Advanced Higher History Dissertation

A Comparative Study Of The Historiography Of The

By Lynsay A Shepherd

SCN: xxxxxxxxx

Mearns Academy, 2005

Supervised by D. Malcolm

© All rights reserved.

Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

A comparative study of the historiography of the battle of Mons Graupius

Introduction

“Today, nineteen centuries after the battle, curiosity about the location of the battlefield being undiminished, it may be appropriate to review the changing opinions of generations of scholars on the subject; to consider whether recent advances in archaeological investigation have brought us closer to a solution; and finally to ask if any other avenues of enquiry are open to us”- Gordon Maxwell, A Battle Lost,

(1990)1

If we are to believe all that the Roman writer Cornelius writes in his text

“Agricola”2, the Battle of Mons Graupius was supposed to have been a massive set- piece battle fought in the hills of . It was the culmination of a campaign led by the governor of Britain, , in a bid to control Scotland and to rule over the barbarians of the North.

There is only this one source from near the time the battle is alleged to have been fought, written by Tacitus, the son-in-law of the governor. There are many difficulties with using “Agricola” as a reliable source, issues which will be discussed later, but essentially there are areas in the text which do not quite add-up.

Over the years, the location of the battle has baffled historians and archaeologists alike. Many texts have been written on the subject though as yet no-one has succeeded in pinpointing the location of the battle. Experts today, such as David

Page 2 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

Wooliscroft, aren’t even sure if the battle happened on quite the scale Tacitus says it did. A few of the sites that are most commonly identified in a variety of books are

Durno-Bennachie, and Pass of Grange, though none have been conclusively argued. The quest to find the site remains one of history’s toughest mysteries and it is not only the location of the battlefield that puzzles the experts. My dissertation will compare a range of views from historians and archaeologists on various aspects of the much debated battle of Mons Graupius - including reasons as to why the battle was fought, the derivation of the name and ideas about the date, location and scale of the battle.

The Name Of The Battle

In his text “Agricola”3, Tacitus names the supposedly large set-piece battle with which Gnaeus Julius Agricola planned to complete his conquest of Northern Britain as “the battle of the Graupian Mountain” (or as it is more commonly known today as the battle of Mons Graupius).

The very name of the battle is open to fierce debate and scholars have been deliberating it for many years. The first thing which should be pointed out is that in the Roman alphabet, they didn’t use the letter “g” in the same way that we do in translations today and this therefore suggests that perhaps what Tacitus was referring to was the battle of the Craupian Mountain or Mons Craupius.

According to Rivet and Smith4, the word “Graupius” could be a Latinised form of an old Welsh word “crup” which essentially means bump/hump. However, Gordon

Page 3 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

Maxwell5 makes the point that “Graupius” could derive from a variant of “crup” which is “graup”. He states this is related to a Greek word for a prominent feature i.e. a large hill.

An additional explanation to the name Mons Graupius is that “Graupius” sounds a lot like “Grampian” which in turn creates the simplistic theory that perhaps the battle occurred somewhere within the peaks and summits of the Grampian Mountains.

Historians who have written texts who hold this opinion include Gordon Maxwell6,

Peter Marren7 and A J Church8.

The problems with the name mainly stemmed from a time around the 1470’s in which hand-written copies of “Agricola”9 were created in Italy from a manuscript which came from Germany. Inevitably, given that hand-written copies of the book were being created, mistakes were made in transcription and translation and it is therefore possible that a spelling error/inaccuracy was inadvertently created leading to confusion. Nowadays, the battle is more usually known as Mons Graupius rather than the battle of the Graupian Mountain or anything else.

Aside from the issue regarding the name, there are also questions about why the battle was fought. There is really only one reason given for the battle of Mons Graupius occurring and this comes from “Agricola”. David Breeze10 translated this, and in his interpretation it says that the reason the battle occurred was due to Agricola “fearing a general rising of the Northern nations”. Another recent translation says “there were fears that all the peoples on the further side might rise”11.

Page 4 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

The latter translation as to why the battle took place is from the Penguin translation of

“Agricola”. This text has previously come under scrutiny from Birgitta Hoffmann12, who suggests that although A R Birley did a fairly good job translating the text, he has made the whole “story” of Agricola sound too simplistic when the book itself is rather complicated for example; there is a discrepancy between the dates Tacitus gives in the text. He states Agricola was governor for 7 seasons however, other sources state he was governor from 78-84AD which would allow for only 6 seasons - it doesn’t quite add-up.

Many historians and archaeologists wish to find the apparent site because it would bring a sense of closure to Agricola’s governorship of Britain - conclusive proof of the battle actually happening. Another positive aspect is that a proper comparison could be made between what Tacitus writes in his text “Agricola” and the actual archaeological remains found, thus testing the accuracy of Tacitus’ account.

However, it might be argued that on the negative side, should the location of Mons

Graupius be found one day, history would be deprived of one of its longest running and most intriguing mysteries. According to Jarret (1982)13, should the battle site of

Mons Graupius be found, “Scottish antiquarian literature will be poorer, and the

Scottish topography less well studied”. To some extent this is true – Maxwell14, for example, has been has been using aerial photography extensively, whilst other archaeologists in the field such as St Joseph15 have been comparing various existing sites to try and discover possible locations for the battle.

Page 5 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

When Did The Battle Occur?

The vast majority of historians and archaeologists agree that the alleged battle of

Mons Graupius was fought in either 83AD or 84AD although there are varying perspectives on which year is actually correct.

Tacitus, in the text “Agricola”16, says that the governor went to battle the year after he lost his infant son. It is commonly believed that Agricola lost his infant son in 82AD which would make 83AD the year of the battle. However the text additionally implies that Agricola was recalled in 84AD shortly after the battle of Mons Graupius.

In this respect, the text contradicts itself to an extent and this highlights just one of the many inaccuracies and flaws within it. The dates generally don’t add-up.

Authors with an archaeological background such as David J Breeze17 hold the general opinion that the battle may have taken place in 83AD. One reason for this is that much of the actual physical evidence available such as the camp at Durno-Bennachie

(which is a possible location for the battle of Mons Graupius) dates from around the year 83AD.

However, as was mentioned above, there are differing opinions on when the battle took place. An additional perspective comes from A J Church18 who holds the view that the battle took place in 84AD. Another view which agrees with that is Roger J A

Wilson’s19 - he states quite blatantly that the battle most definitely occurred in 84AD.

Page 6 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

The problem with the above is that these sources are ‘traditional’ histories. As Martin

Millet20 says, traditional history texts are “attempts to write narrative history from the textual sources supplementing these with information from archaeological sources”.

This then means that the texts consist of something another, earlier source has said merely using different words.

The trouble with what A J Church21 and Roger J A Wilson22 have written is that they have relied on “Agricola” too heavily to create and account of Mons Graupius and the problem with that is you cannot rely on one source in this way unless you can trust its reliability. Too many of our modern histories of this period are based on this one source of dubious accuracy because Tacitus is clearly not reliable. An example of this is that he states the Caledonians were led by a leader named Calgacus. There is no evidence for this man ever existing- in fact it is commonly believed that he was entirely fictional23.

It is true to say that no one really knows if the battle of Mons Graupius occurred in

83AD or 84AD and indeed even Tacitus may not have been entirely sure! Most of today’s archaeology-based opinions tend to suggest that it did actually occur in 83AD, they just can’t be certain.

The Quest For The Battle Site

Identifying the location of the actual site of the battle of Mons Graupius is a highly contentious activity. Peter Salway expresses the point rather well

Page 7 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

“The location of this battle has been the subject of endless debate, by no means over even now” 24.

This is completely true as a whole range of contending sites have been examined over the years and, as yet, not one has been pinned down as the definitive site.

One such early contender in the debate is the site of Auchenhove in Banffshire.

Roger J A Wilson is one of the people who have suggested this site.

“In this area, then, must be placed the great battle of Mons Graupius” 25.

Wilson’s traditional viewpoint simply states that because Auchenhove is in the North, and was apparently built by Agricola, then it must somehow be the location of the battle. He provides no further evidence for this site, which in turn makes the case for rather weak and more recent works have cast doubt on the accuracy of his own.

However Gordon Maxwell does provide some potential evidence to support the case for Auchenhove.

“On this analysis, and Auchenhove, with half as much capacity again as

Dalginross, probably accommodated not only the full legion but also 2-3000 auxiliaries”.26

Maxwell suggests that the two 44 hectare sites of Ythan Wells and Auchenhove, taken together, may have been a possible site for the battle. According to Tacitus, Agricola went to fight Mons Graupius with two legions. The size of these camps indicates that this is a logistical possibility as the camps would have managed to house this amount of men. Maxwell does not make certain identification however, by going on to

Page 8 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History suggest that perhaps these two sites may have been there to help secure or support a win at the battle as Bennachie – another legitimate option for the battle’s location - lies directly between these two.

A genuine geographical alternative site where the battle of Mons Graupius may have taken place is at Raedykes near Stonehaven. The claim for this being a possible site was made by Crawford27 as early as 1943. The flaw with this is the assertion was made too early; identification claimed before any other camps were discovered and properly examined further north.

Crawford based his claim for the site on what the “Agricola”28 said about the battle.

Crawford deduced that there had to be an open area with a wooded hill to one side, a village within sight of the other and no outstanding distinguishing features (if there was something remarkable to be seen then he rather generously assumed that Tacitus would have mentioned it). Judging from his own knowledge of the area Crawford then made a claim for Raedykes as the site of the battle. Later on, when further

Roman camps were found Northwards, Crawford still cited Raedykes as a possible battle location; his argument being that the other camps weren’t built by Agricola, but by a successor of his. It is fair to note that the recent work carried out by the Gask

Ridge project29 – placing the abandonment of these fortifications quite carefully in

86AD tends to suggest that Crawford’s case is now weak. It seems highly improbable that Agricola’s successor would have achieved this in such a relatively short space of time which highlights why Crawford’s case is so weak.

Page 9 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

A further potential site is Duncrub. “Duncrub is thought to be derived from he Celtic dun crup (‘hill of the hump’) – and perhaps the root of Tacitus’ Graupius”, according to Peter Marren30. It is the name that initially suggests that Mons Graupius may have taken place here. However there are other factors too – Mitchell31 was one of the first people to locate a trench here. On further investigation it was found to be a sizeable

Roman camp of 47 hectares, larger than was initially thought, and substantial enough to hold the legions that were said to have fought in Mons Graupius.

There is a problem with Duncrub as a battle site though, a problem based on another section of Tacitus text

“At the same time the fleet, with a favourable wind and reputation behind it, occupied the Trucculensian harbour”.32

The above quotation from “Agricola” suggests that because of the fleet, the sea was visible from the battle site. Duncrub is in rural - though it is still possible

(if unlikely) that where Tacitus referred to the sea he really meant the River Tay, near enough to Duncrub and visible from there.

Pass Of Grange is another interesting claimant for the site of the battle. One of the main reasons this area is put forward is because Knock Hill is near here - “Mons

Graupius, Gaelic cnoc (hillock) being equated, at least in meaning, with Old Welsh crup (hump)”.33 Henderson-Stewart has discussed the likelihood of the area being a possible battle site and it has been described as a “natural gateway to the Moray

Forth and the Caledonian Heartlands”.34 This is where many of the Caledonians were, by implication, and Tacitus has Agricola fighting Caledonians.

Page 10 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

The case for the site has been diminished in more recent times – a fort at is near Pass Of Grange and is a bigger site (at 53 hectares), meaning that it could and would more likely have held the legion which attended Mons Graupius.

There remains one serious contender in the quest to find the site of Mons Graupius and that is Bennachie/Durno which is located in the Northern-most reaches of

Aberdeenshire. Maxwell, having considered many options, is clearly in favour of

Bennachie/Durno being the site of Mons Graupius.

“Indeed, it has been proposed that the largest of the series (c. 57ha), situated at Logie

Durno, facing the peak of Bennachie, directly adjoins the field of battle”.35

One of the factors to promote the Bennachie/Durno area as a possible site of Mons

Graupius is mentioned in the above quotation - the size and scale of the camp at

Durno. This is the largest known temporary camp in Northern Britain and would be more than capable of hosting the two legions that Tacitus speaks of in “Agricola”.36

Additionally, as was previously mentioned in the first section of the dissertation, the name “Graupius” is related to the word “crup” (hill/bump). The name does suggest that the battle may have occurred at Bennachie, as the hill itself is unmistakable which is perhaps why Tacitus gave the battle its name.

Maxwell37 suggests another reason why Mons Graupius may have been fought at

Bennachie – namely the conjunction between that site and the smaller finds in the

Page 11 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

Auchenhove area which Maxwell suggests may be related. Peter Marren has also written about Mons Graupius and shares Maxwell’s view that “Bennachie is the most distinct and widely visible Mons along Agricola’s probable route. It would be a natural choice for an assembly point”.38

Given the strength of the case for Bennachie it is perhaps surprising that no verifiable findings have yet been identified and again it has to be noted that the major flaw in almost all of the texts which put forward a site where Mons Graupius may have occurred is the over-reliance on Tacitus’ description of the battle location in

“Agricola”.

Surprisingly one such text that is largely affected by this is “A Battle Lost” by Gordon

Maxwell39. After reading the text it becomes apparent that Maxwell blatantly accepts what Tacitus says about the battle being of a large, grand scale. If this is not the case, as more recent archaeology might suggest, then surely he needs to widen the range of sites examined to take into account smaller sites. The reliance on Tacitus has kept the search going though not necessarily informing it correctly and Maxwell himself notes

…

“In short, there is no sign that the appetite for the Grampian quest is seriously diminished”.40

Participants In The Battle

There is great debate as to the numbers who participated in the battle of Mons

Graupius. According to the “Agricola”…

Page 12 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

“By means of embassies and alliances they rallied the forces of all their states.

Already more than thirty thousand armed men could be observed”.41

This kind of detailed claim brings the source under scrutiny yet again.

Based on information about the population of Scotland at the time of the supposed battle, it is debatable whether thirty thousand people would have lived in any one area of Scotland at the time – let alone that amount of adults ready for war.

Tacitus mentions that the Caledonians “unite” and the battle may have been a large affair if all the tribes in Northern Britain did work together. However according to

Hoffmann42 for example, the Brigantes tribe didn’t co-operate with other tribes in

Britannia and other evidence for the earlier occupation of southern Britain would tend to show the tribes did not usually work with each other which again hints towards the fact that Tacitus may have been using a literary license.

“Calgacus by name faced the assembled multitude as they clamoured for battle. He is reported to have spoken in words like these”.43

It is commonly believed that Tacitus simply made the name “Calgacus” up. When the name is translated, it means “swordsman”. Additionally, he alludes to the speech which Calgacus allegedly made - there is no possible way in which Tacitus could have known about this and, even if Calgacus existed and made the speech, the

Page 13 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

Romans probably wouldn’t have been able to understand it as the two opposing sides spoke two completely different languages.

The number of Romans on hand couldn’t really be exaggerated, as people from the time would know if Tacitus was lying or not. The allocation of legions to the province of Britain at that time is a matter of accepted record – both then and now. However the people of the weren’t there to see the number of Caledonians the

Romans fought - this leaves Tacitus free to exaggerate and to make it seem like the

Romans were incredibly powerful taking on and defeating thirty thousand

“barbarians”.

Another point which raises questions about the battle of Mons Graupius was the number of casualties on either side. A J Church discusses the point in one of his texts

“As many as ten thousand were left dead on the field of battle. The Romans lost 360, among whom there was only one officer of rank”.44

Again a total reliance on Tacitus, and again today’s historians would realistically challenge this. The above quotation raises another issue - if that amount of people took part in the battle of Mons Graupius some form of a mass grave would surely have been found, or else some archaeological evidence of an event of this scale. The lack of evidence is not evidence in itself but it does call into question just exactly how large the battle actually was.

Page 14 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

The issue of the number of participants in the battle of Mons Graupius is best summed up by Salway

“The British host, under a Caledonian named Calgacus, amounted to more than

30000 according to the Roman account, though modern attempts to judge the size of crowds are so notoriously unreliable that the figure must remain subject to doubt”.45

Scholars such as Wooliscroft agree

“in reality, it may actually have been little more than a skirmish” 46

There are reasons why “Agricola”47 is not considered to be a reliable source. Firstly,

Tacitus was Agricola’s son-in-law. Tacitus would have written the book to show his father-in-law in a favourable light- this effectively means that Tacitus would have a literary license and would have felt free to exaggerate his achievements. Comparisons have also been drawn between what Julius Caesar48 wrote and what Tacitus wrote in

“Agricola” for example both texts have people making great speeches in them and then there is the final set-piece battle.

Few other ancient writers mention Tacitus. One who does mention his name is

Cassius Dio.49 We know Agricola sailed around Britain to prove it was an island.

Tacitus says Agricola did this in 83/84AD associating this with Mons Graupius. Dio attributes it to 79AD and his evidence, relating to verifiable events in the reign of

Emperor Titus, is more compelling.

No other ancient reference to the actual battle of Mons Graupius exists, challenging the veracity of the battle in a major way. If the battle was as big an affair as Tacitus

Page 15 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History claims then surely someone would have mentioned it? The fact that there is no actual physical evidence for the battle of Mons Graupius has to be reiterated - again the only direct evidence we have for this battle is from “Agricola”.

People such as Hoffmann50 have even gone to the extent of suggesting that

“Agricola”51 is more of a “hagiography” than anything else and implies that perhaps

Tacitus wishes to make Agricola appear almost saintly, exaggerating his achievements.. Perhaps we will only know the real truth if and when the site of Mons

Graupius has been found and “Agricola” can be tested against actual evidence.

Conclusion

Due to the lack of actual archaeological evidence for the battle of Mons Graupius no real conclusions can be drawn.

Although no one definitive site has been located for the battle site, the most probable of all the contenders is the Bennachie area. This is largely because it is a northerly location, is a prominent feature in the landscape and of course has the large camp at

Durno nearby which would have been capable of holding the amount of Romans

Tacitus’ suggests took part in the battle. Recent archaeology in the area, carried out by

Ian Shepherd52 and others has highlighted the presence of Romans in this area at the correct time period, and in greater numbers than previously thought.

The main factor which has caused a lot of trouble in finding the battle site is in fact

“Agricola”53 by Tacitus. The accuracy of this source has been called into question a

Page 16 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History number of times in this dissertation alone yet for many years this is all historians and archaeologists have had to guide them in finding the site.

Therefore the problem with many of the texts on the subject (both traditional histories and archaeology-based texts) is that they assume Tacitus is broadly accurate in his description of the battle as significant. However the recent work of David

Wooliscroft54 at the is now challenging these assumptions e.g. with dating evidence based on coinage and pollen samples and this will surely change the nature of the continuing search for Mons Graupius.

Due to the inaccurate nature of Tacitus’ work, it could be possible that Mons

Graupius was in fact a small-scale battle, less important and with fewer participants than traditionally suggested. Maybe historians and archaeologists have set their aim too high and need to examine smaller sites in order to find what they are looking for.

It is my conclusion that though no battle site for Mons Graupius has yet been found that doesn’t necessarily mean that the battle didn’t occur. The recent advances in knowledge about Roman activities in the first century north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus offer hope that a solution may soon be found.

Page 17 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

Footnotes

1 Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, , 1990, p1

2 Birley, A R, “Agricola” (a new translation), United States, 1999

3 Birley, op. cit.

4 Rivet and Smith (1979) referred to by Maxwell, Gordon S, “The Romans In

Scotland”, Great Britain, 1989, p58

5 Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Great Britain, 1990, p55

6 Maxwell, op.cit.

7 Marren, Peter, “Grampian Battlefields”, Aberdeen, 1990

8 Church, A J, “Early Britain”, London, 1886

9 Birley, op. cit.

10 Breeze, David J, “Roman Scotland”,London, 1996, p17

11 Birley, op. cit. p18

12 Hoffmann, Birgitta, “Archaeology Versus Tacitus’ Agricola, A 1st Century Worst

Case Scenario”, 2001, www.romangask.org.uk

13 Jarret, (1982), referred to by Maxwell, op.cit. p111

14 Maxwell, op. cit.

15 St Joseph (1978a), referred to by Maxwell, op. cit. p104

16 Birley, op. cit.

17 Breeze, op. cit. p35

18 Church, op. cit. p64

19 Wilson, Roger J A , “Roman Remains In Britain”, Great Britain, 1975, p349

Page 18 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

20 Millet, Martin (University Of Durham), “Review Of David Braund: Ruling Roman

Britain: Kings, Queens, Governors and Emperors From Julius Caesar To Agricola”,

1997- www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1997/millet.html

21 Church, op. cit.

22 Wilson, op. cit.

23 Birley, op.cit. p21

24 Salway, Peter, “The Oxford Illustrated History Of ”, USA, 1993, p103

25 Wilson, op. cit. p349

26 Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Gathering Of Eagles”, Great Britain, 1998, p21

27 Crawford, (1949), referred to by Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Great

Britain, 1990, p93

28 Birley, op. cit.

29 www.romangask.org.uk

30 Marren, op. cit. p14

31 Mitchell (1906), referred to by Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Great Britain,

1990, p101

32 Birley, op. cit. p28

33 Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Great Britain, 1990, pp96-7

34 Henderson-Stewart, reffered to by Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Great

Britain, 1990, p98

35 Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Gathering Of Eagles”, Great Britain, 1998, pp20-1

36 Birley, op. cit. p25

37 Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Great Britain, 1990, pp96-7

38 Marren, op. cit. p15

Page 19 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

39 Maxwell, op. cit

40 Ibid., p110

41 Birley, op. cit, p21

42 Hoffmann, op. cit

43 Birley, op. cit, p21

44 Church, op. cit. p64

45 Salway, op. cit. p103

46 Wooliscroft, David J (University Of Liverpool), “Agricola: he came, he saw, but did he conquer?”- www.romangask.org.uk

47 Birley, op. cit

48 Julius Caesar referred to by Hoffmann, Birgitta, “Archaeology Versus Tacitus’

Agricola, A 1st Century Worst Case Scenario”, 2001, www.romangask.org.uk

49 Cassius Dio referred to by Hoffmann, Birgitta, “Archaeology Versus Tacitus’

Agricola, A 1st Century Worst Case Scenario”, 2001, www.romangask.org.uk

50 Hoffmann, op. cit.

51 Birley, op. cit.

52 Talk from Dr Ian Shepherd, Archaeolink, November 2004

53 Birley, op. cit.

54 Wooliscroft, David J, www.romangask.org.uk

Page 20 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

Bibliography

Texts

• Birley, A R, “Agricola” (a new translation), Oxford, 1999

• Breeze, David J, “Roman Scotland”, London, 1996

• Breeze, David J, “Proc Soc Antiq Scot- Why Did The Romans Fail To

Conquer Scotland”, 1988

• Breeze, David J, “The Northern Frontiers Of Roman Britain”, 1982

• Church, A J, “Early Britain”, London, 1886

• Clayton, Peter, “A Companion To Roman Britain”, Great Britain, 1980

• Frere, Sheppard, “Britannia: A History Of Roman Britain”, Great Britain,

1967

• Hanson, W, “Agricola And The Conquest Of The North”, 1987

• Marren, Peter, “Grampian Battlefields”, Aberdeen, 2001

• Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Battle Lost”, Edinburgh, 1990

• Maxwell, Gordon S, “A Gathering Of Eagles”, Great Britain, 1998

• Maxwell, Gordon S, “The Romans In Scotland”, Edinburgh, 1989

• Richmond, I A, “The Pelican History Of England: 1 Roman Britain”, London,

1955

• Robinson, Cyril E, “A History Of Rome”, New York, 1935

• Salway, Peter, “The Oxford Illustrated History Of Roman Britain”, USA, 1993

• Todd, Malcolm, “Roman Britain 55BC-AD400”, Great Britain, 1981

• Wilson, Roger J A, “Roman Remains In Britain”, Great Britain, 1975

Page 21 Lynsay A Shepherd SCN: xxxxxxxxx Adv. Higher History

• Wooliscroft, David J, “The Roman Gask Frontier”, History Scotland journal,

May/June 2002 edition

Web Sources

• Hoffmann, Birgitta, “Archaeology Versus Tacitus’ Agricola, A First Century

Worst Case Scenario” (lecture given to Theoretical Archaeology Group),

2001- www.romangask.org.uk

• Millet, Martin (University Of Durham), “Review Of David Braund: Ruling

Roman Britain: Kings, Queens, Governors and Emperors From Julius Caesar

To Agricola”, 1997- www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1997/millet.html

• Wooliscroft, David J (University Of Liverpool), “Agricola: He Came, He Saw,

But Did He Conquer?”- www.romangask.org.uk

• Wooliscroft, David J (University Of Liverpool), “More Thoughts On Why The

Romans Failed To Conquer Scotland”- www.romangask.org.uk

Other sources

• Talk from Dr Ian Shepherd, Archaeolink, November 2004

Page 22