The 'Genounian' Part of Britain

Abstract

ATTETEHETO 8e Koci TCOV kv Bprrocwig Bpiydcvrcov TTJV iroAAr)v, 6 T I eneapaivew Koci ofrroi <J\JV OTTAOIS I5 TT|V FEVOUVICXV nolpotv, CrnT)K6ous 'Pwnaicov.A NTONINUS 'deprived the Brigantes in Britain of most of their territory, Z \ because they too (besides the Moors in North Africa) had entered on a 2. \ . war of aggression by invading the Genourian part, (which is inhabited by) subjects of the Romans'. 1 The above statement of Pausanias, the Greek traveller and geographer, gives rise to a problem which from time to time excercises the minds of students of Roman Britain. Most of the solutions offered hitherto have been in themselves unsatisfactory or have raised further historical problems in their train.The crux of the matter is that the name Genounia is not'mentioned by any other writer, Greek or Roman, in connection with the history or geography of Britain. Genounia ought to represent a region or tribal area bordering on, but not in, the known territory of the Brigantes, but it must be admitted that it is not clear whether Pausanias was using the name of the tribe precisely or as a synonym for northern Brittones in general, as Juvenal seems to do in writing of 'Brigantian forts'. 2 The old identification of Genounia with Vinovia (Binchester), which was * My thanks are due to my colleague, Professor Harold Mattingly, and to Dr J. P. Wild of the Department of Archaeology, University of Manchester, for reading the MS and for making several constructive suggestions for improvement of the text, and also to Professor S. S. Frere and the readers of Britannia for encouragement and advice on the presentation. Any errors that remain are my sole responsibility. 1 Pausanias, Desc, Graeciae viii, 43. See also S.H.A. Antoninus 5.4. R. G. Collingwood and J. M. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements (1937), 146-9; S. S. Frere, Britannia (1967), 149-50. Scholars differ in dating this reference to A.D. 140-1 (the advance of the frontier to the Forth-Clyde line by Lollius Urbicus) or to A.D. 154-5, when Antoninus celebrated a victory with coin issues and his governor, Julius Verus, had to rebuild a number of forts in the north of England. On the whole the earlier date seems best to suit the description in Pausanias, see E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (Kendal, 1953), 31-2.

Why did the Romans fail to conquer Scotland?

“…At the beginning of the reign of Hadrian it is stated that 'the Britons could not be kept under Roman control' (HA Hadrian 5.2; cf also Pronto, Letter to Marcus on the Parthian War, 2, recording the killing of many soldiers in Britain under Hadrian). Antoninus Pius commenced his reign with the invasion of southern Scotland (HA Antoninus Pius 5.4), though it is not clear who the enemy were (Pausanius, Description of Greece 8.43.4, presumably referring to this event, states that it was the Brigantes, seemingly a mistake, which has excited much scholarly controversy, eg Hind 1977). The start of the next reign in 161 saw 'war threatening in Britain' (HA, Marcus 8.7), and under Commodus in the early 180s:…”

The Antonine Wall 1960-1980

“…Genunia may perhaps be seen as a corruption of the tribal area of the Novantae, the major tribe of S W Scotland ; 16 but the whole relevance of the passage to events in Britain has now been seriously questioned. 17 Professor A. R. Birley has suggested that, whatever the situation on the frontier itself, the real motivation for the advance should be looked for in Rome, with the desire of Antoninus Pius to emerge quickly as a true imperator in the tradition of his immediate predecessors. 18 Southern Scotland therefore was not reoccupied because it was a difficult, troublesome zone, but because it presented an easy conquest.…”