Posted on 06/29/2005 12:33:12 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Astonishing new archaeological finds reveal they were already our countrymen 50 years before Claudius spun his way into the history books. reports
The history of Britain will have to be rewritten. The AD43 Roman invasion never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated political spin by a weak Emperor Claudius.
A series of astonishing archaeological findings of Roman military equipment, to be revealed this week, will prove that the Romans had already arrived decades earlier - and that they had been welcomed with open arms by ancient Britons.
The discovery of swords, helmets and armour in Chichester, Sussex, dates back to a period between the late first century BC and the early first century AD- almost 50 years before the supposed invasion. Archaeologists who have studied the finds believe it will turn conventional Roman history taught in schools on its head. "It is like discovering that the Second World War started in 1938," said Dr David Rudkin, a Roman expert leading the work.
The discoveries in Sussex will be revealed on Saturday during a Time Team special on Channel 4 analysing the Roman invasion. Tony Robinson, presenter of Time Team, said: "One of the frustrating things with history is that things become set in stone. We all believe it to be true. It is great to challenge some of the most commonly accepted pieces of our history."
Dr Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, said it would prove controversial. "It turns the conventional view taught in all the textbooks on its head," he said. "It is going to cause lively debate among Roman specialists."
The AD43 Roman invasion is one of the best-known events in British history. More than 40,000 Roman soldiers are believed to have landed in Richborough, Kent, before carving their way through the English countryside.
The evidence unearthed in Sussex overturns this theory. Archaeologists now believe that the Romans arrived up to 50 years earlier in Chichester. They were welcomed as liberators, overthrowing a series of tyrannical tribal kings who had been terrorising clans across southern England.
Sussex and Hampshire became part of the Roman Empire 50 years before the invasion that historians have always believed was the birth of Roman Britain.
The findings and their implications will be published by Dr Rudkin later this year. The discoveries have centred on Fishbourne Roman Palace in Sussex. Artefacts found there in a V-shaped ditch include part of a copper alloy sword scabbard fitting that archaeologists have dated to the period between the late first century BC and early first century AD.
Dr Miles Russell, a senior archaeologist at Bournemouth University who has studied the evidence, said: "All this talk of the Romans arriving in AD43 is just wrong. We get so fixated on the idea of a single invasion. It is far more piecemeal. In Sussex and Hampshire they were in togas and speaking Latin five decades before everyone else."
According to Dr Russell, it was in Emperor Claudius's interest to "spin" the invasion of AD43 as a great triumph against strong opposition. Claudius had become emperor two years earlier but his position following the death of Caligula was tenuous. A bold military adventure to expand the empire would tighten Claudius's grip in Rome and prove his credentials as a strong leader.
"Every period of history has its own spin doctors, and Claudius spun the invasion to look strong," Dr Russell said. "But Britain was Roman before Claudius got here."
Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain during the Iron Age in 55BC, but storms on the journey from Boulogne, in France, to Dover caused Caesar's two legions to turn back. A force of five legions tried again in May 54BC and landed in Dover before marching towards London, defeating Cassivellaunus the King of Catuvellauni in Hertfordshire. News of an impending rebellion in Gaul caused Caesar to retreat, but not before he had made his mark.
Britain at this stage in history was not one unified country, rather some 25 tribes often at war with each other. Not all tribes joined the coalition to fight Caesar. For example, the Trinovantes appealed to Caesar to protect them from Cassivellaunus who had run a series of raids into their territory.
Dr Francis Pryor said that the findings in Sussex prove that relationships between tribes in southern England and the Romans continued after Caesar's attempted invasion. "The suggestion that they arrived in Chichester makes plenty of sense. We were a pretty fierce force but the Romans had a relatively easy run. This would have been a liberation of a friendly tribe - not an invasion."
Oxford historian Dr Martin Henig, a Roman art specialist, said that the whole of southern England could have been a Roman protectorate for nearly 50 years prior to the AD43 invasion. "There is a possibility that there were actually Roman soldiers based in Britain during the whole period from the end of the first century BC," he said.
Time Team will unveil their findings in a live two-hour special on Saturday evening on Channel 4. It will form part of the biggest ever archaeological examination of Roman Britain running over eight days and involving hundreds of archaeologists at sites across Britain. The series will investigate every aspect of the Romans' rule of Britain, from the supposed invasion to their departure 400 years later.
ping
Fascinating.
So what am I now supposed to do with this?
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/493.html
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list -- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.I will ping the GGG list until July 2, 2005, during SunkenCiv's temporary absence from the board.
If you see articles appropriate for the GGG ping list, please ping me.
So the Claudius Broadcasting Station forged documents, huh?
Sorry to say but none of this is actually news. Julius Caesar invaded Britain in the early 40's BC and retreated, not having the forces necessary to hold the island. That there could have been arms left there is probable, as also is trade across the Channel, a not-unknown prospect as British tin made it to Phoenicia several hundred years earlier, IIRC.
Besides, the records were published by Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom lived a number of years AFTER Claudius. Perhaps there was already an urban myth in place. Oddly, the families of veterans would also still be alive and capable of correcting the record, had there been occasion to.
Tempest in a revisionist teapot, IMHO.
Thanks for reading,
Beleg
Italian War Hero's just published a thinner edition.
Claudius had problems with Hillar....I mean Mesalina. Claudius was second only to Augustus in leadership and building the Roman Empire...and they called Claudius an Idiot.
Sussex and Hampshire became part of the Roman Empire 50 years before the invasion that historians have always believed was the birth of Roman Britain.
One contemporary application of this fact is to remind us that for all recorded history there have been waves of invasions and brutal treatment if not extermination of the conquered by the conquerors. The fate of the Native Americans is the same fate as that of Britons/Celts, Romano-Britons, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and Vikings. It doesn't make it right but these are massive historical forces and recurring patterns of human behavior that are not reversed by arguing for reparations or some other kind of turning back the clock. It is our behavior towards each other today that counts.
The "evidence" these guys have discovered doesn't support their conclusions at all. As another poster mentioned, Julius Caesar staged a failed invasion in about the same period these artifacts date from, and in any case, Roman influence (via trade) could easily account for them even if Caesar's expedition was not part of the historical record.
If the logic and erudition these guys display is mainstream then modern British archaeology is a farce.
Pardon my ignorance to this subject, but when I first read this I couldn't help but remember learning about that wall erected by the Romans to defend from the northern Brits. If the Romans were welcomed openly, then what is the purpose of this construction?
I tend to believe that other posters may have hit it right on the money. The "evidence" could be evidence of prior advances before actual conquering or even trade.
Thanks for the clarification. Although I know little about this, I suspected that it was no big deal and consistent with known facts.
Aw, just Pict yourself up and dust yourself off, and don't be such a Claud.
Besides, Sid Rich SUCKS! No, I didn't go to Rice. But I've been to Valhalla.
Become set in stone? History is stuff that happened a long time ago. Either it happened, or it didn't. It's great to find a new piece of the truth, but challenging for the sake of it isn't great at all. Only, nobody gets a book or TV gig by saying, "yep. Turns out, it really happened just the way we told you when you were six."
Well, it was reported by Danus Ratherus so the whole scenario is suspect.
I mean after that whole Roman National Legion memo thing...
LOL - the Sid Rich reference was lost on me - the Rice link was just the first link to the Kipling poem that came up in Google.
A very good question! I think it would depend upon the numbers (of weapons found) and the circumstances of the site.
Weaponry implies a lot about tactics. A sword -- in this case the Roman gladius -- is particulary good for stabbing in close-quarters, 'shield wall' engagements -- not the kind of thing you'd expect from tribal warriors. So if there were a few Roman swords scattered around a dig, then I'd tend to say "Yeah, probably trophies taken from Caesar's invasion."
If, OTOH, there are a lot of swords & armor found in a dig that reveals typical Roman castramentation (field fortifications), then I'd say that this is definitely "Roman".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.