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 century the garrison was withdrawn and the site occupied by purely 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 



