The Saxon Shore: Evolution of a Coastal Defence System

 In AD 43 the Roman Emperor Claudius’s invasion force of 40,000 men landed in Southern Britain. A century before, in 55 and 54 BC, Julius Caesar had invaded Britain with the aim of conquest but on the first occasion suffered losses to his fleet due to the unpredictable Channel weather. He returned a year later with a much larger invasion force of some 800 ships but was drawn away to troubles in Gaul. Hence, Claudius’s arrival is often termed the third invasion of Britain.

Debate continues as to where Claudius’s invasion force landed, some argue for the south coast, perhaps Chichester in Sussex, yet archaeological evidence points to Richborough in Kent. After landing, the army established a fortified bridgehead defended by a single gateway within a double ditch and rampart, running almost parallel to the shoreline for 600 metres, sections of these can still be seen today. The Claudian ditches were crossed by a causeway which would adjoin the main Roman road, the later Watling Street.

Wantsum Channel (English Heritage)

In those days, nearly two thousand years ago, Richborough stood on a small island just offshore, separated from the mainland by a narrow tidal channel named by the Romans as Portus Rutupis. The Wantsum Channel, as the Saxons called it, was up to 2 miles wide, 10 miles long and separated the Isle of Thanet from mainland Britain. 

Richborough island was situated at the southern end of this natural waterway, close to the confluence of the Wantsum and the open sea. At this point extensive shingle banks sheltered the Wantsum from the sea effectively forming a breakwater enclosing a sheltered anchorage beside Richborough island, making it an ideal harbour where the Roman port would develop. The Romans constructed a causeway to the island which would lead onto the Watling Street, through the Midlands to Chester.1

Richborough (Rutupiae) was therefore the site of the earliest Roman settlement in Britain, however a series of archaeological investigations by Bushe-Fox (1922-38) has revealed that the initial military earthworks were not extensive with no evidence of a heavy military presence, more a temporary defence for the disembarkation of troops during the initial phase of the invasion. No doubt the large invasion force quickly spread out to secure the Wantsum Channel controlling the northern end where it met the Thames estuary and the Isle of Thanet. 

Archaeological research at Regulbium (Reculver) at the northern mouth of the Wantsum has revealed pottery and pairs of ditches similar to those at Richborough, suggesting a small garrison relating to the invasion period.

This coastline has changed considerably since Roman times, the Wantsum Channel has silted up over the years and now reduced to a small stream with Thanet now joined to the mainland. Consequentially the two Roman sites associated with this waterway guarding both ends of the Wantsum, Reculver and Richborough, have changed over the centuries. Richborough is no longer an island and now lies 2 miles (3.2km) from the sea with the River Stour, all that remains of the Channel, having devoured the sandy cliff which forms the eastern edge of the monument and destroying the south western and north eastern ends of the defences.

At the time of the Roman invasion Reculver occupied the southern tip of a promontory at the north-western end of the Wantsum Channel with the sea almost a mile (1.4km) to the north. Coastal erosion has severely damaged the west and north east of the site so that only the southern half of the later stone fort survives as ruined walls, earthworks and below ground features, the rest now lost to the sea.

The Gateway to Roman Britain
Less than ten years after the invasion of AD 43 the site at Richborough was levelled to make way for the construction of a military and naval supply base.

Around AD 90 the Romans built a huge monumental arch at the centre of this base overlooking the shore at Richborough, one of the largest such monuments in the Roman empire. This monumental arch would have been seen by ships from miles away, a navigational aid to ships, and on landing the travellers crossed through the Richborough arch as the official gateway to Britannia.

The major Roman road, Watling Street, now started at the foot of the arch and proceeded through the West Gate across the causeway and continued for about 250 miles through the Province. 

This huge monumental arch at Richborough was of a particularly rare and elaborate type with four faces and four openings, an architectural style known as a ‘quadrifons’. Beneath the archways was a raised cross-shaped pavement accessed by steps on each side.  The arch was underpinned by stone foundations around 10 metres deep, estimated as necessary to support a structure some 25 metres high consisting of around 20,000 tonnes of material. The Richborough quadrifons was clad in Carrara marble, an exotic bright white stone quarried in Italy which could only be used by authority of the emperor. 

Yet the decision to build a quadrifons arch at Richborough is somewhat mysterious. Because of their four openings, quadrifonic arches typically had a crossroads at their centre, and were often positioned at important intersections. No doubt the east-west line which joined Watling Street was the road that linked the Empire to Britannia via the sea, yet the north-south archways had no apparent alignment, it may have symbolised the division between land and sea.

The Arch of Janus

The only quadrifrons or four-faced, triumphal arch surviving in Rome is The Arch of Janus. This unique piece of architecture,16 metres (52ft) high and 12 metres (40ft) wide, marked a crucial crossroads in the ancient city. Estimated to have been constructed in the early 4th century AD, using  material from redundant earlier structures that were comprehensively demolished so that the materials could be re-used in the construction of new buildings. The ancient and widespread practice of ‘Spoliation’ (from the Latin for 'spoils') was common in Roman architecture.

The town at Richborough developed around this massive arch, with new roads laid out and stone buildings constructed including shops and metal workshops around the monument. As the Roman army spread out into the Province the town and port boomed with trade from Gaul. A mansio complex and an amphitheatre had been erected before the town reached its peak around AD 125. However, by the early 3rd century the town was in decline, probably due to the growth of the cross-channel port at Dover (Dubris).

Classis Britannica
Being an island the Roman navy played a significant part in the invasion of Britain in AD 43. In 55 BC Julius Caesar’s invasion plans suffered owing to losses to the fleet caused by bad weather in the Channel. The next year he was back with a huge fleet that would not only transport the invasion force but also provide logistics support. Claudius had no doubt learnt from Caesar’s accounts of his trips to Britain a century earlier and came well prepared with the navy providing not only a means of transport but also essential support to the shore defences.

A massive fleet, the classis Britannica, was built for the Claudian invasion and was operating in British waters since at least AD 43, if not before. Initially the fleet’s headquarters was most likely at Boulogne on the north coast of Gaul.2

Accordingly, the fleet’s earliest British base was at Richborough, the beachhead of the Claudian invasion. Around AD 130-140 a new fortified port was built at Dover which became the main base for the fleet in Britain. This was thought to be the Novus Portus (New Port) as recorded in Ptolemy's 2nd century ‘Geography’. The presence of the fleet at Dover is attested by a large number of tiles stamped ‘CL BR’, found at the site and also across the Channel at Boulogne which continued as the main operating base of the classis Britannica. Tiles found at other sites indicates their association with the fleet but none have been found, to date, north of London.

The Hadrianic Period (c.122-136 AD)
The 1st and 2nd centuries witnessed the wider development of coastal installations around Britain.

Legionary fortresses were constructed at Caerleon and Chester, with smaller forts at Cardiff and Lancaster, all with access to the sea on the west of the country. Also on the western shore a series of forts, supply bases and signal stations were constructed on the Cumbrian coast guarding the Solway Firth, effectively forming a southern extension to Hadrian's Wall.

On the otherside of the country at the eastern terminus of the Wall a fort was constructed at South Shields on the River Tyne. This would have certainly operated as a supply base for the classis Britannica during northern campaigns of the Roman army in the 1st and 2nd centuries, yet no CL BR tiles have been found at the site.

Further south down the eastern coast it has been argued that a military supply base was established at Brough-on-Humber during the Hadrianic period. This base was on the northern shore of the Humber, the terminal of the ferry from Lincoln in the south and serving the legionary fort at York. Around AD 200 a new earth and timber rampart was constructed when the earlier defensive circuit was extended. But again, although the classis Britannica certainly sailed into the Humber no fleet tiles have been found at the site.

At Lympne in southern Kent over 30 ‘CL BR’ tiles have been found suggesting the existence of a port or supply depot during the 2nd century. Although evidence for this early port has not been found, the amount of re-used building materials in the 3rd-century Roman Shore Fort at Lympne (Portus Lemanis) suggest previous activity at the site or nearby.

At Reculver on the north Kent coast tiles have been found made from the same clay as that used by the classis Britannica re-used in the masonry of the later St Mary's church. Other tiles were also used in the construction of the east gate of the later Shore fort but it is not possible to determine if these had been stamped 'CL BR' as only the sides of the tiles remain exposed, the top and bottom surfaces mortared into masonry layers and cannot be examined.

Classis Britannica tile

CL BR tiles have been found at Richborough and Pevensey where there is little evidence for 2nd century military installations. Fleet tiles found at Folkstone villa suggest it may have been the residence of the prefect commanding the classis Britannica.

From the initial invasion in AD 43 we see evidence of the spread of Roman military operations by land across the Province, from the mouth of the Tyne on the north-east coast to the south-east coast in Kent and the north-west coast in Cumbria to south Wales. These coastal defences must have been served by the British fleet of the classis Britannica, providing essential logistics support, the bases the fleet operated from seemingly identified by the presence of tiles stamped ‘CL BR’.3

The Severan Period (193-235 AD)
Significant reorganisation of the south and east coast military forts was carried out towards the end of the 2nd century and the early 3rd century.

The Caledonian campaign of Septimius Severus ended in 211 when the emperor died at York with the Roman forces pulling back the northern frontier to Hadrian's Wall. Following the death of Severus his son Caracalla seems to have concentrated on reorganising defences along the east coast. The fort at South Shields was substantially rebuilt with the base continuing to function as the northern limit of maritime operations along the east coast until the 4th century. 

Further south along the east coast military installations were remodelled and new forts built during this period. This includes three forts south of the Wash at Brancaster and Caister in Norfolk and Reculver on the north coast of Kent which would all later become part of the Saxon Shore.

Brancaster has been dated to the early 3rd century based purely on the early architecture of the site but coin finds indicate activity in the late 3rd century. The installations at Brancaster, Caister and Reculver were no doubt part of the defence system established on the east coast, such as Brough-on-Humber and the site at Skegness, now lost to coastal erosion, intended to operate with Brancaster on the opposite side of the Wash.

The South Coast
Whereas the east coast of Britain witnessed renewed military activity during the Severan period there is a distinct lack of evidence for new installations on the south coast, which appears to be in decline rather than renewed growth.4

The Severan campaigns in northern Britain relied heavily on logistical support from the classis Britannica. The concentration of naval operations in the north seems to be associated with the abandonment of the fort at Dover which was demolished between 200-210.5 

15 miles further along the south coast occupation at the port at Lympne continued during the early 3rd century; however, it is uncertain whether this installation was civilian or military. 'Lemanis' is included in the Antonine Itineray, a register of the stations and distances between them on the Roman road network. The Itinerary is usually ascribed to the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius (reigned AD 138 – 161), however it seems unlikely that the British section was compiled at this time. It has been suggested that the Itinerary was compiled over two centuries with the British section titled “Iter Britanniarum” being plural, indicating that the British section was assembled after Britain was divided into two provinces in AD 211 AD, either by Septimius Severus or his son Caracalla.6 But as with Dover, the port as Lympne seems to have fallen out of use in the first half of the 3rd century.

The Later 3rd Century
When Alexander Severus, the last emperor from the Severan dynasty, was assassinated by his own troops in AD 235 it marked the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century.

The next 50 years (AD 235–284) would see over 20 emperors rise compared with the 26 emperors who reigned from the first Roman emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus in 27 BC to the death of Alexander Severus in AD 235, a period of over 250 years. During this period of social turmoil and chaos the empire experienced economic disintegration, repeated foreign invasions, and civil wars. Roman commanders in the field became increasingly independent of Rome's central authority resulting in the Roman Empire splintering into three political entities: the Gallic Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Palmyrene Empire.7

The Roman Shore Forts in the late 3rd Century AD

Following the anarchy of the 3rd century a new emperor was declared by his troops in AD 284 while on campaign in Persia who finally bring order back to the Empire. Diocletian's reign stabilized the empire and ended the Imperial Crisis. Around this time a series of substantial fortifications appeared on the coast of Britain from Brancaster on the Wash to Portchester on the Solent.

During the later 3rd century activity in Britain focused on the South and East Anglian coasts with relatively little new military building beyond the geographical area between the Wash and the Solent. Existing fortifications elsewhere must have been considered adequate or irrelevant to the current threat.

Brough-on-Humber was one of exceptions; bastions were added to the perimeter wall, a characteristic in Britain unique to the Shore Forts and the refortified London Wall. A large fort was constructed at Cardiff in South Wales, all but square in plan with projecting bastions on the perimeter walls, being very similar in design to Portchester.

The construction of the new fort at Cardiff has been dated to after 260, however it is suggested that the similarities with Lympne and Portchester tend to indicate a later 3rd century origin. It is reasonable to see Cardiff as contemporary with, rather than earlier than, the development of defences on the south coast of England.8

At Brancaster a coin of Tetricus, emperor of the Gallic Empire from AD 271 to 274, found in the rampart indicates this was not built before c.270. Yet, coins from the Carausian period, usurper AD 286-293 self-proclaimed “Emperor of the North”, make up the bulk of the finds at Brancaster,  indicating activity at the site was greatest during the late 3rd century.

These new coastal forts in Britain indicate a continued naval presence in British waters, although the classis Britannica had disappeared from the archaeological record by the mid-2nd century.9

We have seen how new military installations were built and the defences of existing fortifications augmented during the Severan period. During the 3rd century defensive emphasis moved away from the south coast, with defences reorganised along the eastern coast. Events at Richborough provide a snapshot of developments.

Return to Richborough
The huge monumental four-fronted arch constructed around AD 90 stood at the heart of the town of Richorough for almost 200 years. At 25m high and clad in white marble the arch was visible for miles. For whatever reason the Roman army moved back to Richborough in the middle of the 3rd century. Around AD 250 part of the town around the arch was demolished and replaced with a small fortlet. The arch appears to have been repurposed as a watchtower or signal station, protected by three ditches and a rampart complete with palisade.

Richborough Roman fort

During the last decades of the 3rd century the fortlet was levelled and a large stone fort was built at Richborough. Further parts of the town were demolished to provide material for the new fort. Even the arch, a ceremonial and symbolic gateway to the province of Britannia awarded the rare privilege of being faced with Carrara marble from the Imperial quarries was torn down and the triple ditches filled in, all to provide building material for the new fort. Much of the marble facing stones were burned to make lime to be reused in the mortar of the fort’s walls. Other marble slabs from the arch were used as packing in the walls. The substantial new stone fort at Richborough seems to have been built very quickly, by a man in a hurry. 

Notes & References
1. John Peddie, Conquest: The Roman Invasion of Britain, Sutton, 1997.
2. Andrew Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts, History Press, 2010, p.49. Chp 3, The Development of a Coastal System, pp.47-66.
3. Pearson, p.49
4. Pearson, p.55
5. Pearson, p.55
6. Rivet & Smith, Place Names of Roman Britain, Batsford, 1979, p. 154
7. Pearson, p.56
8. Pearson, p.63
9. Andrew Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts, History Press, 2010, Chp 3, The Development of a Coastal System, pp.47-66.

* * *

The Saxon Shore Forts

Many years ago on a school trip to Portsmouth harbour we were told by our history teacher that Portchester Castle, Portus Adurni, was evidence of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Yes, built in the late 3rd century these Roman forts along the south-east corner of Britain were established to deal with Saxons that were settling on the shoreline; that’s why they are called the Saxon Shore forts he stressed. Later, in the early 5th century when the Romans left Britain, he added, the Saxons were left unchecked and run amok across the country, as recorded by the 6th century historian Gildas, to create the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as recorded by Bede.

I have always found the concept of a mass Anglo-Saxon invasion a rather extreme theory; yes there were Germanic settlers in Britain but I’ve always considered it more of a cultural change rather than large scale population displacement. However, I believe it is still taught as such in school today. You could interpret my old history teacher as being correct really in meaning that when the Saxons first arrived in Britain it was the beginning of the event. As far he was concerned their arrival was associated with the Saxon Shore, hence the name.

The Roman Shore Forts of Roman Britain

There are eleven sites around the south-eastern coast of Britain, from Portchester in Portsmouth Harbour to Brancaster on the Wash, that are designated as the Roman Saxon Shore forts by modern historians. Nowhere else on the British coast do we find such a cluster of Roman forts, constructed on harbours as at Portchester or on river estuaries as if to guard the watercourses into the Roman province.

The term ‘Saxon Shore’ first appears in the Notitia Dignitatum, a Latin document dated AD 395, revised around AD 420, and lists just nine forts on the British coast under the command of the Count of The Saxon Shore. The majority of the forts were constructed in the late 3rd century, some earlier in first half of that century. Several of the fortifications on the east coast have suffered badly from coastal erosion and stone robbing leaving little of the original stonework remaining; in the case of Brancaster, in Norfolk, the presence of the fort can now only be detected by landscape features where the walls once stood and at Walton Castle, Suffolk, the site is now completely submerged under the North Sea.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

The Saxon Shore forts today:

Brancaster (Branodunum)
This Roman fort was constructed to guard the southern point of The Wash. Today the site is just a field, the east ditch can be seen as a marked depression, the fort is often revealed by parched summer grass using aerial photograph over its buried ramparts, revealing the positions of gates and traces of internal buildings. The fort was rectangular with rounded corners, the classic ‘playing card’ shape typical of early Roman forts in Britain, and had walls 2.7 metres thick. Robbed facing stones from the Brancaster Shore Fort were re-used (together with other later material) in the south chancel of the church of St Mary the Virgin at Brancaster. It is likely there was another fortification on the northern side of The Wash near Skegness.

Burgh Castle (Gariannonum?)
Situated on a low hill above the river Waveney, the remains of Burgh Castle are now some distance inland. In Roman times the fort would have been on the shoreline of a large sheltered inlet guarding the “Great Estuary”, the site of Great Yarmouth was then sea.

The walls, 3.5 metres thick and in places still 4.5 metres high, enclosed a 2.4 hectare site. The walls with six projecting towers or bastions, possibly added later to the original design, remain on three sides. A fallen bastion can be seen on the south wall, and on the east wall a vertical break between the bastion and the adjacent section of perimeter wall shows they were built as separate components, perhaps a later addition, the bastion is only bonded to the wall at the very uppermost courses.

Burgh Castle

Much of the stonework from Burgh castle has been re-used in later local buildings. The round bell tower of the church of St Peter and St Paul, Burgh Castle, displays Roman masonry such as flint, brick and tile that has been robbed from the nearby Shore fort.

At nearby Reedham the church of St John the Baptist displays large quantities of Roman building material, principally brick and tile. This, and other finds in the locality, provide evidence that a substantial Roman site once stood here. Situated on the shores of the Great Estuary it was probably a lighthouse or watchtower serving the local Shore forts.

Bradwell (Othona?)
Situated on the Dengie Marshes, Othona was located to control the estuaries of the Blackwater and Colne which provided access to the Roman city of Camulodonum (Colchester). Little has survived of the Roman fort into modern times: sections of three walls, one with a bastion, survived until the 18th century when they were demolished. The eastern wall has never been located. 

The 7th-century chapel of St Peter-on-the-Wall at Bradwell-on-Sea stands on the site of the Roman fort’s west gate. Evidently much of the stonework of the fort was robbed in the Saxon period; the north wall of the chapel shows evidence of re-used Roman masonry. Limestone blocks of 'Clipsham Pink Stone' used in the Shore fort and recycled at St Peter's chapel were imported over 300km (190 miles) from quarries to the north-west of the Roman town of Durobrivae (Water Newton, Cambridgeshire).

Reculver (Regulbium)
Guarding the northern end of the now lost Wantsum Channel, a seaway that separated the Isle of Thanet from mainland Kent, stands the Roman Shore fort of Reculver. About half of the site has been lost to the sea yet substantial parts of the walls and the impressive south gate still survive. The fort had an almost square plan with rounded corners.

The Twin Towers of Reculver

The east wall of the fort at Reculver displays clear evidence of later stone robbing, the entire facing stones have been removed leaving just the core rubble constructed from beach flints exposed. At the site of the south gate are three large blocks which once formed the base of a monumental arch. The medieval church of St Mary at Reculver, a landmark to mariners known as the “Twin Towers Reculver” originally sited at the centre of the Shore fort, now stands within a few metres of the coast owing to coastal erosion. The Shore fort was originally 1km from the coast.

Richborough (Rutupiae)
One of the most impressive remains of a Shore fort can be seen at Richborough where the wall circuit survives on three sides and massive ditches crossed by the line of Watling Street provides a glimpse into the days of Roman Britain. The west wall remains are 7m high, but its opposite, the east wall, has fallen into the river Stour.

Richborough

The fort at Richborough was the second of a pair guarding the Wantsum Channel as Reculver stood at the northern end Richborough at the southern end. Richborough has been identified by historians as the place where the Roman invasion force landed in AD 43. The fort developed from an early military camp into a port before later fortifications were added during the 3rd century. 

The north wall was built in two parts, possibly by two different units, as the break in the sections of construction can clearly be seen. Much re-used stone from earlier Roman buildings was employed in this portion of the defences when the site was refortified in the late 3rd century. The monumental blocks of the foundations of the west gate were recycled from an earlier structure on the site, probably the first century monumental arch. The so-called ‘Great Monument’, the only Roman building in Britain to have been covered externally in marble, was replaced by a watchtower, surrounded by triple ditches during this later rebuild.

Dover (Dubris)
The Romans constructed a fort at the mouth of the river Dour, then a wider estuary, for the classis Britannica, a fleet based in the English Channel, its inception probably for the invasion of Britain in AD 43. Archaeological evidence for the presence of the fleet relies mainly on tiles stamped ‘CLBR’ found on the east Kent coast and London. The fleet is not heard of after the mid-3rd century, probably disbanded and located at smaller coastal forts on either side of the channel. The classis Britannica fort at Dover was abandoned around AD 225 and a new fort was built in the late 3rd century.

The Shore fort at Dover was built over the north-east corner of the foundations of the classis Britannica port, which in turn had been built over an earlier unfinished fort. Exposed sections of the Shore fort include part of the south wall with tower. The lighthouse, known as the ‘pharos’, now stands within the medieval castle to the west of the church of St Mary in Castro. The first three quarters of its height is Roman masonry, the top quarter being a later repair, now 19m high but thought to have originally been 24m tall. The pharos is one of a pair, the other stood on the western side of the Dour estuary, known as the Western Heights, now all but lost among the Napoleonic fortification.

Lympne (Lemanis)
The Shore fort was positioned on the slopes of an ancient degraded sea cliff, originally overlooking a wide natural harbour, now Romney Marsh in Kent. The fort may have occupied the site of an earlier fort of the classis Britannica, Portus Lemanis, as mentioned in the Antonine Itinerary

Today the tumbled ruins lie scattered on the hillside owing to slumping of the clay slope on which is was built. It appears the fort was built in the shape of an irregular pentagon but landslips have broken and moved huge chunks of the walls down the slope so that its original form is no longer obvious. Several sections of wall survive, up to 6 metres tall, but mostly leaning and displaced. Eight semicircular bastions have been detected, probably of a total fourteen, the remains of one on the north wall provides a rare instance where the facing stones and brick still remains in situ. The site appears to have been abandoned around AD 350.

Pevensey (Anderida)
Pevensey is the largest and one of the most impressive of the Shore forts. The walls form an irregular oval shape, enclosing 4 hectares with a later Norman castle added to the south-east corner. The fort is now 1km from the sea but when it was built it sat at the end of raised tongue of land surrounded by coastal marsh.

Pevensey Castle

Its projecting D-shaped towers were a feature of this style of Roman military architecture that appeared in the late 3rd century. The 3.6m thick walls were used later to define the outer bailey of the Norman castle. The lower portion of the bastion on the north wall at Pevensey is clearly of Roman construction, however, the part of this tower that projects above the perimeter wall is almost certainly a post-Roman addition.

Portchester (Portus Adurni)
Perhaps the finest example of all the Shore forts is at Portchester, at the head of Portsmouth Harbour, Hampshire, with, it is said, the best-preserved Roman fort walls north of the Alps. Unlike most of the Saxon Shore forts in Britain the coastal setting at Portchester is little changed from the time of its construction in the late 3rd century with the sea licking the fort on the east side as it did in Roman times.

Portchester

The 3.1m thick and 6m circuit walls enclosing a regular square plan is complete except where they were altered in the 12th century by the addition of the Norman keep and medieval gatehouse in the north-western corner. A church now sits in the south-east sector. Fourteen of the original twenty projecting D-shaped bastions of the Roman fort survive. The bastions are hollow unlike those at Lympne and Pevensey. The walls were laid on a timber and flint raft, the timbers cross-braced as at Pevensey. 

Occupation continued beyond the end of the Roman period, with three main phases during the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, with noticeable breaks between these stages. Whether a civilian population took over the fort or a militia formed a continuing military presence is uncertain.

In addition to the nine forts listed in the Notitia Dignitatum (above), there are a further two Roman forts on the east coast of Britain which must have been part of these coastal defences at some time.

Caister-on-Sea
A second fort guarded the Great Estuary, along side Burgh Castle but omitted from the Notitia Dignitatum, although its defences are of similar construction to other Saxon Shore forts. This raises the question of whether Burgh Castle or Caister was the ‘Gariannonum’ listed in the Notitia Dignitatum? The estuary has greatly silted up since Roman times and much of the fort is covered by modern housing, but a short section of the south wall and south gate can still be seen. 

The forts at Burgh Castle and Caister may have formed a pair, or Burgh may have superseded Caister. Individually or as a pair, they certainly guarded a large estuary of several rivers, to prevent undesirables from penetrating inland to the heart of Roman Britain. 

Walton Castle
The Roman fort at Walton Castle, near Felixstowe, Suffolk, is now totally lost to the sea through coastal erosion in the 18th century, but we know of its existence from antiquarian accounts. The wall of the fort at Walton Castle shown on an 18th-century copy of a drawing originally made in 1623 displays a clear similarity to Burgh Castle with circular bastions and rounded corners which suggests a construction date similar to Burgh Castle and Bradwell. It fills a strategic gap in the coastal defences on the east coast, in Roman times commanding the entrance to the estuary of the Stour and Orwell. The fort at Walton Castle has sometimes been identified with Portus Adurni (Portchester) or Othona (Bradwell).

These eleven forts on the east and south-east coasts of Britain have much in common and certainly formed a defensive chain in it’s entirety. They were all located on low-lying ground, close to sheltered anchorages at major estuaries and inlets. Some seem to have functioned as pairs, such as Reculver and Richborough at opposite ends of an important waterway, and Caister and Burgh Castle on opposite sides of a large estuary. 

But guarding the coast from what? Debate remains over the correct interpretation of the term ‘Saxon Shore’ – did it describe the shore settled by Saxons, or the shore attacked by Saxons?

References:
Leonard Cottrell, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore, HMSO, 1964.
Nic Fields, Rome’s Saxon Shore, Osprey, 2006.
Valerie Maxfield (ed), The Saxon Shore: A Handbook, University of Exeter, 1989.
Andrew Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts, The History Press, 2010.
Stephen Johnson, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore, BCA, 1979.
D E Johnston (ed), The Saxon Shore, CBA Research Report No: 18, 1977.
Donald White, Litus Saxonicum, University of Wisconsin, 1961.

* * *

Petuaria Part III: A Lost Saxon Shore Fort?

The Saxon Shore
The first excavators of Brough on Humber, Philip Corder with Rev. Thomas Romans, who explored the site in the 1930s saw the site as a military or naval fortified base controlling the River Humber and access to York. Corder speculated that it may have been part of the chain of coastal defences known as the Saxon Shore forts. John Wacher carried out excavations at Brough between 1958-61 and found no evidence for a significant civilian settlement and agreed with Corder that it was a military site, which he also considered included a naval base which may well have been part of the Saxon Shore defences.

Wacher’s chronology for the settlement at Brough on Humber commences in the 1st century as an auxiliary fort that was abandoned around AD 80. However, he considered that during this period it was likely that a military supply depot was maintained there. In the later 3rd century the fort was reoccupied perhaps as an outlier of the Saxon Shore defensive chain, and then finally abandoned in the last quarter of the 4th century; the oldest coinage dating to the reign of the usurper Magnus Maximus (383-388).

Situated on a natural inlet of the river Humber, the military base at Brough would have fulfilled two functions: it controlled the approaches to the estuary linking to several major rivers that provided access to the heartland of Britannia; the same function was performed by the Saxon Shore forts at Brancaster on the Wash and Reculver on the Thames estuary.

Secondly, it functioned as a port serving the Roman forts at York and Lincoln and surrounding areas such as the fort at Malton. Brough also served as the northern terminal of the Humber crossing linking York and Lincoln by the Roman Road known as Ermine Street. However, it must be conceded that, to date, neither side of the crossing has produced evidence of a harbour. Wacher attributes this to the Late Roman marine transgression which would have submerged the existing structures. 

During the 4th-5th centuries AD this significant geological phenomenon resulted in several Romano-British sites on the Lincolnshire marshes being completely covered over by several metres of marine alluvium. For example, The Romano-British sites at Scupholme and Ingoldmells were found beneath more than three metres of alluvium.

The Roman Shore Forts
The so-called Saxon Shore is a series of Roman defences along the south and east coasts of Britain. It is mentioned in just one official document, the Notitia Dignitatum (Register of Dignitaries), thus the sole source for its existence.

The (unknown) compiler of the Notitia Dignitatum listed the official titles of all civil and military posts within the Roman Imperial administration around AD 395. The document consists of two sections, the Eastern Empire, and the Western Empire, revised and updated c.420. The western section lists the office of Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias, the Count of the Saxon Shore for Britain, and is the only historical source for this otherwise unknown military command.

The Notitia records nine forts under the command of the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias forming a chain of coastal defences stretching from the Wash at the northern end and along the east and south coasts to the Solent; from Branodunum (Brancaster) in Norfolk to Portus Adurni (Portchester) in Hampshire and includes Othona (Bradwell), Dubris (Dover), Lemannis (Lympne), Gariannum (Burgh Castle), Regulbium (Reculver), Rutupiae (Richborough), and Anderida (Pevensey). To this list the Roman forts at Caister-on-sea (Norfolk) and Walton Castle (Suffolk) have been added by modern historians to make a total of eleven Saxon Shore forts. Could Petuaria (Brough on Humber) have been the twelfth?  

The forts are typically located on inlets or estuaries, all points of potential incursion into the Roman province. Large parts of the forts at Richborough, Reculver, Burgh Castle, and Bradwell-on-Sea have been lost to coastal erosion with Walton Castle now entirely submerged.

Walton Castle, near Felixstowe, is a unique case, now totally submerged under the sea owing to coastal erosion, however, old descriptions by antiquarians seem to confirm it was part of the chain of defences. The location and features make it almost certain that Walton Castle was a Roman Shore fort, being quadrangular in plan, with flint and mortar walls bonded with brick with round bastions. Strategically positioned to control access to the estuary of the Stour and Orwell. It is claimed that there are traces of a signal station system between Walton and Burgh Castles.

However, owing to a lack of positive evidence Walton Castle has not been universally accepted as a Shore Fort. The counter argument is that Walton was Portus Adurni rather than Portchester. Yet it is perfectly possible that by the time the Notitia Dignitatum was compiled the fort at Walton had been abandoned under reorganisations under Theodosius. 

Sentinels of the Waterways
Caister and Burgh Castle stood either side of the ‘Great Estuary’ controlling access in to the Broadlands rivers, (Yare, Bure and Waveney) behind Yarmouth, which was then a sandbank. Richborough and Reculver stood sentinel over the two ends of the Wantsum channel, a strait separating the Isle of Thanet from the north-eastern Kent, a major shipping route in Roman times. 

If, as seems likely, some of the Roman Shore forts were sited in pairs at main points of possible incursion to rivers or estuaries, as above, then we could expect to find another Roman port on the northern side of the Wash (Metaris Aestuarium), opposite Brancaster which guarded the southern side, perhaps near Skegness as the Roman road from Lincoln (Lindum) runs there. The 16th Century antiquarian John Leland makes reference to a ‘walled town’ and a ‘castle’ off the coast of Skegness. But any structures there were claimed by the sea long ago. 

‘Old Skegness’, as the local people refer to the Old Roman site, now lies about half a-mile off the coast after being swallowed by the sea in the 1500s following storms and floods. In addition to the clues mentioned by Leland of a lost Roman town or fort, sailors were still reporting encountering an old church steeple out there in the 17th century.

We could also expect to find a Shore fort guarding the Humber, such at Brough on Humber, and access into to York.

Dating the Forts
The Roman shore forts can be divided into two groups by age and design. The first group shows similarities in size and internal layout with most of the Roman forts in Britain.

The early group of forts comprises the two forts on the Norfolk coast, Brancaster and Caister, and Reculver in Kent. These forts are considered to have been constructed during the early 3rd century AD owing to their conventional architecture, the classic ‘playing card shape’, square sides with rounded corners, common in early Roman military architecture. Evidence from excavations supports the early date. In the days of early Roman Britain the forts were rarely attacked with the legions preferring to meet the enemy in the open field where their superior battle tactics and discipline proved dominant.

The second group, Burgh Castle, Bradwell, Reculver, Dover, Lympne, Pevensey, Portchester, were constructed during the late 3rd century. The principal differences between these later forts and the early group is the incorporation of new aspects of Roman fort architecture that originated in the east of the Empire to resist siege warfare against the Sassanids in the early 3rd century.

The addition of external bastions (turrets) provided the fort (or town wall) with additional defensive capability against an enemy directly attacking the face of the fort walls with battering rams or siege engines. With bastions external to the fort walls the attackers could now be subjected to artillery crossfire along the long axis of the wall.

Burgh Castle (Gariannonum) east wall bastion
(Creative Commons)

These novel features included the construction of thick walls (up to 3.5 m at Pevensey), bonded with brick courses, over 7m tall, whereas the earlier forts had thinner walls supported by earthen inner ramparts. The later forts all displayed variability of plan, from square as at Portchester, oval at Pevensey, to pentagonal at Lympne. Yet the signature features of these later forts is the external bastions on the fort walls. 

The majority of the external bastions incorporated into the Saxon Shore forts were circular, or semi-circular, solid masonry ‘drums’ as at Burgh Castle, Bradwell, Pevensey and Lympne. However, Portchester was constructed with hollow bastions which may indicate a shortage of building materials, it was not finished, or, being at the western end of the chain of Shore forts, was only considered likely to be suffer minor attacks.

The river wall and bastions completed the defensive circuit of Roman London, as with the later Saxon Shore forts and other fortifications in the north and west constructed at this time, all appear to have been built in a hurry.

Wacher considered that there was a close comparison between Brough on Humber (Petuaria?) and the Saxon Shore fort at Burgh Castle (Gariannum) in Norfolk. Wacher suggests that although the original plan at Burgh may have been pre-Carausian, that is before AD 286, the additional constructions including thicker walls, external bastions and towered gateways, were in place prior to the Theodosian restructuring following the Barbarian Conspiracy of AD 367. It is therefore likely that both forts were updated by Carausius, the usurper emperor (r.286-293) in the late 3rd century. He argues that the pattern of development at Brough is typical of the chronology of military fortification rather than civil settlement. 

Carausius
Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Carausius, a Menapian of humble birth, was an officer in the Roman military service, a helmsman by profession. He had received recognition for fighting against the Bagaudae, groups of rebel peasants in the western parts of the later Roman Empire, who arose during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and persisted until the very end of the Western Empire.

Around 285-6 Carausius was appointed by Maximian, co-ruler with the emperor Diocletian, to deal with Franks and Saxon pirates who had ‘infested’ the Channel and were plundering the coast of northern Gaul. Carausius was given command of a fleet, or given authority to assemble his own, based at Gesoriacum or Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) to counter the threat.

Carausius was remarkably successful but was accused of letting the pirates complete their raids, then attacking them to take their spoils for himself. Infuriated by this news Maximian ordered Carausius’s death. In 286, in response Carausius declared himself Emperor with the title of Augustus, over Britain and northern Gaul, issuing coins showing himself as co-emperor alongside Maximian and Diocletian.

Coin portraying Carausius alongside Diocletian and Maximian as joint emperors
‘CARAUSIUS ET FRATRES SUI’  (Carausius and his brothers!)

Several attempts by Maximian to remove Carausius failed, and in 290 he was finally acknowledged as ruler of Britain. On 1st March 293, Constantius was made caesar by Maximian. The two men, together with Diocletian and his caesar, Galerius, formed the 'tetrarchy'. Constantius was assigned to rule Gaul with his first instruction to remove the usurper Carausius. Shortly later he captured Carausius’s mainland base at Gesoriacum. Carausius pulled back to Britain but later that year was assassinated by his finance minister, Allectus. Three years later in 296 Allectus was killed in a battle with Asclepiodotus, the praetorian prefect, who landed on the south coast to recover Britain.

Brough on Humber: A Saxon Shore fort?
Although Wacher saw Brough on Humber as a naval base there has been no archaeological link established with the classis Britannica, the Roman fleet, probably constituted for the Claudian invasion in AD 43, but no longer documented after the mid-3rd century. Tiles marked ‘CLBR’ associated with the Roman fleet have never been found north of London.

However, if as seems likely that Carausius constructed the later Shore forts, and enhanced the defences of the earlier forts, he must have had an operational fleet. It is probably more correct to say that Carausius planned the Shore forts and they were completed by his successor Allectus. 

Other bases and Roman London were re-fortified at this time while new defensive shore forts were being established at Porchester while others at Brancaster and Lympne were being restored or repaired. At nearby Malton (Derventio), 23 coins of the Carausian period were found at the North-East gate of the fort during the 1927-30 excavations indicating it was probably rebuilt by Carausius. There was also significant reconstructions at Brough on Humber at the same time. 

Relatively recent archaeological excavations by the Petuaria Revisted Project unearthed evidence of another bastion in 2023, and coins from the Carausian period, which confirms that the fortifications were enhanced in the late-3rd century. But was Brough on Humber a Saxon Shore fort? To answer that question it is necessary to establish what exactly was meant by the term 'Saxon Shore'.

There is little agreement with regard the meaning of the term ‘Saxon Shore’ and the function of the forts: were they constructed at strategic points to guard against attack from Saxon pirates; or was the Saxon Shore so-named because it was settled by Saxons or the forts manned by Germanic mercenaries. Carausius is known to have used Germanic troops to operate his fleet, perhaps he settled some in his chain of Shore forts and his successor Allectus had an army of Franks defending London when Constantius attacked in 296.

However, there is little evidence of coastal raiding by Germanic pirates on the south-east coast or Picts down the east coast before the 4th century as evidenced by the five fortlets (signal stations) constructed on the North Yorkshire coast at Huntcliff, Goldsborough, Ravenscar, Scarborough and Filey during the Theodosian restructuring. Furthermore, Germanic settlers were not seen on the Humber until the early 5th century.

A more recent argument suggests these forts may have served as military ports rather then as a defensive system. It’s location on the bank of a major river estuary makes it likely Brough on Humber (Petuaria) was a naval port. But there is little evidence for anything beyond a fortified supply depot importing and exporting products to and from Britannia Inferior (Northern England and the Midlands).

The location of Brough on Humber on the East Yorkshire coast sets the Roman base too far north to be considered a true ‘Saxon Shore’ fort which were established to defend the south-eastern corner of Britain, the Wash to the Solent.  Its absence from the Notitia Dignitatum does not support the case for Brough either, yet as we have seen above, only nine forts are listed in that document when eleven sites have been identified.  

Yet we know Brough on Humber was refortified during the Carausian revolt of the Late 3rd century.  Therefore it was likely included in Carauius’s coastal defence system. Carausius would not have used the term ‘Saxon Shore’ as this term did not appear until the compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum in the Late 4th century. By this time, some of the forts along the shore may have been abandoned during the defensive reorganisations under Theodosius following the Barbarian Conspiracy of AD 367, and subsequently not included in the document. According to Wacher’s phasing the military base at Brough on Humber was finally abandoned in the last quarter of the 4th century.

* * *

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

 

* * *