News Template

August 2001

Parish History Episode 4

THE EMPTY SARCOPHAGUS

The Brigante's, the last people before History in these parts, were succeeded, as were all the Celtic tribes of South Britain, by the Romans, the first people who wrote up accounts of their exploits, which we can regard as written History.

After preliminary reconnaissances by Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 B.C. the main Roman invasion began in A.D. 43, during the reign of Claudius. Within the first ten years or so of their occupation, the Romans had established themselves throughout the South-Eastern parts of the island, within an area bounded roughly by the Severn on the West, the Trent on the North, and the sea on the other two sides. Within this occupied zone they had begun to build roads and cities. But then, in A.D. 61, the year in which Paul, after shipwreck on Malta, arrived in Rome for his trial, Boadicea, the dethroned Queen of the Iceni, led a revolt which almost wiped out the Roman presence in the island, and the Romans had to strengthen their position, and, after defeating the “rebels”, they decided to advance their borders Westward to the Irish Sea, and as far Northward as was practical.

Cartimandua, the reigning Queen of the Brigante•s, was no Boadicea. She recognised the military inferiority of her people to the Romans, and attempted to come to an accommodation with the invaders. However, her hot-headed husband, Venutius, insisted on war, provoked one, won some victories, and then was defeated and killed with most of his warriors. The Brigantian lands were then annexed to the Roman province of Britain.

The Romans now had to consider how far North they would go. One border that was attempted was that formed by a line of forts - the Antonine Wall - across the narrow waist of the island, from the Firth of Clyde to the Firth of Forth. The more definitive frontier line, however, was the great wall - Hadrian’s Wall - which stretched from sea to sea, from the mouth of the Eden to that of the Tyne, just North of the annexed Brigantian lands.

The arrangements made by the Romans in the conquered lands can best be seen in the atlas of the Empire made by a geographer called Ptolemy, about A.D. 150, and from the “Antonine Itineries”, a list of the roads of the Empire, and the places along them. We find the banks of the Tinea, the frontier river (the Tyne), crowded with place-names, but only two Roman towns are known to have existed on the banks of the Vedra (the Wear), the next river to the South : Concangis (Chester-le-Street) about ten miles up from the mouth of the river, and Vinovia (Binchester), some twenty or so miles ( as the river winds ) further upstream. But the fact that the river still bears the same name to-day as it did two thousand years ago ( Wear is obviously a form of the older Vedra ) does suggest some continuity of population throughout the millennia.

There may well have been a Roman sea-port - a naval base to repel Saxon pirates, perhaps - at the mouth of the river ( presumably not developed until after the time of Ptolemy’s maps ), for numerous finds of Roman objects have been made around Sunderland, but the actual port has presumably been destroyed by the sea. Also, the foundations of a Roman villa have been found at Old Durham farm house, a mile East of Durham City. But there are no known traces of Roman occupation here, in Houghton-le-Spring.

The Romans were hostile to the Druidical religion of the Celts, not so much on doctrinal grounds, but more because it was seen as a possible focus for resistance to their rule, and they took steps to suppress the old Faith. Their own cults - of Emperor worship, and of gods of hearth and home, and farm and nature - were of little appeal to non-Romans, and some religions of Eastern origin began to move into the spiritual vacuum.

One was Mithraism, a cult once highly respectable, and popular with military men, of whom there were plenty in the region of Hadrian’s Wall. It told of a Saviour, Mithras, Who came from the East, and Who was worshipped in temples called Mith-raea ( the foundations of one have been excavated at Carrawbrough, a fort on the Wall, North of Newbrough; and a replica of a Mithraeum, complete with sacred fire, can be seen in the University Museum in Newcastle ). In these temples, the devotees ( all male ) were baptised into Mithras in the blood of sacrificial bulls, and sacred meals were consumed.

Mithras is a very vague figure, a creature of mythology rather than history. His cult, originally Zoroastrian, spread to the East as well as the West, and aspects of Him are to be met with in Hindu•ism and Buddhism, as well as in Iranian folklore and religion. However, the cult of another Eastern Saviour, which also came into Britain in Roman times, was centered on a very historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, born in Palestine during the reign of Herod, and crucified, at Jerusalem, under Pontius Pilate.

This new religion, of Hebrew origin, seems at first to have been but a poor competitor for Mithraism, if one judges by the relative frequency with which the modern archaeologist uncovers evidence for Mithraic and for Christian worship in Roman Britain before the Fourth Century - when the Conversion of the emperor Constantine ( whose usurpation of the Throne began with a military putsch, here in Britain, at York ) resulted in the triumph of Christianity throughout the Empire. But it was Christianity which became the official Faith of the Empire in Constantine’s time, and then Mithra•ism wilted away, and we learn of the new religion becoming comfortably established, centered on a number of bishoprics, of which the most Northerly appears to have been at York.

There is perhaps some evidence that Christianity did not at first appeal greatly to the Celtic majority among the population, but established itself first, like its predecessor Mithra•ism, among the official and commercial classes - mostly Latin- -speaking, but not necessarily of Italian descent. The Edict of Toleration issued by Constantine in 313, which proclaimed equal rights for all religions, thus free•ing Christians from the threat of persecution, seems also to have been taken advantage of by the heirs of the ancient Druids, and in Fourth-Century Roman Britain there is considerable archaeological evidence for a Celtic revival, with new temples being constructed and dedicated to the old gods, but there is still only scanty evidence for the building of Christian churches.

None of this archaeological evidence, of course, applies to Houghton. But there is that sarcophagus.

Just outside the church, at the East end ( the far end from the Broadway ), a stone coffin can be seen, standing alone, beneath the great East window that displays Christ reigning in Glory. It is a sarcophagus, the sort of coffin used for the interment of wealthy Romans. But is it really the tomb of a man or woman from the time of the Roman occupation ? There are no inscriptions on it, visible to me - nothing to show whose bones it contains, the era when that person died, whether he or she was Christian or pagan.
The interior cannot be examined. The lid appears to be cemented down, as if to prevent the soul rising at the Last Judgment. There is no clue as to whose it is. It doesn’t even have to be Roman. Sarcophagi were also used, though rarely, in Anglo-Saxon times and later, by wealthy people trying to imitate the customs of the Roman past.

There is no inscription. Was it ever used ? Was it prepared by some wealthy man, someone like Joseph of Arimathea perhaps, for his own sepulture, but never used, because of some disaster that overtook the area ? Is it still empty ? But why was the lid cemented down ? That would prevent it from ever being used.

Like the Empty Tomb of Christ, it stands in our churchyard, a witness to something - but we don’t know what. That other Tomb tells of Resurrection. But what does this one tell us of ? We cannot say. We have lost the thread. We haven’t a clue.