Skip to comments.
(October 28, 2002) How We Loved The Romans (Scotland Celts)
Sunday Herald ^
| 10-28-2002
| Juliette Garside
Posted on 10/27/2002 4:36:00 PM PST by blam
How we really loved the Romans
New research explodes myth that Scots were untameable barbarians
By Juliette Garside
The enduring myth that the Romans left the 'barbarians' of Scotland untouched during their conquest of the rest of the British Isles has been shattered by a new archaeological find. Not only did they settle in Scotland for around 15 years in the first century AD ... they even got our ancestors to swap their beer and lard for wine and olive oil. For hundreds of years, historians who based their theories on the classical writer Tacitus have always assumed the first major Roman push into Scotland was a brief and bloody affair. The then governor of Britain, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, was supposed to have marched his legions as far north as the Moray Firth and fought a decisive battle there in 84AD, before being immediately recalled to Rome by a jealous emperor Domitian.
History tells that his troops stayed on for a brief 18 months before a quarter of the British legions had to return home to fight at the Danube , in late 86 or early 87AD, and the frontier retreated to northern England, where Hadrian's Wall now stands.
The belief had always been that Agricola's stay in Scotland was too short to have had any significant cultural impact on the local population, a Celtic race whom Tacitus referred to as Caledonians.
While the English were learning to build villas with underfloor heating and baths with latrines, the northernmost inhabitants of the British Isles fought off the invaders and remained 'barbarians', untouched by Roman civilisation.
Tacitus's history of Agricola's career, made up and put into the mouth of one of the Caledonian chiefs, characterised the invaders as bringing nothing but destruction: 'To robbery, butchery and rapine, they give the lying name of 'government'; they create desolation and call it peace.'
Now the findings of a husband-and-wife team of archaeologists from Manchester University, to be revealed in the BBC documentary series Time Flyers next month, show the Romans were in Scotland for a stay as long as 15 years before their eventual withdrawal in late 86AD.
The archaeologists, David Woolliscroft and his wife Birgitta Hoffmann, have excavated along the line of the Gask frontier, a series of Roman forts and watch towers stretching from Perth to Dunblane which marked the line reached by Agricola.
They have found that the strong oak forts were rebuilt, in some cases not once but twice, suggesting the Romans stayed much longer than 18 months. The evidence of rebuilding and coins found on the sites have led the team to put the date of the first Roman conquest at around 70AD -- a decade earlier than was previously thought.
This means it would not have been Agricola, who happened to be the historian Tacitus's father-in-law, doing the conquering, but one of his predecessors, Petilius Cerealis or Sextus Julius Frontinus.
If the occupation did indeed last 15 years, a generation of ancient Caledonians grew up alongside the Roman barracks in the first century AD. Far from spending their time at war with the enemy, there is evidence the locals enjoyed an economic boom, with the production of meat and grain increasing in order to feed the foreign army, and luxury goods such as wine, olive oil, pottery and silverware finding their way into homes.
'The famous quote is the Romans make a desert and call it peace -- our research is showing probably the opposite,' said Woolliscroft, speaking in advance of the BBC show.
'The picture was the Romans arrived, they broke heads and they left again. We now have evidence that the Romans came and stayed longer than we thought and in certain areas their arrival may have been a benefit and stimulated the local economy.'
Excavations this August at a typical Celtic roundhouse near Doune uncovered fragments of glass bottles. These would have been of a square design, and used to hold olive oil or wine.
From the recovered pollen, the archaeologists found one well-off family were cattle owners rather than grain growers. And during the period of the Roman occupation, there are signs the number of animals on the surrounding land increased. There were even less trees than there are today, and the type of weeds that don't survive intensive grazing seem to have been killed off for a while.
'We are seeing signs that while the Romans are here agricultural activity really intensifies, either because of taxation or because the locals are supplying the army,' said Woolliscroft.
On other Celtic sites, luxury goods such as tableware and trays, amphorae, coins and glass have been found.
'A whole generation grew up alongside the Romans.' said Hoffmann. Far from fearing the invaders, local children would probably have hung about the nearest fort in the hope of getting little treats from the soldiers. 'They would have known that if you went to the fort you could get the equivalent of chocolate. Roman soldiers would have been like the GIs in the second world war.'
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: antoninewall; godsgravesglyphs; romanempire; scotland; scotlandyet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: marsh2
>I know the Saxons were Vikings. Who were the the Angles?
Virtually all the European peoples mentioned in this thread were just different tribes of Celts. The word Saxon comes from "Isaacs Sons", or "Saca Suni" and other permuatations.
The dominant majority of the Celts came from the region of the Caucasus Mountains (thus Caucasians) from 610 BC and later. That's when the 5 MILLION people from the Northern Kingdom of Israel (known as The Lost Tribes of Israel, having joined with the Medes and Persians to defeat their Assyrian captors, bailed out northward through the Caucasus and south around the Black Sea to begin their great trek westward to conquer and totally dominate Europe.
See BRIEF CELTIC HISTORY for much more on the European tribes.
To: Tribune7
I know the Vikings (Ivar the Boneless, Ubbi, Halfdan) took York, Northumbria, Deira and East Anglia in the late 860s in retaliation for the death of Ragnar. In the 870s, Halfdan warred on the Picts, took Mercia and Guthrum took East Anglia.
The Norweignas had been in Wessex as early as 786. They stayed in Ireland and Northwest England.
Alfred's treaty recognizing the Danelaw was in 870, but it was not until 1013 that Svein, the king of Denmark became king of England. He was followed by his son Canute the Great. Canute was the first on record to establish hunting preserves or "forest" an area.
I admit that what I know of this is sort of peripheral. I was researching the roots of American property rights and getting information through implication and interpretation of sagas and stuff.
Am really interested in learning more from ya'll. Fascinating...
22
posted on
10/28/2002 12:09:07 AM PST
by
marsh2
To: Tribune7
>The Saxons weren't Vikings. They were Germans. The Angles and Jutes came from what is now Denmark but would still be better classified as Germanic rather than Norse.
The definition of "German" is a fluid one, depending on time. The original Celtic tribe called "The Germani" is the source of the name of the approximate territory which is currently called Germany. But that Celtic tribe was driven out to the West and North by later invading Slavic tribes. Unlike most of its neighbors to the north, west, and SW, Germany today is not primarily Celtic in origin.
>...would still be better classified as Germanic rather than Norse.
Scandinavian languages are classified as "Germanic" in origin, as are others. Roman History makes many references to "barbarian Germanic Tribes". These were simply large Celtic tribes which occupied the territory, and who were related to the many other large Celtic tribes throughout Europe.
Historians typically make far too much of the differences between European peoples, ignoring their common roots. It's like concentrating on the trees while ignoring the forest. Trees are easier to study. {ggg}.
To: muawiyah
The English were just then learning how to pick lice out of their hair back in Denmark, Saxony and other as of then un-named or un-known barbarian heartlands!
Well, maybe not quite so primitive, but you are correct, the ones in the south were Britons, many of whom moved into Cornwall or Wales or Britanny or Galicia.
interesting bit about hte Sctos -- they were an Irish people hwo moved in only after the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. This was in opposition to the Hibernians who had invaded Ireland centuries earlier. Until the 6th century, Scotia was really Ireland. Scot means an adventurer or something similar in Irish (someone help me out here), not really a tribe. So, until the 7th century, Alba or modern day Scotland was Scotia Minor as opposed to Scotia Major (modern day IReland)
24
posted on
02/16/2004 8:16:58 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: blam
you know, I never could get around that the Iberians were nor Celtic peoples.
25
posted on
02/16/2004 8:17:46 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: blam
Could it be that the Picts or painted people were non-Caucasians? And that the coloring with wode was some way similar to some African tribes that paint their bodies? Pure conjecture here on my part.
26
posted on
02/16/2004 8:20:55 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: marsh2
I know the Saxons were Vikings. Who were the the Angles?
cOmpletely confused. Saxons were not Vikings. vikings were not a people or a distinct Race. They were Germanic-Nordics very similar to the Danish and other Scandanavian tribes who formed the Vikings. Hence there wasn't so much trouble between the Saxons and ht Danes as between the Saxons and the Britons (Welsh) -- the Saxons and Danes spoke roughly similar languages and when the Danes became christians and stopped looting, they could all live happily together (well mostly ;-P)
Saxons, Angles, Frisians etc were all Germanic people from the Western parts of modern day Germany into Holland.
Icelandic culture is Scandanavian in origin and the Scandanavians were the last of the peoples in Europe to be civilised by Rome.
27
posted on
02/16/2004 8:25:04 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: Savage Beast
Why would the Romans trade wine and olive oil for beer and lard? It must not have been their best. On the other hand, maybe they were trading for Scotch whiskey! I'd
Scotch whiskey was first distilled by Monks in the middle ages, quite a long time in the future.... Beer on the other hand is Egyptian in origin (surprising but true!) and wine seems to have it's origins in IRaq-Iran!
28
posted on
02/16/2004 8:26:11 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: LostTribe
The original Celtic tribe called "The Germani"
never heard of any Celtic tribe called so. The word german is derived form the Latin Germanus which means genuine or authentic and probably refers to the Roman distinction between the Celts and Germans -- viz. the GErmans were 'authentic' Celts, more Celtic than the Celts -- more blonder and hairier. confusing, well, yeah, the Romans didn't really care too much, both were barbarisn to be assimilated or slaughtered, not civilised peoples like the ones aroudn the Mediterranean.
29
posted on
02/16/2004 8:29:43 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: LostTribe
Historians typically make far too much of the differences between European peoples, ignoring their common roots. It's like concentrating on the trees while ignoring the forest. Trees are easier to study.
The 'European' peples roots lie further east in Persia-India, with the Germanic-Nordic-Greek relgions being similar variants to hinduism and the pre-Zoroastrian Irani religions. Their languages are also similar as are the physical characteristics.
30
posted on
02/16/2004 8:31:30 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: Cronos
Scota and Mil ~ The Great Goddess and Mankind! And where do these two creatures get together? Why, Scotia!
Mil was in the habit of building "watch towers. The Milesian "tower" at Brigantia (in Carvajal on the NW Coast of Spain) is rather famous. It pre-dates the arrival of the Phoenicians, and was so ancient that when the Romans arrived they had to rebuild it.
Today's Scotland was created by a mix of Milesian Irishmen and Scandinavian Vikings. This mix is reflected quite well in "MacBeth". The King was a Scot, but his wife was the daughter of a Viking King.
31
posted on
02/16/2004 8:46:10 AM PST
by
muawiyah
To: muawiyah
Qutie correct, But what happened to the Picts?
32
posted on
02/16/2004 9:27:43 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: muawiyah
What do you think about the Lost Tribes of Israel (Semitic) people and the Celts (Aryanic people)?
33
posted on
02/16/2004 9:28:35 AM PST
by
Cronos
(W2K4!)
To: Cronos
I knew that the Egyptians drank beer and the Persians drank wine, but I thought the production of whiskey in Scotland and Ireland began in prehistoric times. No?
34
posted on
02/16/2004 11:53:58 AM PST
by
Savage Beast
(Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
To: Cronos
I knew that the Egyptians drank beer and the Persians drank wine, but I thought the production of whiskey in Scotland and Ireland began in prehistoric times. No?
35
posted on
02/16/2004 11:54:52 AM PST
by
Savage Beast
(Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
To: Savage Beast
I have one case of this stuff left to me by my grandfather.
Is it anygood?
36
posted on
02/16/2004 12:11:50 PM PST
by
ASA Vet
("A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity", Sigmund Freud)
To: ASA Vet
A WW I American of these mixed bloods doughboy, my great-uncle told me that a man's scotch should be older than his woman.
He died very old and very happy.
Prehistory discussions deserve old scotch, an oak fire, and a fair lass.
I vote for an independent Scotland before islamists capture a northern beachhead.
37
posted on
02/16/2004 1:00:09 PM PST
by
SevenDaysInMay
(Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
To: Cronos
Obviously the Picts did not have blue receptor cones in their eyes. So, when they painted themselves blue they were harder to see (among their other Pictish enemies).
Betcha' that trait is still quite widespread among the modern Scottish populations. That would mean the Picts were absorbed!
38
posted on
02/16/2004 2:19:13 PM PST
by
muawiyah
To: Cronos
I think the Aryans were a shade darker than the Semitic people ~ as they are today!
There were pre-Indo-European populations in Europe. They are still there. All they did is change their languages, but not their spots, or the absence thereof!
39
posted on
02/16/2004 2:21:20 PM PST
by
muawiyah
To: muawiyah
England = Angleterre = home of the Angles
40
posted on
02/16/2004 3:58:18 PM PST
by
NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
(Michael <a href = "http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson