Balmuildy (Summerston, near Glasgow) on the Antonine Wall (Glasgow, 1922), 6–7, and plate III, A and B. 163 Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 349. 164 Old Kilpatrick was a self-standing fort, completed before the Wall. For specific detail on this, see S. N. Miller, The Roman Fort at Old Kilpatrick (Glasgow, 1928), 55–6. Most recent work seems to tally with this conclusion: see comments by R. P. J. McCullagh, in A. Dunwell et al., ‘Some excavations on the line of the Antonine Wall, 1994–2001’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxii (2002), 296. For Al Cluith, see Bede, Ecclesiastical History, I. 12 (trans. Sherley-Price, revised Latham, 58). 165 For Bishopton’s relationship with the Antonine defences, see pp. 127, 130 below. 166 Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North West Frontier, 111–12 (including fig. 6.2, which gives the ‘original plan’ with Auchendavy as a primary fort); Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 99–102. Map 7 (below) is reproduced from ibid., 101 (fig. 20); it gives the ‘original plan’ with a choice of Auchendavy or Bar Hill, though no mention of Falkirk. See also p. 31, and n. 144 above.

167

These are from the south, Drumquhassle, Malling, Bochastle, Dalginross and Fendoch. 168 Ardoch was, arguably, more important in the early Antonine period than during the Flavian period. For further details, see p. 91 below. 169 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 36. 170 Richmond, ‘Ancient geographical sources’, 140. 171 Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 467. 172 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 414. 173 See Conquest’s identifications in Appendix 4 below.

33

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors case, the same regional grouping is intended. Little is offered etymologically on these place-names, except emendations to the spelling of the words. Rivet and Smith tried to equate Cerma (and also the later placename Cermium) with the Caereni tribe mentioned by Ptolemy, and they were convinced that these two entries are duplications.183 This completes the series of sites suggested to lie south of Ardoch.

They are presented here in that order; but, since the Ravenna Cosmography is not primarily a route map, there is no reason why the two satellites need to trace a route away from the base line. In fact, if Maulion bears any resemblance to its original name, it may well be Bochastle, which was known as Mochastir in 1452.174 A first-century road is believed to run from Ardoch to Doune, via Dunblane; another road may have linked Doune and Bochastle (along the line of the A84).175

The next group consists of the sites beyond the Tay in the region of Strathmore. The head-name, Matovion (49a), is identified as Cardean, and it is suggested that its rather garbled form can be equated with Ptolemy’s Bannatia, which Strang placed at Cardean. Etymologically, Bannatia has the same root as Banna (Birdoswald on Hadrian’s Wall), which is supposed to indicate a promontory, or horn; both Cardean and Birdoswald have similar positions — on promontories overlooking the river. Matovion, if Cardean, should then be linked with the next two placenames Ugrulentum (49b) and Ravatonium (49c), which have been equated with the other Strathmore forts of Inverquharity and Stracathro. Again, little is offered in the way of other identifications for these sites. Rivet and Smith commented on the attractiveness of Nicholas Reed’s linking Ugrulentum with one of the few placenames mentioned in Tacitus’ account of Agricola’s Scottish campaigns.184 The name in question, however, is Portus Trucculensis, which would have experienced quite a few scribal miscopyings to produce the name Ugrulentum. Ptolemy did not mention it, and Reed’s identification seems highly unlikely, as is his suggestion that Ravenna’s place-names north of the Antonine Wall somehow represent a list of coastal, or near coastal, locations sweeping from the Clyde and around the north of Scotland, presumably as far as the Forth.185 Conquest’s locations for the names in this part of the Ravenna list were partly based on his conclusion that Ugrulentum is Portus Trucculensis, but located at Camelon; again this does not seem plausible.

The next group, headed by Cindocellum (48a), is to the south of Ardoch. This name is possibly Ptolemy’s Lindum, and may be Stirling, a major river crossing which must have had a Roman installation of some kind,176 although it cannot be proved. Lindum means ‘pool’, and this connection with water led Rivet and Smith to suggest Drumquhassle, near Loch Lomond, as its identification.177 But the area near Stirling was known as ‘The Pows’ or ‘pools’ (from Gaelic pol), ‘the generic term for all these slow-running streams having become the colloquial name of a district’,178 which fits perfectly. Richmond argued for a Roman site at Stirling, although he had equated it with Ptolemy’s Coria,179 and Crawford pointed out that W. Maitland had recorded details of what appeared to be a Roman site at Stirling in his History and Antiquities of Scotland, published in 1757.180 What is certain is that the distance between Camelon and Ardoch is around twenty-two miles, and the likelihood of an intermediate fort in the Stirling area should be given serious consideration. The eighteenth-century observations have apparently been proved incorrect, since aerial reconnaissance has shown the existence of a ‘rectilinear ditched enclosure’ on the recorded site, which is not thought to have been Roman. The suggestion, instead, of a Roman installation at the crossing of the Bannock Burn was put forward.181 The description of ‘the pools’ would do equally well for this area, and the analysis here would still apply. Strang identified Lindum as Malling, one of the ‘glen-blocker’ forts, whereas here Cerma (48b) is located at Malling, and Veromo (48c) at Drumquhassle. The distance between Stirling and Malling, however, is within Strang’s permitted error margins,182 and, in any

Most of the sites that can be used for identification purposes in the next few groups are those of Roman camps only. These could represent where a series of forts were to have been built had not other circumstances intervened. The first name, Iberran (50), has usually been regarded as referring in some way to Ireland, the explanation being that the Cosmographer, reading from a map, had assumed that a name printed in the sea should be included in his list.186 Conquest put forward the only other suggestion, that the name should be Iverna and that it is linked etymologically with the river Earn; he therefore

174

Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 240. G. S. Maxwell and D. R. Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, Britannia, xviii (1987), 17. 176 Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North-West Frontier, 70, 102–3; Ogilvie and Richmond were convinced that there was a fort at Stirling to monitor the crossing of the Forth: De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 66 (editors’ ‘Introduction’). 177 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 393 (Lindum²). 178 G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland (London, 1965), 303. 179 See I. A. Richmond, ‘Ptolemaic Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., 5th ser., lvi (1921–2), 296; this was reiterated in Richmond, ‘Ancient geographical sources’, 141. 180 O. G. S. Crawford, Topography of Roman Scotland: North of the Antonine Wall (Cambridge, 1949), 22. 181 Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 112–14. 182 See p. 14 above. 175

183

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 286. Ibid., 478–80. 185 N. Reed, ‘The fifth year of Agricola’s campaigns’, Britannia, ii (1971), 147–8 (appendix on Portus Trucculensis). For further discussion on Portus Trucculensis, and its location, see pp. 111–12 below. 186 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 373. 184

34

Suggested Identifications and Groupings proposed Dalginross as the only possibility.187 There is an alternative identification. The Cosmographer may have begun with the farthest known place of Iberran, which could be on the river Nairn (the town of Nairn was originally Invernairn — in Gaelic Inbhir Narunn — although the pre-Gaelic form would probably have had a version of ‘Aber’ instead of ‘Inver’).188 Barri Jones believed that he had discovered evidence of Roman structures further north and west than the series of camps culminating at Auchinhove in the Pass of Grange (east of Keith). Iberran could, therefore, be Easter Galcantray, on the Nairn, near Cawdor, a possible Roman site of temporary or semi-permanent status. After this single entry, there follows another, placed further east. This is Pinnatis (51), clearly Ptolemy’s Pinnata Castra, and most often connected with Burghead at the mouth of the river Findhorn. Despite the commonly accepted view that ‘Findhorn’ is an Irish imported name of more modern times, the river name is much more likely to be an ancient one and could be linked with the word Pinnatis.189 Another postulated Roman site at Balnageith on the Findhorn is suggested here. These two sites seem to be important enough in their own right, or simply did not have any actual (or planned) satellite forts. Pinnata Castra — its position on Ptolemy’s map and in reality — has caused considerable discussion. As mentioned earlier, Rivet and Smith suggested that the Greek form Pteroton Stratopedon appeared in the Ravenna list of southern Scotland placenames by mistake, but they still concluded that Pinnatis should be ‘west of the mouth of the river Spey and probably near the mouth of the river Findhorn’.190 Richmond was convinced that Pinnata Castra was Inchtuthil, because he believed that the stone wall erected at Inchtuthil was elaborately constructed with ‘merlons’, the translation of which he took to be pinnae, and hence reflected in its name. He also could not accept that the Vacomagi, in whose territory Pinnata Castra, Tuesis, Bannatia and Tameia are supposed to lie, could possibly stretch from the Tay area right up to Moray. This is confusing because, while admitting that Tuesis had to be connected with the river Spey, Richmond did not actually state that Ptolemy was wrong to assign the place-name to the Vacomagi.191 But both Tuesis and Pinnata Castra should be regarded as Moray sites; in fact, Pinnata Castra is also listed as one of four points in Britain which provided Ptolemy with astronomical data, the longest day being recorded as 18½ hours, as opposed to 17 hours in

London.192 The former figure would be much more likely to have been the furthest point at which a reading was taken; that does not make Inchtuthil the most likely candidate. Strang’s tentative suggestion for Pinnata Castra was Thomshill, which will be mentioned below because it is another possible Roman site examined by Jones and situated in Moray. Pinnatis/Pinnata Castra is without doubt located in the Moray area. The next name, and heading a small group, is Tuessis (52a), clearly Ptolemy’s Tuesis. Rivet and Smith pointed out the possibility that the Cosmographer included Tuessis in the place-name list when it really should have appeared with the river names. It is, however, clear that the river name list is incomplete, and that Ptolemy named Tuesis as both a river and a polis. Rivet and Smith evidently had no qualms about suggesting the possible Roman camp at Bellie, near the mouth of the Spey, as an identification. Although the site has ‘never [been] confirmed as Roman by excavation’,193 it must nevertheless be fairly close to the location of Tuesis. Strang’s suggestion was in the region of Aberlour or Rothes; it is probably located a little further north, somewhere around Fochabers, perhaps at Gordon Castle.194 Ravenna’s Tuessis may have had two satellites in the next two names on the list, Lodone (52b) to the west and Litinomago (52c) to the east. Rivet and Smith offered little in the way of identification for these two sites, except the suggestion that Lodone was an attempt to render the tribal name Caledones.195 Lodone could perhaps be identified as the excavated site at Thomshill on the river Lossie, which Strang had suggested as a possible location for Tuesis itself and is, therefore, clearly in the same region,196 and Litinomago may perhaps be Auchinhove on the river Isla. Rivet and Smith interpreted this name as meaning ‘wide space’, or ‘place with a wide view’.197 Auchinhove, in the Pass of Grange, is described as ‘the natural gateway to the Moray Firth and the Caledonian heartlands’, which may amount to the same thing.198 The next group contains place-names associated with the head name of Devoni (53a), Ptolemy’s Devana, which is probably Normandykes on the river Dee, as also suggested by Strang. Rivet and Smith had Kintore as a possible identification for Devana, favouring the river

192

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 146–7. Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 188. 194 G. D. B. Jones, ‘The central places of Moray: the air photographic evidence’ (unpublished lecture, given to the Moray Society’s conference ‘New Light on the Moray Firth Lands’ at Elgin Museum, 6 Sept. 1997); B. [the late G. D. B.] Jones and I. Keillar, ‘ “In fines Borestorum”: reconstructing the archaeological landscapes of prehistoric and protohistoric Moray’, Northern Scotland, xxii (2002), 17–19. 195 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 211. 196 Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map of Roman Britain’, 436. 197 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 394. 198 G. S. Maxwell, A Battle Lost: Romans and Caledonians at Mons Graupius (Edinburgh, 1990), 98. 193

187

Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 349. Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 435; for ‘Aber’ rather than ‘Inver’, see W. F. H. Nicolaisen, Scottish Place-Names, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 2001), 211. 189 W. F. H. Nicolaisen, ‘Names in the landscape of the Moray Firth’, in W. D. H. Sellar (ed.), Moray, Province and People (Edinburgh, 1993), 260–1. 190 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 441, but see also their discussion of these ‘duplicates’, 197. 191 Richmond, ‘Ancient geographical sources’, 142–3. 188

35

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Don rather than the Dee.199 Kintore is here proposed for the third name in this group. After Devoni, the site of Raedykes, near Stonehaven, to the south is equated with Memanturum (53b). The group then continues to the north of Devoni with the series of Roman camps discovered at many of the river crossings in the area. The next three names, Decha (53c), Bograndium (53d) and Ugueste (53e), may perhaps be, respectively, Kintore on the river Don, Durno on the river Urie, and Glenmailen (also known as Ythan Wells) on the river Ythan. Again, there are no firm identifications for these place-names, but all scholars have made general comments about the proximity of the place-names to the river Dee. Rivet and Smith, however, did try to link Memanturum to the Novantae of Galloway by equating the word with Novantarum, which refers to the peninsula.200 This is, of course, highly unlikely. The final name in this group, Leuiodanum (53f), is tentatively linked either with a possible site at Boyndie, near Banff, or with Burnfield, near Rothiemay (where a Roman camp has been located on the south side of the river Deveron), on an arc between Glenmailen and Auchinhove. No other identifications have previously been suggested for Ugueste and Leuiodanum. Rivet and Smith saw the former as a possible duplicate of Begesse in the ‘Antonine Wall’ list,201 and they were convinced that Leuiodanum and Levioxaua (next but one in the list) were one and the same.202

although Richmond had previously been happy to equate Ptolemy’s Victoria with Strageath.205 Rivet and Smith preferred to connect Victoria to legio XX Valeria Victrix rather than to a specific victory, and they therefore suggested Inchtuthil, because of its association with the legion.206 Conquest did favour Strageath for Victoria, but only by association with his other identifications. He agreed with the Cermia/Cermium duplication as concluded by Richmond and Crawford, and also by Rivet and Smith, and he allocated it to Ardoch (because its importance might have caused it to have been repeated).207 The Cosmographer’s list of place-names concludes with Tagea (57a) and Voran (57b). The former must equate with Ptolemy’s Tameia. The name surely ought to be linked with Tava (or Taba), and represent Inchtuthil, with Voran as its outlying fort, Cargill. Conquest, quite rightly, also connected Tagea with Inchtuthil, and Voran with Cargill.208 Strang, too, may have thought along these lines. He certainly remarked that ‘no more appropriate name than Tava . . . could be given to Inchtuthil, which was virtually surrounded by the river Tay’.209 The name Tamion, appearing in Ravenna’s river list next to Isca in southern Wales has been equated with the river Taff, whose derivation would appear to be from Taba or Tama.210 Rivet and Smith, though not entirely resolving the issue, also pointed to two possible reconstructed early forms of the river name: *Tabios or *Tamios;211 at the very least, this shows the close connection between the consonants ‘b’, ‘v’, ‘m’ and ‘f’. Finally, in section six of the Ravenna list, amongst the ‘area’ names to be discussed at the end of Chapter 3 and in Chapter 7, one entry is Taba, which, again must be related to the Tay. Inchtuthil, therefore, must surely be Tagea/Tameia, and, in any case, it is worth mentioning that both the Tava estuary and the polis Tameia both have the same degree of longitude (that is 25º),212 as do other couplets like Deva and Devana (at 26º). So, the Ravenna place-name list concludes with the most important grouping connected with what was to have become the most northerly legionary fortress in Britain and the focus for activity in northern Scotland.

The final groupings are those place-names of the Tay region. It is suggested here that all are associated with the Tay — its estuary and the rivers which flow into it. Poreo classis (54) seems to stand alone and is most likely to be the Orrea of Ptolemy’s map, usually identified as the coastal supply base at Carpow, and, in the absence of other sites in the area, confirmed as such in Strang’s analysis.203 The following two groups of names are each headed by an ‘inner ring’ site, as discussed above, and are linked to the two most northerly ‘glen-blocker’ forts. Levioxaua (55a), Bertha, may be associated with Cermium (55b), Fendoch, on the river Almond (a tributary of the Tay); whilst Victorie (56a), Ptolemy’s Victoria and most probably Strageath, is linked with its fort in Strathearn, Marcotaxon (56b; Dalginross): the river Earn flows into the Tay estuary. Strang located Victoria at Fendoch, which is still in the ‘Tay region’ and very close to the preferred identification of Strageath. Richmond and Crawford could conclude only that Victoria referred to a Roman victory and that Marcotaxon lay next to Victoria,204

However, it should be added that Strang, despite his comment about the suitability for Inchtuthil of a name that reflects the Tay (like Tava), actually located Tameia 205

Richmond, ‘Ancient geographical sources’, 140. Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 499. 207 See Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’, 349. 208 Ibid., 350. 209 Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map of Roman Britain’, 431. And, of course, Tacitus’ reference to the Taus can refer only to the Tay: see p. 94 at n. 151 below. 210 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 46. 211 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 466–7. 212 Although this ought naturally to be ‘latitude’, as previously discussed, longitude and latitude are reversed in Scotland because of its distortion. 206

199

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 338. Ibid., 426. 201 Ibid., 481–2. 202 Ibid., 390–1. 203 Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 22. On Carpow, see p. 90 below. 204 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 40, 49. 200

36

Suggested Identifications and Groupings characters: κε′δ″ instead of κδ′) and, similarly, its latitudinal co-ordinate, 59º 30´ should read 58º 10´ (Greek characters: νθ′ς″ instead of νθ′L″). These kinds of discrepancy are certainly possible,213 but it is not clear what effect such an alteration would have on Strang’s technical calculations.

at Stracathro. This is probably because of his equation of Bannatia with Cardean, which has the effect of moving Tameia correspondingly to the north-east. Tameia, as stated above, ought to remain connected with the Tava estuary and its longitude of 25º, but to alter this sector would be to displace Bannatia. There may, therefore, be a problem with the co-ordinates. One possibility is that Bannatia’s 24º should actually read 25º 15´ (Greek

213

37

As shown by Strang: see his ‘Analysis of Ptolemy’s Geography’, 33.

3. THE NATIVE SITUATION: TRIBAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCUMENTARY SOURCES It is almost impossible to establish precise tribal boundaries for late Iron Age, pre-Roman, Britain, but the place-name groupings from Ptolemy’s map and the Ravenna Cosmography do enable a general, regional picture to be worked out (see Map 8).1 Indeed, using the arguments from the previous chapter, it is possible to tie the Ravenna Cosmography names more closely into a pattern of native areas based on Ptolemy’s map, on supplementary tribal names from other classical writers, and on inscriptions. It can be demonstrated that the tribal zones were maintained in the system of Roman administration. While it is true that certain areas were separated from each other by the Romans,2 each new zone would have had a clear identity and would not have consisted of a mixture of tribes. That would not have made political sense, as loyalty to Roman overlords could be achieved only by the acceptance of at least some of the existing native power blocks and their associated organisation. The culmination of a Roman policy of minimal intervention is clear in the recognition or creation of the locally run civitates in the Romanised south, the most northerly example probably being the group which is believed to have been officially sanctioned in the third century as the civitas Carvetiorum,3 with its capital, probably, at Carlisle.

In 54 BC Caesar recalled the names of several tribes, most of which are unattested anywhere else: these are the Cenimagni, the Segontiaci, the Ancalites, the Bibroci and the Cassi.5 With the exception of the Cenimagni (possibly the Iceni), they may well have been absorbed within the known tribes (as apparently happened to tribes in northern Britain in the early third century).6 There is, however, no reason to assume that, in either case, local tribal names were lost in the process. Only when significant events or individual affiliations are recorded do some of these smaller units emerge. Tacitus, for example, mentioned the names of two additional tribes,7 while inscriptions and documents may point to other new names.8 It is suggested that the Ravenna place-names within each group, or series of groups, outlined here can be linked to a single tribal area. That does not mean that each ‘tribal’ group automatically appears next to any subsequent groups of place-names associated with the same main tribe as named on Ptolemy’s map, but that names within groups do not cross territorial boundaries. Each main tribal area discussed below begins with a list of the groups of place-names considered to be within its boundaries; possible (and, in many cases, definite) equations with Ptolemaic place-names appear in BOLD, with the Ptolemaic version in square brackets.9 In the case of the Brigantes, the list of groups is long, but this probably reflects the subdivisions within what has been termed the Brigantian ‘(con)federation’, although the use of that label is now discouraged.10 The place-names on Hadrian’s Wall, including also the final outpost fort of Bewcastle, were probably solely in Brigantian territory; similarly those referring to the Antonine Wall were all most likely to have been located within Damnonian lands.

If Ptolemy’s map was intended to record the names of all the tribes of Albion, it follows that any other tribes mentioned in the classical sources, or revealed through epigraphical evidence, point either to omissions on Ptolemy’s part or to the existence of minor sub-tribes within the main areas. The latter is the most likely explanation. The Carvetii around Carlisle may have gained autonomy in the third century, but they were probably a sub-tribe of the Brigantes in the first century.4

An examination of tribal areas based on identified groups in the Ravenna Cosmography now follows. These areas are treated roughly on a south to north basis, as far as possible in the same order as they occur in the Ravenna lists. To supplement the presentation of all the suggested tribal areas given in Map 8, there are three further maps,

1

Map 8 (below) indicates suggested tribal boundaries; these are necessarily approximate, and are based on both documentary sources and archaeological information. 2 For example, see pp. 66–7 below. 3 Two inscriptions, one on a tombstone from Old Penrith (Voreda) — RIB 933 — and the other on a milestone from Brougham (Brocavum), described in R. P. Wright, ‘Roman Britain in 1964: II. Inscriptions’, Jl Roman Studies, lv (1965), 224, seem to refer, respectively, to a man from a tribe known as the Carvetii (in C. Carvetior.), and to the R(es) P(ublica) C(ivitas) Car(vetiorum). A third inscription on a milestone from Langwathby (Penrith) discovered in 1993 also refers to the C(ivitas) Car(vetiorum), but, in addition, it includes the distance from Lvg(uvalium) — Carlisle: see R. S. O. Tomlin and M. W. C. Hassall, ‘Roman Britain in 2004: III. Inscriptions’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 482–3. For a discussion of all three inscriptions, see B. J. N. Edwards and D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Two Roman milestones from the Penrith area’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., v (2005). 4 On the Carvetii, see p. 51 below.

5

Caesar, Gallic War, V. 21. 1. See p. 50 at n. 134, and pp. 57–8 at n. 207, below. 7 The Decangi (or Deceangli) and the Boresti: see pp. 45–6, 110 below. 8 As in the case of the Anavionenses. For more detail, see p. 51, and n. 144 below. 9 See Appendix 5 (below), which lists all the groups in the order in which they appear in the Ravenna Cosmography. 10 C. Haselgrove, ‘The later pre-Roman Iron Age between the Humber and the Tyne’, in P. R. Wilson, R. F. J. Jones and D. M. Evans (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Bradford, 1984), 22. 6

39

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors of the Demetae (forty kilometres of road westwards from Carmarthen, for example) counteracts the argument for a pro-Roman attitude within the tribe.18 But this is not enough to prove Demetic antagonism to Rome; after all, the Lothian-based Britons, the Votadini, are usually considered to be pro-Roman, and a long stretch of road crosses their territory from Corbridge to Tweedmouth, via Learchild.19 Nor is the existence of the recently confirmed fort at Llandeilo20 necessarily evidence of anti-Roman activity amongst the Demetae, as it may have been just inside Silurian territory. The best explanation is, perhaps, that gold deposits had already opened up the Demetae to outside influences. Forts within their territory would have been required for ‘policing’ duties, with Pumsaint established to guard the gold works. The river Towy was most probably the border between the two tribes, with Carmarthen the Demetic ‘border’ town. Alternatively, the ‘border’ may have followed a southerly route from Llandeilo towards the harbour site at Loughor. Moving upstream, beyond Llandeilo, Silurian territory would have reached as far north as Llandovery, then east towards Brecon Gaer and back to the rivers Usk and Wye.

which illustrate them on a larger scale: Map 9 shows the tribal areas and place-names in southern central Britannia; Map 10 shows those of northern central Britannia (indicating the likely subdivisions of the Brigantes, and the territory of the Parisi); and Map 11 shows those of northern Britannia. The tribal ‘boundaries’ are drawn to give some idea of the extent of territories — but, presumably, many of the actual boundaries would have been blurred.

The Silures Group 1. Ventaslurum Group 2. Iupania, Metambala, Albinumno Group 3. Isca Augusta [replaced Ptolemy’s Bullaeum], Bannio, Bremia, Alabum, Cicutio Ventaslurum (Caerwent), the civitas capital of the Silures, and Isca Augusta (Caerleon), the legionary fortress, are confirmed identifications,11 and indisputably within Silurian territory, and the likelihood is that the remaining seven place-names making up these groups also fell within Silurian boundaries. The limit of Silurian territory to the east is generally agreed to have been the river Wye,12 largely because it marks the western limit of circulation of coins of the neighbouring Dobunni,13 but also because the Dobunnic town of Magnis (Kenchester)14 lies just to the north of the Wye. The Silures, therefore, seem to have occupied south-eastern Wales from the coast to at least the Brecon Beacons in the north and to the Towy valley in the west. Beyond the latter, in south-west Wales, lay the Demetae, to whom Ptolemy assigned the poleis of Maridunum and Luentinum, which Strang has equated with Carmarthen and Dolaucothi/Pumsaint respectively.15

Tacitus described the Silures as dark-skinned and curlyhaired, adding that they were evidently related to the Hispanic peoples.21 No descriptions of, or comments on, the Demetae survive, but it is possible that Ptolemy’s map gives the name of a sub-tribe (the Octopitae?) around St David’s Head, which is shown as Octapitarum Promontorium.22 Some material evidence of Silurian culture survives, but what there is perhaps overemphasises the ceremonial side of their activities or a predilection for war.23 Interestingly, find-spots for examples of the distinctive ‘South Welsh’ axe of the late Bronze Age are nearly all located within Silurian territory (see Map 12).24 The tribe’s reputation for being ‘warlike’ is hardly surprising since they were particularly resistant to Roman domination. Tacitus’ account of the long years of conflict

It has been suggested, on the basis of few Roman installations in their territory, that the Demetae of southwestern Wales did not resist Roman overlordship,16 Carmarthen being the only major Roman site discovered to date. According to Cunliffe, such a conclusion — if correct — ‘would explain the peaceful uninterrupted occupation of the peasant villages and hamlets’ in the Pembrokeshire area (including parts of its adjoining counties). Evidence indicates that this pattern was unlike that further to the east in Silurian territory,17 where the sheer density of Roman garrisoning is immediately apparent. More recently, however, it has been claimed that further evidence of Roman penetration into the lands

18

Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 15. On the Votadini, see pp. 54–5 below. 20 See B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xxv (2004), 254–6. 21 Tacitus, Agricola, XI. 2. ‘Silurum colorati vultus, torti plerumque crines et posita contra Hispania Hiberos veteres traiecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt’. 22 For other promontories connected with tribal names, see p. 45 at n. 80 below. 23 Iron Age artefacts are mainly those associated with horses and wheeled transport, whether for civilian or military purposes; the horse trappings in particular are often ornately decorated. Discoveries were made in Glamorganshire (Lesser Garth and the Seven Sisters hoards), and at Chepstow in Monmouthshire: see F. Lynch, S. Aldhouse-Green and J. L. Davies, Prehistoric Wales (Stroud, 2000), 178–9. 24 Map 12 (below) is reproduced from Lynch, Aldhouse-Green and Davies, Prehistoric Wales, 184 (fig. 4.15); taken from C. Burgess, ‘The Bronze Age in Wales’, in J. A. Taylor (ed.), Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Wales (British Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 76, Oxford, 1980), 248 (fig. 7.2). 19

11

See p. 19 above. Todd, Roman Britain, 41 (this and subsequent references are to the third edition); Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 207. 13 Frere, Britannia, 40. 14 See pp. 41–2, and n. 29 below. 15 Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. 16 M. G. Jarrett, ‘The military occupation of Roman Wales’, Bull. Board Celtic Studies, xx (1962–4), 208–9; Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 166–7; Frere, Britannia, 40. 17 Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 208. 12

40

The Native Situation statistical tool. Density of Dobunnic coin distribution indicates that the tribe occupied ‘Gloucestershire, much of Somerset and parts of Oxfordshire and Wiltshire’.29 Coin evidence, of course, may also indicate trade, or exchange, rather than occupation. Dobunnic silver, for example, seems to have had a limited circulation amongst the Silures between 35 BC and AD 43,30 whilst the relatively large number of Dobunnic coins in Bath led Rivet and Smith to wonder whether Ptolemy was wrong in attributing the town to the Belgae;31 but, in any case, the Dobunni were a tribe of Belgic origin. It had been claimed that failure to find British coins in the hill forts of Herefordshire and Shropshire, combined with general research into the Iron Age pottery of the region, showed that their inhabitants were not Dobunni, and that Kenchester’s Dobunnic designation was a later Roman creation rather than evidence of an existing tribal affiliation.32 It seems highly unlikely, however, in this ‘problem zone’ on the border with the Silures and, further north with the Ordovices, that the Romans would have handed over a sizeable portion of land to a rival tribe. Stanford proposed an alternative solution. He maintained that the distinctiveness of the pottery and settlement styles of Herefordshire meant that it was unlikely to have been Dobunnic or Silurian, suggesting instead that the letter ‘D’ in Kenchester’s milestone referred to a different tribe altogether — the Decangi, mentioned in Tacitus’ account of the conquest.33 But the more generally accepted argument for an equation of this name with the Deceangli34 of Flintshire is, on balance, more compelling, particularly since Tacitus refers to the sea in his account of the Decangi,35 which would rule out Herefordshire as their location. However, a very early type of pottery classified as the Croft-Ambrey–Bredon Hill style, named after these two hill forts in Herefordshire and Worcestershire respectively, was subsequently traced to the Malvern Hills (on the border between the two counties and firmly in Dobunnic territory); its distribution pattern is significant because it restores the link between possible eastern and western Dobunnic territory.36 Although this does not

following the defeat of Caratacus is relatively full, and it is clear that the Silures continued to cause trouble until their final defeat at the hands of Julius Frontinus between 25 AD 74 and 77. A large part of Silurian terrain has been described as ‘high barren plateau, poorly drained and boggy. The slopes of the hill-land were densely wooded, and so were the valley floors’.26 The pattern of defended settlements was concentrated around the Usk and the Wye, presumably where the best quality land was to be found, while the distribution pattern of Bronze Age ‘South Welsh’ axes in Map 12 may also indicate a concentration of population. It is not, therefore, unexpected to find that place-names in Group 2 may be associated with the clustering around the mouth of the river Taff, and that those in Group 3 are connected with the course of the river Usk. In the upland areas of Silurian lands, both hill-fort defences and ‘multiple-enclosure earthworks’ (the latter perhaps associated with pastoral farming) show similarities with those of the Demetae, and also with those of the Dumnonii of Cornwall and Devon.27

The Dobunni Group 4. Magnis Group 6. Glebon. colonia, Argistillum, Vertis, Salinis Group 7. Cironium Dobunorum [Corinium] The tribal lands of the Dobunni probably stretched from the river Wye in the west, including Magnis (Kenchester), and perhaps reached further west and north where they bordered on Ordovician territory just to the south-east of Leintwardine and on Cornovian territory to the north. Evidence for Kenchester’s inclusion in Dobunnic territory comes from a milestone discovered there, dating from 28 AD 283–4. The Dobunni probably included Droitwich within their control and their lands adjoined those of the Corieltavi to the north-east, the Catuvellauni to the east and finally the Durotriges and the Belgae to the south. The territory clearly contains Cironium Dobunorum (Cirencester), the tribe’s civitas capital, and also Glebon. colonia (Gloucester); possible identifications for the remaining names in Groups 4 and 7 fall within the limits outlined above.

29 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 340; see also D. Allen, ‘A study of the Dobunnic coinage’, in E. M. Clifford (ed.), Bagendon: A Belgic Oppidum (Cambridge, 1961), 87–8, and Allen’s map, ibid., 68 (fig. 16). For the inclusion of Magnis in the civitas Dobunnorum, see also ibid., 407. 30 Lynch, Aldhouse-Green and Davies, Prehistoric Wales, 207. 31 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 121. 32 S. C. Stanford, ‘Native and Roman in the central Welsh borderland’, in E. Birley, B. Dobson and M. Jarrett (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969: Eighth International Congress of Limesforschung (Cardiff, 1974), 46, 58 (n. 14). 33 S. C. Stanford, The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches (London, 1980), 120–1. 34 See pp. 45–6 below. 35 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 32. 36 See Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 105–6 (including distribution map, fig. 5.5); Lynch, Aldhouse-Green and Davies, Prehistoric Wales, 202.

The Dobunni and the Corieltavi, unlike the tribes beyond them to the north and west, minted their own coins. This gives an added dimension to attempts to pinpoint their boundaries since numismatic analysis can be a useful 25

Tacitus, Annals, XII. 38–9; Tacitus, Agricola, XVII. 2. ‘validamque et pugnacem Silurum gentem armis subegit’; see also pp. 65–7, 68 below. 26 Frere, Britannia, 40. 27 Ibid.; see also Salway, Roman Britain, 45. 28 RIB 2250; it reads R(es) P(ublica) C(ivitatis) D(obunnorum). The reconstruction is necessarily tentative, but seems the most likely: Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 339. See also p. 20 above.

41

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors the latter. Towcester is usually thought to lie in Catuvellaunian territory because of its southerly position,44 but it probably marked the border with the Corieltavi, as was perhaps also the case with Wall, accepted to be on the Corieltavian/Cornovian border but usually regarded as Cornovian.45 Places marked on the road between Ratae Corion-Eltauori (Leicester) and Lindum colonia (Lincoln) would clearly also have been Corieltavian, for example Margidunum46 (Castle Hill, east of Nottingham). The territory probably extended as far as the Humber since it certainly included Dragonby (near Scunthorpe); indeed, two substantial hoards of Iron Age coins were discovered at South Ferriby on the Humber estuary.47 Large assemblages of Corieltavian coinage also came from two major hoards found near Almondbury, Yorkshire, but the coins were originally incorrectly assigned to the Brigantes.48 Other Corieltavian coin discoveries have been made mainly in an area between south Yorkshire and the river Nene, whilst associated settlement patterns seem to point to nuclei in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Northampton-shire.49 South of the Nene, Catuvellaunian coin-issues predominate, but that could well reflect Catuvellaunian expansionism rather than original territory-holding. As with the Dobunni, the Ravenna list seems to show a clear demarcation in Groups 13 and 14; the former indicates the southern part of Corieltavian territory, linked to Leicester, the civitas capital, whilst the latter reflects the northern part of the tribal lands, centred on the colonia at Lincoln. It may be unusual to find both colonia and civitas capital thriving, particularly in the later Roman period; but, in addition to this pair of place-names, Ravenna includes Gloucester and Cirencester (mentioned above) and, amongst the southern place-names, both Colchester and Chelmsford.

confirm that parts of Herefordshire were Dobunnic, it does not preclude the possibility. Further evidence in support of distinctive Dobunnic manufacture is associated with Salinis (Droitwich), which, as previously established, was clearly involved in salt production.37 Detailed research into the distribution of two distinctively designed types of Iron Age salt storage jars seems to indicate that Droitwich salt was not produced by neighbouring salt-producers, the Cornovii,38 and that the town was almost certainly in Dobunnic territory. Moreover, distribution of a type of pottery known as ‘Malvernian A’ also mirrors that of Droitwich salt, indicating a possible tribal-run trading organisation.39 If Droitwich is accepted as Dobunnic, it becomes more than likely that all the place-names in Group 6 fall within their tribal area. It is likely that the Ravenna list indicates that the western section of the Dobunni (Group 4) was the Kenchester area, and that the eastern parts (Groups 6 and 7) contained Gloucester and Cirencester, respectively.40 A similar pattern emerges with the Corieltavi below.

The Corieltavi [Ptolemy’s Coritani] Group 13. Rate Corion-Eltauori [Rate], Lectoceto, Iacio Dulma Group 14. Lindum colonia [Lindum], Bannovallum Until the 1980s, the Corieltavi used to be referred to as the Coritani (the tribal name taken from Ptolemy), but inscriptional evidence from Tripontium41 (Cave’s Inn, close to the modern junction of the M1 and the M6) has caused scholars to adopt the former name (or the alternative spelling of Corieltauvi). But, in his discussion of the new evidence, Todd still prefers to use Ptolemy’s form, Coritani.42 He does, however, concede that the discovery of ‘an inscribed object’ may indicate that the tribal name commenced with the letters ‘Coriel’.43 The epigraphical evidence from Cave’s Inn, and the Ravenna grouping including Iacio Dulma (Towcester) may imply that Corieltavian territory extended further south than has been supposed, with perhaps a western boundary running roughly from Lectoceto (Wall) to Derbentione (Little Chester, near Derby), including the former but excluding

It is clear that the Corieltavi were extracting and working with iron and stone before the Roman conquest, although their production was significantly expanded in the later first century AD. It has also been suggested that the early settlement patterns in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire were associated with iron outcrops.50 Other industries included salt production on the Lincoln44

B. C. Burnham and J. Wacher, The ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain (London, 1990), 152. 45 Todd, Coritani, 15; White and Barker, Wroxeter, 76; Webster, Cornovii, 23. 46 The place-name Margidunum, is listed in Itinera VI and VIII of the Antonine Itinerary. 47 Todd, Coritani, 9. 48 B. R. Hartley and R. L. Fitts, The Brigantes (Gloucester, 1988), 11. For a summary of Corieltavian coin distribution and the coin hoards, see D. F. Allen, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles: The Coins of the Coritani (London, 1963), 37–8. Richmond had believed that the legend CART-VE referred to Cartimandua and Venutius: I. A. Richmond, ‘Queen Cartimandua’, Jl Roman Studies, xliv (1954), 46 and plate 1. Subsequently, the consensus is that the Brigantes did not issue coins. 49 Todd, Coritani, 8–10. 50 Ibid., 116.

37

See p. 20 above. 38 White and Barker, Wroxeter, 34; E. L. Morris, ‘Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: a review’, Proc. Prehistoric Soc., lx (1994), esp. 385–6; Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 513–14 (including fig. 18.22, which shows the ‘competing spheres of distribution’ indicated by the Cheshire and Droitwich salt jars). 39 Lynch, Aldhouse-Green and Davies, Prehistoric Wales, 206. 40 For the implications of this from the historical point of view, see pp. 66–7 below. 41 Discussed in R. S. O. Tomlin, ‘Non Coritani sed Corieltauvi’, Antiq. Jl, lxiii (1983). The place-name Tripontium appears in Iter VI of the Antonine Itinerary. 42 Todd, Coritani, 20–1. 43 Ibid., 148 n. 37.

42

The Native Situation Ptolemy’s reference to a harbour (Gabrantovicum sinus). Herman Ramm suggested Bridlington Bay for this harbour site, while Rivet and Smith had this, along with Filey Bay as possible identifications,56 which means that the sub-tribe would be either Parisian or Brigantian.57 As already established, the identifications suggested for Devovicia from the Ravenna Cosmography (whether it represents one or two sites) and the two place-names given in the Antonine Itinerary all lie firmly within the boundaries of Parisian territory outlined above.58

shire coast and pottery. Development of the latter led to the establishment of the ubiquitous ‘Nene valley ware’ from the second century onwards.51 There is much similarity between the iron-based economies of the Corieltavi and the Parisi of East Yorkshire, and clearly much cross-Humber contact. It makes sense, therefore, to deal with the latter at this point, rather than later, since this small group of place-names appears amongst those of the Brigantes.

The Parisi Group 28. Decuaria [Petuaria], Devovicia

The Cornovii [Ptolemy’s Cornavii] Group 8. Utriconion Cornoviorum [Viroconium], Lavobrinta Group 12. Deva victris [Deva], Veratino, Lutudaron, Derbentione, Salinis, Condate

The Parisi seem to have had their own cultural identity, which was quite different from that of their neighbours, the Brigantes, or indeed from that of any other tribe in Britain.52 The Parisi are said to have originated in Gaul, and, as their name clearly shows, they were related to the people whose name still survives in modern Paris. Their distinctive burial practices are characterised by ‘vehicle burials’, comparable with those excavated on the Continent. The burials are known collectively as the Arras culture, so called after the discovery, in the nineteenth century, of one particular site. Their territory ran from the Vale of Pickering to the Humber estuary, and east of the river Ouse.53 They seem to have used the Humber extensively for transportation of iron-manufactured goods, a major industry in this area. Slag from an important site at Welhambridge was confirmed to be of Iron Age date, whilst a couple of ‘cargo’ boats have been located in the area. Dating evidence from one of these showed it to be contemporary with the iron slag.54 There was evidently much trading with the settlements of what used to be the north Lincolnshire coast, particularly at North Ferriby. It is also possible that this area was part of Parisian territory; the Humber may not have been a tribal boundary, just as it is no longer a county boundary, since the modern region of Humberside covers the coastline from Grimsby to Flamborough Head. Alternatively, the Parisi and the Corieltavi were simply on good trading terms; quite a number of Corieltavian coins have been discovered in Parisian contexts.55 Ptolemy allocated one polis to the Parisi, significantly a port: Petuaria, identified as Brough-on-Humber. They may also have had a subtribe known as the Gabrantovices, a name implied by

A few initial remarks need to be made regarding the difficulties in pinpointing the boundary between the Cornovii and the Ordovices of northern and mid-Wales. To the west of the Corieltavi, Ptolemy named the Cornovii, whose poleis were listed as Deva and Viroconium which have been positively identified as Chester and Wroxeter respectively; and, into Wales, the Ordovices whose towns — Mediolanium and Brannogenium — have traditionally been equated with Whitchurch (Shropshire) and Leintwardine (Herefordshire). Strang’s calculations also pointed to these identifications (see Appendix 3). One major problem in using Ptolemy’s poleis to try to understand tribal areas can instantly be seen from the map.59 If all four of these sites are correctly named, and correctly placed within their tribal affinities, it makes it rather difficult to determine any kind of boundary between the Ordovices and the Cornovii. Rivet and Smith believed that Ptolemy might, in some cases, have labelled tribal areas in relation to later administrative towns which might originally have been in a neighbouring tribe’s territory; they concluded that Ptolemy’s Mediolanium and the Antonine Itinerary’s Mediolanum, if correctly identified as Whitchurch, should be Cornovian and not Ordovician.60 White and Barker seemed to agree with this view, since they regarded Cornovian territory as a coherent whole.61 It is possible, nevertheless, that Ptolemy was reflecting accurate tribal affiliations, and that the border fluctuated and meandered between the four ‘border’ poleis, which were all linked together by the later Roman road. Moreover, this ‘border’

51

Ibid., 127. B. Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain (London, 1995), 47. 53 H. Ramm, The Parisi (London, 1978), 13–21. 54 P. Halkon and M. Millett, ‘The Foulness Valley: investigation of an Iron Age landscape in lowland East Yorkshire’, in J. Harding and R. Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 302, Oxford, 2000), 87–90. 55 For example at Holme-on-Spalding Moor, Brantingham and Redcliff, North Ferriby: Halkon and Millett, ‘Foulness Valley’, 90. 52

56

Ramm, Parisi, 22; Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 364; Richmond regarded them as Brigantian, and placed them in north Yorkshire: Richmond, ‘Queen Cartimandua’, 44–5 (including fig. 1). 57 See p. 50 below. 58 Ramm, Parisi, 21–5; see also p. 25 above. 59 See Map 9, with particular reference to the positions of Chester, Whitchurch, Wroxeter and Leintwardine. 60 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 275. 61 White and Barker, Wroxeter, 32–3 (including fig. 13).

43

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors peninsula dwellers — perhaps referring to the Wirral, where a significant Iron Age settlement at Meols has been known for some time,68 although it has been suggested that the Deceangli69 inhabited not just the lands to the west of the river Dee, but also the whole estuary area including the Wirral.70 The name ‘Cornovii’ is applied to tribes in Cornwall and also in Caithness, both of which could possibly be described as horn-like peninsulas.71 Webster, however, in his discussion of this point accepted the peninsula meaning for Cornwall, but not for Caithness — nor for ‘Shropshire’, because he believed that neither the Wirral peninsula nor the site of Chester (despite Ptolemy’s attribution), were Cornovian.72

region between the Cornovii and the Ordovices is peppered with hill forts which, it has been suggested, may indicate ‘a lack of political coherence’,62 but, perhaps equally, a period of tension over disputed territory. A similar situation can be detected on Dere Street which runs between Bremenium (known to be High Rochester) and Trimontium (known to be Newstead) — another area of north Britain which is particularly rich in hill forts.63 The former is indicated by Ptolemy to be in the territory of the Votadini, and the latter in that of the Selgovae. There is, however, an alternative identification for Ptolemy’s Mediolanium which deserves consideration. It may be that his co-ordinates indicated Whitchurch but his intention was to register a different town. As stated already, the Ravenna Cosmography, gives two similar place-names which both seem to refer to towns on or near the modern Welsh/English border. These are Mediomano and Mediolano.64 It is fairly clear that Caersws would be in Ordovician territory whichever way that territory is defined, and it would certainly be more plausible in terms of boundaries for Ptolemy’s Mediolanium to refer to Caersws as it has the effect of moving the boundary between the Ordovices and the Cornovii more decisively to the west. Jarrett and Mann did not find at all convincing the equation of Forden Gaer and Caersws, with Ravenna’s Lavobrinta and Mediomano, respectively, but they were assuming that the Cosmography should be read as a route map.65 However, the modern Welsh/ English border curves out eastwards almost as far as Whitchurch before looping back again towards Llangollen; only a few slight adjustments to the current border here and at Leintwardine would allow Ptolemy’s original configuration of tribal areas and towns to stand. It is assumed here that Ravenna’s Mediomano is, in fact, Whitchurch, and that Mediolano is Caersws, though the spelling of either, or both, could be wrong.

The tribal centre was probably associated with the Wrekin hill fort, near Wroxeter. The later civitas capital at Wroxeter was known as Viroconium Cornoviorum, and the territory probably extended southwards from there roughly to Kidderminster, then north-eastwards to Greensforge. Wall was likely to have been on the border between the Cornovii and the Corieltavi and it has been suggested that Little Chester may have marked the Cornovian/Brigantian border. However, the southern part of the Peak District zone, immediately north of Little Chester, probably fell within Cornovian territory rather than that of the Brigantes.73 Under Roman occupation, the White Peak area (broadly speaking between the rivers Dove and Wye in Derbyshire) saw a great deal of industrial activity. A site at Roystone Grange Farm yielded thousands of pottery sherds of which around 70% were locally produced.74 Lead extraction, too, was either established or intensified, as shown by the discovery of lead pigs of the Socii Lutudarenses linked with the Ravenna name, Lutudaron.75 A sparse population and 68 For a brief summary of the artefactual evidence from the pre-Roman and Romano-British settlement or port at Meols (including a list of coins), see F. H. Thompson, Roman Cheshire (Chester, 1965), 97–9. Finds indicate occupation from the Mesolithic period to the thirteenth century. See also G. D. B. Jones, ‘Archaeology and coastal change in the north-west’, in F. H. Thompson (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change (London, 1980), 93–7; P. Carrington, Chester (London, 1994), 18–19. 69 See under ‘Ordovices’, pp. 45–6 below. 70 Carrington, Chester, 23. 71 See Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 16. White and Barker also suggest the Wirral may have been described as a ‘horn’ of land: Wroxeter, 32. 72 Webster, Cornovii, 19–21. 73 By the second century, though the area might originally have been Brigantian: see p. 132 below. 74 R. Hodges and M. Wildgoose, ‘Roman or native in the White Peak’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 51. 75 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 403. In 1982 Alan Tyler concluded that there was actual archaeological evidence of Romano-British mining at only four sites in England and Wales (at the Ogof, Llanymynech Hill [copper]; at Ogofau/Dolaucothi, Carmarthenshire [gold]; at Roman Mine, Draethen, Gwent [lead]; and at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire [iron]: see A. W. Tyler, ‘Prehistoric and Roman mining in England and Wales’ (Univ. of Cardiff Ph.D. thesis, 1982), 310, and individually, 127, 138–55, 161–5, 186–8. This is surely due to later exploitation and destruction of the sites. Artefactual and epigraphical evidence (together

The territory of the Cornovii was bounded to the north by the Brigantes, and it seems fairly clear that the Mersey, which means, in Old English, ‘the frontier river’,66 should mark the furthest extent of Cornovian lands. The etymology of the tribe’s name is difficult; it could mean ‘worshippers of a horned deity of the Cernunnos (staggod) type’.67 Alternatively the first syllable corn, which means ‘horn’ in Old Irish and Welsh and is cornu in Latin, may refer to the land itself and therefore the 62

Frere, Britannia, 41. See, for example, Ordnance Survey, Historical Map and Guide: Ancient Britain (Southampton, 1996); and for discussion, Frere, Britannia, 92 (mentioned under ‘Selgovae’, p. 53 below). 64 Equated, respectively, with Caersws and Whitchurch by Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 40. 65 Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 169. 66 P. Carrington, ‘The Roman advance into the north-western midlands before AD 71’, Jl Chester Archaeol. Soc., lxviii (1985), 5. 67 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 324–5. 63

44

The Native Situation sub-tribes were perhaps quasi-independent and in alliance with the dominant Ordovices. Ptolemy hints at the possibility of such a sub-tribe, the Gangani, whose name may be discerned in the coastal feature named Ganganorum Promontorium. Of the ten other promontories named by Ptolemy, five can definitely be related to the local tribe.80 ‘Gangani’ was certainly the name of a tribe, since they are mentioned in Ptolemy’s list of tribes for Ireland, as, incidentally, are the Brigantes. In the case of the latter name, Barry Raftery believes that some ‘renegade’ Brigantes might have settled on Lambay Island, near Dublin, after their defeat by the Romans following AD 69.81

simple pastoralism were indicated in this area prior to an influx of ‘outsiders’, who moved in to industrialise it c.AD 100–20.76 Since Middlewich and Northwich were Cornovian, it is clear that the tribe was not confined to the area south of the Trent. Its western boundary probably reached the Mersey around Runcorn. Again, the two groups in Ravenna’s list seem to indicate two sections of the tribe — the southern part centred around the civitas capital of Wroxeter, and the northern part linked to the legionary fortress of Chester. There is no coinage and no particular type of pottery or metalwork which can be assigned to the Cornovii to help in building up a picture of them.77 However, what does seem to have been important to their Iron Age economy (and was to prove valuable for the Romans also) was salt production: there are only four inland brine springs in Britain and three are in their territory: at Middlewich, Northwich and Nantwich. As previously established, the fourth was most likely to have fallen within the territory of the Dobunni, at Droitwich.

A further likely Ordovician sub-tribe from what is now north Wales is that of the Deceangli, attested in Roman sources. Their territory seems to have covered modern Flintshire and Denbighshire, areas which were particularly rich in copper82 and lead.83 The place-name Rhyd Orddwy appears near Rhyl in Flintshire and may be a survival of the main tribe’s name.84 It is normally agreed that Tacitus is referring to the Deceangli, although he names them the Decangi.85 The other candidate for Tacitus’ Decangi is a tribe known as the Decanti of Caernarvonshire whose name is preserved in the modern place-name Deganwy. The only evidence for the existence of the Decanti, however, is a much later reference, probably from the tenth century, in the Annales Cambriae.86 If they were indeed a separate tribe, they would still be either a sub-tribe or an ally of the Ordovices. It is perfectly possible that the Deceangli, Tacitus’ Decangi and the later form ‘Decanti’ all refer to the same subtribe; these people could well have occupied the swathe of largely coastal land running from Flintshire to the river Conwy which perhaps represented the border with the Gangani of western Caernarvonshire. The place-name Deganwy would therefore be within Deceanglian territory. The cantred of Flintshire which ran from the Dee to the Clwyd in the medieval period was Tegeingl, a name which was explained etymologically to be connected with the Decangli.87 Their southern boundary is unknown, but a large hill fort — one of the largest in Britain — at

The Ordovices Group 5. Brano. Genium. [Brannogenium], Epocessa, Ypocessa, Macatonion Group 9. Mediomano [Mediolanium] Group 10. Seguntio, Canubio Group 11. Mediolano, Saudonio The first place-name in these groups has been taken to be the same as Ptolemy’s Brannogenium in the tribal territory of the Ordovices, and it is generally identified as Leintwardine (Herefordshire). The Ordovices are mentioned by name in the Life of Agricola,78 and the island of Mona (Anglesey) is stated to have been the place of final defeat of the tribe. It must be concluded, therefore, that not only mid-Wales, but also north-west Wales, including Caernarvonshire and Merioneth, was within their boundaries (or those of their allies). The place-name Dinorwic (Caernarvonshire) is apparently the ‘fort of the Ordovices’ and Cantref Orddwy was said to be an early name for Merioneth.79 Ordovician territory probably consisted of a number of sub-tribes: in fact, the nature of that territory would have encouraged some kind of subdivision. These

80

These are Cantium Promontorium (Cantii); Damnonium Promontorium (Dumnonii); Epidium Promontorium (Epidii); Novantarum Promontorium (Novantae) and Taexalorum Promontorium (Taexali). 81 B. Raftery, Pagan Celtic Ireland: The Enigma of the Irish Iron Age (London, 1994), 200–3. 82 Copper extraction indicated around Llandudno on the map: OS, Roman Britain (2001). 83 Lead pigs with the wording Deceangi or Degeangl were discovered in Chester, and in the midlands: see p. 68, and n. 44 below. Lead extraction is indicated at Halkyn Mountain near Pentre, Flintshire on the map: OS, Roman Britain (2001). 84 Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 170. 85 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 32 (in the form ‘Decangos’). 86 Annales Cambriae, s.a. 822, cited in Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 165 n. 13. 87 J. Rhys, ‘The Chester pigs of lead’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 5th ser., ix (1892), 165–6; also cited in Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 165.

with the huge amount of lead which Roman construction required, and known extraction from the medieval period onwards) should point to first- and second-century exploitation, and such evidence is cited in various places below. 76 Hodges and Wildgoose, ‘Roman or native in the White Peak’, 52. See also p. 132 below. 77 Webster, Cornovii, 5. The large-scale extraction of lead, and associated pottery sherds already mentioned, cannot be assigned to preRoman native production. 78 Tacitus, Agricola, XVIII. 1. 79 Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 170.

45

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Llanymynech88 may mark their territorial limit on the south-east. Another possible hint in establishing the boundary of Ordovician/Deceanglian territory in the Welsh border regions may come from the medieval county boundaries of Powys. The area to the east of the river Severn and west of Shrewsbury, running parallel with the river almost as far as Montgomery, was a subdivision of medieval Powys and was known as Gorddwr.89 This name, too, may have its origins in the tribal name, Ordovices, especially given its resemblance to the name Orddwy.

The Brigantes93 Group 15. Nauione, Aquis Arnemeza, Zerdotalia Group 16. Mantio, Alūna [Olicana], Camulo dono [Camunlodunum] ### *** Group 17. Calunio [Calagum], Gallunio, Medibogdo, Cantiventi Group 18. Iuliocenon, Gabrocentio Group 19. Alūna, Bribra, Maio, Olerica, Derventione Group 20. Ravonia *** Group 21. Bresnetenaci Veteranorum ### Group 22. Pampocalia, Lagentium Group 20. (contd) Valteris, Bereda Group 23. Lagubalumi, Magnis, Gabaglanda Group 24. Vindolande, Lineoiugla Group 25. Vinovia [Vinnovium], Lavaris Group 26. Cactabactonion [Caturactonium] Group 27. Eburacum [Eboracum] Group 29. Dixio, Lugunduno, Coganges Group 30. Corie [Curia?], Lopocarium [Epiacum] Group 31. (Hadrian’s Wall) Serduno, Condecor, Vindovala, Onno, Celūno, Brocoliti, Velurtion, Esica, Banna, Uxelludamo, Avalana, Maia, Fanocodi Group 41. Coritiotar, Celovion, Itucodon, Maromago, Duabsisis, Venutio

South-west of Leintwardine at Hindwell, near Knighton, the presence of a large Neolithic site ‘twice the size of Avebury’ and possibly ‘the largest known Neolithic enclosure in Western Europe’ may have had some ongoing significance for the inhabitants of the area. Also, the existence of a prehistoric road may be indicated by the course of a modern lane which curves around the outer edge of a section of the monument.90 There is no distinctive Ordovician pottery,91 and little evidence of specific industries, except those associated with the Deceangli. The Ordovician economy was probably largely pastoral, with the island of Anglesey being described as its ‘granary’.92 The territory was certainly a mixture of upland and lowland areas which were interdependent; the same was probably true of most tribal societies at this time. Good quality agricultural land is often, not surprisingly, the heartland of a tribe, as noted with the Silures, and as will be seen with the Brigantes and some of the ‘Scottish’ tribes.

Brigantian tribal lands may have included a number of sub-tribes specifically named or inferred in the sources, with affiliations to the dominant tribe. This may be a similar situation to that of the Ordovices: both tribes are mentioned in Roman sources; they apparently had lowland as well as upland areas under their control; and both tribes were troublesome to the Romans. Perhaps the same was also true of the Caledonii whose warriors and allies were finally defeated at the battle of Mons Graupius. According to Tacitus, the Brigantes were the ‘most populous’ tribe;94 Ptolemy allocated the largest number of poleis to them (nine), and stated that their territory stretched from sea to sea. Four positively identified sites, at Binchester, Catterick, Aldborough and York, show that modern North Yorkshire and County Durham made up a major part of Brigantian territory. It follows that a tribe which encompassed much of what is now northern England from coast to coast also had to include at least some parts of modern Lancashire and Cumbria, and it is in these areas that the Setantii and the Carvetii are located; both may have been Brigantian sub-tribes. The lands of the Brigantes were bordered on the south-east by the tribal territory of the Parisi, which, as discussed earlier, equates roughly with modern East Yorkshire or

An Ordovician civitas capital was never created, nor is it clear whether the Deceangli were, or became, an autonomous tribe. However, by analogy with major tribes examined so far, it is possible that either Brano. Genium. (Leintwardine) or Mediomano (Whitchurch), representing, respectively, the Ordovices of the southeast, and the Deceangli (or Ordovices of the north-east), was a potential civitas capital. Both, significantly, appear on Ptolemy’s map. Groups 10 and 11 could refer to other Ordovician groupings; Seguntio (Caernarfon) may be connected with the Gangani, and Mediolano (Caersws) with a more central tribe. 88

Believed to have been the site of Caratacus’ last stand: see p. 67, and n. 28 below. 89 Divisions date to the period 1160–1282: R. R. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales, 1063–1415 (Oxford, 1987), 232 (map 7). 90 ‘Largest Neolithic site found in central Wales’, British Archaeology, no. 14 (May 1996), 4. For comments on other henge monuments in similarly strategic locations, see pp. 53–4 at n. 166 below on Dunragit (Galloway), p. 55 on Meldon Bridge (Peeblesshire), and p. 71 at n. 81 on Thornborough (Yorkshire). 91 J. L. Davies, ‘Roman and native in Wales: I–IV AD’, in Birley, Dobson and Jarrett (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969, 34. 92 Frere, Britannia, 70.

93 Adjustment of order, marked ### and *** in this list, is explained on p. 22 above. 94 Tacitus, Agricola, XVII. 1. ‘quae numerosissima provinciae totius perhibetur’.

46

The Native Situation the creation of a linear barrier, there is no reason not to suppose that the same applied for the Corbridge area in the pre-Roman period.

Humberside. To the south-west, the limit of Brigantian territory would almost certainly have been the Mersey, and the border would probably have followed a southeasterly course, perhaps just excluding Wilderspool (Warrington), but including the High Peak District. The name ‘Brigantes’ is said to mean ‘upland people’; when viewed from the south, the first encounter with a major upland area would be in modern Derbyshire. Just how far south the territory extended depends on whether the leadmining area belonged to the Cornovii, as suggested above, or to the Brigantes. It is possible that Little Chester marked the point at which three tribal territories met: Brigantian, Corieltavian and Cornovian.95 Potentially this was a wealthy area and Little Chester played a key monitoring role; its importance is stressed by the fact that there had also been an earlier fort just across the river, at Strutt’s Park. From here Brigantian territory stretched northwards, probably following the Nottinghamshire/ Derbyshire county line, continuing to the Humber to border on the lands of the Parisi.

If Epiacum can be equated with Whitley Castle, then the boundaries of Brigantian territory automatically move further north towards the west side of the country also. It has, after all, long been believed that there was a Brigantian ‘extension’ in the north-west beyond the Tyne–Solway line, reaching at least as far as Burnswark and the Roman fort site of Blatobulgium (Birrens) in Dumfriesshire.98 The evidence for this suggestion (which has recently been challenged)99 relies on the interpretation of a single inscription on a statuette of the goddess ‘Brigantia’ which was discovered at the site.100 As Birley has pointed out, the fact that the client who had this made was a worshipper of the goddess does not necessarily mean that the place where it was found had any specific connections with her. He was an architectus and probably from legio VI, stationed at York from where the connection derives. Obviously the inscription cannot be regarded as conclusive proof that land beyond the Solway was subject to Brigantian rule. On the other hand, it is worth emphasising that all the other dedications to Dea Brigantia have been found in Brigantian territory, as defined here.101

The limit of Brigantian territory to the north, however, is much more difficult to determine, as there is very little evidence. Consequently it has proved tempting to use either the later line of Hadrian’s Wall or the modern Anglo-Scottish border as the starting point in any discussion of this kind (with appropriate modifications). In the north-east, the Tyne has usually been taken as a convenient dividing line, although, theoretically, Brigantian territory could extend almost as far as High Rochester (Northumberland), named by Ptolemy as Bremenium and located within the territory of the Votadini. This suggestion depends on the likely location of Ptolemy’s Curia, also stated to be in Votadinian territory, and usually believed to be Corbridge. It is argued here, however, that Corbridge was not Votadinian, and that Brigantian territory reached at least as far north as the later Hadrian’s Wall sites.96 It is true that all confirmed Brigantian names on Ptolemy’s map are on the east side of the country, but then the distortion around the Tyne– Solway line, which caused the incorrect co-ordinates to be attributed to Newstead and Binchester, must also have affected the other names. Corbridge certainly had its links to the west and south in the Trajanic period (as is clear from the Vindolanda tablets);97 if this was so before

It has been assumed, to a lesser or greater degree, that Brigantian territory represented some kind of confederation of smaller tribes which were brought under the rule of Queen Cartimandua. When and how this occurred is not mentioned in the sources. Brian Hartley and Graham only hint so far of a name to the north, though it could be Piercebridge, Co. Durham, according to Malcolm Todd: see Bowman and Thomas, Vindolanda Writing-Tablets III, 128, no. 670, note B.ii.3–4. 98 A view entertained by Eric Birley, amongst others: see his ‘Brigantian problem’, 36. 99 A. R. Birley, ‘The Anavionenses’, in N. J. Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire: A Tribute to the Life and Works of Professor Barri Jones (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, internat. ser., 940, Oxford, 2001), 17. He also gives a sizeable list of some of the scholars who have accepted the northern ‘extension’ theory. 100 RIB 2091, described in Robertson, Birrens, 98. An interesting discussion of the possible meaning of the stone appears in N. Jolliffe, ‘Dea Brigantia’, Archaeol. Jl, xcviii (1941). 101 Jolliffe does not rule out a territorial link between the various dedications but she suggested that, under Caracalla, there may have been an ‘official policy . . . to spread the worship of Brigantia from a Brigantian centre [York] all over north Britain’: Jolliffe, ‘Dea Brigantia’, 60. In addition to RIB 2091 from Birrens, there are seven dedications, including one to Bregans: RIB 627, 628, 630, 1053, 1131, 2066, and 623 (Bregans). These were discovered, respectively, in Greetland, near Halifax; Castleford; Adel, near Leeds; South Shields; Corbridge; near Brampton; and Huddersfield. They are all listed in T. M. Charles-Edwards, ‘Native political organization in Roman Britain and the origin of MW brenhin’, in M. Mayrhofer et al. (eds.), Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Studien zur Indogermanischen Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der indogermanischen Völker. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Güntert zur 25. Wiederkehr seines Todestages am 23 April 1973 (Innsbruck, 1974), 39, and nn. 27–8.

95

Hartley and Fitts, Brigantes, 5, and n. 20. They maintain that Little Chester is the furthest possible boundary for the Brigantes but are only prepared to accept it as Brigantian because they are certain that Little Chester could not have been Corieltavian. It could, however, be Cornovian. 96 As is shown by the links west and south from Corbridge in Chapter 2 (pp. 24–5 above). See also pp. 54–5 below, on the Votadini, especially in conjunction with the discussion of Strang’s reassessment of Ptolemy’s co-ordinates. Significantly, his calculations point to the possible existence of two Coria names. 97 The known names are Aldborough, Binchester, Carlisle, Catterick, Lincoln, London, Ribchester and York. The name Briga is also likely to have been on the Cumbrian coast. Bremesio (High Rochester?) is the

47

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors fortress and the site’s subsequent (by the third century) urban status as a colonia.109 It may have had more of a policing role in the border zone between the Brigantes and the Parisi. Almondbury hill fort has also been put forward as a possibility, although it is now known through Carbon 14 dating of its timbers to have been destroyed in the sixth and fifth centuries BC;110 other suggestions have been Stanwick and Barwick-in-Elmet.111 Stanwick was a heavily defended stronghold with an area of 730 acres (235 hectares), originally thought to have been selected by Venutius as the focus for anti-Roman resistance112 rather than because of any specific link with Cartimandua. Evidence from ‘destruction’ levels and associated finds seemed to indicate major conflict, perhaps connected with the defeat of his forces by the Romans.113 Large quantities of pre-Flavian samian and Roman building materials subsequently found at Stanwick, however, would seem to indicate a wealthy occupant who was clearly pro-Roman, so Venutius is no longer believed to have been a likely candidate.114 The same evidence — providing Tacitus’ chronology is accepted — could point to an original occupation by Cartimandua, a takeover by Venutius, and his defence of the site in the early 70s following the rescue of the queen by force of Roman arms in AD 69.115 However, Percival Turnbull, in his reinterpretation of the archaeological evidence, argued against a possible siege and subsequent destruction at Stanwick, and maintained that there was no specific evidence to support the theory of a violent attack.116 The site of Barwick-in-Elmet has, however, the best claim to the title of Cartimandua’s main stronghold. Ramm emphasised the huge importance of Stanwick, a site which was ‘well placed to control the northern Brigantes . . . [and] could deny control of the north to a power sited further south in the Vale of York [that is, at Barwick-in-Elmet]’.117 This perhaps explains the complicated pattern of occupation and the significance of the final destruction of Stanwick, following which Venutius probably fled northwards or westwards; if he did, the location of his final defeat is unknown.

Webster suggested that the first Roman governor of Britain, Aulus Plautius, was responsible for her elevation, some time between AD 43 and 47,102 and that her politically advantageous marriage to Venutius (probably a leader of some importance of one or more Brigantian tribes further to the north) was at Roman instigation.103 Her loyalty to Rome, however, was absolute; the handing over of the rebel Caratacus in AD 50 to the Romans rather than sheltering him and supporting a fellow-Briton’s cause was proof enough of that loyalty.104 It is possible that a British coin hoard, recently discovered in Silsden near Keighley, may have been offered in an attempt to dissuade her from such action and remind her that she owed some allegiance to her own people.105 Her marriage to Venutius broke down spectacularly in the mid-50s (probably as a result of her treatment of Caratacus), polarising pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions. Venutius, too, had remained loyal to the Romans whilst married to Cartimandua. It is impossible to be sure of the subsequent division of tribes, but it would not be unreasonable, for example, to suggest that Cartimandua and Venutius had been based loosely in the east and in the west of their territory, respectively. The Pennines, a formidable barrier now as then, might reinforce the idea of some kind of east–west division of territory of Brigantian sub-tribes. The alternative north– south division would be difficult to quantify, since the northern extent of Cartimandua’s territory and influence is unknown. There is never any suggestion that either party’s claim to rule parts of Brigantian territory was inferior to the other; Tacitus described Cartimandua as a ruler of high birth,106 and, by implication, Venutius was a powerful leader in his own right — and, as a strategist, second only to Caratacus.107 Cartimandua must have had a strong enough power-base already, and that is believed to have been in and around the valuable agricultural land of the Vale of York.108 Her main centre of influence is impossible to determine with precision but a number of suggestions have been made. York itself ought to have been a candidate, but it looks as if ‘no permanent native settlement’ lay beneath the historic centre prior to the construction of the Flavian

109

P. Ottaway, Roman York, 2nd edn (Stroud, 2004), 26, although there seem to have been scattered native settlements in the surrounding area (ibid., 27). 110 Almondbury is suggested as Cartimandua’s ‘headquarters’ in R. E. M. Wheeler, The Stanwick Fortifications, North Riding of Yorkshire (Oxford, 1954), p. iii. 111 H. Ramm, ‘Native settlements east of the Pennines’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 28–31; Carrington, ‘Roman advance into the north western midlands’, 10. 112 Wheeler, Stanwick Fortifications, 23. 113 Ibid. 114 P. Turnbull, ‘Stanwick in the northern Iron Age’, Durham Archaeol. Jl, i (1984), 47. 115 Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 2nd edn (1997), 9; for further discussion on the possible sequence of events here, see pp. 71–2 below. 116 Turnbull, ‘Stanwick in the northern Iron Age’, 43, 47. 117 Ramm, ‘Native settlements east of the Pennines’, 28; also Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 91.

102

B. Hartley, ‘The Brigantes and the Roman army’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 2; Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 13. 103 Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 14. 104 For further discussion on the chronology of Rome’s dealings with the Brigantes, see pp. 70 ff. below, where the situation is assessed up to the arrival in Britain of Agricola. 105 A suggestion made by Shotter: see D. C. A. Shotter, ‘ “Agricolan” is an overworked adjective’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 75. The find was reported in Keighley News, 18 Dec. 1998; for further detail, see A. S. Esmonde Cleary, ‘Roman Britain in 1998: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), Britannia, xxx (1999), 342. 106 Tacitus, Histories, III. 45. 1. ‘Brigantibus imperitabat, pollens nobilitate’. 107 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 40. 3. ‘praecipuus scientia rei militaris’. 108 Described as the most important of the definable regions of the Brigantes: Richmond, ‘Queen Cartimandua’, 44.

48

The Native Situation native enclosures are in evidence, although these Iron Age/ Romano-British sites cannot be closely dated. Examples can be found ‘near Brancepeth, in County Durham, or at Long Newton, east of Darlington’, and in parts of north Yorkshire near Masham and in Swaledale.123 As for the north-west of England south of Shap and north of the Mersey, few settlements have been identified and excavated; although this is partly due to problems in locating sites, it has been hard not to conclude that the area was sparsely populated and underdeveloped.124 It was certainly ‘politically marginal’, but probably not so in economic terms, as there are now indications that agricultural usage was increasing and flourishing.125

Venutius must also have had at least a comparable powerbase to that of his consort; this may well have been in the north or the west. Higham and Jones suggested that Clifton Dykes, near Brougham, could have been a possible pre-Roman tribal capital or oppidum, possibly the capital of the Carvetii.118 It seems more likely, however, that Venutius’ ‘capital’ was at, or near, Carlisle. He may also have had his own agreements with those tribes on his northern borders. It is worth bearing in mind that he would have had to have kept the peace here during his assumed (if indirect) alliance with Rome. After all, it was ‘the primary duty of the client rulers to prevent peoples beyond the frontier from invading Roman territory’.119 Clifton Dykes may have had some significance in the pre-Roman period, but, as indicated by the inscriptions mentioned earlier, it would make more sense for the civitas Carvetiorum to have been at Carlisle, at least by the third century. The necessary infrastructure (in terms of substantial buildings and size of settlement) is known to have been in place at that time, and there is no other comparable site in the area.120 Although Tacitus called him a ‘Brigantian’, Venutius may have been the leader of the semi-autonomous Carvetii at the time of the invasion of AD 43.

There may have been some early, small-scale, development of manufacturing industries, which would have been significantly streamlined and expanded after the Roman conquest. Major leather-production between AD 80 and AD 120 was revealed from excavation just outside the Roman fort at Catterick. Cattle were most probably reared locally for this, owing to the large numbers of bones recovered with leather-processing waste from the site.126 In Northumberland, no evidence of metal-working or ceramic use is indicated before the early second century. Some distinctive Brigantian goods may, therefore, have been ‘biodegradable — of leather, wood, basketry, etc.’127 However, there is evidence of high-quality metalwork — weapons and horse trappings, for example — in the Stanwick area.128

Brigantian territory has traditionally been regarded as exclusively pastoral, but a mixed farming economy is nearer the truth. Given the extent of the area, differences in land usage are inevitable. There was, and still is, good quality grain-growing land in the Vale of York, the Eden Valley and the north Cumbrian coastal strip. Large quantities of quern-stones from Aldborough, Wetherby and near Barwick-in-Elmet testify to grain production in the Vale of York, and a greater density of population is indicated to the south of Aldborough rather than to the north.121 Higham suggested a correlation between the later placement of forts and greater population density — and therefore ability to supply with foodstuffs — on the west side of the Pennines. There was intensive preRoman and Romano-British settlement of the fertile Solway coast land, and of the Eden Valley, running south from Carlisle, together with a highly developed rural economy and network of arable and pastoral farming communities.122 Then, as now, pastoral farming dominated in agricultural marginal areas, where simpler types of

Brigantian ‘Sub-Tribes’ The actual extent of Brigantian lands is not as problematic as an understanding of their divisions, which would help in any reconstruction of the chronology of conquest. Ravenna’s place-names may prove to be very useful for this. Brigantian names have been divided into fifteen possible groups, excluding the list of Hadrian’s Wall sites and the later group, which, it is assumed, lies north of the Wall; the latter, Group 41, may have been Brigantian, but

123

Ramm, ‘Native settlements east of the Pennines’, 31. M. Nevell, ‘Iron-age and Romano-British rural settlement in northwest England’, in Nevell (ed.), Living on the Edge of Empire, 26. 125 M. Nevell, ‘The edge of empire: late prehistoric and Romano-British settlement in north-west England’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 66–7. 126 Frere, Britannia, 216; Ramm, ‘Native settlements east of the Pennines’, 33. 127 L. Allason-Jones, ‘Roman and native interaction in Northumberland’, in Maxfield and Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, 3. 128 A hoard of decorative metal items from Stanwick includes the famous first-century horse mask on display in the British Museum. Hartley and Fitts, Brigantes, 14 (including fig. 6, which illustrates eight pieces from the hoard). For full details (including illustrations), see M. MacGregor, ‘The early Iron Age metalwork hoard from Stanwick, N. R. Yorkshire’, Proc. Prehistoric Soc., xxviii (1962). 124

118

N. J. Higham and G. D. B. Jones, The Carvetii (1985; repr. Stroud, 1991), 10–12. 119 Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 13. 120 McCarthy, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway, 69, 82–3; also John Zant, personal communication to David Shotter. For the inscriptions, see n. 3 above. 121 Ramm, ‘Native settlements east of the Pennines’, 33. 122 N. Higham, ‘Native settlements west of the Pennines’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 47; but see Bewley who questioned the evidence for arable farming in the Solway area, and, until further research proves otherwise, favoured the traditional pastoral picture: R. H. Bewley, Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain, Cumbria (Oxford, 1994), esp. 84–6.

49

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors It is worth pointing out that six of Ptolemy’s nine Brigantian poleis are connected with six separate groupings amongst the sixteen identified (Groups 16, 17, 25, 26, 27 and 30 — excluding the list of Hadrian’s Wall sites). Groups 16 and 30 contain two Ptolemaic names each so, as discussed earlier, only Isurium (Aldborough) is missing. Seven more groupings (Groups 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 29 and 41) are in the distorted area of Ptolemy’s map, for which he obviously did not have full documentation. If the sixeen divisions reflect, however loosely, some of the pre-Roman tribal areas, the following tentative equations can be made:

since the Cosmographer’s lists post-date Hadrian’s Wall, he has logically placed it in the section between the Walls. Most striking is the full regional coverage which the Brigantian groups display (see Map 10). The fifteen groups seem to make up three large areas: the southern section south of Lancaster and York, and the two northern sections east129 and west of the Pennines. A couple of adjustments to the order of the place-names make the pattern even more coherent. Groups 21 and 22 should be relocated between Groups 16 and 17, in the same order or reversed.130 The other anomaly concerns Vindolanda (Group 24). If, in fact, Vindomora (Ebchester) was intended, the group would make more sense in the layout proposed here. Vindolanda itself might be linked with the Stanegate forts to Carlisle, but it most probably belonged to Group 30 (with Corbridge and Whitley Castle), and may simply have been omitted at the end of this section because it was seen as a duplication.131

Gabrantovices. If the Scarborough area rather than Filey or Bridlington can be identified as the Gabrantovicum sinus on Ptolemy’s map, then this possible tribe would have been Brigantian rather than Parisian and associated with Group 29 which may also have covered the coastal strip beyond Chester-le-Street to the Tyne. The stretch of Hadrian’s Wall north of the Tyne between Newcastle and Wallsend may have required particular monitoring. Paul Bidwell has identified a feature in connection with the Wall defences (which probably had the same effect as ‘barbed wire’) at Byker, eastwards from Newcastle, and at Buddle Street, Wallsend.135 Although the same feature could theoretically have been used elsewhere along the Wall, evidence has so far come only from this stretch, which perhaps was close to the boundary between the Votadini and one of the Brigantian sub-tribes.

Inscriptions and documentation hint at the existence of several ‘sub-tribes’: the Lopocares, the Corionototae, the Gabrantovices, the Latenses, the Textoverdi (or Tectoverdi), the Setantii, the Carvetii and the Anavionenses. But the first two ephemeral names can probably be disregarded. Only the Ravenna place-name Lopocarium gave rise to the ‘Lopocares’, so if the equation of Corie and Lopocarium with Corbridge and Whitley Castle is correct, there is no such sub-tribe.132 The one inscription referring to the defeat of a band of Corionototae was found at Hexham, but may have originated in Corbridge.133 Rather than referring to another sub-tribe in the Northumberland area, this name may perhaps be linked with the Coria of the Votadini, and/or with the Maeatae; the latter tribe — a name resulting from the coalescing of several tribes beyond the Forth — was mentioned, in association with the Caledonii, by the Greek historian Cassius Dio when describing early third-century Britain.134 On stylistic grounds, the inscription probably dates from the same period (the reign of Severus, AD 193–211), and may well refer to a later tribal name.

Latenses. R. L. Thompson argued for the existence of a sub-tribe, the Latenses, based in the Leeds area.136 If he was correct, perhaps this tribe equates with Group 22. It is also possible that the name is associated with Castleford and its recently discovered form Lagitium,137 which is also in Group 22. Tectoverdi. The only inscription mentioning this possible sub-tribe was found on an altar found at Beltingham,138 although it may have originally come from Vindolanda, three miles away. The name may be associated with Group 30; perhaps Corbridge itself was the Coria Tectoverdorum, and Vindolanda was in the same tribal zone.

129

A sixteenth group (Parisian place-names) appears here, no doubt for geographical reasons. 130 Suggestion first mentioned on p. 22 above. Reversing the order of Groups 21 and 22 affects the discussion of sub-tribal affiliation; see under ‘Setantii’, p. 51 below. 131 See p. 24 above; and, for the implications of this suggestion, see under ‘Tectoverdi’ below. 132 Although the form Coriostopitum from Iter I of the Antonine Itinerary has been linked with the Ravenna form: see Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna Cosmography’, 30; Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 322–3. There is probably no connection between the two. 133 RIB 1142, caesa Corionototarum manu. See Rivet and Smith, PlaceNames, 322; Charles-Edwards, ‘Native political organization’, 38. 134 Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXXVII (LXXVI). 12. 1. Parentheses are used here and for subsequent parts of the text which refer to the second and third centuries because the Loeb edition gives an alternative ordering of the various fragments. On the Maeatae, see pp. 57–8 below.

135 B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2001’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall), Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 293–4 and fig. 9. A series of small pits ‘evidently accommodated substantial timber uprights, perhaps tree branches with sharpened ends which interlocked above ground level to form an entanglement’: ibid., 294, where it is expressly stated that these are not lilia. Caesar, however, described something similar, ‘interlaced’ trunks, which the soldiers called ‘boundary posts’, before he mentioned the lilia: see Caesar, Gallic War, VII. 73. ‘Quini erant ordines coniuncti inter se atque implicati; quo qui intraverant, se ipsi acutissimis vallis induebant. Hos cippos appellabant’. See also P. Bidwell et al., ‘Survey and Excavations on Hadrian’s Wall, 1989–1999’, in P. Bidwell (ed.), Hadrian’s Wall, 1989–1999 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1999), 95. 136 R. L. Thompson, ‘The evidence of place-names’, in M. W. Beresford and G. R. J. Jones (eds.), Leeds and its Region (Leeds, 1967), 101. 137 See p. 23 n. 63 above. 138 RIB 1695, referring to the Curia Textoverdorum.

50

The Native Situation further down the west coast. It may be worth noting that the two place-names allocated to Group 18 (equated with Ravenglass and Moresby) would have fallen within the quite distinctive area of Cumbria known, from at least the Norman Conquest, as Copeland and now a local government district and borough.143 It is impossible to say whether this area would have been Carvetian, or the territory of another Brigantian sub-tribe. Carvetian territory, as previously suggested, probably extended beyond Hadrian’s Wall, and Coritiotar might have been the Corio of the Carvetii, identified here as Birrens.

This could explain why the Vindolanda tablets only mention Coria; a full tribal designation would have been long-winded and superfluous. Setantii. Strang has located Ptolemy’s Portus Setantiorum around Morecambe Bay,139 which is probably the best position for it, although others have suggested somewhere off the Fylde coast.140 All the place-names in Group 17 are in the Bay area, now northern Lancashire and southern Cumbria. Group 21 (Ribchester, and its zone, equating roughly with Amounderness) probably also belonged to the Setantii sub-tribe, although it could have formed part of the lands of an unknown sub-tribe occupying territory from the Ribble to the Mersey. It is even possible that the Setantii controlled all the land from the Mersey to South Lakeland, covering approximately the old county of Lancashire, with fringes in southern Cumbria (perhaps roughly as far as the line from Low Borrow Bridge to Ravenglass; or, alternatively, as far as Middleton in Lonsdale).141 Ptolemy’s estuary Seteia is most often linked with the Mersey, and may mark the southernmost limit of Setantian territory. Andrew Breeze has recently suggested that the river name be amended to Meteia, and that the name of the sub-tribe could have been Metantii. He has also, therefore, linked the ‘*met-’ element with Elmet;142 this is certainly an attractive idea, given that Barwick-in-Elmet is believed to have been the heartland of Cartimandua’s territory in the Vale of York. However, a sub-tribe is unlikely to have covered so wide an area and there is no indication that the place-name Elmet is of Roman origin. On the other hand, if Breeze is right to replace the initial ‘S’ of Seteia with an ‘M’, it is worth pointing out the same element in Bremetenacum (Ribchester).

Anavionenses. At the time of the appearance on an inscription of this name of a possible sub-tribe (c.AD 102),144 the pre-Hadrianic ‘Stanegate frontier’ is likely to have been in existence. It would have divided the northern Carvetii from the rest of the sub-tribe. For administrative purposes this part of the sub-tribe may have been renamed the Anavionenses after the major river of the area, the Annan. ‘Anavionensian’ territory, therefore (Group 41), might effectively be to the south of the later Roman road which ran from Stanwix (Carlisle) to Carzield (Dumfries) and whose western limit is the estuary of the Nith. The southern part of Brigantian territory (representing Groups 15 and 16) has no known named sub-tribes, unless, of course, the Anavionenses should instead be linked with the Roman fort and place-name Nauione (Brough-on-Noe). The main, unnamed area from around Ebchester to York is covered by four groupings (Groups 24 to 27 inclusive). Could it be that these remaining groups correspond to the main heartland of Cartimandua’s territory? It has already been established that York and Catterick, at least, were main centres of Brigantian influence.

Carvetii. Inscriptional evidence discussed above has indicated that this sub-tribe inhabited the Eden Valley and had a possible later civitas capital based on Carlisle. As such, Groups 20 and 23 ought to be Carvetian. Group 19 — the row of Solway coastal sites and their inland equivalents — may also have been Carvetian. That would mean that the sub-tribe inhabited the entire northern half of modern Cumbria, although it is possible that further sub-tribes existed in the central Lakes area — or even

From the Ravenna list, the ‘Hadrian’s Wall’ names were most probably wholly in Brigantian territory; Breeze and Dobson go further to suggest that all three outlier forts (Bewcastle, Birrens and Netherby) were also in Brigantian territory, as their purpose is not easily understood otherwise.145 It is argued here, however, that Birrens and Bewcastle were Brigantian (the former, perhaps, Anavionensian), but that Netherby, because of its links further up the Esk, was in Selgovan territory albeit very close to the boundary. It is certainly clear, further east, that the

139

Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. For a short discussion of Portus Setantiorum, which also favours ‘a coastal location between Lancaster and Barrow’, see D. Shotter and A. White, The Romans in Lunesdale (Lancaster, 1995), 85–7 (quotation at p. 86). 141 The milestone from Middleton in Lonsdale records a distance, but does not indicate the place from which that distance was calculated. A distance of 53 miles can really refer only to Carlisle, but the context of this milestone is almost certainly much later and may have no bearing on tribal matters: E. Birley, ‘The Roman milestone at Middleton in Lonsdale’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., liii (1953), 55 ff. 142 A. Breeze, ‘Three Celtic toponyms: Setantii, Blencathra, and Pen-yGhent’, Northern Hist., xliii (2006), 162. 140

143 The modern area covered is from the coast to the river Duddon in the east (which includes the area around Hardknott) and it stretches approximately from Millom to Whitehaven. 144 H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. in 5 (Berlin, 1962 edn) (hereafter ILS) 1338 — also CIL XI, 5213. The inscription is a list of the posts held by a certain Haterius Nepos, which includes that of ‘census-officer of the Anavionensian Britons’, see Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 321–3; Birley, ‘Anavionenses’, 15–16. There is now a possible further reference to the name: Bowman and Thomas, Vindolanda Tablets III, 50, no. 594, note a.6. For more on the Anavionenses in the second century, see pp. 126, 127, 129 below. 145 Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 46.

51

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors interpreted.150 Only precise dating evidence can resolve the issue. If still in occupation in the late Iron Age, it would clearly have been a major settlement area for the Selgovae. Similar status as power centres have been arbitrarily claimed for Walls Hill in Renfrewshire or Carman in Dumbartonshire (for the Damnonii), Burnswark (for the Novantae), and Tap o’ Noth in Aberdeenshire (for the Vacomagi).151 This exercise seems to represent an attempt to apply to northern Britain what is known about the political organisation of the Alpine and German tribes from Caesar’s descriptions of different types of defended settlement: castella and oppida.152 The precise nature of these is not clear, although the oppida are usually taken to be large hill forts representing tribal centres similar to those of Maiden Castle or Hod Hill in the south of England, and therefore also comparable with Traprain Law, whilst castella may be smaller hill forts representing more localised power-bases. Attempts have been made to match Caesar’s terms — however loosely — with the archaeological evidence for Germania,153 but scant documentary evidence and limited excavation combine to reduce such a task to mere speculation in Scotland. The general picture — at least for the lowland areas south of the Forth — seems to be one of ‘lightly enclosed farmsteads scattered throughout the landscape . . . the majority of prehistoric forts had already been abandoned some time before [the arrival of the Roman army in northern Britain]’.154 Nevertheless, some further observations about the relative positions of tribes and place-names north of the Tyne–Solway line can be made (see also Map 11).

stretch of land north of the Hadrian’s Wall forts — at least in some parts — must have lain within friendly territory, since the water supply for Great Chesters fort, for example, was routed by aqueduct from a spring beyond the Wall to the north, a source which would have been an obvious target for enemy activity. Also, what appear to be civilian settlements, possibly of secondcentury date, have been detected north of the Wall at Birdoswald and Wallsend.146 As for the possible Brigantian (Anavionensian?) grouping north of Hadrian’s Wall, it is important to stress that the ‘Brigantia’ inscription from Birrens is not the only persuasive argument for regarding the area from approximately the lower Esk to the lower Nith as Brigantian. Basic geography should be taken into account: The Solway has never posed a significant barrier in itself, and there are certainly aspects of the settlement archaeology on the lowlands of the northern shore of the Solway that have their closest parallels southwards and eastwards rather than northwards.147

It is no coincidence that the Stanegate and then Hadrian’s Wall, were, in effect, extended down the Cumbrian coast in the shape of a concentrated series of forts, fortlets and watchtowers, precisely because of the strong links between both sides of the Solway. Also, the dominant bulk of the Iron Age hill fort at Burnswark — a suitable rallying point for the local tribesmen — was again to be the scene of serious disturbance in the Antonine period.148

The Selgovae Group 34. Carbantium [Carbantorigum], Tadoriton, Maporiton Group 35. Alitacenon, Loxa Group 37. Uxela [Uxellum], Lucotion Group 38. Corda [Corda], Camulosessa Group 39. Presidium Group 42. Trimuntium [Trimontium], Eburo caslum

The ‘Scottish’ Tribes Over the years scholars have tried to locate appropriate hill-fort ‘capitals’ for all the tribes in what is now modern Scotland (or, at least, for all those tribes with named poleis on Ptolemy’s map). Traditional ideas still persist, the most common and perhaps the most acceptable being that Traprain Law was the ‘capital’ of the Votadini. It was long believed that Eildon Hill North, covering around sixteen hectares and therefore the largest hill fort in Scotland, was the tribal capital of the Selgovae, and Frere stated that it was destroyed in AD 79.149 But archaeological evidence now seems to point to its abandonment certainly ‘before, perhaps long before, the time of the Flavian advance’, however that phrase is

The limits of Selgovan territory are usually located with respect to their neighbours the Novantae to the west and the Votadini to the east, but it seems clear that the Selgovae had the longest border with the Brigantes to the south and, for that reason alone, there must have been close contact between them. A peace-keeping arrange150 Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 217. The date of the Flavian advance into Scotland is now believed to have been earlier than Agricola’s campaigns of AD 79–80. See pp. 75 ff. below. 151 R. Oram, Scottish Prehistory (Edinburgh, 1997), 78. All these sites are located on the map: see OS, Ancient Britain (1996); few, of course, would now associate Burnswark with the Novantae. 152 Caesar, Gallic War, III. 1 (castella); IV. 5, 19 (oppida). 153 See M. Carroll, Romans, Celts and Germans: The German Provinces of Rome (Stroud, 2001), 20–3. 154 RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 183.

146

Ibid., 203. But cf. earlier comments on Wallsend: see p. 50 above. RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 171. 148 See p. 129 below. 149 Frere, Britannia, 44. 147

52

The Native Situation did not extend to the Brigantian-occupied coastal areas around the Annan and east of the Nith.

ment, at least, must have been made when Cartimandua and Venutius were united in a pro-Roman policy. Thereafter it is likely that the Selgovae were allies of Venutius. Ptolemy described Trimontium (Newstead) as Selgovan and this polis was most probably on the border between the Selgovae and the Votadini. Some have argued that Ptolemy was wrong in attributing it to the Selgovae,155 but, as will be discussed later, the building of a major fort like Newstead ought to follow on from the defeat of the locals. Artefactual evidence is of little help since there is nothing distinctive about Selgovan, as opposed to Votadinian, finds.156 It is, however, significant that recent excavation has revealed that the main gate faced west157 (the source of any trouble?), and the argument used in support of its location in Votadinian territory, that ‘this valley forms a distinct entity looking eastwards and not to the south or south-west’, seems purely coincidental.158

There is no specific documentation on the Selgovae, but it has been presumed that they more often than not took up an anti-Roman stance, and were probably hostile to their neighbours, the Votadini — another reason for the strong military presence of the monitoring fort at Newstead. Frere went as far as to suggest that the apparently pro-Roman attitude of the Votadini was a direct result of Selgovan aggression towards them.160 As the name suggests, the Selgovae were probably a ‘hunting’ people161 of the forests and the high ground rather than of the plain (the town, county and forest of Selkirk may have derived from the tribal name, although that link has also been described as ‘the reddest of red herrings’).162 Nevertheless, it is not hard to imagine Selgovan raiding into the good quality lands of Lothian and the Tweed basin. Frere also maintained that the large number of small Selgovan hill forts, particularly in the southern part of their territory, seemed to indicate ‘a lack of political centralisation’,163 a suggestion he also put forward to explain a similar phenomenon in Cornovian territory where it borders on that of the Ordovices of Wales. This is not necessarily the case, since it has been argued that the increasingly organised political structure of the Selgovae and the Votadini was in direct contrast with that of the ‘more fragmented Novantae and Damnonii’,164 on the basis of fewer large hill forts.

Frere suggested that the Dere Street route from Corbridge to Elginhaugh and its western equivalent from Carlisle through Annandale (this route changed direction just beyond Crawford and headed north-eastwards to meet up with Dere Street at Elginhaugh) effectively cut off the Selgovae from their neighbouring tribes. Ravenna’s groupings may well represent a different situation from that of the pre-Roman Iron Age, but it seems equally possible that the general territorial limits remained the same and that Selgovan territory stretched as far as the Nith, taking in the area from just north of Carzield to Crawford, west of the Annandale route. It is possible, too, that Newstead was not only on an east–west boundary line between the Votadini and the Selgovae but also marked the approximate northern boundary of Selgovan territory which then, perhaps, followed the course of the Tweed, moving westwards back to Crawford. As far as the Ravenna place-names are concerned, Groups 34, 35, 38 and 39 are located in the western part of Selgovan territory and Groups 37 and 42 in the east. Group 34 is linked to the upper part of the river Annan, Group 35 to the Esk, and Groups 38 and 39 to the Crawford to Dumfries Roman road, bordering partly on the upper Nith. Finally, Groups 37 and 42 are connected with the upper parts of the river Tweed and its tributary, the Teviot. Again, it seems likely that these represented Selgovan sub-tribes, which makes it less difficult to believe that the Selgovae stretched from Tweeddale to upper Nithsdale.159 It is claimed here, of course, that they

The Novantae Group 36. Locatreve [Lucopibia], Cambroianna, Smetri Group 40. Brigomono [Rerigonium], Abisson, Ebio The territory of the Novantae is clearly associated with south-west Scotland, and particularly Galloway, as indicated by Ptolemy’s list of coastal features which includes Novantarum Peninsula (identified as the Rhinns of Galloway) and Novantarum Promontorium (the Mull of Galloway).165 The Rhinns has good quality agricultural land which would have been a valuable resource to the Novantae in the same way as Anglesey was to the Ordovices. The main power-base of the Novantae seems to have been around Stranraer, and it is possible that this prominence dates back to prehistoric times; the recent discovery of a ‘Neolithic ceremonial complex at Dunragit’ and Bronze Age dating evidence from the nearby 160

Frere, Britannia, 44. Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 455. 162 G. W. S. Barrow, ‘The tribes of North Britain revisited’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxix (1989), 162. 163 Frere, Britannia, 92. 164 Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities, 217. 165 Traditional identifications by, among others, Rivet and Smith, PlaceNames, 426–7, and apparently confirmed by Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436.

155

161

J. C. Mann and D. J. Breeze, ‘Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of north Britain’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxvii (1987), 89. 156 G. S. Maxwell, ‘The native background to the Roman occupation of Scotland’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, 8. 157 R. F. J. Jones, personal communication to David Shotter. 158 Mann and Breeze, ‘Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of north Britain’, 89. 159 Ibid.: they argued that the Selgovae inhabited ‘either Tweeddale or Annandale and Nithsdale’.

53

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Droughduil Mote attest to the importance of the area in the pre-Roman period.166

The Votadini Group 43. Bremenium [Bremenium], Coccimeda Group 44. Alauna [Alauna], Oleiclavis Group 45. Evidensca, Rumabo

How far northwards and eastwards the tribe extended, however, is more problematic. The tribal name has also been associated with the river Nith (Ptolemy’s Novius); this etymological link has been challenged, although it does nevertheless seem likely that the Nith marked the easterly extent of Novantian territory — at least where it runs from Dalswinton to the Solway.167 The tribe’s eastern neighbours were certainly the Selgovae, and, further to the south, also the Brigantes (or, as discussed, that northerly part of Brigantian territory which may have been Carvetian or Anavionensian — or both). To the north, Novantian territory bordered on that of the Damnonii, but, again, it is difficult to determine exactly where the two met. The most likely boundary on the western coast would be near Girvan, where the first of two Roman camps was discovered by aerial photography in 1976.168 The two groups of Ravenna place-names which seem to lie in Novantian territory are headed by Ptolemy’s poleis, and are located in the east and west of ‘Galloway’ respec-tively; the approximate dividing line may have been the river Cree which also divides the modern counties of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright. In the absence of forts or fortlets west of Gatehouse of Fleet, the identifications are necessarily tentative, and are associated with the discovery of Roman camps or activity in the area.

The Votadini are located by Ptolemy to the ‘south’ (that is to the east) of the Damnonii — another reason for suggesting that Selgovan territory ends around Newstead, so that the border further north is between the Votadini and the Damnonii (see Map 11). On Ptolemy’s map the tribal name appears as ‘Otadini’, but the addition of the ‘V’ is universally accepted, as is the equation of the tribe with the Gododdin, immortalised in the Welsh poem of the same name by the sixth-century poet, Aneirin.170 The tribal capital of the Gododdin was Din Eidyn (equated with Edinburgh, but sometimes thought to be Carriden), and the territory stretched from the Tyne to the Forth. At that time it is said to have included an area north of the Forth known as Manaw of the Gododdin.171 Votadinian territory in the pre-Roman period probably extended to Cramond, to the west of Edinburgh, or perhaps as far as Carriden; the ‘Lothian’ place-names in the Ravenna list immediately precede those of the Antonine Wall line. Manaw (or Manau) has been connected etymologically with the modern place-names Clackmannan(shire) and Slamannan,172 which are located to the north and south of the Antonine Wall respectively; they fell within Damnonian territory in the first century.173 The area may also be linked, through the present-day place-names of Dumyat and Myot Hill in the Stirling area, with the tribe known in the third century as the Maeatae.174

The Novantae, like the Selgovae, are frequently thought to have been involved in documented disturbances in the north of England; hostility from the former has often been suggested as a reason for the construction of the Solway coastal defence system, and perhaps also for the heavy refortification of Annandale and Nithsdale in the second century, during the reign of Antoninus Pius. However, the aggressors in this area may well have been the northern Brigantes rather than the Novantae.169

As mentioned earlier, it is often thought that Votadinian territory reached as far south as the Tyne, but this is purely because of the equation of Ptolemy’s Curia with Corbridge. It is highly unlikely that both Lothian and Corbridge fell within the same tribal area in the preRoman period, especially since there appears to be a ‘natural boundary . . . along the poor-grade lands of Rothbury Forest from Otterburn to Alnwick’.175 That is one reason why it is suggested in this chapter that Corbridge was actually Coria Tectoverdorum, and not the

166 J. Thomas, ‘Excavations at Dunragit, 2001’: . The site has been compared with both Meldon Bridge and Thornborough. See also p. 55, and p. 71 at n. 81 below. 167 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 425. Following Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 27, they believed that the name ‘Novantae’ could not have derived from the river name Novius because the southern English tribe, the Trinovantes, ‘with a similarly-formed name had no such river in their lands’. Barrow believes in the etymological link, but not necessarily the geographical one, adding that, in any case, ‘the river Nith does in fact rise in Galloway’: Barrow, ‘Tribes of North Britain revisited’, 162. 168 J. K. S. St Joseph, ‘A Roman camp near Girvan, Ayrshire’, Britannia, ix (1978). 169 This is a theme which will be discussed in the following chapters, particularly, with respect to Antoninus Pius, in Chapter 7.

170

Aneirin was writing in the sixth century, but his authorship of Y Gododdin is debatable, and the text may belong to a later period: James, Britain in the First Millennium, 127–8. 171 Aneirin, Y Gododdin, ed. A. O. H. Jarman (Llandysul, 1988), p. xviii (editor’s ‘Introduction’). 172 Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 103–4, 128. Clackmannan is south-east of Alloa; Slamannan is on the river Avon, south-west of Falkirk. 173 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 404. Also, the inscription relating to the Corionototae (see p. 50 at n. 133 above), includes the Latin word manu (a band). Is this coincidental, or is there a connection with Manau? See also pp. 55–6 below, under ‘Damnonii’, and pp. 60–1, 126 ff. on Ravenna’s diversa loca. 174 Barrow remains unconvinced that the Votadini extended north of the Forth but is prepared to believe in a link between Manau and the Maeatae: see Barrow, ‘Tribes of North Britain revisited’, 162. 175 Higham, Northern Counties to AD 1000, 147.

54

The Native Situation around Trimontium, there is no evidence that this clustered patterning was disrupted during the Roman period’;182 this may be an indication of where the border lay.

Curia Votadinorum of Ptolemy’s map. Another reason is that Strang originally equated Ptolemy’s Curia of the Votadini with Cramond; then he discovered that he ought to have placed this name with another section of coordinates which pointed instead to Corbridge.176 The most likely explanation is that both of Strang’s calculations were correct, and that there were two Coria placenames, one of which was omitted from Ptolemy’s map because it was thought to have been a duplication, and also because of the distortion in this area. So, the coordinates for Corbridge have been mistakenly combined with the Votadinian Curia at Cramond. In any case, to place all three of Ptolemy’s Votadinian poleis in modern Northumberland would hardly square with the fact that Lothian is the most important area of the tribe.177 The three Ravenna groupings also reflect the different areas of Votadinian territory. Group 43 is located in the higher ground south of the Cheviots and is associated with Dere Street, Group 44 is on the eastern lowland strip, probably including the coastal area, and the names in Group 45 are linked with the northern coast (south bank of the Forth) around Edinburgh. It is, of course, possible that the Votadini incorporated several sub-tribes — north and south of the Tweed, for example, where a possible difference in patterns of settlement has been identified.178

The branch road from Dere Street via Learchild would seem to be a convenient through-route to the suggested site at Berwick, whilst the series of marching camps along the banks of the Tweed may indicate its use for the transportation of supplies through friendly territory to Newstead, or perhaps for the monitoring of Votadinian sub-tribes north and south of the river.

The Damnonii Group 32. Brocara [Vindogara], Croucingo Group 33. Stodoion, Sinetriadum, Clindum Group 46. (Antonine Wall) Velunia, Volitanio, Pexa, Begesse, Colanica [Colania], Medio Nemeton, Subdobiadon, Litana, Cibra [Coria], Credigone Group 47. Iano [Alauna], Maulion, Demerosesa Group 48. Cindocellum [Lindum], Cerma, Veromo Group 55. Levioxaua, Cermium Group 56. Victorie [Victoria], Marcotaxon

The Votadini are traditionally believed to have supported Rome, and perhaps to have made treaties with the Romans, just as the Brigantes had done, as early as the first years of conquest. Their ruler may even have been one of the ‘eleven kings of the Britons’179 who apparently surrendered to Claudius in AD 43. The huge collection of Roman artefacts recovered from Traprain Law and occupation of the site from the first century through to the fifth are usually cited as evidence of a sophisticated tribe, trading with its southern neighbours within the Roman province.180 Not only are there few Roman military sites within Votadinian territory (as in the case of the Demetae of south-western Wales), but there is evidence of open, undisturbed native settlement in the vicinity of the known forts.181 Research into the settlement patterns around Bemersyde (in Votadinian territory to the east of Newstead) is interesting. Apparently, ‘with the exception of the area

There are no clear indications of the southern boundaries of Damnonian territory, except in so far as the area around Lyne, on the edge of the Selkirk forest (a location which may in itself be significant), seems to be the farthest limit to the south-east. There is evidence, in the form of ‘the earliest [Neolithic] major free-standing timber barrier’, to suggest a religious and/or defensive function for Meldon Bridge, just to the east of Lyne,183 which seems to have marked the Lyne Water area off at that time as different from the rest of upper Tweeddale;184 this ancient (and also tribal?) boundary may well have continued to be regarded as such into the pre-Roman Iron Age, even though there is no indication that the area was used again until the Roman period.185 Moreover, to the north-east, about halfway along the modern road from Peebles to Leadburn, at Eddleston, another early territorial boundary indicated by a row of pits is apparently dated to the first millennium BC.186 This could relate to a border between the Damnonii and the Votadini.

176

182

Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 21, 30. Richmond believed that Ptolemy would have named a polis in the north of Votadinian territory: Richmond, ‘Ancient geographical sources’, 140. 178 L. Macinnes, ‘Pattern and purpose: the settlement evidence’, in D. W. Harding (ed.), Later Prehistoric Settlement in South-East Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 67. 179 The phrase is a translation from the inscription on the Arch of Claudius erected by the citizens of Cyzicus, Turkey: ILS 217 — also CIL III, 7061, quoted in Webster, Roman Invasion of Britain, 170, and n. 11. The wording is similar to that of the original arch (now hung on a courtyard wall of the Capitoline Museum, Rome): ILS 216. 180 Breeze, Roman Scotland, 112–14. 181 Maxwell, ‘Native background to the Roman occupation of Scotland’, 8.

A. Wise, ‘Late prehistoric settlement and society: recent research in the central Tweed valley’, in Harding and Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts, 97. 183 See C. Burgess, ‘Meldon Bridge: a Neolithic defended promontory complex near Peebles’, in C. Burgess and R. Miket (eds.), Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 33, Oxford, 1976), 176. 184 J. Dent and R. McDonald (eds.), Early Settlers in the Borders (Scot. Borders Council, Melrose, 1997), 63–4. 185 S. Speak and C. Burgess, ‘Meldon Bridge: a centre of the third millennium BC in Peeblesshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxix (1999), 1. Though undated, the ‘un-phased pre-Roman features’ all appear to be Neolithic (ibid., 42–6). 186 Dent and McDonald, Early Settlers in the Borders, back-cover photograph and caption.

177

55

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors As suggested above, a border in the west with the Novantae could be somewhere north of Girvan, perhaps curving around the higher ground north of the watershed of the river Annan and north of Crawford. Ptolemy’s coordinates clearly locate the Damnonii on both sides of the Forth–Clyde isthmus, although it is probable that such an extensive territory was divided into northern and southern Damnonian sub-tribes. The ten Ravenna placenames associated with the Antonine Wall would have fallen within this tribal area. Groups 32 and 33 are located south of the Forth–Clyde line and are in the western and eastern sections respectively. Groups 47, 48, 55 and 56 are north of the isthmus, probably indicating that Damnonian lands reached as far as the Tay (including Glenalmond), bordered on the north by the more mountainous terrain associated with the Caledonii, and on the east by the Venicones.

The Tribes of the Far North, including the Caledonii [Ptolemy’s Epidii, Creones, Carnonacae, Caereni, Cornavii, Caledonii, Decantae, Lugi, Smertae] Although these tribal areas contain no Ptolemaic poleis, and are not covered by the Ravenna lists, they are included here for completeness because this is where Ptolemy places them in relation to the other ‘Scottish’ tribes, and because reference will be made to some of them in the following chapters. Ptolemy simply lists the names of the tribes of the north-west and the far northeast of Scotland; little further information can be gleaned about them, since their lands were never conventionally occupied by the Romans. The first five tribes are located in the coastal areas from Kintyre in the south (Epidii) to Caithness in the north (Cornavii); the Lugi and the Smertae seem to have occupied eastern and central Sutherland respectively; and the Decantae are usually placed in Easter Ross and the Black Isle.

It is arguably the northern boundary that is the most confusing. Some scholars believed that the Damnonii inhabited the Clyde area only and did not hold land to the north. For them Ptolemy had been mistaken and had failed to mention another tribe in whose territory Alauna, Lindum and Victoria were situated.187 The Damnonii, as represented by Ptolemy, had six poleis, the largest number attributed to any one tribe, with the exception of the Brigantes. The positioning of the northern boundary actually hinges on the identity of the place-name Victoria, which appears both on Ptolemy’s map and on the Ravenna Cosmography. Rivet and Smith equated it with Inchtuthil, the logical result of which was to push Damnonian territory beyond the Tay towards Strathmore (Angus); this is clearly too far north for the tribe, and the identification may have led to misunderstanding.188 The most likely boundary is the Tay, at Perth. Some time after the first century AD, part, if not all, of the territory of the northern Damnonii may have been known as Manau (or perhaps Manavi).189 By the sixth century, the area may well have been carved up between two powerful peoples, and it is perhaps for that reason that Aneirin referred to Manau of the Gododdin (as opposed to a possible Manau of the Damnonii).

Only the Caledonii are mentioned elsewhere by name in the sources. On Ptolemy’s map they are described as inhabiting the area from the Lemannonius gulf to the Varar estuary; the Varar has been confirmed as the river Beauly, which upstream is still known as the Farrar, whilst the gulf has normally been equated with Loch Long, Loch Fyne or Loch Linnhe. The latter is on the wrong side of Kintyre (Ptolemy’s Epidium promontory) for it to be the Lemannonius gulf; Strang’s identification with Loch Fyne would make much more sense,190 unless it is unnecessarily assumed that Ptolemy’s co-ordinates are wrong here. Equally possible, as Watson argued, is that Lemannonius actually corresponds to Loch Long, slightly further south, because of the etymological link with Lennox, which borders Loch Long.191 Beyond the Caledonii, towards the Great Glen, lay the Caledonian Forest (the silva Calidonia of Pliny the Elder),192 whereas below them (that is, to the east) lay the Vacomagi, the Venicones and the Taexali. Clearly these peoples were not Caledonii; nor should they be classed as ‘inhabitants of Caledonia’ — especially since a Caledonian identity (if such there was) is much more likely to have included the tribes to the far north and west of Scotland, because it is beyond them that Ptolemy placed the ocean which he named Duecaledonius. All five references in Tacitus’ Life of Agricola refer to ‘Caledonia’ rather than to ‘the Caledonii’, but it is clear from the context that the tribe should be placed north of the Forth; this is now generally accepted.193 The first two

187 D. J. Breeze, The Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain (London, 1982), 29; Mann and Breeze, ‘Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of north Britain’, 89. 188 Breeze confidently stated that ‘the populous area of Strathmore was, according to Ptolemy, assigned to the Damnonii’: Breeze, Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain, 28–9. Ptolemy was certainly not so specific. It is likely, however, that by ‘Strathmore’ Breeze intended ‘Strathearn’, since his later publication states briefly that ‘the Damnonii stretched from Ayrshire into Strathearn’: Breeze, Roman Scotland, 44. 189 For Manavi, see p. 60, under ‘Diversa loca’, and also p. 127 below.

190

Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436. Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 19. Lennox = Leamhnacht in Gaelic, from old British. 192 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, IV. 102. 193 Tacitus, Agricola, X. 3, XI. 2, XXV. 3, XXVII. 1, XXXI. 4; this point is made by Hind, ‘Caledonia and its occupation under the Flavians’, 373. 191

56

The Native Situation later amalgamation of tribes did occur, but there were still two main groups north of the Forth, even in the third century: the Caledonians and the Maeatae. And, in the fourth century, they had become the Dicalydonae and the Verturiones.200 This was surely not the case in the first and second centuries. The significance of Ptolemy’s greater number of separately named tribes in this section is that they (and not their more southerly neighbours) would have been Calgacus’ allies in that final confrontation at Mons Graupius.201 The territory of the Caledonii stretched down as far as the Highland line, where the Romans built their outer defence of forts. The tribal name is preserved in the modern place-names which lie close to that line: Dunkeld (Dún Chailleann, ‘Fort of the Caledonians’) and nearby Rohallion (‘Rath of the Caledonians), and in the name of the mountain Schiehallion (Sìdh Chailleann, ‘Fairy Hill of the Caledonians’).202 By their earliest activities, and their placement of military installations, the Romans recognised the geographical, and therefore the native political, divide in northern Scotland. The history of ‘west versus east’ rather than the more modern assumption of a north–south divide in the region can also be glimpsed in later centuries.203

references describe, respectively, geographical location and ethnic origin.194 In the latter, Tacitus gave an indication of the appearance of some of the most northerly Britons; the ‘inhabitants of Caledonia’ were described as having ‘red-gold hair and massive limbs [which] proclaim their German origin’.195 The historian was perfectly aware of the similarities between these peoples and some of the tribes of Germania, and so his ‘logical’ assumption, though not correct, is understandable. However, such a description has come down through the centuries and links with the later romantic, almost mythical, image of tall, strong, red-headed ‘Highlanders’. More important, however, is the earlier, geographical, reference, where Tacitus described the shape of Britain as resembling ‘an elongated shoulder-blade or an axe. That is indeed what it looks like on this side of Caledonia, which is why the description has been applied to the whole island’.196 This has usually been regarded as clear evidence that ‘Caledonia’ can be equated with ‘Scotland north of the Forth–Clyde line’, because the isthmus represents the narrowest point between two triangular parts of a two-headed axe. However, as Ogilvie and Richmond have stressed, Tacitus certainly wanted to revise the contemporary image of the whole of Britain as a triangle, but he did not intend to convey the idea that it resembled a two-headed axe.197 The far north of Britain was much longer (and more irregular) than the narrow point of a triangle would indicate, and there is no implication that ‘this side of Caledonia’ equals ‘south of the Forth–Clyde line’. Tacitus was not so specific. It is much more likely that he was stressing his superior knowledge of Britain by emphasising how different the shape looks when one is amongst the few to have reached so far north. When he meant the Forth (‘this side of the Bodotria’), he said so.198 There is, therefore, no reason to reject Ptolemy’s location of the Caledonii beyond (and separate from) the northern Damnonii, the Venicones, the Taexali and the Vacomagi; and also no reason to believe that, as Hind argued and others concurred, these lowland tribes were part of the confederation under the leadership of Calgacus the Caledonian which was defeated by the Romans at the battle of Mons Graupius in AD 83.199 A

Classical authors’ understanding of Caledonia and the ‘Caledonians’ may not always have been accurate. The poet Statius (AD 45–96), for example, speaks of the meting out of justice by the governor of Britain on the Caledonian plains.204 Strictly speaking, the lands of the Caledonii, as defined here, did not have any plains. However, that does not mean that negotiations did not take place in the lowland area on the edge of Caledonian territory, with its backdrop of the ‘Highlands’. Once the name of a tribe in the unconquered part of the Highlands of Scotland was known to be the ‘Caledonii’ or ‘Caledones’, it would have been easy for the Romans to associate it with the city of ‘Calydon’ and the courageous hunting of the well-known ‘Calydonian boar’ of contemporary legend.205 This is surely one explanation for the (relatively) common appearance of ‘Caledonia’ in classical sources, and the emphasis placed on it; it had become synonymous with heroism and the hunting of the enemy in the wild, hostile lands of the north. Cassius Dio’s usage of the term ‘Caledonia’ in his contemporary account of the campaigns of Septimius Severus may also reflect the same anticipation of glorious triumph, and the desire to outdo the exploits of Agricola.206 It was Cassius Dio who distinguished

On the misinterpretation of the term ‘Caledonia’ in sources both ancient and modern, see below, and pp. 3–4 above. 194 The other three references are in association with Agricola’s sixth and seventh campaigns: see pp. 100, 102 below. 195 Tacitus, Agricola, XI. 2. ‘namque rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae, magni artus Germanicam originem adseverant’. 196 Tacitus, Agricola, X. 3. ‘oblongae scapulae vel bipenni adsimulavere. et est ea facies citra Caledoniam, unde et in universum fama’. 197 Tacitus De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 168–70. They show that bipennis was ‘a fashionable and poetical synonym for securis, single axe: ibid., 169. 198 Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 3. ‘citra Bodotriam’. 199 Hind, ‘Caledonia and its occupation under the Flavians’, 375; Maxwell, Battle Lost, 27; also Mann and Breeze, ‘Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of north Britain’, 90. See also pp. 100, 103 ff. below.

200

See p. 58 at nn. 207, 209 below. See pp. 109–10 below. 202 Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 21. 203 See p. 58 below. 204 Statius, Silvae, V. 2. 142. ‘quanta Caledonios attollet gloria campos!’. For further details on this text, see pp. 71, 72, 78 below. 205 For an example of the possible significance of the ‘Calydonian boar’, see p. 96 at n. 150 below. 206 Birley even suggested that Severus may have remembered the phrase ‘quanto Caledonios attollet gloria campos!’ from Statius’ poem: 201

57

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors main geopolitical division at that time. The real contrast — created by the Highland line — is between mountains and plains, and is as much of an ‘east–west’ divide as a ‘north–south’ one; it skirts the Grampians, reaches as far as Inverness to the north, and runs down, ultimately, to Argyll and the Clyde estuary in the south-west. This is the boundary between the ‘Highland’ Caledonii and their allied tribes, and the ‘Lowlanders’ or coastal tribes. Maps 13 and 14 show the relationship between high ground and land quality, and both show this division very clearly. In Map 14 the line follows the edge of the crosshatched ‘harsh’ land in an arc from the Clyde to Inverness.213 This was also the distinction made in the late fourteenth century by John of Fordun in his Chronica Gentis Scotorum (1370s):

between the Maeatae who live near the Wall, and the Caledonians who live beyond them; ‘both’, he concluded, inhabit wild and waterless mountains and lonely and swampy plains, without walls, cities, or cultivated land’.207 The Panegyric of Constantine (dated AD 310) once again mentioned the ‘forests and swamps of the Caledonians and other Picts’, although, as the editors point out, the ‘flowery language’ of the context in which this appears ‘nearly smothers the information that the Picts included the Caledonians’, but were not identical to them.208 This is crucial because it allows for the fact that the Maeatae were also Picts, as were the Verturiones in 209 AD 367. Actually, the likelihood is that ‘Pict’ was simply a term used for ‘northern Briton’. These authors’ distinction is echoed by the later observations of Bede, who believed that ‘a very extensive arm of the sea . . . originally formed the boundary between the Britons and the Picts’.210 It is clear from his reference to Alcluith (Dumbarton), that he meant the Clyde. The point is that, whereas ‘Pict’ was being used to refer to any inhabitant north of the Forth–Clyde line, ‘Caledonian’ was a more specific term.

The people who speak Scots occupy the coastal and lowland regions, while those who speak Gaelic live in the mountainous regions and the outer isles. The coastal people are docile and civilised, trustworthy, long-suffering and courteous, decent in their dress, polite and peaceable, devout in worship, but always ready to resist injuries threatened by their enemies. The island or highland people however are fierce and untameable, uncouth and unpleasant, much given to theft, fond of doing nothing, but their minds are quick to learn, and cunning. They are strikingly handsome in appearance, but their clothing is unsightly. They are always hostile and savage not only towards the people and language of England, but also towards their fellow Scots because of the difference in language.214

The precise location and origin of the Picts have been much debated, of course. Bede’s famous division between northern and southern Picts has often been linked with the arguments over the location of the ‘inhabitants of Caledonia’ encountered by Agricola. Bede told of how ‘Columba . . . came from Ireland to Britain to preach the word of God in the provinces of the northern Picts, which are separated from those of the southern Picts by a range of steep and desolate mountains’. The ‘mountains’ in the passage are glossed as ‘The Grampians’,211 which has contributed to the persuasiveness of the classical historians’ and archaeologists’ standard view of a ‘north– south’ divide — one which cuts across from the westcentral Highlands to the east coast near Stonehaven. At its coastal terminus, this may be regarded as a tribal boundary in the first century,212 but it was surely not the

It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Ptolemy places all the northern ‘Highland’ tribes (with no poleis) together, including the Epidii of Kintyre, and that these are placed after the Damnonii but before the northern coastal tribes, that is the Vacomagi, the Taexali and the Venicones.

A. R. Birley, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor, revised edn (London, 1988), 174. 207 Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXXVII (LXXVI). 12.1. 208 Panegyric of Constantine, VII. 2: trans. Literary Sources for Roman Britain, ed. J. C. Mann and R. G. Penman (London, 1977), 38. 209 Ammianus Marcellinus, History, xxvii. 8. 5. ‘the Picts at that time were divided into two tribes, the Dicalydonae and the Verturiones’: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 44. This may reflect a change in the dominant tribe in lowland Scotland north of the Forth. The Verturiones were the same as the inhabitants fir Fortrenn (of *Fortriu) reported in the Annals of Ulster as defeating the Vikings in AD 904, and the site of the battle was in Strathearn. On this, and other early Scottish sources, see D. Broun, ‘The seven kingdoms in De situ Albanie: a record of Pictish political geography or imaginary map of ancient Alba?’, in E. J. Cowan and R. A. McDonald (eds.), Alba: Celtic Scotland in the Medieval Era (East Linton, 2000), esp. 32. 210 Bede, Ecclesiastical History, I. 1. (trans. Sherley-Price, revised Latham, 47). 211 Ibid., III. 4 (148). 212 See p. 59 below, under ‘Taexali’.

The Venicones Group 54. Poreo classis [Orrea] The Venicones are usually regarded as the inhabitants of Fife, but opinions have been divided as to whether (a) the tribe extended across the Tay or had affinities beyond it, or (b) there were separate tribal groupings in the two areas. Rivet and Smith postulated a northern extension of 213

Maps 13 and 14 (below) are reproduced from those prepared by Ian A. Morrison, in McNeill and MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History, 14–15. 214 Fordun’s Chronica was incorporated within Walter Bower’s Scotichronicon in the 1440s, and the modern edition of this provides the best translation of the Fordun passage: Scotichronicon by Walter Bower in Latin and English, ed. D. E. R. Watt et al., 9 vols. (Aberdeen and Edinburgh, 1987–98), i, 184–5.

58

The Native Situation the Votadini, seem to have become pro-Roman — the region of Fife is comparable with Lothian for its goodquality grain-growing land. The Gask series of Roman forts, fortlets and watchtowers were later to encircle Veniconian territory.223 It has long been believed that this arc of military installations was intended to protect the Venicones against attack from the West — the most likely threat being from the Caledonii.

Veniconian territory into Strathmore, since they favoured a site at Monifieth, on the north shore of the Tay, for the polis of Orrea, and their equation of Inchtuthil with (Damnonian) Victoria affected their location of other tribes. However, their suggestions were based on a rather rigid interpretation of the relationship between placenames as featured on Ptolemy’s map.215 They may also have been influenced by the fact that Carpow, the most commonly accepted location for Orrea, has yet to produce evidence for an early foundation.216 The single place-name Poreo classis in Group 54 is, still, more likely to be in Fife itself, and firmly Veniconian.

The Taexali Group 53. Devoni [Devana], Memanturum, Decha, Bograndium, Ugueste, Leuiodanum

Even if the Venicones had settlement and cultural similarities with their neighbours in Strathmore, the southern Vacomagi (see Maps 15 and 16), that is not conclusive proof that the same tribe occupied lands both north and south of the Tay.217 Maxwell has remarked that

The Taexali have been firmly located in the north-east corner of Aberdeenshire, in modern Buchan. Ptolemy’s Taexalorum Promontorium has been equated with Kinnaird Head, and so the only problem is to estimate how far Taexalian territory extended eastwards and southwards. The single polis of Devana allocated by Ptolemy to this tribe must be associated with the river Dee, by analogy with Chester’s river Dee and its fort Deva. Also, Ptolemy’s list of coastal features for the north-east of Scotland includes the mouth of the river Deva.224 The territory of the Taexali is, therefore, unlikely to reach much further south than the Aberdeen area. Morphological differences detected between the clusters of native souterrains discovered in Perthshire and Angus, and those in Aberdeenshire, seem to point to differing tribal practices;225 these may indicate the division between the lands of the Taexali and their neighbours to the south, but, as already mentioned, this is only half of the story. Also, Map 16, whilst highlighting similarities either side of the Tay, shows a marked contrast between the Tay region and Buchan (that is, either side of the Mounth — the name given to the southeastern part of the Grampian mountains along Strathdee from Ballater to just north of Stonehaven). Hanson believed that the most likely tribes to lie between the Taexali and the Venicones were either the Vacomagi, or the Boresti (the most northerly tribesmen mentioned by Tacitus).226 A possible western boundary marked approximately by the line of the series of Roman camps, and to the north-west by the river Deveron, would make the most sense.

the valley of the Tay adjoins the southwestern boundary of Iron Age peoples whose typical dwelling-site was of the unenclosed variety, comprising random clusters of round stone or timber houses, often accompanied by underground structures known as souterrains . . . similar settlements are also found in significant numbers in northern and eastern Fife.218

But souterrains are not limited to Fife and Strathmore. Significantly, the majority are found further north and west — in Aberdeenshire, Buchan, Moray, Caithness and Sutherland, as well as in the Northern and the Western Isles (see Map 17),219 and, in any case, as Maxwell reported earlier, it is not always easy to be sure that identified sites were in occupation at the same time.220 Nevertheless, Maxwell concluded that the Tay was a ‘natural and political boundary’ before the Romans (a view which is now generally accepted)221 and, therefore, of particular importance in first-century campaignplanning.222 Structural evidence, however, cannot point to changing attitudes amongst Iron Age peoples. The Venicones, like 215

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 128, 372–3, 490–1. See p. 90 below. 217 Maps 15 and 16 (below) are reproduced, respectively, from Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 125 (fig. 6.5); and Maxwell, Battle Lost, 45 (fig. 6). 218 Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 124–5. Souterrains are stone-lined chambers or passages, probably used for storage purposes; for a short summary of their nature and location, see Harding, Iron Age in Northern Britain, 196–9. 219 Map 17 (below) is reproduced from Harding, Iron Age in Northern Britain, 199 (fig. 7.6). 220 G. S. Maxwell, ‘Casus belli: native pressures and Roman policy’, in Thoms (ed.), Romans in Scotland, 45. 221 For example by K. Forsyth, ‘Origins: Scotland to 1100’, in J. Wormald, Scotland: A History (Oxford, 2005), 9. 222 Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 125. 216

223

On the Gask system, see pp. 79–81, 90–1 below. Rivet and Smith, following previous research, perversely preferred the spelling Devona in Ravenna (rather than Ptolemy’s Devana), which they therefore concluded must refer to the river Don: see Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 338. 225 Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 117. 226 Ibid., 120. For the Boresti, see below, under ‘Vacomagi’. 224

59

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors suggest that the text can be modified in such a way as to deny their existence altogether. That is not the view taken in Chapter 6 below.229

The Vacomagi Group 49. Matovion [Bannatia], Ugrulentum, Ravatonium Group 50. Iberran Group 51. Pinnatis [Pinnata Castra] Group 52. Tuessis [Tuesis], Lodone, Litinomago Group 57. Tagea [Tamia], Voran

Diversa Loca: The ‘Tribal Area’ Section Maponi, Mixa, Panovius, Minox, Taba, Manavi, Segloes, Daunoni

As with the Damnonii, it is probably more sensible to think in terms of northern and southern Vacomagi. Admittedly, the concept of Vacomagian territory which covers both Moray and Strathmore which lie, respectively, to the north and south of the Mounth and the Cairngorm range, is one which various scholars (including Ogilvie and Richmond, partly because they believed that Pinnata Castra was Inchtuthil) have found difficult — if not impossible — to accept.227 Yet, if the situation is compared with that of the Brigantes who inhabited both sides of the Pennines, it is not inconceivable that subtribes of the Vacomagi straddled the lower parts of the Mounth. Moreover, the Caledonii seem to have occupied the area between the Highland line around Dunkeld and the Great Glen, which includes both northern and southern Highlands — just as Ptolemy indicates for the Vacomagi. He placed them below (that is, east on a modern map) of the Caledonii, with the Venicones to the ‘west’ (south) and the Taexali to the ‘east’ (north). That almost certainly makes Strathmore (and the area stretching westwards to the Tay) their main focus; nevertheless, it does not preclude their presence as far north as the Moray Firth and up to the Varar estuary, where Caledonian territory begins.228 A northern and a southern grouping would both still be east of the Caledonii. Groups 49 and 57 would equate with Strathmore to the Tay, whilst Groups 50, 51 and 52 would be linked with the northern Vacomagi and the upstream areas of the rivers Nairn, Findhorn and Spey, respectively. The souterrain evidence cited above would tend to support this argument.

Immediately after the list of place-names and before the Cosmographer gave the river names is a short group of eight words, described as diversa loca. The more clearly identifiable areas amongst the loca are Taba (Tay area); Manavi (Forth area, part of which was later known as Manau of the Gododdin); Segloes (Selgovae); Daunoni (Damnonii); and possibly Panovius (referring to the river Novius — Nith — and therefore the Novantian border). Richmond and Crawford believed that the names had some connection with tribal meeting places, and suggested Maponi could have been linked with Clochmabenstane, the medieval meeting place associated with the Gretna area and/or Upper Annandale around Lochmaben.230 Here it is suggested that the Maponi region is Upper Annandale, and the Ravenna name Maporiton, assigned to Ladyward, is in that area. Mixa could then, perhaps, be Eskdale, and Minox could refer to Lower Annandale, believed to be linked with the possible sub-tribe of the Brigantes known as the Anavionenses.231 The whole section was disregarded by Rivet and Smith as ‘a collection of “odd places” . . . which the Cosmographer had omitted to mention earlier’,232 and so they rejected Richmond and Crawford’s theory. Frere believed that such a rejection ‘without sufficient cause’ was unjustified;233 and, indeed, it was Rivet and Smith’s own

229

See p. 110 below for precise details. They also suggested the link between Manavi and Manau Gododin: Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 15–16. C. A. R. Radford, ‘Locus Maponi’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxxi (1952–3), favoured Lochmaben over Gretna, suggesting that the former was a place of sanctuary whereas the importance of Clochmabenstane can be traced back securely only to the late fourteenth century; previously (in the year 1249) the meeting-place was said to be at the Sulwath ford. Anne Crone, however, in her report on the Neolithic ‘Clochmabanestane’ itself, could not confirm, nor rule out, the possibility that it was part of an ancient stone circle: A. Crone, ‘The Clochmabanestane, Gretna’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lviii (1983), 18; others state categor-ically that it was: see, for example, R. Castleden, Neolithic Britain: New Stone Age Sites of England, Scotland and Wales (London, 1992), 267. Whether it had any significance in the Iron Age is, of course, unknown. For further discussion of Clochmabenstane and other ‘stones’, see J. T. Koch, ‘The stone of the Weni-kones’, Bull. Board Celtic Studies, xxix (1980–2), 88. 231 On the Anavionenses, see p. 51, and n. 144 above, and pp. 126, 127, 129 below. 232 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 212. 233 Frere, Britannia, 179 n. 52. 230

It is possible that the Boresti (named by Tacitus in connection with Agricola’s final campaign) were, in effect, the northern Vacomagi, and were associated with the most northerly of Ptolemy’s poleis — Pinnata Castra (Ravenna’s Pinnatis) — and with Ravenna’s Iberran and Group 52 headed by Tuessis. Ptolemy did not mention the Boresti (but then he mentioned neither the Carvetii nor the Deceangli), which has led Stan Wolfson to

227 Tacitus De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 43–4 (editors’ ‘Introduction’): they locate the Vacomagi in Strathmore only. Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 141, conclude that Pinnata Castra is in Moray, and therefore so are the Vacomagi. See also Mann and Breeze, ‘Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of north Britain’, 90; Barrow, ‘Tribes of North Britain revisited’, 162; D. J. Breeze, ‘Agricola in the Highlands?’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxx (1990), 58. 228 Ptolemy, Geography, ed. and trans. Stevenson, 50.

60

The Native Situation dismissal of the eight names that was too hasty. If Richmond and Crawford had been moving towards the right kind of assumptions, the names could well represent a further piece in the jigsaw of pre-Roman tribal structures north of the Tyne–Solway line. They went on to suggest that these eight locations could have been ‘the places of lawful assembly recognized by Roman treaty or frontier regulation, perhaps in the third century, when the Lowlands were patrolled rather than garrisoned by Roman troops’.234 There could be some truth in this, but the list does not need to refer to the third century. Mann, whilst being equally disparaging about the competence of the Cosmographer, did concede that the loca could have some significance as a group.235 He quoted an illuminating passage from Cassius Dio concerning the orders of the emperor Commodus in AD 180 vis-à-vis the Marcomanni who lived outside the Danubian provinces. It gives an insight into the way peace treaties were agreed between Romans and barbarians. The tribesmen were instructed that they

should not assemble often, nor in different parts of the area, but only once a month, and in one place, in the presence of a Roman centurion. Furthermore, they were not to make war on the Iazyges, the Buri or the Vandals. On these conditions he made peace, and abandoned all the forts in their territory, beyond the neutral zone along the frontier.236

Clearly the beginning of a new reign (that of Commodus) in AD 180 necessitated a new look at frontier control. Dio also referred to Caledonians ‘breaking their promises’ in the early Severan period, AD 197–8.237 Could the same have been true at the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius, particularly since it is clear that major reorganisation of the military occupation of Britain was undertaken in the period AD 138–61? This idea is explored in Chapter 7, where the loca can be linked with the early years of Antoninus’ reign and the suggested date of c.142–3 for the original compilation of the Ravenna list.238 236

Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXXIII (LXXII). 2. 4; quoted in Mann, ‘Loca’, 55 n. 4. 237 Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXXVI (LXXV). 5. 238 See pp. 126 ff., and Figure 4 below.

234

Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 15. 235 J. C. Mann, ‘Loca’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xx (1992).

61

PART II BRITANNIA: ROMAN ADVANCE, TOTAL CONQUEST AND WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTHERN SCOTLAND

‘tibi serviat ultima Thule’ (‘may furthest Thule be your servant’) Virgil, Georgics, I. 30 ‘perdomita Britannia et statim omissa’ (‘Britain was left to fend for itself no sooner than its conquest had been completed’) Tacitus, Histories, I. 2

4. AGRICOLA’S PREDECESSORS A different set of problems becomes apparent when attempting to assess the pre-Agricolan Roman occupation of the North. It is possible to outline a general Flavian progression through northern Britain, but it is extremely difficult (and in some cases impossible) to disentangle one governor’s work from another’s and, in the case of Agricola’s seven-year governorship, to distinguish between campaigning seasons. Nevertheless, it is certain that all governors of Britain during the Flavian period, that is Marcus Vettius Bolanus (AD 69–71), Quintus Petillius Cerialis (AD 71–4), Sextus Julius Frontinus (AD 74–7), Gnaeus Julius Agricola (AD 77–83), and the latter’s unknown successors (in the period AD 84–96), including Sallustius Lucullus, all had dealings with northern Britain. Earlier governors must also have been in contact with some of the northern tribes, particularly the Brigantes, who probably had ‘client’ status up to AD 69.

was made which may or may not have been ratified a second time.4 As for the southern tribes, the only major uprising was the Boudican rebellion in AD 60, caused by very real grievances on the part of the provincials. Hostile activity in the pre-Flavian years was mainly centred on southern Wales, and then along the Welsh borderlands. Rome, the ‘Welsh’ and the ‘Midland’ Tribes The Silures and Ordovices continued to struggle against Roman domination intermittently for over thirty years until well into the Flavian period; the former were finally conquered by Frontinus in the mid-70s, the latter by Agricola in 77. The Silures were particularly troublesome during the governorships of Publius Ostorius Scapula (AD 47–52) and Aulus Didius Gallus (AD 52–8), which led Nero to step up the pressure on them and embark upon the total conquest of Wales; he dispatched Quintus Veranius (AD 58–9), who seems to have crushed the main thrust of resistance in one campaigning season, apparently claiming in his will that he would have conquered the whole province if he had lived to govern for a further two years.5 Be that as it may, Frere described the Silures as ‘the toughest and most successful opponents which the Roman army was to encounter in these islands’6 (evidently he regarded them as more of a challenge even than the Brigantes or the Caledonii). He may well be right. After all, they had taken advantage of the period of ‘limbo’ between the death of Scapula and the arrival of Gallus in AD 52, and had managed to defeat a legion under the command of Gaius Manlius Valens. The Silures must also have been a menace across the Bristol Channel, since the two Roman fortlets at Old Burrow and Martinhoe on the north Devon coast were surely built to watch the coastline and to deter seaborne interference from them. The fortlets, however, are not contemporary; Old Burrow has been dated to the Claudian period, and is most probably connected with Scapula’s campaigns,7 while Martinhoe has been assigned to the later years of the reign of Nero, probably during the governorship of Marcus Trebellius Maximus (AD 63–9). It is possible that

There seems to have been very little sustained resistance from the southern and south-eastern tribes following the initial conquest. A total of eleven British leaders surrendered to Claudius and accepted Roman overlordship.1 It is not clear to which of the known tribes these belonged, or indeed whether they were leaders of sub-groups whose names have not survived; but Cogidubnus, originally of the Atrebates (civitas capital Calleva — Silchester, near Reading), Prasutagus of the Iceni (civitas capital Venta — Caistor St Edmund, near Norwich), and, possibly, Boduocus of the Dobunni are likely candidates, while, given the date of the inscription (AD 51), Caratacus of the Catuvellauni could also have been included (although that date may not refer to events as late as 51).2 It must also be borne in mind that all these leaders were not necessarily located in southern Britain; the list would probably have included Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes (and perhaps Venutius, so long as he remained married to her), along with leaders of the Cornovii, the Parisi, the Corieltavi, and possibly even of the Votadini of Lothian. The Latin historian Eutropius, writing c.AD 365, went as far as to say that Claudius ‘added to the Roman empire certain islands in the Ocean beyond Britain, called the Orchades’.3 If Eutropius was correct, the Orkneys were included because they were bound by treaty to one of the mainland tribes (most likely the Votadini) who had accepted the Claudian terms; although this seems unlikely, it is not impossible that an agreement

4

Frere, Britannia, 52. For further discussion of the debate on this point, and the possible relevance of early pottery in Orkney, see A. P. Fitzpatrick, ‘The submission of the Orkney Islands to Claudius: new evidence?’, Scot. Archaeol. Rev., vi (1989). 5 Tacitus, Annals, XIV. 29. 1. See also E. Birley, ‘Britain under Nero: the significance of Q. Veranius’, in his Roman Britain and the Roman Army, 1. 6 Frere, Britannia, 62. 7 A. Fox and W. L. D. Ravenhill, ‘Early Roman outposts on the North Devon coast, Old Burrow and Martinhoe’, Proc. Devon Archaeol. Exploration Soc., xxiv (1966), 22, 25.

1

The number is given on his triumphal arch, dedicated in AD 51: see Frere, Britannia, 52–3. See also p. 55 at n. 179 above. 2 Frere, Britannia, 53; Caratacus mentioned, ibid., 52. The Iceni were definitely allies: Tacitus, Annals, XII. 31. 3. ‘quia societatem nostram volentes accesserant’. 3 Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, VII. 13. 3: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 41.

65

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Martinhoe continued to be used (or was reused) in the build-up to the final defeat of the Silures under Frontinus.8 In the 1990s, two more similar signal stations were indicated on the north Cornish coast at Morwenstow and St Gennys, either side of Bude Bay, and there may have been others,9 perhaps forming part of a coastal chain similar to that which developed further north on the Cumbrian coast.

at this time, and perhaps also the earliest phase at Llandovery (3d).16 Rome’s dealings with both the Silures and the Dobunni were obviously interlinked. It was in c.AD 49 that legio XX was moved from Colchester, and its new base would most probably have been in the relatively settled lands of the eastern Dobunni, at Kingsholm — the precursor of the military fortress site and later colonia at Gloucester (6a).17 It has been claimed, on the basis of coin distribution, that there were two divisions of the Dobunnic tribe, probably either side of the Severn, which were antagonistic towards each other, and that an absorption of western Dobunnic territory in Herefordshire in order to produce a coherent whole was merely a result of ‘Roman reorganisation’.18 The Ravenna list certainly gives two separate regional areas (Group 4 in the west, and Groups 6 and 7 in the east), although the dividing line between them was not necessarily the Severn. Nevertheless, these groups could reflect the original tribal structure. The whole of Dobunnic territory appears to have been controlled by Roman installations and a communication network from an early date — perhaps from soon after the Claudian invasion of AD 43. The Dobunni (at least the eastern section of the tribe) probably found Roman overlordship preferable to what they had known before. They seem to have been subject to the powerful Catuvellauni — the expansionist tribe of the Thames valley, centred on modern Hertfordshire, whose leader Cunobelinus, father of Caratacus, was styled ‘King of the Britons’ by Suetonius.19 It is difficult to tell whether this was willingly or not. There is evidence from Dobunnic coin distribution to suggest a decline in trade with the neighbouring Atrebates, 20–15 BC,20 which may coincide with an attempted Catuvellaunian takeover. The subjugation of the Catuvellauni must have been an early priority, and their surrender would have given the Romans control

It can hardly be coincidental that the Ravenna list of Silurian place-names includes the strategically important sites close to the southern Wales coast at Caerwent, Caerleon and, possibly, Cardiff. It is uncertain when Caerwent (1), the Silurian civitas capital, was founded, but it may have been preceded by a Roman fort.10 Webster saw Veranius’ punitive campaign against the Silures first targeting the Wye area (it is possible that there were early fort sites at Chepstow and at Monmouth),11 then perhaps surrounding the Silures in a ‘pincer’ movement by attacking via the river Tywi which must have divided them from their pro-Roman neighbours, the Demetae. Further detachments must certainly have penetrated Silurian territory from the coast via the other river valleys, the Loughor, the Neath and, particularly, the Taff and the Usk.12 The site at Loughor (3e) may have been an early foundation, because a fort at Cardiff, at the mouth of the river Taff, was certainly established by AD 60.13 The great legionary fortress of Usk — later replaced by Caerleon (3a)14 — was probably begun during Gallus’ governorship and then perhaps used to advantage by Veranius,15 as a base for the swift deployment of troops deep into the tribal heartland. It is likely that the fort at Abergavenny (3b) was established

8

Ibid., 26. D. J. P. Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy (Stroud, 2003), 88–9 (including fig. 30); F. M. Griffith, ‘Developments in the study of Roman military sites in south-west England’, in W. Groenman-van Waateringe et al. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1995 (Oxford, 1997), 362–3. 10 W. Manning, Roman Wales (A Pocket Guide) (Cardiff, 2001), 58. 11 Webster suggested that a fort may lie under the town or the castle at Chepstow: Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 55. It ought to have been an important point, guarding the river crossing; also a ‘large Neronian fort seems probable at Monmouth’: see Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 10. 12 Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 105–6. 13 See Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 11. For more detail, see P. V. Webster, ‘The first Roman fort at Cardiff’, in B. C. Burnham and J. L. Davies (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Recent Work in Roman Wales (Trivium, 25, Lampeter, 1990). Loughor was certainly in existence in the early Flavian period, from c.73–4. For a summary of the chronology, see A. G. Marvell and H. S. Owen-John, Leucarum: Excavations at the Roman Auxiliary Fort at Loughor, West Glamorgan, 1982–84 and 1987–88 (London, 1997), 206–9. 14 Caerleon is believed to have been founded under Frontinus in AD 74 or 75: see Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 29. 15 A. Marvell, ‘Recent work on the Neronian fortress at Usk, 1986–88’, in Burnham and Davies (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 25. 9

16

Abergavenny is almost certainly a pre-Flavian fort, and numismatic evidence points to its being contemporary with Usk: see Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 11; for further detail, see K. Blockley, F. Ashmore and P. J. Ashmore, ‘Excavations on the Roman fort at Abergavenny, Orchard Site, 1972–73, Archaeol. Jl, cl (1993). They conclude that it dates to c.AD 55–60: ibid., 171. Llandovery may also be pre-Flavian: see Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 95–6. 17 Manning, Roman Wales, 9. Kingsholm, rather than Gloucester, was linked by road to Cirencester, which proves its earlier foundation: Todd, Roman Britain, 62; ceramic evidence also indicates the link between Kingsholm and Cirencester: H. R. Hurst, Kingsholm: Excavations at Kingsholm Close and Other Sites with a Discussion of the Archaeology of the Area (Gloucester, 1985), 126. 18 Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 17. 19 Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, ‘Caligula’, XLIV. 2, when talking of his son Adminius: ‘Adminio Cynobellini Britannorum regis filio’. Arnold and Davies also point out that the Dobunni ‘are known to have contributed levies for the confederate forces of [Cunobelinus’] sons, Caratacus and Togodubnus in AD 43’: see their Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 2. 20 R. D. Van Arsdell, The Coinage of the Dobunni: Money Supply and Coin Circulation in Dobunnic Territory (Oxford, 1994), 28.

66

Agricola’s Predecessors Severn Valley near Newtown,26 or a little to the west of Caersws (11a).27 More recently Barri Jones plausibly suggested that Caratacus’ last stand took place further north, near the large hill fort of Llanymynech. His checklist of features, taken from Tacitus’ text, accurately describes the site in seven out of eight cases,28 which makes it an extremely strong candidate for the title — despite the fact that no less than three hill-fort sites in Wales have been named Caer Caradog after their ‘Celtic’ warrior-hero. Other evidence to support the case is connected with the ‘stores compound’ located nearby at Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain,29 and with the series of military sites at Abertanat and Clawdd Coch.30

over the full extent of their territory, which probably stretched as far as the recently discovered fortress at Alchester in northern Oxfordshire (likely to be the Alavna amongst the first group of southern place-names omitted from Appendix 5); this would explain the dendrochronological result obtained from the timbers of the gateway, which dates it to the autumn of AD 44.21 Returning to the Dobunni, Kingsholm was clearly of great strategic importance, and may have been the special base mentioned by Tacitus for operations against the Silures;22 it is also likely that military installations of this period preceded the later settled towns within both western and eastern sections of Dobunnic territory: at Kenchester (4); and at Weston-under-Penyard (6a), Droitwich (6b), Worcester (6c) and Cirencester (7).23 It made good sense to have reinforcements closer to the scene of conflict, since, by c.49 at least, Caratacus was supported by the Silures.

A ‘glen-blocking’ policy was clearly in operation in eastern Wales and the Welsh border areas long before it was employed in Scotland against the Caledonii.31 Proceeding northwards from the fortress at Usk in southern Wales, a sequence of forts can all be described as blocking major river valleys or routes of communication which effectively cordoned off the Welsh peninsula from the Midlands: at Monmouth; Abergavenny (3b); Clyro and Clifford, near Hay on Wye; Hindwell Farm (Walton, 5d?); Brandon Camp — probably a ‘temporary campaign-base’ near Leintwardine (5a); Stretford Bridge; Llwyn-y-brain, the first fort at Caersws (11a); Leighton; Wroxeter (8a); Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain, near Llanymynech; Abertanat; and Rhyn Park (north of Oswestry),32 which had two sites — a large campaigning camp and a smaller fort. It is impossible to determine which governor was responsible for many of these and other forts in the area, although some sites (particularly the large camp at Rhyn Park and the fort at Jay Lane, Leintwardine)33 were

The first direct Roman military encounter with the tribes of north Wales was probably in AD 48, under Scapula, following disturbances the previous year. According to Tacitus, the governor was in mid-campaign against the Decangi (or Deceangli, who, as mentioned earlier, may have been a part of an Ordovician confederation), and was close to the Irish Sea when a rising amongst the Brigantes of northern England forced him to change his plans.24 What happened during the next couple of years is unclear, but Tacitus recounted that in AD 51 Caratacus took the war from Silurian into Ordovician territory, where it is assumed that he was finally defeated.25 The traditional locations suggested for the defeat were the

26

Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 29. J. K. S. St Joseph, ‘Aerial reconnaissance in Wales’, Antiquity, xxxv (1961), 270–1; also quoted in Frere, Britannia, 64, 79 n. 26. 28 Checklist sheet: personal communication from Barri Jones. Apart from ‘evidence of haste in rampart construction’, which could not be determined, Llanymynech has (1) a river setting; (2) a steep cliff on one side; (3) a gentler slope on the other side; (4) outer perimeter defences; (5) space for internal battle; (6) related Roman evidence; and (7) an escape route to the Brigantes. See also G. D. B. Jones, ‘Searching for Caradog’, in Burnham and Davies (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change; Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain, 66–7; B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 1994: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xxvi (1995), 328. 29 Jones, ‘Searching for Caradog’, 61; S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1986: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xviii (1987), 304. 30 Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1991’ (Wales), 256–8. 31 For the operation of such a policy against the Caledonii, see p. 99 below. 32 All these sites are shown as pre-AD 75 foundations: see Manning, Roman Wales, 15 (map). For Brandon Camp, Leintwardine, see S. S. Frere, ‘Brandon Camp, Herefordshire’, Britannia, xviii (1987), quotation at 63; on Llwyn-y-brain, Caersws, see J. K. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1965–68’, Jl Roman Studies, lix (1969), 121–3; and Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 66 (under Caersws I). On Wroxeter, see p. 69 below. 33 On Rhyn Park, see J. K. S. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1973–76’, Jl Roman Studies, lxvii (1977), 148; on Jay Lane,

21

27

E. Sauer, ‘Alchester Roman fortress’, Current Archaeology, no. 173 (2001), 191. The site, next to the later Roman town, may have been even more significant in the initial conquest of Britain: see E. W. Sauer, ‘Inscriptions from Alchester: Vespasian’s base of the Second Augustan Legion(?)’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005). 22 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 32, though Hurst is sceptical about trying to associate any specific site with Tacitus’ text: see Hurst, Kingsholm, 119–22. 23 Kenchester and Weston-under-Penyard are shown as pre-AD 75 sites: see Manning, Roman Wales, 15 (map); Weston-under-Penyard may have had a fort ‘to the north of the settlement’: Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 116. A fort at Droitwich was established soon after the invasion: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 214. At Cirencester one was probably in use ‘within a year of the invasion’: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 304; for the foundation of the fort and a summary of its history up to Agricola, see J. Wacher and A. McWhirr, Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester (Gloucester, 1982), 64–6. No evidence of a similarly dated fort at Worcester has yet been found, though one was more than likely: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 232; a few military finds but no structural evidence for a fort: H. Dalwood and R. Edwards, Excavations at Deansway, Worcester, 1988–89: Romano-British Small Town to Late Medieval City (Council Brit. Archaeol. Research Reports, 139, York, 2004). 24 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 32. 25 See, for example, Frere, Britannia, 64.

67

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors probably established as a result of campaigns in the Claudian period under Scapula.34 According to William Manning, a large number may be attributed to a period of consolidation under Gallus, a procedure which was to pave the way for the next stage in the conquest under Veranius, and then under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (AD 59–61).35 That would make sense also, because Caratacus’ flight into Ordovician territory, where the terrain was unsuitable for ‘large forces’,36 would have thrown into harsh relief the need to secure and monitor all major ‘escape’ routes in the Welsh marches. In any case, many Ravenna places, or their predecessors in Silurian, Dobunnic and southern Ordovician lands, had to have been founded in these early years of campaigning, as is clear from the probable (early?) Neronian date of the roads: one to Wroxeter via Leintwardine which began in Silurian territory around Chepstow; and a second that ran from Gloucester (Kingsholm) to Monmouth and Usk. There is, however, no evidence of pre-Flavian routes westwards into the heart of Wales between Leintwardine and Wroxeter, or north of Wroxeter.37

against hostile activity behind him; his campaign bases may have been right on the edge of their territory, at Rhyn Park and Whitchurch (9).41 That is not to say, however, that the Deceangli did not subsequently take up arms against the Romans as part of the Ordovician confederation (perhaps at the time of the Caratacus crisis or later, before finally being defeated by Agricola’s forces in AD 77). In fact, the Romans may have seen fit to ‘remove’ the Deceangli from Ordovician overlordship on account of the considerable mineral resources which the tribe could supply. Indeed, perhaps because of these resources, the Deceangli were also wealthy and powerful, which explains why Tacitus emphasised that the army ‘collect[ed] extensive booty’.42 Richmond pointed to research and excavation in Flintshire in the 1920s and 1930s which indicated that lead mines in Deceanglian territory were being worked on Rome’s behalf by AD 74. He went on to explain that mining ‘usually followed quickly upon conquest’ and could indicate the recent acquisition of territory.43 Three lead pigs were discovered: two in Chester, firmly dated to AD 74; and the third at Hints Common, near Tamworth, dated to AD 76; they were inscribed DECEANGI or DEGEANGL.44 Submission of the Deceangli to Roman rule could theoretically have been as late as under the governorship of Petillius Cerialis (71–4), but if, as Michael Jarrett believed, the Deceangli had been defeated by AD 58–9, Roman exploitation of Flintshire lead could have been under way by AD 60.45 That would tie in with the increase in activity around the Dee estuary from Paulinus’ time.46

Veranius took decisive action against the Silures, and his successes may have led him genuinely to believe that he could have conquered the rest of Britain if death had not prevented him. Tacitus, in contrast, was quick to point out that Veranius ‘only conducted minor raids against the Silures’, but the governor must have suppressed them sufficiently to enable his successor, Suetonius Paulinus, to move northwards against the Ordovician confederation; this campaign was, of course, cut short by news of the Boudican revolt of AD 60. At that time Paulinus had launched a successful attack on the Druid community of Anglesey, and Tacitus went on to mention the subsequent garrisoning of the island.38 The discovery of a possible Roman fort site at Aberffraw on the west coast of the island prompted the suggestion that this could have been one of the installations from the period;39 however, it would seem that it is no longer viewed as Roman. The only other known Roman fort site on the island, at Caer Gybi, is probably a fourth-century harbour structure which revealed no evidence of early activity.40

There is no specific evidence of clashes with the Ordovices under Cerialis or under Frontinus; however, although Tacitus credited Frontinus only with the defeat of the Silures, it is clear that the governor was also operating in Ordovician territory, because a Roman cavalry unit (either garrisoned, or patrolling there) was virtually destroyed just before Agricola’s arrival in the province.47 Flavian ‘reconquest’, which points to Frontinus’ activities, is attested at Caersws (11a), where a replacement fort was built; Abergavenny (3b) was definitely in use by this time; while Brecon Gaer (Y Gaer, 3c) and Llandovery (3d),48 amongst others, were probably

The Deceangli were probably subjugated by some time between AD 48 and 60, since it is unlikely that Paulinus would have attacked Anglesey without first guarding

41

For Rhyn Park as campaign base, see Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain, 69; for both sites, see Arnold and Davies, Roman and Medieval Wales, 5; for Whitchurch, see Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 122. 42 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 32. 2. 43 I. A. Richmond, ‘Gnaeus Julius Agricola’, Jl Roman Studies, xxxiv (1944), 37, and n. 25. 44 RIB 2404.31, 2404.32 and 2404.34. 45 Jarrett and Mann, ‘Tribes of Wales’, 165. 46 For reference to ship-building, see at n. 54 below. 47 Tacitus, Agricola, XVIII. 1–2. ‘Ordovicum civitas haud multo ante adventum eius alam in finibus suis agentem prope universam obtriverat, eoque initio erecta provincia’. 48 Brecon Gaer was certainly built between AD 75 and AD 80: see NashWilliams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 51. Llandovery’s large

Leintwardine, see Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 92–3. 34 Stanford, Archaeology of the Welsh Marches, 124. 35 Manning, Roman Wales, 13–16. 36 Frere, Britannia, 64. 37 Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 36–7. 38 Tacitus, Annals, XIV. 29–30. 39 D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1973: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, v (1974), 397; R. Goodburn, ‘Roman Britain in 1978: I: Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, x (1979), 268, but there are no further references. 40 Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 137.

68

Agricola’s Predecessors [the Menai strait]’.54 The later pre-fortress phase at Chester may possibly be linked with Cerialis’ campaigns in northern England in the early 70s, or with a Frontinian foundation as indicated above.55 Here, as elsewhere, Tacitus was too vague to allow precise judgement on the number of possible contexts.

Frontinian foundations. It is safe to say that ‘all the forts up to the line of the upper Severn which demonstrate the existence of early Flavian defences ought to be Frontinian’;49 that might also include Forden Gaer (11b), and the forts of Leintwardine (5a), and Caerau (Beulah, 5b) and Castell Collen (5c) in central Wales.50 Several other fort sites further to the north-west — Caer Gai and Llanfor (at the southern and northern ends of Bala Lake, respectively), Cefn Caer at Pennal (towards the coast, west of Machynlleth) and Tomen-y-Mur (north of Ffestiniog) — may also date to this period.51

A Claudian date (as early as the late 40s under Scapula) has been suggested for the conquest, or capitulation, of the southern Cornovii centred around the Wrekin, near Wroxeter (8a);56 the establishment of a military base at Wroxeter would have followed soon after. A pre-fortress phase was confirmed there by the presence of at least one auxiliary fort,57 and the fortress is believed to have been built between c.AD 52 and 56.58 The original operation to reach the tribal centre may have taken the form of a ‘pincer’ movement, involving troops following the route west from Wall (13b), and, simultaneously, the north/ north-westerly route from Droitwich (6d) by way of ‘the complex of forts at Greensforge’ (8b), and Leighton.59 A whole cluster of camps and two forts at Greensforge seem to indicate comparable importance with the site of Leintwardine (5a), and point to both military advance and a strategic importance that merit inclusion in the Ravenna Cosmography.60 A series of 40-acre (16.4 hectares) marching camps beginning with Wall, passing through Wroxeter and then heading in a north-westerly direction, has been cited as possible evidence for a Scapulan campaign route against ‘the northern Ordovices or the Deceangli’;61 this could have been a strike against the Druids, whose organisation may have been stirring up anti-Roman feeling amongst younger tribal leaders.62 If these camps are connected to each other, and to the Scapulan campaign of AD 48, they ought to have postdated the defeat (or capitulation) of the Cornovii; that would strengthen the case for the tribe to have been

There were certainly early, pre-Flavian encounters with the Cornovii, culminating in their absorption into the province and the later establishment of the fortress at Chester (12a). The latter’s foundation has traditionally been assigned to Agricola’s governorship, because of the discovery of a lead water pipe inscribed with his name and dated to the first half of AD 79. The pipe is now thought to relate to the structure known as the ‘elliptical building’, which was unlikely to have been part of the initial construction of the fortress.52 This observation, together with the sheer complexity of the bath buildings which are known to have been in use by AD 79, have led to the conclusion that work on the fortress was most probably begun c.74–5, under the governorship of Frontinus if not before.53 An early harbour site at the estuary of the river Dee is more than likely, and was certainly in operation by AD 79. In addition, two possible pre-fortress phases have been indicated. The earlier has been tentatively assigned to Paulinus’ governorship (59– 61). Activity there may relate to preparations for Paulinus’ assault on Anglesey, since Tacitus mentions the building of ‘flat-bottomed boats’ which ‘took the infantry across

fort is also tentatively assigned to the early Flavian period: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 15. 49 Davies, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales . . . from Claudius to the Antonines’, 261. 50 Evidence at Forden Gaer has indicated a mid-Flavian foundation: Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 88. Leintwardine itself (following the early Jay Lane fort) was founded ‘not earlier than AD 71’: see S. C. Stanford, ‘The Roman forts at Leintwardine and Buckton’, Trans. Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, xxxix (1968), 253. The ceramic evidence from the first construction period at Caerau (Beulah) seemed to indicate a Frontinian site: see ibid., 48. The earliest large fort at Castell Collen is believed to have been built c.75–8: L. Alcock, ‘The defences and gates of Castell Collen auxiliary fort’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, cxiii (1964), 82. 51 Davies, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales . . . from Claudius to the Antonines’, 260–1, 273–4 (nn. 13, 20); see also D. Hopewell, ‘Roman fort environs in north-west Wales’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 265, where he favours a date early in Frontinus’ governorship for Llanfor and Cefn Caer but cannot dismiss pre-Flavian activity. 52 RIB 2434.1; D. J. P. Mason, Excavations at Chester: The Elliptical Building. An Image of the Roman World? Excavations in 1939 and 1963–9 (Chester, 2000), 16–17, 29–30; colour illustration on back cover. For a possible intended function of the building, see p. 92 below. 53 Mason, Roman Chester, 44–6; see also D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Chester: early Roman occupation’, in Carrington (ed.), Deva Victrix, 30.

54

Tacitus, Annals, XIV. 29. 3; Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 91–2. 55 Evidence for the pre-fortress phases comes from underneath the ‘elliptical building’: see Mason, Roman Chester, 33; D. J. P. Mason, ‘The foundation of the legionary fortress: Deva, the Flavians and imperial symbolism’, in Carrington (ed.), Deva Victrix, 33–5; Mason, Excavations at Chester: The Elliptical Building, 8–12. See also Shotter, ‘Chester: early Roman occupation’. 56 White and Barker, Wroxeter, 38; Webster, Cornovii, 27. 57 White and Barker, Wroxeter, 38–9. 58 Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 49. 59 White and Barker, Wroxeter, 38. 60 Greensforge’s importance is stressed, and its six temporary camps make up ‘a group unmatched in the approaches to Wales’: J. K. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, Jl Roman Studies, lxiii (1973), 233. For full details of seven phases in three successive forts at Leintwardine, see Stanford, ‘Roman forts at Leintwardine and Buckton’. 61 Carrington, ‘Roman advance in the north western midlands’, 8. 62 David Shotter, personal communication. Shotter believes that the ease with which ‘rebel’ leaders like Caratacus could move between tribal territories suggests the considerable influence of a trusted higher authority such as that of the Druids.

69

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors among those surrendering to Claudius by AD 51. According to Tacitus, Scapula had aimed ‘to disarm all suspects and reduce the whole territory as far as the Trent and Severn’,63 which would tie in well with the absorption of the eastern Dobunni, the Corieltavi and the Cornovii, whose combined territories approximate to that description. There is no further mention of conflict with these tribes, and it seems unlikely that they were later involved in the Boudican rebellion, which probably involved only the Iceni, the northern Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes.

foundations, at Leicester (13a), Wall (13b), Towcester (13c), Lincoln (14a) and Horncastle (14b).66 Rome and the Brigantes Tacitus’ comments on the break-up of the marriage and political alliance of Cartimandua and Venutius show that this happened some time in the 50s, and that successful Roman intervention in support of Cartimandua had been required under the governorship of Gallus;67 hence the advance from Cornovian territory mentioned above. The final showdown is described briefly, and must have taken place during the crisis year in the Roman world known as the ‘Year of the Four Emperors’ (AD 69), which culminated in the accession of the first Flavian emperor, Vespasian. The date is fairly certain, because Tacitus went on to stress contemporaneity with events in Germany which ultimately caused the downfall of the emperor Vitellius and the accession of Vespasian.68 The governor of Britain at the time must have been either Trebellius Maximus, the last Neronian governor, or, more likely (since Trebellius had been ‘forced to retire’ in March 69), his successor, Marcus Vettius Bolanus, appointed by Vitellius in May 69.69 Bolanus may originally have favoured a diplomatic agreement with the Brigantes which obviously broke down very quickly. He might also have had to be cautious until the recent upheavals within the army were settled. Even so, Tacitus was perhaps making a subtle, but sarcastic, jibe against this man’s way of dealing with a leader of Venutius’ calibre when he described the governor as operating ‘with a gentler hand

Of the suggested identifications for the five northern Cornovian place-names following Deva victris in the Ravenna list, at least two — Chesterton (12b) and Little Chester (that is the earlier Strutt’s Park site, 12d) — can be fairly confidently associated with the Neronian advance, under Didius Gallus;64 perhaps Middlewich (12e) and Rocester (12c?) can also be added here.65 Control of salt sources, and of lead extraction may have been primary motives in any strategy decision concerning this northern group of the Cornovii. If there were indeed two separate campaigns against the Cornovii, that may be reflected in the two, distinct groupings of Cornovian place-names. If the two sections had originally been regarded in this way, it might even explain why the ‘Ordovician’ place-names lie between the two groups, since Ordovician resistance must have been effectively quashed with the defeat of Caratacus in AD 51 (although the Ordovician confederation re-emerged hostile to the Roman invaders during the governorship of Paulinus (59–61), and, presumably, intermittently thereafter, until they were finally conquered by Agricola). On the other hand, Corieltavian place-names appear together, and they follow the Cornovian names, so the positioning may be coincidental. The place-names associated with the Corieltavi were all likely to have been early, Claudian

66 Leicester has produced some evidence of early military occupation: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 343; pre-Flavian timber buildings are believed to have been connected with the fort: A. Connor, Roman and Medieval Occupation in Causeway Lane, Leicester: Excavations 1980 and 1991 (Leicester, 1999), 5. A fort at Wall was probably occupied during the Claudian period: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 276. Towcester’s name ought to indicate an early fort, though, as yet, there is no evidence: ibid., 152, 155. Lincoln may have been a Neronian foundation, but a Claudian date is not ruled out: see M. J. Jones, Roman Lincoln: Conquest, Colony and Capital (Stroud, 2002), 34–5. Horncastle has produced a few Claudian coins — according to J. C. Walter, A History of Horncastle (Horncastle, 1908), 4, cited in the first edition of Malcolm Todd’s, The Coritani (London, 1973), 141 n. 20 — and it has third-century defences, but no evidence to date of an early fort. In the second edition of his Coritani (1991), Todd was doubtful about either Horncastle or Caistor as fort sites because ‘their communication-links with the rest of the region are poor’ (ibid., 45), though the ‘trapezoidal plan’ of Horncastle might indicate an early foundation: for other ‘unusual’ early sites, see pp. 72, 76 below. For further detail on Horncastle, see Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 240–5. 67 Tacitus, Annals, XII. 40. 68 Tacitus, Histories, III. 46–8. 69 K. Wellesley, The Long Year AD 69 (London, 1975), 92; for the most recent discussion of the period, with special reference to the ‘Brigantian’ situation, see D. Shotter, ‘Roman Britain and “The Year of the Four Emperors” ’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., ii (2002).

63

Tacitus, Annals, XII. 31. ‘detrahere arma suspectis cunctaque cis Trisantonam et Sabrinam fluvios cohibere parat’. The corrupt Latin text was reconstructed in the nineteenth century, and the new wording has been accepted ever since: see Webster, Rome against Caratacus, 21; and Webster, Roman Invasion of Britain, 123, where he described this as the ‘Fosse Way frontier’. 64 Webster suggested a possible Claudian date for Strutt’s Park (though Neronian is now accepted), and showed that other sites in this area pointed to Neronian activity: G. Webster, ‘The military situations in Britain between AD 43 and 71’, Britannia, i (1970), 190; see, more recently, D. Shotter, ‘Rome and the Brigantes: early hostilities’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., xciv (1994), 23. 65 D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Middlewich: the evidence of Roman coin loss’, Jl Chester Archaeol. Soc., lxxv (1998–9), 56. See also I. Rogers, ‘The conquest of Brigantia and the development of the Roman road system in the north-west’, Britannia, xxvii (1996), 367, who comments on ‘early military activity’ near Chesterton, and at Middlewich. Rocester was classed as a Neronian site: Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1986’ (England: Midlands), 323, though ceramic evidence then seemed to point to a Flavian foundation: Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1987’ (England: Midlands), 448.

70

Agricola’s Predecessors than was appropriate for an untamed province’;70 this observation might be linked with the equally sarcastic remark made about the outcome of Cartimandua’s rescue: ‘Venutius got a kingdom, whilst we were left with a war’.71 The poet Statius, on the other hand, gave a different impression of Bolanus’ abilities. Some time during the reign of Domitian, Statius wrote a poem of exhortation for the ex-governor’s son, Crispinus, in which he stressed Bolanus’ military expertise: ‘ “Here are the presents and weapons [Bolanus] dedicated to the gods of war — you can make out the inscriptions still. Here is the breastplate he put on at battle’s summons; here is one he wrenched from a British king” ’.72

the Brigantian leader ‘summoned help from outside’.76 This phrase has sometimes been interpreted as referring to malcontents among the ‘Welsh’ tribes, but surely at this stage the focus of native resistance was firmly in the north of Brigantian territory.77 ‘Welsh’ involvement is even less likely if it is accepted that the south-western portion of Brigantian territory was marginal to the tribe’s mainstream activities.78 It is not clear whether it was Bolanus, or his successor Cerialis, who was responsible for the final defeat of Venutius. It was evidently not Agricola, since, if it had been, Tacitus would have been quick to stress the fact in his biography.79 As with Caratacus, however, there were probably two stages: the defeat of the leader’s forces at a hill fort, followed by his flight and ultimate capture or death elsewhere.

Cartimandua was certainly rescued from Venutius’ aggression, more than likely by Bolanus, and presumably from her main base somewhere in the Vale of York, perhaps from Barwick-in-Elmet.73 If so, the suggestion of Roman penetration from Lancashire via the Ribble–Aire corridor is a distinct possibility, along with a northward advance via Templeborough and Rossington Bridge,74 which would have been a continuation of the route from Wall, through Little Chester.

After the episode with Cartimandua, Bolanus may have headed directly for Catterick (26),80 and Stanwick (near modern Scotch Corner),81 which had probably been captured by Venutius from Cartimandua. As indicated in Chapter 3, there may be evidence of defence construction which was destroyed in the early 70s (or even in 69?) before it was fully completed.82 From Stanwick the main route across the Pennines known as Stainmore would have been the most obvious way out for Venutius, since it led back to his own heartlands in the north-west. A series of temporary camps along this route at Rey Cross, Crackenthorpe and Plumpton Head have for some time been associated with early conquest,83 and one or two of

The coin evidence points to pre-Flavian Roman activity in the estuaries and river valleys of Lancashire and Cumbria (though not, of course, in the form of permanent installations). Distribution of contemporary copies of Claudian copper coinage was relatively widespread under Nero (AD 54–68), but these coins seem to have gone out of circulation in the Flavian period; in fact, they are quite rare even in early Flavian contexts. Examples of early copper aes coins have been discovered throughout the north-west region, but predominantly in river valley and coastal contexts. The coins are a good indicator of an early Flavian date not only because of their relatively short period of circulation, but also because many of those discovered are hardly worn.75

76

Tacitus, Histories, III. 45. ‘accitis auxiliis’. Frere certainly took Tacitus’ words to refer to tribes in southern Scotland, ‘all other directions being ineligible’: Frere, Britannia, 82, 102 n. 1. This conclusion had also been reached much earlier: see Birley, ‘Britain under the Flavians’ (this article was originally published in Durham Univ. Jl, June 1946), 14. 78 See p. 49 above. 79 Hanson also made this point in his Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 60. 80 It has been suggested that a double ditch or temporary camps at Catterick may relate to the activities of Bolanus: P. R. Wilson, Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. Excavations and Research, 1958–1997, 2 vols. (Council Brit. Archaeol. Research Reports, 128 and 129, York, 2002), ii, 446. 81 The early importance of the area near Scotch Corner is highlighted by the presence, at nearby Thornborough, of the ‘northern Stonehenge’, a prehistoric site with three well-preserved henges arranged, apparently, to imitate Orion’s belt: . It was probably a pilgrimage centre: see J. Harding, ‘Later Neolithic ceremonial centres, ritual and pilgrimage: the monument complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire’, in A. Ritchie (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context (McDonald Inst. Monograph Ser., Cambridge, 2000), 43. 82 Not all scholars find the evidence from Stanwick to be consistent with a Roman assault: see, for example, Todd, Roman Britain, 78–9; Turnbull, ‘Stanwick in the northern Iron Age’, 43; see also p. 48 above. 83 By 1934 the suggestion had been made that the first two of these camps could be linked with ‘the first Roman invaders of Cumbria’: I. A. Richmond and J. McIntyre, ‘The Roman camps at Reycross and Crackenthorpe’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., xxxiv (1934), 57, 60–1. 77

Bolanus would have had to turn his attention urgently to Venutius and his allies, who must have been Selgovan and, possibly, Novantian, since Tacitus stated clearly that 70

Tacitus, Agricola, VIII. 1. ‘placidius quam feroci provincia dignum est’. Tacitus, Histories, III. 45. ‘regnum Venutio, bellum nobis relictum’ (trans. Shotter). 72 Statius, Silvae, V. 2. 147–50: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 15. The possible significance of Statius’ poem was highlighted in 1946 by Eric Birley — see his comments on Tacitus’ and Statius’ views on Bolanus: E. Birley, ‘Britain under the Flavians: Agricola and his predecessors’, in his Roman Britain and the Roman Army, 12–13. 73 See Carrington, ‘Roman advance in the north western midlands’, 10; see also pp. 48–9 above. 74 D. C. A. Shotter, ‘The Roman conquest of the north-west’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., c (2000), 37. 75 D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Roman north-west England: the process of annexation’, Trans. His. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxlviii (1998), 5–7 (including fig. 1). 71

71

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors them, if not all, may have marked Bolanus’ progress in pursuit of the fugitive to Carlisle (23a) and, from there, on into Scotland.84 Crackenthorpe seems to be aligned with the Roman road, but Plumpton Head and Rey Cross have no such alignment, and therefore apparently predate it.85 In the absence of specific dating evidence, it is also the curious shape of the Stainmore camps which seems to point to an early construction.86 Plumpton Head is trapezoidal, and all three have unusual or multiple gateways which are unlike any of the camps in Scotland which have definitely been assigned to Agricola; thus a date in the early to mid-70s seems assured. There is, as yet, no evidence of pre-Cerialian building at Carlisle, unless the more recently discovered fort south-west of Carlisle, at Dalston (Cummersdale) relates to Bolanus’ governorship.87

although, even if dating evidence were to prove a precise date of AD 71 at any of these sites, it would still not be enough to distinguish between the two governors in this their ‘changeover’ year. What is clear, however, is that Bolanus must have been dealing effectively with opposition throughout 70 and into 71 (whether by diplomatic means or by military force); otherwise, he would have been recalled before his allotted three years in office. On the other hand, the last few months might have been a holding operation until Cerialis’ arrival.89 Statius’ reference to the forced removal of a British king’s breast-plate (quoted above), however, shows that Bolanus was certainly asserting his authority over at least one of the northern tribes; whether the unnamed king was Venutius,90 or perhaps a leader of one of the ‘Scottish’ tribes, is impossible to determine, but the earlier reference in the poem to ‘Caledonia’ should probably be taken seriously.91

If Bolanus had been responsible for the defeat of Venutius, this event would presumably have been followed by some kind of mutual agreement, or peace treaty, between the conquerors and the Brigantes plus their northern allies. There is no archaeological evidence to link Bolanus firmly with any Roman installations (either permanent or temporary) in Brigantian territory, but early sites assigned to Cerialis may well have been used as temporary strongholds by Bolanus prior to their establishment as permanent forts under his successor. Doncaster, Castleford (22b) and York (27), for example, in south-eastern Brigantian territory are usually considered to have been founded by Cerialis (see Map 18),88

Whatever agreements Bolanus may have made with the Brigantes had clearly lapsed by the time of Cerialis’ arrival. There seems to have been a deliberate change of policy by the emperor Vespasian; clearly military action was inevitable, and the Brigantes were targeted immediately. The emperor’s choice of Cerialis (probably his own son-in-law) as the new governor in AD 71, and his accompaniment by the newly formed legion, legio II Adiutrix (together with associated auxiliary units), which replaced legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix, may not necessarily have heralded a radically different approach, but the pace had changed. This was clearly a more systematic and concentrated offensive: Vespasian was demonstrating his commitment to restoring full legionary strength to Britain, and the early years of his reign could be described as a ‘visionary period’.92 Also, it looks as if Cerialis’ own legio IX, first based at Lincoln (14a), was transferred to York and replaced at Lincoln by the newcomers of legio II Adiutrix.93 The latter were expert sailors (recruited from the fleet based on the eastern Italian coast at Ravenna), who had transferred their loyalty from Vitellius to Vespasian in AD 69. Despite Tacitus’ obvious dislike of Cerialis, and his dismissal of the man’s achievements, he did admit that Cerialis was

84

For Bolanus’ possible penetration into Scotland, see pp. 76, 78–9, 80 below. 85 H. Welfare and V. Swan, Roman Camps in England: The Field Archaeology (London, 1995), 36, 43, 60. 86 For discussion on possible Cerialian sites in southern Scotland, see pp. 75 ff. below. 87 There is virtually no dating evidence for this fort; two Republican denarii — see D. Shotter, Roman Coins from North-West England: Second Supplement (Lancaster, 2000), 41 — might suggest an early foundation, as might some of the structural evidence, but a couple of early second-century samian sherds could equally link it with the later development of the Stanegate: see A. S. Esmonde-Cleary, ‘Roman Britain in 1995: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), Britannia, xxvii (1996), 405; Esmonde-Cleary, ‘Roman Britain in 1998’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), 334. 88 Map 18 (below) is reproduced from I. D. Caruana, ‘Maryport and the Flavian conquest of North Britain’, in R. J. A. Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport and its Setting: Essays in Memory of Michael G. Jarrett (Kendal, 1997), 43 (fig. 2.1). For Castleford, see T. Sumpter, ‘The vicus of the Roman fort at Castleford’, in Wilson, Jones and Evans (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Bradford, 1984), 84. The coin evidence, however, could point to a Frontinian foundation: P. Abramson, ‘The search for Roman Castleford’, Current Archaeology, no. 109 (1988), 44. The first fort at Castleford is now believed to be either Cerialian or Frontinian: H. E. M. Cool, ‘Introduction’, in H. E. M. Cool and C. Philo (eds.), Roman Castleford: Excavations, 1974–85, i, The Small Finds (Wakefield, 1998), 3. For York, see Ottaway, Roman York, 23, where he indicates that the site was empty when Cerialis arrived; cf. L. P. Wenham, ‘The beginnings of Roman York’, in Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, 48, who cited artefactual evidence which could point to pre-Flavian occupation.

89 It may be that Britain had been reserved for Cerialis once he had finished dealing with the Gallo-German rising: see A. R. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford, 2005), 62, where he cites Josephus, Jewish War, VII. 82. 90 If it was, this was not the final defeat of Venutius: see Frere, Britannia, 82–3. Statius quoted on p. 71 at n. 72 above. 91 See p. 57, and p. 78 at n. 160 below. 92 Tacitus described the new era under Vespasian as a period of ‘great generals and outstanding armies’: Agricola, XVII. 1. ‘magni duces, egregii exercitus’. It had previously been suggested that Cerialis’ successor as governor, Frontinus, may have been the legate who brought legio II Adiutrix to Britain (J. B. Ward-Perkins in 1937, but now discredited): see Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 69; but Cerialis is now regarded as the best candidate, especially in the light of current thinking on the course of his activities in northern Britain. 93 Jones, Roman Lincoln, 37.

72

Agricola’s Predecessors operating in the north, and that he had subdued much of Brigantian territory by force.94 Small-scale, amphibious campaigns might have been undertaken already by Bolanus, but the new legion must have reflected the greater emphasis on this side of operations.

starting point for progression up the west coast. The fleet would have consisted of detachments from legio II Adiutrix, transferred from Lincoln,100 and would have supported forces marching on the most westerly land route in this area, known as ‘King Street’, through the early sites of Middlewich (12e), Wilderspool (Mersey estuary), Walton-le-Dale (Ribble estuary, with access to the possible early military site at Kirkham,101 and the fort at Ribchester, 21)102 and Lancaster (Lune estuary, 17a).103 Early military sites at Wilderspool and Walton-le-Dale may be postulated on artefactual grounds; there is, as yet, no structural evidence from this period at Wilderspool.104 King Street is more likely to have been the earlier route in this area (as opposed to the road to the east through Manchester), as it is more conveniently situated closer to the coast. New evidence from Warburton (Cheshire) may suggest a military function,105 perhaps connected with the patrolling of the river Mersey. There may also have been other fort sites on the King Street route around Warrington, Wigan and Preston, but, if so, such sites are unlikely ever to be located in these heavily built-up areas. In any case, Manchester now seems to have been an Agricolan foundation, and the fort at Northwich (again, probably later and linking Manchester and Chester) is bypassed by King Street.106 Yet Felicity Wild called for a return to the ‘orthodox’ interpretation of King Street as the later

In AD 70, Vespasian had sent Agricola as commander of legio XX, where his task was to restore order and discipline within a legion which had been fiercely proVitellian.95 The legion’s base at the time was Wroxeter, whilst Cerialis’ legio IX was now operating from York (27). It has, therefore, been suggested that, from AD 71, the legionary commander and the new governor proceeded through Brigantian territory covering the west and the east respectively.96 Tacitus’ own text hints at this strategy; the historian described Agricola (on account of his successes) being placed in charge of a significant part of the army — perhaps half the campaigning force.97 Early advance in the north-west would probably have proceeded northwards from the bases of Wroxeter (8a) and Little Chester (Strutt’s Park, 12d), but would almost certainly also have involved seaborne operations, designed to make optimum use of the specialist skills of legio II Adiutrix. All the legions would have been fully focused on the task in hand: probably the initial stages of Vespasian’s ‘grand plan’ for the total conquest of Britannia.98 Nero had neither the vision for, nor the commitment to, the province — it was even rumoured that he had toyed with the idea of recalling the legions from Britain. A great deal of reconstruction work would have been required in Colchester, London and St Albans following Boudica’s rebellion, and it was perhaps in the aftermath of the disaster that Nero questioned the viability of the province of Britannia.99 His later decision to remove legio XIV Gemina in c.AD 67, at a time when an uneasy peace amongst the Brigantes was likely to give way to outright hostility towards Rome, shows a lack of understanding.

100 It is quite likely that the whole of legio II Adiutrix was then transferred from Lincoln to Chester during Frontinus’ governorship; it would then have been ideally placed for its maritime role under Agricola: Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 95. 101 Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 20; C. HowardDavis and K. Buxton, Roman Forts in the Fylde: Excavations at Dowbridge, Kirkham (Lancaster, 2000), 9. Kirkham may have been a coastal site then. The first fort is probably post-Agricolan, dating to c.AD 90, but the earliest phase of military activity here, represented by the campaigning camps, may well be c.AD 71 at the latest (this depends to a certain extent on the dating of the subsequent ‘watchtower’ phase, which could be either Cerialian or Agricolan). My thanks to David Shotter for the latest thinking on the chronology. 102 Despite inconclusive dendrochronological results on timbers from the fort, it is still believed to have been in operation under Cerialis: see B. J. N. Edwards, The Romans at Ribchester: Discovery and Excavations (Lancaster, 2000), 47; K. Buxton and C. Howard-Davis, Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989–1990 (Lancaster, 2000), 401–2. 103 The corresponding coin-loss profile ‘would not be inconsistent with a foundation as early as the period of Cerialis’s governorship’: see D. Shotter, ‘Roman Lancaster: site and settlement’, in A. White (ed.), A History of Lancaster (Edinburgh, 2001), 7. 104 On Wilderspool, see p. 113 at n. 172 below. Possible Neronian ditches were located under the industrial structures at Walton-le-Dale: see A. C. H. Olivier’s comments in S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1983: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xv (1984), 285; D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, Northern Hist., xxxvi (2000), 192. 105 Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2001’ (England: Northern Counties), 302–3. 106 See Rogers, ‘Conquest of Brigantia and the development of the Roman road system’, 365, 367, who agrees with Shotter’s contention that King Street is the earlier route, reiterated again in the 2004 edition of Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 27 (fig. 3.1), 29–30, 53 (fig. 4.1).

By contrast, Vespasian had a finger on the pulse from the start. Flavian penetration of the north-west was carefully orchestrated, and commanders seem to have employed simultaneously both land and sea routes. The postulated early site on the Dee estuary, or one at Meols on the Wirral (perhaps in conjunction with the precursor of the fortress at Chester), would have provided a convenient 94

Tacitus, Agricola, XVII. 2. ‘magnamque Brigantum partem aut victoria amplexus est aut bello’. 95 For more detail, see p. 83 below. 96 Shotter, ‘Rome and the Brigantes’, 28; Hartley had previously disagreed with this kind of scenario: see B. R. Hartley, ‘Some problems of the Roman military occupation of the north of England’, Northern Hist., i (1966), 12. 97 Tacitus, Agricola, VIII. 2. ‘saepe parti exercitus in experimentum, aliquando maioribus copiis ex eventu praefecit’. 98 See pp. 91 ff. below. 99 Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, ‘Nero’, XVIII; see also Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 42.

73

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors route;107 her case is based on the relative proportions of samian form 29, which is scarce in late first-century sites and appears to be scarce at Lancaster and Walton-le-Dale but, relatively speaking, more plentiful at Manchester and Ribchester. Northwich she dismissed as ‘irrelevant’; Ribchester, which is pivotal to her argument, is certainly early, but it was not necessarily originally connected with the Manchester route, but with the east–west route and the Ribble–Aire corridor.108

Meanwhile, on the eastern side of the Pennines, it is still unclear whether there was a pre-Agricolan phase in the Corbridge area.113 A northward march to Corbridge (30a) cannot be ruled out, however, particularly since possible early activity is suggested at Binchester (25a),114 and now also at Roecliffe.115 The alternative would be that Cerialis joined his ‘shadow’ force in the west via Stainmore, and that the three temporary camps along this route reflect the campaigning of Cerialis rather than that of Bolanus; both scenarios may be correct, of course, since the camps could have been reused. Cerialis’ progress may be indicated by the addition of forts at Bowes (25b) and Brough-under-Stainmore (20b), which have been assigned to the early 70s AD (see Map 18).116 Brougham may also date from this period — especially if nearby Clifton Dykes was a major Carvetian centre of some kind — though insufficient numismatic evidence means that the Roman fort can only be tentatively regarded as a Cerialian site; however, its position halfway between Carlisle and Low Borrow Bridge is indicative of an early foundation.

It is clear, however, that from bases in Cornovian territory — Wroxeter, Chester, Little Chester (Strutt’s Park) and Middlewich, all in Groups 8 and 12 in Appendix 5 — the Roman forces moved decisively against the Brigantes. Lancaster and Ribchester, too, continued to be important enough for later inclusion in the Cosmography.109 North of Lancaster, and also the following place-name, is Low Borrow Bridge (17b), almost certainly one of the sites on the next stage of the northward march to Carlisle. In between the two lies Burrow-in-Lonsdale, probably a Flavian fort (Cerialian?) and the Alone of the Iter X of the Antonine Itinerary; very little is known about its chronology, except that it may have been abandoned after the Flavian period until the third century.110 The defences of the fort at Low Borrow Bridge, however, are dated to the second century, but excavations in 1950–1 revealed an earlier, smaller fort beneath the visible one; this may indicate a Cerialian foundation because there would appear to be more than one phase. In addition, the site has recently yielded an early coin (a Claudian copy).111 The remaining two names in Group 17 are equated with Watercrook and Ambleside, both of which are later foundations; there may, however, have been an early fort site between Lancaster and Low Borrow Bridge (perhaps replaced later by Watercrook) at the indicatively named Hincaster.112

Under Cerialis’ governorship, the lands of the Parisi seem to have been effectively separated from those of the Brigantes, since the Parisian forts date back to this period — Brough-on-Humber (28a), Hayton and Malton (28b?). Brough, the later civitas capital, Malton and perhaps one

Shotter, Roman Coins from North-West England: Second Supplement, 208. 113 The Red House site, about half a mile (1.3 km) from the main, visible fort at Corbridge, was claimed to be Agricolan: W. S. Hanson et al., ‘The Agricolan supply-base at Red House, Corbridge’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., vii (1979), 84–5; see also J. N. Dore, ‘The fort at Red House and Flavian coarse pottery in northern Britain’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, but cf. G. Simpson, ‘Decorated south Gaulish bowls from Corbridge and the Red House sites’, in A. C. Anderson and A. S. Anderson (eds.), Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe: Papers Presented to Graham Webster (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, internat. ser., 123[i], Oxford, 1981), where she stressed the similarity in samian forms of pottery from Corbridge and examples from known Cerialian sites at Brough-onHumber, Hayton and York. The coin evidence, too, may indicate an earlier date. If Shotter’s ‘coin profile’ analysis for Carlisle (which is also compared with Ribchester) is applied to the coin list from Corbridge, the predominance of aes issues there may point to preAgricolan activity: see D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in Carlisle: a numismatic contribution’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., i (2001), 26–8. Frontinian Corbridge either beneath the main site, or at Red House, is another possibility: David Shotter, personal communication (see in conjunction with Newstead, p. 77 below). 114 Binchester had ‘at least two phases of timber structures’: see I. M. Ferris and R. F. J. Jones, ‘Excavations at Binchester, 1976–9’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, 235. 115 A possible Cerialian foundation: see M. C. Bishop, ‘A new Flavian site at Roecliffe, North Yorkshire’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 214–19. 116 Bowes is definitely Flavian according to Sheppard Frere: personal communication to David Shotter. Brough-under-Stainmore is regarded as early Flavian: M. J. Jones, ‘Archaeological work at Brough-underStainmore, 1971–2: I. The Roman discoveries’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., lxxvii (1977), 43.

107

F. Wild, ‘The development of the Roman road system in the northwest: the evidence of the samian ware’, Britannia, xxxiii (2002). King Street as the later route is outlined, for example, by G. D. B. Jones, Roman Manchester (Manchester, 1974), 6–8, who believed that Manchester (definitely a Flavian foundation) could have been Cerialian: ibid., 3. 108 Wild, ‘Development of the Roman road system in the north-west’, 270–2. Shotter maintains that amongst the finds from Manchester ‘there is nothing that need be regarded as earlier than Agricolan’: personal communication. 109 Coin evidence shows that Ribchester, Wroxeter and Little Chester were probably ‘bases for overland operations’ at this time: Shotter, ‘ “Agricolan” is an overworked adjective’, 76. 110 For a summary of the evidence from excavations and a list of finds from Burrow-in-Lonsdale, see Shotter and White, Romans in Lunesdale, chap. 4. 111 M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1951: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Area), Jl Roman Studies, xlii (1952), 90–1; Shotter and White, Romans in Lunesdale, 52; for the Claudian copy, see D. Shotter, ‘Roman coins from Low Borrow Bridge’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., iii (2003), 224–5. 112 For Watercrook and Ambleside, see p. 113 below. No structural evidence has been discovered at Hincaster, though an early coin find (a denarius of Antonius and Octavian) was recorded there: listed in

74

Agricola’s Predecessors other fort site, are all listed in this group.117 Stamford Bridge, or a site in that area, may be the missing fort. Recent excavations have confirmed the existence of a Romano-British settlement there, and a temporary camp nearby.118 (Possible Cerialian fort foundations at Cawthorn and Lease Rigg, however, may not have been related to tribal division so much as to the establishment of a route to the river Esk and the harbour at Whitby.) Cerialis may also have performed a similar ‘divide-and-rule’ operation in northern Cumbria, which probably separated one Carvetian zone from the others. In this way, the goodquality land of the Solway Plain could be monitored. The sites in Group 19 were almost certainly linked together for this purpose; it is merely the precise date of the policy that is at issue. The early foundation of Blennerhasset (19d)119 is the most compelling evidence for Cerialian involvement, although other sites in this group, and in Group 18, are also beginning to reveal evidence of early occupation. Maryport (19a), Beckfoot (19b) and Papcastle (19e) may have had precursors.120 Ravenglass (18a) may also have been early,121 but there is insufficient numismatic evidence for the sites of Moresby (18b) and Old Carlisle (19c) to prove early activity. Tacitus’ description of Roman protectionist policy in Germany in AD 69–70 (part of an alleged oration by Cerialis to the local tribes, the Treveri and the Lingones) seems to point to the same kind of divide-and-rule arrangement.122 Vespasian, too, may have had first-hand experience of

this kind of tactic when he served as legionary commander during the early years of conquest in the south. Belgic territory was separated from that of the Atrebates, and the Dobunni may also have been divided into two sections. Garrisoning of both the northern and southern parts of Brigantian lands would have followed the final defeat of Venutius. Consequently, the Brigantes moved from client kingdom to conquered tribe (although some of Venutius’ diehard loyalists may have escaped across the Irish Sea — perhaps they were the ‘renegade’ Brigantes mentioned earlier).123 The amount of territory overrun and secured by this campaign, and the relative importance of Brigantian lands then, and in later years, is indicated by the proportion of place-names associated with the area in the Ravenna list. The western parts are contained in Groups 15–21, 23 and 41; the eastern place-names appear in Groups 22, 24–7 and 29–30. Group 31, which gives the sites on Hadrian’s Wall, obviously has a combination of sites from east to west. There are fifty-four placenames in all — around a third of all those listed roughly north of the Bristol to Lincoln line and, interestingly, around a quarter of the total number of place-names for the whole of Britain. Pre-Agricolan Activity in Scotland The most important piece of information to have come to light in recent years concerns the dendrochronological dating of timbers from the early Roman fort at Carlisle (23a). It was proved that these were felled in AD 72–3, and that Carlisle, like York (27), is now known to have been founded by Cerialis.124 It is surely not surprising that Cerialis should have been responsible for the building of the first permanent forts at York and Carlisle, the presumed central power-bases of Cartimandua and Venutius respectively. This dating evidence has made an enormous difference to an understanding of the pace of conquest of northern Britain: incursions were definitely made into what is now Scotland before Agricola.125 This does not mean that Tacitus gave an inaccurate account of events during Agricola’s third campaigning season, but

117

All these sites are shown as definite Cerialian foundations: see Map 18 (below). 118 For the settlement (first phase dated to the first and second centuries), see B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2004: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 416; for the camp, see P. D. Horne and I. G. Lawton, ‘Buttercrambe Moor Roman camp, Buttercrambe with Bossall, North Yorkshire’, Britannia, xxix (1998); B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 1999: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxxi (2000), 395. 119 J. Evans and C. Scull, ‘Fieldwork on the Roman fort site at Blennerhasset’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., xc (1990), 94. 120 Maryport’s coin profile (few early coins of any kind) may mean that there were no pre-Flavian structures on the present site, but there could have been Cerialian activity in the area: see Caruana, ‘Maryport and the Flavian conquest of North Britain’. Time Team’s ‘Big Roman Dig’ (2005) at Maryport produced evidence of a fort earlier than the visible one, but it is not clear how much earlier: Paul Flynn, personal communication to David Shotter. Photographic evidence may indicate early development at Beckfoot: Barri Jones, personal communication. Two early coins (‘Claudian copies’) from Papcastle may point to such activity: mentioned in D. Shotter, ‘Roman coins from Maryport’, in Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport and its Setting, 136; see also D. C. A. Shotter, Roman Coins from North-West England (Lancaster, 1990), 83– 7 (Maryport), 91–5 (Papcastle). 121 See J. Gerrard and S. Mills, ‘Some stray finds from the Ravenglass area, Cumbria and their implications’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., ii (2002). Excavations in the 1970s had previously confirmed a Hadrianic date for Ravenglass: T. W. Potter, Romans in North-West England: Excavations at the Roman Forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook and Bowness on Solway (Kendal, 1979), chap. 1, esp. summary of dating (p. 12). 122 Tacitus, Histories, IV. 73–4.

123

See p. 45 at n. 81 above. New dendrochronological dates have been obtained for some of the internal buildings; timbers were from AD 73–4: John Zant, personal communication to David Shotter. 125 Cerialian penetration into Scotland had, of course, been suggested in the early 1950s: Birley, ‘Brigantian problem’, 40–1. Cerialis at Carlisle and beyond was presented as a suggestion in W. C. Dickinson, A New History of Scotland, i, Scotland from the Earliest Times to 1603 (Edinburgh and London, 1961), 23. The notion was subsequently removed from the revised third edition edited by A. A. M. Duncan (Oxford, 1977), 16, perhaps because Agricola was favoured instead in Duncan’s own volume in the Edinburgh History of Scotland series, originally published in 1975: A. A. M. Duncan, Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1978 edn), 18. 124

75

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors that the historian’s slanted narrative, which emphasised his father-in-law’s achievements, has been misleading.126 Many scholars have simply inferred from the text that the third campaigning season ‘opened up new peoples with the ravaging of the territories up to the Taus [Tay estuary]’127 meant that ‘Scotland’ beyond the modern border was intended, and that this was the first time it had been invaded. But surely the ‘opening up’ of new peoples occurred because the Tay had been reached (that is, peoples beyond the Tay, particularly the southern Vacomagi, were now in close contact with the Romans). And, in any case, Tacitus does not say that Agricola was the first to operate in the Tay region, just that he had now done enough to secure it. Even if the historian’s intention had been to imply that Agricola reached the Tay first, the impression was created subtly by ‘transferring’ the event (that is by omitting to point out that Agricola did so when he was commander of legio XX under the governorship of Cerialis).128

contexts, but also the enclosure has an unusual diamondshaped grouping of four traverses (ditch and mound entrance-way defence features), which is otherwise unknown. The Ward Law site was originally regarded as a fort, but, since aerial reconnaissance in the late 1970s failed to reveal evidence of internal structures, it has more recently been classed as a camp, or ‘some kind of semi-permanent work’.131 Keppie described a fort at Ward Law in his 1998 publication, and indicated the best vantage points for viewing its ramparts;132 aerial photographs show two different enclosures.133 Although it is difficult to be certain about the areas of early Flavian activity beyond Carlisle, archaeological sequences have been, and continue to be, reassessed in the light of the incontrovertible evidence from the timbers of Carlisle’s fort. However, possible indications of a Cerialian foundation for some of the Roman sites in southern Scotland are: an unusual shape (in the case of camps, and as apparent in the Stainmore camps of northern England); unusual features, for example in the ditch system, the defences, or the orientation of a fort or camp; or up to four Flavian phases of construction (in the case of forts). Ward Law, as described above, certainly comes into this category, and it is important to note that the site effectively guarded entry into Nithsdale, and it ‘commanded a view of the entire Solway and its northern shore’.134

It seems fairly logical that Venutius would either have fled into the territory of his allies (those tribes which still remained beyond the immediate reach of Rome), or would have sought refuge at the farthest point of his own Carvetian(?) territory, and that he would have been pursued either by Bolanus or Cerialis. Whoever was responsible for the final demise of the Brigantian chief,129 it is possible that the Ravenna place-name Venutio (which appears in the groupings north of Hadrian’s Wall) indicates that the defeat took place in southern Scotland.130 The place suggested here is Ward Law (41f), on the edge of northern Brigantian (northern Carvetian, or possibly Anavionensian) territory, where the river Nith marks the boundary with the lands of the Novantae. Venutius could have collected support from amongst the Selgovae on his way, and he could have organised extra assistance to be ready and waiting for him on the Novantian border. Ward Law is one of the most enigmatic military installations in Britain. It was constructed in such a way as to link up to an Iron Age hill fort, possibly by means of a causeway; this suggests that there was a political reason for the choice of site (as was the case with Hod Hill in Dorset). Not only is its position something of a rarity in Roman

After the defeat of Venutius, the next stage of conquest may well have seen a treaty drawn up with the Selgovae, who probably surrendered at the same time. If they did not, Cerialis and his troops no doubt soon forced them to capitulate. (The Votadini seem to have had a long history of pro-Roman activity,135 and may have posed no problem at all at this stage. They may even have been on good terms with the staunchly pro-Roman Cartimandua.) Cerialis would then have needed to establish a major fort 131

Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977– 84’, 24. Ward Law was still described as a fort in more recent publications: see Higham and Jones, Carvetii, 24 (1985; repr. 1991); Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain (1990), 98, 106–7 (maps 4:31, 4:39, 4:40), though it is now shown on the 2001 OS map, Roman Britain, as a camp. 132 L. Keppie, Scotland’s Roman Remains, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 1998), 89; the wording remained essentially unchanged in the third edition of 2004: see Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 95–6. 133 For a clear photograph of what looks like a camp, see McCarthy, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway, 52 (fig. 24); cf. the photograph in Higham and Jones, Carvetii, 24 (fig. 10, where the corner of the same feature appears, along with a small rectilinear enclosure in the distance which may be the Antonine fortlet at Lantonside, though there is no indication in the text). 134 J. K. St Joseph, ‘Three Nithsdale sites’, in S. N. Miller (ed.), The Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland (Glasgow, 1952), 120. 135 Material from Traprain Law, the most impressive Iron Age hill fort in their territory, has hinted at this. More recent excavation also points to settled terms with Rome. ‘Dressed stone slabs may indicate some degree of architectural sophistication in a building contemporary with the Roman occupation’: L. J. F. Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1999: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxi (2000), 384.

126

Tacitus’ text is not to be viewed as a distortion of the truth, however; it is much more subtle than that: cf. Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 190–202. 127 Tacitus, Agricola, XXII. 1. ‘Tertius expeditionum annus novas gentes aperuit, vastatis usque ad Taum (aestuario nomen est) nationibus’. 128 My thanks to David Shotter for this suggestion. He made the point in Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc. Newsletter, no. 42 (2003), 11. 129 Venutius must have been killed; if he had been captured, he would have been ‘paraded’ in the streets of Rome, just as happened with Caratacus. 130 For a possible connection with Venutio, see Birley, ‘Brigantian problem’, 45; this idea was taken up again later: see A. R. Birley, ‘Petillius Cerialis and the conquest of Brigantia’, Britannia, iv (1973), 190.

76

Agricola’s Predecessors in Selgovan territory (exactly as had happened, in a Brigantian context, at York and Carlisle), and that fort must have been Newstead (Trimontium, 42a). It is arguably the best candidate north of Carlisle for allocation to Cerialis’ governorship on strategic grounds alone. Until recently Newstead was believed to have had an unusual ground plan, but, although the plan may not be precisely as originally drawn, one of the most recent excavators advocates an early foundation.136 The site has also produced more pre-Flavian coins than anywhere else in Scotland, and the relatively high number of aes coins from the reigns of Augustus and Nero seems to argue for a foundation date in the early 70s.137 The first fort at Newstead definitely faced west,138 towards Carlisle, which may also be significant. It may confirm that the fort was intended to monitor the Selgovae, not the Votadini; more importantly, if Cerialian, it could show that penetration into Scotland was first undertaken from Carlisle and not via Dere Street (which might, consequently, confirm that the first phases at Binchester and Corbridge are either Frontinian or Agricolan). Most recently, an examination of the glassware from Newstead is also pointing towards a pre-Agricolan date.139

early Flavian fort, due to the examination of aerial photographs of the site. The original form of the earliest fort was an unusual T-shape.143 Netherby (35b) and Crawford (38a) may be further candidates for a Cerialian foundation. Netherby ought to have been constructed around the same time as Broomholm, as it was approximately halfway along the route from Carlisle to Broomholm, but there is no firm evidence of pre-Hadrianic activity there, and little chance of further excavation because the site lies within the grounds of Netherby Hall. In any case, levels would have been seriously disturbed during landscaping. The fort at Crawford may have had an early Flavian presence because excavations apparently indicated ‘timber buildings in an unorthodox plan’.144 Richard Gregory has now assigned other fort (or fortlet) sites (including Dalswinton and Milton) to Cerialis’ governorship ‘with a moderate degree of confidence’. These are: the fortlet at Barnhill, near Beattock (if this is, in fact, Flavian rather than Antonine); Birrens (41a); Gatehouse of Fleet (36c); Glenlochar (36a); and, possibly, Drumlanrig (38b) and Ladyward (34c).145 There was certainly Flavian occupation at Birrens, which had been assigned to Agricola’s governorship. Such conclusions were reached at a time when Cerialian penetration this far north was not an option, since early pottery and coins were virtually assumed to have been lost after AD 78 rather than before. It was, however, observed that the first military structure at Birrens bore little relation to the more conventional Agricolan forts in southern Scotland, and had more in common with early phases at Milton and Castledykes (33a).146 (The first comparison is to be expected; the second is, perhaps, more surprising, but it is just possible that the multiple phases at Castledykes conceal a Cerialian presence.)147

Other building projects in the territory of the Selgovae might have included forts at Broomholm (35a), Dalswinton (39) and Milton (34a), which are thought to date to the early Flavian period because of their complicated occupation sequences.140 At Broomholm there seem to be further ditches under the first Flavian (Agricolan) rampart which belong to a ‘rectilinear structure at least 100m across’, perhaps indicating earlier military activity.141 Dalswinton has four Flavian phases, on two separate sites142 — the first was probably Cerialian. Milton is a complicated site, with at least two Flavian occupations (revealed by two superimposed forts). Excavations in the 1940s seemed to point towards a Cerialian foundation, which was apparently ‘disproved’ in the 1960s. It has since been reinstated as a possible

143 Clarke assigned the earliest ‘oblique fort’ at Milton to Cerialis: see J. Clarke, ‘Excavations at Milton (Tassiesholm) in Season 1950’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxviii (1949–50), 219–20. In 1966, pre-Agricolan Milton had been denied by Hartley, as, indeed, had any Cerialian involvement in Scotland: see his ‘Some problems of the Roman military occupation of the north of England’, 12. For further, more recent, detail which points to a ‘complex history of permanent Flavian occupation’, see RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 175. 144 See D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1966: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, lvii (1967), 176. 145 R. Gregory, ‘Living on the frontier: Iron-Age–Roman transitions in south-west Scotland’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 41. 146 Robertson, Birrens, 277–8; for details of the Flavian enclosure and associated finds, see ibid., 73, 42, respectively. 147 A few early coin finds from Castledykes may also point to the existence of a Cerialian phase: Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, 194, 196–7. One is a coin of Germanicus, issued in the reign of Caligula: see A. S. Robertson, ‘Roman coins found in Scotland, 1971– 82’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxiii (1983), table 2. Anne Robertson had admitted that the Flavian fort was not ‘the earliest Roman structure on the site’, but she had assigned the enclosure to Agricola and the fort to

136 For Richmond’s drawing, see I. A. Richmond, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Newstead, 1947’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxiv (1949– 50), 5 (fig. 2); now challenged by R. F. J. Jones, who nevertheless sees Newstead as Cerialian: personal communication to David Shotter. Published work to date shows it as an Agricolan foundation: S. Clarke, ‘Trimontium: A Roman frontier post and its phases: excerpt from forthcoming report, Aug. 1996’: . 137 Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, 194, 197 (appendix). For the significance of the discovery of early coinage, see p. 71 above. 138 This was originally stated by Richmond, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Newstead, 1947’, 5; recently confirmed by R. F. J. Jones: personal communication to David Shotter. 139 Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 11, citing Birgitta Hoffmann’s forthcoming publication on the Roman and native glass from Newstead. 140 RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 171. 141 Ibid., 177. 142 S. S. Frere and J. K. S. St Joseph, Roman Britain from the Air (Cambridge, 1983), 123–6.

77

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Only a small Flavian fortlet has been discovered at Gatehouse of Fleet, and it is not clear whether it is Cerialian in origin or Agricolan. Its dimensions are comparable with those of the Neronian fortlet at Martinhoe in Devon, and the Flavian fortlet at Chew Green (43b).148 If Glenlochar saw Cerialian activity, it may have been of a more temporary nature, or on a slightly different site. A series of pits and wattle huts under the later Flavian fort indicate, as at Newstead, that the earlier Flavian fort was on a different alignment.149 Drumlanrig has been linked structurally with Broomholm and Milton, but it is difficult to know whether the distinctive feature of its ditch terminals, the so-called ‘parrot’s beak’ (where an outer ditch curves in towards an inner ditch), can be classed as a Flavian, or (as is usually assumed) a peculiarly Agricolan, style of construction.150 Ladyward seems to have had at least two phases, and its strategic importance suggests both Flavian and later activity; as yet there is no dating evidence from the site.151 Shotter has added Carzield to the list of possible Cerialian foundations (though with a question mark). The site has produced an early coin (a Claudian copy), but all other evidence points to an Antonine foundation;152 the coin could, therefore, be associated with other early Flavian structures nearby.

Annan Hill (41c), Kirkpatrick Fleming (41b), Ruthwell (41d) and Ward Law (41f)155 — are here allocated to Ravenna place-names in their own right. There is, however, no more than the mere suggestion of a possible fort at each of these sites. As mentioned earlier, the unusual features of Ward Law’s enclosure(s) continue to invite speculation. Similarly, there has been confusion over the site of Annan Hill. Like Ward Law, Annan Hill has appeared as a temporary camp on various Ordnance Survey maps (including the most recent); it had been postulated as a fort, but that suggestion is now rejected.156 A fort under the town of Annan is, of course, still a possibility.157 The Roman camp at Ruthwell remains unexcavated, as do the camps at Kirkpatrick Fleming.158 Whether bound by Roman treaty or under occupation, the Selgovae and the Brigantes (whose territory bordered on that of the Novantae) must, as they were required to do, have kept the peace with their neighbours, so that whoever was governor at the time would have been able to go further north, renew existing agreements with the Votadini and make new ones with the Damnonii and the Venicones; that would have taken him as far as the Tay. Tacitus’ pronouncement on Bolanus shows that the historian either did not find his governing methods appropriate,159 or had something else against him; but it is still possible that it was Bolanus who addressed the Caledonii (from the relative safety of Damnonian territory).

Gregory also provided an additional list of temporary camps which may be of Cerialian date.153 Most of the camps mentioned are in reasonably close proximity to one of the possible early forts. The camps are: Broadlea and Middlebie (near Birrens); Lochmaben and Torwood (near Ladyward); Trailflat (between Ladyward and Dalswinton); Hangingshaw (north of Ladyward, heading for Milton, or for an intermediate site — perhaps Dalmakethar, where an examination of ramparts indicated possible similarities with those at Ardoch154 — or lying close to another unlocated fort); Fourmerkland and East Gallaberry (between Dalswinton and Dumfries); and Carronbridge and Waterside Mains (near Drumlanrig). The remaining camps listed by Gregory — Annanfoot/

The poet Statius specifically mentioned Bolanus’ achievements north of the Forth: ‘What glory will exalt the plains of Caledonia, when an ancient native of that wild land tells you: “This is where your father used to administer justice. This is the mound from which he addressed his cavalry” ’.160 Further literary evidence points to an early Flavian date for such an activity. Pliny the Elder maintained that ‘in nearly thirty years, exploration of Britain has not been carried by Roman arms beyond the vicinity of the Caledonian Forest’.161 Pliny died in the famous eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, and the publication of his Natural History, from which this excerpt is taken, must date to around AD 77. It seems

the post-Agricolan ‘reorganisation’ of Britain: see A. S. Robertson, The Roman Fort at Castledykes (Edinburgh, 1964), 17, 261. 148 J. K. St Joseph, ‘The Roman fortlet at Gatehouse of Fleet, Kirkcudbright’, in B. Hartley and J. Wacher (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces: Papers Presented to Sheppard Frere in Honour of his Retirement from the Chair of Archaeology of the Roman Empire, University of Oxford, 1983 (Gloucester, 1983), 226. 149 I. A. Richmond and J. K. St Joseph, ‘The Roman fort at Glenlochar, Kirkcudbrightshire’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxx (1951–2), 12–13. 150 Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air Reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977– 84’, 19; see also p. 87 below. 151 Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1989’ (Scotland), 312–13; RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 177. 152 Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, 194. On Carzield, see pp. 87, 123, 126–7, 129 below. 153 Gregory, ‘Living on the frontier’, 41. 154 J. K. St Joseph, ‘Forts: from the Esk to Dalmakethar’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 102 n. 4.

155

Gregory, ‘Living on the frontier’, 41. See OS, Roman Britain (2001), and, for comment on Ward Law, see p. 76 above. On Annanfoot (NY 180653), and Annan Hill (NY 192655) as a possible fort, see R. Goodburn, ‘Roman Britain in 1977: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, ix (1978), 418; subsequently ‘excavation disproved the suggestion that [Annan Hill] was a fort’: S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1985: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xvii (1986), 374; see also Higham and Jones, Carvetii, 24; McCarthy, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway, 53. 157 See p. 30 above. 158 The latter were, probably erroneously, described as definite forts: McCarthy, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway, 55. 159 See pp. 70–1 at n. 70 above. 160 Statius, Silvae, V. 2. 142–4: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 15. 161 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, IV. 102: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 14; Birley, ‘Britain under the Flavians’, 13. 156

78

Agricola’s Predecessors almost certain, therefore, given his historical integrity and knowledge of geography, that the comment is factually accurate; he must have been referring to a Roman presence beyond the Forth–Clyde line (given the implication that it was up to ‘the vicinity of the Caledonian Forest’), which took place some time before Agricola’s arrival in Britain — perhaps under Cerialis, or even under Bolanus, depending on how ‘near’ to thirty years after the Roman invasion of AD 43 he meant.162 Thus the Forth– Clyde area may have had a loose line of defence before Agricola. Tacitus used the word firmabatur to describe the garrisoning of this narrow strip of land during Agricola’s fourth campaign. It has been suggested that the Latin verb could be translated as ‘reinforced’, which would obviously make a difference to the interpretation.163

then proceeds north-eastwards to the Roman fort of Strageath, near Crieff, where it changes direction to head east, and, finally, it curves slightly north-eastwards again towards its terminus at Bertha near Perth on the River Tay. The whole system is named, for convenience, after the more northerly section of its course, which follows the line of an outcrop known as the Gask Ridge. To date, ground observation, aerial reconnaissance and excavation have revealed along the length of the frontier from Glenbank to Bertha inclusive, three forts, three fortlets (and a possible fourth) and eighteen watchtowers; there are also a few obvious gaps, particularly between Westmuir and Peel, where additional watchtowers may await discovery (see Map 19).166 The three forts, Ardoch (47a), Strageath (56a) and Bertha (55a), were first occupied under the Flavian emperors, and, after a period of abandonment, they were reoccupied in the second century under the Emperor Antoninus Pius, when the Antonine Wall was built.167 The precise chronology of the sites which link them together is extremely problematic. So far, no datable evidence has been recovered from any of the three fortlets, whilst the eighteen watchtowers have produced only a few sherds of pottery. One piece of pottery and one of glass have recently come from a site south-west of Strageath at Cuiltburn, but it is not clear that this site is military, let alone part of the system. However, even though none of these scraps of evidence is securely stratified, where they are datable, they are Flavian.168 Also, an early Vespasianic as was discovered close to the temporary camp at East Mid Lamberkin, which would indicate Agricolan, if not earlier, activity.169 Comparison with the German frontier, which also developed from a series of forts to a more linear structure, interspersed with watchtowers, has led to the belief that both frontier systems date from the reign of Domitian, that is from the period AD 81–96.170 But, if the Gask frontier was Domitianic, it could be assigned

At the beginning of Vespasian’s reign, in the years AD 69–71, Vettius Bolanus may have drawn up verbal agreements in Scotland; he may even have been responsible for the first stages of permanent garrisoning. Vestiges of the earliest constructions on any one site are impossible to date, but an early foundation for the Gask frontier is increasingly likely. Border defence, as well as military advance, was to become a top priority under the Flavians, since this period saw the beginnings of more permanent frontiers, particularly on the Rhine.164 The Gask frontier, however, was a limes, in the original sense of the word (route for advance) which then developed into a more linear frontier; its individual structures were never linked together to form a wall. It is made up of a series of forts, fortlets and watchtowers flanking the Roman road which may, or may not, have preceded them. The dating sequence is impossible to establish, and the structural similarities detected between installations may simply indicate construction by the same team.165 The frontier probably stretched roughly northwards from Stirling (or from Camelon, near Falkirk, along the Roman road), but it is, at present, known to begin with a fortlet at Glenbank, just a few miles north of Dunblane. It

166

Map 19 (below) is reproduced from Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain, 108 (map 4:41), with modifications taken from Woolliscroft; see also Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 2 (fig. 1.2). Future work will focus on checking likely locations: see, for example, Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 140. 167 For Agricolan activity at these base-line forts, see pp. 91, 101–2; for the second-century reoccupation, see p. 125 below. 168 Pottery sherds: Gask House tower (1974); Westerton (1995); then under Gask Project: glass fragment: Shielhill South (1998); pottery sherds: Cuiltburn (1 samian, 1 coarseware); Huntingtower (coarseware): see Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 4–5; more recently, Glenloaning (coarseware): Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 89. 169 F. Hunter, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxv (2004), 266. 170 Although, more recently, the German frontier, now known as ‘the Taunus-/Wetterau-/Main-/Odenwald-/Neckar- and perhaps the Alblimes’, is thought to date from AD 105/115 (i.e. during Trajan’s reign): C. S. Sommer, ‘From conquered territory to Roman province: recent discoveries and debate on the Roman occupation of SW Germany’, in Creighton and Wilson (eds.), Roman Germany, 177–8.

162

The probable accuracy of Pliny’s statement was discussed by Birley, ‘Britain under the Flavians’, 13–14, and was stressed again in Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 11. 163 Tacitus used the verb firmare in relation to the conquering of Anglesey (Agricola, XIV. 3. ‘subactis nationibus firmatisque praesidiis’), translated by Birley as ‘consolidated’; and as ‘strengthened’, in Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 192. Here Ogilvie and Richmond denied that the same kind of translation can be applied to firmabatur (ibid., and 234; Agricola, XXIII. ‘tum praesidiis firmabatur’); Birley agreed, and has the same translation: ‘being securely held’. Nevertheless, David Woolliscroft suggested ‘reinforced’ (personal communication to David Shotter); see also Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 193. 164 A. Wigg, ‘Confrontation and interaction: Celts, Germans and Romans in the Central German Highlands’, in J. D. Creighton and R. J. A. Wilson (eds.), Roman Germany: Studies in Cultural Interaction (Jl Roman Archaeol., suppl. ser., xxxii, Portsmouth, RI, 1999), 42. 165 Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 235–9 (appendix: ‘The building of the Gask system’).

79

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors glass from Camelon.175 Although an early, rather than a mid-Flavian, date seems likely from analysis of the finds, most scholars are still unwilling to accept a preAgricolan explanation.176 Yet the numismatic evidence from both Strageath and Camelon may also strengthen the argument for an early foundation,177 while a Claudian dupondius discovered at Forteviot in November 2003 may also indicate early activity towards the Tay.178 Fortlets and watchtowers may, therefore, have been part of the next stage of the Gask development, to be assigned to Frontinus’ governorship of Britain, or (along with modifications to all the strategic, base-line forts) to the years of consolidation under Agricola.179 The timing, of course, depends on how high a priority this was. Presumably some treaties would have been drawn up with British tribes, and it was usually the breakdown of these treaties which led to further Roman advancement. There is no information about northern Britain under Frontinus, but whatever systems Bolanus and Cerialis had put into place seem to have held during Frontinus’ governorship. It seems unlikely that he would have left the north to its own devices so soon after the Cartimandua/Venutius conflict and crisis, if binding agreements had not been made. Even Tacitus might have been forced to add a sentence to his brief summary of pre-Agricolan campaigning in Britain if Frontinus had taken up arms in the north for any reason other than routine policing activity. So, matters were probably relatively quiet on the northern ‘frontier’, and Frontinus was, therefore, free to concentrate his efforts much further south. That does not mean that he was not fully aware of the situation in, for example, Strathearn. In fact, it may be significant that Frontinus wrote a treatise on the art of war, probably during Domitian’s reign, and seems to have been the first to use the word limes to indicate a linear frontier.180 It is usually assumed that he was referring to Domitianic advancement in Germany, but, given the Trajanic date now proposed for the German

only to the early years of Domitian’s reign, because the abandonment of the sites north of the Forth is securely dated, by the coin evidence, to AD 86–7.171 Some historians and archaeologists are prepared to consider a Cerialian foundation date rather than the traditional Agricolan one, but most draw the line at that; the only ‘evidence’ of Bolanus’ contribution comes from Statius’ poem, mentioned above, which continued: ‘ “Far and wide — do you see them? he set lookout posts and forts, and he had the ditch put round these walls.” ’172 This sounds uncannily like a description of the Gask frontier, but, in any case, it points to Bolanus’ involvement in the construction of defences. It is possible, however, that some poetic licence is employed here, and that the piece of evidence is not as reliable as Pliny’s candid affirmation of the chronology of conquest discussed earlier. As previously mentioned, Statius’ comment about Bolanus having ‘wrenched’ a breast-plate ‘from a British king’ may have referred to a chief from further north — a Damnonian warrior, perhaps, or a Caledonian. It may even be possible that Bolanus had been negotiating with the Caledonii during the years after the rescue of Cartimandua. In this context, it is interesting to note recent discoveries of the skeletons of Iron Age warriors in cist burials, particularly the one found, complete with sword and valuables, at a site near Alloa, Clackmannanshire (Damnonian territory). The tentative date assigned indicates that this high-status tribesman would almost certainly either have been involved in negotiations with one of the Flavian governors, or was a descendant of one of the tribal elders who had.173 At least one of the base-line forts — Strageath (56a) — plus Camelon (46e), may have been founded as early as the 70s, under Cerialis, or even Bolanus. Strageath has a combination of finds which, taken together, lead to this conclusion;174 the same is true for the structural evidence, and for the relatively large collection of early pottery and

175

Camelon had at least a ‘double (or triple) ditched enclosure of somewhat irregular shape’, which might point to a Cerialian foundation, but also the site’s ceramic assemblage suggests ‘a foundation date as early in the Flavian period as the historical context will permit’: V. A. Maxfield, ‘The Flavian fort at Camelon’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 77. 176 See V. G. Swan and P. T. Bidwell, ‘Camelon and Flavian troop movements in southern Britain: some ceramic evidence’, in J. Bird (ed.), Form and Fabric: Studies in Rome’s Material Past in Honour of B. R. Hartley (Oxford, 1998), 22, where the authors insist (with reference to Tacitus) that Agricola was the first to campaign in the Camelon area. 177 Early aes coins recovered from Camelon and Strageath could indicate a possible Cerialian foundation: Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, 94, and appendix, 196, 198. Frere would go along with ‘Cerialian’ Camelon, but despite his earlier comments in print (see n. 174 above), he remains unconvinced of a Cerialian presence at Strageath: personal communication to David Shotter. 178 Coin find: David Woolliscroft, personal communication to David Shotter. 179 See p. 91 below. 180 Frontinus, Stratagems, I. 3. 10.

171

A. S. Hobley, ‘The numismatic evidence for the post-Agricolan abandonment of the Roman frontier in northern Scotland’, Britannia, xx (1989). 172 Statius, Silvae, V. 2. 145–6: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 15; see pp. 57, 71, 72, 78 above; and Birley, ‘Britain under the Flavians’, 13. 173 Glasgow Herald, 10 March 2003; updated information (2005) provisionally dates the artefacts to c.100 BC – AD 100, with a ‘provisional radiocarbon date’ of c. 90–130 AD coming from a skeletal sample: S. Mills, ‘Iron Age warrior’: . The warrior may have been aged 25–35 at death (unconfirmed). A similar ‘double cist burial’ was unearthed at Camelon in 1975, and in 2005 two more warrior burials were recorded in Dunbar and in Fife: see ‘The dead make way for Iron Age warrior’, British Archaeology, no. 87 (Mar./Apr. 2006). 174 Frere’s comments on Strageath are striking: ‘a coin of Nero, a samian dish of the potter Carillus whose activity fell in the period 60–80, together with several sherds of form 29 — all of which support a foundation date as early as possible’: S. S. Frere, ‘The Flavian frontier in Scotland’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 95.

80

Agricola’s Predecessors limes,180 it is more likely that he was recalling his firsthand experience of the Gask frontier.

not survive the first century AD. The early Flavian governors, Bolanus, Cerialis and Frontinus were very closely linked with the Domitianic regime in the 80s, so that, when Domitian was murdered, much of the relevant detail may have been destroyed. Tacitus very clearly dissociated himself from the last of the Flavians, and, significantly, his Life of Agricola was published during Trajan’s reign.

It is worth mentioning that the lack of specific information on pre-Agricolan activity may not be entirely due to the fact that much of the relevant documentation has not survived the medieval or modern periods, but that it did 180

See n. 170 above.

81

5. AGRICOLA UNDER VESPASIAN AND TITUS Agricola in Britain

previous service in Britain — who could secure the loyalty of that legion for the Flavians, following the upheaval of the previous year. Tacitus mentioned that, in general, the troops in Britain were pro-Flavian, because Vespasian had ‘distinguished himself in battle’ when in charge of legio II Augusta during Claudius’ reign.4 Staunch supporters of Vitellius remained, however — particularly within legio XX, whose previous commander had been the proVitellian Roscius Coelius5 — and, since some soldiers had received promotion through their allegiance to that emperor, they were understandably reluctant to change sides. Some had even been absent from Britain fighting for Vitellius.6 In any case, the events of AD 69 would have caused bewilderment and confusion amongst the forces in Britain, and something had to be done to restore morale. Crucially, Agricola had probably already gained the respect of legio XX either personally as a tribune amongst them,7 or, subsequently, by reputation. It is also possible that one of his contemporaries during his tribunate had been Vespasian’s elder son, Titus.8 Later, when Vespasian appointed Agricola governor of Britain in 77, he may also have had good reports of the man’s suitability from the emperor’s relative, Cerialis, following the success of their two-pronged attack on the Brigantes (Cerialis on the Yorkshire side of the Pennines and Agricola in the west).

There is no doubt that Gnaeus Julius Agricola had excellent credentials for the post of governor of Britain. His strategic knowledge of campaigning there must have been second to none. He may even have had first-hand experience of conflict with the Ordovices when he served as a young military tribune, either attached to a specific legion or on the staff of Suetonius Paulinus, because he is known to have had this post c.AD 61.1 He would probably have encountered Petillius Cerialis for the first time during Boudica’s rebellion (when Cerialis almost ‘lost’ legio IX, and arrived too late with reinforcements); despite working closely with him in the early 70s, Agricola may never have held him in high regard. There is no actual evidence that Agricola had originally been assigned to a particular legion, but, given his later appointment as their legate, he may have served with legio XX. If so, that would have brought him in close contact with Paulinus, whether he was on the governor’s personal staff or not, because a large contingent of legio XX would have been in north Wales.2 According to Tacitus, Agricola was chosen to take up that first military post in Britain as a kind of test of his ability and character. Irrespective of Tacitus’ hyperbole, further appointments in Britain at particularly difficult times and a successful minor provincial governor-ship in Aquitania show that he passed his test with flying colours, and go some way to confirm his reputation as a reliable officer, a thorough planner and a fair man.3 Including his governorship, he must have spent around twelve years in Britain altogether — a large proportion of his career, and an unusually long involvement with a single province.

As is well known, Tacitus covered Agricola’s seven campaigning seasons systematically, though sparsely in terms of geographical detail. In summary, the governor completed the subjugation of Wales, consolidated and garrisoned much of northern England and southern Scotland, and, with the defeat of the Caledonii and their allies in the far north, accomplished his mission of total conquest of the island of Britannia. He may not have been the first Roman governor to campaign in Scotland, although, as mentioned earlier, legio XX under Agricola’s command may have spearheaded action there from AD 70 onwards. As governor, Agricola’s actions brought about

When he was appointed in AD 70 as commander of legio XX in Britain, Agricola was probably the only leader — certainly one of the most experienced, and with vital 1 As Anthony Birley points out, ‘electus quem contubernio aestimaret’ (Tacitus, Agricola, V. 1), ‘selected to be tested on Paulinus’ staff’ may simply mean that Agricola was appointed as a tribune when Paulinus happened to be governor of Britain: Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 73. 2 Although Birley believes that, in theory, Agricola could have been assigned to any of the legions in Britain (ibid.), surely the least likely would have been legio IX, as suggested by Fraser, who seems to think that Cerialis and Agricola were great friends and that Cerialis, rather than Vespasian, was responsible for Agricola’s appointment: Fraser, Roman Conquest of Scotland, 22, 29. In view of later developments, it is more than likely that Agricola and Cerialis were in rival legions in the run-up to Boudica’s rebellion. See also pp. 101–2 below. 3 It appears that, under the Flavians, greater care was being taken over the suitability of provincial appointees. Eric Birley referred to a hint in Tacitus’ text (Agricola, IX) that not all senators made the grade: E. Birley, ‘Senators in the emperors’ service’, Proc. Brit. Acad., xxxix (1953), 209.

4

Tacitus, Histories, III. 44. ‘bello clarus egerat’. Coelius probably did not bow to the new regime since he did not reach the consulship until AD 81 — an unusually long time after his post of legionary legate. He may have been held back deliberately, and only reinstated on the career ladder when Domitian became emperor: Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 237. 6 Tacitus, Histories, III. 1. 7 Tacitus is keen to stress how Agricola made a point of getting to know his fellow soldiers and the province while serving under Suetonius Paulinus: Tacitus, Agricola, V. 1. ‘noscere provinciam, nosci exercitui’. 8 A. R. Birley, ‘Agricola, the Flavian dynasty, and Tacitus’, in B. Levick (ed.), The Ancient Historian and his Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on his Seventieth Birthday (Farnborough, 1975), 140. 5

83

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors The First Campaigning Season: Northern Wales

the absorption, albeit for only a short time, of the whole of mainland Britain as a province of the Roman Empire after forty years of conflict (although, strictly speaking, the far north was never really part of the province because it was never garrisoned, it was certainly conquered).

This took place soon after Agricola’s arrival in the province in the late summer of AD 77. He knew he would have to deal decisively with the Ordovices of north Wales, having just received news of their ambush of a Roman cavalry unit.11 Agricola’s policy was to strike when it was least expected, so as to catch the enemy off guard. The Ordovices may well have been ‘expecting ships and an attack by sea’,12 but not until the following year. Agricola’s fighting forces were already widely scattered in winter quarters, and the fleet had been disbanded.13 His surprise attack at the end of the season,14 having collected suitable detachments together (which would have included Batavian auxiliaries who were excellent swimmers and used to armed conflict involving water crossings), gave the Ordovices no time to rally their own forces, with the result that they suffered heavy losses and had to surrender the island of Anglesey; after this, apparently, Agricola was regarded as a great man.15

Conveniently enough, Tacitus’ text follows Agricola’s progress roughly northwards through Britain, so that the order of discussion of geographical regions, recent archaeology and associated Ravenna place-names in this chapter can mirror the framework already established in previous chapters. It is important to re-emphasise two points: first, that most of the fort sites which Agricola either established or consolidated remained important throughout the Roman period, so it is no coincidence to find many of them in the Ravenna list (indeed, some are flourishing towns today); and, secondly, that the original source for the place-names in northern Scotland beyond the Tay, can have been compiled only under Agricola, because the other Roman incursions into that area in the early third century, by the forces of the emperor Septimius Severus (AD 193–211), did not involve the establishment of permanent or semi-permanent fort structures.

Almost all the sites associated with Ravenna place-names in Wales and its borders were first established in the preAgricolan period, and there is little archaeological evidence to help in separating Agricola’s activities from what had gone before, or distinguishing this campaigning season from the years of consolidation which followed. Even temporary camps with clavicula gateways, that is those ‘defended externally[, internally, or both,] by a combination of an oblique traverse-ditch at one side and

It seems now to be generally accepted that Agricola came to Britain as governor in the late summer of 77, rather than 78 (a date usually favoured in studies of the Life of Agricola and the history of first-century Roman Britain published before 1990, due to the assumption that Agricola held the consulship in AD 77).9 The earlier date makes more sense of the different priorities of the three Flavian emperors, as reflected in the objectives of Agricola’s seven campaigning seasons: a forward offensive policy under Vespasian in the first three years until his death in June 79; a two-year period of consolidation and defence (or preparation for further advance) under Titus up to his death in September 81; and a resumed advance northwards under Domitian in Agricola’s final two seasons.10

Mattingly: J. G. F. Hind, ‘Summers and winters in Tacitus’ account of Agricola’s campaigns in Britain’, Northern Hist., xxi (1985), 1; Jones and Mattingly, Atlas of Roman Britain, 74 (including table 4.2). Breeze, in 1982, chose to leave the matter open, but in his 1996 publication he favours 77 in his chronology: see, respectively, Breeze, Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain, 43; Breeze, Roman Scotland, 35. Campbell favoured the earlier dating, and explained why it is perfectly plausible for Agricola to have held the consulship in AD 76: D. B. Campbell, ‘The consulship of Agricola’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, liii (1986). M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier, ‘Cn. Iulius Agricola: mise au point prosopographique’, in W. Haase and H. Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II. 33.3 (Berlin and New York, 1991), 1857, opts for the earlier sequence. Woolliscroft and Hoffmann ‘tend towards the 77 start-date’ but maintain that ‘in practice it makes little difference’: Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 176. See also the comments on, and justification for, the earlier date sequence in Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 77–8. Mattingly now links the preferred earlier sequence with the major replacement of timbers at Carlisle, dated AD 83–4: Mattingly, Imperial Possession, 118; for further detail, see p. 113 below. 11 See p. 68 above. 12 Tacitus, Agricola, XVIII. 4. ‘qui classem, qui naves, qui mare expectabant’. 13 Ibid. XVIII. 2. ‘sparsi per provinciam numeri’; Tacitus parallels events under Paulinus, when ‘at short notice, there were no ships available’: ibid., XVIII. 4. ‘ut in subitis consiliis, naves deerant’. 14 This, in itself, was not unusual. Tacitus describes a similar decision made by Scapula on his arrival in Britain in AD 47: Tacitus, Annals, XII. 31. 15 Tacitus, Agricola, XVIII. 5. ‘ita petita pace ac dedita insula clarus ac magnus haberi Agricola’.

9

Most of the distinguished classicists of the 1950s and 1960s favoured the later date, AD 78: see, chronologically, A. R. Burn, Agricola and Roman Britain (London, 1953), 87–8; Richmond, Roman Britain (1955, 2nd edn 1963), 40; R. Syme, Tacitus, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1958), i, 22 n. 6; Frere, Britannia (1967), 67 (and maintained in 1991: Frere, Britannia, 89 ff). There are also a few recent publications, based on Frere — or Salway, Roman Britain (1981) — which still insist on the later date: for example (from 2001 and 2004, respectively) James, Britain in the First Millennium, 32; Kamm, Last Frontier, 64–89. Most recently, Fraser has argued for the later dates: see his Roman Conquest of Scotland, 9 (as reflected in the subtitle, which dates the battle of Mons Graupius to AD 84). Note that the illustrated version of Salway’s text incorporated some revisions, and that he preferred to state of Agricola’s arrival in Britain, ‘There is no knowing whether the latter was in 77 or 78’: see P. Salway, The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1993), 95. 10 Dobson admitted that the campaigns seem to fit neatly into line with Titus’ and Domitian’s likely policies, but still preferred earlier in this article, to argue for the later dating: B. Dobson, ‘Agricola’s life and career’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 10; Hind also points out the merits of the earlier dating, as do Jones and

84

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus would also have been reinforced, if not founded, by Agricola.24 These two were strategically the most significant garrison posts for the domination of Ordovician territory, and could monitor approaches to the island of Anglesey (although there may also have been a Roman presence on the island itself). It is, therefore, not surprising to find that both are included in the Ravenna list. Moreover, towards the end of the thirteenth century, Edward I’s heavy fortification for the subjugation of Wales also included the building of major castles at Caernarfon and Conwy. Other fort sites which must have played a part in the garrisoning of north-west Wales after Agricola’s success against the Ordovices are Tomen-y-Mur, and Pen Llystyn (near the modern A487 from Porthmadog, where it turns north towards Caernarfon).25 All four forts encircled the highlands of Snowdonia in a way which is indicative of the Roman policy of ‘divide and rule’, and was the result of conquest or capitulation. It seems that, towards the end of the Flavian period, c.AD 90, a new fort was built at Bryn-y-Gefeiliau (near Betws-y-coed), which replaced that at Pen Llystyn,26 and shows a need to maintain monitoring of this area. In central Wales, too, the fort at Jay Lane, Leintwardine, was replaced with a larger fort at nearby Buckton c.AD 80.27 The arrangement effectively prevented any further uprisings because there are no subsequent references in the sources to disturbances in Wales during the Roman period. In fact, it is possible that Agricola committed ‘genocide’ by destroying a fighting generation — in the same way as he was to go on to do against the Caledonii at the battle of Mons Graupius at the end of his seventh season. Tacitus seems to confirm this with his observation: ‘Almost the entire people was cut to pieces’.28 From AD 77, the focus of military activity shifted firmly to northern England and Scotland, where it would remain for at least the next two hundred years.

a quarter-circle extension of ditch and rampart (known as a clavicula) on the other’,16 while often linked with the Flavian period, are not necessarily attributable to Agricola; the majority of the large camps in Wales, for example, seem to have this feature,17 and there are examples in northern England and Scotland.18 Unlike the standard traverse gateway (a straight ditch set away from the entrance but parallel to it, and of the same width), which is found in a variety of early and later contexts, and is not associated with Agricolan structures, the clavicula design appears to be of first-century date only.19 Nevertheless, it is more than likely that Agricola went first to Wroxeter (8a), where he would have been known (as former commander of legio XX). His campaign route thereafter is unclear, but he certainly crushed all resistance on both coastal and inland routes to Caernarfon (10a) before crossing the Menai Strait.20 The main route into north Wales was likely to have been from Whitchurch (9), either via the crossing of the Dee at Farndon/Holt21 or via Rhyn Park, but not through Chester, since the marshy ground to the west was unsuitable for land forces.22 Agricola could also have sent further detachments from Wroxeter, through Forden Gaer (11b) and Caersws (11a),23 in order to destroy any remaining Ordovician resistance in mid-Wales. In the north, he might have made use of the Dee estuary as a fleet base and operated along the north Wales coast. On the mainland, the largest Flavian fort in north Wales at Caernarfon (10a) is, perhaps, most likely to have been an Agricolan foundation, while Caerhun (10b), near Conwy, 16

Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 50. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1965–68’, 123. 18 In England, for example, at the possible Cerialian site at Cawthorn, at Chew Green and at Troutbeck: see Welfare and Swan, Roman Camps in England, 137–42, 86–9, 44–50, respectively; in Scotland, at Lochlands (Camelon) and Milrighall (south of Newstead): Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain’, 32; at Oakwood and, possibly, at Raeburnfoot: see p. 88 below; also (possibly) at Cadder on the Forth– Clyde line, and at East Mid Lamberkin on the Gask Ridge: R. G. Collingwood and M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1930: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxi (1931), 200 (Cadder); Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1999’ (Scotland), 379; Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 36–8 (East Mid Lamberkin). The special type of clavicula, known as the ‘Stracathro’ gateway, however, is definitely Agricolan and found only in Scotland: see pp. 87, 93, 99, 100, 101, 104–5 below. 19 G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD, 3rd edn (London, 1985), 174, and n. 2. See also the discussion of gateways in Welfare and Swan, Roman Camps in England, 18–21. 20 Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 211. 21 Barri Jones believed that there was a fort here: see G. D. B. Jones, ‘Farndon: an archaeological opportunity’, Manchester Archaeol. Bull., vi (1991), 75–7. 22 Shotter, ‘ “Agricolan” is an overworked adjective’, 76. 23 All the Ravenna place-name sites mentioned so far here (Caernarfon, Caersws [II], Chester, Forden Gaer and Whitchurch) are simply classed as military installations of c.AD 70–80: Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 16 (fig. 2.2C). 17

24

Caernarfon’s ‘Period I’ buildings were pronounced Agricolan after the discovery of Domitianic coins: F. O. Grew, ‘Roman Britain in 1979: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xi (1980), 346; for chronology, see P. J. Casey and J. L. Davies, with J. Evans, Excavations at Segontium (Caernarfon) Roman Fort, 1975–1979 (Council Brit. Archaeol. Research Reports, 90, London, 1993), 10–13, 17. Caerhun was described as ‘probably’ dating to Agricola’s governorship: Davies, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales’, 261. 25 A suggested date for Pen Llystyn was AD 80, the samian profile indicated AD 75–85, and a comparison of decorated samian matched deposits from Pompeii; also, the rampart of a later fortlet, dated c.100– 30 sealed a Domitianic coin. I. A. Richmond and M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1957: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Jl Roman Studies, xlviii (1958), 130; Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 53; M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1959: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Jl Roman Studies, l (1960), 210–11; S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1976: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, viii (1977), 358. 26 Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, revised Jarrett, 54 (Bryn-yGefeiliau), 103 (Pen Llystyn). 27 Stanford, Archaeology of the Welsh Marches, 126. 28 Tacitus, Agricola, XVIII. 3. ‘caesaque prope universa gente’.

85

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors that Agricola was continually on the march, selecting suitable sites for camps, organising ‘plundering raids’, and demonstrating to the locals the advantages of peace.33

The Second Campaigning Season: Northern England and Lowland Scotland It has usually been assumed in the past that Agricola was involved primarily with northern England in his second season, even though Tacitus did not mention his precise area of operation. This is almost certainly true, because the reference to the reconnaissance of ‘estuaries and forests’29 strongly suggests the stamping out of pockets of resistance as Agricola took definitive control of the north-west of England, including the Brigantian lands in southern Scotland which probably extended as far west as the river Nith at Dumfries. From their base in Chester, members of legio II Adiutrix would no doubt have played a major role in the coastal reconnaissance, just as they had done in the early 70s. The estuaries of the Dee, the Mersey and the Ribble would have been targeted; environmental archaeology has now indicated scattered settlement patterns in south-west Lancashire and a heavy concentration of Roman finds in estuarine contexts, particularly around Meols, on the Wirral.30

He was also careful to emphasise the governor’s other efforts: his strong commitment to public works; and his attention to the business of Romanisation in the occupied zone (which was encouraged during the winter months following each campaigning season). Although the historian was implying that the initiative for this kind of activity came from Agricola (which may well have been true in terms of the way in which it was done), the initial orders would have been Vespasian’s, designed to strengthen and develop the infrastructure of the province; this would have been particularly important in the aftermath of Boudica’s rebellion. It is probably significant that fragments from one of the very few surviving inscriptions bearing Agricola’s name, and attesting to reconstruction work carried out in this period, come from Verulamium (St Albans),34 one of the three Roman cities sacked by Boudica and her army. The emperor would have authorised Agricola not only to begin construction of more permanent structures at the earlier Flavianfoundation sites at Chester, York and beyond, but also to establish new ones. In Brigantian territory new Agricolan forts were built at Catterick (26),35 and in the north-west at Northwich (12f) and Manchester (16a), together with the road (to the east of ‘King Street’), which linked them to the legionary fortress at Chester.36 The fort at Northwich had two phases; structures — apparently military — relating to the first phase have been pronounced Flavian,37 while Manchester’s coin profile, with its predominance of coins from the reigns of Titus and Domitian rather than from that of Vespasian, indicates an Agricolan foundation.38 Manchester’s satellite forts at Ilkley (16b) and Slack (16c) are regarded as Agricolan,39 as are the Derbyshire sites at Brough-on-Noe (15a) and

Agricola may have copied Cerialis’ strategy. While Agricola operated in the west, the officer in charge of legio IX Hispana, Gaius Caristanius Fronto,31 could have simultaneously followed the Dere Street route to the east. Commanders would have met with little serious opposition, and the ‘mopping-up’ operation would have been effected en route for more northerly occupation. If Agricola had been dealing solely with the Brigantes in this season, Tacitus could have been more specific (particularly since he mentioned them earlier in the Life of Agricola in connection with Cerialis’ governorship and later (when he was obviously intending to refer to the Iceni, having confused the two female leaders Cartimandua of the Brigantes and Boudica of the Iceni).32 He may, however, have been deliberately omitting any reference to the Brigantes, since he had already credited Cerialis with some success in battle against them and knew that Cerialis had done most of the groundwork. Agricola had been very much a part of that also, but only as subordinate. Similarly, Tacitus did not mention the territories of the tribes of southern Scotland, probably because early encounters would have occurred under Cerialis’ command. The historian wanted to stress Agricola’s own achievements, and so he described the early campaigning seasons in a general way, pointing out

33

Ibid., XX. 2. ‘multus in agmine . . . loca castris ipse capere . . . minus subitis excursibus popularetur; atque ubi satis terruerat, parcendo rursus invitamenta pacis’. 34 For reconstruction and detail, see S. Frere, Verulamium Excavations II (London, 1983), 69–72. 35 Catterick is believed to have been an Agricolan foundation: see P. R. Wilson, ‘Recent work at Catterick’, in Wilson, Jones and Evans (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North, 75; Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 111; it is possible that the fort dates to later in the Agricolan period, c.80: Wilson, Cataractonium, ii, 447. 36 Shotter, ‘Middlewich’, 56; Shotter, ‘Chester’, 30. 37 D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1969: I. Sites explored’ (Northern Counties), Britannia, i (1970), 282–3; see also G. D. B. Jones, ‘Excavations at Northwich (Condate)’, Archaeol. Jl, cxxviii (1971), 31. 38 D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Roman coins from Manchester: casual losses’, Manchester Archaeol. Bull., ix (1994–5), 56. For earlier comments on the dating of Manchester and the ‘King Street’ route, see pp. 73–4 above. 39 For Ilkley, see B. R. Hartley, ‘The Roman fort at Ilkley’, Proc. Leeds Philosophical and Literary Soc., xii (1966), 41; for full details on the Flavian fort, see ibid., 25–32; for Slack, see J. K. T. Hunter, T. G. Manby and J. E. H. Spaul, ‘Recent excavations at the Slack Roman fort near Huddersfield’, Yorks Archaeol. Jl, xlii (1967–70), 78.

29

Ibid., XX. 2. ‘aestuaria ac silvas’. The site at Meols could have offered ‘deep-water facilities’, if unavailable in Chester harbour: A. Waddelove, ‘The river Dee and Deva harbour: a reassessment’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 136; see also Jones, ‘Archaeology and coastal change in the north-west’, 89–97. 31 He is believed to have been the legate of legio IX Hispana, c.76–9: see Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 239. 32 Tacitus, Agricola, XVII. 1; XXXI. 4. 30

86

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus Melandra (15c);40 so the likelihood is that the postulated fort at Buxton (15b), the final member of the latter group, was also Agricolan.41

century.46 Agricola might also have used or reused possible (though unlocated) forts associated with the temporary camps in the area at Annan (41c), Kirkpatrick Fleming (41b) and Ruthwell (41d). The status of Ward Law (41f), of course, is unclear, but it may have been occupied or reoccupied at this time.47

Tacitus referred to tribes who had hitherto maintained their independence; apparently these now ceased their armed struggle, handed over hostages and were encircled by a series of forts.42 ‘Tribes’ in the plural has often been taken to be different tribes within a Brigantian ‘federation’, but Tacitus previously referred to Brigantian territory as a whole in the singular, whereas here he used the words ‘many states’.43 Surrounding previously independent states with ‘garrisons and forts’ may not have meant that only one such area was treated in this way, since it is difficult to be certain about his ‘technical’ usage of the language. It is worth remembering that Venutius’ allies were likely to have been the Selgovae and, perhaps, the Novantae, and that the Votadini were probably already pro-Roman. The policy of ‘divide and rule’ — already used in separating the Parisi from the Brigantes, in protecting the Solway (Carvetian?) lands from hostile elements, and, as mentioned above, in isolating and monitoring Snowdonia — would now be applied systematically to lowland Scotland, starting with the modification of previously held fort sites in northern Brigantian and Selgovan territory. Reinforcements at Birrens (41a), Ladyward (34c) and Dumfries (41e) would ensure that the northern Brigantes were surrounded. There must have been at least some Agricolan activity at Birrens, following a possible Cerialian foundation, since there are, apparently, ‘still considerable depths of undisturbed stratigraphy’ under the Hadrianic and Antonine structures.44 Ladyward may have had an initial occupation or reoccupation under Agricola, but, as mentioned above, little is known about the site.45 As already noted, there is no clear evidence of a Roman site at Dumfries; the fort four miles away at Carzield (if it is purely Antonine) might indicate a resiting exercise, but, if so, it is usually regarded as a replacement fort for that of Dalswinton, where there is no evidence — so far — of activity much beyond the end of the first

Further activity in the heart of southern Scotland may be deduced from some of the temporary camps. A variation of the clavicula48 is the so-called ‘Stracathro’ gateway, which has one straight and one curved arm, the arms opening outwards from the camp. Named after the first such site to be discovered (at Stracathro, near Brechin), this unusual feature has been confidently dated to Agricola’s governorship; examples are restricted to Scotland, though many of them are beyond the Forth.49 The more southerly examples are either major fort sites themselves, or might be linked with the further consolidation (by the end of Agricola’s third year) of such sites in the Ravenna list. They are: Beattock, near Milton (34a); Castledykes (33a); Dalswinton (39), where there are two; Woodhead, south of Elginhaugh (45a); and, possibly, Eshiels, east of Easter Happrew (33c).50 There is clear evidence of Agricolan occupation at all these numbered sites, but it is more likely, as shown above, that, in the case of Milton and Dalswinton,51 the governor was reinforcing a Cerialian precursor. Milton was probably reconstructed under Agricola; the defences of both the early T-shaped fort and the later more conventional Flavian fort display the distinctive ‘parrot’s beak’ terminal. As mentioned earlier, the feature has usually been associated with Agricolan construction,52 but examples at Milton, and one phase at Broomholm (35a), may mean that it need not be exclusively so. If Dalmakethar (34b) proves to be Roman, it was probably established under Agricola (and, if not, it is likely that another fort site, awaiting discovery on the route between Ladyward and Milton, was constructed or reconstructed at this time). Other sites in Selgovan territory which may have been new foundations are the forts at Netherby (35b), Oakwood (37b) and Rubers Law (37a). As previously discussed, there is no definite early dating evidence associated with Netherby: if it were not for the fact that

40 For Brough-on-Noe, see the editor’s chronological summary in M. J. Dearne (ed.), Navio: The Fort and Vicus at Brough-on-Noe, Derbyshire (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 234, Oxford, 1993), 135, where the first phase is still c.80–c.120. For Melandra, see H. Williamson, ‘The probable date of the Roman occupation of Melandra’, in R. S. Conway, Melandra Castle (Manchester, 1906), 125, 128. 41 Earliest material from Buxton is certainly Flavian, and ‘find-spots would indicate a military establishment built in the 70s on the hill to the south of the modern town-centre’: M. J. Jones, Roman Fort-Defences to AD 117, with Special Reference to Britain (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 21, Oxford, 1975), 134. 42 Tacitus, Agricola, XX. 3. ‘multae civitates, quae in illum diem ex aequo egerant, datis obsidibus iram posuere et praesidiis castellisque circumdatae’. 43 Ibid., XVII. 1. ‘Brigantum civitatem’; cf. ibid., XX. 3. ‘multae civitates’. See also Birley, Petillius Cerialis and the conquest of Brigantia’, 190. 44 RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 174. See also p. 77 at n. 146 above. 45 See p. 78 at n. 151 above.

46

I. A. Richmond and J. K. St Joseph, ‘The Roman fort at Dalswinton, in Nithsdale’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxxiv (1955–6), 9, 18. New Antonine forts were often placed close to abandoned Flavian ones, or replaced them on site (see Chapter 7). 47 For earlier discussion on these four sites, see pp. 76, 78 above. 48 See pp. 84–5, and n. 18 above. 49 For those beyond the Forth, see pp. 93, 99, 100, 101, 104–5 below. 50 For Eshiels, see L. J. F. Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1995: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxvii (1996), 405. For details of Castledykes, Easter Happrew and Elginhaugh, see pp. 89–90 below. 51 For the resiting of Dalswinton, see p. 89 below. 52 RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 175.

87

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Trimontium (Newstead, near Melrose, 42a), and Bremenium (High Rochester, 43a) — and the smaller sites of Cappuck (42b) and Chew Green (43b) in between — would have completed the encirclement of the Selgovae, while possible early development near Cramond, on the Forth, east of Edinburgh (45b) would have sealed off Votadinian territory from the western tribes. Newstead has a considerable amount of structural and artefactual evidence which relates to the Flavian period, so Agricolan activity there is certain.58 In fact, Trimontium may well have served as one of the hiberna (winter quarters) for troops at the end of later campaigning seasons further north in Scotland.59 As seems to have been the case at Newstead, there were two Flavian phases at High Rochester, confirmed by excavation in the 1930s, and a similar sequence of development at Cappuck.60 It is still not clear, of course, whether the two Flavian phases in question are: (1) Cerialian and Agricolan; (2) both Agricolan; or (3) Agricolan and post-Agricolan. The site at Chew Green has so far revealed only a fortlet, rather than a fort, of Flavian date, but there is a complex group of temporary and permanent structures relating to both the Flavian, and the Antonine, period which attest to its ongoing significance.61 As for Cramond, a few firstcentury finds have been discovered in its vicinity, but some of the early coins or ‘Consular Medals’, as George Macdonald described them in 1918, are not precisely provenanced, and a couple of bronze coins of Claudius were only said to have come from the churchyard.62 There is no evidence of pre-Antonine occupation at the site of Cramond itself, apart from John Lawson’s possible Flavian ditch.63 A postulated site at Berwick (44b) may have been a Flavian foundation, since this coastal port could have facilitated the transport of supplies, via the river Tweed, to the important fort at Newstead.64 No site has actually been located in or

Broomholm (the more northerly fort beyond it), has definite Flavian structures, Netherby might simply have been regarded as a Hadrianic foundation, perhaps originally designed as an outpost fort beyond the Wall. Oakwood has a single Flavian occupation, and may have been abandoned soon thereafter. The temporary camp at Oakwood had unusual double clavicula gateways similar to those indicated in General Roy’s eighteenth-century drawing of a camp at Dalginross (now destroyed), and also at a camp near York; these similarities confirm Oakwood’s Flavian origin; the feature is reminiscent of one of the camps at Cawthorn, near Pickering, which had been tentatively dated to c.AD 100, though that date indicates reuse.53 The ramparts of a native (Dark Age) structure on the summit of Rubers Law contain a number of dressed stone blocks which are usually regarded as Roman and were thought to have originally formed part of a signal tower on the hill, similar to the wooden signal tower structure discovered and excavated on Eildon Hill North above Trimontium.54 Whether or not there was a signal tower, it would be more sensible to suggest, as did Keppie, that there was a Roman fort in the vicinity.55 In this context, it is interesting to note the presence in the surrounding area of the place-names Chesters, Bonchester Hill and Bonchester Bridge, which may have some Roman connection. In addition, Allan Wilson discussed Hawick (a suggestion made by General Roy), and Denholm/Cavers (suggested by Keppie, and where there are Roman camps), as possible fort-site locations because of their proximity to the known road network.56 A stretch of Roman road running either side of the Antonine fort at Raeburnfoot (Eskdalemuir) would then have linked these sites to Dere Street and back to the ‘A74’ route. Recent work at Raeburnfoot seems to indicate double clavicula gateways at the larger enclosure (perhaps a parallel with Flavian Oakwood?), so this route may not have been purely Antonine, as previously believed.57

58 See Curle, Roman Frontier Post and its People, 7, 343–5; Richmond, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Newstead, 1947’, esp. 2–7. 59 See p. 110 below. 60 I. A. Richmond, ‘Excavations at High Rochester and Risingham, 1935’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., xiii (1936), esp. 179; I. A. Richmond, ‘Exploratory trenching at the Roman fort at Cappuck, Roxburghshire, in 1949’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxv (1950–1), esp. 145. 61 I. A. Richmond and G. S. Keeney, ‘The Roman works at Chew Green, Coquetdalehead’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., xiv (1937), 145, 148. 62 N. Holmes, Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, Edinburgh, ed. M. Collard and J. A. Lawson (Edinburgh, 2003), 97. 63 Ibid., 1, 165. This gives full details of Holmes’s own findings, and those of earlier excavations: see N. M. McQ. Holmes, ‘Excavations at Cramond, Edinburgh, 1975–78’, in D. J. Breeze (ed.), Roman Scotland: Some Recent Excavations (Edinburgh, 1979); A. and V. Rae, ‘The Roman fort at Cramond, Edinburgh: excavations, 1954–1966’, Britannia, v (1974). Holmes acknowledged that further work took place from 1995 (details forthcoming), but added that ‘the results do not materially affect the contents [of the 2003 publication]’: Holmes, Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, ed. Collard and Lawson, p. vii. The suggested Flavian ditch is not mentioned: see Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1995’ (Scotland), 402. 64 Keppie, ‘Romans in southern Scotland’, 10.

The strengthening of the Dere Street line which separated the Votadini from the Selgovae at key sites such as 53

K. A. Steer and R. W. Feachem, ‘The Roman fort and temporary camp at Oakwood, Selkirkshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxvi (1951–2), 85. See also Roy, Military Antiquities, pl. xi. His drawing shows the rectangular camp at Dalginross as having four double clavicula gateways, each with an extra straight ‘arm’ (now classed as ‘Stracathro’ gateways). He notes the similarity between these and the double clavicula gateways at Cawthorn (inset drawing), and suggests that they are all the work of legio IX. 54 M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1953: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xliv (1954), 87. 55 Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 118; L. Keppie, ‘The Romans in southern Scotland: future discoveries’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xvi (1989–90), 5–6. 56 A. Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in eastern Dumfriesshire and beyond’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxiii (1999), 39; Keppie, ‘Romans in southern Scotland’, 6. 57 But in the early 1950s a Flavian date was suggested for the earlier of the two structures: see Steer and Feachem, ‘Roman fort and temporary camp at Oakwood’, 98, and n. 1. New information on Raeburnfoot: David Woolliscroft, personal communication to David Shotter.

88

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus would certainly have featured in the consolidation process during Agricola’s fifth season, when strategic points were probably held right to the west coast of Galloway at Stranraer.70 There is no structural evidence of a fort at Newton Stewart, but the Roman road has been shown to pass close by, and there would almost certainly have been a fort to guard the crossing of the river Cree — perhaps at the Machermore Ford, or under Machermore Castle.71 The Roman advance into Galloway may have been undertaken by land only, because Glenlochar and Gatehouse of Fleet happen to be sited at crossings on rivers which are non-navigable from the Solway,72 but also because, as has been said, ‘no Roman commander in his senses would invade SW Scotland by sea (especially across the Solway) when he could move on dry land’.73 On the other hand, Agricola and his troops could still have sailed into the more westerly harbours (Wigtown Bay, Luce Bay and Loch Ryan) during the second or third campaigning season, and may have reconnoitred up the west coast (Girvan and Irvine Bay); whether they did so at this time is not clear.

around Berwick (probably due to coastal erosion, and to the huge amount of disturbance caused by the construction of fortifications connected with military activities during the reigns of Edward I and Elizabeth I), but a Roman road leads directly to Tweedmouth, and a Roman fort would be its logical destination.65 This Roman road would have linked the postulated site at Berwick to Corbridge via the fort at Learchild (44a), on the river Aln. Learchild, which was linked by road to High Rochester, was also a Flavian foundation; the site produced first-century pottery, and later excavation indicated two forts of different periods.66 The Third Campaigning Season: To the Tay Tacitus spoke of ‘ravaging of the territories up to the Tay’ during the third season; this suggests a systematic progression northwards, but the season would have included further construction of forts in Novantian territory in south-western Scotland, if that had not already been achieved during the previous year. Dalswinton, on the Selgovan/Novantian border, may have been resited at this time. Clearly, the new position was easier to defend and less liable to flooding. It could be that Tacitus was referring directly to this kind of activity when he pointed out that ‘no other general selected suitable sites more wisely’.67 The remark may have been intended to criticise Cerialis for his original site choices, as well as to praise Agricola for his apparent expertise. New or modified sites on the Selgovan/Novantian border to the north-west of Dalswinton, at Drumlanrig (38b), and further west in the heart of Novantian territory at Glenlochar (36a), Gatehouse of Fleet (36c) and, possibly, Newton Stewart (36b) were also constructed. Drumlanrig may have been an Agricolan addition to the network, but, like Broomholm and Milton, it could well have had a Cerialian foundation.68 Ceramic evidence discovered in the lowest levels at Glenlochar confirmed its Flavian origin; it was constructed or modified during Agricola’s governorship.69 Gatehouse of Fleet, too, would have been built or reused at the same time, since it would have been a part of the necessary garrisoning of Galloway; if not at this time, it

The Damnonian lands south of the Forth–Clyde line must have been the next target (if Agricola’s forces had not already dealt with them in the latter part of the previous season), and the defeat and surrender of southern Damnonian sub-tribes would have led to the development of new forts in their territory at Easter Happrew (33c), Castledykes (33a), Loudoun Hill (32b), probably at Irvine (32a), and at a possible Flavian precursor of the Antonine fort at Bothwellhaugh (33b), as well as just over the border with the Votadini at Elginhaugh (45a). Easter Happrew seems to have had just one period of occupation, and artefactual evidence, including a Vespasianic coin of AD 71, confirmed its Flavian date.74 Castledykes produced clear structural and artefactual evidence of its Flavian origins, and its strategic significance in the Agricolan period was revealed by the quality and extent of construction work.75 Loudoun Hill’s four Flavian phases make Agricolan activity there certain.76 Even though no Roman structures have been confirmed at or around Irvine, the road from Castledykes, through 70

St Joseph, ‘Roman fortlet at Gatehouse of Fleet’, 233. Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in west Dumfries and Galloway’, 11. 72 A. Wilson, ‘The Novantae and Romanization in Galloway’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxv (2001), 74 n. 5. 73 K. Wellesley, ‘Review of Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae, ed. R M. Ogilvie and the late Sir Ian Richmond’, Jl Roman Studies, lix (1969), 266. 74 Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1956’ (Scotland), 201; see also K. A. Steer, ‘The Roman fort at Easter Happrew, Peeblesshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xc (1956–7), 99–101. 75 A. S. Robertson, ‘Castledykes (Corbiehall)’, in Miller, Roman Occupation of South-West Scotland, 167, 169. 76 J. K. St Joseph, ‘Loudoun Hill’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 191; M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1948: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxxix (1949), 98.

65

71

Several scholars have argued for a military installation at Berwick: see Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 102; Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 74; Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 108, 118; Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 98. 66 M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1946: I. Sites explored’ (Northern Counties), Jl Roman Studies, xxxvii (1947), 167; M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1956: I. Sites explored’ (Hadrian’s Wall [sic]), Jl Roman Studies, xlvii (1957), 206. The larger, later fort is dated to the second century. 67 Tacitus, Agricola, XXII. 2. ‘non alium ducem opportunitates locorum sapientius legisse’. 68 See p. 78 above. 69 Frere and St Joseph, Roman Britain from the Air, 128. For details of the Flavian ceramic evidence, see Richmond and St Joseph, ‘Roman fort at Glenlochar, 14–15.

89

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors associated with a crossing of the river Tay, can be tentatively linked with this period.81 At least one of these temporary camps, however, might fit in with Agricola’s ‘encirclement’ policy. It clearly pre-dates the emperor Severus’ construction of the major fortress at Carpow, and also pre-dates a couple of other enclosures which were earlier, unrelated to the Severan site and tentatively assigned to the Antonine period. The Flavian(?) camp covers 115 acres (c.46.5 hectares), and is thought to be contemporary with two more of approximately the same size at Abernethy (near Carpow itself) and Dunning (further west, towards the Gask Ridge). Unusually (since camps rarely yield small finds of any kind), a small sherd of first-century pottery was discovered during excavation of the ditch at Abernethy, and so that camp has been linked with Flavian troop deployment in the area.82 However, more recent work at Dunning produced pieces of one mid-second-century bowl, so that the excavators concluded that the camp was either Antonine, or indicated Antonine reuse of a Flavian site. On present evidence, neither explanation is wholly satisfactory.83

Loudoun Hill, must have been aiming for a coastal site around Irvine Bay, especially since Ptolemy’s map includes both the polis of Vindogara and Vindogara sinus. There are, however, clusters of Roman ‘find-spots’ around the mouth of the river Irvine,77 and a possible Roman camp (fort?) at Irvine itself was mentioned in the eighteenth century.78 Frere stressed that ‘there must certainly be an important Flavian fort awaiting discovery in the general region of Bothwellhaugh and Glasgow, for the whole Agricolan front line pivots on this point’.79 If not in the immediate vicinity of Bothwellhaugh, a firstcentury fort may lie somewhere on the route between Castledykes and Barochan, but in this heavily built-up area it is unlikely that such a fort would ever be located. Elginhaugh was confirmed as a Flavian fort after several seasons of excavation, and the discovery of first-century pottery, coins and a coin hoard ‘ending with an issue, slightly worn of AD 77–8’.80 Malcontents amongst the Damnonii would have moved to join the more northerly sub-tribes, but there seems to have been little opposition. A show of force during summer and winter months alike — Tacitus’ ‘ravaging of the territories up to the Tay’ — would have stamped out any resistance further north in the Gask area, particularly in the heartland of the northern Damnonii: Strathearn. The most common belief has been that the Gask ‘frontier’ was designed to protect the pro-Roman Venicones of Fife from raiders from the west; it would also have been in the Romans’ interest to do this, since the tribe’s fertile lands must have supplied grain to the army. The evidence comes partly from the one place-name which Ptolemy allocates to the Venicones: Orrea (a name which seems to correspond to Poreo classis, ‘granaries of the fleet’, in the Ravenna Cosmography). It has usually been linked with Carpow (54a), which, to date, has revealed no evidence of a Flavian fort, although it is possible that there was one nearby. There was clearly Flavian activity somewhere in the area, but, so far, only an undated temporary camp, and another

The northern Damnonii were probably prepared to tolerate the presence of Roman troops on the Gask, since they would have regarded it as preferable to constant raiding from the north. David Woolliscroft believes that there was early commercial contact between locals and the army in the region.84 These Britons, therefore, may already have been under obligation to the Romans to keep the peace with their north-western neighbours, the Caledonii. The subsequent breakdown of such an arrangement must have caused either the rise to power of anti-Roman elements amongst the northern Damnonii themselves (with, perhaps, additional refugees from the south) who allied themselves with the Caledonii, or a situation where the weaker Damnonii were simply intimidated and overrun by raiding Caledonii. What is clear, however, is that ‘client kingdoms’ were no longer an option; native uprisings were decisively crushed, and consolidated occupation of Damnonian territory marked the end of this campaigning season — which had produced what must have been regarded as a major victory.

77 See A. Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde south of the Antonine Wall: Part 1. The topographical framework’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xix (1994–5), 24 (fig. 1), showing Roman find-spots in south-western Scotland. Scholars who believe that there is a Roman site around Irvine include Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 106; and Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 107. Vindogara is usually associated with Irvine (Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 501–2), or with Ardrossan, to the north: see A. S. Robertson, ‘Agricola’s campaigns in Scotland, and their aftermath’, in Thoms (ed.), Romans in Scotland, 5–6. 78 Forts were often referred to as ‘camps’ in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Possible structural evidence at Irvine (‘some works that were much like a Roman camp’) was observed by R. Pococke, Tours in Scotland, 1747, 1750, 1760, ed. D. W. Kemp (Scot. Hist. Soc., i, Edinburgh, 1887), 57; also mentioned by St Joseph, ‘Roman camp near Girvan’, 399 n. 2. 79 Frere, ‘Flavian frontier in Scotland’, 97. 80 Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1986’ (Scotland), 313. The fort is purely Flavian and was perhaps occupied only for around ten years: [source W. S. Hanson], ‘Elginhaugh’, Current Archaeology, no. 104 (1987), 269, 272.

The Ravenna place-names may help in a reconstruction of the historical context, because the victorious Roman operations in Strathearn would have culminated in the main Flavian construction phase of the base-line forts of 81

J. N. Dore and J. J. Wilkes, ‘Excavations directed by J. D. Leach and J. J. Wilkes on the site of a Roman fortress at Carpow, Perthshire, 1964–79’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxix (1999), 486–7. 82 Ibid., 486–7, 569; for further details of all three camps, see St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, 218–23. 83 A. J. Dunwell and L. J. F. Keppie, ‘The Roman temporary camp at Dunning, Perthshire: evidence from two recent excavations’, Britannia, xxvi (1995), 60–2. 84 Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 24–5; Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 218–23; for a possible implication of this, see p. 101 at n. 32 below.

90

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus Stirling (48a; as yet unlocated), Ardoch (47a),85 Strageath (56a)86 and Bertha (55a),87 the fort at Doune (47c; slightly to the west of the line but between Stirling and Ardoch),88 and, perhaps, a second phase of reinforcement or modification at the watchtowers. Tacitus also hinted at the swiftness and efficiency with which this was achieved, because he commented about there being ‘time to spare for establishing forts’ (presumably during the campaigning season rather than during the winter months; otherwise it would not be remarkable enough to mention); it was probably also significant because a very large number of forts would have been built at this time — effectively encircling both southern and northern Damnonian territory.89

extramural remains’.92 The fort was strategically placed to guard the important crossing of the river Earn. It is equated here with Ptolemy’s Victoria, and with the Victorie of the Ravenna list (56a). It is even possible that its name recalls what must have been a significant victory in Strathearn at the end of the third season, although other explanations for the appearance of the place-name Victoria are possible.93 Vespasian’s Legacy So, what had been achieved after the first three seasons? Results, in the form of permanent fort structures, would be manifest in subsequent years, but the forward policy seemed to have ended in AD 79 with the death of Vespasian. Tacitus did mention that Agricola encountered ‘new peoples’ in his third campaign, but the implication of this is surely that Roman forces were now in direct contact with such peoples. The end of Vespasian’s reign would have seen reinforcement of the Roman occupation of Selgovan territory and its borders with the Novantae, the Votadini and the southern Damnonii, while the subjugation of the southern Damnonii would have been followed by the reinforcement of the line which separated the northern Damnonii from the Venicones on the east.

Strageath, the centre point and pivot of the Gask system, may well have developed into the ‘supply depot’ of the area during the Flavian occupation. Although Ardoch may seem more impressive now, this is due to the fact that the site has not been levelled;90 also, Ardoch probably had a greater role to play in the Antonine period, and it is the later development that has been preserved. Excavation at Strageath, however, has confirmed granaries of twice the normal size for a Roman fort. More significantly, the unusually large size of several of its officers’ blocks, may indicate special responsibility for the whole frontier.91 Recent geophysical survey, too, has revealed ‘the extensive nature of the

Vespasian’s aim had been almost certainly to follow in the footsteps of the Julio-Claudians, by completing the ‘expansion begun as a showcase operation under Claudius’,94 and which had first become a possibility under Julius Caesar himself. The contemporary author Josephus (born c.AD 37) also stressed that Vespasian’s activities in Britain ‘provided Claudius . . . with a triumph which cost him no personal exertion’.95 The truth of such statements is strengthened by the ‘prophecy’ concerning Flavian achievements written into his epic on the Punic Wars by Silius Italicus (AD 26–101). The work is probably datable to the later years of Domitian’s reign, and deserves more careful examination. Silius Italicus wrote that the Flavians would ‘increase the fame of the deified Julii’, and he gave Vespasian credit for ‘victory over Thule’, and for being ‘the first to lead an army against the Caledonian forests’.96 The point here is surely that

85

For the early excavation of Ardoch, see D. Christison, J. H. Cunningham and J. Anderson, ‘Account of the excavation of the Roman station at Ardoch, Perthshire, undertaken by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1896–97’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xxxii (1897–8). See also Crawford, Topography of Roman Scotland, 34–8; D. J. Breeze, ‘Excavations at Ardoch 1970’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cii (1969–70). Excavation so far is summarised by Breeze, in D. J. Breeze, ‘The Roman forts at Ardoch’, in A. O’Connor and D. V. Clarke (eds.), From the Stone Age to the ’Forty-Five: Studies Presented to R. B. K. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1983). 86 For full details, see S. S. Frere and J. J. Wilkes, Strageath: Excavations within the Roman Fort, 1973–86 (London, 1989). 87 Originally thought to have been purely an Antonine foundation, Bertha did produce material of possible Flavian date: see H. C. Adamson and D. B. Gallagher, ‘The Roman fort at Bertha: the 1973 excavation’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxvi (1986). More recently, examination of the ceramic evidence obtained from excavations in the 1970s confirmed Flavian as well as Antonine pottery: see Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1999’ (Scotland), 380–1. 88 See G. S. Maxwell, ‘New frontiers: the Roman fort at Doune and its possible significance’, Britannia, xv (1984), 217–18. More recent excavation seems to indicate the presence of a military hospital at Doune: see Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1999’ (Scotland), 381. The existence of Flavian ‘parrot’s beak’ ditch terminals have been confirmed at Doune: Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 81. 89 Tacitus, Agricola, XXII. 1. ‘ponendisque insuper castellis spatium fuit’. 90 Crawford, Topography of Roman Scotland, 34. Compare the aerial photographs and plans of the two sites: J. K. S. St Joseph, ‘Aerial reconnaissance of Roman Scotland, 1939–75’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, iv (1976), 15 (plate 4), 16 (fig. 2), for Ardoch; 20 (fig. 4), 21 (plate 6) for Strageath. 91 Frere and Wilkes, Strageath, 123, 119–20.

92 N. J. Lockett, ‘A geophysical survey in the annexes of the Roman fort of Strageath’, contribution in Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 79. 93 See p. 102 below. 94 B. Levick, Vespasian (London, 1999), 157. 95 Josephus, Jewish War, III. 1. 2 (4): trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 15. 96 Silius Italicus, Punica, III, ll. 595–8. ‘. . . et sacris augebit nomen Iulis / bellatrix gens bacifero nutrita Sabino. / hinc pater ignotam donabit vincere Thylen / inque Caledonios primus trahet agmina lucos’. Note, however, that Stan Wolfson points to the existence of manuscripts which have ‘huic’ instead of ‘hinc’, indicating that, rather than Vespasian, the Flavian dynasty was intended: see S. Wolfson, ‘Tacitus, Thule and Caledonia: a critical reinterpretation of the textual

91

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors and legio XX may have been moved forward, and divided between the forts at Carlisle and Newstead.

Vespasian initiated the final phase of conquest which resulted in a symbolic victory over Thule, and, with Cerialis (or even Bolanus) as governor, as already shown, there could easily have been encounters with the Caledonii. The ‘prophecy’ went on to associate Titus with Palestine, and Domitian, primarily, with Germany (as conqueror). But, Silius Italicus also said that Domitian would ‘outdo the exploits of [his] father and brother’, and that he will ‘drive the triumphal car through Rome after conquering the North; he shall triumph over the East’.97 The ‘North’ is usually interpreted as being Germany, but it could also equally well apply to Britain where, with Agricola’s help, Domitian clearly finished what his father had started, though in a modified fashion.98

Another possible illustration of Vespasian’s commitment to the total conquest of Britain and Ireland may, perhaps, be inferred from the decision to undertake major development at the three cities which had suffered at the hands of Boudica: completion of the prestigious temple of the Imperial Cult at Camulodunum, which was probably still under construction in AD 60;103 and substantial rebuilding at Londinium and Verulamium. In addition, work probably began on the construction of a huge monument at Richborough; the location is significant, as it was the ‘gateway’ to Britannia and marked the scene of Claudius’ triumphant entry into the partly conquered island. This is entirely in keeping with Vespasian’s obvious admiration of Claudius’ success, and with the Flavian emperor’s penchant for the building of memorials in Rome in order to celebrate the achievements of the new dynasty.104

Vespasian’s ‘grand plan’ can be glimpsed in the major building work at Chester, most probably on the elliptical building, the foundations of which are believed to date to the early years of Agricola’s governorship.99 Construction was not completed until much later, after remodelling, during the reign of Severus. It has been suggested that this enigmatic structure had originally been designed to place Vespasian’s stamp on northern Britain, because Chester may have been scheduled to be the centre for the administration of northern Britain plus Ireland. As Mason has shown, the elliptical building might have been intended literally as a showcase for the Flavian dynasty.100 He also put forward the suggestion that Chester was the governor’s headquarters (or at least his northern headquarters) in the Flavian era, owing not only to ‘its exceptionally large size among the fortresses in Britain’ but also because of the three major buildings (including the elliptical building) which were either begun or planned at Chester during the Flavian period — structures which are not present on any other fortress site. Moreover, Mason pointed out that legio II Adiutrix, whose other names were pia and fidelis, was fiercely loyal to the Flavians and was probably assigned to Chester for that reason as well as for its sailing expertise: both would have made sense if it were also to be involved in an Irish expedition. Chester had ‘the best harbour on the west coast’, and so was an ideal base for the fleet, but was ‘perhaps not the best location from which to launch an invasion of Ireland’.101 However, the legion would have been well placed for assembly and departure from the Wirral peninsula at Meols.102 Meanwhile, legio IX’s base was probably still at York,

At Richborough, one single monument encapsulated and glorified past, present, and presumably future, connections with Britain. However, only the impressive foundation (30 feet deep) of the triumphal arch survives in situ. Pieces of marble sculpture in Dover castle may have been part of a lavishly decorated exterior, and there are small fragments of an inscription which refers to the son of a deified predecessor as emperor. The obvious candidate for such a description is Domitian, and it was believed that he was responsible for the building of the arch.105 But the lettering is too small to be part of the main inscription on an arch which was 86 feet high (one of the largest of its kind and the only building in Roman Britain to be entirely covered with marble), and must have been a secondary text.106 It is for this reason that current thinking favours a Vespasianic origin for the actual structure.107 The Domitianic text would then have been a ‘postscript’, indicating that the conquest of Britannia initiated under Claudius became a reality under the Flavians, and was now finally completed — albeit 103 See D. Fishwick, ‘Templum Divo Claudio Constitutum’, Britannia, iii (1972), 165, 179–80. 104 Mason, Excavations at Chester: The Elliptical Building, 94. Here he gives a list: ‘The Temple of Peace (Forum of Vespasian), the completion [significantly] of the Temple of Claudius, the rebuilding of the Capitoline temple, and, of course, the Colosseum’. 105 Salway, Illustrated History of Roman Britain, 116–17 (including scale drawing). 106 Richborough’s excavator, J. P. Bushe-Fox, made this observation in his Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (Oxford, 1949), 46. The lettering is no more than 3¼ inches (8.25 cm) high, while the main inscription may have been up to a foot (c.30 cm) high, but no less than 8 inches (20.3 cm): see also D. E. Strong’s comments in B. W. Cunliffe (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (Oxford, 1968), 67–8. 107 D. Shotter, ‘Vespasian, auctoritas and Britain’, Britannia, xxxv (2004), 5–6.

problems’ (2002), pt 5, ‘Thule in contemporary Latin literature’: . 97 Silius Italicus, Punica, III, ll. 607, 614–15. ‘at tu transcendes, Germanice, facta tuorum / . . . hic et ab Arctoo currus aget axe per urbem, / ducet et Eoos, Baccho cedente, triumphos’. 98 See p. 112 below. 99 See p. 69 above. 100 Mason, Excavations at Chester: The Elliptical Building, 76–80. 101 See Mason, Roman Chester, ch. 6 (‘A fortress fit for a governor?’); quotations at 89, 95. 102 See n. 30 above.

92

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus temporarily, as Tacitus pointed out.108 If Shotter is correct, and the letters ‘PE’ on a tiny fragment of the inscription were part of the triumphant announcement perdomita Britannia, then Tacitus’ scathing comment that it was ‘immediately let go’ would have been all the more effective.109

tribes from seeking assistance from their neighbours or raiding into their lands: that is one reason why Tacitus spoke of the enemy having been ‘pushed back, as if into a different island’.114 The other was, as already discussed, the effective encirclement of the whole of the province up to that point (in both time and space). The series of forts up to the Tay were almost certainly part of the monitoring system at the end of the season.

If coastal installations at Berwick, Cramond and Carpow were developed during Agricola’s second and third seasons, they would have ensured a Roman presence in the ‘safe’ territories of the Votadini and the Venicones, and secure bases for the transportation of both supplies and troops for further consolidation in the west and, later on, for campaigning in the north. This is probably where the camps at Abernethy, Dunning and Carpow fit into the picture, if they are indeed Flavian. Tacitus commented that tactics during the third season ‘so intimidated the enemy that they did not dare to challenge the army, although it was harassed by wild storms’.110 This may well be referring to Agricola’s ‘encircling’ of territories (see Maps 20 and 21), and to his show of strength by simultaneously using land and sea operations; the reference to ‘wild storms’ might also be indicative of maritime activities.111 Such a relentless, organised forward policy struck fear into the Britons during Agricola’s sixth campaign; there is no reason to doubt that it had had the same effect in AD 79.

Specific identifications for the Ravenna names associated with the Forth–Clyde line have been given above, and it was shown that the ten place-names could refer to a modified list of Agricolan installations which included the ‘primary’ forts of the later Antonine Wall. Four Flavian forts (listed from east to west) were definitely constructed at Elginhaugh, Camelon, Mollins and Barochan, although the first and last of these forts are technically beyond the eastern and western ends of the Wall respectively. Camelon’s Flavian fort ‘of rather more conventional layout’115 probably indicates an Agricolan structure overlying a Cerialian one, while one of the nearby camps at Lochlands is of the ‘Stracathro’ type.116 Camelon’s importance as a likely ‘marshalling-ground of all the Roman field armies that ever marched north into Caledonia’ is hardly in doubt: certainly under Agricola (and later both under Antoninus Pius and under Severus), but also perhaps earlier under Cerialis.117 Excavations in 1977 and 1978 concluded that Mollins was most likely to have been associated with Agricola’s Forth–Clyde line, owing to the discovery of stratified pottery (dated c.AD 60–90), combined with observations on the size, position and circumstances of the fort’s abandonment; interestingly, also, it is almost exactly halfway between the possible Agricolan sites at Cadder and Castlecary.118 Barochan had also been recorded as an early site in 1972, owing to the discovery of stratified first-century pottery; further excavation in the 1980s confirmed its Flavian origins.119

The Fourth Campaigning Season: Consolidation of the Forth–Clyde Line If there had been antagonism between northern and southern Damnonian sub-tribes, during the fourth season Agricola was to divide them with the construction of a ‘proto-Antonine Wall’ between the two firths. In no way did this resemble the tightly organised structure of the mid-second century; it was simply a loose string of monitoring forts which ran roughly across the narrowest part of Britain, and only a few of these sites can be equated with later Antonine forts.112 Tacitus clearly gave the necessary geographical detail for identification here. He mentioned that the Firths of Clyde (Clota) and Forth (Bodotria) ‘were now securely held by garrisons’.113 Agricola’s ‘line’ effectively prevented the more northerly

There is also limited evidence in the form of coins and pottery to include up to five more Agricolan forts in this list, giving (again from east to west): Elginhaugh, Mumrills, Camelon, Castlecary, Mollins, Cadder, Balmuildy, Old Kilpatrick and Barochan. Mumrills’ claim to a Flavian origin on the basis of structural evidence had been 114

Tacitus, Agricola, XXIII. ‘summotis velut in aliam insulam hostibus’. Maxfield, ‘Flavian fort at Camelon’, 77. 116 N. B. Rankov, ‘Roman Britain in 1981: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xiii (1982), 337. One camp has ‘Stracathro’ gateways; another has standard clavicula gateways. 117 Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 56, who pointed out that ‘at least ten camps have been detected there by aerial reconnaissance’. For ‘Cerialian’ Camelon, see p. 80, and nn. 175–7 above, and for the Antonine period, p. 132 below. 118 W. S. Hanson and G. S. Maxwell, ‘An Agricolan praesidium on the Forth–Clyde isthmus (Mollins, Strathclyde)’, Britannia, xi (1980), 47–8. 119 Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1972’ (Scotland), 275; L. Keppie and F. Newall, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Barochan Hill, Renfrewshire, 1972 and 1984–1986’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xx (1996–7), 70.

108

115

Tacitus, Histories, I. 2: ‘perdomita Britannia et statim omissa’. See pp. 112, 113–15 below. 109 Shotter, ‘Vespasian, auctoritas and Britain’, 6. 110 Tacitus, Agricola, XXII. 1. ‘qua formidine territi hostes quamquam conflictatum saevis tempestatibus exercitum lacessere non ausi’. 111 Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 98; Maps 20 and 21 (below) are reproduced from ibid. 95 (fig. 32), 99 (fig. 34); it is the encircling process which is important here, rather than the allocation of particular campaigns to governors or years; Mason intended them to show manoeuvres (a) by Cerialis and Frontinus, and (b) by Agricola. 112 See pp. 31–2, including Figure 2 above. 113 Tacitus, Agricola, XXIII. Or, as mentioned earlier, ‘reinforced’: see p. 79 at n. 163 above.

93

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors (and that may, partly, have been his intention) when he went on to point out that, presumably amongst Titus’ advisers, ‘there were cowards, posing as men of prudence, who began to urge withdrawal to this side of the Bodotria [Forth]’.125

dismissed at the end of the 1950s, but more recent excavation has produced several pieces of first-century pottery; now, further examination of the annexe ditches has even indicated that one might actually have belonged to a Flavian precursor.120 Castlecary has yielded limited but significant pieces of samian, coarse pottery, glass and one Neronian aes coin, while a similar pattern (without coin finds, but including structural evidence for a Flavian precursor in the form of a possible clavicula gateway) has emerged from Cadder.121 Also, as mentioned above, the fact that the confirmed Flavian fort of Mollins lies halfway between Castlecary and Cadder also strengthens the ‘case for Flavian establishments somewhere in the immediate vicinity of these two forts’.122 Balmuildy has produced negligible coin evidence which has been disregarded, but the possibility of Flavian activity on this site still remains, owing to the fact that a couple of the bronze coins in question were aes issues from the late first century.123 Old Kilpatrick was originally thought to have been Agricolan owing to the discovery of various pieces of late first-century pottery. This view had also been discredited, but the existence of the pottery may still point to a Flavian presence hereabouts on the Clyde.124 That is as much as can be gleaned from excavation and discovery to date of Agricola’s so-called garrison posts across the isthmus. Tacitus indicated that there were disagreements over the positioning of a frontier, and there must have been some truth in his statement concerning the narrow stretch of land between the Clyde and the Forth: ‘if the spirit of the army and the glory of the Roman name had permitted it, a frontier had been found within Britain itself’. The effect is even more dramatic

According to Tacitus, by the end of the fourth season, ‘the whole sweep of country on the nearer side [of the Forth–Clyde line] was secured’.126 It may be, therefore, that some of the fort construction or reconstruction mentioned in connection with Agricola’s second and third years of office actually took place during his fourth. This was clearly an ongoing process, and, due to the limitations of the dating evidence (whether literary or artefactual), more precision is impossible. Tacitus’ statement has, however, understandably caused problems in interpreting the chronology of occupation in the Lake District which, following confirmation that sites such as Ambleside (17d), Hardknott and Watercrook (17c) were very definitely post-Agricolan, is usually assumed to have been bypassed by Agricola. That does not mean, however, that Agricolan penetration did not extend further into Cumbria. There could be earlier sites, for example the postulated precursor of Watercrook at Hincaster.127 Evidence may still come to light, but, even if it does not, Tacitus’ precise meaning of ‘secured’ is open to reinterpretation. As has been demonstrated, Snowdonia was ‘secured’, and so was Votadinian territory. The Lake District was also effectively held by encirclement. Forts from Lancaster to Carlisle separated it from the east, and there may have been activity at Troutbeck, west of Penrith (but on present evidence, the fort at this site seems to be of late Flavian or Trajanic date);128 the lands of the Solway were a further subdivision. There was, perhaps, a Flavian fort before the better-known Stanegate fort at Kirkbride,129 while some, at least, of the other Cumbrian coast sites — Beckfoot (19b), Maryport (19a) and Ravenglass (18a) — may have had Agricolan precursors (if not earlier activity).130 It is also possible that small coastal sites or temporary beachheads were established in southern Cumbria, south of

120 Mumrills was declared to have had a Flavian origin in the 1920s; this was denied by K. A. Steer, ‘Excavations at Mumrills Roman fort, 1958– 60’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xciv (1960–1), 87–90; but, for more recent detail which again points to a Flavian precursor, see Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1995’ (Scotland), 398; Hunter, ‘Roman Britain in 2001’ (Scotland), 287. 121 On Castlecary, see Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland, 250–2; no evidence of pre-Antonine structures has been found: Christison, Buchanan and Anderson, ‘Excavation of Castlecary Fort’, 285; for the Neronian coin at Castlecary, see ibid.; Shotter, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, 194. On Flavian Cadder, see Clarke, Roman Fort at Cadder, 84–5; Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland, 310–12; Robertson, Antonine Wall, revised and ed. Keppie, 100–1. On both sites, see Hanson Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 110. 122 W. S. Hanson, ‘Agricola on the Forth–Clyde isthmus’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 62–3. 123 The coin evidence was disregarded by Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 109; even so, Keppie does not rule out a Flavian presence of some kind: see Robertson, Antonine Wall, revised and ed. Keppie, 105. In the 1930s, Miller had argued from ‘negative evidence’ (structural and numismatic) that there was no Agricolan precursor: see Miller, Roman Fort at Balmuildy, 103. 124 See Miller, Roman Fort at Old Kilpatrick, 51–2; an Agricolan foundation is discredited in Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 109. Again, Keppie reminds the reader that the pottery ‘suggested . . . that the Roman army had already used this important site on the Clyde before it was called upon to play a major role in the Antonine frontier system’: Robertson, Antonine Wall, revised and ed. Keppie, 119.

125

Tacitus, Agricola, XXIII. ‘ac si virtus exercitus et Romani nominis gloria pateretur, inventus in ipsa Britannia terminus’; ibid., XXV. 3. ‘regrediendumque citra Bodotriam et cedendum potius quam pellerentur ignavi specie prudentium admonebant’. See also pp. 101, 112 below. 126 Ibid., XXIII. ‘atque omnis proprior sinus tenebatur’. 127 See p. 74 at n. 112 above, and, for post-Agricolan sites, see p. 113 below. 128 But Troutbeck’s three temporary camps all have claviculae (internal or double): see Welfare and Swan, Roman Camps in England, 44–50. 129 See R. L. Bellhouse and G. G. S. Richardson, ‘The Roman site at Kirkbride, Cumberland’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxv (1975), 89. They later favoured a Trajanic foundation: Bellhouse and Richardson, ‘Trajanic fort at Kirkbride’, 49. In any case, the harbour at Kirkbride may have been used in Agricolan operations in the Solway: Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 100. 130 There is certainly some early coinage from around this coast: see p. 71, and n. 75 above.

94

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus Ravenglass,131 and around to Barrow-in-Furness and the north side of Morecambe Bay. This strategy seems to have been followed in Galloway as well, so that it, too, was encircled, but probably not fully garrisoned until the following year.

Tacitus was discussing two different episodes: one that involved departure by sea from the Clyde,135 and armed conflict with (and success against) ‘new’ tribes; and one which had something to do with the gathering of troops in Galloway.136 The mobilisation of troops, however, may have been nothing more than a routine exercise undertaken somewhere apparently within ‘striking distance’ of Ireland: Galloway would still seem to be the most likely location for this.

The Fifth Campaigning Season: Consolidation of Western Scotland Tacitus made it clear that at least part of Agricola’s fifth campaigning season was spent in western Scotland, since, ‘He [Agricola] lined up his forces in that part of Britain that faces Ireland’.132 If, as many scholars believed, Agricola was campaigning in Galloway,133 the question remains: why was it necessary at that time, since Tacitus had already pointed out that territory was secured up to the Forth–Clyde line? If the Novantae had simply been controlled rather than conquered, it could be argued that their lands still needed to be fully secured. If, on the other hand, occupation and fort-building had already taken place, then only a major rebellion would have required the kind of mobilisation of forces to which Tacitus referred. Recent reassessment of the different stages of conquest make it seem increasingly unlikely that much fighting was done in the fifth season. It is true that Tacitus’ opening remarks on activities of that season describe the defeat of ‘new’ peoples, but that can hardly refer to the Novantae who, by this stage, must have been well known to the Roman forces. Tacitus’ reference to a sea crossing has led to the conclusion that Agricola may have been operating in Kintyre. This is certainly possible, and Agricola might still have been preparing for campaigning in Ireland, and was making sure, by subduing the Epidii of Kintyre and other tribes in the area, that the consolidated line at the Forth–Clyde isthmus could not be outflanked on the west. The lack of evidence for Agricolan forces on the other side of the Clyde is not significant, since attacks would have been made from the sea, or from temporary beachheads; it is, therefore, unlikely that traces of such activity would have survived.134 That said, even though the southern-most tip of Kintyre is far closer to Ireland than the Mull of Galloway, it would be an unlikely starting point for launching an attack on Ireland, and it would be doubly unlikely that Tacitus would want to stress that Agricola ‘lined up his forces’ in such an inconsequential part of Britain. Reed concluded that

More interesting is the fact that by far the largest part of Tacitus’ section describing the fifth season is not concerned with campaigning. This leads to the conclusion that routine fort-building, instead, was going on in Galloway. And, rather than say it — which would have been tedious — Tacitus used the opportunity to speak ruefully about what might have been.137 Some Ravenna place-names have been tentatively equated with Roman camps around the Gallowegian coast at Glenluce (40b),138 and at Girvan (40c), where the two camps may also be indicative of an as yet unlocated fort. The ditch of the second camp produced a small fragment of what is probably first-century glassware.139 In any case, the peninsula must have had its share of monitoring forts at this time, the most significant of which would have been at or near Stranraer (40a), and perhaps at Newton Stewart.140 The full network of forts in south-western Scotland has not yet been revealed. Until air reconnaissance undertaken by J. K. S. St Joseph in 1949, no Roman sites were known west of the Nith,141 and his discoveries had been completely unexpected. The clearest indication that there are further fort sites on the route from Gatehouse of Fleet to Loch Ryan (Stranraer) comes from evidence of the Roman road continuing westwards from Glenluce.142 On the Ayrshire coast at Girvan there may have been a fort ‘on the site of the old parish manse’, where it is interesting to note that, apparently, ‘triple ditches [were] observed by the Royal Commission from the air’.143 135

Crossing the Clyde is said to be ‘unambiguous’: see Birley, ‘Agricola, the Flavian dynasty, and Tacitus’, 144. 136 Reed, ‘Fifth year of Agricola’s campaigns’, 147. 137 Interestingly, Keppie spoke of ‘strange gaps in Tacitus’s account of the final campaign’, and comes to a similar conclusion, i.e. that Tacitus might have regarded routine fort-building as ‘an interruption to his narrative’: L. Keppie, ‘Mons Graupius: the search for a battlefield’, in J. Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland (Scot. Archaeol. Forum, xii, Edinburgh, 1981), 84. 138 See L. J. F. Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1992: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxiv (1993), 281. 139 Rankov, ‘Roman Britain in 1981’ (Scotland), 339; Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 35. For context, see St Joseph, ‘Roman camp near Girvan’. 140 Keppie, ‘Romans in southern Scotland’, 19; Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 96. 141 See Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, pp. viii–ix (editor’s ‘Preface’). 142 Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1992’ (Scotland), 281. 143 Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde south of the Antonine Wall: Part 1’, 15.

131 Roman coins have been found at Eskmeals, about a mile to the south of Ravenglass: see Shotter, Roman Coins from North-West England, 241. 132 Tacitus, Agricola, XXIV. 1. ‘eamque partem Britanniae quae Hiberniam aspicit copiis instruxit’. 133 This view was largely held long before the current state of knowledge on the stages of conquest before and during Agricola’s governorship. See, for example, S. N. Miller, ‘The fifth campaign of Agricola’, Jl Roman Studies, xxxviii (1948); but also Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 105. 134 Reed, ‘Fifth year of Agricola’s campaigns’, 146–7.

95

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Colosseum. Martial mentioned that a Caledonian boar was part of the programme. It is tempting to suggest a link between the events in Strathearn (where Roman forces almost certainly fought against the Caledonii) and the mythical boar of Calydon — a tale of heroics which would not have been lost on the audience.150 Agricola’s connection with legio XX, whose emblem was the boar, may also be relevant here. If such a major victory had been won in Strathearn at the end of the third campaign, however, an explanation for Tacitus’ failure to describe it in such terms is required. He certainly emphasised the psychological warfare being waged when he described the ‘ravaging of the territories up to the Taus [Tay]’, how the Romans overawed the enemy, and how the Britons ‘were baffled and in despair’.151 He also used the opportunity to highlight Agricola’s exemplary qualities as a governor and as a man, but, interestingly, he stressed that Agricola ‘was never greedy to steal the credit for others’ achievements’. This sounds very much as if, technically, the ‘victory’ was down to legio IX, Cerialis’ old legion, and, if so, he would not have wanted to broadcast the fact. Tacitus was far more concerned with successes north of the Tay where Agricola’s operations in ‘virgin’ territory could not be disputed; Titus, on the other hand, was probably more equitable towards both Agricola, his contemporary, and Cerialis, his relative by marriage.

Titus’ Legacy The lasting impression of Titus’ two-year reign is ‘consolidation’, which clearly took place during both of those years, although this does not necessarily mean that Titus did not envisage further expansion.144 Most importantly, whatever happened in Scotland up to the Tay in AD 79, the overall achievement was of sufficient military value for Titus to receive ‘the title of imperator for the fifteenth time’.145 Since Vespasian died in June 79, the success in that summer season would have been celebrated by his son. It is possible that Titus, following in his father’s footsteps, gave orders for the erection of a monument close to the harbour site at Camelon146 to commemorate the victorious campaigning in Strathearn. This structure, known as ‘Arthur’s O’on’ (destroyed in the eighteenth century), was placed in a commanding position, designed to be seen by all ships not only on the river Carron which runs close to Camelon but also by those sailing up the Firth of Forth.147 In 1527, Hector Boece apparently described the building as ‘a temple built by Vespasian in honour of Claudius, whose statue with that of Victoria was placed in it’.148 There is a certain ring of truth in this: it does sound like the kind of building ordered by Vespasian to glorify Claudius, and would have served a similar purpose to that of the Richborough triumphal arch. Perhaps victory was imminent when Vespasian died. The campaigning season certainly seems to have ended earlier than normal because it is here that Tacitus mentioned that there was time for fort building.149 It would make more sense to attribute the structure to Vespasian, or to Titus carrying out his father’s wishes, rather than linking it with the Antonine period.

Agricola’s brief from Titus seems to have been to ensure the stability of southern Scotland. In order to do that he needed to safeguard against interference from tribes in the western isles (but only in those areas which could pose an immediate threat to the Forth–Clyde line). That would also have been necessary in preparation for either a renewed campaign north of the Forth or an expedition to Ireland: perhaps the Irish option was not totally ruled out until after Titus’ death. On the other hand, at some stage during AD 80, it looks as if detachments of troops were removed to Europe from all the legions in Britain, and this may have caused Titus to rethink his policy for the province.152

One final way in which Titus might have honoured his father is connected with the inauguration of the 144

A point made by B. Jones, in his The Emperor Titus (London, 1984), 150. 145 Cassius Dio, LXVI. 20. 3, stated categorically here that the salutation was awarded as a result of ‘events in Britain’, under Agricola, but the narration of those events is rather confused. He included details of the mutiny of the Usipi in AD 82 (see pp. 102–3 below), obviously in error, because he continued with a description of the eruption of Vesuvius which is well known to have occurred in the summer of AD 79. The title IMP XV occurs on coins minted in AD 79, ‘but not in the first series after 1 July’: C. L. Murison, Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s ‘Roman History’, ix, Books 64–67 (AD 68–96) (Amer. Philological Assoc., Atlanta, 1999), 187. 146 T. W. T. Tatton-Brown, ‘Camelon, Arthur’s O’on and the main supply base for the Antonine Wall’, Britannia, xi (1980), 340–1, presented the convincing case for a Roman harbour at Camelon. That this was true in the Flavian period as well as the Antonine is strengthened by the ceramic evidence: see Swan and Bidwell, ‘Camelon and Flavian troop-movements’. 147 Ibid., 341. 148 See K. A. Steer, ‘More light on Arthur’s O’on’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, iv (1976), 91. The Blair Castle manuscript’s description of the structure, and its use of mortar, surely confirms a Roman origin. 149 Tacitus, Agricola, XXII. 1. See p. 91 at n. 89 above.

150

Martial, De Spectaculis, VII. 3, quoted in Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 84. Birley adds that the boar was ‘presumably supplied by Agricola’, but not necessarily: the symbolism would have been enough. Calydon, a city in Aetolia, was ruled by Oeneus, the father of Meleager. The goddess Diana sent a wild boar to wreak havoc in the country because she felt that she had not received due respect from the king. The tale of the hunting of the Calydonian boar by all the princes of the day was told by the poets. Meleager killed it; apparently the skin was ‘preserved, and still seen in the age of Pausanias’, while the tusks were later brought to Rome, where they, too, were on display for ‘a long time’: J. Lemprière, Classical Dictionary, 7th edn (London, 1809), s.v. ‘Calydon’. Meleager is also mentioned in Martial, De Spectaculis, XV. 1. 151 Tacitus, Agricola, XXII. 1. ‘vastatis usque ad Taum . . . nationibus’; ibid., XXII. 3. ‘inritis hostibus eoque desperantibus’. See also p. 93 at n. 110 above. 152 Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 46; Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 135. Epigraphical evidence points to this scenario: ILS 1025 concerns the tribune L. Roscius

96

Agricola under Vespasian and Titus on to mention that Agricola had befriended an Irish ruler who was to remain with him ‘in case an opportunity arose’.154 Vespasian (and, perhaps, Titus also) may have seriously considered an invasion to Ireland. That is why Ptolemy’s map included the island, along with its major poleis and estuaries — information which must have been compiled when at least part of Agricola’s fleet was stationed on the west coast of Britain. Tacitus also described Ireland and its inhabitants in his section on the fifth campaign. His apparently detailed knowledge of the western isles may have derived from exploration at this time.155

If the Ravenna place-name identifications for southern Scotland presented here are correct, then they could well reflect the position at the end of the fourth campaign, and their order may echo Tacitus’ description of the secured territory up to the isthmus — that is, they run more or less from the Clyde to the Forth.152 It is interesting to note that the most westerly Novantian grouping in the Stranraer region (Group 40) is separated from the eastern one around Glenlochar (Group 36). The order of regional groupings may have changed from that of the original list, but it is just possible that this division may throw some light on the programme of consolidation under Titus. Fort-building around Stranraer was perhaps undertaken at a different time from the rest of Galloway. If that is so, then the most logical time for this would have been during Agricola’s fifth season (as indicated above), and it would, therefore, be unsurprising to find large numbers of the governor’s troops ‘lined up . . . in that part of Britain that faces Ireland’.153 If Vespasian’s original policy had included consolidation in a particular regional order culminating in western Galloway, in preparation for a campaign in Ireland, then perhaps Titus had not made a final decision on whether to pursue matters by the fifth season. His death may have been timely (or untimely) as far as the Irish project was concerned. Tacitus certainly hinted that Agricola was waiting for orders to go ahead, when he described the mustering of troops as ‘an expression of hope rather than of fear’, and when he went

It has always seemed strange that Domitian, who was so set against his father and brother, should want to continue with their policies and complete the conquest of Britain — but he may, of course, have been under pressure to do so. (He probably emphasised in a small way that he was now in charge by reinstating Roscius Coelius on the career ladder and granting him an overdue consulship in AD 81.)156 If the conquest had to be undertaken, Domitian presumably wished to do it his own way — by abandoning the Irish venture altogether, and heading in the opposite direction to conquer mainland Britain, spurred on by thoughts of ‘ultima Thule’. 154

Ibid. ‘in spem magis quam ob formidinem’; ibid., XXIV. 3. ‘in occasionem retinebat’. 155 Ibid., X. Burn believed that sea lochs and islands on the west coast of Scotland were investigated during the fifth campaign but, by his reckoning, that was the first year under Domitian: Burn, Agricola and Roman Britain, 124. 156 See p. 83 at n. 5 above.

Aelianus, who was consul in the year 100; he was a military tribune in IX Hispana, so he must have held this position in the 80s. ILS 9200 indicates that troops were taken from all four British legions. 152 Tacitus, Agricola, XXIII. 153 Ibid., XXIV. 1. See p. 95 at n. 132 above.

97

6. UNDER DOMITIAN: AGRICOLA AND HIS SUCCESSORS The Sixth Campaigning Season: Beyond the Tay

Agricola’s campaigns, would have been particularly suitable for those responsible for fort-building. Their narrow, staggered entrances would have provided extra protection against enemy attack by exposing the enemy to enfilade fire. Such camps have been located at Bochastle, Dalginross and Malling (which has two).6 It has been suggested that a Roman road led from Barochan Hill, crossing the Clyde at Longhaugh Point, aiming for Drumquhassle and continuing in order to link all the forts of the outer line.7 This route, described as a limes, has even been related to Agricola’s third campaign.8 It is argued here, however, that, even if such a route had been partly built (there is no evidence that it was ever completed), it would make sense only if related to the last two years of Agricola’s governorship. Until then, the Highland line forts were closely tied eastwards with the Camelon to Bertha base line — initially, perhaps, by river. Evidence for road connections across country is slight, but possible routes (Strageath to Dalginross; Bochastle to Doune)9 do reinforce relationships suggested here by the Ravenna groups, and a few new vestiges of trackways may be emerging.10

A. A. R. Henderson argued strongly that a careful reading of Tacitus’ description of Agricola’s sixth season is important for a better understanding of his seventh.1 This is perfectly true, because the location and outcome of the events during his sixth year of office dictated what Agricola had to do in order to achieve total conquest the following year. It is not surprising that Tacitus gave a lengthier description of his father-in-law’s activities in these seasons because Agricola was the first to take Roman arms beyond the Tay and to have had first-hand dealings with the territories and peoples of the far north of Scotland. The sixth campaign apparently began with a renewed advance beyond the Forth–Clyde line, because Tacitus noted that Agricola ‘enveloped the states beyond the Bodotria’;2 this must have meant that the lands of the northern Damnonii and of the Venicones were fully surrounded and absorbed into the province. Perhaps further steps had already been taken during the months between Agricola’s fifth and sixth campaigns to ensure against possible interference from the Vacomagi and the Caledonii by securing territory as far as the Tay. The best way to do this would have been to establish a ‘back-up’ system for the base-line fort route from Stirling to Bertha. It was probably at this time that reinforced temporary camps were set up (perhaps mainly by detachments from legio IX)3 in each of the river valleys, eventually to be replaced by a series of ‘glen-blocking forts’ on the socalled Highland line, which would operate as a cordon militaire.4 Fort construction in these glens — that is, at Drumquhassle (48c), Malling (48b), Bochastle (47c), Dalginross (56b) and Fendoch (55b)5 — may even have started by the beginning of the sixth season. Temporary camps with ‘Stracathro’ gateways, invariably linked with

However, it was not just Domitian’s (or even Agricola’s) desire for expansion that spurred on this new initiative in the north, because Tacitus went on to say that there were ‘fears that all the peoples on the further side might rise and the land routes be threatened by an enemy army’.11 Another way of protecting the major land route from Stirling to Bertha, which was the most likely to have been ‘threatened’ at the time, was for Agricola to advance into the territory of the southern Vacomagi (Strathmore, the strip of land beyond the Tay leading in a north-easterly direction towards Montrose), where, as Tacitus mentioned, he ‘reconnoitred the harbours with the fleet’.12 The historian also indicated that Agricola was the first to make use of the fleet in his combined operations by land and sea, and this is why scholars have

1

Henderson, ‘Agricola in Caledonia’, 321. Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 1. ‘amplexus civitates trans Bodotriam sitas’. 3 See pp. 101–2 below. 4 A term used in this context in Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 67 (editors’ ‘Introduction’). 5 For specific detail on Drumquhassle, see G. S. Maxwell, ‘Recent aerial discoveries in Roman Scotland: Drumquhassle, Elginhaugh and Woodhead’, Britannia, xiv (1983), 168–72. The finds confirm its Flavian foundation: see P. Masser et al., ‘Recent work at Drumquhassle Roman fort, Stirlingshire’, Scot. Archaeol. Jl, xxiv, 2 (Oct. 2002), 151–2. On Malling (Lake of Menteith) and Dalginross, see St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1965–68’, 109–10. See also W. A. Anderson, ‘The Roman fort at Bochastle, Callander’, Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc., xiv (1956); I. A. Richmond and J. McIntyre, ‘The Agricolan fort at Fendoch’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxiii (1938–9). All five forts now have confirmed Flavian ‘parrot’s beak’ ditch terminals: Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 38, 42, 44, 50, 57; at Malling this feature is more like an ‘eagle-beak’, where ‘even the inner ditches turn inward at their termini’: ibid., 42. 2

6 G. Maxwell, ‘Agricola’s campaigns: the evidence of the temporary camps’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 30–5, plates 1, 2, 4 (Dalginross, Bochastle, Malling, respectively). 7 Keppie and Newall, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Barochan Hill’, 71; for full details, see F. Newall and W. Lonie, ‘The Romans and Strathclyde: the road system 5. Loudoun Hill and the Highland Boundary Fault frontier’, Scottish Naturalist, civ (1992), 16–39. 8 Newall and Lonie, ‘Romans and Strathclyde . . . Loudoun Hill and the Highland Boundary Fault frontier’, 40. 9 Ibid., 42. 10 Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 61–2. They mention Strageath to Dalginross, and around Crieff; perhaps the latter linked to Dalginross or joined a route from Fendoch to Bertha. 11 Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 1. ‘motus universarum ultra gentium et infesta hostili exercitu itinera timebantur’ 12 Ibid. ‘portus classe exploravit’.

99

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors and can be assigned to the end of the sixth season. Both have the distinctive ‘parrot’s beak’ ditch terminals, and may have been linked by a road.19 This relationship may support the speculation that a standard-sized fort was either built (and remains to be located) or was planned to complement the fortlet at Inverquharity.20 If two or more phases of development can be discerned at the forts in Strathmore, as is now being stressed by Woolliscroft and Hoffmann,21 the first must relate to the consolidation after the sixth campaign, and the other(s) — which would have included some stage in the construction of the legionary fortress at Inchtuthil (almost certainly begun under Agricola’s governorship) — should relate to the immediate aftermath of the seventh campaign and/or to a short post-Agricolan phase.22 The capturing of prisoners and the general awe which seems to have been inspired in the natives of Strathmore means that they must have been effectively subdued, if not conquered, during the sixth campaign.

often found it difficult to accept that the classis Britannica might have been used earlier. Ogilvie and Richmond pointed out that Tacitus referred to the British fleet in AD 70, and they suggested that he was crediting Agricola with using it as an integral part of his forces, rather than simply for the transporting and supply of troops;13 even so, it is hard to believe that the fleet (surely made up of legio II Adiutrix trained sailors) had not been used to this effect not only much earlier in Agricola’s governorship in connection with Wales, the north-west of England and southern Scotland, but also, as previously stated, in the northward progression through Brigantian territory in the early 70s under Cerialis, and in connection with south Wales under Frontinus. This apparent contradiction can be resolved if the episode is seen as a further example of Tacitus’ ‘transferral’ of an event: Agricola’s first use of the fleet in this way might be traced back to the part he played in the Cerialian advance.14 The fact that Agricola advanced simultaneously over land and sea, and because the combined forces are frequently together ‘in the same camp’, mean that he had to have been operating within a reasonable distance from the coast. As already mentioned, the only territory to which such activities can apply at this stage is that of the southern Vacomagi. They were the Britons who were ‘dumbfounded at the sight of the fleet’. Operations beyond the Tay could only have meant to the natives that total conquest was intended — hence Tacitus’ next comment: ‘now that the secret places of their own sea had been opened up, the last refuge for the vanquished was closed’.15 Agricola could have proceeded into the lands of the Vacomagi from the end of the Gask line at Bertha or, alternatively, via the series of camps dated to the Flavian period at Dunning, Abernethy and Carpow, which apparently indicate an eastward rather than a westward march.16 He could also have made use of the coastal camp at Dun, which is believed to have been a Flavian supply base.17

From now onwards Agricola would mainly be facing the Caledonii and, later, their allies as well. This is clear from the next piece of Tacitus’ text: ‘The peoples who inhabit Caledonia turned to armed struggle’.23 The ‘armed struggle’ was organised by those living beyond the defence line, not by those towards the coast. That is why in the rallying ‘speech’ of Calgacus, leader of the Caledonii and their allies before the battle of Mons Graupius, Tacitus described them as ‘the last people on earth, and the last to be free’.24 Retaliation from these ‘inhabitants of Caledonia’ involved attacks on several forts.25 From one of their major strongholds at Dunkeld 19

Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 170. For the fortlet at Cargill Mains, see Hunter, ‘Roman Britain in 2003’ (Scotland), 266–7 (including fig. 5); for the fort, see Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain’, 16; and for a summary of both fortlet and fort at Cargill, see L. F. Pitts and J. K. St Joseph, Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress Excavations, 1952–65 (London, 1985), 256–7. For the fortlet at Inverquharity, see Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain’, 15–16. As for the possibility of a larger fort at Inverquharity, see Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1983’ (Scotland), 274. The interim fort might be situated near Tannadice, exactly halfway between Cardean and Stracathro: A. A. R. Henderson, ‘From 83 to 1983: on the trail of Mons Graupius’, The Deeside Field, xviii (1984), 29, after n. 14. This location was suggested before the fortlet at Inverquharity was discovered: see A. S. Robertson, ‘Excavations at Cardean and Stracathro, Angus’, in D. Haupt and H. G. Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II (Cologne, 1977), 65. The other possible location for a fort is close by in the region of Finavon: see comments by St Joseph, in Pitts and St Joseph, Inchtuthil, 273 at n. 209. 21 Particularly at Cardean and Cargill: Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 183–5; for full archaeological detail, see ibid., chap. 5. 22 On Inchtuthil, see p. 103 below; Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 62–72. 23 Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 2. ‘ad manus et arma conversi Caledoniam incolentes populi’. 24 Ibid., XXX. 3. ‘nos terrarum ac libertatis extremos’. On Calgacus’ speech, see also pp. 104, 109 below. 25 Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 3. ‘oppugnare ultro castella adorti’. 20

The two ‘Stracathro’-gated camps at Inverquharity (49b) and Stracathro itself (49c) must be associated with this campaigning season. There may have been others between these and Perth, but camps discovered to date have been assigned to the Severan period.18 Also, the fortlet at Cargill Mains probably pre-dates its nearby fort at Cargill, 13 Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 239 (on Agricola, XXV.1. ‘adsumpta in partem virium’). 14 See p. 76 at n. 128 above, for a similar example of Tacitus’ possible ‘transferral’ of an event from the Cerialian years. 15 Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 2. ‘Britannos quoque . . . visa classis obstupefaciebat, tamquam aperto maris sui secreto ultimum victis perfugium clauderetur’. 16 Maxwell, Battle Lost, 102–3. Although these camps might have been used in the initial conquest of territory to the Tay: see p. 90 above. 17 I. M. Rogers, ‘Dalginross and Dun: excavations at two Roman camps’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxiii (1993), 289. 18 See, for example, Figure 3, on p. 107 below.

100

Under Domitian Ridge, may have had particular links with that legion. So, too, might Ardoch, where a tombstone of likely Flavian date commemorates a soldier from cohors I Hispanorum, one of the units from the Rhine known to have accompanied Cerialis to Britain in AD 71 and, because of the cultural connection, perhaps also serving alongside legio IX Hispana.31 If Woolliscroft is correct in his belief that there was a good deal of economic (and social?) interaction between Romans and Britons,32 then those Romans who had served in this region before would have a vested interest in protecting it from Caledonian invasion. Although detachments from all four legions could theoretically have been involved, if legio IX and other regiments with ex-Cerialian allegiances were predominantly in this area, it seems logical to suggest that a large contingent of legio II Adiutrix was with the fleet, and a similarly large proportion of legio XX was personally led by Agricola.

in Strathtay the Caledonii could have swept down to launch attacks on the nearest forts (that is, the most northerly fully operational ones): Bertha and Strageath. It is at this point that Tacitus placed the sentence about the cowards who favoured withdrawal to relative safety behind the Forth–Clyde line.26 The implication of this is probably that the forts under attack were ‘core’ rather than ‘periphery’ to occupation policy beyond the Forth, so that their apparent vulnerability would have caused a great deal of consternation. That would also point to the ‘base-line’ forts of Bertha and Strageath, and would have been reason enough for the garrisoning of the Highland line. There may also have been discussion in Rome over the size and capability of Agricola’s force (especially after the removal of detachments during Titus’ reign). Legionaries and auxiliaries in the pre-Flavian period had originated largely from Italy; from AD 69, ‘localised’ recruitment was the norm.27 Tacitus later went on (in Calgacus’ ‘speech’) to question the loyalty of the (replacement?) auxiliaries.28

The governor received intelligence from his scouts and probably followed the enemy along an east–west route north of the Gask line from Perth, via Crieff, directly to Dalginross. In this way he was able to send on his cavalry and attack the Caledonii from behind. It is clear that Agricola was not very far away from the location of the attack — otherwise he would not have been able to reach the stricken camp in time. Also, he must have travelled from a point which would have allowed him to follow the enemy — another reason why he cannot have been marching north.

After his reference to the ‘cowards’, Tacitus then returned to the main narrative, and described Agricola’s decisive action upon hearing that the enemy intended ‘to attack in several columns’; the governor responded immediately by dividing his forces into three and advancing.29 Here the ‘advancing’ does not mean that he marched further north: that would have been foolish. (In any case, Roman advance usually entailed moving from the relatively peaceful east towards the west.) If the enemy had planned to attack in several places at the same time, they would automatically have headed for some of the more vulnerable territory away from Agricola’s main forces, so he would have had to have advanced inland, and he would have been separated from back-up supplies from the fleet. He might have contemplated a three-pronged attack himself, perhaps up the Tay from Cargill, up the Almond from Bertha, and towards Strathearn. In the event, the enemy quickly changed their plans and united for a night attack on the ninth legion,30 probably targeting Strathearn (and, in particular, Dalginross), where detachments from legio IX, rather than a large fighting force, were operating. It makes sense to suggest that members of legio IX were particularly involved in Strathearn, and that Agricola had specifically allocated them to the task of policing the area. Some of the soldiers must have taken part in the initial monitoring and fort-building programme when they served under the command of Cerialis and, if so, Strageath, which seems to have had overall responsibility for the manning of military installations on the Gask

Tacitus continued by describing the battle for control in the camp. It has often been suggested that the fighting in the ‘narrow passage of the gates’33 indicates that the camp was one of the ‘Stracathro’ series. This is highly likely, and a possible location for the night attack could be the ‘Stracathro’ camp at Dalginross. It could be coincidental, but nonetheless interesting, that Dalginross was favoured in the eighteenth century by Alexander Gordon as the site of Mons Graupius. ‘The situation of this ground is so very exact with the description given by Tacitus’, claimed Gordon;34 perhaps it did indeed reflect a similar geographical location to that ‘chosen’ by the Caledonii the following year. Victory in Strathearn was key to the whole conquest in any case. Many scholars, with the exception of David Woolliscroft and his work on the Roman Gask Project, had lost sight of this fact due to their fascination with the development of the Antonine Wall; as Richmond pointed out in the early 1920s: ‘The 31

For the tombstone, RIB 2213, see Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 94–5; for cohors I Hispanorum and Cerialis, see Holder, Roman Army in Britain, 16. 32 Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 218–23. It is possible that otherwise unexplained annexes adjoining many fort sites in Scotland may have served the same purpose as the vici further south. 33 Tacitus, Agricola, XXVI. 2. ‘in ipsis portarum angustiis’. 34 A. Gordon, Itinerarium septentrionale (London, 1726), 39–40, quoted in Keppie, ‘Mons Graupius’, 79.

26

Ibid. See p. 94 at n. 125 above. See P. A. Holder, The Roman Army in Britain (London, 1982), 47, 51. 28 See pp. 102–3 below, in connection with the Usipi, recruited from the two Germanies. 29 Tacitus, Agricola, XXV. 3. ‘hostis pluribus agminibus inrupturos’, XXV. 4. ‘diviso et ipse in tres partes exercitu incessit’. 30 Ibid., XXVI. 1. ‘nonam legionem ut maxime invalidam nocte adgressi’. 27

101

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors were fired up and ready to bring the war to a successful conclusion in the following season. In describing the determination of Agricola’s troops, Tacitus mentioned the anticipated subjection of ‘Caledonia’ again. When the soldiers announced, ‘ “ we must go deep into Caledonia, and, fighting battle after battle, we must find the furthest limit to Britain at last” ’,40 it is evident that where they had just been fighting was not ‘deep into Caledonia’; they had been attacked by the Caledonii, but not within Caledonian territory. The Romans needed to go much further, and to be far closer to the end of the island before that could be said.

centre of gravity in Flavian times in Scotland did not lie on the isthmus between Forth and Clyde as in later days but rather in the Earn valley’.35 Dalginross has already been put forward by others as a candidate for Ptolemy’s Victoria and Ravenna’s Victorie, on the assumption that the subsequent fort built there was named after this particular victory. It is equally possible, however, that the camp’s base fort, Strageath (which was, of course, known to have been complete at the time), was renamed Victoria after the event. The fort at Dalginross would probably have been completed only after the end of the sixth season — hence the attack on a ‘construction camp’ rather than on a fort. When Ian Rogers was searching for an explanation for two construction phases of the camp at Dalginross, he concluded that ‘it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that a half-built fort would have been abandoned in hostile territory’.36 The near-disaster at the end of the sixth campaign may well provide the answer: work on the fort was temporarily suspended while major repairs to the camp were carried out. Thereafter, completion of the fort would have been a priority. It is also possible that Strageath already had the name Victoria, and that, as previously mentioned, it commemorated the earlier victory in Strathearn which had earned Titus his fifteenth acclamation. There may, after all, be no connection between the place-name and the events of the sixth campaign.

Tacitus apparently chose to digress a little following the description of events in the sixth season, but he clearly indicated that the mutiny of the Usipi, a group of auxiliaries who had been recently recruited from Germania, took place at this time. Many have speculated as to why the episode appeared at all (since Tacitus’ only hint was that it ‘deserves to be set on record’),41 and what possible significance it had in the overall structure of Tacitus’ Life of Agricola. Was it really little more than a brief interlude in the narrative inserted to increase the tension before the triumphant events of Agricola’s final season?42 It has also been said that the journey around Britain of the Usipi was inserted in order to mirror the circumnavigation of Britain by Agricolan forces at the end of the seventh season. Cassius Dio also described the mutiny of the Usipi, but he did not name them. The rebels ‘sailed round the western portion of the country’,43 which suggests that they went clockwise, landing at various points on the British mainland. In practice these points could be ‘anywhere between the Mull of Kintyre and Aberdeen’.44 If this is so, they must have sailed from the Clyde to the Aberdeen area, and thence were shipwrecked on their way to Denmark or Germany.

The over-simplified three-way division of troops mentioned above would make sense when applied to the battle for the camp. Tacitus specifically stated that members of legio IX were defending, and the phrase ‘rival efforts of two armies’37 probably implies that the reinforcements came largely from a different legion. Agricola’s close links with legio XX are well known, and if he had been leading them, then these were the troops who came to the rescue. Rivalry between Cerialis’ old legion and the one most associated with Agricola must have been particularly strong.

There is at least one other explanation for the inclusion of the Usipi episode: an ‘innocent’ description of the exploits of a cohort of auxiliaries may have been a more subtle jibe at Domitian’s policy in Germania. Tacitus must have had a good reason for naming them; he knew, for example, that the Usipi were neighbours of the Chatti45 against whom Domitian went to war, possibly in AD 82 and certainly in 83. The Usipi conscripts may well have been removed to Britain before their homeland had been formally annexed. If so, it seems likely that the cohort’s

Tacitus went on to point out: ‘Had not marshes or forests covered the retreating enemy, that victory would have ended the war’.38 It has been suggested that this observation could have come from Agricola’s subsequent report to the emperor, and that it was deliberately designed to set the governor up for his final campaigning season.39 However, it is equally possible that the Britons had also intended this to be a decisive battle, and that they had committed all available forces to the attack. In his next section, the historian certainly showed that both sides

40

Tacitus, Agricola, XXVII. 1. ‘penetrandam Caledoniam inveniendumque tandem Britanniae terminum continuo proeliorum cursu fremebant’. 41 Ibid., XXVIII. 1. ‘magnum ac memorabile facinus ausa est’. 42 Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 84 (on Agricola, XXVIII); Maxwell, Battle Lost, 35. 43 Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXVI. 20. 2. 44 Tacitus, Agricola, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 322. 45 Tacitus, Germania, XXXII. 1. ‘proximi Chattis certum iam alveo Rhenum, quique terminus esse sufficiat, Usipi ac Tencteri colunt’.

35

Richmond, ‘Ptolemaic Scotland’, 300. Rogers, ‘Dalginross and Dun’, 286. 37 Tacitus, Agricola, XXVI. 2. ‘utroque exercitu certante’. 38 Ibid. ‘quod nisi paludes et silvae fugientes texissent, debellatum illa victoria foret’. 39 Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 84 (on Agricola, XXVI). 36

102

Under Domitian mutiny was a direct result of Domitian’s actions.46 The episode is also linked to the words Tacitus placed in the mouth of Calgacus, where the Caledonian predicted that ‘the rest of the Germans will desert [the Romans] exactly as the Usipi have just done’.47 Tacitus’ text of the Life of Agricola was written with hindsight, which would have coloured the way in which the historian narrated the ‘facts’,48 but he was also a master of effect in narrative technique.49

Shirley produced a detailed study of fortress construction using Inchtuthil as a model, and in this she points out that, even though two phases are indicated, it does not necessarily mean two seasons. It would obviously depend very much on how much time, men and resources were allocated to the project.53 Like at Carlisle, the fortress may have been left as a rampart circuit with tents inside — for a time, at least.54 It has been suggested that construction at Inchtuthil began under Agricola’s unknown successor;55 but this would have made little sense strategically, unless there had been a commitment both to the establishment of additional forts beyond Strathmore and to total conquest of the island.56 The scene was now set for Agricola’s final campaign, when the only possible solution would have been to go on the offensive and meet the Caledonii and their allies in a set-piece battle.

At the end of the sixth season, there must have been further consolidation; the glen-blocking forts would have been completed and garrisoned; new forts or fortlets would have been built to secure and consolidate the newly conquered territory of the southern Vacomagi at Cargill, Cardean, Inverquharity and Stracathro.50 The line of these installations formed a logical extension of the ‘glen-blockers’. Security in all these glens was of crucial importance in the preparation for an advance northwards.51

The Seventh Campaigning Season: Before and After Mons Graupius

The site for the proposed legionary fortress at Inchtuthil was presumably chosen at this time; building may even have started, but it was never completed. It is certainly no surprise to note that its position in Strathtay is within striking distance of Dunkeld, and it would have guarded the route most probably used to advantage by the Caledonii in their attack on legio IX. The excavators believed that work began at the end of that sixth campaigning season, and that it may have taken two seasons for its builders to reach the stage that they had.52 Elizabeth

Tacitus began his narrative of the final campaigning season with a few comments on the death of Agricola’s infant son. This was intended to show the professional attitude of the governor. The loss of his only son perhaps increased his determination to bring matters to a swift and, if necessary, bloody conclusion. In effect, mass genocide was committed at the battle of Mons Graupius57 — the last resort in an attempt to achieve political stability in the north which would then allow Domitian to cut his resource commitment to Britain.58

46

For a discussion of the claim that the Usipi had recently been conscripted, see R. Knox McElderry, ‘The date of Agricola’s governorship of Britain’, Jl Roman Studies, x (1920), 70–3; Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 118 (on Agricola, XXXII). Domitian’s official triumph for victory over the Chatti did not happen until later on in 83: Maxwell, Battle Lost, 114; Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 91 (on Agricola, XXXIX). For the chronological relationship between Domitian’s ‘triumph’ and the battle of Mons Graupius, see pp. 112–13 below. 47 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXII. 3. ‘tam deserent illos ceteri Germani quam nuper Usipi reliquerunt’. 48 For detail, see Maxwell, Battle Lost, 114–15. 49 In terms of the dramatic atmosphere created for the Usipi episode, and for the final battle. On Tacitus’ stylistic technique in general, see, for example, D. C. A. Shotter, ‘Tacitus’ view of emperors and the principate’, in Haase and Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang (II. 33.5), 3289–92; for symbolism of the circumnavigation, see at n. 143 below. 50 For the fortlets at Cargill and Inverquharity, see p. 100 above. For detail on the forts at Cardean and Stracathro, see Robertson, ‘Excavations at Cardean and Stracathro, Angus’, in Haupt and Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II; Flavian ‘parrot’s beak’ ditch terminals have been confirmed at both fortlet and fort at Cargill, and at the forts of Cardean and Stracathro: Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 151–2, 160, 168–9. 51 A point stressed by Pat Southern, who compares Agricola’s campaigns with subsequent military incursions into Scotland and highlights similar strategies: see P. Southern, ‘Men and mountains, or geographical determinisim and the conquest of Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxvi (1996), 372. 52 Pitts and St Joseph, Inchtuthil, 265.

There is little indication of events before the final conflict; at first sight, Agricola seems to have come abruptly upon the battle site and to have found his enemy already waiting (as, according to Tacitus, seems to have been the case with the final defeat of Boudica, and of Caratacus).59 This is, perhaps, one reason why some scholars believed that the final confrontation did not take place far from the events in the sixth season. Watson had confused matters by hinting that Agricola was near the Forth at the time,60 and this misunderstanding possibly 53

E. Shirley, Building a Roman Legionary Fortress (Stroud, 2001), 125. John Zant, personal communication to David Shotter. 55 Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 146–8. 56 See Frere, ‘Flavian frontier in Scotland’, 94; and his comments in Pitts and St Joseph, Inchtuthil, 264, 280. If such a policy continued under Agricola’s successor, it could only have prevailed for one or two seasons at the most: see pp. 113–14 below. 57 Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 47. Or, as Ogilvie and Richmond put it, Mons Graupius was ‘a victory which was as final for its generation as Culloden’: De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 65 (editors’ ‘Introduction’). This was reiterated by Henderson, ‘Agricola in Caledonia’, 333–4. 58 See also p. 112 below. 59 For comments on site selection, see Tacitus, Annals, XII. 31 (Boudica); XII. 33 (Caratacus). 60 Watson saw an etymological link between the tribal name ‘Boresti’, whose territory Agricola traversed immediately after Mons Graupius 54

103

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors all of which indicates that this is wild, unknown territory that they have penetrated. Also, the fleet was travelling north with them and the crossing of the estuaries surely confirms that the troops were within easy access of the coast. It ought also to mean that the battle of Mons Graupius took place reasonably close to the sea.69 Calgacus’ speech was, by definition, designed to encourage his fellow Britons, and they would have known that there were only ‘tides and rocks’ beyond them. It has, therefore, even been suggested that the battle site, described as ‘the very place where the world and nature end’, could be as far north as Caithness.70 Tacitus made Agricola announce: ‘The furthest point of Britain is no longer a matter of report or rumour: we hold it, with forts and with arms’.71 It is highly unlikely that such a statement would have been made if the army had been so far south. Also, it would make no sense at all of the series of temporary marching camps in the north of Scotland which lead to the Moray coast, and perhaps beyond.72 The argument that the Roman army could not have supported itself in terms of grain and supplies in the north of Scotland is simply not sustainable. Beyond Strathmore, the best quality land today is on the Moray littoral, the Black Isle and up to Tarbat Ness — Ptolemy’s Ripa Alta (see Map 14). This was true of the Roman period also, even allowing for coastal change, as is clear from the prehistoric settlement distribution (see Map 22).73

led Richard Feachem to the conviction that the battle site was at Dunning, in Perthshire, where the Roman camp is overlooked by the possible ‘mons Duncrub’.61 Fraser also presses for a site in Strathearn, and argues the case for a battle early in the season.62 However, his whole scenario is unconvincing archaeologically63 and, in any case, both the literary and the archaeological evidence surely point to a location much further north.64 A careful reading of Tacitus’ text makes it clear that the battle took place late in the season — the historian noted after the victory that ‘the summer was already over’,65 and Burn took up this point over fifty years ago: ‘it had taken the Roman governor all summer to get there; a striking fact, and one which has been too little emphasised’.66 Hints about the sheer distance covered to reach Mons Graupius actually appear in the imaginary rallying speeches of the Caledonian leader Calgacus, and of Agricola himself. Tacitus placed in the mouth of Calgacus the words ‘there is no people beyond us, nothing but tides and rocks’67 — a statement which, for many, indicates that the battle site was in the far north of Scotland. Also adding to the impression of a long, gruelling journey are the echoing comments in Agricola’s speech; most telling are those referring to physical hardship ‘when marshes or mountains and rivers were wearing you out’, during which the soldiers constantly asked when they would be facing the enemy.68 These are followed by direct references to their having ‘accomplished such a long march . . . passed through forests . . . crossed estuaries’,

Since it has been established that Agricola was the first to lead an army beyond the Tay, it ought to be easier to assign the most northerly marching camps to his governorship. The only problem has been the difficulty in confirming whether those sites are, in fact, early. Although Antoninus Pius did not campaign north of the Tay, Severus did, and the physical evidence of the latter’s presence in northern Scotland must be distinguished from that of Agricola. One way to do this is to look at the ‘Stracathro’ camps amongst them. These are at Auchinhove (52c),74 the

(see p. 110 below), and the Bodotria (Forth): Watson, Celtic PlaceNames, 23. 61 See R. Feachem, ‘Mons Craupius = Duncrub?’, Antiquity, xliv (1970), although his scenario was favourably reassessed by Hind: see his ‘Summers and winters’, 13–16. Watson had certainly argued that the ‘crub’ element could have derived from the modified *Craupius, but he could not square this with a battle site so far south: Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 56. 62 Fraser, Roman Conquest of Scotland, chap. 5, esp. 69–70, 73–4. For serious flaws in his argument, see nn. 68 and 72 below. 63 The whole thing has been systematically discredited: see Woolliscroft and Hoffmann, Rome’s First Frontier, 223–4. 64 Most scholars now agree that a northerly location is preferable. Hanson said probably not south of the Mearns: Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 129. For further discussion on the site of Mons Graupius, see pp. 106 ff. below. 65 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXVIII. 2. ‘iam aestate spargi’. 66 A. R. Burn, ‘In search of a battlefield: Agricola’s last battle’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxvii (1952–3), 129. Others have since acknowledged this: Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 128–9; Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 88 (on Agricola, XXXIII). 67 Tacitus, Agricola, XXX. 3. ‘sed nulla iam ultra gens, nihil nisi fluctus ac saxa’; see also Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 85; Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 89. 68 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXIII. 4. ‘cum vos paludes montesve et flumina fatigarent, fortissimi cuiusque voces audiebam: “quando dabitur hostis?” ’. Fraser rather misleadingly relates the phrase ‘When shall we have an enemy?’ to his discussion of the sixth campaigning season (it is also the chapter heading); thus he avoids any hint of a long march to Mons Graupius, which does not fit in with his own interpretation of events in the following chapter: see Fraser, Roman Conquest of Scotland, 61.

69

However, Hanson does not necessarily believe that proximity to the sea is a prerequisite for the battle site: Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 129. 70 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXIII. 6. ‘in ipso terrarum ac naturae fine cecidisse’; Henderson, ‘From 83 to 1983’, 28; Henderson, ‘Agricola in Caledonia’, 332, and ‘Addenda’, 335, where, it has been claimed, a photograph from Berriedale in Caithness shows the cropmarks of a possible Roman camp. See also Tacitus, Agricola and Germany, ed. Birley, 90, where Birley suggests that the Boresti might be located in Caithness. For more discussion on the Boresti, see p. 110 below. 71 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXIII. 4. ‘finem Britanniae non fama nec rumore sed castris et armis tenemus’. 72 The claim that Agricola continued north after Mons Graupius was fought in Strathearn can be dismissed. Fraser is clearly trying to fit the camps into his mistaken scenario that the battle took place early in the season, and it simply does not work: Fraser, Roman Conquest of Scotland, 115–16. 73 Map 22 (below) is reproduced from Mattingly and Jones, Atlas of Roman Britain, 14 (map 1:17). 74 Confirmed as ‘Stracathro’-type in J. K. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1955–7’, Jl Roman Studies, xlviii (1958), 93; similar

104

Under Domitian special function in Agricola’s campaign. Its peculiarities actually led to its being put forward as a candidate for the battle of Mons Graupius itself.85 However, it is more likely that it was a suitable place for land troops to have been resupplied by the fleet. Roman wheels were discovered at the site (perhaps the remains of ‘supply wagons’, and not, as Crawford had suggested, the ‘remains of the war chariots [of the Britons]’).86

smaller camp at Glenmailen (53e; also known as Ythan Wells)75 and, possibly, at Burnfield (53f?).76 However, a total of only nine Roman camps northwards from, and including, Raedykes (53b)77 are confirmed, eight of which have been categorised by J. K. S. St Joseph.78 Moving from south to north, these are located at Raedykes, Normandykes,79 Kintore,80 Durno,81 Glenmailen (where there are two), Burnfield, Auchinhove and Muiryfold. The last two are very close together, and Muiryfold,82 a member of the ‘120-acre’ (c.48 hectares) series of camps — as defined by St Joseph — probably dates to the Severan period. In effect, therefore, there are seven site locations, at least six of which, it is suggested here, correspond to Ravenna place-names — five or six are in Group 53, are associated with the Taexali, and include their main centre at Devoni (Normandykes, near Aberdeen); one is in Group 52 and therefore falls within the terrority of the northern Vacomagi (Boresti?).

Question marks lie over four other possible Roman sites, which have been tentatively assigned to place-names in Groups 50, 51, 52 and, perhaps 53; three lie amongst the northern Vacomagi and one is probably just on the border within Taexalian territory. These four sites form the ‘new’ line of marching camps postulated by Barri Jones, which lead westwards from Boyndie, near Banff (53f?, Leuiodanum), via Fochabers (Gordon Castle?), on the Spey — believed by Jones to be the location of Tuessis — to Thomshill, at Birnie, south of Elgin (52b, Lodone), Balnageith, near Forres (51, Pinnatis) and Easter Galcantray, near Cawdor (50, Iberran).87 The line is completed by a further postulated site over into Rossshire in Decantian territory, at Tarradale (Muir of Ord).88 According to Jones, there was clear evidence of V-shaped ditches, and square sumps lined with stones; indeed, it was claimed that some of these sites may even represent something more permanent than marching camps. At Easter Galcantray, a radio carbon date of ‘shortly after 89 AD 80’ was apparently recorded. The authenticity of these sites has been challenged by most archaeologists of Roman Scotland; Hanson dismissed them as ‘Roman’ on the grounds that (a) they have not produced datable artefacts and (b) they do not have ‘the distinctive morphological characteristics of a Roman fort’.90 In Jones’s defence it should be remembered that marching camps and short-term occupation sites (even if permanent or semi-permanent forts were intended) do not usually yield evidence of any kind, let alone datable material. Moreover, there is nothing similar anywhere else with which

St Joseph originally believed that the second camp at Glenmailen which cuts the smaller, earlier ‘Stracathro’gated camp should be linked with other similar-sized camps to Severus’ campaigns.83 He then decided that a much shorter interval between the two camps could not be ruled out and so it is possible that both sets of camps in this area are Agricolan or immediately post-Agricolan.84 He concluded that all non ‘Stracathro’-gated camps averaging 100 acres north of Raedykes belonged to Agricola’s campaign, whilst all those south of Raedykes averaging 130 acres belonged to a Severan series. The fact that Raedykes is unusual in shape, and does not sit easily in either series, may perhaps mean that it had a dimensions to Glenmailen (Ythan Wells): St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, 226–9. 75 See J. K. St Joseph, ‘The camps at Ardoch, Stracathro and Ythan Wells: recent excavations’, Britannia, i (1970), 175–8. For an account of early excavation at the site, see G. Macdonald, ‘The Roman camps at Raedykes and Glenmailen’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., l (1915–16), 317–48. 76 Burnfield is described as having a ‘very small ditch (0.69m deep) [which] invites comparison with Ythan Wells I and Auchinhove’: Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1983’ (Scotland), 273, but there is no information on possible gateways. 77 See Macdonald, ‘Roman camps at Raedykes and Glenmailen’, 317–48. 78 Excluding Burnfield, which was discovered in 1982: see St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, 228–33; and for further discussion on the camps of 100 acres or over, see St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1973–6’, 143–5. 79 Latest detail is only J. K. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance of north Britain’, Jl Roman Studies, xli (1951), 65, where there is also a short comment on Kintore. 80 See A. N. Shepherd, ‘Excavations at Kintore Roman temporary camp, 1984’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxvi (1986), 205–9. Radio carbon dates from the ovens on site confirm a late first-century date: M. Cook and L. Dunbar, ‘Kintore’, Current Archaeology, no. 194 (2004), 85. 81 See J. K. S. St Joseph, ‘The camp at Durno, Aberdeenshire, and the site of Mons Graupius’, Britannia, ix (1978). 82 See J. K. St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1961–64’, Jl Roman Studies, lv (1965), 83–4. 83 St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1965–8’, 119; also Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 58. 84 St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, 232, and n. 46.

85 First proposed by W. Maitland in the eighteenth century, and taken up by Crawford, Topography of Roman Scotland, 131–2, but the latter does seem to talk himself out of the argument by claiming that the next part of Tacitus’ text does not fit, and by claiming that the Romans must have reached the Moray Firth. 86 Keppie, ‘Mons Graupius’, 85, quoting Crawford, Topography of Roman Scotland, 132. 87 Most recently on Thomshill, Balnageith and Easter Galcantray, see R. A. Gregory, ‘Excavations by the late G. D. B. Jones and C. M. Daniels along the Moray Firth littoral’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxi (2001); Jones and Keillar, ‘ “In fines Borestorum” ’. 88 See R. A. Gregory and the late G. D. B. Jones, ‘Survey and excavation at Tarradale, Highland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxi (2001); Jones and Keillar, ‘ “In fines Borestorum” ’, 8, 14. 89 Jones, ‘Central places of Moray’ (unpublished lecture); Carbon 14 date given as 1880 +/– 20 BP; 80–130 cal AD (GrN-14643), published in G. D. B Jones, I. Keillar and K. Maude, ‘The Moray aerial survey: discovering the prehistoric and proto-historic landscape’, in Sellar (ed.), Moray, 69. 90 Hanson, ‘Roman presence’, 198.

105

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Roman camps in north-east Scotland, particularly those which relate to the possible Moray sites (see Figure 3).

to compare the Moray crop marks. No other single-phase, unfinished, timber-built forts abandoned after, presumably, a maximum of two to three years have yet been discovered. Erosion and flooding on the ‘fluvio-glacial gravels west of the Spey’91 have also taken their toll on the sites themselves, so that aerial photographs and limited excavation have generally been inconclusive. However, Richard Gregory, in his article assessing the evidence for the Moray sites, pointed out that ‘the four rectilinear enclosures . . . have many morphological similarities with Roman military works’; in the subsequent brief ‘Critique’, he then modified the statement with the word ‘superficial’, and added (concerning Easter Galcantray, the only site which produced a possible date) that ‘attempting to amalgamate the limited dating evidence . . . with precise historical events, such as the Agricolan invasion of Scotland, is still largely a matter of faith’.92 Nevertheless, with regard to these ephemeral Moray Firth sites, it is worth remembering Burn’s comments on south-west Scotland: ‘For many years scholars concurred in confusing the fact that no certainly Roman remains had been found . . . with the conclusion that there were none there’.93

In order to reach the final postulated ‘camp’ in Rossshire, the troops would have had to have crossed the Ness at Inverness: the river mouth is marked on Ptolemy’s map but it is wrongly labelled as the Loxa (identified as the Lossie, further east). However, the existence of a Roman site at Tarradale is much more tentative, even though Jones did find iron nails there, which he believed to be Roman.97 One other piece of evidence which may tie in with Jones’s Moray sites was the discovery in 1997 of a single gold aureus in excellent condition. It is dated to AD 80–1 and was found near Garmouth on the west bank of the Spey. There is no reason to suppose that this was not a genuine loss within a couple of years of its issue date, and its denomination would indicate a legionary presence.98 So, where was the battle of Mons Graupius fought? Does the series of confirmed marching camps in north-eastern Scotland really give any indication? Many scholars and amateurs have speculated as to the whereabouts of that final conflict.99 Maxwell even suggested equating Ptolemy’s place-name Victoria with it, pointing out that such an identification ‘would have the interesting consequence that Mons Graupius lay within the area eventually occupied by Rome’; by that, however, he meant that the name would have been allocated to a ‘permanently occupied fort near the site [of the battle]’.100 That seems reason enough not to regard the place-name of Victoria as having anything to do with the final victory over the Caledonii. Excluding Feachem’s and Fraser’s eccentric suggestions of a battle south of the Tay, and Maitland’s and Crawford’s contention that it took place at Raedykes, therefore, there are really only two serious contenders to date. Each ‘location’ is connected with one of those camps (i) the Pass of Grange near Auchinhove (52c), overlooked by Knock Hill, proposed by Burn;101 and (ii) Durno (53d), overlooked by Bennachie, proposed by St Joseph.102 The existence of a second camp at Muiryfold, only a couple of kilometres from Auchinhove, discovered in the early 1960s made the former site less likely,103 and its significance may lie more in the fact

In complete contrast, Antony Kamm describes Jones’s sites as practically confirmed, but he adds these observations to the end of his narrative on Agricola’s seventh campaigning season (after Mons Graupius) without giving any clear idea of how they may fit into the picture.94 One vitally important point about the postulated Moray Firth sites is that they are exactly where one would expect them to be. They are all close to major river crossings, or, in the case of Boyndie, near to the coast (see Map 23),95 as are quite a few of the major forts in Scotland, and at least some of the marchingcamps believed to be of Severan date beyond the Forth (see Figure 3). This reflects geographical necessity, continued strategic importance, or both, since subsequent incursions into Scotland (including Edward I’s invasion and that of ‘Butcher’ Cumberland in the eighteenth century) often followed the same, probably prehistoric, routes.96 It is also interesting to note the number of medieval thanages (that is, centres of royal power run by a crown-appointed agent, or ‘thane’) which correspond to

97 Barri Jones, personal communication; for illustrations and comment, see Gregory and Jones, ‘Survey and excavation at Tarradale’, 246–7. 98 Having seen this coin myself, I was surprised to see it listed erroneously as a denarius in J. D. Bateson and N. M. McQ. Holmes, ‘Roman and medieval coins found in Scotland, 1996–2000’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxiii (2003), 249. 99 The fullest recent discussions are still Henderson’s article, ‘From 83 to 1983’; and Maxwell’s Battle Lost. 100 Maxwell, Battle Lost, 118. 101 Burn, ‘In search of a battlefield’. 102 See St Joseph, ‘Camp at Durno’. 103 Although Ogilvie did once state (significantly, perhaps, not in print) that there was a war cemetery at Knock Hill: David Shotter, personal communication.

91

Jones, Keillar and Maude, ‘Moray aerial survey’, 66. See also Jones and Keillar, ‘ “In fines Borestorum” ’, 2. 92 Gregory, ‘Excavations . . . along the Moray Firth littoral’, 214, 217–18. 93 A. R. Burn, ‘Tacitus on Britain’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Tacitus (London, 1969), 53. 94 Kamm, Last Frontier, 87–8 (including map 10). He refrains from speculating on the actual location of the battle. 95 Map 23 (below) is reproduced from Gregory, ‘Excavations . . . along the Moray Firth littoral’, 178 (illus. 1). 96 This ‘continuity’ is discussed in G. Maxwell, ‘The Roman experience: parallel lines or predestination’, in N. Macdougall (ed.), Scotland and War, AD 79–1918 (Edinburgh, 1991); see also Southern, ‘Men and mountains’.

106

Under Domitian

FIGURE 3 ROMAN CAMPS, FORTS AND RIVER CROSSINGS IN SCOTLAND ========================================================================================= POSSIBLE AGRICOLAN CAMPS IN NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND ON RIVER CROSSINGS ========================================================================================= RAVENNA POSSIBLE LOCATION RIVER TRIBE Tuessis Fochabers Spey N. Vacomagi Lodone Thomshill (Birnie, nr Elgin) Lossie N. Vacomagi Pinnatis Balnageith (nr Forres) Findhorn N. Vacomagi Iberran Easter Galcantray (nr Cawdor) Nairn N. Vacomagi

========================================================================================= EXAMPLES OF MAJOR FORTS ON RIVER CROSSINGS IN SCOTLAND* ========================================================================================= LOCATION RIVER TRIBE Bertha (confluence of) Tay and Almond N. Damnonii Carpow Firth of Tay Venicones Doune Teith N. Damnonii Drumlanrig Nith Selgovae Easter Happrew/Lyne Lyne S. Damnonii Elginhaugh Esk Votadini Glenlochar Dee Novantae Inveresk Esk Votadini Ladyward (confluence of) Annan and Dryfe Selgovae

========================================================================================= CAMPS (POSSIBLY SEVERAN) ON RIVER CROSSINGS NORTH OF THE FORTH† ========================================================================================= LOCATION RIVER TRIBE Craigarnhall (between Stirling and Doune) Teith N. Damnonii Finavon (east of Inverquharity) South Esk S. Vacomagi Logie (north of Montrose) North Esk S. Vacomagi

========================================================================================= MEDIEVAL THANAGES LINKED TO RIVER CROSSINGS (Flavian, or possible Flavian, sites in BOLD)‡ ========================================================================================= FORTEVIOT (camp at Broomhill, Severan?) BIRNIE, near Elgin? (camp at Thomshill) KINTORE BOYNE (camp at Boyndie) LONGFORGAN, west of Dundee (Severan?) DURRIS (camp at Normandykes) MONTROSE (camp at Dun) CAWDOR (camp at Easter Galcantray) SCONE (camps at Grassy Walls and Scone Park, Severan?) FOCHABERS FORRES? (camp at Balnageith)

========================================================================================= NOTES

*

Maxwell, ‘Roman experience’, 9 (Bertha), 11 (Elginhaugh), 12 (Ladyward), 14 (Drumlanrig), 20, plate 7 (Doune); Easter Happrew and Lyne are forts on either side of the river Lyne; St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in 1969–72’, 231–2 (Carpow); M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1952: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xliii (1953), 108 (fig. 26), and 109 (Glenlochar); M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1947: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxxviii (1948), 81 (Inveresk). † St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, 217–18 (Craigarnhall), 226 (Logie); St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1961–64’, 83 (Finavon). ‡ All are listed in A. Grant, ‘Thanes and thanages, from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer, Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community. Essays Presented to G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1993), 72–81 (appendix), except for Birnie and Forres, which are highly likely: Sandy Grant, personal communication. There are also thanages at DUNNING (where the camp is possibly Flavian), and at TANNADICE in Strathmore (perhaps the site of the ‘missing’ fort to complement Inverquharity). For Dunning and Tannadice, see, respectively, p. 90, and p. 100 at n. 20 above. =========================================================================================

107

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors of land starts here, beyond the Great Glen which divides Scotland as effectively as the Forth–Clyde line. In fact, Tacitus could have been referring to the land from the Black Isle north-eastwards to the tip of Caithness in his description of ‘a huge and irregular expanse of land, projecting beyond the apparently outermost shore and tapering into a wedge-like shape’.110 The ‘apparently outer-most shore’ sounds like Moray and Buchan because any mariner sailing off the Aberdeenshire coast would think that he had reached the outer limit when he rounded the northern coast at Kinnaird’s Head. During the course of his journey along that coast, however, the full extent of the ‘wedge-like shape’ beyond would become clear.

that it was probably on the border between the Taexali and the northern Vacomagi. It is, therefore, Bennachie that is still regarded (in the absence of any further serious claims) as the best candidate for Mons Graupius, but even St Joseph may have become less convinced by his own theory.104 The site conforms very closely to a checklist105 of the features mentioned by Tacitus (although his description is vague): a large flat plain which could accommodate the numbers of troops and Caledonian chariots involved; the wooded lower slopes of Bennachie on which Caledonii could have congregated ‘in tiers’;106 the Roman camp of Durno is in the right sort of place for the action to have followed Tacitus’ outline; and there is ample evidence of early local settlement in the area (some of which ought to be contemporary with the Roman advance). On the negative side are: the existence of a small river between the slopes and the plain (but perhaps not significant enough to be remarked upon by Tacitus); the fact that the site is quite a long way inland; and, more importantly, it does not seem far enough north.

Tarradale, ‘the focus of a major nexus of prehistoric settlement’,111 and the adjoining level area to the west, suddenly becomes a very real possibility. The Black Isle showground on this ‘flat plain’ at Muir of Ord, overlooked by the hill and lower slopes of Cnoc Croit na maoile (locally known as Ord Hill),112 for example, can claim the same set of positive features listed earlier in favour of Bennachie. But, unlike with Bennachie, there is no river dividing the plain from the higher ground; it is definitely far enough north; and the Beauly Firth (located as the Varar estuary on Ptolemy’s map, and perhaps linked etymologically with Tarradale, despite Watson’s belief that it derived from old Norse tarf-dalr = bulldale)113 is visible from it today, even though the coastline has risen. Because of its location in this part of Rossshire, Mannsfield in Muir of Ord was the market stance (that is, the ancient drovers’ cattle market) and, since the 1950s, it has staged the annual Black Isle show — ‘the premier one-day agricultural event in Scotland’.114 All the major lines of communication from the west, the north and the east coasts of Scotland converged here in the past as well as in recent times, and it is difficult to imagine a more suitable meeting point for all the northern tribes. A cursory glance at a pre-1980s motoring map of northern Scotland will show that, owing to geographical constraints, all roads (moving clockwise) south from Gairloch, Ullapool, Scowrie, Durness, Tongue, Melvich, Thurso, Wick, Helmsdale, Golspie, Dornoch, Bonar Bridge, Tain, Alness and Dingwall were still channelled this way, and then down

David Breeze stated that it was easiest ‘to assume that no known place-names means no army presence’, and concluded that ‘Mons Graupius was not fought beyond Inverness’.107 It is true that Pinnata Castra is Ptolemy’s most northerly place-name, and Ravenna has both Pinnatis and Iberran, but that does not mean that the battle could not have taken place beyond them. After all, it was an offensive battle, not a defensive one. In any case, the fact that Ptolemy recorded place-names in Ireland, which is most unlikely to have had a military presence, contradicts Breeze’s point. Even if he is correct, there are other possible locations: near Forres; under modern Inverness itself; or below Culloden. Agricola would have known that lands to the north had been depopulated of fighting men, and the Caledonii and their allies could have come together for that final battle at the ‘hub of the Highlands’.108 However, a location beyond Inverness should not be ruled out. Henderson asked whether the Moray Firth could have been regarded as the end of the island, and concluded not,109 and so, in order to satisfy the criteria for being fought ‘at the end of the world’, it would have to have happened further north — not as far north as Caithness, but just into Ross-shire. Britannia’s final tract

110

Tacitus, Agricola, X. 3. ‘inmensum et enorme spatium procurrentium extremo iam litore terrarum velut in cuneum tenuatur’. 111 Barri Jones, personal communication. 112 But not to be confused with the other nearby Ord Hill, which lies just over Kessock Bridge from Inverness. 113 W. J. Watson, Place-Names of Ross and Cromarty (1904; repr. Inverness, 1976), 108. The form ‘Taruedale’ appears in the records c.1270. Also, Ptolemy’s map recorded the Tarvedum promontory in Caithness (probably Dunnet Head), perhaps meaning the ‘bull-fort’: Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 36; Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 469. 114 D. Willis, Discovering the Black Isle (Edinburgh, 1989), 9, 88. Interestingly, a similar meeting point further south is located at Falkirk (Camelon).

104

Ian Keillar and Grant Simpson, personal communications. Following G. D. B. Jones’s ‘checklist’ approach for suggesting a site for Caratacus’ last stand: see p. 67, and n. 28 above. 106 See at n. 123 below. 107 Breeze, ‘Agricola in the Highlands’, 56. 108 A term used in the title of L. Maclean (ed.), The Hub of the Highlands: The Book of Inverness and District (Inverness, 1975). Inverness was most probably the most important centre in ‘Pictish’ times; it could well have had a similar importance to the local population in the first century. 109 Henderson, ‘Agricola in Caledonia’, 327. 105

108

Under Domitian through Inverness.115 The only alternative routes for the south-west coast (from Mallaig and from Kyle of Lochalsh) are through Fort William, Invergarry and Invermoriston (all of which are on a line leading back to Inverness via the Great Glen).

Fort’, and the remains of a considerable number of ancient forts and old field works are to be seen here and also in Farley, as the continuation of the ridge to the west is called. Some of these fieldworks were erected by the Marquis of Montrose a few days after the Battle of Auldearn in 1645.120

One tantalising observation on this possible location of the battle of Mons Graupius relates to another unknown battle site of the twelfth century. King William I of Scotland was on a mission to subdue rebellion around the Moray Firth, and, in 1187, from his quarters in Inverness, he sent Roland of Galloway in search of the rebel leader, Donald Mac William. The confrontation, and subsequent slaughter of Donald and a large number of his followers, is said to have taken place prope Muref and apud Ros (close to Moray, but just into Ross), which indicates somewhere ‘north or north-west of Inverness’. Rather more significantly, however, the battle apparently took place ‘in Ross, on a moor called “Mam Garvia”, which . . . may have been in the district of Strath Garve’.116 Could Mons Graupius and ‘Mam Garvia’ be one and the same? Etymologically speaking, the link is not impossible.117 If the word ‘Graupius’ is essentially an accurate Roman version of a pre-Gaelic place-name, without significant manuscript corruption, there is no reason why the original word could not have evolved (perhaps by metathesis, and analogy with Gaelic) to become Garbh (Garve). The modern place-name ‘Garve’ is in a narrow river-valley, quite unsuitable terrain for a battle, but, further south, one of a series of hill-forts (behind Cnoc Croit na maoile) is Dun Garbhlaich, which perhaps reflects the original name for the higher ground around Muir of Ord and Tarradale. In any case, in modern Gaelic, mam is a rounded hill (exactly like mons), and garbh, means ‘rough’.118 It is clear, however, that garbh (rough) or gairbh (of roughness) are very common prefixes in Gaelic place-names in Scotland and, ironically enough, Bennachie is in the district of Garioch (Gaelic Gairbheach, meaning ‘place of roughness’).119 Interestingly, in the early twentieth century Muir of Ord was described thus:

It is not surprising that Tacitus gave more useful material in the ‘speeches’ of Calgacus and Agricola than he did in his narrative of the actual battle. Many of the clues for its location, for example, have already been discussed. He did, however, state that eight thousand foot soldiers and three thousand cavalry were involved, and that Agricola ‘opened out his ranks’; these were spread out quite thinly — thinly enough for his officers to question their orders.121 This led Burn to calculate that, due to the numbers involved, the length of the front must have been around two miles. That, and the fact that he did not think the site was far enough north, was why Burn rejected Raedykes as a possibility for Mons Graupius.122 St Joseph pointed out that the ‘mountain’ would have had to have had concave slopes so that the Caledonii would have appeared to the Romans to have been ranged in tiers, and the higher groupings would have had a clear view of their compatriots below; a convex hill would not have had the same effect. He concluded that ‘Bennachie . . . is the only large mountain in this part of Aberdeenshire with such distinctive concave slopes’.123 That may be, but a stretch of plain wide enough for the manoeuvring of chariots and long enough for an extended front of over 1½ miles, with high ground behind, can equally certainly be said to describe the terrain at the head of the Beauly Firth from Tarradale westwards. It makes sense to see Calgacus joining forces with those tribes from the most northerly tract of land beyond the Great Glen, and making a stand close to Inverness and the good quality land that was worth protecting (see Map 14). As mentioned earlier, these were the ‘last to be free’, and Tacitus made Calgacus eager to show the Romans ‘what manner of men Caledonia has kept in reserve’.124 Most of these fighting men would have come from the interior — that is clear from Calgacus’ description of them (‘For we have neither fertile lands nor mines nor harbours in which we might be kept to work’),125 which rules out all the low-lying areas from Moray through Banff and round the coast of Aberdeenshire, and makes it highly unlikely that the Vacomagi and the Taexali played

on passing underneath a roadway bridge, the train enters a flat stretch, and on the right is seen a level field where the Muir of Ord Markets were formerly held . . . On the left at this point is seen a gently sloping hillside dotted with crofters’ houses . . . The wooded height above is called dunmore, ‘The Big

115 The construction in the 1980s of the bridges across the Moray and Cromarty Firths now provide a more direct route south from the Caithness area. 116 G. W. S. Barrow, Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), 77, and n. 42, where he combines two contemporary chronicle statements. 117 Katherine Forsyth, personal communication. 118 Also, Old Irish garb; Welsh garw; Old Celtic garvo: M. MacLellan, Gaelic Dictionary (1925; Aberdeen, 1979), 175–6. 119 Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 118.

120

D. Macdonald, Complete Guide to Ross-shire (Dingwall, 1919), 3. Tacitus, Agricola, XXXV. 4. ‘diductis ordinibus’; ‘arcessendas plerique legiones admonebant’. 122 Burn, ‘In search of a battlefield’, 130–1. 123 St Joseph, ‘Camp at Durno’, 284. 124 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXI. 4. ‘quos sibi Caledonia viros seposuerit’. See also p. 100 above. 125 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXI. 2. ‘neque enim arma nobis aut metalla aut portus sunt, quibus exercendis reservemur’. 121

109

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors heading south again’132 (although he, like Feachem and Fraser, was convinced that the battle took place in Strathearn, and that the move south to the coast would lead to the Boresti and the Forth, as Watson had suggested). However, if the battle took place on the border between Ross and Moray then, by this same argument, the Moray coast is intended.

any part in the ‘confederation’. Before the arrival of the Romans, the Caledonii had presumably been used to raiding down into the more densely populated graingrowing areas in the east; as tribal territories fell to the Romans, the Caledonii were gradually pushed further north and west. The Gask frontier and the series of forts in Strathmore could not, and did not, prevent hostile activity for long. The only option for the Romans was to wipe out a fighting generation.

In the territory of the Boresti, Agricola was said to have taken hostages — an action which elsewhere has been shown to precede the building of a monitoring fort.133 That ought to have been Pinnata Castra, the fort on the Findhorn, which reaches the sea at Forres. Interestingly, Jones described the site at Balnageith, just to the west of Forres, as ‘a morphologically unequivocal fragment of a Roman marching camp, or something slightly more elaborate . . . at the strategic crossing of a channel of the Findhorn’.134 Perhaps there was something unusual about this site which would explain why it is the only Ptolemaic name to be described as a castra.

It is in his description of the aftermath of the battle that Tacitus mentioned the Boresti. As stated earlier, Wolfson has emended the text to expunge them from history and his retranslation reads: ‘He [Agricola] led his entire army down into the northern extremities’.126 Such an emendation is certainly possible, but there is no obvious need to alter the text, especially since the main objection to the name is the rejection of a link between Boresti and the modern place-name Forres in Moray. Ogilvie and Richmond were happy enough with the general location, but they dismissed any etymological association. ‘The name Forres cannot . . . be connected’, they declared, ‘since it is the Gaelic Farais, a loan-word from the French’.127 Rivet and Smith, and Hind, amongst others, have sub-sequently accepted their unfootnoted statement.128 However, the Gaelic place-name Farais129 cannot derive from medieval French since there are no such French names in this part of Scotland.130 In the present study, therefore, the Boresti are reinstated, and the original reading, translated as ‘he led the army down unto the territory of the Boresti’, is preferred.131

After sending his maritime force out on their mission (possibly from Burghead Bay, or earlier from the Beauly Firth), Agricola apparently led his land troops in a leisurely fashion back to winter quarters which, it has been suggested, could mean that he passed through the Highlands.135 This would not have been impossible for the Romans since intelligence-gathering and orienteering skills would have ensured that apparently difficult terrain would have been no obstacle to them. However, in this ‘marginal land’, marching camps (necessary if the pace was slow) ought to have been discovered before now, as with those over Stainmore pass in northern England, for example. If, on the other hand, Agricola simply returned the way he had come, it makes it more difficult, at first, to explain the comment that his march was intended ‘to intimidate new peoples by the very delay with which he traversed their territory’,136 but Tacitus may have meant tribes which were new to that season. A large proportion of his troops would have been dispersed to winter quarters (probably to Chester and York, but also to the more northerly larger forts of Carlisle137 and Newstead,

The Boresti (whether a subsection of, or another name for, the northern Vacomagi) clearly lived close to where Agricola’s fleet was waiting, because it was from their territory that the governor ordered his naval commander to circumnavigate Britain. That is another reason for placing the site of Mons Graupius within easy marching distance from the coast. As Hind pointed out, the words ‘deduxit in fines Borestorum’ carry ‘the implication . . . that [Agricola] was on his way back and down (i.e. towards the coast) at the end of the campaign, and so

132

Hind, ‘Summers and winters’, 15. As happened in Germania during Corbulo’s dealings with the Frisians in AD 47: Tacitus, Annals, XI. 19, ‘The Frisians . . . gave hostages and settled on lands delimited by Corbulo . . . [who] . . . constructed a fort to ensure obedience’ (‘datis obsidibus consedit apud agros a Corbulone descriptos . . . praesidium immunivit’); incident also cited by D. J. Breeze, ‘Why did the Romans fail to conquer Scotland?’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxviii (1988), 16. 134 Jones, ‘Central places of Moray’ (unpublished lecture). 135 Breeze, ‘Agricola in the Highlands’, 59. 136 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXVIII. 3. ‘quo novarum gentium animi ipsa transitus mora terrerentur’. 137 Evidence from a couple of writing-tablets shows that at least a detachment of legio XX were stationed at Carlisle on 7 November AD 83, along with one of Agricola’s cavalrymen: Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 93.

126

133

Wolfson, ‘Tacitus, Thule and Caledonia’, appendix, ‘The Boresti: the creation of a myth’ (‘in finis boreos totum exercitum deducit’). 127 Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 282. 128 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 47 n. 1, 272–3; Hind, ‘Summers and winters’, 15. 129 Gaelic form Farais was originally ‘Forais’ in 1189/99, as given in the Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis (Register of the Bishopric of Moray), ed. C. Innes (Edinburgh, 1837), cited in Watson, Celtic PlaceNames, 498. 130 Bill Nicolaison, personal communication. Burn had no problem with the etymological connection Farais to Forres, and the Boresti: Burn, ‘In search of a battlefield’, 129; more importantly, neither did A. A. M. Duncan, a twelfth-century specialist: see Duncan, Scotland, 20. 131 Tacitus, Agricola, XXXVIII. 2. ‘in fines Borestorum exercitum deducit’; cf. at n. 126 above.

110

Under Domitian fit well with the rest of Tacitus’ sentence at the end of section XXXVIII (which Birley renders: ‘from which [harbour the fleet] had set out to coast along the adjacent shore of Britain, and to which it had now returned intact’), and he explains how further emendations can remedy this. However, such adjustments become necessary only if he is correct in his assumption that Portus Trucculensis is Thule’s harbour.146 There is no reason to believe that the fleet did not return to its point of departure, and there is no problem in accepting ‘adjacent’ shore as the south coast of Britain, closest to Gaul and, therefore, to Rome.147

and perhaps to Dalswinton and Castledykes); other detach-ments would have been allocated to each of the new defensive forts on the long march back. Construction parties may have been directed to start work on the Moray forts (following the acceptance of hostages); others may have finished worked on the Strathmore chain, perhaps with a view to the creation of an arc of defence from the Dee to the Spey. Under these circumstances, building at Inchtuthil either continued or commenced. Meanwhile, according to Tacitus’ text, the fleet was said to have returned to the harbour ‘from which it had set out’. This is named as Portus Trucculensis,138 and, again, many have speculated on its location. The main identifications are: somewhere on the Cumbrian coast (through a link with the Ravenna place-name Iuliocenon and its Notitia equivalent Tun(n)ocelum);139 in the West Highlands of Scotland140 (and, more specifically, through a garbled form of the Ravenna place-name Ugrulentum);141 and on the south-east coast at Richborough (through a garbling of Rutupiae).142 It should be borne in mind, however, that the circumnavigation of Britain was also a symbolic completion of the task and a conquering of ‘Ocean’.143 As such, there is a certain attractiveness about the ingenious solution proposed by Wolfson, who relates Portus Trucculensis to the island of Thule (the ultimate goal in the conquering of the known world). The emended text is translated as: ‘And at the same time the fleet, its ruthlessness enhanced by rumour and favourable weather, reached Shetland harbour’.144 Such a translation implies that the fleet landed there. Earlier in the Life of Agricola, however, Tacitus mentioned the circumnavigation of Britain, that the Orcades (Orkney islands) were ‘subjugated’ and, according to Birley’s translation, that the island of Thule (Shetland) ‘was thoroughly viewed, as well, but no more, for the fleet’s orders were to go no further, and winter was approaching’.145 So, the inspection of Thule does not automatically indicate a landing. Wolfson admits that his alternative translation does not

In any case, returning full-circle after achieving total conquest might also indicate that Portus Trucculensis was at Richborough,148 the port which is usually cited as the most important base for the Roman fleet (mainly because of its connection with Claudius’ invasion of AD 43 and its status as the official ‘gateway’ to Britannia), but it does not mean that it was the only harbour in use — or even the main one at this time. In the second century, Lympne and Pevensey were also operational as fleet bases, and Dover seems to have taken over from Richborough (possibly owing to silting) as the main port for the classis Britannica.149 All four are, incidentally, amongst the southern place-names in the Ravenna list. Dover, later known as Portus Dubris, can probably be equated with Ptolemy’s Novus portus, ‘new harbour’.150 But the circumnavigation marked the culmination of a forward policy initiated by Vespasian. So it was, in effect, Vespasian’s triumph. One of the largest and most important ports in Britain, then as now, must have been located around Southampton (Ptolemy’s Magnus portus, ‘great harbour’, and perhaps also Leuco magno amongst Ravenna’s southern place names).151 This is, arguably, Portus Trucculensis, and it may have been here that 146

Ibid., XXXVIII. 4. ‘unde proximo Britanniae latere praelecto omnis redierat’. Wolfson describes the phrase as ‘untranslatable and meaningless as it is presented in all the standard editions’, and adds that, if his version is right, ‘redierat is impossible’ (i.e. the fleet could not return to a port that it had never reached before). His new version reads: ‘de proximo Britanniae latere praevecta omnis res adierat’ (‘having sailed on from the nearest side of Britain it had encountered every scenario’). Wolfson, ‘Tacitus, Thule and Caledonia’, pt 4. This particular piece of text has been much argued over, and may well be corrupt. It is unlikely that Tacitus’ intention will ever be discovered for certain, but accepting Wolfson’s theory requires considerable disturbance of the Latin in order to accommodate it. If a south coast location for the harbour is accepted, the text can be viewed much more conservatively. 147 See at n. 152 below. 148 The location favoured by Ogilvie and Richmond: see Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 282–3. 149 C. Martin, ‘Water transport and the Roman occupations of north Britain’, in T. C. Smout (ed.), Scotland and the Sea (Edinburgh, 1992), 8. 150 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 116. 151 Ibid. They equate magnus portus with ‘the whole sheltered area between the Isle of Wight and the mainland’. Leuco magno (perhaps a misreading of the transliterated Greek mega limani) follows Chichester, the civitas capital of the Regni (Novimago Regentium).

138

Tacitus, Agricola, XXXVIII. 4. ‘. . . classis . . . Trucculensem portum tenuit, unde . . . redierat’. 139 J. G. F. Hind, ‘Agricola’s fleet and Portus Trucculensis’, Britannia, v (1974). He suggests Moresby (just where the coastline starts to turn into the Solway Firth), because the place-names have, in the past, been linked to that site. More recently, and here, those place-names are associated with Ravenglass. 140 Burn, ‘Tacitus on Britain’, 59. See, most recently, A. Breeze, ‘Philology on Tacitus’s Graupian hill and Trucculan harbour’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxii (2002), 308–11. 141 Reed took up a nineteenth-century suggestion equating Portus Trucculensis with Ugrulentum in his ‘Fifth year of Agricola’s campaigns’ (appendix: ‘Portus Trucculensis’), 147–8. 142 Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 282–3. 143 A view expressed by Clarke, ‘Island nation’, esp. 101. 144 Wolfson, ‘Tacitus, Thule and Caledonia’, pt 4, ‘The search for a harbour’; his Latin version reads: ‘et simul classis secunda tempestate ac fama trux Tulensem portum tenuit’. 145 Tacitus, Agricola, X. 4. ‘dispecta est et Thule, quia hactenus iussum et hiems adpetebat’.

111

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Clyde line implies that there was unease over the forward policy. Perhaps one of Domitian’s colleagues at this time was the ‘cautious’ ex-governor of Britannia, Bolanus. He died at some point during Domitian’s reign, but there is no reason to suppose that he was dead in 82. All that is known is that Statius’ poem for Bolanus’ son Crispinus was delivered after the father’s death.157 Moreover, a certain Q. Petillius Rufus (believed by some to be Cerialis) appears on the consular list for AD 83.158 This very formidable combination of ex-governors, including Frontinus who was a personal friend of Domitian and served in Germany with him,159 may have played a significant role in any decisions made vis-à-vis Britain. There was also a personality issue: rivalry between Cerialis and Agricola seems clear enough, but Bolanus and Frontinus, too, may not have been so supportive of a governor who stood to outstrip them of their achievements in Britain. All should have agreed, however, that it was essential to control the area to the north of the Forth– Clyde line for that ‘frontier’ to have any real effect. As for the decision to ‘finish the job’ and allow Agricola a final campaigning season in order to bring the Caledonii to battle, this had to have been at Domitian’s behest.160 The emperor may have realised that, if ultimately land in the far north was going to have to be relinquished, then a shattering victory over Calgacus and his allies would have been a prerequisite for it. The wiping-out of an entire fighting generation would, at the very least, have bought some time before a final decision had to be made.

Vespasian first landed in Britain when he led part of the Claudian invasion force. It would have been from here that the fleet originally set sail for campaigning in the north, that is, as Tacitus noted, ‘along the adjacent shore of Britain’152 — the south coast. The fleet may well have been operating largely in western Scotland during the fifth campaign, but most of the ships would have returned to their main base on the south coast of England. From there they would have sailed around the south and east of Britain, and probably up the Forth to Camelon before taking part in manoeuvres in the sixth and seventh campaigns. Logistically, Agricola’s forces needed to congregate in the north-east, and Camelon (and/or Cramond, if there was a Flavian presence there) would seem to be an ideal location. At the end of the final season, after the battle of Mons Graupius, the ships would have sailed north from the Moray Firth towards Orkney, around northern Scotland and back to the south coast. Another significant point in favour of the return port being Southampton comes from Ravenna’s list of rivers. This starts in the middle of the south coast with Traxula, perhaps the most important river associated with magnus portus — which has been equated with Southampton’s river, the Test.153 Ogilvie and Richmond were content with a south-coast location, while Andrew Breeze, despite arguing for a location in northern Scotland, actually strengthens the present case for the Ravenna name when he gives a possible alternative form: *Truxulensis Portus.154

Domitian’s ongoing campaign against the Chatti covered at least some of the period of Agricola’s sixth and seventh campaigns in Scotland. The emperor seems to have taken steps against this tribe soon after the beginning of his reign, but it is not clear whether operations began in 82 or 83.161 Many scholars have tried to disentangle the series of imperial salutations in order to allocate them to individual victories. It is assumed that one or more were connected with Germany, and one reflected the victory at Mons Graupius. The uncertainty over the dating of these is one of the reasons why Agricola’s governor-

Britain and Germany in the Agricolan Years: Overview of Imperial Policy Domitian’s original decision to continue with the conquest of the North in AD 81 ‘implies an interest that continued beyond the governorship of Agricola’,155 so something must have happened to change the emperor’s thinking on the status and viability of the province of Britannia around AD 86–7. The classical scholar Appian (c.AD 90–160s) observed that ‘[the Romans] rule the most important part of [Britain] — more than half — and have no need of the rest; in fact the part they have brings them in little money’.156 This comment was obviously written later, and with hindsight. In any case, it may be that in AD 81–2 opinion in the Senate was divided over whether to advance, or to retreat and consolidate. The positioning of Tacitus’ jibe about those who advised a withdrawal to the Forth–

157 Birley, ‘Britain under the Flavians’, 13. The publication of the poem is dated to c.95: Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 59. On Statius’ poem, see p. 57, and p. 71 at n. 72; also pp. 72, 78, 80 above. 158 M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors: Including the Year of Revolution, AD 68–96 (Cambridge, 1961), 8. He is usually regarded as Cerialis’ son, but could still be the father: see Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 67–8, and n. 23. 159 It is now virtually confirmed by the existence of a military diploma of c.AD 80–3 with the name Sex(to) Iu[lio . . . ] that Frontinus was ‘the legate of the Lower German army’: Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 70. See also P. Holder, Roman Military Diplomas V (London, 2006), 717, no. 327. 160 Cf. Fraser’s view (highly unlikely) that Agricola made the unilateral decision to proceed: Fraser, Roman Conquest of Scotland, 51–2. 161 An overview of the dating evidence is discussed in B. W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London, 1992), 128–30; and in P. Southern, Domitian: Tragic Tyrant (London, 1997), chap. 8.

152

Tacitus, Agricola, XXXVIII. 4. ‘proximo Britanniae latere’. Compare with ibid., XIV. 1. ‘proxima pars Britanniae’ (‘The part of Britain nearest to us’). 153 Richmond and Crawford, ‘Ravenna’, 47. Rivet and Smith were more tentative about this: see their Place-Names, 212, 474–5. 154 Breeze, ‘Philology on Tacitus’s Graupian hill and Trucculan harbour’, 310. 155 Maxwell, Battle Lost, 15. 156 Appian, Preface to the ‘Roman Wars’, §5: trans. Literary Sources, ed. Mann and Penman, 20.

112

Under Domitian ship is sometimes taken to be AD 78–84. Five of a total of seven salutations were claimed by Domitian up to January 84, the first would have been the standard award on his accession in September 81. The second is attested by March 82; the third by January 83; the fourth was sometime between January 83 and the date of the fifth in January 84. The fourth is most likely to have been connected with Germany, given that Domitian’s triumph is first attested in the period 9 June to 28 August 83. The emperor may have claimed that salutation in September 83, around the anniversary of his accession. That would tie in very well with Tacitus’ comment after the battle of Mons Graupius that Domitian had recently celebrated a ‘sham’ triumph.162 That would leave the fifth salutation for the victory against the Caledonii, and a date in January 84 would seem appropriate for a battle won late in the previous campaigning season (news of which would probably have reached Rome by December 83).163 If, as is implied by the classical sources, Domitian was so eager to celebrate a quick victory in Germany, it is possible that a surprise attack was planned and executed as early as the winter of AD 81–2. Winter campaigning cannot be ruled out, and certainly took place on the Danube in the later second century under Marcus Aurelius.164 Also, such timing would have been particularly effective in a war in the wild territory of the Chatti, when ‘Native food supplies would be low, and constant harassment and destruction of food stocks and refuges would be all that was necessary to wear the enemy down’.165 Military operations in 81–2 could have led to a salutation in March 82 and, as mentioned earlier, harsh dealings with the Chatti might have sparked off the mutiny of their neighbours, the Usipi, later that year. In any case, Domitian would certainly have launched his main attack on the Chatti with renewed vigour in AD 83, after receiving the news of the mutiny; his subsequent ‘triumph’ (even if celebrated prematurely) and his assuming of the title ‘Germanicus’ would have emphasised further his struggle for dominance over this part of the empire.

quality oak timbers of AD 83–4 mean that rebuilding may have coincided with the final victory in the north.166 As the withdrawal became inevitable, the later Domitianic period saw further building and rebuilding of key sites in the north of England and southern Scotland. For example Newstead was rebuilt in stone;167 Corbridge was resited and built in stone;168 Vindolanda was built;169 and new forts were constructed in the Lake District at Watercrook and Ambleside, and elsewhere in Cumbria, at Kirkbride and Kirkby Thore, and, possibly, at Caermote and Old Penrith.170 Also, even if no earlier activity can be confirmed there, at least a fort dating to the 90s is a distinct possibility at Maryport.171 Associated service industries can also be dated to this period: the manufacturing sites at Walton-le-Dale, Wigan and Wilderspool, for example, were all developed towards the end of the first century.172 The identity of Agricola’s successor as governor of Britain is unknown for sure, but it is clear that Sallustius Lucullus had the post during Domitian’s reign. That could theoretically have been anywhere between AD 84 and 96, though there are hints which point to the possibility of his being Agricola’s immediate successor. He may even have served for a similar length of time, in which case he would have witnessed what was, in effect, a complete U-turn from a policy of consolidation to one of withdrawal to the Tyne–Solway and the pre-Hadrianic line of the Stanegate (with the exception of a few outlier forts including Newstead, and perhaps Glenlochar). Alternatively, he may have been appointed, after a short period of reinforcement up to AD 86–7, specifically to oversee the systematic abandonment of the north, and much of the south, of Scotland. According to Suetonius, Domitian had Lucullus executed for naming a lance after 166 Rather inferior materials had been used for the internal buildings at Carlisle in the first few years of occupation; these were now replaced: J. Zant, ‘The archaeology of Roman Carlisle: the Roman fort and town’ (unpublished lecture, given in the ‘Local History Seminars’ series at Lancaster University’s Centre for North-West Regional Studies’, 27 Apr. 2005). 167 The second phase at Newstead is dated to just after AD 86 from the numismatic evidence: see Clarke, ‘Trimontium’: . 168 The first phase at Corbridge is dated to c.AD 86: see M. C. Bishop and J. N. Dore, Corbridge: Excavations of the Roman Fort and Town, 1947–80 (London, 1989), 140. 169 The first phase at Vindolanda dates from the late 80s to the late 90s: R. Birley, Vindolanda Research Reports, New Series, i, The Early Wooden Forts (Hexham, 1994), 20–1. 170 Potter, Romans in North-West England, 358. Old Penrith could be Trajanic; Caermote, too, could be a Trajanic or a Hadrianic foundation. See pp. 122–3 at nn. 43–4 below. 171 R. J. A. Wilson, ‘Maryport from the first to the fourth centuries: some current problems’, in Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport and its Setting, 23. 172 For Walton-le-Dale, see A. S. Esmonde-Cleary, ‘Roman Britain in 1997: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), Britannia, xxix (1998), 388; for Wigan: Ian Miller, personal communication to David Shotter; for Wilderspool, see J. Hinchliffe and J. H. Williams, Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool, 1966–9 and 1976 (Manchester, 1992), 172.

Post-Agricolan Northern Britain: Withdrawal and Rationalisation In the aftermath of Mons Graupius (and irrespective of whether the most northerly forts were to continue to be garrisoned), the north of Scotland would not require such a concentration of troops — most would have to be accommodated further south. Carlisle, for instance, was rebuilt internally; dendrochonological dates on high162

Tacitus, Agricola, XXXIX. 1. ‘nuper falsum e Germania triumphum’. Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 77–8. 164 Grant, Antonines, 48, mentions ‘an epic battle against the Jazyges on the frozen Danube’. This detail comes from Cassius Dio, LXXII (LXXI). 7. 1. 165 Southern, Domitian, 80, but she argues for a winter campaign the following year (AD 82–3). 163

113

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors himself.173 This episode could be connected with the actions of Gaius Julius Karus, who may have been one of Lucullus’ senior officers at the time. Karus was clearly loyal to Domitian since he had received ‘the unusually generous awards of three crowns and a silver spearshaft’174 for his part in a ‘war’ in Britain (perhaps insurgency is meant, because the same wording is used to describe the revolt in 88–9 of L. Antonius Saturninus, governor of Upper Germany).175 It is equally possible that Karus had been rewarded earlier for his part in the battle of Mons Graupius.176 Yet, it is still uncertain whether Karus was in Britain at all in the 80s or 90s.177 Another possible date for Lucullus’ execution is during the summer of AD 93, when Tacitus reported the chaos and murder perpetrated on Domitian’s orders.178 On balance, however, the likelihood is that Lucullus was Agricola’s immediate successor, and that he was removed in AD 87. The timing fits so well with events in Britain. Lucullus’ ‘crime’ was surely used as an excuse to get rid of someone who was, perhaps, less than enthusiastic about the new policy in the province;179 on the other hand, Domitian would have been acutely aware of the potential of a man and a symbolic weapon for the rallying of popular support just four years after the defeat of the Caledonians under Calgacus, whose name means ‘swordsman’.

being particularly scathing over the pointlessness of the effort that had gone into securing the northernmost sites if they were to be swiftly dismantled so soon afterwards; he must have felt that Agricola had wasted his time. The forts beyond the Tay were anything but temporary structures. Inchtuthil, for instance, was to have been as important a fortress as those further south,182 and its raison d’être was as a focus for garrisons further north. Cardean, too, ‘had been massively built to the highest standards, with obviously a long-term future in mind’.183 There is no evidence for any fort structures north of Stracathro, so that part of the plan never materialised, but there is no reason to doubt that this had been intended. Excavation of the forts which were deliberately demolished confirms the emperor’s policy change. Nothing in the excavation reports necessarily points to trouble from the native tribes, which would have necessitated a hasty departure. The withdrawal was methodical; Inchtuthil was dismantled piece by piece and its stockpile of nails was carefully buried. Scotland was abandoned almost completely by AD 87; a line of outlying forts from Glenlochar to Newstead represented virtually the most northerly sites held. However, question marks still lie over a few forts like Loudoun Hill and Castledykes, as it is not entirely clear whether they were abandoned at this point.184

Tacitus’ assessment that Britain was securely held and then ‘immediately let go’ (statim omissa)180 was perfectly true as far as Agricola’s personal achievements as governor were concerned.181 Agricolan foundations north of the Forth–Clyde line, and especially those north of the Tay, were abandoned within about three years. Tacitus is

The most cited explanation for the withdrawal, however, is that the Empire was under pressure and extra troops were needed elsewhere. Legio II Adiutrix was removed from Britain and sent to the Danube some time before 185 AD 92, when an inscription attests to its presence there. Was the policy in Britain modified because troops were needed elsewhere, or was a decision made to reduce garrisoning of Britain anyway? Legionary strength had already been reduced during Titus’ reign,186 and it is generally believed that, as a result of major conflict with the Dacians, II Adiutrix left Britain around AD 87.187 This would coincide with the withdrawal from Scotland, and would make good sense, especially if II Adiutrix had been primarily involved with amphibious operations in the north-east. Arguably, its ‘specialist’ services were no

173 The ‘Lucullan’: Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, ‘Domitian’, X. 3. ‘Sallustium Lucullum Britanniae legatum, quod lanceas novae formae appellari Luculleas passus esset’. 174 Jones, Emperor Domitian, 186. 175 The inscription — L’année épigraphique (1951), 88 — refers to Karus’ honours in a ‘bellum Britannicum’ [sic], but then A. Bucius Lappius Maximus who crushed Saturninus’ revolt was described as ‘confector belli Germanici’: quoted in P. Conole and B. W. Jones, ‘Sallustius Lucullus’, Latomus, xlii (1983), 631. It is clear that bellum does not have to refer to a full-scale war. 176 As suggested by M. G. Jarrett, ‘Non-legionary troops in Roman Britain: part one, the units’, Britannia, xxv (1994), 53; also mentioned by Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 94. 177 Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 94 n. 90. 178 Tacitus, Agricola, XLV. 1. ‘obsessam curiam et clausum armis senatum et eadem strage tot consularium caedes, tot nobilissimarum feminarum exilia et fugas’. 179 Conole and Jones, ‘Sallustius Lucullus’, 631–3. For a summary of what is known about Lucullus, see Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 95–9. Birley now points to a link between the possible removal of Lucullus in AD 87 and a Vindolanda tablet mentioning a high-ranking officer named Ferox (perhaps an acting-governor?) around the same time: ibid., 98–9, 240. 180 Tacitus, Histories, I. 2. ‘perdomita Britannia et statim omissa’. Note that this resonates with Tacitus’ version of Agricola’s own speech: Tacitus, Agricola, XXX. 4. ‘inventa Britannia et subacta’ (‘Britain has been discovered and subjugated’). 181 A point also made by Breeze, Roman Scotland, 92.

182

The building of Inchtuthil is described as ‘a positive step in frontier policy that compares with the decision to base the Legio IX Hispana at York in the 70s’: Maxwell, Romans in Scotland, 127. 183 Robertson, ‘Agricola’s campaigns in Scotland, and their aftermath’, 9. 184 In the case of Loudoun Hill, two mint as coins were discovered dated AD 92/4; Castledykes, Easter Happrew and Crawford had only one period of Flavian occupation, but only at Crawford was clear evidence of deliberate demolition apparent, with a ‘slightly worn as of AD 86’ to indicate the date of that demolition: Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North, 158. 185 ILS 2719; see H. M. D. Parker, Roman Legions (Oxford, 1961 edn), 152. 186 See pp. 96–7, and n. 152 above. 187 Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 75 (editors’ ‘Introduction’); Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 56; Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 57.

114

Under Domitian That said, it is still doubtful whether Domitian’s successes were as great as his publicity machine implied. The subtle wording of Silius Italicus’ ‘prophecy’, believed to have been written towards the end of the emperor’s reign,193 may have been designed to appeal both to Domitian and to those who inwardly opposed him — in other words, the emperor celebrated a ‘triumph’ in the East, with the subtext that he did not secure anything on a permanent basis. Tacitus, of course, believed that the same was true of Germany, and he dismissed Domitian’s ‘recent sham triumph’ which had celebrated victory there. The historian made other disparaging remarks in the Germania, where he pointed out that for over two hundred years, up to AD 98, ‘we have been conquering Germany’ (but obviously have not yet succeeded), and ‘In recent times, certainly, they [the Gallic provinces] have been the objects of triumphs rather than victories’.194 Most scholars have gone along with this picture. Even Pat Southern’s more favourable interpretation of Domitian’s war against the Chatti, which cites his enduring legacy as the rationalisation of the German frontier (that is, the Taunus–Wetterau–Neckar line), must now be questioned.195

longer required when the whole island was conquered, and the legion would have been an ideal choice for service on the Danube. Members of legio XX were moved from their original main base at Wroxeter to replace II Adiutrix at Chester. Andrew Hobley has shown that coin distribution profiles for Wroxeter and Chester, depending upon how quickly coinage arrived, point to a date of AD 87–8 for the departure of II Adiutrix. Numbers of coins fell significantly at Wroxeter at this time, which indicates that the pattern of military occupation there had changed; the most obvious explanation is the transferral of legio XX from there to Chester. The profile at Wroxeter (though clearly much larger) is also mirrored by those of the abandoned sites in northern Scotland.188 Domitian’s Legacy In AD 96, Domitian left the province of Britannia in a very different situation from that which he had inherited from his father and elder brother. Rome had retreated south of the Forth–Clyde line — perhaps as far as Dalswinton and Newstead, and was to hold on to these parts of southern Scotland for no more than ten years. Then c.AD 105, troop withdrawals for Trajan’s Second Dacian War may have resulted in Rome’s northern frontier falling back to the Tyne–Solway,189 where it was to remain for over thirty years, first on the Stanegate and later, under Hadrian, slightly further north on the Wall itself. Steps may already have been taken to secure the Stanegate as part of a frontier zone in the 90s.190

Conclusion Chapters 4, 5 and 6 have demonstrated that archaeology and documentary sources for the Flavian period do not conflict; so far as can be seen, indeed, they corroborate each other very effectively. There is, therefore, no need to disregard Tacitus’ Life of Agricola. Ptolemy’s map and the Ravenna Cosmography help to clarify the archaeology and, more generally, the Romans’ aims and objectives; in particular, it is the documentary sources, not the archaeology, which make it possible to make sense of tribal divisions. Once it is understood what the Romans were confronted with and where, it is possible to construct a much deeper appreciation of Flavian military strategy. The basic regional scenario of Ravenna placename groupings should stand; it is flexible enough to allow for minor modification as a result of future discoveries. It must be added, however, that the dating of the Ravenna Cosmography to the early years of Antoninus’ reign is an important element in working out the relationship between documentary evidence and archaeology. Arguing for this dating, however, involves looking at Britain under Antoninus — which is obviously out of place in chapters devoted to Flavian Britain. Therefore, that has been set aside for the epilogue, which follows.

Nor did Domitian leave an enduring legacy of his own ‘achievements’, largely due to the fact that, after his murder, damnatio memoriae was pronounced upon him and much epigraphic evidence across the Empire was destroyed. One casualty of this could well have been the defacing of Domitian’s postscript on the Richborough monument. Brian Jones described Richborough as ‘an elaborate pretence’, which was erected ‘to disguise the whole operation [of abandonment and dismantling of forts in Scotland]’,191 but he was arguing on the basis that the whole structure was Domitianic. As mentioned earlier, it is highly likely that the triumphal arch was Vespasian’s project. The completion of the Domitianic lettering could easily have been made in the years following Mons Graupius when perdomita Britannia would not have seemed such an empty claim. There are frustrating gaps in the chronology of events because of the random survival of pieces of the jigsaw.192 188

193

Hobley, ‘Numismatic evidence for the post-Agricolan abandonment of the Roman frontier in northern Scotland’, 72. 189 Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 108–9. 190 Jones, ‘Emergence of the Tyne–Solway frontier’, 105–7. 191 Jones, Emperor Domitian, 133, 142. 192 Southern, Domitian, 34.

See pp. 91–2 above. Tacitus, Germania, XXXVII. ‘tam diu Germania vincitur . . . proximis temporibus triumphati magis quam victi sunt’. 195 Southern, Domitian, chap. 8. For details of the frontier, see ibid., 85– 90; it is now regarded as an early second-century development: see p. 79 at n. 170 above. 194

115

EPILOGUE

‘Be in all things Antoninus’s disciple; remember his insistence on the control of conduct by reason, his calm composure on all occasions, and his own holiness; the serenity of his look and the sweetness of his manner; his scorn of notoriety, and his zeal for the mastery of facts; how he would never dismiss a subject until he had looked thoroughly into it and understood it clearly’. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI. 30

‘Antoninus diffused order and tranquillity over the greatest part of the earth. His reign is marked by the rare advantage of furnishing very few materials for history’. Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. I, chap. 3 (Harmondsworth, 1995), 102

7. THE DATING OF THE RAVENNA COSMOGRAPHY AND ANTONINUS PIUS’ OBJECTIVES IN BRITAIN ‘Praefectus legionis sextae’,6 in the same way as the sixth legion is mentioned on Ptolemy’s map.7 So, it could be argued that there is no specific pattern to the way in which York is described in the sources. On the other hand, the Ravenna list consistently uses the term with all other known coloniae; if York’s status was indeed conferred under Severus, that should indicate that the original place-name list is Antonine.

The Ravenna Cosmography: A Third- or FourthCentury Date? Place-names associated with Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall are clearly integrated into the Ravenna list, which indicates that the date of original compilation cannot be before AD 138. Most scholars have tended to opt for a much later date, usually in connection with the reign of Septimius Severus (AD 193–211). Rivet and Smith were of this opinion, owing to the number of new place-names, islands and rivers which had been added to the first-century information for northern Britain on Ptolemy’s map,1 and because Severus is known to have reached at least as far as the Moray Firth,2 and to have redeveloped as major coastal supply bases South Shields (Arbeia), Cramond and the great fortress of Carpow.3

The description of London as Londinium Augusti is most usually cited as an indication of a fourth-century date for Ravenna, because the ‘Augusta’ title is believed to have been granted to the city at that time, perhaps in connection with Constantius’ visit in AD 306.8 This explanation derives from the work of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus (c.AD 330–95), who mentioned under the year 367 that ‘Theodosius made for London, the old town called Augusta in more recent times’.9 It does not necessarily mean, however, that the city suddenly became known as Augusta. It might be that Londinium Augusta had been used for some time and that people were only recently in the habit of using the second half of the name. It is likely that the addition of ‘Augusta’ simply reflects the knowledge of a later scribe, as has been argued for the association of legio VI victrix with York on Ptolemy’s map. On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that Antoninus’ wife was permitted to be named Augusta by the Senate,10 and he accepted the name of Pius. She died in the third year of his reign, AD 141. It is perhaps not too fanciful to suggest that Antoninus’ success in Britain (together with a desire to glorify his wife), and a deliberate intention to commemorate that success in the centenary year of the invasion, could point to the granting to London of the honorary title Londinium Augusta. The city’s ‘prosperity seems to have peaked during the first half of the second century . . . when it probably became a municipium and the prime example of aemulatio in Rome’s most northerly province’.11

Mann tentatively suggested that the ten place-names apparently on the line of the Antonine Wall represent only those forts which are definitely larger than 2 acres (0.8 ha), by analogy with the fact that the two smallest forts on Hadrian’s Wall (Drumburgh and Newcastle) are also absent from the Ravenna list. As an alternative, he outlined a late second-century scenario in which the place-names would reflect a ‘third occupation’ of the Antonine Wall, around the latter half of the reign of Commodus (AD 176–92) and the first couple of years of the reign of Septimius Severus — but this accounts for only eight of the ten place-names.4 The status of York has been put forward as a possible indication of the date of compilation. Eboracum is not recorded as a colonia in Ravenna. The earliest attestation of its designation as such comes from an inscription from Bordeaux, dated AD 237, and this could have been conferred under Severus.5 But then it seems clear that the fifth-century Notitia is referring to York by the title

1

6

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 196. Birley, Septimius Severus, 181. 3 See J. N. Dore and J. P. Gillam, The Roman Fort at South Shields: Excavation, 1875–1975 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1979), 63; Holmes, Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, ed. Collard and Lawson, 155, suggests that development here began earlier than Severus’ arrival in Britain in AD 208. Dore and Wilkes, ‘Excavations . . . at Carpow’, 569– 71, in their summary, emphasise the seaborne as well as the land campaigning of Severus. Carpow seems to have been occupied briefly, and from AD 208 or just after. 4 Mann, ‘Ravennas and the Antonine Wall’, 193–5. 5 RIB 678; see Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, i, Eboracum: Roman York (London, 1962), 49.

Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 219–20 n. 1. See p. 12 above. 8 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 260, where they summarise the views of Richmond and Frere. 9 Ammianus Marcellinus, History, XXVII. 8. 7. He repeated this point again under the following year (AD 368) where Theodosius was ‘setting out from Augusta (formerly London)’: XXVIII. 3. 1. 10 Scriptores Historiae Augustae (hereafter SHA), ‘Antoninus Pius’, V. 2: Lives of the Later Caesars: The First Part of the ‘Augustan History’, with Newly Compiled ‘Lives’ of Nerva and Trajan, trans. and intro. A. Birley (Harmondsworth, 1976), 99. 11 Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 110. Wacher suggested that Londinium had been granted the status of municipium either in the first or by the early second century at the latest: ibid., 18.

2

7

119

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Britain,17 and to have ordered the construction of a number of new ones, Antoninus would have needed a very detailed knowledge of the political and geographical infrastructure of the whole of Britain. He may not have campaigned beyond the Tay, but a working knowledge of the important strongholds of Flavian Britain (including the most northerly sites) would have been vital. Ptolemy’s map was probably based on a more sketchy outline produced by Marinus of Tyre; Ptolemy may not have had access to Agricola’s final report on installations (planned and under construction) in Britain, nor to that of Agricola’s unknown successor, during whose governorship lands as far as the Moray Firth were still held. Antoninus, however, certainly would have had that information compiled for him, perhaps in the form of a blueprint for military strategy,18 but also for urban development, a modified summary of which, it is suggested here, is preserved in the Ravenna list.

It is increasingly likely, however, that Londinium’s colonial status was achieved much earlier than the fourth century, and this topic has recently been re-examined by R. J. A. Wilson and R. S. O. Tomlin.12 Wilson now speculates that the city may have become a municipium under Vespasian, and a colonia in the second century. He suggests a Hadrianic date for the latter but, in any case, he adds: ‘On archaeological grounds alone, I would argue that colonial rank had certainly been achieved by the 180s, since I do not think that the stone walls of London are explicable in any other way — as with the walls of Colchester’.13 Tomlin discusses the reconstruction of two fragments from the Huggin Hill inscription, discovered in the City of London in 1989, which indicate the words COLONIA and AVG (Augusta). He tentatively dates the fragments as ‘not much earlier than Trajan . . . nor later than Antoninus Pius’. This leads him to comment on the form of Ravenna’s Londinium Augusti, and to argue that Augusta was intended to agree with ‘the crucial word colonia in ellipse’; he therefore suggests an earlier date, ‘no later than the second century’, for what he sees as the Cosmographer’s ‘map’ source.14

The Ravenna Cosmography: Dated c.142–3? The proposed date of c.142–3 for the British section of the Ravenna list could actually reflect the governor Q. Lollius Urbicus’ additions as a result of successful early campaigning and reconstruction work. It would also explain why only the primary forts on the Antonine Wall, and a few other early Antonine forts are included.

None of these arguments, therefore, actually proves that the Ravenna list was originally compiled in the third or fourth centuries. After all, Rivet and Smith concluded that the ‘third-century’ Antonine Itinerary routes throughout Europe could be of varying dates from the Trajanic period (98–117) to that of Diocletian (284–305); and, more importantly, they added, ‘We know from the total lack of correspondences that the Cosmographer did not know ND or AI’.15 As far as the British section is concerned, it is extensive and likely to reflect the ordered efficiency desired by a true administrator. Only one emperor was viewed as such by his contemporaries: Antoninus Pius. His lack of proven military success seems to have been outweighed by his ability to grasp the overall picture. The Ravenna list is exactly the kind of administrative document which could attest to the emperor’s familiarity with the material at his disposal — a feat which was all the more striking since he never visited Britain. Marcus Aurelius, his successor, remarked upon Antoninus’ ‘zeal for the mastery of facts; [and] how he would never dismiss a subject until he had looked thoroughly into it and understood it clearly’.16 In order to have made modifications to so many military and civilian sites in

It can be argued that most of the 163 sites under discussion were either early military sites, which were modified in the Antonine period, or new Antonine constructions.19 Excluding those north of the Tay and those which are postulated sites only (totalling twenty-seven),20 hardly any of the remaining 136 identifications are included which were Flavian, Trajanic or Hadrianic, unless they were also in use during Antoninus’ reign. Those to the north of the Tay are indicated, and the postulated sites (for which no evidence is forthcoming, or has been officially verified) have been struck through. In the list in Appendix 6, all those fort sites indicated in BOLD and SMALL CAPS have produced either evidence of certain (or almost certain) early Antonine activity, or evidence of Hadrianic construction which does not indicate the sudden demise of the site. The latter group includes most of the forts on Hadrian’s Wall, plus Moresby and Old Carlisle. Frere regarded the sites on Hadrian’s Wall as ‘under care and maintenance in this period’, rather than

12

In R. J. A. Wilson (ed.), Romanitas: Essays on Roman Archaeology in Honour of Sheppard Frere on the Occasion of his Ninetieth Birthday (Oxford, 2006), which appeared too late to be taken into account in my thesis. 13 R. J. A. Wilson, ‘Urban defences and civic status in early Roman Britain’, in Wilson (ed.), Romanitas, 30–1. 14 R. S. O. Tomlin, ‘Was Roman London ever a colonia? The written evidence’, ibid., 53, 58–9. 15 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 153, 188 (quotation, referring to the fifth-century Notitia Dignitatum, and to the Antonine Itinerary). 16 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI. 30.

17

See the references in Appendix 6 (below). Rivet and Smith did agree that the ‘obvious’ rationale for the Ravenna list was ‘military need’: Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 196. 19 See Appendix 6 (below), and its accompanying references, which indicate military or civilian construction. There are 161 single entries, plus two extra place-names: one for Pampocalia (Bradford/Leeds and Tadcaster), and one for Devovicia (Malton and Stamford Bridge?). 20 Or twenty-eight if a site nearer to Knighton replaces Hindwell Farm. 18

120

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography ‘defensively occupied’,21 and so they are categorised here as exhibiting definite evidence of early Antonine activity. The same would apply to other northern English sites, particularly the Cumbrian coastal forts. Although the postulated site of Stirling is obviously excluded from the total number of sites with confirmed Antonine activity, it is inconceivable (a) that there was no fort in the Stirling area (as discussed earlier) and (b) that it remained unoccupied in the Antonine period. The total number is ninety-seven (or 72%) of the known sites as far as the Tay. To this figure can be added a further twenty-one sites where evidence points to possible early Antonine redevelopment, which raises the percentage to 87%. Some of the remaining nineteen sites may also have seen early Antonine activity either in connection with the site itself, or close by, but there is little evidence at present. Of these nineteen sites, five are place-names tentatively allocated to camps in Dumfries and Galloway, and thirteen are forts which, so far, have produced either Flavian evidence alone or Flavian and later secondcentury evidence;22 that leaves just one, Buxton (Aquis Arnemeze), where the existence of a fort of any period has yet to be established.

Ptolemy’s map might indicate that Aldborough ought to have appeared on a list which seems carefully to have recorded all the other civitates,23 together with their tribal affiliations, but, as mentioned earlier, there is a possible reference to the site (though not to its affiliation) among Ravenna’s list of river names.24 It could be argued that Aldborough only became a civitas in the mid-second century (c.AD 150–5), rather than under Hadrian (as is usually suggested).25 Also, if Ptolemy’s Isurium did refer originally to the abandoned site at Roecliffe, then the omission of Aldborough may not be an error after all. As shown earlier, Ebchester’s non-appearance may be due to its similarity to the preceding place-name, Chesterholm (Vindolanda), and, for that matter, the next but one name, Binchester (Vinovia). Archaeological evidence from Ebchester first pointed to the continous occupation of the site from the first to the fourth centuries; this was quickly modified when subsequent excavation seemed to show a reoccupation only in the ‘mid-Antonine’ period.26 The non-appearance of Drumburgh amongst the Hadrian’s Wall sites has been explained in terms of size or later construction; the fort at Newcastle, it seems, was not in operation at the end of Hadrian’s reign.27 The new bridge at Newcastle (Pons Aelius) was constructed during his reign and named in his honour, but the fort which was to bear that name was a mid-Antonine,28 or even a Severan, addition.29 It would not, therefore, have been included on a list of early Antonine date.

Possible Anomalies As with any other suggested date for the Ravenna Cosmography, of course, there are a few place-names which do not seem to fit the overall pattern. Excluding the sites north of the Tay, the possible anomalies fall into two categories: (a) those which are excluded from the list but which, at first sight, ought to have been there; and (b) those which are included but for which archaeological evidence seems to indicate that they were definitely unoccupied (either already abandoned or not yet built) around c.142–3. In some cases, scribal error cannot totally be ruled out, but, as will be shown, most of the socalled anomalies can be explained in terms of chronology, or of strategy (with the exception of those sites which are currently only postulated and for which there is no information of any kind).

The fort site at Risingham (Habitancum), situated on Dere Street between High Rochester and Corbridge, ought to have been included in the Ravenna list only if that list is late Antonine or later. The fort was certainly important 23 With the exception of Brough-on-Humber (Ravenna name, Decuaria); however, its status as civitas capital is not clear: see Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 394–401. 24 See p. 17 above; for Ebchester, see also, in connection with Lanchester, p. 123 below. 25 C. Dobinson, Aldborough Roman Town: North Yorkshire (London, 1995), 7. The town defences were originally thought to date to c.AD 150: J. N. L. Myres, K. A. Steer and A. M. H. Chitty, ‘The defences of Isurium Brigantum’, Yorks. Archaeol. Jl, xl (1959–62), 11; this was later modified to late second or early third century: D. Charlesworth, ‘The defences of Isurium Brigantum’, in Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, 155. 26 Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1972’ (Northern Counties), 279; V. A. Maxfield and A. Reed, ‘Excavations at Ebchester Roman fort, 1972–3’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., iii (1975), 88. 27 See Map 6 below. This shows ‘Hadrian’s Wall as completed at the end of Hadrian’s reign’, and excludes Newcastle. 28 See p. 123 below, in connection with Chester-le-Street. 29 Inscription of Julia Domna (wife of Caracalla) could give the later date (AD 213): Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1983’ (Hadrian’s Wall), 278. See also M. Snape and P. Bidwell et al., The Roman Fort at Newcastle upon Tyne, suppl. to Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xxxi (2002), esp. 180–1 on the numismatic evidence (R. J. Brickstock, ‘The Coins’). Brickstock favours a foundation date early in the third century. In any case, the ceramic evidence seems to indicate a date no earlier than the late 150s: P. Bidwell and A. Croom, ‘The Roman pottery’, ibid., 169.

(a) Excluded Sites There are two sites in the north-east of England whose absence from the Ravenna list may simply be due to scribal error. These are Aldborough (Isurium Brigantum) and Ebchester (Vindomora). The inclusion of Isurium on 21

Frere, Britannia, 130, note beneath map 6; also Potter, Romans in North-West England, 359–60. 22 The five camps are Annan, Girvan, Glenluce, Kirkpatrick Fleming and Ruthwell; the thirteen forts are Hindwell Farm in Wales; Blennerhasset, Chesterton, Ilkley (or Elslack) and Old Penrith in England; Dalswinton, Gatehouse of Fleet and Oakwood in southern Scotland; and Bochastle, Doune, Drumquhassle, Fendoch and Malling north of the Forth.

121

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors during the Severan period, and has been described as a structure ‘which plainly ranks as one of the finest in Britain’;30 the site has also produced a large amount of Antonine pottery, including samian ware. But unlike High Rochester, with which it is often compared, Risingham has no Flavian structural evidence or artefacts, and no Hadrianic material. On the basis of the number of Hadrianic coins found at High Rochester, on the other hand, ‘a Hadrianic, rather than a later Antonine, reoccupation’ has been suggested for that site.31 High Rochester was certainly recommissioned at the beginning of Antoninus’ reign; it has produced clear evidence of building work with the discovery of an inscription which mentions the name of Lollius Urbicus.32 Further building activity on Dere Street at this time is confirmed by inscriptions from Corbridge dating to AD 139 and 140.33 Despite Frere’s comment that the ‘rebuilding’ of Risingham also took place then,34 no datable inscriptions have been found there, and it is not clear when the fort was built. It may actually date to the later part of the Antonine period (perhaps c.AD 180),35 or perhaps to the stage of the secondary forts on the Antonine Wall; either way, it would not have appeared on a Ravenna list from the early 140s.

garrisoned by the ‘Tigris lightermen’ (listed in the Notitia Dignitatum); it could have been known by a different name before then.39 (b) Included Sites The number of place-names within Wales and the Marches is indicative of the necessity of maintaining a military presence in the more strategically important (and historically more difficult) areas and, in the case of Caerwent and Wroxeter, of encouraging urbanisation.40 The civilian settlement at Leintwardine seems to have flourished in the interim period between the abandonment of the fort at Buckton and the construction of the new fort on the Leintwardine village site; its status may even have been upgraded, as indicated by the construction in c.140 of a small bathhouse in the vicus area.41 A further outlying fort in the vicinity of Hindwell Farm or Knighton may also have been maintained. The inclusion of the three southern Brigantian sites at Buxton (Aquis Arnemeza), Chesterton (Veratino), and Ilkley or Elslack (Alūna), none of which has produced any evidence of early Antonine activity, could nevertheless indicate Antoninus’ need to monitor Brigantian territory. That he was right to do so became clear by the mid-150s, when some kind of disturbance further south led to the regarrisoning of Brough-on-Noe (Nauione), Melandra (Zerdotalia), Manchester (Mantio) and Little Chester (Derbentione).42 The two Cumbrian sites of Blennerhasset (Olerica) and Old Penrith43 (Bereda) may have been included on the Ravenna list simply to give a complete picture of the current state of play in north-west England. Antoninus was clearly aware of the pattern of

Although the stone fort at South Shields (Arbeia) has been dated to c.160, this is labelled as ‘Period IV’,36 so there was a considerable amount of activity there beforehand. Hadrianic (and perhaps earlier) development is more difficult to assess, but there seem to have been structures of some kind c.AD 124–8.37 It may even be that there was a first-century fort on a slightly different site at South Shields, and that this was superseded by a harbour storage depot (or similar) during the Hadrianic period on the later stone fort site. As indicated in Figure 1, Arbeia was certainly an extremely important site in the early third century, under Severus, but since there is no specific evidence of major early Antonine activity,38 it does not appear on the Cosmographer’s list (and of course it should have done if the list is Severan). In any case, South Shields may have been called Arbeia at a later date, perhaps under Severus, or when the site was

39 D. L. Kennedy, ‘The place-name Arbeia’, in Britannia, xvii (1986), 332–3. For Arbeia’s entry in the Notitia Dignitatum, see Appendix 2 (below). 40 The town of Venta, meaning ‘market’ (the confirmed name for Caerwent) developed during the Hadrianic/Antonine periods; its first defences were built c.130 or later: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 49–51. The size of Wroxeter doubled in the Hadrianic period, and the town’s defences were built in the middle of the second century: White and Barker, Wroxeter, 76–8. 41 Stanford, ‘Roman forts at Leintwardine and Buckton’, 280, 314. Buckton was probably unmanned from c.130 and the new fort at Leintwardine village is believed to date to c.160: ibid., 321. 42 See p. 132 below. 43 Austen’s excavation report had suggested that earliest occupation was Trajanic, and that Old Penrith was possibly ‘abandoned from c.120 until vicus buildings were established c.150–200’: see Goodburn, ‘Roman Britain in 1977’ (England: Northern Counties), 424–5. But Poulter indicated that the ceramic evidence ‘from the primary ditch silt [in two areas of the site] suggests a date no earlier than the second quarter of the second century’: A. Poulter, ‘Old Penrith: excavations 1977 and 1979’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., lxxxii (1982), 56. Austen’s more recent assessment confirms that the site is post-Agricolan; there is Antonine evidence, but this now seems to be after c.AD 163: Austen, Bewcastle and Old Penrith, 225, 226–7.

30

Richmond, ‘Excavations at High Rochester and Risingham’, 195. This is because as many coins from the period have been found here as at Housesteads: see T. Hancke, B. Charlton and J. A. Biggins, ‘A geophysical survey at High Rochester Roman fort’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xxxiii (2004), 35, and n. 3. However, Hadrianic coins would probably reach a peak in circulation late in Hadrian’s reign and early in that of Antoninus Pius. 32 RIB 1276. 33 RIB 1147 and 1148. 34 Frere, Britannia, 127. 35 Breeze mentions new outpost forts at both Risingham and High Rochester around AD 180, but there is no footnote to the information: Breeze, J. Collingwood Bruce’s Handbook to the Roman Wall, 105. Perhaps this was the first period of construction at Risingham. 36 B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2000: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall), Britannia, xxxii (2001), 322. 37 Dore and Gillam, Roman Fort at South Shields, 59. 38 Ibid., 61. 31

122

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography occupation there, and so was his predecessor, as the siting of a new fort at Caermote may indicate.44

Glenluce (Abisson), Girvan (Ebio), Kirkpatrick Fleming (Celovion), Annan (Itucodon) and Ruthwell (Maromago). The major Flavian stronghold at Dalswinton (Presidium) is believed to have been superseded by the Antonine fort at Carzield (Duabsisis), but the former may, even so, have been retained on the Ravenna list because of its importance (hence the generic name Presidium),49 and because of its position in south-west Scotland which mirrors that of Newstead (Trimontium) in south-east Scotland.

In the north-east, Chester-le-Street (Coganges) at first seems out of place in an early Antonine context. M. C. Bishop stated that both ceramic and numismatic evidence suggest a foundation in the second half of the second century, perhaps even after c.AD 175; however, he admitted to being rather surprised that ‘the mid-Antonine forts at Newcastle and South Shields should be built in stone, but Chester-le-Street, their contemporary, in turf and timber’.45 Since (as noted above) neither Newcastle nor South Shields appear on Ravenna, the difference in construction materials could perhaps indicate a slightly earlier foundation date for Chester-le-Street — hence, its inclusion in the Ravenna list.

Between the Forth and the Tay, there are five Flavian forts — Doune (Maulion), Bochastle (Demerosesa), Malling (Cerma), Drumquhassle (Veromo) and Fendoch (Cermium) — where no Antonine evidence has been discovered to date, but it must be borne in mind that, until relatively recently, Dalginross (Marcotaxon) also fell into this category. An early Antonine presence, particularly on the base-line forts in this area, nevertheless clearly points to the need for Antoninus Pius to have had full documentation to hand.

Lanchester was first regarded as Hadrianic, and then as an Antonine foundation.46 More recently, P. J. Casey et al. have suggested that the fort was built, along with South Shields, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius; that being so, they added, Lanchester could not have been a replacement fort for Binchester and Ebchester when troops from these last two were sent north to man the forts of southern Scotland and the Antonine Wall.47 Lanchester is included here amongst the ‘definite’ early Antonine sites because it must be either Hadrianic, as first thought, or was founded right at the beginning of Antoninus’ reign. Both Binchester and Lanchester appear on the Ravenna list, and Ebchester may have been there originally.48

Antoninus Pius’ Objectives The main problem with any examination of the reign of Antoninus Pius is that his policy vis-à-vis Britannia may have changed several times during his twenty-three years as emperor,50 and most archaeological evidence cannot be pinned down with certainty to the early, middle or later years of his reign. Also the terms ‘early Antonine’ and ‘late Antonine’, used frequently in the archaeological reports, refer to the whole period of the Antonine emperors (fifty-four years). Moreover, archaeological excavation (even if it provides unequivocal dating evidence or indicates reliable stratigraphy) cannot answer the deceptively simple question: why?

In southern Scotland, structural evidence at the fort at Oakwood (Lucotion) and the fortlet at Gatehouse of Fleet (Smetri) is purely Flavian, but there is an enormous amount of early Antonine activity in these areas. Knowledge of the full extent of the Antonine network is, and may well remain, incomplete. It is for this reason that Ravenna place-names are assigned here to the camps at

As the adoptive son of Hadrian, an emperor who had deliberately followed a more cautious, defensive policy vis-à-vis Roman frontiers, Antoninus’ apparent forward policy in Britain is, at first sight, somewhat perplexing. Hadrian had spent a great deal of time, money and effort in creating an apparently ‘definitive’ and secure barrier on the Tyne–Solway line; yet, within a year of Antoninus’ succession, the great Wall was deliberately opened up, and steps had been taken to construct a new frontier between the Clyde and the Forth. That there was trouble in the province of Britannia from the outset seems plain; furthermore, it must have become increasingly obvious in

44 Excavation has revealed two phases of turf and timber at Caermote. It could be argued that Blennerhasset was replaced by Caermote, but it is not clear whether the latter was still in use during the Antonine period; the pottery range for the smaller, later fort seems to be early Hadrianic to Antonine (AD 118–48): R. L. Bellhouse, ‘The Roman forts near Caermote’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lx (1960), 22. 45 M. C. Bishop, ‘Excavations in the Roman fort at Chester-le-Street (Concangis), Church Clare, 1990–91’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xxi (1993), 81. 46 Dating summarised in P. J. Casey, M. Noel and J. Wright, ‘The Roman fort at Lanchester, Co. Durham: a geophysical survey and discussion of garrisons’, Archaeol. Jl, cxlix (1992), 70; note that Frere regarded Lanchester as built during the reign of Antoninus Pius: Frere, Britannia, 127, 130–1 (map 6), so it is included amongst the ‘definites’ in Appendix 6 (below). 47 Casey, Noel and Wright, ‘Roman fort at Lanchester’, 71. They referred to a comment by Breeze and Dobson in the third edition of Hadrian’s Wall; this still appears in the fourth edition (2000), 92. 48 See pp. 24, 121 above.

49 Dalswinton was certainly regarded as ‘the principal Flavian base in Nithsdale’: St Joseph, ‘Aerial reconnaissance of Roman Scotland’, 7. This makes it the best candidate for the term ‘praesidium’, meaning ‘defensive garrison post’. 50 Vivien Swan put forward the suggestion that the Antonine Wall was modified because of garrison changes following the Mauretanian war of AD 146–9: see V. G. Swan, ‘The twentieth legion and the history of the Antonine Wall reconsidered’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxix (1999).

123

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors the later years of Hadrian’s reign that the Wall was no longer a viable solution. Wacher’s throwaway comment that the emperor’s accession saw ‘a review of the British frontier, which acknowledged its strategic weakness, and the decision to reoccupy lowland Scotland was taken’51 may not be far from the truth. Apparently an earlier expeditio Britannica, which has been interpreted as an ‘active’ military campaign against the Britons, may have taken place around AD 129.52 It also seems that the turf section of the Wall at Birdoswald had been converted to stone, as had the barrack blocks in the courtyard, towards the end of Hadrian’s reign, c.AD 135.53 The death of Hadrian in July AD 138 may have rekindled resentment, so that military force again proved necessary. This time, however, a more permanent way of solving the problem of unrest in the north was clearly needed.

invasion of Britain would not have been lost on an emperor who ensured, by ordering the minting of several special coin issues in AD 143, that the cult of Victoria Britannica was revived.57 On the other hand, a swift response to disturbances on the northern frontier was essential, and this ties in better with the historian Pausanias’ comment that ‘Antoninus never willingly made war’.58 This impression is further strengthened by the Augustan History, where Antoninus is described thus: ‘no one has had so much authority among foreign nations as he, although he always loved peace, so much so that he often quoted Scipio’s opinion, in which he used to state that he would rather save a single citizen than kill a thousand enemies’. In addition, the text continued: ‘Rebellions, wherever they occurred, he suppressed, not ruthlessly, but with moderation and in a serious manner’;59 there is evidence that such rebellions took place in north Africa (in Numidia and Mauretania), around the Red Sea and in Egypt, as well as in Britain.60 It is also likely that Antoninus’ military strategy was significantly influenced by his praetorian prefect Gavius Maximus, who was probably in post for the whole of the reign until he died in AD 156 or 157.61

Antoninus, therefore, duly dispatched Lollius Urbicus as the new governor — certainly by the summer of AD 139, but possibly even earlier. The Augustan History provides precise information to link emperor and governor: ‘He [Antoninus Pius] conquered the Britons through his legate Lollius Urbicus (another wall, of turf, being set up when the barbarians had been driven back)’.54 Inscriptions from the Antonine Wall itself confirm Urbicus’ involvement, and Antoninus’ second imperial acclamation, commemorated on coins from late AD 142, definitely refers to Britain.55

Policy in Action But first, what was happening further south, and how does that relate to the Ravenna Cosmography? In Wales and its borders, only a small number of forts were still operational after c.AD 140, which contrasts with the most likely situation during the Trajanic/early Hadrianic period. Arnold and Davies have compared in map-form the number and locations of military installations in c.AD 100–20 with those in c.AD 160.62 For the earlier period they show thirty-three forts, of which seven are reduced-size forts, and five are either possibly occupied at the time or their occupation is uncertain; in addition, the authors have included a handful of fortlets and, of course, the legionary fortresses of Caerleon and Chester. The fortresses are also marked on the later map, as are the towns at Caerwent, Carmarthen, Kenchester and Wroxeter. The number of definitely occupied forts c.AD 160 has, however, dwindled to five, or possibly six. These forts are Brecon Gaer,

Antoninus Pius had no military experience and he spent most of his reign in Rome; immediate offensive action in Britain would actually have killed two birds with one stone. It has been suggested that, like Claudius, the new emperor needed to prove himself both to his troops and to those in Rome who had opposed Hadrian’s frontier policy.56 A short, successful campaign, involving the reannexing of territory would have been perfect. After all, the particular significance of success against the ‘barbarians’ around the centenary of Claudius’ initial 51

Wacher, Roman Britain, 37. The expeditio is mentioned in the ‘career-inscription’ of T. Pontius Sabinus (ILS 2726), and is combined with evidence from the ‘careerinscription’ of Maenius Agrippa and his service in Britain (ILS 2735): see Frere, ‘M. Maenius Agrippa, the expeditio Britannica and Maryport’, 25–6. The detail does not necessarily point to a date of AD 129 for the expeditio (Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 307–9), but Mattingly believes that Fronto’s reference (De bello Parthico, II), referring to ‘serious losses incurred in Britain under Hadrian’ is more likely to be associated with the expeditio and a date in the late 120s: Mattingly, Imperial Possession, 120–1, including table 3. 53 Tony Wilmott, personal communication to David Shotter. 54 SHA, ‘Antoninus Pius’, V. 4. ‘nam et Britannos per Lollium Urbicum vicit legatum alio muro caespiticio summotis barbaris ducto’: Lives of the Later Caesars, trans. Birley, 100. 55 The date of Antoninus’ second imperial acclamation is now confirmed by diplomas of 1 August 142 to the summer of that year: see Holder, Roman Military Diplomas V, 802, no. 392. 56 Grant, Antonines, 18; Hanson and Maxwell, Rome’s North West Frontier, 60. 52

57 G. Standing, ‘The Claudian invasion of Britain and the cult of Victoria Britannica’, Britannia, xxxiv (2003), 287. 58 Pausanias, Description of Greece, VIII. 43. 3. 59 SHA, ‘Antoninus Pius’, IX. 10, XI. 2: ‘auctoritatis apud exteras gentes nemo habuit, cum semper amaverit pacem, eo usque ut Scipionis sententiam frequentarit, qua ille dicebat malle se unum civem servare quam mille hostes occidere’ and ‘seditiones ubicumque factas non crudelitate sed modestia et gravitate compressit’. Lives of the Later Caesars, trans. Birley, 104, 106. 60 Summarised in Grant, Antonines, 17. 61 SHA, ‘Antoninus Pius’, VIII. 7 — a point made by Birley, ‘Hadrian to the Antonines’, 151. See also p. 131 below. 62 Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 17 (figs. 2.2D, 2.2E), 26.

124

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography Caernarfon, Caersws, Castell Collen, Forden Gaer and, possibly, Leintwardine. It is suggested here that eleven, and possibly all twelve of the sites on the second map are in the Ravenna list. The twelfth site, Carmarthen, may actually be among those groups associated with the extreme south-west of England, but it can be disregarded for present purposes. All the other eleven sites are identified in the groups under consideration here. Logically, the exact number of occupied forts and important towns at the beginning of Antoninus Pius’ reign must be somewhere between the two maps (less than thirty-five and more than eleven). If correct, the total number of identifications in Ravenna corresponding to this area, excluding the Cotswold area and Greensforge, is twentyone.

but only if that would have been profitable, or would have solved the problem of native unrest without overstretching his resources. It was clearly decided that monitoring as far as the Tay would suffice. For work to have begun on the new Wall so early in Antoninus’ reign, agreements must have rapidly been reached with the Votadini and Damnonii (through consent or force). As mentioned above, advance from the Tyne– Solway line would have demanded the refortification of south-western Scotland, where the remodelling of Birrens must have been one of the first projects. If the northern Brigantes, Novantae and Selgovae had then, or subsequently, been resistant to the Roman advance, this would explain the plethora of further new installations roughly on the line of the modern M74, and on the A76 running north from Dumfries, perhaps designed to provide a double line of defence, dividing one tribe from the other. The epigraphic evidence from Corbridge and High Rochester has also confirmed the early date for construction work on the fort sites in the south-east on the Dere Street route. A new fortlet was built at Chew Green, but, as stated earlier, Risingham seems to have been a later development.66

The two main arenas of activity associated with the advance beyond the Tyne and the Solway were interconnected. The first was obviously the rationalisation and reinforcement of the Forth–Clyde line into the Antonine Wall, a frontier which eventually linked together at least nineteen forts, plus associated fortlets; the second was in south-west Scotland, which had to be secured simultaneously,63 and where a series of new and modified military sites was established. The ‘war’ in Britain was probably caused by general unrest amongst the tribes. The most likely candidates for rebellion and infiltration (as was the case in the late first century) would have been the Caledonii beyond the Forth–Clyde line and one or more tribes in southern Scotland. Antoninus’ new turf Wall would prevent the Caledonii from sweeping south, and would allow for the reorganisation and policing of territory between the Walls. Military strength beyond the isthmus, particularly in Strathearn, was important if fresh trouble from the Caledonii was to be avoided. Roman intervention is likely to have been at the request of the vulnerable Venicones and northern Damnonii. As Frere pointed out, the ‘garrisoning of Strath Allan and Strath Earn was not as full and intensive as that undertaken by Agricola, and it suggests a protectorate rather than an occupation’,64 which included the key base-line sites of Ardoch, Strageath and Bertha, along with at least one of the glen-blockers in the Earn valley at Dalginross and, no doubt, the postulated fort at Stirling.65 There is every reason to suppose that Antoninus’ forces also made use of the Firth of Forth, operating from Cramond (and perhaps the Firth of Tay, operating from near Carpow in Fife, close to an original Flavian supply depot linked to Ptolemy’s Orrea). That would have ensured that he effectively channelled troops and supplies to either side of the Gask frontier — just as Septimius Severus was to do in the early third century. Antoninus may actually have contemplated reconquering territory in the far north,

The network of smaller installations south of the Forth– Clyde line complemented the Wall, and would have been constructed at the same time; Antoninus was employing an embryonic ‘defense-in-depth’ strategy. It was Edward Luttwak who used this term in his description of Roman military policies in the third century which he contrasted with second-century ‘perimeter defense’.67 However, he did not allow for the fact that Antoninus was not just a ‘Wall-builder’; the emperor and his governors may have been experimenting with alternative strategies. A limited number of troops meant that they had to be distributed over a wider area, in order to hold that area securely for as long as was necessary. Existing forts were downsized, new (perhaps more easily accessible or defendable) sites were chosen, and a large number of fortlets and watchtowers were built. Indeed, even Hadrian may have been beginning to think along these lines because it is not clear whether some of the downsizing of forts took place during his reign. Antoninus’ use or ‘abandonment’ of military sites south of, and including, Hadrian’s Wall was, of course, determined by the need to redeploy troops further north. As has been shown, many of the sites which appear on the Ravenna list do see Antonine building activity (whether of a military or of a civilian nature), but it is difficult to be precise about when this actually occurred. As far as the Hadrian’s Wall forts are concerned, these may have been 66

Risingham was probably built towards the end of Antoninus’ reign, perhaps at the same time as the fort at Newcastle: see pp. 121–2 above. 67 As outlined in E. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century AD to the Third (1976; London, 1999), chap. 3, esp. 130–6.

63

G. S. Maxwell, ‘A linear defence-system in south-western Scotland’, in Haupt and Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II, 25. 64 Frere, Britannia, 129. 65 As Frere believed: see his Britannia, 130 (map 6).

125

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ‘evacuated’ but that does not mean that Antoninus did not require a full account of them. They were certainly not abandoned entirely (as is clear from evidence of development in the later Antonine period); in any case, it is unlikely that they would have been ‘evacuated’ before the completion of the Antonine Wall,68 so their inclusion on a Ravenna list of c.142–3 is assured. Diplomas of AD 146 found at Chesters and Chesterholm (Vindolanda) confirm that at least these two forts were in use when the frontier was moved further north.69

The next name, Mixa, is allocated to the fort sequence along the Esk. Its head place-name is Alitacenon (Broomholm), which is followed by Loxa (Netherby). The route along the Esk was obviously used during the Antonine period because a new fortlet was built further north at Raeburnfoot in Eskdalemuir (perhaps a downsizing of a Flavian fort?).71 There may have been others along this route. The name Panovius must surely be linked to Novius (the river Nith) and two groupings correspond to Novantian territory and its border area. The first has the head placename Locatreve (Glenlochar), which is well within Novantian lands, but which saw major Antonine redevelopment. There is no evidence of any second-century activity at its two associated sites (Cambroianna, the postulated site at Newton Stewart) and Smetri (Gatehouse of Fleet). The second, and more important group, is the one headed by Corda (Crawford). It includes Camulosessa (Drumlanrig) and at least five new Antonine fortlets: north-east and south-east of Drumlanrig, at Durisdeer and Barburgh Mill,72 respectively; north of Crawford, at Wandel and Lamington; and further up Nithsdale (on the modern A76), at Sanquhar.73 Another fortlet on the Cairn Water, south-west of Drumlanrig at Kirkland may also be Antonine.74

Diversa Loca Returning to the eight loca discussed at the end of Chapter 3, it is interesting to note — and surely not coincidental — that they all appear to be beyond the Tyne–Solway line and west of Dere Street; of those areas that are instantly recognisable, all were, of course, heavily refortified under Antoninus. In fact, it can be argued that the eight regions contain all groups on the main Ravenna list between the Tyne–Solway and the Tay, with the exception of Group 40, which begins with Brigomono (Stranraer). The absence of the latter group is not surprising, given that there is no evidence of Antonine penetration to the far west of Novantian territory. Figure 4 lists each name, its main river association, its tribal affiliation (or border area) and the sites from the main Ravenna list which correspond to it. Map 24 (below) shows the concentrations of new or recommissioned Antonine installations from the Tyne–Solway to the Tay and how these may relate to the diversa loca.

If the first three regions are correct, Minox can reasonably be equated with the northern Brigantian territory of the northern Carvetii (or Anavionenses), its head place-name is Coritiotar (Birrens), where a new Antonine fort replaced the Hadrianic precursor. The group also includes the new Antonine fort at Carzield (a replacement for Dalswinton, and perhaps also for Dumfries). A new, probably Antonine, fortlet was built close to Ward Law at Lantonside,75 and there are at least two other Antonine fortlets in the area

It is suggested here that the first four names — Maponi, Mixa, Panovius and Minox — refer, respectively, to the upper Annan area, the river Esk, the whole eastern border area of Novantian territory represented by the Nith, and the lower Annan (as associated with the northern Brigantes — northern Carvetii or Anavionenses). The groupings of place-names covered for these four areas seem to follow in exactly the same order as they appear on the main list (see Figure 4).

71

Raeburnfoot was described as ‘a typical Antonine fortlet’: Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1959’ (Scotland), 214; see also A. Robertson, ‘Excavations at Raeburnfoot, Eskdalemuir, 1959–1960’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxxix (1960–1). See p. 88 above. 72 See J. Clarke, ‘Durisdeer’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of SouthWestern Scotland; St Joseph, ‘Three Nithsdale sites’, 123 (Barburgh Mill); D. J. Breeze, ‘The Roman fortlet at Barburgh Mill’, Britannia, v (1974); also on Durisdeer, ibid., 130, 152. 73 ‘Antonine’ Drumlanrig may have been developed to share in troop supply to the fortlets at Durisdeer, Barburgh Mill and Sanquhar: Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 22, but, alternatively, Crawford could also have been the ‘parent-fort’, as was suggested for Barburgh Mill: see Breeze, ‘Roman fortlet at Barburgh Mill, 148–9. Crawford would almost certainly have serviced Lamington and Wandel: see Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 25. 74 A Flavian date for Kirkland has been suggested (probably owing to its location); no artefactual evidence is recorded: Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1992’ (Scotland), 281. 75 Similarities with Barburgh Mill suggest that Lantonside is Antonine: Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 23.

If Maponi equates with the grouping which also contains Maporiton on the main Ravenna list, its head place-name is Carbantium (Milton), and it includes Tadoriton (Dalmakethar, which, if it does not prove to be a major fort site, should at least be the site of an Antonine fortlet) and Maporiton itself (Ladyward, which remains undated, but was undoubtedly an Antonine installation). Also connected with this area is the Antonine fortlet at Redshaw Burn.70 68

Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 90. Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 143–4. 70 Equated in size with other Antonine fortlets, including the one at Milton (Tassiesholm): Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1946’ (Scotland), 166; J. K. St Joseph, ‘From Beattock to Carlops’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-West Scotland, 111–12. 69

126

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography

FIGURE 4 THE DIVERSA LOCA: SECTION SIX OF THE RAVENNA COSMOGRAPHY (EIGHT PLACE-NAMES) ========================================================================================= RAVENNA RIVER AREA TRIBE SITES CONNECTED WITH THE AREAS* ========================================================================================= MAPONI (Upper Annan) (Selgovae) MILTON, Ladyward (34) + fortlets MIXA

(Esk)

(Selgovae)

BROOMHOLM, Netherby (35) + fortlet

PANOVIUS

(Nith towards Clyde)

(Novantae and borders)

GLENLOCHAR (36), CRAWFORD, Drumlanrig (38) + fortlets

MINOX

(Lower Annan)

(N. Brigantes — N. Carvetii/ Anavionenses?)

BIRRENS, Carzield (41) + fortlets

TABA

(Tay)

(N. Damnonian/ Veniconian border)

ARDOCH (47), CARPOW (54), BERTHA (55), STRAGEATH, Dalginross (56)

MANAVI

(Forth)

(N. Damnonian/ N. Votadinian border)

ANTONINE WALL (EAST) (46), INVERESK, Cramond (45), [STIRLING] (48)

SEGLOES

(Tweed)

(Selgovian/Votadinian border)

[RUBERS LAW] (37), NEWSTEAD, Cappuck (42)

DAUNONI

(Clyde)

(Damnonii)

ANTONINE WALL (WEST) (46) + fortlets, [IRVINE], Loudoun Hill (32), CASTLEDYKES, Bothwellhaugh, Lyne (33) =========================================================================================

NOTE

*

Group head place-names from Appendix 5 in BOLD (group numbers from the main Ravenna list in Appendix 5 in parentheses). =========================================================================================

at Burnswark (near Birrens) and at Murder Loch76 (halfway between Carzield and the ‘Maponi’ border at Ladyward).

The seventh name, Segloes, must refer to the Selgovae and, most probably therefore, to the two groupings in the upper Tweed area. Uxela (Rubers Law), the first headname, and its subsequent place-name Lucotion (Oakwood), have revealed no evidence of Antonine activity, but the two sites in the second group, Trimontium (Newstead) and Eburo Caslum (Cappuck) were both remodelled in the early Antonine period, if not — in the case of Newstead — slightly earlier (see Appendix 6).

The fifth name, Taba, is clearly referring to the Tay area, where the Gask base-line forts at Iano (Ardoch), Levioxaua (Bertha) and Victorie (Strageath) were reoccupied and strengthened under Antoninus. Poreo classis (Carpow), or a site nearby, and Marcotaxon (Dalginross) may also have been in use at this time. Next is the name Manavi, here equated with the Forth and the border between the northern Damnonii and the northern Votadini. Such an area includes the eastern part of the Antonine Wall, and the areas either side of it — that is the group headed by the large new Antonine fort at Evidensca (Inveresk), including the other major Antonine site at Rumabo (Cramond), and reaching around the coast as far as the group headed by Cindocellum (Stirling). The Slamannan area, at least, was later known as Manau of the Gododdin, perhaps to distinguish it from Manau of the Damnonii around Stirling (although both areas could have been part of the same territory in the sixth century).77

Finally, Daunoni clearly refers to the Damnonii, and their heartland: the Clyde region, which includes the Antonine Wall sites. Further around the south bank of the Clyde beyond Bishopton (Whitemoss), the new Antonine fortlets of Lurg Moor78 and Outerwards were built, before or around the 150s. Major excavation at Outerwards showed that these two were linked by a Roman road line to the Antonine fort at Bishopton, and that they formed part of an Antonine limes which may have culminated with a supply base around Largs.79 Also in this region are the 78 See A. S. Robertson, ‘Miscellanea Romano-Caledonica’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xcvii (1963–4), 198; pottery discussion (ibid., 200) shows that all finds were of Antonine date. 79 See F. Newall, ‘The Roman signal fortlet at Outerwards, Ayrshire’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, iv (1976), 111, 121–3. Prior to the discovery of Outerwards, the suggestion of a ‘chain of Roman stations along the

76 Burnswark and Murder Loch are both believed to be part of the Antonine network; the latter was, perhaps, supplied with troops from Carzield: ibid., 23, 24–5. 77 Manau of the Gododdin = Manau of the Votadini. See p. 54 above.

127

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Genaunians, is compelling.84 On the other hand, Pausanias’ text may well be corrupt — miscopied, perhaps, by a scribe who thought he recognised the names. It is highly likely that Britain was intended, and, if so, the obvious reference would surely be to Lollius Urbicus and the war which involved the reannexing of southern Scotland,85 for which Antoninus awarded himself an imperial acclamation. Another difficulty with the text is that the Brigantes are regarded here as being outside the Roman province, whereas all Brigantian territory at this time, with the exception of that beyond Hadrian’s Wall, is clearly within it. Scholars seem reluctant to accept that Brigantes ‘beyond the Wall’ may have been intended. In order to make sense of Antoninus’ construction of the Antonine Wall and reoccupation of the forts beyond, it has been suggested that ‘Brigantes’ was being used as a term for northern Britons in general, or that something like ‘the Brigantes and their friends in the north’ was meant.86 ‘Genounians’ have, therefore, been taken to be Brigantian neighbours such as the Cornovii,87 or, more often neighbours in the north, closer to the perceived problem areas. The Votadini, since they are generally regarded as pro-Roman, have been the usual candidates,88 although Gordon Maxwell pointed out that ‘Nounia’ or ‘Nouantia’ should perhaps be read instead of ‘Genounia’.89

grouping headed by Brocava (Irvine) — almost certainly a fort site, and including Croucingo (Loudoun Hill), a Flavian fort reoccupied in the Antonine period — and that headed by Stodoion (Castledykes), where a new Antonine fort was constructed c.142. The latter’s group contains the new Antonine forts at Sinetriadum (Bothwellhaugh), and Clindum (Lyne), and a fortlet just to the north of Lyne itself.80 These eight names clearly have more of a significance for the early Antonine years than for any later period. If they refer to the locations of the peoples with whom the Romans had negotiated treaties, then the list may date to the position immediately after victory was secured, and that date would be c.142–3. The small number of sites on the Forth–Clyde isthmus would, therefore, reflect the early development of the Wall, as outlined earlier. However, it is worth pointing out that diversa loca does not necessarily mean ‘odd places’, nor does it have to refer to tribal ‘meeting places’. Loca is probably used here in the sense of ‘region’ and ‘places with something in common’, as Mann observed;81 but, more importantly, diversa can mean ‘opposed’ or ‘hostile’.82 What better way to describe the areas in which Antoninus’ forces were operating? These were the fringes — the disputed borders between territories — and, therefore, there is understandably no reference to the heartland of the Votadini. Nor is it surprising that the first four names seem to refer mainly to Dumfriesshire, including the later border area between England and Scotland known as the ‘Debatable Land’.

It may well be that the Novantae had come under Roman protection and that the real problem area was, and had always been, the disaffected Brigantian grouping north of Hadrian’s Wall, originally consisting of Venutius’ allies.90 The whole Cumbrian coastal system may have been designed to keep out, or at least monitor, the movement not of the Novantae but of fellow-Brigantians (or sympathisers) from the Annan area, and from Ireland.91 It seems that more Roman material has now been discovered in Galloway, so that the Novantae are not so readily regarded as anti-Roman. The increasing number of Roman and Romano-British artefacts of second-century date may point to closer contact with

It is against this backdrop that Pausanias’ observation on the ‘Genounian’ region should be viewed. The historian mentioned that Antoninus ‘took from the Brigantes in Britannia the larger part of their territory because they had raided under arms into the Genounian area, the people of which were subject to the Romans’.83 As several scholars have observed, however, there are no ‘Genounians’ in Britain, and the argument that Pausanias is really referring to the Brigantes of Raetia (modern Switzerland), whose neighbours were known to be the

84 J. G. F. Hind, ‘The “Genounian” part of Britain’, Britannia, viii (1977), 232; Spaul, ‘Two problems from Roman Scotland’, 48–50. 85 Birley, ‘Brigantian problem’, 32; reiterated by Birley, Roman Government of Britain, 147 n. 49. 86 Frere, Britannia, 133; summarised by Spaul, ‘Two problems from Roman Scotland’, 48. 87 Hind, ‘ “Genounian” part of Britain’, 233. Trouble amongst the southern Brigantes in the 150s may have involved the Cornovii: see p. 132 below. 88 Birley, ‘Brigantian problem’, 43; Frere, Britannia, 134. 89 Maxwell, ‘Linear defence-system in south-western Scotland’, 30. A connection with the Novantae was put forward by Frank Newall: Robertson, Birrens, 284, and mentioned (with reservations due to the more likely association of Pausanias’ text with Raetia) by L. Keppie, ‘The Antonine Wall, 1960–1980’, Britannia, xiii (1982), 94. See also Wilson, ‘Novantae and Romanization in Galloway’, 89. 90 As proposed by Birley, ‘Brigantian problem’, 42–3. 91 Wilson, ‘Novantae and Romanization in Galloway’, 88. For an earlier comment on the Brigantes in Ireland and Lambay Island, see p. 45 at n. 81 above.

Renfrewshire coast’ was also made by Robertson, ‘Miscellanea RomanoCaledonica’, 200. 80 Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 120. Keppie mentions another fortlet, at Bankhead to the east of Castledykes, but that is believed to be Flavian: Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 19. 81 Mann, ‘Loca’, 53. 82 There are many examples throughout Latin literature: for example Tacitus, Annals, XIV. 30. ‘Stabat pro litore diversa acies’, which recalls Suetonius Paulinus’ encounter with the druids on Anglesey, who were clearly hostile; the Loeb translation has: ‘On the beach stood the adverse array’. 83 Pausanias, Description of Greece, VIII. 43. 4, trans. J. E. H. Spaul, ‘Two problems from Roman Scotland: Genunia and Cohors II Tungrorum c. L.’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxiv (2000), 47.

128

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography Rome92 — perhaps even to an agreement which was not shared by their eastern neighbours. Moreover, work on native settlement patterns shows ‘Galloway’s relative stability’ in the second century compared with the ‘disruption’ further east.93

‘practice camp’ at Burnswark was, in fact, a legitimate siege camp, and was used at this time against Brigantian rebels who may have resettled in the Iron Age hill fort. Surely only an emergency would have necessitated laying out a camp which cut into the Antonine fortlet here.97 After a coin issue of a ‘dejected Britannia’, dating to AD 154–5, an inscription from the new fort names the governor as Julius Verus and refers to the year AD 158 (the twenty-first year of Antoninus’ reign).98 Sculptural fragments from this have recently been linked to the Victory frieze from Birrens, so the pieces all seem to point to the successful pacification of the area.99 This was perhaps achieved by the emperor’s decision to remove the troublemakers and send them for service in Germania, where detachments of ‘Brittones’ are attested.100 However, Webster had previously cited evidence which pointed to the earlier removal of Britons under Trajan or Hadrian;101 and now it seems possible that the troublemaking Anavionenses were being trained at Vindolanda before being shipped out to the Rhine frontier in the early years of the second century.102 If so, a deep resentment of this practice could explain the intermittent outbreaks of hostility in the region.

Maxwell’s idea can, therefore, be taken one step further. The ‘Genounian’ area may have been west of the river Nith and had come under attack from the northern Brigantes. Of the diversa loca, the one area which contains the largest number of new and modified military sites is Panovius. Perhaps that is where the scribal error originated. Hind dismissed Gordon Home’s suggestion that Genounia = Pennounia (an alleged early Celtic form for the Pennines) on geographical rather than philological grounds. The Pennines were at the core of Brigantian territory and, as Hind pointed out, ‘unlikely to be invaded by them’.94 But, when applied to a more likely geographical location, the comparison of the Greek forms of Panovius (which also had the variant Panonius)95 and Genounia — Πανοονίος and Γενουνία — shows that the scenario is not impossible, especially if Penonia is closer to the ‘correct’ spelling. It might be wise to accept that Juvenal was being accurate when he used the term ‘Brigantes’ rather than ‘Britons’,96 and that the name was synonymous with trouble. In fact, the two terms ‘Brigantes’ and ‘Caledonii’, whose ‘incorrect’ usage in classical sources is criticised by modern scholars, have both been seen to be closer to the truth than used to be suspected.

The Antonine Wall The building of the Wall itself in the 140s was certainly not intended to be an act of aggression: it securely marked the northern limit of the Roman province; it acted as protection for the tribes of southern Scotland; and a peace-keeping force on the Gask frontier would be able to call on reinforcements, when necessary. Macdonald quoted General von Sarwey, ‘the first Military Director of the German Limes-Kommission’, who concluded that

Antoninus did in effect deprive the northern Brigantes of their lands. He took a firm grip on the territory immediately to the west, beyond Hadrian’s Wall, and he placed its inhabitants, probably the Anavionenses from the Minox area, under strict military rule. He also garrisoned in the region equated here with Panovius. The siting of Carzield within Brigantian territory (replacing the Selgovan/Novantian border fort at Dalswinton) served to tighten control over the area, rationalising the territorial line which ran from Birrens eastwards to the river Nith; no doubt other fortlets were established between Carzield and Ward Law on the east bank of the river. Birrens itself also saw the construction of a new fortlet. There was evidently further trouble in this sector in the later 150s because Birrens seems to have been attacked and rebuilt. It is possible that the so-called

97

See RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 181. Keppie summarises the evidence for siege training, but admits that he ‘adheres to the traditional view of an actual, if brief, siege’: Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 83–4. Campbell’s recent argument for a real siege is also persuasive: see D. B. Campbell, ‘The Roman siege of Burnswark’, Britannia, xxxiv (2003), esp. 31. 98 RIB 2110; Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland, 10, 478. 99 F. Hunter and I. G. Scott, ‘The Roman sculpture from Birrens revisited’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxvi (2002), 86–7. 100 Grant, Antonines, 18–19. Although this could have taken place as a result of the victory in AD 142, since the earliest mention of one of the numeri Brittonum is AD 146 (CIL XIII, 6511): A. R. Birley, ‘Two types of administration attested by the Vindolanda Tablets’, in R. Haensch and J. Heinrichs (eds.), Herrschen und Verwalten: Der Alltag der römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Akten eines Internationalen Kolloquiums an der Universität zu Köln, 28.–30. Januar 2005 (Weimar, 2007), 324–5. 101 Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 82. And this obviously does not mean that it happened only once: see Frere, Britannia, 134. 102 As suggested by Anthony Birley, who thinks that Haterius Nepos’ census (see p. 51, n. 144 above) may have been conducted in order to recruit young men for army service. He links this with evidence from the Vindolanda tablets. Birley, ‘Two types of administration attested by the Vindolanda Tablets’, 322–7.

92

Wilson, ‘Novantae and Romanization in Galloway’, 86, 90. D. C. Cowley, ‘Site morphology and regional variation in the later prehistoric settlement of south-west Scotland’, in Harding and Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts, 175. 94 Hind, ‘ “Genounian” part of Britain’, 230. 95 Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 428. 96 Juvenal, Satires, XIV. 196: ‘dirue Maurorum attegias, castella Brigantum’, cited by Hind, ‘ “Genounian” part of Britain’, 229. Note that, for the last phrase, the Penguin translation has, ‘Or forts on the Scottish border’, a more meaningful rendition than the more literal ‘forts of the Brigantes’: Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires, revised edn, ed. and trans. P. Green (Harmondsworth, 1984), 270. 93

129

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors view across the Clyde and guarding the Dumbuck ford’.107 Like Carriden in the east, Bishopton was very much a part of the whole scheme of the Wall.108 It may have been on the opposite bank of the Clyde to the other western Wall forts but the river was much narrower here than was the Forth at Carriden. The Clyde was apparently not navigable up to Old Kilpatrick until the eighteenth century.109 The primary forts on the Wall were interspersed with fortlets, and extra forts were then added to the whole system. At least two, and probably more, fortlets beyond the terminus close to the coast protected the mouth of the Clyde from attack by sea; they performed a similar function to that of the earlier installations on the Cumbrian coast to the west of Hadrian’s Wall.

if war on a grand scale had been contemplated, no proceeding could have been more senseless than to waste so large a proportion of the available troops by spreading them out over so thin a line . . . a limes with all its attendant organization was emphatically an arrangement that contemplated peace, not war.103

The year AD 142 was clearly regarded as a conclusive victory over the ‘barbarians’, as is indicated by the sculptural representations on the Antonine Wall distanceslabs.104 Antoninus had intended to create a double, thinner line of defence — the Forth–Clyde line as the main frontier, with Hadrian’s Wall as a backup — just as he had done by garrisoning both the A76 and the M74 routes in the south-west Scotland. As stated earlier, the garrisons on Hadrian’s Wall would have been much depleted; but the forts would not have been completely abandoned, despite Brian Hartley’s conclusion that ‘the holding of Scotland and of Hadrian’s Wall at the same time seems inherently improbable and would conflict with the evidence of the samian ware’.105 Rationalisation of all military sites in the province would have been a prerequisite for Antoninus’ forward policy but, as Macdonald pointed out:

Antonine Economics Antoninus’ reign ‘saw great advances in the towns of Britain’.110 In fact, there was much construction (particularly in stone) throughout the Empire; this is perhaps unsurprising given that the emperor apparently had ‘a first-class knowledge of the accounts of all the provinces and of the taxes’.111 Some of this work clearly began under his predecessor, since it was said of Hadrian: ‘In almost all the cities [of the Empire] he built something and gave games’,112 but much can be dated to Antoninus’ reign.113 All this would have required a healthy economy, and so Antoninus needed to make sure that his military activities could be comfortably financed.

The abandonment of the Tyne and Solway barrier in favour of one that was less than half as long would have represented an economy of manpower . . . We may conclude that what Urbicus did was, not to replace one frontier line by another, but to substitute a double line for a single one.106

How did that affect Britain? And what other benefits could be derived from the temporary annexation of southern Scotland? It seems clear from elsewhere in

Even though more recent research has shown the extent of Antonine troop deployment in southern Scotland, it is still worth bearing Macdonald’s words in mind.

107 Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde: Part 1’, 18; the Flavian site was too far away to be useful in the monitoring of the Clyde: Keppie and Newall, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Barochan Hill’, 71. 108 Given that the ‘distance between Whitemoss and Old Kilpatrick, 2¼ miles, is approximately equal to the average interval between the Antonine Wall forts’: K. A. Steer, ‘The Roman fort at Whitemoss, Renfrewshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxiii (1948–9), 31 (as had been calculated by Macdonald, in his Roman Wall in Scotland, 343, where he states that ‘the average interval between the forts was 2 miles, 198 yards’). 109 Steer, ‘Roman fort at Whitemoss’, 28. He pointed out that not only Old Kilpatrick but also Duntocher and Castle Hill (the next two secondary Antonine Wall forts) could be seen from Bishopton (ibid., 31); see also Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 132. 110 Frere, Britannia, 234–5; see references to Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain; also under individual place-names in Appendix 6 (below), which sets out evidence for major construction work in the Antonine period (stressing, where more precise dating is possible, those projects which can be assigned to the reign of Antoninus Pius). 111 SHA, ‘Antoninus Pius’, VII. 8–9: Lives of the Later Caesars, trans. Birley, 102. 112 SHA, ‘Hadrian’, XIX. 2. ‘in omnibus paene urbibus et aliquid aedificavit’: Lives of the Caesars, trans. Birley, 78. 113 For a summary of those projects believed to have been constructed under Antoninus in Rome, Ostia, north Africa, the Rhine provinces, Gaul, the Danube area, Asia Minor, the Levant and Egypt, see Grant, Antonines, 128–31, 133–5.

Antoninus’ original plan for the Forth–Clyde line involved the strengthening of the termini. On the eastern side, the primary forts are closer together, protecting the mouth of the Forth and controlling the route northwards through Camelon; on the west the new fort at Bishopton was an advance northwards from the Flavian fort at Barochan, tightening up the line, ‘affording a panoramic 103

Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland, 470. Ibid., 476. A slab from Hutcheson Hill, Bearsden shows conquered Britons with either Victory or Britannia in the middle; the Bridgeness slab has a cavalryman riding down a group of natives; and the Old Kilpatrick slab depicts a reclining Victory: Keppie, ‘Antonine Wall’, 100; Robertson, Antonine Wall, revised and ed. Keppie, 13–18. 105 B. R. Hartley, ‘The Roman occupations of Scotland: the evidence of samian ware’, Britannia, iii (1972), 38–9. Hartley refers to the lack of overlap between potters’ stamps from Scotland and those from Hadrian’s Wall and its hinterland. However, most of the second-century series analysed are late Antonine (defined as AD 160 to the end of the century) and are therefore irrelevant for any discussion of the reign of Antoninus Pius. 106 Macdonald, Roman Wall in Scotland, 475 (my italics). 104

130

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography Britain that Antoninus was keen to protect those areas which could turn a profit. At the very least, the viability of the whole reoccupation must have been based on taking full advantage of natural resources, preferably with the co-operation and manpower of the locals. Appian’s disparaging words about the economic usefulness of Britannia114 could have been voiced after most of the exploitation of the 140s and 150s had been undertaken. Keppie suggests a date of c.AD 150 for Appian’s Preface to the ‘Roman Wars’,115 but it is much more likely to be towards the end of the 150s, if not right at the end of Antoninus Pius’ reign. It should be borne in mind that Antoninus’ advance to, and rationalisation of, the Forth–Clyde line was also to be paralleled in the 150s in south-west Germany, where the frontier was extended to the ‘outer limes’ — a whole series of new forts and watchtowers gave a more streamlined, easily policeable line. The similarities are quite striking (see Map 25). All the watchtowers and the vast majority of the forts can be dated to Antoninus’ reign. Just beyond them ran a palisade. Towards the end of the second century the line was further reinforced by the addition of a ditch and rampart between the row of towers and the palisade.116

The Antonine Wall and the Gask forts were in operation for only around twenty years before central Scotland was abandoned once again. There has also been much disagreement over whether the Wall was abandoned and reoccupied during that period, but a complete withdrawal and reoccupation during the reign of Antoninus Pius is now thought to have been extremely unlikely.119 Excavators at Inveresk on the Forth found evidence of what seemed to be two distinct ‘occupations’, but they admitted that this could equally well point to ‘major onsite remodelling’ rather than abandonment and reoccupation.120 Final abandonment probably occurred in the early part of Marcus Aurelius’ reign. Anthony Birley has suggested that the evacuation of the Wall may have taken place just after the death of Antoninus’ military adviser, Gavius Maximus (AD 156/7), and that the new policy in Germany followed at the same time or soon after.121 However, Antoninus, with or without advice from any other strategists, may have thought it worthwhile to maintain a military presence in southern Scotland, even if sporadic outbreaks of trouble persisted. Literary and epigraphic evidence point to continued difficulties throughout the rest of the second century.122

Was there anything else the emperor hoped to achieve from such an advance into Germany? As Derek Williams pointed out, the new frontier there also secured a swathe of good-quality agricultural land. However, he does not believe that the same could be said of a reannexation of land beyond the Tyne–Solway.117 This is simply not true. The reabsorption of Lothian within the province and the holding of Fife were an integral part of the strategy — if only to guarantee a steady grain supply for the troops. The area of the Wall itself is also set in what is nowadays classed as high-grade arable land (see Map 14); it was ‘built in a period of low rainfall’, which points either to the intensive agricultural use of its hinterland or the ready supply of construction turf (or both).118

Novantian territory may well have needed a great deal of surveillance, but there could have been another reason for the refortification of southern Scotland. Antoninus may have been keen to benefit from Wanlockhead and the Leadhills area near Crawford, where silver, lead and copper could be found.123 More importantly, there were also gold deposits; it seems that these may first have been exploited in the Bronze Age, and that gold was certainly present during the Roman period. After all, it had not been exhausted in the sixteenth century because ‘extraction probably reached a peak in the reign of James V when several hundred workers were employed’.124 Kamm doubts whether the Romans knew of the metal resources 119

See N. Hodgson, ‘Were there two Antonine occupations of Scotland?’, Britannia, xxvi (1995); Swan, ‘Twentieth legion and the history of the Antonine Wall reconsidered’, 447–8. The idea of the two occupations is, however, still maintained in the second edition (1998) of Wacher, Roman Britain, 41–2. 120 A. Leslie and B. Will, Inveresk Roman Fort (Glasgow, 1999), 60, 62. 121 Tony Birley: personal communication; also, Birley, ‘Hadrian to the Antonines’, 155. 122 Potter, Romans in North-West England, 358–63. 123 A documentary reference, dated c.1230, refers to an established mine; lead was carted ‘from the moor of Crawford’ in 1265: see Origines parochiales Scotiae: The Antiquities, Ecclesiastical and Territorial of the Parishes of Scotland (OPS), i, ed. C. Innes (Bannatyne Club, xcvii, Edinburgh, 1850), 167, 171. 124 Information from Dumfries Museum, where displays indicate that ‘as much as two-thirds of the gold coinage minted during this period [1513–42] was of Scottish gold’. Both lead and gold were mined in James IV’s reign (1473–1513); there was gold in Glengonar and ‘gold scours’ in the valley of the Elvan Water and near Abington: OPS, i, 163, 171. On gold-mining under James VI and I, see S. Atkinson, The Discoverie and Historie of the Gold Mynes in Scotland (1619; Bannatyne Club, xiv, Edinburgh, 1825), esp. 18, 30, 35.

114

See p. 112 at n. 156 above. 115 L. Keppie, ‘Beyond the northern frontier: Roman and native in Scotland’, in M. Todd (ed.), Research on Roman Britain, 1960–1989 (Britannia Monograph Ser., 11, London, 1989), 72. 116 Map 25 (below) is based on the information in P. Filtzinger, Limesmuseum Aalen (Stuttgart, 1983), entitled ‘Römische Kastelle in Südwestdeutschland’ (inside front cover); for a full list of the forts, see: ibid., 26–7. The map is not included as an up-to-date checklist of all installations on the German limes, but to show the extent of the secondcentury advance (all sites shown by solid black symbols). See also H. Schönberger, ‘The Roman frontier in Germany: an archaeological survey’, Jl Roman Studies, lix (1969), 167–8; Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 82; and, more recently, Sommer, ‘From conquered territory to Roman province’, 161–4 (including fig. 6.2: western end of the secondcentury limes), 186–7. 117 D. Williams, ‘The frontier policies of Antoninus Pius in Scotland and Germany’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lvi (1981), 80. 118 R. Tipping and E. Tisdall, ‘The landscape context of the Antonine Wall: a review of the literature’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxv (2005), 449–50.

131

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors by sea.134 Gold was certainly obtained from Dolaucothi during the Roman period,135 and it is likely that the fort site at Pumsaint was maintained under Antoninus and is (along with Carmarthen) included amongst the Ravenna place-names in the south-west.

in south-west Scotland, or at least whether they extracted any at the time,125 but it seems fair to say that the lead, at least, would have been worked — almost certainly within the territory of the Damnonii. At Castledykes, ‘six pieces of desilverised lead’ have been discovered,126 but it is not clear to what period these should be assigned. A huge amount of lead would have been needed for construction of the Antonine Wall forts, and it is clear that the main distribution centre for this was at Camelon.127 TattonBrown had earlier remarked that no one had put forward a suitable explanation for the size and ‘anomalous position [of Camelon] in the Antonine period, detached from and north of the Wall’;128 that situation now seems to have been remedied. Lead pigs could have been transported across the country on the Roman road from the Crawford area to Inveresk on the Forth, for shipment to Camelon. The importance of these metal deposits should not be underestimated. After all, their existence in other parts of Britain129 may well have played a role in the overall selection of sites throughout the province where a military presence was to be maintained.

The lead pigs from Lutudaron surely indicate major leadworking in Derbyshire during the Roman occupation. If the Cornovii had been moved with Roman sanction (during the reigns of Trajan and/or Hadrian)136 into an area which had previously been Brigantian in order to work the mines, the Brigantes might ultimately have reacted to this and retaliated by raiding across the border. That is another possible explanation for trouble in the ‘Genounian’ region,137 and a reason for the strengthening of such forts as Brough-on-Noe,138 in Brigantian territory, and Little Chester, amongst the Cornovii. In any case, unrest in the southern Pennines (probably in the mid-150s) reinforces the idea that the problems in Britannia were linked with the Brigantes and their borders.

In Wales, there must have been lead and/or silver mining in Flintshire (within easy access of Chester by sea, and used in the construction of the fortress), and exploitation of the copper deposits around Llandudno and Anglesey,130 where the forts at Caerhun and Caernarfon were still in operation. It has been suggested that, at Caernarfon, a stone ‘courtyard building’ of early Antonine date ‘and its precursor . . . [could represent] accommodation for an official, possibly concerned with the supervision of mineral extraction in north-west Wales’.131 Davies went on to record W. S. Hanson’s observation, made in 1980, that later Roman military occupation in mid-Wales and the Marches might also be linked to mineral extraction.132 In addition, lead and silver are indicated between Wroxeter and Forden Gaer, and west of Caersws,133 and in southern Wales between Caerleon and Caerphilly. There was also major iron production near to the mouth of the Severn, west of Weston-under-Penyard, and easily transportable

Lead-mining may also have been under way at Alston, on the modern Northumberland/Durham county boundary. The fort at Whitley Castle guarded the mines, and was linked by road to Carvoran on Hadrian’s Wall and to Kirkby Thore on the Stanegate. (It is possibly a connection with the direct route to the mines that made Kirkby Thore of greater importance than Brougham in this period — hence the former’s inclusion in the Ravenna list.) Despite the lack of evidence for Roman exploitation of lead at Alston, both Eric Birley and Ian Richmond believed that the mines were worked during the Roman period. Lead sealings with a 67% lead content from Brough-under-Stainmore may indicate a local source.139 The other component was 23% tin, which must have been obtained from elsewhere. Although, again, there is no archaeological evidence for the working of tin in Cornwall during the first and second centuries,140 Cornish tin was well known before the invasion.141 It

125

134

Kamm, Last Frontier, 108, although he does not cite any evidence either way. 126 A. Wilson, ‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde south of the Antonine Wall: Part 2. Romanization’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xx (1996–7), 12. 127 G. B. Bailey, ‘Excavations on the Roman temporary camps at the Three Bridges, Camelon, Falkirk’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxx (2000), 487. 128 Tatton-Brown, ‘Camelon, Arthur’s O’on and the main supply base for the Antonine Wall’, 342. 129 For a short summary of ‘Raw metal supplies in Roman Britain’, see Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 329–35. 130 Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 119 (including fig. 49). 131 J. L. Davies, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales and the Marches from Pius to Theodosius I’, in Maxfield and Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, 52. 132 Ibid. 133 D. Moore, ‘Maritime aspects of Roman Wales’, in Haupt and Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II, 33 (fig. 1).

Ibid.; Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, 120–1 (including fig. 50). 135 For a summary of possible Roman mining in Wales (including Dolaucothi), see Manning, Roman Wales, 104–7. 136 One lead ingot apparently is inscribed with the name of Hadrian: Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 332. 137 If ‘Cornovian’ rather than ‘Genounian’ territory was intended (but the association with the Novantae, as outlined on p. 128 above, is preferred). 138 RIB 283 shows construction work under Julius Verus: see editor’s inscription list in Dearne (ed.), Navio, 8. 139 E. Birley, ‘The Roman fort at Brough-under-Stainmore’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lviii (1958), 41; Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 332. 140 Tyler, ‘Prehistoric and Roman mining in England and Wales’, 214–15, 221–2; S. Gerrard, The Early British Tin Industry (Stroud, 2000), 21. 141 As Caesar pointed out in his Gallic War, V. 12. There is evidence of the working of tin at the end of the fourth century BC: see Tyler, ‘Prehistoric and Roman mining in England and Wales’, 216; see also

132

The Dating of the Ravenna Cosmography seems highly unlikely that it was not exploited by the Romans, since mineral extraction would be the most logical explanation for the large number of place-names on the Ravenna list for the south-west of England. Lead pigs, and an early third-century inscription from Charterhouse are cited as evidence of mining in the Mendips;142 there are now indications of major iron-working in the Blackdown Hills in eastern Devon — the best explanation for the apparent clustering of forts in that area143 — and, more recently, near Brayford just to the south-west of Exmoor.144 It seems clear that many more military sites await discovery in Devon and Cornwall; more localised flying since 1984 has radically altered the picture of an area largely devoid of a Roman presence.145

Ravenna names. Quite apart from its culinary uses, salt was needed in the leather-making process for stripping hair from the hides.146 There is certainly evidence of salt manufacturing in the second century; in fact, in the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus, there seems to have been ‘a revived imperial interest in the production of salt’.147 So, basically, using evidence from the archaeological record and linking this with the Ravenna place-names, it is clear that Antoninus Pius’ policy in Britain was dictated by both native unrest and practical necessity. The possibility that any surplus in production was being exported should not be overlooked. Antoninus was probably also trying to secure as much silver as possible, which was needed to boost the silver content of the denarius, especially since the denarius was becoming the main coin in use in the second half of the second century.148 Once the occupation proved no longer economically viable, in both local and Empire-wide terms, the Antonine Wall sites and much of southern Scotland were abandoned once again.

Finally, salt extraction and processing was another major industry and came under the jurisdiction and supervision of nearby forts. It is not surprising, therefore, to find Droitwich, Middlewich and Northwich amongst the his summary on the documentary evidence from the early sources: ibid., 1–17. 142 RIB 185; see also Tacitus, De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie and Richmond, 331. 143 Griffith, ‘Developments in the study of Roman military sites in south-west England’, 365–6. 144 A. P. Fitzpatrick, ‘Roman Britain in 2001: I. Sites explored’ (England: South-Western Counties), Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 346, where first- and second-century pottery has been discovered, along with a coin of Marcus Aurelius. 145 Griffith, ‘Developments in the study of Roman military sites in south-west England’, 365; Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 2, acknowledged the ‘immediate results’ reported by Griffith in 1984.

146

Mike Nevell, personal communication to David Shotter. Burnham and Wacher,‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 214. For Middlewich, see Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2000’ (Northern Counties), 348; Strickland, Roman Middlewich, 34–5. There is also evidence from Nantwich, south of Middlewich: B. C. Burnham, ‘Roman Britain in 2002: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxxiv (2003), 318–19. 148 P. J. Casey, personal communication to David Shotter. On the general analysis of coin finds, see J. Casey, ‘The interpretation of Romano-British site finds’, in J. Casey and R. Reece (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist, 2nd edn (London, 1988). 147

133

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Antonine Itinerary: Place-Names and Suggested Identifications from Rivet and Smith (all routes)1 ITER I: Bremenium → Praetorio (Petuaria?) A limite id est a vallo Praetorio m.p. clvi a Bremenio Corstopitum Vindomora Vinovia Cataractoni Isurium Eburacum leug. VI Victrix Derventione Delgovicia Praetorio

High Rochester Corbridge Ebchester Binchester Catterick Aldborough York Malton Wetwang? Brough?

ITER II: Blatobulgium → Rutupiae Item a vallo ad portum Ritupis m.p. cccclxxxi sic a Blatobulgio Castra Exploratorum Luguvallo Voreda Brovonacis Verteris Lavatris Cataractone Isuriam Eburacum Calcaria Camboduno Camuloduno Mamucio Condate Deva leg. XX Vici Bovio Medialano Rutunio Urioconio Uxacona Pennocrucio Etoceto Manduesedo Venonis Bannaventa Lactodoro 1

Birrens Netherby Carlisle Old Penrith Kirkby Thore Brough Bowes Catterick Aldborough York Tadcaster Leeds? Slack Manchester Northwich Chester Holt? Whitchurch Harcourt Mill Wroxeter Red Hill Water Eaton Wall Mancetter High Cross Whilton Lodge Towcester

From Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 155–80.

135

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Magiovinto Durocobrivis Verolamio Sulloniacis Londinio Noviomago Vagniacis Durobrovis Durolevo Duroruerno ad portum Ritupis

Dropshort Dunstable St Albans Brockley Hill London Crayford Springhead Rochester Nr Sittingbourne Canterbury Richborough ITER III: Londinium → Dubris Item a Londinio ad portum Dubris m.p. lxvi sic

a Londinio Dubobrius Durarveno ad portum Dubris

London Rochester Canterbury Dover ITER IV: Londinium → Lemanis Item a Londinio ad portum Lemanis m.p. lxviii

a Londinio Durobrivis Duraruenno Ad portum Lemanis

London Rochester Canterbury Lympne

ITER V: Londinium → Luguvalium Item a Londinio Luguvalio ad Vallum m.p. ccccxlii a Londinio Caesaromago Colonia Villa Faustini Icinos Camborico Duroliponte Durobrivas Causennis Lindo Segeloci Dano Legeolio Eburaco Isubrigantum Cataractoni Levatris Verteris Brocavo Luguvalio

London Chelmsford Colchester Scole or Stoke Ash Caistor St Edmund Lackford? Cambridge Water Newton Saltersford or Sapperton Lincoln Littleborough Doncaster Castleford York Aldborough Catterick Bowes Brough Brougham Carlisle

136

Appendices ITER VI: Londinium → Lindum Item a Londinio Lindo m.p. clvi sic a Londinio Verolami Durocobrius Magiovinio Lactodoro Isannavantia Tripontio Venonis Ratas Verometo Margiduno Ad Pontem Crococalana Lindo

London St Albans Dunstable Dropshort Towcester Whilton Lodge Cave’s Inn High Cross Leicester Willoughby Castle Hill East Stoke Brough Lincoln ITER VII: Regno → Londinium Item a Regno Lundinio m.p. xcvi sic

a Regno Clausentum Venta Belgarum Galleva Atrebatum Pontibus Londinio

Chichester Bitterne or Wickham Winchester Silchester Staines London ITER VIII: Eburacum → Londinium Item ab Eburaco Londinio m.p. ccxxvii

ab Eburaco Lagecio Dano Ageloco Lindo Crococalano Margiduno Vernemeto Ratis Vennonis Bannavanto Magiovinio Durocobrivis Verolamo Londinio

York Castleford Doncaster Littleborough Lincoln Brough Castle Hill Willoughby Leicester High Cross Whilton Lodge Dropshort Dunstable St Albans London ITER IX: Venta Icenorum → Londinium Item a Venta Icinorum Lundinio m.p. cxxvii sic

a Venta Sitomago Conbretovio Ad Ansam

Caistor St Edmund Nr Yoxford? Coddenham Higham

137

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Camoloduno Canonio Cesaromago Durolito Lundinio

Colchester Kelvedon Chelmsford Chigwell? London ITER X: Clanoventa → Mediolanum Item a Clanoventa Mediolano m.p. cl sic

a Clanoventa Galava Alone Galacum Bremetonnaci Coccio Mamcunio Condate Mediolano

Ravenglass Ambleside Watercrook? Burrow-in-Lonsdale? Ribchester Nr Edgeworth? Manchester Northwich Whitchurch ITER XI: Segontium → Deva Item a Segontio Devam m.p. lxxiiii sic

a Segontio Conovio Varis Deva

Caernarvon Caerhun St Asaph Chester ITER XII: Muridunum → Viroconium Item a Muridono Viroconiorum m.p. clxxxvi

a Muridono Vindomi Venta Belgarum Brige Sorvioduni Vindogladia Durnonovaria Muriduno Sca Dumnoniorum Leucaro Nido Bomio Iscae leg. II Augusta Burrio Gobannio Magnis Bravonio Viriconio

Carmarthen ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ‘Intrusive repetition ⎥ of Iter XV’ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ Loughor? Neath Cowbridge? Caerleon Usk Abergavenny Kenchester Leintwardine Wroxeter

138

Appendices ITER XIII: Isca → Calleva Item ab Isca Calleva m.p. cviiii sic ab Isca Burrio Blestio Ariconio Clevo [Corinio Durocornovio Spinis Calleva

Caerleon Usk Monmouth Weston under Penyard Gloucester Cirencester]2 Wanborough Woodspeen Silchester ITER XIV: Isca → Calleva Item alio itinere ab Isca Calleva m.p. ciii sic

ab Isca Venta Silurum Abone Traiectus Aquis Sulis Verlucione Cunetione Spinis Calleva

Caerleon Caerwent Sea Mills " Bath Sandy Lane Mildenhall Woodspeen Silchester ITER XV: Calleva → Isca Dumnoniorum Item a Calleva Isca Dumnoniorum m.p. cxxxvi sic

a Calleva Vindomi Venta Velgarum Brige Sorbiodoni Vindocladia Durnonovaria Moriduno Isca Dumnoniorum

2

Silchester Wheatsheaf Inn Winchester Ashley Old Sarum Badbury Dorchester Sidford Exeter

Suggested insertion by Rivet and Smith, 175.

139

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors

Appendix 2 Notitia Dignitatum: Place-Names and Suggested Identifications from Rivet and Smith (northern England)1 XL

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

1

Dux Britanniarum Sub dispositione uiri spectabilis ducis Britanniarum: Praefectus legionis sextae (York) Praefectus equitum Dalmatarum, Praesidio (?) Praefectus equitum Crispianorum, Dano (Doncaster?; Jarrow?) Praefectus equitum catafractariorum, Morbio (?) Praefectus numeri barcariorum Tigrisiensium, Arbeia (South Shields) Praefectus numeri Neruiorum Dictensium, Dicti (Wearmouth?) Praefectus numeri uigilum, Concangios (Chester-le-Street) Praefectus numeri exploratorum, Lauatres (Bowes) Praefectus numeri directorum, Uerteris (Brough) Praefectus numeri defensorum, Braboniaco (Kirkby Thore) Praefectus numeri Solensium, Maglone (Old Carlisle?) Praefectus numeri Pacensium, Magis (Burrow Walls?) Praefectus numeri Longouicanorum, Longouicio (Lanchester) Praefectus numeri superuenientium Petueriensium, Deruentione (Malton) Item per lineam ualli: Tribunus cohortis quartae Lingonum, Segeduno (Wallsend) Tribunus cohortis primae Cornouiorum, Ponte Aeli (Newcastle) Praefectus alae primae Asturum, Conderco (Benwell) Tribunus cohortis primae Frixagorum, Uindobala (Rudchester) Praefectus alae Sabinianae, Hunno (Onnum: Halton Chesters) Praefectus alae secundae Asturum, Cilurno (Chesters) Tribunus cohortis primae Batauorum, Procolitia (Carrawburgh) Tribunus cohortis primae Tungrorum, Borcouicio (Vercovicium: Housesteads) Tribunus cohortis quartae Gallorum, Uindolana (Chesterholm) Tribunus cohortis primae Asturum, Aesica (Great Chesters) Tribunus cohortis secundae Dalmatarum, Magnis (Carvoran) Tribunus cohortis primae Aeliae Dacorum, Amboglanna (Camboglanna: Castlesteads) Praefectus alae Petrianae, Petrianis (Stanwix) ... Praefectus numeri Maurorum Aurelianorum, Aballaba (Burgh-by-Sands) Tribunus cohortis secundae Lingonum, Congauata (Drumburgh) Tribunus cohortis primae Hispanorum, Axeloduno (Stanwix? or Mais/Maio: Bowness-on-Solway?) Tribunus cohortis secundae Thracum, Gabrosenti (Moresby) Tribunus cohortis primae Aeliae classicae, Tunnocelo (?) Tribunus cohortis primae Morinorum, Glannibanta (Ravenglass) Tribunus cohortis tertiae Neruiorum, Alione (Maryport) Cuneus Sarmatarum, Bremetenraco (Ribchester) Praefectus alae primae Herculeae, Olenaco (Elslack) Tribunus cohortis sextae Neruiorum, Uirosido (Brough by Bainbridge?)

From Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 219–21.

140

Appendices

Appendix 3 Ptolemy’s Map: Place-Names in Tribal Groupings, with Suggested Identifications from Strang, Ian Smith, and Rivet and Smith1 STRANG (1998) Novantae (2 poleis) Lucopibia Gatehouse of Fleet [Glenlochar] Rerigonium south-east of Stranraer

SMITH (IAN) (Scotland only, 1987)

RIVET & SMITH (1979)

Glenlochar/Newton Stewart Stranraer

Glenlochar Stranraer

Dalswinton Ward Law Castledykes

Ward Law Castledykes

Camelon near Irvine Stirling Ardoch Strageath in Strathearn

Camelon Irvine Barochan Hill Ardoch Drumquhassle Inchtuthil

Selgovae (4 poleis) Carbantorigum Uxellum Corda Trimontium

Raeburnfoot [Milton] Upper Teviotdale/Rubers Law Crawford [NEWSTEAD]

Damnonii (6 poleis) Colania Camelon Vindogara near Irvine Coria near Balgair [Old Kilpatrick] Alauna Ardoch Lindum Malling [Stirling] Victoria Fendoch [Strageath]

V(O)tadini (3 poleis) Curia Red House, Corbridge [Cramond] Elginhaugh/Cramond Alauna Learchild Eyemouth/Berwick/Learchild? Bremenium [HIGH ROCHESTER]

Easter Happrew

Inveresk Learchild/misplaced Ardoch?

Vacomagi (4 poleis) Bannatia Cardean Tameia Stracathro [Inchtuthil] Pinnata Castra Thomshill?, Burghead [Balnageith] Tuesis Aberlour/Newlands [Fochabers]

Dalginross/Fendoch on Tay: Inchtuthil/Bertha near Inverness near Bellie

Dalginross Cardean Culbin Sands, Moray? Bellie, Fochabers

Venicones (1 polis) Orrea Carpow

Friarton, Perth/Carpow

Monifieth

Taexali (1 polis) Devana

near Aberdeen

Kintore

Normandykes?

Brigantes (9 poleis) Epiacum Whitley Castle? Vinnovium [BINCHESTER] Caturactonium [CATTERICK] Calagum Burrow-in-Lonsdale [Lancaster] Isurium [ALDBOROUGH] Rigodunum near Lancaster? [Castleshaw?] Olicana Elslack [Ilkley?] Eboracum, Legio VI Victrix [YORK] Camunlodunum Slack Parisi (1 polis) Petuaria

Whitley Castle

Burrow-in-Lonsdale Castleshaw Elslack

Slack

[BROUGH-on-HUMBER]

1

From Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 237–509 (under each name in alphabetical list); Smith, First Roman Invasion of Scotland, 15–18; Strang, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map’, 436; Strang, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, 21–2. Confirmed identifications appear, centred, in full capitals and square brackets. Identifications presented in Chapter 2 which differ from those of Strang follow his in square brackets, and in BOLD.

141

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors

STRANG (1998)

RIVET & SMITH (1979)

Ordovices (2 poleis) Mediolanium Whitchurch Brannogenium Leintwardine

Whitchurch Leintwardine

Cornavii (2 poleis) Deva, Legio XX Victrix Viroconium

[CHESTER] [WROXETER]

Coritani (2 poleis) Lindum Rate

[LINCOLN] [LEICESTER]

Catyeuchlani (2 poleis) Salinae near Skegness Urolanium

[ST ALBANS]

Simeni (1 polis) Venta

[CAISTOR ST EDMUND]

Trinoantes (1 polis) Camudolanum

[COLCHESTER]

Wash area, or Droitwich?

Demetae (2 poleis) Luentinum Dolaucothi/Pumsaint Maridunum [CARMARTHEN] Silures (1 polis) Bullaeum

[USK]

Dobu(n)ni (1 polis) Corinium

[CIRENCESTER]

Atrebatii (1 polis) Caleva

[SILCHESTER]

Cantii (3 poleis) Londinium Darvernum Rutupiae

[LONDON] [CANTERBURY] [RICHBOROUGH]

Regni (1 polis) Noeomagus

[CHICHESTER]

Belgae (3 poleis) Ischalis Aquae Calidae Venta

Dolaucothi/Pumsaint?

Charterhouse

Charterhouse? [BATH] [WINCHESTER]

Durotriges (1 polis) Dunium Hod Hill Dumnonii (4 poleis) Voliba near Liskeard Uxella near Barnstaple Tamara near Tavistock Isca

Hod Hill in Cornwall or Devon in Devon or Cornwall Launceston? [EXETER]

142

Appendices

Appendix 4 Ravenna Cosmography: Place-Names and Suggested Identifications from Rivet and Smith, Richmond and Crawford, Shotter, Conquest and Frere1 SITE Ventaslurum Iupania Metambala Albinumno Isca Augusta Bannio Bremia Alabum Cicutio Magnis Brano. Genium. Epocessa Ypocessa Macatonion Glebon. colonia Argistillum Vertis Salinis Cironium Dobunorum

Rivet and Smith [Richmond & Crawford] Caerwent — [‘on a branch-road’ from Caerwent] Lydney? [in South Wales, near Caerwent] — [between Caerwent and Gloucester?] Caerleon Abergavenny Llanio Llandovery? Brecon Gaer? Kenchester Leintwardine [between Kenchester and Wroxeter] — — — [west of Gloucester?] Gloucester — [near Gloucester, on road to Droitwich] Worcester [‘on a northward road’ from Gloucester and Droitwich] Droitwich Cirencester

==================================================================================== OMITTED PLACE-NAMES

Utriconion Cornoviorum Lavobrinta Mediomano Seguntio Canubio Mediolano Saudonio Deva victris Veratino Lutudaron Derbentione Salinis Condate Rate Corion Eltauori Lectoceto Iacio Dulma

Wroxeter — [between Wroxeter and Wales; Forden Gaer?] Whitchurch [Caersws?] Caernarvon Caerhun Whitchurch [near Whitchurch] — [between Chester and Whitchurch; or ‘western branch-road’] Chester Willoughby [Rocester/Uttoxeter?] Chesterfield? [Derbyshire lead-mining district] Littlechester Middlewich [Nantwich?] Northwich Leicester R. Tame (Leics.) [near Leicester; ‘on the Godmanchester road?’] Wall Towcester

==================================================================================== OMITTED PLACE-NAMES

Lindum colonia Bannovallum Nauione Aquis Arnemeza

Lincoln Horncastle? [Caistor] Brough-on-Noe Buxton

1 From Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 208–12 (with additional information from alphabetical list, 237–509); Richmond and Crawford, ‘British section of the Ravenna Cosmography’. Where Richmond and Crawford differed, their earlier suggestions follow in square brackets. Shotter’s contributions for the north-west of England appear on p. 144 (from Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 2nd edn, 111–15; table from 1st edn, 109). Conquest’s suggestions for sites north of Hadrian’s Wall appear on pp. 145–6 (from Conquest, ‘Note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland’) and are compared with Frere’s for southern Scotland, which appear on p. 145 only, in italics after the oblique (from Frere, ‘Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain’).

143

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors SITE Zerdotalia Mantio Alūna Camulo dono Calunio Gallunio3 Medibogdo Cantiventi Iuliocenon Gabrocentio Alauna Bribra Maio Olerica Derventione Ravonia Bresnetenaci Veteranorum Pampocalia Lagentium Valteris Bereda Lagubalumi Magnis Gabaglanda Vindolande Lineoiugla Vinovia Lavaris Cactabactonion Eburacum Decuaria Devovicia Dixio Lugunduno Coganges Corie Lopocarium

Rivet and Smith [Richmond & Crawford] Melandra Castle? Manchester Watercrook [Ilkley] Slack? Ambleside [Overborough?]2 Ambleside Hardknott Ravenglass — [north of Ravenglass] Moresby? Maryport Beckfoot? Bowness-on-Solway Elslack? [Old Carlisle?] Papcastle Kirkby Thore Ribchester Leeds+Tadcaster Castleford Brough-under-Stainmore Old Penrith Carlisle Carvoran Castlesteads [Birdoswald] Chesterholm Lanchester Binchester Bowes Catterick York Brough-on-Humber Wetwang? [Millington?] Wearmouth? — [with Dixio: Co. Durham] Chester-le-Street Corbridge

Serduno Condecor Vindovala Onno Celūno Brocoliti Velurtion Esica Banna Uxelludamo Avalana Maia4

Wallsend Benwell Rudchester Halton Chesters Chesters Carrawburgh Housesteads Great Chesters Birdoswald [Bewcastle] Stanwix [Castlesteads] Burgh-by-Sands Bowness-on-Solway

2

Shotter Manchester Ilkley Slack? Lancaster Low Borrow Bridge Watercrook Ambleside Ravenglass Moresby Burrow-in-Lonsdale? Brough-by-Bainbridge? Bowness-on-Solway Kirkby Thore Ribchester Brough-under-Stainmore Old Penrith Carlisle Castlesteads

Bowes

Birdoswald Stanwix Burgh by Sands Bowness-on-Solway

Overborough = Burrow-in-Lonsdale. It was suggested that this was a repetition of the previous name: Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 208. 4 Maia was believed by both Rivet and Smith and Richmond and Crawford to be a repetition of the earlier entry Maio: Rivet and Smith, Place-Names, 208–9, 408–9; Richmond and Crawford, ‘British section of the Ravenna Cosmography’, 39. 3

144

Appendices SITE Fanocodi Brocara Croucingo Stodoion Sinetriadum Clindum Carbantium Tadoriton Maporiton Alitacenon Loxa Locatreve Cambroianna Smetri Uxela Lucotion Corda Camulosessa Presidium Brigomono Abisson Ebio Coritiotar Celovion Itucodon Maromago Duabsisis Venutio Trimuntium Eburo caslum Bremenium Coccimeda Alauna Oleiclavis Evidensca Rumabo

Rivet and Smith [Richmond & Crawford] Bewcastle [Bewcastle/Netherby/Stanwix area] near Irvine [Cumbrian border] — [S. Scotland, near Cumbrian border] — [S. Scotland] — [S. Scotland] Drumquhassle? [S. Scotland] Easter Happrew? [SW Scotland, E of Nith] — [S. Scotland] — [S. Scotland] — [S. Scotland] R. Lossie [S. Scotland] — [SW. Scotland] Castlesteads [SW. Scotland] Smerti (tribe) [S. Scotland] Ward Law? [S. Scotland] Glenlochar? [S. Scotland] Castledykes? [S. Scotland] — [S. Scotland: Castle Greg?] — [S. Scotland, near Castle Greg?] Stranraer? [S. Scotland] — [S. Scotland, near Newstead] Epidii (tribe) [S. Scotland] — Coria Votad.?[S. Scotland, Coria Otad.?] — [S. Scotland] — [S. Scotland] Vacomagi (tribe) [S. Scotland, Inveresk?] — [S. Scotland, near Newstead] Venicones (tribe) [S. Scotland, near Channelkirk] Newstead — [Cappuck or Chew Green] High Rochester R. Coquet [fort on the Coquet] R. Aln — [in Northumberland/East Lothian] Risingham [Inveresk?] R. Ouse [in Northumberland/Lothian]

Conquest/Frere Bewcastle Birrens/Broomholm Broomholm/Burnswark Netherby/Birrens Ladyward/Birrens Castledykes/Ladyward Easter Happrew/Milton

Velunia Volitanio Pexa Begesse Colanica Medio Nemeton Subdobiadon Litana Cibra Credigone

Carriden [Balmuildy] Votadini (tribe) [Cadder?] Picts (people) [Antonine Wall site] — [Bar Hill?] Camelon? [Antonine Wall site] Arthur’s O’on? [Antonine Wall site] — [Antonine Wall site] Ardoch? [Antonine Wall site] Barochan Hill? [Antonine Wall site] Creones (tribe) [Carriden]

Carriden Mumrills Falkirk Rough Castle Castlecary ? Bearsden? Castlehill? Duntocher? Old Kilpatrick?

Iano Maulion Demerosesa Cindocellum Cerma Veromo Matovion Ugrulentum Ravatonium

— [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall] Caerini (tribe) [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall]

Dumbuck Drumquhassle Malling Bochastle Ardoch Doune Stirling Camelon Fendoch

145

Bothwellhaugh/Redshaw Burn?

Balmuildy/Clydes Burn? Cadder/Kirkintilloch?/Crawford

Antonine Wall?/Durisdeer Auchendavy?/Carronbridge Antonine Wall?/Drumlanrig south-west/Carzield Dalswinton/Carzield/Ward Law

Glenlochar/Glenlochar Nith/Annan/Castledykes/Lyne?

?/Edinburgh Castle ?/Edinburgh Castle ?/Arthur’s Seat ?/Elginhaugh ?/Lothian? ?/Traprain Law ?/Tweed Valley/Coldstream? ?/Tweed Valley ?/Tweed Valley ?/Flodden Hill/Milfield? ?/Yeavering Bell Newstead Cappuck High Rochester fort on Coquet Learchild Berwick Inveresk Cramond

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors SITE Iberran Pinnatis Tuessis Lodone Litinomago Devoni Memanturum Decha Bograndium Ugueste Leuiodanum Poreo classis Levioxaua Cermium Victorie Marcotaxon Tagea Voran

Rivet and Smith [Richmond & Crawford] Ireland [N. of Antonine Wall] — Culbin Sands? [N. of Antonine Wall] Bellie? [near mouth of Spey] Caledones (tribe) [N. Scotland between [Spey and Dee] — [N. of Antonine Wall] Kintore [N. of Antonine Wall, on the Dee?] Rhinns of Galloway [N. of Antonine Wall, near the Dee] Decantae (tribe) [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall, S. of Dee] — [N. of Antonine Wall, on Ugie Water?] — [N. of Antonine Wall] Monifieth, Fife? [N. of Antonine Wall] — [N. of Antonine Wall (duplication)] Caereni (tribe) [N. of Antonine Wall, doublet of Cerma?] Inchtuthil? [in Damnonian territory?] — [N. of Antonine Wall] Cardean? [N. of Antonine Wall] R. Farrar [N. of Antonine Wall]

146

Conquest Dalginross Moray Firth mouth of Spey Dee to Moray Firth Dee to Moray Firth Aberdeen Stonehaven Stracathro Cardean unidentified fort coastal fort Carpow doublet or other fort between Carpow and Ardoch Ardoch Strageath Bertha Inchtuthil Cargill

Appendices

Appendix 5 Ravenna Cosmography: Some New Identifications1 TRIBE AND GROUP NO.

No.

RAVENNA NAME

LOCATION

SECTION 2:

Wales and England [place-names in the far south-west of England and Wales, and the south-east of England are excluded]. Group 1: SILURES (E) 1. Ventaslurum Caerwent Group 2: SILURES (S) 2b. Iupania Cardiff 2c. Metambala Caerphilly 2d. Albinumno Gelligaer Group 3: SILURES (W)

3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e.

Isca Augusta Bannio Bremia Alabum Cicutio

Caerleon Abergavenny Brecon Gaer Llandovery Loughor

Group 4: DOBUNNI (W)

4.

Magnis

Kenchester

Group 5: ORDOVICES (S)

5a. 5b. 5c. 5d.

Brano. Genium. Epocessa Ypocessa Macatonion

Leintwardine Caerau Castell Collen Hindwell Farm or nr Knighton

Group 6: DOBUNNI (E)

6a. 6b. 6c. 6d.

Glebon. colonia Argistillum Vertis Salinis

Gloucester Weston-under-Penyard Worcester Droitwich

Group 7: DOBUNNI (E)

7.

Cironium Dobunorum

Cirencester

ENTRIES OMITTED HERE (13): Caleba Arbatium → Alauna [Silchester → Alchester?; southern places including the poleis: Rutupis (Richborough) and Duro averno Cantiacorum (Canterbury)]. Group 8: CORNOVII (S)

8a. 8b.

Utriconion Cornoviorum Lavobrinta

Wroxeter Greensforge?

Group 9: ORDOVICES (N)

9.

Mediomano

Whitchurch

Group 10: ORDOVICES (N) [Gangani?]

10a. 10b.

Seguntio Canubio

Caernarfon Caerhun

Group 11: ORDOVICES (N) [Central tribe?]

11a. 11b.

Mediolano Saudonio

Caersws Forden Gaer

Group 12: CORNOVII (N)

12a. 12b. 12c. 12d. 12e. 12f.

Deva victris Veratino Lutudaron Derbentione Salinis Condate

Chester Chesterton? Rocester/Wirksworth? Little Chester Middlewich Northwich

Rate Corion Eltauori Lectoceto Iacio Dulma

Leicester " Corioeltavorum] Wall Towcester

Group 13: CORIELTAVI (S)

⎧13a. ⎩13a. 13b. 13c.

1

Spellings as listed in Rivet and Smith, Place-Names. Head place-names are underlined; names in BOLD are identifications (some certain, some possible) which equate with Ptolemy’s poleis.

147

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ENTRIES OMITTED HERE (8): Virolanium → Venta Cenomum [Albans → Caistor St Edmund; southern places including the poleis: Londinium Augusti (London) and Manulodulo. colonia (Colchester)]. Group 14: CORIELTAVI (N)

14a. 14b.

Lindum colonia Bannovallum

Lincoln Horncastle

Group 15: BRIGANTES (SW)

15a. 15b. 15c.

Nauione Aquis Arnemeza Zerdotalia

Brough-on-Noe Buxton Melandra

Group 16: BRIGANTES (SW)

16a. 16b. 16c.

Mantio Alūna Camulo dono

Manchester Ilkley or Elslack Slack

Group 17: BRIGANTES (NW) [Setantii?]

17a. 17b. 17c. 17d.

Calunio Gallunio Medibogdo Cantiventi

Lancaster Low Borrow Bridge Watercrook Ambleside

Group 18: BRIGANTES (NW)

18a. 18b.

Iuliocenon Gabrocentio

Ravenglass Moresby

Group 19: BRIGANTES (NW) [Carvetii?]

19a. 19b. 19c. 19d. 19e.

Alauna Bribra Maio Olerica Derventione

Maryport Beckfoot Old Carlisle Blennerhasset/Caermote? Papcastle

Group 20: BRIGANTES [Carvetii? (S)]

20a.

Ravonia

Kirkby Thore

Group 21: BRIGANTES (SW) [Setantii?]

21.

Bresnetenaci Veteranorum

Ribchester

Group 22: BRIGANTES (SE) [Latenses?]

22a. 22b.

Pampocalia Lagentium

Bradford/Leeds & Tadcaster Castleford

Group 20 (contd): BRIGANTES [Carvetii? (S)]

20b. 20c.

Valteris Bereda

Brough-under-Stainmore Old Penrith

Group 23: BRIGANTES [Carvetii? (S)]

23a. 23b. 23c.

Lagubalumi Magnis Gabaglanda

Carlisle Carvoran Castlesteads

Group 24: BRIGANTES (NE)

24a. 24b.

Vindolande Lineoiugla

Chesterholm (& Ebchester?) Lanchester

Group 25: BRIGANTES (NE)

25a. 25b.

Vinovia Lavaris

Binchester Bowes

Group 26: BRIGANTES (SE)

26.

Cactabactonion

Catterick

Group 27: BRIGANTES (SE)

27.

Eburacum

York

Group 28: PARISI

28a. 28b.

Decuaria Devovicia

Brough-on-Humber Malton & Stamford Bridge

Group 29: BRIGANTES (NE) [Gabrantovices?]

29a. 29b. 29c.

Dixio Lugunduno Coganges

Thirsk/Northallerton? Middleton St George? Chester-le-Street

Corie

Corbridge

Lopocarium

Whitley Castle

Group 30: BRIGANTES (NE) [Tectoverdi?]

⎧30a. ⎩30a.

148

Appendices SECTION 3: Hadrian’s Wall; and N. England and Scotland S. of the Forth–Clyde line Group 31: BRIGANTES (NE–NW) 31a. Serduno Wallsend 31b. Condecor Benwell 31c. Vindovala Rudchester 31d. Onno Halton Chesters 31e. Celūno Chesters 31f. Brocoliti Carrawburgh 31g. Velurtion Housesteads 31h. Esica Great Chesters 31i. Banna Birdoswald 31j. Uxelludamo Stanwix 31k. Avalana Burgh-by-Sands 31l. Maia Bowness-on-Solway 31m. Fanocodi Bewcastle Group 32: DAMNONII (SW)

32a. 32b.

Brocara Croucingo

Irvine Loudoun Hill

Group 33: DAMNONII (SE)

33a. 33b. 33c.

Stodoion Sinetriadum Clindum

Castledykes Bothwellhaugh Easter Happrew/Lyne

Group 34: SELGOVAE (W)

34a. 34b. 34c.

Carbantium Tadoriton Maporiton

Milton Dalmakethar Ladyward

Group 35: SELGOVAE (W)

35a. 35b.

Alitacenon Loxa

Broomholm Netherby

Group 36: NOVANTAE (E)

36a. 36b. 36c.

Locatreve Cambroianna Smetri

Glenlochar Newton Stewart Gatehouse of Fleet

Group 37: SELGOVAE (E)

37a. 37b.

Uxela Lucotion

Rubers Law Oakwood

Group 38: SELGOVAE (W)

38a. 38b.

Corda Camulosessa

Crawford Drumlanrig

Group 39: SELGOVAE (W)

39.

Presidium

Dalswinton

Group 40: NOVANTAE (W)

40a. 40b. 40c.

Brigomono Abisson Ebio

Stranraer/Dunragit? Glenluce Girvan

Group 41: BRIGANTES [Carvetii?? (N) or Anavionenses??]

41a. 41b. 41c. 41d. 41e. 41f.

Coritiotar Celovion Itucodon Maromago Duabsisis Venutio

Birrens Kirkpatrick Fleming Annan Ruthwell Dumfries/Carzield Ward Law

Group 42: SELGOVAE (E)

42a. 42b.

Trimuntium Eburo caslum

Newstead Cappuck

Group 43: VOTADINI (S)

43a. 43b.

Bremenium Coccimeda

High Rochester Chew Green

Group 44: VOTADINI (S)

44a. 44b.

Alauna Oleiclavis

Learchild Berwick

Group 45: VOTADINI (N)

45a. 45b.

Evidensca Rumabo

Inveresk Cramond

149

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Section 4: The Forth–Clyde line (Antonine Wall area) Group 46: DAMNONII 46a. Velunia 46b. Volitanio 46c. Pexa 46d. Begesse 46e. Colanica 46f. Medio Nemeton 46g. Subdobiadon 46h. Litana 46i. Cibra 46j. Credigone

Carriden Kinneil/Bo’ness Mumrills Falkirk Camelon Castlecary Bar Hill/Auchendavy Balmuildy Old Kilpatrick Bishopton

Section 5: Scotland north of the Forth–Clyde line Group 47: DAMNONII (N) 47a. Iano 47b. Maulion 47c. Demerosesa

Ardoch Doune Bochastle

Group 48: DAMNONII (N)

48a. 48b. 48c.

Cindocellum Cerma Veromo

Stirling Malling Drumquhassle

Group 49: VACOMAGI (S)

49a. 49b. 49c.

Matovion Ugrulentum Ravatonium

Cardean Inverquharity Stracathro

Group 50: VACOMAGI (N)

50.

Iberran

Easter Galcantray

Group 51: VACOMAGI (N)

51.

Pinnatis

Balnageith

Group 52: VACOMAGI (N)

52a. 52b. 52c.

Tuessis Lodone Litinomago

Fochabers Thomshill Auchinhove

Group 53: TAEXALI

53a. 53b. 53c. 53d. 53e. 53f.

Devoni Memanturum Decha Bograndium Ugueste Leuiodanum

Normandykes Raedykes Kintore Durno Glenmailen Boyndie/Burnfield?

Group 54: VENICONES

54.

Poreo classis

Carpow

Group 55: DAMNONII (N)

55a. 55b.

Levioxaua Cermium

Bertha Fendoch

Group 56: DAMNONII (N)

56a. 56b.

Victorie Marcotaxon

Strageath Dalginross

Group 57: VACOMAGI (S)

57a. 57b.

Tagea Voran

Inchtuthil Cargill

150

Appendices

Appendix 6 Ravenna Cosmography: Summary of the Antonine Evidence for Building Activity at the Place-Name Sites (forts and towns)1 †GABROCENTIO (MORESBY) †ALAUNA (MARYPORT) †BRIBRA (BECKFOOT) †Maio (Old Carlisle) [Olerica (Blennerhasset)] or Caermote? †Derventione (Papcastle) RAVONIA (KIRKBY THORE) „BRESNETENACI VETERANORUM (RIBCHESTER) Pampocalia (Bradford/Leeds & Tadcaster) LAGENTIUM (CASTLEFORD) †Valteris (Brough-under-Stainmore) †[Bereda (Old Penrith)] „LAGUBALUMI (CARLISLE) †MAGNIS (CARVORAN) †GABAGLANDA (CASTLESTEADS) †VINDOLANDE (CHESTERHOLM & Ebchester?) „LINEOIUGLA (LANCHESTER) †Vinovia (Binchester) „LAVARIS (BOWES) CACTABACTONION (CATTERICK) „EBURACUM (YORK) DECUARIA (BROUGH-ON-HUMBER) DEVOVICIA (MALTON) (and Stamford Bridge) Dixio (Thirsk/Northallerton?) Lugunduno (Middleton St George?) Coganges (Chester-le-Street) „CORIE (CORBRIDGE) †Lopocarium (Whitley Castle) †SERDUNO (WALLSEND) †CONDECOR (BENWELL) †VINDOVALA (RUDCHESTER) †ONNO (HALTON CHESTERS) †CELŪNO (CHESTERS) †BROCOLITI (CARRAWBURGH) †VELURTION (HOUSESTEADS) †ESICA (GREAT CHESTERS) †BANNA (BIRDOSWALD) †UXELLUDAMO (STANWIX) †AVALANA (BURGH-BY-SANDS) †MAIA (BOWNESS-ON-SOLWAY) †Fanocodi (Bewcastle) Brocara (Irvine) „CROUCINGO (LOUDOUN HILL) „STODOION (CASTLEDYKES) „SINETRIADUM (BOTHWELLHAUGH) „CLINDUM (Easter Happrew/LYNE) „CARBANTIUM (MILTON) Tadoriton (Dalmakethar)

VENTASLURUM (CAERWENT) Iupania (Cardiff) METAMBALA (CAERPHILLY) Albinumno (Gelligaer) ISCA AUGUSTA (CAERLEON) Bannio (Abergavenny) BREMIA (BRECON GAER) Alabum (Llandovery) CICUTIO (LOUGHOR) MAGNIS (KENCHESTER) BRANO. GENIUM. (LEINTWARDINE) Epocessa (Caerau) YPOCESSA (CASTELL COLLEN) [Macatonion (Hindwell Farm] or nr Knighton?) GLEBON. COLONIA (GLOUCESTER) ARGISTILLUM (WESTON-UNDER-PENYARD) VERTIS (WORCESTER) SALINIS (DROITWICH) CIRONIUM DOBUNORUM (CIRENCESTER) UTRICONION CORNOVIORUM (WROXETER) Lavobrinta (Greensforge) MEDIOMANO (WHITCHURCH) SEGUNTIO (CAERNARFON) CANUBIO (CAERHUN) MEDIOLANO (CAERSWS) SAUDONIO (FORDEN GAER) „DEVA VICTRIS (CHESTER) [Veratino (Chesterton?)] „LUTUDARON (ROCESTER/Wirksworth?) DERBENTIONE (LITTLE CHESTER) SALINIS (MIDDLEWICH) †CONDATE (NORTHWICH) RATE CORION ELTAUORI (LEICESTER) LECTOCETO (WALL) IACIO DULMA (TOWCESTER) LINDUM COLONIA (LINCOLN) Bannovallum (Horncastle?) †NAUIONE (BROUGH-ON-NOE) [Aquis Arnemeza (Buxton) – possible fort] †ZERDOTALIA (MELANDRA) „?MANTIO (MANCHESTER) †[Alūna (Ilkley or Elslack?)] †Camulo dono (Slack) „CALUNIO (LANCASTER) †?Gallunio (Low Borrow Bridge) †MEDIBOGDO (WATERCROOK) †Cantiventi (Ambleside) „IULIOCENON (RAVENGLASS) 1

See key below (p. 152), for a full explanation of the symbols and layout; references follow.

151

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors „MEDIO NEMETON (CASTLECARY) „SUBDOBIADON (BAR HILL/AUCHENDAVY) „LITANA (BALMUILDY) „CIBRA (OLD KILPATRICK) „CREDIGONE (BISHOPTON) „IANO (ARDOCH) [Maulion (Doune)] [Demerosesa (Bochastle)] „?Cindocellum (Stirling) [Cerma (Malling)] [Veromo (Drumquhassle)] Matovion (Cardean) – beyond Tay Ugrulentum (Inverquharity) – beyond Tay Ravatonium (Stracathro) – beyond Tay Iberran (Easter Galcantray) Pinnatis (Balnageith) Tuessis (Fochabers) Lodone (Thomshill) Litinomago (Auchinhove) – beyond Tay, camp only Devoni (Normandykes) – beyond Tay, camp only Memanturum (Raedykes) – beyond Tay, camp only Decha (Kintore) – beyond Tay, camp only Bograndium (Durno) – beyond Tay, camp only Ugueste (Glenmailen) – beyond Tay, camp only Leuiodanum (Boyndie/Burnfield?) Poreo classis (Carpow) „LEVIOXAUA (BERTHA) [Cermium (Fendoch)] „VICTORIE (STRAGEATH) MARCOTAXON (DALGINROSS) Tagea (Inchtuthil) – beyond Tay Voran (Cargill) – beyond Tay

Maporiton (Ladyward) „ALITACENON (BROOMHOLM) „?LOXA (NETHERBY) „LOCATREVE (GLENLOCHAR) Cambroianna (Newton Stewart) [Smetri (Gatehouse of Fleet) – fortlet only] Uxela (Rubers Law) [Lucotion (Oakwood)] „CORDA (CRAWFORD) „?CAMULOSESSA (DRUMLANRIG) [Presidium (Dalswinton)] Brigomono (Stranraer/Dunragit?) [Abisson (Glenluce) – camp only] [Ebio (Girvan) – camp only] „CORITIOTAR (BIRRENS) [Celovion (Kirkpatrick Fleming) – camp only] [Itucodon (Annan) – camp only] [Maromago (Ruthwell) – camp only] „DUABSISIS (Dumfries/CARZIELD) Venutio (Ward Law) „TRIMUNTIUM (NEWSTEAD) „EBURO CASLUM (CAPPUCK) „BREMENIUM (HIGH ROCHESTER) „COCCIMEDA (CHEW GREEN) „ALAUNA (LEARCHILD) Oleiclavis (Berwick) „EVIDENSCA (INVERESK) „RUMABO (CRAMOND) „VELUNIA (CARRIDEN) „VOLITANIO (KINNEIL/Bo’ness) – fortlet only „PEXA (MUMRILLS) „BEGESSE (FALKIRK) „COLANICA (CAMELON) KEY:

= Sites certainly, or almost certainly, showing early Antonine activity (military or civilian). Sites for which there is no confirmed dating evidence, because they are unlocated and/or postulated. [square brackets] = Flavian fort sites, or later sites (Trajanic or Hadrianic), for which there is no Antonine evidence. „ Fort sites in northern Britain which — according to Frere, Britannia (1991 repr.), 127, 130–1 (map 6) — (1) were occupied in the reign of Antoninus Pius, (2) were modified in this period, (3) were new constructions in this period, or (4) were replaced by fortlets on site, or nearby, in this period. † Fort sites which (according to Frere) were unoccupied at this time. For further explanation of the apparent contradictions (especially regarding the Hadrian’s Wall sites, see pp. 120–1, 125–6 above). BOLD AND SMALL CAPS STRIKETHROUGH =

REFERENCES (For all Ravenna place-name sites with certain or possible Antonine evidence, excluding those sites on Hadrian’s Wall or the Antonine Wall — specific detail on, and references to, the Antonine Wall sites appear in Chapter 2: see pp. 30–3 and Figure 2 above.) Abergavenny — mid-second-century occupation uncertain, but possible: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 24; finds c.AD 50–160: D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1964: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Jl Roman Studies, lv (1965), 199. Ramparts rebuilt in mid-second century; again in mid-third. Small amount of samian ware through to Antonine period; coarse wares mid-first to fourth century; few coins: only 1 Trajan, 1 Antoninus Pius. Blockley, Ashmore and Ashmore, ‘Excavations on the Roman fort at Abergavenny’, 171, 186.

152

Appendices Ambleside — ‘a case can be made for continuous occupation or for some activity in the early to mid Antonine period’: Potter, Romans in North-West England, 360. Ardoch — From excavation in late nineteenth century ‘already known to include remains of both Flavian and Antonine periods’: St Joseph, ‘Air reconnaissance of north Britain’, 62; summary in Breeze, ‘Roman forts at Ardoch’. Beckfoot — ‘Finds suggest that the fort remained in occupation throughout the Roman period’: Frere and St Joseph, Roman Britain from the Air, 72. Bertha — Flavian/Antonine material: Adamson and Gallagher, ‘Roman fort at Bertha’, 202. Bewcastle — possible, but after Hadrianic ‘Period I’, next occupation seems to be c.AD 163: Austen, Bewcastle and Old Penrith, 43, 45. Binchester — second-century buildings seem to indicate industrial activity: Ferris and Jones, ‘Excavations at Binchester’, 238. Birrens — probable early Antonine development (new fort): Robertson, Birrens, 280. Bothwellhaugh — new Antonine construction: J. M. Davidson, ‘Bothwellhaugh’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 187; probably built in the early years of Antoninus Pius: L. Keppie and J. MacKenzie, ‘Bothwellhaugh’, Current Archaeology, no. 52 (1976), 154; bathhouse and original fort structure ‘presumably erected . . . in or around AD 142’: L. J. F. Keppie, ‘Excavation of a Roman bathhouse at Bothwellhaugh, 1975–76’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, viii (1981), 68. Bowes — ‘six structural periods . . . earliest stone building Hadrianic’: D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1970’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, ii (1971), 251; new fort built nearby (midto late Antonine period) at Greta Bridge: P. J. Casey and B. Hoffmann, ‘Rescue excavations in the vicus of the fort at Greta Bridge, Co. Durham, 1972–4’, Britannia, xxix (1998), 129. Brecon Gaer — held in the Antonine period: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 24; hints that garrison reduced after c.140: ibid., 26. Broomholm — small fort, occupied under Antoninus: Frere, Britannia, 130–1 (map 6). Brough-on-Humber — seems to revert from fort to civilian status in Hadrianic/early Antonine period; inscription shows that ‘by AD 144, the vicus Petuariensis possessed junior magistrates of a class that are normally only found in towns of the rank of civitas capital or above’: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 398, citing RIB 707. Brough-on-Noe — second fort Antonine to fourth century; change of orientation and downsized: Jones, ‘Romans in the north-west’, 11; second phase believed to be AD 154/8, due to inscriptional evidence (RIB 283). Brough-under-Stainmore — vicus in existence by mid-second century. Likely that, if evacuated under Hadrian, was back in commission in later second century: Jones, ‘Archaeological work at Brough-under-Stainmore’, 44; some pieces of second-century Antonine pottery: Birley, ‘Roman fort at Brough-under-Stainmore’, 43. Caerau (Beulah) — possible continuation of occupation into Antonine period: Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 48. Caerhun — held after c.125: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 24. Stone fort Antonine(?): Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 59. Caerleon — still held large number of troops, but decreased for Antonine Wall activity: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 26. Caermote — smaller, later fort early Hadrianic or Antonine (AD 118–48): R. L. Bellhouse, ‘The Roman forts near Caermote’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lx (1960), 22. Caernarfon — garrison reduced after c.140; contraction of vicus: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 26; north-west gateway rebuilt before c.160, but other defences could be later; Antonine samian fragment: Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 62. Stone courtyard building early Antonine: Davies, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales . . . from Pius to Theodosius I’, 52. Caerphilly — occupation continued until mid-second century: Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 65. Caersws — second fort at Caersws has late Hadrianic/Antonine activity, but was already there; hint of garrison reduction after c.140: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 26; ‘building sequences within the fort suggest a military presence into at least the early third century’, though not much activity in vicus after about AD 130: J. Britnell, Caersws Vicus,

153

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Powys: Excavations at the Old Primary School, 1985–86 (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 205, Oxford, 1989), 4. Caerwent — earth rampart for town’s fortifications ‘erected not earlier than AD 130, probably late second century’; continuous occupation: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 384. Cappuck — remodelling in first Antonine period; similarly at Newstead: Richmond, ‘Exploratory trenching at the Roman fort at Cappuck’, 144; ‘Antonine period opened with an increase in width of the fort’: RCAHMS, An Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Roxburghshire, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1956), i, 145. Cardiff — mid-second-century occupation uncertain, but possible: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 24. Carlisle — continuous occupation, but ‘the point at which military-related activities seem to cease and other uses [in the fort annexe] emerged for the site is represented in the archaeological record by a hiatus datable from the 130s or 140s to the 160s’: McCarthy, Roman Carlisle, 73–4. Carzield — ‘buildings were one period only, securely dated by Antonine pottery . . . The pottery was wholly of Antonine character’: M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1939: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxx (1940), 162. Castell Collen — ‘slight but consistent evidence points to an Antonine date for Period II — the first stone fort’: see Alcock, ‘Defences and gates of Castell Collen’, 83; no hint of garrison reduction after c.140; extensive Antonine occupation in vicus: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 26. Castledykes — Antonine fort constructed c.142?: Robertson, ‘Castledykes’, 171; ‘one of the largest Antonine forts in S. W. Scotland’: Robertson, Roman Fort at Castledykes, 19. Castleford — ‘boomed under Hadrian . . . continued only into the early or mid-Antonine period’: Sumpter, ‘Vicus of the Roman fort at Castleford’, 85; major rebuilding in the vicus in the third phase, dated c.140–80: Cool, ‘Introduction’, in Cool and Philo (eds.), Roman Castleford, i, Small Finds, 3. Catterick — described as a ‘new military base’, c.130, established after the demise of the first fort, c.120: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 111; Antonine fort defences discovered: S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1990: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxii (1991), 238–40. Chester — continuous occupation in civilian settlement, though fortress largely abandoned by legionaries: Mason, Roman Chester, 155, 159. Chester-le-Street — first fort thought to be mid to late second century, but see p. 123 above. Chesterholm — operational in the 140s: see p. 126 above. Chew Green — Antonine fortlet, confirmed by the ceramic evidence. Layout of the triple ditches similar to Lyne: Richmond and Keeney, ‘Roman works at Chew Green’, 141–3, 148. Cirencester — continuous occupation; town building: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 310. Corbridge — virtually continuous occupation; ‘occupation of fort IVa quite certainly began in AD 139 to 140’: J. Gillam, ‘The Roman forts at Corbridge’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., v (1977), 72; reiterated in Bishop and Dore, Corbridge, 140; epigraphical evidence with the name of Lollius Urbicus: RIB 1147 and 1148. Cramond — No evidence of any military activity on the site before the Antonine period: Holmes, Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, ed. Collard and Lawson, 165; ‘bulk of [the pottery] belongs to the Antonine occupations’: ibid., 41; ‘There can be little doubt that the concentration of coins [from the reigns of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian] marks the beginning of a major phase of Roman occupation, and the condition of those coins for which it can be established associates them with the early Antonine period’: ibid., 97. Crawford — early Antonine fort faced east: RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 132. Dalginross — ‘analysis of samian and coarse pottery . . . revealed occupation of this “glen-blocking” fort in the Antonine as well as the Flavian period’: Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1999’ (Scotland), 381. Droitwich — second-century military occupation, c.AD 120–50: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 214. Drumlanrig — Antonine occupation suggested: Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 22; recently produced pottery which shows an Antonine occupation: F. Hunter, ‘Roman Britain in 2004: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 402.

154

Appendices Forden Gaer — hint of garrison reduction after c.140: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 26. Gelligaer — Held into Antonine era: Arnold and Davies, Roman and Early Medieval Wales, 24; stone fort Antonine: Nash-Williams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 88. Glenlochar — two Antonine occupations mentioned (upper levels contain Antonine pottery): Richmond and St Joseph, ‘Roman fort at Glenlochar’, 12. Gloucester — continuous occupation; Antonine evidence: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 156–7; colonia wall constructed before AD 150: H. R. Hurst, Gloucester: The Roman and Later Defences. Excavations on the E. Defences and a Reassessment of the Defensive Sequence (Gloucester, 1986), 118, 120. Greensforge — occupation in civilian settlement suggested into fourth century: Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1973’ (England: Midlands), 426. High Rochester — early Antonine building, as early as AD 139; inscription (Lollius Urbicus): RIB 1276; Richmond, ‘Excavations at High Rochester and Risingham’, 171. Horncastle — settlement finds first to fourth century: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 240. Inveresk — firmly established as Antonine; further evidence of an early Antonine phase of military defences: L. J. F. Keppie, ‘Roman Britain in 1998: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxx (1999), 332. Kenchester — Antonine redevelopment: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 73. Kirkby Thore — late Flavian (timber fort), destroyed c.120 and rebuilt in stone: evidence from Hadrianic/early Antonine period: P. Gibbons, ‘Excavations and observations at Kirkby Thore’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxxix (1989), 100, 108. Ladyward — undated; ‘probably’ Antonine: RCAHMS, Eastern Dumfriesshire, 172. Lancaster — coin evidence indicates a ‘loss of garrison (in part or whole) during the period of the Antonine re-occupation of Scotland (c.AD 140–165)’, but not an abandonment: Shotter ‘Roman Lancaster’, 11; Potter, Romans in North-West England, 360. Lanchester — possibly Hadrianic; cf. Casey, Noel and Wright, ‘Roman fort at Lanchester’, 71, who date it to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, 161–80. See p. 123 above. Learchild — larger of the two forts is of second-century date: Taylor,‘Roman Britain in 1956’ (Hadrian’s Wall [sic]), 206. Leicester — continuous occupation; forum c.120–30; large bath building by mid-second century: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 345; may have become a civitas capital in the early second century; some timber buildings rebuilt in stone in second half of second century: Connor, Roman and Medieval Occupation in Causeway Lane, Leicester, 6, 53. Leintwardine — development of new fort, c.160, though civilian settlement on site earlier: NashWilliams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 95; Stanford, ‘Roman forts at Leintwardine and Buckton’, 280; occupation, from coin and pottery evidence, late first to third century: D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1971: I. Sites explored’ (England: Midlands), Britannia, iii (1972), 317. Lincoln — continuous occupation; work on new stone precinct in early second century; extensions to baths, mid to late second century: Jones, Roman Lincoln, 68, 71. Little Chester — ‘Hadrianic evacuation’; new Antonine fort: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 222. Flavian pottery, but mainly Antonine: ‘the years AD 100–180 formed an important epoch in the history of the site’: Haverfield, Vict. County Hist. Derbs., 1905, quoted in M. V. Taylor and D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1960: I. Sites explored’ (England: The North), Jl Roman Studies, li (1961), 167. Llandovery — reduced in size (Hadrianic period?); probably no occupation later than c.160: NashWilliams, Roman Frontier in Wales, ed. Jarrett, 96. Loudoun Hill — Flavian site reoccupied in Antonine period: Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1946’ (Scotland), 165; Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1948’ (Scotland), 98. Loughor — size reduced AD 130 or just after; Antonine finds: S. S. Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1988: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xx (1989), 263; difficult chronology: see Marvell and Owen-John, Leucarum, 212–16. Low Borrow Bridge — Hadrianic/Antonine pottery; ‘more or less continuous occupation of the site . . . from the time of the earliest Roman penetration . . . until the closing years of the fourth

155

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors century’: E. J. W. Hildyard and J. P. Gillam, ‘Renewed excavation at Low Borrow Bridge’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., li (1951), 65. Lyne — probably built c.AD 158, to replace Easter Happrew: K. A. Steer, ‘The excavations at Lyne, Peeblesshire, 1959–63’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xcv (1961–2), 217. Malton — occupation from first to fourth centuries; ‘Hadrianic and Antonine material . . . relatively more common [in the vicus] than in the fort itself, which at this period was lightly garrisoned’: M. V. Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1950: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Area), Jl Roman Studies, xli (1951), 125. Manchester — rebuilt in stone, as at Melandra: Jones, ‘Romans in the north-west’, 7, and n. 22; ‘principal industrial phase . . . shown to be largely Antonine in date with an effective end to large-scale occupation by the late second century’: Jones, Roman Manchester, 6. Maryport — ‘a case can be made for continuous occupation or for some activity in the early to mid Antonine period’: Potter, Romans in North-West England, 360; military unit attested under Antoninus Pius: Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 262, 270; Wilson, ‘Maryport from the first to the fourth centuries’, 25. Melandra — rebuilt in stone, Trajanic-Hadrianic period (unlikely to have been abandoned soon after): Jones, ‘Romans in the north-west’, 7, and n. 22; occupied under Antoninus Pius and beyond the middle of the second century: Williamson, ‘Probable date of the Roman occupation of Melandra’, 122, 128. Middlewich — industrial activity in Antonine period: Strickland, Roman Middlewich, 35; pottery date range is AD 80–170: Thompson, Roman Cheshire, 94. Milton — Flavian fort replaced by Antonine fortlet: Taylor, ‘Roman Britain in 1948’ (Scotland), 98; Keppie, Legacy of Rome, 88. Moresby — fort complete post-AD 128: RIB 801; Potter, Romans in North-West England, 29. Netherby — epigraphical evidence of stone building under Hadrian: RIB 974. Newstead — first Antonine occupation datable to c.AD 140: Richmond, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Newstead’, 36; or slightly earlier: Clarke, ‘Trimontium’ (Phase 4). Northwich — second fort discovered; ‘fort had been reduced in size’; perhaps ‘built during one of the periods in the second century when Scotland was abandoned’: Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1983’ (England: Northern Counties), 288. Old Carlisle — certainly Hadrianic, if not earlier; Birley quotes Stukely: ‘a silver Antoninus Pius found here; reverse, rector orbis’: E. Birley, ‘The Roman fort and settlement at Old Carlisle’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., li (1951), 20. Papcastle — possible break in occupation soon after 120 until 160, but pottery evidence ‘from Flavian times until the closing years of the fourth century’: Birley, ‘Roman Papcastle’, 121. Ravenglass — ‘a case can be made for continuous occupation or for some activity in the early to mid Antonine period’: Potter, Romans in North-West England, 360; military unit attested, AD 158: Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, 262, 270. Ribchester — ‘a case can be made for continuous occupation or for some activity in the early to mid Antonine period’: Potter, Romans in North-West England, 360; conversion from turf and timber to stone probably Hadrianic, though could be mid-Antonine: Edwards, Romans at Ribchester, 50; possible shrine c.130–40 may be evidence of ‘increased wealth and prosperity within the settlement’: Buxton and Howard-Davis, Bremetenacum, 408. Rocester — artefactual evidence suggested military occupation from first century to the late second century: Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1987’ (England: Midlands), 448. Slack — certainly Hadrianic activity: legio VI tile stamps: R. P. Wright, ‘Tile-stamps of the sixth legion found in Britain’, Britannia, vii (1976), 231; large amount of pottery ranges from AD 80–140: Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1969’ (England: Northern Counties), 281; ‘report indicates the continued presence of a garrison for many years after AD 122, indeed as late as the reign of Antoninus Pius’: Hunter, Manby and Spaul, ‘Recent excavations at the Slack Roman fort’, 88. Strageath — Antonine phase(s), as well as Flavian, confirmed; full details of excavations and finds: Frere and Wilkes, Strageath. Tadcaster — pottery from second to fourth century: Frere, ‘Roman Britain in 1985’ (England: Northern Counties), 384. Towcester — some second-century building: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 155.

156

Appendices Wall — Hadrianic bath-house construction; town must have continued to flourish: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 276. Ward Law — site may not actually have been occupied, but Antonine fortlet at Lantonside built close by: Maxwell and Wilson, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, 23. Watercrook — rampart raised late Hadrianic/early Antonine period: Potter, Romans in North-West England, 152–3. Weston-under-Penyard — pottery of second to fourth century; continuous occupation: D. R. Wilson, ‘Roman Britain in 1963: I. Sites explored’ (England: Midlands), Jl Roman Studies, liv (1964), 165. Whitchurch — fort dismantled c.105, demilitarised: Jones, ‘Romans in the north-west’, 17; then ‘gradual development of the site as a civil settlement. Timber buildings (several of industrial character) occupied much of the site by the mid-second century’; substantial stone buildings, late second and third centuries = height of town’s prosperity: G. D. B. Jones and P. V. Webster, ‘Mediolanum: excavations at Whitchurch, 1965–6’, Archaeol. Jl, cxxv (1968), 197, 203–5. Whitley Castle — no dating evidence for the earliest building, but it was destroyed in AD 197: N. Shaw, ‘Excavation at Whitley Castle, Northumberland, 1957 and 1958’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., xxxvii (1959), 195. From this excavational evidence, Frere and St Joseph, Roman Britain from the Air, 120, suggest a mid-second-century date for its foundation. Worcester — second-century housing: Burnham and Wacher, ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain, 234. Wroxeter — continuous occupation; town building: Wacher, Towns of Roman Britain, 345. York — continuous occupation; work on the stone defences undertaken in early second century (perhaps under Trajan); also in the second or third quarter of second century: Ottaway, Roman York, 67–8.

157

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources (classical and medieval texts; inscriptions)

——, Roman Inscriptions of Britain (RIB), ii, Instrumentum Domesticum, fasc. 3, ed. S. S. Frere and R. S. O. Tomlin (Stroud, 1991) [for RIB 2421–2441].

Ammianus Marcellinus, History, bks XXVII–XXXI and Excerpta Valesiana, trans. J. C. Rolfe (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1972).

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL). Dessau, H., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS), 3 vols. in 5 (Berlin, 1962 edn).

——, Roman History, trans. W. Hamilton (Harmondsworth, 1986).

Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, in Cornelius Nepos, Liber de excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium cum vitis Catonis et Attici ex libro de historicis Latinis et aliis excerptis, ed. R. Dietsch (Leipzig, 1856).

Aneirin, Y Gododdin, ed. A. O. H. Jarman (Llandysul, 1988). Appian, Roman Wars, i, trans. H. White (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1958), ‘Preface’, 3–25.

Frontinus, Julius, ‘The Strategems’ and ‘The Aqueducts of Rome’, ed. M. B. McElwain, trans. C. E. Bennett (1925; repr. London, 1961).

Aurelius, Marcus, Meditations, trans. and intro. Maxwell Staniforth (Harmondsworth, 1964). Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, trans. L. Sherley-Price, revised R. E. Latham (Harmondsworth, 1990).

Holder, P. A., Roman Military Diplomas V (London, 2006). Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G. A. Williamson, revised E. M. Smallwood (Harmondsworth, 1981).

Bowman, A. K., and Thomas, J. D., The Vindolanda Writing-Tablets (Tabulae Vindolandenses II) (London, 1994).

Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires, revised edn, ed. and trans. P. Green (Harmondsworth, 1984).

——, The Vindolanda Writing-Tablets (Tabulae Vindolandenses III) (London, 2003).

Juvenal and Persius, ed. and trans. S. Morton Braund (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2004).

Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul, trans. S. A. Handford (Harmondsworth, 1951).

Lemprière, J., Classical Dictionary, 7th edn (London, 1809).

——, The Gallic War, trans. H. J. Edwards (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1966).

Literary Sources for Roman Britain, ed. J. C. Mann and R. G. Penman (London, 1977).

Cassius Dio, Roman History, bks LXXI–LXXX, trans. E. Cary (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1969). ——, Roman History, bks LXI–LXX, trans. E. Cary (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1995).

Lives of the Later Caesars: The First Part of the ‘Augustan History’, with Newly Compiled ‘Lives’ of Nerva and Trajan, trans. and intro. A. Birley (Harmondsworth, 1976).

Collingwood, R. G., and Wright, R. P., Roman Inscriptions of Britain (RIB), i, Inscriptions on Stone (Oxford, 1965) [for RIB 1–2399].

Martial, Epigrams, i, ed. and trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1993), De Spectabilis, 12–39.

——, Roman Inscriptions of Britain (RIB), ii, Instrumentum Domesticum, fasc. 1, ed. S. S. Frere, M. Roxan and R. S. O. Tomlin (Gloucester, 1990) [for RIB 2401–2411].

McCrum, M., and Woodhead, A. G., Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors: Including the Year of Revolution, AD 68–96 (Cambridge, 1961). Murison, C. L., Rebellion and Reconstruction: Galba to Domitian. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s

181

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ‘Roman History’, ix, Books 64–67 (AD 68–96) (Amer. Philological Assoc., Atlanta, 1999).

——, The Agricola and the Germania, ed. and trans. H. Mattingly (1948), revised S. A. Handford (Harmondsworth, 1970).

Panegyric of Constantine (AD 310), in Literary Sources for Roman Britain, ed. Mann and Penman, 38.

——, The Annals of Imperial Rome, revised edn, trans. and intro. M. Grant (Harmondsworth, 1989).

Pausanias, Description of Greece, bks VIII(XXII)–X, trans. W. H. S. Jones (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1961).

——, Agricola, Germany, Dialogue on Orators, ed. and trans. H. W. Benario (1967; repr. Norman, 1991).

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, bks III–VII, trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1942).

——, The Histories, trans. K. Wellesley (1964; Harmondsworth, 1995).

Ptolemy, Claudius, The Geography, ed. and trans. E. L. Stevenson (1932; repr. New York, 1991).

——, Agricola and Germany, ed. and trans. A. R. Birley (Oxford, 1999).

Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia et guidonis geographica, ed. J. Schnetz (1940; Stuttgart, 1990). Primary Sources (general archaeological reports)

Scotichronicon by Walter Bower in Latin and English, ed. D. E. R. Watt et al., 9 vols. (Aberdeen and Edinburgh, 1987–98), i.

Burnham, B. C., ‘Roman Britain in 1994: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xxvi (1995), 326–31.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae (SHA), trans. D. Magie (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1960).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1999: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxxi (2000), 393–401.

Silius Italicus, Punica, i, trans. J. D. Duff (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1961).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2000: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall), Britannia, xxxii (2001), 322–6; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 336–50.

Statius, Silvae, ed. and trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 2003). Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, bks V–VIII, trans. J. C. Rolfe (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1959).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2001: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall), Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 290–8; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 298–307.

——, Lives of the Caesars, bks I–IV, trans. J. C. Rolfe (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1964).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2002: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxxiv (2003), 312–22.

——, The Twelve Caesars, trans. R. Graves, revised and intro. M. Grant (Harmondsworth, 1989 edn).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xxxv (2004), 254–65.

Tacitus, The Annals, bks XIII–XVI, trans. J. Jackson (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1962).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2004: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 408–24.

——, The Histories, bks I–III, trans. (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1962).

Collingwood, R. G., and Taylor, M. V., ‘Roman Britain in 1930: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxi (1931), 199–200.

J. Jackson

——, Dialogus; Agricola; Germania, ed. T. E. Page et al. (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1963).

Esmonde-Cleary, A. S., ‘Roman Britain in 1995: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), Britannia, xxvii (1996), 405–14.

——, De Vita Agricolae, ed. R. M. Ogilvie and I. A. Richmond (Oxford, 1967).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1997: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), Britannia, xxix (1998), 381–93.

——, The Histories, bks IV–V, trans. C. H. Moore, and The Annals, bks I–III, trans. J. Jackson (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1969).

182

Bibliography ——, ‘Roman Britain in 1998: I. Sites explored’ (England: Hadrian’s Wall, Northern Counties), Britannia, xxx (1999), 333–43.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2004: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 393–402. Keppie, L. J. F., ‘Roman Britain in 1992: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxiv (1993), 277–84.

Fitzpatrick, A. P., ‘Roman Britain in 2001: I. Sites explored’ (England: South-Western Counties), Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 341–7.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1995: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxvii (1996), 396–405.

Frere, S. S., ‘Roman Britain in 1976: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, viii (1977), 356–60.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1998: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxx (1999), 326–32.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1983: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xv (1984), 273–6; ibid. (Hadrian’s Wall), 277–80; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 280–90.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1999: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxi (2000), 379–84. Maxwell, G. S., and Wilson, D. R., ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1977–84’, Britannia, xviii (1987), 1–48.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1985: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xvii (1986), 370–4; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 384–90.

Ordnance Survey, Historical Map and Guide: Ancient Britain (Southampton, 1996).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1986: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xviii (1987), 302–9; ibid. (Scotland), 309– 15; ibid. (England: Midlands), 322–30.

——, Historical Map and Guide: Roman Britain, 5th edn (Southampton, 2001).

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1987: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xix (1988), 425–31; ibid. (England: Midlands), 447–56.

Rankov, N. B., ‘Roman Britain in 1981: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xiii (1982), 335–40. Richmond, I. A., and Taylor, M. V., ‘Roman Britain in 1957: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Jl Roman Studies, xlviii (1958), 130–2.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1988: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xx (1989), 258–69. ——, ‘Roman Britain in 1989: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxi (1990), 310–14; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 318–32.

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), An Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Roxburghshire, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1956), i.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1990: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, xxii (1991), 235–45.

——, Stirlingshire: An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1963), i.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1991: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xxiii (1992), 256–9; ibid. (Scotland), 259– 67.

——, Eastern Dumfriesshire: An Archaeological Landscape (Edinburgh, 1997).

Goodburn, R., ‘Roman Britain in 1977: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, ix (1978), 410–19; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 424–34.

St Joseph, J. K. [S.], ‘Air reconnaissance of north Britain’, Jl Roman Studies, xli (1951), 52–65.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1978: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, x (1979), 268–74.

——, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1955–7’, Jl Roman Studies, xlviii (1958), 86–101.

Grew, F. O., ‘Roman Britain in 1979: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, xi (1980), 346–51.

——, ‘Aerial reconnaissance in Wales’, Antiquity, xxxv (1961), 263–75.

Hunter, F., ‘Roman Britain in 2001: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 284–90.

——, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1961–64’, Jl Roman Studies, lv (1965), 74–89.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Britannia, xxxv (2004), 265–71.

——, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1965–68’, Jl Roman Studies, lix (1969), 104–28.

183

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ——, ‘Air reconnaissance in Britain, 1969–72’, Jl Roman Studies, lxiii (1973), 214–46.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2004: III. Inscriptions’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 473–97.

——, ‘Aerial reconnaissance of Roman Scotland, 1939– 75’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, iv (1976), 1–28.

Wilson, D. R., ‘Roman Britain in 1963: I. Sites explored’ (England: Midlands), Jl Roman Studies, liv (1964), 159–66.

——, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1973–76’, Jl Roman Studies, lxvii (1977), 125–61.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1964: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Jl Roman Studies, lv (1965), 199.

Taylor, M. V., ‘Roman Britain in 1939: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxx (1940), 157–62.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1966: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, lvii (1967), 175–7.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1946: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxxvii (1947), 165–7; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 167–71.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1969: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, i (1970), 277–84.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1947: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxxviii (1948), 81–3.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1970: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Britannia, ii (1971), 251–8.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1948: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xxxix (1949), 97–9.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1971: I. Sites explored’ (England: Midlands), Britannia, iii (1972), 316–30.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1950: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Area), Jl Roman Studies, xli (1951), 124–7.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1972: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, iv (1973), 271–2; ibid. (Scotland), 273–5; ibid. (England: Northern Counties), 277–86.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1951: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Area), Jl Roman Studies, xlii (1952), 89–96.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1973: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Britannia, v (1974), 397–402; ibid. (England: Midlands), 426–38.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1952: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xliii (1953), 104–10.

Wright, R. P., ‘Roman Britain in 1964: II. Inscriptions’, Jl Roman Studies, lv (1965), 220–8.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1953: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xliv (1954), 84–7.

Secondary Sources including specific site archaeological reports)

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1956: I. Sites explored’ (Scotland), Jl Roman Studies, xlvii (1957), 198–202; ibid. (Hadrian’s Wall), 202–7.

[Anon.], Thornborough prehistoric henge site: .

——, ‘Roman Britain in 1959: I. Sites explored’ (Wales), Jl Roman Studies, l (1960), 210–13; ibid. (Scotland), 213–14.

[——], ‘Largest Neolithic site found in central Wales’, British Archaeology, no. 14 (May 1996), 4.

——, and Collingwood, R. G., ‘Roman Britain in 1923: I. Sites explored’ (England: Northern Counties), Jl Roman Studies, xii (1922), 244–9.

[——], ‘The dead make way for Iron Age warrior’, British Archaeology, no. 87 (Mar./Apr. 2006). Abramson, P., ‘The search for Roman Castleford’, Current Archaeology, no. 109 (1988), 43–8.

——, and Wilson, D. R., ‘Roman Britain in 1960: I. Sites explored’ (England: The North), Jl Roman Studies, li (1961), 164–71.

Adamson, H. C., and Gallagher, D. B., ‘The Roman fort at Bertha: the 1973 excavation’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxvi (1986), 195–204.

Tomlin, R. S. O., and Hassall, M. W. C., ‘Roman Britain in 2000: II. Inscriptions’, Britannia, xxxii (2001), 387– 400.

Alcock, L., ‘The defences and gates of Castell Collen auxiliary fort’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, cxiii (1964), 64–96.

——, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: III. Inscriptions’, Britannia, xxxv (2004), 335–49.

184

Bibliography Allason-Jones, L., ‘Roman and native interaction in Northumberland’, in Maxfield and Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, 1–5.

——, ‘The Trajanic fort at Kirkbride: the terminus of the Stanegate frontier’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxxii (1982), 38–50.

Allen, D. [F.], ‘A study of the Dobunnic coinage’, in E. M. Clifford (ed.), Bagendon: A Belgic Oppidum (Cambridge, 1961), 75–149 (+ Allen’s maps at the end of the previous article by C. F. C. Hawkes, 68–74).

Bewley, R. H., Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain, Cumbria (Oxford, 1994). Bidwell, P., et al., ‘Survey and Excavations on Hadrian’s Wall, 1989–1999’, in P. Bidwell (ed.), Hadrian’s Wall, 1989–1999 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1999).

——, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles: The Coins of the Coritani (London, 1963). Anderson, W. A., ‘The Roman fort at Bochastle, Callander’, Trans. Glasgow Archaeol. Soc., xiv (1956), 35–63.

Biller, P., ‘Goodbye to Waldensianism?’, Past and Present, no. 192 (Aug. 2006), 3–33. Birley, A. R., ‘VI Victrix in Britain’, in Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, 81–96.

Arnold, C. J., and Davies, J. L., Roman and Early Medieval Wales (Stroud, 2000).

——, ‘Petillius Cerialis and the conquest of Brigantia’, Britannia, iv (1973), 179–90.

Atkinson, S., The Discoverie and Historie of the Gold Mynes in Scotland (1619; Bannatyne Club, xiv, Edinburgh, 1825).

——, ‘Agricola, the Flavian dynasty, and Tacitus’, in B. Levick (ed.), The Ancient Historian and his Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on his Seventieth Birthday (Farnborough, 1975), 139–54.

Austen, P. S., Bewcastle and Old Penrith: A Roman Outpost Fort and a Frontier Vicus, Excavations, 1977–8 (Kendal, 1991).

——, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor, revised edn (London, 1988).

Bailey, G. B., ‘Excavations on the Roman temporary camps at the Three Bridges, Camelon, Falkirk’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxx (2000), 469–89.

——, ‘Hadrian to the Antonines’, in Bowman, Garnsey and Rathbone (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, xi, 132–213.

——, and Cannel, J., ‘Excavations at Kinneil fortlet on the Antonine Wall, 1980–1’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxvi (1996), 303–46.

——, ‘The life and death of Cornelius Tacitus’, Historia, xlix (2000), 230–47.

Barrow, G. W. S., Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland (London, 1965).

——, ‘The Anavionenses’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 15–24.

——, ‘The tribes of North Britain revisited’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxix (1989), 161–3.

——, Garrison Life at Vindolanda: A Band of Brothers (Stroud, 2002).

——, Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992).

——, The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford, 2005). ——, ‘Two types of administration attested by the Vindolanda Tablets’, in R. Haensch and J. Heinrichs (eds.), Herrschen und Verwalten: Der Alltag der römischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Akten eines Internationalen Kolloquiums an der Universität zu Köln, 28.–30. Januar 2005 (Weimar, 2007), 316–35.

Bateson, J. D., and N. M. McQ. Holmes, ‘Roman and medieval coins found in Scotland, 1996–2000’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxiii (2003), 245–76. Bellhouse, R. L., ‘The Roman forts near Caermote’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lx (1960), 20–3.

Birley, E., ‘The Roman fort and settlement at Old Carlisle’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., li (1951), 16–39.

——, and G. G. S. Richardson, ‘The Roman site at Kirkbride, Cumberland’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxv (1975), 58–90.

185

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ——, ‘The Roman fort at Netherby’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., liii (1953), 6–39.

Blockley, K., Ashmore, F., and Ashmore, P. J., ‘Excavations on the Roman fort at Abergavenny, Orchard Site, 1972–73, Archaeol. Jl, cl (1993), 169–242.

——, ‘The Roman milestone at Middleton in Lonsdale’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., liii (1953), 52–62.

Bowman, A. K., Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and its People, 3rd edn (London, 2003).

——, ‘Senators in the emperors’ service’, Proc. Brit. Acad., xxxix (1953), 197–214.

——, Garnsey, P., and Rathbone, D. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, xi, The High Empire, AD 70–192, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 2000).

——, Roman Britain and the Roman Army: Collected Papers (1953; repr. Kendal, 1976).

Branigan, K. (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes: The Impact of Rome on Northern England (Sheffield, 1980).

——, ‘Britain under Nero: the significance of Q. Veranius’, in Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army, 1–9 [originally published in Durham Univ. Jl (June 1952), 88–92].

Breeze, A., ‘Brittonic place-names from south-west Scotland, Part 2: Ptolemy’s Abravannus, “Locatrebe”, Cumnock, Irvine and Water of Milk’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxv (2001), 151–8.

——, ‘Britain under the Flavians: Agricola and his predecessors’, in Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army, 10–19 [originally published in Durham Univ. Jl (June 1946), 79–84].

——, ‘Philology on Tacitus’s Graupian hill and Trucculan harbour’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxii (2002), 305– 11. ——, ‘Three Celtic toponyms: Setantii, Blencathra, and Pen-y-Ghent’, Northern Hist., xliii (2006), 161–5.

——, ‘The Brigantian problem, and the first Roman contact with Scotland’, in Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army, 31–47 [originally published in Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxix (1950–1), 46–65].

Breeze, D. J., ‘Excavations at Ardoch 1970’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cii (1969–70), 122–8. ——, ‘The Roman fortlet at Barburgh Mill’, Britannia, v (1974), 130–62.

——, ‘The Roman fort at Brough-under-Stainmore’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lviii (1958), 31–56.

——, The Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain (London, 1982).

——, ‘Roman Papcastle’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxiii (1963), 96–125.

——, ‘The Roman forts at Ardoch’, in A. O’Connor and D. V. Clarke (eds.), From the Stone Age to the ’Forty-Five: Studies Presented to R. B. K. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1983), 224–36.

——, Dobson, B., and Jarrett, M. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969: Eighth International Congress of Limesforschung (Cardiff, 1974).

——, ‘Why did the Romans fail to conquer Scotland?’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxviii (1988), 3–22.

Birley, R., Vindolanda Research Reports, New Series, i, The Early Wooden Forts (Hexham, 1994).

——, ‘Agricola in the Highlands?’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxx (1990), 55–60.

Bishop, M. C., ‘Excavations in the Roman fort at Chesterle-Street (Concangis), Church Clare, 1990–91’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xxi (1993), 29–85.

——, Roman Scotland: Frontier Country (London, 1996). ——, The Antonine Wall (Edinburgh, 2006).

——, ‘A new Flavian military site at Roecliffe, North Yorkshire’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 135–223.

——, J. Collingwood Bruce’s Handbook to the Roman Wall, 14th edn (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2006).

——, and Dore, J. N., Corbridge: Excavations of the Roman Fort and Town, 1947–80 (London, 1989).

——, and Dobson, B., Hadrian’s Wall, 4th edn (Harmondsworth, 2000).

Blagg, T. F. C., ‘Two decorative relief carvings at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire’, Antiq. Jl, lxiii (1983), 355–9.

186

Bibliography Brewer, R. J. (ed.), Roman Fortresses and their Legions (London, 2000).

Campbell, D. B., ‘The consulship of Agricola’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, liii (1986), 197–200.

Britnell, J., Caersws Vicus, Powys: Excavations at the Old Primary School, 1985–86 (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 205, Oxford, 1989).

——, ‘The Roman siege of Burnswark’, Britannia, xxxiv (2003), 19–33. Carrington, P., ‘The Roman advance into the north-western midlands before AD 71’, Jl Chester Archaeol. Soc., lxviii (1985), 5–22.

Broun, D., ‘The seven kingdoms in De situ Albanie: a record of Pictish political geography or imaginary map of ancient Alba?’, in E. J. Cowan and R. A. McDonald, Alba: Celtic Scotland in the Medieval Era (East Linton, 2000), 24–42.

——, Chester (London, 1994). —— (ed.), Deva Victrix: Roman Chester Re-assessed (Chester, 2002).

Burgess, C., ‘Meldon Bridge: a Neolithic defended promontory complex near Peebles’, in C. Burgess and R. Miket (eds.), Settlement and Economy in the Third and Second Millennia BC (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 33, Oxford, 1976), 151–79.

Carroll, M., Romans, Celts and Germans: The German Provinces of Rome (Stroud, 2001). Caruana, I. D., ‘Carlisle: excavation of a section of the annexe ditch of the first Flavian fort, 1990’, Britannia, xxiii (1992), 45–109.

——, ‘The Bronze Age in Wales’, in J. A. Taylor (ed.), Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Wales (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 76, Oxford, 1980), 243– 86.

——, ‘Maryport and the Flavian conquest of North Britain’, in Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport, 40–51.

Burn, A. R., ‘In search of a battlefield: Agricola’s last battle’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxvii (1952–3), 127–33.

Casey, [P.] J., ‘The interpretation of Romano-British site finds’, in J. Casey and R. Reece (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist, 2nd edn (London, 1988), 39–56.

——, Agricola and Roman Britain (London, 1953). ——, and Davies, J. L., with Evans, J., Excavations at Segontium (Caernarfon) Roman Fort, 1975–1979 (Council Brit. Archaeol. Research Reports, 90, London, 1993).

——, ‘Tacitus on Britain’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Tacitus (London, 1969), 35–61. Burnham, B. C., and Davies, J. L. (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Recent Work in Roman Wales (Trivium, 25, Lampeter, 1990).

——, and Hoffmann, B., ‘Rescue excavations in the vicus of the fort at Greta Bridge, Co. Durham, 1972–4’, Britannia, xxix (1998), 111–83.

Burnham, B. C., and Wacher, J., The ‘Small Towns’ of Roman Britain (London, 1990).

——, Noel, M., and Wright, J., ‘The Roman fort at Lanchester, Co. Durham: a geophysical survey and discussion of garrisons’, Archaeol. Jl, cxlix (1992), 69–81.

Bushe-Fox, J. P., ‘The use of samian pottery in dating the early Roman occupation of the north of Britain’, Archaeologia, xiv (1913), 299–301 (Carlisle section).

Castleden, R., Neolithic Britain: New Stone Age Sites of England, Scotland and Wales (London, 1992).

——, Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (Oxford, 1949).

Charles-Edwards, T. M., ‘Native political organization in Roman Britain and the origin of MW brenhin’, in M. Mayrhofer et al. (eds.), Antiquitates Indogermanicae: Studien zur Indogermanischen Altertumskunde und zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der indogermanischen Völker. Gedenkschrift für Hermann Güntert zur 25. Wiederkehr seines Todestages am 23 April 1973 (Innsbruck, 1974), 35–45.

Butler, R. M. (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (Leicester, 1971). Buxton, K., and Howard-Davis, C., Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989–1990 (Lancaster, 2000). Cameron, K., English Place-Names (London, 1996).

Charlesworth, D., ‘The defences of Isurium Brigantum’, in Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, 155–64.

187

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Christison, D., Buchanan, M., and Anderson, J., ‘Excavation of Castlecary fort on the Antonine Vallum’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xxxvii (1902–3), 271–346.

Creighton, J. D., and Wilson, R. J. A. (eds.), Roman Germany: Studies in Cultural Interaction (Jl Roman Archaeol., suppl. ser., xxxii, Portsmouth, RI, 1999).

Christison, D., Cunningham, J. H., and Anderson, J., ‘Account of the excavation of the Roman station at Ardoch, Perthshire, undertaken by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1896–97’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xxxii (1897–8), 399–476.

Crone, A., ‘The Clochmabanestane, Gretna’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lviii (1983), 16–19. Cunliffe, B. [W.], Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest, 4th edn (London, 2005); 3rd edn (London, 1991).

Clarke, J., The Roman Fort at Cadder (near Glasgow) (Glasgow, 1933).

——, Iron Age Britain (London, 1995).

——, ‘Excavations at Milton (Tassiesholm) in Season 1950’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxviii (1949–50), 199–221.

—— (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (Oxford, 1968).

——, ‘Durisdeer’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-West Scotland, 124–6.

Curle, J., A Roman Frontier Post and its People: The Fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose (Glasgow, 1911).

Clarke, K., ‘An island nation: re-reading Tacitus’ Agricola’, Jl Roman Studies, xci (2001), 94–112.

——, ‘Roman and native remains in Caledonia’, Jl Roman Studies, iii (1913), 99–115.

Clarke, S., ‘Trimontium: A Roman frontier post and its phases: excerpt from forthcoming report, Aug. 1996’: .

——, ‘Roman drift in Caledonia’, Jl Roman Studies, xxii (1932), 73–7. Dalwood, H., and Edwards, R., Excavations at Deansway, Worcester, 1988–89: Romano-British Small Town to Late Medieval City (Council Brit. Archaeol. Research Reports, 139, York, 2004).

Collingwood, R. G., and Myres, J. N. L., Roman Britain and the English Settlements, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1937). Connor, A., Roman and Medieval Occupation in Causeway Lane, Leicester: Excavations 1980 and 1991 (Leicester, 1999). Conole, P., and Jones, B. W., ‘Sallustius Latomus, xlii (1983), 629–33.

Daniels, C., ‘Review of W. S. Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xvi (1988), 259–61.

Lucullus’,

Davidson, J. M., ‘Bothwellhaugh’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 172– 87.

Conquest, R., ‘A note on the “civitas” and “polis” names of Scotland: an alternative approach’, Britannia, xxxi (2000), 347–50. Cook, M., and Dunbar, L., ‘Kintore’, Archaeology, no. 194 (2004), 84–9.

Davies, J. L., ‘Roman and native in Wales: I–IV AD’, in Birley, Dobson and Jarrett (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969, 34–43.

Current

——, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales and the Marches from Claudius to the Antonines’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, 255–77.

Cool, H. E. M., and Philo, C. (eds.), Roman Castleford: Excavations, 1974–85, i, The Small Finds (Wakefield, 1998). Cowley, D. C., ‘Site morphology and regional variation in the later prehistoric settlement of south-west Scotland’, in Harding and Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts, 167–76.

——, ‘Roman military deployment in Wales and the Marches from Pius to Theodosius I’, in Maxfield and Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, 52–7.

Crawford, O. G. S., Topography of Roman Scotland: North of the Antonine Wall (Cambridge, 1949).

Davies, R. R., Conquest, Coexistence and Change: Wales, 1063–1415 (Oxford, 1987).

188

Bibliography Dearne, M. J. (ed.), Navio: The Fort and Vicus at Broughon-Noe, Derbyshire (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 234, Oxford, 1993).

Faull, M. L., ‘The Roman period’, in M. L. Faull and S. A. Moorhouse (eds.), West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey to AD 1500, i, Sources, Environment and the County to AD 1066 (Wakefield, 1981), 141–70.

Dent, J., and McDonald, R. (eds.), Early Settlers in the Borders (Scot. Borders Council, Melrose, 1997).

Feachem, R., ‘Mons Craupius = Duncrub?’, Antiquity, xliv (1970), 120–4.

Dickinson, W. C., A New History of Scotland, i, Scotland from the Earliest Times to 1603 (Edinburgh and London, 1961); 3rd edn, ed. A. A. M. Duncan (Oxford, 1977).

Ferris, I. M., and Jones, R. F. J., ‘Excavations at Binchester, 1976–9’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, 233–54. Filtzinger, P., Limesmuseum Aalen (Stuttgart, 1983).

Dillemann, L., ‘Observations on Chapter V. 31, Britannia, in the Ravenna Cosmography’, Archaeologia, cvi (1979), 61–73.

Fishwick, D., ‘Templum Divo Claudio Constitutum’, Britannia, iii (1972), 164–81.

Dobinson, C., Aldborough Roman Town: North Yorkshire (London, 1995).

Fitzpatrick, A. P., ‘The submission of the Orkney Islands to Claudius: new evidence?’, Scot. Archaeol. Rev., vi (1989), 24–33.

Dobson, B., ‘Agricola’s life and career’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 1–13.

Fletcher, J. E., ‘Battle lost’, The Scotsman, 4 Dec. 1999 (Weekend section, 1 and 4).

Dore, J. N., ‘The fort at Red House and Flavian coarse pottery in northern Britain’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, 113–17.

Forsyth, K., ‘Origins: Scotland to 1100’, in J. Wormald, Scotland: A History (Oxford, 2005), 1–37.

——, and Gillam, J. P., The Roman Fort at South Shields: Excavation, 1875–1975 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1979).

Fox, A., and Ravenhill, W. L. D., ‘Early Roman outposts on the North Devon coast, Old Burrow and Martinhoe’, Proc. Devon Archaeol. Exploration Soc., xxiv (1966), 3–39.

——, and Wilkes, J. J., ‘Excavations directed by J. D. Leach and J. J. Wilkes on the site of a Roman fortress at Carpow, Perthshire, 1964–79’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxix (1999), 481–575.

Fraser, J. E., The Roman Conquest of Scotland: The Battle of Mons Graupius AD 84 (Stroud, 2005).

Duncan, A. A. M., Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1978 edn).

Frere, S. S., ‘The Flavian frontier in Scotland’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 89– 97.

Dunwell, A. J., and Keppie, L. J. F., ‘The Roman temporary camp at Dunning, Perthshire: evidence from two recent excavations’, Britannia, xxvi (1995), 51–62.

——, Verulamium Excavations II (London, 1983). ——, ‘Brandon Camp, Herefordshire’, Britannia, xviii (1987), 49–92.

Dunwell, A., et al., ‘Some excavations on the line of the Antonine Wall, 1994–2001’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxii (2002), 259–304.

——, Britannia: A History of Roman Britain, repr. of 3rd edn (London, 1991); 1st edn (London, 1967); standard 3rd edn (London, 1987).

Edwards, B. J. N., The Romans at Ribchester: Discovery and Excavations (Lancaster, 2000).

——, ‘M. Maenius Agrippa, the Expeditio Britannica and Maryport’, Britannia, xxxi (2000), 23–8.

——, and Shotter, D. C. A., ‘Two Roman milestones from the Penrith area’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., v (2005), 65–77.

——, ‘The Ravenna Cosmography and North Britain between the Walls’, Britannia, xxxii (2001), 286–92.

Evans, J., and Scull, C., ‘Fieldwork on the Roman fort site at Blennerhasset’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., xc (1990), 127–37.

——, and J. K. S. St Joseph, Roman Britain from the Air (Cambridge, 1983).

189

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ——, and Wilkes, J. J., Strageath: Excavations within the Roman Fort, 1973–86 (London, 1989).

——, ‘Excavations by the late G. D. B. Jones and C. M. Daniels along the Moray Firth littoral’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxi (2001), 177–222.

Fulford, M., ‘Britain’, in Bowman, Garnsey and Rathbone (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, xi, 559–76.

——, and the late G. D. B. Jones, ‘Survey and excavation at Tarradale, Highland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxi (2001), 241–66.

——, ‘A second start: from the defeat of Boudicca to the third century’, in P. Salway (ed.), The Roman Era: The British Isles, 55 BC – AD 410 (Oxford, 2002), 39– 73.

Griffith, F. M., ‘Developments in the study of Roman military sites in south-west England’, in W. Groenmanvan Waateringe et al. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1995 (Oxford, 1997), 361–7.

Gerrard, J., and Mills, S., ‘Some stray finds from the Ravenglass area, Cumbria and their implications’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., ii (2002), 59–66.

Haase, W., and Temporini, H. (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II. 33.3, 33.5 (Berlin and New York, 1991).

Gerrard, S., The Early British Tin Industry (Stroud, 2000).

Halkon, P., and Millett, M., ‘The Foulness Valley: investigation of an Iron Age landscape in lowland East Yorkshire’, in Harding and Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts, 81–92.

Gibbons, P., ‘Excavations and observations at Kirkby Thore’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxxix (1989), 93–130.

Hancke, T., Charlton, B., and Biggins, J. A., ‘A geophysical survey at High Rochester Roman fort’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xxxiii (2004), 35–50.

Gillam, J. P., ‘Possible changes in plan in the course of the construction of the Antonine Wall’, in Thoms (ed.), Romans in Scotland, 51–6.

Hanson, W. S., ‘Agricola on the Forth–Clyde isthmus’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 55–68.

——, ‘The Roman forts at Corbridge’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., v (1977), 47–74. Glendinning, B., ‘Investigations of the Antonine Wall and medieval settlement at Kinneil House, Bo’ness, Falkirk’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxx (2000), 509–24.

——, [source], ‘Elginhaugh’, Current Archaeology, no. 104 (1987), 268–72. ——, Agricola and the Conquest of the North (London, 1987); repr. (London, 1991).

Gordon, A., Itinerarium septentrionale (London, 1726). Grant, A., ‘Thanes and thanages, from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer, Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community. Essays Presented to G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1993), 39–81.

——, ‘The Roman presence: brief interludes’, in K. J. Edwards and I. B. M. Ralston (eds.), Scotland after the Ice Age: Environment, Archaeology and History, 8000 BC – AD 1000, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 2003) [originally published as Scotland: Environment and Archaeology, 8000 BC – AD 1000 (Chichester, 1997)], 195–216.

Grant, A. E., ‘Roman military objectives in Britain under the Flavian emperors: an integrated approach’ (Univ. of Lancaster Ph.D. thesis, 2006).

——, in ‘Letters’, British Archaeology, no. 40 (Dec. 1998) (reply to M. Henig), 14.

Grant, M., The Antonines: The Roman Empire in Transition (London, 1994).

——, et al., ‘The Agricolan supply-base at Red House, Corbridge’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., vii (1979), 1–97.

Graystone, P., Walking Roman Roads in Lonsdale and the Eden Valley (Lancaster, 2002).

——, and Keppie, L. J. F. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979: Papers Presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, internat. ser., 71[i], Oxford, 1980).

Gregory, R. [A.], ‘Living on the frontier: Iron-Age–Roman transitions in south-west Scotland’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 35–49.

190

Bibliography ——, and Maxwell, G. S., ‘An Agricolan praesidium on the Forth–Clyde isthmus (Mollins, Strathclyde)’, Britannia, xi (1980), 43–9.

——, ‘Agricola in Caledonia: the sixth and seventh campaigns’, Echos du monde classique / Classical Views (EMC), xxix (1985), 318–35.

——, and Maxwell, G. S., Rome’s North West Frontier: The Antonine Wall (1983; repr. Edinburgh, 1986).

Henig, M., ‘Togidubnus and the Roman liberation’, British Archaeology, no. 37 (Sept. 1998), 8–9.

Harding, D. W., The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and Invaders (London, 2004).

Higham, N. [J.], ‘Native settlements west of the Pennines’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 41–7.

Harding, J., ‘Later Neolithic ceremonial centres, ritual and pilgrimage: the monument complex of Thornborough, North Yorkshire’, in A. Ritchie (ed.), Neolithic Orkney in its European Context (McDonald Inst. Monograph Ser., Cambridge, 2000), 31–46.

——, The Northern Counties to 1986).

——, and Johnston, R. (eds.), Northern Pasts: Interpretations of the Later Prehistory of Northern England and Southern Scotland (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 302, Oxford, 2000).

—— (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire: A Tribute to the Life and Works of Professor Barri Jones (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, internat. ser., 940, Oxford, 2001).

AD

1000 (London,

——, The Kingdom of Northumbria, AD 350–1100 (Stroud, 1993).

——, and Jones, G. D. B., The Carvetii (1985; repr. Stroud, 1991).

Hartley, B. R., ‘Some problems of the Roman military occupation of the north of England’, Northern Hist., i (1966), 7–20.

Hildyard, E. J. W., and Gillam, J. P., ‘Renewed excavation at Low Borrow Bridge’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., li (1951), 40–66.

——, ‘The Roman fort at Ilkley’, Proc. Leeds Philosophical and Literary Soc., xii (1966), 23–72.

Hinchliffe, J., and Williams, J. H., Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool, 1966–9 and 1976 (Manchester, 1992).

——, ‘The Roman occupations of Scotland: the evidence of samian ware’, Britannia, iii (1972), 1–55. ——, ‘The Brigantes and the Roman army’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 2–7.

Hind, J. G. F., ‘Agricola’s fleet and Portus Trucculensis’, Britannia, v (1974), 285–8.

——, and R. L. Fitts, The Brigantes (Gloucester, 1988). ——, ‘The “Genounian” part of Britain’, Britannia, viii (1977), 229–34.

Haselgrove, C., ‘The later pre-Roman Iron Age between the Humber and the Tyne’, in Wilson, Jones and Evans (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North, 9– 25.

——, ‘The Romano-British name Britannia, xi (1980), 165–71.

for

Corbridge’,

——, ‘Caledonia and its occupation under the Flavians’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxiii (1983), 373–8.

Hassall, M., ‘Pre-Hadrianic legionary dispositions in Britain’, in Brewer (ed.), Roman Fortresses and their Legions, 51–67.

——, ‘Summers and winters in Tacitus’ account of Agricola’s campaigns in Britain’, Northern Hist., xxi (1985), 1–18.

Haupt, D., and Horn, H. G. (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II (Cologne, 1977).

Hobley, A. S., ‘The numismatic evidence for the postAgricolan abandonment of the Roman frontier in northern Scotland’, Britannia, xx (1989), 69–74.

Haverfield, F., ‘The study of Roman Britain: a retrospect’, in F. Haverfield, The Roman Occupation of Britain: Six Ford Lectures, revised G. Macdonald (Oxford, 1924).

Hodges, R., and Wildgoose, M., ‘Roman or native in the White Peak’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 48–53.

Henderson, A. A. R., ‘From 83 to 1983: on the trail of Mons Graupius’, The Deeside Field, xviii (1984), 23– 9.

191

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Hodgson, N., ‘Were there two Antonine occupations of Scotland?’, Britannia, xxvi (1995), 29–49.

——, ‘Non-legionary troops in Roman Britain: part one, the units’, Britannia, xxv (1994), 35–77.

——, ‘The Stanegate: a frontier rehabilitated’, Britannia, xxxi (2000), 11–22.

——, and Mann, J. C., ‘The tribes of Wales’, Welsh Hist. Rev., iv (1968), 161–74.

Hoffmann, B., ‘Tacitus, Agricola and the role of literature in the archaeology of the first century AD’, in E. W. Sauer (ed.), Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries (London, 2004), 151–65.

Johnson, S., ‘Excavations at Hayton Roman fort, 1975’, Britannia, ix (1978), 57–114. Jolliffe, N., ‘Dea Brigantia’, Archaeol. Jl, xcviii (1941), 36–61.

Holder, P. A., The Roman Army in Britain (London, 1982).

Jones, B. [W.], The Emperor Titus (London, 1984). ——, ‘Roman place-names on the Cumbrian coast’, in R. J. A. Wilson and I. D. Caruana, Romans on the Solway: Essays in Honour of Richard Bellhouse (Kendal, 2004).

——, The Emperor Domitian (London, 1992). Jones, G. D. B., ‘The Romans in the north-west’, Northern Hist., iii (1968), 1–26.

Holmes, N. M. McQ., ‘Excavations at Cramond, Edinburgh, 1975–78’, in D. J. Breeze (ed.), Roman Scotland: Some Recent Excavations (Edinburgh, 1979), 11–14 + figs.

——, ‘Excavations at Northwich (Condate)’, Archaeol. Jl, cxxviii (1971), 31–77. ——, Roman Manchester (Manchester, 1974).

——, Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, Edinburgh, ed. M. Collard and J. A. Lawson (Edinburgh, 2003).

——, ‘Archaeology and coastal change in the northwest’, in F. H. Thompson (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change (London, 1980), 87–102.

Hopewell, D., ‘Roman fort environs in north-west Wales’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 225–69.

——, ‘The emergence of the Tyne–Solway Frontier’, in Maxfield and Dobson (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, 98–107.

Horne, P. D., and Lawton, I. G., ‘Buttercrambe Moor Roman camp, Buttercrambe with Bossall, North Yorkshire’, Britannia, xxix (1998), 327–9.

——, ‘Searching for Caradog’, in Burnham and Davies (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 57–64.

Howard-Davis, C., and Buxton, K., Roman Forts in the Fylde: Excavations at Dowbridge, Kirkham (Lancaster, 2000).

——, ‘Farndon: an archaeological opportunity’, Manchester Archaeol. Bull., vi (1991), 75–7.

Hunter, F., and Scott, I. G., ‘The Roman sculpture from Birrens revisited’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxvi (2002), 79–90.

——, ‘The central places of Moray: the air photographic evidence’ (unpublished lecture, given to the Moray Society’s conference ‘New Light on the Moray Firth Lands’ at Elgin Museum, 6 Sept. 1997).

Hunter, J. K. T., Manby, T. G., and Spaul, J. E. H., ‘Recent excavations at the Slack Roman fort near Huddersfield’, Yorks. Archaeol. Jl, xlii (1967–70), 74–97.

——, and Keillar, I., ‘Marinus, Ptolemy and the turning of Scotland’, Britannia, xxvii (1996), 43–9.

Hurst, H. R., Kingsholm: Excavations at Kingsholm Close and Other Sites with a Discussion of the Archaeology of the Area (Gloucester, 1985).

——, [late], and Keillar, I., ‘ “In fines Borestorum”: reconstructing the archaeological landscapes of prehistoric and proto-historic Moray’, Northern Scotland, xxii (2002), 1–25.

——, Gloucester: The Roman and Later Defences. Excavations on the E. Defences and a Reassessment of the Defensive Sequence (Gloucester, 1986). James, E., Britain in the First Millennium (London, 2001).

——, Keillar, I., and Maude, K., ‘The Moray aerial survey: discovering the prehistoric and proto-historic landscape’, in Sellar (ed.), Moray, 47–74.

Jarrett, M. G., ‘The military occupation of Roman Wales’, Bull. Board Celtic Studies, xx (1962–4).

——, and Mattingly, D., An Atlas of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1990).

192

Bibliography ——, and Webster, P. V., ‘Mediolanum: excavations at Whitchurch, 1965–6’, Archaeol. Jl, cxxv (1968), 193– 254.

——, and MacKenzie, J., ‘Bothwellhaugh’, Archaeology, no. 52 (1976), 154–6.

Current

——, and Newall, F., ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Barochan Hill, Renfrewshire, 1972 and 1984–1986’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xx (1996–7), 41–76.

Jones, M. J., Roman Fort-Defences to AD 117, with Special Reference to Britain (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 21, Oxford, 1975).

——, and Walker, J. J., ‘Auchendavy Roman fort and settlement’, Britannia, xvi (1985), 29–35.

——, ‘Archaeological work at Brough-under-Stainmore, 1971–2: I. The Roman discoveries’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., lxxvii (1977), 35–50.

Knox McElderry, R., ‘The date of Agricola’s governorship of Britain’, Jl Roman Studies, x (1920), 68–78.

——, Roman Lincoln: Conquest, Colony and Capital (Stroud, 2002).

Koch, J. T., ‘The stone of the Weni-kones’, Bull. Board Celtic Studies, xxix (1980–2), 87–9.

Kamm, A., The Last Frontier: The Roman Invasions of Scotland (Stroud, 2004).

Leslie, A., and Will, B., Inveresk Roman Fort (Glasgow, 1999).

Kennedy, D. L., ‘The place-name Arbeia’, in Britannia, xvii (1986), 332–3.

Levick, B., Vespasian (London, 1999). Lockett, N. J., ‘A geophysical survey in the annexes of the Roman fort of Strageath’, short contribution in Woolliscroft, Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge, 77– 81.

Kenworthy, J. (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland (Scot. Archaeol. Forum, xii, Edinburgh, 1981). Keppie, L. J. F., ‘Excavation of a Roman bathhouse at Bothwellhaugh, 1975–76’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, viii (1981), 46–94.

Luttwak, E., The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century AD to the Third (1976; London, 1999).

——, ‘Mons Graupius: the search for a battlefield’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 79–88.

Lynch, F., Aldhouse-Green, S., and Prehistoric Wales (Stroud, 2000).

——, ‘The Antonine Wall, 1960–1980’, Britannia, xiii (1982), 91–111.

McCarthy, M. R., Carlisle: History and Guide (Stroud, 1993).

——, ‘Excavation of a Roman temporary camp at Annan Hill, Dumfriesshire, 1985–86’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxiii (1988), 13–21.

——, Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway (Stroud, 2002).

Davies, J. L.,

——, ‘Rerigonium: a lost “city” of the Novantae’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxiv (2004), 119–29.

——, ‘Beyond the northern frontier: Roman and native in Scotland’, in M. Todd (ed.), Research on Roman Britain, 1960–1989 (Britannia Monograph Ser., 11, London, 1989), 61–73.

Macdonald, D., Complete Guide to Ross-shire (Dingwall, 1919). Macdonald, G., ‘The Roman camps at Raedykes and Glenmailen’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., l (1915–16), 317–59.

——, ‘The Romans in southern Scotland: future discoveries’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xvi (1989–90), 1–27.

——, The Roman Wall in Scotland, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1934).

——, ‘Legio VIIII in Britain: the beginning and the end’, in Brewer (ed.), Roman Fortresses and their Legions, 83–100.

MacGregor, M., ‘The early Iron Age metalwork hoard from Stanwick, N. R. Yorkshire’, Proc. Prehistoric Soc., xxviii (1962), 17–57.

——, The Legacy of Rome: Scotland’s Roman Remains, 3rd edn (Edinburgh, 2004); 2nd edn, Scotland’s Roman Remains (Edinburgh, 1998).

193

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Macinnes, L., ‘Pattern and purpose: the settlement evince’, in D. W. Harding (ed.), Later Prehistoric Settlement in South-East Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982), 57– 73.

Mattingly, D., An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC – AD 409 (London, 2006). Maxfield, V. A., ‘The Flavian fort at Camelon’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 69–78.

Maclean, L. (ed.), The Hub of the Highlands: The Book of Inverness and District (Inverness, 1975).

——, and Dobson, M. J. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989: Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Exeter, 1991).

MacLellan, M., Gaelic Dictionary (1925; Aberdeen, 1979). McNeill, P. G. B., and MacQueen, H. L. (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 (1996; Edinburgh, 2000).

——, and Reed, A., ‘Excavations at Ebchester Roman fort, 1972–3’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., iii (1975), 43–104.

Mann, J. C., ‘Loca’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xx (1992), 53–5.

Maxwell, G. S., ‘Casus belli: native pressures and Roman policy’, in Thoms (ed.), Romans in Scotland, 31–80.

——, ‘Ravennas and the Antonine Wall’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxii (1992), 189–95.

——, ‘A linear defence-system in south-western Scotland’, in Haupt and Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II, 23–30.

——, and Breeze, D. J., ‘Ptolemy, Tacitus and the tribes of north Britain’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxvii (1987), 85–91.

——, ‘The native background to the Roman occupation of Scotland’, in Hanson and Keppie (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, 1–13.

Manning, W. H., ‘The fortresses of legio XX’, in Brewer (ed.), Roman Fortresses and their Legions, 69–81. ——, Roman Wales (A Pocket Guide) (Cardiff, 2001).

——, ‘Agricola’s campaigns: the evidence of the temporary camps’, in Kenworthy (ed.), Agricola’s Campaigns in Scotland, 25–54.

Martin, C., ‘Water transport and the Roman occupations of north Britain’, in T. C. Smout (ed.), Scotland and the Sea (Edinburgh, 1992), 1–34.

——, ‘Recent aerial discoveries in Roman Scotland: Drumquhassle, Elginhaugh and Woodhead’, Britannia, xiv (1983), 167–81.

Marvell, A., ‘Recent work on the Neronian fortress at Usk, 1986–88’, in Burnham and Davies (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 19–26.

——, ‘ “Roman” settlement in Scotland’, in J. C. Chapman and H. C. Mytum (eds.), Settlement in North Britain, 1000 BC – AD 1000: Papers Presented to George Jobey (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 118, Oxford, 1983), 233–61.

——, and Owen-John, H. S., Leucarum: Excavations at the Roman Auxiliary Fort at Loughor, West Glamorgan, 1982–84 and 1987–88 (London, 1997).

——, ‘New frontiers: the Roman fort at Doune and its possible significance’, Britannia, xv (1984), 217–23.

Mason, D. J. P., Excavations at Chester: The Elliptical Building. An Image of the Roman World? Excavations in 1939 and 1963–9 (Chester, 2000).

——, The Romans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1989).

——, Roman Chester: City of the Eagles (Stroud, 2001).

——, A Battle Lost: Romans and Caledonians at Mons Graupius (Edinburgh, 1990).

——, ‘The foundation of the legionary fortress: Deva, the Flavians and imperial symbolism’, in Carrington (ed.), Deva Victrix, 33–51.

——, ‘The Roman experience: parallel lines or predestination’, in N. Macdougall (ed.), Scotland and War, AD 79–1918 (Edinburgh, 1991), 1–23.

——, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy (Stroud, 2003).

——, ‘The Roman penetration of the north in the late first century AD’, in Todd (ed.), Companion to Roman Britain, 75–90.

Masser, P., et al., ‘Recent work at Drumquhassle Roman fort, Stirlingshire’, Scot. Archaeol. Jl, xxiv, 2 (Oct. 2002), 147–68.

Miles, D., The Tribes of Britain (London, 2005).

194

Bibliography Miller, S. N., The Roman Fort at Balmuildy (Summerston, near Glasgow) on the Antonine Wall (Glasgow, 1922).

Oram, R., Scottish Prehistory (Edinburgh, 1997). Origines parochiales Scotiae: The Antiquities, Ecclesiastical and Territorial of the Parishes of Scotland (OPS), i, ed. C. Innes (Bannatyne Club, xcvii, Edinburgh, 1850).

——, The Roman Fort at Old Kilpatrick (Glasgow, 1928). ——, ‘The fifth campaign of Agricola’, Jl Roman Studies, xxxviii (1948).

Ottaway, P., Roman York, 2nd edn (Stroud, 2004). —— (ed.), The Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland (Glasgow, 1952).

Parker, H. M. D., Roman Legions (Oxford, 1961 edn).

Mills, A. D., Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford, 1991).

Piggott, S., Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the Regency (London, 1989).

Mills, S., ‘Iron Age warrior’: .

Pitts, L. F., and St Joseph, J. K., Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress Excavations, 1952–65 (London, 1985).

Moore, D., ‘Maritime aspects of Roman Wales’, in Haupt and Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II, 31–9.

Pococke, R., Tours in Scotland, 1747, 1750, 1760, ed. D. W. Kemp (Scot. Hist. Soc., i, Edinburgh, 1887).

Morris, E. L., ‘Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: a review’, Proc. Prehistoric Soc., lx (1994), 336–79.

Potter, T. W., Romans in North-West England: Excavations at the Roman Forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook and Bowness on Solway (Kendal, 1979).

Myres, J. N. L., Steer, K. A., and Chitty, A. M. H., ‘The defences of Isurium Brigantum’, Yorks. Archaeol. Jl, xl (1959–62), 1–77.

Poulter, A., ‘Old Penrith: excavations 1977 and 1979’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., lxxxii (1982), 51–65.

Nash-Williams, V. E., The Roman Frontier in Wales, 2nd edn, revised M. G. Jarrett (Cardiff, 1969).

Proudfoot, E. V. W. (ed.), Discovery and Archaeology in Scotland (Council for Brit. Archaeol. Scot., Edinburgh, 1987).

Nevell, M. (ed.), Living on the Edge of Empire: Models, Methodology and Marginality. Late Prehistoric and Romano-British Rural Settlement in North-West England (Manchester, 1999).

Radford, C. A. R., ‘Locus Maponi’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxxi (1952–3), 35–8.

——, ‘Iron-age and Romano-British rural settlement in north-west England’, in Nevell (ed.), Living on the Edge of Empire, 14–26.

Rae, A., and V., ‘The Roman fort at Cramond, Edinburgh: excavations, 1954–1966’, Britannia, v (1974), 163–224.

——, ‘The edge of empire: late prehistoric and RomanoBritish settlement in north-west England’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 59–74.

Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T., ‘Cn. Iulius Agricola: mise au point prosopographique’, in Haase and Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang (II. 33.3), 1808–57.

Newall, F., ‘The Roman signal fortlet at Outerwards, Ayrshire’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, iv (1976), 111–23.

Raftery, B., Pagan Celtic Ireland: The Enigma of the Irish Iron Age (London, 1994).

——, and Lonie, W., ‘The Romans and Strathclyde: the road system 5. Loudoun Hill and the Highland Boundary Fault frontier’, Scottish Naturalist, civ (1992), 7–47.

Ramm, H., The Parisi (London, 1978).

Nicolaisen, W. F. H., ‘Names in the landscape of the Moray Firth’, in Sellar (ed.), Moray, 253–62.

Redhead, N., ‘Edge of Empire: extra-mural settlement in a marginal context. Roman Castleshaw’, in Nevell (ed.), Living on the Edge of Empire, 74–81.

——, ‘Native settlements east of the Pennines’, in Branigan (ed.), Rome and the Brigantes, 28–40.

——, Scottish Place-Names, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 2001).

195

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors Reed, N., ‘The fifth year of Agricola’s campaigns’, Britannia, ii (1971), 143–8.

——, and St Joseph, J. K., ‘The Roman fort at Dalswinton, in Nithsdale’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxxiv (1955–6), 9–21.

Rhys, J., ‘The Chester pigs of lead’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 5th ser., ix (1892).

——, and Steer, K. A., ‘Castellum Veluniate and civilians on a Roman frontier’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xc (1956–7), 1–6.

Richmond, I. A., ‘Ptolemaic Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lvi (1921–2), 288–301.

Rivet, A. L. F., and Smith, C., The Place-Names of Roman Britain (London, 1979).

——, ‘Excavations at High Rochester and Risingham, 1935’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., xiii (1936), 170–98.

Robertson, A. S., ‘Castledykes (Corbiehall)’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-West Scotland, 127–71.

——, ‘Gnaeus Julius Agricola’, Jl Roman Studies, xxxiv (1944), 34–45.

——, ‘Excavations at Raeburnfoot, Eskdalemuir, 1959– 1960’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxxix (1960–1), 24–49.

——, ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Newstead, 1947’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxiv (1949–50), 1–38.

——, ‘Miscellanea Romano-Caledonica’, Antiq. Scot., xcvii (1963–4), 180–201.

——, ‘Exploratory trenching at the Roman fort at Cappuck, Roxburghshire, in 1949’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxv (1950–1), 138–45.

Proc.

Soc.

——, The Roman Fort at Castledykes (Edinburgh, 1964). ——, Birrens (Blatobulgium) (Edinburgh, 1975).

——, ‘Queen Cartimandua’, Jl Roman Studies, xliv (1954), 43–52.

——, ‘Agricola’s campaigns in Scotland, and their aftermath’, in Thoms (ed.), Romans in Scotland, 1–12.

——, ‘Ancient geographical sources for Britain north of Cheviot’, in Richmond (ed.), Roman and Native in North Britain, 131–55. ——, Roman Britain, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth, 1963).

——, ‘Excavations at Cardean and Stracathro, Angus’, in Haupt and Horn (eds.), Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms, II, 65–74.

—— (ed.), Roman and Native in North Britain (Edinburgh, 1958).

——, ‘Roman coins found in Scotland, 1971–82’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxiii (1983), 405–48.

——, and Crawford, O. G. S., ‘The British section of the Ravenna Cosmography’, Archaeologia, xciii (1949), 1–50.

——, The Antonine Wall: A Handbook to the Surviving Remains, ed. and revised L. Keppie (Glasgow, 2001). ——, Scott, M., and Keppie, L. J. F., Bar Hill: A Roman Fort and its Finds (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 16, Oxford, 1975).

——, and Keeney, G. S., ‘The Roman works at Chew Green, Coquetdalehead’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., xiv (1937), 129–50.

Robinson, D. J., ‘The Romans and Ireland again: some thoughts on Tacitus’ Agricola Chapter 24’, Jl Chester Archaeol. Soc., lxxv (1998–9), 19–31.

——, and McIntyre, J., ‘The Roman camps at Reycross and Crackenthorpe’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., xxxiv (1934), 50–61.

Rogers, I. M., ‘Dalginross and Dun: excavations at two Roman camps’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxiii (1993), 277–90.

——, and McIntyre, J., ‘The Agricolan fort at Fendoch’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxiii (1938–9), 110–54.

——, ‘The conquest of Brigantia and the development of the Roman road system in the north-west’, Britannia, xxvii (1996), 365–8.

——, and St Joseph, J. K., ‘The Roman fort at Glenlochar, Kirkcudbrightshire’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., xxx (1951–2), 1–16.

Roy, W., The Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain (London, 1793).

196

Bibliography Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, i, Eboracum: Roman York (London, 1962).

Sellar, W. D. H. (ed.), Moray: Province and People (Edinburgh, 1993). Shaw, N., ‘Excavation at Whitley Castle, Northumberland, 1957 and 1958’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser., xxxvii (1959), 191–202.

St Joseph, J. K. [S.], ‘The Roman forts at Carriden and Brownhart Law’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxiii (1948–9), 167–74. ——, ‘Forts: from the Esk to Dalmakethar’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 95–103.

Shepherd, A. N., ‘Excavations at Kintore Roman temporary camp, 1984’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxvi (1986), 205–9.

——, ‘From Beattock to Carlops’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 111–16.

Shirley, E., Building a Roman Legionary Fortress (Stroud, 2001).

——, ‘Three Nithsdale sites’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 117–23.

Shotter, D. C. A., ‘The Roman occupation of north-west England: the coin evidence’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., lxxx (1980), 1–15.

——, ‘Loudoun Hill’, in Miller (ed.), Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland, 188–91.

——, Roman Coins from North-West England (Lancaster, 1990).

——, ‘The camps at Ardoch, Stracathro and Ythan Wells: recent excavations’, Britannia, i (1970), 163–78.

——, ‘Tacitus’ view of emperors and the principate’, in Haase and Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang (II. 33.5), 3263–331.

——, ‘The camp at Durno, Aberdeenshire, and the site of Mons Graupius’, Britannia, ix (1978), 271–87.

——, ‘Coin-loss and the Roman occupation of northwest England’, Brit. Numismatic Jl, lxiii (1993), 1– 19.

——, ‘A Roman camp near Girvan, Ayrshire’, Britannia, ix (1978), 397–401. ——, ‘The Roman fortlet at Gatehouse of Fleet, Kirkcudbright’, in B. Hartley and J. Wacher (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces: Papers Presented to Sheppard Frere in Honour of his Retirement from the Chair of Archaeology of the Roman Empire, University of Oxford, 1983 (Gloucester, 1983), 222– 34.

——, ‘Rome and the Brigantes: early hostilities’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., xciv (1994), 21–34. ——, ‘Roman coins from Manchester: casual losses’, Manchester Archaeol. Bull., ix (1994–5), 47–59.

Salway, P., The Oxford History of England, i, Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981).

——, ‘Roman coins from Maryport’, in Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport and its Setting, 132–40.

——, The Oxford Illustrated History of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1993).

——, ‘Roman north-west England: the process of annexation’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxlviii (1998), 1–26.

Sauer, E. [W.], ‘Alchester Roman fortress’, Current Archaeology, no. 173 (2001), 189–91.

——, ‘Middlewich: the evidence of Roman coin loss’, Jl Chester Archaeol. Soc., lxxv (1998–9), 51–60.

——, ‘Inscriptions from Alchester: Vespasian’s base of the Second Augustan Legion(?)’, Britannia, xxxvi (2005), 101–33.

——, Roman Coins from North-West England: Second Supplement (Lancaster, 2000). ——, ‘Petillius Cerialis in northern Britain’, Northern Hist., xxxvi (2000), 189–98.

Schönberger, H., ‘The Roman frontier in Germany: an archaeological survey’, Jl Roman Studies, lix (1969), 144–97.

——, ‘The Roman conquest of the north-west’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 2nd ser., c (2000), 33–53.

Scott, Walter, The Antiquary, 2 vols. (Waverley Novels, v–vi, London, 1895 edn).

197

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ——, ‘Roman Lancaster: site and settlement’, in A. White (ed.), A History of Lancaster (Edinburgh, 2001), 3–31.

——, Domitian: Tragic Tyrant (London, 1997). Spaul, J. E. H., ‘Two problems from Roman Scotland: Genunia and Cohors II Tungrorum c. L.’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxiv (2000), 47–54.

——, ‘ “Agricolan” is an overworked adjective’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 75–83. ——, ‘Petillius Cerialis in Carlisle: a numismatic contribution’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., i (2001), 21–9.

Speak, S., and Burgess, C., ‘Meldon Bridge: a centre of the third millennium BC in Peeblesshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxix (1999), 1–118.

——, ‘Chester: early Roman occupation’, in Carrington (ed.), Deva Victrix, 25–31.

Standing, G., ‘The Claudian invasion of Britain and the cult of Victoria Britannica’, Britannia, xxxiv (2003), 281–8.

——, ‘Roman Britain and “The Year of the Four Emperors” ’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., ii (2002), 79–86.

Stanford, S. C., ‘The Roman forts at Leintwardine and Buckton’, Trans. Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, xxxix (1968), 222–326.

——, ‘Roman coins from Low Borrow Bridge’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Archaeol. Soc., 3rd ser., iii (2003), 222–5.

——, ‘Native and Roman in the central Welsh borderland’, in Birley, Dobson and Jarrett (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969, 44–60.

——, Romans and Britons in North-West England, 3rd edn (Lancaster, 2004); 1st edn (Lancaster, 1993); 2nd edn (Lancaster, 1997).

——, The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches (London, 1980).

——, ‘Vespasian, auctoritas and Britain’, Britannia, xxxv (2004), 1–8. ——, and White, A., (Lancaster, 1995).

The

Romans

in

Steer, K. A., ‘The Roman fort at Whitemoss, Renfrewshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxiii (1948–9), 28–32.

Lunesdale ——, ‘The Roman fort at Easter Happrew, Peeblesshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xc (1956–7), 93–101.

Simpson, G., ‘Decorated south Gaulish bowls from Corbridge and the Red House sites’, in A. C. Anderson and A. S. Anderson (eds.), Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe: Papers Presented to Graham Webster (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, internat. ser., 123[i], Oxford, 1981), 157–60.

——, ‘Excavations at Mumrills Roman fort, 1958–60’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xciv (1960–1), 86–132. ——, ‘The excavations at Lyne, Peeblesshire, 1959–63’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., xcv (1961–2), 208–18.

Smith, I. G., The First Roman Invasion of Scotland: A Geographical Review (Edinburgh, 1987).

——, ‘More light on Arthur’s O’on’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, iv (1976), 90–2.

——, ‘Some Roman place-names in Lancashire and Cumbria’, Britannia, xxviii (1997), 372–83.

——, and Feachem, R. W., ‘The Roman fort and temporary camp at Oakwood, Selkirkshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., lxxxvi (1951–2), 81–105.

Snape, M., and Bidwell, P. et al., The Roman Fort at Newcastle upon Tyne, suppl. to Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., xxxi (2002).

Strang, A., ‘Ptolemy’s Geography reappraised’ (Univ. of Nottingham Ph.D. thesis, 1994). ——, ‘Explaining Ptolemy’s Roman Britain’, Britannia, xxviii (1997), 1–30.

Sommer, C. S., ‘From conquered territory to Roman province: recent discoveries and debate on the Roman occupation of SW Germany’, in Creighton and Wilson (eds.), Roman Germany, 161–98.

——, ‘The analysis of Ptolemy’s Geography’, Cartographic Jl, xxxv, 1 (June 1998), 27–47.

Southern, P., ‘Men and mountains, or geographical determinism and the conquest of Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxvi (1996), 371–86.

——, ‘Recreating a possible Flavian map of Roman Britain with a detailed map for Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxviii (1998), 425–40.

198

Bibliography Strickland, T., Roman Middlewich: A Story of Roman and Briton in Mid-Cheshire (Middlewich, 2001).

——, ‘Was Roman London ever a colonia? The written evidence’, in Wilson (ed.), Romanitas, 49–64.

Sumpter, T., ‘The vicus of the Roman fort at Castleford’, in Wilson, Jones and Evans (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North, 83–6.

Turnbull, P., ‘Stanwick in the northern Iron Age’, Durham Archaeol. Jl, i (1984), 41–9. Tyler, A. W., ‘Prehistoric and Roman mining in England and Wales’ (Univ. of Cardiff Ph.D. thesis, 1982).

Swan, V. G., ‘The twentieth legion and the history of the Antonine Wall reconsidered’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxix (1999), 399–480.

Van Arsdell, R. D., The Coinage of the Dobunni: Money Supply and Coin Circulation in Dobunnic Territory (Oxford, 1994).

——, and Bidwell, P. T., ‘Camelon and Flavian troop movements in southern Britain: some ceramic evidence’, in J. Bird (ed.), Form and Fabric: Studies in Rome’s Material Past in Honour of B. R. Hartley (Oxford, 1998), 21–30.

Wacher, J., The Towns of Roman Britain, 2nd edn (London, 1995). ——, Roman Britain, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1998).

Syme, R., Tacitus, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1958). ——, and McWhirr, A., Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester (Gloucester, 1982).

Tatton-Brown, T. W. T., ‘Camelon, Arthur’s O’on and the main supply base for the Antonine Wall’, Britannia, xi (1980), 340–3.

Waddelove, A., ‘The river Dee and Deva harbour: a reassessment’, in Higham (ed.), Archaeology of the Roman Empire, 131–40.

Thomas, J., ‘Excavations at Dunragit, 2001’: .

Watson, W. J., Place-Names of Ross and Cromarty (1904; repr. Inverness, 1976).

Thompson, F. H., Roman Cheshire (Chester, 1965). ——, The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland (1926; repr. Edinburgh, 1993).

Thompson, R. L., ‘The evidence of place-names’, in M. W. Beresford and G. R. J. Jones (eds.), Leeds and its Region (Leeds, 1967).

Webster, G., ‘The military situations in Britain between AD 43 and 71’, Britannia, i (1970), 179–97.

Thoms, L. (ed.), The Romans in Scotland (Scot. Archaeol. Forum, vii, Edinburgh, 1975).

——, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD, 3rd edn (London, 1985).

Tierney, J. J., ‘Ptolemy’s map of Scotland’, Jl Hellenic Studies, lxxix (1959), 132–48.

——, The Cornovii, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1991).

Tipping, R., and Tisdall, E., ‘The landscape context of the Antonine Wall: a review of the literature’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot., cxxxv (2005), 443–69.

——, Boudica: The British Revolt against Rome, (1978; London, 1993).

AD

60

——, The Roman Invasion of Britain (1980; London, 1993).

Todd, M., The Coritani, 2nd edn (Stroud, 1991); 1st edn (London, 1973).

——, Rome against Caratacus: The Roman Campaigns in Britain, AD 48–58 (1981; London, 1993).

——, Roman Britain, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1999); 1st edn (London, 1981).

Webster, P. V., ‘The first Roman fort at Cardiff’, in Burnham and Davies (eds.), Conquest, Coexistence and Change, 35–9.

——, The Claudian conquest and its consequences’, in Todd (ed.), Companion to Roman Britain, 42–59.

Welfare, H., and Swan, V., Roman Camps in England: The Field Archaeology (London, 1995).

—— (ed.), A Companion to Roman Britain (Oxford, 2004; paperback edn, 2007).

Wellesley, K., ‘Review of Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae, ed. R. M. Ogilvie and the late Sir Ian Richmond’, Jl Roman Studies, lix (1969), 266–9.

Tomlin, R. S. O., ‘Non Coritani sed Corieltauvi’, Antiq. Jl, lxiii (1983), 353–5.

199

Roman Military Objectives in Britain under the Flavian Emperors ——, The Long Year AD 69 (London, 1975).

Wilson, P. R., ‘Recent work at Catterick’, in Wilson, Jones and Evans (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North, 75–82.

Wenham, L. P., ‘The beginnings of Roman York’, in Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire, 45–53. Wheeler, R. E. M., The Stanwick Fortifications, North Riding of Yorkshire (Oxford, 1954).

——, Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. Excavations and Research, 1958–1997, 2 vols. (Council Brit. Archaeol. Research Reports, 128 and 129, York, 2002).

White, R., and Barker, P., Wroxeter: Life and Death of a Roman City (Stroud, 1998).

——, Jones, R. F. J., and Evans, D. M. (eds.), Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Bradford, 1984).

Wigg, A., ‘Confrontation and interaction: Celts, Germans and Romans in the Central German Highlands’, in Creighton and Wilson (eds.), Roman Germany, 35–53.

Wilson, R. J. A., ‘Maryport from the first to the fourth centuries: some current problems’, in Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport and its Setting, 17–40.

Wild, F., ‘The development of the Roman road system in the north-west: the evidence of the samian ware’, Britannia, xxxiii (2002), 268–74.

——, ‘Urban defences and civic status in early Roman Britain’, in Wilson (ed.), Romanitas, 1–47. ——, (ed.), Roman Maryport and its Setting: Essays in Memory of Michael G. Jarrett (Kendal, 1997).

Williams, D., ‘The frontier policies of Antoninus Pius in Scotland and Germany’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lvi (1981), 73–81.

——, (ed.), Romanitas: Essays on Roman Archaeology in Honour of Sheppard Frere on the Occasion of his Ninetieth Birthday (Oxford, 2006).

Williamson, H., ‘The probable date of the Roman occupation of Melandra’, in R. S. Conway (ed.), Melandra Castle (Manchester, 1906).

Wise, A., ‘Late prehistoric settlement and society: recent research in the central Tweed valley’, in Harding and Johnston (eds.), Northern Pasts, 93–9.

Willis, D., Discovering the Black Isle (Edinburgh, 1989). Wolfson, S., ‘Tacitus, Thule and Caledonia: a critical reinterpretation of the textual problems’ (2002), pt 4, ‘The search for a harbour’; pt 5, ‘Thule in contemporary Latin literature’; and appendix, ‘The Boresti: the creation of a myth’: .

Wilson, A., ‘Roman penetration in west Dumfries and Galloway: a field survey’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxiv (1989), 7–20. ——, ‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde south of the Antonine Wall: Part 1. The topographical framework’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xix (1994–5), 1–30.

Woolliscroft, D. J., Gask Ridge Project: . ——, The Roman Frontier on the Gask Ridge: Perth and Kinross. An Interim Report on the Roman Gask Project, 1995–2000 (Brit. Archaeol. Reports, Brit. ser., 335, Oxford, 2002).

——, ‘Roman penetration in Strathclyde south of the Antonine Wall: Part 2. Romanization’, Glasgow Archaeol. Jl, xx (1996–7), 1–40. ——, ‘Roman penetration in eastern Dumfriesshire and beyond’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxiii (1999), 17–62.

——, and Hoffmann, B., Rome’s First Frontier: The Flavian Occupation of Northern Scotland (Stroud, 2006).

——, ‘The Novantae and Romanization in Galloway’, Trans. Dumfries. and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., lxxv (2001), 73–131.

Wright, R. P., ‘Tile-stamps of the sixth legion found in Britain’, Britannia, vii (1976), 224–35. Zant, J., ‘The archaeology of Roman Carlisle: the Roman fort and town’ (unpublished lecture, given in the ‘Local History Seminars’ series at Lancaster University’s Centre for North-West Regional Studies’, 27 Apr. 2005).

Wilson, D., The Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, 2nd edn, 2 vols. (London and Cambridge, 1863).

200

Bibliography Personal Communications (from those whose work is not cited above) Paul Flynn, Director, Big Roman Dig (Channel 4’s ‘Time Team’), Maryport, July 2005. Rick Jones, Reader in Archaeology, School of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford (Director of the Newstead Project). Ian Miller, Project Officer, Oxford Archaeology North. Grant Simpson, Honorary Reader in Scottish History, University of Aberdeen. Tony Wilmott, Senior Archaeologist, English Heritage.

201