[Illustration: FIG. 1. POTTERY STAMPS AND STAMPED POTTERY FROM HOLT. 

(A) Head of Silenus (1/1). Probably an artist's die, for casting stamps for stamped ware (p. 20)

(B) Fragment of stamped ware (1/1), with ornament imitated from Samian (p. 19)

(C) STAMP FOR MORTARIUM (1/1)]

 THE BRITISH ACADEMY SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS. III

 Roman Britain in 1914

 By Professor F. Haverfield

 Fellow of the Academy

 London: 1915 Published for the British Academy By Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press Amen Corner, E. C. 

[Transcribers Note: Professor Francis Haverfield]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE

 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 4

 PREFACE 5

 A. RETROSPECT OF FINDS MADE IN 1914 7

 (_a_) Raedykes, near Stonehaven; Wall of Pius; Traprain Law; Northumberland (Featherwood, Chesterholm, Corbridge); Weardale (co. Durham); Appleby; Ambleside (fort at Borrans); Lancaster; Ribchester; Slack (near Huddersfield); Holt; Cardiff; Richborough. 

 (_b_) Wroxeter; Lincoln; Gloucester; London; country houses and farms; Lowbury (Berkshire); Beachy Head, Eastbourne; Parc-y-Meirch (North Wales) 21

 B. ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN 1914 29

 Balmuildy (Wall of Pius); Traprain Law; Featherwood (altar); Chesterholm (two altars); Corbridge (inscribed tile); Weardale (bronze _paterae_); Holt (centurial stone and tile); Lincoln; London; rediscovered milestone near Appleby. 

 C. PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO ROMAN BRITAIN IN 1914. 

 1. General 38

 2. Special sites or districts 41

 APPENDIX: LIST OF PERIODICALS HAVING REFERENCE TO ROMAN BRITAIN 64

 INDEX OF PLACES 67

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

 PAGE

 1. Pottery-stamps and stamped pottery from Holt (see p. 19) _Frontispiece_

 2. Plan of Roman Fort at Borrans, Ambleside. From a plan by Mr. R. G. Collingwood 10

 3. Sketch plan of Principia (Praetorium) of Roman Fort at Ribchester. After a plan by Mr. D. Atkinson and Prof. W. B. Anderson 13

 4. Sketch plan of part of the Roman Fort at Slack. From a plan by Messrs. A. Woodward and P. Ross 14

 5. Holt, plan of site 16

 6. Holt, plan of barracks 17

 7. Holt, plan of dwelling-house and bath-house 17

 8. Holt, plan of kilns 18

 9. Holt, reconstruction of the kilns shown in fig. 8 18

 10, 11. Holt, stamped 'imitation Samian' ware 20

 (Figs. 1 and 5-11 are from photographs or drawings lent by Mr. A. Acton, of Wrexham)

 12. Sketch plan of Roman bath-house at East Grimstead, after a plan by Mr. Heywood Sumner 24

 13. Sketch plan of Romano-British house at North Ash, after a plan prepared by the Dartford Antiquarian Society 25

 14. Plan of Romano-British house at Clanville. After a plan by the Rev. G. Engleheart, in _Archaeologia_ 26

 15. Fragment of inscription found at Balmuildy 29

 16. Altar found at Chesterholm, drawn from a photograph 31

 17-19. Graves and grave-nails, Infirmary Field, Chester. From drawings and photographs by Prof. Newstead 41-2

 20-22. The Mersea grave-mound. From the Report of the Morant Club and Essex Archaeological Society 43

 23, 24. Margidunum, plan and seal-box. From the _Antiquary_ 51

 25-28. Plan, section and views of the podium of the temple at Wroxeter. From the Report by Mr. Bushe-Fox 53

 29. General plan of the Roman fort and precincts at Gellygaer. After plans by Mr. J. Ward 59

 30. Postholes at Gellygaer 63

For the loan of blocks 14, 17-20, 21-2, and 23-4, I am indebtedrespectively to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, Prof. Newstead, and the Liverpool University Press, the Morant Club and the EssexArchaeological Society, and the publisher of the _Antiquary_. 

PREFACE

The contents of the present volume are of much the same character asthose of its predecessor, 'Roman Britain in 1913'. The first sectiongives a retrospect of the chief finds made in 1914, so far as they areknown to me. The second section is a more detailed and technical surveyof the inscriptions found in Britain during that year. The third andlongest section is a summary, with some attempt at estimate andcriticism, of books and articles dealing with Roman Britain whichappeared in 1914 or at least bear that date on cover or title-page. At the end I have added, for convenience, a list of the Englisharchaeological and other publications which at least sometimes containnoteworthy articles relating to Roman Britain. 

The total, both of finds and of publications, is smaller than in 1913. In part the outbreak of war in August called off various supervisorsand not a few workmen from excavations then in progress; in one caseit prevented a proposed excavation from being begun. It also seems tohave retarded the issue of some archaeological periodicals. But thescarcity of finds is much more due to natural causes. The most extensiveexcavations of the year, those of Wroxeter and Corbridge, yieldedlittle; they were both concerned with remains which had to be exploredin the course of a complete uncovering of those sites but which were notin themselves very interesting. The lesser sites, too, were somewhatunproductive, though at least one, Traprain Law, is full of promise forthe future, and good work has been done in the systematic examinationof the fort at Ambleside and of certain rubbish-pits in London. In onecase, that of Holt (pp. 15-21), where excavations have for the presentcome to an end, I have thought it well to include a brief retrospectof the whole of a very interesting series of finds and, aided by thekindness of the excavator, Mr. Arthur Acton of Wrexham, to add someillustrations of notable objects which have not yet appeared elsewherein print. 

A. RETROSPECT OF FINDS MADE IN 1914

i-xiv. FINDS RELATING TO THE ROMAN MILITARY OCCUPATION. 

(i) The exploration of the Roman-seeming earthworks in northern Scotlandwhich Dr. Macdonald and I began in 1913 at Ythan Wells, in Aberdeenshire(Report for 1913, p. 7), was continued in 1914 by Dr. Macdonald atRaedykes, otherwise called Garrison Hill, three miles inland fromStonehaven. Here Roy saw and planned a large camp of very irregularoutline, which he took to be Roman. [1] Since his time the ramparts havebeen somewhat ploughed down, but Dr. Macdonald could trace them round, identify the six gateways, and generally confirm Roy's plan, apart fromits hill-shading. The ramparts proved to be of two kinds: part was builtsolidly of earth, with a deep ditch of Roman shape strengthened inplaces with clay, in front of it, while part was roughly piled withstones and defended only by a shallow rounded ditch. This differenceseemed due to the differing nature of the ground; ditch and rampart wereslighter where attack was less easy. The gateways were wide and providedwith traverses (_tituli_ or _tutuli_), as at Ythan Wells. No small findswere secured. The general character of the gateways and ramparts seemedto show Roman workmanship, but the exact date within the Roman periodremained doubtful. It has been suggested that the traverses indicateFlavian rather than Antonine fortifying. But these devices are met within Britain at Bar Hill, which presumably dates from about A. D. 140, andon Hadrian's Wall in third-century work. 

[Footnote 1: _Antiquities_, plate 50. Roy does not notice it in histext, any more than he notices plate 51 (Ythan Wells camp). They are thetwo last plates in his volume; as this was issued posthumously in 1793(he died in 1790), perhaps the omission is intelligible. ]

(ii) _Wall of Pius and its forts. _ At Balmuildy, north of Glasgow(see Report for 1913, p. 10), Mr. Miller has further cleared the bathsoutside the south-east corner of the fort and the adjacent ditches. The plan which I gave last year has now to be corrected so as to showa triple ditch between the south gate and the south-east corner and adouble ditch from the south-east corner to the east gate. This lattersection of ditch was, however, filled up at some time with clay, and thebath planted on top of it. At presumably the same time a ditch was runout from the south-east corner so as to enclose the bath and form anannexe; in this annexe was found a broken altar-top with a few letterson it (below, p. 29). Search was also made for rubbish-pits on the northside of the fort, but without any result. 

On other parts of the Wall Dr. Macdonald has gained further successes. Evidence seems to be coming out as to the hitherto missing forts ofKirkintilloch and Inveravon. More details have been secured of the fortat Mumrills--fully 4-1/2 acres in area and walled with earth, not withthe turf or stone employed in the ramparts of the other forts of theWall. The line of the Wall from Falkirk to Inveravon, a distance of fourmiles, has also been traced; it proved to be built of earth and clay, not of the turf used in the Wall westwards. Dr. Macdonald suggests thatthe eastern section of the Wall lay through heavily wooded country, where turf was naturally awanting. 

(iii) _Traprain Law. _ Very interesting, too, are the preliminaryresults secured by Mr. A. O. Curie on Traprain Law. This is an isolatedhill in Haddingtonshire, some twenty miles east of Edinburgh, on theWhittingehame estate of Mr. Arthur Balfour. Legends cluster round it--ofvarying antiquity. It itself shows two distinct lines of fortification, one probably much older than the other, enclosing some 60 acres. Thearea excavated in 1914 was a tiny piece, about 30 yards square; theresults were most promising. Five levels of stratification could bedistinguished. The lowest and earliest yielded small objects of nativework and Roman potsherds of the late first century: higher up, Romancoins and pottery of the second century appeared, and in the top level, Roman potsherds assigned to the fourth century. One Roman potsherd, froma second-century level, bore three Roman letters IRI, the meaning ofwhich is likely to remain obscure. As the inscribed surface came fromthe inside of an urn, the writing must have been done after the pot wasbroken, and presumably on the hill itself. Among the native finds werestone and clay moulds for casting metal objects. The site, on a whole, seems to be native rather than Roman; it may be our first clue to thecharacter of native _oppida_ in northern Britain under Roman rule;its excavation is eminently worth pursuing. 

(iv) _Northumberland, Hadrian's Wall. _ On Hadrian's Wall no excavationshave been carried out. But at Chesterholm two inscribed altars werefound in the summer. One was dedicated to Juppiter Optimus Maximus;the rest of the lettering was illegible. The other, dedicated to Vulcanon behalf of the Divinity of the Imperial House by the people of thelocality, possesses much interest. The dedicators describe themselves as_vicani Vindolandenses_, and thus give proof that the civilians livingoutside the fort at Chesterholm formed a _vicus_ or something that couldplausibly be described as such; further, they teach the proper name ofthe place, which we have been wont to call Vindolana. See further below, p. 31. 

North of the Wall, at Featherwood near High Rochester (the fortBremenium) an altar has been found, dedicated to Victory (see p. 30). 

(v) _Corbridge. _ The exploration of Corbridge was carried through itsninth season by Mr. R. H. Forster. As in 1913, the results were somewhatscanty. The area examined, which lay on the north-east of the site, adjacent to the areas examined in 1910 and 1913, seems, like them, tohave been thinly occupied in Roman times; at any rate the structuresactually unearthed consisted only of a roughly built foundation (25 feetdiam. ) of uncertain use, which there is no reason to call a temple, someother even more indeterminate foundations, and two bits of road. Moreinterest may attach to three ditches (one for sewage) and the clay baseof a rampart, which belong in some way to the northern defences of theplace in various times. The full meaning of these will, however, not bediscernible till complete plans are available and probably not tillfurther excavations have been made; Mr. Forster inclines to explainparts of them as ditches of a fort held in the age of Trajan, about A. D. 90-110. Several small finds merit note. An inscribed tile seems to haveserved as a writing lesson or rather, perhaps, as a reading lesson: seebelow, p. 32. The Samian pottery included a very few pieces of '29', agood deal of early '37', which most archaeologists would ascribe to thelate first or the opening second century, and some other pieces whichperhaps belong to a rather later part of the same century. The coinscover much the same period; few are later than Hadrian. Among them wasa hoard of 32 denarii and 12 copper of which Mr. Craster has made thefollowing list:--

 _Silver_: 2 Republican, 1 Julius Caesar, 1 Mark Antony, 1 Nero, 1 Galba, 3 Vitellius, 13 Vespasian, 3 Titus, 6 Domitian, 1 unidentified. 

 _Copper_: 3 Vespasian, 1 Titus, 2 Domitian, 3 Nerva, 1 Trajan, 2 unidentified. 

The latest coin was the copper of Trajan--a _dupondius_ or SecondBrass of A. D. 98. All the coins had been corroded into a single mass, apparently by the burning of a wooden box in which they have been kept;this burning must have occurred about A. D. 98-100. Among the bronzeobjects found during the year was a dragonesque enamelled brooch. 

(vi) In Upper _Weardale_ (co. Durham) a peat-bog has given up two bronze_paterae_ or skillets, bearing the stamp of the Italian bronze-workerCipius Polybius, and an uninscribed bronze ladle. See below, p. 33. 

(vii) Near Appleby, at Hangingshaw farm, Mr. P. Ross has come upon aRoman inscription which proves to be a milestone of the Emperor Philip(A. D. 244-6) first found in 1694 and since lost sight of (p. 35). 

(viii) _Ambleside Fort. _ The excavation of the Roman fort in BorransField near Ambleside, noted in my Report for 1913 (p. 13), was continuedby Mr. R. G. Collingwood, Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford, and otherswith much success. The examination of the ramparts, gates, and turretswas completed; that of the main interior buildings was brought nearcompletion, and a beginning was made on the barracks, sufficient to showthat they were, at least in part, made of wood. 

[Illustration: FIG. 2. BORRANS FORT, AMBLESIDE

(I. Granaries; II. Head-quarters; III. Commandant's House; A. Cellar;B. Hearth or Kiln; C. Deposit of corn; D. Ditch perhaps belonging toearliest fort; E. Outer Court of Head-quarters; F. Inner Court)]

The fort, as is now clear (fig. 2), was an oblong enclosure of about 300× 420 feet, nearly 3 acres. Round it ran a wall of roughly coursed stone4 feet thick, with a clay ramp behind and a ditch in front. Turretsstood at its corners. Four gates gave access to it; three of them weresingle and narrow, while the fourth, the east gate, was double and wasflanked by two guard-chambers. As usual, the chief buildings stood in arow across the interior. Building I--see plan, fig. 2--was a pair ofgranaries, each 66 feet long, with a space between. They were of normalplan, with external buttresses, basement walls, and ventilating windows(not shown on plan). The space between them, 15 feet wide, containedmarks of an oven or ovens (plan, B) and also some corn (plan, C) and mayhave been at one time used for drying grain stored in the granaries; howfar it was roofed is doubtful. Building II, the Principia or Praetorium, a structure of 68 × 76 feet, much resembled the Principia at Hardknot, ten miles west of Ambleside, but possessed distinct features. As theplan shows, it had an entrance from the east, the two usual courts (EF), and the offices which usually face on to the inner court F. Theseoffices, however, were only three in number instead of five, unlesswooden partitions were used. Under the central office, the _sacellum_ ofthe fort, where the standards and the altars for the official worship ofthe garrison are thought to have been kept, our fort had, at A, a sunkroom or cellar, 6 feet square, entered by a stone stair. Such cellarsoccur at Chesters, Aesica, and elsewhere and probably served asstrong-rooms for the regimental funds. At Chesters, the cellar had stonevaulting; at Ambleside there is no sign of this, and timber may havebeen used. In the northernmost room of the Principia some corn andwoodwork as of a bin were noted (plan, C). The inner court F seemed toMr. Collingwood to have been roofed; in its north end was a detachedroom, such as occurs at Chesters, of unknown use, which accords ratherill with a roof. In the colonnade round the outer court E were vestigesof a hearth or oven (plan, B). Building III (70 × 80 feet) is thatusually called the commandant's house; it seems to show the normal planof rooms arranged round a cloister enclosing a tiny open space. Inbuildings II and III, at D, traces were detected as of ditches andwalling belonging to a fort older and probably smaller than thatrevealed by the excavation generally. 

Small finds include coins of Faustina Iunior, Iulia Domna, and Valens, Samian of about A. D. 80 and later, including one or two bits of GermanSamian, a silver spoon, some glass, iron, and bronze objects, a leadenbasin (?), and seven more leaden sling-bullets. It now seems clear thatthe fort was established about the time of Agricola (A. D. 80-5), thoughperhaps in smaller dimensions than those now visible, and was held tillat least A. D. 365. Mr. Collingwood inclines to the view that it wasabandoned after A. D. 85 and reoccupied under or about the time ofHadrian. The stratification of the turrets seems to show that it wasdestroyed once or twice in the second or third centuries, but theevidence is not wholly clear in details. The granaries seem to have beenrebuilt once and the rooms of the commandant's house mostly have twofloors. 

(ix) _Lancaster. _ In October and November 1914, structural remainsthought to be Roman, including 'an old Roman fireplace, circular inshape, with stone flues branching out', were noted in the garden of St. Mary's vicarage. The real meaning of the find seems doubtful. 

(x) _Ribchester. _ In the spring of 1913 a small school-building waspulled down at Ribchester, and the Manchester Classical Association wasable to resume its examination of the Principia (praetorium) of theRoman fort, above a part of which this building had stood. The work wascarried out by Prof. W. B. Anderson, of Manchester University, and Mr. D. Atkinson, Research Fellow of Reading College, and, though limited inextent, was very successful. 

The first discovery of the Principia is due to Miss Greenall, who about1905 was building a house close to the school and took care that certainremains found by her builders should be duly noted: excavations in1906-7, however, left the size and extent of these remains somewhatuncertain and resulted in what we now know to be an incorrect plan. Thework done last spring makes it plain (fig. 3) that the Principiafronted--in normal fashion--the main street of the fort (gravel laid oncobbles) running from the north to the south gate. But, abnormally, thefrontage was formed by a verandah or colonnade: the only parallel whichI can quote is from Caersws, where excavations in 1909 revealed asimilar verandah in front of the Principia[2]. Next to the verandahstood the usual Outer Court with a colonnade round it and two wells init (one is the usual provision): the colonnade seemed to have been twicerebuilt. Beyond that are fainter traces of the Inner Court which, however, lies mostly underneath a churchyard: the only fairly clearfeature is a room (A on plan) which seems to have stood on the rightside of the Inner Court, as at Chesters and Ambleside (fig. 2, above). Behind this, probably, stood the usual five office rooms. If we carrythe Principia about 20 feet further back, which would be a fullallowance for these rooms with their walling, the end of the wholestructure will line with the ends of the granaries found some years ago. This, or something very like it, is what we should naturally expect. Wethen obtain a structure measuring 81 × 112 feet, the latter dimensionincluding a verandah 8 feet wide. This again seems a reasonable result. Ribchester was a large fort, about 6 acres, garrisoned by cavalry;in a similar fort at Chesters, on Hadrian's Wall, the Principia measured85 × 125 feet: in the 'North Camp' at Camelon, another fort of much thesame size (nearly 6 acres), they measured 92 × 120 feet. 

[Footnote 2: I saw this verandah while open. The whole excavations atCaersws yielded important results and it is more than regrettable thatno report of them has ever been issued. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 3. RIBCHESTER FORT, HEAD-QUARTERS]

(xi) _Slack. _ The excavation of the Roman fort at Slack, nearHuddersfield, noted in my report for 1913 (p. 14), was continued in 1914by Mr. P. W. Dodd and Mr. A. M. Woodward, lecturers in Leeds University, which is doing good work in the exploration of southern Yorkshire. Thedefences of the fort, part of its central buildings (fig. 4, I-III), andpart of its other buildings (B-K) have now been attacked. The defencesconsist of (1) a ditch 15 feet wide, possibly double on the north (moreexactly north-west) side and certainly absent on the southern two-thirdsof the east (north-east) side; (2) a berme, 8 feet wide; and (3) arampart 20-5 feet thick, built of turf and strengthened by a rough stonebase which is, however, only 8-10 feet wide. Of the four gates, three(west, north, and east) have been examined; all are small and havewooden gate-posts instead of masonry. On each side of the east gate, which is the widest (15 ft. ), the rampart is thought to thicken as iffor greater defence. The absence of a ditch on the southern two-thirdsof the east side may be connected with some paving outside the east gateand also with a bath-house, partly explored in 1824 and 1865, outsidethe south-east (east) corner; we may think that here was an annexe. Thecentral buildings, so far as uncovered, are of stone; the Principia(III) perhaps had some wooden partitions. They are all ill-preserved andcall for no further comment. West of them, in the rear of the fort, theexcavators traced two long narrow wooden buildings (B, C), north of theroad from the west (south-west) gate to the back of the Principia; onthe other side of the road they found the ends of two similar buildings(D, E). This looks as if this portion of the fort was filled with fourbarracks. On the other side of the row of buildings I-III remainswere traced of stone structures; one of these (F) had the L-shapecharacteristic of barracks, and indications point to two others (G, H)of the same shape. This implies six barrack buildings in this portionof the fort and ten barrack buildings in all, that is, a cohort 1, 000strong. But the whole fort is only just 3 acres, and one would expect asmaller garrison; when excavations have advanced, we may perhaps findthat the garrison was really a _cohors quingenaria_ with six barracks, as at Gellygaer. Close against the east rampart, and indeed cuttingsomewhat into it, was a long thin building (K), 12-16 feet wide, whichyielded much charcoal and potsherds and seemed an addition to theoriginal plan of the fort. 

[Illustration: FIG. 4. PART OF SLACK FORT

(I. Granaries; II. Doubtful; III. Head-quarters; A. Shrine in III; B, C, D, E. Wooden buildings in western part of fort; F, G, H, K. Stonebuildings in eastern part)]

The few small finds included Samian of the late first and early secondcenturies (but no '29'), and a denarius of Trajan. In respect of date, they agree with the finds of last year and of 1865, and suggest thatthe fort was established under Domitian or Trajan, and abandoned underHadrian or Pius; as an inscription of the Sixth Legion was found here in1744, apparently in the baths, the evacuation cannot have been earlierthan about A. D. 130. The occupation of Slack must therefore haveresembled that of Castleshaw, which stands at the western end of thepass through the Pennine Hills, which Slack guards on the east. If thisbe so, an explanation must be discovered for two altars generallyassigned to Slack. One of these, found three miles north of Slack atGreetland in 1597 among traces of buildings, is dated to A. D. 205 (CIL. Vii. 200). The other, found two miles eastwards, at Longwood, in 1880(Eph. Epigr. Vii. 920), bears no date; but it was erected by an AureliusQuintus to the Numina Augustorum, and neither item quite suits so earlya date as the reign of Trajan. The dedication of the first is to thegoddess Victoria--_Vic_(_toria_) _Brig_(_antia_)--that of the second_deo Berganti_ (as well as the _Numina Aug. _); so that in each case alocal shrine to a native deity may be concerned. It is also possiblethat a fort was built near Greetland, after the abandonment of Slack, to guard another pass over the Pennine, that by way of Blackstone Edge. 

It is to be hoped that these interesting excavations may be continuedand completed. 

(xii) _Holt. _ At Holt, eight miles south of Chester on the Denbighshirebank of the Dee, Mr. Arthur Acton has further explored the veryinteresting tile and pottery works of the Twentieth Legion, of which Ispoke in my Report for 1913 (p. 15). The site is not even yet exhausted. But enough has been discovered to give a definite picture of it, and asit may perhaps not be possible to continue the excavations at present, and as the detailed report which Mr. Acton projects may take time toissue, I shall try here, with his permission, to summarize very brieflyhis most noteworthy results. I have to thank him for supplying me withmuch information and material for illustrations. 

Holt combines the advantages of excellent clay for pottery and tilemaking, [3] good building stone (the Bunter red sandstone), and an easywaterway to Chester. Here the legion garrisoning Chester established, inthe latter part of the first century, tile and pottery works for its ownuse and presumably also for the use of other neighbouring garrisons. Traces of these works were noted early in the seventeenth century, though they were not then properly understood. [4] In 1905 the late Mr. A. N. Palmer, of Wrexham, identified the site in two fields called WallLock and Hilly Field, just outside the village of Holt, and here, since1906, Mr. Acton has, at his own cost, carefully and systematicallycarried out excavations. 

[Footnote 3: A Bronze Age burial (fig. 6, D) suggests that the clay mayhave been worked long before the Romans. ]

[Footnote 4: References are given by Watkin, _Cheshire_, p. 305, and Palmer, _Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 1906, pp. 225 foll. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 5. ROMAN SITE NEAR HOLT

(1. Barracks?; 2. Dwelling and Bath-house; 3. Kiln; 4. Drying-room, &c. 5. Kilns; 6. Work-rooms?; 7. Clay-pits)]

The discoveries show a group of structures scattered along a bank abouta quarter of a mile in length which stands slightly above the Dee andthe often flooded meadows beside it (fig. 5). At the west end of thisarea (fig. 5, no. 1, and fig. 6) was a large rectangular enclosure ofabout 62 × 123 yards (rather over 1-1/2 acres), girt with a strong wall7 feet thick. Within it were five various rows of rooms mostly 15 feetsquare, with drains; some complicated masonry (? latrines) filled theeast end. This enclosure was not wholly explored; it may have servedfor workmen's barracks; the contents of two rubbish-pits (fig. 6, AA)--bones of edible animals, cherry-stones, shells of snails, and Deemussels, potsherds, &c. --had a domestic look; mill-stones for grindingcorn, including one bearing what seems to be a centurial mark, andfragments of buff imported amphorae were also found here. Between thisenclosure and the river were two small buildings close together (fig. 5, no. 2 and fig. 7). The easternmost of these seems to have been adwelling-house 92 feet long, with a corridor and two hypocausts; it mayhave housed the officer in charge of the potteries. The western buildingwas a bath-house, with hot-rooms at the east end, and the dressing-room, latrine, and cold-bath at the west end; one side of this building washewn into the solid rock to a height of 3 feet. Several fibulae werefound in the drains of the bath-house. 

[Illustration: FIG. 6. BARRACKS (?), HOLT

(A. Rubbish pits; B. Latrines?; C. Water-pipe; D. Bronze Age burial)]

[Illustration: FIG. 7. DWELLING-HOUSE AND BATH-HOUSE, HOLT]

The other structures (3, 4, 6, 7) served industrial purposes. No. 4(fig. 5) contained a hypocaust and was perhaps a workroom and dryingshed. At 6 were ill-built and ill-preserved rooms, containing puddledclay, potsherds, &c. , which declared them to be work-sheds of some sort. Finally, at 3 and 5 we have the kilns. No. 3 was a kiln 17 feet square, with a double flue, used (as its contents showed) for potting, andindeed for fine potting. No. 5 (figs. 8, 9) was an elaborate 'plant' ofeight kilns in an enclosure of about 55 × 140 feet. Kilns A, B, F, Hwere used for pottery, C, D, E for tiles, F for both large vessels andtiles; the circular kiln G seems to be a later addition to the originalplan. The kilns were thus grouped together for economy in handling theraw and fired material and in stacking the fuel, and also for economyof heat; the three tile-kilns in the centre would be charged, fired, and drawn in turn, and the heat from them would keep warm the smallerpottery-kilns round them. The interiors of the kilns contained manybroken and a few perfect pots and tiles; round them lay an enormousmass of wood-ashes, broken tiles and pots, 'wasters' and the like. The wood-ashes seem to be mainly oak, which abounds in the neighbourhoodof Holt. The kilns themselves are exceptionally well-preserved. Theymust have been in actual working order, when abandoned, and so theyillustrate--perhaps better than any kilns as yet uncovered and recordedin any Roman province--the actual mechanism of a Roman tile- orpottery-kiln. The construction of a kiln floor, which shall workeffectively and accurately, is less simple than it looks; the adjustmentof the heat to the class of wares to be fired, the distribution of theheat by proper flues and by vent-holes of the right size, and other suchdetails require knowledge and care. The remains at Holt show thesefeatures admirably, and Mr. Acton has been able to examine them with theaid of two of our best experts on pottery-making, Mr. Wm. And Mr. JosephBurton, of Manchester. 

[Illustration: FIG. 8. PLAN OF KILN-PLANT AT HOLT (SEE p. 34, and FIG. 9)

(Except at kilns F, G, the letters on the plan are placed at thefire-holes. In kilns A, B a small piece of the kiln floor (on which thevessels were placed for baking) is shown diagrammatically, to illustratethe relation between the hot-air holes in the floors and the passages inthe underlying heating-chambers)]

[Illustration: FIG. 9. RESTORATION OF THE HOLT KILN-PLANT, SHOWING THEFLOORS ON WHICH THE TILES OR VESSELS WERE PILED FOR BAKING (p. 18)

The letters ABCDE are placed at the mouths of the stoke-holes of therespective kilns. Kilns ABDFH were used for pottery, CDE for tiles, Ffor large vessels and for tiles; G seems an addition to the originalplan. ]

Smaller finds include two centurial stones (one found in 1914 isdescribed below, p. 34); a mill-stone with letters suggesting that itbelonged to a century of soldiers; several _graffiti_, mostly of amilitary character, so far as one can decipher them (for one see myReport for 1913, p. 30); a profusion of stamped tiles of the TwentiethLegion, mostly 'wasters'; some two dozen antefixes of the same legion;several tile and pottery stamps; about 45 coins of various dates; muchwindow glass, and an immense quantity of potsherds of the most variouskinds. Among these latter were Samian pieces of the late first century(no '29', but early '37' and '78' and a stamp of CRESTO) and of thesecond century (including the German stamp IANVF), and imitation Samianmade on the spot. A quantity of lead and of iron perhaps worked intonails, &c. , at Holt, and a few crucibles for casting small bronzeobjects, may also be mentioned. 

The Twentieth Legion tiles at Holt bear stamps identical with those onits tiles at Chester; we may think that the legion made for itself atHolt most of the tiles which it used in its fortress. Equal interestand more novelty attaches to the pottery made at Holt. This comprisesmany varieties; most prominent is a reddish or buff ware of excellentcharacter, coated with a fine slip, which occurs in many different formsof vessels, cooking pots, jars, saucers, and even large flat dishes upto 30 inches in diameter. Specimens of these occur also in Chester, and it is clear that the legionary workmen made not only tiles--as inlegionary tile-works in other lands--but also pots, mortaria (fig. 1), &c. , for legionary use. 

Perhaps the most remarkable pieces among the pottery are some stampedpieces copied from decorated Samian, which I am able to figure here byMr. Acton's kindness (figs. 1, 10, 11). They are pale reddish-brown incolour and nearly as firm in texture as good Samian; they are made (hetells me) by throwing on a wheel a clay (or 'body') prepared from localmaterials, then impressing the stamps, and finally laying on an ironoxide slip, perhaps with a brush. Sir Arthur Evans has pointed out to methat the stamp used for the heads on fig. 1 was a gem set in a ring; thesetting is clearly visible under each head. The shape and ornament haveplainly been suggested by specimens of Samian '37' bowls, probably ofthe second century. How far the author tried to copy definite pieces ofSamian and how far he aimed at giving the general effect, is not quiteclear to me. The large circles on fig. 11 suggest the medallions ofLezoux potters like Cinnamus; the palmettes might have been taken fromGerman originals. Very few of these interesting pieces were found--allof them close to the kiln numbered 3 on fig. 5. 

[Illustration: FIG. 10. HOLT, STAMPED WARE IN IMITATION OF SAMIAN, SHAPE37 (1/1)]

An even more striking piece (fig. 1) is a 'poinçon' bearing the head ofSilenus in relief. It is believed to be the artist's die, from which thepotters' sunk dies would be cast; from such sunk dies little casts wouldbe made and 'applied' in relief to the outsides of the bowls, to thehandles of jugs, &c. It does not seem to have been intended for any sortof ware made from a mould; indeed, moulded ware rarely occurs among theproducts of Holt. It is far finer work than most Samian ornamentation;probably, however, it has never been damaged by use. It was found, withone or two less remarkable dies, in the waste round kiln 3. 

[Illustration: FIG. 11. STAMPED WARE, IN IMITATION OF SAMIAN, SHAPE 37(1/1). (See pp. 19, 20)]

Interest attaches also to various vessels, two or three nearly perfectand many broken, which have been glazed with green, brown or yellowglaze; some of these pieces seem to be imitated from cut glass ware. Along with them Mr. Acton has found the containing bowls (saggars) andkiln-props used to protect and support the glazed vessels during theprocess of firing, and as the drip of the glaze is visible on the sidesof the props and the bottoms of the saggars, he infers that the Holtpotters manufactured glazed ware with success. 

It is obvious that Mr. Acton's detailed report on Holt will be full ofimportant matter, and that further excavation of the site, whenever itmay be possible, will also yield important results. 

(xiii) _Cardiff. _ The widening of Duke Street, which fronts the easternhalf of the south side of Cardiff Castle, has revealed the south-eastangle of the Roman fort, on the top of which the castle stands, and hasrevealed it in good preservation. Nothing, however, has come to lightwhich seems to increase or alter our previous knowledge of the fort. Many small Roman objects are stated to have been found, Samian ware, coins, brooches, beads, in the course of the work; these may belong tothe 'civil settlement' which, as I have said elsewhere, may have lain tothe south of the fort (_Military Aspects of Roman Wales_, p. 105). Whenthey have been sorted and dated, they should throw light on the historyof Roman Cardiff. 

(xiv) _Richborough. _ This important site has been taken over by H. M. Office of Works, and some digging has been done round the centralplatform, but (Mr. Peers tells me) without any notable result. Thetheory that this platform was the base of a lighthouse is still themost probable. 

xv-xxv. FINDS RELATING TO CIVIL LIFE

(xv) _Wroxeter (Viroconium). _ The systematic excavation of Wroxeterbegun in 1912 by Mr. J. P. Bushe-Fox on behalf of the London Society ofAntiquaries and the Shropshire Archaeological Society, was carried byhim through its third season in 1914. The area examined lay immediatelynorth of the temple uncovered in 1913. The main structure in it was alarge dwelling-house 115 feet long, with extensions up to 200 feet, which possessed at least two courtyards, a small detached bath-house, various mosaic and cement floors, hypocausts, and so forth. It had beenoften altered, and its excavation and explanation were excessivelydifficult. Mr. Bushe-Fox thinks that it may have begun as three shopsgiving on to the north and south Street which bounds its eastern end. Certainly it became, in course of time, a large corridor-house with asouth aspect and an eastern wing fronting the street, and as such itunderwent several changes in detail. Beyond its western end lay a stillmore puzzling structure. An enceinte formed by two parallel walls, about13 feet apart, enclosed a rectangular space of about 150 feet wide; thewestern end of it, and therefore its length, could not be ascertained;the two corners uncovered at the east end were rounded; an entranceseems to have passed through the north-east corner. It has been calleda small fort, an amphitheatre, a stadium, and several other things. But a fort should be larger and would indeed be somewhat hard to accountfor at this spot; while a stadium should have a rounded end and, if itwas of orthodox length, would have extended outside the town into oralmost into the Severn. Interest attaches to a water-channel along themain (north and south) street. This was found to have at intervals slitsin each side which were plainly meant for sluice-gates to be let down;Mr. Bushe-Fox thinks that the channel was a water-supply, and not anoutfall, and that by the sluice-gates the water was dammed up so as, when needed, to flow along certain smaller channels into the privatehouses which stood beside the road. If so, the discovery has muchinterest; the arrangement is peculiar, but no other explanation seemsforthcoming. 

Small finds were many and good. Mr. Bushe-Fox gathered 571 coins rangingfrom three British and one or two Roman Republican issues, to threeearly coins of the Emperor Arcadius, over 200 Samian potters' stamps, and much Samian datable to the period about A. D. 75-130, with a few rarepieces of the pre-Flavian age. There was a noticeable scarcity of bothSamian and coins of the post-Hadrianic, Antonine period; it was alsoobserved that recognizable 'stratified deposits' did not occur after theage of Hadrian. Among individual objects attention is due to a smallseal-box, with wax for the seal actually remaining in it. 

It appears that it will probably not be possible to continue thisexcavation, even on a limited scale, next summer. Mr. Bushe-Fox's reportfor 1913 is noticed below, p. 52. 

(xvi) _Lincoln. _ At Lincoln an inscribed fragment found in 1906 has nowcome to light. It bears only three letters, IND, being the last lettersof the inscription; these plainly preserve a part of the name of thetown, Lindum. See below, p. 34. 

(xvii) _Gloucester. _ Here, in March 1914, a mosaic floor, 16 feetsquare, with a complex geometrical pattern in red, white, and blue, hasbeen found 9 feet below the present surface, at 22 Northgate Street. Some painted wall-plaster from the walls of the room to which itbelonged were found with it. 

(xviii) Discoveries in _London_ have been limited to two groups ofrubbish-pits in the City, (_a_) At the General Post Office the pitsopened in 1913 (see my Report, p. 22) were further carefully exploredin 1914 by Mr. F. Lambert, Mr. Thos. Wilson, and Dr. Norman; the PostOffice gave full facilities. Over 100 'potholes' were detected, of whichabout forty yielded more or less datable rubbish, mainly potsherds. Four contained objects of about A. D. 50-80, though not in greatquantity--four bits of decorated Samian and eight Samian stamps--andfourteen contained objects of about A. D. 70-100; the rest seemed tobelong to the second century, with some few later items intermixed. One would infer that a little rubbish was deposited here before theFlavian period, but that after about A. D. 70 or 80 the site was freelyused as a rubbish-ground for three generations or more. Two objects maybe noted, a gold ring bearing the owner's initials Q. D. D. And a bitof inscribed wood from the lining of a well or pit (p. 35). (_b_) At thetop of King William Street, between Sherborne Lane and Abchurch Lane, not so far from the Mansion House, five large pits were opened in thesummer of 1914, in the course of ordinary contractors' building work. They could not be so minutely examined as the Post Office pits, butit was possible to observe that their datable potsherds fell roughlywithin the period A. D. 50-100, and that a good many potsherds wereearlier than the Flavian age; there must have been considerable depositof rubbish here before A. D. 70 or thereabouts, and it must have ceasedabout the end of the century. A full account of both groups of pits wasgiven to the Society of Antiquaries by Mr. F. Lambert on February 11, 1915; illustrated notices of the Post Office finds were contributed byMr. Thos. Wilson to the Post Office Magazine, _St. Martin-le-Grand_(January and July, 1914); Mr. D. Atkinson helped with the dating of thepottery. 

Much gratitude is due to those who have so skilfully collaborated toachieve these results. So far as it is permissible to argue from twosites only, they seem to throw real light on the growth of the earliestRoman London. The Post Office pits lie in the extreme north-west of thelater Londinium, just inside the walls; the King William Street pitsare in its eastern half, not far from the east bank of the now vanishedstream of Wallbrook, which roughly bisected the whole later extent ofthe town. It may be assumed that, at the time when the two groups ofpits were in use, the inhabited area had not yet spread over theirsites, though it had come more or less close. That would imply that theearliest city lay mainly, though perhaps not wholly, on the east bankof Wallbrook; then, as the houses spread and the town west of Wallbrookdeveloped, the King William Street pits were closed, while the PostOffice pits came more into use, during and after the Flavian age. 

This conclusion is tentative. It must be remembered that thestratification of rubbish-pits, ancient as well as modern, is often verypeculiar. It is liable to be confused by all sorts of cross-currents. In particular, objects are constantly thrown into rubbish-pits manyyears, perhaps even centuries, after those objects have passed out ofuse. Whenever, even in a village, an old cottage is pulled down or a newone built, old rubbish gets shifted to new places and mixed with rubbishof a quite different age. At Caerwent, as Dr. T. Ashby once told me, adeep rubbish-pit yielded a coin of about A. D. 85 at a third of the waydown, and at the very bottom a coin of about 315. That is, the pit wasin use about or after 315; some one then shovelled into it debris ofmuch earlier date. The London pits now in question are, however, fairlyuniform in their contents, and their evidence may be utilized at leastas a base for further inquiries. 

(xix-xxii) _Rural dwellings. _ Three Roman 'villas'--that is, country-houses or farms--have been explored in 1914. All are small. 

[Illustration: FIG. 12. BATH-HOUSE, EAST GRIMSTEAD]

(xix) At _East Grimstead_, five miles south-east from Salisbury, onMaypole Farm near Churchway Copse[5], a bath-house has been dug out andplanned by Mr. Heywood Sumner, to whom I owe the following details. Thebuilding (fig. 12) measures only 14 × 28 feet and contains only fourrooms, (1) a tile-paved apartment which probably served as entrance anddressing-room, (2) a room over a pillared hypocaust, which may be calledthe tepidarium, (3) a similar smaller room, nearer the furnace andtherefore perhaps hotter, which may be the caldarium--though really itis hardly worth while to distinguish between these two rooms--and (4) asemicircular bath, lined with pink mortar and fine cement, warmed withflues from rooms 3 and with box-tiles, and provided with an outfalldrain; east of rooms 3 and 4 was the furnace. Small finds includedwindow glass, potsherds, two to three hundred oyster-shells, and fiveThird Brass coins (two Constantinian, three illegible). Large stonefoundations have been detected close by; presumably this was thedetached bath-house for a substantial residence which awaits excavation. Such detached bath-houses are common; I may instance one found in 1845at Wheatley (Oxon. ), which had very similar internal arrangements andstood near a substantial dwelling-house not yet explored (_Archaeol. Journal_, ii. 350). A full description of the Grimstead bath, by Mr. Sumner, is in the press. 

[Footnote 5: The words Church, Chapel, and Chantry often form parts ofthe names of Roman sites, where the ruined masonry has been popularlymistaken for that of deserted ecclesiastical buildings. ]

(xx) Three miles south-west of Guildford, at Limnerslease in theparish of _Compton_, Mr. Mill Stephenson has helped to uncover a housemeasuring 53 × 76 feet, with front and back corridors, and seven rooms, including baths. Coins suggested that it was inhabited in the earlyfourth century--a period when our evidence shows that manyRomano-British farms and country-houses were occupied. [6]

[Footnote 6: I may refer to my _Romanization of Britain_ (third edition, p. 77). This does not, of course, mean that they were not also occupiedearlier. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 13. HOUSE AT NORTH ASH, KENT]

(xxi) A third house is supplied by Kent. This was found in June aboutsix miles south of Gravesend, near the track from _North Ash_ toAsh Church, on the farm of Mr. Geo. Day. Woodland was being cleared foran orchard, flint foundations were encountered, and the site was thenexplored by Mr. Jas. Kirk, Mr. S. Priest, and others of the DartfordAntiquarian Society, to whom I am indebted for information: the Societywill in due course issue a full Report. The spade (fig. 13) revealed arectangular walled enclosure of 53 × 104 feet. The entrance was atthe east end; the dwelling-rooms (including a sunk bath, 7 feet square, lined with plaster) were, so far as traced, in the west and south-westportion; much of the walled space may have been farmyard or woodensheds. Many bits of Samian and other pottery were found (among thema mortarium stamped MARTINVSF), and many oyster-shells. OtherRomano-British foundations have been suspected close by. 

The structure somewhat resembles the type of farm-house which mightfairly be called, from its best-known example--the only one nowuncovered to view--the Carisbrooke type. [7] That, however, usually hasrooms at both ends, as in the Clanville example which I figure here asmore perfect than the Carisbrooke one (fig. 14). One might compare thebuildings at Castlefield, Finkley, and Holbury, which I have discussedin the _Victoria History of Hants_ (i. 302-3, 312), and which wereperhaps rudimentary forms of the Carisbrooke type. 

[Footnote 7: It has been styled the 'basilical' type, but few namescould be less suitable. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 14. FARM-HOUSE AT CLANVILLE, KENT (To illustrateFig. 13)]

(xxii) A few kindred items may be grouped here. Digging has beenattempted in a Roman 'villa' at Litlington (Cambs. ) but, as Prof. McKenny Hughes tells me, with little success. The 'beautifully tiledand marbled floors' are newspaper exaggeration. A 'Roman bath' whichwas stated to have been found early in 1914 at Kingston-on-Thames, in the work of widening the bridge, is declared by Mr. Mill Stephensonnot to be Roman at all. Lastly, an excavation of an undoubted Romanhouse at Broom Farm, between Hambledon and Soberton in south-east Hants, projected by Mr. A. Moray Williams, was prevented by the war, whichcalled Mr. Williams to serve his country. 

(xxiii) _Lowbury. _ During the early summer of 1914 Mr. D. Atkinsoncompleted his examination of the interesting site of Lowbury, high amidthe east Berkshire Downs. Of the results which he won in 1913 I gavesome account last year (Report for 1913, p. 22); those of 1914 confirmand develop them. We may, then, accept the site as, at first and duringthe Middle Empire, a summer farm or herdsmen's shelter, and in thelatest Roman days a refuge from invading English. Whether the wall whichhe traced round the little place was reared to keep in cattle or to keepout foes, is not clear; possibly enough, it served both uses. In all, Mr. Atkinson gathered about 850 coins belonging to all periods of theEmpire but especially to the latest fourth century and includingTheodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius. He also found over fifty broochesand a great amount of pottery--3 cwt. , he tells me--which was mostlyrough ware: there was little Samian (some of shape '37'), less Castor, and hardly any traces of mortaria. A notable find was the skeleton ofa woman of 50 (ht. About 5 feet 9 inches), which he discovered in thetrench dug to receive the foundations of the enclosing wall; it lay inthe line of the foundations amidst the perished cement of the wall, andits associations and position forbid us to think either that it wasburied before the wall was thought of or was inserted after the wall wasruined. Mr. Atkinson formed the theory--with natural hesitation--thatit might be a foundation burial, and I understand that Sir Jas. Frazeraccepts this suggestion. A full report of the whole work will shortlybe issued in the Reading College Research Series. 

(xxiv) _Eastbourne, Beachy Head. _ The Rev. W. Budgen, of Eastbourne, tells me of a hoard of 540 coins found in 1914 in a coombe near BullockDown, just behind Beachy Head. The coins range from Valerian (1 coin)to Quintillus (4 coins) and Probus (1 coin); 69 are attributed toGallienus, 88 to Victorinus, 197 to the Tetrici, and 40 to ClaudiusGothicus ; the hoard may have been buried about A. D. 280, but it has tobe added that 130 coins have not been yet identified. Hoards of somewhatthis date are exceedingly common; in 1901 I published accounts of twosuch hoards detected, shortly before that, at points quite close to thefindspot of the present hoard (see _Sussex Archaeological Collections_, xliv, pp. 1-8). 

Mr. Budgen has also sent me photographs of some early cinerary urnsand a 'Gaulish' fibula, found together in Eastbourne in 1914. Thethings may belong to the middle of the first century A. D. The 'Gaulish'type of fibula has been discussed and figured by Sir Arthur Evans(_Archaeologia_, lv. 188-9, fig. 10; see also Dressel's note in _BonnerJahrbücher_, lxiv. 82). Its home appears to be Gaul. In Britain itoccurs rather infrequently; east of the Rhine it is still rarer; itshows only one vestige of itself at Haltern and is wholly absent fromHofheim and the Saalburg. Its date appears to be the first century A. D. , and perhaps rather the earlier two-thirds than the end of that period. 

(xxv) _Parc-y-Meirch_ (_North Wales_). Here Mr. Willoughby Gardner hasfurther continued his valuable excavations (Report for 1913, p. 25). The new coin-finds seem to hint that the later fourth-century stratummay have been occupied earlier in that century than the date which Igave last year, A. D. 340. But the siege of this hill-fort is bound tobe long and its full results will not be clear till the end. Then wemay expect it to throw real light on an obscure corner of the historyof Roman and also post-Roman Wales. 

B. ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS FOUND IN BRITAIN IN 1914

This section includes the Roman inscriptions which have been found, or(perhaps I should say) first recognized to exist, in Britain in 1914or which have become more accurately known in that year. As in 1913, the list is short and its items are not of great importance; but theChesterholm altar (No. 5) deserves note, and the Corbridge tile alsopossesses considerable interest. 

I have edited them in the usual manner, first stating the origin, character, &c. , of the inscription, then giving its text with arendering in English, thirdly adding any needful notes and acknowledgingobligations to those who may have communicated the items to me. In the expansions of the text, square brackets denote letters which, owing to breakage or other cause, are not now on the stone, though onemay presume that they were originally there; round brackets denoteexpansions of Roman abbreviations. The inscriptions are printed inthe same order as the finds in section A, that is, from north tosouth--though with so few items the order hardly matters. 

(1) Found at Balmuildy (above, p. 7) in the annexe to the south-east ofthe fort proper, some sandstone fragments from the top of a small altar, originally perhaps about 14 inches wide. At the top, in a semicircularpanel is a rude head; below are letters from the first two lines of thededication; probably the first line had originally four letters:--

[Illustration: FIG. 15. ]

Possibly DIO may be for _deo_. It is by no means a common orthography, but if it be accepted, we can read _dio [s(ancto) Ma]rti_. .. . Thereading DIIO, _deo_, is I fear impossible. 

I have to thank Mr. S. N. Miller, the excavator, for photographs. 

(2) At Traprain Law (above, p. 8) a small potsherd from a second-centurylevel bore the letters scratched on it

 I R I /

These letters were on the side of the potsherd which had formed theinner surface when the pot was whole; they must therefore have beeninscribed after the pot had been smashed, and the size and shape of thebit give cause to think that it may have been broken intentionally forinscription--possibly for use in some game. In any case, it must havebeen inscribed at Traprain Law, and not brought there already written, and the occurrence of writing of any sort on such a site is noteworthy. 

I am indebted to Dr. G. Macdonald for a sight of the piece. 

(3) Found about three and a half miles north of the Roman fortBremenium, High Rochester, near Horsley in north Northumberland, besidethe Roman road over the Cheviots (Dere Street), close to the steading ofFeatherwood, in the autumn of 1914, now in the porch of Horsley ParishChurch, a plain altar 51 inches high by 22 inches wide, with six linesof letters 2 inches tall. The inscription is unusually illegible. Onlythe first and last lines are readable with certainty; elsewhere someletters can be read or guessed, but not so as to yield coherent sense. 

 VICTORIAE (only bottom of final E visible) ET. .. . IVL (ET probable, IVL fairly certain) MEIANIC (only M quite certain) II. .. .. .. . C (erased on purpose) PVBLICO V . S . L _m_

The altar was dedicated to Victory; nothing else is certain. It istempting to conjecture in line 2 ET N AVG, _et numinibus Augustorum_, ason some other altars to Victory, but ET is not certain, though probable, and N AVG is definitely improbable. The fourth line seems to have beenintentionally erased. I find no sign of any mention of the Cohors IVardullorum, which garrisoned Bremenium, though it or its commandermight naturally be concerned in putting up such an altar. 

We may assume that the altar belongs to Bremenium; possibly it wasbrought thence when Featherwood was built. 

I have to thank the Rev. Thos. Stephens, vicar of Horsley, forphotographs and an excellent squeeze and readings, and Mr. R. Blair fora photograph. 

(4-5) Found on July 17, 1914, at Chesterholm, just south of Hadrian'sWall, lying immediately underneath the surface in a grass field 120yards west of the fort, two altars:

(4) 32 inches tall, 15 inches broad, illegible save for the first line

 IOM

_I(ovi) o(ptimo) m(aximo)_. .. . 

(5) 34 inches tall, 22 inches broad, with 8 lines of rather irregularletters, not quite legible at the end (fig. 16). 

[Illustration: FIG. 16. ALTAR FROM CHESTERHOLM]

_Pro domu divina et numinibus Augustorum, Volcano sacrum, vicaniVindolandesses, cu[r(am)] agente . .. V(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens)m(erito)_. 

'For the Divine (i. E. Imperial) House and the Divinity of the Emperors, dedicated to Vulcan by the members of the _vicus_ of Vindolanda, underthe care of . .. (name illegible). '

The statement of the reason for the dedication given in the first threelines is strictly tautologous, the Divine House and the Divinity of theEmperors being practically the same thing. The formula _numinibus Aug. _is very common in Britain, though somewhat rare elsewhere; in otherprovinces its place is supplied by the formula _in honorem domusdivinae_; it belongs mostly to the late second and third centuries. Theplural _Augustorum_ does not appear to refer to a plurality of reigningEmperors, but to the whole body of Emperors dead and living who wereworshipped in the Cult of the Emperors. 

The _vicani Vindolandesses_ are the members of the settlement--women andchildren, traders, old soldiers, and others--which grew up outside thefort at Chesterholm, as outside nearly all Roman forts and fortresses. In this case they formed a small self-governing community, presumablywith its own 'parish council', which could be called by the Roman term_vicus_, even if it was not all that a proper _vicus_ should be. Thisaltar was put up at the vote of their 'parish meeting' and paid for, one imagines, out of their common funds. The term _vicus_ is applied tosimilar settlements outside forts on the German Limes; thus we have the_vicani Murrenses_ at the fort of Benningen on the Murr (CIL. Xiii. 6454) and the _vicus Aurelius_ or _Aurelianus_ at Oehringen (_ibid. _6541). 

_Vindolandesses_, which is merely a phonetic spelling or misspelling of_Vindolandenses_, gives the correct name of the fort. In the Notitiait is spelt Vindolana, in the Ravennas (431. 11) Vindolanda; and asin general the Ravennas teems with errors and the Notitia is fairlycorrect, the spelling Vindolana has always been preferred, although (asProf. Sir John Rhys tells me) its second part _-lana_ is an etymologicalpuzzle. It now appears that in this, as in some few other cases, theRavennas has kept the true tradition. The termination _-landa_ is aCeltic word denoting a small defined space, akin to the Welsh 'llan', and also to the English 'land'; I cannot, however, find any otherexample in which it forms part of a place-name of Roman date. _Vindo-_is connected either with the adjective _vindos_, 'white', or with thepersonal name Vindos derived from that adjective. 

I have to thank Mrs. Clayton, the owner of Chesterholm, and her foreman, Mr. T. Hepple, for excellent photographs and squeezes. The altars arenow in the Chesters Museum. 

(6) Found at Corbridge, in August 1914, fragment of a tile, 7 × 8 inchesin size, on which, before it was baked hard, some one had scratchedthree lines of lettering about 1-1-1/2 inches tall; the survivingletters form the beginnings of the lines of which the ends are brokenoff. There were never more than three lines, apparently. 

 O M Q L LIIND/ LEGEFEL

The inscription seems to have been a reading lesson. First the teacherscratched two lines of letters, in no particular order and making noparticular sense; then he added the exhortation _lege feliciter_, 'read and good luck to you'. A modern teacher, even though he taught bythe aid of a slate in lieu of a soft tile, might have expressed himselfless gracefully. The tile may be compared with the well-known tile fromSilchester, on which Maunde Thompson detected a writing lesson (Eph. Epigr. Ix. 1293). A knowledge of reading and writing does not seem tohave been at all uncommon in Roman Britain or in the Roman worldgenerally, even among the working classes; I may refer to my_Romanization of Roman Britain_ (ed. 3, pp. 29-34). 

The imperfectly preserved letter after Q in line 1 was perhaps anangular L or E; that after D, in line 2, may have been M or N or even A. 

I am indebted to Mr. R. H. Forster for a photograph and squeeze of thetile. 

(7) Found in a peat-bog in Upper Weardale, in August 1913, two bronzeskillets or 'paterae', of the usual saucepan shape, the larger weighing15-1/2 oz. , the smaller 8-1/2 oz. Each bore a stamp on the handle;the smaller had also a graffito on the rim of the bottom made by asuccession of little dots. An uninscribed bronze ladle was found withthe 'paterae':

 (_a_) on the larger patera: P CIPE POLI

 (_b_) on the smaller: _p_OLYBI·I

 (_c_) punctate: LICINIANI

The stamps of the Campanian bronze-worker Cipius Polybius are wellknown. Upwards of forty have been found, rather curiously distributed(in the main) between Pompeii and places on or near the Rhenish andDanubian frontiers, in northern Britain, and in German and Danishlands outside the Roman Empire. The stamped 'paterae' of other Cipiiand other bronze-workers have a somewhat similar distribution; itseems that the objects were made in the first century A. D. , in ornear Pompeii, and were chiefly exported to or beyond the borders of theEmpire. Their exact use is still uncertain, I have discussed them in the_Archaeological Journal_, xlix, 1892, pp. 228-31; they have since beentreated more fully by H. Willers (_Bronzeeimer von Hemmoor_, 1901, p. 213, and _Neue Untersuchungen über die römische Bronzeindustrie_, 1907, p. 69). 

I have to thank Mr. W. M. Egglestone, of Stanhope, for information andfor rubbings of the stamps. The E in the first stamp seems clear on therubbing; all other examples have here I· or I. In the second stamp, theconclusion might be BI·F. The _graffito_ was first read INVINDA; it is, however, certainly as given above. 

(8) Found at Holt, eight miles south of Chester (see above, p. 15), inthe autumn of 1914, built upside down into the outer wall of a kiln, acenturial stone of the usual size and character, 10 inches long, 7-8inches high, with letters (3/4-1 inch tall) inside a rude label

 [C]CESo NIANA

_c(enturia) C(a)esoniana_, set up by the century under Caesonius. 

[Transcribers Note: The bracketed "C" above is printed reversed in theoriginal. ]

Like another centurial stone found some time ago at Holt (Eph. Epigr. Ix. 1035), this was not found _in situ_; the kiln or other structureinto the wall of which it was originally inserted must have been pulleddown and its stones used up again. 

The centuries mentioned would of course be units from the TwentiethLegion at Chester. 

(9) Found at Holt late in 1914, a fragment of tile (about 7 × 7 inches)with parts of two (or three) lines of writing scratched on it. 

 . .. LIVITILI. . . . IT TAL. . . .. .. .. .. 

I can offer no guess at the sense of this. The third line may be merescratches. I am indebted to Mr. Arthur Acton for sending Nos. 8 and 9 tome for examination. 

(10) Found at Lincoln in 1906, on the site of the Technical Schoolsextensions (outside the east wall of the lower Roman town), a fragmentfrom the lower right-hand corner of an inscribed slab flanked withfoliation, 13 inches tall, 19 inches wide, with 2-inch lettering. 

 G | _fol_- | _iat_- IND | _ion_. ____|__________

No doubt one should prefix L to IND. That is, the inscription ended withsome part of the Romano-British name of Lincoln, Lindum, or of itsadjective Lindensis. From the findspot it seems probable that theinscription may have been sepulchral. 

I am indebted to Mr. Arthur Smith, Curator of the City and County Museumat Lincoln, for a squeeze. The stone is now in the Museum. 

(11) Found in London near the General Post Office in a rubbish-pit (seeabove, p. 23), two pieces of wood from the staves of a barrel whichseems to have served as lining to a pit or well. They bear faintimpressions of a metal stamp; (_a_) is repeated twice. 

 (_a_) [TE]C·PAGA. .. _and_ . . C·PA. . †

 (_b_) CS _or_ CB

The first stamp seems to include a name in the genitive, perhaps_Pacati_, but I do not know what TEC means. 

[Transcribers Note: The bracketed [TE] above is a "TE" ligature. ]

(12) Found in another rubbish-pit of the same site as No. 11, a plaingold ring with three sunk letters on the bezel:

 Q·D·D

Presumably the initials of an owner. The letters were at first readO·D·D, but the tail of the Q is discernible. 

I am indebted to the Post Office authorities and to Mr. F. Lambert fora sight of Nos. 11 and 12. The objects are preserved at the GeneralPost Office. 

(13) I add here a note on a Roman milestone found in 1694 near Applebyand lately refound. 

Among the papers of the antiquary Richard Gough in the BodleianLibrary--more exactly, in his copy of Horsley's _Britannia_, gen. Top. 128 = MS. 17653, fol. 44 _v. _--is recorded the text of a milestone ofthe Emperor Philip and his son, 'dug out of ye military way 1694, nowat Hangingshaw'. The entry is written in Gough's own hand on the lastpage of a list of Roman and other inscriptions once belonging toReginald Bainbridge, who was schoolmaster in Appleby in Elizabeth'sreign and died there in 1606. [8] This list had been drawn up by oneHayton, under-schoolmaster at Appleby, in 1722 and had been copied outby Gough. There is, however, nothing to show whether the milestone, found eighty-eight years after the death of Bainbridge and plainly noneof his collection, was added by Hayton, or was otherwise obtained byGough and copied by him on a casually blank page; there is nothing evento connect either the stone or Hangingshaw with Appleby. 

[Footnote 8: As to Bainbridge see my paper in the _Cumberland andWestmorland Archaeological Transactions_, new series, vol. Xi (1911), pp. 343-78. ]

The notice lay neglected till Hübner undertook to edit the Romaninscriptions of Britain, which he issued in the seventh volume of the_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_ in 1873. He included the milestone asNo. 1179. But, with his too frequent carelessness--a carelessness whichmakes the seventh volume of the _Corpus_ far less valuable than the restof the series--he christened the stone, in defiance of dates, No. 17 inBainbridge's collection; he also added the statement (which we shall seeto be wrong) that Hangingshaw was near Old Carlisle. Fortunately, in theautumn of 1914, Mr. Percival Ross, the Yorkshire archaeologist, sent mea photograph of an inscription which he had come upon, built into thewall of a farm called Hangingshaw, about 200 yards from the Roman roadwhich runs along the high ground a little east of Appleby. It thenbecame plain--despite Hübner's errors--that this stone was that recordedin Gough's papers, although his copy was in one point faulty and on theother hand some letters which were visible in 1694 have now apparentlyperished. A rubbing sent me by the late Rev. A. Warren of Old Applebyhelped further; I now give from the three sources--Gough's copy, thephotograph, and the rubbing--what I hope may be a fairly accurate text. I premise that the letters RCO in line 2, LIPPO in 3, PHILIPPO in 8, IMOin 9, and I in 10 seem to be no longer visible but depend on Gough'scopy. 

 IMPC[lambda]C SARIMARCO IV[L]IOPHILIPPO PIOFE[L]ICI INVICTO AVGVSTO _p_ERP ETMIVLPHILIPPO NOBILISSIMO CAESARI

[Transcribers Note: The bracketed "L" above are printed with thehorizontal line slanted downwards. ]

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 ofthat necessary word. In reality, line 7 is the most interesting item inthe inscription. It shows that the Emperor Philip was, here at least, styled _perpetuus Augustus_. That is an appellation to which I find noexact parallel in Philip's other inscriptions or indeed in any otherimperial inscriptions till half a century after his death. It fits, however, into a definite development of the Roman imperial titles. Inthe earliest Empire, phrases occur, mostly on coins, such as _Aeternitasimperii_ or _Aeternitas populi romani_. Soon the notion of the stabilityof the Empire was transferred to its rulers. As early as Vespasian, coins bear the legend _aeternitas Augusti_, and in the first yearsof the second century Pliny, writing to Trajan, speaks of petitionsaddressed _per salutem tuam aeternitatemque_ and of 'works worthy ofthe emperor's eternity, ' (_opera aeternitate tua digna_). Late in thesecond century such phrases become commoner. With Severus Alexander(A. D. 221-35) coins begin to show the legend _Perpetuitas Aug. _, andbefore very long the indirect and abstract language changes into directepithets which are incorporated in the emperors' titulature. The firstcase 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, iscalled on one stone _invictus et perpetuus . .. Semper Augustus_, onanother _perpetuus imperator, semper Augustus_. That Philip should havebeen the first to have applied to him, even once, the direct epithet, isprobably a mere accident. One might have wished to connect it with hisSecular Games, celebrated in 248. But by that time his son was no longerCaesar but full Augustus (since 246), and our stone must fall into theyears 244-6. 

The ideas underlying these epithets were perhaps mixed. Notions of orprayers for the long life of the Empire, the stability of the reigninghouse, the long reign of the current emperor, may have jostled withnotions of the immortality of the emperors and their deification, andwith the eastern ideas which poured into Rome as the second centuryended and the third century began. [9] The hardening despotism of theimperial 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, semperAugustus_ connoted that unchecked and autocratic rule. 

[Footnote 9: See an excellent paper by Cumont, _Revue d'Histoire et deLittérature religieuses_, 1896, pp. 435-52. ]

C. PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO ROMAN BRITAIN IN 1914

The following summary of the books and articles on Roman Britain whichappeared in 1914 is grouped under two heads, first, those few which dealwith general aspects of the subject, and secondly, the far larger numberwhich concern special sites or areas. In this second class, those whichbelong to England are placed under their counties in alphabetical order, while those which belong to Wales and Scotland are grouped under thesetwo headings. I have in general admitted only matter which was publishedin 1914, or which bears that date. 

1. GENERAL

(1) Mr. G. L. Cheesman's _Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army_ (OxfordUniversity Press) does not deal especially with Roman Britain, but itdeserves brief notice here. It is an excellent and up-to-date sketchof an important section of the Roman army, with which Britisharchaeologists are much concerned. It also contains valuable lists, which can be found nowhere else, of the 'auxiliary' regiments stationedin Britain (pp. 146-9 and 170-1). It is full, cheap, compact; everyhistorical and archaeological library should get it. 

(2) A learned and scholarly attempt to settle the obscure chronology ofthe 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 noveland, though to some extent disputable, are well worth printing. Startingfrom the known fact that, during much of the third century, the northfrontier of Roman Britain coincided roughly with the line of Cheviot andwas then withdrawn to the line of Hadrian's Wall, he distinguishes fivestages in the subsequent history. (1) At or just before the outset ofthe fourth century, in the reign of Diocletian, the Wall was reorganizedin some ill-recorded fashion. (2) Thirty years later, towards the endof Constantine's reign, about A. D. 320-30, it was (he thinks) furtherreorganized; perhaps its mile-castles were then discarded. (3) Thirty orforty years later still, after disturbances which (he conjectures)included the temporary loss of Hadrian's Wall and the destruction of itsgarrisons, Theodosius carried out in 369 a fuller reorganization. Thisgarrison had consisted of the regiments known to us by various evidenceas posted 'per lineam valli' in the third and early fourth centuries;their places were now filled by soldiers of whom we know absolutelynothing. (4) In 383 Maximus withdrew these unknown troops for hiscontinental wars. Now perhaps the line of the Wall had to be given up, but Tyne and Solway, South Shields, Corbridge, and Carlisle were stillheld. (5) Finally, about 395-9, Stilicho ordered a last reorganization;he withdrew the frontier from the Tyne to the Tees, from Carlisle toLancaster, 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 ofthe Notitia borrowed from the older order to disguise the loss of theWall. Even this did not last. In 402 Stilicho had to summon troops toItaly for home defence--among them, Mr. Craster suggests, the SixthLegion--and in 407 the remaining Roman soldiers, including the SecondLegion, 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 simplerto connect the abandonment of the mile-castles--his stage 2--with therecorded troubles which called Constans to Britain in 343, rather thaninvent an unrecorded action by Constantine I. I hesitate also to assumefor the period 369-83 an otherwise unknown frontier garrison, which hasleft no trace of itself. I feel still greater doubt respecting the years383-99. Here Mr. Craster argues from coin-finds. No coins have beenfound on the line of the Wall which were minted later than 383, and noneat Corbridge, Carlisle, and South Shields which were minted later than395; therefore, he infers, the Wall was abandoned soon after 383, andthe other sites soon after 395. This is too rigid an argument. It maybe a mere accident that the Wall has as yet yielded no coin which wasminted between 383 and 395. At Wroxeter, for example, two small hoardswere found some years ago which had clearly been lost at the momentwhen the town was sacked. By these hoards we should be able to date thecatastrophe. Now the latest coin in one hoard was minted in or before377, and the latest in the other in or before 383. But newer finds showthat Wroxeter was not destroyed at earliest till after 390. Again, as Mr. Craster himself says, the coining of Roman copper practicallystopped in 395; after that year the older copper issues appear to haveremained in use for many a long day. That is clear in Gaul, where coinslater than 395 seem to be rare, although Roman armies and influenceswere present for another fifty years. When Mr. Craster states that'archaeology gives no support to the theory that the Tyne-Solway linewas held after 395', he might add that it gives equally little supportto the theory that it was not held after 395. 

Incidentally, he offers a new theory of the two chapters in the NotitiaDignitatum which describe the forces commanded by the Comes LitorisSaxonici and the Dux Britanniarum (_Occ. _ 28 and 40). It is agreedthat these chapters do not exhibit the garrison of Britain at the momentwhen the Notitia was substantially completed, about A. D. 425, for thegood reason that there was then no garrison left in the island; theyexhibit some garrison which had then ceased to exist, and which ismentioned, apparently, to disguise the loss of the province. Thequestion is, to what date do they refer? Mommsen long ago pointed outthat the regiments enumerated in one part of them (the 'per lineamvalli' section) are very much the same as existed in the third century. Seeck added the suggestion that these regiments remained in garrisontill 383, when Maximus marched them off to the continent. According tohim, the garrison of the Wall through the first eighty years of thefourth 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 toStilicho's reorganization in 395-9, but that one section, headed 'perlineam valli', records troops who had been in Britain in the thirdcentury and had been destroyed before 369. I cannot feel that he hasproved his case. One would have thought that, when the compiler of theNotitia in 425 wanted to fill the gap left by the loss of the Wall, hewould 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 hadvanished some years earlier. But the problems of this obscure period arenot to be solved without many attacks. We must be glad that Mr. Crasterhas delivered a serious attack; even if he has not succeeded, hisscholarly discussion may make things easier for the next assailants. 

(3) The _Antiquary_ for 1914 contains an attempt by Mr. W. J. Kayeto catalogue all the examples of triple vases of Roman date found inBritain. It also prints a note by myself (p. 439) on the topography ofthe campaign of Suetonius against Boudicca, which argues that the defeatof the British warrior queen occurred somewhere on Watling Streetbetween Chester (or Wroxeter) and London. 

[Illustration: FIG. 18. TILE GRAVES IN THE INFIRMARY FIELD, CHESTER]

(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 wordsmeaning 'brave in war' (stem _su_-, 'good'), ought to be really speltSuccet and connected with Gaulish names like Succius and Sucelus. This, he thinks, destroys the last remnant of a reason for Zimmer's idea thatPatrick was the same as Palladius. 

2. SPECIAL SITES OR DISTRICTS

_Berks_

(5) Some notes of traces, near Kintbury west of Speen (Spinae), of theRoman road from Silchester to Bath are given by Mr. O. G. S. Crawford inthe _Berks, Bucks, and Oxon Archaeological Journal_ for Oct. 1914(xx. 96). 

_Cheshire_

[Illustration: FIG. 17. GRAVES IN THE INFIRMARY FIELD, CHESTER]

(6) In _Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology_ (Liverpool, 1914, vol. Vi, pp. 121-67) Prof. Newstead describes and illustrates fullythe 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). Savefor a few first-century remains in one corner, the graveyard seems tobe an inhumation cemetery, used during the second half of the secondcentury--rather an early date for such a cemetery. I do not myself feelmuch doubt that some at least of the tombstones extracted in 1890-2from 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 pointedout 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 seizureof the tombstones for the construction of the Wall would explain whythe Infirmary Field has yielded no tombstones from all its graves. By the kindness of Professors Bosanquet and Newstead I can add someillustrations of the graves themselves, from blocks used for Prof. Newstead's paper. Fig. 17 shows two of the simpler graves, fig. 18, twobuilt with tiles. Fig. 19 illustrates some curious nails found with thebodies. 

_Derbyshire_

(7) A list of the place-names of Derbyshire with philological notes iscommenced by Mr. B. Walker, sometime of Liverpool University, in the_Proceedings of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural HistorySociety_ for 1913 (xxxvi. 123-284, Derby, 1914); it is to be completedin a future volume. I venture two suggestions. First, like, many similartreatises on place-names which are now being issued, this work has toolimited a scope. It deals mainly with certain names of modern towns andvillages; it takes little or no heed of ancient names of houses andfields or of lanes and roads (as Bathamgate, Doctorgate), or of rivers(as Noe), or (lastly) of the place-names of the older England which arepreserved only in charters, chronicles, and the like; unless they chanceto come among the select list of modern names which the writer choosesto admit, they find no notice. Yet it is the older names of all sorts, irrespective of their survival in prominent fashion to-day, with whichhistorical students and even philologists are most really concerned. Secondly, writers on place-names take too little account of factsoutside the phonetic horizon. In the present instalment of Derbyshire, the one Roman item noted is Derby. Here, in the suburb of LittleChester, was a Roman fort or village, and past it flows the river thenand now called Derwent or something similar. Yet the etymology of Derbyis discussed without any reference to the river name. No doubt Derby isnot derived by regular phonetic process from Derwent; its earliestspellings, Deoraby and the like, connect it with either the word for'wild beast' or the proper name Deor. Still, it is incredible that theDerwent should flow past Derby and the adjacent Darley (formerly Derley)and be unrelated. One may guess with little rashness that the invaderswho renamed the site took over the Romano-British name (Deruentio or thelike) and reshaped that after analogies of their own speech. Does not aform Deorwenta occur (though Mr. Walker has missed it) to show that thetwo names interacted? Again, Chesterfield (Cesterfelda, A. D. 955) isglossed as 'the field by the fort'. What fort? There is none, nor does'Chester' necessarily mean that there was. Etymologizing withoutreference to facts is wasted work. 

[Illustration: FIG. 19. NAILS FROM THE CHESTER GRAVES. (p. 42)]

[Illustration: FIG. 20. THE MERSEA GRAVE MOUND. (p. 43)]

[Illustration: FIG. 21. LEADEN CASKET AND GLASS SEPULCHRAL VESSEL FROMTHE MERSEA BURIAL-MOUND. (p. 43)]

_Dorset_

(8) In the _Numismatic Chronicle_ for 1914 (pp. 92-5), Mr. H. Symondslists 107 'third brass' from a hoard found (it seems) about 1850 nearPuncknoll. They consist of 3 Gallienus, 2 Salonina, 55 Postumus, 40Victorinus, 3 Tetricus, 1 Tetricus junior, 2 Claudius Gothicus, and 1Garausius. The hoard was, then, of a familiar type; its original sizewe 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'sFifth Report on the gradual exploration of the Roman amphitheatre andthe underlying prehistoric remains at Maumbury Rings, Dorchester--nowsubstantially concluded--and an interesting little note on the NewForest pottery-works by Mr. Sumner (p. Xxxii). 

_Essex_

[Illustration: FIG. 22. RESTORATION OF THE TILE-BUILT GRAVE-CHAMBER OFTHE MERSEA MOUND]

(10) By the kindness of the Morant Club and the Essex ArchaeologicalSociety, I am able to reproduce here three illustrations of the finds inthe 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 occurin eastern Britain and in the Low Countries opposite, will justify theirinsertion here. I may also correct an error in my account. No 'Samianstamped VITALIS' was found at Mersea, but objects which have beenelsewhere found in association with that stamp. 

(11) Two small Essex excavations are recorded in the _Transactions ofthe Essex Archaeological Society_, vol. Xiii. At Chadwell St. Mary, near Tilbury, Mr. Miller Christy and Mr. F. W. Reader explored anearly-looking mound, only to find that it was probably mediaeval (pp. 218-33). At Hockley, also in South Essex, the same archaeologists withMr. E. B. Francis dug into a similar mound and met with many potsherdsof 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 quiteclear that the mound was thrown up in Roman times; it may have beenreared later, with earth which contained Romano-British objects. 

_Gloucester_

(12) The _Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire ArchaeologicalSociety_ (vol. Xxxvi) refers to excavations at Sea Mills, on the King'sWeston estate, in February 1913; the finds appear not to have beenextensive. They also record the transfer of the Roman 'villa' atWitcombe 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-illustratedaccount of a Romano-British farm-site five miles south-west of Salisburyon the edge of Cranborne Chase. Mr. Sumner excavated parts of it in1911-13; his account appeared so early in 1914 that it found a place inmy Report for 1913 (pp. 23-5). 

(14) Some Roman roads in Hampshire are treated in the _Papers andProceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society_(vii, part 1). Capt. G. A. Kempthorne writes on the road east and westof Silchester and Mr. Karslake adds a word as to the line outside thewest gate of that town, which he puts north of the generally assumedline (p. 25). Mr. O. G. S. Crawford and Mr. J. P. Freeman-Williams dealwith very much more uncertain roads in the New Forest--one acrossBeaulieu Heath, another from Otterbourn to Ringwood (pp. 34-42). 

(15) Mr. Karslake also (_ibid. _, p. 43) notes that the outerentrenchment at Silchester, which is thought to be pre-Roman, does notcoincide with the south-eastern front of the Roman town-walls, as wehave 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 1912to his County Council a Report on the Roman roads of the county, whichis now printed in the _Transactions of the East Herts ArchaeologicalSociety_ (v. 117-31). It deals mainly with the surviving traces ofthese roads and the question of preserving them in public use. The roadsselected as Roman are by no means all certain or probable Roman roads. The article is furnished with a map, which however omits several namesused in the text. 

_Kent_

(17) A few notes on the Roman Pharos at Dover and on some unexplainedpits near it, by Lieut. Peck, R. E. , are given in the _Journal of theBritish 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 theline which the Roman road from Dover and Canterbury to London followednear Greenwich. Its course is quite clear as far west as the outskirtsof Greenwich; thence it is doubtful all the way to London. In thesepapers evidence is advanced that a piece of road was closed in the lowerpart of Greenwich Park in 1434 and it is suggested that this was a bitof the lost Roman line. If so, the road ran straight on from Shooter'sHill, across Greenwich Park and the site of the Hospital School, towardsthe mouth of Deptford Creek. It is, however, hard to see how it crossedthat obstacle, or why it should have run so near the Thames at thispoint, where the shore must have been very marshy. 

_Lancashire_

(19) In the _Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire AntiquarianSociety_ (xxxi. 69-87) Mr. W. Harrison discusses the Roman road whichruns from Ribchester to Overborough for twenty-seven lonely milesthrough the hills of north-east Lancashire. He does not profess to addto our knowledge of the line of the road; he directs attention ratherto the reasons for the course which the road pursues, its diversionsfrom the straight line, and its gradients. He notes also, as othershave noted, the absence of any intermediate fort half-way along thetwenty-seven miles. Probably there was such a fort; but it must havestood in the wildest part of the road, almost in the heart of the Forestof Bowland and perhaps somewhere in Croasdale, and it has never beendetected. The greater ease of the lowland route from Ribchester byLancaster to Overborough may have led to the early abandonment ofthe shorter mountain track and of any post which guarded its centralportion. That, at any rate, is the suggestion which I would offer toLancashire antiquaries as a working hypothesis. 

(20) In the same journal Mr. J. W. Jackson lists some animal remainsfound 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, chanceexcavation has revealed tiles, potsherds, iron nails, and a few latecoins (Victorinus-Constantine junior, nob. Caes. ) on a site which haspreviously yielded Roman scraps (_ibid. _, p. 34). The tiles point tosome sort of farm or other dwelling. 

_London_

(23) In his new volume _London_ (London, 1914) Sir L. Gomme continueshis efforts to prove that English London can trace direct anduninterrupted descent from Roman Londinium. Though, he says (p. 9), 'Roman civilization certainly ceased in Britain with the Anglo-Saxonconquest, . .. Amidst the wreckage London was able to continue its useof the Roman city constitution in its new position as an English city'. I can only record my conviction that not all his generous enthusiasmprovides proof that Roman London survived the coming of the English. The root-error in his arguments is perhaps a failure to realize theRoman side of the argument. He says, for instance, that, though nota '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 allianceswith other cities, which 'lasted into the Middle Ages and is a directsurvival of the system adopted in Roman towns' (p. 101), its positionas 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 thingsdid not exist in the Roman town. When Sir Laurence goes on to assertthat 'the ritual of St. Paul's down to the seventeenth century preservedthe actual rites of the worship of Diana', he again falls short ofproof. What part of the ritual and what rites of Diana?[10]

[Footnote 10: Sir Laurence alludes (p. 77) to a Caerwent inscription asunpublished. It has probably appeared in print a dozen times; I have hadthe misfortune to publish it three times over myself. Its meaning is notquite correctly stated on p. 77. ]

(24) In the December number of the _Journal of the BritishArchaeological Association_ (xx. 307) Mr. F. Lambert, of the GuildhallMuseum, prints pertinent criticisms of Sir L. Gomme's volume, muchin the direction of my preceding paragraphs. He also makes usefulobservations on Roman London. In particular, he attacks the difficultproblem of the date when its town-walls were built. Here he agrees withthose who ascribe them to the second century, and for two main reasons. First, he thinks that the occurrence of early Roman potsherds at certainpoints near the walls proves the town to have grown to its full extentby about A. D. 100. Secondly, he points to the foundations of the Romangate at Newgate; as they are shallower than those of the adjacenttown-walls, he dates the gate after the walls and thus obtains (ashe 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 potsherdscome mostly from groups of rubbish-pits--such as those which Mr. Lambert himself has lately done good work in helping to explore--andrubbish-pits, especially in groups, lie rather outside the inhabitedareas of towns. Those of London itself suggest to me that the place had_not_ reached its full area by A. D. 100 (see above, p. 23). (_b_) TheNewgate foundations are harder to unravel. As a rule, Roman town-gateshad large super-structures and needed stronger foundations than thetown-walls. At Newgate, where the superstructure must have beencomparatively slender, the published plans show that under a part, atleast, of the gate-towers the undisturbed subsoil rises higher thanbeneath the adjacent town-walls. According to the elevation published byDr. Norman and Mr. F. W. Reader in _Archaeologia_ lxiii, plate lvii, thewall-builders at this point stopped their deep foundation trenches forthe full width of the gateway (98 feet), or at least dug them shallowerthere. No motive for such action could be conceived except the wish toleave a passage for a gate. There would seem, therefore, to have been anentrance into Roman London at Newgate as early as the building of thewalls, and there may have been such an entrance even before the erectionof these walls. Dr. Norman has, however, warned me that plate lvii goesmuch beyond the actual evidence (see plate lvi); practically, we do notknow enough to form conjectures of any value on this point. 

(25) In the _Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects_ forApril 11, 1914 (xxi. 333), Mr. W. R. Davidge prints a lecture on theDevelopment of London which deals mostly with present and future Londonbut also contains a new theory as to the Roman town. Hitherto, mostwriters have agreed that, while Londinium may have been laid out on aregular town-plan, no discoverable trace of such plan survived, norcould any existing street be said to run to any serious extent on Romanlines. Mr. Davidge devises a rectangular plan of oblong blocks, andfinds vestiges of Roman streets in the present Cheapside, Cannon Street, Gracechurch Street, and Birchin Lane. In a later number of the samejournal (Aug. 29, p. 52) I have given some reasons for not acceptingthis view. First, Mr. Davidge's list of four survivals would be toobrief to prove much if the survivals were proved. Secondly, Romanstructural remains seem to have been found under all the streets inquestion, and it is, therefore, plain that they do not run on the linesof Roman thoroughfares. Thirdly, his suggested plan brings none of hisconjectured Roman streets (except one) to any of the various known gatesof Londinium; it requires us to assume a number of other gates for whichthere is neither probability nor proof. 

(26) In the Post Office Magazine, _St. Martin's-le-Grand_ (Jan. And July1914), Mr. Thos. Wilson, then Clerk of the Works, gives details, withillustrations, of the Roman rubbish-pits lately excavated at the GeneralPost Office (see above, p. 23). 

_Norfolk_

(27) In the earlier pages (1-45) of his _Roman 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-century_Litus Saxonicum_. His account, which is not very technical, seems basedon previous writers, Ives, Harrod, Fox. I note a list of thirty coinswhich, save for an uncertain specimen of Domitian and one of Marcus, belong entirely to the late third and the fourth centuries, and end withtwo silver of Honorius (_Virtus Romanorum_, Cohen 59). He detects aRoman 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 haveheld, that the fort had no defences towards the water. This again seemsunlikely. Burgh Castle, like Richborough, Stutfall, and other forts ofthe _Litus_, may well have had different arrangements on its water-frontfrom the walls on its other three faces. But it cannot have lackeddefences, and excavations prove, here as elsewhere, that walls didactually 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 perhapsa service--of Roman silver plate, lost in the Tyne or on its banks nearCorbridge in the fourth century. Of five pieces, four were picked upbetween 1731 and 1736, about 100-150 yards below the present bridge atCorbridge; a fifth was found in 1760 floating in the stream four mileslower 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 roundit. A third was a round flat-bottomed bowl, with a decorated rim bearingthe Chi-Rho amidst its other ornament. A fourth was a small ovoid cup, 4 inches high, with the inscription _Desideri vivas_. Last, not least, is the Corbridge Lanx, the only surviving piece of the five, andprobably the finest piece of Roman engraved silver found in theseislands, an oblong dish measuring 15 × 19 inches, weighing 148 ounces, and ornamented with figures of deities from classical mythology. Thatall five pieces belonged together can hardly be doubted, though it cannotbe proved outright. That they all belong to the later Roman period, andprobably to the fourth century, seems highly probable. Whether they wereburied in the river-bank to conceal them from raiders or were lost froma boat or otherwise, is not now discoverable. But the occurrence ofsuch silver close to the Roman Wall is in itself notable. It is to beattributed rather to a Roman officer residing in or passing throughCorbridge than to either a Romanized Briton or a Pictish looter. 

Apart from its findspot, the Lanx is important for its excellent art andfor 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 itsdetails and no doubt of Greek workmanship. The deities figured on ithave long been a puzzle. They are evidently classical deities; three ofthem, indeed, are Apollo, Artemis, and Athena. But the identity of theother two figures and the meaning of the whole scene have been muchdisputed. Roger Gale, the first to attempt its unravelment, suggestedin 1735 that it was 'just an assemblage of deities', and at one time Iinclined to this view--that we had here merely (let us say) a tea-partyat Apollo's; Dr. Drexel, too, wrote to me lately to express the sameidea. But I must confess that nearly all the best archaeologists demanda definite mythological identification, and my colleague, Prof. Gardner, suggests a new view--that the scene is the so-called Judgement ofParis. This mythological incident was often depicted in ancient art, and--strange as it may sound--in the later versions Paris was not seldomomitted, Apollo was made arbiter, and the scene was removed from MountIda to Delphi. [11] The two hitherto disputable figures are, Prof. Gardner thinks, Hera (seated) and Aphrodite (standing, with a longsceptre). He ascribes the work to the third or early part of the fourthcentury, and believes that it was made in the Eastern Empire; from theprominence granted to Artemis, he conjectures that Ephesus may have beenits origin. But he adds that he would not be sure that the artist of thepiece, while copying a Judgement of Paris, was consciously aware of themeaning of the original before him. His views will be published infuller detail in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_. 

[Footnote 11: Compare the Roman provincial bas-reliefs of Actaeonsurprising Diana, with Actaeon omitted (R. Cagnat, _ArchaeologicalJournal_, lxiv. 42). ]

I am glad, further, to have been able to illustrate this paper by what Ibelieve to be a better illustration of the Lanx than has been publishedbefore, and also to set out in more accurate fashion the curious legalhistory of the object after it was found. 

(29) In the new _History of Northumberland_, issued by the NorthumberlandCounty History Committee in vol. X (edited by Mr. H. H. Craster, Newcastle, 1914, pp. 455-522) I have given a long account of the knownRoman remains in Corbridge parish. These are the settlement ofCorstopitum, a small stretch of Roman road and another of the RomanWall, and the fort of Halton (Hunnum) on the Wall. The account isnecessarily historical rather than archaeological; it tries to sum upthe finds and estimate their historical bearing, and it also cataloguesall the inscribed and sculptured stones found at Corbridge and Halton, with the 'literature' relating to them. Mr. Knowles contributes a planof 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, andmyself, in _Archaeologia Aeliana_ (third series, 1914, xi. 279-310);see also a short account by myself in the _Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries of London_ (xxvi. 185-9). The discoveries were comparativelyfew; they comprised some ill-preserved and mostly insignificantbuildings on the north side of the site, some ditches, and a stretch ofthe road leading to the north (Dere Street). Among small objects were aninteresting but imperfect altar to 'Panthea . .. ', a bronze 'balsamarium'showing a puzzling variety of barbarian's head, and another piece of theCorbridge grey _appliqué_ ware. A short account of the excavations of1914 (see above, p. 9) is contained in the _Journal of the BritishArchaeological Association_ (xx. 343). 

(31) The _Proceedings of the Berwick Naturalists' Club_ (vol. Xxxii, part 2) print an agreeable paper by Mr. James Curle, describing DereStreet and some Roman posts on it between Tyne and Tweed. 

_Notts. _

[Illustration: FIG. 23. ROMAN SITE NEAR EAST BRIDGEFORD, NOTTS. (No. 32)]

[Illustration: FIG. 24. DECORATION OF ENAMELLED SEAL-BOX. ]

(32) About ten miles east from Nottingham, and a mile south of thevillage of East Bridgeford, the Fosse-way crosses a Roman site which hasusually been identified with the Margidunum of the Antonine Itinerary. Lately excavation has been attempted, and the _Antiquary_ of December1914 contains an interesting account of the results attained up to theend of 1913, with some illustrations. [12] A very broad earthwork andditch surround an area of 7 acres, rhomboidal in shape (fig. 23). In this area the excavators, Drs. Felix Oswald and T. D. Pryce, haveturned up floor-tesserae, roof-slates, flue-tiles, window-glass, paintedwall-plaster, potsherds of the first and later centuries, including ablack bowl with a well-modelled figure of Mercury in relief, coinsranging down to the end of the fourth century (Eugenius), and othersmall objects of interest, such as the small seal-box with Late-Celticenamel, shown in fig. 24. No foundations _in situ _have yet come tolight, but that is doubtless to follow; only a tiny part of the wholearea has, as yet, been touched. Margidunum may have begun as a fortcoeval with the Fosse-way, which (if I am right) dates from the earliestyears of the Roman Conquest. Whether any of the first-century potsherdsas yet found there can be assigned to these years (say A. D. 45-75) isnot clear. But the excavations plainly deserve to be continued. 

[Footnote 12: By the courtesy of the publisher of the _Antiquary_, Mr. Elliot Stock, I am able to reproduce two of these illustrations (figs. 23, 24). ]

_Shropshire_

(33) Mr. Bushe-Fox's second Report on his excavations at Wroxeter(_Reports of the Research Committee of the London Society ofAntiquaries_, No. II, Oxford, 1914) deserves all the praise accordedto his first Report. I can only repeat what I said of that; it is anexcellent description, full and careful, minute in its account of thesmaller finds, lavishly illustrated, admirably printed, and sold forhalf a crown. The finds which it enumerates in detail I summarized inmy Report for 1913, pp. 19-20--the temple with its interesting Italianplan, the fragments of sculpture which seem to belong to it, the crowdof small objects, the masses of Samian (indefatigably recorded), the 528coins; all combine to make up an admirable pamphlet. 

[Illustration: FIG. 27. THE PODIUM, AS SEEN FROM THE NORTH

(The measuring staff to the right stands in the _cella_, the floor ofwhich is slightly higher than that of the portico to the left of it)]

[Illustration: FIG. 28. EAST WALL OF PODIUM, COURSED MASONRY WITH CLAYAND RUBBLE FOUNDATIONS]

I will venture a suggestion on the temple. This, as I pointed out lastyear, is on the Italian, not on the Celto-Roman plan. But one item isnot quite clear in it. All ordinary classical temples stood on _podia_or platforms which raised them above the surrounding surface at least tosome small extent. Mr. Bushe-Fox speaks of a _podium_ to the Wroxetertemple. But it appears that he does not mean a _podium_, as generallyunderstood. The masonry which he denotes by that term was, in hisopinion, buried underground and merely foundation. The floor of theportico of the temple (he says) was about level with the floor of thecourt which surrounded the temple; the floor of the _cella_, thoughhigher, was but a trifle higher (see figs. 26, 27). This view needs morereflection than he has given it in his rather brief account. No doubta temple in a Celtic land might have been built on a classical plan, though without a classical _podium_. But it is not what one would mostexpect. Nor do I feel sure that it was actually done at Wroxeter in thiscase. The walls which Mr. Bushe-Fox explains as the foundations of thetemple are quite needlessly good masonry for foundations never meant tobe seen; this will be plain from figs. 27, 28, which I reproduce bypermission from his Report. Further, as fig. 26 (from the same source)shows, there was outside the base of this masonry a level cobbledsurface, for which no structural reason is to be found. This, one mayguess, was a pavement at the original ground-level when the temple wasfirst erected; from this, steps presumably led up to the floor of theportico and _cella_. The 'podium', then, was at first a real _podium_. Later, the ground-level rose, and the walls of the _podium_ were buried. 

[Illustration: FIG. 25. TEMPLE AT WROXETER]

[Illustration: FIG. 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 readersthe results of his long exploration of this Mendip cave; some of theseresults were noted in my Report for 1913, p. 47. The cave, as a whole, contained--besides copious prehistoric remains--two well-defined Romanlayers, with many potsherds, including a little Samian and one Samianstamp given as PIIR PIIT OFII (apparently a new variety of Perpetuus), broken glass, a few fibulae and other bronze and iron objects, and106 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 20Valentinian 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 setbeside the late hoard found at Wookey Hole in 1852, which Mr. Balchmight well have mentioned. Plainly, the later Roman layer in the cavebelongs to the end of the fourth century. The date of the other layer isharder to fix, since we are not told how the coins and potsherds weredistributed between the layers. Probably the cave was long inhabitedcasually but in the troubled time of the latest Empire became a place ofrefuge or otherwise attracted more numerous occupants. That, if true, isa more interesting result that Mr. Balch realizes. For in general thecave-life of Roman Britain belonged to the first two or three centuriesof our era; it is only rarely, and mostly in the west country, that thecaves contain among their Roman relics objects of the late fourthcentury (see _Victoria Hist. Derbyshire_, i. 233-42). I must add thatMr. Balch repeats on pp. 57-8 the error about the significance of theRepublican coin which was noted in my Report for 1915. 

(35) The _Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and NaturalHistory Society_ for 1913 (vol. Lix, Taunton, 1914) record small Romanfinds 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 CadburyCastle. Cadbury, it seems, was occupied mainly in the Celtic period, before the Roman conquest. 

(36) A little light is thrown on two Somerset 'villas' in _Notes andQueries for Somerset and Dorset_ (xiv. 1914). (_a_) Skinner in 1818excavated a 'villa' near Camerton which he recorded in his manuscripts. (British Mus. Add. 33659, &c. ) and which I described in print in the_Victoria History of Somerset_ (i. 315). His account did not, however, enable one to fix the precise site; he said only that it stood southof 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 calledChessils in the north of Midsomer Norton parish, about a mile east ofPaulton village, at the point where a lane called in the Ordnance Survey'Coldharbour Lane', which runs north and south, cuts a lane runningeast and west from Camerton to Paulton; this latter lane keeps to highground and must be Skinner's Ridgeway. In Chessils and in adjoiningfields called Cornwell, just 525 feet above sea-level, he has, further, actually found Roman potsherds, tiles, and rough tesserae. This, as hesays (_Notes and Queries_, xiv. 5, and in a letter to me) will be thesite of Skinner's 'villa. ' (_b_) In the same publication (p. 122) I havepointed 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, justwest of Chedzoy village. According to older statements, a hypocaust waslong ago found in 'Slapeland', and Slapeland too lies west of Chedzoyvillage (see _Vict. Hist. Somerset_, i. 359). Two bits of slenderevidence seem thus to confirm each other, although no actual Romanremains have been noted at Chedzoy lately. 

(37) In the _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London_ (xxvi. 137-44) Mr. A. Bulleid describes, with illustrations, some excavationswhich he lately made in the marshes north of the Polden Hills, nearCossington and Chilton. Here are curious mounds which have often beentaken 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 notused for pottery making, since among many relics of various sorts no'wasters' have been found. See further, for an account of the finds inthis region, _Victoria Hist. Of Somerset_, i. 351-3. 

_Surrey_

(38) The _Surrey Archaelogical Collections_ (vol. Xxvi) note varioussmall Roman finds--Roman bricks in the walls of Fetcham Church, possiblyRoman plaster at Stoke D'Abernon Church (p. 123), some thirty coinsand Roman urns and glass from Ewell (pp. 135, 148), and an urn fromCamberwell (p. 149). The same journal (vol. Xxvii, p. 155) notes thediscovery, not hitherto recorded, of over 100 coins of A. D. 296-312 inan urn dug up in 1904 at Normandy Manor Nurseries, near Guildford. 

(39) A _Schedule of Antiquities in the County of Surrey_, by Mr. P. M. Johnston (Guildford, 1913), seems intended for students of mediaeval andmodern antiquities, and says little about Roman remains; it has no indexand cites no authorities. 

_Sussex_

(40) A Roman well has been examined near Ham Farm, between Hassocksrailway station and Hurstpierpoint. It was 38 feet deep, the upper partround and lined with local blue clay, the lower part square and linedwith stout oak planks. The only object recorded from it is a 'firstcentury vase', taken out at half-way down, which suggests that the wellcollapsed at an early date. Another well, flint-lined, was noted nearbut not explored; Roman potsherds were picked up not far off (_SussexArchaeological Collections_, lvi. 197). The remains probably belong toa farm detected close by in 1857 (_S. A. C. _ xiv. 178). Traces of Romancivilized life are comparatively common in this neighbourhood. 

(41) Mr. R. G. Roberts' volume, _The Place-names of Sussex_ (CambridgeUniversity Press, 1914), much resembles the Derbyshire monograph notedabove (No. 7). Its selection of place-names is about as limited andits 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 fullcriticism by Dr. H. Bradley in the _English Historical Review_ (xxx. 161-6) one would infer that its philology, too, is by no meanssatisfactory. 

_Westmorland_

(42) The _Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian andArchaeological 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. Itis an excellent piece of description and well illustrated; due attentionis given to the small objects; the whole is scholarly and satisfactory. It is perhaps as well to add that one or two details first found inApril 1914 were further explored in the following August, and somecorrections were obtained which will be published in the second Report. For the rest see above, p. 10. 

_Wilts. _

(43) I have contributed to the _Proceedings of the Bath and DistrictBranch of the Somersetshire Archaeological Society and Natural History_for 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 Reportfor 1913 (p. 49). 

(44) The _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London_ (xxvi. 209) contain a note by Mr. E. H. Binney on Roman remains on the knownRoman site, Nythe Farm, about three miles east of Swindon. 

_Worcestershire_

(45) The same _Proceedings_ (xxvi. 206) contain an account by Dr. G. B. Grundy of two sections which he dug lately across the line of RycknieldStreet on the high ground south-east of Broadway, thereby helping to fixthe road at this point. A sketch-map is added. 

_Yorkshire_

(46) In the _Bradford Antiquary_ for October 1914 (iv. 117-34) Dr. F. Villy continues his inquiries into a supposed Roman road running pastHarden, a little north-west of Bradford. Dr. Villy actually excavatesfor his roads, in very praiseworthy fashion. But I do not feel surethat he has actually proved a Roman road on the line which he has hereexamined; he has found interesting and indubitable traces of an oldroad, but not decisive evidence of its date. The same volume includes anote of eight Roman coins of the 'Thirty Tyrants', from Yew Bank, Utley. 

_Wales_

(47) _Archaeologia Cambrensis_ for 1914 (series vi, vol. Xiv) containsuseful papers on Roman remains. Mr. H. G. Evelyn White describes indetail his excavations carried out at Castell Collen in 1913--see myReport for that year, pp. 1-58. One must regret that they have not beencontinued in 1914. Mr. F. N. Pryce describes his work at Cae Gaer, nearLlangurig (pp. 205-20), also noted in that Report. The Rev. J. Fisherquotes place-names possibly indicative of a Roman road near St. Asaph, and quotes a suggestion by Mr. Egerton Phillimore that the township nameWigfair, once Wicware, stands for Gwig-wair, and that the second half ofthis represents the name Varis which the Antonine Itinerary places onthe Roman road from Chester to Carnarvon at a point which cannot be farfrom St. Asaph and the Clwydd river (see my _Military Aspects of RomanWales_, pp. 26-8, and Owen's forthcoming _Pembrokeshire_, ii. 524). Lastly, Mr. J. Ward reports on further finds of the fort wall at CardiffCastle (pp. 407-10): see above, p. 21. 

(48) The excavation of the Roman fort at Gellygaer, thirteen miles northof Cardiff, was brought in 1913 to a point at which (as I learn) it isconsidered to be for the present finished. I referred to it in my Reportfor 1913; Mr. John Ward's full description of the results obtained in1913 is now issued in the _Transactions 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 ofthe fort. This last is a regular oblong of not quite five acres internalarea, fortified by an earthen mound and a ditch; trenching across theinterior showed no trace of buildings or indeed of any occupation, butthe search was not carried very far. Several explanations have beenoffered of it--that it was a temporary affair, thrown up while theactual fort was abuilding; that it was intended for troops marching pastand needing to camp for a night at the spot; that it was an earlierfort, 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. Withoutmore excavation, it is rash to pronounce positively, and perhaps evena minute search might be fruitless. Analogies somewhat favour the firsttheory, but there will always be room for difference of opinion inexplaining these excrescences (so to speak) of permanent forts, whichare 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 conspectusof the whole in a small plan (fig. 29). 

[Illustration: FIG. 29. GENERAL PLAN OF ROMAN WORKS AT GELLYGAER(GLAMORGAN)

(A. Granaries; B. Commandant's House; C. Head-quarters; D. Doubtful; E. Barracks; F. Stabling(?))]

(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 ofDenbighshire. The one important item is the group of tile and potterykilns lately excavated by Mr. A. Acton at Holt, eight miles south ofChester, which I have described above (p. 15); the Commissioners' planof the site seems to have an incorrect scale. Chance finds, importantif not yet fully understood, have been found in British camps atPen-y-corddin, Moel Fenlli, Moel y Gaer, and especially at Parc-y-Meirchor Dinorben (above, p. 28). Isolated coins have been found scantily--ahoard of perhaps 6, 000 Constantinian copper at Moel Fenlli, a gold coinof Nero from the same hill, another coin of Nero at Llanarmon, 200-300Constantinian at Llanelidan. A parcel of bronze 'cooking vessels' wasfound near Abergele (Eph. Epigr. Iii. 130) but has unfortunatelydisappeared. The index also mentions coins under 'No. 458', which doesnot appear in the volume itself. A Roman road probably ran across thecounty from St. Asaph to Caerhyn (Canovium); its east end is prettycertain, as far as Glascoed, though the 'Inventory' hardly makes thisclear. 

(50) A partial plan and some views of the west gate of the Roman fort atthe Gaer, near Brecon, are given in the _Transactions of the WoolhopeNaturalists' Field Club_ for 1908-11. 

_Scotland_

(51) The fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Ancient andHistorical Monuments in Scotland, _Inventory of Monuments in Galloway. II. Stewartry of Kirkcudbright_ (Edinburgh, 1914) shows that the easternhalf of Galloway, like the western half described in the fourth Reportin 1912, contains nothing that can be called a 'Roman site' and very fewRoman remains of any sort. Indeed this eastern half, the land betweenDumfries and Newton Stewart, seems even poorer in such remains than thedistrict between Newton Stewart and the Irish Sea. Its only items aresome trifles of Samian, &c. , found in the Borness Cave, and some ironimplements found in a bronze caldron in Carlingwark Loch. This resultis, of course, contrary to the views of older Scottish writers likeSkene, who talked of 'numerous Roman camps and stations' in Galloway, but it will surprise no recent student. Probably the Romans never gotfar west of a line roughly coinciding with that of the CaledonianRailway from Carlisle by Carstairs to Glasgow. Their failure or omissionto hold the south-west weakened the left flank and rear of theirposition on the Wall of Pius and helped materially to shorten theirdominion in Scotland in the second century. 

(52) In the _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_for 1913-4 (vol. Xlviii) Mr. J. M. Corrie describes some polishers andother small objects found casually at Newstead (p. 338), and Dr. Macdonald expands (p. 395) the account of the Balcreggan hoard which hehad contributed to the _Scotsman_ (my Report for 1913, p. 11). Mr. A. O. Curle (p. 161) records the discovery and exploration of a vitrified fortat the Mote of Mark near Dalbeattie (Kirkcudbright), and the discoveryin it of two clearly Roman potsherds. The main body of the finds madehere seem to belong to the ninth century; whether any of them can beearlier than has been thought, I am not competent to decide. 

(53) The well-known and remarkable earthworks at Birrenswark, nearLockerbie in Dumfriesshire, have long been explained as a Romancircumvallation[13] or at least as siege-works round a native hill-fort. In 1913 they were visited by Prof. Schulten, of Erlangen, the excavatorof a Roman circumvallation round the Spanish fortress of Numantia; theynaturally interested him, and he has now described them for Germanreaders (_Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum_, xxxiii, 1914, pp. 607-17) and added some remarks on their date. His description isclear and readable; his chronological arguments are less satisfactory. He adopts[14] the view generally adopted by English archaeologists(except Roy) for the last two centuries, that these camps date fromAgricola; he supports this old conclusion by reasons which are in partnovel. I may summarize his position thus: Two Roman roads led from theTyne and the Solway to Caledonia, an eastern road by Corbridge andNewstead, and a western one by Annandale and Upper Clydesdale. On theeastern road, a little north of Newstead, is the camp of Channelkirk;on the western are the three camps of Torwood Moor (near Lockerbie), Tassie's Holm (north of Moffat), and Cleghorn in Clydesdale, nearCarstairs. These four camps are--so far as preserved--of the same size, 1, 250 × 1, 800 feet; they all have six gates (two in each of the longersides); they all have traverses in front of the gates; lastly, TorwoodMoor is fourteen Roman miles, a day's march, from Tassie's Holm, andthat is twenty-eight miles from Cleghorn. Plainly they belong to thesame date. Further, Agricola is the only Roman general who used botheastern and western routes together; accordingly, these camps date fromhim. Finally, as Birrenswark is near Torwood Moor, it too must beAgricolan. 

[Footnote 13: It is proper to add a warning that the traces of the'circumvallation' are dim, and high authorities like Dr. Macdonald aresceptical about them. The two camps are, however, certain, and theremust have been communication between them of some sort, if they wereoccupied at the same time. ]

[Footnote 14: No doubt it is by oversight that Dr. Schulten omits tostate that the view which he is supporting is the ordinary view and nothis own. ]

Dr. Schulten has not advanced matters by this speculation. His firstpoint, that the four camps are coeval, and his reasons for that idea, are mainly taken from Roy--he does not make this clear in his paper. But he has not heeded Roy's warnings that the reasons are not cogent. Actually, they are very weak. At Channelkirk, only two sides of a campremained in Roy's time; they measured not 1, 250 × 1, 800 feet but1, 330 × 1, 660 feet, and the longer side had one gate in the middle, not two; to-day, next to nothing is visible. At Tassie's Holm therewas only a corner of a perhaps quite small earthwork--not necessarilyRoman--and the distance to Torwood Moor is nearer twenty than fourteenRoman miles. At Torwood Moor only one side, 1, 780 feet long with twogates, was clear in Roy's time; the width of the camp is unknown. Cleghorn seems to have been fairly complete, but modern measurersgive its size as 1, 000 × 1, 700 feet. Dr. Schulten builds on imaginaryfoundations when he calls these four camps coeval. He has not even proofthat there were four camps. 

Nor is his reason any more convincing for assigning these camps, andBirrenswark with them, to Agricola. Here he parts company from Roy andadduces an argument of his own--that Agricola was the only general whoused both eastern and western routes. That is a mere assertion, unprovenand improbable. Roman generals were operating in Scotland in the reignsof Pius and Marcus (A. D. 140-80) and Septimius Severus; if there weretwo routes, it is merely arbitrary to limit these men to the easternroute. As a matter of fact, the history of the western route is ratherobscure; doubts have been thrown on its very existence north of Birrens. But if it did exist, the sites most obviously connected with it are thesecond-century sites of Birrens, Lyne, and Carstairs; at Birrenswarkitself the only definitely datable finds, four coins, include two issuesof Trajan. [15]

[Footnote 15: Gordon, p. 184, _Minutes of the Soc. Antiq. _ i. 183(2 February, 1725). It has been suggested that Gordon mixed up Birrensand Birrenswark. But though the Soc. Antiq. Minutes only describe thecoins as 'found in a Roman camp in Annandale, . .. The first Roman campto be seen in Scotland', Gordon obviously knew more than the Minutescontain--he gives, e. G. The name of a local antiquary who noted thefind--and the distinction between the 'town' (as it was then thought)of Middelby (as it was then called) and the camp of Burnswork, was wellrecognized in his time. ]

The truth is that the question is more complex than Dr. Schulten hasrealized. Possibly it is not ripe for solution. I have myself ventured, in previous publications, to date Birrenswark to Agricola--for reasonsquite different from those of Dr. Schulten. But I would emphasize thatwe need, both there and at many earth-camps, full archaeological use ofthe spade. The circumstances of the hour are unfavourable to thataltogether. 

POSTSCRIPT

_Herefordshire_

(54) As I go to press, I receive the _Transactions of the WoolhopeNaturalists' Field Club_ for 1908-11 (Hereford, 1914), a volumewhich, despite the date on its title-page, does not appear to have beenactually issued till April 1915. It contains on pp. 68-73 and 105-9 twoillustrated papers on three Roman roads of Herefordshire--Stone Street, the puzzling road near Leominster, and Blackwardine, the itineraryroute between Gloucester and Monmouth. The find made at Donningtonin 1906, which is explained on p. 69 as a 'villa' and on p. 109 as anagrimensorial pit--this latter an impossibility--was, I think, reallya kiln, though there may have been a dwelling-house near. The mostinteresting of the Roman finds made lately in Herefordshire, those ofKenchester, do not come into this volume, but belong in point of dateto the volume which will succeed it. 

[Illustration: FIG. 30. GELLYGAER. STONE PACKING FOR A WOODEN POSTHOLEIN THE VERANDAH OF THE BARRACKS (FIG. 29 E)]

APPENDIX: LIST OF PERIODICALS

The following list enumerates the archaeological and other periodicalspublished in these islands which sometimes or often contain noteworthyarticles relating to Roman Britain. Those which contained such articlesin 1914 are marked by an asterisk, and references are given in squarebrackets to the numbered paragraphs in the preceding section (pp. 38-63). 

1. PERIODICALS NOT CONNECTED WITH SPECIAL DISTRICTS

 _Archaeologia_ (Society of Antiquaries of London). 

 *_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London_ [see 30, 37, 44, 45]. 

 _English Historical Review_ (London). 

 _Scottish Historical Review_ (Glasgow). 

 *_Numismatic Chronicle_ (London) [see 8]. 

 _British Numismatic Journal_ (London). 

 *_Journal of Roman Studies_ (London) [see 28]. 

 *_Archaeological Journal_ (Royal Archaeological Institute, London) [see 2]. 

 *_Journal of the British Archaeological Association_ (London) [see 17, 24, 30]. 

 *_Antiquary_ (London) [see 3, 32]. 

 _Athenaeum_ (London). 

 _Architectural Review_ (London). 

2. PERIODICALS DEALING PRIMARILY WITH SPECIAL DISTRICTS

BERKSHIRE. 

 *_Berks, Bucks, and Oxon Archaeological Journal_ (Reading) [see 5]. 

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE. 

 _Records of Buckinghamshire_ (Aylesbury). See also Berks. 

CAMBRIDGESHIRE. 

 _Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society_ (Cambridge). 

 _Proceedings of the Cambridge and Huntingdonshire Archaeological Society_ (Ely). 

CHESHIRE. 

 _Journal of the Architectural, Archaeological, and Historic Society of Chester and North Wales_ (Chester). 

 See also Lancashire. 

CORNWALL. 

 _Journal of the Royal Institution of Cornwall_ (Plymouth). 

 See also Devon. 

CUMBERLAND. 

 *_Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society_ (Kendal). Includes also Lancashire north of the Sands [see 42]. 

DERBYSHIRE. 

 *_Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society_ (Derby) [see 7]. 

DEVON. 

 _Report and Transactions of the Devon Association_ (Plymouth). 

 _Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries_ (Exeter). 

DORSET. 

 *_Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club_ (Dorchester) [see 8, 9]. 

DURHAM. 

 _Proceedings of the University of Durham Philosophical Society_ (Newcastle-on-Tyne). 

 See also Northumberland, _Archaeologia Aeliana_. 

ESSEX. 

 *_Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society_ (Colchester) [see 10, 11]. 

 _Essex Review_ (Colchester). 

 _Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia_ (London). 

GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 

 *_Transactions of the British and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society_ (Bristol) [see 12]. 

HAMPSHIRE. 

 *_Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society_ (Southampton) [see 14, 15]. 

HEREFORDSHIRE. 

 *_Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club_ (Hereford) [see 50, 54]. 

HERTFORD. 

 *_Transactions of the East Herts Archaeological Society_ (Hertford) [see 16]. 

HUNTINGDONSHIRE. 

 See under Cambridgeshire. 

KENT. 

 *_Archaeologia Cantiana_, Transactions of the Kent Archaeological Society (London) [see 17]. 

 *_Transactions of the Greenwich Antiquarian Society_ (London) [see 18]. 

LANCASHIRE. 

 *_Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society_ (Manchester) [see 19, 20]. 

 _Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Historic Society_ (Liverpool). 

 (For Lancashire north of the Sands see also Cumberland. )

LEICESTERSHIRE. 

 _Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society_ (Leicester). 

 _Reports and Papers of the Architectural Societies of Lincoln, York, Northampton and Oakham, Worcester and Leicester_, called Associated Architectural Societies (Lincoln). 

LINCOLNSHIRE. 

 *_Lincolnshire Notes and Queries_ (Horncastle) [see 21, 22]. 

 See also under Leicestershire. 

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX. 

 _Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society_ (London). 

 _London Topographical Record_ (London). 

NORFOLK. 

 _Norfolk Archaeology_ (Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society, Norwich). 

 See also under Essex. 

NORTHANTS. 

 _Northamptonshire Notes and Queries_ (London). 

 See also under Leicestershire. 

NORTHUMBERLAND. 

 *_Archaeologia Aeliana_ (Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Newcastle) [see 30]. 

 _Proceedings_ of the same Society. 

NOTTS. 

 _Transactions of the Thornton Society_ (Nottingham). 

OXFORDSHIRE. 

 _Oxford Archaeological Society_ (Banbury). 

 See also under Berkshire. 

RUTLAND. 

 See under Leicestershire. 

SHROPSHIRE. 

 _Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological and Natural History Society_ (Shrewsbury). 

SOMERSET. 

 *_Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society_ (Taunton) [see 35]. 

 *_Proceedings of the Bath and District Branch, of the Somersetshire Archaeological Society_ (Bath) [see 43]. 

 *_Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset_ (Sherborne) [see 36]. 

STAFFORDSHIRE. 

 _Annual Report and Transactions of the North Staffordshire Field Club_ (Stafford). 

SUFFOLK. 

 _Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History_ (Ipswich). 

 See also under Essex. 

SURREY. 

 *_Surrey Archaeological Collections_ (London) [see 38]. 

SUSSEX. 

 *_Sussex Archaeological Collections_ (Brighton) [see 39]. 

WARWICKSHIRE. 

 _Transactions of the Birmingham and Midland Institute_ (Birmingham). 

WESTMORLAND. 

 See under Cumberland. 

WILTSHIRE. 

 _Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine_ (Devizes). 

 _Wiltshire Notes and Queries_ (Devizes). 

WORCESTERSHIRE. 

 See under Leicestershire. 

YORKSHIRE. 

 _Yorkshire Archaeological Journal_ (Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds). 

 _Publications of the Thoresby Society_ (Leeds). 

 *_The Bradford Antiquary_ (Bradford) [see 46]. 

 _Transactions of the Hunter Archaeological Society_ (Sheffield). 

WALES. 

 *_Archaeologia Cambrensis_ (Cambrian Archaeological Association, London) [see 47]. 

 _Montgomeryshire Collections_ (Oswestry). 

 _Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion_ and _Y-Cymmrodor_ (London). 

 _Carmarthenshire Antiquarian Society and Field Club Transactions_ (Carmarthen). 

 *_Report and Transactions of the Cardiff Naturalists' Society_ (Cardiff) [see 48]. 

SCOTLAND. 

 *_Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_ (Edinburgh) [see 52]. 

 _Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society_ (Glasgow). 

 *_Proceedings of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Field Club_ (Alnwick) [see 31]. 

INDEX

(_Mainly of Place-names_)

 Ambleside, 10, 56. 

 Appleby, 35. 

 Balcreggan, 61. 

 Balmuildy (Wall of Pius), 7, 29. 

 Beachy Head, 27. 

 Birrenswark, 61. 

 Borrans, _see_ Ambleside. 

 Broom Farm (Hants), 26. 

 Burgh Castle, 48. 

 Cae Gaer (Montgom. ), 58. 

 Camerton, 55. 

 Cardiff, 21, 58. 

 Castell Collen, 57. 

 Caves in Roman Britain, 54; Borness, 60. 

 Chedzoy, 55. 

 Chester, 41. 

 Chesterholm (Hadrian's Wall), 8, 31. 

 Compton (Surrey), 25. 

 Corbridge, 9, 32, 49. 

 Derby, Derwent, 42. 

 Donnington (Heref. ), 63. 

 Dorchester (Dorset), 43. 

 Dover, 45. 

 Eastbourne, 27. 

 East Bridgeford, 51. 

 East Grimstead (Wilts. ), 24. 

 Ewell, 56. 

 Featherwood (Northumberland), 30. 

 Fetcham (Surrey), 55. 

 Gaer (near Brecon), 60. 

 Gellygaer, 58. 

 Gloucester, 22. 

 Greenwich, Roman road, 45. 

 Guildford, 56. 

 Halton (Wall of Hadrian), 50. 

 Hangingshaw, _see_ Appleby. 

 Hants, Roman roads, 44. 

 Harden (Yorks. ), 57. 

 Herefordshire, Roman roads, 62. 

 Hertfordshire, Roman roads, 45. 

 Hockley (Essex), 44. 

 Holt, 15-21, 34, 60. 

 Hurstpierpoint, 56. 

 Inveravon (Wall of Pius), 8. 

 Kingston-on-Thames, 26. 

 Kintbury (Berks. ), 41. 

 Kirkintilloch, 8. 

 Lancashire, Roman roads, 45. 

 Lancaster, 12. 

 Lincoln, 34, 46. 

 Litlington (Camb. ), 26. 

 _Litus Saxonicum_, 49. 

 London, 22, 35, 46. 

 Lowbury, 27. 

 Manchester, 46. 

 Mersea Island (Essex), 44. 

 Midsomer Norton, 55. 

 Mote of Mark (Kirkcudbright), 61. 

 Mumrills (Wall of Pius), 8. 

 Nettleton Scrub, 57. 

 Newstead (Melrose), 61. 

 North Ash (Kent), 25. 

 Nythe Farm (near Swindon), 57. 

 Parc-y-Meirch, 28, 60

 Place-names of Derbyshire, 42; of Sussex, 56. 

 Polden Hills (Som. ), 55. 

 Puncknoll (Dorset), 43. 

 Raedykes (near Stonehaven), 7. 

 Ribchester, 12, 45. 

 Richborough, 21. 

 Rockbourne Down, 44. 

 Rycknield Street, 57. 

 St. Asaph (road near), 58. 

 Sea Mills, 44. 

 Silchester, 44. 

 Slack, 13. 

 Suetonius Paulinus, topography of campaign against Boudicca, 40. 

 _Tituli_ (_tutuli_), age of, 7. 

 Traprain Law, 8, 30. 

 Ulceby (South Lincs. ), 46. 

 Varis (of Ant. Itin. ), 58. 

 Vindolanda, 31. 

 Wall of Hadrian, 8, 38-40. 

 Wall of Pius, 7, 8. 

 Weardale (co. Durham), 9, 33. 

 Wigfair (St. Asaph), 58. 

 Witcombe (Glouc. ), 44. 

 Wookey Hole (Mendip), 54. 

 Wroxeter, 21, 52.