P I r S i B x N

d

: e

9

7 v 8 e - n 2 - t 3 e 9

: 0

3 4 8 0 -

0 € 0 5 - 4 R O W t f a c f G f s I t q t a m s w p p o D o o u h h h n t u o r n f u u a o h a u r r c a e l e e e

p n r d a b l n M l h t i i i r s y r t

p l r f r c e r r l a a t i i o e e a e e i e r p h l c n e r l n b c s c r y e r - c i l l i u r a

g

i e e e e R

e e

o a o

n g A p i b w l s x c t n n e I l l n n a o a i R h

s u e o n y t n c t o E e r c

o m

r r o

c g i o t c e

r N s u t u a s N l m e l y u a s i o i

e t m d a i

c s v r s r i o e o r e n

s m n

i t l i t o o n i c

a ff a n e r l c d i s g t

p

f h o i a a

r t y n , d i

M g e e ?

n

h n m s t n e n i

O

r

a r s t g i t t , . - g t f e o d

,

h i u e o c e e e o i

W v o

d r c n t m r

e f s f c o r e i p e

r e t R r e

h a v ? e l d f u

s a o s e r u o p o

l u e s a m e t

o

s

r W m g t m r

e r n n t a , a f e C c N o a

i r d a r r i l e ? r s d e v

h u l s d o j

c o

t o n r

s o a u m a W a h e s m u i n a s f t r

r n n , t r A

i r

a c

E i f

s

i n i T

d h o e y t l i ( p h n

n u k n t t s o a g a r

u a r a t h g h

r e o r s M r

t n t e i s p s

o o e e

e

n t v d r r

g a i c ) p

p

a n r a d s c e p e n p

u p o M e

n t t e e r a i r h t o l e d h l E s n r c , . i a d e h m p

i

s v c o

e k e y e n s e

h e t t  i e d v

t e

d i u r - p x i , p N o o d n t

e o R r e n i

p r l y o t o u r

n

g c i a i r t e e o g p e n s n i s a s  i y

a f s r a e

m r g t h e e r a T

l c , n r n e e i o c

A o i s s r e l a e r r n p c a o s i

g . y m r n n p o s

n

h e A , n i

n e r

a

 e t r e c

g a a a

a ?

h b f h g i c e a a

v p

e n n l p a e e W i e n d n t

i L e r h v i d d i n 2 r s s r r e n

d

m e

i . i o s

0 b a d h n

t r c

t n i

v p

- a

 e e n a e o a a c d 2 t

n i g r S h a e s s t e l n t h n i 2 a

o

t ? e W e e n l s

a d e k m e e m c n

,

t r w v v w

i

i r i n a T e d s 2 l s e a n f e W , i

a a n e R n t o

a 0 b

l i n d t r s l

m t h E d r 1 a u s t o e t h i O

b

i

e q h n b

6

a o o c t m h p a o e o r i r u s u . o t c f n t o

e

S o r e e e f

a e

a w  t s a N d

n n n t s s d g i n

r t t u l t o t e n i a

o e h

r o o e

s T s c i n f m e o n i

n e

d f s c r o , e o p E x

? f

a e

a e a

r s e

g r v

r c t b R t r t s E r . W

i h o n a o h

e o

i a u

t e n o o S t r n v e t h t w t l a f W i i

u a h h m e n n

u i l v n e e R B d e n l d m a e a e

r

l

g h i r a

i l c t m

s m a e

s m e y n e

n e e e p e I t t l a m k N

g l o g i r

a s

e n p e p N e r n i p e

i s n n n e o n c c e m o

u l

g ? r h e a u i o e s t r d i r e

m

a

a a t t m t n s e f o W f t t

s

r f i l r l

, E a o a n h a n i o e s

i e N p s c n c f e p N e m t n e s r b g

t

t o s t r n t c m

s s a t . y u U e

t o o e

e r n s e

o r h

h

d r

r O t n

n

a  t e c a t t t i a e t f f

n e t n i h h e h h o v o n s t o o R a a s d d o g e e e e e e r r - t f f l l , R

O T P H E -

Études et Documents – Archéologie no 38 A C g a t e h n e R c r e i n

O w e

C a M l o l q o A u n e n l N e e t N

, d

G u O O u

P i R d R a o t r N C T i m r e H A e o m i M - n e e W r s E ,

R E N o l S a T n T d A

D E L r R e

e S s N e n T

& E O É

É t u U N r d i c e R

E G s 3

o e O S e t

A m D P

r 8 o I a c c N e h E r u é e m o l e o n g t i e s Études et Documents

Archéologie 38 La série Archéologie de la collection ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS est une publication de l'AGENCE WALLONNE DU PATRIMOINE

Service public de Wallonie Direction générale opérationnelle de l'aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l'énergie Agence wallonne du Patrimoine Rue des Brigades d'Irlande, 1 B-5100 Jambes

DIFFUSION ET VENTE ÉDITEUR RESPONSABLE Service publications Jean Plumier, Résidence du Grand Cortil, Inspecteur général-expert Place des Célestines, 21 (derrière l'hôtel Ibis) B-5000 Namur COORDINATION ÉDITORIALE Tél. : +32 (0)81.230.703 ou +32 (0)81.654.154 Liliane Henderickx et Julien Maquet Fax : +32 (0)81.231.890 [email protected] CONCEPTION GRAPHIQUE www.awap.be DE LA COLLECTION www.patrimoine-publications.be Ken Dethier

no vert de la Wallonie : 1718 MISE EN PAGE & COORDINATION GRAPHIQUE www.wallonie.be Jean-François Lemaire

En cas de litige, Médiateur de Wallonie : IMPRIMERIE Marc Bertrand Snel, Vottem Tél. : 0800.19.199 — le-mediateur.be COUVERTURE Le texte engage la seule responsabilité des auteurs. Detail of the mosaic floor discovered during excavations in the L'éditeur s'est efforcé de régler les droits relatifs Hondsstraat, Tongeren (photo: A. Vanderhoeven & G. Vynckier, aux illustrations conformément aux prescriptions © Flemish Heritage Institute, Brussels) légales. Les détenteurs de droits qui, malgré ses recherches, n'auraient pu être retrouvés sont priés de Référence bibliographique se faire connaître à l'éditeur. Coquelet C., Creemers G., Dreesen R. & Goemare é. (ed.), 2018. Roman Ornamental Stones in North-Western Europe. Natural Resources, Manufacturing, Supply, Life & After-Life, Namur (études et Documents, Archéologie, 38), 377 p.

Avertissement Depuis le 1er janvier 2018, le Département du Patrimoine de la direction générale opérationnelle de l'aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l'énergie du Service public de Wallonie, Tous droits réservés pour tous pays et l'Institut du Patrimoine wallon sont Dépôt légal : D/2018/14.407/08 réunis au sein de la nouvelle Agence ISBN : 978-2-39038-005-4 wallonne du Patrimoine (AWaP). Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe Natural resources, manufacturing, supply, life & after-life

Edited by Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, Roland Dreesen and Éric Goemaere ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS Proceedings of the International conference ‘Roman ornamental stones Archéologie, 38 in north-western Europe. Natural resources, manufacturing, supply, life & Namur, 2018 after-life’, Gallo-Roman Museum of Tongeren (Belgium), 20-22 April 2016

Service public de Wallonie Direction générale opérationnelle de l'Aménagement du territoire, du Logement, du Patrimoine et de l'Énergie Agence wallonne du Patrimoine Table of contents

Introduction 13 Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, Roland Dreesen & Éric Goemaere part 1 ORIGIN AND PROVENANCE OF THE RAW MATERIALS

An introduction to the most important decorative stones of ancient Greece: use, distribution, quarries, characterization and archaeometric problems 19 Lorenzo Lazzarini

On the Roman use of ‘Belgian marbles’ in the civitas Tungrorum and beyond 25 Roland Dreesen, Marleen De Ceukelaire & Vilma Ruppiené

1. Introduction. 25 2. The ‘Belgian marbles’ . 26 3. Occurrences and uses of ‘Belgian marbles’...... 40 4. Conclusions. 45

Granito verde a erbetta from the Ruwer-valley near Trier: preliminary results from petrography and major element compositions 51 Vilma Ruppiené & Tatjana Mirjam Gluhak

1. Introduction. 51 2. Geology of the region and sampling. 53 3. Results...... 55 4. Conclusions. 59

An overview of Roman dimension stones in the Netherlands 63 Timo G. Nijland, C. Wim Dubelaar & Jan Dröge

1. Introduction. 63 2. Imported dimension stones...... 63 3. Local dimension stones. 70 4. Conclusion...... 71

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 5 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

Ornamental stones used in the villa at Damblain (Vosges, France) 79 Jean-Michel Mechling, Karine Boulanger & Vincent Barbin

1. Location and presentation of the archaeological site of Damblain...... 79 2. Macroscopic description of the decorative and building stones. 81 3. Characterization of the stones and origins of their deposits. 83 4. An optimization of the stones provenance/cost?...... 89 5. Conclusions. 90

The geological source of the earliest tombstones and architectural fragments from southern Britannia: A petrological and geochemical investigation of stone from Pre-Flavian Colchester 93 Kevin M.J. Hayward

1. Introduction. 93 2. Methodology and archaeological dataset. 95 3. Results: the lithotypes ...... 96 4. Case study Claudio-Neronian Colchester. 98 5. Conclusions. 102

Podpeč Limestone for Colonia Iulia Emona (Regio X, Venetia and Histria) 107 Bojan Djurić, Luka Gale & Snježana Miletić

1. Introduction. 107 2. Localisation. 108 3. Use of black limestone in Emona: previous research . 109 4. New research: methods and results...... 110 5. Discussion and conclusions...... 111

PROVENANCE ANALYSIS OF ROMAN LIMESTONE FROM THE MOSELLE VALLEY VIA NEUTRON ACTIVATION: RESEARCH OF THE JOHANNES GUTENBERG-UNIVERSITÄT MAINZ (GERMANY) 113 Christian Stieghorst, Hans-Peter Kuhnen, Jan Patrick Neumann & Christian Plonka

1. Introduction. 114 2. State of research ...... 116 3. Sampling...... 117 4. Provenance analysis ...... 119 5. Results of the elemental distribution...... 120 6. Results of the multivariate data analysis. 122 7. Conclusion and outlook . 124

6 

part 2 SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF STONE EXTRACTION AND DISTRIBUTION

‘Difficult and costly’: stone transport, its constraints, and its impact 131 Ben Russell

1. Introduction. 131 2. The maritime dimension...... 132 3. Overland and up-river. 136 4. The impact of transportation. 139 5. Stone and other commodities...... 142 6. Conclusions. 144

Stone objects from Vindobona (Austria): provenance of local stone in a historico-economical setting 151 Sophie Insulander, Michaela Kronberger, Beatrix Moshammer & Martin Mosser

1. Introduction, questions and methodological approach...... 151 2. Quarrying regions...... 153 3. Case examples . 153 4. Analysis by linking various data sources. 158 5. Perspectives...... 160

Use and trade of ornamental rocks in the Mid-Ebro valley (Spain) in the Roman era 163 Miguel Cisneros

1. Introduction. 163 2. Marbleisation. 164 3. Distribution and supply of marble: access routes. 168 4. Final considerations. 171

Rupture or continuity in stone supply between the Roman and early medieval times (late 6th–7th century ad)? origin and distribution of limestone sarcophagi in northern Gaul and re-use of Roman ornamental stones 175 Laure-Anne Finoulst

1. Provenance and use of stones in Northern Gaul during the Roman period...... 175 2. Provenance and use of ornamental stones in the Early Middle Ages. 177 3. Sarcophagi in the Early Middle Ages: reused Roman ornamental stones and new sculptures. . 177 4. From the Roman period through the Early Middle Ages: a same trade?...... 178 5. Conclusions. 180

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 7 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

part 3 CARVING THE STONE

Antique decorative stone cutting: results and research perspectives 183 Les tailles décoratives antiques : résultats et perspectives de recherches Jean-Claude Bessac

1. L'esthétique antique des pierres et sa perception actuelle ...... 183 2. Une approche fondée sur la pratique traditionnelle du métier...... 185 3. Les bossages brochés au pic sur pierre tendre et ferme ...... 186 4. Les bossages naturels ou éclatés sur les roches les plus résistantes. 188 5. Les bossages rustiques sont-ils fonctionnels ou décoratifs ? . 188 6. Du bossage fonctionnel aux versions décoratives ...... 189 7. Les tailles réalisées au pic et à la broche...... 191 8. Aperçu sur quelques autres tailles décoratives . 194 9. Les résultats et les perspectives de recherches...... 196

Stone operational chain and workshops within the civitas Aeduorum between the 1st and the 4th centuries ad 199 Pierre-Antoine Lamy

1. Introduction. 199 2. Operational chain...... 200 3. Identifying specific sculptors and workshops...... 204 4. Datings...... 208

The stone workshops in the sanctuary of Pont-Sainte-Maxence (Oise, Picardy, France): natural resources and stylistic comparisons 211 Véronique Brunet-Gaston, Christophe Gaston, Annie Blanc & Philippe Blanc

1. Introduction. 211 2. Natural resources...... 213 3. Sculpture workshops...... 215 4. Conclusion...... 220

8 

part 4 LIFE OF ORNAMENTAL STONES

Life and after-life of Roman ornamental stones within the civitas Tungrorum (Germania inferior) 225 Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, Roland Dreesen & Éric Goemaere

1. The civitas Tungrorum. 225 2. Distribution of ornamental stones within the civitas. 228 3. Natural resources: a large lithological spectrum...... 234 4. Use of ornamental stones within the civitas Tungrorum. 235 5. Re-use of the ornamental stones within the civitas. 245 6. Conclusions. 246

Sculpted and architectonic stone fragments of the Gallo-Roman ‘Haute Éloge’ villa in bruyelle/antoing (province of Hainaut, Belgium) 253 Cécile Ansieau

1. Introduction. 253 2. Study ...... 253 3. Traces of tools...... 258 4. Conclusions. 259

The ornamental stones of the ‘Champ de Saint-Éloi’ villa in Merbes-le-Château (province of Hainaut, Belgium) 261 Gaëlle Dumont, Nicolas Authom & Nicolas Paridaens

1. Introduction. 261 2. Provenance of the raw material...... 262 3. Wall decoration ...... 263 4. Flooring . 264 5. Architectural features. 265 6. Conclusion...... 266

Funerary monuments from western civitas Treverorum in an interregional context 269 Gabrielle Kremer

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 9 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

Picture and ornament – funerary monuments from Trier seen as media ensembles 275 Karl-Uwe Mahler, Anja Klöckner & Michaela Stark

1. Introduction. 275 2. Monuments and materials...... 276 3. State of research ...... 277 4. Methods and aims...... 278 5. Use and re-use. 280

Roman stone ointment palettes in the northern part of Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior: provenance, trade and use 285 Sibrecht Reniere, Devi Taelman, Roland Dreesen, Éric Goemaere & Wim De Clercq

1. Introduction. 285 2. Studied material . 288 3. Material identification and provenance . 292 4. Discussion and results...... 295 5. Synthesis...... 297

Roofing slates during Roman times: preliminary observations based on recent findings made in the Ardennes department (France) 301 Gaël Cartron

1. Introduction. 301 2. Characteristics of the materials . 301 3. Roofing slates of Roman sites in the Ardennes department . 304 4. The buildings . 305 5. Chronology...... 306

part 5 AFTER-LIFE OF ORNAMENTAL STONES

USE AND REUSE OF DECORATIVE STONES IN THE ROMAN AND MEDIEVAL TOWN OF TONGEREN 309 Alain Vanderhoeven

1. Introduction. 309 2. The site of the church of Our Lady. 311 3. The Hondsstraat site...... 320 4. Conclusion...... 324

10 

Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls 327 Simon Barker, Penny Coombe & Simona Perna

1. Introduction. 327 2. History of Roman London and its walls. 329 3. The Riverside Wall in London ...... 331 4. The External Projecting Towers...... 334 5. Selection and treatment of stones for re-use...... 337 6. London city walls in their British and Continental contexts...... 340 7. Conclusion...... 342

Context and interpretation of re-used Roman stones in the Odenwald and its surroundings 349 Alexander Reis

1. Introduction. 349 2. Interpretations of re-use...... 351 3. List of re-used Roman stones in the Odenwald and its surroundings...... 355

Use and re-use of Roman stone monuments in Carnuntum and its surrounding area 361 Gabrielle Kremer & Isabella Kitz

1. Introduction. 361 2. Different ‘types’ of re-use in Carnuntum...... 361 3. Large-scale recycling in Carnuntum...... 362 4. Re-use of Roman ornamental stones in the hinterland of Carnuntum...... 365 5. Conclusion...... 369

Authors' Addresses 373

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 11 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

Simon Barker1, Penny Coombe2 & Simona Perna3

Abstract

This paper examines the recycling of funerary and architectural materials in the late Roman city walls of Roman London. Two major sections of the walls incorporate recycled material: the external pro- jecting towers at Trinity Place, Bevis Marks, Castle Street, Crosswall, Goring Street and Camomile Street and the lower courses of part of the riverside wall. While the external projecting towers pre- dominately contained funerary monuments, the recycled elements used in the riverside wall came from two major structures: a monumental arch and a screen decorated with figures of deities. Recent excavations and new research on Roman city walls elsewhere in the empire necessitate renewed study on these structures. This paper provides a short review of the history of the Roman wall of London, its recent excavations and a discussion of recycled material incorporated in both the riverside wall and the external projecting towers. This paper also sets the re-use in London's city walls in the context of city wall construction and recycling more generally.

Keywords: recycling, sculpture, architecture, city walls, late Roman, London

1. Introduction Maloney, 1983; Witschel, 2013). This fact, along with their geographical distribution Stone-built ‘defensive’ structures in Britain (and throughout both the eastern and western parts throughout the Empire) stand as some of the of the empire, and their varied chronology, from most impressive urban construction projects the 3rd to 6th centuries AD, makes them one of from the late antique period (Johnson, 1983b). the best opportunities for examining empire- Their monumentality, which involved a signif- wide trends in recycling, considering similarities icant amount of labour, material and money, and differences in regard to how ancient builders meant that urban circuits ‘… easily match and approached re-used materials (cf. Frey, 2016 for often surpass, the urban monuments of the High this approach with regard to three case studies Empire’ (Esmonde Cleary, 2013, p. 123). While from Greece). they are an important source for understand- ing civic self-representation in late Antiquity, Britain's urban walls have only recently chronological and regional variations demon- started to receive the same re-evaluation and strate that the methods and motivations behind renewed study as those in Gaul and else- their construction were not homogeneous. where in the Roman empire (Dey, 2010; 2012; Nevertheless, the majority, if not all, of these Witschel, 2013 for the western provinces in urban circuits incorporated numerous architec- general; Esmonde Cleary, 2013, Ch. 3; for tural blocks, inscriptions, tombstones, and other Britain: Esmonde Cleary, 2007; Gerrard, recycled materials (for examples: De Staebler, 2013, p. 43–55; Pearson, 2002a; Speed, 2014, 2008; Coates-Stephens, 2012; Jurkić, 2011; p. 106–110). What has come to light from these

1 alexander von Humboldt Experienced Researcher Fellow, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg and Ludwig- Maximilians-Universität München (Germany).

2 DPhil Candidate, Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford (United Kingdom).

3 honorary Research Fellow, Department of Classics, History and Archaeology, Birkbeck, University of London (United Kingdom).

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 327 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

studies is that urban defences were widespread p. 128–154; Maurin, 1992), as did the walls in Britain and central and northern Gaul in the of Saint-Betrand-de-Comminges (Esmonde 3rd and 4th centuries. By contrast, in southern Cleary & Wood, 2006, p. 231–261; Esmonde Gaul and Spain, many cities did not have defen- Cleary, 2008, p. 128–130), and numerous tomb sive walls until the late 4th or early 5th centuries, monuments were found re-used in the lower if at all. As in other parts of the empire, the early courses of the north wall of the legionary fortress 3rd century saw the construction or the conver- at Chester. This last example most likely is related sion of British town walls into stone (Pearson, to late 3rd- or more probably early 4th-century 2006, p. 31) and by the end of the 4th century reconstruction work (c. 100 inscriptions were AD, even small urban centres had defensive recovered, see CSIR i.9, nos. 4–48; Wright & circuits (Esmonde Cleary, 2003; 2007) with Richmond, 1955; Mason, 2001, p. 204; Clay, many towns receiving the addition of projecting 2004, p. 1–4). Inscribed funerary monuments towers (Johnson, 1983a, p. 115–116). were also found in the colonia wall at Lincoln, and blocks with mouldings, fluted pilasters and One of the major differences, though, between a decorated cornice were found in the town's late the urban circuits of Romano-British cities 4th-century west gate (Blagg, 1983, p. 130). and those from other regions of the western provinces was due to the fact that Roman Barbaric invasions of AD 258 and pirate Britain had a large number of urban earthwork incursions have been identified as the prompt defences prior to AD 200 (Esmonde Cleary, for the large-scale incorporation of re-use in 2003, p. 79–84). Thus when the conversion from the town walls and coastal defences (the Shore timber and earthen work took place or when Forts) of Britain (Pearson, 2002a); however, new defences were built (i.e. Canterbury), the dating these walls is problematic and while city walls of Britain simply enclosed the exist- some defences, such as those at Silchester (AD ing urban areas, enclosing much larger spaces 260–280) and at Canterbury (AD 270–300) than their continental counterparts (Esmonde might be explained in these terms (especially as Cleary, 2007, though these larger enclosures they are contemporaneous to eight of the later can be paralleled in the 3rd- and 4th-century Shore Forts), other city walls had clearly begun defences in Spain at Astorga, Lugo and Gijón, cf. to be built in the late 2nd century, during times Johnson, 1983a, p. 124–134). In northern Gaul of relative peace (Pearson, 2002a, p. 94). This is and the Rhineland, for example, late Roman city the case with London's wall whose construction, walls often enclosed a much smaller portion of of the landward portion at least, began around the original early Roman town, requiring the AD 190. The riverside wall along the Thames on demolition of urban areas (Esmonde Cleary, the eastern part of the town was added around 2003, p. 84; 2007; Johnson 1983a, p. 82–114; AD 250–270 and a century later the western Witschel, 2013). This demolition created a portion of the riverside wall and some 10, possi- large amount of material available for re-use. bly more, external projecting towers were added How then did these differing urban situations to the eastern side of the landward wall. This impact the use of recycled material in late demonstrates that the construction of London's Roman city walls? city walls was a long project that evolved over a period of nearly 200 years with repairs carried A key component of late Roman urban out almost as soon as the initial construction defences was the significant and systematic was complete (Pearson, 2006, p. 31). The later re-use of earlier stonework, which can be seen addition of projecting towers along the ­landward throughout Britain, Gaul and the Rhineland, wall suggests that we should probably see such where a range of public and private monu- additions as ‘architectural embellishments that ments was used in constructing many towns' brought the defences up to date’ (Gerrard, defences. The walls of Saintes and Bordeaux, for 2013, p. 54) rather than as primarily defensive example, incorporated numerous older archi- structures. A similar motivation has been sug- tectural elements (Garmy & Maurin, 1996, gested for Verulamium, where projecting towers

328 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

were added to the southern wall for seemingly onwards. One of the first masonry structures aesthetic reasons (Niblett, 2001, p. 123). Late was the so-called ‘proto-forum’, built of ragstone Roman city walls, therefore, played an import- with tile courses, in around AD 70–80 (Blagg, ant role in displaying a city's prestige and status, 1996, p. 43). Some of the later monumental as well as providing a means of defence. structures in stone had earlier predecessors or timber versions dating to the mid-1st century, In many ways the walls of London present which have been discovered through new an interesting case study within the context of archaeological excavation. Work at Plantation Romano-British urban circuits. The scale of Place, for instance, between 1997 and 2003, has re-use within the London riverside wall and shown that there was a timber and earthen fort the fact that the material employed derived to the eastern side of the city, probably built in from a high number of public and private the AD 60s, earlier than the stone structure at structures (Sheldon & Tyers, 1983, p. 355; Cripplegate (Dunwoodie et al., 2015). Williams, 1993, p. 89–91), including part of the Forum (Brigham, 1990b, p. 21), a temple Significant investment in public building and a monumental arch (Hill et al., 1980) works between AD 70 and the Hadrianic provide an interesting parallel to examples from period saw the character of the city transformed the western provinces. Additionally, the walls (Milne, 1996, p. 53), and many of the major of London have survived well in comparison public buildings and monuments in stone can to other urban defences in Britain: despite late be dated to this period. The huge forum and robbing and modern destruction, significant basilica complex towards the south-east part portions of the defences remain, albeit in many of the town is dated to AD 100–130 (Hassall, cases below current ground level, and have 2000, p. 57); the amphitheatre now beneath been recorded in excavations from the 19th the medieval Guildhall area was built in stone century onwards (Burkitt, 1853; Price, 1880; in the early 2nd century, perhaps to coincide RCHM, 1928; Roach Smith, 1859). Although with the emperor Hadrian's visit around previous studies have considered the Roman AD 122 (Bateman, 1998, p. 51); the complex London city walls in some detail (Hill et al., of temple and bath house at Huggin Hill in the 1980; Maloney, 1983; Lyon, 2007; Sankey & south-­western corner of the city were probably Stephenson, 1991; Sheldon, 2010), recent constructed in the late 1st into the early 2nd excavations and new research on Roman city century (Williams, 1993, p. 10). A palace-like walls elsewhere in the empire (De Staebler, structure, near the riverfront east of the 2008; Dey, 2010; 2012; Esmonde Cleary, 2003; Walbrook, originally considered to be the seat 2007; Frey, 2016; Witschel, 2013), necessi- of the governor may require re-identification tate renewed study. This paper therefore will (Milne, 1996), but was clearly one of a number present a brief review of London's city wall and of large stone structures built at this time. the recycled material incorporated within it, setting the wall in the context of recycling more The redevelopment of urban spaces is a phe- generally and studies of continental city wall nomenon not confined to London in the late 1st construction (Rodríguez Colmenero & Rodá and early 2nd century. After around AD 90 to de Llanza, 2007). 120, ‘redevelopments were made at Cirencester, Leicester, Exeter and Wroxeter, with new colonia established at Gloucester and Lincoln’ (Milne, 2. History of Roman London 1996). In London, some other reconfiguring of and its walls stone structures took place by the end of the 2nd century, not more than 100 years after their The Roman town of London was initially largely initial construction. The dating of the original built of mud bricks and wood with construction monumental arch and screen of gods, whose in stone developing from the late 1st century, blocks were re-used in the riverside wall in the and really taking off from the early 2nd century 3rd or 4th century, could have been as early

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 329 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

as the 2nd century for the screen. The large significant importance earlier (Dunwoodie et Huggin Hill bathhouse went out of use by the al., 2015). However, Blagg (1996) also empha- end of the 2nd century, the stone perhaps then sises the relatively haphazard development of available for re-use (see below). Yet, new struc- the town, a fitful history, perhaps reflecting more tures also continued to be built in London into individual benefactions and a ‘visible manifes- the 3rd century: the temple of Mithras on the tation of London's local autonomy’ (Hassall, Walbrook probably early-mid 3rd century, and 2000) after an initial wave of construction on a monumental scale, the so-called palace of serving the merchants and provincial admin- Allectus c. AD 293/4. By this time, towards the istration. The altar recalling reconstruction of end of the 3rd and into the 4th century, the con- the temple of Isis offers one such example of struction of urban defences, as in towns across munificence, albeit by a member of the imperial the empire, appeared to dominate construction government (CSIR i.10, cat. no. 71). projects in the city. Initially, London's defences consisted of The program of development in London has the ‘Cripplegate’ fort built in the 2nd century been described as a period of imperial invest- AD (Howe & Lakin, 2004) with an earthen ment, and the revival in the early 2nd century work ditch added later, forming the earliest (in London, but also witnessed in other towns defences of Londinium before a wall was added in Britain) could have been triggered by con- on the landward side between AD 190 and centrated interest from the imperial family 220 (Maloney, 1983, p. 104; Butler, 2001, (Perring, 1991, p. 98–99). Certain monumental p. 47–52). The wall ran for 3 km enclosing an buildings and centres of administration like the area of around 1.33 km2, the furthest extent of forum/basilica would be expected for a town like the city at this time (see map of the approximate London, becoming the provincial capital and course in fig. 1). Standing 2.7 m thick at the base probably home of the governor and procurator at and over 6 m high (Milne, 1995, p. 77), the least by the early 2nd century, if not a town of project was a sizeable undertaking, with over

Fig. 1 Map showing approximate course of the city walls and key monuments. Drawing: P. Coombe and S. Barker

330 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

one million facing stones and some 500,000 tiles to the southeastern section of the wall c. AD 390 for bonding courses required (Marsden, 1980, (Parnell, 1985). In contrast to the landward p. 127). To date, around a third of the full length wall, these later elements employed in their of the city wall has been recorded or observed fabric numerous blocks and sculpted material (Merrifield, 1965, p. 298–325), though the re-used from demolished early Roman monu- course of the wall at key locations, such as the ments and funerary contexts. area south of Ludgate on the western side of the city, is unknown. We do know that at the north-western corner of the city the wall made 3. The Riverside use of the eastern and southern walls of the Wall in London Cripplegate Fort, which was constructed in the 2nd century, but went out of use in the 3rd Excavations in 1975 led to the discovery of a century (Shepherd, 2012). 115 m-long stretch of masonry at Baynard's Castle, Upper Thames Street (Hill et al., 1980, A few stretches of the wall, especially on the p. 2). This discovery confirmed the riverside eastern side, are still visible to a considerable wall's existence, which had long been suspected, height above ground, and the method of con- based in part on William Fitzstephen's account struction can be clearly identified. Clay and flint from the 1170s. The riverside wall continued foundations lay beneath a bedding layer of rag- along the riverbank (almost directly under stone, while the upper levels had courses of tile modern Upper Thames Street, perhaps with and facing stones around a rubble/concrete core a gate at the Walbrook outlet), completing the (Merrifield, 1983, p. 155). The building style is circuit with the landward wall. Excavation uniform along its course, although it is thought along the Thames riverbank in recent years the wall was built east to west, anti-clockwise has uncovered evidence for further sections, around the city (Maloney, 1979). No re-used for instance at the Tower of London in 1977 material seems to have been incorporated within (Marsden, 1980, p. 176), Billingsgate Market in the landward wall's original construction and 1985 (site code BMK85), at Three Quays House it would have taken a considerable amount of in 1995 (LTS95 – only eroded foundations were material and labour to complete (Hobley, 1983, recorded here), and at Riverbank House on p. 82; Maloney, 1983, p. 97). Upper Thames Street in 2006 (RKH06), where a section of wall survived to a height of 1.40 m In conjunction with the construction of underground (Mackinder, 2015). A probable the monumental complex of buildings in the further part of the wall was discovered in early south-west corner of the city noted above 2016 by Museum of London Archaeology, just to (Williams, 1993; Bradley & Butler, 2008), a the west of the Tower of London at Sugar Quay riverside wall was added to complete the city's (site code SGA12). Only a small portion of what defensive circuit, at least in part, in the mid to must once have stood as the riverside wall has late 3rd century, after changes in the river level been uncovered, but continued development of forced the abandonment of the Thameside the City including in this area may in future offer wharves and docks (Brigham, 1990a). London the opportunity to dig to Roman levels. remained an important centre in the 4th century AD (Esmonde Cleary, 1989, p. 48), and as was From the remains that have been recorded, it the case for numerous town walls in late Roman has been established that the riverside wall was Britain, external projecting towers, certainly on constructed using broadly two methods, though the eastern side of the city, were added in the with some slight variation within each. For the 4th century, possibly together with a further majority of its length, except for a portion around section of the riverside wall (Maloney, 1979, p. 75 m long at the very western end, the wall was 295; Bishop, 2000, p. 182; Butler, 2001, p. 51; set on foundations of timber piles beneath a Sankey & Stephenson, 1991; Lyon, 2007, chalk raft. Above this, and around a concrete p. 46–47). Moreover, modifications were made and rubble core, it was made of ragstone facing

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 331 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

with tile courses and incorporated offsets. An AD 330 (Hill & Morgan, 1979), but this was earth bank abutting the wall on the north side later revised to AD 255–275 based on compari- would have offered extra stability. Such solid son with timber pile samples from further along construction of this ‘eastern’ portion may have the river at New Fresh Wharf and the Tower of been necessary due to the underlying geology of London (Sheldon & Tyers, 1983, p. 358–360). loose gravel on this part of the riverbank. The western portion, by contrast, was built at a later date, which would explain the differences At the western end, there are no courses of in construction, but the dating of this section is tiles, or timber and chalk foundations; large even more fragile: we can only be certain that it is blocks of ragstone are simply rammed directly after AD 275 (Williams, 1993, p. 10). One of the into the clay. As the wall here was discovered col- altars found within this section offers a terminus lapsed northwards, there was probably no bank post quem of either AD 251–3 or 253–9, based of earth behind it acting as support (Marsden, on the inscription (Hassall, 1980, p. 195–198) 1980, p. 175). The geology here is firmer than and it may have been standing for a while before that to the east, comprising solid London clay its use as building material. This part of the wall Fig. 2 and mudstone, and so more substantial founda- may have been contemporary with the towers Roman riverside tions may not have been required. of the late 4th century, and is generally thought wall: Area V. Line to date to AD 350–375 (Perring, 1991, p. 106, of re-used carved 3.1. Date of the riverside wall 124). Finally, a section of the wall at the very blocks including the inscribed altars and eastern end, near the Tower of London, is a very reverse side of the Secure dating of the riverside wall has historically late 4th-century addition (AD 390s), perhaps mother goddesses reliefs, following proved problematic. The section of the eastern even part of a second additional wall built while the removal of the wall uncovered at Baynard's Castle originally the first was still standing, and is considered collapsed wall seen in section (from Hill et was dated from dendrochronological analysis purely defensive (Marsden, 1980, p. 178). al., 1980, pl. 10). to the early to mid 4th century, probably after 3.2. Re-use in the riverside wall

Re-used carved stone has been found in the wall since the 19th century, largely at the western end, but in sections according to both construction methods. As noted above, Roach Smith recorded sculpted stonework in the lower part of the wall uncovered in the course of Victorian sewer construction in 1841 at the foot of Lambeth Hill, where it was constructed in the ‘eastern’ fashion with timber foundations and chalk raft (Merrifield, 1983, p. 169). Little of this now remains: one fragment of column now in the British Museum is perhaps all that is left of the stones Roach Smith recorded (CSIR i.10, no.179). In 1975 at Area V, 200 m to the east, at Baynard's Castle (fig. 2), excavators found a line of re-used carved blocks includ- ing inscribed altars, a carving of four mother goddesses (fig. 3), the famous blocks from a sculpted monumental arch and screen of gods (fig. 4), and various architectural pieces (Hill et al., 1980, p. 124–209). This section of the wall was constructed in the ‘western’ method, with re-used blocks rammed into the clay to provide

332 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

Fig. 3 Carving of four mother goddesses, found re-used in the riverside wall at Baynard’s Castle, Upper Thames Street, London in 1975. Museum of London accession no. 77.58 (H: 0.91; W: 1.2; D: 0.335 m). © Board of Governors of the Museum of London

Fig. 4 Block from the London Arch, with carved bust of Mercury. Museum of London accession no. 80.325/26 (H: 0.58; W: 1.133; D: 0.395 m). © Board of Governors of the Museum of London

solid foundations for the wall. A similar applica- A new discovery suggests that other por- tion of recycled material can be seen in northern tions of the wall much further to the east may and western Gaul, where the foundations of also have incorporated re-used material. In numerous urban walls were composed of large excavations during early 2016, Museum of unmortared stone blocks, which were often London Archaeology uncovered a section of re-used from earlier buildings (Johnson, 1973). the wall near the Tower of London that accords,

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 333 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

as expected, with the ‘eastern’ construction 4. The External method. It appears that the Kentish ragstone Projecting Towers employed there may have been re-used, since these blocks carry some superficial carving, Excavations from the 19th century onwards rebates and Lewis holes (fig. 5). Similar blocks have provided evidence about the external pro- from the city probably came from funerary jecting towers. Generally referred to as ‘bastions’ monuments (CSIR i.10, nos. 174, 193, 196), (Merrifield, 1965, p. 320–325; RCHM, 1928, but it is not clear from what structures the new p. 99–106) the external projecting towers are a discoveries originate. Decorated cornices of later addition to the landward wall. This is clear similar material were also found re-used nearby from the fact that in every example except one, at All Hallow's church, and while they were the towers are built against the external face of probably from a tomb monument, it is possible the wall, with no attempt to bond the masonry of that they were retrieved from a portion of the the towers into that of the landward wall (Bell Fig. 5 wall, where they had been employed and then et al., 1937, p. 29). The towers are generally View of the new re-used again when the wall crumbled during D-shaped, 5.8–7.9 m wide, and project 4.4–5.6 m section of wall near the Saxon period and later (CSIR i.10, nos. 167, from the wall (Merrifield, 1965, p. 320–325). the Tower of London, with re-used block 189 and especially 190). It is very likely there was The towers have been divided according to containing Lewis more re-used material in other sections of the their location and construction style into two holes on the right hand side. wall that has been lost to robbing, erosion by the well-defined groups – eastern and western. Each © Museum of London river or further use in other building projects of the towers was assigned a number by R.E.M. Archaeology over the centuries. Wheeler in 1928, from 1 to 21, and this scheme

334 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

was subsequently followed by R. Merrifield. Of the Roman towers, seven have produced The sequence starts at the south-east corner of evidence allowing a late Roman date, between the city, at the Tower of London, and continues AD 341 and 375 to be proposed. Investigation at counter-clockwise around the circuit of the Duke's Place in 1971 showed that the V-shaped landward wall, ending between Newgate and ditch belonging to the original landward wall Ludgate. More recently-discovered towers have was deliberately backfilled during the con- been assigned the number of the nearest neigh- struction of tower 6 at Duke's Place east. The bouring tower but differentiated by the addition fill material contained 1st- and 2nd-century of ‘A’ (Maloney, 1980, no. 2). AD pottery, a barbarous radiate coin of the late 3rd century, and a coin of Constans dated 4.1. Dating of the external to between AD 341 and 346 (Maloney, 1979, projecting towers p. 297; 1983, no. 22; Marsden, 1980, p. 172). However, it is worth noting that secure dating The western group (nos. 11A to 21) is generally evidence for the majority of the towers is lacking regarded as medieval and the eastern group and some of the western towers may also be of (nos. 1–11) as Roman. Excavation in 1965 Roman date (Merrifield, 1965, p. 72). showed that the foundations of tower 11A, for example, overlaid a deposit with 13th-century 4.2. Re-use in the external pottery (Grimes, 1968, p. 71–76), and a medi- projecting towers eval date has been suggested for towers 14 and 15, which are of similar construction (Grimes, As in the case of the riverside wall, from the 1968, p. 71–76). The eastern group contains 19th century onwards a significant portion of large amounts of recycled Roman material and Roman sculpture has been found recycled into the towers have solid bases (with the exception the towers. Much of this material was used to of tower 1 and 11), while the western group are make up the rubble cores of the tower founda- hollow (except tower 17) and are not known to tions (fig. 6). In 1852, remains of tower 2 located have incorporated re-used Roman material. at Trinity Place, east of Tower Hill, was exposed

Fig. 6 Elevation and section drawings of tower 10 (‘bastion 10’) showing the incorporation of earlier materials in the foundations of the tower (from RCHM, 1928, p. 101, fig. 25).

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 335 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

and recorded in contemporary drawings was put through a stone-breaker on the site and (Burkitt, 1853, p. 240), which show recycled used for concrete paving in the Post Office Yard material including cornices, column drums (Bell et al., 1937, p. 107). and a funerary inscription. Equally, Roach Smith noted that the walls were composed ‘in Much of the sculpted and moulded blocks great measure of stones which has belonged to appear to be derived from funerary contexts. Roman buildings of importance and to sepul- Tower 2, located on the east side of Trinity Place chral monuments’ (Roach Smith, 1859). A and excavated in 1852, 1882 and 1935, contained portion of this material is now in the Museum carved and inscribed blocks belonging to the of London (CSIR i.10, catalogues 23 sculpted tomb of Gaius Iulius Classicianus, procurator of objects from towers 2, 4A, 8, 9 and 10). Some the province in the 1st century AD (fig. 7), and of the recycled material however was certainly two fragments of the tombstone of Marciana destroyed during building clearances of the were found in the excavation of tower 4A at 1–2 19th and early 20th centuries. Tower 11 located Crutched Friars (fig. 8). One of the most impres- under the vestry of All Hallows-on-the-Wall, for sive examples is the tombstone of an officialis, example, was demolished during the building of carved in a type of ‘Bath stone’ and found re-used the General Post Office in 1906, and the material in tower 10 at Camomile Street (fig. 9a–b).

Fig. 7 Carved and inscribed blocks belonging to the tomb of Gaius Iulius Classicianus, procurator of the province in the first century AD, in situ among the remains of ‘Bastion 2’ on Tower Hill, as found in 1935 (from Bell et al., 1937, fig. 23).

336 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

Fig. 8 Tombstone of young girl, Marciana, found in the foundations of ‘Bastion 4’ of London’s late Roman defences in excavations in 1980-1, now in the Museum of London, XWL79[234]<278> and XWL79[233]<67> (H: 0.532; W: 0.795; D: 0.172 m). © Museum of London

Fragments of Roman architectural elements, 5. Selection and treatment including the base of a column and a shaft with of stones for re-use trellis ornament, were found in tower 8 at Bevis Marks, and the foundation filling of tower 9 5.1. Riverside wall at Goring Street (excavated 1884) contained lengths of stone coping, a cornice, and a sculpted While most of the re-used stone was recorded frieze carved with running hares. The majority used in foundation levels, 14 re-used blocks at of these objects are from funerary contexts, in all the western end of the site at Baynard's Castle likelihood taken from cemeteries located nearby were built into the riverside wall as an offset the towers. The objects range in date from the course some 5 m above foundation level. These 1st to 3rd centuries AD, however, only a few date included sculptural blocks from the monumen- to the late 1st or early 2nd centuries AD, with tal arch as well as an undecorated piece, two the majority probably belonging to the 2nd or altars, and the mother goddesses block, but it is 3rd centuries AD. The monuments from which unclear whether their carving would have been they were taken therefore may have been stand- visible or whether they were included in internal ing for sometime and it is possible that tombs in sections (Blagg, 1980, p. 191–193). None of the a dilapidated condition were chosen for disman- stones that still survive today were defaced or tling and re-use. severely damaged: most of the monumental arch

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 337 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

Fig. 9 and screen of gods blocks preserve their original for purely economic reasons. Though dating is The ‘Camomile extents without considerable weathering of the problematic across many of the sites in question, Street soldier’: tomb monument of a carved faces. phases of building can be linked to visits or cam- 1st century AD official, paigns of generals or emperors (Bateman, 1998, now in the Museum of London, accession no. Their plundering could have been associated p. 49–51). Statues in London are thought to have 3366 (H: 1.305; W: 0.83; with iconoclasm (Coombe et al., forthcoming), been put up in this way; the magnificent bronze D: 0.28 m). but it is more likely that a time of imminent head of Hadrian is often linked by scholars to © Museum of London threat inspired hurried building of additional that emperor's visit in AD 122 (Toynbee, 1964, defences with whatever material was available. p. 51; Hume, 1956, p. 81; CSIR i.10, no. 213), More plausible, however, seems to be the effect and imperial decrees encouraged the erection of of key historical moments and political reasons statues to emperors or their families. For public for motivating public building projects, and works at least, it is tempting to identify similar re-use of material may most often have been behaviour, especially as the earlier phases of

338 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

construction of the riverside wall near Baynard's unknown. An illustration made in 1905 during Castle represented a significant intervention in the excavation of tower 11 at All Hallows-on- the urban landscape (Williams, 1993). the-Walls shows re-used ashlar blocks used for the tower's plinth, which lay on a rectangular platform also consisting of re-used ashlar. 5.2. The external projecting towers While economic pragmatism may explain, to a certain extent, the presence of re-used blocks The objects re-used in the projecting towers' of stone in the rubble cores and foundations of foundations are generally large blocks that must the London wall towers, we might envisage a have been deliberately selected to provide a more nuanced explanation and postulate some substantial footing. This is clearly shown in the kind of a ‘symbolic’ interpretation if we consider 1935 excavation of tower 2 at Trinity Place. As the selection of material and the context of its Pearson cogently observed, defensive walling deposition. First, none of the tombs from which was essentially based on a solid rubble core this material came can be dated within close and thin outer layer of facing construction proximity to the construction of the wall. The (Pearson, 2006, p. 75); recycling would have closest, a male head from a bust or statue, pos- helped to reduce the amount of material needed, sibly from a funerary context, can be dated to reinforcing the pragmatic nature of some of the the mid-3rd century AD (CSIR i.10, cat. no. 98; re-use in city walls. Museum of London, no. 3367). The lack of con- temporary funerary objects raises the possibility Recycled material was certainly employed that the builders carefully avoided dismantling above the foundation level, but to what extent is recently erected funerary monuments.

Fig. 10 Plan of tower 10 at Camomile Street. The plan shows the tomb of an officialis, with the statue of a Roman soldier and part of its frame broken in four pieces, recycled into the foundations of the tower. Also illustrated is the lion sculpture that was packed tightly nearby, mostly to fill the space as effectively as possible (from RCHM, 1928, p. 102, fig. 26).

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 339 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

A symbolic interpretation can be posited for and funerary material) from different periods, material from the tomb of an officialis recycled perhaps gathered overtime, suggests a legal into tower 10 at Camomile Street. The statue rather than illegal approach. In the case of the of a Roman soldier and part of its frame had tomb of Gaius Iulius Classicianus, a provincial been broken in four pieces and the soldier's official, the removal and recycling of his tomb head was found placed deliberately beneath his must have been sanctioned. Equally, the visibility feet. Although this deposition could have been of re-used material, especially in walls like those for practical purposes (the lion sculpture, also at Aphrodisias, also argues against illegal activi- found in tower 10, was packed tightly nearby, ties, since the public display of illegally sourced mostly to fill the space as effectively as possi- material would not make sense (De Staebler, ble) this seems unlikely (fig. 10). Price, who 2008). In fact, the demolition, incorporation and excavated this bastion in the late 19th century, recycling of material from funerary monuments remarked upon the similarity to contemporary seems to have been very common in city walls 4th-century burial practices (Price, 1880, throughout the empire. Indeed, in cases where p. 27; Bishop, 1983, p. 44), intended to ‘liber- city walls were built through cemeteries, which ate the spirit and remove any fear of haunting’ would have meant the purposeful clearing of (Merrifield, 1987, p. 105–106). Perhaps super- tombs, it is likely any legal issues prohibiting stitious builders were careful to appease the the demolition of tombs would have been souls of the departed, even in their treatment avoided. Indeed, the ‘official’ character of re-use of an effigy. In this context, we must remember is important to understanding the motivations that fear of violation or disturbance of tombs is behind the choice of material for late Roman apparent in many epitaphs (cf. CIL VI, 11022, construction projects – a point that has been 11913, 12133, 14579 and 19844), and respect convincingly argued in the case of city walls in therefore was shown to the dead during the Gaul (Witschel, 2013). How visible recycled Roman period. Furthermore, if military labour materials were intended to be in city walls, was employed in the construction of the towers, however, is an important question that we will it is possible that they would have been espe- return to shortly. cially respectful to another soldier's tomb. This situation differs from that at Chester, where the tombs recycled into the late 3rd-century or early 6. London city walls in 4th-century AD wall, included those carved as their British and Continental recently as the 3rd century AD (Mason, 2001, contexts p. 166–168 and 199–204). The 3rd-century AD tombs of Marcus Aurelius Neopos and of The late Roman fortifications of London were Curatia Di(o)nysia, for example, show little evi- not the first structures to incorporate earlier dence of weathering and may not have stood in materials. Stone was already re-used in the the open long before their re-use (Clay, 2004, early 2nd century AD construction of the fort p. 3–4; CSIR i.9, cat. nos. 33, 61). at Cripplegate, which was built after a major fire (c. AD 120–5) that damaged the western Funerary monuments were protected by law area of the city in particular (Shepherd, 2012, against disturbance and the removal or deface- p. 154). The west gate of the fort included in its ment of the monument, which would have foundations, purple sandstone with Lewis holes destroyed the memory of the dead (Book 47.12 and rustication that was hidden from sight, sug- of the Digest deals with the violation of tombs); gesting that these blocks had been taken from however, it is unlikely that funerary monu- another structure (Shepherd, 1998, p. 38). In ments and public buildings could have been addition, the Kentish ragstone and potentially targeted for demolition without official approval some of the brown sandstone used in the foun- (Barker & Marano, forthcoming). In addition, dations of one of the barrack blocks seem to in the case of London, as with other city walls, have come from an earlier structure (Howe & the mixture of material (public architecture Lakin, 2004, p. 26–28).

340 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

In the late Roman period, the demolition of 2013, p. 133–135; Witschel, 2013). At least eight existing structures in London would have pro- British towns, including Lincoln, Circencester, vided material for recycling into new projects. Chichester, Caerwent, Godmanchester, Greater For instance, the Huggin Hill public baths were Casterton and Kenchester, re-used material abandoned and then demolished by the end derived from private housing, public buildings of the 2nd century AD (Perring, 1991, p. 92), (fora, temples, mansiones), and cemeteries in and by the late 3rd or early 4th century, the their urban defences (Speed, 2014, table 6, forum-basilica complex was largely dismantled p. 109–110 with references). At Cirencester, for to such an extent that none of the walls, except example, the foundations of several projecting perhaps those of the apse, remained standing towers, constructed c. AD 350, re-used stone (Brigham, 1990b). As noted above, the river- blocks whose size and character suggest that side walls made use of material from a number they originated from one of the town's public of public and private structures (Sheldon & buildings (Wacher & Salvatore, 1998, p. 58, Tyers, 1983, p. 355; Williams, 1993, p. 89–91), fig. 31), and moulded and inscribed stones from including a temple and a monumental arch a nearby cemetery were used to repair the Lower (Hill et al., 1980). Moreover, the amphithe- City defences in Lincoln (Jones, 2003, p. 87). atre was plundered for materials, perhaps on a In addition, many of the Saxon Shore forts, such piecemeal basis, from c. AD 364–5 (Bateman as the forts at Lympne and Richborough made et al., 2009, p. 86), at roughly the same time use of recycled material, such as brick and tile that the projecting towers were constructed, from earlier structures, in their bonding courses c. AD 351–375 (Lyon, 2007, p. 148). (Pearson, 2003, p. 69–70). It should be noted, though, that re-used stone seems to have been In addition, private tombstones comprise an the main source of construction material only at important source of re-used material, exploited Richborough and Dover (Pearson, 2003, p. 91). due to their proximately to the walls; however, The dismantling of a late 1st-century AD mon- it should be noted that such decorated elements umental arch (the so-called ‘Great Monument’) may be more visible in their re-used contexts could have provided c. 16,000 m3 of material than large, plain ashlar blocks, which are often — roughly 70% of the material needed for less easily distinguished from more recently the urban defences (Blagg, 1984; Pearson, quarried stone. While the spoliation of struc- 2003, p. 91). tures for building material was common in Britain as in other parts of the empire, we should The demolition of large areas of existing urban be mindful that there was also considerable sur- fabric for the creation of city walls generated a vival into the medieval period, suggesting that large amount of material that required removal the practice of re-use and recycling was perhaps or re-use and it is clear that the much of this more short-lived in Britain than in other parts material was recycled into the walls themselves. of the empire. This seems to be in part related to What is less clear, however, is to what degree this a loss of construction skills in Britain, where we re-use fits with other patterns of visible recycling. see fewer and fewer examples of well-executed At Aphrodisias, for example, recycled material recycling into the 4th and 5th centuries AD in the city wall was often carefully displayed for until the Anglo-Saxon period, when there was decorative effect, where re-used marble blocks a resurgence in recycling associated with church were arranged to create a megalithic marble wall building (pers. comm. R. Fleming). (De Staebler, 2008). At Sparta, section (‘R’) of the fortification wall also shows evidence for The re-use of material in the city walls of the careful placement of second-hand materi- London and other British towns mirrors wider als for decorative effect, while, the orientation patterns of recycling in city walls present across of re-used blocks at the late Roman fortress at the Roman empire (for re-use in the urban forti- Isthmia suggests that the builders were actively fications of Gaul, such as Narbonne, Nîmes and attempting to hide signs of the blocks' previous Avignon, see Heijmans, 2006; Esmonde Cleary, use (Frey, 2016, Chs. 4–5). Similarly, re-used

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 341 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

blocks in many Gallic walls were often care- column shaft, possibly from a Jupiter column, fully positioned to hide traces of their initial from the crypt at Canterbury cathedral. The use and at Le Mans, stones of different colours column shaft was given a prominent place of were arranged to create an impressive patterned honour on the chord of the apse in the chapel of effect (Esmonde Cleary, 2013, p. 124, fig. 3.5). Holy Innocents, clearly preserving an important In these cases, the aim was to present a presti- feature of an earlier structure (CSIR i.10, cat. gious monument that appeared to be created no. 182). Returning to the city walls of London, from newly quarried stone. It seems therefore it is unclear whether the 14 re-used blocks at the that the manner in which material was re-used western end of the riverside wall at Baynard's in city walls was an important element of their Castle, that were incorporated at some 5 m construction and one that contradicts notions of above foundation level, would have been visible desperation at the hands of invading barbarians. or whether they had been included solely in internal sections of the wall (see above). What How well British city walls fit into this pattern is clear is that London's city walls did make use of careful re-use is difficult to identify due to the (either visibly or invisibly) of recycled material limited survival of sections incorporating recy- from both public and private structures that cled material above foundation level; however, had gone out of use by the time of the circuit's the fact that re-used material seems to have construction. The convenience of recycling been mainly employed in foundations (as in the should not be underestimated, especially in an projecting towers of London and Cirencester) or urban setting, where the disposal of demolition added to the stone of the rubble core (as is the case residue might pose significant problems. In the for the tombstones recycled in the defences at case of imperial or civic projects such as walls, Chester and a head of Neptune or another water the public ownership of buildings (and therefore god re-used in the core of the south wall at the the right to dismantle and recycle them), even Fort in Dover around AD 250, cf. CSIR i.10, cat. those in a state of ruin or disrepair, would have no. 63b) suggests that the builders of Romano- been a great asset. This allowed cities to quite British urban walls were indeed concerned with literally ‘cannibalis[e] the status monuments of aesthetics. Again, the Shore Forts, especially the early empire to construct the status mon- those at Pevensey and Brancaster, provide evi- ument of the late empire’ (Esmonde Cleary, dence for this concern, as the brick bonding 2008, p. 131). courses at these forts were both functional and decorative, even in prominent features, such as Bastion 5 at Portchester (Pearson, 2003, 7. Conclusion p. 65). Recycled material was also used in the decorative schemes of fortifications, as can be The recycling in the city walls of London can seen at Richborough. Here, alternating blocks be paralleled with examples from Britain, the of cream Caen stone and brown sandstone western provinces, and across the empire, where were used above the second course in the north materials from a mixture of public buildings and wall. Much of the facing, as well as this course, funerary contexts, can be found. The scale of appears to have been comprised of blocks taken demolition and recycling in London's city walls and re-used from earlier structures on the site is perhaps not as striking as in other cases (even (Pearson, 2002b, p. 204–206). In the re-use if every stone tomb in all of the three major of stone that was often indistinguishable from cemeteries in London had been completely dis- freshly quarried material, these Romano-British mantled it is unlikely that the total of 25,000 m3, defences parallel the walls of Gaul noted above or c. 100,000 blocks re-used in the exterior face in their treatment of re-used material. It is not of the city walls at Aphrodisias could have been until much later and in different contexts that matched, cf. De Staebler, 2008), but this differ- we find Roman material being given preferen- ence represents to a certain degree the different tial treatment and re-used in very obvious ways. level of urbanization and stone use London had This can be seen, for example, in the imbricated achieved during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD,

342 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

compared to other urban centres. Although the highly prized, was now much more valuable as use of stone in London had increased drastically building stone for the construction of London's in the 2nd century AD (c. AD 100–130) when defences than for its original purpose. many of the public structures, including the basilica, amphitheatre, and baths were built or Overall the evidence from London's city walls rebuilt (Scullard, 1979, p. 94), stone remained supports the idea that while most city walls principally restricted to the civic heart of the incorporated second-hand material, the manner city. This situation contrasts that in the cities of of re-use varied in different geographical and Gaul, which saw a greater scale of urbanisation temporal contexts. The dismantling of earlier during the Roman period and prosperity for monuments and the re-use of their stonework much of the 3rd century. In these Gallic cities, was a highly selective and therefore to some the construction of a city wall represented a extent ideologically driven process. In the case drastic intervention in a more or less intact of city walls, any decisions related to re-use or urban stone fabric that often enclosed only a demolition must have been carefully conceived portion of the urban fabric (Witschel, 2013; and centrally planned with city councils and offi- Garmy & Maurin, 1996, p. 70, 190). cials presumably involved in these processes, as some level of official patronage helps to explain In London, the construction of the landward the quantity of re-used materials. The fact that wall seems to have required minimal demoli- re-used architectural and sculptural pieces were tion, as much, if not all, of the city was enclosed used in a careful manner during construction within the walls, and this seems to have been shows that these walls functioned not only as a the case for other Roman-British towns, as well. means of security but also as a symbol of urban Furthermore, because Romano-British walls prestige. Therefore the traditional view of re-use were often converted from earlier defences, the as a response to periods of crisis or panic has walls often followed existing lines, meaning that been shown to be inadequate for the under- large-scale demolition would not have been as standing of re-use in London's urban circuits necessary as in the urban centres of Gaul. By (Blagg, 1983, p. 134). Opportunism, econom- the mid to late 4th century AD, when the towers ics, prestige and honour would all have played were added to London's landward wall, London's a greater or lesser role in the various contexts, capacity to obtain large amounts of freshly quar- and by bringing out the nuances, as we have ried stone via the river Thames had diminished endeavoured to do, we hope to have offered a (Perring, 1991, p. 108; Milne, 2005, p. 74–75), richer view of the practice, and the dynamics of while the practice of re-use had become increas- construction in Roman Britain. ingly accepted. This was particularly injurious to London's construction industry as the south- east of England was devoid of stone (especially Acknowledgements freestone) suitable for building or for fine carving (Hill, 1971; Hayward, 2015, p. xxxvi). The authors would like to thank the Museum In this situation, London's wall builders turned, of London, and especially Francis Grew and as did those of other city walls in this period, Dan Nesbitt, and Sadie Watson and Julian Hill to the nearest available resource — disused/ from Museum of London Archaeology. We ruinous buildings and local cemeteries — as a would also like to thank Robin Fleming, Jane source of re-used material. It is likely that the Sidell and Tim Williams for discussing aspects dwindling number of inhabitants in urban areas of this work. Simon Barker would like to thank and the lack of living descendants to tend to the Fondation Maison des sciences de l'homme earlier tombs meant that many Roman tombs for funding his Fernand Braudel IFER Incoming were available for re-use, while monuments that 9-month scholarship held at the Centre Camille had outlived their usefulness could be given new Jullian, l'Université d'Aix-Marseille, where the purpose. The economic implications of this are initial research on British and Gallic urban walls quite significant as carved decorative stone, once was undertaken.

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 343 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

References

Barker S.J. & Marano Y. (forthcoming). Demolition laws in an archaeological context. Legislation and architectural re-use in the Roman building industry. In: Proceedings of Décor – Linguaggio architet- tonico romano, Roma, 21–24 May 2014 (THIASOS, Rivista di archeologia e architettura antica). Bateman N., 1998. Public buildings in Roman London: some contrasts. In: Watson B. (ed.), Roman London: recent archaeological work, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, 24), p. 47–57. Bateman N., Cowan C. & Wroe-Brown R., 2009. London’s Roman Amphitheatre: Excavations at the Guildhall, London (MoLAS Monograph Series, 35). Bell W.G., Cottrill M.A. & Spon C. (ed.), 1937. London Wall through Eighteen Centuries, London. Bishop B., 2000. A keyhole through the gateway: a watching brief at Aldgate, London Archaeologist, 9.7, p. 179–184. Bishop M.C., 1983. Camomile Street soldier reconsidered, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 34, p. 31–48. Blagg T.F.C., 1980. The Sculptured Stones. In: Hill C., Millet M. & Blagg T.F.C. (ed.), The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London. Excavations at Baynards Castle, Upper Thames Street, London, 1974–76, London (London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper, 3), p. 124–193. Blagg T.F.C., 1983. The reuse of monumental masonry in late Roman defensive walls. In: Maloney & Hobley, 1983, (ed.), Roman Urban Defences in the West, London (Council for British Archaeology, Research Report, 51), p. 130–135. Blagg T.F.C., 1984. Roman Architectural Ornament in Kent, Archaeologia Cantiana, 100, p. 65–89. Blagg, T.F.C. 1996. Monumental Architecture in Roman London. In: Bird J., Hassall M. & Sheldon H. (ed.) Interpreting Roman London. Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman, Oxford (Oxbow Monograph, 58), p. 43–47. Bradley T. & Butler J., 2008. From Temples to Thames Street – 2000 years of Riverside Development, London. Brigham T., 1990a. The Late Roman waterfront in London, Britannia, 21, p. 99–183. Brigham T., 1990b. A reassessment of the second basilica in London, AD 100–400: excavations at Leadenhall Court 1984–86, Britannia, 21, p. 99–183. Burkitt J., 1853. Excavations near the Roman Wall on Tower Hill, London, Journal of British Archaeological Association, 8, p. 240–242. Butler J., 2001. The City defences at Aldersgate, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 52, p. 41–112. CIL VI – Henzen G., De Rossi I.B., Bormann E., Huelsen C. & Bang M., 1876–1933. Inscriptiones urbis Romae Latinae, Berlin (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, VI). Clay C., 2004. Iconoclasm in Roman Chester: The Significance of the Mutilated Tombstones from the North Wall, Journal of British Archaeological Association, 157, p. 1–16. Coates-Stephens R., 2012. The Walls of Aurelian.In : Behrwal R. & Witschel C. (ed.), Rom in der Spätantike: Historische Erinnerung im städtischen Raum, Stuttgart, p. 83–109.

344 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

Coombe P., Hayward K. & Henig M., forthcoming. The sculpted and architectural stonework from Stanwick Roman villa, Northamptonshire, Historic England Research Report. CSIR i.9 – Henig M., Webster G. & Blagg T., 2004. Roman Sculpture from the North West Midlands, Oxford (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani. Great Britain, 1, fasc. 9). CSIR i.10 – Coombe P., Grew F., Hayward K.M.J. & Henig M., 2015. Roman sculpture from London and the South-East, Oxford (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani. Great Britain, 1, fasc. 10). De Staebler P.D., 2008. The city wall and the making of a late-antique provincial capital. In: Ratté C. & Smith R.R.R. (ed.), Aphrodisias Papers 4: New Research on the City and its Monuments, Portsmouth (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, 70), p. 284–318. Dey H., 2010. Art, Ceremony and City Walls. The Aesthetics of Imperial Resurgence in the Late- Roman West, Journal of Late Antiquity, 3, p. 3–37. Dey H., 2012. Spolia, Milestones and City Walls: The politics of Imperial Legitimacy in Gaul. In: Birk S. & Poulsen B. (ed.), Patrons and Viewers in Late Antiquity, Aarhus (Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity, 10), p. 291–310. Dunwoodie L., Harwood C. & Pitt K., 2015. An early Roman fort and urban development on Londinium’s eastern hill: excavations at Plantation Place, City of London, 1997–2003, London (MoLAS Monograph Series, 65). Esmonde Cleary S., 1989. The Ending of Roman Britain, London. Esmonde Cleary S., 2003. Civic defences in the west under the High Empire. In: Wilson P. (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Towns: Studies in Honour of J.S. Wacher, Oxford, p. 72–85. Esmonde Cleary S., 2007. Fortificación en la Britannia Romana: ¿defense military o monument cívico?. In: Rodríguez Colmenero A. & Rodá de Llanza I. (ed.), Murallas de Ciudades en el Occidente del Impero Romano: Lucus Augusti como Paradigma, Lugo, p. 155–165. Esmonde Cleary S., 2008. Rome in the Pyrenees. Lugdunum and the Convenae from the first century B.C. to the seventh century A.D., London, New York (Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies). Esmonde Cleary S., 2013. The Roman West, AD 200–500: An Archaeological Study, New York–Cambridge. Esmonde Cleary S. & Wood J., (ed.) 2006. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, III. Le rempart de ­l’Antiquité tardive de la ville haute, Bordeaux (études d’archéologie urbaine, 3). Frey J.M., 2016. Spolia in Fortifications and the Common Builder in Late Antiquity, Leiden (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 389). Garmy P. & Maurin L. (ed.), 1996. Enceintes romaines d’Aquitaine. Bordeaux, Dax, Périgueux, Bazas, Paris (Documents d'archéologie française, 53). Gerrard J., 2013. The Ruin of Roman Britain. An Archaeological Perspective, New York–Cambridge. Grimes W. F., 1968. The Excavation of Roman and Mediaeval London, London. Hassall M.W.C., 1980. The inscribed altars.In : Hill C., Millet M. & Blagg T.F.C. (ed.), The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London. Excavations at Baynards Castle, Upper Thames Street, London, 1974–76, London (London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper, 3), p. 195–197. Hassall M., 2000. London: The Roman City.In : Haynes I., Sheldon H. & Harrington L. (ed.), London Underground. The Archaeology of a City, Oxford, p. 52–61.

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 345 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

Hayward K.M.J., 2015. Types and sources of stone. In: Coombe P., Grew F., Hayward K.M.J. & Henig M., Roman sculpture from London and the South-East, Oxford (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani. Great Britain, 1, fasc. 10). Heijmans M., 2006. La mise en défense de la Gaule méridionale aux ive -vie s, Gallia, 63.1, p. 59–74. Hill C., Millet M. & Blagg T.F.C. (ed.), 1980. The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London. Excavations at Baynards Castle, Upper Thames Street, London, 1974–76, London (London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper, 3). Hill J.H., 1971. Roman Building Materials in South-East England, Britannia, 2, p. 166–195. Hill J. & Morgan R., 1979. The Dating of the Roman Riverside wall at three sites in London, London Archaeologist, 3/11, p. 283–288. Hobley B., 1983. Roman urban defences: a review of research in Britain. In: Maloney J. & Hobley B. (ed.), Roman Urban Defences in the West, London (Council for British Archaeology, Research Report, 51), p. 78–84. Howe E. & Lakin D., 2004. Roman and Medieval Cripplegate, City of London. Archaeological Excavations 1992–8, London (MoLAS Monograph Series, 21). Hume I.N., 1956. Treasure in the Thames, London. Johnson S., 1973. A Group of Late Roman City Walls in Gallia Belgica, Britannia, 4, p. 210–223. Johnson S., 1983a. Late Roman Fortifications, London. Johnson S., 1983b. Late Roman urban defences in Europe. In: Maloney J. & Hobley B. (ed.), Roman Urban Defences in the West, London (Council for British Archaeology, Research Report, 51), p. 68–76. Jones M.J., 2003. The colonia era (c. AD 90 – c. 400). The archaeological account.In : Jones M.J., Stocker D.A. & Vince A.G. (ed.), The City by the Pool: Assessing the Archaeology of the City of Lincoln, Oxford (Lincoln Archaeological studies, 10), p. 56–137. Jurkić V.G., 2011. Roman spolia from necropolises and their reuse for reinforcing late antique city walls and for building edifices of the modern era in Pula, Hortus Artium Medievalium, Journal of the International Research Center for Late Antiquity and Middle Ages, 17, p. 23–28. Lyon J., 2007. Within these Walls: Roman and Medieval Defences North of Newgate at Merrill Lynch Financial Centre, City of London, London (MoLAS Monograph Series, 33). Mackinder A., 2015. Roman and Medieval revetments on the Thames waterfront. Excavations at Riverbank House, City of London, 2006–9, London (MoLAS Archaeology Studies Series, 33). Maloney J., 1979. Excavations at Dukes Place: The Roman Defences, London Archaeologist, 3/11, p. 292–297. Maloney J., 1980. The discovery of bastion 4A in the city of London and its implications, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 31, p. 68–76. Maloney J., 1983. Recent Work on London's Defences. In: Maloney J. & Hobley B. (ed.), Roman Urban Defences in the West, London (Council for British Archaeology, Research Report, 51), p. 96–117. Marsden P., 1980. Roman London, London. Mason D.J.P., 2001. Roman Chester, City of the Eagles, Stroud. Maurin L., 1992. Remparts et cités dans les provinces du sud-ouest de la Gaule au Bas-Empire (dernier quart du iiie siècle – début du ve siècle). In: Maurin L. (ed.), Villes et agglomérations urbaines

346 Re-use of Roman stone in London city walls

antiques du sud-ouest de la Gaule. Histoire et archéologie. Deuxième Colloque Aquitania, Bordeaux 13–15 septembre 1990, Bordeaux (Aquitania, Suppl., 6), p. 365–389. Merrifield R., 1965. The Roman City of London, London. Merrifield R., 1983. London: City of the Romans, London. Merrifield R., 1987. The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, London. Milne G., 1995. Book of Roman London: Urban archaeology in the nation’s capital, London. Milne G., 1996. A Palace Disproved. In: Bird J., Hassall M. & Sheldon H. (ed.), Interpreting Roman London. Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman, Oxford (Oxbow Monograph, 58), p. 49–55. Milne G., 2005. The Port of Roman London. In: Urteaga Artigas M. & Maura M.J.N. (ed.), Mar Exterior: el Occidente Atlantico en época romana: Congreso Internacional, Pisa, Santa Croce in Fossabanda, 6–9 noviembre de 2003, Roma, p. 71–76. Niblett R., 2001. Verulamium: The Roman City of St. Albans, Stroud. Parnell G., 1985. The Roman and medieval defences and the later development of the inmost ward, Tower of London: excavations 1955–77, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 36, p. 1–79. Pearson A., 2002a. The Roman Shore forts, Stroud. Pearson A., 2002b. Stone supply to the Saxon Shore Forts at Reculver, Richborough, Dover and Lympne, Archaeologia Cantiana, 122, p. 197–220. Pearson A., 2003. The Construction of the Saxon Shore Forts, Oxford (British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 349). Pearson A., 2006. The Work of Giants. Stone and Quarrying in Roman Britain, Stroud. Perring D., 1991. Roman London, London (The Archaeology of London). Price J.E., 1880. On a Bastion of London Wall, or, Excavations in Camomile Street, Bishopsgate, London. RCHME, 1928 – Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), 1928. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London. III. Roman London, London. Roach Smith C., 1859. Illustrations of Roman London, London. Rodríguez Colmenero A. & Rodá de Llanza I. (ed.), 2007. Murallas de Ciudades en el Occidente del Impero Romano: Lucus Augusti como Paradigma, Lugo. Sankey D. & Stephenson A., 1991. Recent work on London's defences. In: Maxfield V.A. & Dobson M.J. (ed.), Roman Frontier Studies 1989: Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Exeter, p. 117–124. Scullard H.H., 1979. Roman Britain, Outpost of the Empire, London. Sheldon H., 2010. Enclosing Londinium: the Roman landward and riverside walls, Transactions of London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 61, p. 227–235. Sheldon H. & Tyers I., 1983. Recent Dendrochronological work in Southwark and its Implications, London Archaeologist, 4/13, p. 355–361. Shepherd J. (ed.), 1998. Post-War Archaeology in the City of London 1946–1972. A guide to records of excavations by Professor W.F. Grimes held by the Museum of London, London. Shepherd J., 2012. The Discovery of the Roman Fort at Cripplegate, City of London: Excavations by W.F. Grimes 1947–68, London (MOLA Monograph Series).

Études et Documents Archéologie 38 347 Roman ornamental stones in north-western europe

Speed G., 2014. Towns in the Dark? Urban Transformations from Late Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford. Toynbee J.M.C., 1964. Art in Britain under the Romans, Oxford. Wacher J. & Salvatore J.P., 1998. The Town Defences. In: Holbrook N. (ed.), Cirencester: The Roman Town Defences, Public Building and Shops, Cirencester (Cirencester Excavations, V), p. 35–98. Williams T., 1993. Public buildings in the South West quarter of Roman London, London (The Archaeology of Roman London, 3; Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 88). Witschel C., 2013. Die spätantiken Städte Galliens: Transformationen von Stadtbildern als Ausdruck einer gewandelten Identität? In: Diefenbach S. & Müller G.M. (ed.), Gallien in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Kulturgeschichte einer Region, Berlin (Millenium-Studien, 43), p. 153–200. Wright R.P. & Richmond I., 1955. Catalogue of the Roman inscribed and sculpted stones from the Grosvenor Museum, Chester.

348 P I r S i B x N

d

: e

9

7 v 8 e - n 2 - t 3 e 9

: 0

3 4 8 0 -

0 € 0 5 - 4 R O W t f a c f G f s I t q t a m s w p p o D o o u h h h n t u o r n f u u a o h a u r r c a e l e e e

p n r d a b l n M l h t i r i i s y r t

p l r f r c e r r l a a t i i o e e a e e i e r p h l c

n e r l n b c s c r y e r - c i l l i u r a

g

i e e e e R

e e

o a o

n g A p i b w l s x c t n n e I l l n n a o a i R h

s u e o n y t n c t o E e r c

o m

r r o

c g i o t c e

r N s u t u a s N l m e l y u a s i o i

e t m d a i

c s v r s r i o e o r e n

s m n

i l t i t o o n i c

a ff a n e r l c d i s g t

p

f h o i a a

r t y n , d i

M g e e ?

n

h n m s t n e n i

O

r

a r s t g i t t , . - g t f e o d

,

h i u e o c e e e o i

W v o

d r c n t m r

e f s f c o r e i p e

r e t R r e

h a v ? e l d f u

s a o s e r u o p o

l u e s a m e t

o

s

r W m g t m r

e r n n t a , a f e C c N o a

i r d a r r i l e ? r s d e v

h u l s d o j

c o

t o n r

s o a u m a W a h e s m u i n a s f t r

r n n , t r A

i r

a c

E i f

s

i n i T

d h o e y t l i ( p h n

n u k n t t s o a g a r

u a r a t h g h

r e o r s M r

t n t e i s p s

o o e e

e

n t v d r r

g a i c ) p

p

a n r a d s c e p e n p

u p o M e

n t t e e r a i r h t o l e d h l E s n r c , . i a d e h m p

i

s v c o

e k e y e n s e

h e t t  i e d v

t e

d i u r - p x i , p N o o d n t

e o R r e n i

p r l y o t o u r

n

g c i a i r t e e o g p e n s n i s a s  i y

a f s r a e

m r g t h e e r a T

l c , n r n e e i o c

A o i s s r e l a e r r n p c a o s i

g . y m r n n p o s

n

h e A , n i

n e r

a



e t r e c

g a a a

a ?

h b f h g i c e a a

v p

e n n l p a e e W i e n d n t

i L e r h v i d d i n 2 r s s r r e n

d

m e

i . i o s

0 b a d h n

t r c

t n i

v p

- a

 e e n a e o a a c d 2 t

n i g r S h a e s s t e l n t h n i 2 a

o

t ? e W e e n l s

a d e k m e e m c n

,

t r w v v w

i

i r i n a T e d s 2 l s e a n f e W , i

a a n e R n t o

a 0 b

l i n d t r s l

m t h E d r 1 a u s t o e t h i O

b

i

e q h n b

6

a o o c t m h p a o e o r i r u s u . o t c f n t o

e

S o r e e e f

a e

a w  t s a N d

n n n t s s d g i n

r t t u l t o t e n i a

o e h

r o o e

s T s c i n f m e o n i

n e

d f s c r o , e o p E x

? f

a e

a e a

r s e

g r v

r c t b R t r t s E r . W

i h o n a o h

e o

i a u

t e n o o S t r n v e t h t w t l a f W i i

u a h h m e n n

u i l v n e e R B d e n l d m a e a e

r

l

g h i r a

i l c t m

s m a e

s m e y n e

n e e e p e I t t l a m k N

g l o g i r

a s

e n p e p N e r n i p e

i s n n n e o n c c e m o

u l

g ? r h e a u i o e s t r d i r e

m

a

a a t t m t n s e f o W f t t

s

r f i l r l

, E a o a n h a n i o e s

i e N p s c n c f e p N e m t n e s r b g

t

t o s t r n t c m

s s a t . y u U e

t o o e

e r n s e

o r h

h

d r

r O t n

n

a  t e c a t t t i a e t f f

n e t n i h h e h h o v o n s t o o R a a s d d o g e e e e e e r r - t f f l l , R

O T P H E -

Études et Documents – Archéologie no 38 A C g a t e h n e R c r e i n

O w e

C a M l o l q o A u n e n l N e e t N

, d

G u O O u

P i R d R a o t r N C T i m r e H A e o m i M - n e e W r s E ,

R E N o l S a T n T d A

D E L r R e

e S s N e n T

& E O É

É t u U N r d i c e R

E G s 3

o e O S e t

A m D P

r 8 o I a c c N e h E r u é e m o l e o n g t i e s