Agricola\'s Northern Campaigns

[Nathan Ross]

Continuing from the thread on 'Hibernia'...

Tacitus' descriptions of the northern British campaigns of his father-in-law Tacitus have long been regarded as essentially reliable - the only real questions raised being the modern locations of many of the places he mentions, and particularly the site of the final battle at Mons Graupius. More recently, however, several scholars have cast aspersions on Tacitus' reliability. In particular, the archeological work by the Roman Gask project has suggested that the lines of forts and camps in south-eastern Scotland previously attributed to Agricola and his immediate successors may date to some years before his governorship. This article by Birgitta Hoffmann:

[url:9g6dv4p0]http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk/Pages/Introduction/Tacitus.html[/url]

...gives a good summary of the arguments against the historicity of Tacitus.

In the last five years the work of the Roman Gask Project and others north of the Antonine Wall, have discovered multiple structural phases on a number of Flavian military sites... All this suggests that the period of occupation in the North was substantially longer than the 'traditional' short chronology envisaged in the aftermath of Agricola's victory at Mons Graupius, instead the associated material suggests that occupation started well before the time suggested by Tacitus. This archaeological evidence must subtract from what we have traditionally seen as Agricola's achievement, for it now appears that a number of northern sites, from Manchester to Strathmore, may already have been in occupation during the early 70s. The fact that these dates have been acquired purely by the use of dendrochronology and the analysis of the surviving archaeological record, show that the information in Tacitus' text presents difficulties. They do not mean that Agricola never existed or that he just sat in London twiddling his thumbs, but that the story told in the Histories of Roman Britain certainly needs re-evaluating.
Birgitta Hoffmann - "Archeology Versus Tacitus' Agricola"

This article, also from the Gask Project, continues the assault:

[url:9g6dv4p0]http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk/Pages/Introduction/Agricola-hecame.html[/url]

The cumulative results [of our research] boil down to something that would have seemed utter heresy just a few years ago. For it is now looking more and more possible that Agricola was not the first Roman Governor to occupy Scotland. The Romans may already have been there when he arrived... Of course there may still have been trouble and there may even have been a battle of Mons Graupius, although in reality it may actually have been little more than a skirmish, but fighting was probably not the real reason Agricola was here. It seems more likely that he was appointed primarily to put conquests actually gained by his predecessors onto a proper administrative footing and that what military ability he may have had was merely a useful safety feature.
D.J.Woolliscroft - "He Came, He Saw, But did he Conquer?"

Some interesting points, I thought...

Hmmm ... I remain sceptical about a pre-Agricolan Gask frontier (and an Agricolan Gask Frontier, too).

Meanwhile, another group have been attempting to put forward their own contender for the site of Mons Graupius:

[url:9g6dv4p0]http://www.romanscotland.org.uk/pages/campaigns/mons_graupius/contents.asp[/url]

They give a handy compendium of most of the other suggested sites (I think), including Bennachie, which has previously been thought the strongest contender. Their choice, however (which they settle with a most un-academic '100% probability' hock: ) is Dunning, much further south-west.

Located to the south of Venicone territory – one of the major stakeholders in the Caledonian tribal confederacy - the position on the Clevage Hills is perfect for a formidable defensive encampment and its location enables the tribes to take whatever action was deemed necessary before the Roman columns started harrying their lands to the north of this position again. It is singularly well located to either address any Roman expansionist moves north in the campaign season of 83 AD or to take the fight further south perhaps with the aim of encouraging the tribes in southern Scotland to throw off the Imperial yoke. The rare survival of the original sites name Croup or Croupii to this day at Dunning and Carey would suggest that the Ochil`s Northern Hills, seen even to this day as a distinct component of the Ochil Hills was the region known as the Croup or Croupi. The later medieval battle of Dorsum Crup proves this, the battle at Dunning on the “Ridge of Cr(o)up” while the association with the hill ranges name survives at nearby Carey with the Croupie Craigs.
Mons Craupius – Hill of the Croup - has at last been positively identified.
Roman Scotland - "Mons Graupius Identified"

Whatever you make of their conclusions - or their methodology, it's an interesting bit of work and a fairly compelling theory.

I notice that the long-disputed site of Mons Graupius has recently been proposed far to the south of its commonly accepted position (Bennachie), in the region south-west of Perth (Dunning) ...

Pah! :roll:

What are we to make of all this? In fact, of course, it's probably never going to be possible to establish what Agricola was really doing in Scotland, how reliable Tacitus is, or where (if anywhere!) Mons Graupius might be located. What do others here think about the issue, though? I get the impression that a lot of work has been done in this field - some of it controversial - and I'd be interested to learn of the state of contemporary thinking...

Any ideas/doubts/firmly-held convictions/alternative theories?

Regards - N Ross

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I can only say that when you approach the area near Benacchie, Tacitis' description of the battle site comes to life vividly in my mind.....FWIW :|

[D B Campbell]

I can only say that when you approach the area near Benacchie, Tacitus' description of the battle site comes to life vividly in my mind ...

Hear, hear!

[Nathan Ross]

...when you approach the area near Benacchie, Tacitis' description of the battle site comes to life vividly in my mind.....

Well, for want of other evidence, that's as good a reason as any!

Bennachie/Durno is a pretty satisfying choice - it's far enough north to suggest a long and epic campaign, tracing a line of march northwards along the coast, supported by the fleet, to Aberdeen before striking inland. After all, Agricola spent several years in Scotland, with several legions plus auxiliaries at his disposal - what was he doing if he only got as far north as Perth? (unless we follow the Gask Project suggestion that he was wrapped up in admin... :? )

On the other hand, the passage in Tacitus actually implies that the Caledonians decided to attack Agricola, rather than vice versa:

Having sent on a fleet, which by its ravages at various points might cause a vague and wide-spread alarm, he advanced with a lightly equipped force... as far as the Grampian mountains [sic], which the enemy had already occupied. For the Britons, indeed, in no way cowed by the result of the late engagement, had made up their minds to be either avenged or enslaved, and convinced at length that a common danger must be averted by union, had, by embassies and treaties, summoned forth the whole strength of all their states.
Tacitus - Agricola

It would make sense, then, for their great tribal muster to be somewhere in the vicinity of where the Romans were presumably already based - i.e the various Flavian forts around Ardoch. If you want to gather your collective forces to launch a huge final assault on your enemy, it would seem strange to have your mustering point far to the north-east... and Tacitus doesn't actually say that Agricola followed the fleet along the coast at all. It reads rather as if he learned of the tribal muster on the borders of the area he'd already 'fortified' (to some extent), and made a rapid inland march to attack them before they'd gathered their full force. That would indeed suggest a site in the vicinity of Dunning... :|

- N Ross

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or from Normandykes near aberdeen inland to just around Benacchie? You can almost see the forced pace in the spacing ofthe camps....

[D B Campbell]

link from old RAT
Whatever you make of their conclusions - or their methodology, it's an interesting bit of work and a fairly compelling theory.

I'm afraid their methodology is the problem. (I'm reminded of our friend Jona's recent thread on Pseudo-History.) It should be an interesting piece of work -- it could be an interesting piece of work, if it were done properly -- , but their use of statistics is, at best, naive, and at worst, mendacious.

Let's look at the basis of their "analysis".

(1) It revolves primarily around a "study" of Roman temporary camps, of which (as you are no doubt aware) there is a bewildering array in Scotland. Over the years, different scholars have attempted to bring some order to this archaeological chaos by assigning camps to different notional series. These are entirely a modern construct, intended to help to explain the archaeology, and have no prima facie claim to authenticity.

(Thus, the fact of a camp series being Agricolan cannot be used as a basis for further theory, because it is itself a theory.)

(2) Their analysis also depends on a series of arbitrary criteria, devised by the website owners, ostensibly to identify the "best match" for an Agricolan battle scenario; but, again, with no ancient authority or scientific basis, these criteria have no prima facie claim to relevance.

(Thus, the fact that a particular camp could have held the number of men that the website owners think that Agricola might have fielded at Mons Graupius, based on the website owners' opinion of the number of men that a temporary camp was usually designed to hold, and the website owners' opinion of the date of said camp, doesn't even come close to inspiring confidence in their methodology.)

Once you realise that the whole exercise is a sham with no particular claim to either authenticity or relevance, it becomes pointless even to discuss their "league table" of locations. This kind of material, irresponsibly disseminated on the internet, gives archaeological research a bad name.

(And I managed to avoid saying either "sloppy" or "ignorant". )

[Nathan Ross]

I'm afraid their methodology is the problem...This kind of material, irresponsibly disseminated on the internet, gives archaeological research a bad name.

Ha!... Well, the claims of '100% probability' and so on did seem a bit grandiose, to say the least - could anything be less probable than the exact location of a battle (which may never have happened), based on the vague description given by somebody with a political point to make, who wasn't there anyway and had little idea of the country?

The suggested identification of other sites, however, doesn't seem to rest on anything much more substantial - or does it? We have Tacitus' rather opaque description, and the archeological evidence of a series of marching camps stretching away up the east coast to... somewhere... left by, it would appear, several different armies following the same approximate route at widely spaced historical intervals. This 'bewildering array' presents an enticing opportunity both for professionals and 'interested amateurs' alike to hypothesise on what Agricola and/or Severus might have been up to in the north - to reconstruct a narrative, in other words (to go back to 'Pseudo-History'!). That these intuitions should then be proclaimed 'fact' and disseminated about the internet is annoying (particularly for an archeologist, I would imagine), but in the absence of any more compelling evidence I don't see that one view should be any more accepted than another. Personally, I don't have a problem with the sort of visceral response to landscape that Byron described above, provided it isn't contradicted by other evidence and isn't inflated into a presumed intimate knowledge of the mentality or tactical goals of ancient generals :wink:

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: ). I admit to having only the barest acquaintance with archeological method, and mention of dendrochronology and C14-dating does tend to dazzle me with science. 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?

n.b. I'm not arguing one view over another here, just interested...

Regards - N Ross

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the sort of visceral response to landscape that Byron described above, provided it isn't contradicted by other evidence and isn't inflated into a presumed intimate knowledge of the mentality or tactical goals of ancient generals :wink:
Regards - N Ross

WHAT!!!!!! Are you questioning the military tacktical strategic abilities of the mind of ME, Gaius Julius Caesar, conquerer of the Gauls,
Invader of the Isle of Britainia, seduecer of Cleopatra? hock: hock: hock: :o ?
Really sir! You go too far!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Nathan Ross]

Really sir! You go too far!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hk hk hk :twisted:

(no such questioning implied, I assure you!)

[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: )

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So what period are the camps running up to aberdeen and beyond?
I heard of a sword being found at the one near stonehaven, Battledykes?
Were there ever any finds at Normandykes? ( and why is it so hard to find?)
I have heard it postulated that the battle was further up the valley from benacchie as well! :roll:

[D B Campbell]

So what period are the camps running up to aberdeen and beyond?

Every and any!

I heard of a sword being found at the one near stonehaven, Battledykes?

Battledykes (usually called Oathlaw, or "Battledykes, Oathlaw") is normally popped into one of the Severan series, chiefly because it's so big (the so-called "130 acre" series -- it is almost exactly 130 acres/53ha). I've never heard of any finds from the camp.

Were there ever any finds at Normandykes? ( and why is it so hard to find?)

Normandykes measures 42.6ha, so it doesn't sit happily in any of the usual series.
[attachment=0:3m439ysv]<!-- ia0 Normandykes_plan.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:3m439ysv]
It is mostly known from cropmarks (i.e. nothing standing above ground -- the black outline in the plan is the trace of the ditch, visible from the air), but a length of rampart and ditch can apparently be seen on the ground at the NE, at the edge of the woodland -- you can see the bold line on the attached plan. (I've never visited the site, so I can't say.)

[Nathan Ross]

So what period are the camps running up to aberdeen and beyond?

Every and any!

I think it's assumed (being very tentative here :| ) that at least some of them are Flavian - this is, AFAIK, due to the similarity of the gateways with the fort at Stracathro, which has yielded some coins dated to 86AD. These 'Stracathro-type' fortifications extend on beyond Durno towards the shore of the Moray Firth, however (was this what you meant, Byron, by the battle being suggested 'further up the valley?'). Perhaps we could imagine this as the route Agricola might have taken after Graupius, when he 'led him army down into the territories of the Boresti' (or however you chose to interpret/retranslate that line!)...

I've just found a rather interesting (if possibly dated) paper from 1983 by JGF Hind, musing on the Flavian occupation of Scotland - one of his theories is that northern Scotland during this period may have only been heavily populated in the south-eastern and east coast areas - precisely those regions covered by identifiable Roman camps and fortifications. He dismisses the notion that the Caledonian 'heartland' lay in the highland regions - perhaps a bit wantonly, as he implies they were a rocky wasteland uninhabitable to man! Well, perhaps... but looked at in this way, the Gask fortifications - and the great line of camps and forts stretching north-east - appear less like a frontier or boundary (or even a line of march?), and more like a way of pinning down a hostile, perhaps subjegated population.

The full article ('Caledonia and its occupation under the Flavians') is here:

[url:1m0wxrw5]http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_113/113_373_378.pdf[/url]

- N Ross

[D B Campbell]

So what period are the camps running up to aberdeen and beyond?

Every and any!

I think it's assumed (being very tentative here :| ) that at least some of them are Flavian

Yup -- Flavian falls into the category of "every and any"!

- this is, AFAIK, due to the similarity of the gateways with the fort at Stracathro, which has yielded some coins dated to 86AD.

Almost right. The camp at Stracathro is presumed to be contemporary with the fort (which yielded the AD 86 coin), because they sit side by side. Probably a safe assumption, ... but an assumption, nonetheless.

These 'Stracathro-type' fortifications extend on beyond Durno towards the shore of the Moray Firth, however ... Perhaps we could imagine this as the route Agricola might have taken after Graupius, when he 'led him army down into the territories of the Boresti' (or however you chose to interpret/retranslate that line!)...

In fact, unfortunately, the Stracathro camps do not form one of the recognised series! They are all sorts of different sizes and are so widely scattered that they cannot be strung together into a route, the way that the others can. (I can see how frustrating Scottish archaeology must seem to the interested observer! )

[Nathan Ross]

(I always meant to write this up as an article, but never got around to it. Maybe I should do it now ... :wink: )

Not a bad idea, by the sound of it!

- N Ross