I've recently found myself thinking about Tacitus' claim that the Classis Britannica circumnavigated the Scottish coast, while Agricola was campaigning here.
I don't know too much about how the Roman Navy was organised and operated, but I am wondering what (if any) archaeological evidence there could be for this. I'm not doubting the claim, I'm just wondering what traces they could have left behind.
Did they, for example, generally come ashore to camp? If so, what kind of encampments would they prefer to use and would there be likely to be any remaining traces of them today? What would the geographical requirements be for a camp, which could help identify potential sites? I would imagine nothing on the scale of an army marching camp, probably with very little (or no?) defensive ditches or anything, and located near a river and beach.
Do any other sources mention this circumnavigation?
More generally, has the CB left much trace behind in Scotland in general? I'm aware of a few sites which have been identified as potentially having been harbours, and some which are noted as being on "navigable" sections of rivers, but did the Roman navy leave any definite footprints in Scotland at all?
Quote:Did they, for example, generally come ashore to camp? If so, what kind of encampments would they prefer to use and would there be likely to be any remaining traces of them today?
Tacitus (Agricola 25) implies that they came ashore to camp; he describes them "messing and making merry" (in one memorable translation) with the men of the army.
I'd expect them to "dig in", since they were in enemy territory. I'd even expect something like the little 3.2ha temporary camp at Dun near Gilrivie on the Montrose Basin (pictured from NE -- yellow arrows indicate the corners), which miraculously produced Flavian pottery when it was trenched in around 1972.
[attachment=384]Dun_RomanCamp.jpg[/attachment]
Quote:Do any other sources mention this circumnavigation?
That's a nice photo - you can see the outline of the camp quite clearly.
There are also a couple of larger camps at Girvan Mains on the west coast - one, I believe, produced first century remains. I would guess that the 'circumnavigation' would have included the fleet sailing north (via the North or Irish sea) to the area of conflict at the beginning of the campaign, so the actual fleet activity after Mons Graupius would only have involved doubling the northern end of Scotland, perhaps from somewhere like Girvan to the vicinity of Carpow (or some other coastal base in the area - I think Carpow has only yielded Severan evidence). I imagine that this expedition would have used British-style ships (like the Gallic ships described by Caesar, or the remains found at Blackfriars) rather than oared galleys.
Have there been any Flavian finds along the southern shore of the Firth of Forth, does anyone know? I know Elginhaugh is probably Agricolan, but it seems a bit too far inland to guard a possible harbour.
Thanks, to you both. What about the once supposed Roman encampment at Portmahomack on the Black Isle, then - conceivably naval? If, indeed, Roman at all.
Any idea how far they could have traveled per day, how far apart camps could be? I realise this is highly dependent on currents, tides and the mercies of wind and wave - but any rough guidelines? There are sections of, particularly, the Pentland Firth coast where potential landing sites are pretty limited - unless they were skilled cliff climbers as well as sailors.
It sounds like, if dug in encampments were likely (which I agree is at the very least possible), there may indeed be traces to be found if the right places happen to be examined.
If Portmahomack is indeed Roman then it probably has some association with the fleet. But I doubt any such camps would be found further north. Agricola's fleet performed three main operations: in c.82 they were sent to 'explore the harbours' (Agr I.25), in support of the army in their march north. This support operation would presumably be the occasion for the sailors and troops to share camps - coastal sites like Dun would fit with this phase of the operation.
The following year the fleet were sent further still, to 'ravage at various points' and cause 'a vague and wide-spread alarm' (Agr I.29). This implies they were sailing out of range of the army. Thirdly, following the battle at Mons Graupius later that same year, the fleet Prefect was sent 'with a force' to sail around Britain, apparently visiting the Orkneys and maybe Shetland en route. (Agr II.38)
We don't know how large this 'force' might have been. How large was the entire British fleet anyway? But it's unlikely that the whole fleet were sent on the expedition - Agricola wouldn't want to risk losing them. Half a dozen or so vessels would surely be sufficient. During these second two operations, with no land force in support, I would think it possible that few, if any, shore camps or fortifications were constructed. Far better, surely, to remain at anchor in a sheltered bay and reprovision using boats - the natives presumably had no warships bigger than a coracle, and the sailors would be safer aboard ship.
As for the duration of the circumnavigation voyage - the distance by sea from the Firth of Forth in the east to the coast of Ayrshire in the west, keeping close to shore, is approximately 690 miles. A ship going at an average 2 knots could cover 54 miles in 24 hours, meaning that a non-stop voyage could have been completed in just under 13 days. Of course, the ships would not be sailing all the time, and the distance discounts further passage up to the Orkneys or Shetland. But with only a month or so between the battle (at the end of summer) and the onset of the northern winter, Agricola's fleet Prefect wouldn't want to hang about. A total voyage time of 26 days might just be feasible.
Incidentally, re my comment above about the type of ship used, I notice that the mutinous cohort of Usipii (Agr I.28) stole three libernian galleys ('tris liburnicas') for their own voyage around Britain - so perhaps oared ships were used this far north after all. But Tacitus' comment about the northern seas being 'sluggish' and 'yielding with difficulty to the oar' I think might be a poetic trope!
How much has the shoreline changed in two thousand years? Do we have any idea? I could imagine that in some places the shore has been eaten away, while in other areas, like at river mouths, it may be extended because of silt deposits. I wonder how difficult it would be to track an ancient circumnavigation based on today's coast. If they made camps, some remains may be underwater, while others may be far inland now.
It is the circumnavigation voyage that I'm mainly interested in, as any Roman camps found along (say) the north coast could only have come from the fleet, as it is well out with the maximum penetration of the army. I don't think visiting Orkney would have added too much extra distance, as the Pentland Firth is very narrow at that point. Unless they spent a while moving between the numerous islands, of course. In fact, it is so close to the Scottish mainland that it may have seemed like an attractive and easy diversion while passing right by anyway. As far as I'm aware, no evidence that the Romans ever actually visited Orkney has been found to date. I agree about the likelihood of anchoring in sheltered bays, of which there is no shortage, and going by the numbers or contemporary native remains (brochs and whatnot) along the north coast, I suspect the native population was probably large enough to merit such precautions in places. Early Roman items have been found along the coast, in native contexts, but these will probably have been from trade and unrelated to the passing-by of the fleet.
I had been going to ask about the Usipii, but I thought they'd have been even less likely to have left behind any physical evidence.
Changes to the coastline..... As it happens, I've been talking to Historic Scotland's Inspector of Ancient Monuments over the last few weeks, as I discovered a massive landslide/cliff collapse along that very coastline which has damaged a broch site in his care. I know from extensive personal experience that the coastline along that particular stretch is prone to such events, and I expect it was ever thus. It is interesting, to me at least, to know that this broch will have been there when the Roman ships passed, even if the sea is a wee bit closer to it now!
Quote:As far as I'm aware, no evidence that the Romans ever actually visited Orkney has been found to date.
You are perhaps expecting too much. (Like those who deny Roman contact with Ireland on the grounds that no Roman fort has been found there.) We have literary references to Orkney in the later first century (Pliny the Elder, Juvenal), adding weight to Tacitus' claim that "at the same time, the Roman fleet discovered the islands which are called the Orkneys, hitherto unknown, and conquered them" (Agricola 10.4: simul incognitas ad id tempus [ i.e. the governorship of Agricola ] insulas quas Orcadas vocant invenit domuitque).
In addition, as you probably know, we have more than a few finds of Roman pottery on Orkney, testifying to links (trade? patronage? clientage?) with Rome. I am not so naive as to assume that the legions stepped ashore and defeated the islanders, but I am content to believe Tacitus when he claims that contact was made.
Quote:Early Roman items have been found along the coast, in native contexts, but these will probably have been from trade and unrelated to the passing-by of the fleet.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the passing-by of the fleet. We simply can't say, one way or the other.
Quote:As it happens, I've been talking to Historic Scotland's Inspector of Ancient Monuments over the last few weeks, as I discovered a massive landslide/cliff collapse along that very coastline which has damaged a broch site in his care. ...
I'm not sure which coast you're on, but if you are near Portmahomack, you will know that there is no evidence of a Roman presence there. The antiquarian account of "a beautiful square fortification of about 100 paces of a side" was never substantiated, and in any case, sadly, need not have been Roman (RCAHMS Canmore entry).
Well, no, not really. I said that I wasn't aware of there being any evidence of the Romans actually visiting Orkney. I am aware of the claimed contacts, and feel no reason to doubt them. I did in fact say earlier that I think that Orkney could have been just a short, easy and attractive diversion for the fleet as it passed through the Pentland Firth.
Quote:I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the passing-by of the fleet. We simply can't say, one way or the other.
Indeed. What sort of interactions would you imagine likely if the fleet did beach near a local settlement, probably containing people with no prior experience (maybe even no knowledge) of Rome?
Quote:I'm not sure which coast you're on, but if you are near Portmahomack, you will know that there is no evidence of a Roman presence there. The antiquarian account of "a beautiful square fortification of about 100 paces of a side" was never substantiated, and in any case, sadly, need not have been Roman (RCAHMS Canmore entry).
I'm on the north coast (Pentland Firth, in fact), but I know Portmahomack (and most of the Highlands & Islands) very well. I'm aware that there's no evidence of a Roman presence at Portmahomack, which I only mentioned as it's been suggested in the past (albeit on no evidence) as a potential Roman site, which is both coastal and out with the known extent of the Roman land force penetration into Scotland.
