Roman London

Dominic Perring

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781135376963
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

First Published in 2004.Precious little of Roman London survives and the destruction of Roman levels continues fast as new office foundations are sunk ever deeper into ancient levels. In recent years the close attention of the archaeologists of the Museum of London, encouraged by the cooperation of City developers, has allowed the detailed recording of much that is being lost. In just four years, from 1986 to 1989, work was started on about 200 archaeological sites in the City, and many others were dug in the neighbouring boroughs. Every year a mountain of new information and material is added to the stores of the Museum of London. The first purpose of this book is to bring together as much as possible of this new information, in the hope that it will allow progress to be assessed and new questions asked.

1 The birth of London (c. AD 50–60)

London before the Romans

Roman London was built on the north bank of the Thames, the site of the modern City. The river, roughly in its present position by the time of the Roman conquest, was probably tidal at London, although tides may not have reached as far as Westminster (Milne 1985, 79 — 86). At high tide the river may have been as much as 1 km across and most of the south bank would have been submerged, although there were important islands of dry land at Westminster and Southwark. At low tide the channel would have shrunk to about 275 m, still considerably wider than the river of today which is about 200 m across. On its north side the Thames had cut against a pair of low hills, and it was here that the town was built. The western hill, Ludgate Hill, is now occupied by St Paul's Cathedral whilst that to the east (hereinafter referred to as Cornhill) is presently surmounted by Leadenhall market. These hills were separated by the valley of the Walbrook, the upper parts of which remained marshland until reclaimed in the Roman period. To the west of Ludgate Hill was the Fleet river, and on both hills there were springs which fed small streams.

Despite intense search no trace has been found of any immediately pre-Roman Roman occupation in the City, although several sites have produced remains of earlier prehistoric activity, especially in the area of Bishopsgate. The skeleton of a young man found at the Tower of London might have been buried in the late Iron Age but this is far from certain (Parnell 1985, 5 — 7). The distribution of certain pre-Roman coin types seems to indicate that some form of centre had been established in the lower Thames valley, west of London, in the early first century BC (Kent 1978, 53 — 8; Haselgrove 1988). There is no evidence, however, that this hypothetical site had continued beyond c. 60 BC and it is of little evident relevance to the later history of the area. We can be reasonably certain that there were no major settlements in or around London at the time of the conquest.

Limited pre-Roman occupation has been noted at both Westminster and Southwark, where the islands of dry ground next to the river had attracted settlement (Merriman 1987, 324). The most interesting evidence

FIG. 1 The grave of a woman buried in the mid first century ad, found in excavations at Harper Road, Southwark. The coffin was accompanied by grave-goods: a bronze neck-collar and mirror can be seen by the feet and a flagon by the head.

comes from Southwark. At 15-23 Southwark Street gullies sealed by early Roman buildings, and perhaps themselves associated with timber buildings, had contained Iron Age pottery (Beard and Cowan 1988, 376). The upper fills of one of the gullies contained the bronze fittings from a sheath for a Roman dolabrum, or military axe. Associated finds included a coin of 25 BC—AD 25. In excavations at 124 Borough High Street the burial of a young man was found beneath a layer containing conquestperiod pottery (Goodburn 1978, 453). This was in turn cut by three parallel rows of post-pits, probably of post-conquest date, which were sealed by the first-century road to London Bridge. The burial of a woman, about 35 years old, found at Harper Road has been dated to the middle of the first century AD (Fig. 1). The body had been placed in a wooden coffin and was accompanied by a flagon, a bronze neck-collar and the remains of a square tinned bronze mirror which had probably been made in Italy (Dean and Hammerson 1980, 17—22). Late Iron Age coins and pottery have also been found on other sites in Southwark. The evidence seems to suggest occupation of both the later Iron Age and early Roman period, perhaps with no interruption between the two. It also seems probable that the Iron Age occupation consisted of no more than a few buildings, perhaps a farmstead. There was certainly no city here; London was a Roman creation.

The arrival of Rome

We know that the army crossed the Thames in AD 43 and Dio, a historian born over a century after the event, believed that this happened 'at a point where the river flows into the sea and at high tide forms a pool'. Since the object of the crossing was a march on Colchester the lowest crossing that seemed practicable would have been preferred; several sites from Westminster to Tilbury can be proposed (Fuentes 1985, 94; Huggins 1986, 195). We also know that at this point in the campaign the invasion forces awaited the arrival of the Emperor Claudius before advancing on Colchester, and it is reasonable to assume that a conquest-phase encampment was established somewhere near the Thames. It would in any case have made tactical sense to have arranged for the control of this strategic crossing. No early fort has yet been discovered and until we know more it is difficult to assess properly the influence of the presumed early military presence on the later development of the area.

Some evidence for the strategic importance of the site comes from the study of the Roman street system (Fig. 2). The Roman administration required direct links between the ports of the south-east and the areas of military deployment to north and west, and the roads which converged on the Thames were born of this need. The shortest Channel crossing

FIG. 2 A map of Roman Britain showing some of the principal sites mentioned in the text and illustrating the strategic position of the site of London.

dictated that the main landing sites and supply depots were near the Channel ports. Richborough was by far the most important. From here the main centres at Colchester and Verulamium (St Alban's), and forts at Wroxeter and Lincoln, could only be reached by crossing the Thames; the road and coastal links from Richborough to the Thames therefore formed the trunk of a communication system which branched once the Thames was crossed. The combined need to cross the river and bring supplies inland along the river suggested the site of London. The point where these various streets were brought together, where they crossed the Thames, was the hub of the provincial communication system (Margary 1967, 53).

The original crossing of the Thames may have been at Westminster not London. Watling Street, the Roman road from Kent to Verulamium, is likely to have followed a pre-Roman track and the line of the street, on both sides of the Thames, points towards the area of Westminster rather than the City (see Fig. 18) (Margary 1967, 54). The deviations in the line of Watling Street may, however, have been due to problems of terrain, and the projections of the known stretches of Watling Street do not actually meet at the Westminster ford (Esmonde-Cleary 1987, 117). Nor have any traces of a road through Westminster yet been found, even though excavations have been made at some appropriate points (Grew 1980,381).

Excavations in Southwark have produced evidence of two major roads approaching the river bank (Fig. 3) (Graham and Hinton 1988). They were directed to a point, presumably the site of the Roman bridge (although this might arguably have been preceded by a ferry), near the modern London Bridge. The principal road was the Kent road, the continuation of Wading Street, and this had been laid over layers of logs forming causeways across the lower and muddier areas. Finds from layers associated with the earliest use of the road suggest that it should be dated c AD 45 — 60. The second road was slightly narrower and crossed the centre of the island of dry ground, and it could have continued towards Westminster although this has yet to be established; this road may not have been laid until after AD 60. We therefore find that no roads leading to a conquest-phase (c. AD 43) crossing have yet been recognized, whilst the earliest approaches to London from Southwark may not have been established until slightly later. The evidence allows three interpretations: the roads leading through Southwark to London were part of a later revision to a Roman street system initially directed to a ford at Westminster; the roads in Southwark are slightly earlier than the evidence implies; or the Roman street system of south-east Britain is later than is generally assumed. It is not inconceivable that Rome continued to use pre-Roman routes for a few years after the conquest and that the roads in Southwark were therefore an original part of the Roman road system. Because of these uncertainties we do not yet know if London was planned integrally with the provincial road system, or whether it was an afterthought which the road-building authority (the army) was obliged to accommodate. If the former then London must have been conceived by the imperial administration, if the latter then its foundation might have owed more to traders and merchants able to recognize the commercial potential of the site.

The first Roman London

London is unlikely to have been earlier than the Thames crossing since the site was of little value if inaccessible from the south, and this could only be reached by the roads and causeways which crossed the mud flats and tidal channels of Southwark (Fig. 3). Since these seem most likely to have been built c. AD 50—55 then this is the probable date for the first settlement of London. Coins found in excavations on both banks of the river provide the basis for this suggested dating. Most Claudian coins found in London were not from the official mints of Rome but were copies, forgeries really, produced to make up for the fact that there were too few 'real' coins around. Sites with a high proportion of official coins tend to date from the first period of conquest, whilst those with a higher proportion of the irregular issues were usually occupied later in the reign of Claudius, who ruled until AD 54. The proportion of irregular issues from Southwark, 91 per cent of all Claudian coins, is high, and the commonest types are most likely to have been struck c. AD 50—55 (Hammerson 1978a, 1988). Coins from excavations in the City present a similar picture. Peter Marsden writing in 1980 found that 87.5 per cent of Claudian coins were irregular issues (Marsden 1980, 28), whilst the figure for coins found in more recent excavations seems to be at least 80 per cent (according to provisional identifications made by Jenny Hall). The evidence suggests that there was a busy settlement of the late Claudian period where many coins were lost. It remains possible, however, that there had been an earlier but much smaller settlement where too few coins were lost to have had any effect on the overall statistics.

Evidence from excavations in the City allows it to be suggested that there had been a small Claudian establishment, of uncertain date but not necessarily earlier than AD 50, which had been considerably enlarged c. AD 55. A close study of the distribution of pre-Flavian pottery (earlier than c. AD 69) shows that the heart of the early town lay north of London Bridge, on the southern side of Cornhill; excavations near the junction of Lombard Street, Gracechurch Street and Fenchurch Street have produced proportionately more early pottery than sites elsewhere in the City. The first buildings in this part of London were set parallel or perpendicular to the river, and the absence of alignments at a diagonal suggests that the layout was ordered from the start (Williams in preparation). The only known exception to this was a timber structure, more like a shed than a house, found in excavations at 5 — 12 Fenchurch Street (Hammer 1985, 7—8). This building, possibly the earliest on the site, was set askew to the other structures in the area; perhaps because it was built before the town had been properly organized but more probably because it was set casually in an open plot. It has been claimed that in its earliest phase, c. AD 50 — 70, 'the settlement grew somewhat haphazardly at the junction of the road network and the navigable Thames' (Milne 1985, 149), but what we know of the arrangement of streets and buildings on Cornhill suggests order rather than chaos.

The principal and possibly earliest streets of London were those which formed a T-junction at its centre and linked the Thames crossing with the main routes east and west (Fig. 3). To the north of the road junction was a gravelled area at least 25 m across, perhaps a central square or piazza, where in later years the forum was built. Timber buildings, probably of Claudian date (earlier than c. AD 55), had been built alongside the main east—west road (Philp 1977, 7 — 9). Little is known of the character of the occupation at this time and archaeological opinion has been divided

FIG. 3 Pre-Flavian London, showing the extent of occupation in c. mi 55. The core of the settlement, on Cornhill, was surrounded by early burial sites and ribbon development alongside approach roads.

between those who would rather see these buildings as part of a military establishment, a fort or supply base, and those who prefer to see London's origins as entirely civilian. These arguments will be considered further towards the end of this chapter.

Whether military or civilian, the site is likely to have been defined by recognizable boundaries. Roman forts were usually surrounded by impressive ramparts and ditches; city boundaries too were an important element of the ancient landscape, although sometimes marked by no more than boundary stones. The early boundaries of London were swept away in the later growth of the city but the distribution of burials, which were not allowed inside Roman towns, offers clues as to their location. Several early burials have been found surprisingly close to the centre of Roman London. Several pre-Flavian cremations were found in recent excavations at Leadenhall Court and another was found at 25 — 26 Lime Street (T. Brigham, personal communication; Williams in preparation). Single cremations have also been found at Bank underground railway station, near King William Street (Crooked Lane), beneath Lombard Street and at 12 Laurence Pountney (RCHM ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface and acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 The birth of London (c. AD 50—60)
• 2 The creation of the Flavian city (c. AD 60—100)
• 3 The circumstances of the early Roman city (c. AD 70-150)
• 4 The city in its prime (c. AD 100—150)
• 5 The city in contraction (c. AD 150—200)
• 6 The restoration of London (c. AD 200—250)
• 7 The later Roman city (c. AD 250—350)
• 8 The final years (c. AD 350—450+)
• References
• Index