XIX.—On Discoveries of Bemains of the Roman Wall of London, by WILLIAM TITE, Esq., 31.P., F.H.S., F.S.A.: in a Letter to Frederic Ouvry, Esq., Treasurer
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
XIX.—On discoveries of Bemains of the Roman Wall of London, by WILLIAM TITE, Esq., 31.P., F.H.S., F.S.A.: in a letter to Frederic Ouvry, Esq., Treasurer. Bead Nov. 17th, 1864. 42, Lowndes Square, 5th November, 1864. MX DEAR SlE, In April of the year 1854 I had the honour of addressing to you a letter on the subject of a tessellated pavement of considerable beauty which was disco- vered in Bishopsgate Street in digging for the foundation of Gresham House. That paper was subsequently printed in the thirty-sixth volume of the Archseo- logia, and at page 209 the following passage occurs :— " In the summer of 1853 the excavations on the north side of the Tower on Tower Hill showed in situ distinct remains of Roman work in. part of the inclosure wall of Roman London on that side. Here the wall was composed of square tiles, with that very thick joint and accurate bond for which Roman builders were remarkable, and this piece of work might have been executed within the compass of ' The Seven Hills ;' but, excepting this brickwork, the Roman hypocaust in Thames Street, and the pavements uncovered in various places, I have never seen any Roman work which I felt sure of. It may be answered, that London was often sacked and burnt; but still Roman edifices of stone are not so easily disposed of. In all ages such fragments have been made use of as building materials, and have in the course of time been gradually brought to light. Bath, Gloucester, Cirencester, and other places can witness; yet their entire absence in London convinces me that Roman London was a brick city, and, in the words of Tacitus, ' a place not dignified with the name of colony, but the chief residence of merchants.' " The annexed woodcut is a small portion of the Plan of London copied from that published by the Society of Antiquaries, showing London as it existed in the time of Elizabeth. 296 On discoveries of the Remains of the The cut shows the eastern side of the City, and this first frag- ment of Roman walling was dis- covered at the point marked A. At B a piece above ground still exists in a stable-yard. Eifteen years ago the construc- tion of the Blackwall Railway showed it again at D; though, as no memorandum was kept by the engineers, and I was not in Eng- land, I cannot indicate the exact situation ; but I know it was about the place where I have marked it, at T>.% It has happened in my profes- sional career that I have had much to do in building in this immediate neighbourhood, and traces of this wall have frequently occurred, but until the summer \\ The Tower of this year nothing appeared of of London & Since writing this letter my attention has been drawn to an account in a small literary publication of the day, in which the following description occurs: " Mr. Crack recorded the appearance of the Wall as he saw it in 1841 laid bare for the works of the Blackwall Eailway. " Beneath a range of houses which have been in part demolished, in a court entering from the east side of Cooper's Eow, nearly opposite to Milbourne's Almshouses, and behind the south-west corner of America Square, the workmen, having penetrated to the natural earth—a hard, dry, sandy, gravel—came upon a wall seven feet six inches thick, running a very little to the west of the north, or parallel to the line of the Minories, which, by the resistance it offered, was at once conjectured to be of Roman masonry. When we saw it, it had been laid bare on both sides to the height of about six or seven feet, and there was an oppor- tunity of examining its construction, both on the surface and in the interior. " The principal part of it consisted of five courses of squared stones, regularly laid, with two layers of flat bricks below them, and two similar layers above—the latter at least carried all through the wall—as represented in the drawing. " The mortar, which appeared to be extremely hard, had a few pebbles mixed up with it ; and here and Roman Wall of London. 297 any very distinct character, when the growing necessities of the trade of London led my friends Messrs. Joseph Barber, Turnbull, and Co., to project the con- struction of some extensive warehouses on the site of some old houses and yards in Cooper's Row. In August of this year their present architect, Mr. Clifton, called my attention to the very extensive remains of the London Wall that he had uncovered, and brought me a photograph which I now exhibit. I immediately visited the place with him, and we found that for a length of one hundred and ten feet from north to south, and for a height of twenty-five feet from the ancient surface of the ground, the London Wall had formed the boundary, as it still does, of these premises. All the upper part was medieval, of an early date, faced principally with Kentish rag-stone, and the arches turned in the same material. These arches were two in number, with the trace of a third. They were apparently intended for arrow-slits; for, though the internal arch and recess is no less than five feet wide by six feet nine inches high, the external opening is only two feet high by nine inches in width. In the arches there are two steps, the lower one eleven inches high, with a tread of thirteen inches, and the upper one one foot seven inches high, with a tread of two feet. These steps appear to be for the standing or kneeling of the long-bow or cross-bow men. All that part of the wall was no doubt further defended by a deep and broad ditch, and the bottom of the arrow-slits would probably be about fifteen feet above the natural level of the land or of the water in the ditch at high water, for, no doubt, it communicated with the Tower ditch and finally with the Thames. In descending into the basement of the warehouses, I was pleased to find that the base of this wall was of regular Roman work, exactly as I had seen it further southward in 1853. It was built in the following manner: first, six courses of tolerably regular masonry three feet four inches high, then two courses of Roman bricks, then five more courses of masonry three feet four there were interstices or air-cells, as if it had not been spread, but poured in among the stones. The stones were a granulated limestone, such as might have been obtained from the chalk quarries at Green- hithe or Northfleet. The bricks, which were evidently Roman, and, as far as the eye could judge, corre- sponded in size as well as in shape with those described by "Woodward, had as fine a grain as common pottery, and varied in colour from a bright red to a palish yellow. A slight circular or oval mark in some cases forming a double ring—appeared on one side of each of them, which had been impressed when the clay was in a soft state. VOL. XL. 2 Q 298 On discoveries of Remains of the inches high, then two more courses of Roman bricks, and then more masonry in courses until it meets the somewhat irregular medieval work. The bricks are of excellent make, and the mortar so hard that, though I much desired to present you with a whole brick, I have only succeeded in obtaining one in two pieces. I now exhibit an elevation and section of this wall, which are represented in the accompanying engraving. You will ask me to say what I think of this Roman wall, and when and why it was constructed, but I can tell you but little about it. It has led me however to look carefully into what is known of the walls of London, and it is somewhat singular that this Roman wall at the extreme east of London has turned up almost simultaneously with the undoubted discoveries of Roman walls almost at the extreme west, so graphically and ably described by our excellent colleague Mr. Black. You will therefore obligingly take the remarks which follow as a tolerably complete sketch of the little that is known of the history, the construction, the direction, and the disappearance of the walls of London. In such a survey it is evident that I cannot attempt to produce any new matter; nor can I hope to invest the record of our circumvallation with the antiquarian importance and picturesque interest which my friend Dr. Collingwood Bruce has given to the Roman wall of Northumberland. But the latter is considerably more than seventy-three miles in extent, and our metropolitan walls are not four miles in all. The northern wall is also still rich in inscriptions and sculptures, but there are few such noble records now remaining for Londinium, though it is quite possible that many such monuments might once have existed here also, which the imperative urgency of rebuilding a ruined city utterly disregarded and swept away. Our first inquiry of course must be as to the Roman walls of London, and unluckily here our information is of the most meagre kind. It appears to me there cannot be any doubt that they had no existence in A.D.