The origins of the tribal kingdom which was to form the basis of the Roman civitas are still poorly understood and, in recent years, much debated. The most promising point at which to begin the enquiry is with Caesar's campaigns in Britain in 55 and 54 BC. Caesar himself, in his description of Britain at that time, claims that in the decades before his invasion, the coastal areas of southern Britain had been occupied by 'Belgic' peoples coming from the continent, many of whom had retained the same tribal names they had borne in their home territory. (De Bello Gallico V, 12).

Earlier, in his account of operations in Gaul, (ii, 4) Caesar lists some eleven 'Belgic' tribes, but the name of the Catuvellauni is not amongst them, and nor is it mentioned by Caesar in his account of events in Britain. Furthermore, recent detailed studies of 'Belgic' pottery and coinage suggest that it is difficult to date the earliest distinctively Belgic pottery before Caesar and that the distribution of Gallo-Belgic coins may reflect trade and exchange rather than emergent Belgic states. Taken together, these observations are sufficient reason to question whether the Catuvellauni were themselves a Belgic tribe, and whether they existed as a tribe at all in 55/54BC.

Given the ambiguous archaeological evidence, Caesar's description of events in 54 BC has to be carefully considered, not least because it is contemporary comment on the situation north of the River Thames. By the time Caesar had advanced halfway through Kent, the British tribes had agreed that their resistance should be led by a man named Cassivellaunus. Although he is not called a king by Caesar, and he is not said to head any specific tribe, Caesar does say his 'territory' is
separated from the maritime tribes by the Thames and lies about 70 miles from the sea. Since, subsequently, Caesar crossed the Thames at what he describes the only fordable point, and by so doing entered the territory of the British leader, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Cassivellaunus held sway in the southernmost part of the area later occupied by the Roman civitas of the Catuvellauni.

Furthermore, from what we know of Celtic society and from the attribution of certain territory to him, it is difficult to follow the view that, even though he had been selected to lead the British resistance, Cassivellaunus was not a king (or at least a tribal chieftain). If it was possible to identify the 'oppidum' 'of great natural strength and excellently fortified' (De Bello Gallico V, 2) in which Cassivellaunus and many of his forces were congregated after their defeat at the Thames, it might help to locate his territory more precisely. Unfortunately, despite many suggestions, we still have no outstanding claimant for the title. The native site at Wheathampstead was excavated by Wheeler, who claimed that its position, defences, and date all suited its identification with Cassivellaunus' oppidum. Even if one does not accept a recent view that there is no enclosure here at all because two of the 'earthworks' are natural, there is certainly no evidence that the site was occupied before Caesar's time. Other suggested identifications are no more persuasive -- Ravensburgh seems too far north, Wallbury too far east, Braughing is completely unfortified as far as we know, and The Aubreys is undated.

However, since we are not necessarily looking for Cassivellaunus' capital, but rather one of several strongholds, our failure to locate it need not exercise us too much. More important is to understand from Caesar, the general political geography of the area north of the Thames in 54, and the nature of the politics that were emerging there at that time. Just as south of the Thames, Caesar refers to four kings where by the reign of Augustus there was but one, so in this area Caesar names five tribes in addition to the un-named tribe we must assume Cassivellaunus to lead. Cassivellaunus, so we are told, had been continually at war with other tribes before Caesar's intervention, and significantly none of the five tribes mentioned by Caesar (except perhaps the Cenimagni) ever re-appear on the stage of history.

At the same time, Cassivellaunus had also tangled with the Trinovantes, whom Caesar describes as 'probably the strongest tribe in the area' and who we know occupied the county of Essex. Taking all of these scraps of information into account, it may be suggested that from Caesar we get a brief but valuable glimpse into the process of early state formation in southern Britain, as small tribal units engage in warfare in order to assert themselves and extend both their territory and presumably their economic base. In Essex the process was well advanced with a single powerful tribal kingdom, probably already engaging in cross-channel trade. Further inland, the struggle for power was at an earlier stage, and in 55/54 BC at least, it was being won by Cassivellaunus.

Branigan, Keith (1995) The Catuvellauni (London)
Sources:
Branigan, Keith (1995) The Catuvellauni (London)
Wheeler, R.E.M. (1936) Verulamium: A Belgic and Two Roman Cities (London)
Dyer, J. (1973) Southern England: and Archaeological Guide (London) 182, 188
Thompson, I. (1979) 'Wheathampstead Revisited' Bulletin Inst. Archaeol. Univ. London xvi, 159-185
Saunders C. (1982) 'Some thoughts on the oppida at Wheathampstead and Verulamium' Hertfordshire Archaeol. viii 31-9
Hawkes, C. (1980) 'Caesar's Britain. An oppidum for Cassivellaunus' Antiquity liv, 138-9