Some time probably in the third century, the Romans became aware of new confederacies, the Verturiones and Dicalydones, emerging north of Hadrian’s Wall (Amm. Marc. 27. 8. 5). Roman authors generally refer to these peoples as picti, but this is clearly a Roman descriptive term (‘‘painted men’’) rather than (at this date at least) a genuine indigenous ethnonym. This ‘‘Pictish’’ terminology has caused great confusion: when combined with our knowledge of seventh-century political geography, it has been taken to suggest that these ‘‘Picts’’ lived north of the Clyde-Forth line, with ‘‘Britons’’ like the Votadini between them and Hadrian’s Wall. This seems very problematic. Roman writers use picti as a general description of anyone beyond the Wall, rhetorically employing the word to describe the reputation of an emperor reaching the ends of the earth (e. g., Claud. Cons. Stil. 54). Irish sources simply call the ‘‘Picts’’ cruithne, a Q-Celtic rendition of a P-Celtic word like Pritani (i. e., Britons), suggesting that ‘‘Picts’’ were undistinguishable from northern ‘‘Britons.’’ It is ill judged to suppose either that the region between the Wall and the Forth was uniformly peaceable or that the fourth-century Roman campaigns against picti involved traversing a large swathe of tranquil ‘‘British’’ territory before ‘‘hostiles’’ were encountered. Comparison with the Rhine and Danube frontiers suggests that new large confederacies were formed on the frontier. That the Votadini of early Roman writers reemerge in the name of Manau Gododdin in the seventh is surely an analogue to the ‘‘disappearance’’ of the Angles, Jutes, and Frisians between the early Roman era and the postimperial period.
We can probably abandon the old idea of‘‘Picts’’ and ‘‘Britons’’ divided along the Clyde-Forth line. Nevertheless, we can consider separately the region between the Wall and the firths of Clyde and Forth, on the one hand, and that to the north of those rivers, on the other, and see that the archaeology suggests dynamics at work in northern Britain similar to those operating east of the Rhine (Armit 1998; Edwards and Ralston 2003).
Just north of the Wall, the area’s economy was a mixture of pastoral and arable farming. The souterrain, the characteristic rural settlement type of the early Roman period, died out at this time. The souterrains’ large underground spaces have been interpreted most plausibly as for grain storage, and it might be that surplus was being directed to the leaders of the southernmost of the new Pictish confederacies. Unsurprisingly, Roman imports are commonest between the Solway-Tyne and Clyde-Forth, though never as common as in Germania Magna. The Romans had other links with elements of society north of the Wall. In the shadowy barbarica conspiratio of AD 367, the areani (often emended to arcani, i. e., spies) north of the frontier, were blamed for being derelict in their duty (Amm. Marc. 28. 3. 8).
Higher-status sites were generally less clearly fortified in the Roman period than had been the case earlier, but again this is a development that began too early to have a direct link with Roman military presence and intervention. The nature of their occupation has been debated (Close-Brooks 1987; Hill 1987; Armit and Ralston 2003: 180-2). Nevertheless, some socio-economic hierarchy can be reconstructed from these sites. It has been suggested that the presence of the Roman frontier brought some stability and prosperity to the region immediately to the north.
Further north, the famous brochs (towers) were no longer constructed, but many sites continued to be occupied in somewhat different form, with often cellular structures built into the rubble (Armit 1990, 2003; Ballin Smith and Banks 2002). This development, too, might relate to transformations in political structures. Another change in the northern region is an apparent shift toward an increasing focus upon dress and personal adornment at the expense of pottery, which becomes plainer in this period. This might relate to a situation in which status and gender was more clearly proclaimed through costume, possibly implying that marriage and descent had become more important because of a greater emphasis upon inherited property. Alternatively it could relate to a more fluid situation, wherein local standing was based on marriage alliances. Another explanation for changes in the later Roman period and after is a switch from kinship networks to clientship systems. The difference between kinship and clientship should not be overstated, however. Early medieval Irish society, after all, was based heavily on both. Such changes were probably also behind a slow move back toward investment in hill-forts. Burghead in Moray was occupied in the fourth century (Foster 1996: 43; Alcock 2003: 192-7). There is little evidence of close links with the empire, imports, while known, being much scarcer here.
On the whole, though the evidence is much more intractable than that for Germania, a broadly similar picture can be proposed, with areas close to the frontier showing comparable developments in social structure. A band behind this frontier zone, where contacts were much less common, can be suggested, just as it can in barbaricum east of the Rhine. These differences, as in Germania, explain the variations in the histories of the two regions, north and south of the Clyde-Firth line, in the fifth and sixth centuries. There is little or no evidence for any significant migration or any successful attempts to expand political power toward the south. (Gildas’ reference to Pictish attacks, in his De excidio Brittaniae, is too rhetorical and too chronologically imprecise for any secure conclusions to be drawn in this regard: see Winterbottom 1978.)
One reason for this lack of expansion seems to have been instability in the regions just north of the Wall. Here, evidence of change is found in written and archaeological sources (see Lowe 1999 for survey). I suggest elsewhere (Halsall 2007) that the effective Roman frontier was withdrawn from the Wall in the ad 380s. At this time, the hill-fort of Traprain Law had its fortifications refurbished (Close-Brooks 1983). A famous treasure was deposited there, probably the result of raiding. Yet the burial of the treasure could relate to insecurity, and before long the site was abandoned. This region’s inhabitants had had quite close ties with the empire and a stable society as a result. The retreat of the limes would have caused considerable instability, and probably the raiding described by Gildas. I propose that in this late fourth - and fifth-century stress the southernmost ‘‘Pictish’’ confederacy fragmented. This led to the reappearance of groups like the Votadini. Like those of the Angli and Frisians, apparently incorporated within the earlier Saxon confederation, this ethnic identity had been overlaid by a higher-level identity, especially in dealings with the Romans. When the larger group broke up in the turmoil around ad 400, these identities rose back to the surface. Other ‘‘British’’ polities appear in Strathclyde and further south in Cumbria, apparently straddling Hadrian’s Wall (Rheged) by the time our earliest postimperial historical sources appear.
On the east coast, by the end of our period, that other symptom of social stress and local instability, furnished inhumation, had also appeared (Alcock 1987: 255-66). This is usually associated with ‘‘Anglian’’ settlement; indeed, Anglian was another of the competing political identities in the region. The formation of these Anglian polities north of Hadrian’s Wall is, however, likely to have been a more interesting and complex process than the traditional view of English migration, conquest, and settlement allows. This was likely another consequence of the southern ‘‘Pictish’’ confederacy’s fragmentation. All this doubtless makes unsurprising the failure of the southern picti to make much of a lasting inroad into the former provinces of Britain.
North of the Clyde-Forth, things seem to have been rather different. Fifth-century archaeological evidence is difficult to find (Foster 1992: 219). Nevertheless, important changes were clearly under way, although apparently not complete until the seventh century. They are most visible in the settlement pattern, where a trend had set in toward occupation and investment in the fortification of hill-forts. Some such sites are known from the fourth century, as mentioned, but the real upsurge in the use of such sites does not appear to have occurred until the fifth century and, usually, later. Transformations seem to have taken place in the nature of other settlements at about the same time, although the chronology is vague and, again, many changes do not appear to have been fully worked through until the seventh century or perhaps even later (Foster 1992: 221-8). The overall trend seems to be toward status in the settlement pattern being concentrated in defended high points, positioned somewhat on the margins of the principal farmed areas. This can be plausibly explained by a removal of political power from the immediate locality and kin network, although whether this means a shift from kinship to clientship is doubtful - at least when stated that simply (Driscoll 1988a, 1988b). There were also shifts in burial practice, such as the custom of interment under barrows and ultimately the appearance of ‘‘Class 1’’ symbol stones, probably as grave markers, although both are difficult to date (Driscoll 1988a, 1988b; Foster 1992: 228-33). With this apparent increase in investment in above-ground markers, the evident absence of grave goods is significant, further suggesting the steady establishment of a secure aristocracy in the areas north of the Forth. The Romans’ general lack of interest in politics in the far north of Britain probably meant that the withdrawal of the frontier and the imperial crisis around AD 400 produced no significant results north of the Forth, and competition between rival chieftains for authority there continued as before. By the seventh century, this had resulted in the creation of large ‘‘Pictish’’ and Scottish polities. The end of any significant imperial involvement in north British politics from the late fourth century might have played some part in starting the series of events which eventually led to this situation but, overall, the fall of the west does not seem to have made very much difference to the inhabitants of the regions north of the Clyde and Forth. The northern confederation of picti apparently endured; by the time we have written sources again, in the seventh century, it seems to have become that referred to as the Kingdom of the Picts.
Mediterranean pottery is found on high-status sites around the Irish Sea (especially around the Severn estuary) in the fifth and sixth centuries. Known to British archaeologists as ‘‘A Ware’’ (African Red Slip and other Red Slip wares) and ‘‘B Ware’’ (various Mediterranean amphorae), these do not reach northern Britain, which appears only to be incorporated into long-distance trading networks from the seventh century (Lane 1994; Campbell 1996), again suggesting that whatever transformations were taking place among the ‘‘Picts’’ and their neighbors were not completed until after the end of the period. North British rulers were now keyed into long-distance exchange networks, and so could guarantee the safety of traders and control the production of whatever was exchanged in return for their wares. Overall, in Britain north of the Forth, the period ad 300-600 might, as in places like Denmark, be characterized as a period of gradual development and the growth of kingdoms.
World History
