Has there ever been Roman artifacts found in Ireland ?

O'Leprosy

Was there some Roman delph and coins or something found in Howth or somewhere outside Dublin a few years ago ?

GuanYin

yes, coins have been found and other evidence that trading took place between Irish sailors/ports and romans.

O'Leprosy

psi wrote:

yes, coins have been found and other evidence that trading took place between Irish sailors/ports and romans.

Do you know where the artefacts found just around Dublin or other parts of the country ?

Owen

A very quick google for "roman artifacts in ireland" returns quite a few hits. This being one, and it documents the presence of a Roman-esque fort in Ireland :

http://www.unrv.com/provinces/hibernia.php

O'Leprosy

ned78 wrote:

A very quick google for "roman artifacts in ireland" returns quite a few hits. This being one, and it documents the presence of a Roman-esque fort in Ireland :

http://www.unrv.com/provinces/hibernia.php

Great Ned, very informative.

Johnmb

O'Leprosy wrote:

Great Ned, very informative.

It's incorrect though. There is no evidence of any kind of Roman fort at Drumanagh. In fact what evidence there is would go against there being any fort there (i.e. of all the finds in the collection that includes what was found at Drumanagh, none were from the Roman military).

Mr. Presentable

A few coin hoards have been found in Ireland, mostly along the North coast. An interesting fact is that almost all Roman coins found on the island are gold and silver, and mixed with other artifacts, suggesting they were kept for their metal value rather than used in trade.

mdebets

There are a few Roman artefacts been found at Tara and Newgrange.
There is also a Roman cremation burial in a glass urn (i can't remember where, have to look this up).

Dr Strange

Roman burials in Bray, Co. Wicklow:

the Article wrote:

... The Burials
The Roman burial at Stoneyford, approximately 14 miles distant from the site, provides evidence for contact with the Roman world where cremation was the established funerary custom practiced until the reign of Hadrian (117 -138 AD). Discovered c.1852 in a pit protected by stones, the cremation was contained in a glass urn accompanied by a glass cosmetic holder (lachrymatory) and a bronze disc mirror, all datable to the first/second century AD and is considered typical of a Roman middle-class burial from that period. (Bourke 1989 p.56).

The rite of inhumation, initially crouched or flexed, appears to have been introduced to Ireland in the first century AD from Britain where it was the native burial tradition immediately before and after the Roman conquest. In the second century AD the Romans adopted the rite of inhumation and as a result of the ritual attached to death, the body remained in an extended position. Positive dating evidence for the rite of extended inhumations is provided by a group of unprotected extended inhumations (heads west) discovered on Bray seafront in Co. Wicklow in 1835. These burials were laid side by side in unprotected dug graves with a stone at head and foot and coins of Hadrian and Trajan (97-117 AD) were accompanying the individuals presumably to pay the ferryman for the dead to cross on the Stygian ferry. The lack of grave goods with extended inhumations in Ireland would tend to suggest that the majority date from the fourth and subsequent centuries (O'Brien 1990). ...

Found here:

http://www.kilkennyarchaeologicalsociety.ie/archaeologyreport2a.htm


Best,
Preusse

Traianus

I have a book at home which is about celtic history. It claims the Dunaragh site was closed down by the government after researchers determined it to be a Roman fortress. I'll get the name later and post.

Nevyn

The fort at duncannon in wexford was a roman fort, but the chances were that is was mostly used as a tradepost.

Mrs. MacGyver

Lambay Island had roman artefacts as far as i remember from lectures.

WindSock

The Museum on Kildare st has a coin that was most likely taken back here as a souvenir by an Irish person serving in the Roman army, according to the Lady that told me so.

Mr. Presentable

Roman Ireland by Vittorio Di Martino

This makes a good argument that the Romans did in fact invade Ireland. An interesting observation is that Cashel was founded by Romans and the name is derived from the Latin "castra" meaning fortress.

fontanalis

Thaedydal wrote: »

The fort at duncannon in wexford was a roman fort, but the chances were that is was mostly used as a tradepost.

Has there been a record of any Belgae settlements in Wexford?
Aslo is it true that some Irish king almost convinced the Romans to invade as he was invloved in some dispute and wanted their backing in exchange for info to make invading easier.

Manach

Thanks, that interesting.
Inviting a foriegn power to intervene in a domestic dispute, at least that would never have happened again in Irish History <cough> Strongbow

fontanalis

Just checked the book I read it in, the Roman General Agricola (think he was in charge of Britain) was the one who almost invaded. The Irish King isn't named, just mentioned as a minor king.

Judgement Day

nipplenuts wrote: »

Roman Ireland by Vittorio Di Martino

This makes a good argument that the Romans did in fact invade Ireland. An interesting observation is that Cashel was founded by Romans and the name is derived from the Latin "castra" meaning fortress.

I haven't read the book but why on earth would the Romans have established a fortress miles from the coast at Cashel? And the name Cashel, as far as I know, comes from the Irish: Caiseal, meaning stone fort.

Again, as far as I know there have been mighty few finds of anything even slightly connected with the Romans - a handful of burial coins and that's about it. What are we at here? I've heard of revisionism but come on....:D

Lumi

Judgement Day wrote: »

Again, as far as I know there have been mighty few finds of anything even slightly connected with the Romans - a handful of burial coins and that's about it. What are we at here? I've heard of revisionism but come on....:D

Actually, the hoard of Roman silver from Ballinrees, Co. Derry contained 9kgs of silver including 3000 + coins! There is another significant hoard known from Balline, Co. Limerick. Archaeology Ireland has published a number of interesting articles on Roman objects found in Ireland over the years and there are also several academic papers on the subject. If anyone's interested I would be happy to put together a bibliography - just PM me

Judgement Day

Fionagus - just had a look at some info on the Derry coin find and I don't think it would indicate that Ireland was an outpost of the Roman Empire. The Limerick one is even more uninteresting.

Lumi

Judgement Day wrote: »

Fionagus - just had a look at some info on the Derry coin find and I don't think it would indicate that Ireland was an outpost of the Roman Empire. The Limerick one is even more uninteresting.

Just two examples to show that there's more than 'a handful of coins'

fontanalis

Couldn't the coins have got there through trading or raids by the Irish (like the one that captured St Patrick)?

Lumi

fontanalis wrote: »

Couldn't the coins have got there through trading or raids by the Irish (like the one that captured St Patrick)?

The general consensus nowadays is that the hoards from Ballinrees and Balline represent official donatives or payments for service in the Roman army. Other coins were deposited
as votive offerings i.e. at Newgrange. As you suggest, others may have made their way here via trade or from raids.

There is a reasonable amount of Roman material found in Ireland which is unsurprising seeing as the Roman Empire was virtually on our doorstep for almost 500 years! Very little has been written about Roman finds from Ireland unfortunately and the last catalogue of the material was produced in the 70's. There's no firm archaeological evidence for an invasion and it is most likely that the objects made their way here through the usual routes of trade, exchange and diplomacy.

mathepac

fontanalis wrote: »

Just checked the book I read it in, the Roman General Agricola (think he was in charge of Britain) was the one who almost invaded. ...

That's the guy!

He built up the huge garrison-town / fort at Chester (in Latin?) and travelled to Holyhead, looked out across the Irish sea and said "feck it lads, enough is enough, let sleeping dogs lie". Chester was reputed to be the main staging post for men and equipment for the invasion of Hibernia but according to his biographer Cornelius Tacitus, it never took place. We all know how reliable a witness good auld Con was.

There is lots of evidence of trade, raids, hostage-taking, slavery, mercenary activity, poor quality Dunne's stores bags and all kinds of rí rá agus rúla búla taking place that could account for a few stray sestertii scattered around the country, but no evidence of an invasion by the Romans (if anyone was going to come over it'd simply have to be someone called Farmer!)

That Italian writer above needs to check out the origins of Indo-European (like Gaeilge) languages as distinct from Romance languages. While Christianity introduced some Romance and Greek terms and idioms to the Irish and their native tongue, the core language has nothing to do with Latin. In fact let me correct that; the principal language of the Roman Empire was Greek with Latin reserved for high-ranking Romans and the diplomatic corps. Placenames, like Cashel for example, often-times predate Christianity.

Mr. Presentable

Judgement Day wrote: »

I haven't read the book but why on earth would the Romans have established a fortress miles from the coast at Cashel? And the name Cashel, as far as I know, comes from the Irish: Caiseal, meaning stone fort.

Again, as far as I know there have been mighty few finds of anything even slightly connected with the Romans - a handful of burial coins and that's about it. What are we at here? I've heard of revisionism but come on....:D

Which in turn is from the Latin "castra", meaning fort.

A source which goes into detail of an invasion and explains the significance of Cashel, though it be inland.

With respect of "a few coins" there have been coins, pottery, Samian, amphora shards found in places such as Cashel, Kilkenny and even Tara and Newgrange. Ireland is pretty much virgin territory archaeology-wise. Much of what we know of ancient history is myth and unsubstantiable, and sadly for us, much of what we have recovered has been illegally dug up and decontextualised, rendering it worth less historically.

MarchDub

Irish archeologists have been excavating many of the ancient sites over the past 30 or 40 years - and also using geophysical surveying equipment. Scholarship on ancient Ireland does not rely on mythology. That itself is a myth. The Celtic 'invasion' myth, for example, has long been discredited by the archeological evidence.


Professor of Archeology Barry Raftery has published on the Drumanagh peninsula, north Dublin - across from Lambay Island. This is where many Roman artifacts were found. The evidence suggests to him that there was trading with the Roman world but not an invasion, or conquest. Aerial photography revealed the outlines of circular Irish style homes - no Roman style found.

Here are some of Raftery's comments/review of the book, Roman Ireland by Vittorio Di Martino that contained much of the 'fantasy' [Raftery's words] of the Romans and Ireland.


Quote:
His basic premise is quite untrue. Today no reputable scholar concerned with a study of the first millennium AD in Ireland questions the extensive romanisation which obviously took place in so many areas of material, intellectual, artistic and religious development. Roman influences were durable, over time influencing, and adapting to, new trends. Nor has the identification of some Roman burials in Ireland ever been in question and nobody doubts that individuals, or small groups, from the Roman world may have set foot on Irish soil.
Di Martino's fascination and enthusiasm for his subject is evident and in this he is to be commended. In the basic material presented, however, there is little that is new and, more seriously, his reasoning, and the manner in which he presents the evidence, are deeply flawed. In addition, the book is littered with inaccuracies, so many in fact that only a handful can be noted in this review.
He deals in his first chapter with the alleged, oft-discussed "invasion" of Ireland by Agricola around 82AD. He adds nothing new to the argument and his inclusion of two well-known burial sites, on Lambay and at "Loughey" in Co Down, is unfortunate for neither is Roman and the latter is almost certainly that of a woman. Inevitably he rehashes, with approval, the Drumanagh controversy and concludes by invoking "burials of soldiers wearing their Roman arms", and an "invasion fort". Here he borders on pure fantasy.

Mr. Presentable

Have you looked at the link in my previous post?

Look, I don't know who has the truth in this, but I think it's worth consideration that there may have been Roman occupation. I would find it more surprising, given the centuries of British occupation by Romans, that there would be no expeditions to here.

Judgement Day

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Have you looked at the link in my previous post?

Look, I don't know who has the truth in this, but I think it's worth consideration that there may have been Roman occupation. I would find it more surprising, given the centuries of British occupation by Romans, that there would be no expeditions to here.

Well I would have thought that the trouble they had securing Scotland and West Wales would have severely discouraged them. A few coins and some alleged Roman burials does not amount to an invasion.

Johnmb

Well, there certainly wasn't a Roman occupation. If there was, then the evidence would be all over the place, just like it is in all the other territories they occupied. That leaves the possibility of a failed invasion. Now if they came, saw, and decided it wasn't worth the hassle at the moment, as Caesar did with Britain at first, then it would very likely have been recorded somewhere (as it currently is, minus the "came" part). The fact that there is no record anywhere of a Roman invasion would only really make sense if they came over and were so badly defeated and humiliated that they expunged the debacle from the records, or if they never came. Now I'd love to think my ancestors defeated the largest empire in the world at the time and did so so completely that they ran away never to come back, but I somehow doubt it was possible (defeat was possible, the Germans proved that, but not on the scale necessary to get them to remove the records!). Certainly, removing all record of the defeat would have been difficult, as there would always have been some opponent of the defeated General who would be only too happy to report the defeat to someone (even if they had to wait until after that General died)!

MarchDub

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Have you looked at the link in my previous post?

The author of your 'source' admits in his Preface that his sources for the period in question are based purely on myth and legend.

brianthebard

off topic posts moved to more suitable thread.