Page:VCH Derbyshire 1.djvu/335

 ROMANO-BRITISH DERBYSHIRE bones, lead ' spindle whorl,' iron spearhead, copper button, and (according to one account) a Roman coin, since lost. [Notts, and Derb. N. and Q. vi. 57 ; letter from Mr. W. H. Salt ; spearhead and ' whorl ' in Buxton Museum.] Date of the remains doubtful ; the 'whorl' especially does not look to me Roman. In the village, in 1896-8, circular chambers, taken to be Roman, but apparently bakers' ovens of recent date [Leader, Proc. Soc.Antiq. xvi. 95 ; Sheffield Telegraph, 2O Jan. 1896, Sheffield Week. 14 May, 1898, and other local papers]. Fig. 43. The Grey Ditch, between Bradwell and Brough (see fig. 8), has been lately called Roman (Barns, North Staffordshire Field Club, xxxvi). But it is not Roman, and the whole theory with which it has been connected is, in my judgment, wrong. BRASSINGTON. Pegge records iron knife, potsherds, etc., found on Mr. Cell's estate (Arch. x. 30). Ward records potsherds, broken bones, charcoal, bit of red ochre, etc., dug up in 1889 on Harborough Rocks, which he takes to be British of Roman date (Reliquary, iii. 2 1 6, Derb. Arch. Journ. xii. 108). But it is very doubtful whether either find can be ascribed to the Roman period. A Roman coin is said to have once been picked up hereabouts. For Rainster Rocks, see Rainster. BREADSALL. Alleged camp, Watkin, Derb. Arch. Journ. viii. 194 (with a misreference) ; apparently no good evidence for it exists. BROUGH. Fort, p. 201. BRUNDCLIFFE. See Hartington. BURTON WOOD. Hoard of some 70 coins, chiefly ' Adriaa, Severus, Constantine the Younger,' found 'within the boundaries of a spacious Roman camp' [Gentleman's Magazine, 1784 (ii.), 791: hence Lysons, p. ccviii ; Glover, i. 297; Bateman, Vestiges, p. 158; Watkin, Derb. Arch. Journ. viii. 204]. Burton Wood is said in the G.M. to be 4 miles from Ashbourne, but I have wholly failed to trace it. Watkin thinks that the account refers to the Parwich hoard. BUXTON. Baths, village, p. 222. Near Buxton : ' Third Brass ' coins of Constantine (Bateman, Vestiges, p. 151). CARLSWARK (Hathersage parish). Near Carlswark cave in 1867 ' in clearing the rock from gravel and soil' at a depth of 8 feet (as is alleged), a pair of bracelets of base silver alloyed with copper. [Reliquary, viii. (1867), 113 : hence, briefly, Intellectual Observer, xii. 347, and Watkin, Derb. Arch. Journ. viii. 205.] A very similar pair was found with coins of circa 160 A.D. in an urn at Castle Thorpe, in Buckinghamshire, Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ, ii. 353 (with a not quite correct illustration) ; a similar one with coins of the same date was found near Backworth in Northumberland, see Arch. Journ. viii. 39. Fig. 50. This type occurs at Pompeii and seems Italian, not Celtic. CASTLETON. Lead pig (perhaps due to error), p. 232. The bricks in Peak Castle seen by Pegge (Sketch of Peak and Bolsover, p. 1 3) can hardly be Roman unless brought from Brough. Pegge writes dubiously. The camp on Mam Tor is equally un-Roman. The camp which Pegge thought to see in the gardens at Castleton seems to have been mere imagination [Bennet, cited by Lysons, p. ccxviii]. CHADDESDEN. Coins; see quotation from Kinder's Hist, on p. 216. CHAPEL EN LE FRITH. The ' Roosdyche ' near Whaley Bridge, an alleged racecourse, ' one of the Rhedagua,' [Reliquary, i. 96 ; Trans. Hist. Soc. Lanes, and Ches. xix. 43 ; Leyland, Peak, p. 317 ; Derb. Arch. Journ. viii. 195]. Not Roman; no remains have been found there, and the ' Rhedagua ' themselves are quite fictitious. CHATSWORTH. A 'fine brass coin of Commodus ' found in the park [Arch. x. 31, hence Watkin, etc.]. Mrs. S. Arthur Strong tells me that the Chatsworth collections comprise nothing Romano-British. CHELMORTON. In Great Low barrow, potsherd found 1849, considered Romano-British by Bateman (Diggings, p. 51), but doubtful. CHESTERFIELD. Called a Roman ' station,' by name Lutudarum, by Baxter, Glossarium (s.v. Lutudarum), Salmon, Survey, ii. 542, Pegge, p. 30, who places the precise site at Tapton Castle, a mile north-east of the town across the Rother. But Lutudarum is elsewhere (p. 228), and it is not certain that Chesterfield was a Roman site. Its name is ancient, and the first half generally (if not invariably) denotes Roman occupation. But that need not have been at the present town. The name 'Chesterfield' means the field or region round the ' Chester,' and this may have been a little way off. Lichfield similarly means the place in the field or region of Letocetum (now Wall) 2 miles distant. Unfortunately no remains have been recorded to decide the question. Nothing has been found at 255