Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland:Vol.117 (1987)
Abstract
Ptolemy’s list of places in north Britain, arranged by tribe, may include both native sites and Roman forts. Unallocated fort names may have been added by Ptolemy to the list of what he thought was the appropriate tribe, possibly not always correctly. Separation of the two groups of names allows a re-allocation of tribal territories to be attempted. While the Caledones gave their name to the land north of the Forth, by the Roman period they may have been pushed back to the Great Glen and the upper glens of the Grampian mountains by later in-comers.
Our knowledge of the names and locations of the tribes living north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus at the time of the arrival of the Roman armies depends primarily upon two sources, Ptolemy’s Geography and Tacitus’s Agricola. The campaigns and voyages of lulius Agricola, governor of Britain from 77 or 78 to 83,84 or 85, are clearly the main source of information for the latter. Ptolemy used material gathered by Marinus of Tyre, which in turn was probably derived from Agricola’s operations in North Britain (Rivet & Smith 1979, 114 & 116). The accounts of both Ptolemy and Tacitus suffer from grave defects. Both are second-hand records in that neither author had visited Britain. This might naturally lead to mistakes. Ptolemy in a way was operating at third-hand, correcting and improving the information already gathered by Marinus. Ptolemy’s record also suffers as a result of a basic error whereby Britain north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus is turned eastward through 90. The major problem in Tacitus’s account of Britain is his sparing use of geographical terms, only eight names being mentioned north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus.
John C Mann and David J Breeze
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland: Vol.117 (1987)
Abstract
Ptolemy’s list of places in north Britain, arranged by tribe, may include both native sites and Roman forts. Unallocated fort names may have been added by Ptolemy to the list of what he thought was the appropriate tribe, possibly not always correctly. Separation of the two groups of names allows a re-allocation of tribal territories to be attempted. While the Caledones gave their name to the land north of the Forth, by the Roman period they may have been pushed back to the Great Glen and the upper glens of the Grampian mountains by later in-comers.
Our knowledge of the names and locations of the tribes living north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus at the time of the arrival of the Roman armies depends primarily upon two sources, Ptolemy’s Geography and Tacitus’s Agricola. The campaigns and voyages of lulius Agricola, governor of Britain from 77 or 78 to 83,84 or 85, are clearly the main source of information for the latter. Ptolemy used material gathered by Marinus of Tyre, which in turn was probably derived from Agricola’s operations in North Britain (Rivet & Smith 1979, 114 & 116). The accounts of both Ptolemy and Tacitus suffer from grave defects. Both are second-hand records in that neither author had visited Britain. This might naturally lead to mistakes. Ptolemy in a way was operating at third-hand, correcting and improving the information already gathered by Marinus. Ptolemy’s record also suffers as a result of a basic error whereby Britain north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus is turned eastward through 90. The major problem in Tacitus’s account of Britain is his sparing use of geographical terms, only eight names being mentioned north of the Tyne-Solway isthmus.
Click here to read this article from the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
Sponsored Content