Chapter 4
The chief fault in Gough's copy is the omission of line 6, _Augusto_. This misled Hübner into treating line 7 (ERP) as a blundered reading of that necessary word. In reality, line 7 is the most interesting item in the inscription. It shows that the Emperor Philip was, here at least, styled _perpetuus Augustus_. That is an appellation to which I find no exact parallel in Philip's other inscriptions or indeed in any other imperial inscriptions till half a century after his death. It fits, however, into a definite development of the Roman imperial titles. In the earliest Empire, phrases occur, mostly on coins, such as _Aeternitas imperii_ or _Aeternitas populi romani_. Soon the notion of the stability of the Empire was transferred to its rulers. As early as Vespasian, coins bear the legend _aeternitas Augusti_, and in the first years of the second century Pliny, writing to Trajan, speaks of petitions addressed _per salutem tuam aeternitatemque_ and of 'works worthy of the emperor's eternity,' (_opera aeternitate tua digna_). Late in the second century such phrases become commoner. With Severus Alexander (A.D. 221-35) coins begin to show the legend _Perpetuitas Aug._, and before very long the indirect and abstract language changes into direct epithets which are incorporated in the emperors' titulature. The first case which I can find of this is that before us, of Philip (A.D. 244-9); a little later, Aurelian (A.D. 270-5) is styled _semper Augustus_ and, from Diocletian onwards, _aeternus_, _perpetuus_, and _semper Augustus_ belong to the customary titulature. Constantine I, for example, is called on one stone _invictus et perpetuus ... semper Augustus_, on another _perpetuus imperator, semper Augustus_. That Philip should have been the first to have applied to him, even once, the direct epithet, is probably a mere accident. One might have wished to connect it with his Secular Games, celebrated in 248. But by that time his son was no longer Caesar but full Augustus (since 246), and our stone must fall into the years 244-6.
The ideas underlying these epithets were perhaps mixed. Notions of or prayers for the long life of the Empire, the stability of the reigning house, the long reign of the current emperor, may have jostled with notions of the immortality of the emperors and their deification, and with the eastern ideas which poured into Rome as the second century ended and the third century began.[9] The hardening despotism of the imperial constitution, growing more and more autocratic every decade, also helped. As the emperor became unchecked and unqualified monarch, his appellations grew more emphatic; _perpetuus Augustus, semper Augustus_ connoted that unchecked and autocratic rule.
[Footnote 9: See an excellent paper by Cumont, _Revue d'Histoire et de Littérature religieuses_, 1896, pp. 435-52.]
C. PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO ROMAN BRITAIN IN 1914
The following summary of the books and articles on Roman Britain which appeared in 1914 is grouped under two heads, first, those few which deal with general aspects of the subject, and secondly, the far larger number which concern special sites or areas. In this second class, those which belong to England are placed under their counties in alphabetical order, while those which belong to Wales and Scotland are grouped under these two headings. I have in general admitted only matter which was published in 1914, or which bears that date.
1. GENERAL
(1) Mr. G. L. Cheesman's _Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army_ (Oxford University Press) does not deal especially with Roman Britain, but it deserves brief notice here. It is an excellent and up-to-date sketch of an important section of the Roman army, with which British archaeologists are much concerned. It also contains valuable lists, which can be found nowhere else, of the 'auxiliary' regiments stationed in Britain (pp. 146-9 and 170-1). It is full, cheap, compact; every historical and archaeological library should get it.
(2) A learned and scholarly attempt to settle the obscure chronology of the north British frontiers in the fourth century has been made by Mr. H. Craster, Fellow of All Souls, and one of the excavators of Corbridge, in the _Archaeological Journal_ (lxxi. 25-44). His conclusions are novel and, though to some extent disputable, are well worth printing. Starting from the known fact that, during much of the third century, the north frontier of Roman Britain coincided roughly with the line of Cheviot and was then withdrawn to the line of Hadrian's Wall, he distinguishes five stages in the subsequent history. (1) At or just before the outset of the fourth century, in the reign of Diocletian, the Wall was reorganized in some ill-recorded fashion. (2) Thirty years later, towards the end of Constantine's reign, about A.D. 320-30, it was (he thinks) further reorganized; perhaps its mile-castles were then discarded. (3) Thirty or forty years later still, after disturbances which (he conjectures) included the temporary loss of Hadrian's Wall and the destruction of its garrisons, Theodosius carried out in 369 a fuller reorganization. This garrison had consisted of the regiments known to us by various evidence as posted 'per lineam valli' in the third and early fourth centuries; their places were now filled by soldiers of whom we know absolutely nothing. (4) In 383 Maximus withdrew these unknown troops for his continental wars. Now perhaps the line of the Wall had to be given up, but Tyne and Solway, South Shields, Corbridge, and Carlisle were still held. (5) Finally, about 395-9, Stilicho ordered a last reorganization; he withdrew the frontier from the Tyne to the Tees, from Carlisle to Lancaster, and garrisoned the new line with new soldiery--those, namely, which are listed in the Notitia as serving under the Dux Britanniarum, save only the regiments 'per lineam valli'; these last the compiler of the Notitia borrowed from the older order to disguise the loss of the Wall. Even this did not last. In 402 Stilicho had to summon troops to Italy for home defence--among them, Mr. Craster suggests, the Sixth Legion--and in 407 the remaining Roman soldiers, including the Second Legion, were taken to the continent by Constantine III.
Every one who handles this difficult period must indulge in conjecture; Mr. Craster has, perhaps, indulged rather much. It might be simpler to connect the abandonment of the mile-castles--his stage 2--with the recorded troubles which called Constans to Britain in 343, rather than invent an unrecorded action by Constantine I. I hesitate also to assume for the period 369-83 an otherwise unknown frontier garrison, which has left no trace of itself. I feel still greater doubt respecting the years 383-99. Here Mr. Craster argues from coin-finds. No coins have been found on the line of the Wall which were minted later than 383, and none at Corbridge, Carlisle, and South Shields which were minted later than 395; therefore, he infers, the Wall was abandoned soon after 383, and the other sites soon after 395. This is too rigid an argument. It may be a mere accident that the Wall has as yet yielded no coin which was minted between 383 and 395. At Wroxeter, for example, two small hoards were found some years ago which had clearly been lost at the moment when the town was sacked. By these hoards we should be able to date the catastrophe. Now the latest coin in one hoard was minted in or before 377, and the latest in the other in or before 383. But newer finds show that Wroxeter was not destroyed at earliest till after 390. Again, as Mr. Craster himself says, the coining of Roman copper practically stopped in 395; after that year the older copper issues appear to have remained in use for many a long day. That is clear in Gaul, where coins later than 395 seem to be rare, although Roman armies and influences were present for another fifty years. When Mr. Craster states that 'archaeology gives no support to the theory that the Tyne-Solway line was held after 395', he might add that it gives equally little support to the theory that it was not held after 395.
Incidentally, he offers a new theory of the two chapters in the Notitia Dignitatum which describe the forces commanded by the Comes Litoris Saxonici and the Dux Britanniarum (_Occ._ 28 and 40). It is agreed that these chapters do not exhibit the garrison of Britain at the moment when the Notitia was substantially completed, about A.D. 425, for the good reason that there was then no garrison left in the island; they exhibit some garrison which had then ceased to exist, and which is mentioned, apparently, to disguise the loss of the province. The question is, to what date do they refer? Mommsen long ago pointed out that the regiments enumerated in one part of them (the 'per lineam valli' section) are very much the same as existed in the third century. Seeck added the suggestion that these regiments remained in garrison till 383, when Maximus marched them off to the continent. According to him, the garrison of the Wall through the first eighty years of the fourth century was much the same as it had been in the third century, with certain changes and additions. Mr. Craster holds a different view. He thinks that most of the troops named in these chapters were due to Stilicho's reorganization in 395-9, but that one section, headed 'per lineam valli', records troops who had been in Britain in the third century and had been destroyed before 369. I cannot feel that he has proved his case. One would have thought that, when the compiler of the Notitia in 425 wanted to fill the gap left by the loss of the Wall, he would have gone back to the last garrison of the Wall, that is, on Mr. Craster's view, the garrison of 369-83, not to arrangements which had vanished some years earlier. But the problems of this obscure period are not to be solved without many attacks. We must be glad that Mr. Craster has delivered a serious attack; even if he has not succeeded, his scholarly discussion may make things easier for the next assailants.
(3) The _Antiquary_ for 1914 contains an attempt by Mr. W. J. Kaye to catalogue all the examples of triple vases of Roman date found in Britain. It also prints a note by myself (p. 439) on the topography of the campaign of Suetonius against Boudicca, which argues that the defeat of the British warrior queen occurred somewhere on Watling Street between Chester (or Wroxeter) and London.
(4) In the _Sitzungsberichte 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' (stem _su_-, '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.
2. SPECIAL SITES OR DISTRICTS
_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 the _Berks, Bucks, and Oxon Archaeological Journal_ for Oct. 1914 (xx. 96).
_Cheshire_
(6) In _Annals 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 of Professors 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 the _Proceedings of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society_ for 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.
_Dorset_
(8) In the _Numismatic Chronicle_ for 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 the _Proceedings 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_
(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 stamped VITALIS' was found at Mersea, but objects which have been elsewhere found in association with that stamp.
(11) Two small Essex excavations are recorded in the _Transactions 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) The _Transactions 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 pamphlet _Excavations 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 the _Papers 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 entrenchment at 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_
See p. 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 the _Transactions 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 the _Journal of the British Archaeological Association_ (xx. 248 foll.).
(18) In the _Transactions 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 the _Transactions 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 directs attention 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 in _Lincolnshire 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 volume _London_ (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 'jurisdictional terminus' 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]