Bulletin No 3 Published by the Great Chesterford Archaeology Group in 1980 Contains An

Bulletin No 3 published by the Great Chesterford Archaeology Group in 1980 contains an account by Anthony E Collins of the Beginnings of Chesterford.

The Romans.

The legions of the Emperor Claudius landed in Kent in AD 43. One of the first objectives of the Roman invaders was Camulodunum (Colchester) which was the tribal capital of the Trinovantes and the Catuvellauni, the latter now dominating a large part of south- east Britain. After taking Camulodunum the Romans made it their headquarters and very soon used it for settling old soldiers discharged from the army. Thus the surrounding region (today's Essex and Suffolk) became one of the earliest and most intensively Romanized parts of Britain.

Chesterford, whose name in Roman times we do not know, lay on the border between the Trinovantes and the Catuvellauni, with the territory of another powerful tribe, the Iceni, starting a few miles further north. The Belgic settlers at Chesterford must have had close affinities with the Trinovantes or Catuvellauni or both. Pottery of Claudian date has been found in small quantities in both Great and Little Chesterford, which suggests that trade was going on and a small partly Romanized rural settlement was beginning to grow here by, say, 50 AD.

In the next ten years the Trinovantes had to give up land for Roman settlement and were subjected to heavy taxes. In Norfolk the tribal chief of the Iceni died without a son. It was normal Roman policy when a client King died to end the client status of his territory, which was then absorbed into an ordinary province. But the Iceni, led by the dead King's widow Boudicca (Boadicea), objected to this change. To no avail - she and her daughters were maltreated, and her main supporters were imprisoned. So, in the summer of AD 60, while the Roman Governor Suetonius Paulinus was campaigning with a large part of his army in North Wales, the Iceni and the Trinovantes joined forces in a major rebellion under the command of Queen Boudicca. They began by sacking the colony at Camulodunum. To meet this threat Paulinus brought his troops south - just in time to see London and Verulamium (St. Albans) burn to the ground. According to the historian Tacitus the total of Roman citizens and allies killed at the three towns amounted to 70,000. "Never," says Tacitus, "either before or since has Britain been in a more disturbed and perilous state."(2).

Paulinus defeated Boudicca late in that summer and went on to exact retribution from the rebellious tribes. From that time both the Iceni and the Trinovantes fade from the scene. Reinforcements were brought over from the Roman army on the Rhine, 2,000 Legionaries, eight auxiliary infantry and two auxiliary cavalry units, and during the winter of AD 60/61 these troops were brigaded together in winter quarters. The site of these ·winter quarters has been the subject of much speculation. Longthorpe near Peterborough has been suggested. Equally or more likely is Great Chesterford, which is strategically better placed than Longthorpe to control the territory of the rebel tribes. The first century fort here is now known to be about the right size, 24 acres not 36 acres as previously thought.

It seems certain that the Great Chesterford fort was garrisoned for a relatively short time, but the developing road network greatly increased the importance and prosperity of the place. Before the construction of the fort there had been a group of huts and enclosures beside the ford, close to where the road-bridge now stands. This settlement was still culturally of the Iron Age, both the houses and the locally-made pottery showing marked local elements. The Roman fort and the new roads changed all this. The local pottery was largely replaced by pots brought in from large production centres such as Colchester. The individual homestead enclosures gave way to a larger and more widely-spaced settlement which spread into the area where the fort had been after the garrison was withdrawn.

The Temple.

A relaxation of the Roman military grip and an increase in local prosperity is probably reflected in the building, almost certainly with Roman help, of the temple, in typical Romano-Celtic style, on the hillside near where the Belgae had buried their dead (Fig.). Roman assistance in the building of what must have been quite an expensive shrine for the local deity may well have been part of the deliberate policy of conciliation and development which, Tacitus tells us, was introduced some twenty years after the Boudiccan rebellion had been crushed (3).

Before the end of the first century a pleasant villa was being built across the river at Ickleton, and soon afterwards another villa or town house went up within the enclosure which had been the fort. Its ruins were later known as “TempIi Umbra”.

By the second century this settlement had grown into a thriving market town. Industries included wool-production and metal- working, as well as agriculture. Then, judging by the number of coins found, there seems to have been a decline in prosperity (for reasons unknown) which started towards the close of the second century and lasted over half a century.

From the middle of the third century the coin count rises again, perhaps prosperity had returned, but towards the end of the century Saxon pirates and raiders began harrying the east coast. A number of coin hoards have been found here from this period, always a sign of troubled times, and the Saxon shore forts were constructed about this time. Then in AD 367 there were other incursions too, from north of Hadrian's wall and from across the Irish sea, resulting in general panic.

It is most likely that it was these events which led to the building of the town wall at Great Chesterford. It encircled not the whole settlement but an area of 36 acres (14 ha) including the large town house and the two-storey stone building thought to be a tax office (where the annona or corn levy would have been stored). The wall was 12 ft thick and high in proportion. Its building must have been an expensive operation. This raises the question; why was Great Chesterford picked for such attention? the answer must be that it was a place of importance, the local centre of much good agricultural country, a centre of communications, and almost certainly an administrative and tax centre. In time of unrest the local treasury had to be protected first of all.

The Saxons.

Despite the barbarian raids the Romans stayed on until 410 AD when the last legions withdrew from Britain. Saxon pressure increased and at some time, we do not know when, the walled town was abandoned and the main settlement seems to have shifted to the small hill above the ford where the church now stands. This is suggested by the building of the church at that point and by finds recorded in the 18th and 19th centuries.

We know little of the Saxons at Great Chesterford apart from the burial ground on the lckleton side of the walled town where burials of both Roman and Saxon type were excavated pp53-55 (no report yet available). There may be a clue in the name lckleton, long known as Iclington. The lclings were the family and followers of Icel, the high King of the Angles who is deduced (by Dr. John Horris) to have brought his whole court over to Britain in the later fifth century. The great Kings of Mercia afterwards claimed descent from lcel. Besides lckleton several other place-names from Norfolk to Nottingham seem to echo his name.