Possible Roman Camp in Jersey?

[Carus Andiae]

Although most historians and archaeologists have insisted that there is no evidence of Roman military occupation in Jersey, Channel Islands, I recently came across the following, and I would appreciate the views of the learned members of this forum.

In 1979, Charles Stevens asserted that there was evidence to support a possible landing of detachments of the Legions VII and X in Jersey as part of an amphibious exercise prior to Julius Caesar's landings in Britain. Stevens believes that Caesar, prior to the landing 54BC, dispatched detachments of the aforementioned legions to practice an assault on one of the Islands visible from the Gallic coast, of which Jersey (Andium, as the Romans knew it) was the closest and largest. It is plausible that he would have sent and officer to survey the landing site first, as did did with Britain itself, sending Gaius Volsenus. Certainly a legend exists in the Island of "Un lieutenant de Cesar" arriving in the Island in a small 'coracle' (Stevens supposes this may have been the 'dinghy' of a warship). Of course if this really did happen, one would expect Caesar to have mentioned it in one of his books.

Stevens believes that following this, the exercise would have taken place. He identifies two sites as possible camps of the legion detachments: Les Catieux (also known as Chastel Sedement) and Dielament. Tracing the names of these locations to their earliest references, he claims that the names, the meanings of which are obscure, could be corruptions of Septimana and Decumana. Chastel does, of course, mean a fortification. Certainly Les Catieux (another word meaning camp of fort) has been known as Caesar's Camp since time immemorial, an quantities of Roman material - pottery and coins - were found during excavations.

There are photos of Les Catieux here: http://www.prehistoricjersey.net/Les_Catieaux.shtml

and plans here:
http://www.prehistoricjersey.net/Les_Ca ... plan.shtml

Ignore what it says about the site probably being medieval for the moment - that is disputed.

Incidentally, also in Jersey is Caesar's Fort, actually a medieval outwork of Mont Orgueil Castle, but Steven's suggests it may have been built on a late Roman fortification. Certainly it would be logical that if the Romans were going to fortify the site it would be that one, since it also had an Iron Age Hill Fort.

[Robert Vermaat]

Although most historians and archaeologists have insisted that there is no evidence of Roman military occupation in Jersey, Channel Islands, I recently came across the following, and I would appreciate the views of the learned members of this forum.

OK, here´s the plan from that link you provided for a somewhat easier discussion±

Of course if this really did happen, one would expect Caesar to have mentioned it in one of his books.

Why concentrate on Caesar= The Channel islands could have had detachments fortifying them against attack by Late Roman seaborne raiders.

Chastel does, of course, mean a fortification. Certainly Les Catieux (another word meaning camp of fort) has been known as Caesar's Camp since time immemorial, an quantities of Roman material - pottery and coins - were found during excavations.

Well, legend aside, chastel or castel need not mean fort, it also means fotified settlement. Silchester was at one time known as Castel de Salwa, although it can be argued if the ´caste´ referred to the ancient walls or the Norman motte! I see a similar structure here, which could be the origin of the ´chastel´-name

Ignore what it says about the site probably being medieval for the moment - that is disputed.

Any finds? At all?

Incidentally, also in Jersey is Caesar's Fort, actually a medieval outwork of Mont Orgueil Castle, but Steven's suggests it may have been built on a late Roman fortification. Certainly it would be logical that if the Romans were going to fortify the site it would be that one, since it also had an Iron Age Hill Fort.

Yes, continuity is a good argument, but it needs hard finds to support it.

I´d say ´why not´? But I guess theorizing is nice, evidence is better, for I´ve learned that although rectangular fortifications are often ascribed to Roman times, they most often turn out to be Medieval. I mean, judging from the pictures the earthworks are extremely very well preserved if they date back to Caesar!

[Carus Andiae]

Thanks for your comments. The focus on Caesar is Stevens' doing, and comes largely from an almost certainly erroneous belief that Jersey was called Caesarea (from a misreading of the Antonine Itinerary - as I said, Jersey would have been Andium, and Caesarea the islet group known as Les Minquiers). I would agree that fortification against sea borne raiders in the Late Empire (comparable to the German fortification of the Channel Islands in WWII) would be equally if not more likely, although this site is too far inland - I would have said - to prove especially effective in that regard. In that case, Caesar's Fort, flanked by two bays - both of which have been used as harbours, one still is - would be more likely. Sadly, there is no Roman material at that site to back up the theory. A small fort and signal station was built in the Late Roman era in Alderney. You'd be hard pressed to signal to France from Alderney, so I suspect there may have been a signal station (or two) somewhere in Jersey.

Finds at Les Catieaux have been sparse, but have included some Roman material (of what date I don't know - easily obtained information seems to be sparse) and inluded a small quantity of pottery and some coins. In fact, evidence of the Romans being in Jersey is very hard to come by - apart from similar finds to those at Les Catieaux, we have the base of pillar, found in the crypt of St Lawrence Church, and the foundations of a small Gallo-Roman shrine on the clifftop at Le Pinacle in the west of the Island:



I suppose one could argue that in the middle ages the remains of a Roman site were repaired - it has been proposed as the site of a refuge mentioned as existing the 13th century. Oh well - wishful thinking I suppose. Perhaps one day someone will miraculously discover a papyrus listing the garrison and defences of Jersey under such and such an Emperor.

[Robert Vermaat]

Here's a link to an article about the Channel Islands in Late Roman times:
The Channel Islands by David E Johnston

[Carus Andiae]

Thanks, Vortigern. Unfortunately my computer can't read it

[Praefectusclassis]

You can download Adobe Reader (which is what you need) for free here

[Carus Andiae]

Many thanks, Jasper.

Vortigern, you hero! Great stuff.

[Robert Vermaat]

:oops: My pleasure. have fun reading.

[Carus Andiae]

By the way, Vortigern - where was that article from?

[Robert Vermaat]

By the way, Vortigern - where was that article from?

My apologies, I didn't give you the link to CBA Research Reports, a great source!

This article was from CBA Research Report No 18 (1977): Johnston, D E (editor): The Saxon shore (1977).

Contents:
The Saxon Shore - some problems and misconceptions by Barry Cunliffe (p 1)
The historical background and military units of the Saxon Shore by M W C Hassall (p 7)
Duces and comites in the 4th century by J C Mann (p 11)
The Reculver inscription - a note by J C Mann (p 15)
The Classis Britannica by Henry Cleere (p 16)
The British evidence
Dover by Brian Philp (p 20)
The Saxon Shore fort and settlement at Brancaster, Norfolk by Derek A Edwards and Christopher J S Green (p 21)
Lympne - a preparatory comment by Barry Cunliffe (p 29)
The Gallic evidence
The Channel Islands by David E Johnston (p 31)
Boulogne and coastal defences in the 4th and 5th centuries by C L Seillier (p 35)
The 4th century Gallo-Roman site at Alet (Saint-Malo) by Loic Langouët (p 38)
The castellum at Brest (Finistère) by René Sanquer (p 45)
Oudenburg and the northern section of the continental Litus Saxonicum by J Mertens (p 51)
Late Roman defences and the Limes by S Johnson (p 63)
Litus Romanum - the Shore forts as mission stations by S E Rigold (p 70)
The Saxon Shore - British anonymity in the Roman Empire by J J Wilkes (p 76)

[Carus Andiae]

Thanks very much. :o

David.