The Romanization of Roman Britain / by F. Haverfield.

  • Haverfield, F. (Francis), 1860-1919.
Date:
1923
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Romanization of Roman Britain / by F. Haverfield. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    86/118 (page 66)
    province, other forms of estates and of land-tenure may have existed beside the 4 villa h1 The one thing needed is evidence. Unfortunately, the sizes and relative positions of the country dwellings do not, of themselves, reveal much in this respect. In some Rhenish districts the houses are so uniform in plan and so evenly distributed as to suggest settlements of veteran soldiers. In Britain the evidence at present known points to a system which has grown up of itself but does not show the exact nature of that system. In any case, the net result appears fairly certain. The bulk of British local government must have been carried on through Roman municipalities, through imperial estates, and still more through tribal civitates using a Romanized constitution. The bulk of the landed estates must have conformed in their legal aspects to the 4 villas ’ of other pro¬ vinces. Whatever room there may be for the survival of native customs or institutions, we have no evidence that they survived, within the lowlands, either in great amount or in any form wdiich conflicted with the general Romanized character of the country. names ending in 4 ham ’ in various counties, disproves his view. For the distribution of the suffix ‘ ham ’ and the frequency of Roman country-houses and farms do not coincide. In Norfolk, for instance, ‘ ham ’ is common, but there is hardly a Roman country-house or farm in the county (Victoria Ilist. of Norfolk, i. 294—8). Somerset, on the other hand, is crowded with Roman country-houses, and has hardly any 4 hams ’. 1 Prof. Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, chap, ii, argues for the existence of Celtic land-tenures besides the Roman 4 villa ’. 4 There was room (he suggests) for all sorts of conditions, from almost exact copies of Roman municipal corporations and Italian country-houses to tribal arrangements scarcely coloured by a thin sprinkling of imperial administration ’ (p. 83). This is very probable. But I find no definite proof of it. If northern Gaul were better known, it might provide a decisive analogy. But the Gaulish evidence itself seems disputable.