Boudicca Boudicca
"She was huge of frame,
terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice. A great mass of bright red hair
fell to her knees: she wore a twisted torc, and a tunic of many colours, over
which was a thick mantle, fastened by a brooch. Now she grasped a spear, to
strike fear into all who watched her." Dio Cassius
The
rulers of the Iceni people, who lived in Norfolk and Suffolk in eastern Britain
around the time of the Roman occupation of Britain, were King Prasutagus and
Queen Boudicca. This is how we tend to refer to them now using terms more
familiar to our own understanding of hierarchy or hereditary dynasty; however,
tribal leader or chieftain would seem to be far more likely. The danger for our
way to understanding life at the time is to contaminate it by overlaying the
little we can know from contemporary sources and archaeology with our present
day understanding of what those terms mean to us or falling victim to what our
sense of nostalgia tells us should have happened in the story. John Tosh 1991
quotes from Geoffrey Barraclough writing in 1955 “Man is an historical
animal, with a deep sense of his own past; and if he cannot integrate the past
by a history explicit and true, he will integrate it by a history implicit and
false.” Their
partnership should be thought of, less in terms of a marriage with its Christian
overtones, more in terms of a central power base for the stability of the tribe,
occupying positions of strength and strong leadership, both real and symbolic,
at the centre of a powerful, influential and wealthy tribe.
A golden torc
A
possible site for their ‘royal’ residence is a place called Gallows Hill at
Thetford in Norfolk. Building lines of circular structures of a native type
within a Roman style enclosure are visible from the air. However, lack of
domestic material from excavations there might also suggest a different use -
possibly of a ceremonial or religious nature. Trade was flourishing across the
English Channel with the Roman Empire; the Iceni controlled lucrative sea routes
into the Wash and the estuaries on the Norfolk coast. The Iceni merchants and
nobles became prosperous to the extent that between 65BC and AD61 they were able
to issue their own coinage. There is also the possibility that part of the Iceni
wealth was generated because they were at the terminus of the Gold route
beginning in Ireland and crossing England.
The
Celts of the first century appear to be farmers, traders and crafts people.
Frank Delaney 1989 quotes from Strabo writing in the first century says “They
wear ornaments of gold, torcs on their necks and bracelets on their arms and
wrists, while people of high rank wear dyed garments besprinkled with gold.”
He also quotes from Diodurus Siculus also first century who writes “They
accumulate large quantities of gold and make use of it for personal adornment,
not only the women but also the men. For they wear bracelets on wrists and arms,
and around their necks thick rings of solid gold, and they also wear
finger-rings and even gold tunics . . . They wear a striking kind of clothing
– tunics dyed and stained in various colours and trousers . . . and they wear
striped cloaks, fastened with buckles, thick in winter and light in summer,
picked out with variegated small check pattern. Their armour includes man-sized
shields, decorated in individual pattern.” The picture that emerges
therefore is very different from the dirty, dull coloured and warlike people
living in mud and filth too often portrayed in our modern interpretations. These
Celts were cultured and civilized they would not easily risk their way of life
to go to war unless provoked in the extreme. Frank Delaney 1989 describes the
Celts “They were a peacock people, whose personal ornamentation denoted
class, whose weapons indicated a capacity for emphatic aggressiveness.
Ritualistic in their worship, imaginative in their art, they competed in
physical contests and intellectual gaming; they were economically successful,
enterprising and proud.”
Following
the Roman invasion under Claudius in AD43, Prasutagus became a client ruler
under the Romans. Maintaining a good relationship with the powerful Iceni would
have been important for the Romans because of their close proximity to
Colchester Roman Camulodenum. Colchester was symbolic of Claudius’ victory,
capital of the new province, and base for the twentieth legion. Colchester was
where the temple of Claudius was sited, symbolic also because the temple became
the centre for the Imperial cult. Curiously there are some indications that the
Imperial cult was instrumental in blocking the building of adequate defences
around Colchester, possibly a reluctance to divert revenue away from the temple
or a weakness on the part of the Roman Governor to perceive a defence weakness
or to view Colchester as a potential target in conflict, but an omission non the
less that was to prove fatal for both the temple and Colchester.
Colchester
was rapidly to became a focus for local Celtic resentment because of the
annexing of Celtic lands for Roman use, Colchester was a veteran’s city and
they were rewarded with land for service, and there was also the excessive
demands on the local tribes for money to fund Colchester. The usual Roman
practice in newly acquired territory was a process of reconciliation, both sides
benefiting in some way from the deal and unnecessary costly fighting avoided.
Seutonius writes that the lands of allied princes (reges socii) were considered
by Rome to be parts of the Empire. The client leader continued to rule but under
the government of the Romans, paying taxes and tribute to Rome. This arrangement
allowed for continuity and honour on both sides. Rome could never have hoped to
rule so vast an empire without co-operation from the rulers of the areas
conquered. It also allowed the Romans to concentrate on territory where
rebellion was likely, those under direct military rule, and other areas still to
be conquered.
Around
the time of the death of Prasutagus several events coincided. The Emperor
Claudius died and the Roman governor Seutonius went on a campaign in a remote
part of Britain. For a while the focus of Roman attention, strong leadership and
control was removed from those seemingly settled parts of Britain. Prasutagus
had, as was the custom, willed enough of his wealth to Rome that his tribe and
the succession of leadership should not have required Roman interference. The
Iceni believed that enough had been paid to Rome to protect their power base and
wealth. However, after the death of Prasutagus an attempt was made by the Romans
to make the Iceni a subject population. This may indicate that the wealth of the
Iceni was so vast to be considered worth the risks involved in setting aside
Boudicca and the central family and to risk the wrath of the tribe to take its
property and wealth in the name of Rome.
The
Oxford History of the Classical World comments that, according to Dio Cassius’
allegations, two brothers Seneca and Mela obtained procuratorships and that they
indulged in speculative finance. They were able to do this because there was as
yet little money coming into the province from the empire. At the same time
there was a lot of building work going on in Britain generating a growing demand
for credit to finance this rapid growth of settlement. It is known that around
this time Seneca called in some massive loans which had been made to the British
with an eye to the high interest rates he might extract, further adding to the
problems caused by too little money in circulation. Indeed Dio Cassius notes
excessive financial demands as one of the causes of the Boudiccan revolt.
Potentially it was circumstances resulting from these events that enabled
corrupt local officials to succumb to temptation of monetary gain at a time of
perceived weaknesses in leadership of both Roman and Celts.
It
could also be argued that the local Roman administrators may have underestimated
or failed to understand the position in society of Celtic women as the equals of
men in power, Roman women did not qualify for citizenship. There is some
evidence, though not conclusive, that Romans used infanticide of female babies
as a method of controlling the population. The evidence from Roman burial sites
indicates significant numbers of full term baby deaths, and of a significantly
larger ratio of adult male burials to female; a continuing ratio into more
settled and peaceful times that cannot be explained by the argument that the
majority could have been soldiers. The indications here may be that Romans
valued male children more highly than female children if circumstances demanded
that a choice was to be made. This is consistent with practices elsewhere and
throughout world history.
Romans
could, when necessary, accept that women from other parts of the empire were
equal to men. Take for example Caesar and his relationship with Cleopatra. While
in Britain, Claudius demonstrated this ability in his dealings with Cartimandua,
leader of the Brigantes. She had remained loyal to Rome as client leader during
the rebellion of the Silures and Ordovices led by Cunobelinus’s son Caratacus.
When the rebellion was crushed, Caratacus fled to the Brigantes seeking
protection, but when requested Cartimandua handed him over to the Romans. In the
case of the Iceni however, the indications are that elements of local Roman
government, temporarily freed from the attentions of governor and Emperor, felt
able to take advantage of the situation. The power of the Iceni was drastically
reduced and they were treated as if they were a defeated people. The Roman administration
then added insult to injury by deliberately humiliated Boudicca and her
daughters by flogging and ritual rape, and assumed control in the name of Rome
of Iceni lands and wealth.
Celtic shield
Roman shield
It
is likely that Boudicca occupied a dual position both as tribal leader and as
the manifestation of a Druidic or Celtic Goddess. We are given the description
by Tacitus of an immensely imposing woman, given an impression of a woman as
powerful warrior. There is the mystery of Boudicca’s name; Boudicca means
‘victory’. She has been identified with Brigantia the war goddess of the
Brigantes (the Romans called Brigantia ‘Victory’ and even by 200AD altars
were still being erected to her). She is also associated with Morrigan known as
the Great Queen in Ireland. She is also associated with the triple war goddess
whose three persons are Nemain (Frenzy), Badb Catha (Battle Raven) and Macha
(Crow) whose sacred birds were allowed to feed on the impaled heads of those
slaughtered in battle. There is also a possible link to the Celtic goddess
Boudiga. The goddess invoked by Boudicca before the last battle is reputed to be
Andrasta (also known as Victory). It is said that Boudicca sacrificed those she
defeated in battle to Andrasta; she took no captives. Therefore, it could
possibly be deduced that Boudicca was not her personal name, but perhaps an
official or religious title, which would mean that from the point of view of her
followers that she was the personification of a goddess. This would help to
explain the fanaticism of her followers who were drawn to her from a variety of
tribes and also their unusual willingness to unite so completely, and to follow
the leadership of a woman in battle. The Celts had, until this point, been seen
as easy to suppress by the Romans because of their lack of inter-tribal unity or
co-operation against invasion and oppression.
If
this is the case and the Romans had knowledge of this belief, then it opens the
situation to another possible interpretation as part of a larger scheme to draw
out druidic sympathisers and an attempt to destroy their power base. The
question arises, was the revolt the result either of a local error of judgement
or through the greed of local administrators; or more seriously, was Seutonius allowing a situation to develop as part of a larger calculated risk? Romans were
not always noted for crushing local beliefs in the empire so long as they were
not seen as a direct threat to Roman control. It has to be noted that they went
to great and cruel lengths to destroy the Christian religion as it began to
spread in Rome for that very reason. It could be that the Romans saw the Druidic
power over the Celts as just such a direct threat. Whatever the cause, the
consequences exceeded anything that could have been expected; the vast following
that sprang up to support Boudicca quite obviously took the Romans by surprise
and was very nearly the end of their occupation of Britain.
The
bulk of our knowledge of druidic beliefs, practices and influences comes from
the writings of the Romans; Tacitus certainly reports them as a formidable
force. Therefore it could be speculated that the Druids posed a threat through
their control of the Celtic beliefs. There does seem to be some evidence that
Roman forts were deliberately built on Celtic sacred sites and that some
deliberate destruction of other sites took place. This may have been done to
control or suppress beliefs or more likely to associate local gods and customs
with Roman gods and customs, much as Christianity was to do several centuries
later. Indeed it seems that Boudicca was lured to the place of the final battle
by the desecration of the sacred sites in the area. If this was the case then
was this action by Seutonius a military response to a situation not of his
originating or spiralling out of his control or was it the final act in a
complex plan of domination? Salway makes the point that "Romans had a
dangerous propensity for making this sort of mistake, which caused them to fight
unnecessary wars out of insensitivity for the emotions of other people."
(Roman Britain 1993). This echoes the criticisms made by Tacitus that the Romans
by their own actions contributed in large measure to this near disaster.
Consistent
with Roman policy a colony of veterans was established in AD49 at Colchester.
This seems to have two main functions; it released the legion there to move
forward to the front line but left the veterans as rearguard. This was important
as many legionaries would have been due for discharge and gave them a place to
take up their citizenship and allotment of land in a Colonia. Generosity would
buy the soldiers continued loyalty, the dangers of large numbers of highly
trained military men abandoned to hardship could have only one result,
disaffected mercenaries fighting for whoever paid the highest price. It also
provided a base for government, part of Roman organisation of territory. Land
taken or confiscated as result of rebellions or conflicts would be used for this
purpose. The released legion then went forward to defeat that uprising of the
Silures led by Caratacus.
Another
major element in this developing situation was the death in AD45 of the Emperor
Claudius in suspicious circumstances. His nephew Nero succeeded him. Nero seems
to have lacked his uncle’s insight into the complexities of politics in
controlling territories. So instead of maintaining the advantage over a divided
people it seems the Romans by their actions encouraged disaffection and the
consequential formation of alliances. With the analytical mind of Claudius gone
and Nero displaying little interest in the provinces, the lack of strong
centralised control allowed that there would be ample opportunity for local
deception and mismanagement.
When
Paullinus Seutonius, an officer experienced in mountain warfare, took over as
governor Tacitus described him as "an officer of distinguished
merit". He may have been appointed to use his experience to make an
attack on the Island of Anglesey. Seutonius did mount a campaign against
Anglesey leaving around the time of the death of Prasutagus and allowing a
potentially dangerous situation to develop in less experienced or less honest
management. His aim for this campaign may have been to wipe out the Druids or to
target the potentially dangerous rebel base that was developing under the
protection of the Druids. Tacitus points out that Anglesey was "heavily
populated and a sanctuary for fugitives" and "a source
of strength to rebels". Tacitus also hints at a further reason. Seutonius
was an ambitious man and for an ambitious military man to rise and
gain power and honour in Rome he needed regular victories, he needed to subdue
all rebellion, he needed a victory in order to keep his name lauded by the
peoples of Rome. However, Seutonius had a strong rival for glory, Corbulo who
had achieved a greater victory than Seutonius had yet managed. Tacitus says "a
rival general Corbulo, both in fact as a professional soldier and in popular
belief (in which every prominent man has to have a rival), and therefore longing
for a victory to set against Corbulo’s reconquest of Armenia".
Tacitus comments that if Seutonius could claim to have fully subdued Britain he
would have equalled Corbulo’s success in Armenia.
Seutonius
was an experienced tactician and as such would concentrate his forces where a
victory would produce the best results militarily and politically. He chose the
place the Romans called Mona, the island of Anglesey. That this difficult to
access place was the target of a campaign indicates that Anglesey must have been
far more than the sacred island of the Druids. To throw the weight of so large a
force of troops just to destroy a few religious representatives regardless of
how much influence they could wield would have been suicidal for his reputation.
The campaign was by its nature going to be a lengthy one and the prize had to be
worth the risk that would rise from removing the governors attention from the
rest of Britain. This gives strength to the argument that Anglesey must in fact
have been a centre for imminent rebellion, a potential focus for the unity and
uprising of the tribes and a refuge for dangerous rebels and militarily
defended. The greater and more fiercely determined the enemy, the greater the
ultimate Roman victory and the more glory for Seutonius. Victory came from
winning against the odds, earning honour and glory, not in butchering a feeble
opposition.
It
was to be a difficult attack, through the wilds of Wales and then across open
water, some in flat bottomed boats, horses swimming and others fording as best
they could. This after a very long campaign march across Britain carrying all
the equipment needed for the attack. Tacitus describes Anglesey as being heavily
defended, occupied as it was by "fierce warriors, wild women, and
praying Druids". Tacitus writes of women seen "running
through the ranks in wild disorder, their apparel funereal; their hair loose to
the wind, in their hands flaming torches, and their whole appearance resembling
the frantic rage of the Furies." Sights alien and counter to
anything the Romans were used to, indeed Tacitus notes that the sights
temporarily halted the Romans but that true to their training they eventually
obeyed and attacked and the island fell. The opposition was killed and the
sacred sites, which Tacitus describes as containing much evidence of human
sacrifice, were destroyed.
It
could be argued that his driving ambition, his need for victory over his rival
temporarily blinded Seutonius to the dangers that were building behind him in
Britain. If Anglesey were a centre for rebellion and intrigue then the tribes
would have been alert to the danger, after all the Roman army did not march in
secret. The campaign may also have spread fear to Ireland that an attack so
close may have been an indication that a potential victory on Anglesey would
signal Britain conquered and Ireland as the next target. If Seutonius thought
that the destruction of Anglesey would result in the opposition from the Britons
crumbling he was taking a gamble. Tacitus certainly indicates that he believed
that it was Roman duplicitous double-dealing and abuse of power that was at the
root of all that followed. He observes "The Britons themselves submit
to the levy, the tribute and the other charges of Empire with cheerful readiness
provided there is no abuse. That they bitterly resent; for they are broken in to
obedience, not to slavery." He also observes
"Seutonius Seutonius enjoyed two years of success, conquering tribes
and establishing strong forts. Emboldened thereby to attack the island of
Anglesey, which was feeding the native resistance, he exposed himself to a stab
in the back."
The
result was a massive rebellion, from a direction and of a ferocity obviously
unexpected by the Romans. Other local tribes joined Boudicca and silver coins
were minted in large numbers to finance the rebellion. Rebellion is a time when
prior grievances can be aired and revenged. The Trinovantes who joined the Iceni
had developed a hatred of the veterans settled at Colchester. The veterans had
treated them badly, taking land, enslaving and now expanding, exploiting them
generally. The omens at Camulodenum were bad for the Romans, Tacitus reports
that the statue of Victory fell from its plinth for no reason, and lay with its
face averted. That the theatre was filled with the sound of wild howling, an
image of a colony in ruins was seen in the water of the Thames and the sea
became blood coloured.
Despite
ample warning, Colchester had not been sent sufficient extra soldiers and
civilians had not been evacuated. Tacitus comments on the lack of defence; "Secret
enemies mixed in all their deliberations. No fosse was made; no palisade thrown
up; nor were the women, and such as were disabled by age or infirmity, sent out
of the garrison". The colony with few troops and inadequate
defences was easily defeated; those in the temple held out for a while but after
a two-day siege it too fell. As Boudicca’s army moved they met with and
defeated the ninth legion. Seutonius made for London but with the news of the
defeat of the ninth legion and the destruction of Colchester with the loss of
70,000 lives, changed his mind, things must have appeared desperate to him not
least in the resulting humiliation and fall from grace in Rome that would follow
so ignominious a defeat.
Seutonius
seems at this point to have made the decision that he must sacrifice London and
Verulamium and regroup elsewhere. London was a colony, it had grown up to house
traders and merchants, and it was a place of commerce. Verulamium was a
municipal town. These were not places that were defendable and Seutonius had too
few soldiers left to attempt any form of defence. His only chance was to allow
the Celtic army to expend energy and fury on the settlements to hope that they
would grow less unified become ever less organised and then to lure them to a
final battleground of his choice. It must have been a difficult sacrifice for Seutonius; the Celts did not take prisoners they massacred everyone there and
burned the cities. Seutonius was further denied the support of the Second legion
when Commandant Poenius Postumus recognising the overwhelming opposition refused
to move.
Seutonius
regrouped somewhere in the midlands, possibly near Mancetter or Towcester on
Watling Street. Seutonius was joined by the fourteenth legion; veterans of the
twentieth legion and auxiliaries stationed locally, a little less than ten
thousand soldiers. Seutonius was heavily outnumbered. To have any chance of
victory he needed to control when and where the battle would take place. The
place he chose was high ground, circled with forest, he made his stand with a
thick forest behind him so he did not need to worry about ambush. The site for
the battle dictated that the Celts would have to make a frontal attack up hill.
He was an experienced commander and he took care with his battle plans. The
legions he placed in close formation in the centre, with more lightly armed
troops close by, the cavalry he placed on the wings. He needed to draw Boudicca
to his chosen position and to this end he may well have used the desecration of
sacred groves as the bait.
The
Celts far outnumbered the Romans, and were full of their victories. Tacitus
tells us "they formed no regular line of battle". Battle
tactics for the Celts involved attempting to terrify and confuse the opposition;
hair dressed high with lime, faces and bodies painted. They used wild cries and
gesticulations, leaping around, clashing their weapons and blowing trumpets to
create noise and give demonstrations of enthusiasm and bravado. To fight a
disciplined fighting machine was alien to them. Celtic battles often-involved
champions inviting the champions of the opposition to single combat, the
resulting battles and heroes would be praised in song. The Celts grouped in
battalions of various sizes made of different tribes and chieftains with their
followers. Though they followed Boudicca and the Iceni, they were not organised,
they did not fight as one unified force, there was no battle plan; instead the
Celts relied on sheer force of numbers to overwhelm the opposition. Confident of
victory, the warriors had their wives and families in wagons at the edge of the
plain to watch the defeat of the Romans. Boudicca rallied her disjointed armies
to free themselves from Roman control and to seek revenge for Roman violations.
Symbolically she released a hare onto the battlefield between the two armies. Seutonius
also rallied his troops expecting them to keep their ranks, and to
think of nothing but conquest and victory. For him this was his last chance; for
death or glory.
With
a forest at his back Seutonius forced the Britons to attack up a slope where the
Roman javelins could wreak havoc. The Roman line held and the forests provided
them some shelter from British weapons. The Roman attack took the form of a
wedge, supported by the auxiliaries and the cavalry. The disorganised British
army was forced back onto their own wagons and rapidly the battle became a
disorganised massacre. Tacitus claims 80,000 British dead and 400 Roman dead.
Boudicca, it is claimed, escaped from the battlefield, and, according to Tacitus
took poison, or, according to Dio, died of a sickness. Poenius Postumus,
humiliated by his lack of action, killed himself when he heard of the victory. Seutonius, over-harsh in victory, set about laying waste to all the territories
of the tribes who had rebelled or stayed neutral.
A
piece of evidence for the possibility that the final battle was in the midlands
can be found at the Lunt Fort in Baginton near Coventry. This first century fort
contains a very unusual structure, a gyrus (see photograph). This type of
circular structure has not been found in any other Roman fort. The main theory
for its purpose is that it was used to train horses for use in battle. A further
theory links it to the final battle; the Romans victory would have resulted in
the capture of a very large number of celtic ponies. The Lunt fort would seem to
be ideally placed to receive and retrain, for Roman use, a large number of
captured war ponies.
The
Lunt Fort at Baginton near Coventry – showing the circular gyrus structure.
The
consequence of defeat for the Celts was famine; those who joined the rebel army
had not planted their crops, gambling on capturing Roman grain stores. There was
be little to be harvested, and where there was possibility of harvest, Seutonius
laid waste to the countryside; lack of food resulted in starvation for very
many. Seutonius’ harsh measures must have also cost the local Roman
administration greatly in lost taxes and revenues resulting from the continued
devastation of land. Tacitus seems to suggest that the severity with which the
Britons were punished could be because Seutonius "...punished with
undue severity wrongs that he insisted on making personal." These
were the actions of a man furious and betrayed, who had come too close to
humiliating defeat with their associated loss of face in Rome. This situation
may ultimately have affected the future of Seutonius, his victory was celebrated
but he handed over control of Britain fairly soon afterwards to Petronius
Turpilianus
Anne
Ross and Don Robins in their book The Life and Death of a Druid Prince link the
death of Lindow Man in part to the fall of Boudicca. They point out the three
connected major disasters that had befallen the Celts. The Druids had been
defeated and the sacred groves on Anglesey destroyed. The rebellion that had
seemed unstoppable with the inevitable defeat of the Romans had resulted in the
defeat of the Celts and the death of Boudicca. The war, the vast numbers of
dead, the lack of planting, and the revenge of Seutonius killing any surviving
rebel Celts and the punishment by laying waste to the lands or the rebels and
their supporters, resulted in famine. To superstitious or religious Celts it may
have seemed that the Gods no longer looked on them favourably. The Romans
despite their lack of numbers seemed to be unbeatable. The vengeful Gods would
needed to be placated and an important sacrifice was needed. That sacrifice was
the man they identified as Lovernois; high ranking and willing, his selection
made the sacrifice all the more powerful.
They
further argue that Boudicca was queen and priestess, possibly a druidess. They
suggest that this was how she was able to raise and control so huge an army.
They note Tacitus’ observation that Boudicca released a hare between the two
armies before the battle, they note that this is indication of a priestess
seeking augury. They also note the mutilation of the dead, indicating that many
were not just killed but sacrificed to the Celtic Goddess Andrasta, they
maintain that Boudicca was her priestess. They comment that the Romans
grudgingly admired the initial strategy and marshalling of Celtic forces. That "Boudicca’s
campaign was marked by the skill of a cool and competent strategist".
So why in the final battle did the Celts seem to be a disorganised army? The
widely held theory is that Boudicca’s control was slipping. Yet having
destroyed three major towns and with the defeat of the Romans resting on one
final battle the Celts should have been more united behind Boudicca than ever.
The
theory offered by Ross and Robins is that Seutonius chose his battle site
carefully that it was one of the great sacred sites possibly Vernemeton
somewhere around the place where Watling Street and the Fosse Way cross. They
suggest that he may have desecrated and burned this site to lure the Celts.
Further they argue that the area surrounding contained many other sacred sites
all now in danger. This was an area to the Roman advantage; did the actions of Seutonius
so enrage Boudicca and her followers that they charged in so wild and
disorganised a way that led to their destruction? They suggest that Watling
Street followed a Celtic route lined by Sacred sites, a corridor of Druidic
influence, an older trade route that of gold from Ireland.
Their
theory revolves around the idea that Lindow man was an Irish prince. That seeing
the destruction of the Druids, the defeat of Boudicca and the laying waste of
much Celtic land, that nothing now stood between Ireland and Roman invasion.
They find evidence that not only was he a sacrifice but a willing sacrifice and
how much more powerfully would that placate the Gods a prince a supreme
sacrifice. That it was his sacrifice that made Lindow an obscure corner of
Britain sacred. It has to be noted that despite their victory and the strength
of their navy, the Romans did not go to Ireland with serious intentions of
conquest.
After
the defeat in AD61 the Iceni were resettled in a Civitas capital at
Caister-by-Norwich also known as Caister St. Edmunds on the river Tas. An
interesting point to note is that the other tribes did not choose to join in
with the revolt, this could be seen a surprising in light of the early success
enjoyed by the rebellion. Several possibilities suggest themselves, that the
other tribes were convinced that the rebellion would eventually be squashed,
perhaps fearing that the Romans would bring in more troops from the continent
and take heavy retribution, as indeed was the consequence of rebellions
elsewhere. That communications between territories was limited and the scale of
what was happening was not generally known or that those tribes were heavily in
debt to or heavily bribed by the Romans.
Recent
archaeological evidence from the digging of the Jubilee Line (1998 – 1999)
provides evidence that Boudicca and her armies crossed the River Thames. It was
previously thought that the campaign against London ended north of the river.
Evidence of burned buildings corresponding to similar evidence from other places
destroyed by the Boudiccan campaign indicates that whatever stood south of the
river was important enough to also have been attacked. It also indicates that
the attacking armies of Celts had ample time to make the crossing and gives some
further indications of the low level of opposition they encountered. This
evidence also shows us that when Seutonius made his decision to sacrifice London
to the Celts, he in fact sacrificed a far larger area of citizens and settlement
than has been previously thought.
Recent
evidence as reported in the Sunday Times December 29th 1999 indicates
that Prasutagus may not be the name of Boudicca’s husband and that we may not
know his name. There is a single mention in Tacitus of the name Prasutagus.
Indications that this may have been the name of Boudicca’s husband comes from
silver iron age coins found in East Anglia indicating an important person of
that name. The coins show a classical Romanised head in the style of Nero, (a
diplomatic and flattering act of a client king) with the inscription SVP RI
[CON] PRASCO originally translated by the numismatist Henry Mossop to read
‘under King Prasutagus’. However Dr. Jonathan Williams of the British Museum
has uncovered evidence from a recent find in Norfolk of a flaw in the coin die
revealing an ‘E’ and that the letters RI should read ESV. Therefore the
person who issued the coins was named Esuprastus and the moneyer on the reverse
was Esico. Further evidence that the man on the coins may not have been her
husband is contained in a coin hoard discovered in Silsden Yorkshire. These are
mid first century coins of the Cunobelin, amongst them are 6 gold staters of the
Corieltauvi tribe with the inscription ISVPRASV. Dr. Williams believes that
these can be identified with Esuprastus. This is well outside the recognised
boundaries of the Iceni. Possibilities are that maybe our notions of tribal
boundaries are inaccurate, or they are indications of inter-tribal trading or of
gifts. Variations in names and spellings are indications of the state of the
emerging literacy of the Celts. It must be concluded that we can no longer say
with accuracy that Prasutagus was the name of a leader of the Iceni and
Boudicca’s husband.
The
Royal Residence of Thetford was excavated in 1981 and is close to the site where
the Thetford Treasure (now in the British Museum) was discovered.
©
Cecilia Parsons 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. Last updated July 2004. All rights
reserved.
Bibliography
Roman Britain by Peter Salway; (Oxford University Press 1993).
The Oxford History of the Classical World by John Bordman, Jasper Griffin and Oswyn Murray; (Oxford University Press 1993).
Tacitus on Britain and Germany
translated by H. Mattingly; (Penguin Classics 1960).
The Pursuit of History 2nd
Edition; by John Tosh; Edition (Longman 1991)
Legends of the Celts; by Frank Delaney (Hodder and Stoughton 1989)
The Life and Death of a Druid Prince; by Annie Ross and Don Robins; (Century Hutchinson Ltd. 1989).
The Times December 29th 1999 Article by Norman Hammond (Archaeology Correspondent).
Roman Britain; (second Edition) by Malcolm Todd, (Fontana Press 1997).
The Celts by Nora Chadwick; (Penguin Books 1997).
Town and Country in Roman Britain;
by A. L. F. Rivet, (Hutchinson 1978).
Links
http://www.coventrymuseum.org.uk/Lunt.htm
http://www.spiderwebcreations.co.uk
