|
Such a connexion does not in itself imply a
pre-Roman occupation of this particular spot. In well-known
instances on the Continent—at Gergovia and Bibracte—the
Romans compelled or encouraged the Gallic tribesmen to leave
their old hill-capitals and dwell in new towns on the plain.
With these analogies in mind, we might point to the ramparts
of pre-Roman type which surround the hilltop of Bigbury Wood,
two miles to the westward.5 But before we
suggest that the Romans removed the natives of Bigbury down to
the Romano-British town beside the Stour, we need to know more
of that ‘camp.’ Indeed, no instance of this process of
transmigration has yet been adequately demonstrated in
Britain. Here and there we have a hint of it; for example,
excavation has made it tolerably clear that the pre-Roman
chef-lieu of the Silures, west of the Severn, must be sought
elsewhere than on the site of their Romanizing capital at
Caerwent. On the other hand, at Silchester and Winchester
there is some reason for supposing an unbroken continuity
between the pre-Roman and Roman tribal townships.6 In
short, the problem is one which must be solved afresh for each
individual site. Its solution can be found only by deep and
careful excavating ; and at Canterbury we are confronted at
the outset alike with a complete absence of scientific digging
and with a generally indifferent record of chance-discoveries
(P1. XII).
Let us now turn to these discoveries. Amongst
them evidences of pre-Roman life in Canterbury are scanty.
What we have seems to belong mostly to the south side of the
town. There a few relics of the Stone and Bronze Ages have
come to light, mostly in or near Wincheap. Two fibulae of
Italian character and approximately of the 7th century B.C.,
now preserved in the Canterbury Museum, belong to a
considerable class of these objects preserved in our various
museums and rarely of authenticated origin. Better evidence is
that of a Gaulish and three late British coins,7 although,
in the absence of other pre-Roman relics, it is well to
remember that such coins have on occasion been found with
Roman coins as late as those of Domitian.8 These
meagre discoveries with others of even vaguer character are
insufficient in themselves to suggest prehistoric settlement
on the site. Equally insignificant in this connexion is the
reputed discovery of a socketed axe of late Bronze Age type in
one of a group of mounds which lay close within and without
the line of the medieval walls in the south-eastern quarter of
the city.9 These mounds were probably
themselves of Roman date and will be discussed below (p. 77).
We may say, therefore, that tangible evidence for
a prehistoric settlement here is lacking. One other
consideration, and one only, may be thought to have some
slight weight in relation to this problem. A glance at the map
will show that all the Roman main roads from Richborough,
Dover, Lympne and London change direction at this spot. In the
apparent absence of determining geographical factors, this
somewhat suggests that when the road-system was laid out, at
the beginning of the Roman occupation, Canterbury was already
of sufficient prestige to form a natural focus. This
possibility may be noted, but, without further evidence,
cannot take us far. It is insufficient to materialize a
pre-Claudian Canterbury.
5 See Arch.
Cant. ix, 13
6 For a general discussion
of the tribal system in Roman Britain, see Haverfield and
Macdonald, The
Roman Occupation of Britain, pp. 190 ff.
7 J. Evans, Brit.
Coins, pp. 203, 478, 482, 527. 8 Numismatic
Chronicle, 4 ser. viii, 1908, p. 81.
9 J. Evans, Bronze
Implements, fig. 118; Brent, Cant.
in Olden Time, pp. 5, 48, p1. iii. |