Posted on 07/10/2005 12:04:17 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Norfolk acted as a hub of resistance against Roman occupation, new analysis of archaeological finds has revealed.
But the empire's military might eventually eclipsed native East Anglians in a brutal crackdown described as a "lost holocaust".
A sprawling Celtic 'proto-city', as significant to its Iceni occupants as modern-day London, sprawled across eight square miles of West Norfolk, almost certainly providing a regular home to Boudicca.
David Thorpe, from the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (Sharp), is excavations director for the site - the exact location of which is not being disclosed.
Speaking yesterday, he explained the team have discovered burnt fragments of wattle and daub and stains in the earth. They believe these are the remains of a roundhouse which was razed to the ground by Roman invaders almost two millennia ago.
Much of this evidence has been available over the nine years excavations have taken place. But it is only now that the team feels confident enough outline their analysis in full after the conclusion of excavations.
Mr Thorpe said: "It seems there was a thriving population in the area and then, in about 60 or 70AD, the record completely stops. There is also a lack of Roman finds in the area.
"When you compare this to other areas across the country, it is extremely unusual. Most communities were conquered or peacefully accepted Roman rule so there are Roman finds.
"It seems this was a strong-minded population doing everything it could to resist the Roman empire - probably the last place to remain independent.
"But the Romans did not tolerate insurgency and they would have stamped down on it hard, destroying the settlements and selling the population into slavery."
As the Celts left no written records, much of the story remains informed speculation.
But structures unearthed include signs of palisaded boundaries separating areas and an oval of banks and ditches suggesting a fortress. Finds of exquisitely crafted jewelry suggest this would have been a centre for the Iceni's aristocratic caste, hinting at Boudicca's regular presence.
When the Romans invaded there was initially little conflict in East Anglia. A lack of Roman finds suggests the Iceni not only resisted their rule but also refused to trade with the empire in a form of ancient anti-globalisation.
The Iceni later revolted, joining forces with the Trinovantes of Essex. Their efforts were ultimately doomed.
"The Romans had contempt for the Iceni as barbarians who they believed by definition would always lose," said Mr Thorpe.
Sharp began in 1996 and its work has included the extensive excavation of a Saxon cemetery in the valley of the Heacham. For more information visit www.sharp.org.uk
Thanks for that interesting bit of information regarding the etymology of the word "Scots."
Of course, while I was describing the tribes outside of Roman subjugation at the time, for the purposes of identification with the modern lay reader, I used the commononly understood term "Scots" which even most high school graduates have heard of and whose geographical homeland is well-known.
The problem, of course, is that the ancient inhabitants left no written texts that gave their name. Even the word "Picts" for these tribes is simply another Roman appellation for "painted ones" which refers to their tatoos.
"We, the most distant dwellers upon the earth, the last of the free, have been shielded...by our remoteness and by the obscurity which has shrouded our name...Beyond us lies no nation, nothing but waves and rocks"
The above words by the Pictish chief Calgacus (Romanized?) are recorded by the Roman enemy in the words of Tacitus and are a perfect example of the obscurity and legendary status held by the Picts almost 2,000 years ago.
And how many readers, even our bright FR readers, would even know where the Picts lived? IIf you have any definitive information, I'd be grateful if you'd forward it.
Thanks for the link. Been there, done that. In fact, that's where i got my quote if I remember rightly. It still leaves our ancestors without a name from their own perspective. Since the tradition of clans has been so predominant in our history, I suggest that these septs were the primary 'name' and they may not have had much consciousness of a broader racial or ethnic base.
If they did, then I suspect that like many ancient peoples, they simply called themselves "the people" in their own language and were called something equivilent to "nasty fightin' MFs" by other tribes. :-)
Helpful safety tip. I will keep that in mind next I go on a rampage!
regards,
great story. I learned a lot, but
--burning both Chester and London to the ground
I think you mean Colchester (I live there), not that the thrust of the story is affected!
""Scotii" was a Roman term for some of the people from the island they called "Hibernia", after the Hibernii (or
Ivernii) tribes that lived there: Ireland."
And later on we were just known as angry folk?
Isn't the derivation that the Irish called the place Erin? Eire-land in Germanic derivate?
My apologies. Another "Senior moment". I thought it was Colchester, but wasn't sure, so to be safe, I used Chester. Right you are.
Julius Ceasar, who did much of what he did for the future protection of Rome, also decided that beating the Germans wasn't worth the bother during his lifetime.
He was much more concerned about Illyrica, Dacia and Rome's Eastern neighbors than her Northern. He was about to leave for the conquest of Persia when he was murdered.
Yes, I think that from our modern perspective, with France, England, Germany and points north great countries that have moved history for 1000 years and been sources of great culture.
But in Roman times, Northern Europe was at about the same level of sophistication as the Indian frontier in America. Gaul was about the only place that the Romans managed to not just drag into civilization, but to make profitable, but that was owing to the sheer size and arability of the place, and perhaps the fact that the Gauls were really already settled agricultural folk who could be creditably organized. The Gauls were perhaps the equivalent of the Cherokee, and even then it took a long time. But the British and the Germans were the Apache. You could take the land...if you drove everybody out and killed them. There was not the huge difference in mechanization and technique between Roman farmers and barbarian farmers either, so marginal lands were much more marginal.
The Romans penetrated quite deeply into Caledonia and Germania. Taurica (the Sevastopol peninsula) was a Roman colony, and the Romans penetrated deeply into Russia up the rivers with their traders too. Certainly they could have marched as far as they liked in Russia, and perhaps they did (who knows). The problem was that it wasn't worth anything, so they didn't make any real effort.
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/
Results for query "failed to submit":
No matching record found
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0157400.html
[From Middle English Scottes, Scotsmen, from Old English Scottas, Scotsmen, Irishmen, from Late Latin Scott, Irishmen.]
The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scot&db=*
scot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sct)
n.
Money assessed or paid.
[Middle English, tax, partly from Old Norse skot, and partly from Old French escot of Germanic origin. See skeud- in Indo-European Roots.]
Scot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skt)
n.
1. A native or inhabitant of Scotland.
2. A member of the ancient Gaelic tribe that migrated to the northern part of Britain from Ireland in about the sixth century A.D. See Usage Note at Scottish.
[From Middle English Scottes, Scotsmen, from Old English Scottas, Scotsmen, Irishmen, from Late Latin Scott, Irishmen.]
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=scot&x=21&y=10
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Pronunciation: 'skät
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse skot shot, contribution
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9066341&query=scot&ct=
Encyclopædia Britannica Article
any member of an ancient Gaelic-speaking people of northern Ireland who settled in Scotland sometime in the 5th century AD. Originally (until the 10th century) "Scotia" denoted Ireland, and the inhabitants of Scotia were Scotti. The area of Argyll and Bute, where the migrant Scots settled, became known as the kingdom of Dalriada, the counterpart to Dalriada in Ireland. St. Columba…
"Certainly they could have marched as far as they liked in Russia, and perhaps they did (who knows). The problem was that it wasn't worth anything, so they didn't make any real effort."
Had anyone tried the plow in what is now Ukraine, the Romans would have grabbed the whole thing for wheat production. Of course, the winters were hard, and the various nomadic folks reported by various writers for centuries (including Ovid, in exile) might not have gone for a bunch of sodbusters.
That's probably right.
Scythia was always a hard place.
Still is.
The Romans (and the Greeks before them) did, after all, grab Taurica for agriculture and upriver trade. It is interesting to think of Russia as having been in the Roman Empire, but of course part of it was: Taurica, the Sevastopol peninsula and hinterlands.
The main problem with the Roman Empire was the Romans. :') Success came too easily, and the last conqueror-emperor was Trajan. There was never much of a clear-cut standard method of succession, although clear-cutting ones predecessor or rivals was often a good start. (': The Romans had such low regard for many of the people on their frontiers and for the lands themselves, that it seemed like a much better idea to (in the long run) destroy the Empire through civil war, which went on more often than not. The conquest of Caledonia had its plug pulled because the emperor didn't like the idea of having such a successful and prominent potential rival. As it turned out, the successful contender for the throne-in-all-but-name, after Nero was despatched to the nether regions, was another veteran of the conquest of Britain, Vespasian.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-agricola.html
http://www.roman-emperors.org/vespasia.htm
I believe I read recently in something or other ("How the Scots Invented the Modern World and Everything in It" ?) that "Scot or Scoti" was a Roman term meaning thieves. Seriously. Could have been in another book, the name of which escapes me at present, but if yer interested I'll dig up the citation, it's on my bedside table (I think, just got back from vacation and the blood alcohol level is still pretty high!) or in a box, or somewhere in the warren I call home...
Well, I love the sound of your housekeeping style, matches mine. Just a second, I think I heard some rustling under a pile of something. Ah! The mousetrap went off. Wait... must be somethin' big, the rustling sound is moving toward the wall...
[long pause, followed by some bashing sounds]
Okay. Anyway, yes please, post the quote and the footnote or whatever else is pertinent. My view is that the term "Scotii" was a transliteration of a tribal name, like "Dumnonii" and "Iceni". Of course, it may have (perhaps) taken on the other context, but it's not likely to have happened during the Roman occupation. Since those dictionary references above attribute it to "Late Latin", that would be ecclesiastical Latin, that of the monks and so on.
Will do, my 'puter is down, I use the one at work on lunch break, so it'll take a day or so.
Day later and my bad, the book is "How the Scots Invented the Modern World", page 108, and the Romans used the word Scoti to mean "bandits", not quite the same as thieves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.