(10-21-2021, 06:24 AM)Crispianus Wrote: Dates the harvesting season seems to be early August and were on the stalk... but they may have been from the previous year?

(10-20-2021, 08:04 PM)Theoderic Wrote: By the Spring of AD61 the territories of the Iceni and the Trinovantes were Roman Provinces run on the Roman Estate System and owned by Rome, not by the tribes, and the locals were tenants. Therefore the corn that was planted in the winter of AD60 actually belonged to Rome.

(10-21-2021, 10:36 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:

(10-21-2021, 06:24 AM)Crispianus Wrote: Dates the harvesting season seems to be early August and were on the stalk... but they may have been from the previous year?

Yes, I would guess the dates were preserved and imported from (?) the Mediterranean.

The grapes might be a different matter - presumably they were fresh. I believe grapes were cultivated in Britain at some point, but perhaps not this early. Would they have been imported from Gaul or the Rhineland, perhaps? In which case it must have been during or after the grape harvest, which begins in August in some places I think and goes on through the autumn.

(10-20-2021, 11:31 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Fascinating! I wonder if any of the food or other traces might tell us more about what time of year the destruction took place, as some people claim about Pompeii?

(10-21-2021, 10:11 AM)Theoderic Wrote: It seems from the evidence that the Brythons only wanted to wipe Colchester off the map, throwing the occupying Romans off their lands and didn’t need supplies.

This also supports the theory that their prime objective was Colchester and not an extended campaign at this time, the real prize was getting their land back.

I have always wondered why the inhabitants of Colchester did not fortify the town if they were concerned about being attacked and did not send away its vulnerable citizens including the old, the women and children. It would appear that unusual activity was apparent but that people were reassured. A request for more troops was made, they were sent and arrived but it seems from the description they were not fully armed, so again if there was an imminent threat why weren’t they? 

(10-21-2021, 01:35 PM)Renatus Wrote: The Colchester Archaeologist refers to earlier finds of evidence for cherries, elderberries, raspberries, plums and sloes.  If these came from securely dated...

(10-21-2021, 03:17 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:

(10-21-2021, 01:35 PM)Renatus Wrote: The Colchester Archaeologist refers to earlier finds of evidence for cherries, elderberries, raspberries, plums and sloes.  If these came from securely dated...

Yes, good thinking! This page has plums, cherries and raspberries from August, elderberries not till September, all of them into October. Sloes, apparently, are traditonally harvested after the first frost, in October.

So if these fruits (and the grapes we mentioned before) were indeed from the Boudican layer, and were fresh and not preserved, then it's pushing the fall of the colony back into September/October...

(10-21-2021, 04:46 PM)Theoderic Wrote: If it is the case that it was the end of September / beginning of October that Colchester was burnt, the continuation of the war makes it more likely to run into the following year, with the associated actions.

(10-21-2021, 07:44 PM)Renatus Wrote: I was going to deal with one of your earlier posts in a bit of detail, Nathan, but I will tackle your latest now.  I don't think there is need for any of this.  I now realise that the soft fruit are a red herring.  I have found online that the Romans had known for centuries how to preserve fruit by drying.  I doubt whether it would be possible to distinguish between fresh and dried fruit, if found archaeologically, so we can get back to a more realistic scenario.  You have, of course, hit the nail on the head.  If the revolt broke out in autumn but the final battle did not take place until the next year, there is no way that Suetonius would have had only 10,000 men.

(10-21-2021, 07:55 PM)Theoderic Wrote:

(10-21-2021, 07:44 PM)Renatus Wrote: the soft fruit are a red herring... If the revolt broke out in autumn but the final battle did not take place until the next year, there is no way that Suetonius would have had only 10,000 men.

.....but for a second there.... 

(10-21-2021, 04:46 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Renatus wrote:

As to the 200 men sent by Catus Decianus, London did not have a garrison at that time and Decianus cobbled together a force from whatever sources he could scratch together and armed them as best he could.  Possibly, some of them, at least, were members of the governor's staff, who had left most of their weaponry in their legionary fortresses and had only their side-arms.

It just seems strange to me that if the Colchester inhabitants didn't think that they would be attacked why ask for troops at all? 

(10-21-2021, 04:46 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Renatus wrote: 

It is highly unlikely that the Trinovantes were so naive as to believe that they had only to reclaim their lands, destroying the colony and slaughtering the veterans in the process, without incurring massive retribution from Suetonius when he returned from Wales.  The only way they could succeed was, in combination with the other tribes, to drive the Romans out of the province.


If your supposition is correct it would imply that the Brythons were well organised and already had in place agreements with other tribes (apart from the Iceni) for a countrywide insurrection before they attacked Colchester? 

(10-21-2021, 08:12 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Hold on though! I can, in fact, answer both of the possible objections I mentioned...

1. Catus Decianus could have fled because he believed he would be blamed for the disaster he had caused 'by his rapacity', and wanted to exonerate himself as soon as possible. Perhaps he also feared the wrath of the provincials, or even of Suetonius himself? Tacitus does not, in any case, explicitly say that he was in danger of imminent attack. He may just have been a coward... But we could hardly blame him for thinking that he was under threat, even if events turned out otherwise.

2. With the province in turmoil over the winter of 60/61, Suetonius Paulinus may have believed that he could not draw men from any of his garrisons in Wales or the west without risking further outbreaks of rebellion in those places. He may also have had his hands full trying to contain such outbreaks across the country... Only in the spring of 61 did he concede that he had to confront and defeat Boudica's main army in order to break the back of the uprising. At that point, the only additional troops available to him were the veterans of the Twentieth and the Second - and the latter's commander refused to leave camp, perhaps feeling that the local situation was still too volatile.

p.s. - can we distinguish between grapes and raisins, archaeologically speaking? The Colchester reports do specify grapes...

(10-21-2021, 10:31 PM)Renatus Wrote:

(10-21-2021, 08:12 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Hold on though! I can, in fact, answer both of the possible objections I mentioned...

1. Catus Decianus could have fled because he believed he would be blamed for the disaster he had caused 'by his rapacity', and wanted to exonerate himself as soon as possible. Perhaps he also feared the wrath of the provincials, or even of Suetonius himself? Tacitus does not, in any case, explicitly say that he was in danger of imminent attack. He may just have been a coward... But we could hardly blame him for thinking that he was under threat, even if events turned out otherwise.

2. With the province in turmoil over the winter of 60/61, Suetonius Paulinus may have believed that he could not draw men from any of his garrisons in Wales or the west without risking further outbreaks of rebellion in those places. He may also have had his hands full trying to contain such outbreaks across the country... Only in the spring of 61 did he concede that he had to confront and defeat Boudica's main army in order to break the back of the uprising. At that point, the only additional troops available to him were the veterans of the Twentieth and the Second - and the latter's commander refused to leave camp, perhaps feeling that the local situation was still too volatile.

p.s. - can we distinguish between grapes and raisins, archaeologically speaking? The Colchester reports do specify grapes...

Dealing with these points:

1.  I don't think that this is any different from what we have always assumed.

2.  On the traditional scenario, this is exactly what Suetonius did after the battle.  He gave up his Welsh conquests and brought the whole army together, even though numbers of the enemy had escaped and, had Boudica not died, could well have continued with the revolt.  The idea that he would not have gathered a substantial force for the final encounter runs entirely counter to what we know of a cautious general who leaves nothing to chance.  His request for reinforcements was almost certainly made after he had assessed the situation in London and in the knowledge that a large part of the Ninth had been wiped out.  Tacitus implies that they were sent over fairly promptly and went straight into winter quarters, not that they did not arrive until the following summer and waited until autumn before going into winter quarters.  Nor is there any indication in the sources that Suetonius fiddled around over winter dealing with unrecorded local outbreaks.  Indeed, this is quite contrary to Agricola 16: 'Had not Paulinus learned of the stir in the province, and come hastily to the rescue, Britain would have been lost' (Loeb).  Would Boudica have been swanning about idly during that winter?  No, she would have either been consolidating her position and gathering more tribes to her cause or she would have gone home, in which latter case we would have to move the postulated site for the battle to the east side of the country.  There is nothing whatsoever in the sources to suggest that the events described were anything other than a continuous course of action.

p,s.  The photograph in the Colchester Archaeologist article shows the 'grapes' looking more like raisins.  In any event, would it be possible to distinguish raisins from grapes that had shrivelled in a house fire or vice versa?

(10-22-2021, 10:56 AM)Theoderic Wrote: It seems more and more obvious that even with a huge body of tribes people mustering on their doorstep, the inhabitants of Colchester didn't feel under any threat at all until the very last minute when they retreated to the Temple.

Why would they be unconcerned? There must have been a reason for an officially recognised gathering.

(10-21-2021, 10:31 PM)Renatus Wrote: There is nothing whatsoever in the sources to suggest that the events described were anything other than a continuous course of action.

(10-22-2021, 10:56 AM)Theoderic Wrote: Why would they be unconcerned? There must have been a reason for an officially recognised gathering.