Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/313

€l)t SrfOaeoIocjiral Siournal SEPTEMBER, ^851. SILCHESTER. In the following observations concerning Silcbester, des- tined to accompany the plan of that interesting site, it is not proposed to announce any discovery, much less to settle disputed points regarding its ancient name and former inhabitants ; but merely to explain the sketch Avhich has been taken of its present state. In pursuing this intention I shall proceed, in the first place, to notice the outline of the earthworks, as it is con- jectured they may have existed originally. I shall next endeavour to indicate such additions as we may suppose to have been added by the Romans, or under their superin- tendence, particularly their roads as distinguished from hnes of earthwork. And, lastly, to add some observations on certain detached lines of intrenchment in the neighbourhood. There is scarcely any Roman station, probably, in Britain at which so many remains have been discovered, as at Sil- chester, and yet antiquaries are not unanimous as to the {>lace it holds in the Itineraries, or the Saxon warrior by whom it was destroyed.^ Kennius, who wTote about the eighth century, calls Sil- cbester, Caer Segeint ; and a stone dug out of the ruins, containing an inscription with the word Sacgon on it, has ' " Silchester is supposed to have been authority of Henry of Huntingdon, that destroyed near the end of the third cen- Caer Segon was destroyed, and that all ita tury, when Asdcpiodatus came over to inhabitants were put to the sword, about Britain to suppress the usurpation of a.d. 493, by the Saxon chief Ella, in his Allectus ; and it is probable enough that march from Sussex, where he landed, the town then suffered a siege, being on to Bath." (United Serv. Jouru., p. 38. ornear the line of march for the oppos- Jan. ^M.) ing armies. It is also stated, on the VOL. VIII. I I