The Wash-Solent limes

The naming of the Saxon Shore with its associated fortifications is an example of how archaeology is ignored when it does not fit the historical framework. My first 'own' dig was in one of these forts during the autumn of 1968, when I was a mere lad and chosen for that very reason so as to not scare the landowning farmer into worrying about the site becoming 'protected'. How the Romans needed massive walls against 'barbarian' sea-raiders puzzled me then and such major features puzzle historians still.

The nine British Saxon Shore forts in the Notitia Dignitatum.
This source is usually considered to be up to date for the Western empire in the 420s.

The term 'Saxon Shore' comes directly from the Roman document in which it is first mentioned, the Notitia Dignitatum dated to the fifth century, which  lists the names of the Saxon Shore forts from Norfolk to Hampshire that were under the command of the Count of the Saxon Shore for Britain (Latin: comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam).

The post was created possibly during the reign of Constantine I and was probably existent by 367, when a series of invasions from Picts, Franks, Saxons, Scots and Attacotti appears to have defeated the army of Britain and resulted in the death of Nectaridus, the then office holder. This attack is known as the Great Conspiracy, a year-long war described by Ammianus Marcellinus as a barbarica conspiratio that capitalised on a depleted military force in the province brought about by Magnentius' losses of the Battle of Mursa Major after his unsuccessful bid to become emperor.

Further stations up the North Sea coast were probably also the responsibility of the Count. Forces he controlled were classified as limitanei, or frontier troops. By the end of the fourth century the role of Count had been diminished and Gaul had its own dux tractus Amoricani and dux Belgicae Secundae.

The complete fortification system of the Saxon Shore extended on both sides of the Channel.

The term 'Saxon Shore' is therefore of the late 4th century, referring to the system of defence and the office holder. Historians, though, use the term to refer to the individual fortifications, as in Saxon Shore forts. The nine forts mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum for Britain, listed from north to south, with their garrisons:

1. Branodunum (Brancaster, Norfolk). One of the earliest forts, dated to the 230s, built to guard the Wash approaches and is of a typical rectangular castrum layout. ¹ It was garrisoned by the Equites Dalmatae Brandodunenses, although evidence exists suggesting that its original garrison was the cohors I Aquitanorum. ²

2. Gariannonum (Burgh Castle, Norfolk). Established between 260 and the mid-270s to guard the River Yare (Gariannus Fluvius), it was garrisoned by the Equites Stablesiani Gariannoneses.

3. Othona (Bradwell-on-Sea, Essex). Garrisoned by the Numerus Fortensium. ³

4. Regulbium (Reculver, Kent). Together with Brancaster one of the earliest forts, built in the 210s to guard the Thames estuary, it is likewise a castrum. ⁴ It was garrisoned by the cohors I Baetasiorum since the 3rd century.

5. Rutupiae (Richborough, Kent), garrisoned by parts of the Legio II Augusta.

6. Dubris (Dover Castle, Kent), garrisoned by the Milites Tungrecani.

7. Portus Lemanis (Lympne, Kent), garrisoned by the Numerus Turnacensium.

8. Anderitum (Pevensey Castle, East Sussex), garrisoned by the Numerus Abulcorum.

9. Portus Adurni (Portchester Castle, Hampshire), garrisoned by a Numerus Exploratorum.

These garrisons are those referred to in the Notitia Dignitatum – and therefore do not refer to whatever units were stationed in the forts before the late fourth century.

Some of these units, such as the Numerus Fortensium ("The Company of Brave Men") at Othona, are known to us through the Notitia Dignitatum only and therefore it cannot be assumed that these same units were the garrison units in earlier times. The archaeological evidence found by this writer at Othona was for Syrian cavalry.

At the time the earlier forts were built, their garrisons are typical of the units stationed in Britain.

The Equites Dalmatae Branodunenses, Branoduno (Brancaster) + cohors Prima Aquitanorum and the Equites Stablesiani Gariannonenses, Gariannonor. (Burgh Castle)

Units of Dalmatian cavalry were, we are specifically told by the Byzantine writer Cedrenus (Bonn edition I, 454) first raised by Gallienus (260-68). They also played a distinguished part in Claudius’ wars against the Goths (S.H.A. Claudius 11.19). A unit of Dalmatian cavalry could therefore have come to Britain at any time after the recovery of the island with the rest of the Gallic Empire on the defeat of Tetricus in 274 but not before. This might be thought to cause difficulties for those who, like the present writer, would see in Brancaster a fort that is typologically among the earliest of the Shore forts, with rounded corners, internal bank, and no external bastions. This difficulty is, however, resolved by the recent find of a tile stamp of Cohors I Aquitanorum just outside the Shore fort, since this unit can now be regarded as the original garrison (Britannia 6 (1975), ‘Roman Britain in 1974’, part II, inscriptions no. 25). Cohors I Aquitanorum has been previously attested at Carrawburgh on Hadrian’s Wall under Hadrian (RIB 1550), and at Brough-on-Noe under Antoninus Pius (RIB 283), and there is no evidence as yet that it was ever stationed at a site in the Wall hinterland with easy access to the east coast. The point is important because it is just conceivable that the tile came to Brancaster as ship’s ballast in the same way that a tile of Legio VI Victrix P.F. found at Gayton Thorpe, Norfolk, must almost certainly have come from York (JRS 47 (1957), 233). Professor J M C Toynbee (1962) has linked the Dalmatian cavalry at Brancaster with parts of two fine cavalry helmets found in the river Wensum which she dates stylistically to the 3rd century, a date which receives support from the recent study by Russell Robinson of Roman armour (1975).
- The historical background and military units of the Saxon Shore by M W C Hassall

Units are drawn from across the empire, as had become the norm, to avoid a conflict of local loyalties.

At Regulbium (Reculver), the '1st Cohort of Baetasians, citizens of Rome', is an auxiliary Cohort of 500 Infantry recruited from the Baetasii who occupied the Rhineland near the Legionary fortress of Neuss. At around 139, they garrisoned the fort at Old Kilpatrick, being moved to Maryport at around 160. Their last known base was that of Reculver, shown in the Notitia Dignitatum. They are also attested at Manchester, with no certain date.

The building of forts in the early and mid-third century rules out completely all of the main hypotheses for their origin:

• a shore attacked by Saxons;

• a shore settled by Saxons;

• to guard against an attempt at reconquest by the empire during the Carausian Revolt) in 289-296.

The system of defence that we see in the late-fourth century used components of earlier times which are in no manner associated with Saxons. Reculver for example, built ca. 210, predates all these threats by a very wide margin. The term 'Saxon Shore fort' is therefore applicable only to the system of defence of that late period and should not be used to describe the original purpose of all the fortifications.

The Wash-Solent limes – the Roman name if a name existed is unknown – is a unified system performing the same duty as the limes of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius in the north, with the coast itself serving the same function as a wall. Roman limes are frontier barriers and not solely, or even primarily – defensive.

Because the garrisoned troops controlled the wall completely, the control of the influx of provincials and trade with those beyond the wall could continue without difficulty from the tribes north or south of the wall. It obviously functioned as a permanent border and was designated the immovable border of the Roman Empire.

The large forts, no matter the size and shape, all contained certain structures that reinforced their Roman nature. They helped with the Romanization of the Britons by bringing peace and trade to the north, bringing religions from the Roman world, and synthesizing the gods of the Britons and Rome. In addition these forts imposed the Roman militaristic administration.

Other Romanization that the wall brought was the increase in trade within the province and production of Roman goods. With the incursions from the north halted, Roman traders could move more freely through the province, and the Britons began to create Roman goods for trade within the province and trade with other provinces. The Britons had access to Roman amenities that surrounded the forts, such as the baths, brothels, drink shops, and food shops.
- Hadrian's Wall: Romanization on Rome's Northern Frontier by Joshua P. Haskett (December 2009)

Sea trade along the coast of Roman Britain was an important economic activity. ⁵ Goods from continental Europe were imported and shipped north. British produce was shipped south.

The military campaigns in the north ⁶ during the early-third century made huge logistical demands, met largely by sea transport along the east coast.

Remains of Reculver Church viewed from the west, September 2005
A church was built on the same site as the Roman fort in about 669, when King Ecgberht of Kent granted land for the foundation of a monastery there.
The remains of the fort, the Saxon church and the twin towers are a Scheduled Ancient Monument run by English Heritage.

The founding date of Reculver (early third century) matches the campaigns of Severus and his son, Caracalla.

Eboracum (York) became a thriving port, handling olive oil, wine, red Samian ware from Gaul, fine tableware from Germany and supplies of grain, pottery and horses for the army. Roman tombstones show the cosmopolitan nature of the city with merchants from Gaul, Sardinia and elsewhere. Emperor Septimius Severus visited Eboracum in 211 and made it his base for campaigning in Scotland. Around 200, it had been made the capital of Britannia Inferior (Upper Britain) – and therefore seat of the governor or praeses – when Britain had been divided into two provinces; and it was probably during Severus' time in the city that York was given the status of a Colonia.

The fort of Reculver stood directly at the northern entrance of the mile-wide Wantsum Channel, which separated Thanet island from the mainland. The Channel was a favoured passage for shipping, and the fort was built to both control it and act as a navigational marker. The fort itself was a typical castrum, square-shaped with rounded corners. The single rampart was 10 feet (3 m) thick at the base and tapering to 8 feet (2.5m) at the top, with a height of probably 20 feet (6 m). It was additionally strengthened by an earthen rampart in the interior, and surrounded by two external ditches.

The Reculver Inscription, recording the building of the principia of the fort.
Found in 1960 by A. O. Lewington of the Reculver Excavation Group, in the cellared strongroom of the principia,
the inscription must have been placed on the wall of the sacellum above.

Left: Remains of the rampart of Regulbium. The typical Roman mixture of stone and bricks is evident.

About three-quarters of the Reculver Inscription are recovered, in 11 fragments and a reconstruction with translation was made by the late Professor Sir Alan Richmond ⁷.

It seems that the shrine of the standards (AEDEM) of the headquarters (PRINCIPIORVM) together with (CVM) the crosshall (BASILICA) were built under (SVB) the consular governor (COS), A. TRIARIVS RVFINVS. The work was carried out by FORTVNATVS who was probably the commander of the fort. Triarius Rufinus was consul at Rome in AD 210 and Professor Richmond suggested that he probably became governor of Britain in about 210-216.

This dating coincides with other archaeological evidence ⁸.

The Q. ARADIVS RVFINVS has been identified by R.P. Harper ⁹ as Quintus Aradius Rufinus, the consular governor of the inscription, in office in the mid 220s.

 Professor Richmond also added about the inscription:

"epigraphically, its importance lies in the fact that this is the first time the inscribed phrase aedes principiorum can be applied to and identified with the official shrine of the headquarters buildings, hitherto unmentioned in any inscription. It is also the first certain instance of the application of the name basilica to a military crosshall, although the resemblance between these buildings and a civil basilica has often been stressed." So, too, does it add another name (RVFINVS) "to the meagre list of third century consular governors."

Another Rufinus – Aulus Triarius Rufinus – held the consulship in 210. Rufinus was a Roman name given to several figures:

 - Rufinus a governor of Roman Britain in the early 3rd century who may be the same man as one of the two consuls.

 - Rufinus a chief minister for two Eastern Roman emperors, Theodosius I and Arcadius in the late 4th century.

 - Tyrannius Rufinus, a monk of the later 4th century

 - Saints Rufinus, eleven saints named Rufinus in Roman Martyrology, including -

 - Rufinus of Assisi, 3rd century and first (legendary) bishop of Assisi and martyr. His remains were put to rest in a Roman sarcophagus. The front is sculpted in low relief with the myth of Selene and Endymion. It is now located under the main altar of the Cathedral of San Rufino, which is the third church to have been erected over his remains.

Main altar with tomb of S. Rufino; Cathedral of San Rufino, Assisi, Italy.

By itself, the appearance of a Rufinus is this inscription may not be taken to mean very much, however, he fits neatly into the pattern we at History Hunters International are establishing for elite Romans who (a) also spend part of their public service in Britain, and (b) appear in Christian tradition: Aulus Pudens in the Chichester inscription being another.

No related posts.