[1]. The Plan represents the position of each stone now remaining in the river. It is the result of a series of observations made during the summer of 1850, by Mr. Robert Elliot, of Wall. Most of the stones have luis-holes.
[2]. This coin is in the possession of Mr. Bell, of the Nook, Irthington, to whose cabinet of coins, chiefly procured from the line of the wall, the author has kindly been allowed free access.
[3]. This interesting coin is thus described by Akerman:—Obverse—HADRIANUS · AVGustus, COnsul III. [tertium] Pater Patriæ. Laureated bust of Hadrian, with the chlamys buckled over his right shoulder. Reverse—ADVENTVS AVGusti BRITANNIAE. In the exergue—Senatus Consulto. An altar, with the fire kindled, placed between the emperor in his toga, who holds a patera, and a female figure, a victim lying at her feet.
[4]. Numismatists differ as to the appropriation of the female. The same figure in other coins of this reign being used to personify Rome, it probably does so in this case; and represents the secure possession obtained by the Eternal City, of Albion’s rocky shore. However this may be, the same figure has been placed by many successive generations of mint-masters on the reverse of the copper coinage of Great Britain. Britain in this still bows to Rome!
[5]. The Roman Eagle.
[6]. Walsh on Coins.
[7]. In the collection of Geo. Rippon, Esq., North Shields.
[8]. Historians differ as to the degree of credibility due to this author. Mr. Wright, in his Biographia Britannica Literaria, says that his is ‘a name of very doubtful authority.’ Sharon Turner thinks that ‘as far as he can be supported, and made intelligible, by others, he is an acceptable companion, but that he cannot be trusted alone;’ and Mr. Stevenson, in the preface to his edition of the original Latin of Gildas, writes ‘We are unable to speak with certainty as to his parentage, his country, or even his name, the period when he lived, or the works of which he was the author.’ Thus much, however, is certain, that he lived before the time of Bede, and is quoted by him.
[9]. This point is well put by Sir Francis Palgrave, in his History of the Anglo-Saxons. ‘The walls of the cities fortified by the Romans were yet strong and firm. The tactics of the legions were not forgotten. Bright armour was piled in the storehouses, and the serried line of spears might have been presented to the half-naked Scots and Picts, who could never have prevailed against their opponents.’
[10]. The supposition is not destitute of support. The migratory tendencies of the Gothic tribes have always been conspicuous. From the earliest periods of our history, the inhabitants of Jutland and its neighbouring provinces were in the habit of making descents upon the coasts of Britain. After the departure of the Romans, their attempts were probably more bold and frequent, but they did not then, for the first time, commence. The Norfolk and Suffolk coast was, from its position, peculiarly exposed to these incursions, and as early as the close of the third century, was placed under the command of a military Count called Comes litoris Saxonici. This district was called ‘the Saxon shore,’ as Sir Francis Palgrave observes, not merely because it was open to the incursion of the Saxons, but, most probably, because they had succeeded in fixing themselves in some portion of it. The weak hold which the Romans, at all times, had of Scotland, would render it an easier prey than England to the Franks and Saxons. Tacitus informs us, that the ruddy hair and lusty limbs of the Caledonians indicate a Germanic extraction. Richard of Cirencester tells us, that a little before the coming of Severus, the Picts landed in Scotland; from which we are at least entitled to infer, that the Picts were not the original inhabitants of North Britain; and probably the statement is substantially correct, inasmuch as large reinforcements landed in Scotland at this period, as previously observed. The Scots—the other branch of the people classed under the general term Caledonians—are confessedly of Irish origin. When St. Columba, whose mother tongue was Irish Gaelic, preached to the Picts, he used an interpreter. Fordun, the Father of Scottish History, tells us, ‘The manners of the Scots are various as to their languages; for they use two tongues, the Scottish and the Teutonic. The last is spoken by those on the sea-coasts and in the low countries, while the Scottish is the speech of the mountaineers and the remote islanders.’ The proper Scots, Camden describes as those commonly called Highlandmen; ‘for the rest,’ he adds, ‘more civilized, and inhabiting the eastern part, though comprehended under the name of Scots, are the farthest in the world from being Scots, but are of the same German origin with us English.’ Dr. Jamieson, whose researches in philology are well known, is decidedly of opinion that the Picts and Saxons had a common origin. Upon what other theory, he argues, can the prevalence of the Saxon tongue in the Lowlands of Scotland be accounted for? William the Conqueror could not change the language of South Britain—was it likely that a few Saxon fugitives at the Scottish court could supplant that of their benefactors?