The Conquest of Brigantia and the Development of the Roman Road System in the North-WestAuthor(s): Ian RogersSource: Britannia, Vol. 27 (1996), pp. 365-368Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/527055 .

Accessed: 16/12/2014 05:37

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 support@jstor.org.

.

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 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:37:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES 365 The suggestion that the inscriptions both on the Shavington pan and on the Nantwich pans may

demonstrate a link with the early Church adds a potentially significant new dimension to our understanding of the organisation of the late Roman salt industry, and indeed to an understanding of the role of the early Church in the North-West. The inscription suggests how the Church may have exerted its influence over the local population through its management of a vital resource, foreshadowing the nature of the influence of the medieval monastic Church.

In conclusion, the discovery of the Shavington salt-pan has perhaps raised more questions than it has answered. However, taken in conjunction with other recent finds, a fuller picture of the extent and organisation of the Roman salt industry in Cheshire is slowly emerging.

Cheshire Museums Service (S.P.) University of Lancaster (D.C.A.S.)

The Conquest of Brigantia and the Development of the Roman Road System in the North-West. Ian Rogers writes: Roman military expeditions into Brigantia are historically attested beginning with the rescue of Cartimandua by Roman troops in A.D. 69 and may well have taken place earlier.213 They continued with expeditions under the governors Quintus Petillius Cerialis, possibly Julius Frontinus, and culminated in the final advance of conquest under Gnaeus Julius Agricola during A.D. 77-91.214 It has been postulated in the past that the main Roman conquest route into Brigantia is represented by the road from Manchester and thence north through the Pennine foothills to Ribchester,215 the road listed as Number 7 by Margary216 (FIG. io). Margary's Number 70217 (known as 'King Street'), extending from the fort at Chesterton in Staffordshire via Middlewich to cross the Mersey at Wilderspool, the Ribble at Walton-le-Dale, and the Lune at Lancaster, has been considered to be a later route relating to consolidation of the conquest218 (FIG. io). Recent evidence from work by Gifford at the settlement at Holditch I.3 km south of Chesterton, at Middlewich, and at Wilderspool suggests that King Street is just as likely to have been the main conquest route and was probably used during earlier advances in A.D. 69-77.

An advance along the coastal plain making contact with the fleet at regular intervals makes good sense as an initial conquest route - but is there more tangible evidence? In support of King Street's claim to be a major route of the Roman conquest there is the numismatic evidence, recently highlighted by Shotter,219 of clusters of early coins around the estuaries of the rivers Mersey, Ribble, and Lune. Breeze has highlighted Tacitus' comments regarding forests and estuaries as well as the importance of naval support to the army.220 King Street extends north to connect the estuaries of the Mersey, Ribble, and Lune at their highest conveniently navigable points and so fits the historical account much better than the inland route. It has been suggested that one of the first advances north of the Mersey was made by Agricola while serving under the then governor, Cerialis, who took the main force up the east coast.221 It has also been suggested that Cerialis crossed the Pennines via Stainmore to meet Agricola in the vicinity of Carlisle222

213 D. Shotter, 'Rome and the Brigantes: Early Hostilities', Trans. Cumbd. & Westd. Antiq. & Arch. Soc. xciv (1994), 21-34.

214 ibid. 215 D. Shotter, Romans and Britons in North-West England (1993), 20. 216 I.D. Margary, Roman Roads in Britain (3rd edn, 1973), 370. 217 idem, 302. 218 D. Shotter, 'Coin-loss and the Roman occupation of North-West England', British Numis. Journ. lxiii (1994),

I-I9. 219 ibid. 220 D.J. Breeze, 'The Roman army in Cumbria', Trans. Cumbd. & Westd. Antiq. & Arch. Soc. lxxxviii (1988), 9-22. 221 op. cit. (note 215). 222 op. cit. (note 213).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:37:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

w 0•

H•

TO VAGAN. WALTON-LE-DALE

To// AND FORT AT LANCAS A

0/IBCHESTER CASTLESHAW AND

J* LEGOther SiteES

MANCHESTER: FORT

ALGIONARY

FORTRESS

- - ossbleRoa

....RTO FORT AT GLOSSOP

WILDERSPOOL:

HDCINDUSTRIAL KEY SETTLEMENT ...Defended Site

.......

, .v ......N

"

Other Site INCE: SIGNAL STATION..,

-NAVAL? F Probable Rocd

- - Possible Rood

,THRH

F NORTHWPCH: FORT

TEMPORARY Extensive

Bogs TOFRTCAMPS 000

MIDDLEWNICH: CAMPSe/ioArs AND PRESTATYN

EHESTERc:ADC

RA NARY

Land over 150m ~~~FORTRE'SS •-'

AFTER c.AD74

HOLT: INDUSTRIALU SETTLEMENT

CHESTERTON: FORT

TO FORT AT LLANFOR POSSIBLE HOLDITCH:I RIAL

/ ROAD TO SETTLEMENT

WROXE/TER/ - WHITCHURCH: FORT POSSIBLE

' ROAD TO TO FORT AT ENGLETON ROCESTER AND

SOUTH-EAST BRITAIN

0 20Km

FIG. Io. Roman conquest sites in Cheshire.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:37:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES 367 - and they would certainly have intended to join forces at some point. In this context Agricola would surely have been keen to press north by the quickest route - the lowland route, King Street.

The key piece of new evidence is the certain identification by geophysical survey and sample excavation of a Roman military site at Middlewich in Cheshire223 (FIG. Io). Middlewich is situated one day's march north of the fort sites at Chesterton and Whitchurch and was probably connected to both by road, and via Whitchurch to the early legionary base at Wroxeter.224 Middlewich is also one day's march south of the Mersey crossing at Wilderspool. Indications of early military activity have been identified at the settlement at Holditch just south of Chesterton225 and also at Wilderspool which, like Walton-le-Dale to the north, may also have been an industrial complex under military control.226 The evidence of early military activity at Wilderspool comprises nine bronze military fittings - from both the recent and earlier excavations, including cavalry harnesses and a clip from lorica segmentata armour - as well as the style of construction of many of the timber-framed buildings which is reminiscent of barrack blocks (regularly spaced post- impressions in pre-cut timber slot) although the Wilderspool buildings are clearly not barrack blocks but manufacturing sites.227 The fact that King Street 'misses' Northwich, passing c. 2 km to the east (FIG. IO) is very interesting and surely significant (the route to the east of Northwich is fairly well-established).228 The first occupation of the fort at Northwich was Flavian to Antonine and the site continued in use as an important salt-producing centre.229 King Street and the Northwich fort must have been in contemporaneous use - so why do the route and the fort not coincide? The simplest answer is that King Street is earlier than the fort at Northwich and, therefore, connected with an early conquest advance which crossed the Mersey via Wilderspool rather than Manchester. This would also neatly explain the presence of another camp or fort at Middlewich which is arguably too close to Northwich to have been contemporaneously occupied.

Chester does not figure in this discussion as the legionary fortress was not being constructed by Legion II Adiutrix until after the first advance north by Cerealis, well after the initial occupation of Cheshire and subjugation of the Lancashire area.230 Furthermore the presence of a camp or fort at Middlewich would only have been of use to forces operating from Wroxeter via Whitchurch or from the South-East via Chesterton (FIG. io).

One problem with King Street as an early conquest route is the lack of known fort sites between Middlewich and Lancaster. The industrial sites at Wilderspool and Walton-le-Dale lie south of their respective rivers. It is tempting to speculate that there may have been fort-sites north of the rivers guarding the crossings as has recently been discovered at London during the Claudian advance northward across the Thames. Certainly there is evidence in the form of stray finds (coins, pottery, and metalwork) of Roman occupation on the north bank of the Mersey - in the area of present-day Warrington town centre.231 The early medieval borough of Warrington was sited around St Elphin's parish church north of the ford at Latchford - perhaps there was a fort there? In Wigan, one day's march north, there is Roman occupation of unknown extent and character.232 In short, the forts may be there but are as yet unidentified because of modern urban development in Warrington, Wigan, and Preston.

Of course, King Street need not be much earlier than the Manchester to Ribchester road and the two routes may have been complementary. There is evidence from the east coast that the Roman army marched in column233 and this may also have been the case on the west coast.

223 Gifford and Partners, 'Roman Middlewich and other work in Cheshire 1993-4', Cheshire Past iv (1995), o10-II. 224 Tabula Imperii Romani: Britannia Septentrionalis (1987), map sheet M3o. 225 Gifford and Partners, 'Holditch, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire: excavations within a Romano-British

settlement', West Midlands Arch. (1995). 226 A.C.H. Olivier, 'Walton-le-Dale', Britannia xv (1984), 284-6. 227 T.J Strickland, The Romans at Wilderspool (1994), 32. 228 op. cit. (note 217). 229 Tabula Imperii Romani: Britannia Septentrionalis (1987), 59. 230 T.J Strickland, 'A History of Roman Chester', Victoria History of the County of Chester V (1995). 231 Information kindly provided by Dr J. Collens of the Cheshire Sites and Monuments Record. 232 G.D.B. Jones and P. Mayes, 'Wigan', Britannia xv (1984), 286. 233 M. Bishop, From Trackway to Road: Corbridge, Roecliffe and the Case for a Proto-Dere Street, paper given at

the Roman Archaeology Conference, Reading, 2 April 1995.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:37:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

368 NOTES

Another interesting point arising from the east coast network is the possibility that the Roman advance followed well-established prehistoric routes.234 The area north of Warrington is a natural gap of well- drained gravels between extensive bogs to the west and east which shows signs of intensive use since the earliest times235 (FIG. io). Since the early conquest 'roads' would probably have been no more than cleared pathways their surviving fabric generally dates to later periods and cannot be taken as indicating the date of establishment of their routes. Therefore the best way to test the ideas set out in this paper would be to look for forts at Preston, Wigan, and Warrington and to further investigate the one at Middlewich.236

Gifford and Partners, Chester

234 ibid. 235 op. cit. (note 231). 236 The enclosure at Middlewich has been scheduled as an ancient monument (scheduled ancient monument

reference 12615) and therefore further investigation seems unlikely at present.

A 'National Roman Fabric Reference Collection'. Roberta Tomber and John Dore write: The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the recently established 'National Roman Fabric Reference Collection' for pottery, funded by English Heritage and held in the Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities at the British Museum.237

Background The establishment of a national reference collection for pottery of the Roman period has been discussed since 1972, when it was proposed by Dame Kathleen Kenyon at the first meeting of the Study Group for Roman Pottery held in Oxford.238 Sporadic discussion of the need for a collection has continued, particularly since the publication of the Guidelines for the Processing and Publication of Roman Pottery from Excavations.239 In March 1986 a meeting was held at the British Museum to discuss the feasibility of establishing collections for all periods and while there was agreement on the need, no action resulted.

The present initiative stems from the survey of the Current State of Romano-British Pottery Studies undertaken by Professor Fulford at the request of English Heritage, which made explicit recommendations for the establishment of both national and regional fabric collections.240 Full funding for the implementation of this project (National Roman Fabric Reference Collection - NRFRC), including an accompanying publication, was provided by English Heritage, with support from the British Museum (Departments of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities and Scientific Research) and the Museum of London Archaeology Service (particularly Photography and Computing), where the work was undertaken.

Aims The purpose of this collection is to provide a standard for the identification and description of Roman pottery types, which will be of value both to full-time pottery specialists and non-specialists who occasionally work with Roman pottery. At the same time, it will provide an infrastructure for future research into Romano- British pottery. Fabric should be viewed as a single variable of ceramic studies, to be integrated within the framework of vessel form/function, archaeological context, and broader research priorities.241

237 We are grateful to Majella Egan (MoLAS) for designing the proformae, and to Susan Banks (MoLAS) for preparing the illustrations.

238 A. Detsicas (ed.), Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery, CBA Res. Rep. 1O (1973). 239 C.J. Young (ed.), Guidelines for the Processing and Publication of Roman Pottery from Excavations, Directorate

of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings Occ. Paper 4 (1980). 240 M.G. Fulford and K. Huddleston, The Current State of Romano-British Pottery Studies. A Review for English

Heritage, English Heritage Occ. Paper I (i99i). 241 e.g. A. Shepherd, Ceramics for the Archaeologist (1976); D.P.S. Peacock (ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce.

Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics (1977), 21-33.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:37:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions