Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Britain before the roman invasion
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Sleepysissco (U4090737) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
GUy's-just a couple of thoughts here!!
I've been thinking for quite a while, what was Britain like before the Romans invaded there in AD43-? (I think it was in AD 43!!!)
The Romans gave us towns, cities, plumbing, improved technogoly etc so were the Ancient British people just little farmers who had nothing but a few hits for a home?
Sorry If this has been asked before but If someone could paint me a picture of britain BEFORE thje Roman occupation and rule of Britain that'd make me happy!
Many thanks
Philip Kennedy -
Message 2
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Ironically, much of what we know of pre-Roman Britain comes from what the Romans said about it - plus some archaeology and a bit of educated guesswork, and judicious use of bits of Francis Pryor's beard to plug the gaps
Britain was divided into some twenty-four broad tribal regions (how fixed the boundries were is by no means clear) - for example, Dumnonia in modern day Cornwall and part of Devon, and Caledonia in what is now the Scottish Highlands - and most famously the Icenii in modern East Anglia.
There were some 'towns' of a sort - such as Silchester - probably trading centres, known as Oppida, which appeared about a hundred years before the AD43 invasion and which the Romans developed into proper towns. They seem to have consisted of a fairly regularly laid out network of roads and rectangular buildings within earthworks. However, most of the landscape was rural. The West Coast was dominated by strongly defended homesteads, the South and West Midlands, and an area on the East Coast of 'Scotland' were notable for the predominance of Hill Forts. Northern 'England' was a region of enclosed homesteads, whilst the East was largely given over to villages and open settlements. Buildings were mostly roundhouses, mainly built of wood though using stone where wood was scarce (Gurness on Orkney, for example).
The main inductry was agriculture, which seems to have utilised a large co-axial field system jointly worked by several farms - the Datmoor Reaves is a well preserved surviving pre-Roman field system. Farms existed mainly to provide for the farmers, unlike Roman villas which were mostly commercial farms.
Hill Forts seem to have been status symbols and trading centres rather than primarily military sites.
A network of roads existed, but they were essentially ancient trackways gradually worn out by regular passage, although some were deliberately cleared to link settlements and farmsteads. They were not metalled, as Roman roads were.
Culturally we know relatively little. Religion was apparently based on nature gods and the work of the Druids, and involved sacrifices, both of objects (swords and other things laid in streams and rivers) and people. Many tribal leaders had long been Romanised thanks to trade with Europe, particularly wine - the Britons sold slaves, with one slave being enough to buy one amphora of wine. Warfare was common, and utilised long swords, spears and slings; chariots were used as missile platforms, though their popularity was in decline by the time of the invasion.
The language would have been similar to Welsh and Gaelic - though modern Gaelic has since been influenced by Scandanavian and Scots (i.e. ancient Irish) tongues, whereas Welsh is more 'pure'. -
Message 3
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Have to stick my oar in re language...
The language of pre-Roman Britain was Celtic like Gaelic, but, more specifically, P-Celtic like Welsh & Breton. Welsh isn't so pure either, having a fair few words borrowed from Latin. Modern Gaelic hasn't just been influenced by ancient Irish - it is essentially Irish & wasn't around in Britain in pre-Roman times (unless there were e.g. tading settlements on the west coast). -
Message 4
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Which reminds me, there was a bit of mining going on as well (yes I know oar isn't the same as ore but...
)
Thanks for the correction on language. -
Message 5
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Always glad to remind the world of the evils of Irish imperialism.
-
Message 6
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
"Have to stick my oar in re language...
The language of pre-Roman Britain was Celtic like Gaelic, but, more specifically, P-Celtic like Welsh & Breton. Welsh isn't so pure either, having a fair few words borrowed from Latin. Modern Gaelic hasn't just been influenced by ancient Irish - it is essentially Irish & wasn't around in Britain in pre-Roman times (unless there were e.g. tading settlements on the west coast)."
And modern spoken Welsh has a fair amount of English words in it too.
And there's no such thing as a pure language. No language has ever been totally isolated from outside influences and there has always been cross-linguistic influences - we have those lovely Victorians to thank for this continuing concept of purity in linguistics which flies in the face of evidence. -
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
I agree with what everyone has written but don't forget the material culture of Iron Age Britain. The Battersea Shield and the Snettisham torcs were masterpieces of metal work. Without an invasion Roman culture might still have worked powerfully on the products of IA craftsmen.
There were places in Britain largely uninfluenced by the Romans. The brochs and wheelhouses of northern Scotland and the Isles provide a striking example of what an indigenous IA culture could produce.
TP -
Message 8
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Terry JOPnes's "Barbarians" programme highlioghted the essential difference between the Celts and the romans. Roman society was centralised. Everywhere existed to keep Rome n food and affluence; all roads led there. Celtic society was far more dispersed. Not necessarily barbarian at all, just very different to Roman society.
-
Message 9
Posted by Sleepysissco (U4090737) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Thanks guy's I just wonderded what Britain would have been like prior to the Roman Invasion of Britain that's all. Put it another way. I'm a 22 yearold idiot....With Hearing and Balance problems, But that's irrevelant! If I lived at that period in Bitain, Say 100 B.C would would my life have been like? Would I have had my own little wooden home? Would I have kept a small farm to look after me and mabye any family I might have been lucky to have!! I'm not married now- Don't even have a Girlfriend- But I'm sure that there were some marrage rituials of some sort in Ancient Britain Before the Roman Invisation!! i know that you said that peoples way of living, in terms of communitites were different accross Britain but I'm just interested in the past! It would be cool to even be able to put myself-Just for five minutes- into the mindset of Ordinary Britions before the Romans invaded Britain!!
Thanks for painting me a clearer picture.... At least now I know what the romans were looking for....Metal!!
Thanks
Philip Kennedy -
Message 10
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
"At least now I know what the romans were looking for....Metal!!"
Don't forget grain, the fuel on which the Empire ran. Egypt was the 'breadbasket of the Empire' but Britain, which its highly developed agricultural system, was stil very important. -
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
Message 6,
Stoggler:
I realise that there is no such thing as a pure language; I used the term (perhaps unwisely) in a relative sense - my understanding was that Welsh had been less subject to outside influence that Gaelic. Perhaps I was wrong, in which case I withdraw my assertion. -
Message 12
Posted by jllb0221 (U3587794) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
And don't forget slaves!
-
Message 13
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
And hunting dogs according to Strabo.
-
Message 14
Posted by theduke69 (U2716654) on Wednesday, 31st May 2006
hi, the landscape around britain had alot more trees,forests,especially in northumberland (hadrians wall) hope this helps. Do you know who ordered the successful invasion in AD43? Claudius.
hope this helps. -
Message 15
Posted by mickeymay (U3600416) on Friday, 2nd June 2006
Don't forget that a few classical Greeks got as far as northern gaul and wrote down a short paragraph or two, about the reported tribes across the sea. Probably put off by the gauls (perhaps because of gaulish economic interests) they returned home without actually visiting, what a shame.
-
Message 16
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Tuesday, 6th June 2006
posted by theduke69:
hi, the landscape around britain had alot more trees,forests,especially in northumberland (hadrians wall) hope this helps. Do you know who ordered the successful invasion in AD43? Claudius.
hope this helps.
Read Oliver Rackham's 'History of the Countryside' for a discussion of how many woods/trees Britain had. Most of the large-scale clearing of woodland was done in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. The landscape in 43A.D. was not significantly more woooded than that in 410A.D. when 'Rome' left Britain to its own devices, and there is little evidence for a large increase in woodland in the early Dark Ages.
The amount of woodland in 1939 was not vastly reduced from what there was in 1086 when the Domesday Book gives a snapshot of how wooded England was. Post-war loss of native broadleaved woods has been significant, however.
Rackham avoids the word 'forest' except in its true (Norman) Mediaeval sense of 'a place were there are deer'. Forests could be of mainly moorland (e.g 'Forest of Bowland') or heathland. Some were even mainly woodland!
I know of no reason to suppose that 'Northumberland' was more wooded in the late Iron Age than other parts of Britain were. -
Message 17
Posted by U3153557 (U3153557) on Tuesday, 6th June 2006
Anglo-Norman - 'I realise that there is no such thing as a pure language; I used the term (perhaps unwisely) in a relative sense - my understanding was that Welsh had been less subject to outside influence that Gaelic. Perhaps I was wrong, in which case I withdraw my assertion'. One point worth making is that Gaelic retained case-endings whereas British followed the same development as Latin in becoming Cymraeg, Cerneweg and Breton, as the latter became all the various romance languages. What caused these changes I don't know, but it suggests some common influences on the languages withing the Empire as opposed to those outside.
-
Message 18
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 9th June 2006
I think you might find the pictures etc. on the Butser Ancient Farm website interesting.
Also worth a look is -
Message 19
Posted by theduke69 (U2716654) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
hi, thanks for your comment, all I am saying is in Roman times there was plenty of woodland etc how do you answer for the early buildings of Vindolanda which were built from wood. but if you sit down and look and the landscape what can you see from early occupation,I'm sorry but if you spent a few days in Northumberland and looked at the area it would make you think. I've lived here all my life.
thanks
theduke69 -
Message 20
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Aaaaarrrgh! A damned, sheep-stealing Northumberlander!
Take it from a Scottish Borderer, folks, this man is not to be trusted! Turn your back for a moment & he'll have your livestock off you (& probably do unspeakable things to it).
The only solution is to gather your kinsmen about you, sneak up in the night & burn his house down. -
Message 21
Posted by theduke69 (U2716654) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
just done that in scottish accent sounds pretty good just wipe the face paint off. many thanks for reply dont take it too heart.
-
Message 22
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Had to be done - today is Lammastide, after all, the traditional start of the Reiving season... -
Message 23
Posted by theduke69 (U2716654) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
It had to be done
another English word is it. I know so what you having for harvest. -
Message 24
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
As a descendent of Scottish reivers on my father's side, and a Northumberland family on my mother's (mother's) side, should I start attacking myself?! To complicate matters, I live in Yorkshire. At least there are plenty of sheep (and cattle!)
-
Message 25
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
There is archaeological evidence that the Romans managed woodland (by coppicing, etc.) just like their predecessors and successors. Yes, they used timber in construction work, but that doesn't imply (much) more woodland in e.g. Northumberland than at a later date.
Indeed the Romans used more stone, brick and tile than the Britons had, or the later Anglo-Saxons did (and when the later came to build e.g. Hexham Abbey, they found a convenient stone quarry in the shape of the Wall and its forts!).
I think that there are almost certainly more trees today in Northumberland than there were then, but that is because of large Forestry Commmission plantations, Kielder in particular. The trees of the area in Iron Age and then Roman times would be mainly oak, ash, and birch, with some lime and a lot of 'undershrub' of hazel, hawthorn and blackthorn (sloe). Apart from the odd Scots pine and a few yews, there would be hardly any conifers, unlike today! -
Message 26
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
and a few yewsÂ
Be careful, Alaric - the duke might think you said 'ewes' & get all excited... -
Message 27
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Message 24:
Yorkshire was the traditional recruiting ground for the Wardens of the English Marches - Northumbrians themselves not being trustworthy enough
So not only will you have to attack yourself, you'll have to arrest yourself for doing so! -
Message 28
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 2nd August 2006
Ohh, it couldnt be easier. Attack Lancashire.
-
Message 29
Posted by BashfulDinger (U5352754) on Friday, 18th August 2006
I know its only fiction but Manda Scott has written a trilogy on Boudicca which she says is based on research into pre Roman Britain. It is very insightful and just emphasises Terry Jones view that it was really the Romans who were the barbarians invading a peaceful, prosperous and well run country.
Ironically, this also describes England before the Norman invasion! -
Message 30
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 18th August 2006
Except that the tribes of Britain were constantly at each others throats, which is one reason why some of them were willing to ally themselves with Rome (including the Icenii). Fanciful romantic sub-Celtic nonsense on the author's part, I suspect.
-
Message 31
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 18th August 2006
Hi guys
I would have to agree with Anglo here. The native British culture was one of inter-tribal conflict, where warriors showed their mettle by stealing cattle from the their neighbours and generally fighting each other. It was a Briton who showed Ceasar the place to land and some british tribes co-operated with them.
Much the same happened when the Anglo Saxons invaded. Some British (Loegrian) tribes eventually allied with the Saxons against the Cumru of Wales, the Brythons of Alba and the Cornovi of Cornwall. Allegiances changed many times I am sure during both periods. -
Message 32
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 20th August 2006
One mustn't forget that the Romans were pretty good at being at each others throats too.
TP -
Message 33
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 21st August 2006
Sleepysissco, the Britons had no vegetables before the Romans came, apparently. And not many fruits either.
-
Message 34
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 21st August 2006
Hi Fascinating,
Your posting made me think about where we got our fruits and vegetables. I’d be grateful to be corrected if I have made any mistakes.
The collection native to Britain is pitiful: hazel nuts, sloes, blackberry, kale, field mushrooms, crab apples and perhaps a wild parsnip. I think peas were introduced with cereals as part of a ‘Neolithic package’.
I believe that the Romans were responsible for the following garden favourites: leeks (Egypt), onions (Egypt), garlic (Egypt), white raddish (Egypt), turnip (Persia), lettuce, cabbage, broccoli (Persia), and broad beans. They managed to introduce the wine grape but figs, walnuts, chestnuts, almonds and olives couldn’t be grown commercially in our climate.
In the 16th-18th centuries a S. American cluster of crops arrived in Europe. Obviously these included: potato, tomato, runner bean, maize, capsicum, and sunflowers.
The only non-American introductions I can think of after the Romans were the hop (15th C), the swede, and the orange carrot (17th C).
I’d be grateful for help with spinach, aubergines, cauliflower and sprouts. Were they produced by post-medieval plant breeding?
TP -
Message 35
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 21st August 2006
This is from a British Archaeology article
'[The Romans brought] cabbage, parsnip, turnip, carrots and other vegetables, fruit trees such as the vine, plum, apple, mulberry, and walnut, and flowers such as the rose, violet, lily, pansy and poppy.'
I am finding it hard to find a full definitive list. -
Message 36
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 22nd August 2006
5-7 years selection of the largest roots of wild carrot & wild parsnip have, if memory serves, proved enough to make them useful for culinary purposes, and ramsins are a delicacy (for the eater at least). Other vegetables were also eaten as far back as pre-Roman times, which we now regard as weeds (sorrel, fat hen, ground elder etc). If you can get hold of a book called "Food for free" you will see plenty of other examples.
-
Message 37
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Tuesday, 22nd August 2006
Was the leek really brought here by the Romans? I think of it as such a British vegetable! I just looked at 'leek history' on the 'net and one of the things I found explains how it became a Welsh symbol: the Britons led by Cadwallader fought a battle (I think in 640AD) and each Briton put a leek in his headgear to distinguish them from the Anglo-Saxons! Nice story if true!
-
Message 38
Posted by theduke69 (U2716654) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
I'm sorry but i disagree i think Hadrians wall area was heavily planted with trees,shrubs etc, Where did they get there wood from for the earlier forts? now there are fields but if you look closely you can see all the plough marks in the fields from over the centuries. the romans cleared the land for a full view of who ever would want to invade. ie (scots)
-
Message 39
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 26th September 2006
Hi Duke,
At the time that Hadrian's Wall was being constructed the Scots lay several hundred years in the future. The Romans had quite enough trouble with the northern British. The wall was constructed across the territory of the Brigantes, a powerful tribal confederation.
Any plough marks you see in surrounding fields will be medieval or post-medieval 'ridge and furrow'. On the other hand Romano-British field boundary ditches may be visible on aerial photographs.
As you say the construction of the first forts, and the wall itself, must have required a truly massive amount of timber. Pollen studies in the area of HW suggest that woodland clearance was actually well advanced before the Roman period. The western half of the wall was initially constructed in turf. Striping this off the land surface must have had a devastating effect that lasted for decades.
Strangely the function of HW remains a problem. The Roman army of that period did not fight from static defences, nor would any contemporary Roman have admitted that there was a limit to the empire. It offered accommodation to the troops and allowed the regulation of the movement of people and animals. As a statement of naked power it has few equals.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 40
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Hadrian's Wall was a military barrier, mainly for the purpose of keeping out raiders (usually Picts) from the north. We can know this because of the presence of so many thousands of armed men. There were also forward forts such as the one at High Rochester, so that they could have some control of the area north of the Wall, or at least be able to have information as to what was happening there. A simple customs barrier, which is what you seem to be implying, would not need so many men, so high a wall, or the outlying forts.
-
Message 41
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Hi fascinating,
Leaving aside the interesting question of ‘who were the Picts?’ there are many difficulties in regarding Hadrian’s Wall, as originally conceived, purely as a military barrier.
The Roman army of the early 2nd century was not trained to fight from a static defence; its tactics were to bring enemies to battle in the open field. Fortified gateways, milecastles, were placed at intervals of 1 Roman mile along the wall. These make no sense in a purely defensive structure, but are understandable if the Brigantes (whose homelands were on both sides of the wall), and their carts and herds, were to be allowed to pass through largely unhindered.
There is a defensive ditch in front of the wall which is understandable in terms of your theory. Behind the wall however (ie on the southern side) is a much larger ditch or ‘vallum’. Digging the vallum must have been a huge engineering project, almost as great as constructing the wall itself. It just makes no sense to go to such trouble on the ‘safe’ side of the structure. Could its purpose have been to designate the whole system as ‘the zone of the armies’.
Finally there is the problem that the flanks of the wall were so easily turned by a naval force, and the Picts were famous sailors. This, of course, is exactly what happened towards the end of the Roman period. To some extent the Cumbrian forts may have been constructed with this possibility in mind.
I imagine that the whole system, with its outlying forts at Bewcastle and High Rochester was intended to dominate both the landscape, and the minds of the native British who lived in its shadow. Very effective in both roles I imagine.
You may feel my opinions on Roman military structures is a little herodox. I don’t believe that Saxon Shore forts were constructed to defend the province against Saxons either!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 42
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
TwinProbe, I do not get your reasoning at all. The Roman armies were not just trained to fight in open battle. They were very accomplished at laying seige to cities, for one thing. They were also very good at making defensive forts, which included defensibe walls and ditches. Its tactics were not fixed, it adapted them to the situation.
The milecastles etc make perfect sense for a defensive structure, for you must have men constantly patrolling the wall.
There are very few gates in the wall that we know of. Most of it is continuous curtain wall ie a tight defensive structure with a big ditch at the front.
The vallum is a bit of a mystery. It looks like a boundary to mark a military zone, certainly it does not add to your case for the wall just being a customs boundary.
It is plain that the Romans knew that the flanks of the wall were weak points, and that is obviously why they had large forts at Bowness and Wallsend, plus flanking forts at South Shields and right around the coast of Cumbria for about 40 miles.
It is simply untenable that all this was just to control the movement of oxcarts in this relatively unpopulated area.
There is precious little evidence of trade across the wall. Is there any actual evidence of the spread of Roman coins and goods north of the wall?
The idea that it was built just to show domination is stupid. The whole wall, plus all those forts, plus the vallum, plus even forts outside the territory the Romans had not conquered - they were all built just to dominate the landscape and the British who lived there - but not for military purposes? Ridiculous. Why was this not done in Southern Britain where, we may be sure, far more people lived?
Sorry, this is another modern half-baked idea without any evidence behind it. -
Message 43
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
And an article in a recent magazine argues (or at least seems to argue) that from DNA evidence the poplution of "England" in pre-Roman times was Germanic rather than "Celtic" and a different from the DNA in Cornwall, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.
-
Message 44
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Hi Fascinating,
There is no contemporary written account explaining the purpose behind the construction of the wall, in fact only one account relates the construction to Hadrian at all. In the absence of such an historical record theories are likely to multiply, and to call any of them ‘stupid’ seems a little harsh. There are several things you might like to consider.
I’m not sure it is correct to think of ‘the Roman army’ as a single unified institution (like the British Army). I doubt if a single legionary in the NW provinces had any experience in the siege of a defended city. What they were good at was building a defensive base and then leaving it to fight in the open. Hadrian’s wall, IMV, is closer in concept to a very oddly shaped Roman fortress than to a medieval castle and city wall complex, which were certainly built with the intention of providing a platform for fighting.
I’m not saying that Hadrian’s Wall had no defensive function of any kind, but rather that it is incorrect to regard it as (using your words) a ‘military barrier’, in the sense of separating what is outside from what is inside. A closer parallel might be a modern nuclear rocket silo. The land in the immediate vicinity of the silo is irrelevant; the purpose of the silo is to project a threat at a distance. Such was, IMO, the main function of the wall.
The milecastles may indeed make perfect sense for a defensive wall that is continuously patrolled but it is the gates through the milecastles that are inexplicable unless you propose to make passage through the wall relatively easy. The vallum is hard to explain sure enough. I admit its construction doesn’t make much sense even if you accept my theory, but it makes no sense at all for yours. A second ditch facing north would have enhanced the barrier function.
Cumbria does seem to have been defended as far south as Maryport and Ravenglass. Since the wall’s largest fort was at Stanwix, far to the west, it looks as if the Cumbrian forts were indeed integrated into the HW system as a whole. The base at South Shields must be on the visiting list of everyone interested in Roman Britain of course but I can’t see it functioning as a flanking fort however. It seems more likely to have been a storage depot for the eastern half of the system, and a convenient launching point for Severus’s invasion of Scotland. The east coast fortlets or watch-towers (like the one in Scarborough Castle) are a flank guard but their construction seems to have been at the very end of the Roman period, so irrelevant to this discussion.
A huge number of Roman artefacts have been found north of the wall and have percolated as far north as Shetland. Surveys were performed by Anne Robertson in the 1970s and a few years ago by Frazer Hunter. Their presence has been used to date Pictish iron age structures such as souterrains. The hill-fort at Traprain Law just off the A1 must have more Roman objects than any other non-Roman site in the UK. Most of the artefacts have been related in date to the various Roman invasions of modern Scotland. Whether they represent the result of ‘trade’ acquisition such is more difficult to say. What would the Roman army have wished to purchase form outside the empire? Horses, cows, and other agricultural surpluses I guess; so it is likely that our ancestors ate much of the evidence.
Why no equivalent wall in the south? Well here Romanization through existing elites proved a far more effective way of controlling the population. The independent attitude of the northern peoples (an independence which they keep to this day) required an alternative approach. And it worked, for a while.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 45
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
I wrote my PhD on this subject some years ago, and like you i came to the conclusion that the wall was simply the offical frontier. Its always been accepted that there was a hinterland of control, but in reality the accomodations made with tribes further north (particularly around Traprain Law) makes it likely that the tribes in the area we now think of as around the Antonine wall were allies of Rome. This makes sense when you look at the Roman objects beyond the frontier, and where they are found.
These goods would have been partially the result of low-level trade and also gifts for continuing support. The genius of the system was that these tribes would exchange support for both Roman military backup as well as access to Roman trade goods. Remember that while the Roamn Emppire needed allies against the Highland tribes, so did these lowland tribes. My enemies enemy is my friend is a useful way of building alliances, and one which both sides played very well.
It tended to work quite well while the lowland tribes were strong, but I suspect that the Antonine Wall is built because the tribes could no longer keep up their end of the deal. After the withdrawl from the Antonine Wall trade tends to go out of the window, with the lowland tribes starting to recive large amounts of silver coin which are found in hoards.
Your post was excellent by the way.
BTW - have you got a link to Hunter Frazers publication - I've lost it so I would be interested to read it when I come to write the article I've been meaning to write for the last 7 years! -
Message 46
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 27th September 2006
Hi DocMike,
Thanks. The reference is:
Fraser Hunter 2001 Roman and Native in Scotland: new approaches J.Roman Arch. 14 289-309
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 47
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 28th September 2006
DocMike, what you say about the Romans making alliances with tribes rings true.
On the matter of the wall being simply the official frontier, are you saying that all the forts, the wall and vallum were there simply to mark a boundary?
It looks to me as though the tribal alliances could not be relied upon, and the Romans instead decided that extensive military emplacements were needed to repel the threat. -
Message 48
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 29th September 2006
Message 45,
Why, then was the Antonine Wall abandoned? I have heard that Hadrian's Wall marked an official boundry to the Empire after Hadrian decided that Rome needed to consolidate her possessions rather than expand a sort of visual "this far and no further" statement. Was there something similar going on with the decision to withdraw from the Antonine frontier? Or by "around" did you mean primarily on the 'Roman' side? -
Message 49
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Friday, 29th September 2006
Firstly - thanks TP for the ref - I'm now trying to find the actual text, but since I'm moving in 2 weeks I'll probably just lose it again! Thanks anyway.
Getting back to the Wall, Hadrian's Wall is the official frontier, and does have defensive measures. Its not simply a fence in the landscape, and would be able to resist an assault to some extent. But the point is that Rome always had an area in front of the offical frontier which would be regarded as a safe zone or Roman area of influence - a buffer zone. In fact it seems that Rome regarded everywhere in theory as part of the Empire - they simply hadn't go there yet!
My research showed the zone to be much further north than we had thought, with Rome making common cause with tribes up to the Firth-Forth line.
My theory about the Antonine Wall is that the Wall was built as part of a move up to this line when the alliance with the lowland tribes began to fail, and that the army was needed to protect its allies. It's out of character for Pius to make such a bold move with so little to gain from such an advance, so there must have been more to it than a simple grab for territoy.
The withdrawal logically would have come because it seemed that the tribes could once again defend themselves (and by extention) the Roman frontier. But there is a poin at which the abandonment of the Wall is rapidly reversed - so perhaps the highland tribes pressured Rome's allies so much that the army had to continue to occupy the wall, at least for a while. Its about this time that the lowland brochs are destroyed. Since the Roman material in them suggests strongly that the occupiers of these settlements were Roman allies, it could be that the highland tribes destroyed these brochs (and perhaps Traprain Law, which also is abandoned during this period) and made the Roman army's occupation of the area vital, at least in the short term.
The eventual abandonment of the Antonine Wall is thus not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. It does not last of course...
Your comment 'the Roman side' of the Antonine Wall, shows the problem we have with Rome in this area, which is that it dominates our thinking. The Wall is there because it is A) the shortest line between the two coasts, and B) its the frontier between the lowlands and the highlands, and its the second which is actually more important. The Romans build the defensive line there because if you were a native lowland tribal leader, thats where you'd want it. Its defending Rome's allies on a frontier which predates the empires interest in the area. It shows, above all else, the mutual interests of Rome and the lowland tribes. There is no 'Roman' side as such, because the Antonine wall is simply the stop line behind the frontier zone, although this far north, it was obviously far less secure than further south.
The Empire ends up paying the tribes in cash rather than kind (the promise of military support, trade, etc), i suspect because the tribes knew that Rome was no longer capable of such actions. The Romans needed the tribes more than the tribes needed them, which is why you get lots more silver found and more coinage for the periods after the abandonment of the wall in the area than during it.
Thats my theory anyway, which I've yet to actually write up in an article, and unless my 2 year old goes to nursery, possibly never will! -
Message 50
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Friday, 29th September 2006
I'll just throw in the opinion that it was the Forth-Clyde line rather than the Tyne-Solway line that represented the northern boundary of 'Roman' Britain on the grounds that, come the 'dark ages', the people living between the English Channel & Forth-Clyde line were reckoned to be a single, culturally coherent gens - the Britons.
I've read somewhere that it may have been Roman sea defences that led the Scots to colonise western Britain north of the Clyde, rather than south of it.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.