ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

More documents

Recommendations

Info

early 2nd centuries, and thereafter had ceased. Indeed, the mass dumping of domestic and industrial rubbish in the middle zone of the Walbrook valley, behind the revetted bank of the stream at Bucklersbury House, had apparently finished by the mid 2nd century and it was at about this time that the revetment itself began to collapse (Wilmott forthcoming). This marked decrease in the quantity of refuse strongly indicates that during the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of the city was substantially lower than it had been in the late 1st and early 2nd. Probably the first person to comment on this in writing was Quentin Waddington of the Guildhall Museum in 1930. Because his observation was published in a littleknown article it was quickly forgotten and the phenomenon had to be ‘rediscovered’ in more recent years. His remarks are worth quoting at length (Waddington 1930, 68-9): It is indeed very notable how much more pottery there is in London of.. . the last quarter of the 1st century - than of the later periods of Roman London. . . . There is a considerable amount of samian of the mid 2nd century, but 3rd and 4th century stuff is decidedly rare.. . . This has sometimes been explained by supposing that the upper levels of the Roman debris were disturbed by building operations of the early Middle Ages. But this does not seem to be an adequate explanation. Why were not the earlier deposits disturbed and destroyed in the same way by the building operations of the latter half of the Roman occupation? The early Roman pottery is generally recovered from rubbish pits in which it has been tidily buried away out of sight.. . . A whole series of such pits studded the site of the old General Post Office at St Martin-le-Grand; and a recent excavation in Old Change showed that there was a similar pit-covered area to the south of Cheapside as well. A possible explanation is that Londinium, a very flourishing town at the beginning of the 2nd century, may have afterwards dwindled very markedly in size. Is it not equally reasonable to suppose that a bye-law may have come into force, which no longer permitted the burying of rubbish within the City, and that the refuse, collected by dustmen, was put into barges and dumped in the estuary well below the town? But it is only in recent times that an attempt has been made to quantify this apparent lack of later Roman antiquities. Firstly, a study was made of the dates of all Roman rubbish pits recorded by Guildhall Museum staff during the period 1946-70. It was expected that if there was a real decline in the quantity of rubbish, then this would be reflected by a smaller number of later Roman pits. It is important to remember that this was a totally random selection, for it mainly depended upon the disclosure of pits on building sites and in archaeological excavations. From the mid 1st to the mid 2nd centuries there were 82 pits, and from the late 2nd to the end of the 4th century there were 46. Thus 64% of the pits dated from the first third of the Roman period (Marsden 1980, 148, 213). 101 Marsden: London in the 3rd and 4th centuries Fig 69 London: the 3rd-century temple of Mithras, as excavated in 1954. The modern ” foundation (centre) is situated in the nave, on either side of which are the foundation walls for rows of stone columns which divided the nave from the side aisles. The raised apse lies at the far end It might be thought that this apparent decline was because recent deep cellars had destroyed the upper Roman levels from which the later pits had been dug, and thus had removed a substantial part of the later rubbish. But if this had happened, it should also be reflected in the total number of medieval pits which, having been dug from even higher levels, should be even fewer in number than the later Roman pits. In fact, from the 13th century alone there were 62 pits, far more than the total number from the late 2nd to the 4th centuries. The reduced number of 3rd- and 4th-century pits would therefore seem to be a real reflection of a smaller quantity of rubbish, which in turn reflects a declined population. The possibility that the later Roman levels were disturbed by medieval activity could also be checked, for if this was the case there should be a higher percentage of later Roman residual sherds in medieval pits. The Roman pottery in 30 pits of the 11th to the 13th centuries on a variety of sites was examined, and 466 closely-datable sherds were identified. Of these 240 belonged to the mid 1st to the mid 2nd centuries, and 226 to the later 2nd to the end of the 4th. Thus, as 51% belonged to the first third of the Roman period, and 49% to the last two-thirds, it would seem that, on this limited but random evidence. there was no significant erosion of 3rd- and 4th-century
Marsden: London in the 3rd and 4th centuries Fig 70 London: two, possibly three, wings of a 3rd-century stone dwelling, around a small bath house, found opposite Billingsgate Market (Scale 1:300 deposits during the Middle Ages. Of course, this study is based on a small sample, but the result is consistent with all the other evidence. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the study should be extended to include the residual content of pits excavated on other sites. Waddington also suggested that the small quantity of later Roman pottery was due to some bye-law which prohibited the burying of rubbish within the City, so that it was dumped in the estuary downstream. Although this is extremely unlikely, and seeking such rubbish in the Thames estuary would be a pointless exercise, since if found there would be no means of identifying its source, it has been possible to look at the rubbish dumped into the Thames off the former mouth of the Walbrook stream, at Walbrook Wharf. As was mentioned earlier, it was found that the mass dumping of rubbish on this site, well out from the Roman waterfront, ended in the early 2nd century. There was very little later Roman pottery in the subsequent gravels. The decline in population would seem to have had a disastrous effect on the pottery industries north of London, at Highgate and Stanmore. They stopped production in about the middle of the 2nd century (Sheldon 1975, 283; Marsh & Tyers 1978, 534-7). The cessation of pottery production in the region between London and Verulamium may well have had other causes, however, and we must remember that Verulamium too suffered a great fire during the 2nd century, after which its character also changed very much. Although there was a substantial reduction in the quantity of rubbish during both the 3rd and the 4th centuries, as compared with the period 50-150, it is difficult to suggest the extent of the reduction in population. There are so many unknown aspects, such as the extent of trade, which must also be taken into account. Nevertheless, it is against the background probably of a substantially reduced population that we must try to understand the topography of later Roman London. The 3rd century After the ‘Antonine decline’ there was a period of reconstruction which lasted from the late 2nd to the mid 3rd centuries. This included the demolition of redundant buildings, such as the very large public baths at Huggin Hill, and clearing the debris that had resulted from the period of decay (Marsden 1976, 20-3). The half-filled fort ditch was filled in completely (Marsden 1968,9), as was a large gravel pit on the site of the Royal Exchange 102
Page 1 and 2:
No 59 ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Bri
Page 3 and 4:
Copyright © 1985 Authors and Counc
Page 5 and 6:
Illustrations Fig 1 Miletus Fig 2 C
Page 7 and 8:
Introduction: the study of Classica
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction and the land divided i
Page 11 and 12:
Introduction Fig 3 Timgad: the colo
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction Fig 6 Lepcis Magna: th
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction xvi
Page 17 and 18:
Cunliffe: Aspects of urbanization i
Page 19 and 20:
Cunliffe: Aspects of urbanization i
Page 21 and 22:
PART II THE PLANNING AND BUILDING O
Page 23 and 24:
Dilke: Ground survey and measuremen
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
The mechanics of the building trade
Page 31 and 32:
Ling: The mechanics of the building
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Who paid for public buildings in Ro
Page 45 and 46:
Duncan--ones: Who paid for public b
Page 47 and 48:
Duncan-Jones: Who paid for public b
Page 49 and 50:
Civic Pride: a factor in Roman town
Page 51 and 52:
Frere: Civic Pride: a factor in Rom
Page 53 and 54:
Reece: Roman towns and their plans
Page 55 and 56:
Reece: Roman towns and their plans
Page 57 and 58:
Wacher: The functions of urban buil
Page 59 and 60:
Casey: The Roman housing market leg
Page 61 and 62:
Casey: The Roman housing market Evi
Page 63 and 64:
Casey: The Roman housing market Rom
Page 65 and 66: Drinkwater: Urbanization in the thr
Page 71 and 72: Forum and Capitolium in the early E
Page 73 and 74: Todd: Forum and Capitolium in the e
Page 75 and 76: The quick and the dead: suburbs, ce
Page 77 and 78: Esmonde Cleary: The quick and the d
Page 87 and 88: Salway: Geography and the growth of
Page 89 and 90: Colchester: the mechanics of laying
Page 91 and 92: Crummy: Colchester: the mechanics o
Page 101 and 102: New streets for old : the topograph
Page 103 and 104: Jones: New streets for old: the top
Page 109 and 110: London in the 1st and early 2nd cen
Page 111 and 112: Perring: London in the 1st and earl
Page 113 and 114: Perring: London in the 1st and earl
Page 115: Marsden: London in the 3rd and 4th
Page 119 and 120: Marsden: London in the 3rd and 4th
Page 125 and 126: Barker: Aspects of the topography o
Page 131 and 132: Fig 81 Wroxeter: the area of excava
Page 133 and 134: probably from Viroconium, the robbi
Page 135 and 136: Forum Iuhi (Cividale) (Italy) 61a f
show all

ROMAN URBAN TOPOGRAPHY in Britain and the western Empire

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?