Talk:Portmahomack

Roman fort

I find the description a bit misleading. Looking at the sources provided, there seems to be only a speculation from 1949 that it might be Roman fort. The archeological examination from 1994/1995 doesn't even mention the word "Roman" and seems to consider it a Pictish site instead. Also note the given radiocarbon dating seem to exclude a Roman construction as afaik the Romans did not venture that far north after Agricola's campaign (80-84).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Ben MacDui's edit has resolved the issue more or less. Though if the Roman fort idea is only based on a flimsy speculation from 1949, then one might consider to scrap it completely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The fort -according to official RCAHMS- has been probably defaced in 1872 (http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/15629/details/port+a+chaistell/ ). Please, do not remove the official data/reference of RCAHMS from the article, since there is NO proof that the fort did not existed.....BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.158.111 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As it would be more-or-less impossible to prove the fort never existed this is not a compelling argument but I have left the text in an amended form that more clearly indicates the highly speculative nature of the evidence. Ben MacDui 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bljr: You the added the Romans to the lead, suggesting that “the area seems to have been the site of significant activity during” their time. The evidence for this is essentially non-existent. All we have is a 1949 statement by an archaeologist, who never visited the site, about a supposed camp for which all evidence is lost and a supposition in a blog based on a vague assertion on behalf of Severus that could involve exaggeration, naval manoeuvres or any number of other things. It is certainly not meaningful evidence of significant Roman activity in the area.

The map is uncited and nor does any text in the article refer to its bold assertions about camps at Tarradale, Cawdor etc.

Compare Crawford’s assumption about Portmahomack with more recent statements by archaeologists. In relation to the supposed Roman Fort at Easter Glacantray:

• Canmore marks it as “prehistoric”.
• Gregory, R.A. (2001). "Excavations by the late G.D.B. Jones and C.M. Daniels along the Moray Firth littoral". Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 131: 34 writes “Likewise, the single calibrated radiocarbon date retrieved from the 'demolition deposit' within the ditch, although partially spanning the Flavian period at both one and two sigma standard deviations (cal AD 80–130 (1 sigma): cal AD 80–220 (2 sigma) ), remains problematic. It is not, in itself, conclusive evidence that the site was occupied and abandoned during the late first century AD. Still less is it conclusive evidence that it was occupied and abandoned by the Roman military, particularly since no late first-century Roman pottery was recovered from this feature or from elsewhere on the site.”

Leslie (1995) in the Bellie article is quoted as saying that if the sites there were Roman they “would constitute the most northerly example known.”

At Thomshill#Interpretation we find Hunter, Fraser; Carruthers, Martin, eds. (June 2012). "Scotland: The Roman Presence" (PDF). Scottish Archaeological Research Framework. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. p. 13 who write: “Despite some assertions to the contrary (e.g. Gregory 2001), there is no evidence of fort building north of the Mounth. The postulated sites at Thomshill and Easter Galcantray lack the distinctive morphological characteristics of Roman military works and have not provided any artefactual support for a Roman date.” Note that they don’t even bother to mention Portmahomack – why would they given the paucity of evidence for there being a camp there?

Large claims need evidence to back them up. Perhaps the Romans were in force on the Tarbat Nees peninsula but without actual evidence it is just supposition. Ben MacDui 09:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ben MacDui, I have seen that you erased my post about the possible roman presence in Portmahomac. Allow me to defend my opinion:

• 1) first of all I want to remember Tacitus"s comment about Agricola conquest of "all" Caledonia. He wrote: "Perdomita Britannia (et olim missa)", that means in classic vulgar latin "per(fecta) domi(na)ta Britannia" or in english "totally conquered Britannia (but quickly lost"), This is the only sure -& written evidence- confirmation that the Romans conquered all the Caledonia up to the northernmost shores. As you know the Romans had since Caesar's times a "vassal state" in the Orkney islands north of Caledonia (read if interested "[1] Orkney: the 6th province of Britannia? New evidences from Mine Howe, of A. Montesanti). In an essay of Montesanti we can read: "We all know that during the Roman invasion of Britain the "King of Orkney" was one of 11 British leaders who is said to have submitted to the Emperor Claudius in AD 43 at Colchester (called Camulodunum in latin). What we don't know is the exact extension of the territory controlled by this king, who successively was probably- as Romans used to do in this situations- the ruler of a possible "client-kingdom" of the Roman empire.However there is certainly evidence of an Orcadian connection with Rome prior to AD 60 from pottery found in the Orkney islands at the "Broch of Gurness" (and we must also remember that 1st and 2nd century Roman coins have been found at the "Lingro Broch")...... archaeological evidences clearly indicate that the Romans traded extensively with the Orkney inhabitants, because "Orkney might have been one of those areas that suggest direct administration by imperial Roman procurators, at least for a very short span of time"....As we all know, after Agricola's withdrawal -and the creation of the Hadrian Wall and the Antonine Wall- the Romans did only one strong tentative to dominate all Caledonia: under emperor Septimius Severus. By 210 AD, Severus' campaigning had made significant gains probably reaching the Inverness area (Muiryfold), but his campaign was cut short when he fell fatally ill, dying at Eboracum (actual York) in 211 AD. Although his son Caracalla continued campaigning the following year, he soon settled for peace and went back to the Hadrian Wall.... But we don't know exactly where Caracalla's legionaries stopped their advance in north Caledonia. Probably they reached Portmahomack, as recently discovered evidences suggest." Why I write this? Because these facts give support to the possibility that the Romans did marching camps with a distance between them of a day's march of legionaries, while reaching the Orkney vassal state. Indeed all the roman camps from the Antonine wall to Portmahomac seem to be at the same marching distance.

• 2) second, allow me to remember that (please read: [2]) in the Canmore website there it is written that " ....The fifth season's work uncovered a cobbled road-like surface behind the southern ditch. The post-hole pattern outlined a building some 21m long. A final season's work is planned for next year.(G D B Jones and I Keillar 1989).Further work in 1990 uncovered many additional post holes."... But who has created these holes & cobbled road with 21m. building for a camp that looks identical in many aspects to the others more to the south toward the Gask Ridge?

• 3) third, the same reasoning is about the Portmahomack remains: who has created those "Roman landmarks" that appears in the 1880 old map about Tarbat Ness? ...Only Roman legionaries (or sailors).

Of course, we can deny all, until we will find a "roman gladium or pottery remain", but the possibility exist.......and that is why I am going to reinstate my erased post with the declaration that these assumptions are not confirmed clearly. Wikipedia must remember also the "possibilities", don't forget it.--Bljr (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The above is completely lacking any archaeological evidence of a Roman presence in and around Portmahomack, which is what I believe you need to continue posting in this fashion. What we do have is speculation from a single source who never visited the site, the findings of numerous archaeologists in more recent years who distance themselves from it, a blogpost, and now a substantial amount of WP:OR as justification into the bargain. I have posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland in the hope of getting some genuine consensus about the topic. As for "the possibilities" what you have posted is in large measure WP:UNDUE. I will consider what might be said about this 'possibility' without turning it into something it isn't. Ben MacDui 14:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, take it easy....I am only considering the "possibility" and nothing more. The possibility is based on two persons: Rev Grant, minister of Boharn, and archaeologist Osbert Crawford. Another person (Antonio Montesanti) wrote about this possibility in his book. And that is all.....of course, I am not forcing anybody to a "war of reversions": do what you want with this article, but -please- respect my opinions (based on more than one person opinions & writings and so not "WP:OR"). Finally, allow me to salute you in a friendly way. Sincerely, --Bljr (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Blkr, looking at this section I do believe it does constitute original research. I think it really needs verifiable sources attributed to legitimate references. At most to avoid WP Undue too, there is probably only a sentence along the lines of "The area may have had a roman fort, according to O. G. S. Crawford, however, this has not been fully confirmed." Until there is a reference from an archaeological survey say or a CANMORE database entry that says its a roman fort, then the article should only mention what is recorded. The map is an interesting source but a lot of maps from that period were often made in consultation with locals, in part to record place names accurately and other things added to the maps may not be accurate. Unfortunately a map is not enough for verifying facts though. Please take an extensive look at Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Coldupnorth (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bljr: I am not aiming to be unfriendly - and I recognise you have not been here long - but I am trying to be clear. In looking into the issue at hand I see that Rev. Grant refers to de Situ Britanniae as part of his evidence. Not surprising given the time he was writing but now known to be a hoax.There are however a few other minor mysteries about this topic. I will revert again when I have had a further look. Saluting you back, Ben MacDui 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

OK...have my best regards. --Bljr (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Roman Fort – additional complications

1880 Map

It is the wrong map and I have removed it – and displayed it here. It is true that it says “Site of Roman Landmark” at Carn A’ Bhodaich just north of the lighthouse. However:

• The lighthouse is situated at Port a’ Chait, not Port a’ Chaistell.
• The site is tiny – less in circumference than the lighthouse.

The site identified by Rev Grant is on the adjacent sheet just south of Castlehaven and marked as a "Roman Camp” in the middle of a field.

Rev Grant

I can’t find out anything much about Rev Grant. Boharn does not seem to exist anywhere on Wikipedia save for the Portmahomack article. Boharm does - it’s a parish on Speyside - but there is seemingly no record of this fellow in the Church of Scotland records for that parish. Perhaps he belonged to another denomination- such as Episcopalian. His opening gambit in the article is: "THE prejudices, arising from the idea of Caledonian independence now begin to subside ; and Scotsmen allow equal force to the same degree of evidence for the Roman progress in their native country, as they do in regard to Germany, or any other province they are not particularly interested in."

Re de situ Britanniae he concludes that “This discovery at Tarbet Ness, and the coincidence of the map with modern discoveries in other places, give us the most favourable idea of the author's accuracy.”

His Description

[There] is a place on the sea shore, called Port-a-chaistel, where there is an excellent harbour ; and, on the rising ground that commands it, are the vestiges of a military station and building, surrounded with two ditches,.20 feet asunder, and each of them 12 feet wide. The circumference of the area enclosed by the inner ditch is 100 feet, from which there runs southward a rampart about a quarter of a mile in length, with many curves and angles in it. Near the outer ditch, and not far from the point of the rock above the harbour, is a beautiful square fortification, of about an hundred paces of a side ; and through the muir, near a mile round, are formed many circular fortifications, about forty feet in circumference, with ramparts running southward from them, in the same stile as in the one mentioned before. This square has the appearance of a Praetorium; and the other works have probably been barracks for hutting the troops. From the regularity and. care taken in these constructions, they have every appearance of being Roman.

Further comments

Note that it is not just the “beautiful square fortification” that he is describing as Roman but also the many tumuli in the area and (it seems) the “military station and building” of Castlehaven. Castlehaven (Historic Environment Scotland. "Monument No. 15627". Canmore.) is described as an Iron age fort.

The ‘Camp’ marked on the correct 1880 map is in a nearby field although the above description suggests it is adjacent to Castlehaven. The Iron Age fort is surrounded by rough pasture in 1880 and the ground is unlikely to have been disturbed at that point. One of the fields next to Castlehaven is of roughly the dimensions Grant describes. Ben MacDui 12:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to add another "comment/essay" that I have found about the Portmahomack issue:

• "Further reference is made in 1845: “On the north side of Tarbot Ness, at a creek called port Chaistel, are the ruins of an old castle, overhanging the sea, and cut off from the land by a deep ditch and beside it, on the black moor is the vestige of a Roman Camp. Near the site of the lighthouse is the foundation of a monument, it is said built by the Romans as a landmark.” The New Statistical Account of Scotland: Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, 1845. ([3])........

Of course, it is something written in 1845, but it reminds me of the stone-monuments done by the Romans to "remember" the more distant places reached in their conquests by the legionaries (like in Slovakia in the Roman era: Laugaricio, the most northern remains of the presence of Roman soldiers in central Europe. Or in the Roman inscription in Gobustan National Park, near Qobustan, Baku left by Legio XII Fulminata: the most eastern place reached by legionaries). May be these "foundations" are actually destroyed but were still in existence when archaeologist Osbert Crawford studied it in 1949......(even because I cannot believe that an archaeologist like Crawford can make totally wrong assumptions about the possibility of roman presence, writing that the site was tentatively identified as a Roman camp). Regards, --Bljr (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bljr, it is great to see you take an interest in this subject but this is all original research. Wikipedia is not the place for it unfortunately. It seems to me though you are passionate about the subject. It is a good one to get involved with outside Wikipedia, with local archaeological organisations, academia etc. In time, hopefully, then there will be sufficient references to put it in fact but there are not at present. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Coldupnorth. I don't think it is all "original research" what I comment: "The New Statistical Account of Scotland: Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, 1845" it is not OR.... anyway, allow me to notify that I am writing a book about the extreme areas (like Farasan Islands in the Red Sea & Cape Verde islands in the Atlantic ocean or northern Caledonia, etc...) reached by roman legionaries in the centuries of the roman empire, and I am also getting interesting info in the old latin books of the Vatican library in Rome about Portmahomack old monastery (that was probably built over a roman pagan structure dedicated by Caracalla to his Gods: I will add the translation of these books excerpts in english to wikipedia asap). Regards, --Bljr (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)