Richard Reece, Roman Corinium

The Siting of Roman CoriniumAuthor(s): Richard ReeceSource: Britannia, Vol. 34 (2003), pp. 276-280Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558549 .

Accessed: 11/08/2013 06:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.143.2.5 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:53:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558549?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


276 NOTES

the fourth century A.D.48 Here it is suggested that, 'The collection of amuletic pendants ... almost certainly represents an attempt to aid the child ... not only on the journey to the underworld, but perhaps also during illness'.49 Another example of a piece of jewellery expressing this belief might be a gold finger-ring from London, decorated with a phallus on the bezel.50 Lastly a lynch-pin from Chelsham, Surrey, is decorated with a phallus and this too has been interpreted as affording protection against evil.51

The Braintree pendant was declared to be Treasure at an Inquest held in June 2001 and has been acquired by Braintree District Museum under the terms of the 1996 Treasure Act.

British Museum and Colchester Museums catherine.johns @btopenworld.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bird, J. 1997: 'A Romano-British linch-pin from Chelsham', Surrey Archaeological Collections 84, 187-9 Cavanagh, C. 1999: Archaeological Evaluation at Mill Hill, Braintree, AOC Archaeology Group Crummy, N. 1983: 'Miscellaneous items of jewellery', in P. Crummy (ed.), The Roman Small Finds from

Excavations in Colchester 1971-79, Colchester Archaeological Report 2, Colchester, 50-1 Crummy, N. 1992: 'Roman small finds from the Culver Street site Category 13: Military equipment', in P.

Crummy (ed.), Excavations at Culver Street, the Gilberd School, and Other Sites in Colchester 1971-85, Colchester Archaeological Report 6, Colchester, 187-91

Crummy, N., and Crossan, C. 1992: 'Excavations at Butt Road 1976-79, 1986, and 1988', in N. Crummy, P. Crummy and C. Crossan (eds), Excavations of Roman and Later Cemeteries, Churches and Monastic Sites in Colchester, 1971-88, Colchester Archaeological Report 9, Colchester, 4-163

Greep, S. 1983: 'Military equipment', in P. Crummy (ed.), The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester 1971-79, Colchester Archaeological Report 2, Colchester, 139-40

Henig, M. 1974: A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, British Archaeological Reports 8(ii), Oxford

Johns, C. 1982: Sex or Symbol? Erotic Images of Greece and Rome, London Turnbull, P. 1978: 'The phallus in the art of Roman Britain', Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology

University of London 15, 199-206 Wickenden, N. 1996: 'The Roman towns of Essex', in O. Bedwin (ed.), The Archaeology of Essex -

Proceedings of the 1993 Writtle Conference, Chelmsford, 76-94

The Siting of Roman Corinium. Richard Reece writes: This note grows from two main sources. In the fifth and final report on Excavations in Cirencester Gerald Hargreaves52 gave the first account of the Roman road system around the town that worked from first principles of planning and surveying. One of his main conclusions was that the Fosse Way was planned as a through-route to which the site of the Roman town and its street grid, and even the supposed fort, were irrelevant. His map53 shows a junction of two different alignments of the Fosse Way coinciding with the alignment of Akeman Street at a point called the Hare Bushes to the north-east of the Roman and present town (FIG. 6, X).

Then, at the time of major flooding throughout England early in 2001, it became obvious to the present inhabitants that the modern town of Cirencester was not well sited in relation to the River Churn, the Daglingworth Brook, and the surrounding hills (FIG. 6). The town is exactly in the way of the flood waters

48 Crummy 1983, fig. 54, 1804. 49 Crummy and Crossan 1992, 41. 50 Henig 1974, 100, no. 765. 51 Bird 1997, 187-8. 52 Hargreaves 1998. 53 Hargreaves 1998, fig. 4.



NOTES 277

G:

F

rCire-ncester.-,.

S,".

River Thames

I ------------.

-------

1 c

:A

G.. 5

FIG. 5

coming down the valleys, at a bottleneck caused by the 120 m contour. This fact was obvious to the inhabitants of the town when it began to expand in the nineteenth century as many manuscript 'Reports on Problems of Drainage' in the archives of the Corinium Museum testify.



278 NOTES

Further thought on the alignments of the roads has emphasised the unexpected location of the Roman site and suggested that a much better site for the Roman town exists in the area where the alignments of all the incoming roads meet (FIG. 6, X). One possible reason why that obvious site was not used (see below) may extend the relevance of this note beyond the limits of Cirencester.

The case for an alignment of the Fosse Way which disregards the Roman town and the street grid has already been made by Hargreaves.54 I think that the same case can be made for Ermin Street. If we assume that the Roman road system in general developed outwards from the South-East westwards, one of its first aims may have been a route which would connect the heights of the Marlborough Downs with the scarp edge of the Cotswolds - both roughly at 240 m - in such a way as to aim for a convenient crossing of the River Severn. Put in this way the question of the presence or absence of the legionary fortress at Gloucester is avoided. FIG. 5 shows that the Cotswold dip slope is strongly cut by steep-sided valleys such as those of the Churn and the Daglingworth Brook. To avoid entanglement with such awkward gradients the alignment had to aim for the spur FG (FIG. 5) which climbs fairly regularly towards the scarp edge. Alignment from the scarp at Birdlip to the Severn is easy provided that the right spur has been climbed.

The alignment starts from around Wanborough (FIG. 5, A) and moves to the isolated high point of Blunsdon Hill (FIG. 5, B). From there there is a clear view of the dip slope of the Cotswolds, and, once reconnaissance had decided on the appropriate spur, the route via the small knoll at FIG. 5, D was obvious. This points to the present change of alignment of Ermin Street on the dip slope around FIG. 5, F. The road between B and D is not built on the alignment but in two straight stretches which deviate to a point FIG. 5, C and then back again on to the line. Point C makes clear the reason for the diversion for it is the point at which the Thames was crossed. Once the alignment has been regained at FIG. 5, D with about five miles to go to the appropriate spur and the promise of firm ground, well out of the way of flooding for the whole distance except for a short crossing of the Churn, the road inexplicably changes alignment and makes for the area flooded every winter by the rivers.

Several inconsistencies are therefore apparent. Ermin Street from the south-east deviates to cross the Thames flood area, and regains its alignment only to leave it again for the later town. It might be suggested that this is simply a double deviation at FIG. 5, C and E for practical purposes and there is nothing to explain. While a deviation to choose the best point for crossing what must have been a very wet area at the Thames makes sense for a bridge or ford, a deviation in order to site a town in an area susceptible to winter floods does not. To continue the alignment BC to the north-west of the town site would leave the road on the wrong Cots- wold spur. The alternative to deviation is to continue the line past X (FIG. 6) and site the town on the well drained slopes around the point X. This would have the added benefit that the alignment of the Fosse Way would need no adjustment. Those devoted to military explanations might suggest that the deviation from FIG. 5, C is to approach the fort but this will not work because the point aimed for is the south-west gate of the later town, well to the south of the fort, and even of any vicus which is at present neither known nor suspected.

Even if a positive reason for choosing the actual town site could be given there remains a further problem. If the aim of the deviations of Ermin Street was simply to site the town in the river area, perhaps for defence, this only involves a southward shift of a few hundred yards which gives no reason at all for preventing the through alignment of the Fosse Way. In fact the actual course of the Fosse Way deviates in a rather messy way both to the north and the south of the town site.

The most un-Roman curve of the Fosse Way as it enters the town from the south-west strongly suggests that the first-planned through-route was impossible. This cannot have been because of problems within the later town site because the street grid covers virtually the whole area without major diversions. It must have been because passage through the town on the simplest alignment would have been blocked at the exit towards X. In the same way, the road coming down from the north-east for some reason could not reach the town through the point X.

This leaves us with what seem to be original alignments of both Ermin Street and the Fosse Way crossing at an apparently ideal site for the new town with later local deviations to the site actually chosen.

If we move to a plan on a larger scale (FIG. 6) there is little to say about the cross-roads site where there is a space available of about the same area as the town as eventually walled, which neatly absorbs the incoming roads and even allows them to cross near the centre leaving space in the angle for the forum. The site is a slight knoll which drops slightly on all but the N corner where it follows a ridge up the dip slope.

54 Hargreaves 1998.



NOTES 279

4r

F ... "

V :" " / J

..

1..

I x

1? 40m

120 ib V fe~

...... ... . \ " " ----- -"----i

140m~~~~ ..... ,

FX

\X

, % * .. . .

- . ,?,

. .

- - - - - - - - - -

-140m"

- - - - - - -

---

- - -

-.,. ,,,

\ -. ,,

,

'--- -' ----,--, ---------

,,k4

'l 20m I.~ .. ,. , -

FIG. 6.

But the site later developed for the town has much to be said against it. Two rivers feed into the area, the Daglingworth Brook from the north-west and the Churn from the north. Their pre-Roman courses are not well known, but there seems little doubt that the Churn took the path of least resistance through the lowest points of the terrain as marked on the plan. This is the course which the river attempted again to follow in 2001. Dag- lingworth Brook may well have had a course of least resistance through the south-western part of the town



280 NOTES

site. Similar conclusions were reached by Holbrook and Wilkinson in their brief outline of the topography of the site.55 Modern excavations have encountered substantial water deposited layers in both of these supposed courses. This aspect of the subject needs detailed attention in the future to build up a fully proven case.

The two stream beds, and associated marshy areas, are separated by a gravel island which can still be detected as a hump about five feet above stream level which runs through the modern topography. It was on this island or spine that a fort was constructed somewhere in the middle of the first century. Unfortunately we know little more about it than the fact that one of its ditches received a dump of pottery c. A.D. 65 and that it may have been abandoned in the 70s.56 While a gravel spine surrounded by a marshy area may well have been an excellent choice for the site of a short-lived fort it was not sensible - in modern, practical terms - to try to expand that site to house the third largest walled area in Roman Britain. It is doubtful whether the gravel spine provides enough firm dry land for even the most modest of civitas capitals.

Anyone who knows the site in the summer months, or even in a moderate winter, may object that there are few if any signs of unwanted water-courses. But this is because of the substantial amount of heavy work that was put in by Roman engineers and labourers before the site could be settled and eventually walled. Certainly the Churn had to be diverted from its course of least resistance on the valley floor into an artificial rock-cut channel several feet higher up the north-east slopes. It seems likely that the Daglingworth Brook was also diverted outside the town limits to the south-west. Both artificial channels would later flow immediately outside the walls forming an extra defence. Judged as supplies of fresh water these streams are not up to Roman standards, and only a small part of the gravel spine can be described as well drained. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the benefit of the water defences outweighed the maintenance necessary to prevent leakage and flooding. All in all the gravel spine seems to be a very poor second best for the site of the town compared with what is now known as Tarbarrow Field.

Grinsell noted in his survey of Gloucestershire barrows57 that the best preserved of the three barrows which have given the field its name (FIG. 6, X) has a conical profile, and so may well not belong to the Bronze Age. Perhaps a pre-Roman barrow cemetery and associated religious area on the desirable site explains all the problems listed. If Cirencester is not to be outdone in princely burials by Colchester and Verulamium perhaps this is the place to look.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks - to Gerald Hargreaves who first demonstrated to me that Roman roads could make sense (he must not be held responsible for my more amateur methods and inaccuracies); to Neil Holbrook for listening patiently to my ideas, asking awkward questions, and coming up with new evidence; to John Creighton for making publication easy by taking care of the illustrations and final polishing of the text.

Cirencester richard @ reece 100.freeserve.co.uk

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hargreaves, G.H. 1998: 'The Roman road network in the vicinity of Cirencester', in Holbrook 1998, 11-17 Holbrook, N. (ed.) 1998: The Roman Town Defences, Public Buildings and Shops, Cirencester Excavation

Reports 5, Cirencester Holbrook, N., and Wilkinson, K. 1998: 'The topography and hydrology of the Cirencester area', in

Holbrook 1998, 8-11 O'Neil, H., and Grinsell, L.V. 1960: Gloucestershire Barrows = Trans. Bristol & Gloucs. Archaeol. Soc. 79

(1960), Part 1 Wacher, J., and McWhirr, A.D. 1982: Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation

Reports 1, Cirencester

55 Holbrook and Wilkinson 1998, fig. 3. 56 Wacher and McWhirr 1982, 22. 57 O'Neil and Grinsell 1960, 108, Cirencester nos 2, 3 and 3a.



Documents

Richard Reece, Roman Corinium