Of the deified Severus the grandson,

To Cæsar our emperor . . . . . . . . the duplares[[92]]

Of the second wing of Astures, this temple, through age dilapidated, re-

stored by command of Marius Valerianus, Imperial Legate and Proprætor,

Under the superintendence of Septimius Nilus, Prefect.

Dedicated Oct. 30th, in the consulate of Gratus and Seleucus.

Hutton, who has done such good service to the Wall, under-rated the value of inscriptions. ‘When the antiquary,’ says he, 'has laboured through a parcel of miserable letters, what is he the wiser?'—Let this fractured and defaced stone answer the question.[[93]] 1. This dedication was made by soldiers of the second wing of the Astures;—we thus learn the name of the people who garrisoned the fort, and by a reference to the Notitia, ascertain with certainty that this was|CILURNUM.| Cilurnum. 2. We acquire the fact, that a temple, which through age had become dilapidated, was restored;—learning thereby, not only the attention which the Romans paid to what they conceived to be religious duties, but their long occupation of this spot. It has been already observed, that some of the pillars of the hypocaust have been portions of a prior building;—the ruin and inscription thus corroborate each other. 3. The date of the dedication is given; the third of the calends of November falls upon the thirtieth of October, and the year in which Gratus and Seleucus were consuls corresponds to A.D. 221;—the data on which antiquaries found their conclusions, are not always so vague as some imagine. 4. Even the erasures are instructive. By a reference to the date, we find that Heliogabalus was reigning at the time of the dedication of the temple; we find that what remain of the names and titles on the stone apply to him; he, consequently, is the emperor referred to. The year following he was slain by his own soldiers, his body dragged through the streets and cast into the Tiber. The soldiers in Britain seem to have sympathized with their companions at Rome and to have erased the name of the fallen emperor from the dedicatory slab. Human nature is the same in every age. How often have we, in modern times, seen a name cast out with loathing which yesterday received the incense of a world’s flattery!

The above inscription gives us the station of the Ala secunda Asturum, in the reign of Heliogabalus, A.D. 221. The Notitia Imperii gives us its station in the reign of Theodosius the younger, ‘ultra tempus Arcadii et Honorii,’ A.D. 430, and we find at both periods the same force in the same station, which corresponds with the understood practice of the Roman army with regard to the permanency of the quarters of its auxiliary forces. With reference to the difference between the spelling of the inscription and the Notitia, ‘Asturum’ and ‘Astorum,’ it may be observed that as the Notitia Imperii was preserved for a thousand years in manuscript before the art of printing came to its rescue, it is more likely that the error should be in the book, than on the stone.

The ancient name of the station having been ascertained, the etymology of it may be inquired into. Whitaker says it means a creek. An authority acquainted with the Gaelic language suggests the following derivation; caol, narrow, probably pronounced by the Romans kil, and doir, water (in composition dhoir, the dh not sounded); so that caol-oir is narrow stream; the um is a usual Latin affix. Of course, this branch of the Tyne is narrow in comparison with the united floods. The word may have had an Italian origin; the Latin celer, swift, has some resemblance to it, and the river, when swollen by floods, very speedily discharges its superfluous water. Whatever be the origin of the word, the names of the neighbouring places, Chollerton and Chollerford, have had a similar derivation.

ROMAN SCULPTURES.