Petuaria Part II: Usurpers and Red Herrings

 One of the few Roman urban sites known in East Yorkshire, Brough-on-Humber is situated close to the north bank of the Humber estuary, 11 miles from Kingston-upon-Hull and less than 30 miles from York. The Humber Estuary is the largest coastal plain estuary on the east coast of Britain, providing access to several major rivers including the Don, Aire, Ouse, Trent, Hull and Ancholme.

During the Roman era a fortfied site at Brough occupied this strategic position, situated on the shore of the Humber estuary the site was perfectly situated to guard access by river, which was then navigable, into the heartland of Britannia. Northwards the land route from Brough went to the legionary fortress at York (Eboracum) and southwards across the ferry route to Lincoln (Lindum). Undoubtedly at some stage it would have functioned as a supply depot for imports for the military bases of the north. Exports would also have gone through Brough to the wider Roman world, for example lead ingots mined from Derbyshire have been found at the site.

Brough lies on the natural approach line from Lincoln from where Petillius Cerialis launched his campaign against the Brigantes in AD 71-72. Cerialis was an experienced general who had campaigned against the Britons ten years earlier as commander of Legio IX Hispania when he was engaged in the Boudican revolt. The Roman historian Tacitus records that the entire infantry force was massacred during that event, while Cerialis escaped with his cavalry. Ten years on, Cerialis was back in Britain with the newly raised Legio II Adiutrix and headed north to Lincoln to join Legio IX Hispania. II Adiutrix remained at Lincoln, while Cerialis advanced with IX Hispania to York, crossing the Humber at Brough.

The lack of known Roman forts in east Yorkshire suggests there was no great hostility from the Parisi toward the advancing Romans. The Roman fort, usually identified as Petruaria, appears to have been the first significant construction at Brough-on-Humber around AD 70, although slight traces of previous Late iron Age occupation have been detected.

Archaeologist John Wacher asserts that the early fort at Brough was evacuated in the late 70’s, possibly during Agricola’s reorganisations. After being abandoned the first Roman fort lay vacant for the next 40 years or so but the supply depot appears to have been retained. Early in the Hadrianic period, around AD 125, the fort was re-occupied for a brief period, possibly in anticipation of the next phase of construction when a new extended defensive circuit erected.1

Wacher sees these new fortifications as providing a base for the Classis Britannica (the Roman British fleet). He concedes that it is possible that at this time the civitas was reconstituted under civilian government not far from this base; it being extremely unlikely that both would have operated out of the same site. During the later 3rd and early 4th century the site was refortified with the rampart being replaced by a stone wall with external bastions.2

It is often assumed that the post-fort occupation on the site was the civitas capital of the Parisi, but there is far from general agreement on this which is based on interpretation of an inscription (RIB 707) found in 1937 and the ancient geographer Ptolemy who refers to Petuaria as the ‘polis’ of the Parisi.  [See; Petuaria: Civitas or Vicus?] 

Wacher found no evidence for a significant civilian settlement during excavations at Brough between 1958-61 noting many features that were not typical of a civitas capital, such as a lack of urban sophistication,  e.g. absence of public buildings or a planned street system, and argues that it is unusual for a town to be enclosed so early, and its turf and timber ramparts have more in common with contemporary military works rather than later town defences. Wacher sees the extensive Iron Age settlement at North Ferribly extending westwards as far as Brough with no other major settlement east, west or north of the military base, as the probable site of the vicus.3

RIB 707

Wacher argues that excavations have shown an almost exclusively military chronology for the sequence of defensive circuits and that the inscription (RIB 707) relating to the status of a British capital is completely unrelated to any structural remains.4

The inscription indicates that by AD 144 the vicus Petruariensis had a junior magistrate of a class only usually found in towns ranked as civitas capitals, and implies the existence of a theatre which would have been provided only after the provision of more functional public buildings such as a forum, basilica and a bath-house;5 despite promising ground scans the remains of these key buildings have, to date, not been found.

The identification of Petuaria with Brough-on Humber is almost entirely dependent on a Roman inscription found by the first excavators of the site Philip Corder with Rev. Thomas Romans during the 1930s. In 1937 their foreman Bertie Gott uncovered the stone inscription under the Burrs Playing Field.6

2018 GPR survey of Burrs Playing Field, Brough (Malton Museum)

In 2018 a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey was carried out at the Burrs Playing Field, the same field that had produced the inscription, and showed a D-shaped feature (marked 'G' above). 

Historic England granted consent to open a trench over the D-shaped feature in 2020, but the excavators found only a hearth that contained a burnt coin dating to c.AD 330 and rubble, evidence that any structures on this feature had been systematically demolished and its building materials used for masonry elsewhere.

However, this layer had later-3rd- and 4th-century coins and pottery associated with it, making it unlikely that it relates to a mid-2nd-century theatre. As they went below this layer they found further stony layers interpreted as successive surfaces of the courtyard. Yet it must be conceded that following two seasons of excavations over the D-shaped feature, the theatre remains elusive.7

Spolia
The ancient and widespread practice of ‘Spoliation’ (from the Latin for 'spoils') was common in late antiquity (250 - 750 AD) when entire redundant structures were known to have been comprehensively demolished and the materials used in the construction of new buildings. 

The practice survived into the Late Middle Ages, evidence can be seen at Lanercost Priory where Roman masonry from Hadrian’s Wall was robbed and used in the nearby construction of the abbey in the 12th century. One such stone built into the abbey wall displays a Roman inscription, recording the presence of Legio VI Victrix on the Wall.

An example of this practice from the Roman period in Britain can be seen in two sandstones that were uncovered at Bainbridge in Wensleydale in 1960 which record the rebuilding of a fort on Brough Hill in the 3rd Century. One of the stones bears an inscription which is one of the longest and largest ever to be found in ancient Britain, designated RIB 3215.

The inscription stones were initially built into the wall of the barracks adjacent to the east gate of the fort at Brough-by-Bainbridge, North Yorkshire, (probably the Roman fort of Virosidum?) and record work carried out by Cohors VI Nerviorum. The Nervian cohort completed extensive construction works at Brough-by-Bainbridge c. AD 205–7 including the building of four barrack blocks, the relocation of the east gate and its enclosure described in an inscription as the bracchium caementicium.

RIB 3215

Clearly the inscription RIB 3215 had become redundant when the principia (headquarters) was partly demolished to provide space for a timber building probably to accommodate the commanding officer.8

The inscription stones, RIB 3215 and RIB 3216, were later reused, upside down, in the 4th century as stone packing in the foundations for a Roman road and covered over for the next 2,000 years. The excavator Brian Hartley states that the larger stone had been re-used at least once before, since the inscribed face was partly covered by mortar. 

The history of the fort at Brough-by-Bainbridge seems somewhat similar to Brough-on-Humber. As a place name “Brough” is thought to have originated from the Old English word “burh” meaning "fortress". Occupation at Brough-by-Bainbridge began in the governorship of Agricola, it may have had an earlier phase, but the visible remains date to AD 90–105. Firstly, an earth and timber rampart was constructed which around AD 190 was rebuilt in stone. Sometime between AD 120 and AD 160 the site had been abandoned. Then we come to the time of inscription (RIB 3215), the early 3rd century, when parts of the fort were rebuilt in by the Cohors VI Nerviorum. Reconstruction took place across the whole site in the late 4th century, then pottery evidence indicates a late abandonment.

A Naval Base?
Wacher suggests the inscription at Brough-on-Humber is possibly a red herring that has misled archaeologists for decades. Notably, it was found incorporated into the masonry of an early-4th century military building, its original location unknown. The robbing of the inscription stone suggests the theatre, if it ever existed, and other associated buildings such as the forum and basilica, were redundant by the late 3rd century, purposefully demolished and the masonry used in re-fortifications of Wacher’s naval base. 

Wacher may well be correct in arguing that Brough was a failed civitas. He concludes that the town never seems to have been fortified at a time when urban defences were generally being constructed as the site no longer warranted it, and views Brough as another failed town similar to Chelmsford. He adds that when this happened disused buildings were typically robbed of their masonry to use in construction of the new defences.

Wacher considers the naval base at Brough was abandoned around AD 360 when some inhabitants of the town moved inside the fortifications and occupied the south-west corner until at least the end of the 4th century.9

The Petuaria Revisited Project team uncovered evidence of continued Roman activity in Brough on Humber into the late 4th and probably 5th centuries AD, beyond that previously thought, and seemingly at variance with earlier determinations about the end of occupation at Brough as given by Wacher, who suggested that it had become redundant by the 4th century. Yet, it must be noted that the bulk of the coins found at Brough date to the mid-4th century, in line with Wacher’s suggestion.

However, there was a significant cluster of coins from the time of Carausius and Allectus, the usurper emperors who reigned sequentially for the period AD 286-296. Carausius had declared himself as emperor in AD 286 and set Britain as his base. It seems likely that he would take advantage of British naval bases following his previous command of the Roman fleet in the English Channel. Wacher agreed with the earlier excavators Philip Corder with Rev. Thomas Romans who saw the site as a military or naval fortified site possibly re-constructed under Carausius. However coins do not provide evidence of his presence at Brough or that it was indeed a naval base yet it may hint at a connection.

An external tower, or bastion, found at Brough in 2023, resembles similar examples in Roman London, as well as those of the Saxon Shore forts, which were apparently built to protect the south and east coasts of Roman Britain from seaborne raiders.

New fortifications of this nature were typical of the 3rd century Roman Britain and tends to support the theory that Brough was a form of naval base on the shore of the River Humber, controlling access to York, and possibly part of the chain of coastal defences known as the Saxon Shore forts.10

 
Notes & References
1. J.S. Wacher, Excavations at Brough-on-Humber 1958- 1961, Society of Antiquaries of London No. XXV (1969).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Adam Rogers, Roman Towns in Late Roman Britain, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
6. Wacher, op.cit.
7. The Past: Petuaria revisited: searching for Brough-on-Humber’s lost Roman theatre
8. Roman Inscriptions of Britain: RIB 3215. Imperial dedication to Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta. 
9. John Wacher, The Towns of Roman Britain, BCA edition, 1976, p.393-97.
10. The Past: Petuaria revisited: searching for Brough-on-Humber’s lost Roman theatre

 * * *

Have they Found Merlin’s Grave?

MERLIN came late to the Arthurian story introduced by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century yet there are traces of a prophet named Mryrddin from at least the 10th century in Wales and then John of Cornwall, a contemporary of Geoffrey, produced his own Prophetia Merlini (Prophecy of Merlin).

Geoffrey had written his own Prophetiæ Merlini which is believed to have been circulated as a stand alone work, Libellus Merlini, prior to incorporating the prophecies into his later work the Historia regum Britanniae, originally titled De gestis Britonum, c.1138. Debate continues as to whether John of Cornwall copied Geoffrey’s work or vice versa, yet there are subtle difference between the works which hints at their independent knowledge of a common legend.

Geoffrey returned to Merlin around 1150 with his Vita Merlini, or 'The Life of Merlin', in which he transformed the boy prophet and magician Merlin Ambrosius, who brought Stonehenge to England in the Historia, as a wildman of the woods who had gone mad after a battle in the north. It is generally agreed that the Vita Merlini was influenced by the Welsh Myrddin poems which pre-date Geofffrey, so we can be fairly certain he did not create the Welsh prophet.

Two Merlins
Geoffrey’s later Merlin of the Vita seems to be a consolidated character. We can guess that at some point after writing the Prophetiæ Merlini and incorporating it into the Historia, Geoffrey became aware of a northern wildman tradition from which he mixed components with the Welsh Myrddin tradition.

It would appear that the idea of two Merlins was well known in the 12th century. In The Itinerary of Archbishop Baldwin through Wales, Gerald of Wales (1146-1223), writes:

"There were two Merlins; the one called Ambrosius who prophesied in the time of king Vortigern, was begotten by a demon incubus, and found at Caermardin, from which circumstance that city derived its name of Caermardin, or the city of Merlin; the other Merlin, born in Scotland, was named Celidonius, from the Celidonian wood in which he prophesied; and Sylvester, because when engaged in martial conflict, he discovered in the air a terrible monster, and from that time grew mad, and taking shelter in a wood, passed the remainder of his days in a savage state. This Merlin lived in the time of king Arthur, and is said to have prophesied more fully and explicitly than the other." [Book II, Ch.8]

This later Merlin, also known as Myrddin Wylt or Myrddin Sylvestris, shows some striking parallels with the tales of a northern wildman said to have lived in the Caledonian forest during the 6th century who is said to have gone mad after witnessing a horrific battle, associated with the Battle of Arfderydd, and fled to the forest where he was cursed with the gift of prophecy. This theme is also apparent in the Welsh Myrddin poems.

The Northern Wildman
The Merlin legend was a late addition to Scottish literature but it is claimed to be based on the northern wildman tradition of Lailoken that developed earlier in Scotland associated with St Kentigern (Mungo) from 6th century Strathclyde and mentioned by Jocelyn of Furness in his 12th century Life of St Kentigern.

The story of Lailoken appears in two versions written in Latin that are found in the 15th century MS Cotton Titus A xix. The manuscript includes the only surviving fragment of the Herbertian Life of Kentigern, an abridged version of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini, and the Vita Merlini Sylvestris (the Life of Merlin of the Forest).1 The two tales of Lailoken are contained in the Life of Merlin of the Forest and generally referred to as "Lailoken and Kentigern," (Lailoken A Text), and "Lailoken  and Meldred," (Lailoken B Text). The two texts are neatly summarised by Basil Clarke2:

A Text
“Kentigern met a wild man in a desert and prayed for him at Kentigern's church by Glasgow. The Wildman had been driven mad by an accusatory vision in the sky during a battle. Later he used to appear (apparently unrecognised) at Kentigern's church by Glasgow, where he was a nuisance with his wild prophecies. At length he demanded the last sacrament from Kentigern, who tested his sanity by asking three times about his death and received conflicting answers (that he would be stoned and clubbed, that he would be pierced by a stake, and that he would be drowned). 

Under pressure from his clerics, Kentigern gave the sacrament. Lailoken then predicted the death of a king, a bishop and a lord within the year. The same day Lailoken was killed in the triple way he had predicted, being set upon by shepherds near Dunmeller. The clerics grasped the point and the story ends with their distress.”3

Lailoken's death is described in the A Text, [as soon as he had received the sacrament he] “rushed away like a wild goat breaking out of the hunter's noose and happily seeking the undergrowth of the wilderness………… it came to pass that on the same day he was stoned and beaten to death by some shepherds of King Meldred, and in the moment of death had a fall, over a steep bank of the Tweed near the fort of Dunmeller, on to a very sharp stake which was stuck in a fish pool. He was pierced through the middle of his body with his head bent over into the shallows, and so yielded his spirit to the Lord as he had prophesied.”

B Text
“Petty-king Meldred of Dunmeller captured Lailoken to hear him prophecy: Lailoken stayed mute for three days. When the queen entered court, he laughed. The disclosure of the queen's adultery, through the leaf in her hair, followed. But before disclosing this Lailoken predicted his own death in a few days, obtained a promise that his body should be buried where Pausail Burn meets Tweed and prophesied about the re-integration of the British nation.

The queen failed to discredit Lailoken, and plotted his death. A few years later he was set upon by shepherds at the instigation of the queen while he was passing Dunmeller at sunset on the same day that he had received the last sacrament, was killed as predicted, and was buried by the king, as he had been promised. (The time discrepancy - a few days, a few years - is not cleared up).”4 

Lailoken's death in the B Text: "As he had predicted and as it is recorded above, so we have heard was his end accomplished. It is said that the king handed over his lifeless corpse for burial in just that place which he had chosen while he lived. Now that fort is some thirty miles from the city of Glasgow. In its plain Lailoken lies buried.

Pierced by a stake, suffering by a stone and by water,
Merlin is said to have met a triple death.”

The author(s) of the two tales were seemingly keen on linking the northern wildman with the prophet of Welsh poetry, Geoffrey's Merlin. The first tale, Lailoken and Kentigern, asserts the association with Merlin, “He was known as Lailoken, and some say he was Merlin” and the tale of Meldred and Lailoken is alternatively referred to as a 'Scottish Tale of Merlin'.5

The tradition of Merlin’s grave near Dunmeller appears to have been widely known in the 13th century as Thomas the Rhymer (Sir Thomas de Ercildoun) prophesied:

“When Tweed and Pausayl meet at Merlin's grave,
Scotland and England shall one monarch have” 

Based on this northern tradition, Lailoken was identified with Merlin, and buried near the village of Dunmeller (modern Drumelzier), near the point where the Powsail Burn joins the River Tweed. Across the Tweed from Drumelzier is a spot called Merlindale. Indeed, 'Merlin’s Grave' has been marked on maps since the 18th century, although no archaeological remains have ever been found at the site.

The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) record says:

"Merlin's Grave" (Site): According to legend which is at least as old as the 15th century, the wizard Merlin was buried 200 yds NNW of Drumelzier Church, on the level haugh close to the right bank of the River Tweed. No structural remains are now to be seen, or have ever been recorded, at the place in question, but it is possible that the tradition may have been originated from the discovery of a Bronze Age cist.”6

The Search for Merlin’s Grave
The legendary figure of Merlin has been associated with Drumelzier in the Tweed Valley in the Scottish borders for many years. It would appear then that the location of Merlin’s Grave is no secret either and has been known since at least its appearance in 12th century literature, with oral accounts probably circulating well before that. 

Today the ruins of the medieval Tinnis Castle stand on a prominent rocky knoll overlooking the Upper Tweed valley, less than half a mile north east of Drumelzier. Underneath the ruined castle walls lies the remains of a hillfort whose ramparts enclosed the summit, this was a ‘nucleated fort’ type of hillfort unique to Scotland between c. 600-1000 AD. 

The Scottish tale of Merlin is centred in and around Dunmeller, from which the place name Drumelzier is said to derive, where he was imprisoned by a 6th century King, suffered a triple death and was buried by the banks of the Tweed. The village of Drumelzier is today still overlooked by the ruins of Tinnis Castle, said to be the location where Lailoken was held captive by Meldred (B Text). Is this tradition based on fact or a legend that migrated to the area? 

As we have seen above, the RCAHMS record states that no structural remains have ever been known at the site of Merlin’s Grave but the tradition may have originated from a Bronze Age burial cist, a stone-lined grave covered over with another slab, in the Tweed Valley.

In 2022 the Drumelizer’s Hidden Heritage Project team led by Ronan Toolis with volunteers pulled from across Scotland set out to investigate the archaeological roots of the Merlin legend at Drumelzier. In November that year a geophysical survey by GUARD Archaeology was carried out in a field to the north of Drumelzier with the objective to see what lay beneath the surface on the spot marked as Merlin’s Grave on maps. Nothing was detected at this spot but only a short distance away to the south-east in the same field an anomaly was found where there appears to be some form of archaeological remains, a possible grave, under the surface. Only excavation will reveal the true nature of the anomaly but permission has not been given to dig at the site. Perhaps this is the Bronze Age burial cist?

Across the Tweed excavations at Thirlestane Barrows, discovered a square barrow, dated to the late 3rd and late 6th centuries AD, constructed over the graves of two individuals of exceptional elite status. It is not known if this burial is related to the anomaly on the other side of the river.

At Tinnis Fort, which overlooks Merlin’s Grave, excavations revealed that this prominent hillfort was occupied around the late 6th to early 7th centuries AD, exactly the time when the Lailoken and Meldred story is set.

Tinnis was reoccupied on the site of a Late Iron Age hillfort which had been destroyed by an immense fire that reached such extreme temperatures that the ramparts were vitrified, a process in which temperatures reach a height that is capable of fusing stones together. At least 60 other vitrified sites are known in Scotland from around this period.

The extreme temperatures required to achieve this has led to a multitude of theories such as some ancient super-weapon such as a laser, or the ramparts were purposefully set on fire to strengthen them.

Scottish hillforts of this time had roofed structures many metres high, constructed on the rampart walls. Archaeologists have proposed that the extreme heat may have been the result of the burning of this timber superstructure with the fire raining down on the stones and heating them up like an oven. At Dun Deardail in Glen Nevis tests had shown blocks of molten stone were formed in anaerobic conditions without oxygen and likely caused by a “tremendous heat from above”.7

However, the question remains as to why these structures were set alight; it has been suggested it was a deliberate act of destruction at the end of the active life of the fort, or perhaps a long forgotten attack.

Following the destruction of the Iron Age hillfort at Tinnis by fire, the hilltop was reoccupied around 200 years later when the early medieval fort was built during a period when this part of the Scottish Borders was under the rule of the kingdom of Strathclyde. It may just be an odd coincidence but the one hillfort associated with the local Lailoken/Merlin legend dates to exactly the same period as the story is set, especially when hillforts of the post-Roman period in this area are relatively rare. Perhaps there is some truth in the tale of Merlin's death in Scotland? But who was Merlin: was he a historical character or just a figure of literature?

The legend of Merlin that has come down to us is clearly a mixture of history, literature and folklore. It is suggested that the Merlin-archetype may well have been based on a real person (Lailoken?) known to St Kentigern, who was driven mad by a vision during a battle and remembered in the literature of the Strathclyde Britons. This northern lore, including tales of the battle of Arfderydd and the wildman of the Caledonian forest, migrated to the Britons of Wales and inspired the Welsh Myrddin poems and later Geoffrey of Monmouth. Thus, Lailoken is proposed as the root of the Merlin legend.8

However, the archaeological evidence unearthed in the Tweed Valley does not prove that the local story was true but does raise the possibility that the legend may have originated in Drumelzier itself.

Notes & References
1. Tim Clarkson, Scotland’s Merlin: A Medieval Legend and its Dark Age Origins, Birlinn, 2016 pp.40-45.
2. Basil Clarke, The Life of Merlin, Geoffrey of Monmouth: Vita Merlini UWP, 1973, pp.24-25.
3. Clarke, p.24.
4. Clarke, p.25
5. Extracts of the relevant texts can be found in the appendices to Tim Clarkson, Scotland’s Merlin, Birlinn, 2016:
Lailoken (from Jocelin of Furness Life of St Kentigern), p.137.
Lailoken and Kentigern (from Vita Merlini Sylvestris), pp.138-142.
Lailoken ans Meldred (from Vita Merlini Sylvestris), pp.142-144.
Myrddin Wyllt, extracts from poems attributed to Myrddin, pp.148-154.
6. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS): "Merlin's Grave"
7. Archaeologists solve ancient mystery of '˜melted' Iron Age fort – The Scotsman
8. Clarkson, pp.131-136.

Further Reading

• The results of the two year study were published last week in Archeology Reports Online. 
• Archaeologists uncover new evidence of Merlin legend in Scotland  - The National, 3 September 2024
• Unearthing ancient Tweeddale: ‘Merlin’s Grave’ and other lost stories embedded in the landscape - The Past
• Drumelzier’s Hidden Heritage project
• GUARD Archaeology: Unearthing Ancient Tweeddale

 

* * *