How London Became Britain’s Capital Has Been Revealed for the First Time首次揭秘伦敦如何成为不列颠首府

文/戴维·基斯 译/安砚贞

By David Keys

伦敦曾经历野蛮血洗，几乎从地图上被抹去，而这却恰恰成了伦敦首次成为不列颠首府的一个关键因素。

[2]考古学新的研究显示，伦敦地位的提升，部分源于布狄卡女王在公元1世纪中叶对伦敦和其他主要城市进行疯狂破坏后，罗马所采取的军事和政治应对措施。

[3]伦敦考古博物馆（Mola）的研究说明，女王起义后不久，罗马就将其不列颠行省的首府从科尔切斯特迁到了伦敦。

[4] Mola研究发现的一个关键证据显示，罗马军队击败布狄卡女王（英文写作Boadicea，更准确的写法是Boudicca）之后，立即在伦敦修建了一处要塞，但似乎并没有在当时罗马帝国不列颠行省的首府科尔切斯特修建类似设施。该要塞长125米，宽90米，形状类似扑克牌。这是第一次对此要塞进行研究，研究结果整理成书，已由Mola出版，书名是《伦底纽姆东山早期罗马要塞与城市发展》，共263页。要塞位于现在民辛巷的西边、罗马时代伦敦桥北端东北方向230米处。考古学家认为，要塞应驻扎了500到800名士兵，有罗马军团也有辅助军，有步兵也有骑兵。

[5] Mola的高级考古学家朱利安·希尔说：“对于该要塞的研究具有巨大意义，可以帮助我们了解伦敦早期的发展和成长，了解伦敦是如何、为何及何时首次成为不列颠首府的。”

[6]英国和其他地方学者的独立研究也提示，在修建要塞的同时或不久之后，在伦敦很可能还修建了巨大的罗马神庙。科尔切斯特作为起义前首府的一个重要象征就是那里建有罗马帝国神庙，但该神庙在动乱中部分损坏，虽然其后得到一定程度的修复，但在伦敦发现的一些碑铭显示，很可能在起义后，科尔切斯特不得不和伦敦共担帝国祭祀的责任。

[7]考古学家现在认为，起义之后，罗马人在伦敦修建新要塞，选择了伦敦作为不列颠新的政治中心。

[8]伦敦比科尔切斯特更具战略、商业和政治三方面的关键优势。首先，在能架桥横跨泰晤士河的城市中，伦敦最靠近大海。罗马军队可能于公元48年就建造了第一座伦敦桥（在现伦敦桥以东仅几米处）。第二，和科尔切斯特不同，伦敦可供海船直达并卸货。第三，不同于科尔切斯特这样一个重要的不列颠部落首府，伦敦完全是罗马“新建的”城市，无须考虑部落的政治包袱或影响。

[9]公元43年罗马统治不列颠后不久，当时的皇帝克劳狄似乎就急于控制不列颠最强大的部落联盟——特里诺文特部落——并强制确立其地位，在那里建造了第一个罗马要塞，并设立行省首府于该地。但公元60年，科尔切斯特和伦敦都在布狄卡起义中被摧毁，罗马当局似乎当时就已决定，在确定政治中心和行省首府选址时，应考虑战略和后勤方面的因素。此后，伦敦的持续发展远远超过科尔切斯特。

[10]确实，布狄卡被打败后的15年内，伦敦在崛起时获得了罗马帝国大量的投资——包括兴建大型广场、公共浴场、竞技场、主要港口设施和其他重要建筑，很可能就有神庙。

[11]城市发展如此之快，由此带来对居住和商业地产的需求，所以大约公元75年，罗马当局似已决定将伦敦要塞迁移。大约到公元120年，在这一蓬勃发展的城市的西北边界，也就是今天的跛子城门处，建起了新的要塞。

[12]伦敦在后布狄卡时代具有重大的军事意义及由此而来的政治意义，但这并不仅仅是由于其拥有要塞。考古学家现在认为，很可能大多数军事设施是通过伦敦进入不列颠的。军需品运输主要是由军方外包给私人船只进行，在数量庞大的军事运输推动之下，大规模的民间商业贸易迅速发展。

[13]考古研究正逐渐揭示当时军事行动和民事活动的特点和规模。

[14]对后布狄卡时期要塞（约公元61年到约公元75年间使用）考古发现的分析显示，该处驻军配备的军事装备种类繁多，从装甲、长矛、盾牌，到马匹配件、油灯和书写用具，应有尽有。目前为止，已经在要塞发现了大约60件军事用品。另外，考古学家这些年还在要塞以西400米的沼泽地发现了大量破损的军事装备，那是罗马人填埋在此以提升地面高度的。目前，已在那里发掘出500多件罗马时代武器装备的残片，包括头盔、装甲、武器和骑兵装备，都可能出自后布狄卡时期的要塞。这是在不列颠发现的最大的罗马军事装备库。

[15]在要塞区域和填埋场还发现了一些凯尔特风格的金属制品，这表明，来自友好部落的本土不列颠辅助军在后布狄卡时期也成了伦敦驻军的一部分。

[16]新近重新研究发现的证据显示，很可能在布狄卡起义后不久，伦敦就成为了帝国的祭祀中心，这一发现也具有潜在的重大意义。证据包括一件碑铭和两件雕塑。这两件雕塑（一个大理石头像和一条青铜胳膊）属于帝王雕像，可能是尼禄皇帝的雕像，几乎可以肯定制作于公元60年代。

[17]碑铭是证明伦敦拥有大型帝国神庙的最有力证据。碑铭是为了铭记皇帝的圣灵而刻在雕像基座上的，所在基座似乎原本宽约2米、高1.4米。想象中的这个基座尺寸如此之大，很不同寻常，这明显说明，该基座所承载的青铜雕像是遵照真正的纪念碑规格制作的——可能是真人大小的两倍。

[18]部分碑铭突出了这个昔日无比宏大的雕像的政治意义。铭文中提到，雕像由罗马不列颠行省委员会建造。该委员会是行省的 “议会”，但无实权，负责管理帝国祭祀活动。奇怪的是，碑铭以及残存的刻有碑铭的基座很大程度上一直被考古界所忽略——主要原因在于，基座1850年被发现，但1859年之前不幸遗失，只有一张图纸留存下来。然而，据了解，该基座后来被重新利用修建一处围墙，该墙距离可能约公元75年建于河边的一座特大庙宇约150米。从措辞看，铭文的风格在某些方面独一无二，无以伦比，可能与其成文较早（大概公元1世纪）有关。对铭文可能有各种解读，其中一种特别的解读应该是特别符合公元70年代特定的政治环境。罗马古典文献资料也表明，公元69年到公元81年间，有相当多的帝王雕像在不列颠落成。 □

Historians now believe they know why the Romans moved the capital from Colchester.历史学家现已知悉罗马人将首府迁离科尔切斯特的缘由。

A brutal blood-soaked bid1bid 努力尝试，争取。to wipe London off the map was a key factor that led to the city first emerging as Britain2不列颠，罗马时期其行省的名字。’s capital.

[2] New archaeological research is showing that London’s elevated status stemmed partly from a Roman military and political reaction to Boadicea3英格兰东英吉利地区古代爱西尼部落的王后和女王，领导了不列颠诸部落反抗罗马帝国占领军统治的起义。’s violent destruction of London and other key cities in the mid 1st century AD.

[3] The investigation, carried out by Museum of London Archaeology(Mola), suggests that the Romans shifted the capital of their British province from Colchester to London shortly after her revolt.

[4] A key piece of new evidence in the Mola research shows that the Roman military built a fort4fort 要塞，堡垒。in London immediately after Boadicea (more accurately known as Boudicca) had been defeated—but did not seem to have built an equivalent one in what had, until then,been Roman Britain’s provincial capital,Colchester. The research on the 125-by-90-metre playing-card-shaped fort is the first of its kind and has been published by Mola as a 263-page book—An early Roman fort and urban development on Londinium5〈拉丁语〉伦底纽姆，伦敦古名。’s eastern hill. It was located just west of modern Mincing Lane, 230 metres north-east of the northern end of Roman era London Bridge. Archaeologists believe it would have accommodated between 500 and 800 troops—a mixture of legionaries6legionary 罗马军团。and auxiliaries7auxiliary辅助军。and of infantry8infantry 步兵。and cavalry9cavalry 骑兵。.

[5] “The research on the fort is hugely significant for how we understand the early development and growth of London—and how, why and when it first became Britain’s capital,” said Julian Hill, a senior archaeologist at Mola.

[6] What’s more, quite separate work by British and other scholars now hints at the possibility that, at the same time or shortly after the fort was built, a huge temple to the Imperial cult10cult 祭祀。may well have been constructed in London. One of the key symbols of Colchester’s status as the province’s pre-revolt capital had been its Imperial cult temple—but that building was partly destroyed during the rebellion, and although it was at some stage repaired, some inscriptional11inscriptional 铭刻的。evidence from London suggests the possibility that post-revolt Colchester had to share the Imperial cult role with London.

[7] With the new fort, archaeologists now believe that in the aftermath of the revolt the Romans chose London as their new British political headquarters.

[8] It had three key strategic, mercantile and political advantages over Colchester. First of all it was the nearest point to the sea that the Thames could easily be bridged. The first London Bridge (just a few metres east of the modern one) had been built by the Roman military, probably in 48 AD.Secondly, unlike Colchester, seagoing ships could reach London and unload their freight there. And thirdly, again unlike Colchester which had been a major British tribal12tribal 部落的。capital, London was a totally Roman “new build” city that therefore had no tribal political baggage or implications to be taken into account.

[9] It seems that immediately after the Roman conquest had begun in 43 AD,the then Emperor, Claudius, was keen to impress (and co-opt13co-opt 强占，征用。the status of)Britain’s most powerful tribal confed-eration, the Trinovantes by building his first great Roman fortress there—and making it the capital of the province.But, in 60 AD, when both Colchester and London were both destroyed in the Boudiccan revolt, the Roman authorities appear to have decided that strategic and logistical factors should now determine where their political headquarters and provincial capital should be—and London was then developed far more assiduously than Colchester.

[10] Indeed, within 15 years of the defeat of Boudicca and the upgrading of London, the city experienced huge levels of imperial investment—including a large forum, a public baths complex, an amphitheatre14amphitheatre 竞技场。, major port facilities and other major buildings—probably temples.

[11] So rapid was the city’s growth(and the consequent demand for residential and commercial real estate), that in about 75 AD the Roman authorities appear to have decided to relocate London’s fort. Certainly, by about 120 AD a new fort had been built at the northwestern edge of the burgeoning city—in what is now Cripplegate.

[12] The huge military and therefore political importance of London in the post-Boudicca era was not just because of its fort. Archaeologists now think it is likely that most military hardware was channelled into Britain via London.

And on the back of that very substantial military transport operation, mainly conducted by private vessels subcontracted by the military, a large-scale civilian mercantile trade rapidly developed.

[13] Archaeological research is shedding light on the nature and scale of both the military and civil operations.

[14] An analysis of finds from the post-Boudiccan fort (which operated from about 61 AD to about 75 AD)shows the sort of military hardware the troops there were being supplied with—everything from armour, spears and shields to horse fittings, oil lamps and writing equipment. In total, about 60 military items have been identi fied from the fort so far. However , archaeologists have, over the years, also found large quantities of broken military equipment which the Romans had used as part of land fill to raise ground levels on marshy land 400 metres west of the fort. So far,these include well over 500 fragments of Roman helmet, armour, weaponry and cavalry equipment—all potentially from the post-Boudiccan fort. It is the largest corpus15corpus 集合，大全。of Roman military equipment ever found in Britain.

[15] There is even some evidence—Celtic-style metalwork—from the fort area and the landfill, suggesting that native British auxiliary troops from friendly tribes may have formed part of the post-Boudiccan London garrison16garrison 驻军，卫戍部队。.

[16] The newly re-examined evidence suggesting the possibility that London became a centre for the Imperial cult soon after the Boudiccan revolt is also potentially very significant. It consists of an inscription and two pieces of sculpture. Two items of sculpture (a marble head and a bronze arm) are from imperial statues, probably of the Emperor Nero—and almost certainly date from the 60s AD.

[17] But it is the inscription which is the strongest indicator that London had a large Imperial cult temple. The inscription, in honour of the divine spirit of the emperor, was on a statue plinth177 statue plinth 雕像基座。which appears originally to have been about 2 metres wide and 1.4 metres high. The unusually large size of this probable plinth strongly suggests that it supported a bronze statue of truly monumental proportions—potentially double life-size.

[18] Underlining the political significance of this once-great statue is a part of the inscription which suggests that it was erected by Roman Britain’s provincial council—the province’s rubber-stamp18rubber-stamp 橡皮图章，喻指无“parliament” which was responsible for administering the Imperial cult. Strangely, the inscription and the remains of the plinth it was inscribed on, have always been largely ignored by the archaeologi-cal world—mainly because the object was found in 1850, but unfortunately lost by 1859. Only a drawing has survived.However, it is known that it was reused in a later wall, located only about 150 metres from a particularly large probable riverside temple built in about 75 AD. In terms of wording, the style of the inscription is, in some respects,unparalleled—arguably because of its probable early (potentially 1st century)date. One particular possible rendering of the wording of the inscription would have been especially appropriate for the specific political circumstances of the 70s AD. It is also known from Roman classical sources that during the period 69–81 AD a particularly large number of imperial statues were erected in Britain.■

A Roman fort suggests the Romans chose London as their new British political headquarters after Boadicea’s revolt in the mid 1st century AD.