Forum Topic

Hello again,I'm back from my holiday in Brentford,very nice it was too!    To get get back to things Romano Brentford,I'd like to bounce a few ideas (and that's all they are),of off anyone interested.    As I've said before my main interest is in the area between the Half Acre and Kew Bridge,particularly during Roman times. I've long held the notion that there was another  Roman road ,other than the track through the British Camp alongside the Brent, going northwards to St. Albans.    I suspect that the first visible sign of this other Roman road in Brentford  today is the existence of North Road, (the clue is in the name),if you take a look at    http://www.british-history.ac.uk/image.aspx?compid=22574&filename=fig11.gif&pubid=89      (the 1822 map is clearest) then you can see an almost straight road from the Ait area going Northwards and ending at St.Marys church in Ealing.  I expect some of you have walked the section from Occupation Lane between the cemeteries,it was the straightness of this section that first caught my interest.    On my recent visit, I bounced the idea of off a very elderly relative,he immediately replied " Oh you mean the Old Coaching Road", he'd been told by his Grandfather that this was the case and that there were coaching inns on the site of the Gunnersbury Tavern and the existing Rose and Crown near St. Marys' Church.     In view of the straightness of this section,I'm wondering if the ground work  for this road wasn't in fact done by the Romans,the area is known to have been dense woodland with oaks and other hardwoods in pre Roman times,British tracks tended to go around trees rather than through them,I guess the chances of finding a straight treeless route over such a distance are miniscule.  Why would the Romans need a track on that heading? Well if you take a look at a modern Ordnance Survey map and place a straight edge along the line of the road,it almost exactly aligns with St.Albans, in fact joining Watling Street at Brockley Hill (Svlloniacae).   Returning closer to Brentford,it may be that the original road re appears at Barnes Pikle in Ealing,it has the same width and heading,and then onward to what is today Longfield Avenue and and thence through Longfield Walk, the later is also very nearly the same width and direction. It's seems slightly possible that remnants may be found under Pitshager Park where it would cross the Brent,(bridge or ford?). I hope to be carrying out basic geophysical tests (ground resistance/conductivity) when the weather is "good for it",if you do them in wet conditions you get the same readings everywhere,so a lengthy dry period is required. It is possible to borrow sophisticated ground penetrating radar from N.E.R.C. but permission to use it has to be cleared with the Civil Aviation Authority but is unlikely to be granted due to the proximity of flight paths to Heathrow and Northolt sadly.  Was Brentford a major supply route to St.Albans? Well I think it may have been. Taking a look at the map of the stakes in the Thames at Brentford....   http://debra.truth.posiweb.net/liabletoflooding/assets/history.pdf.....it seems to me as though the Romans may have created a harbour behind the Ait with the only access being through the channel  between the islands (Hogs Gap). Further evidence being the "Palisades" along the bank, opposite todays North Road which presumably would have reinforced the banking,thus creating a loading/unloading  dock for trade or reinforcements from home (Rome!).    Of couse,the work done by Sir Montagu Sharpe and Caesars journals suggests that the stakes were put in place by the defending Britons,however I'm not at all sure that they had the equipment to hand to carry out such  massive (at the time) engineering work.  Trying to force,maybe 6 to 8 inch stakes into the bed of the Thames from the small craft they had available would have been daunting.  In physics there is a well known expression that,"for every action,there's an equal and opposite reaction",so as hard as they banged downward,the boat would try to rise....hardly any effort would do anything useful.  I wonder if there might have been two sets of stakes (date wise),maybe the first set more akin to 2 inch poles rammed in at an angle and pointing towards the Surrey bank,similar to the land based anti horse traps and the Romans copying the idea later to provide a safe haven? Just random thoughts...sorry about that!There you are Nigel,not only did the Romans bifurcate Brentford,I'm suggesting that they may have trifurcated it,the swines!  ;0)

Tony Wood ● 6764d

Neil! How COULD you give web-space to such anti-Brentford revisionist tosh!?You are correct of course, ‘historians’ of more modern date are fashionably against the notion – just jealousy for London over the far more important (in those days) Brentford! It has to be borne in mind however, that Brentford boasted the only hard evidence for the stakes mentioned by Caesar, anywhere along the Thames.Tony – the answer to your question is simple. In the first place, Caesar records that there was only the one crossing point suitable, (without having to travel many miles further upstream). The defences were there precisely because of that - the Romans had no choice. As you will have observed from the plan, the stakes covered a good long stretch of the Thames either side of the crossing. Caesar also records that he had knowledge of the stakes both visible and under water (and presumably the pattern of them), from the camp informers. He therefore knew the route across for his cavalry and troops to take. The scale and strength of the defences were such that they could not have been thrown up at short notice, they were a long-term, expensive defence system, with however, and necessarily, an open route through for ordinary commerce and travel.They were not simply for the defence of Brentford itself, which however much importance we may like to place upon it, could not of itself have merited such investment. As a gateway between north and south, these defences were for the protection of all the area north of the Thames.Read Caesar’s account for yourself at http://www.roman-britain.org/books/caesargw5.htm  (5.18). Montgomery Sharpe’s book “Bregunt-Forda and the Han-Weal” IS in the British Library, my incomplete copy is from copies made there, by the researcher for the Kew Bridge site architects.I heard a little while ago that a new biography of Sharpe was recently published, that includes a re-appraisal of his ideas. It may even be available in Brentford Library! I’ll have to check.

Nigel Moore ● 6778d

Correct Tim, the Brent in earlier times was a mass of different branches forming the delta enclosing 'Old England'.Looking at the (highly pictorial, it was not meant to be cartographically accurate) 1635 Glover map, you can see a large western portion depicted as more of a bay than anything else.Later, (1745 on) more accurate maps also vary, but show a maze of branches. The best, those James Clitheroe had drawn up, clearly depict the two main navigable channels - one wriggling south, the other wriggling east, criss-crossed with connecting streams.When plans were first being drawn up for a canal to Braunston, the idea was to use the southern branch. By 1793,  Clitheroe and Johnson had decided on the eastern branch instead - possibly in order to shorten the trip down the Thames, avoiding having to sweep around the Syon estate grounds. Perhaps also, the Duke of Northumberland didn't care too much for 'untidy' ruffian boats and crews messing up his landscape! (Nowt new).Johnson pre-empted the final decision by filling in a portion of the southern branch that was in his possession, and escaped being sued for the creation of a nuisance in obstructing a public navigable river, only by reason of the consideration that the improvements to be brought by the canal would mitigate the loss.Later of course, in the mid-19th Century, much of his land there was bought up by the Great Western and Brentford Railway, with the resultant building up of the high banks we know today in order than the railway have a level base with the northern part of the line.As a consequence, the southern main branch and smaller streams were mostly filled in, and that which was left turned into Syon Park's landscaped water feature.I can't help with the origin of 'Old England'. It is of course indicative of very early recognition (supported - during the building of the Brunel Docks - by the plentiful discoveries of Roman and earlier weapons and artifacts), that this little bit of England was, of course, the place from whence it all started!But then we all knew that didn't we?

Nigel Moore ● 6787d

I suspect Canham's book will answer a lot of your questions Tony.The Thames in previous centuries (and millenia) was far wider and shallower than it is today. However the tidal influence extended as far upstream as Staines, which was the extent of the Thames sold to the City of London by King Richard (to finance his crusades).Regarded as an 'arm of the sea' in legal terms, prescriptive rights of free public navigation over this length of the Thames was protected in the terms of Magna Carta in the reign of the following King (John).Successive legislation repeated and elaborated this protection, and the Brent is specifically included in the course of applying for enforcement against obstructions under those laws, as early as 1376.From all that, it should be apparent that shipping here has had a long history, and if you have a look at the 1635 Glover map, you can see quite large vessels being hauled along from towpaths.When you bear in mind that carting goods along the ancient trackways in Roman times, was arduous to say the least, the use of shipping to bring and export goods becomes obvious.The Romans were not great seafarers though; the Phoenicians on the other hand hand, were - well before the Romans came to prominence. As vitual monopolists in the supply of the raw material for bronze, they got everywhere, and there is significant evidence for ancient trade in bronze goods here in Brentford. Philological evidence may also support the idea that they were a significant presence here, some centuries before the Romans.('Tarshish'- referring back to biblical times - has been identified with 'the tin isles'- the Phoenicians having held the secret of their location for aeons. 'Ships of Tarshish' were evidently a special class of ocean-going craft, suitable for making long journeys out from the Mediterranian basin. Britain, in particular Cornwall, has been identified as those elusive 'tin isles' to which these traders travelled, setting up according to some authorities, extensive trading and even political bases in England.)So I guess the short answer is 'yes, probably, at the height of the tide'.Just as an extra to this, I've heard tales of vikings having made it as far up the Brent as Hanwell. Facinating as the idea is, I've managed to find nothing written about this. However if you 'google' Hanwell and vikings, it is curious to see how often place names of viking origin and reference crop up. I'll leave that for others to explore.

Nigel Moore ● 6788d