Page:VCH Derbyshire 1.djvu/293

 ROMANO-BRITISH DERBYSHIRE objects found in it contain no item unsuitable to a fort. The coins, indeed, may support our view. They show that the years A.D. 100-180 formed an important epoch in the history of the site. But it was just in those years, as we have seen above (p. 200), that the north of England and probably also the Derbyshire hills were the scenes of unrest and revolt. A fort on the edge of the hills at the mouth of the Derwent valley would be well situated to assist the maintenance of order in this difficult land. We may therefore conclude that Little Chester, at least during part of the second century, was a fort belonging to the system of the north British auxiliary forts, and indeed the most southern example of that system. But there we must stop. We cannot tell when the fort was established, or how long it was maintained, or what troops were stationed in it. If inscriptions ever existed which would have told us these things, the mediaeval builder has used them up or they lie buried still below the ground. It may well be that after the end of the second century the garrison was withdrawn and the site occupied by purely unmilitary villagers. But we pass here beyond the reach of knowledge or even of reasonable speculation. Lastly, the ancient name. Sixteenth-century writers like Lambarde, Talbot, Ortelius, unaware of Roman remains at Little Chester, but in- fluenced by the name of the river Derwent, identified Derby with a certain Derventio mentioned by Bede. 1 They were wrong, if only (as Smith and Pegge observed) because Bede's * Derventio ' is in Yorkshire. However, the identification survived in a different form. Seventeenth-century writers like Horsley and Salmon knew of Stukeley's discoveries at Little Chester. They knew also that the Anonymus Ravennas, discovered since Lam- barde's time, mentioned a Derventio which seemed to lie somewhere in the Derbyshire region. Accordingly they transferred the identification from Derby to Little Chester, and it is now commonly accepted. It is, if not certain, at least not improbable. 3 The name Derby, on the other hand, seems unconnected with Derwent and Derventio. Its earliest recorded form, Deoraby, is best taken to be Danish, as Camden saw. But it is conceivable that a Danish name which resembled the Romano-British may have been attracted to the spot by the phonetic likeness. So at Castor in Northamptonshire we seem to have the early English Dormeceaster and the Romano-British Durobriva. The two cannot be philologically connected. But the similarity between them suggests that the choice of the English name may have been influenced by the older appellation. 1 Lambarde, Diction, s.v. (written 1570, printed 1730) ; Talbot in Hearne's Lelanifs It'mer. (ed. 1711), iii. 131. 8 Ravennas, 428, 1 8 foil, gives the following names in order, Deva (Chester), Veratino (unknown), Lutudaron (Matlock, p. 228), Derbentione (Little Chester), Salinis (unknown), Condate (unknown), Rate Canon (Leicester). It is generally assumed (as by Watkin) that these form a route of some sort from Chester to Leicester. But it is rash to assume any definite sequence in the Ravennas. All that we can say is that Derventio, named next to Lutudaron, is probably to be sought in its vicinity and is somewhere near the Derwent. Little Chester satisfies these conditions better than any other Roman site. 221