^{page 29 note 1} Cf. Suetonius, , Claudius, xviiGoogle Scholar, for an account of the feeble resistance met with by Claudius himself. According to this, the most nearly contemporary authority, part of the island submitted to him within a few days of his arrival, without battle or bloodshed—sine ullo proelio aut sanguine. See also Dessau, , Inscr. Lat. Sel. 216.Google Scholar

Dio, lx, 21, 4, states that Claudius defeated the barbarians in battle and captured Camulodunum. But the weak character of the opposition may be gauged by his further statement (lx, 23, 1) that Claudius only remained sixteen days in Britain.

^{page 29 note 2} Bearing in mind these circumstances, it may be suggested that a force of some 3,000 to 4,000 men would be amply sufficient to garrison the captured capital and police the neighbouring country. Extensive excavation has failed to find any traces of a legionary camp. Any attempt to correlate the functions of the Claudian legions, when they reached Colchester, with those of the Rhine legions in the Claudian period must necessarily prove misleading, for in the first case the function was conquest and occupation, whilst in the second it was frontier defence. In this context it may be noted that even as early as the reign of Tiberius the invasion of Germany by Germanicus, A.D. 14–16, was in the nature of a punitive expedition rather than of an occupational campaign (cf. Tac., Annals, ii, 26).Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} Suetonius, , Vespasian, ivGoogle Scholar: conquest of the Isle of Wight and other exploits by Vespasian, under Claudius and Aulus Plautius.

^{page 29 note 4} Dio, lxi, 30, 1.

^{page 30 note 1} In the British Museum there is a number of early Samian decorated bowls, form 29, from Hod Hill. Two of them are of Tiberio–Claudian type, i.e., B.M. Cat. 208: short upright rim, rounded contour, rouletted central moulding, sessile scroll on the upper frieze (see Archaeologia, lxxviii, 82, text-fig. 2). M 284: short upright rim, sessile scroll on upper frieze (Walters' type 2), rows of large beads. Other examples of this form, from the same site, having decoration of the Claudian type are B.M. Cat. M 246–7, 285–6. Brooches of a Claudian or even earlier type have also been found on this site (cf. A Guide to the Antiquities of Roman Britain, figs. 56, 66). The ‘disc-brooch’, fig. 66, is a military type and rarely found in Britain.

^{page 31 note 1} Hodgkin, T., The Political History of England, 1906, i, 34Google Scholar; Oman, C., England before the Norman Conquest, 1910, p. 68Google Scholar; Haverfield, F., The Roman Occupation of Britain, 1924, p. 104 (the Trent is marked Trisantona on the accompanying map)Google Scholar; Anderson, J. G. C., revised edition of Furneaux, Tacitus Agricola, 1924 (on the map the Trent is named Trisantona)Google Scholar; Collingwood, R. G., J.R.S. 1924, xiv, 254Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 2} Furneaux's paraphrase (Annals of Tacitus, p. 253) is as follows: Ostorius ‘took measures to disarm suspected tribes and generally to put pressure upon (cohibere) the Iceni and others along the inner side of this limit [i.e. the rivers Severn, Avon, and Trent], so that the invader might find no support within Roman territory’. But the Iceni were far removed from the Trent and Severn, nor does the emended passage warrant the inclusion of the river Avon. Haverfield (V.C.H. Northants., i, 214) renders the latter part of this passage thus: Ostorius ‘began to coerce all the land south of the Trent and Severn’.

^{page 31 note 3} The invader might well have followed occasional stretches of existing British trackways.

^{page 31 note 4} J.R.S. xiv, 252 f.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 5} An approximate parallel may be noted in Agricola's Clyde-Forth limes (Tac. Agricola, 23).

^{page 32 note 1} Cf. Tacitus, , Agricola, 41Google Scholar, for a riparian frontier in the reign of Domitian. But the river-frontier was no new thing, for Drusus, late in the first century B.C., built 50 castella on the west bank of the Rhine, between Xanten and Mainz (Florus, iv, 12).

^{page 32 note 2} That Ostorius Scapula was not altogether sure of the stability of his right ‘occupation-flank’ is shown by his somewhat hurried return from the territory of the Deceangi, on account of threatening movements amongst the Brigantes (Annals, xii, 32).

^{page 33 note 1} Cf. Haverfield, , Lincs. Notes and Queries, 07 1909, p. 195Google Scholar . See also Ritterling, in Pauly-Wissowa's, Real-Encyclopädie, ‘Legio’, col. 1667Google Scholar. He dates the occupation of Lincoln at latest A.D. 4.8.

^{page 33 note 2} Cf. Oswald, , J.R.S. xiii, 114 f.Google Scholar, and Trans. Thornton Soc. xxxi, 1927, pls. v and viGoogle Scholar. See also Pryce, , ‘Margidunum’, Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. 1912, pp. 29–30Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 3} Cf. Antiq. Journ. xiii, 58.

^{page 33 note 4} Cf. Haverfield, , Arch. Journ. lxxv, 11, 26, 27Google Scholar. Until Haverfield read this tile-stamp correctly there was considerable doubt as to the participation of (a vexillation of) this legion in the invasion. Thus Ritterling (P.-W., Real-Encyclop., ‘Legio’, col. 1647), whilst admitting the probability that Aulus Plautius, who until A.D. 43 had been governor of Pannonia, took with him vexillations of the two other Pannonian legions, the VIIIth and XVth, as well as the entire IXth legion, questions the relevance of the two inscriptions (C.I.L. v, 7003; xi, 6163) which had been quoted in favour of this view.

^{page 34 note 1} The stamps of the early potters CASTVS and LABIO have been found at Mancetter.

^{page 34 note 2} Cf. Pryce, , ‘Caersws’, Mont. Coll. xlii, 49–50.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} Cf. C.I.L. vii, 154, 155, 156. Nos. 154–5 are inscriptions to soldiers of Leg. XIV Gem.; in one the cognomen is absent; in the other, probably so. No. 156 is a very early gravestone of a soldier of Leg. XX. For further details see Ritterling in P.-W.'s Real-Encyclopädie, ‘Legio’, cols. 1731, 1772; also Haverfield, V.C.H. Shropshire, i, 244–5. Haverfield, apparently under the impression that Leg. XX was stationed at Chester in the, Claudian period, assigned the tombstone of this soldier to a later date.

^{page 35 note 2} Many other potters whose wares are frequently found on Claudian sites, such as Hofheim I, Richborough, and London, are also forthcoming, e.g., Murranus (3 exx.), Niger (4), Niger and Andecarus, etc.

^{page 35 note 3} No definite structural evidence of a legionary base has, as yet, been discovered.

^{page 35 note 4} See Appendix I.

^{page 35 note 5} Cf. V.C.H. Worcestershire, i, 210–11; Allies, J., Worcestershire, 1852, p. 55 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 35 note 6} The territory occupied by this tribe corresponded to east South Wales, Monmouthshire, and probably a large part of Herefordshire. Its eastern boundary appears to have been the Severn.

^{page 36 note 1} Annals, xii, 32. It is clear that the advance into the territory of the Silures had not yet begun, for it is recorded in the following chapter, xii, 33.

^{page 36 note 2} Mr. C. Green, curator of th e Gloucester Museum, who is preparing a paper on the subject, is in full agreement with this finding.

^{page 36 note 3} There are many barbarous imitations of the coins of Claudius in the Gloucester Museum. In most cases the provenance is not stated. None is noted as coming from within the walls of Gloucester, but some come from the neighbouring site of Kingsholm, which appears to have been of earlier foundation.

^{page 36 note 4} It will thus be seen that the intriguing story (cf. Collingwood, R. G., Roman Britain and the English Settlements, p. 97) of the storming, capture, and recovery of Gloucester has neither historical nor archaeological warrant.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} Mr. Ralegh Radford informs me that at Topsham, on the east bank of the river Exe and at the head of the estuary, evidence of early Roman occupation has been found. The deep layers were constructed of timber, in the gullies of which pre-Flavian and Flavian pottery, both sigillata and coarse ware, was discovered. The early use of this site as a sea-base is suggested.

^{page 37 note 2} Brit. Mus. Cat. M 228: Form 29, stamped OF AQVITANI. Rounded contour as in early examples of this form. On the upper frieze is a two-leaf scroll, whilst the lower frieze is decorated with palmate leaves, spiral buds, and small six-lobed leaves, a scheme of ornamentation exactly paralleled on a cylindrical bowl at Hofheim I (cf. O. and P. vii, 1). This particular type of palmate leaf was also used by the early potters NAMVS and SENICIO (Knorr, , Terra Sigillata, 1919, 60 A, 76 B)Google Scholar. The rows of large well-spaced beads and the bifid ‘tendril-unions’, each with two basal beads, are highly characteristic of early work.

^{page 38 note 1} Note also the following potters who were already at work in the Claudian period, as at Hofheim, but whose activity continued, in varying degrees, into the Flavian Age: Celadus, Crestio, Felix, Mommo, Niger, Murranus and Primus.

^{page 38 note 2} Shortt, , Sylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} See also British Mus. Guide to Antiqs. Rom. Britain, p. 30, fig. 21 a.

^{page 38 note 4} Cf. Archaeologia, lxxx, 59 f., figs. 2, P 33, 38, early decorated sigillata; 3, early coarse ware; 4, base of pedestal urn; 5, E 21, brooch of Hod Hill type, c. A.D. 40–50.

^{page 39 note 1} The Roman Occupation of Britain, p. 106.

^{page 40 note 1} Historically we know of no ally other than the Iceni that could have been affected by the completion of the Fosse. This powerful tribe, which figured so largely in the events of the first twenty years of the Roman domination, occupied territory corresponding to modern Norfolk, a large part of Suffolk, and probably a considerable area of the counties of Cambridge and Huntingdon. It may be confidently conjectured that the Silures, under Caratacus, were also actively hostile at this time, but to this there is no direct historical reference.

^{page 45 note 1} This legion was stationed at Xanten from the death of Augustus down to A.D. 70.

^{page 45 note 1} I am indebted to Mr. Eric Birley for this reference.

^{page 46 note 1} Prof. R. Newstead informs me that two examples occur at Chester. See also Caerleon, fig. 6, 36, an ‘Antoniniana’ tile dating A.D. 212–22 (cf. Miller, S. N., Archaeologia, lxxviii, 159–60).Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} The distance of this tile from Caerleon, and other considerations, practically exclude the possibility of importation.