Mons Graupius Contender: Stormontfield
Introduction
Playfair suggested Stormontfield near Coupar Angus in 1797, aware of reports of Roman stations in the area (the Inchtuthil fortress site) and convinced that the Cleaven Dyke played a critical part in the action.
The medieval deer dykes on the Garrydrums were also pressed into service as the Caledonian encampment.
Further, the cairnfields spreading north-west to Dunkeld behind the Garrydrums were supposed to be the graves of the fallen and as found it was suggested marked the passage of the rout after the battle.
Such an antiquarian approach, scooping up all the available relics of antiquity in a location and attributing it to the events surrounding the battle is not unique however the size of the resultant site Playfair suggested is vast, comfortably filling a 10 km grid!
Further persistent association with the site was continued by Macdonald early in the 20th C . While excavating the legionary fortress at Inchtuthil, MacDonald proudly pronounced that this was the site Agricola set out from and returned to after the battle, though he cannily refused to be drawn on the precise site of battle.
The somewhat draconian MacDonald’s influence was widespread in cliquish academia and the ongoing persistent belief in the battle having taken place north of Inchtuthil still prevalent today stem from this quite incorrect statement made originally by Macdonald.
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?
No, the activity on the site is related to the construction of the legionary fortress – Victoria - which dates at the earliest to the year(s) following the battle.
B: Marching Camps
Is there a marching camp in the vicinity of the site?
Yes, Inchtuthil 1 and Inchtuthil 2.
Is the marching camp located close to the site?
Yes, by virtue of the expansive size of the proposed battlefield.
Does the marching camps position and orientation "address" the site?
No, they address the fortress.
Does the marching camp display Flavian characteristics?
Yes, dateable by function and association with the Flavian fortress.
Is the size of the marching camp reasonably close to the 117 acre criteria required to accommodate 26,000 men?
No;
Inchtuthil 1; at 50.2 acres it can accommodate only 11,100 men.
Inchtuthil 2; at 36.6 acres it can accommodate only 8,100 men.
C: Site topography
Is the site of an appropriate size to accommodate the forces engaged?
No. The expansive escarpment of the Garrydrums extends to over 11 km between the River Ericht and the Buckny Burn at Benachally.
Does the critical area of the engagement include terrain or features which are specifically inconsistent with Tacitus account?
Yes. At a quite incredible 7 km the proposed battlefield is unrealistically deep and due to its size is unavoidably cluttered with features of the landscape inconsistent with Tacitus account. The site is crossed by both the Lunan and Lornty Burns while three small lochs (Clunie, Marlee and Rae lochs) effectively split the site
Further "Craig Roman", the aptly named escarpment behind Kinloch - as well as being the obvious position for the Caledonians to defend – blocks direct line of sight to the proposed battlefield on the lower slopes of the Garrydrums beyond.
Does the site have a "plain" at the foot of the hill suitable for the recorded chariot action?
No, though it has been proposed that the chariot action took place nearer to Delvine in front of the Cleaven Dyke, an act which further increases the size of the suggested battlefield.
The Cleaven Dyke has been put forward as a suggested explanation for Tacitus pro vallum.
Legionaries deployed here would however be left unaware of unfolding events on the lower slopes of the Garrydrums and poorly placed to come quickly to the aid of the auxiliaries.
Is the hill of an appropriate gradient for:
- The Caledonians to be marshalled and advance down and around? Yes though the rolling profile of the hill includes reverse slopes.
- A realistic Roman assault up? Yes
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, 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?
No
Are there known marching camps which hint at Agricola’s movements after leaving the site of battle?
No
Is the sites location consistent with the position chosen the following year for the siting of the legionary fortress of Inchtuthil?
Yes, excellent association.
D: The Sites Name
Is there evidence in the locality for names from which Mons "Graupius" could be derived?
No
Summary
Stormontfield achieves 9.5 appropriate answers out of a possible 19. This rates it as "highly unlikely".
The Flavian camps that Stormontfield merits by association with are however the construction camps for the fortress built the year following the battle at the earliest.
Possibly the best accolade this long straggling battlefield attracts is that it is the contending site closest to the fortress named Victoria in honour of the victory achieved at Mons Graupius.
However it is an overly simplistic approach to consider an immediate proximity to the site of battle as a pre-requisite when naming the fortress.
NEXT PAGE: The Contenders: Strathfinella
©2009 Roman Scotland. All Rights Reserved
First Published February 2009
