The Colchester Archaeologist 1996-7 - Colchester Archaeological ...

It is of course not possible to saywhat game, if any, was being played.The single most important fact aboutthe Stanway game is that it did notinvolve any dice; it was therefore astrategy game which depended entirelyon mental skill. Some informationsurvives about Roman boardgames although there is no setof rules for any single gameand nor is there a completelist of all the games that wereplayed. If we had to guess whatit might be from those that areknown, then that would be a gamecalled ludus latruculorum meaning'game of little robbers'. The idea of thegame was to capture all of your opponent'spieces. This was done by trappinga single one of your opponent'spieces between two of your own. TheRoman writer C Calpurnius Piso givesa lively account of the course of a gamefrom which we can deduce somethingof how it was played:But if you are tired after work and yetdo not want to be just lazy, but play artfullythen distribute the gaming piecescleverly on the open board and lead warswith the glass warriors so that now thewhite one blocks the blacks and now theblack one blocks the whites. But whodidn't flee from you? Which stoneretreated under your leadership? Whichone has not — death already near — justdefeated another enemy? Your battle linefights in a thousand ways: this one fleeingfrom an aggressor which he then neverthelesssteals; this one, which was on thelook-out, comes back on a long march;this one dares to enter a fight and deceivesthe enemy who is advancing in the hopeof booty; this one is in a dangerousposition and while it looks as if he isblocked, he actually blocks two enemies.This one has bigger aims: to quicklybreak though the rabble, advance throughenemy lines and destroy the now defencelesswalls? Meanwhile, with heated fightsstill going on, the soldiers are scattered,but your phalanx is still complete ormaybe one or two of your warriorsare missing: you win and bothyour hands rattle with the capturedgroup.The beginning of this quotationshows how part of thegame involved strategically placingthe pieces around the board priorto making the first move. On the faceof it, such a process would rule outludus latruculorum for the Stanwaygame, but some games experts take theview that this is not necessarily so andthat we could at Stanway be merelyseeing a variation of this game.In truth, it seems unlikely that wewill ever know what game, if any, wasbeing played on the board. This wouldbe hard enough had the gaming boardbeen in a Roman grave, but it is thegrave of a Briton and so the problem iseven worse. Of course it may be thatthe pieces on the board do not representthe start of any sort of game at all,British or Roman. Burial practiceinvolved much ritual and it could bethat this was simply part of an elaborategraveside ceremony. Moreover, weneed to bear in mind the possibility(remote as it is) that if the rods wereused for divination, then so too mighthave been the gaming board. The glasscounters and board were undoubtedlydesigned for board games but the physicianmay have used it as his standardstock in trade. It is hard for us to imaginehow a gaming board could havebeen used for divination, but our outlookon life and the world around us isso different to that of the Britons 2000years ago that we should not let thisclose our minds to this possibility,strange as it might seem.On the other hand, of the eight richestgraves from the site as a whole(including the chambers), three containedgaming counters. This is a highproportion. Counters and gamingboards occur in the late Iron Age andthe Roman period, but they are not thiscommon. Of the 475 burials at KingHarry Lane mentioned earlier, onlytwo contained gaming boards (interestinglyboth wooden, folding, and of thesame size as the latest gaming boardfrom Stanway), and none are to befound from the hundreds of Romanburials recorded at Colchester. Couldall three gaming boards at Stanwayreally have been used for divination?This seems unlikely and so would supportthe most obvious conclusion thatthe doctor's gaming board was primarilyfor pleasure - unless of courseStanway was a druidic centre. Nowthere's a thought!Although the latest discoveries atStanway have been spectacular, animportant conclusion from the earlierphases of the work remains unchanged.The doctor, the 'warrior' and the literateperson in Enclosure 3 all probablycollaborated with the Romans inexchange for perks and special privileges.Being alive in AD 43 meant thatthey would have been on the losing sidewhen the Romans invaded Britain.They would have seen the fall ofCamulodunum and the subsequent triumphalentrance there of the Romanemperor Claudius with his elephants,his huge entourage, and his large army.Many Britons from Camulodunummust have chosen to fight on. For eightor so years, the British resistance wasled by Caratacus, the most famous ofCunobelin's sons, until he lost a greatbattle and was later handed over to theRomans by the Brigantian queen,Cartimandua. Caratacus would havedespised those who stayed behind inCamulodunum to collaborate with theRomans. Our doctor and his friendswould have been very wary of theirnew Roman masters but even morefearful of some of their former friendsand colleagues.Possible layout of the game as it was left inthe grave. This assumes that the board wasaccidentally jolted which caused the pieces toslip sideways slightly.9