文/戴維·基斯 譯/安硯貞

By David Keys

倫敦曾經(jīng)歷野蠻血洗，幾乎從地圖上被抹去，而這卻恰恰成了倫敦首次成為不列顛首府的一個關(guān)鍵因素。

[2]考古學(xué)新的研究顯示，倫敦地位的提升，部分源于布狄卡女王在公元1世紀(jì)中葉對倫敦和其他主要城市進行瘋狂破壞后，羅馬所采取的軍事和政治應(yīng)對措施。

[3]倫敦考古博物館（Mola）的研究說明，女王起義后不久，羅馬就將其不列顛行省的首府從科爾切斯特遷到了倫敦。

[4] Mola研究發(fā)現(xiàn)的一個關(guān)鍵證據(jù)顯示，羅馬軍隊擊敗布狄卡女王（英文寫作Boadicea，更準(zhǔn)確的寫法是Boudicca）之后，立即在倫敦修建了一處要塞，但似乎并沒有在當(dāng)時羅馬帝國不列顛行省的首府科爾切斯特修建類似設(shè)施。該要塞長125米，寬90米，形狀類似撲克牌。這是第一次對此要塞進行研究，研究結(jié)果整理成書，已由Mola出版，書名是《倫底紐姆東山早期羅馬要塞與城市發(fā)展》，共263頁。要塞位于現(xiàn)在民辛巷的西邊、羅馬時代倫敦橋北端東北方向230米處?？脊艑W(xué)家認為，要塞應(yīng)駐扎了500到800名士兵，有羅馬軍團也有輔助軍，有步兵也有騎兵。

[5] Mola的高級考古學(xué)家朱利安·希爾說：“對于該要塞的研究具有巨大意義，可以幫助我們了解倫敦早期的發(fā)展和成長，了解倫敦是如何、為何及何時首次成為不列顛首府的?！?/p>

[6]英國和其他地方學(xué)者的獨立研究也提示，在修建要塞的同時或不久之后，在倫敦很可能還修建了巨大的羅馬神廟?？茽柷兴固刈鳛槠鹆x前首府的一個重要象征就是那里建有羅馬帝國神廟，但該神廟在動亂中部分損壞，雖然其后得到一定程度的修復(fù)，但在倫敦發(fā)現(xiàn)的一些碑銘顯示，很可能在起義后，科爾切斯特不得不和倫敦共擔(dān)帝國祭祀的責(zé)任。

[7]考古學(xué)家現(xiàn)在認為，起義之后，羅馬人在倫敦修建新要塞，選擇了倫敦作為不列顛新的政治中心。

[8]倫敦比科爾切斯特更具戰(zhàn)略、商業(yè)和政治三方面的關(guān)鍵優(yōu)勢。首先，在能架橋橫跨泰晤士河的城市中，倫敦最靠近大海。羅馬軍隊可能于公元48年就建造了第一座倫敦橋（在現(xiàn)倫敦橋以東僅幾米處）。第二，和科爾切斯特不同，倫敦可供海船直達并卸貨。第三，不同于科爾切斯特這樣一個重要的不列顛部落首府，倫敦完全是羅馬“新建的”城市，無須考慮部落的政治包袱或影響。

[9]公元43年羅馬統(tǒng)治不列顛后不久，當(dāng)時的皇帝克勞狄似乎就急于控制不列顛最強大的部落聯(lián)盟——特里諾文特部落——并強制確立其地位，在那里建造了第一個羅馬要塞，并設(shè)立行省首府于該地。但公元60年，科爾切斯特和倫敦都在布狄卡起義中被摧毀，羅馬當(dāng)局似乎當(dāng)時就已決定，在確定政治中心和行省首府選址時，應(yīng)考慮戰(zhàn)略和后勤方面的因素。此后，倫敦的持續(xù)發(fā)展遠遠超過科爾切斯特。

[10]確實，布狄卡被打敗后的15年內(nèi)，倫敦在崛起時獲得了羅馬帝國大量的投資——包括興建大型廣場、公共浴場、競技場、主要港口設(shè)施和其他重要建筑，很可能就有神廟。

[11]城市發(fā)展如此之快，由此帶來對居住和商業(yè)地產(chǎn)的需求，所以大約公元75年，羅馬當(dāng)局似已決定將倫敦要塞遷移。大約到公元120年，在這一蓬勃發(fā)展的城市的西北邊界，也就是今天的跛子城門處，建起了新的要塞。

[12]倫敦在后布狄卡時代具有重大的軍事意義及由此而來的政治意義，但這并不僅僅是由于其擁有要塞。考古學(xué)家現(xiàn)在認為，很可能大多數(shù)軍事設(shè)施是通過倫敦進入不列顛的。軍需品運輸主要是由軍方外包給私人船只進行，在數(shù)量龐大的軍事運輸推動之下，大規(guī)模的民間商業(yè)貿(mào)易迅速發(fā)展。

[13]考古研究正逐漸揭示當(dāng)時軍事行動和民事活動的特點和規(guī)模。

[14]對后布狄卡時期要塞（約公元61年到約公元75年間使用）考古發(fā)現(xiàn)的分析顯示，該處駐軍配備的軍事裝備種類繁多，從裝甲、長矛、盾牌，到馬匹配件、油燈和書寫用具，應(yīng)有盡有。目前為止，已經(jīng)在要塞發(fā)現(xiàn)了大約60件軍事用品。另外，考古學(xué)家這些年還在要塞以西400米的沼澤地發(fā)現(xiàn)了大量破損的軍事裝備，那是羅馬人填埋在此以提升地面高度的。目前，已在那里發(fā)掘出500多件羅馬時代武器裝備的殘片，包括頭盔、裝甲、武器和騎兵裝備，都可能出自后布狄卡時期的要塞。這是在不列顛發(fā)現(xiàn)的最大的羅馬軍事裝備庫。

[15]在要塞區(qū)域和填埋場還發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些凱爾特風(fēng)格的金屬制品，這表明，來自友好部落的本土不列顛輔助軍在后布狄卡時期也成了倫敦駐軍的一部分。

[16]新近重新研究發(fā)現(xiàn)的證據(jù)顯示，很可能在布狄卡起義后不久，倫敦就成為了帝國的祭祀中心，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)也具有潛在的重大意義。證據(jù)包括一件碑銘和兩件雕塑。這兩件雕塑（一個大理石頭像和一條青銅胳膊）屬于帝王雕像，可能是尼祿皇帝的雕像，幾乎可以肯定制作于公元60年代。

[17]碑銘是證明倫敦擁有大型帝國神廟的最有力證據(jù)。碑銘是為了銘記皇帝的圣靈而刻在雕像基座上的，所在基座似乎原本寬約2米、高1.4米。想象中的這個基座尺寸如此之大，很不同尋常，這明顯說明，該基座所承載的青銅雕像是遵照真正的紀(jì)念碑規(guī)格制作的——可能是真人大小的兩倍。

[18]部分碑銘突出了這個昔日無比宏大的雕像的政治意義。銘文中提到，雕像由羅馬不列顛行省委員會建造。該委員會是行省的 “議會”，但無實權(quán)，負責(zé)管理帝國祭祀活動。奇怪的是，碑銘以及殘存的刻有碑銘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年被發(fā)現(xiàn)，但1859年之前不幸遺失，只有一張圖紙留存下來。然而，據(jù)了解，該基座后來被重新利用修建一處圍墻，該墻距離可能約公元75年建于河邊的一座特大廟宇約150米。從措辭看，銘文的風(fēng)格在某些方面獨一無二，無以倫比，可能與其成文較早（大概公元1世紀(jì)）有關(guān)。對銘文可能有各種解讀，其中一種特別的解讀應(yīng)該是特別符合公元70年代特定的政治環(huán)境。羅馬古典文獻資料也表明，公元69年到公元81年間，有相當(dāng)多的帝王雕像在不列顛落成。 □

Historians now believe they know why the Romans moved the capital from Colchester.歷史學(xué)家現(xiàn)已知悉羅馬人將首府遷離科爾切斯特的緣由。

A brutal blood-soaked bid1bid 努力嘗試，爭取。to wipe London off the map was a key factor that led to the city first emerging as Britain2不列顛，羅馬時期其行省的名字?！痵 capital.

[2] New archaeological research is showing that London’s elevated status stemmed partly from a Roman military and political reaction to Boadicea3英格蘭東英吉利地區(qū)古代愛西尼部落的王后和女王，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了不列顛諸部落反抗羅馬帝國占領(lǐng)軍統(tǒng)治的起義。’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，堡壘。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〈拉丁語〉倫底紐姆，倫敦古名?！痵 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 羅馬軍團。and auxiliaries7auxiliary輔助軍。and of infantry8infantry 步兵。and cavalry9cavalry 騎兵。.

[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 銘刻的。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 強占，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 競技場。, 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 駐軍，衛(wèi)戍部隊。.

[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 橡皮圖章，喻指無“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.