Mons Graupius Contender: Knock of Crieff
Introduction
Roman Scotland identified the site of the Knock of Crieff in 2008 while following a line of philological enquiry that had previously led to quite promising results at Moncreiffe Hill.
The word Knock has been raised elsewhere (Pass of Grange) but it is in fact a fairly common and unremarkable Gaelic appellation for a hill in Scotland.
The modern name of the Perthshire town of Crieff is possibly the fairly modern anglicised spelling for the Gaelic pronunciation of Croib (the end is pronounced ff in lieu of soft gaelic phonetic b) – which in itself Fraser suggested (at the Gask) may be related to the root word Croup .
This is of great interest and here means;
Knock (noteworthy shaped hill) of Crieff (Croib).
This is perhaps not a perfect fit, but when we compare this to:
Mons (Latin for hill) Croupius (the correct root word from which Graupius is likely to have been arrived at) then we have an interesting piece of etymology worth following up.
Crieff is further of interest on account of its location. It sits on the River Earn, and known Flavian campaigning is heavy along the line of the Earn.
As to its suitability for a tribal mustering point, Crieff`s later reputation as Scotland’s "wild west" where Highland drovers brought their herds down to market amply illustrates its position as a key nodal point in the transhumance between Highland and Lowlands.
The escarpment of Knock Hill – circa +270m OD - also offers itself as a superb position for the Caledonian deployment, and while its lower outlying slopes above Tomaknock would prove to be an obstacle to immediate deployment on the proposed Roman battleline (on the general line followed by the modern A85– circa +130m OD), a force sent to secure it could be plausibly used to explain Agricola decision to dispatch his Tungrian and Batavian cohorts in advance of the rest of his battleline, a tactical decision Tacitus offers no adequate explanation for.
A: Campaigning
Is the site located in an area of known Flavian campaigning?
Yes
Is the Flavian activity in the area likely to be Agricolan?
Yes
B: Marching Camps
Is there a marching camp in the vicinity of the site?
Yes, Innerpeffray 1, Innerpeffray 2, Dornock and Strageath.
Is the marching camp located close to the site?
No:
Dornock; 4 km away.
Innerpeffray 1; 5 km away.
Innerpeffray 2; 5.5 km away.
Strageath; 4.5 km away.
Does the marching camps position and orientation "address" the site?
No, they are all positioned relative to the River Earn or the Roman road at this location.
Does the marching camps display Flavian characteristics?
Dornock; Yes
Innerpeffray 1; late Roman morphology, questionable site structural sequence however.
Innerpeffray 2; Late Roman marching camp morphology and site structural sequence.
Strageath; Late Roman, probably Antonine.
Is the size of the marching camps reasonably close to the 117 acre criteria required to accommodate 26,000 men?
No:
Dornock is too small, at 23.2 acres and can accommodate only 5,100 men,
Innerpeffray 1 is too small, at 67.3 acres it can accommodate only 15,000 men,
Innerpeffray 2 is too large, at 130.5 acres it can accommodate 29,000 men,
Strageath is too small at 32.4 acres and can accommodate only 7,200 men.
C: Site topography
Is the site of an appropriate size to accommodate the forces engaged?
Yes, the Knock of Crieff position extends 2.5km.
Does the critical area of the engagement include terrain or features which are specifically inconsistent with Tacitus account?
The quite steep hillock above Tomaknock fronting the site would have to be negotiated by the Romans when forming up.
Does the site have a "plain" at the foot of the hill suitable for the recorded chariot action?
Yes
Is the hill of an appropriate gradient for:
- The Caledonians to be marshalled and advance down and around? Yes except for uppermost slopes.
- A realistic Roman assault up? As above.
Does the countryside behind the Caledonian position have terrain consistent with the actions recorded in the immediate aftermath of the battle?
Yes, broken upland setting.
Can reasonably ready access to the fleet (approx a day or twos march) be achieved from the sites location?
Yes long the River Earn to the Tay.
Is the likely point of contact with the fleet consistent with the broad strategy and location of the Roman fleet on the east coast?
Yes
Can the "Boresti" be identified locally?
Yes, Horrea in Fife.
Are there known marching camps which hint at Agricola’s movements after leaving the site of battle?
Yes, the Dunning – Carpow series marching camps.
Is the sites location consistent with the position chosen the following year for the siting of the legionary fortress of Inchtuthil?
Yes, ideal.
D: The Sites Name
Is there evidence in the locality for names from which Mons "Graupius" could be derived?
Knock is simply Gaelic for a humped shaped hill, Crieff could be rendered from Gaelic Croib which may possibly be derived from Croup– see Gask Ridge for fuller details.
Summary
There is little negative to be said about Crieff`s credentials except that it lacks an appropriate camp situated in close proximity to the suggested battlefield. It is its failure in this respect which prevents the site attracting more than 14 appropriate answers out of a possible 19. This still rates the site as "interesting".
Sufficient suitable ground exists before Tomaknock where a marching camp could be sought. Notwithstanding this, the site is clearly visible from the rash of multi period marching camps at Innerpeffray even though these do not address the Knock of Crieff in their orientation.
That said, Crieff`s philological link, its proximity to areas of proven Flavian period campaigning, the suitability of the size of battlefield as well as the areas proven connection with transhumance between Highland and Lowlands make this a very interesting contender indeed.
NEXT PAGE: The Contenders: Lomond Hills
©2009 Roman Scotland. All Rights Reserved
First Published February 2009
