 |
| Map showing "Vespasiana", located north of Valentia and south of Caledonia in Roman Britannia |
The "Vespasiana" appeared initially in The Description of Britain, also known by its Latin name De Situ Britanniae ("On the Situation of Britain"), that was a literary forgery perpetrated by Charles Bertram on the historians of England. It purported to be a 15th-century manuscript by the English monk Richard of Westminster, including information from a lost contemporary account of Britain by a Roman general (dux), new details of the Roman roads in Britain in the style of the Antonine Itinerary, and "an antient map" as detailed as (but improved upon) the works of Ptolemy.
Here it is what is written in the 1911 British Encyclopedia about the author of this "Vespasiana", Charles Bertram:
".....BERTRAM, CHARLES (1723-1765), English literary impostor, was born in London, the son of a silk dyer. In 1747, being then teacher of English at the school for Danish naval cadets at Copenhagen, he wrote to Dr William Stukeley, the English antiquarian, that he had discovered a manuscript written by a monk named Richard of Westminster, which corrected and supplemented the Itinerary of Antoninus in Britain. He subsequently sent to Stukeley a copy of various parts of the work and a facsimile of a few lines of the manuscript. These were so cleverly executed that they quite deceived the English palaeographers of the period. Stukeley, finding that a chronicler of the fourteenth century, Richard of Cirencester, had also been an inmate of Westminster Abbey, identified him with Bertram’s Richard of Westminster, and, in 1756, read an analysis of the “discovery” before the Society of Antiquaries, which was published with a copy of Richard’s map. In 1757 Bertram published at Copenhagen a volume entitled Britannicarum Gentium Historiae Antiquae Scriptores Tres. This contained the works of Gildas and Nennius and the full text of Bertram’s forgery, and though Bertram’s map did not correspond with that of Richard, Stukeley discarded the latter and adopted Bertram’s concoction in his Itinerarium Curiosum published in 1776. Although Thomas Reynolds in his Iter Britanniarum (1799), an edition of the British portion of Antoninus’ Itinerary, was distinctly sceptical as to the value of Bertram’s manuscript, its authenticity was generally accepted until the middle of the 19th century. No original of the manuscript could then be found at Copenhagen, and B. B. Woodward, librarian of Windsor Castle, proved conclusively, by a series of articles in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1866 and 1867, that the supposed facsimile of calligraphy produced by Bertram was a blend of the style of various periods, while the greater portion of the idiomatic Latin in the book was a mere translation of 18th century English phraseology. Nevertheless, as late as 1872, a translation of Bertram’s forgery was included in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library as one of the Six English Chronicles, and there is no doubt that the work had a wide and misleading influence upon many antiquarian writers. Bertram died in 1765....."
De Situ Britanniae -however- had a fresh burst of life when, in 1809, it was brought out in a new edition, with an English translation by Henry Hatcher, whose preface defended Richard as "scrupulously exact".
Additionally it is noteworthy to pinpoint that some of the Bertram document's spurious Roman names indelibly persist, like the "Pennines" (a range of small mountains and hills in England) . The hill-range that runs like a spine through northern England from the Derbyshire Peaks to the Northumberland Cheviots had no single name by the early 19th century. However, when William Daniel Conybeare and William Phillips came to compose their pioneering work of 1822, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, they decided that it would "be useful to distinguish this ridge of mountains by some collective appellation". The authors noted that "Richard of Cirencester's description of the Roman state in Britain" had "denominated them the PENNINE ALPS". (Bertram almost certainly had the idea from the 16th-century antiquary William Camden, who had likened the range to that other mountainous backbone, the "Apennines" of Italy.) Conybeare and Phillips announced that as the hills had "clearly a title to this, as their earliest known, if not their original designation, we shall therefore henceforth call them the Penine Chain."
It took until the mid-19th century for Charles Bertram's work to be definitively revealed as a forgery. But in recent years there are some doubts abot the fact that Bertram book was a complete forgery. Let me explain better:
The first question that comes to my mind (and to the one of a few other researchers) is " why Bertram, a respected scholar in the Copenhagen of the XVIII century, did such a forgery (that obviously was to be discovered soon of later)?" It is impossible that he did not realize that it was only a matter of time for his forgery to be discovered.
So, the second question is " why he accepted to get his reputation stained forever, as happened in the following decades after his premature death (he died at 42)?" All respected persons want to remain in good esteem in the memory of the society where they live......and Bertram became a teacher of English in the "Royal Marine Academy" in Copenhagen. (he was a professor, rather than a tutor): his 1749 chrestomathy An Essay on the Excellency and Style of the English Tongue has been called the initiation of English-language printing in Denmark.
A third question is "could be that Bertram had access to wrongly translated medieval texts, that were already full of mistakes and possible forgeries?" In 1846, the German scholar Karl Wex proved that at least some passages of the Bertram's Description were completely spurious. He had been working on a new edition of Tacitus's Agricola and consulting the Description, he recognized that it included transcription errors which had been introduced to editions of Tacitus by Venetian printers in the late 15th century.
Of course I am not a scholar and I cannot discuss in detail these questions (and others related), but I want to do a small research on the possible existence of the "Vespasiana provincia", that Bertram described in his work and placed in his famous map of Britannia north of the Antonine Wall. In my personal opinion this Vespasiana has some "roots" that are real. Let me explain better:
 |
| Map showing "Vespasiana" in Caledonia (actual Scotland) |
V E S P A S I A N A
The emperor Vespasianus in Britannia increased the Roman domination in the British isles up to the Caledonian territories (that are the actual Scotland) with Quintus Petillius Cerialis, Frontinus and Agricola. The last -according to historian Tacitus- was able to defeat completely the Caledonians in the famous battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD.
Of course, if interested in detailed information about the Romans in Scotland, please read: https://www.scottishheritagehub.com/sites/default/files/u12/ScARF%20Roman%20June%202012.pdf.
Satisfied with his victory, Agricola extracted hostages from the Caledonian tribes. He may have marched his army to the northern coast of Britain, as evidenced by the probable discovery of a Roman fort at Cawdor (near Inverness: https://canmore.org.uk/site/15033/easter-galcantray). He also instructed his prefect of the Roman fleet to sail around the north coast, confirming (allegedly for the first time) that Britain was in fact an island and taking possible possession of the kingdom of Orkney (read: https://researchomnia.blogspot.com/2019/11/orkney-possible-6th-province-of-roman.html).
Indeed a few months later in 85 AD, Agricola -under the orders of Domitianus, emperor after the death of Vespasianus- was ordered to leave Caledonia. Tacitus wrote that Agricola was very grateful to Vespasianus, so it is a real hypothesis that he possibly wanted to create a province -in the conquered Caledonia- with the name "Vespasiana" in honor of this emperor deceased. Of course -let's pinpoint it- this is only a possibility.
But we must remember that Romans used to create new provinces in the territories just conquered, like with the "Germania provincia", between the Rhine and Elbe rivers. As we all know, this "Germania" was never officially created, because of the terrible Varus defeat at the Teutoburg forest. And this fact makes us think that something similar could have happened with the newly conquered Caledonia: the "Vespasiana provincia" could have been at the first levels of creation when Agricola was forced to return to Rome.
And this could have been the "origins" of the Vespasiana of Bertram. Indeed, a lot of Roman literature and writings have been lost: there it is the possibility that the medieval authors that Bertram followed in his "Description" had access to some Roman manuscripts now lost, that hinted to this new possible province.
Not only that, but we must remember that Agricola -according to Tacitus- "discovered and subdued" the Orkney islands in 84 AD: during the Roman invasion of Britain the "King of Orkney" was one of 11 British leaders who is said to have submitted to the Emperor Claudius in AD 43 at Colchester (called Camulodunum in latin). What we don't know is the exact extension of the territory controlled by this king, who successively was probably- as Romans used to do in this situations- the ruler of a possible "client-kingdom" of the Roman empire. Agricola seems to have taken possession with Roman troops of these islands, with the nearby northern Caledonian territories ruled by their king.
Indeed a few months later in 85 AD, Agricola -under the orders of Domitianus, emperor after the death of Vespasianus- was ordered to leave Caledonia. Tacitus wrote that Agricola was very grateful to Vespasianus, so it is a real hypothesis that he possibly wanted to create a province -in the conquered Caledonia- with the name "Vespasiana" in honor of this emperor deceased. Of course -let's pinpoint it- this is only a possibility.
But we must remember that Romans used to create new provinces in the territories just conquered, like with the "Germania provincia", between the Rhine and Elbe rivers. As we all know, this "Germania" was never officially created, because of the terrible Varus defeat at the Teutoburg forest. And this fact makes us think that something similar could have happened with the newly conquered Caledonia: the "Vespasiana provincia" could have been at the first levels of creation when Agricola was forced to return to Rome.
And this could have been the "origins" of the Vespasiana of Bertram. Indeed, a lot of Roman literature and writings have been lost: there it is the possibility that the medieval authors that Bertram followed in his "Description" had access to some Roman manuscripts now lost, that hinted to this new possible province.
Not only that, but we must remember that Agricola -according to Tacitus- "discovered and subdued" the Orkney islands in 84 AD: during the Roman invasion of Britain the "King of Orkney" was one of 11 British leaders who is said to have submitted to the Emperor Claudius in AD 43 at Colchester (called Camulodunum in latin). What we don't know is the exact extension of the territory controlled by this king, who successively was probably- as Romans used to do in this situations- the ruler of a possible "client-kingdom" of the Roman empire. Agricola seems to have taken possession with Roman troops of these islands, with the nearby northern Caledonian territories ruled by their king.
Could it be that Agricola wanted to transform this client-kingdom into a Roman province, as happened in other areas of the Roman empire (like -for example - in Mauretania)? He could have considered the possibility of a new province -called "Vespasiana"- from the Orkney islands down to the area where there it is now the Hadrian Wall. Furthermore, he built a huge fortification at Inchtuthil, a location exactly in the middle of this possible new province, that could well have been the possible capital.
Indeed in the "Germania provincia" archaeologists have recently discovered Markbreit, a fortification/vicus that was going to be the possible capital of this Roman province that was never officially created: it was located in the middle of the "Germania", like Inchtuthill in Caledonia. Another locality that could have been the capital of Germania was "Aliso" (in the Ruhr area).
Of course we all know that the Romans under Augustus began to conquer and defeat the peoples of Germania Magna in 12 BC, having the Legati (generals) Germanicus, and Tiberius leading the Legions. By 6 AD, all of Germania up to the River Elbe was temporarily pacified by the Romans as well as being occupied by them, with Publius Quinctilius Varus being appointed as possible Germania's governor.
The Roman plan to complete the conquest and incorporate all of "Magna Germania" into the Roman Empire as a province was frustrated when three Roman legions under Varus command were annihilated by the German tribesmen in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Augustus then ordered Roman withdrawal from Magna Germania (completed by AD 16) and established the boundary of the Roman Empire as being the Rhine and the Danube rivers.
It is noteworthy to pinpoint that in 85 AD the Romans definitively renounced to have a province until the Elba river and so created two provinces (Germania Inferior and Germania superior) west of the Rhine river......exactly in the same year when they renounced to control Caledonia and started to dismantle their Inchtuthil castrum, withdrawing to the area where in 122 AD was built the Hadrian wall.
The castrum of Inchtuthill was definitively abandoned by the Romans in 87 AD. But recent excavations have found that at least 160 shops were situated long the main streets of Inchtuthil, reflecting the situation of Romano-british towns. The most indicative analogy could be considered the granaries and store/shops in Roma and Ostia. Of course this fact indicates that the Romans -when created the castrum- considered the possibility of enlarging the fortifications with future administrative and civilian buildings -according to scholars like A. Montesanti- for a possible administrative capital in the Gask Ridge area .
It is noteworthy to remember that Montesanti additionally wrote that could also have existed -in the last years of the first century- a Roman province in the Orkney area (where probably there was a "Roman client State" -since Claudius times- of which we don't know the borders and that in his opinion could have included northern Caledonia) and that: "Orkney (and the nearby region) might have been one of those areas that suggest direct administration by imperial Roman procurators, at least for a very short span of time".
Of course there it is no doubt that all these hypothesis are simple possibilities, but they give something to think about the "strange" forgery of Bertram.
He could have used transcript of original roman literature (now lost) that have had some indications about the Agricola's possible creation but that were misleading.....and so he wrongly placed "Vespasiana" north of the Antonine wall with a clearly mistaken existence of some decades from 140 AD to 170 AD. But this was not his complete fault.
Aerial view of the Inchtuthil castrum, in the Gask Ridge area
Last but not least we must remember that there are no classical writings about this "Vespasiana", but at the same time nothing indicates that never existed this province. In the doubt we can surmise -but only imagine at least for now- that Agricola could have chosen the name of this Roman emperor (to whom he was grateful) to indicate the Roman province to be established in the territories of Caledonia he had conquered in 84 AD.
And the probabilities are very high & real that this had happened between 84 AD (when according to Tacitus -"Caledonia perdomita et olim missa est"- Scotland was totally conquered but quickly lost) and 87 AD, when the Romans withdrew toward the Eburacum (actual York) area and dismantled the great castrum of Inchtuthil.
However, there are the writings of Marcellinus Ammianus that clearly pinpoint that there was a Roman province called "Valentia", north of the Hadrian Wall, that was recovered from a previous "lost" province. Could it be the "Vespasiana"? Nobody knows...but there it is the possibility!
He indeed described (in his "Rerum gestarum Libri XXXI [31 Books of Deeds]: year 391 AD") its creation by Count Theodosius (the father of emperor Theodosius the Great) in 369 AD. Ammianus considered it a re-creation of a formerly lost province, leading some to think there had been an earlier fifth province under another name.
Ammianus literally wrote that "Count Theodosius restored cities and fortresses, …., and established stations and outposts on our frontiers; and he so completely recovered the province which had yielded subjection to the enemy, that through his agency it was again brought under the authority of its legitimate ruler, and from that time forth was called Valentia, by desire of the emperor, as a memorial of his success" (read https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_History/Book_XXVIII#III Ammianus,485).
This "lost province" of Ammianus could have been the "Vespasiana" of Agricola, reduced to the Caledonian territories south of the Antonine Wall when was built in 140 AD (and that existed until 180 AD when the Romans withdrew to the Hadrian Wall)?...…
And successively this same "Vespasiana" could have been reinstated -for some decades as an official province or as a possible (like probably happened before) future province- under Septimius Severus and may be under others, like Count Theodosius?
All these "changes" (that clearly can confuse anyone and can be mistakenly registered in medieval manuscripts) can be at the roots of the "strange" forgery of Bertram!
Anyway, the last words about "Vespasiana" are still to be written.
Indeed in the "Germania provincia" archaeologists have recently discovered Markbreit, a fortification/vicus that was going to be the possible capital of this Roman province that was never officially created: it was located in the middle of the "Germania", like Inchtuthill in Caledonia. Another locality that could have been the capital of Germania was "Aliso" (in the Ruhr area).
Of course we all know that the Romans under Augustus began to conquer and defeat the peoples of Germania Magna in 12 BC, having the Legati (generals) Germanicus, and Tiberius leading the Legions. By 6 AD, all of Germania up to the River Elbe was temporarily pacified by the Romans as well as being occupied by them, with Publius Quinctilius Varus being appointed as possible Germania's governor.
 |
| The proposed Roman province of "Germania" in AD 9 (yellow color): it was never officially established, even if it had a governor appointed by Augustus |
The Roman plan to complete the conquest and incorporate all of "Magna Germania" into the Roman Empire as a province was frustrated when three Roman legions under Varus command were annihilated by the German tribesmen in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Augustus then ordered Roman withdrawal from Magna Germania (completed by AD 16) and established the boundary of the Roman Empire as being the Rhine and the Danube rivers.
It is noteworthy to pinpoint that in 85 AD the Romans definitively renounced to have a province until the Elba river and so created two provinces (Germania Inferior and Germania superior) west of the Rhine river......exactly in the same year when they renounced to control Caledonia and started to dismantle their Inchtuthil castrum, withdrawing to the area where in 122 AD was built the Hadrian wall.
The castrum of Inchtuthill was definitively abandoned by the Romans in 87 AD. But recent excavations have found that at least 160 shops were situated long the main streets of Inchtuthil, reflecting the situation of Romano-british towns. The most indicative analogy could be considered the granaries and store/shops in Roma and Ostia. Of course this fact indicates that the Romans -when created the castrum- considered the possibility of enlarging the fortifications with future administrative and civilian buildings -according to scholars like A. Montesanti- for a possible administrative capital in the Gask Ridge area .
It is noteworthy to remember that Montesanti additionally wrote that could also have existed -in the last years of the first century- a Roman province in the Orkney area (where probably there was a "Roman client State" -since Claudius times- of which we don't know the borders and that in his opinion could have included northern Caledonia) and that: "Orkney (and the nearby region) might have been one of those areas that suggest direct administration by imperial Roman procurators, at least for a very short span of time".
Of course there it is no doubt that all these hypothesis are simple possibilities, but they give something to think about the "strange" forgery of Bertram.
He could have used transcript of original roman literature (now lost) that have had some indications about the Agricola's possible creation but that were misleading.....and so he wrongly placed "Vespasiana" north of the Antonine wall with a clearly mistaken existence of some decades from 140 AD to 170 AD. But this was not his complete fault.
Aerial view of the Inchtuthil castrum, in the Gask Ridge area
 |
Last but not least we must remember that there are no classical writings about this "Vespasiana", but at the same time nothing indicates that never existed this province. In the doubt we can surmise -but only imagine at least for now- that Agricola could have chosen the name of this Roman emperor (to whom he was grateful) to indicate the Roman province to be established in the territories of Caledonia he had conquered in 84 AD.
And the probabilities are very high & real that this had happened between 84 AD (when according to Tacitus -"Caledonia perdomita et olim missa est"- Scotland was totally conquered but quickly lost) and 87 AD, when the Romans withdrew toward the Eburacum (actual York) area and dismantled the great castrum of Inchtuthil.
However, there are the writings of Marcellinus Ammianus that clearly pinpoint that there was a Roman province called "Valentia", north of the Hadrian Wall, that was recovered from a previous "lost" province. Could it be the "Vespasiana"? Nobody knows...but there it is the possibility!
He indeed described (in his "Rerum gestarum Libri XXXI [31 Books of Deeds]: year 391 AD") its creation by Count Theodosius (the father of emperor Theodosius the Great) in 369 AD. Ammianus considered it a re-creation of a formerly lost province, leading some to think there had been an earlier fifth province under another name.
Ammianus literally wrote that "Count Theodosius restored cities and fortresses, …., and established stations and outposts on our frontiers; and he so completely recovered the province which had yielded subjection to the enemy, that through his agency it was again brought under the authority of its legitimate ruler, and from that time forth was called Valentia, by desire of the emperor, as a memorial of his success" (read https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_History/Book_XXVIII#III Ammianus,485).
This "lost province" of Ammianus could have been the "Vespasiana" of Agricola, reduced to the Caledonian territories south of the Antonine Wall when was built in 140 AD (and that existed until 180 AD when the Romans withdrew to the Hadrian Wall)?...…
And successively this same "Vespasiana" could have been reinstated -for some decades as an official province or as a possible (like probably happened before) future province- under Septimius Severus and may be under others, like Count Theodosius?
All these "changes" (that clearly can confuse anyone and can be mistakenly registered in medieval manuscripts) can be at the roots of the "strange" forgery of Bertram!
Anyway, the last words about "Vespasiana" are still to be written.
 |
| Map showing within a red line the hypothetical limits of the "Vespasiana Provincia" in the territories conquered by Agricola north of Eburacum. Of course it is only a possibility, but the Romans could have started the process of creation of this province in the years from 84 to 87 AD (as they did in their "Germania Provincia" between 12 BC and 9 AD). |
RECENT DISCOVERIES IN NORTHERN SCOTLAND
Every year we get news about some discoveries related to Roman Scotland, that's why I think that some "news" (and re-evaluations) about the "Vespasiana" province will arrive soon or later.....
For example, in the northern tip of Scotland -facing the Orkney islands- there are numerous Roman finds in the area of Caithness, that since 2001 have prompted a re-evaluation (in reference to the Roman empire) of the understanding of "Iron age Caithness". For detailed information please go to page 135 of the essay written by the scholars Andrew Heald and Adam Jackson: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2d5b/885f776482b09b4b57c120a54d1b625a9ffe.pdf .
For example, in the northern tip of Scotland -facing the Orkney islands- there are numerous Roman finds in the area of Caithness, that since 2001 have prompted a re-evaluation (in reference to the Roman empire) of the understanding of "Iron age Caithness". For detailed information please go to page 135 of the essay written by the scholars Andrew Heald and Adam Jackson: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2d5b/885f776482b09b4b57c120a54d1b625a9ffe.pdf .
Indeed the study of the Romans' influence in northern Scotland has gained increased importance following the discovery of Roman coins at Belladrum Estate near Beauly in 2009.
Excavations led by Dr Hunter between 2010 and 2013 recovered a hoard of 36 Roman denarii from the 2nd Century. Archaeologists believe the money may have been a bribe paid to a local tribe, but other possibilities exist.
Dr Hunter previously led a dig at an Iron Age site at Birnie, near Elgin, where Roman items were unearthed.
Other Romans finds made in the Highlands have included the wine dipper at Auldearn, near Nairn, the dolphin brooch from Slackbuie in Inverness and a piece called the Raigmore Cairn Headstud Brooch.
Items have also been uncovered at Culbokie, Dornoch and Petty. Dornoch (just some miles northwest of Portmahomack and not far away from the Orkney islands) seems to be the northernmost place in Scotland where Roman broochs have been discovered (read https://canmore.org.uk/site/108976/achinchanter).
Furthermore, in the Orkney islands has been discovered in 2017 a Roman coin of the fourth century (other seven have been found there previously): read https://archaeofeed.com/2017/07/ancient-roman-coin-found-in-orkney/.
Furthermore, in the Orkney islands has been discovered in 2017 a Roman coin of the fourth century (other seven have been found there previously): read https://archaeofeed.com/2017/07/ancient-roman-coin-found-in-orkney/.
I think Vespasiana really existed, but was forgotten because lasted only a few years in a territory without importance in those centuries.
ReplyDelete