Fig. 18. Tile Graves in the Infirmary Field, ChesterFig. 18. Tile Graves in the Infirmary Field, Chester
Fig. 18. Tile Graves in the Infirmary Field, ChesterFig. 18. Tile Graves in the Infirmary Field, Chester
(4) In theSitzungsberichte der kgl. preuss. Akademie(1914, p. 635), prof. Kuno Meyer, late of Liverpool, argues that the Celtic name of St. Patrick, commonly spelt Sucat and explained as akin to Celtic words meaning 'brave in war' (stemsu-, 'good'), ought to be really spelt Succet and connected with Gaulish names like Succius and Sucelus. This, he thinks, destroys the last remnant of a reason for Zimmer's idea that Patrick was the same as Palladius.
Berks
(5) Some notes of traces, near Kintbury west of Speen (Spinae), of the Roman road from Silchester to Bath are given by Mr. O. G. S. Crawford in theBerks, Bucks, and Oxon Archaeological Journalfor Oct. 1914 (xx. 96).
Cheshire
Fig. 17. Graves in the Infirmary Field, ChesterFig. 17. Graves in the Infirmary Field, Chester
(6) InAnnals of Archaeology and Anthropology(Liverpool, 1914, vol. vi, pp. 121-67) Prof. Newstead describes and illustrates fully the thirty-five graves found in 1912-3 in the Infirmary Field, Chester, of which I gave a brief account in my Report for 1913 (p. 14). Save for a few first-century remains in one corner, the graveyard seems to be an inhumation cemetery, used during the second half of the second century—rather an early date for such a cemetery. I do not myself feel much doubt that some at least of the tombstones extracted in 1890-2 from the western half of the North City Wall were taken from this area. They belong to the first and second centuries and suggest (as I pointed out when they were found) that the Wall was built about A.D. 200. That, however, is just the date when the cemetery was closed; the seizure of the tombstones for the construction of the Wall would explain why the Infirmary Field has yielded no tombstones from all its graves. By the kindness ofProfessors Bosanquet and Newstead I can add some illustrations of the graves themselves, from blocks used for Prof. Newstead's paper. Fig. 17 shows two of the simpler graves, fig. 18, two built with tiles. Fig. 19 illustrates some curious nails found with the bodies.
Derbyshire
(7) A list of the place-names of Derbyshire with philological notes is commenced by Mr. B. Walker, sometime of Liverpool University, in theProceedings of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Societyfor 1913 (xxxvi. 123-284, Derby, 1914); it is to be completed in a future volume. I venture two suggestions. First, like, many similar treatises on place-names which are now being issued, this work has too limited a scope. It deals mainly with certain names of modern towns and villages; it takes little or no heed of ancient names of houses and fields or of lanes and roads (as Bathamgate, Doctorgate), or of rivers (as Noe), or (lastly) of the place-names of the older England which are preserved only in charters, chronicles, and the like; unless they chance to come among the select list of modern names which the writer chooses to admit, they find no notice. Yet it is the older names of all sorts, irrespective of their survival in prominent fashion to-day, with which historical students and even philologists are most really concerned. Secondly, writers on place-names take too little account of facts outside the phonetic horizon. In the present instalment of Derbyshire, the one Roman item noted is Derby. Here, in the suburb of Little Chester, was a Roman fort or village, and past it flows the river then and now called Derwent or something similar. Yet the etymology of Derby is discussed without any reference to the river name. No doubt Derby is not derived by regular phonetic process from Derwent; its earliest spellings, Deoraby and the like, connect it with either the word for 'wild beast' or the proper name Deor. Still, it is incredible that the Derwent should flow past Derby and the adjacent Darley (formerly Derley) and be unrelated. One may guess with little rashness that the invaders who renamed the site took over the Romano-British name (Deruentio or the like) and reshaped that after analogies of their own speech. Does not a form Deorwenta occur (though Mr. Walker has missed it) to show that the two names interacted? Again, Chesterfield (Cesterfelda, A.D. 955) is glossed as 'the field by the fort'. What fort? There is none, nor does 'Chester' necessarily mean that there was. Etymologizing without reference to facts is wasted work.
Fig. 19. Nails from the Chester Graves. (p. 42)Fig. 19. Nails from the Chester Graves.(p. 42)Fig. 20. The Mersea Grave Mound. (p. 43)Fig. 20. The Mersea Grave Mound.(p. 43)
Fig. 19. Nails from the Chester Graves. (p. 42)Fig. 19. Nails from the Chester Graves.(p. 42)
Fig. 20. The Mersea Grave Mound. (p. 43)Fig. 20. The Mersea Grave Mound.(p. 43)
Fig. 21. Leaden Casket and Glass Sepulchral Vessel from the Mersea Burial-Mound. (p. 43)Fig. 21. Leaden Casket and Glass Sepulchral Vessel from the Mersea Burial-Mound.(p. 43)
Fig. 21. Leaden Casket and Glass Sepulchral Vessel from the Mersea Burial-Mound. (p. 43)Fig. 21. Leaden Casket and Glass Sepulchral Vessel from the Mersea Burial-Mound.(p. 43)
Dorset
(8) In theNumismatic Chroniclefor 1914 (pp. 92-5), Mr. H. Symonds lists 107 'third brass' from a hoard found (it seems) about 1850 near Puncknoll. They consist of 3 Gallienus, 2 Salonina, 55 Postumus, 40 Victorinus, 3 Tetricus, 1 Tetricus junior, 2 Claudius Gothicus, and 1 Garausius. The hoard was, then, of a familiar type; its original size we cannot guess. A brief reference to the same hoard occurs in theProceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club(xxxv, p. li).
(9) The latter periodical (pp. 88, 118) also contains Mr. H. Gray's Fifth Report on the gradual exploration of the Roman amphitheatre and the underlying prehistoric remains at Maumbury Rings, Dorchester—now substantially concluded—and an interesting little note on the New Forest pottery-works by Mr. Sumner (p. xxxii).
Essex
Fig. 22. Restoration of the tile-built grave-chamber of the Mersea MoundFig. 22. Restoration of the tile-built grave-chamber of the Mersea Mound
(10) By the kindness of the Morant Club and the Essex Archaeological Society, I am able to reproduce here three illustrations of the finds in the Mersea Mound, which I mentioned in my Report for 1913 (p. 42). Figs. 20, 22 show a view of the actual tomb; fig. 21 shows the chief contents. The interest of these half-native, half-Roman grave-mounds, which occur in eastern Britain and in the Low Countries opposite, will justify their insertion here. I may also correct an error in my account. No 'Samian stampedVITALIS'was found at Mersea, but objects which have been elsewhere found in association with that stamp.
(11) Two small Essex excavations are recorded in theTransactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, vol. xiii. At Chadwell St. Mary, near Tilbury, Mr. Miller Christy and Mr. F. W. Reader explored an early-looking mound, only to find that it was probably mediaeval (pp. 218-33). At Hockley, also in South Essex, the same archaeologists with Mr. E. B. Francis dug into a similar mound and met with many potsherds of Roman date and a coin of Domitian; no trace of a burial was detected, such as has come to light in other Romano-British mounds at Mersea, Bartlow, and elsewhere (ibid., p. 224). Indeed, it does not seem quite clear that the mound was thrown up in Roman times; it may have been reared later, with earth which contained Romano-British objects.
Gloucester
(12) TheTransactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society(vol. xxxvi) refers to excavations at Sea Mills, on the King's Weston estate, in February 1913; the finds appear not to have been extensive. They also record the transfer of the Roman 'villa' at Witcombe to the care of H.M. Office of Works by the owner, Mr. W. F. Hicks-Beach.
Hants
(13) Mr. Heywood Sumner's pamphletExcavations on Rockbourne Down(London, 1914, p. 43) is a readable, scholarly, and well-illustrated account of a Romano-British farm-site five miles south-west of Salisbury on the edge of Cranborne Chase. Mr. Sumner excavated parts of it in 1911-13; his account appeared so early in 1914 that it found a place in my Report for 1913 (pp. 23-5).
(14) Some Roman roads in Hampshire are treated in thePapers and Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society(vii, part 1). Capt. G. A. Kempthorne writes on the road east and west of Silchester and Mr. Karslake adds a word as to the line outside the west gate of that town, which he puts north of the generally assumed line (p. 25). Mr. O. G. S. Crawford and Mr. J. P. Freeman-Williams deal with very much more uncertain roads in the New Forest—one across Beaulieu Heath, another from Otterbourn to Ringwood (pp. 34-42).
(15) Mr. Karslake also (ibid., p. 43) notes that the outer entrenchmentat Silchester, which is thought to be pre-Roman, does not coincide with the south-eastern front of the Roman town-walls, as we have all supposed, but runs as much as 300 yards outside them.
Herefordshire
Seep. 62, below.
Herts
(16) Mr. Urban A. Smith, the Herts County Surveyor, submitted in 1912 to his County Council a Report on the Roman roads of the county, which is now printed in theTransactions of the East Herts Archaeological Society(v. 117-31). It deals mainly with the surviving traces of these roads and the question of preserving them in public use. The roads selected as Roman are by no means all certain or probable Roman roads. The article is furnished with a map, which however omits several names used in the text.
Kent
(17) A few notes on the Roman Pharos at Dover and on some unexplained pits near it, by Lieut. Peck, R.E., are given in theJournal of the British Archaeological Association(xx. 248 foll.).
(18) In theTransactions of the Greenwich Antiquarian Society(vol. i, parts 3, 4) Mr. J. M. Stone and Mr. J. E. de Montmorency write on the line which the Roman road from Dover and Canterbury to London followed near Greenwich. Its course is quite clear as far west as the outskirts of Greenwich; thence it is doubtful all the way to London. In these papers evidence is advanced that a piece of road was closed in the lower part of Greenwich Park in 1434 and it is suggested that this was a bit of the lost Roman line. If so, the road ran straight on from Shooter's Hill, across Greenwich Park and the site of the Hospital School, towards the mouth of Deptford Creek. It is, however, hard to see how it crossed that obstacle, or why it should have run so near the Thames at this point, where the shore must have been very marshy.
Lancashire
(19) In theTransactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society(xxxi. 69-87) Mr. W. Harrison discusses the Roman road which runs from Ribchester to Overborough for twenty-seven lonely miles through the hills of north-east Lancashire. He does not profess to add to our knowledge of the line of the road; he directsattention rather to the reasons for the course which the road pursues, its diversions from the straight line, and its gradients. He notes also, as others have noted, the absence of any intermediate fort half-way along the twenty-seven miles. Probably there was such a fort; but it must have stood in the wildest part of the road, almost in the heart of the Forest of Bowland and perhaps somewhere in Croasdale, and it has never been detected. The greater ease of the lowland route from Ribchester by Lancaster to Overborough may have led to the early abandonment of the shorter mountain track and of any post which guarded its central portion. That, at any rate, is the suggestion which I would offer to Lancashire antiquaries as a working hypothesis.
(20) In the same journal Mr. J. W. Jackson lists some animal remains found among the Roman remains of Manchester (pp. 113-18).
Lincolnshire
(21) Samian fragments, mostly of the second century but including shape '29', found in making new streets and sewers in Lincoln, are noted inLincolnshire Notes and Queries, xiii. 1-4.
(22) In south Lincolnshire, between Ulceby and Dexthorpe, chance excavation has revealed tiles, potsherds, iron nails, and a few late coins (Victorinus-Constantine junior, nob. caes.) on a site which has previously yielded Roman scraps (ibid., p. 34). The tiles point to some sort of farm or other dwelling.
London
(23) In his new volumeLondon(London, 1914) Sir L. Gomme continues his efforts to prove that English London can trace direct and uninterrupted descent from Roman Londinium. Though, he says (p. 9), 'Roman civilization certainly ceased in Britain with the Anglo-Saxon conquest, ... amidst the wreckage London was able to continue its use of the Roman city constitution in its new position as an English city'. I can only record my conviction that not all his generous enthusiasm provides proof that Roman London survived the coming of the English. The root-error in his arguments is perhaps a failure to realize the Roman side of the argument. He says, for instance, that, though not a 'colonia', Londinium had the rank of 'municipium civium Romanorum'. There is not the least reason to think that it was a 'municipium'. So again, his references to a 'botontinus' on Hampstead Heath (p. 86), to the 'jurisdictionalterminus' of Roman London at Mile End (p. 95), to its 'pomerium' (p. 98), its right of forming commercial alliances with other cities, which 'lasted into the Middle Ages and is a direct survival of the system adopted in Roman towns' (p. 101), its position as a 'city-state' and its relation to the choice of Emperors (pp. 105, 130)—all this has nothing to do with the real Londinium; these things did not exist in the Roman town. When Sir Laurence goes on to assert that 'the ritual of St. Paul's down to the seventeenth century preserved the actual rites of the worship of Diana', he again falls short of proof. What part of the ritual and what rites of Diana?10
(24) In the December number of theJournal of the British Archaeological Association(xx. 307) Mr. F. Lambert, of the Guildhall Museum, prints pertinent criticisms of Sir L. Gomme's volume, much in the direction of my preceding paragraphs. He also makes useful observations on Roman London. In particular, he attacks the difficult problem of the date when its town-walls were built. Here he agrees with those who ascribe them to the second century, and for two main reasons. First, he thinks that the occurrence of early Roman potsherds at certain points near the walls proves the town to have grown to its full extent by about A.D. 100. Secondly, he points to the foundations of the Roman gate at Newgate; as they are shallower than those of the adjacent town-walls, he dates the gate after the walls and thus obtains (as he hopes) an early date for the walls. Both points were worth raising, but I doubt if either proves Mr. Lambert's case. For (a) the potsherds come mostly from groups of rubbish-pits—such as those which Mr. Lambert himself has lately done good work in helping to explore—and rubbish-pits, especially in groups, lie rather outside the inhabited areas of towns. Those of London itself suggest to me that the place hadnotreached its full area by A.D. 100 (see above,p. 23). (b) The Newgate foundations are harder to unravel. As a rule, Roman town-gates had large super-structures and needed stronger foundations than the town-walls. At Newgate, where the superstructure must have been comparatively slender, the published plans show that under a part, at least, of the gate-towers the undisturbed subsoil rises higher than beneath the adjacent town-walls. According to the elevation published by Dr. Norman and Mr. F. W. Reader inArchaeologialxiii, plate lvii, the wall-builders at this point stopped their deep foundation trenchesfor the full width of the gateway (98 feet), or at least dug them shallower there. No motive for such action could be conceived except the wish to leave a passage for a gate. There would seem, therefore, to have been an entrance into Roman London at Newgate as early as the building of the walls, and there may have been such an entrance even before the erection of these walls. Dr. Norman has, however, warned me that plate lvii goes much beyond the actual evidence (see plate lvi); practically, we do not know enough to form conjectures of any value on this point.
(25) In theJournal of the Royal Institute of British Architectsfor April 11, 1914 (xxi. 333), Mr. W. R. Davidge prints a lecture on the Development of London which deals mostly with present and future London but also contains a new theory as to the Roman town. Hitherto, most writers have agreed that, while Londinium may have been laid out on a regular town-plan, no discoverable trace of such plan survived, nor could any existing street be said to run to any serious extent on Roman lines. Mr. Davidge devises a rectangular plan of oblong blocks, and finds vestiges of Roman streets in the present Cheapside, Cannon Street, Gracechurch Street, and Birchin Lane. In a later number of the same journal (Aug. 29, p. 52) I have given some reasons for not accepting this view. First, Mr. Davidge's list of four survivals would be too brief to prove much if the survivals were proved. Secondly, Roman structural remains seem to have been found under all the streets in question, and it is, therefore, plain that they do not run on the lines of Roman thoroughfares. Thirdly, his suggested plan brings none of his conjectured Roman streets (except one) to any of the various known gates of Londinium; it requires us to assume a number of other gates for which there is neither probability nor proof.
(26) In the Post Office Magazine,St. Martin's-le-Grand(Jan. and July 1914), Mr. Thos. Wilson, then Clerk of the Works, gives details, with illustrations, of the Roman rubbish-pits lately excavated at the General Post Office (see above,p. 23).
Norfolk
(27) In the earlier pages (1-45) of hisRoman Camp at Burgh Castle(London, 1913) Mr. L. H. Dahl deals with the Roman fort at Burgh Castle (Gariannonum), near Yarmouth, which formed part of the fourth-centuryLitus Saxonicum. His account, which is not very technical, seems based on previous writers, Ives, Harrod, Fox. I notea list of thirty coins which, save for an uncertain specimen of Domitian and one of Marcus, belong entirely to the late third and the fourth centuries, and end with two silver of Honorius (Virtus Romanorum, Cohen 59). He detects a Roman road running east from Burgh Castle towards Gorleston, preserved (he thinks) in an old road sometimes called the Jews' Way; this, however, seems unlikely. He also maintains the view, which others have held, that the fort had no defences towards the water. This again seems unlikely. Burgh Castle, like Richborough, Stutfall, and other forts of theLitus, may well have had different arrangements on its water-front from the walls on its other three faces. But it cannot have lacked defences, and excavations prove, here as elsewhere, that walls did actually exist on this side.
Northumberland: Corbridge
(28) A paper by the present writer and Prof. P. Gardner, entitled 'Roman silver in Northumberland' (Journal of Roman Studies, iv. 1-12), discusses the relics of what was seemingly a hoard—or perhaps a service—of Roman silver plate, lost in the Tyne or on its banks near Corbridge in the fourth century. Of five pieces, four were picked up between 1731 and 1736, about 100-150 yards below the present bridge at Corbridge; a fifth was found in 1760 floating in the stream four miles lower down. One was a silver 'basin', of which no more is recorded. Another was a small two-handled cup with figures of men and beasts round it. A third was a round flat-bottomed bowl, with a decorated rim bearing the Chi-Rho amidst its other ornament. A fourth was a small ovoid cup, 4 inches high, with the inscriptionDesideri vivas. Last, not least, is the Corbridge Lanx, the only surviving piece of the five, and probably the finest piece of Roman engraved silver found in these islands, an oblong dish measuring 15 × 19 inches, weighing 148 ounces, and ornamented with figures of deities from classical mythology. That all five pieces belonged together can hardly be doubted, though it cannot be proved outright. That they all belong to the later Roman period, and probably to the fourth century, seems highly probable. Whether they were buried in the river-bank to conceal them from raiders or were lost from a boat or otherwise, is not now discoverable. But the occurrence of such silver close to the Roman Wall is in itself notable. It is to be attributed rather to a Roman officer residing in or passing through Corbridge than to either a Romanized Briton or a Pictish looter.
Apart from its findspot, the Lanx is important for its excellentart and for the place which it seems to hold in the history of later Greek art. It is, of course, not Romano-British work; it is purely Greek in all its details and no doubt of Greek workmanship. The deities figured on it have long been a puzzle. They are evidently classical deities; three of them, indeed, are Apollo, Artemis, and Athena. But the identity of the other two figures and the meaning of the whole scene have been much disputed. Roger Gale, the first to attempt its unravelment, suggested in 1735 that it was 'just an assemblage of deities', and at one time I inclined to this view—that we had here merely (let us say) a tea-party at Apollo's; Dr. Drexel, too, wrote to me lately to express the same idea. But I must confess that nearly all the best archaeologists demand a definite mythological identification, and my colleague, Prof. Gardner, suggests a new view—that the scene is the so-called Judgement of Paris. This mythological incident was often depicted in ancient art, and—strange as it may sound—in the later versions Paris was not seldom omitted, Apollo was made arbiter, and the scene was removed from Mount Ida to Delphi.11The two hitherto disputable figures are, Prof. Gardner thinks, Hera (seated) and Aphrodite (standing, with a long sceptre). He ascribes the work to the third or early part of the fourth century, and believes that it was made in the Eastern Empire; from the prominence granted to Artemis, he conjectures that Ephesus may have been its origin. But he adds that he would not be sure that the artist of the piece, while copying a Judgement of Paris, was consciously aware of the meaning of the original before him. His views will be published in fuller detail in theJournal of Hellenic Studies.
I am glad, further, to have been able to illustrate this paper by what I believe to be a better illustration of the Lanx than has been published before, and also to set out in more accurate fashion the curious legal history of the object after it was found.
(29) In the newHistory of Northumberland, issued by the Northumberland County History Committee in vol. x (edited by Mr. H. H. Craster, Newcastle, 1914, pp. 455-522) I have given a long account of the known Roman remains in Corbridge parish. These are the settlement of Corstopitum, a small stretch of Roman road and another of the Roman Wall, and the fort of Halton (Hunnum) on the Wall. The account is necessarily historical rather than archaeological; it tries to sum up the finds and estimate their historical bearing, and it also catalogues all the inscribed and sculptured stones found at Corbridge and Halton, with the 'literature' relating tothem. Mr. Knowles contributes a plan of the Corbridge excavations to the end of 1912.
(30) The Corbridge excavations of 1913 are described by Mr. R. H. Forster, who was in personal charge of the work, Mr. W. H. Knowles, and myself, inArchaeologia Aeliana(third series, 1914, xi. 279-310); see also a short account by myself in theProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London(xxvi. 185-9). The discoveries were comparatively few; they comprised some ill-preserved and mostly insignificant buildings on the north side of the site, some ditches, and a stretch of the road leading to the north (Dere Street). Among small objects were an interesting but imperfect altar to 'Panthea ...', a bronze 'balsamarium' showing a puzzling variety of barbarian's head, and another piece of the Corbridge greyappliquéware. A short account of the excavations of 1914 (see above,p. 9) is contained in theJournal of the British Archaeological Association(xx. 343).
(31) TheProceedings of the Berwick Naturalists' Club(vol. xxxii, part 2) print an agreeable paper by Mr. James Curle, describing Dere Street and some Roman posts on it between Tyne and Tweed.
Notts.
Fig. 23. Roman Site near East Bridgeford, Notts. (No. 32)Fig. 23. Roman Site near East Bridgeford, Notts.(No. 32)
Fig. 24. Decoration of Enamelled Seal-box.Fig. 24. Decoration of Enamelled Seal-box.
(32) About ten miles east from Nottingham, and a mile south of the village of East Bridgeford, the Fosse-way crosses a Roman site which has usually been identified with the Margidunum of theAntonine Itinerary. Lately excavation has been attempted, and theAntiquaryof December 1914 contains an interesting account of the results attained up to the end of 1913, with some illustrations.12A very broad earthwork and ditch surround an area of 7 acres, rhomboidal in shape (fig. 23). In this area the excavators, Drs. Felix Oswald and T. D. Pryce, have turned up floor-tesserae, roof-slates, flue-tiles, window-glass, painted wall-plaster, potsherds of the first and later centuries, including a black bowl with a well-modelled figure of Mercury in relief, coins ranging down to the end of the fourth century (Eugenius), and other small objects of interest, such as the small seal-box with Late-Celtic enamel, shown in fig. 24. No foundationsin situhave yet come to light, but that is doubtless to follow; only a tiny part of the whole area has, as yet, been touched. Margidunum may have begun as a fort coeval with the Fosse-way, which (if I am right) dates from the earliest years of the Roman Conquest. Whether any of the first-century potsherds as yet found there can be assigned to these years (say A.D. 45-75) is not clear. But the excavations plainly deserve to be continued.
Shropshire
(33) Mr. Bushe-Fox's second Report on his excavations at Wroxeter (Reports of the Research Committee of the London Society of Antiquaries, No. II, Oxford, 1914) deserves all the praise accorded to his first Report. I can only repeat what I said of that; it is an excellent description, full and careful, minute in its account of the smaller finds, lavishly illustrated, admirably printed, and sold for half a crown. The finds which it enumerates in detail I summarized in my Report for 1913, pp. 19-20—the temple with its interesting Italian plan, the fragments of sculpture which seem to belong to it, the crowd of small objects, the masses of Samian (indefatigably recorded), the 528 coins; all combine to make up an admirable pamphlet.
I will venture a suggestion on the temple. This, as I pointed out last year, is on the Italian, not on the Celto-Roman plan. But one item is not quite clear in it. All ordinary classical temples stood onpodiaor platforms which raised them above the surrounding surface at least to some small extent. Mr. Bushe-Fox speaks of apodiumto the Wroxeter temple. But it appears that he does not mean apodium, as generally understood. The masonry which he denotes by that term was, in his opinion, buried underground and merely foundation.
Fig. 27. The Podium, as seen from the northFig. 27. The Podium, as seen from the north(The measuring staff to the right stands in thecella, the floor of which is slightly higher than that of the portico to the left of it)Fig. 28. East wall of Podium, coursed Masonry with Clay and Rubble FoundationsFig. 28. East wall of Podium, coursed Masonry with Clay and Rubble FoundationsTHE WROXETER TEMPLE. (p. 53)
Fig. 27. The Podium, as seen from the northFig. 27. The Podium, as seen from the north(The measuring staff to the right stands in thecella, the floor of which is slightly higher than that of the portico to the left of it)
Fig. 28. East wall of Podium, coursed Masonry with Clay and Rubble FoundationsFig. 28. East wall of Podium, coursed Masonry with Clay and Rubble Foundations
THE WROXETER TEMPLE. (p. 53)
The floor of the portico of the temple (he says) was about level with the floor of the court which surrounded the temple; the floor of thecella, though higher, was but a trifle higher (see figs. 26, 27). This view needs more reflection than he has given it in his rather brief account. No doubt a temple in a Celtic land might have been built on a classical plan, though without a classicalpodium. But it is not what one would most expect. Nor do I feel sure that it was actually done at Wroxeter in this case. The walls which Mr. Bushe-Fox explains as the foundations of the temple are quite needlessly good masonry for foundations never meant to be seen; this will be plain from figs. 27, 28, which I reproduce by permission from his Report. Further, as fig. 26 (from the same source) shows, there was outside the base of this masonry a level cobbled surface, for which no structural reason is to be found. This, one may guess, was a pavement at the original ground-level when the temple was first erected; from this, steps presumably led up to the floor of the portico andcella. The'podium', then, was at first a realpodium. Later, the ground-level rose, and the walls of thepodiumwere buried.
Fig. 25. Temple at WroxeterFig. 25. Temple at Wroxeter
Fig. 26. Foundations of Wroxeter TempleFig. 26. Foundations of Wroxeter Temple
Somerset
(34) In his handsome volume,Wookey Hole, its caves and cave-dwellers(London, 1914), Mr. H. E. Balch collects for general antiquarian readers the results of his long exploration of this Mendip cave; some of these results were noted in my Report for 1913, p. 47. The cave, as a whole, contained—besides copious prehistoric remains—two well-defined Roman layers, with many potsherds, including a little Samian and one Samian stamp given asPIIR PIIT OFII(apparently a new variety of Perpetuus), broken glass, a few fibulae and other bronze and iron objects, and 106 coins. These coins are:—1 Republican (124-103 B.C., Marcia), 1 Vespasian, 1 Titus, 1 Trajan, 2 Hadrian, 2 Pius; then, 3 Gallienus, 1 Salonina, 1 Carausius, 2 Chlorus, 1 Theodora, 6 Constantinopolis, 1 Crispus, 4 Constantine II, 4 Magnentius, 4 Constantius II, with 20 Valentinian I, 14 Valens, 21 Gratian, 7 Valentinian II, and 6 illegible. Just two-thirds of the coins are later than A.D. 364; they may be set beside the late hoard found at Wookey Hole in 1852, which Mr. Balch might well have mentioned. Plainly, the later Roman layer in the cave belongs to the end of the fourth century. The date of the other layer is harder to fix, since we are not told how the coins and potsherds were distributed between the layers. Probably the cave was long inhabited casually but in the troubled time of the latest Empire became a place of refuge or otherwise attracted more numerous occupants. That, if true, is a more interesting result that Mr. Balch realizes. For in general the cave-life of Roman Britain belonged to the first two or three centuries of our era; it is only rarely, and mostly in the west country, that the caves contain among their Roman relics objects of the late fourth century (seeVictoria Hist. Derbyshire, i. 233-42). I must add that Mr. Balch repeats on pp. 57-8 the error about the significance of the Republican coin which was noted in my Report for 1915.
(35) TheProceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Societyfor 1913 (vol. lix, Taunton, 1914) record small Roman finds at Bratton and Barrington (part i, pp. 24, 65, 76, and part ii, p. 79), and describe in detail Mr. Gray's trial excavations at Cadbury Castle. Cadbury, it seems, was occupied mainly in the Celtic period, before the Roman conquest.
(36) A little light is thrown on two Somerset 'villas' inNotes andQueries for Somerset and Dorset(xiv. 1914). (a) Skinner in 1818 excavated a 'villa' near Camerton which he recorded in his manuscripts. (British Mus. Add. 33659, &c.) and which I described in print in theVictoria History of Somerset(i. 315). His account did not, however, enable one to fix the precise site; he said only that it stood south of a certain Ridgeway and next to a field called Chessils. Mr. E. J. Holmroyd has now, with the aid of tithe maps, discovered a field called Chessils in the north of Midsomer Norton parish, about a mile east of Paulton village, at the point where a lane called in the Ordnance Survey 'Coldharbour Lane', which runs north and south, cuts a lane running east and west from Camerton to Paulton; this latter lane keeps to high ground and must be Skinner's Ridgeway. In Chessils and in adjoining fields called Cornwell, just 525 feet above sea-level, he has, further, actually found Roman potsherds, tiles, and rough tesserae. This, as he says (Notes and Queries, xiv. 5, and in a letter to me) will be the site of Skinner's 'villa.' (b) In the same publication (p. 122) I have pointed out that the Parish Award (1798) of Chedzoy, near Bridgwater, contains a field-name Chesters. This, as the Rector of Chedzoy attests, is still in use there, as the name of an orchard on the Manor Farm, just west of Chedzoy village. According to older statements, a hypocaust was long ago found in 'Slapeland', and Slapeland too lies west of Chedzoy village (seeVict. Hist. Somerset, i. 359). Two bits of slender evidence seem thus to confirm each other, although no actual Roman remains have been noted at Chedzoy lately.
(37) In theProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London(xxvi. 137-44) Mr. A. Bulleid describes, with illustrations, some excavations which he lately made in the marshes north of the Polden Hills, near Cossington and Chilton. Here are curious mounds which have often been taken for some kind of potteries, and are so explained by Mr. Bulleid; many of these mounds were excavated about a hundred years ago, and Mr. Bulleid has now dug into others. His results are not very conclusive, but they seem to imply that the mounds, whatever they were, were not used for pottery making, since among many relics of various sorts no 'wasters' have been found. See further, for an account of the finds in this region,Victoria Hist. of Somerset, i. 351-3.
Surrey
(38) TheSurrey Archaelogical Collections(vol. xxvi) note various small Roman finds—Roman bricks in the walls of Fetcham Church, possibly Roman plaster at Stoke D'Abernon Church (p. 123), somethirty coins and Roman urns and glass from Ewell (pp. 135, 148), and an urn from Camberwell (p. 149). The same journal (vol. xxvii, p. 155) notes the discovery, not hitherto recorded, of over 100 coins of A.D. 296-312 in an urn dug up in 1904 at Normandy Manor Nurseries, near Guildford.
(39) ASchedule of Antiquities in the County of Surrey, by Mr. P. M. Johnston (Guildford, 1913), seems intended for students of mediaeval and modern antiquities, and says little about Roman remains; it has no index and cites no authorities.
Sussex
(40) A Roman well has been examined near Ham Farm, between Hassocks railway station and Hurstpierpoint. It was 38 feet deep, the upper part round and lined with local blue clay, the lower part square and lined with stout oak planks. The only object recorded from it is a 'first century vase', taken out at half-way down, which suggests that the well collapsed at an early date. Another well, flint-lined, was noted near but not explored; Roman potsherds were picked up not far off (Sussex Archaeological Collections, lvi. 197). The remains probably belong to a farm detected close by in 1857 (S. A. C.xiv. 178). Traces of Roman civilized life are comparatively common in this neighbourhood.
(41) Mr. R. G. Roberts' volume,The Place-names of Sussex(Cambridge University Press, 1914), much resembles the Derbyshire monograph noted above (No. 7). Its selection of place-names is about as limited and its neglect of all but purely phonetic considerations is as marked. Names such as Cold Waltham (beside a Roman road), Adur, Lavant, Arun, Chanctonbury, Mount Caburn, do not find a place in it. From a full criticism by Dr. H. Bradley in theEnglish Historical Review(xxx. 161-6) one would infer that its philology, too, is by no means satisfactory.
Westmorland
(42) TheTransactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society(xiv. 433-65) contain the first Report, by Mr. R. G. Collingwood, of the excavation of the Roman fort at Borrans Ring, near Ambleside, covering the period from August 1913 to April 1914. It is an excellent piece of description and well illustrated; due attention is given to the small objects; the whole is scholarly and satisfactory. It is perhaps as well to addthat one or two details first found in April 1914 were further explored in the following August, and some corrections were obtained which will be published in the second Report. For the rest see above,p. 10.
Wilts.
(43) I have contributed to theProceedings of the Bath and District Branch of the Somersetshire Archaeological Society and Natural Historyfor 1914 (p. 50) a note on the relief of Diana found at Nettleton Scrub, to much the same effect as the paragraph on this sculpture in my Report for 1913 (p. 49).
(44) TheProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London(xxvi. 209) contain a note by Mr. E. H. Binney on Roman remains on the known Roman site, Nythe Farm, about three miles east of Swindon.
Worcestershire
(45) The sameProceedings(xxvi. 206) contain an account by Dr. G. B. Grundy of two sections which he dug lately across the line of Rycknield Street on the high ground south-east of Broadway, thereby helping to fix the road at this point. A sketch-map is added.
Yorkshire
(46) In theBradford Antiquaryfor October 1914 (iv. 117-34) Dr. F. Villy continues his inquiries into a supposed Roman road running past Harden, a little north-west of Bradford. Dr. Villy actually excavates for his roads, in very praiseworthy fashion. But I do not feel sure that he has actually proved a Roman road on the line which he has here examined; he has found interesting and indubitable traces of an old road, but not decisive evidence of its date. The same volume includes a note of eight Roman coins of the 'Thirty Tyrants', from Yew Bank, Utley.
Wales
(47)Archaeologia Cambrensisfor 1914 (series vi, vol. xiv) contains useful papers on Roman remains. Mr. H. G. Evelyn White describes in detail his excavations carried out at Castell Collen in 1913—see my Report for that year, pp. 1-58. One must regret that they have not been continued in 1914. Mr. F. N. Pryce describes his work atCae Gaer, near Llangurig (pp. 205-20), also noted in that Report. The Rev. J. Fisher quotes place-names possibly indicative of a Roman road near St. Asaph, and quotes a suggestion by Mr. Egerton Phillimore that the township name Wigfair, once Wicware, stands for Gwig-wair, and that the second half of this represents the name Varis which the Antonine Itinerary places on the Roman road from Chester to Carnarvon at a point which cannot be far from St. Asaph and the Clwydd river (see myMilitary Aspects of Roman Wales, pp. 26-8, and Owen's forthcomingPembrokeshire, ii. 524). Lastly, Mr. J. Ward reports on further finds of the fort wall at Cardiff Castle (pp. 407-10): see above,p. 21.
(48) The excavation of the Roman fort at Gellygaer, thirteen miles north of Cardiff, was brought in 1913 to a point at which (as I learn) it is considered to be for the present finished. I referred to it in my Report for 1913; Mr. John Ward's full description of the results obtained in 1913 is now issued in theTransactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society(vol. xlvi). The principal finds were a supposed 'drill-ground' on the north-east of the fort, a bit of another inscription of Trajan, a kiln in the churchyard, and a largish earthwork on the north-west of the fort. This last is a regular oblong of not quite five acres internal area, fortified by an earthen mound and a ditch; trenching across the interior showed no trace of buildings or indeed of any occupation, but the search was not carried very far. Several explanations have been offered of it—that it was a temporary affair, thrown up while the actual fort was abuilding; that it was intended for troops marching past and needing to camp for a night at the spot; that it was an earlier fort, begun when the first invasion of the Silures was made, about A.D. 50-2, but never finished. This third view is Mr. Ward's own. Without more excavation, it is rash to pronounce positively, and perhaps even a minute search might be fruitless. Analogies somewhat favour the first theory, but there will always be room for difference of opinion in explaining these excrescences (so to speak) of permanent forts, which are slight in themselves and slightly explored.
As the exploration of this site appears to be closed for the present, and indeed is nearly complete, it may be convenient to give a conspectus of the whole in a small plan (fig. 29).
(49) The fourth volume issued by the Welsh Monuments Commission (Inventory of Ancient Monuments in the County of Denbigh, H.M. Stationery Office, 1914) enumerates the few Roman remains of Denbighshire. The one important item is the group of tile and pottery kilns lately excavated by Mr. A. Acton at Holt, eight miles