Don't Let Us "Myth" The Point (28 October 1977)

Oh dear, we really are getting into a tucker about Magiovinium, aren’t we?  With one expert saying one thing and another apparently saying the opposite, what are mere mortals to think, say and do?

Perhaps we can best begin by getting rid of the idea that Magiovinium is a myth or a legend.  The Antonine Itinerary, set down during the Roman occupation of Britain, tells us there was a place of that name along the Roman Road between Durocobrovae (Dunstable) and Lactodurom (Towcester).  As long ago as the early 1700’s, Browne Willis said it was on or near the site at present in question, and nobody since then has said it was anywhere else.

It would be foolish of anyone to think otherwise in view of the amount of Roman material which has been recovered from the area from that day to this – some from calculated excavations, some from the laying of the natural gas main, and some from mere casual walkabouts by an unknown number of individuals.  During my own time in Bletchley since the last war I have known of digs undertaken by two successive Bletchley Historical Societies and of the discovery of two or three separate “hoards” of Roman coins.  No, Magio, as I shall now call it, is no myth.  It was here all right.

Any “myth” or “legend” that might exist has simply grown up around that central fact.

At this time of writing (October 16) Mr David Neal, an archaeological expert with the Department of Environment, is directing what appears to be a large-scale dig.  This results from the proposal to begin the southern end of the A5 diversion in that area.  To date, his finds have been only what I, for one, expected they would be – a few old bones and bits and pieces of Roman origin.  But his general remarks are interesting.

“There will be no buildings with masonry or walls found here,” he says, apparently referring to the actual spot where the proposed route crosses the area, but not to the estimated location of the built-up site of Magio itself.  “The walls that will be seen here will be of dry stone construction and would lack the sophistication of the buildings within the town area.”

He also refutes claims that Magio was a settlement of major importance, saying:  “It would be subservient to Verulamium (St. Albans) further south which, of course, was a city.  This was merely a very small town, similar to scores of Roman settlements all over Britain.”  The main interest of the dig centres on the infrastructure of the town, he opines.

Much of this either is, or is taken to be, in direct contradiction to the opinion of that other expert, Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who deems Magio to be a unique piece of British-Roman (or Romano-British?) history on virgin soil.  The reference to virgin soil could help to make the contradiction more apparent than real.

My own thoughts on the affair are as follows:

First of all, I do not think that any local person has ever suggested that anything like the Roman St Albans would be found here.  It has generally been accepted that the primary reason for the string of places along the Watling Street from St. Albans northwards mentioned in the Itinerary was to provide nightly stop-overs for baggage trains on their journeys to more important spots during the conquest, the laying of the road, the pacification and the two or three centuries of Roman occupation that followed.

From that simple premise it has been inferred that a small Romano-British town of sorts would accumulate to serve the establishment and any small farms in the district, many of which have been discovered over the past decade.  But even a small place can produce a large amount of the kind of material so far discovered when it is occupied over a period of 300 years – say, from 1677 to the present day.

Among the indications of buildings which Sir Frank Markham thought might be brought to light by a thorough-going examination of the site were a bath-house and a temple.  I do not think Mr Neal would be surprised to find those either, while still being able to maintain his small town theory.

The key words to Dame Kathleen’s opinion are “on virgin soil.”   I take this to be a reference to the fact that, except for Watling Street itself, the surrounding land has been only minimally disturbed for hundreds of years.  Many Roman sites have been so buried under succeeding building development as to make intensive investigation well nigh impossible.  But here is the “unique opportunity” to trace the history of such a station from first to last – a treasure more valuable than cartloads of coins as far as historians are concerned.

So both Dame Kathleen and Mr Neal could be right, but in differing senses.

I myself think it is a pity that so much attention is paid to the Roman era.  I can only conclude that this is because it is comparatively easy to get at in the way of solid objects.  Sure, it is important, but I only wish one quarter of that attention could be diverted to the discovery of what happened during the following 200 years, the years which saw the coming and settlement of ourselves, the English.

Compared with the Roman period, next to nothing is known about this.  Most of the few extant writings are slanted either from the native British or the English point of view.  Remains from that period are very few and far between – and substantial works like the apse to Wing Church date only from several centuries later.  I only hope that so much grubbing for the Romans is not destroying evidence of the earliest English in this district.  Just one title of such evidence could be worth more to the historian than the discovery of the Roman crown jewels, if there had been any.