Agricola\'s Northern Campaigns

[D B Campbell]

The Roman Gask Project, however, appears to be a different matter (or is it? I don't know if I'm getting into Scottish archeological politics here hock: ).

You have just made my case for me, Nathan. The existence of arrant nonsense like the romanscotland-dot-org website tends to tar other (superficially similar) sites with the same brush. Be assured: the Gask Project is a serious university-based project; I have nothing but respect for Dave Woolliscroft (one of the most entertaining speakers on Roman matters) and Birgitta Hoffmann. Any differences we may have will be based on interpretation, rather than basic methodology.

But why shouldn't their findings provide reasonably concrete evidence (more concrete that Tacitus to the contrary, perhaps) for a Roman presence, or even occupation, in Scotland prior to the arrival of Agricola?

In an ideal world, that would certainly be the case, Nathan. Unfortunately, archaeological dating is seldom as accurate as we would like. Sometimes, it is entirely absent, as we shall see ...

Of the forts north of the line of the Antonine Wall, some produce artefacts that are broadly Flavian, other produce artefacts that are broadly Antonine in date, and some produce both. Once we have decided which sites belong to which period, we can start to theorise about what the Romans were attempting to do on each occasion.

Our friends at the Gask Project have slightly jumped the gun, though. They have said: "The Gask line is a fortified Roman frontier (albeit without a running barrier) and consists of a chain of turf and timber built forts, fortlets and watch towers, strung out along the Roman road to the Tay." But what they actually mean is: "The Gask line is a fortified Roman road linking the fort at Strageath with the fort at Ardoch to the south, and the fort at Bertha on the Tay to the north." Those are the facts. (We can then go on to theorise that it might have been a "frontier", if we are so inclined.)

They continue in mischievous vein with the throwaway comment that: "It was certainly noted as the earliest Roman frontier in Britain, for there was evidence to date its construction to the Flavian period, around forty years before Hadrian's Wall." This carefully worded statement, placing the onus for Flavian dating on some unnamed predecessor ("it was certainly noted ..." -- when? by whom?), is left hanging in the air, to lure the unwary into believing a rather less-than-secure theory.

After a lengthy discussion of Agricola, we get back to the Gask system with the following statement: "The Project's work began with excavations at the three Gask towers of Greenloaning, Shielhill South and Huntingtower and, instead of the single phase that had been expected, all three produced signs of at least two and possibly three structural periods." That's all very interesting. Of course, an archaeologist shouldn't have preconceived notions ( :wink: ) and shouldn't have been expecting a short lifespan just because Agricola's time in Scotland was short. But notice: still no sign of dating evidence. Just a general impression of a multi-phase construction, unsupported by evidence.

Then, we gradually glean some of this all-important evidence: "Moreover, a CFA excavation at the Gask tower of Blackhill Wood soon produced a similar picture and, in each case, the evidence took the form of a replacement of the towers' main structural post". So that's it. The Gask frontier, erm ... fortified roadway, must have been long-lived (how long is long-lived?!) because four of the towers showed evidence of a timber support having been replaced. (Having been replaced when? Four minutes after it was erected, because the sloppy auxiliaries assigned to the task couldn't be bothered doing it properly? Four months after it was erected, because someone accidentally overturned an ox waggon against it and the Health & Safety corps demanded a thorough repair? When exactly?)

There is more on the general theme of "rebuilding means long occupation", and then: "More interestingly, there is evidence that at least one of the frontier sites was rebuilt as a completely different installation type, for the fortlet of Midgate, when excavated, in 1900, was found to sit so close beside one of the watchtowers that the two sites' ditches come to within 13m of one another." The implication is that two structures could not sit beside each other simultaneously. Why not? We see this kind of thing on the German frontier, where forts sit beside so-called "small forts", presumably to keep their garrisons separate. This is another case of a theory being presented as a factual building block in the argument. (I almost said sloppy, but caught myself!)

There is more, but the focus turns to the northern forts, beyond the Gask ridge. To me, the astonishing thing is that the supposed Flavian date is never even supported, far less proved. (I happen to know that late 3rd C pottery was found as stray finds near the tower at Peel, and the excavations at Gask House found a sherd of late Flavian mortarium. Hardly an inspiring dating assemblage!) And let's remember that the three forts involved -- Ardoch, Strageath and Bertha -- were occupied during the Antonine period, too. (I always meant to write this up as an article, but never got around to it. Maybe I should do it now ... :wink: )