Wesleyan University

Collingwood's Detective Image of the Historian and the Study of Hadrian's Wall
Author(s): G. S. Couse
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 29, No. 4, Beiheft 29: Reassessing Collingwood (Dec., 1990),
pp. 57-77
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505164 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 14:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'SDETECTIVEIMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN
AND THE STUDY OF HADRIAN'S WALL

G. S. COUSE

A generallycasuallikeningof historicalresearchto detectiveworkis a recurrent

notein historians'reflectionson theirdiscipline.Thisanalogyis understandable.
The historianhas beentraditionallyconcerned,likethe detective,to reconstruct
pastactionson the partof identifiedor identifiablepersons.Tothatend,historian
and detectiveresortto the same kindsof basic evidence-testimony describing
pastactionsor circumstances; non-testimonialverbalmattersuchas agreements,
instructions,and statementsof preferenceor intent;and artifactsor othernon-
verbalphysicaleffectsof humanaction. Both historianand detectivehaveseen
a needto be satisfiedas to the credibilityof receivedtestimonyand the genuine-
ness of whateverevidencethey consider.Thesecorrespondencesarereadilyap-
parent,but a furtherpoint of similarity,the employmentof circumstantialevi-
dence,has receivedlittlereflectiveattentionfromhistorians.The familiarimage
of the historianas detectiveleadsone to ask, therefore,whetherthis well estab-
lishedingredientof criminalinvestigationfulfillsa likefunctionin the historian's
recoveryof the past.
The concept of circumstantialevidencehas been fashionednot so much by
the practiceof criminalinvestigationas by the subsequentproceedingsof courts
of law. Here circumstantialevidenceis understoodto be evidenceof facts, or
circumstances,fromwhichone mayinferthe existenceor nonexistenceof a fact
in issue,such as a defendant'sallegedtheft of goods.1Becauseof its inferential
connectionwith the fact in issue- the main point of contentionin a trial- it
is also called"indirectevidence."Hereinit is distinguishedfromtestimonyabout
the fact in issue,or "directevidence";if acceptedas true,such testimonyyields
a conclusionabout the fact in issue directlyratherthan by virtueof inference.
Thiscommondistinction,however,neglectscertaincomplications.Testimony
can also function as circumstantialevidenceby directlyestablishinga fact or
circumstance uponthe factin issue.As fornon-testimonial
thatbearsinferentially
evidence,a contractualdocument,for example,willmanifestlydisclosethe terms
of a past act of agreementand a footprintmay be immediatelyseen to match
a particularshoe. In manycases, however,non-testimonialevidence,especially
1. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (St. Paul, Minn., 1979), 221; G. D. Nokes, An Introduction
to Evidence, 4th ed. (London, 1967), 10.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 G. S. COUSE

of the purelyphysicalkind, requiressome measureof inferentialinterpretation

andis thuscircumstantial, in a sense,fromthe outset.Suchfact or circumstance
as its interpretationdoes initiallyestablishcan, as with testimony,eitherbe a
factin issueor havean inferentialbearingon it. Inferencecan be addedto infer-
ence,then, and a conclusioninferredfromcircumstantialevidencemayconsti-
tute an interimfact whichitself functionsas circumstantialevidence,pointing
eitherto the fact in issue or to anotherinterimfact in a seriesthat culminates
in a conclusionabout the fact in issue.
Thereare practicalif indefinitelimitationsupon the length of such a series.
Circumstantialinferenceis ordinarilyheld to come about throughthe applica-
tion of generaltruthsbased upon the common experienceof mankind.These
aregeneralizationsespeciallyas to whatpeopleusuallydo underspecificcircum-
stances.Circumstantialevidence,accordingly,is understoodto yield probable
conclusionsat best.2An extendedchain-likeline of reasoning,becauseit adds
one probabilityto another,is consideredto be generallyless than convincing.
The preferredcircumstantialargumentis one in which a numberof mutually
independentfacts or circumstancescorroborateone anotherand thus converge
in a conclusionconcerningthe fact in issue.' Similarly,circumstantialevidence
can serveto corroborate,also to discredit,testimonyconcerningthe factin issue.
Circumstantialevidencethus understoodis especiallyapplicableto the work
of the detectivewhenhe lackstrustworthywitnessesto a crimeor a crediblecon-
fession of guilt. Startingout in such cases from fragmentaryclues, he sees in
them implicationsthat directhim into particularlines of investigation.As he
uncoversfurtherclues he will perhapsbe able to form a list of suspectsand,
by a processof elimination,narrowit down finallyto the guilty party.In that
eventthe prosecutionwill presentin courta selectionof the detective'sevidence
with a view to makinga watertightcase againstthe accused.By contrast,the
detectivewill havehad to grope his way to that point and his employmentof
circumstantialinferencewill at times have been knowinglytentative.
Concerninghistoricalinvestigation,seriousexaminationof the roleof circum-
stantialevidencehas beenundertakenonly recently.In 1982economichistorian
R. W. Fogel publisheda paperon "Circumstantial Evidencein 'Scientific'and
Traditional History."4 Adoptingthe establishedjudicialunderstanding of circum-
stantialevidence,he notedthereinan assumptionthat certaineventsaresystem-
atically,thoughnot invariantly, relatedto otherevents.He identifieda convincing
varietyof circumstantialargumentsin both traditional,eruditehistoryand the
newer"scientific," or quantitative,history.In both of them,he found,directand
indirectevidencewereoften tightlyinterwoven.Scientifichistorians,beingcon-
cernedwithmatters,suchas productiveefficiency, thatcouldnot havebeendirectly

2. See, for example, H. Cross and N. Wilkins, An Outline of theLaw of Evidence, 4th ed. (London,
1975), 18-19.
3. Ibid., 19; W. Wills, An Essay on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence. Illustrated by
Numerous Cases, ed. A. Wills, 6th ed. (London, 1912), 421-422.
4. In Philosophy of History and Contemporary Historiography, ed. D. Carr et al. (Ottawa, Ont.,
1982), 61-112.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 59
observed,wereparticularlydependentupon indirectevidenceand upon lengthy
stringsof inference.In view of the consequentmultiplicationof probabilities,
their conclusionswereoften open to question. Thereforethey had developed
sophisticatedproceduresfor testing such conclusionsand for discriminating
amongplausiblealternativeconclusions.The mainconcernof the paperwasto
elucidatetheseprocedures,to drawattentionto similarproceduresin traditional
history,and to furtherthe developmentof standardsfor the evaluationof cir-
cumstantialevidencein history.5
In thisveryfruitfulessayFogelgavelittleattentionto the underlyingassump-
tions of circumstantialinference.Thatit does dependupon probabilisticgener-
alizationsconcerninghumanbehavioris evidentenoughin judicial cases and
in scientifichistory,especiallythe new economichistory.That it does so, how-
ever,to the exclusionof otherbasic ingredients,particularlyin traditionalhis-
tory,is open to question.It is primarilywith traditionalhistorythat the image
of the historianas detectiveis associated.

II

The most searchingelaborationof the detectiveimage has come from the pen
of R. G. Collingwood,beginningwithhis lectureof 1936"TheHistoricalImagi-
nation."6In it the hero of a detectivenovel was likenedto an historian;from
variedindicationshe constructedan imaginarypictureof how a crimehad been
committed,andby whom,thensoughtto verifythis picture.The historian'spic-
tureof pastevents,for its part,wasa "webof imaginativeconstruction"stretched
between"nodalpoints"consistingof provisionallyestablishedhistoricalfacts.
He constructedthis webby interpolatingbetweenthe nodalfactsotherfactsthat
werenecessarilyimpliedby them.Thehistoricalimaginationequippedhim, con-
versely,to judge as to the consistencyof supposedfacts with one another.To
acceptan allegedfact as genuinehe had to be able to incorporateit into a co-
herentand continuouspictureof his own, one that madesense.'Whilethat pic-
turehad to be composedof particularsthat could be justifiedby appealto evi-
dence,the historian'sgraspof its coherencewasa priori.Thehistorian'scriterion
of truthwas "theidea of historyitself: the idea of an imaginarypictureof the
past."It was an idea "to which no fact of experienceexactlycorresponds.",
Threeyears later, in his essay "HistoricalEvidence,"9Collingwooddrewa
detailedanalogybetweencriminaland historicalinvestigation.By this time he
had come to repudiatehistoricalcriticism,a characteristicprocedureof tradi-
tionalhistory.Its objectwas,in part,to determinewhetherhistoricaltestimonies
weretrue, but it could not do so with certainty,in his judgment,for the word

5. Ibid., 71, 78, 83-112.

6. In his The Idea of History (Oxford, 1946), 231-249.
7. Ibid., 240, 242-245.
8. Ibid., 248.
9. Ibid.. 249-282.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 G. S. COUSE

of testifierscouldnot be knownto be completelytrustworthy."Criticalhistory"

was being replacedby "scientifichistory."
This was not scientifichistory understood,in Fogel'ssense, as quantitative
studiesfoundedon theoreticalmodels.RatherCollingwood'sscientifichistorian
partedcompanywith the traditionalhistorianby avoidingthe incorporationof
"ready-made statements,"or testimonies,into his own body of knowledgeand
his eventualnarrative.Instead,he madeuse of sucha statementby drawingfrom
the factthatit wasmade,irrespectiveof the statement'struthor falsity,implica-
tions concerningthe subjectin whichhe ratherthanthe authorof the statement
was interested.That was to deriveinformationfrom it that it was not intended
to convey."As Collingwoodhadpreviouslydescribedthisprocedure, the historian
treatstestimonialstatementsas "so manyclues from whichthe requiredfact is
to be reachedinferentially."" He could also in some instancesdispensewithtes-
timonyandobtainrequiredinformationthroughinferencefromhis observation
of physicalobjects."2Clearlythis way of handlingevidenceimpliedan active
initiativeon the historian'spart;he approachedhis materialswitha definiteques-
tion in mind and, so to speak, torturedthe answerfrom them."3
It was to illustratethis methodof inquirythat Collingwoodincludedin the
essayhis short detectivestory "WhoKilled John Doe?"The village constable
beganhis investigationwithone significantclue- freshgreenpainton the handle
of a daggerwith which the victim had been stabbedin the back while sitting
at a desk in his study.The paint was found to matchthat on a freshlypainted
gate betweenJohn Doe's gardenand the gardenof the rectornext door, a fact
indicatingthat the murdererhad come from the rectory.Indeed the rector's
daughterconfessedto the murder,but the Constable,consideringmainlyher
lackof requiredstrength,concludedthat she waslying.But why?Shemusthave
beenshieldingsomeone,most likelyheryoungmanRichardRoe,a medicalstu-
dent and guest at the rectoryon the night of the murder.
At thatpointDetective-Inspector Jenkinsof ScotlandYardtook responsibility
forthe case,withparticularattentionto RichardRoe'sdoingsthatnight.Through
a seriesof self-directedquestionsandattendantanswers,combinedwithinterro-
gationof Richardandthe rectoryparlormaidandwiththe examinationof phys-
ical evidence,he came to the conclusionthat Richardcould not havebeen the
murderer.
InspectorJenkinsthentook up anotherlead. Richardhad admittedgoinginto
the gardenon the nightof the murder,only to be caughtin a suddenrainstorm,
but had refusedto say why he had gone there.It might have been in hope of
keepingsomeonewhomhe hadseenthereout of trouble.Perhapsit wasthe rector.
On that hypothesis,InspectorJenkinsreconstructedin his imaginationthe
rector'sprobablecourseof action.He wentout beforethe rainstorm,for no mud

10. Ibid., 257-260, 266, 275.

11. Quoted from a Collingwood manuscript of the mid-1930s in W. J. van der Dussen, History
as a Science: The Philosophy of R. G. Collingwood (The Hague, 1981), 286.
12. Collingwood, Idea, 276.
13. Ibid., 269-270.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 61
had been tracked into John Doe's study. Not knowing that his neighbor had
painted the garden gate that evening, he got paint on gloves which he no doubt
wore to avoid leaving fingerprints. He found his victim conveniently bent over
the desk with his back to an open French window. Why? John Doe was known
at the Yardas a blackmailer; he might have been blackmailing the rector and
gloating over compromising letters at his desk. Having dispatched John Doe,
the rector returned home only to find his gloves covered with paint. He decided
to burn them and perhaps some letters as well. Possibly his jacket was paint-
stained also and badly misshapen from being soaked by rain. If so, it would have
to be disposed of somehow.
This conjectural reconstruction of the crime was soon verified by physical evi-
dence. A quantity of writing-paper ash was found in the rectory dustbin as well
as some ash from burnt leather and a pair of metal buttons bearing the name
of a glove-maker whom the rector had always patronized. In addition, a jacket
which the rector had recently bestowed on a needy parishioner was recovered
and there was green paint on the right cuff. The rector only confirmed Inspector
Jenkins's solution when, seeing the direction in which the investigation was
heading, he committed suicide.14
Concerning the implications of this detective story, Collingwood asserted that
every step in a scientific historical inquiry, as in all scientific work, depended on
the investigator's asking himself a question, asking himself new questions as the
inquiry proceeded, and asking them in the right order.IS The story had faithfully
exemplified Collingwood's previously enunciated logic of question and answer.
With respect to history, he now held that question and evidence are correlative:
a scientifically legitimate question was one which the historian expected to have
evidence for answering, and the scientific historian conducted a deliberatelyselec-
tive search for appropriate evidence.16
Collingwood also maintained that one could thus attain conclusions that fol-
lowed inevitably from the evidence, that scientific history "proved its point as
conclusively as a demonstration in mathematics.""7The essay provided no ex-
plicit rationale for this striking statement. It obviously followed in part from
the scientific historian's circumvention of dependence upon the trustworthiness
of testifiers and his wholly inferential reconstruction of events. Yet circumstan-
tial inference in the detective story, while it was sometimes presented categori-
cally, was also frequently conditional or hypothetical. That, however, did not
prevent an eventually conclusive identification of the murderer.Thus the story
implied that, in spite of the often tentative nature of the question-answer pro-
cess, in a successful historical investigation the pieces of the puzzle finally fitted
together and their coherence was simply self-evident.18

14. Ibid., 266-268, 270-273.

15. Ibid., 273.
16. Ibid., 281. Cf. his "Philosophy of History," in Essays in the Philosophy of History, ed. W.
Debbins (Austin, Texas, 1965), 137.
17. Idea, 262, Cf. 265, 268.
18. Cf. A. F. Russell, Logic, Philosophy, and History: A Study in the Philosophy of History Based
on the Work of R. G. Collingwood (Lanham, Md., 1984), 150-153.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 G. S. COUSE

Whether the detective story was meant to convey any message concerning the
foundations of circumstantialinference is doubtful. Generalizations with respect
to both physical natureand human behavior can easily be read into Collingwood's
account of the investigation. At the same time, it depicted an habitual concern
to grasp the motives and intentions, the thought, behind known actions of the
suspects. Conversely, Inspector Jenkins's hypothetical reconstruction of the
rector's course of action upon returning to the rectory was described in empa-
thetic terms that suggested a rethinking of the rector'sperception of his dilemma
and of his decisions concerning it."9 The story thus reflected in an obscure way
Collingwood's antipositivist conception of historical understanding.
In his autobiography Collingwood maintained that his writings on the nature
of historical inquiry had been the outcome of reflection upon his preceding ac-
tivity of historical research.20 His contributions to the study of Roman Britain,
therefore, can be expected to elucidate his ideal of scientific history. One thing
that they make plain is a certain incongruity between ideal and practice. The
adoption of the content of testimony, which was not altogether absent from his
detective story, was manifestly prevalent in his historical writing.21 Nevertheless
one can find in the latter a few instances of an ingeniously inferential exploita-
tion of testimony, notably in his determination of the motives and intentions
of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain from what Caesar reported about other
matters in his Commentaries on the Gallic Wars.22The paucity of such instances
in Collingwood's historical works, however, was actually in keeping with the
fictional part of "Historical Evidence." For all the importance that he attached
to his proposed method of extracting information from testimony, his detective
story exemplified it on two occasions at most -when conclusions were drawn
from the false confession of the rector's daughter and from Richard Roe's re-
fusal to say why he had gone into the garden.As Collingwood himself commented,
the ultimate case against the rector was inferred from the observation of certain
physical objects.23

III

The predominance of physical evidence in Collingwood's detective story had its

counterpartin his concern with the archaeology of Roman Britain. It was directed
especially to research on Hadrian's Wall, in which he took part primarily as an
influentialpromoter and interpreterof successive surface studies and excavations.
The nature of this researchwas in keeping with the extraordinarymagnitude and

19. Idea, 272-273.

20. An Autobiography (London, 1939), 79-82, 116-117, 122.
21. G. S. Couse, "Historical Testimony in R. G. Collingwood's Theory and Practice," Carr et al.
Philosophy of History, 261-266.
22. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, 2d ed. (Oxford,
1937), 32-35. See A. Donagan, The Later Philosophy ofR. G. Collingwood (Oxford, 1962), 182-185
for the view that Collingwood's analysis here involved no general laws.
23. Idea, 276.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 63
the complexity of the Wall. It comprised seventy-threemiles (eighty Roman miles)
of stone construction,in variousdegreesof dilapidation, extendingfrom Wallsend-
on-Tynein the east to Bowness-on-Solway in the west. Built into the curtain of
the Wall there wereremainsof fourteen forts24as well as fortlets, or "milecastles,"
at intervals of one Roman mile, and two turrets in each space between the
milecastles. Along its north side and separated from it by a twenty-foot berm
ran a defensive ditch and glacis. At varying distances on the south side, a wide
earthwork composed of a ditch between two mounds accompanied the Wall
through most of its length; it was traditionally known as "the Vallum."For some
threecenturiesthis structuralcomplex had been the object of scatteredantiquarian
surface studies, supplemented in the nineteenth century by occasional excava-
tions. Then an era of what Collingwood termed "scientific investigation" began
in the 1890s. Archaeologists, he explained, now put forward tentative theories
about the construction of the Wall system as a whole and conducted intensive,
small-scale excavations at sites that were carefully chosen to test the theories in
question. It was plainly through his association with this approach to the study
of the Wall that he learned the value of precisely formulated questions and of
a correspondingly selective pursuit of evidence.
Collingwood's own writings about the Wall had to do with three objects of
concerted investigation. They were questions as to the dates within which con-
struction of the system took place, the building sequence of its various compo-
nents, and the purpose of the respective components. In the course of examining
these questions he explicitly distinguished, here and there, between direct and
circumstantial evidence and recognized a preponderant dependence upon the
latter.26
The first major accomplishment of scientific investigation of the Great Wall
was to identify it conclusively with Hadrian's reign (117-138 A.D.). Concerning
this problem there were brief and confusing referencesin the writings of ancient
Roman authors. Hadrian was known to have visited Britain in 122 and his bi-
ographer Spartian reportedthat Hadrian was the firstto build a wall there, eighty
miles long, to separate the barbarians from the Romans. In a biography attrib-
uted to Capitolinus, Hadrian's successor Antoninus Pius (emperor from 138 to
161) was also said to have built a wall across the island. The direct evidence of
inscriptions eventually made it clear that this was the turf wall on the Forth-
Clyde isthmus to the north; most of the extant distance markers on that wall
referred to Antoninus Pius as emperor at the time of construction. The bio-
graphical reference to this wall, however, employed an ambiguous wording that
could be translated "anotherturf wall"and thus be taken to imply that Hadrian's
was also a turf wall ratherthan the existing stone Wall. This interpretation found
support in Spartian's biography of Septimius Severus (emperor from 193 to 211),
in which he reported that this emperor too had built a wall from sea to sea in
24. TWoother forts associated with the Wall, Carvoran and Castlesteads, lay close behind it.
25. Collingwood, "Hadrian'sWall: 1921-1930,"Journal of Roman Studies (cited hereafter as JRS)
21 (1931), 37-38.
26. For example, in his "The Roman Frontier in Britain,"Antiquity 1 (1927), 24, including n. 1.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 G. S. COUSE

Britain. Nevertheless,apparentlydecisive evidence that the Great Wall was

Hadrian'smaterializedin the nineteenthcenturywiththe findingof inscriptions
recordingthe buildingof certainof its milecastlesby legionsservingunderAulus
PlatoriusNepos, Hadrian'sgovernorin Britain from 122 to about 126. The
milecastleswerethus Hadrianicand, sincethey werestructurallyhomogeneous
withthe Wall,the conclusionthat Hadrianwasalso responsiblefor the building
of the Wallcame in the nineteenthcenturyto hold the field.
In 1895,however,F. J. Haverfield,the initiatorof selectiveexcavationon the
wall, reopenedthe question.In the courseof tracingthe Vallum'spath where
surfaceindicationsof it werelacking,he discoveredat Birdoswald,on the west-
centralsectorof the frontier,a two-milelengthof turf wallwith a frontalditch
similarto that of the stone Wall.This earthworkran to the south of the stone
Walland convergedat both ends with it. The turf wall also adjoinedthe east
andwestsidesof Birdoswaldfort,whichin turnwaslinkedat its northerncorners
with the stone Wall. Subsequentexcavationrevealedthat the ditch of the turf
wallcontinuedits courseunderthe fort and also that it underlaythe stoneWall
at the pointsof convergencebetweenthe two walls.On the assumptionthat un-
derlyingstructuresantedatedthose abovethem, it was obviousthat this length
of turf wallhad been in placebeforethe erectionof the fort and the stone Wall
and had been levelledwherethey stood over it. Accordingly,Haverfieldcame
to hold, as a workingtheory,thatHadrianbuilta turfwallfromseato sea, along
withstone or turf milecastles,and Severussubsequentlybuiltthe stone Wallon
the same line, except at Birdoswald.
In 1911J. P. Gibsonand F. G. Simpson,leadingpractitionersof Haverfield's
method,testedhis theoryby excavatingon the stone Wallat Birdoswald.Since
herethe stone Wallwas separatefromthe turf wall, any chronologicalevidence
that they unearthedcould be exclusivelyidentifiedwith the stone Wall.At one
milecastleand threeturretsthey found, at the lowestlevel of accumulatedre-
mains,coins and piecesof potterythat madeit "absolutelycertain,"in Colling-
wood'sjudgment,that these structuresand thereforethe stone Wallas a whole
dated from the firsthalf of the second century;the stone Wallcould not have
been builtunderSeverus.27 Thesebuildingswerealso foundto be internallythe
sameas milecastlesandturretselsewhereon the stoneWallin thattheycontained
threefloors,one abovethe otherwithinterveninglayersof burntmatterandrub-
bish,thusevidencingthe samehistoryof repeatedconstructionand destruction.
Becauseof theseclosesimilarities,thechronological evidenceprovidedbybuilding
inscriptionsfrommilecastleselsewherewasapplicableto the crucialBirdoswald
sectorof the stone Wall.Its datingand that of the stone Wallas a whole were
narrowedto the governorshipof PlatoriusNepos. Thus conclusiveattribution
of the stoneWallto Hadrianhad comeaboutthroughan interworkingof direct,
testimonialevidenceand of indirectevidence,some of it providedby the verbal
and pictorialcontentof coins, some of it consistingof mute physicalremains.
As Collingwoodsummarizedthe supportingargument,"TheWall,milecastles,
27. His "Hadrian's Wall: A History of the Problem," JRS 11 (1921), 42, 45, 55, 61-62.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 65
andturretswereall builtat once;and inscriptionsfoundin the milecastlesmake
it certainthat the date of their constructionwas withinthe period 122-126."28

IV

In 1921Collingwoodinitiateda reconsiderationof the purposeof the Wall.The

matterwas obscurefor lack of pertinentRomantestimony.The task required,
in his opinion,"acertainknowledgeof Romanantiquities,but, farmore,a vivid
imaginationand a knowledgeof whatfightingmeans."29 He proceededto argue
decisivelyagainstthe prevailingassumptionthatthe Wallwasmeantto be a defen-
sive fortification,like a town wall, from the top of which hostile armieswere
to be repelled.Amongotherthings,the parapetwalkwastoo narrowand access
fromthe groundwastoo restrictedto permiteffectivehand-to-handfightingsuch
as Romanarmiesweretrainedand equippedto engagein. In other words,the
Romans,beingsensiblemenandexperiencedin warfare,couldnot havehadthat
purposein mind for the Wall.
What they did havein mind for it was less obvious.Collingwoodarguedby
analogy from Hadrian'searliererectionof a line of palisadeson the German
frontierin orderto markunmistakably thelineat whichRomanjurisdictionended:
the Wall Britainwasa laterandmorehighlydevelopedformof frontiermarker.
in
In addition,he cited testimonyby emperorCommodus(180-192)that he had
fortifiedthe banks of the Danube with forts and fortletsto preventsporadic,
small-scaleincursionsinto the Empire.The curtainof Hadrian'sWallprovided
an elevatedandprotectivesentry-walk thatconnectedthe lineof forts,milecastles,
and turretsand thus facilitatedthe patrollingof the frontieragainstunautho-
rized crossingby smugglers,raiding parties, and malefactorsexpelled from
northerntribes.The sentrieswould havebeen drawnfrom the garrisonsof the
milecastlesand wouldhaveused the turretsas signallingposts and as theirim-
mediatequarterswhenon duty.In theserespectsthe Wallwasdesignedas a po-
lice work,but it did havean incidentalmilitaryfunction:a sentrywho from a
turretspieda largehostileforceapproachingwouldsignalthe nearestfort,whose
commandantwouldleadhis troopsout throughits northgate- in someinstances
througheast and westgatesas well- and use the Wallcurtainas protectionfor
his flank or rearor as an obstacleagainstwhich to pin the enemy.30
This conjecturalaccountof the Wall'spurposefound substantialconfirma-
tionin a mannersimilarto thatof therector'sresponsibilityforJohnDoe'smurder.
The Wall,with two turretsin each of its eightyRomanmiles and a consequent
commitmentof muchof its garrisonto sentryduty,was for Collingwoodessen-
tially a chain of signal-stationsconnectedby an elevatedsentry-walk.Under-
takingto thinkout this conception,he sawthat it had"alogicalconsequence"-
28. His "Hadrian's Wall,"History. The Quarterly Journal of the Historical Association, new ser.
10 (April 1925-January 1926), 197.
29. His "The Purpose of the Roman Wall," The Vasculum 8 (October 1921), 4.
30. Ibid., 4-9. See also his "Hadrian'sWall,"History, 197,200-202; "TheRoman Frontierin Britain,"
19-20; and The Archaeology of Roman Britain (London, 1930), 78.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 G. S. COUSE

continuationof thechainof signal-stationswestwardalongtheCumberland coast,

beyondthe Wall'sendat Bowness,in orderto providesurveillanceof raidersfrom
the north comingby boat acrossSolwayFirth.31Herethe elevatedsentry-walk
wouldhavebeenunnecessary,for land-basedsnipingwasnot to be feared.Three
Hadrianicforts werealreadyknownto exist along the coast, and Collingwood
consultedpublishedreportsin searchof informationaboutadditionalstructures.
He foundthatremainsof fourtowershadbeendiscoveredin 1880and,assuming
that they would havebeen part of a series,he led a four-daysearchfor more
such coastal remainsin July 1928.From mainlytopographicalconsiderations
he and two assistantslocatedwhat they regardedas probablesites of ten more
towersandthreefortlets.At two of the supposedsitesof fortletsRomanremains
had previouslybeen found and the teamunearthedwall masonryat one of the
sitesconsideredto be appropriatefor a tower.32 Subsequentfield-work,in which
Collingwooddid not participate,eventuallymade it evidentthat therehad ex-
isted for at leasttwenty-sixmiles alongthe Cumberlandcoast a systemof regu-
larly spacedRomanstructuresanalogousto the turretsand milecastlesof the
Wall.33
Collingwood'spresumptionthat therehad been sucha frontiersystemon the
Cumberlandcoast was a workof conditionalinference.If his conceptionof the
Wall'spurposewas true, the existenceof this systemfollowedlogicallyand it
was possiblethat remainsof the systemwereextant.No implicitlawlikeasser-
tion is readilyperceptiblein his reasoning.Ratherit was a matterof his con-
sideringhow the Wall'ssupposedpurposewouldbe realizedalongthe Cumber-
land coast if the geographicalnatureof that section of the frontierwereduly
taken into account.34
Collingwood'sconcernwith the purposeof the Wallreflectsa characteristic
featureof his interpretationof archaeologicalevidence.On encounteringany
man-madeobject, he laterasserted,one must ask what it was for and whether
the purposeembodiedin it wassuccessfullyor unsuccessfullyembodied.These,
he said,werehistoricalquestionsandtheyhad to be answerednot by guesswork
but on the basis of historicalevidence.35"Butthe Romanswerealwaysbetter
at doing things than in talkingabout them."36Thereforehe had been obliged
to discernwhat they had in mind concerningthe Wallby inferringit from cir-
cumstantialevidencein the formbothof physicalremainsandof testimonyabout
frontierpolicy on the continent.The confirmationof his theory of the Wall's
purposeby field-workalong the Cumberlandcoast conformedin essenceto the
classicalprescriptionfor scientificverification-that of deducingfrom an hy-
pothesisthe existenceof an as yet unobservedphenomenonand, throughsubse-

31. His "Roman Signal-Stations on the Cumberland Coast," Transactions of theCumberland and
WestmorlandAntiquarian andArchaeological Society,new ser. (cited hereafteras CWD29 (1929), 148.
32. Ibid., 149-165.
33. E. Birley, Researchon Hadrian'sWall(Kendal, Eng., 1961), 127-131.
34. Cf. L. B. Cebik, "Collingwood:Action, Re-Enactment,and Evidence,"ThePhilosophical Forum,
new ser. 2 (Fall 1970), 87.
35. Autobiography,128.
36. Collingwood, "Hadrian's Wall: 1921-1930,"61.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 67
quent experiment,observingthe predictedphenomenon.Whetherbecauseof
that or not, Collingwood'saccountof the Wall'spurposehas, with minorrevi-
sions,continuedto commandgeneralconsentamongstudentsof the Wall.37His
resolutionof this questionservesto demonstratethat one can have eminently
good reasonto attributeparticularpurposesor intentionsto historicalagents,
evenwherethe agentsare anonymousand haveleft no directevidenceof their
thinking.

Meanwhileit remainedto determinemore preciselywhen the turf wall at Bir-

doswaldwas erectedand whetherit had extendedbeyondthat sector.The an-
swerscame mainlythroughanalysisof physicalremainsunearthedat various
westernsites on the line of the Wall.In 1927,nearthe easternend of the loop-
line of turf wall, E.G. Simpsonheadedan excavationteamwhichexaminedthe
ditch of the turf wall underBirdoswaldfort. Excavationin the late 1890shad
uncoveredblack peaty matter,thought to have accumulatedover manyyears,
in the same ditch whereit underlaythe stone Walljust to the east. Simpson's
team now found matterof the same descriptionin the ditch underthe fort. It
provedto be a fillingof peatblockscut froma bog nearby,but a virtualabsence
of silt below the blocks showedthat they had been thrownin when the ditch
was still quitenew,possiblywithina yearof its beingcut. Collingwood,appar-
ently assumingthat the ditch had been filledin at these two points simultane-
ously,commentedthatall suspicionof a longintervalbetweenturfwallandstone
Wall vanished.38
Simpson'steamhappenedthento be drivenby continuousrainto higherground
along the stoneWallimmediatelyto the west of the loop line. Herethey discov-
eredthe remainsof threeanomalousturrets.Unlikeall otherknownturrets,they
projectednorthwardbeyondthe Wallcurtain,whichwas adjoinedto theirsides
by butt joints whereasnormalturretswerebuilt as integralparts of the Wall.
Thesenewlydiscoveredturretsalso had a differentcombinationof wall widths
than that of normalturrets.Finallythe anomalousturretsextendedto six feet
south of the Wall'sfrontalditchwhile other knownturrets,like the Wallitself,
wereabout twentyfeet from the ditch. That peculiarityprovideda clue to the
meaningof these discoveries,for it was knownthat the base of intactlengthof
turf wallat Birdoswald,beingconsiderablybroaderthanthat of the stoneWall,
extendedto six feet from the turf wall ditch. The threeanomalousturretshad
evidentlybeen located along the north edge of a turf wall such as that at Bir-
doswald.Totestthisinference,Simpson'spartysearchedfor a turreton the loop-
lineof turfwallandfoundonewhich,in its structureandposition,exactlymatched
the threeturretsto the west. In 1932-1933a newteam,led by Simpsonand I. A.
Richmond,found two more such turretson the turf wall and severalmore
37. See, for example,Birley,Research,269-270; D. J. Breezeand B. Dobson, Hadrian's Wall(London,
1976), 37-40.
38. "Hadrian's Wall," Antiquity 2 (1928), 222-223.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 G. S. COUSE

matching turrets in a five-mile stretch of the stone Wall immediately west of the
original three. Encouraged by this indication of a major extension of the turf
wall, the excavators shifted their activities to the western extremity of the Wall
where they found a section of turf wall itself and at Bowness, the terminus of
the stone Wall, another matching turret. Collingwood, upon receiving word of
this last find, wrote to Simpson, "I feel like some personage at a desk in Scotland
Yard, hearing that a murderer,wanted for close to 30 years has been caught at
last."39Since all known turrets east of the Birdoswald sector and the neighboring
river Irthing were built as integral parts of the stone Wall, it could now be con-
cluded that the turf wall had run from the Irthing to Bowness, a distance of about
twenty-eight miles. It was a conclusion that incorporated an implicit generaliza-
tion: wherever there were along the stone Wall turrets of the type found on the
turf wall at Birdoswald the turf wall must have once existed. That was to assume,
in turn, that a basic constancy of form had prevailed in the building of the turf
wall system as in that of the stone Wall. Otherwise, the investigation had been
largely a matter of perceiving distinctive similarities in the structureand position
of certain turrets.
In 1935 Collingwood himself adduced further evidence of the chronological
proximity of the two walls in an ingenious analysis of parts of six letters inscribed
on a fragment of wood. The fragment was evidently part of an otherwise non-
extant plank that had borne a building inscription from a turf Wall milecastle.
First he was able to fix the identity of three of the letters by projecting their lines.
Next he established alternative possibilities for the other three and eliminated
those which, in combination with the clearly identifiable letters, made no sense.
Then, in light of the standard wording of other milecastle inscriptions, along
with the knowledge that the turf wall preceded the stone wall and that the latter
was Hadrianic, he eliminated the name of Antonius Pius, which was compatible
with the reconstructed letters, and concluded that three of the letters were part
of HADRIANI and the other three were part of A PLATORIO NEPOTE. That
is to say, conjecturing a variety of potential implications of the initial evidence
in light of the conventions of Latin lettering, the Latin language, and Roman
building inscriptions, as well as familiar details of Roman history and the al-
ready established chronology of the Wall, he came by a process of elimination
to the conclusion that the complete inscription recorded construction of the
milecastle under Hadrian and his governor Platorius Nepos. Therefore the turf
wall itself, like the stone Wall, must have been built between 122 and 126.40

VI

Determination of the chronological position of the forts proved to be a more

complex problem than that of the turf wall or the stone Wall. The forts were

39. Letter to Simpson, 10 July 1934, quoted in Van der Dussen, History as a Science, 443. For
accounts of these findings see F. G. Simpson and I. A. Richmond, "The Turf Wall of Hadrian,
1895-1935," JRS 25 (1935), 1-7; and Collingwood, "Hadrian's Wall: 1921-1930," 53.
40. Collingwood, "Note on the Inscription," JRS 25 (1935), 16-18.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 69
rectangular structures, usually with a set of principal, twin-portal gates on each
of their four sides and connected with the stone Wall just to the south of these
gates on the east and west sides. At several of such forts it was apparent that
their walls were structurally self-contained and the Wall merely abutted against
them rather than being bonded in. Some nineteenth-century antiquarians had
concluded that the forts were built as isolated structures, though possibly at a
time when the Wall was also under construction. By 1920 F. G. Simpson had
found further indications of the pre-existence of the forts. At two forts that were
joined to the Wall at their northern corners - Birdoswald and its neighbor to
the east Great Chesters- there were surrounding ditches that followed a regular
curve from one side of the Wall to the other. At Birdoswald the Wall was evi-
dently carried over the fort's single ditch on causeways of material added after
the ditch had been dug out. In 1921Simpson sought further evidence at Chesters,
a central fort very similar to Birdoswald except that it was connected at its main
east and west gates with the Wall. Excavating along both faces of the Wall on
the west side of the fort, he found that the south face had subsided into the ditch
alongside the fort, displacing southward a corresponding volume of bluish clay
that contrasted with the yellow clay in which the ditch had been dug. The bluish
clay had obviously been added to an originally empty ditch in order to carry
the Wall. For Simpson that proved unmistakably that the Wall was added after
the fort and its ditch had been completed; it complemented evidence from other
forts of "the designed isolation" of the whole series of forts on the Wall.4"Col-
lingwood, elaborating on this conclusion, held that Chesters fort and its ditch
must have existed before the Wall was even planned. That was to confirm what
the evidence from other forts implied: the Wall was an afterthought.42
The strength of these various arguments for the chronological priority of the
forts depended upon certain tacit generalizations. The most obvious of them was
that wherever a butt-joint exists at the point where one masonry wall meets the
side of another the former wall will have been built after the latter. Also certain
expectations of human behavior were implied. Concerning the Chesters excava-
tion, Collingwood explained that, if the Wall had been planned, a causeway to
carry it would have been left when the fort ditches were dug.43That was to argue,
in effect, that to leave an undug causeway for the anticipated Wall would have
been the foresighted thing to do and that the evidently competent builders of
the fort would have done it. This presumption of foresightedness on their part
was questionable, however.Collingwood himself had previouslycited incongruous
structural features such as fort and milecastle gates that opened on a marsh or

41. F. G. Simpson, "An Excavation at Chesters in October, 1921,"Proceedings of the Society of

Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 3d ser. (cited hereafter as PSAN3) 10 (1922), 216-218. Cf. Col-
lingwood's interpretationof Simpson's pre-1921researchon this question in a note in PSAN3 9 (1920),
295-297.
42. "Hadrian's Wall: A History of the Problem," 62-63; "Hadrian's Wall: 1921-1930,"42-44.
43. "Hadrian'sWall: 1921-1930,"43. Collingwood here referredto "ditches"apparently to include
the ditch on the east side of the fort, which Simpson judged from surface observations to have been
similarly filled in, but which the presence of water prevented him from excavating.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 G. S. COUSE

the brinkof a precipice.As he commented,"Romanmilitaryengineerswerein

the habitof workingto a fixedplanevenwhenthe resultwasa wasteof labour.""
He was aware,moreover,that the theoryof originallyisolatedforts was sub-
ject to "seriouscomplications."Among them was the existenceof the turf wall
in the west.It wasknownto be earlierthanthe correspondingsectorof the stone
Walland Birdoswaldfort as well. In 1925the complicationsincreasedin conse-
quenceof excavationsunderSimpson'sdirectionat GreatChesters.It wasfound
that the four ditchesthat ranup from the south to the northwestcornerof the
fort terminatedhalfwayunderthe Wall,whichhad collapsedinto one of them.
Theyalso stoppedshortof a wall foundationthat had not previouslybeen ob-
servedthere.It ran parallelto the presentWallslightlyto the north and it was
suitedto a widerwallthanthe presentone. As Collingwoodinterpretedthis evi-
dence,the fort had been planned,and its ditchesdug, at the same time as the
layingof the newlydiscoveredbroadfoundation.Thenorthwallof the fort,how-
ever,was of one build with the presentnarrowWall. Therefore,the Wall had
originallybeenintendedto lie a fewfeet farthernorththanat present,but a deci-
sion to changeits location and reduceits width was made betweenthe digging
of the ditchesof the fortandthe erectionof its walls.Becauseit wasnow evident
thatthe planningof the fortandthe diggingof its ditcheswerecontemporaneous
withthe layingof the broadfoundation,and possiblywith the buildingof a su-
perstructure on it, Collingwoodconcludedthat the theoryof originallyisolated
forts, in this case at least, fell to the ground.45
Theexcavationsof 1925at GreatChestershadimplicationsforthe Wallsystem
as a whole. It was conceivablethat the forts in generalwerebuilt at the same
timeas an early,broad-foundation wallextendingbeyondGreatChesters.A foun-
dationof the samewidthand an appropriatelybroadvariationof the Wallhad
been observedelsewhere.For the most part, extant stretchesof the Wall were
aboutsevenanda half feetwide,but for at leasteighteenmileswestof Newcastle
they wereabout nine and a half feet wide. For a like distancefartherwest to
the Irthingtheywerelargelyin the narrowerwidthbut restingon a broadfoun-
dation. East of Newcastlethe Wallended with a stretchof over threemiles in
which,to judge fromremainsof the foundation,the latterand the Wallas well
werein the narrowgauge.This combinationwasevidentfor aboutthe samedis-
tancewest of the Irthing,but the last few miles of the Wallin the west werein
an intermediatewidthof about nine feet. Selectiveinvestigationsof 1927in the
areawherethe broadfoundationunderlaythe narrowWallshowedthatthebroad
Wallitself was presentat severalmilecastlesand turrets.Betweenthem it had
beenpartiallybuiltandthen replacedby the narrowWall.A changein planhad
obviouslyoccurredwhile constructionof the Wallwas in progress.
Fromthese and subsequentobservationsCollingwood,along with otherstu-
dentsof the Wall,inferredthatthe originalplanhadbeento builda barrierrun-
ningbetweenpresent-dayNewcastleand Bowness.It wasto be a stone structure
44. Note in PSAN3 9, 298.
45. "The Roman Frontier in Britain," 23. Cf. his "TenYears'Work on Hadrian's Wall: 1920-30,"
CW2 31 (1931), 102; "Hadrian's Wall: 1921-1930,"41-42, 56.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 71

ten Roman feet wide for three-fifthsof its length;the remainder,in the west,
wasto be of turf, probablybecauseof a relativescarcitythereof buildingstone
and of lime for mortar.The sectionin turf hadbeenfinishedas wellas the foun-
dationof the remainder,but erectionof the stone superstructure had proceeded
westwardfor only half of the planneddistancewhen,for largelyobscurereasons,
a newplanwasadopted.It wasdecidedto reducethe thicknessof the stoneWall
to eight Romanfeet, to replacethe turf wall by stone in the new width, and to
extendthe Wallin the east to a new fort, present-dayWallsend,whichprovided
a clearviewdownthe last reachof the Tyne.The sectionin intermediatewidth,
eventuallyconsideredto haveextendedovermost of the lengthof the turf wall,
representeda later completionof the Wall, possiblyunderAntoninusPius.46
Thatthe Wallthus underwenta changein designin the courseof its construc-
tion cameto be generallyrecognized,and researchconductedduringthe 1930s
and 1940sfurtherunderminedthe theorythat the forts existedbeforethe Wall
was planned.Admittedly,physicalevidenceshowedthat at least six fortson the
easternand centralsectorsof the Wallhad been completedbeforethe Wallwas
joinedto them.Excavationat one of them,however,indicatedthat it was under
constructionat the sametimeas the Wall.Twoof themwereidentifiedbybuilding
inscriptionswiththe governorship of PlatoriusNeposandthreeotherswerefound
to overlieremainsof the broadWall-remains of its ditch,its foundations,and
its turrets.Threeforts,beingbondedin with the narrowWall,wereclearlycon-
temporaneouswithit, andinscriptionsnow discoveredshowedthat the building
of two of them extendedbeyondthe governorshipof PlatoriusNepos.
Accordinglythereemergeda newconsensusconcerningthe relationof the forts
to the Wall.As originallyplanned,the Wallwas to havebeen a barriermanned
by a patrollinggarrisonandit wasto includemilecastlesandturretsbutnot forts.
The existenceof sally-portsat eachmilecastleimpliedthe presenceof a fighting
garrisonfromthe first,and it wouldhavebeen quarteredat fortswhichalready
existeda mile or two behindthe line of the wall. Within the governorshipof
PlatoriusNepos, however,and at aboutthe sametimeas the changefrombroad
Wallto narrowWall,it was decidedto place forts along the Wall,possiblyin
orderto increasethe fightinggarrison'saccessto the areanorth of the Wall.47

VII

The most bafflingcomponentof the Wallsystemwasthe Vallum.It wasa steep-

sided,flat-bottomedditch,up to ten feet deep,and on eitherside of it lay a con-
tinuousmound of earthabout twentyfeet away.In the latterhalf of the nine-
teenthcenturythe respectivepaths of the Vallumand the Wallhad been cited
as evidenceof theirchronologicalrelation.At a fewplaceswheretheyapproached
each other closely,the Wallappearedto changeits course as though avoiding
the Vallum,thus indicatingthat the Vallumwas alreadyin place.The Vallum,
46. Collingwood in The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. S. A. Cook et al. (Cambridge, Eng.,
1936), XI, 523-524.
47. See especially I. A. Richmond, "Hadrian's Wall, 1939-1949," JRS 40 (1950), 43-46.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 G. S. COUSE

in turn,deviatedfromits pathto pass in a loop aroundthe south side of several

forts,indicatingthat theywerealreadyin placeor had at leastbeen plannedfor
theselocationswhenthe Vallumwas laid out. On the assumptionthat the forts
wereearlierthan the Wall,these deflectionsof the Vallumaroundthem could
haveprecededthe buildingof the Wall.It was possible,as well, that the deflec-
tions weremeantto avoidearlierand smallerstructureson the samesites as the
existingforts,for whichtherewasalreadysomeevidence.Finally,the chronolog-
ical priorityof the Vallumwas essentialto a favoredexplanationof a morere-
centlydiscoveredfeatureof the Vallum.In 1920it was found that the Vallum
moundshad been breached,and a "crossing"madein the ditch, at intervalsof
forty-fiveyards;most of the crossingshad laterbeen removed.In keepingwith
a theoryadvancedby F. G. Simpson,Collingwoodheld that the crossingshad
been fashionedto enablethe transportof stone from quarriessouth of the al-
readyexistingVallumto the line of the Wallwhenthe latterwasunderconstruc-
tion. In light of these diverseconsiderationshe assertedin 1930,as a matterof
certainty,that the Vallumwas built beforethe Wallin its finalform,the narrow
stone Wall.48
As in examiningthe chronologicalrelationbetweenthe forts and the Wall,
Collingwoodalso consideredwhetherthe Vallumexistedbeforethe originalde-
cisionto erectthe Wall.His answerdependedupon a conceptionof the Vallum's
purpose.Surfacestudyin the late nineteenthcenturyhad madeit plainthat the
Vallumwastacticallyneutralin design;it could not havebeen meantto provide
militarydefenseagainstattackfromthe south. It wasthought,therefore,to have
functionedratheras a legalboundary.SimilarlyCollingwoodpointedout that,
unlikethe Wall,the Vallumshowedno concernon the part of its designersto
choosegroundthat had a good outlookor waseasilydefensible.On the analogy
of Scipio'sditch frontierin Africa, he concludedthat the Vallumwas intended
to markunmistakablythe limit of the civil governmentof Rome.49It was pos-
sible,he contended,to constructa moreor less satisfactorytheoryof the whole
frontiersystemon the hypothesisthat the Vallumwasthe originallimesandthat
this functionwaslaterstrengthenedbythe Wall.No suchtheoryseemedpossible
on the hypothesisthat when the Vallumwas built it had alreadybeen decided
to buildthe Wall,for that "wouldbe to makeone door for the cat and another
for the kitten."50 It would not have made sense.
This complexof interdependentconvictionswas soon to be abandonedhow-
ever.In 1935excavationsin Cumberland showedthatthe Vallumdeviatedto avoid
a milecastleon groundwhereno earlierstructurehad stood. Given that the
milecastleswerebuilt at the sametime as the Wall,this new evidence"excluded
the possibility"that the Vallumwas earlierthan the Wall.In 1936it was found

48. "TenYears'Work on Hadrian's Wall: 1920-30," 90-92. Cf. Collingwood and M. V. Taylor,
"Roman Britain in 1928," JRS 18 (1928), 195.
49. "Hadrian's Wall," History, 195; "The Roman Frontier in Britain," 19-20; J. C. Bruce, The
Handbookof the Roman Wall:A Guideto TouristsTaversingthe Barrierof the LowerIsthmus,
9th ed., rewritten by Collingwood (London, 1933), 19-21.
50. "Ten Years' Work on Hadrian's Wall: 1921-30," 92.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 73
also that, at a pointjust west of Birdoswaldwherethe Vallumwas particularly
close to the turf wall,the northmoundof the Vallumwas absentand the south
moundwas twicethe normalsize. The Vallum,then, had been accommodated
to the turf walland must havebeen constructedafterit. The turf wall, in turn,
waspartof the originalplanof the Wall,andthis sectorof it wasknownto have
been replacedwithina few monthsby the stone Wall.Collingwoodconcluded
that the Vallumwas an additionto the originalplan yet part of it and that the
Vallumwas built at the same time as the Wall.51
Subsequentresearchand reflectionconfirmedthe contemporaneityof the
Vallumandthe Wall.TheVallum'sdeviationaroundvariousfortsbecameclearly
consistentwith this contemporaneityupon the generaladoptionof the theory
thatthe fortswereaddedto the Wallafterits constructionhadbegun.Moreover,
adoption of the lattertheory virtuallyrequiredthe former,in that the earlier
movementof troopsto the line of the Wallfromfortslyingbehindit wouldhave
beenseriouslyimpededif the Vallumhad alreadybeenin place.The only clearly
Hadrianicpassagesacrossthe Vallumwerecausewaysthat werelocated at the
fortson the Wall.Theywerecomposedof undugearth.Thereforethe Wallforts,
whichwerebasicallycontemporaneouswith the Wall,must havebeen in place
or at leastintendedfor theirrespectivelocationswhenthe Vallumwasdug. The
evidencethat at some pointsthe Vallumdid precedethe narrowWallwas provi-
sionallyaccountedforbytwopossibilities: eitherconstructionof the Vallumbegan
withthe broadWallor it beganwhenthe narrowWallsucceededthe broadWall
but proceededmorequicklythanthat of the narrowWall.Finally,the breaching
of the Vallumat forty-five-yardintervalscameto be interpretedas partof a general
openingof Hadrian'sWallto trafficwiththe buildingof a newwallto the north
underAntoninusPius in the 140s.52
Meanwhileit seemedto Collingwoodin 1936that Hadrian'soriginalplan en-
tailedthe constructionof two barriers,and he revisedhis view of the Vallum's
purposeaccordingly.His new position took account of the Vallumcauseways
that weresituatedat the forts. Theyhad evidentlybeen equippedwith massive
stone gateways,and there werepassagesthroughthe Vallummounds at these
points.CollingwoodcitedRomanfrontierworkselsewherewhichwereusedboth
for militarypurposesandto obligecivilianscrossingthe frontierto passthrough
controlledopeningsand,whereappropriate,to payduty.Onthis analogyhe the-
orizedthat the Wall representedthe militaryadministrationof the frontierin
Britainwhile the Vallumwas a customsbarrierundera separatefinancialad-
ministration;legitimatetrafficacrossthe frontierwouldpassthroughthe Vallum
passageand the correspondingfort.53This was only a tentativeposition and it
wasto be rebuttedeventuallyby evidencethatmilecastlegarrisonswereexpected
on occasionto patrolthe Vallum.By a processof eliminationthe Vallumcame

51. "Roman Britain in 1936," JRS 27 (1937), 227-228; Collingwood and Myres, Roman Britain,
125-126, 133.
52. Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian's Wall, 70, 82.
53. Collingwood and Myres, Roman Britain, 133-134.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 G. S. COUSE

to be interpretedratheras a meansof protectingthe Wallagainstunauthorized

intrusionfrom the south on the part of civilians.54

VIII

That the prevailingview of the 1920sconcerningthe sequenceof the forts, the

Vallum,andthe Wallgaveway,in the faceof continuingresearch,to a newcon-
sensus suggeststhat the assurancewith which Collingwoodhad espousedthe
earlierpositionwasmisguided.In fact, he had not alwaysvoicedhis initialcon-
victionswithoutqualification.In 1920,for example,he describedthe theorythat
the forts precededthe Wallas a workinghypothesis;it was "supportedso far
by all the facts but not conclusivelyprovedby any."55 Similarly,contendingin
1930that the Vallumprecededthe originallayout of the Wall,he commented
thatthistheoryhad not beenabsolutelyproved;yet severaldistinctlinesof argu-
mentmadeit so probablethat, in the presentstateof knowledge,it wasthe only
workinghypothesisopento a seriousstudent.Makingthe samepointa yearlater,
he wrotethatthe theoryrestedonly on circumstantial evidence,thoughevidence
so formidablethat it was the only one held by studentsof the Wall."6
The moderatingprincipleof the workinghypothesis,however,did not apply
acrossthe board.About most of his judgmentsconcerningbuildingsequences
at particularpoints along the Wall, Collingwoodhad no reservations.Rather
it waswhenit cameto drawingimplicationsfromsuchjudgmentsfor questions
aboutthe Wallsystemas a wholethathis qualifieddogmatismfoundexpression.
Fromthe diversepieces of localizedevidence,the waytowardanswersto ques-
tions aboutthe wholesystemlaythroughconcurrentandcomplexlyinterdepen-
dent lines of argument,whichthemselvesoften ranthroughseveral,sometimes
hidden,inferentialsteps.As Collingwoodwrotein 1927concerningthe grounds
for believingthat the Wallcame after the forts and the Vallum,"no one but a
specialistcould keepthe theoryin his head for fiveminutestogether."57 Oppor-
tunities for errorwerefar from lacking.
And yetCollingwoodin 1931wasconfident,as a matterof faith,thatthe highly
complexproblemof Hadrian'sWallwouldultimatelyyield to rigorousinvesti-
gation. History as a sciencedepended,in his view,upon the assumptionthat
the realis rational;it could demonstrateits rightto exist only by "showingthat
anytangleof humanfacts,patientlyunravelled,makessense."If historicalreality
was indeedrational,it wouldbe possiblethus to come to see the mass of facts
aboutthe Wallthat had been accumulatedby generationsof archaeologists"as
a luminouswhole, out of whichrisesthe truth."58 As in his detectivestory,the

54. See, for example, Richmond, "Hadrian'sWall, 1939-1949,"52; Breeze and Dobson, Hadrian's
Wall,50; C. G. Salas, "Collingwood's Historical Principles at Work,"History and Theory 26 (1987),
68-69.
55. Note in PSAN3 9, 296.
56. "Ten Years' Work on Hadrian's Wall: 1920-30," 91-92.
57. "The Roman Frontier in Britain," 22.
58. "Hadrian's Wall: 1921-1930,"62-63.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 75
solutionof the problemwouldbe foundin a coherentfittingtogetherof the pieces
of the puzzle.
To make sense of the accumulatedfacts concerningthe Wallwas to render
themintelligible,to explainthem.Thewritingsof Collingwoodandotherscholars
with referenceto the Wallhaveaboundedwith explanationsof that kind,expla-
nations not of actions in the historicalpast but of remainsobservablein the
present.Thatis particularlyobviouswherearchaeologistshavebeenconfronted
withanomalousstructuralformsandlocations,apparentlycontradictory findings,
or otherwisepuzzlingevidence.Totake one example,the inferredpre-existence
of the turf Wallon the line of the stone Wallconstitutedan explanationof the
threeunusualturretsdiscoveredon the stone Wallto the westof the Birdoswald
separationof the two walls.For Collingwood,these turretsshowed"anomalies
only explicableon the hypothesisthat theyhad beenbuiltnot, like most turrets,
in connexionwith the stone Wall,but in connexionwith the turf Wall,though
this had been removedand the stone Wallbuilt on its line."59
In explanationsof this kind, presentremainshavebeen accountedfor by in-
ferringfromtheminformationabout the past processof constructionin which
they originated. In some instances, such inferentialreconstructionhas not
proceededfrom any explicitlystatedpuzzlementabout particularremains,but
it has presumablybegun with at least a tacit questionas to how they came to
be as they are.Whetherproceedingfrom consciouspuzzlementor not, the in-
ferentialdeterminationof what buildersof the Walldid has servedlogicallyto
explainthe deposit of evidencein question.
Yetit hasoftenbeenunsatisfyingsimplyto reconstruct the pastactionsin which
presentremainsoriginated.Someof those actions,as reconstructed,havethem-
selvesbeenpuzzling.Whywas a turf Walloriginallybuiltin the westernsector?
Why was the decisionmade to changethe width of the stone Wallor to move
forts up to the line of the Wall?Why was the Hadrianicfrontiercomposedof
two barriers,the Walland the Vallum?The explanationof presentremainshas
called, in turn, for the explanationof past actions as well. That has generally
been attemptedthroughdeterminationof the rationaleof those actions. Study
of the Wall has manifesteda pervasiveconcernwith the decisions,the plans,
the purposes,the reasons- thatis to say,the thought- embodiedin its construc-
tion. That no doubt was a majorexperientialfoundationof Collingwood'sas-
sertionof 1935that "historicalknowledgeis the knowledgeof what mind has
donein the past"and of his doctrinethatthe understandingof historicalactions
is attainedby discerning,or rethinking,the thought expressedin them.60
Both in the reconstructionof historicalevents,includingthe thoughtbehind
them, and in the determinationof criminalresponsibility,with its attentionto
motivesand intentions,the assertionof what has happenedcan and has been
understoodto be an explanatoryhypothesis.61 Its acceptancedependsupon its
59. "Hadrian's Wall," Antiquity 2,-224.
60. Idea, 213-215, 218.
61. For example by L. J. Goldstein, "A Note on the Status of Historical Reconstruction," Journal
of Philosophy 55 (1958), 174; Wills, Essay, 22, 289, 311-312.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 G. S. COUSE

effectiveness in accounting for the relevant evidence. It will be considered ade-

quate if it embraces all of the available evidence. In some cases, however, espe-
cially those that rest on a web of circumstantial inference, the available evidence
is such that more than one hypothesis will provide a plausible explanation of
it. Therefore some commentators on judicial evidence have upheld an additional
requirementthat all possible explanatory hypotheses be assessed with a view to
eliminating all but one of them. In criminal cases, "to justify the inference of
guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the ac-
cused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than
that of his guilt."62In the exploratory stages of criminal investigation and in his-
torical reconstruction, however, the consequences of error are less crucial, and
a mere working hypothesis may with good reason receive provisionally exclusive
adherence if it accounts for all the available evidence more satisfactorily than
alternative hypotheses.
One of the pitfalls in the formation and evaluation of working hypotheses
concerning Hadrian's Wall has been to commit oneself to a likely explanation
of particular remains while failing to recognize other conceivable possibilities
or giving short shrift to those that have been proposed. Collingwood, for ex-
ample, overlooked rather obvious and plausible explanations of the fact that
causeways had not been left to carry the Wall over certain fort ditches, and in
1920he summarilydismisseda suggestion that the multiple crossingsof the Vallum
had resulted from the construction of the Antonine Wall.63Flaws of this sort
in his reasoning, however, represent lapses from an ordinarily conscientious ex-
amination of alternatives. Still, the progress of research on the Wall betrays the
presenceof fundamentallimits to the power of conjecturalimagination in devising
explanatory hypotheses. Certain already appropriate explanations of particular
facts, such as variations in the width of the Wall or indications at certain points
that it had been preceded by the Vallum, did not emerge until new evidence or
major reinterpretations of the Wall system spurred their inception.
A similar defect appeared in certain projections of the possible outcome of
particular investigations. Ideally one had in mind a set of alternative findings,
each of which would confirm a corresponding hypothesis concerning the Wall
system. The excavations of 1925 at Great Chesters, however, yielded unexpected
findings - that rebuilt causeways existed under only the southern half of the Wall
and the ditches stopped short of a second wall to the north. These and similarly
unheralded findings at other sites had a bearing on differentquestions than those
that had been in issue at the selected points of investigation. Thus, in both the
formation and the testing of some of their explanatory hypotheses, archaeolo-
gists did not so much control the process of discovery and interpretationas follow
where it led.
Research into the mysteries of Hadrian's Wall, then, has followed a tortuous

62. Wills, Essay, 311. Cf. T. Starkie, A Practical Treatiseof the Law of Evidence, 10th U.S. ed.
(Philadelphia, 1876), 818; J. H. Wigmore, The Principles of Judicial Proof, or the Process of Proof
as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated in Judicial trials, 2nd ed.
(Boston, 1931), 23.
63. Note in PSAN3 9, 298.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COLLINGWOOD'S DETECTIVE IMAGE OF THE HISTORIAN 77
path. In its overall pattern it has hardly conformed to the linear, step-by-step
schema of Collingwood's logic of question and answer. As with much detective
work, it has embodied its share of informed guesswork, mistaken inference, false
leads, and fortuitous revelations.
Contrary, however, to conventional accounts of circumstantial inference in
criminal investigation, research on the Wall has shown little dependence upon
assumptions about the nature of human behavior in general. Working primarily
with nonverbal remains for evidence, archaeologists have indeed assumed some-
thing like natural laws applying, in particular, to the relation between certain
juxtapositions of different structures and their temporal sequence. With respect
to human behavior they have tacitly relied upon a variety of restricted general-
izations, descriptive either of Roman ways of doing things in general or of struc-
tural and epigraphic uniformities disclosed by study of the Wall itself. Such
prevailing practices, however habitual they may have become, existed for recog-
nizably good reason. Accordingly, students of the Wall have assumed that an
underlying rationality prevailed in the building of it and, for the purposes of
interpreting its remains, that has provided them with a varyingly reliable access
to the mind of its builders. When Collingwood thought out the implications,
for the Cumberland coast, of the purpose that he attributed to the Wall, he put
himself in the shoes of the Wall builders and supposed what their thinking would
have been if that were actually the purpose that they had in mind. When he and
others concluded from the deviation of the Vallumaround certain forts that these
forts had preceded it, a conjectural and perhaps unwitting reconstitution of what
sensible Vallum builders would have thought and decided if they had encoun-
tered a fort in their path was essential to the conclusion. Implicit reference to
the thinking of the builders can likewise be discerned in the drawing of conclu-
sions from the path of the Vallum in relation to that of the Wall, from the pres-
ence of undug causeways across the Vallum in the vicinity of forts, and from
the evidence of built-up causeways under the Wall where it crossed certain fort
ditches. In these various respects a conjectural, but by no means arbitrary,
rethinking of thoughts has been one of a number of ingredients in the inferential
reconstruction of the Wall's early history.
Such rethinking of thoughts is appropriate also to detective work, as Colling-
wood's murder story illustrates, but the immensity and complexity of the Wall
have given the study of it an otherwise distinctive character. While the concep-
tion of the individual detective working in relative isolation represents only part
of the full spectrum of criminal investigation, systematic research on the Wall
has perforce been carried forward by the interaction of numerous investigators
and has extended over generations. If the record of their long quest serves to
remind us of the fallibility of the human intellect, it manifests as well a remark-
able resourcefulness in the extracting of significant information from largely si-
lent traces of the past. It is a record of palpable progress toward attainment of
the luminous whole that Collingwood anticipated.

Carleton University
Ottawa

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:32:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions