The Roman Invasion (Part Two)

[pg5]‘Well you were right Alan, you said there would be letters to the KAS Newsletter after your article. So why so glum?’
‘The Bredgar coin hoard, no one mentioned it.’
‘They did in the Kent Archaeological Review and in the KAS Newsletter (No. 49) there was that letter about the Romans possibly landing at Faversham and the letter about the tidal currents. Then you had several faxes, letters and debates. Everyone told you that you were wrong.’
‘True, but no one mentioned the Bredgar coin hoard!’
‘They made a great point of the hoard at the CKA conference at Faversham (April 2001). You weren’t there, but a vast majority voted in favour of Richborough being the landing place.’
‘What a surprise.’
‘Only four in favour of Sussex.’
‘I’m amazed it was that many.’
‘You’re just an old misery. The vote was overwhelming.’
‘Yes.’
‘That shows the invasion route was through Kent.’
‘Don’t be stupid. Since when do we attempt to reach consensus views in archaeology based on a democratic vote. Democracy is a very bad form of government...’
‘You’re a fascist!’
‘Some, perhaps most, of the volunteers who work with me on archaeology sites may think that and some of my students certainly do, but I hadn’t finished the sentence. Democracy is a very bad form of government... but all the others are so much worse. Do you believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?’
‘Of course.’
‘Would it be true to say that most people in Western Europe more or less accept that theory.’
‘I would think so.’
‘There are states within the United States of America where attempts have and are being made to stop the teaching of that theory. States where the democratic vote has put those into power who are possibly even more “bonkers” than some archaeologists I could name.’
‘I see your point.’
‘A majority verdict is not necessarily the correct one.’
‘Stop trying to confuse the issue. The specialists who have really studied the problems have shown that it had to be a Kent landing. You’re smirking.’
‘Yes.’
‘Why?’
‘Specialists.’
‘Yes?’
‘Yes.’
‘Stop being awkward and wipe that stupid smirk from your face! What about specialists?’
‘I have been interested in the past for a long time. I don’t have any speciality but I think I’ve learnt a fair amount. One of the things I have learnt is that what one specialist puts forward another specialist will argue against. I’m sure there is already a specialist or two in Sussex at this very moment constructing arguments as to why the tides and currents and military logistics favour, or at least do not rule out, a route via the large and safe anchorage of Chichester harbour. Let’s try to find some examples, admittedly their validity can of course be questioned and there are probably problems concerning tides, currents and types of ship used about which I know nothing. The Spanish Armada of 1588 sailed the c.280 miles of the English Channel in nine days. If allowance is made for being becalmed, manoeuvring, fighting and sailing in close battle order this can be reduced to (at most) five and a half days with an average speed (if my arithmetic is correct) of 1.78 mph. (Yes - I know it’s supposed to be in knots, but that is just too difficult for my poor old mathematically disadvantaged brain). In 1415 the English fleet sailing from Southampton Water to the siege of Harfleur averaged approximately 1.52 mph. Both of these figures compare favourably with the 1.51 mph for a Roman fleet sailing from Boulogne to Chichester in three days, this number of days being suggested in KAS Newsletter No 49. However, in 1066 the Norman fleet sailing from the Somme to Pevensey appears have averaged a more impressive 4 mph. This speed, if matched by the Roman fleet, would have meant they could have made the journey to Chichester in 28 hours.’
‘So you don’t believe what specialists say?’
‘I didn’t say that. I merely stated that what one specialist says others will disagree with until such time that a (temporary) consensus develops. Once more evidence is accumulated that consensus will be challenged. That is why archaeological interpretations differ depending on what book you read. If archaeological interpretations remained static there would be no need for any more archaeology whether of a rescue or research nature and we could all become treasure hunters. For the most part specialists are merely stating their opinions, which may or may not be correct.’
‘How long will it take for a consensus to emerge?’
‘How long is a piece of string? Ten years? Twenty? Thirty? The debate on whether Roman towns were a success or failure within Britain continues after more than twenty years of debate with no sign of such consensus emerging. Let us use the Roman Invasion as our example. As well as the Richborough and Chichester landing places, the following have also recently been suggested either in print or verbally: Essex, Romney Marsh, Favresham Creek, Conyer Creek, Rochester and Otterham Creek.’
‘Who on earth would want to invade Britain via Otterham Creek? That’s just silly!’
‘Don’t blame me! I didn’t suggest it. For all of these places there is a definite lack of an attribute known as evidence, they are merely unproveable ideas, or at least unproveable until such time that a large scale excavation is undertaken. At least for both Richborough and Chichester Harbour there is some physical evidence although its proper interpretation can be debated. Even the various interpretations offered for the [pg6]destroyed Nagden Bump at Faversham Creek are at least based upon a physical feature rather than a philosophical idea.

‘What are those interpretations?’
‘Arthur Percival suggests that it is a Roman beacon site to guide ships. Due to the difficulty of seeing Faversham Creek from the Swale I think this is rather a good idea although I would prefer a medieval context, when we know there was a port at Faversham, rather than any conjectured Roman harbour. Paul Wilkinson would like us to believe it is the burial place of Beowulf. Others who witnessed its destruction have stated it was a natural hillock, or due to the clay pipes noted, of relatively modern date; the clay pipes may of course have been on the surface rather than within the matrix of the mound.’

‘So how do we find out its date now that the Bump is destroyed?’
‘For an early Anglo-Saxon context at least I would have thought that is a very simple problem to resolve. Assuming there’s no building on it, and that permission can be obtained, just excavate the site. With exposure of the area immediately below and around the Bump I would be very surprised if no secure dating evidence was obtained. Certainly for the robbed Anglo-Saxon barrows and the areas around them at Sutton Hoo in Suffolk a considerable amount of evidence was recovered. As it has been suggested that the site has so much potential I am amazed it hasn’t been excavated already. If the landowner is reluctant for an excavation to take place just bribe him; £3000 ought to be enough, a small price for Kentish archaeologists to pay if the site is so important.’

‘True. Will you be contributing to such a fund?’
‘No way.’
‘As always you are attempting to confuse the issue again. We are getting away from the point.’
‘Me, confuse the issue?’
‘It has been pointed out that the monumental triumphal arch at Richborough was in the centre of the settlement and commemorated the landing place of the Roman army.’
‘But this implies we know the extent of either the initial military encampment or of the later town. The whole point is that because erosion has taken place we have no way of knowing where the centre was. Also as far as I am aware there is next to no decipherable inscription from the monument. Therefore we do not know what it commemorated.’

‘If not the landing place of the army, what?’
‘The traditional account has been that it was erected to commemorate the final conquest of Britannia by the governor Agricola in c. AD 86.’

‘But why at Richborough?’
‘Presumably because at that date it was the main port on the Kent coast, which would be first seen by visitors, it was propaganda. There is another possibility in that it was commemorating the landing place of Claudius.’

‘So you are saying the Roman army landed at Richborough.’
‘No, I am saying that the Emperor and his entourage may have landed at Richborough, which is a completely different thing.’

‘But why should he land at a different place than the army?’
‘As stated in my previous article, because of the elephants. Does anyone know how much damage a sea-sick elephant can do? Now there’s a real specialist (experimental?) challenge for someone.’

‘Stop being silly.’
‘I think it’s rather a valid point. How many elephants were there? Were they all in the same ship? Were they calm? What happens if one, two or more elephants begin to be sea-sick and panic?’

‘Do elephants get sick? Like horses they may suffer from colic.’
‘Even worse, the cure for colic is to keep a horse on its feet and walk it around. How do you walk an elephant around a ship?’
‘Oh, you are such a pain.’
‘True; but it is still a valid point.’

‘Why?’
‘Let us assume that the evidence for a Sussex landing is valid. The Roman army land in Sussex, defeat the Britons on the River Arun and then march up to the Thames, where they stop and wait for Claudius to arrive. The keepers of the elephants want to get them across the Channel as quickly as possible and therefore a landing was undertaken at Richborough. A series of forts would be constructed in Kent from the Thames down to the coast, not the other way around. We have no idea where, nor how many, but let us assume they were at Noviomagus (traditionally Crayford, but long term research by Brian Philp now supports West Wickham), Vagniacae (Springhead), Durobrivae (Rochester), Durolevum (Ospringe), Durovernum (Canterbury) and Rutupiae (Richborough). There is a secure base for the Emperor to land and a series of defended supply depots up to the Thames.’

‘Evidence?’
‘None. Merely an idea. As stated in my original article no matter what gloss is put over it, all the evidence whether documentary or archaeological is ambiguous or merely personal opinion. We can put forward ideas from now until the day of judgement, but the actual physical evidence as to whether the Roman army first landed in Kent or Sussex (at least at the present) is just not there. Those who suggest the classical written evidence is not ambiguous have to offer explanations (not merely their opinions) as to the validity of the documents.’

‘There are the other later documentary sources that have been quoted to you, Gildas, Bede, Nennius and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, all of which provide evidence.’
‘All are totally irrelevant.’
‘Come on.’
‘Let’s take these documents one at a time. Gildas is writing sometime in the sixth century, traditionally c.AD 540, but possibly as early as c.500. He tells us nothing worthwhile. He knows less about the Roman Invasion than we do. Bede is writing c.730 and tells us nothing, other than Claudius landed and that, “within a few days without battle or bloodshed, he received the surrender of the greater part the island.” Totally untrue. Nennius is writing even later in date, early in the ninth century, and tells us that Claudius, “fought a great and bloody battle, not without loss to his troops.” [pg7]found naivety of historical and archaeological facts.’

‘Oh I wouldn’t say that Alan. You naïve? On anything connected with archaeology or especially archaeologists? Hang on, you’re having a go at someone.’
‘Little old me, have a go at someone in Kentish archaeology? Why on earth would anyone want to do that?’
‘Yes you! OK, so tell me about the Chronicle of Tysilio.’
‘Profoundly naïve I may be. Profoundly stupid I am not. For a sixth/seventh century saint the first reference you look up is the great John Morris’s Age of Arthur (a biased interpretation of the fifth to seventh centuries if ever there was one). Morris tells us Tysilio was Bishop of Powys and that he planted hedges in north Wales: That’s it, end of entry! If Morris doesn’t mention a chronicle written by Tysilio then one should become suspicious of any statement that says one existed. A process known as checking is then undertaken.’
‘Where do you check a Welsh chronicle?’
‘How about in Wales, with the people who really know? Letters from the University of Wales are enough to set this particular record straight. There is no such sixth or seventh century source, there is a Brut de Tysilio which has no connection with the saint whatsoever. This chronicle is a fifteenth century abridged copy of the twelfth century History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth our very first novelist. Like all good fiction writers Geoffrey possibly uses genuine material within his work, but even if he does we are unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. As with the fifth and sixth century events told within the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle we do not know which material (if any) is based on historical events. Indeed we all have to hope that his record (and that of the Brut de Tysilio) of events for the invasion of AD 43 is incorrect. Although both works tell us that Julius Caesar landed in the Thames Estuary in 54 BC, the invasion of AD 43 took place at Portchester with the battle at Winchester!’
‘That helps a lot!’
‘Doesn’t it just. All we need now is someone in Hampshire who has managed to show that this portion of Geoffrey’s novel and the Brut de Tysilio is based on fact. As a matter of interest there is a Bacchic mosaic from north Hampshire that may have some bearing on our subject matter. Found at Thruxton Roman villa in the nineteenth century the mosaic has a text around its border that may originally have preserved the name of the owner of the villa. The upper line appears to end with the word BODENI. Not being a Latin scholar I am unable to read all the wording but the similarity of this one word with the Bodunni mentioned by Dio is obvious. Of Dio we can make of his words whatever we want, but even so that mosaic does make one think.’
‘Interesting. But there is still the Bredgar coin hoard that you have been moaning about. This was left behind by a Roman officer and shows the battle must have been on the River Medway. You’re smirking again. Why? You know something. What? The coins of Claudius were almost new when buried. Their date? What is their date? No! Please no! The published date is wrong? Not something silly like AD 45?’
‘The date is OK. The four Claudian dated within the hoard are safely dated to between the 5 January AD 41 and 5 January AD 42. The coins are in very fine condition.’
‘What then?’
‘Three points. Two are probably of no significance. First, although they are in very fine condition they could have been kept in a bag for several years prior to burial. Unlikely, but possible. Secondly, they could be a late Iron Age ritual deposit. However, that is the classic archaeological get out clause.’
‘Also native coins would be expected as well. True?’
‘True.’
‘Therefore the interpretation that they were buried by a Roman officer in AD 43 must also be true.’
‘Not so.’
‘Oh for goodness sake. Why not? There is no Iron Age material therefore they must be buried by a Roman. He is hiding his savings before the battle.’
‘Why?’
‘Why what?’
‘Why is this Roman officer hiding his savings?’
‘Because he might be killed.’
‘Oh, that doesn’t make sense. Umm so it would be safe and he would come back for it after the battle.’
‘But he didn’t.’
‘Therefore he was killed.’
‘If you think you are going to survive a battle (apparently most soldiers do think that - if all soldiers thought they were going to die in battle we wouldn’t have any wars) there is no need to bury your savings. If you should be so pessimistic as to think you are going to die - guess what - there is still no need to bury your savings. I think this is what is called a “Catch 22” situation. Either way you do not need to bury them. You would want to leave your savings to your family or failing that your comrades. There is no point in burying them unless your family know where they are. Why weren’t these supposed savings in a bank?’
‘What?’
‘Oh yes, the Romans had banks. Or failing that why weren’t they being looked after by the regimental signifer (standard bearer)? It was his job, at least in the second century and presumably before, to look after the regimental money chest and keep a tally on the expenditure of individual soldiers expenses. By implication he issued receipts. By further implication he could have looked after savings as well.’
‘Oh.’
‘Yes, “oh”. The traditional theory would have it that an officer buries his savings just before or just after the Battle of the Medway. Quite why it has to be an officer I’m not sure, it could be a long serving trooper, but that’s a minor point. Whoever it was, so the story goes, is marching along with the army and wanders away from the invasion route, whether Watling Street or the Pilgrim’s Way, into the woods and buries the coins.’
‘He could have been on patrol.’
‘But why bury the coins?’
‘They were attacked.’
‘So whilst his comrades are being cut to pieces the first thing that comes into the head of our hero is to bury his savings. Come on!’
‘In the Kent Archaeological Review the example of a Roman soldier burying his savings in the Totteridge Forest has been mentioned, prior to the Roman defeat.’
‘A hoard of silver coins was found. But how do we know it was a Roman who buried them?’
‘It’s obvious, he wanted to stop them being found by a German.’
‘Oh no, we’re back to that again.’
‘Suppose it wasn’t a Roman who buried those coins. Suppose it was a German who had already taken them from a dead Roman.’
‘Why didn’t the German go back for them?’
‘Because the battle wasn’t [pg8]over. It went on for several days and no doubt many Germans were killed.’

‘But the Bredgar coins weren’t buried by a native, they were buried by a Roman!’
‘How do you know? We have to imagine this individual, who is a complete stranger to the area. He doesn’t know the tracks, woods or fields and buries these coins presumably somewhere easily recognisable like a large tree or sarsen rock in the hope of finding them later. I know people today even with maps and signposts who still aren’t able to find their way around.’

‘So are you saying they were buried by a Briton who had killed a Roman? If so that does not negate the argument about the battle taking place on the Medway. The Briton was probably killed.’
‘Possible. Or...’
‘A Roman was feeling generous and gave the money away?’
‘Exactly.’
‘Don’t be silly.’
‘A bribe?’
‘Oh, a bribe.’
‘Yes a bribe.’
‘Not to fight?’
‘Exactly.’
‘Hence only Roman coins in the hoard.’
‘Exactly. No Briton would suddenly want to be seen with new Roman coins at a time like this. A merchant might just get away with it, but not a local noble and the Romans may have been bribing many of the local aristocracy in an attempt to stop them joining Togodumnus and Caratacus.’

‘That doesn’t mean to say the Romans landed in Sussex.’
‘True, but if they were to land in Kent their bribes would be useless. The two brothers would be collecting forces as they approached the Roman army. As it appears there were skirmishes prior to the battle it follows that local nobles east of the Medway would be expected to join the native forces. There was no way they could avoid it, therefore the bribes would be wasted. If however, the Romans intended to land in Sussex any bribes made in Kent could delay movement westwards until the main battle was over. The native aristocrat would not of course have been privy to the Roman battle plans but no doubt all he saw was the gold.’

‘But why weren’t they retrieved?’
‘I wonder what would have happened to the individual, his family and followers if Togodumnus and Caratacus found out? Or he took the cash and fought the Romans anyway? All would have been butchered in a very painful manner.’

‘Evidence?’
‘Not a scrap. Remember what I said about consensus interpretations. This is an alternative idea based on the same evidence as the conjectural (NOT FACTUAL) traditional viewpoint. It is a challenge to the consensus. As with all the other evidence relating to the invasion the Bredgar coin hoard is also ambiguous and can be used in any way an individual wants, depending on their own bias.’

‘So you are still saying the Roman army landed in Sussex?’
‘I have never said they landed in Sussex.’
‘Come on!’
‘Not once. I merely stated that I would play devil’s advocate and put forward many of the arguments against a Kent landing, and then stated that archaeologists in Sussex had used the evidence in a more constructive manner than their Kent counterparts. The latter (in my view) have not systematically concentrated their efforts on pointing out the ambiguities for a Sussex landing. Would you like me to do it?’
‘Go on.’
‘No way. I would have to spend the next year looking in detail at what they have said. You do it. Again, as previously stated, I don’t care where the Romans landed. What I have been writing about is the use and misuse of evidence. This is a lesson in treating the evidence in an objective manner. It is time to move on, there are far more interesting things to read, study, think and write about.’

Alan Ward

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Anon (2001) Roman Coin Hoard Found in London, Kent Archaeological Review, No. 144.

• Ansel R. (1999) Beowulf in Kent: Letter, British Archaeology, No. 42.

• Barnes W. C. (c.1900) A Study of the Invasion of the South-West of Britain by Vespasian, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History Society.

• Bede (1955) A History of the English Church and People, (ed. Leo Sherley-Price, Penguin Classics, 1974 reprint).

• Bradford E. (1967) Drake.

• Carson, RAG. (1999) The Bredgar Treasure of Roman Coins, The Numismatic Chronicle, sixth series, Volix.

• Cartwright J. (2001) Personal communication: letter from the University of Wales, Lampeter. To whom thanks are extended.

• Garmonsway, G.N. (1953) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, (Dent and Sons 1982 reprint).

• Geoffrey of Monmouth (1966) The History of the Kings of Britain, (ed. Lewis Thorpe, Penguin Classics, 1968 reprint only).

• Gildas (1978) The Ruin of Britain and other documents, (ed. M. Winterbottom).

• Grange, C. (2001) Letter to the Editor, Kent Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 49.

• Hines, J. (2001) Personal communication: letter from the University of Wales, Cardiff.

• John E. (1998) 1066 The Year of Three Battles.

• Lycett P. (2000) The Age of Arthur.

• Morris J. (1980) Beowulf and the Welsh Annals (ed. J. Morris).

• Nichols, R. (1999) Beowulf in Kent: Letter, British Archaeology, No. 42.

• Percival, A. (2001) Letter to the Editor, Kent Archaeological Review, No. 143.

• Philip, B. (1988) Lost Roman Town Discovered at West Wickham, Kent Archaeological Review, No. 141.

• Pryce, H. (1988) Letter to the Editor, Kent Archaeological Review, No. 141.

• Reece, R. (1986) My Roman Britain, (With apologies to Richard Reece for copying the Kent bit of his book, a work occasionally referred to that should be compulsory reading for all archaeologists).

• Rivet, A.L.F. (1969) The Roman Will in Britain, May 4th. My apologies to Dr. Rivet for pointing out the mosaic from Thruxton, Hampshire provided within Rivets Book, Plate 39.

• Robertson, A.S. (1974) Lost Roman Coins, Numismatic Chronicle.

• Stephens, M., ed. (2001) CKA Spring Conference, Kent Archaeological Review No. 144.

• Ward, A. (2001) The Roman Invasion Revisited, Kent Archaeological Society Newsletter No. 49.

• Webster, G. (1979) Roman Britain, British Archaeology No. 39.

• Wilkinson, P. (2001) Letter to Arthur Percival, communicated to the writer.