Durobrivae
DUROBRIVAEin Kent, mentioned in the second Itinerary as being the second station from London in the direction of Richborough(Rutupae), and by general consent fixed at Rochester. The prefix dur,being one which will reappear, may conveniently be noticed here. It is the Keltic dwr == water;so that the local names wherein it occurs are the Keltic analogues to the English terms Water-ford, Bridge-water,&c. Camden has pointed out the following corruptions of the form Durobrivae, viz.: Durobrovae, Durobrevis, and Civitas Roibi, from which comes the Saxon Hrofe-ceaster == Rochester. In the foundation charter of the cathedral, Rochester is expressly called Durobrovae. The Rochester river (dwr) is the Medway.
In the third and fourth Itineraries we also find Durobrivae (in all cases, twenty-seven Roman miles from London). This, alone with the satisfactory character of the evidence in favour of Rochester, makes the present notice a convenient place for the investigation of Duro-levumand Duro -vernum. Durolevumis the next stage to Rochester in the second Itinerary, and here Durovernumis twenty-eight miles from Durobrivae. But in the next two Itineraries the distance is only twenty-five. This (as Horsely remarks) makes it necessary to consider Durolevum as lying somewhat out of the direct road.
Now at Len-ham (on the river Len) we have Roman remains, and so we have at Charing (also on the Len). One of these was probably the Roman Duro-levum,or (considering the name of the river, along with the likelihood of that of the station being the same, the chances of confusion between vand u,and, lastly, the fact of the names Devaand Deuna(q. v.) being actually confused) Duro-lenum;a read., ing already suggested by previous investigators. The present writer, then, fixes Durolevum(-lenum) on the Len, assuming the likelihood of an improved reading, and laying great stress on the name. At the same time, he adds that Newington, Sittingbourne, Milton, and Faversham (all on a different line of road) have found supporters.
Durovernum is generally identified with Canterbury. It is mentioned in the same Itineraries with the other two stations. The river (dwr) here is the Stour. Ptolemy's form is Darvenum (Ἀρούενον).
At Rochester remains of the ancient Durobrivae are sufficiently abundant; e.g. coins of Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, M. Aurelius Antoninus, Constantius, and Constantine, fibulae, and pottery.
At Canterbury the evidence is of the same kind; coins being numerous, and there being also traces of the two great Roman roads which led to Dover(Dubris) and Lymne(Lemanis).
[R.G.L]DUROBRIVAEin Britain, to the north of the Thames, and different from the Durobrivae last mentioned. It appears in the fifth Itinerary; and, as the form is Durobrivas,we are thus enabled to give the true termination to the word, here and elsewhere, and become justified in dealing with it as a feminine plural in--ae.In the Itinerary wherein it appears its place is the seventh on the road from Londinium to Luguvallium ( Londonand Carlisle). Not one, however, of the six stations that precede it is identified in an absolutely satisfactory manner; although with some of them opinion is, nearly unanimous. On the other hand, however, Durobrivae has, as the first station beyond it, Causennae, and, as the second, Lindum,--Causennae being almostcertainly Ancaster, and Lindum being as unequivocal a locality as any in Britain, == Lincoln. Hence, Durobrivae was two stations from Lincoln, in the direction of London. The station immediately on the other side was Durolipons, a station which will be dealt with in the present notice, rather than under its own. The fifth Itinerary runs:--
Itera Londinio Luguvallio ad vallum M. P. ccccxliii.: sic,-- M. P.Caesaromagoxxviii.Coloniaxxiiii.Villa Faustinixxxv.Icianosxviii.Camboricoxxxv.Durolipontexxv.Durobrivasxxxv.Causennisxxx.Lindoxxvi.
&c.
Against Causennae== Ancasterthe objections are so slight as to make the identification one of the second degree of certainty, at least. Again, the traces of a Roman road, running nearly due north and south of Ancaster (i. e. without any wide compass or deviation), are numerous; and where they occur they are remarkable for the linear character of their direction. This makes any spot 30 Roman miles south of Ancasterlikely to have been Durobrivae.
The boundary of the counties of Huntsand Northampton, at the spot where the river Nene(which divides them) flows between Chesterton, on the Huntingdonshire, and Castor, on the Northamptonshire, side of the river, suits this measurement,--nearly, though not exactly. There is, however, considerable evidence of other kinds in favour of one (or both) of these two places. The names originate in the word castra.The village (probably the crossing of the river) is found in Camden and certain old maps as DORN-ford;and DOR-man-ceasteris said to have been the Saxon name of it. Roman remains, too, are numerous.
Whether the Huntingdon or the Northamptonshire village was the true Durobrivae, is uncertain and unimportant. It may have been both, or neither,--the term Durobrivae applying to the passage (ford, ferry, or bridge) interjacent, rather than to the two castrawhich defended it.
The present difference in the names is notunimportant. The distinction between the Danish and Anglo-Saxon nomenclature, in the case of geographical terms, has of late years commanded the attention of investigators; and it is well known, not only that certain words and forms are Danish, as opposed to Saxon (and vice versâ), but that the distribution of such words and forms as local names is remarkably regular. Thus, where one Danish form appears, others do so also; and, although there is no part of the island where Saxon forms are excluded, there are vast tracts where there is nothing Danish.
The Danish equivalent to the Saxon--tunis--by;so that New-by == New-ton.
The Danish equivalent to the Saxon sh is sk;so that Skip-ton and Fisker-ton== Shipton and Fishtoft.
The Danish C== the Anglo-Saxon ch,-- Carlby, as opposed to Charlton.
The Danish kirkthe Anglo-Saxon church,--the Danish form generally being initial, the Saxon final; as Kirk-by, Dun-church.
Lastly (though the list could easily be enlarged), in the districts where the Saxon forms prevail, the metamorphosis of the Roman term castrais--chesteror--cester (God-man. chester, Chester-ton, Ciren-cester,&c.); whereas, where the Danish forms prevail, it is--caster (Tad-caster,An- caster, Caster-ton, &c.). There is no exception to this rule of distribution. Now, what takes place in the very spot under consideration? Even this,--that whilst Lincolnshire(on the borders of which Castorstands) is the most Danish of all the counties of England,--whilst Northamptonshire(to which it belongs) is largely Danish,--whilst Caster-ton, An-caster,&c., are the northern transformations of castra, --whilstevery other Danish shibboleth (sk, carl-,--by,&c.) is rife and common as we advance towards York,--themoment we cross the Nene, and get into Huntingdonshire, Beds, and Cambridgeshire, the forms are Chester, in respect to the particular term castra, and exclusively Saxon in all others. No trace of Danish occupancy can be found in Hunts;so truly does the Neneseem to have been a boundary, and so abrupt was the transition from the Danes who said castor, to the Saxons who spoke of the Chester(ceastre). More than this. At some time between the evacuation of the isle by the Romans and the Norman Conquest, the northern and southern defences--for such the castra of Chester-tonand Castor (details of the Durobrivae) were--may have constituted the opposed and hostile parts of a bilingual town; and the analogue between the present Germano-Danish. frontier in Sleswick-Holstein may thus have been exhibited in England.
Just as the straight character of the remains of the Roman roads, now existing, between Lincolnand Castorinduced us to draw our line as directly north and south as possible, the physical condition of the country south of Castorforbids us to assume any notable deviations either east or west. On the east lie the fenny tracts of Whittlesea, Holme, and Ramsey;and on the west the Oxford-clay tracts of Hunts, --tracts which probably were some of the last parts of the island to become occupied. This places Durolipons at God-man-chester.Durolipons,writes Horseley, has been generally settled at Godmanchesteror Huntingdon. The situation on the north side of the river, and on a gentle descent, favours the opinion of Huntingdon, --the name, that of Godmanchester;but I believe there has been no Itinerary station at either one or the other.The reasoning of Horseley is more unsatisfactory here than in any other part of his work. He lays no stress whatever on the termination--chester.Identifying Cambridgewith Durolipons, he writes that the name intimates a bridge over a river, to which the name Cambridgeis not unsuitable.But he never adds that between Godmanchesterand Huntingdonthere is the river Ouseand the necessity of a bridge. He continues: Durobrivae(which he strenuously urges to have been either Castoror Chesterton) is the station next to Durolipons. The distance here is very exact. From Durobrivae to Durolipons, in the Itinerary, is 35 miles, and therefore the number of computed English miles should be nearly 26. For it is 5 miles from Castoron the Neneto Stilton, and 21 from Stiltonto Cambridge, &c.Instead of this 21 miles,the real distance is 28. Hence, the numbers of Horseley, instead of coinciding, disagree. It should, however, be added that they do not come out clear for Godmanchester, which is no more than 18 English miles from the Nene. Nevertheless, Godmanchester, as the equivalent to Durolipons, involves the fewest difficulties.
[R.G.L](1) A town of the Cantii in Britain. now Rochester.
(2) A British town north of the Thames, by some identified with Godmanchester.
On the S bank of the Nene, where it is crossed by Ermine Street. The name (attested in the Antonine Itinerary, the Ravenna Cosmography and on local potters' stamps) was given originally to an auxiliary fort guarding the river crossing. The town of Durobrivae developed in the 2d c. from the civil settlement attached to the fort. It was walled in the 3d c. and continued to flourish as an agricultural and industrial center until at least A.D. 450.
The 2 ha fort visible from the air is unexplored, but may be dated by analogy to the mid 1st c. Little can now be seen of the town, except its defensive circuit (enclosing an area of ca. 17.6 ha) and the embankment of Ermine Street, which is its main thoroughfare. Excavation in 1957 showed that the defenses consisted of a stone wall, backed by a clay rampart, at least three gateways, and a ditch. Within the town aerial photographs reveal an irregular street plan and close-packed rectangular buildings, which are combined workshops and dwellings.
No excavation has taken place here since about 1840. There are extensive industrial suburbs on three sides of the town and across the river.
BIBLIOGRAPHYE. T. Artis, The Durobrivae of Antoninus (1828); J. K. St. Joseph, JRS 59 (1969) 127.
J. P. WILDA Belgic settlement on the river Medway 38 km from London (Londinium) and 37 from Canterbury (Durovernum). It was important enough to have a mint in the period immediately prior to the Roman invasion. The name Durobrivae (which only occurs in the Antonine Itinerary, but the identification is certain) means “fortress by the bridges,” which may suggest the existence of a Belgic oppidum. During the 1st and 2d c. a straggling development occurred along the line of Wating Street, but in the last quarter of the 2d c. the first defenses, a clay-faced earth rampart and a ditch, were constructed. A massive stone wall replaced the rampart early in the 3d c., enclosing an area of 9.2 ha. In A.D. 604 Rochester was still of sufficient importance for St. Augustine to make it the seat of the second cathedral under Justus.
The only Roman remains now visible are parts of the city wall, which survives to the height of 5.1 m at the SE corner, with fragments elsewhere incorporated in the mediaeval defenses. Little is known of the internal plan of the Roman city, though the High Street and Northgate Street mark its principal axes and the existence of four gates is attested by references in Anglo-Saxon charters.
BIBLIOGRAPHYG. Payne, “Roman Rochester,” Archaeologia Cantiana 21 (1895) 1-16; A. C. Harrison & C. Flight, “Roman and Medieval Defences of Rochester,” ibid. 83 (1968) 55-104; id., “Excavations in Rochester,” ibid. 85 (1970) 95-112; id., “Rochester East Gate, 1969,” ibid. 87 (1972) 121-57.
A. C. HARRISON