10-04-2018, 08:33 PM
Do we have any evidence of the existence of the Votadini client kingdom?
Where it was placed
From the Geographia of Ptolemy (II.ii) we know their main settlements: "Further south are the Otalini, among whom are the following towns: Coria, Alauna, Bremenium". Otalini could be an error of Ptolemy of an error of the scribes.
Also, from that book, we know that:
- The Firth of Forth, which marked the tribes northern border was known in ancient times as the Boderia or Bodotria Aestuarium.
- The River Aln in Northumberland was known as the Alaunus, upon which was situated the settlement and fort of Alauna.
- The Cocuveda Fluvius now known as the River Coquet, empties into the North Sea at Amble in Northumberland, opposite Coquet Island.
- The River Tyne, or the Tineus Fluvius, possibly marked the tribe's southern border with the Brigantes tribe of north-eastern England.
So, we can place the Votadini tribe in the eastern parts of Northumberland, immediately after the Hadrian's Wall (which it is possible that included part of the tribe territory).
The Traprain Law Hillfort in East Lothian could be the oppidum of the Votadini tribe. It is a large hillfort first settled in the 8th BC, which seems to be continuely occupied throughout the Romano-British period. The fact that its inhabitants were allowed to remain, suggests that there was some form of treaty between the Votadini and the Roman military administration.
![[Image: d8b7c554fa6797bc733d185e4a20d07025e8ae54.gif]](http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/d8b7c554fa6797bc733d185e4a20d07025e8ae54.gif)
Characteristics of the tribe
As we can read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/bri...n_01.shtml, the Votadini were a very large tribe, organized, as the brigantes, in a group made up of smaller tribes, but archaeologically, the territory of the Votadini was very different to that of either the Venicones or the Novantae. Large walls, banks and ditches surrounded most of their farms and the people made offerings of fine metal objects, but never wore massive armlets.
The archeology confirms that there are at least three very large hillforts in their territory (Yeavering Bell, Eildon Seat and Traprain Law), each was located on the top of a prominent hill or mountain. The hillforts may have been used for over a thousand years by this time as places of refuge and as places for meetings for political and religious ceremonies.
Roman activities
We know that at least for three periods, that territory was directly controlled by the Romans:
- 80-105? (the territory seems have been abandoned following roman engagement in Dacia)
- 140-164
- 209-211
Some fortresses were hold in the nort of the Hadrian's wall also when roman troops withdrew to the wall. Trimontium, today's Newstead, was occupied by the Romans intermittently from 80 to 211. And there were also other fortresses. It is interesting that Trimontium position was perfect to control the Votadini, but also to eventually seperate them from the tribes of the west of the region.
There could be also another occupation, with the instauration of the Roman province of Valentia, under Count Theodosius activities, but it is highly probable that the province was southern of the Hadrian wall and not northern.
So, we know that Roman for some time occupied the place, and for long time kept some forces in a position useful to control the tribe.
Client Kingdom?
But, once the Romans withdrew in the 164, what situation they left in the Votadini territory? Old poems tell of kings by Romanised names, but we are more interested in evidences.
The main towns seem to be occupied steadily. And we know that they were quite big towns, easy to be attacked by the Romans. And we know that romans troops were near. So it is quite obvious that there were some contacts and relations. But can we really speak of a client relationship?
Excavations in Votadini territory, especially around Traprain Law, have unearthed silver Roman items (also including Gallic Roman coins). But this could indicate:
- trade
- appeasement
- raids
Concluding, it seems that we don't have enough information to conclude that Votadini were a client kingdom. Romans had the forces to put pressure, and they effectively kept troops in the area, but we don't have real evidences to speak about a client kingdom.
This is what I have found, this topic has been opened in order to collect more info about the relations between Rome and the Votadini, searching for evidences of these relations.
Where it was placed
From the Geographia of Ptolemy (II.ii) we know their main settlements: "Further south are the Otalini, among whom are the following towns: Coria, Alauna, Bremenium". Otalini could be an error of Ptolemy of an error of the scribes.
Also, from that book, we know that:
- The Firth of Forth, which marked the tribes northern border was known in ancient times as the Boderia or Bodotria Aestuarium.
- The River Aln in Northumberland was known as the Alaunus, upon which was situated the settlement and fort of Alauna.
- The Cocuveda Fluvius now known as the River Coquet, empties into the North Sea at Amble in Northumberland, opposite Coquet Island.
- The River Tyne, or the Tineus Fluvius, possibly marked the tribe's southern border with the Brigantes tribe of north-eastern England.
So, we can place the Votadini tribe in the eastern parts of Northumberland, immediately after the Hadrian's Wall (which it is possible that included part of the tribe territory).
The Traprain Law Hillfort in East Lothian could be the oppidum of the Votadini tribe. It is a large hillfort first settled in the 8th BC, which seems to be continuely occupied throughout the Romano-British period. The fact that its inhabitants were allowed to remain, suggests that there was some form of treaty between the Votadini and the Roman military administration.
Votadini tribes: 9
Characteristics of the tribe
As we can read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/bri...n_01.shtml, the Votadini were a very large tribe, organized, as the brigantes, in a group made up of smaller tribes, but archaeologically, the territory of the Votadini was very different to that of either the Venicones or the Novantae. Large walls, banks and ditches surrounded most of their farms and the people made offerings of fine metal objects, but never wore massive armlets.
The archeology confirms that there are at least three very large hillforts in their territory (Yeavering Bell, Eildon Seat and Traprain Law), each was located on the top of a prominent hill or mountain. The hillforts may have been used for over a thousand years by this time as places of refuge and as places for meetings for political and religious ceremonies.
Roman activities
We know that at least for three periods, that territory was directly controlled by the Romans:
- 80-105? (the territory seems have been abandoned following roman engagement in Dacia)
- 140-164
- 209-211
Some fortresses were hold in the nort of the Hadrian's wall also when roman troops withdrew to the wall. Trimontium, today's Newstead, was occupied by the Romans intermittently from 80 to 211. And there were also other fortresses. It is interesting that Trimontium position was perfect to control the Votadini, but also to eventually seperate them from the tribes of the west of the region.
There could be also another occupation, with the instauration of the Roman province of Valentia, under Count Theodosius activities, but it is highly probable that the province was southern of the Hadrian wall and not northern.
So, we know that Roman for some time occupied the place, and for long time kept some forces in a position useful to control the tribe.
Client Kingdom?
But, once the Romans withdrew in the 164, what situation they left in the Votadini territory? Old poems tell of kings by Romanised names, but we are more interested in evidences.
The main towns seem to be occupied steadily. And we know that they were quite big towns, easy to be attacked by the Romans. And we know that romans troops were near. So it is quite obvious that there were some contacts and relations. But can we really speak of a client relationship?
Excavations in Votadini territory, especially around Traprain Law, have unearthed silver Roman items (also including Gallic Roman coins). But this could indicate:
- trade
- appeasement
- raids
Concluding, it seems that we don't have enough information to conclude that Votadini were a client kingdom. Romans had the forces to put pressure, and they effectively kept troops in the area, but we don't have real evidences to speak about a client kingdom.
This is what I have found, this topic has been opened in order to collect more info about the relations between Rome and the Votadini, searching for evidences of these relations.
