Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 03:44:59 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/11,000b.c.yucata.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Saxon Shore forts an integrated defence system?

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Saxon Shore forts an integrated defence system?  (Read 88 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Golethia Pennington
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 161



« on: November 21, 2010, 07:08:54 pm »

Saxon Shore forts an integrated defence system?
By Sue Carter 29/10/2010 13:34:00



Portchester Saxon Shore Fort

The name given to a group of fortified sites on the south eastern coast of England are the Saxon Shore Forts. The only written evidence is in the Notitia Dignitatum, ‘a document drawn up about AD 408’ (Maxfield 1989, p. 1) The forts are grouped together and include a list of ‘army units stationed at the sites’ (Maxfield 1989, p. 1).

 

The Notitia Dignitatum has been referred to as ‘A late Roman source of uncertain origin’ (Jones 1996, p.33) with litus Saxonicum being roughly translated to ‘Saxon Shore’. Should this be interpreted as ‘an area defended against the attacks of Saxon pirates or as an area settled and defended by Saxon and other Germanic peoples’ (Jones 1996, p. 34)?  Most historians accept the term as an area where Saxons were raiding, however, ‘The date at which the defensive area was christened the Saxon Shore cannot be closely defined’ (Johnson 1979, p.10), which leaves the question open.

The naming of the North Sea and its history shows ‘by the late third century certain parts of the Germanic Ocean (North Sea), or perhaps the whole of it, had been known as the ‘Saxon Sea’ (Cotterill 1993, p. 231), so the term may be referring to the actual Ocean. This leaves the term litus Saxonicum open to interpretation.

Historians believe the British section of the Notitia was written in the 390’s and not completed until c. 428 which results in ‘British information was long redundant’ (Mattingly 2006, p. 238).

Mattingly (2006) informs that the army units listed at the sites ‘were technically frontier troops’ (Mattingly 2006, p. 239) pointing to a frontier.  If the forts were an integrated system, then there should also be mention of a fleet, or naval force, as ‘ten forts scattered along a 300 mile coastline could not have been a sufficient deterrent’ (Cotterill 1993, p. 234).

The known fleet was the classis Britannia. Not only were they responsible for guarding the waters, but were also requisitioned for road and fort building and overlooking iron-working (Maxfield 1989, p. 2). However, the classis Britannia are not mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum. Why? Mattingly (2006) gives his view,

 

The last epigraphic testimony of the classis Britannia dates to the mid third century and the fleet was probably formally disbanded and its personnel and ships subsumed into new arrangements (Mattingly 2006, p. 241).

Smaller fleets would be more capable of protecting and patrolling the vast coast; however, ‘we have no evidence to show that individual fleets were stationed at the forts ....’ (Cotterill 1993, p. 232), so this remains purely hypothetic.  Johnson (1979) states ‘Possibly the Channel fleet is nowhere mentioned because by the time the garrisons were listed .... the original postings had been superseded...’ (Johnson 1979, p. 125).

With no fleet mentioned, Maxfield (1989) believes that ‘once the area under the control of Carausius was reduced to the island of Britain only, the unity of the command of the classis Britannia was broken’ (Maxfield 1989, p. 6). Surely a fleet was needed to protect against the increasing Saxon raids?

Archaeology gives estimates of dating for the forts ‘As far as architecture is concerned ....all these coastal defences could have been built between AD 250 and AD 300....’ (Maxfield 1989, p. 44). Brancaster, Burgh Castle, Reculver, Richborough, Dover, Lympne, Pevensey, Portchester, Bradwell and possibly Walton Castle were added to and changed over time but not constructed together for one specific purpose. Collingwood (1939) describes the differences at some of the forts as

 

(a) Rounded corners with no bastions....Brancaster and Reculver.....

(b)  Adds bastions; but the corners are still rounded....Burgh Castle.....

(c) Rounded corners vanish and are replaced with angles....Richborough and Portchester....

(d)  Irregular ground plans....Lympne....

(Collingwood 1930, pp. 54-55).

 

Differences in building techniques and plans show they were not part of a single building phase and did not ‘emerge from a single stereotyped blueprint from central authority’ (Wilson 1980, p. 74). Collingwood (1930) adds that the ‘chronology of the Saxon Shore is not yet fixed’ (Collingwood 1930, p. 55) so there is still uncertainty for the precise dating of changes made to the forts.

The siting of the forts also raises questions about their defensive positions.  ‘Two of them have the name ‘Portus’ and they lie on low ground near a good harbour’ (Johnson 1970, p. 242), also, ‘Each of them stands .... on a harbour slightly withdrawn from the sea’ (Haverfield 1912, p. 204).

 The placing of the forts raises more questions. Half were located at harbours the rest at beaches. Maxfield (1989) paired up the forts as beach and harbour couples. This arrangement is convincible until you look at aspects of Roman frontiers and how they were managed. Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall forts were connected by a road. They were an integrated system used for communication, trade and information exchange. The forts of the Saxon Shore show no evidence that they were connected, ‘Archaeologically, there is virtually no evidence of roads connecting any one of the forts with its neighbours’ (Maxfield 1989, p. 10). There is also no evidence to show there are ‘any roads known running to the forts from inland’ (Maxfield 1989, p. 11). These were ports and harbours, thus serviced via the sea,

 

The naval function of these bases is also clear .... that they do not in general link in with the Roman road network, but are sited at harbours and beach anchorages (Mattingly 2006, p. 243).

If this argument is to have any grounds then why was no fleet mentioned?

Although the Notitia mentions only the south east coast, there is archaeological evidence showing other coastal forts around Britain were being strengthened at this time (Mattingly 2006, p. 243), for example, Brough-on-Humber, and Cardiff, so why has the author of the Notitia selected to mention only the southern coast and excluded all other coastal defences? Cunliffe et al (1980) mentions this when discussing Lympne,

 

The entry in the Notitia is only evidence that one beaurocrat in the later fourth century Roman military machine had a reason for placing a number of troops in this fort of the Saxon Shore (Cunliffe et al 1980, p. 264).

The Notitia authenticity is questioned as well as its overall credibility. Archaeology has played a role in assisting with the analysis of the forts, but has also lead to more questions being raised, ‘The Notitia is dated to the period c.390 – 425; but the archaeological evidence suggests that four of the forts had been abandoned by this time’ (Cotterill 1993, p.234).

The forts of the Saxon Shore were presumably named due to raids by the Saxons, however, ‘The first evidence of Saxon raiding does not come until the fifth century’ (Cotterill 1993, p. 229), and the assumption the raids by the Saxons were responsible for the ‘events of 367 .... It has been argued that this assumption is false. And there is no other historical evidence to show Saxon invasions taking place during the fourth century (Bartholomew 1984, p. 185)   

 

Alternatively did the events of the fourth century take place, then, not from the shore but also from inland?

 

In 367 the situation reached a crisis. The various groups of barbarians made common cause and this time seem to have been assisted by rebel coloni and slaves....  (Frend 1992, p. 128).

The internal divisions of the Roman army at the time are well documented, so the issue of defence may have been attributed to inland as well as to possible attacks from the Saxons. The forts may have had quite a different role and a ‘function other than that of defending Britain against the Saxons....may have been bound up as much with internal unrest as with external threat’ ( Wood 1991, p. 315)

Some of the forts dating from the Hadrianic period were used for supply and trade (Allen & Fulford 1999, p. 181), which means they ‘were not a series of naval police-stations, but trans-shipment centres’ (Cotterill 1993, p. 227). This is further added to in terms of ‘the reassessment of Saxon Shore forts as fortified ports or depots rather than coastal defence installations’ (Härke 1994, p. 329). The conclusion reached by a number of researchers into the Saxon Shore Forts include:

 

If the coastal forts were a defensive system, it is difficult to explain why a comes would be placed in command of units of limitanei. A comes would normally command a field army; but the rank was also given to officers in charge of procurement and supply (Cotterill 1993, p. 238),

Therefore this could mean that ‘Our piracy model is incorrect, that garrisons did not comprise entire units, or that the forts were utilized for an entirely different purpose (Pearson 2006, p. 349).

If their main role was that of procurement and supply, could the improvements at the forts be attributed to the protection of goods? Archaeological evidence has shown a lack of barrack blocks and their absence points more towards goods being stored or held within the fort. Cunliffe et al (1980, p. 288) suggest that the units may have been housed outside of the forts or even that the Notitia contained out of date information.

In conclusion, the Notitia dates to the closing period of the Roman Empire. It describes a series of forts on the south-eastern coast of Britain, implying an integrated defence system, however, analysing the information and with the assistance of archaeology, serious questions have arisen as to its accuracy.

The term litus Saxonicum has been interpreted in a number of different ways and the question as to when the North Sea changed its name from the Germanic Ocean to that of the Saxon Sea.

As an integrated defence system, there appears to be, to date, no archaeological evidence for example, the lack of roads or communication systems that would have signified a connection. The forts are also attributed with different construction dates, and, even though they had additions and alterations, none of them show any signs of following a certain plan or style.

The positioning of the forts is not in keeping with what would be expected for defensive positions. There is no mention in the document of a fleet or naval force protecting the shores.

The period of time that the Forts are listed as being a defensive system fails to mention other coastal forts and archaeological evidence has shown them to have been refortified and refurbished at the same time.

Further research fails to mention an increase in raids from the Saxons against the southern shores. However, there is evidence relating to internal unrest from the native Britons, slaves and rebel coloni. If there were no roads connecting the forts as has been found could this indicate that the attack may have come from inland?

Finally, most of the sites had previously formed part of the ports and supply depot infrastructure and there is a possibility that this may have been the role they continued to play, with added fortifications. With no fleet to protect them there would have been a further need to strengthen their supplies from fear of attack.

With all of the above the real meaning of the term Saxon Shore Forts may never be known. Were they an integrated defence system or, as previously suggested, the result of beaurocracy and fiction?  The question remains open.

 

References

Allen. J. R. L., & Fulford. M. G. 1999. Fort building and military supply along Britain’s eastern Channel and North Sea coasts: The later second and third centuries. Britannia, Vol. 30 (1999), pp. 163-184.

Bartholomew. P. 1984. Fourth century Saxons. Britannia, Vol. 15 (1984), pp. 169-185.

Collingwood. R. G. 1930. The Archaeology of Roman Britain. London: Bracken Books.

Cotterill. J. 1993. Saxon raiding and the role of the late Roman coastal forts of Britain. Britannia, Vol. 24 (1993), pp. 227-239.

Cunliffe. B., Reece. R., Henig. M., Chadwick Hawkes. S., Care. V., Young. C. J. 1980. Excavations at the Roman fort of Lympne, Kent 1976-78. Britannia, Vol. 11 (1980), pp. 227-288.

Frend. W. H. C. 1992. Pagans, Christians, and the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’ of A. D. 367 in Roman Britain. Britannia, Vol. 23 (1992), pp. 121-131.

Härke. H. 1994. Review article: Maritime Celts, Fresians and Saxons by S. McGrail. Britannia, Vol. 25 (1994), pp. 329-331.

Haverfield. F. 1912. Notes on the Roman coastal defences of Britain, especially in Yorkshire. Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 2 (1912), pp. 210-214.

Jones. M. E. 1996. The End of Roman Britain. New York: Cornell University Press.

Johnson. J. S. 1970. The date and construction of the Saxon Shore Fort at Richborough. Britannia, Vol. 1 (1970), pp. 240-248.

Johnson. S. 1979. The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore. London: Elek Books Ltd.

Mattingly. D. 2006. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire. London: Penguin.

Maxfield. V. A. (ed). 1989. The Saxon Shore: A Handbook. Exeter: University of Exeter.

Pearson. A. 2006. Piracy in late Roman Britain: A perspective from the Viking age. Britannia, Vol. 37 (2006), pp. 337-353.

Wilson. R. 1980. Roman Forts: An Illustrated Guide to the Garrison Posts of Roman Britain. London: Bergstrõm and Boyle.

Wood. I. N. 1991. Review Article: The Ending of Roman Britain by A. S. Esmonde Cleary. Britannia, Vol. 22 (1991), pp. 313-315.

 

 Copyright:  Archnews and Sue Carter

All rights reserved:  www.archnews.co.uk

http://www.archnews.co.uk/featured/3461-were-the-forts-of-the-saxon-shore-an-integrated-defence-system.html
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter



Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy