Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/314

 228 SILCHESTER. been interpreted to signify that the Segontiaci inhabited Silchester, and that it was their chief town. This tribe is mentioned by Cresar as one that submitted to his arms, and is placed by him after the Cenimagni, and before the Ancahtes.^ The great difficulty lies with the Itineraries ; as to whether it was the Vindomis, or the Calleva Atrebatum, of Antoninus, and Richard of Cirencester.^ It is now, however, generally admitted, that, according to the explanation of Dr. Horsley, it must be considered the Calleva Atrebatum.'* ^ter an examination of the distances between the stations, as given in the Itinerary, with the actual distances between the stations kno^vn, he thus accounts for the place being the residence of both the Segontiaci and the Atrebates : — " The Segontiaci are not mentioned at all by Ptolemy ; and possibly in his time, and also when the Itinerary was written, might be joined to the Atrebates, and looked upon • Csesar, De Bello Gall., v. 21. 3 Mr. Kempe says, " Nennius tells us it was also c&Xiedi Murhuhitum ; an appella- tion which we must cousider had allusion to its vxdl, which, even to this day, is so strikingly characteristic of its site. The term Galleva, or Calleva, of the Roman Itineraries, appears to have had the same source, and was but a softened form of the British Gual Vawr, or the GreatWall." (Appendix to Archteologia, vol. xwni., page 416.) There certainly seems a pro- bability that the city was divided originally between two tribes, if not more. Dr. Beeke says, " Now it is certain that Calleva was in the direct road from London to Bath, and consequently must have been in or near Reading, because the nature of the country has caused, that the straightest is at the same time the most convenient line between those cities, and that line passes through Reading." (Archseologia, vol. xv., page 186. •• Sir R. C. Hoare observes, " we find that Camden, Stukeley, and Dr. Beeke, place Vindomis at Silchester ; Horsley, at Farnham ; and Mr. Reynolds at the Vine ; whilst Dr. Stukeley places Calleva at Farnham ; Horsley at Silchester ; Mr. Reynolds at Reading ; Dr. Beeke at the same place ; and Dr. Milner, the historian of Winchester, at Wallingford. To these I must add some other opinions, which coincide with those of the intelligent in- vestigator of Roman antiquities, Horsley, and which, I think, rest upon better grounds than those of the writers on this disputed subject. Among the first I shall mention the name of ilr. Lethieullier, a gentleman of Hampshire, who collected notes of Roman antiquities both at home and abroad. In his MS. papers he says, that Mr. Horsley has very judiciously proved Silchester to be the Calleva Atre- batum of the Itineraries. Of tlie same opinion are my learned friends, the Rev. Thomas Leman, of Bath, and the Rev. Archdeacon Coxe, of Salisbury, from whose joint information and notes the improved edition of Richard of Ciren- cester was published in the year 1809. The recent survey of these rival stations, and the discovery of a new station on Finkley Farm, induce me to agree with them in placing Calleva at Silchester." (Anc. Wilts., vol. ii., p. 54.) Of this " new station on Finkley E'arm," Sir Richard observes, " the resident farmer at Finkley showed us a tile with indented marks on it, which we immediately pro- claimed to be of Roman manufacture. AVe picked up several fragments of pot- tery, and observed marks of old inclosures in the corn fields." (Anc. Wilts., vol. ii., p 49.) A more recent anonymous writer observes, " the word Segontium remains to destroy the possibility of its ever having been the Atrehutian Calleva, if it does not afford us any light as to Vindomis." (Observations upon certain Roman roads and towns in the South of Britain, A.D- 1836, p. 32.)