Download AD43 and the Roman Invasion-Sussex Conference

Sussex Archaeological Society
Autumn Conference 1999
Saturday 23rd October 1999
The Roman
Invasion of Britain
Summary of the proceedings of the conference
David Rudkin and Helen Poole
Please note that this is not a to be taken as a definitive record of what was presented at the conference. These notes were written by two staff of the Sussex Archaeological Society in the two weeks after
the conference and therefore reflect our perceptions of what was said. They should not be cited as reflecting the views of any speaker at the conference without checking first with the speaker concerned.
Barry Cunliffe - Iron Age background
Ernest Black - Documentary evidence
Mike Fulford - The case for Kent
First question & answer session
David Bird - Claudius' invasion reconsidered
Mark Hassall - Conquest and context
Gerald Grainge - Naval logistics
Nigel Nicolson - Richborough
Andy Russel - New finds from Southampton
Martin Henig - Light of later history
Second question & answer session
Barry Cunliffe's conclusion
for rival Kent conference held on April 7th 2001 click helmet
Barry Cunliffe - The Iron Age Background
Prof. Cunliffe opened the proceedings by urging everyone to keep an open mind when considering the evidence. The day's
proceedings would comprise a deconstructing of the myth of the Claudian Invasion, a close look at the evidence and then
deciding what could be put back together.
There are a few relevant themes in the Iron Age background.
Britain was a series of complex parts with different developments.
Southern Britain can be divided into an east zone and a west zone with a marcher zone in between. In the early to middle
Iron Age, there were larger settlements in the east, smaller in the west whilst the central southern zone, which stretched
from the south coast up to the Irish sea, was dominated by hill forts: symbols of power.
This simple threefold division holds good up to c.100BC. In the hill fort dominated zone, one can see a continuity of
settlement use over many hundreds of years reflecting stability. An example is Danebury Hill Fort which displays
continuous major occupation from the c.6th - c.1stBC. This is reflected at the settlement site of Gussage All Saints, albeit
with some minor gaps.
The major question is if ethnic entities can be recognised within these zones. Pottery styles may help. In the c.5th - c.4th
BC, in the central southern zone there was a type of Iron Age pottery manufactured which had an iron oxide surface
bearing scratched decoration with white inlay. Its distribution is very distinct and tight, and it may have been made in the
Salisbury area. Anthropologists might suggest this is a 'style zone' which defines its unity by accepting such styles. This
can be paralleled in body painting or tattooing. This situation is reflected all over Britain at the time.
In the central southern zone in the c.3rd - c.2nd BC, a new group of pottery also displays a distinct array of geometric
motifs. As before, there is a tight distribution. Thus by the c.2nd BC one can clearly see a territory with firm borders
developing, which is reflected later by coin distribution.
In the Danebury area, on the western boundary of the style zone, are a series of linear earthworks dating back to the late
Bronze Age. One of these, the Quarley Linear, has been excavated and shows that it was re-cut on several occasions up to
the c.2nd BC and maybe into the c.1st BC. This probably reflects the western boundary of the central southern group.
It's possible that the River Arun formed the eastern boundary.
It was not all the same through the Iron Age as there were different dynamics in different areas. In the Danebury area
c.100BC, an entirely new hill fort, Bury Hill, was built on top of an old one that had gone out of use centuries before. The
new fort was defended by a double ditch with a bank between. The economy was based on horse as opposed to traditional
sheep. In addition, there was a significant amount of high quality chariot fittings found. Does this reflect a rival elite of
horse breeders and chariot makers setting up on the edges of the territory?
In the c.1st BC there are greater signs of stress, tension and warfare. Danebury was destroyed about that time.
In the c.1st BC to the early c.1st AD one can see, in the central south complex overseas contacts whereas prior to this date,
Britain had been reasonably isolated from the continent.
There appear to have been three systems of contact:
1. There is clear evidence for a trading system through Hengistbury Head to the Atlantic coast of Europe. It is a physically
prominent site seen from the sea, with a protected harbour and with the rivers Avon and Stour running inland. It is ideally
sited for overseas trade and exchange. Perhaps c.120 BC to c.100 BC there developed trade with the continent which can
be recognised by material such as Dressel 1A amphorae traded through Gaul, ingots of purple and yellow glass were
imported and used for making beads and bracelets on the site. Seeds from imported dried figs have been found. Much
north French pottery has been found, presumably containers for a wide range of imported goods. What was being
exported? Certainly metals, crucible fragments have been found showing both traces of copper and tin. There is also
evidence for lead being de-silvered. It is probable that gold was being brought in in lumps. e.g. broken torcs, for reworking. Strabo lists the exports which include grain, cattle, hides. Gold, silver, iron, hunting dogs and slaves. The core
zone for redistribution lies around Hengistbury but spreads as far as Chichester to the east. Links with Armorica were
important and can be seen from the distribution map of Armorica coins where there is a dense scatter in the central
southern zone with outliers around the East Coast. Many of the central southern finds spots represent large hoards. The
coins in the Chichester area show links with Armorica and Normandy. The coin distribution is not just coastal but
penetrates into the hinterland.
What trade routes were used? The traders were probably coming from the mouth of the Loire, St Malo, Cherbourg and
possibly Normandy and the Seine to Hengistbury and possibly Chichester harbour. There were long established sea routes
linking both coasts and seas and tides would have been well known.
2. Eastern Britain's cultural relationships can be seen from Gallo-Belgic coins, which were either minted in or copied from
coins minted in, north France and the Low Countries. These are separate from the coins referred to previously and have a
Thames and Thames zone distribution. They led to the concept of a zone of Belgic invasion. This goes back to c.150 BC
and represents a long contact between the Thames estuary and the Somme estuary. There are hints at diplomatic
contacts, for example, the king of the Soissiones was even recognised as a king in Britain. Allegiances or bonds of mutual
respect, patronage etc, are better contexts for coin exchange rather than invasion.
The Belgae. The traditional view based on Caesar's comments is that 'they came to raid and stayed to sow'. All things
previously thought Belgic at time of invasion, are in fact, later. The Aylsford-Swarling culture material does not necessarily
reflect the Belgae. Where did the Romans think Belgae where? The name for Winchester, Venta Belgarum suggests that
they thought they were there. Maybe small movements of people into harbours of area, e.g. Commius came to his people
here who used these routes into the south. There has been recent work on the archaeology of the Chichester area. A coin
study indicates coinage from the Seine-Somme region. Also, there is evidence that some pottery groups are not local but
are not copies of that coming Hengistbury. This can be seen at Westhampnett cemetery, which shows an alien set of
traditions of a long period of pottery which is not local but found alongside local wears. New styles were coming in,
similar to those of the Seine valley. There was a long tradition established before the Roman invasion.
3. Post Caesar, a different picture emerges. A new access was developed with Gaul owing to it now being Roman. Possible
trading monopolies. Thames Valley, Essex and Hertfordshire became important and Hengistbury declined. This is
reflected in burials e.g. Aylsford which contained north Italian bronze work whilst Welwyn and Snailsworth contained
Celtic elite burials with luxury goods such as silver cups from the Roman world. There was a reformed trading axis.
In this period, one finds the development of large enclosed oppida which spread up as far as the Wash. One can plot
zones of like coinage which reflect the scale and territories of oppida. In addition, dynasties become recognisable from
coins, but the evidence is somewhat ambiguous. It is easy to build up a picture based on coin evidence but it is like
coinage, not dynasties that reflect territories. At a simple level, tribes north east of Thames were different from the
Atrebates. The zone between, Kent etc, was the zone of conflict and debate. The social and economic model does not
always fit the political model.
A plot of Atrebatic coins still reflects the same territory as seen above.
(back to top)
Ernest Black - Documentary Evidence for the Invasion and History of Invasion Research
Ernest Black stressed the importance of planning for the Roman invasion, for example, relating to the period of the
harvest.
One needs to examine the logistics of invasions.
In 55BC Caesar returned to Gaul packed onto his surviving ships. Two ships landed in the territory of the Morini, with 300
men in each. How many ships could unload on the beaches, e.g. in Richborough, at any one time? Perhaps no more than
1% of Aulus Plautius' invasion force.
Original material should be used as a starting point to understand what happened. The earliest material is Tacitus'
Agricola of c.AD98. He mentions Claudius, as the instigator, and Vespasian, who was also chosen to play a part. He does
not mention Aulus Plautius at all.
Cassius Dio came approximately a hundred years after Tacitus in the early c.3rd AD. He used the same sources as Tacitus.
Unfortunately, none of his Annales survive for earlier than AD47.
There is no check on Dio, quality wise, but it is possible to compare him with Tacitus for the Boudican period.
Dio was born in Nicea in the early 160s and was in Rome by AD180. He became a Senator. In AD193, Septimius Severus
arrived in Rome. Dio provided him with a work on the omens that had foretold the rise of Severus. In AD197, he gave him
a history of the wars and then a Roman history. At that time he held no posts outside Italy. It is said that he read earlier
histories and made notes on them for ten years and then spent a further twelve years writing it up. Its scope was the
whole of the history of Rome from its founding. He had written 80 books of his history up to the time of the death of
Elagabalus in AD233. He governed Africa and Dalmatia and finally Panonia and was in charge of two legions under
Severus Alexander, after his history was finished in AD219. He went on to add later appendices. He eventually retired to
Nicea. Part of his history still survives but some of it only as summaries. The part on the Boudican rebellion is only a
summary. The account of the invasion of Kent is Dio's own work.
A comparison of the two writers, Dio and Tacitus shows that:
Dio doesn’t tell us of Cerealis' attempt to stop the revolt. He doesn't say as much as Tacitus about Anglesey. Dio says two
Roman cities were destroyed but Tacitus says three. Tacitus included St Albans, but why? Probably others did not
recognise St Albans as a municipium. Tacitus refers to Boudica as largely a victim, whereas Dio sees her as a rebellious
warrior Queen, a villain and more importantly, a woman. He has changed her image. Tacitus said he used three sources:
Fabius Rustius, Pluvius Rufus and the Elder Pliny.
Considering 'portents' of the Boudican revolt, these are virtually identical for both writers and probably taken from earlier
sources. Dio was possibly using them in their original form. He refers to the Thames, so presumably meant London.
Tacitus had changed things. His text applies exclusively to Colchester, although he hadn't changed the reference to the
Thames. Although Tacitus has more details, Dio possibly preserves a better order of events from the sources. Most
important today, is the account of the battle with Boudica. Tacitus indicates a rapid victory with a single Roman force
involved in the fight. Dio says Suetonius divided into three forces for the fight. He records speeches from the leaders of
all three, and indeed it might have been an excuse on his part to write more speeches. He records the fighting as being
done by one force but at the end, he is referring again to three forces.
Looking at Dio's account:
Chronology - The Roman army sailed later than intended owing to disaffected troops. The Britons had not mustered their
forces. Is this an indication of very good intelligence on the part of the Romans? The Romans waited at the Thames for
Claudius. He reached Britain and advanced to Camulodunum and sent news back to Rome. Dio says that Claudius was
only in Britain for sixteen days, had made a rapid return in 44 days and was only absent from Rome for six months. He
must have set out at the earliest in July AD43. Suetonius also confirms that Claudius was only absent for six months.
Recently, a coin has been discovered that was minted in Alexandria carrying the Greek letter gamma. This shows that it
was of the third regnal year of Claudius which must be before 29th August AD43. It refers to Britannicus Caesar, awarded
to Claudius after the conquest of Britain. The last possible day for minting must have been the 28th August and news of
the conquest must have travelled to Egypt by this time. The voyage probably would have taken around three weeks which
brings the date back to the first week in August. The news must first have travelled from Britain to Rome, which would
probably take two weeks, bringing the date back to mid July. At the latest, Claudius could only have arrived in Britain at
the beginning of July. However, this is based on the assumption that the coin was minted on the very first day of that
regnal year.
Dio says that Claudius was consul for six months but this is wrong, he held it for only two months in AD43. This all
indicates that the campaign started earlier than Dio suggests.
The optimum period to invade is just before the harvest is due so that the army can live off the land and also to put
pressure on the Britains to fight quickly. Intended date - possibly early August but with a delay, perhaps mid to late
August when all the Britains would be engaged in the harvest. Claudius was in Britain for sixteen days, to get acclaims and
then hurried back. The later the invasion, then the more likelihood of the seas becoming dangerous. Claudius would want
to be out of Britain before that happened. Records suggests that he was not back in Rome before AD44 to get military
status and recognition.
Geography - There are no geographical references in Dio, except for those to Thames and Camulodunum. Suetonius says
that Caesar sailed from Boulogne. Gaius built a lighthouse there at the time of his aborted invasion. Adminius had fled to
the continent to seek Caius' help. Coin evidence suggests that Adminius was based in Kent so Gaius' proposed invasion
route from Boulogne to Kent made sense. However, Verica was based in Sussex, thus an invasion through Sussex makes
sense in that situation.
Dio says that they followed a star from east to west, but perhaps this should not be taken too literally. He also says that
the first contact was with Caratacus and quick contact is more likely from a Sussex landing. Plautius secured an alliance
with the Bodunni, which is probably the Dobunni of Gloucestershire. Again, a landing in Sussex would be closer to the
Dobunni.
Dio says that the fleet sailed in three divisions so that they wouldn't been hindered in landing, which doesn't make a lot of
sense; there would have been sufficient chance to unite after landing. Plautius' force is not described as being split on
arrival. Why three divisions? Is it because Plautius' army consisted of only three legions? Did Dio ignore a fourth legion
landing in Kent, just as he ignored the presence of Cerialis?
Eutropius' says that there were two leaders: Aulus Plautius and Saturninus reference may be considered. He says that
there were two leaders Aulus Plautius and Cn. Sentius.
(back to top)
Mike Fulford - The Roman Invasion - The Case for Kent
Prof. Fulford posed some basic questions such as, did Claudius bring all his troops from Gaul. Unfortunately Dio doesn't
tell us. It is assumed that he brought all four legions. The continental end of the axis is indicated by where both the
legions and auxiliaries came from, e.g. the Keltoi (Batavians) who Dio referred to crossing the Thames.
We assume the troops gathered at Boulogne because of the existing harbour works and lighthouse built by Gaius for his
earlier unsuccessful invasion attempt. Again, we do not know. There is a tantalising reference in Dio to 'three divisions',
but again there it is not clear what this means. Was it three successive waves to one place, or three divisions to three close
related places, such as Lymne, Dover and Richborough? Again, we do not know. We are told that the troops were nervous
about the undertaking. As with the invasions of Caesar and Gaius, they were venturing out of the known world. Dio states
that there were battles with Caratacus and Togodumnus, but we do not know where they took place. If Verica had been
ejected prior to seeking help from Claudius, that might suggest that the area from which he came was no longer so proRoman.
What is known of the politics is obscure.
However, we know they were heading for Camolodunum.
How do we recognise Plautius' invasion in AD43 in the archaeological record? Boatloads of troops and horses unloading
on a beachhead would be a time of confusion. It would not be the context for erecting elaborate defences or the mass
discarding of material. Pottery is the most problematic. We seize on samian. Although we believe that we can date this
closely, it is an approximation. We have to assemble all the early material to date it closely. Can we distinguish between
the initial landing and a second consolidatory phase?
They were planning a venture where to fail might lead to falling on one's sword, or simply, never returning. It was vital to
succeed. They had the benefit of Caesar's experience, they recognised that secure harbours are critical for success. They
must have a force that could overcome opposition, even where the nature of that opposition was unknown. Caesar landed
safely but suffered damage to ships. They probably assumed they would be able to land in good order. However, they
were not planning for the same expedition as Caesar, but planning to go to Camolodunum.
Plautius knew the emperor would be coming, so would have to be in an appropriate position before the summer was too
far advanced. It would be vital to keep the ships together, backed up by supplies and always confident of more backup.
The longer the sea journey even if it is thought the territory is friendly where the landing is to be made, the more
uncertainty grows. Thus one avoids risks. The beauty of short crossing is that, with prevailing winds, one can sail readily
to or fro. It can be done in a day each way. It is possible to see the other side!
At Richborough there has been a loss of land and a silting up of the Wantsum Channel, but in the Roman period, it was all
tidal and they could bring boats in, up towards Canterbury. There was scope for beaching ships on the tidal marshlands.
However, Richborough is just one pinpoint in a wider environment.
There was also Lymne and Romney Marsh. Both were protected, except from winds from the east. Ships could be brought
in there, as they were during the life of the Saxon shore forts.
Pevensey - had tidal salt marshes, was also protected but more limited. It was used by William for his invasion. However,
it was further away from possible concentration point at Richborough.
Dover would also have been possible, but we do not know what was there before the Romans organised the later harbour
works.
There were links between c.10 BC and AD43. Roman goods appear in Colchester, St Albans, Braughing, Skeleton Green,
Canterbury and Silchester, supplied via Kent. Although there were distribution links through central southern Britain,
there was more concentration on the Thames-Rhine axis. The best evidence for the organisation of trade is from the
mouth of the Rhine at Domberg.
It is known that traders were working up the Rhone to the Rhine through inscriptions of c.1st and c.2nd date from the
temple site of Domberg. The Rhine garrisons would have been supplied by the same route. A route from the Rhine across
to the Thames would explain why St Albans, Canterbury and Colchester developed. It must have been important in the
planning of the conquest.
The troops we see assembled came from Neuss and Mainz and probably Boulogne. Their assembly point would relate to
the proximately of the source of supply used by the Rhine garrisons. The further away one assembles troops, then the
more difficult they are to administer.
At Richborough there is some archaeological evidence, but it must be treated with caution. There are Claudian ditches of
which the full extent is not known, but possibly one can't say they belong to AD43. However, soon after, they are investing
in Richborough as a supply base. Granaries were built and a road, Watling Street constructed to supply London.
In hindsight, was Richborough so important? A number of places could have been used. The army would need a thousand
tons of grain per month, which could have come through Rhine communications system. Finds of imported grain
(recognised by cornfield weeds) are known from London before AD60. Luxuries such as wine amphorae and samian are
also found in London. There is nothing from Lymne.
Looking at later parallels in cross Channel invasions, one thinks of William's attempt to cross channel with lots of ships,
or the D.Day invasion, where despite modern technology, the landing on Utah Beach was a mile off target.
Watling Street was important from early on and was much developed. A small Claudian fort has recently been found at
Gillingham.
(back to top)
Initial Question and Answer Session
Q: What indication is there of the craft or sailing vessels on trading routes to Hengistbury Head pre-invasion?
A: (B.C.) There is very little evidence. Caesar talks of regional trade in Armorica and the skill of Venetti. There are
impressions of ships on two coins and an iron anchor from Bullbury. Caesar said it was the Venetti doing the trading
although curiously, all the archaeological evidence comes from the north Breton coast not the south coast where the
Venetti were located.
Q: Are we expecting too much from the evidence?
A: (M.F.) We can't guess what might emerge in the future e.g. inscriptions or marching camps. Plautius' marching camps
en route to Colchester have yet to be found. There is potential for more information.
A: (B.C.) The answer may lie in dendrochronology. We need to find the right sites with the right dates. We now know that
Tacitus was wrong with date of a fort in Carlisle.
A: (E.B.) Plautius' objective was the Thames. As the legions were working independently the discovery of single legionary
marching camps would be acceptable.
Q: Could the Shooting star referred to by Dio be a Comet, e.g. Swift-Tuttle
or a meteor? The Perseid meteor shower currently falls between 26th July and
20th August with a peak between 12th - 17th August. Could this indicate the
time of crossing?
A: (G.G.) There is a problem over interpretation of the Greek word. It is
"lampas" which means a lamp or torch. Perhaps Dio did not know what his
source intended the word to mean.
Q: A case has been made for starting the journey in Kent, but were salt marshes practical for landing?
A: (M.F.) This would be fine for pulling the boats up.
Q: When considering tribal areas in West Sussex, the Arun was seen as a significant boundary. However, it is thought that
Mount Caburn was re-fortified whilst Cissbury and others in the Arun - Adur area were not. Does this suggest a tribal
shift?
A: (B.C.) Boundaries shift with time. It is a question of loyalty and allegiance which needn't be recorded in archaeological
evidence. For example Caratacus could claim allegiance wherever he went, even in Wales. The Arun was a significant social
boundary for a long time, but the political situation could be fickle, unlike socio-economic units.
(back to top)
David Bird - The Claudian Invasion Campaign Reconsidered
John Hind's work, published in Britannia in 1989, brought together the evidence against which the speaker built up his
case for the invasion taking advantage initially of the harbours sheltered behind the Isle of Wight, near Verica's Atrebatic
kingdom. Fishbourne is the most likely, though Portchester has Claudian pottery and coins. The written sources did not
record whether Verica was restored to his kingdom, perhaps because this was taken for granted.
Caesar had copied the boat designs of the Veneti, the sea-faring south Breton tribe, whom Brutus defeated in a naval
battle. Other Roman use of the sea was noted. The crossing from the Seine estuary to the Solent was achieved in 8 hours
in AD296, so it could be done in a day. The troops could then use the corn supply in Sussex. Where possible, the troops
would use locally available food supplies, which were a regular demand, along with hostages, when a tribe surrendered to
the Romans. Aulus Plautius's army was made up of c. 40,000 men (5 times bigger that William I's force in 1066), many of
whom were used to non-standard forts in Germany, so the early Claudian forts may not have been to the orthodox
playing-card design.
Comparisons of the Claudian campaign with Caesar's Gallic Wars helps to understand the events of AD43. The Romans
set tribe against tribe, or encouraged factions within a tribe. They would then impose a leader and station legionary units
in local oppida to keep the peace. The emphasis was against chiefs and tribes, not territory, and it was often difficult for
the tribes to unite for more than one battle, as they were not geared up for more protracted action. In AD43, Plautius's
British opponents would come together to prevent him reaching a specific target, but if he landed in Sussex, taking them
by surprise, it might account for Dio's statement that "the British, relying on the information they had received, did not
expect them to come and they had not mustered their forces".
If the Romans landed in Sussex, it would be logical to secure the army's western flank and conquer the Isle of Wight, an
option that the Spanish Armada leaders considered in 1588. This element of the campaign was given to Vespasian who
was recorded by Suetonius as having "conquered two of the strongest tribes, captured more than twenty oppida and also
the Isle of Wight." The known Claudian forts may link in with Vespasian's action against the Durotriges and mark a
temporary frontier while the action was elsewhere. The Iron Age hill-fort at Hod Hill was partially reused at this time.
Dio records that in the early stages, the Britons retreated into the marshes and forests, so Plautius found it difficult to
bring them to battle. He may have used this time to clear ‘Sussex’. Caratacus and Togodumnus are never mentioned in
concert but were defeated separately. If the Romans had already subdued Sussex, Caratacus may have been defeated in
the western part of the Catuvellaunian territories, around his probable base at Silchester, Calleva Atrebatum, a crucial
target which would be easily accessible to the Romans heading north from the Solent. There is evidence that could be
interpreted as an early Roman military ditch at Silchester. The subsequent contact with the Dobunni to the west makes
more sense if the troops were in that Silchester region rather than Kent and would make the construction of a garrison at
Cirencester feasible. Caratacus did not help at the final defence of Camulodunum and disappears from the record until
AD47 when he achieved a high profile, so he may have been forced to bide his time out of reach in Wales and the west,
stirring up trouble in the manner of Commius against Caesar.
In the scenario of a battle round Silchester, Plautius would be protected to the west thanks to Vespasian's forces and to
the east by the woodland and heavy clay of the Weald, which even in Cobbett's time could make the Ewhurst area
impenetrable. There were paths through the Weald but these would not be suitable for a large army. Magilton has
suggested that Stane Street originally went to Pulborough. The primary route was probably round the Weald, perhaps
through Iping to Staines.
The Catuvellauni at Verulamium may have decided at this stage to support the Roman cause, which would account for
their chief town acquiring the title of municipium and becoming an early Romanised British settlement by the time of the
Boudican destruction in AD60. This can be paralleled in Mauretania where a town that had helped the Romans (Volubilis)
was rewarded in this way. Verulamium's defection would create problems for Caratacus in trying to reconstitute his
forces.
After establishing the Cirencester garrison, Plautius could then take the bulk of his forces along the Thames corridor,
along the south bank, with Surrey probably Atrebatic. If the Romans turned east from Silchester, the two-day battle site
could record a contested crossing of the Wey and the Mole. But other rivers near the ‘tidal pool’ on the Thames are
possible. Current thinking is that there was no invasion-period base at London, which came into being around AD50-55.
The fight at the tidal pool caused difficulties and this crossing was probably not used again in the campaign.
While Plautius waited for the arrival of his emperor, he may have taken the opportunity to subdue the potentially hostile
tribes, probably under Catuvellaunian control, in Kent. This could explain the role of the initial "semi-permanent"
fortification at Richborough, which would control the Wantsum. The slightly later construction of the granaries may have
stored locally produced grain for outward shipment. The supposed victory arch erected many years later at Richborough
has been better explained as a formal entrance to and exit from Britain.
When the emperor Claudius arrived, he stayed in Britain for only 16 days, taking Camulodunum, described as the former
capital of Cunobelinus, and "won over many peoples, some by diplomacy, some by force of arms." It would have been a
token victory over the leaderless Britons. We should expect a wide-ranging campaign from Plautius. After a single victory
at Hastings William I could roam freely over the south-east of England.
In summary, it is suggested that the archaeological and written evidence for the campaign can bear the following
interpretation:
1. The Romans land at or near Fishbourne. Vespasian conquers the Isle of Wight and deals with the eastern Durotriges,
while the main army goes north to attack Caratacus and Togodumnus.
2. Plautius defeats Caratacus and garrisons Silchester, while the Britons in the east regroup. The fleet is active along the
coastline.
3. The establishment of a garrison at Cirencester and the support by Verulamium prevent Caratacus from rejoining
Togodumnus. Forts are established on the Durotrigan border. Aulus Plautius sends for the emperor. Other tribes submit.
4. Claudius sails to Fishbourne and installs Togidubnus before proceeding to Camulodunum. After 16 days, he returns to
Rome via Richborough, perhaps taking Vespasian with him.
Some of David Bird's views on this subject will be published in a forthcoming (early 2000) edition of the Oxford Journal of
Archaeology.
(back to top)
Conquest and Context - prelude and aftermath by Mark Hassall, Institute of Archaeology.
To answer the question as why Claudius invaded Britain, what he was trying to do and how successful he was, we need to
look back to the reasons for Julius Caesar's invasions.
Caesar had burning ambition and wanted to make his name, even though Gaul and Britain were beyond the provincia. He
overran Gaul in four years and kept his army with him by opening up a new theatre with Britain, claiming that it posed a
threat to Gaul. There was presumably a hope for loot, though Cicero wrote that his brother found Britain disappointing in
this respect.
This was because they failed to find it, as the Snettisham treasure dates from this period and may have been hidden from
the invaders by the Iceni. Despite civil wars, Caesar's successor, Augustus, thought of mobilising forces against Britain
even before Actium in 31BC, until the loss of the XVII and XXII legions under Varrus in Germany in AD9.
The focus of trade shifted to the east between Gallia Belgica and eastern Britain. Duties on this were high outside the
empire, meaning that the trade in and out of Britain was more profitable than tribute would be. A coin of Verica shows a
vine leaf, which was an import. A coin of Cunobelin, minted at Canterbury, shows a ship with a leather square sail and a
steering oar at one end, which may have been the type that Commius used to flee to Britain in 54BC with his 30
horsemen. Frontinus records his narrow escape from Caesar when his ship stuck on a sandbank. Commius as chieftain of
the Atrebates, appears on a coin showing a running horse. His son Tincomarus appears as filius Commi in a hoard from
Alton, and the other sons of Commius were Epillus and Verica. Their gold and silver coinage may have been used as gifts
as well as a medium of exchange. Hoards are known from Selsey and Alfriston.
It is likely that Verica's kingdom which the Romans established around the new town of Chichester, Noviomagus
Regnensium, was the Regnenses, not the Regni. (It has been suggested that Verica was a woman, as 'a' is a rare suffix for a
Celtic male name, but coins refer to him as 'rex'). The dykes around Chichester may date from the time when Verica was
ejected from Calleva and Chichester became Noviomagus and the head of the kingdom, as occurred when dykes were
built at Camulodunum in response to the Trinovantian threat.
Dio said that Verica persuaded Claudius to send a force to reinstate him in his British kingdom, but another pressing
reason was his own search for glory. A carving from Aphrodisias shows Claudius, heroically nude, cutting the throat of
Britannia, and other carvings and poems use his glory as their theme. Also, as Gaius Caligula had raised two more legions
in Germany, there were 8 legions around the Rhine, out of the 25 spread through the empire. By using four against Britain,
Claudius successfully broke up this power bloc.
After AD43, Collingwood suggested that within four years the Fosse Way frontier had been created from near Exeter to
Lincoln, but it is unlikely that Plautius built this as a frontier between friendly and hostile tribes. Leicester was one of the
legionary bases, perhaps housing two legions, and it straddled the Fosse Way. Double legionary fortresses have been
found on the continent, as at Xanten, but not yet in Britain. Frere postulated half-legionary fortresses, as at Longthorpe in
Lincolnshire, but the evidence is not conclusive. The II legion based at Silchester probably started in a timber fort,
discovered by Professor Fulford, and the XX were at Colchester, with the Thracian auxiliaries nearby at Gosbecks, to judge
from an early tombstone.
Whatever the depositions, Claudius achieved the prestige and the victory he needed as emperor, laving Plautius to
conquer the rest, and the Senate ratified in advance and arrangements that he made in Britain.
(back to top)
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
Gerald Grainge - The Naval Logistics of AD 43
Ships were needed to transport men, horses and back-up across the Channel and would have been in the Romano-Celtic
tradition with a single square sail. A
force of 35,000 to 40,000 would have needed in the order of 725 and 1,040ships, or which 20% would be warships.
Warships might make 7 knots under
oars but the heavier transports would have made 5 knots at most. They were reluctant to sail to windward, preferring to
wait for a favourable wind, so
that they could go downwind. The prevailing winds in the channel are south-westerlies: east winds are very rare in
summer, except in anticyclonic
weather.
Tides reverse in the Channel their direction approximately every 6½ hours and if the ships go straight across the Channel,
the tides cancel themselves out.
In the Dover Strait, there are 6 hours of north east-going tide from Boulogne to Ramsgate, making a Kent landfall the
shortest and safest crossing.
The 97 sea miles from off Boulogne to off Chichester Bar would encounter 4-5 tide changes, taking c. 24 hours of open
sea passage, without counting the
time needed to assemble the fleet, plus a further 2 hours from Chichester Bar to Fishbourne. The route contains the major
hazards of the Royal Sovereign
Sands and the Owers Sands off Selsey Bill. If the Roman High Command insisted on a landing at Fishbourne, the best
crossing would be from the mouth of the
Seine.
The shelter from the winds at Richborough is complete, even from the east, and it can be argued that Caesar’s fleet
suffered damage in 55 and 54 BC
because he didn’t find Richborough, and therefore had to land on an open
shore.
(back to top)
Nigel Nicolson - Richborough.
In March 1998 the Kent Archaeological Society and Maidstone Museum jointly sponsored the erection of a stone
monument opposite Snodland. The inscription reads: "THIS STONE COMMEMORATES THE BATTLE OF THE MEDWAY IN
A.D.43 WHEN A ROMAN ARMY CROSSED THE RIVER AND DEFEATED THE BRITISH TRIBES UNDER CARATACUS."
This site for the battle memorial was chosen as it fits the literary, archaeological and topographical evidence, which the
Arun does not, and Dio mentions the Thames as the site of a second river battle. The Bredgar coin hoard and the Eccles
ditches support Kent as the main landing site, and it also provides an easier route to Camulodunum than would a Sussex
landing where the direct route is barred by the almost impenetrable forest of the Weald.
(back to top)
Andy Russel Recent Finds in Southampton
Earlier speakers had mentioned the need for new evidence. This may come from recent excavations in the Bitterne
peninsula, a well-defended part of south Hampshire, where a vast Roman waterfront building has recently been
discovered on reclaimed land in advance of industrial use.
Only one corner of this building was uncovered, with 20cm square posts packed with Isle of Wight limestone, at intervals
of 5 Roman feet, probably supporting a floor. These were set in gravel-filled bedding trenches, about 1 m wide, 1.2 m
deep and spaced about 1 m. apart. It is estimated that about 400 tons of spoil were removed during construction, and
mainly carted away, as the backfill was of gravel. Dating evidence included pottery similar to early material from
Fishbourne and a coin of Vespasian, from the period when the huge building was repaired in the early Flavian period. In
1918 two desilvered lead ingots from the Mendips were found a few metres north of this site, stamped IMP. VESPASIAN.
AUG.
When this building fell out of use, a pit was dug through its foundations, containing exotic pottery dating to about AD 70,
the date when the civilian settlement of Clausentum is thought to begin. It may mark the handing over of the port by the
military to the merchants.
The site of this great early Roman building has now been bulldozed to make a car park, but the puzzle of its use remains.
Its massive size and strength suggest a military origin. The method of construction appears to be identical to that of one
of the two early military buildings at Fishbourne, where it is interpreted as being a part of a military supply base. A
military base in the Solent area could be the base for a legion to move north through friendly Atrebatic territory, or be a
supply depot for Vespasian’s campaign in the Isle of Wight. It has good communications with the hinterland, with the
river going up to Winchester. There is a tradition that the 'entum' element of the name Clausentum referred to the 'entry'
of Claudius, so the discovery of this early warehouse should be seen in the context of the pre-Flavian period.
Recently, an enormous setting of posts, up to 2' square, have been found in the river nearby. A date range of AD16 - 300
has been obtained by radiocarbon dating. Dendrochronological dating is required to provide a more accurate date. For
more details of this find look on www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/itchen.
(back to top)
Martin Henig - The Light of Later History on the events of AD 43
It could be argued that there was no Roman invasion in AD43, as opposed to the true invasion by the Normans in 1066.
The Roman achievement, as proclaimed on Claudius’s triumphal arch, was victory over the ocean and the establishment
of a client relationship with eleven kings in southern Britain, which could be done without any loss of honour.
The Roman Empire was not forceful and the carving from Aphrodisias of Claudius trampling a native is Hellenistic
propaganda. Claudius honoured his pledge to restore the ruler of the southern Atrebates to the throne, and Verica’s
successor was trained in Rome, as was Tiberius Claudius Togidubnus, whose Roman citizenship is marked on the wellknown inscription from Chichester. The fragment of a boy’s face in marble at Fishbourne probably shows Togidubnus
whilst in Rome.
Boudica’s revolt of AD60 brought about change. She destroyed Verulamium, Camulodunum and Londinium, burning
Southwark. Calleva at this time was probably a town with some resident soldiers, but no actual fort. Togidubnus remained
loyal "right down to our own time", according to Tacitus, and his loyalty helped to defeat Boudica. He was rewarded with
more land, the demarcation of this being along Akeman Street, and by a line from Cirencester to St Albans and down to
the coast via the southern Fosse Way and due south from Verulamium. This would have given a quadrilateral which was
Roman-free in terms of oppression and would include some territory which had been Belgic. Togidubnus’s new client
kingdom included Bath where the Temple of Sulis Minerva was built on the western frontier. The famous Gorgon’s head is
a triumph of Romano-Celtic art using imperial imagery: the corona civica is shown twice (it is an oak wreath which
surrounds the central mask); the star indicates imperial deification; the mask itself conflates Neptune and Minerva, and
one can see in this an echo of the Togidubnus's Neptune and Minerva inscription at Chichester.
Evidence from archaeology and epigraphy suggests that Romano-Celtic links survived in this region throughout the
Roman period. The villa at Thruxton was built in the 4th century by a native owner. It can be argued that from the time of
the invasion onwards, the winners built villas which developed from native farms, while the Roman soldiers shivered on
Hadrian’s Wall and other frontiers.
The speed and efficiency of the Roman campaign in AD43 suggests that they relied on help from Atrebatic exiles to
remove the enemy tribes who had occupied their lands. A landing in Sussex would utilise local knowledge, though there
may have been secondary landings elsewhere. Richborough later became an important port of entry, but the
Chichester/Portsmouth/Southampton region remained important as the Portus Magnus.
(back to top)
Final question and answer period
Q. If Fishbourne has an early military role, how does this affect its status as a palace?
A. (B.C.) The local archaeological unit had traced the early route of Stane Street from Eastgate, Chichester, to the harbour
south of Fishbourne, to Dell Quay, so a military role was feasible.
Q. Can the Long Man of Wilmington be seen as a representation of an early Roman emperor, perhaps Vespasian?
A. The panel felt that there was insufficient evidence for this.
Q. Is there evidence on the Isle of Wight for Vespasian’s conquest?
A. At the moment we have no way of dating anything precisely enough. The Celtic coins of the Isle of Wight are separate
from the mainland and closer to those of Dorset, so may not be Atrebatic. Purbeck roof tiles are found at Southampton
and Fishbourne, suggesting early trade.
Q. How long would it take to load 724 ships and is Boulogne a large enough
harbour?
A. (G.G.) I don’t know; I have not researched that yet.
Q. About shooting star - I can't remember its terms!
A. (G.G.) It is possible that Dio’s light moving from east to west was a
reference to sunrise. Lampas is recorded in Greek to mean ‘sun’. In that
case there is a close parallel with Caesar's second crossing, when the fleet
was carried offshore during the night from East Kent by the tide as the wind
fell. With the dawn the tide changed and when they rowed towards shore their
course did indeed lie from east to west."
Q. Could Verulamium be a sub group among the Catuvellauni, being positively pro-Roman in the Late Iron Age? Their
territory seems to run along the Chiltern ridge to the Lea and Thames up to Braughing. If the Romans crossed at Staines,
supporters in the Lea Valley would be useful. Evidence from Verulamium show that it was not a town before 60, but was a
grouping of elite residences, which got going as a town in the Flavian period. Akeman Street is very early and predates
Watling Street.
A. If Verulamium were friendly, it would help the Romans to hold all southern Britain.
Q. Is the Fosse Way critical to the period 43-46?
A. It was the fashion to think that the Romans did not think in terms of frontiers until Hadrian, but the Fosse Way as a
frontier cannot be political, as the western boundaries would have marked the edge. Limes can mean a road into enemy
territory or a frontier. Early maps of Roman Britain have forts along a line, such as Cirencester and Bath, but the model is
too neat. There seem to be two anchor points, the northern end at Lincoln, which has an early tombstone but was
probably not an early settlement, and the other at or near Exeter from the mid 50s. The Iron Age view of the FosseWay
was of a socio-economic set-up running through the lands of the Dobunni and Durotriges, putting it in an ideal position to
control the throughput of goods.
Q. (Richard Jones) Re. the timing of the invasion. The Chidham peninsula near Fishbourne in medieval times produced the
earliest cereal harvest in England, so is there any evidence of the Romans following the harvest?
A. There are oblique references in Dio to the harvest, but the timing is non proven. A commander would normally start his
campaign with no certainty of food, no idea of the scale of the opposition, nor of the location of friends.
Q. (David Thompson) asked whether the mention of Saturnalia in Dio linked the timing of the mutiny to Christmas?
A. The panel felt that the mutineers would shout out something inopportune to break the tension. If it happened at
Christmas, it would have been considered very insulting, especially as Plautius’s earlier career had involved putting down
a slave revolt which would have been known among the soldiery, but at other times, it would have been amusingly ironic.
Q. Was there polarity in command, as Eutropius claimed, or would it be necessary for one leader to have primacy?
A. Cn. Sentius Saturninus only received a statue to commemorate his deeds in Britain, whereas Aulus Plautius had the full
triumph, suggesting he was in overall control. The idea of two landings causes problems of leadership.
Q. Mark Hassall was asked to disclose which landing site he preferred.
A. (M.H.) He brought together a few ideas. If the Bodunni and the Dobunni are the same, they provide a good argument for
a westerly landing. If Caratacus minted coins at Silchester, this too supports the western argument. The problem of
splitting 4 legions into 3 can be done by having two legions in one group and one in each of the others. Conversely the
argument about the tides supports the traditional view, just as the newly found coin from Alexandria affects the timing of
the campaign by bringing it forward. As the archaeological record is as yet too imprecise, we may never know the full
picture.
(back to top)
Barry Cunliffe - Chairman's Conclusion
In summarising what everyone agreed to be a very stimulating and worthwhile conference, Professor Cunliffe reinforced
the point that he had made at the very start of the day, that it is vital to be open-minded and unprejudiced in all
archaeology. Tradition has no god-given right to be correct and we should always try to focus on a problem without being
too partisan. In the 1880s Clausentum was suggested as the landing place for the AD43 invasion. The discovery of the
structures at Richborough brought that site into prominence, and gradually new Solent ideas re-emerged while Kent was
quoted in the major textbooks. Hind’s article in 1989 has thrown another light on the subject, bringing the bias back to
Sussex. There is no doubt that the invasion was set in a complex geopolitical context and the debate should continue,
using an open mind to consider the evidence.
He concluded by thanking all the speakers and those who had made contributions from the floor and thanked John
Manley and the Sussex Archaeological Society for organising such a thought-provoking day.
John Manley - Thanks
John Manley thanked all those who had helped to make the day so worth while and felt that the theme of the conference
had been the deconstructing of the orthodox view and the presentation of alternatives for debate.
Return to Homepage