2 nd S. IX. April 7. '60.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



269 



correspondent Clammild, the above is forwarded 

 by J. M. Gutch. 



" Worcester. 



An excellent facsimile of tbis jug is manufac- 

 tured by Kerr, Binns and Co., and with it is given 

 a History of the Original. Its antiquity is denied 

 by Marryatt, in the second edition of his work on 

 Tottery. He says it was certainly not made be- 

 fore the year 1700. Gilbert. 



BURGHEA.D: SINGULAR CUSTOM: CLAVIE: 

 DURIE. 



(2 nd S. ix. 38. 106. 169.) 



Two of your correspondents having taken the 

 trouble to reply to my communication on this 

 subject, I beg permission to make a few additional 

 remarks. 



My statement (2° d S. ix. 38.) tbat the " durie" is 

 "a small artificial eminence," must be taken in close 

 connexion with what immediately follows: "and 

 interesting as being a portion of the ancient for- 

 tifications, spared probably on account of its being 

 used for this purpose." In fact, it is merely a 

 part of the innermost of three ramparts, chiefly of 

 earth, that defended the entrance to the fort, and 

 bears no resemblance either in structure or ap- 

 pearance to a "little tower" (2 nd S. ix. 106.) The 

 " circular heap of stones," or their modern sub- 

 stitute, the " small round column," might be so 

 denominated with some propriety ; but it is in- 

 variably to the mound of earth and stones that 

 the term is applied. As compared with the whole 

 extent of the promontory, the " durie" may cer- 

 tainly be said to be " near the point" : still, it is at 

 some distance from the actual extremity. These 

 explanations are due to your correspondent, who 

 lias been led to suggest turris as its origin. 



I am not aware that the two words requiring 

 elucidation are ever used in such a relation to 

 each other as their derivation from Janus (Thor) 

 Changer (2 nd S. ix. 169.) would necessarily imply. 

 The one simply denotes the blazing barrel carried 

 in procession through Burghead on the last day 

 of the year, and the other the spot where it 

 is finally deposited ; otherwise, they are per- 

 fectly distinct. I may also venture to hint that it 

 y no means certain that a single Roman ever 

 saw Burghead, except perhaps from the decks of 

 Agricola's fleet ; far less that that people have left 

 there any traces of their language and customs. 

 In introducing the subject, 1 thought it right to 

 otnte shortly t lie various opinions that have been 

 brought forward regarding its fortifications; but 

 it might also have been added, that by many who 

 h«ve made early Scottish history their study 

 doubts are entertained regarding the correctness 

 'if much of what has been written on the Romans 

 in North Britain by Ray, Chalmers, and others. 



So far as is now known, not a single vestige of 

 anything indubitably Roman has ever been dis- 

 covered at Burghead. The fortifications and the 

 well have, it is true, been both claimed as such, 

 but scarcely one of those whose names give weight 

 to what they have written speak from personal ob- 

 servation. In my former communication I noticed 

 the way in which the latter had been made " a 

 double debt to pay," by so respectable an autho- 

 rity as Stuart. The description of it furnished 

 to Pinkerton, to which reference was at the same 

 time made, is, I now find, both meagre and calcu- 

 lated to mislead ; yet it was solely in consequence 

 of the existence of "this singular reservoir" that 

 he was induced, after writing very doubtingly re- 

 garding the progress of the Roman arms in Cale- 

 donia, to admit in the " Advertisement" the pro- 

 bability of their having been pushed as far as the 

 Moray Frith. The tone of triumph in which the 

 leaimed and indefatigable Chalmers (Preface, p. 

 viii.) points to the discovery, "since Caledonia 

 was sent to press," of this " Roman bath," as re- 

 moving " a very slight doubt which remained 

 whether the Burgh-head of Moray had been a 

 Roman station," is highly excusable after his 

 elaborate Commentary on the Itinera of Richard. 

 The excavation, however, is nothing but a well, 

 roughly and unsymmetrically hewn out of the 

 sandstone rock, and apparently very unlike the 

 handiwork of the " masters of the world." The 

 inference sought to be drawn from the fortifica- 

 tions seems equally open to suspicion. On a 

 recent visit to the village I found that a complete 

 section of the remains, still considerable, of the 

 north bulwark of the fort had been lately exposed 

 by qua-rying operations. The appearances it pre- 

 sents are somewhat difficult to explain, and in 

 skilful hands might be made to reveal a lost page 

 in the history of the stronghold ; but they are, at 

 all events it appears to me, totally irreconcilable 

 with the supposition that any portion of the work 

 was constructed by the Romans. The historical 

 evidence in favour of a Roman occupation is as 

 unsatisfactory as the archaeological. The lati- 

 tudes and longitudes of Ptolemy, the only classi- 

 cal writer by whom mention is made of any portion 

 of the Scottish mainland north of the Tay, with 

 the solitary exception of 'Opxas &Kpov (Dunnet 

 Head) noted by Diodorus Siculus, are quite in- 

 sufficient for fixing the exact localities of the 

 names in his tables, especially those of towns ; and 

 could this be successfully done, it is at best but 

 an assumption to set them down as Roman stations. 

 Regarding YlTtpwrhv arparoneSou (The Winged 

 Camp), which some would identify with Burg- 

 head, we merely learn that it was a town of the 

 OvaKOfidyoi (Vaeomagi), situated, according to the 

 common readings of his degrees, at some distance 

 inland from the Obdpap tlaxwts (the Estuary of the 

 Varar). 



