Roman temple complex in Park? Part 1 Becky Wallower When a workman rammed an iron bar into a Park. Lying direcLly on a line projected from mound in Greenwich Park in February 1902. he known remains ofthe Roman road (Fig. 1), it hit unexpected treasure in the prosaic ronn of offered almost virgin territory in the search for the tesserae and mortar -- "undoubtedly a Roman lost course ofthe road towards SouLhwark. In villa"l proclaimed the local press. His supervisor, 1902 Park Superintendent A D Webster led a AD Webster, arranged for extensive excavations. work group out into the Park, hoping to verify his Evidence for a high slatus Roman building was theories on Watling Street.) One site probed by revealed in 1902, but, even after further means of iron bars was a prominent mound, excavations in the 19205 and 19705, its sometimes known as Queen Elizabeth's Bower, identification, first as a villa, later as a Romano­ topped by a circle oftrees. Recognising as Roman Celtic temple, remained tentative. Excavations in the material unearthed there by a labourer, 1999 by the Museum orLondon and Birkbcck Webster involved a local antiquarian, Herbert College with Channel4's , have Jones FSA, who had previously excavated at exposed new structural evidence on the mound as Silchestcr. A trial trench, apparently 18ft by just well as the remains ofa further, ifclusivc, 1.5ft wide, produced further building material and complex of features to the east, both ofwhich pottcry.4 Jones seems to have guided the appear to substantiate the temple hypothesis. New excavation ofa further trench over the mound, a finds on this exceptional site include not only a series oftrenches on the southern flank, and rare inscription, bringing the site total to five, but eventually the wholesale stripping ofthe mound also more than 100 coins, and fragments of surface.s procuratorial stamped tile. This interim report on Tne Roman "villa" attracted both press attention the 1999 fieldwork also outlines the excavation and visitors over the summer months.6 Railings history, and considers possible interpretations of were erected to protect the excavations, which the archaeological and finds evidence collecLcd were left exposed through the winter. In 1903, over thc 20th century. after further minor excavations, the trenches were filled in, apparently leaving a small patch of Excavation history tesserae enclosed in railings for posterity (at TQ Enclosed by Humphrey Duke ofGloucester in the 3929 7742, approximately 44m above OD). 1Sth century, adopted as a favourite Tudor royal Jones and Webster's efforts produced remains of resoJ1 in the 16th century, and landscaped under three floors, one tesselated and lying three feet Charles II in the 17th, Greenwich Park has largely higher than the other two (at least one ofwhich escaped major intrusions. A few buildings, such as was surfaced with opus signinum), and a six foot Duke Humphrey's defensive tower and the six stretch ofragstone walling. Their finds were Greenwich Royal Observatory on the same site, prodigious and overwhclmingly Roman: over 350 plus leisure and wartime installations, occasionally coins ranging from Mark Antony to Honorius, dotted the parkland. Gravel extraction, the four inscriptions on marble and sandstone, the reservoirs and a network ofunderground water right ann ofa fine limestone statue, fragments of conduits have also left their mark. Apart from the two rare carved ivory pieces, quantities ofpottery, 1784 incursions into the large Anglo Saxon burial stone and ceramic building material, painted wall group in the west (Fig. t), however, the Park plaster, a key, a fine chain, a hipposandal and avoided the worst excesses ofthe antiquaries.2 various other metal artefacts.' It is likely that most Around the tum ofthe 20th century, the question ofthese would have come from ditches, pits and ofthe route ofWatling Street from the Kent coast robber trenches, which were largely unidentified to London focused new interest on Greenwich as such at the time.

46 London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 N

... , ...- ~ ce -'L_" ",\ (\ ~ ," j ~ ... \ I ~ r- L ( ~ -, -- -- - ...... -- .. ~ ~:.:.-­ -- .... -~

-p",

{ - \ , KEY: - Potential route of 'Natling Street Known Eirthworxs

Fig 1: site location plan (Peter Hart-Allison, MoLAS) Two less fortunate products ofthe 1902/3 these sources and a notebook (now apparently excavations were inadequate records and lost) in Jones's hand listing the finds, II no other inconclusive data.' Webster's accoum describes notes, stratigraphical records, drawings or details the site in ambiguous terms and catalogues the appear to have survived. The finds assemblage is finds to some extent. Jones, in two articles and his now also much diminished. 12 address to the'Archaeological.!nstitute' (a nOle of The inconclusive and incomplete nalure ofthe which was published in 1902)', describes record seems to have prompted further excavation something ofthe techniques employed and in 1924/5 and 1927.0 This work entailed lrenches provides the only plan, with an orientation map on the east and north Oanks ofthe mound, but that relates only vaguely to the site,lO Apart from seemingly produced no results, and again left london Archaeologist Autumn 2002 47 almost no records. Other archaeological activity in to the south ofthe mound, in the area where it was the Park, notably in 1906 (focusing mainly on the thought the floors unearthed in the carlier area around Vanbrugh gate, and directed by excavations would lie, near the patch oftesserae Jones) and 1911, may also have involved the which was presumed to have remained in siru mound area, but here too, records are poor. I~ since 1903 (Fig. 2). Nevertheless, it seems clear from the evidence Amongst severe disturbance by tree planting! presented in 1902+3 that a significant, high status removal, root action. animal burrows. erosion, and building (or buildings) stood on the mound, with late pits and trenches, significant new evidence occupation extending throughout the Roman was found. Two phases ofbuilding were noted, period. Webster imaginatively conjectured that the and, south ofthem, a metalled surface, several large number ofcoins might point to "a pay place gullies and a deep natural channel. Based on the for soldiers, a canteen, or the residence ofan backfill evidence and stratigraphical relationships, officcr connected with the Mint" ,l!l but the site the excavators posited that the Phase I structure was generally referred to as a villa for some years. was oftimber and clay on flint footings (Fig. 2, In 1928, Wheeler postulated, on the basis of finds X), and that it dated to around the end ofthe 1st and epigraphic evidence, that the building could century. This structure had been replaced, in the be a shrine. Iii This theory was adopted by Lewis in 3rd century or later, by a slightly larger square or 1966, who listed finds such as the almost 400 rectangular building with a raised tesselated floor. coins, the inscriptions and the statue, in The robbed-out wall ofthis Phase 2 building was nominaling the site as a temple ofuncertain traced running east-west for about 10m (Fig. 2, l fonn. ? Othcr writers, notably Professor Y), returning to the north from the south-west l'laverfield, have used the evidence ofthe mound comer for c. 2m. remains as corroboration oftheories that a major settlement, namely the 'lost' posting station of Sheldon and Yule concluded that the latcr Noviomagus listed in the Antonine Itinerary, structure and the railed-in palch oftcsscrae were existed in the area.II This now seems very part ofthe same structure. They argued on the doubtful: Noviomagus is listcd in Iter II at some basis oflhe setting, finds and raised rectangular five miles farther from London than Greenwich, architecture that the most likely fonn ofbuilding and other evidence for Roman activity in the was that ofa Romano-Celtic temple, with its immediate vicinity ofGreenwich Park is limited entrance to the east. The newly discovered wall to some cremation burials on Blackhcath, a few and floor were suggested as the south side ofthe isolated finds ofcoins, building material and ambulatory, the 1902 tesscrac patch as flooring of , a bronze lamp from the Thames and a the cella and two ofthe gullies as possibly bronze bowl from the Park. 19 belonging to a temenos boundary. No trace ofthe previously uncovered floors or walls was 197819 excavations revealed, but it was thought thal some gullies and In the I960s and '70s, age and Dutch Elm Disease disturbance could have been evidence ofearlier claimed the large trees sunnounting the mound excavations. (apparently planted mid-17th century). The Southwark and Lambeth Archacological 1999 excavations Excavation Committee was asked by the Channel4's Time Team came to Greenwich in Department ofthe Environment in 1978 to 1999 with the aim ofestablishing the location, investigate whether it would be possible to replant function, extenl, and the date and duration ofuse trees, by deternlining what Roman levels had of the structures discovered in 1902. 21 The dig survived the free planting and removal, and (site code GMA99) was undertaken in the relating these, ifpossible, to earlier discoveries.20 customary three days, and organised jointly with As the excavation (site code GP78), led by Hedley Swain, Museum orLondon, and Harvey Harvey Sheldon and Brian Yule, was exploratory Sheldon, Birkbeck College; archaeologists from in nature, any structures exposed were to be left MoLAS and students from Birkbeck College undisturbed. Three trenches were opened, mainly supplemented the Time Team principals.

48 London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 , , ,, ,, ,, ,, N ,, ,, , ,, _.) ,, , , , I , , , ,, \ - , , ,, , , , , , , , , i : , , ­ , , , , ,, ,, ,, ,, ,...... , ,, ,, Til --.'-) ,, ,, ,, ,, "CJ n[' _ ,, ,tS / ,, ,, ,,'''') .-.--.: ,, ,," -~ / / ,, ,, ._0­ , , ,, ,, ---'--.j ) ,, , ..., ,, ,, ,, ,, , ,, ,,,, ,,," , ' -- ,,,, , , ,, ,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,, , ,, ,, ,,,, .~...... :/ I:' . ,,,, ...... / ,/ V" .:...... =-=~.--- :\ ----o - -

Fig 2: plan of trenches and features from 1978179 (trenches I to III) and 1999 excavations (trenches 1 to 9) (Peler Hart·Allison, MoLAS) On the evidence ofparch marks, previous phase the site. The evidence docs, however, excavations and new geophysical surveys, eight indicate site usage -- probably cOnlinuous·· from trenches were opened (Fig. 2): three ofthem (5, 8 about AD 100 to 400, and confinns several phases and 9) were only briefly examined as no structural ofacLivity. features were obvious, and another (7) was not recorded. Because ofthe fragmentary and limited Mound area nature ofthe three day excavation; an incomplete Trenches I and 4 were positioned on the mound, stratigraphical record; at)d the complex, disturbed the location ofthe 1902 excavations. In the south nature ofthe contexts, it has not been possible to ofTrench 1 near the patch ofexposed tcsscrac, a

London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 49 massive robbed-out foundation trench (Fig. 2, A) marble tablet inscribed with three lines oftex! was revealed ncxt to a large tree bole. Although (Fig. 3, GMA99). only small fragments ofstone remained in the bottom ofthc trench, its dimensions -- at least Extended complex 1.910 wide and 1.210 deep -- indicated a Excavations to the east ofthe mound produced substantial masonry slrueture had stood there. As less disturbed features and deposits, and evidence well as painted plaster, mortar, tesserae and other ofa larger complex ofbuildings and other types ofbuilding material, the fill included 37 features. The carli~st solidly dated feature was coins oflatc 3rd to late 4th century dates, found in Trench 2 (Fig. 2). Here the backfill ofa providing an earliest robbing date ofc. AD 400. section ofa substantial v-shaped ditch, at least To the north-east ofthis structure, possible 1.910 deep and c. 5 m wide, produced animal evidence ora further wall (Fig. 2, B) was found, bone, early building material and a good mostly robbed out, but comprising a length of collection ofponery, including samian, Highgate disturbed flint and mortar remains, apparently and Verulamium wares. Ponery dates ofAD 70­ running at an angle ofabout 30° to A. No 100 indicate that the ditch went out ofuse carly in tcmporal relationship between the two structures the 2nd century. A gravel surface overlying the could be detennined. backfilled ditch was cut by an L-shaped robber Trench 4, laid out to investigate further evidence trench (Fig 2, D), at least 0.6810 deep and morc ofthe western wall seen in 1978/9, yielded than Im wide. On the northern side oro was a another robber trench (Fig. 2, C). Its width substantial deposit ofbuilding material, including extended beyond the limit ofexcavation, but it some fine painted plaster with masonry was at least 0.7010 deep, and a few mortared impressions in the mortar, whieh was interpreted ragstone blocks remained in silt at the base. It as being structural collapse against the then aligned with the north-south segment ofthe upstanding wall D. The painted plaster and tile previously discovered robber trench V, and its date the fallen wall to the early 2nd century. A base was at about the same level (+42.5010 00). shallow gully ofunknown function ran along the Make-up layers appeared to have been laid to the surface ofrobber trench D. west ofrobber trench C where the ground level Trench 3, 15m north ofTrcnch 2 and extended by dips away. A disturbed layer above the robber Trench 6, produced the remains ofyet another, trench contained one ofthe site's key finds: a mostly robbed out, structure (Fig. 2, E) a few

RIB 37 RIB 38 RIB 39 GMA99

l00rnm Fig 3: Inscriptions from Greenwich Park: relevant RIB references refer to those excavated in 190213, and GMA99 to the inscription from 1999 (all illustrations: author)

50 London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 centimetres beneath the surface. Gravel metalling covered the ground surface either side ofthe one remaining course ofthis cast-west ragstone wall, and an uncxcavated feature running north-south (apparenl1y another robber trench) abutted the remains. CUlling this presumed noIth-south robber trench was a post hole, apparenl1y one ofa series of four or five with centres c. 0.75m away from and on the same orientation as wall E. Two fragments oflegula, found in two separate post holes, appear to be part ofthe same tile, and are Fig 4: procuratorial stamped tile excavated in 1999 marked with complementary portions ofthe stamp (above, author), with composite example of Die 5 PPBRLON (Fig. 4)." (from RIB). Trench 5 was laid out to investigate geophysical The material from the 1902/3 dig is known to anomalies, and Trench 9 to locate any northerly have been similar,2S but. re-examination ofthe extension ofwall D: neither provided evidence of small surviving corpus has revealed some nearly cut features or deposits under the topsoil. Trench complete lydion bricks (large rectangular bricks 8, also on the trail ofmagnetic anomalies. used as bonding courses in masonry walls), revealed a substantial stretch ofmetalled surface, portions oftwo rare circular bessalis bricks, and possibly a road or pathway. Multiple layers several combed flue tiles. Such bessales and flue indicated that it had been repaired or resurfaced tiles, of Radlett fabrics, are comparatively rare in several times, but its dimensions are unknown. the City. but are similar to types found in the early phases oftwo Roman public buildings (at Finds Winchester Palacc and 15-23 Southwark Street) and several other I st-ccntury sites in Southwark. Finds from the 1999 excavations, particularly the stratified building material, pottery and coins, The presence ofround bessales and flue tile have added important pieces and worthwhile data would normally indicate the presence ofa to an already noteworthy record. To paint a more hypocaust system. No evidence for this has been complcte picture, the results ofa re-examination noted in any ofthe excavations, however, and it ofsome ofthe 1902 objects and building material. seems possible thai the material was imported and thc analysis of 1978 coins, have been from other sites, as rubble for wall building. In the included in the following review ofthe 1999 case of flue tiles, an alternative use might be in artefacts.2J window/door construction for lightness.26 and in The l77kg ofceramic building material, stone and the case ofthe circular bessales, one ofwhich was wall plaster recovered in 1999 included 15 tile completely covered in mortar, it is conceivable types, 981 tesserae and 283 fragments ofpainted that they could have becn adapted as small and decorated wall plaster. The high quality columns or bases for sculpturc.21 plaster, mainly from Trenches I and 2 with small Among the eleven types ofstone found in 1999, collections from 3/6 and 4, has been dated to the Kentish ragstonc predominated. Oolitic limestone 1st and 2nd centuries. Most ofthe ceramic was the principal medium for worked fragments, building material (74%) probably originated from with the Carrara marble ofthe inscribed slab kilns north-west ofLandon along Watling Street, representing the most exotic.2s Several interesting before about AD 160. Another 18.3% was pieces ofstone from 1902 survive. A fragment of manufactured in tilcries operating up to about AD sandstone, briefly reunited with the 1902 120, and only 7.5% in tileries in operation for inscriptions held by the British Museum, is clearly differing periods between AD140 and 300. the same stone as the inscription (Fig. 3, RIB 31). Sources other than London include Radlett., Herts, and, as both are affected by fire, likely to be part a kiln on the south coast and Kent and Surrey ofthe same objcct. This is ofa scale and thickness workS. 24 Early Kent fabrics were found in Trench great enough to be a possiblc altar or statue base, I, and later, 3rd century, fabrics in Trench 3/6. rather than a wall plaque. Two pieces ofoolite

London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 51 Bedoyerc.l' The other two lines ofthis example are perhaps the nomen and cognomen ofthe dedicator -- Harvey Sheldon suggests the name may have been Maeeilius Fuseus, a governor (probably AD 238-241 or 244) whose name is found on a dedication inscription for the rebuilding ofthe headquarters at LanchesterY The 1902 sandstone fragment has NU as the first letters in one line (Fig. 3, RIB 37) and may be a similar dedication. The PPBRLON stamped tile (Fig. 4) is the second important individual find from GMA99. The stamp is thought to signify the official tilery ofthe procurators, whose office, based in London, was charged with imperial property and finances in the province. The letters arc interpreted as P[ROCURATORES] P[ROVINCIAE] BR[ITANNIAE] LON[DJNI]. The tileries appear to have been centred around Watling Street kiln sites north-west ofLondon, source ofthe majority oftiles from Greenwich Park. The proportion of output which was stamped is unknown, but Betts notes that fewer than I% tiles excavated in London are stamped, so they are rare finds. H Thirteen different stamps are known (some only or also related to mortarium stamps). Die 5 examples such as the Greenwich specimen, other instances ofwhich have been found around the amphitheatre area of London, are some ofthe least common. Evidence shows thal procuratorial Fig 5: remains of a largely robbed-out wall found In tiles were in primary use only between about AD Trench 316. The procuratorial tile was recovered 70 and 120, and most ofthe c. 200 stamped tiles from two of the post holes next to the wall. excavated come from sites related lo presumed from 1902 have proven to be fragments ofone or public buildings ofthe 1st and 2nd centuries in the two column bases. The diameter for both is City ofLondon and Southwark, such as the approximately 0.68-0.70m, and analogy with Huggin Hill baths, 81. Peter's Hill complex, similar torus mouldings at Fishbourne would give "palace", forum/basilica, fort and amphitheatreY a column shaft ofc. 0.5601 and a height of 16.1 Complete tegulae were also recently excavated Roman feet, or 4.76rn,29 a size appropriate to a from the Gresham Street eastern well, dated portico support or even a free standing column. provisionally to the early 2nd eentury.JS Other examples have been recovered from points in the An examination ofthe fragments of inscribed upper Walbrook valley, and a few outliers have stone from 1902/3 appears to show that, contrary been found at Westminster (one fragment), to RIB 37-39, there may be four, not three, Barking (two fragments), and possibly Saunderton separate inscriptions.30 With the 1999 discovery, Villa, Bucks (one fragment). These are without therefore, Greenwich Park may now boast Jive known official status, so it is possible the tiles inscriptions, making this an extremely rare site in were also sold for private buildings.JO south-eastern Britain. The inscription from 1999 (Fig. 3, GMA99) has been posited as a dedication In the next issue, Part 2 will cover further finds to [NU]MIN[I AUG] 0' [NU]MIN[IBUS AUGG] and discuss the results from the Greenwich Park -- the spirit(s) ofthe emperor(s) -- by de la excavations.

52 London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 Acknowledgements especially to Sue Pringle and Robin Symonds for The excavation organisers arc grateful to the additional input on building material and pottery.l Royal Parks for granting permission to dig in am also grateful to Julian Bowsher of MoLAS Greenwich Park. The funding and assistance from (and chair ofthe Greenwich History Society) for Time Team for post-excavation work is greatly his coin reports on the site and a briefing on local appreciated. Among those who have generously Greenwich archaeology. Martin Millen's contributed time and expertise to unravelling the contributions on interpretation ofthe site have complexities ofthe history ofthc site and its finds also been helpful. I particularly appreciate the are Julian Watson and Frances Ward ofthe good will and guidance ofHedley Swain, Greenwich Local History Library, Dr Ralph Museum of London, and Harvey Sheldon, Jackson ofthe British Museum, Beverley Burford Birkbeck College, who provided the opportunity and Chris Ford ofthe Greenwich Borough to study the site in depth and prepare the archive Museum, Ian Nichols ofthe Royal Naval College, report. The initial work for this article was Penny MacConnoran ofMoLSS and Katie Hirst, completed for my dissertation for a Birkbeck former Time Team archaeologist. Thanks arc due Diploma in Field Archaeology. Any errors in this to the MoLSS specialists for their reports, article are mine.

I. 'Roman Remains in Greenwich Park' Ken/ish Mercury 7 February 1902. 2. Royal Commission on thc Historical Monuments ofEngland 1994 Greenwich Park, an Archaeological Survey Reporr for /he Na/ional Monumen/s Record Part 2. 3. A. D. Webster 1902 Greenwich Park: Its His/my and A~·s(Jciati(Jn.s. 4. 'Roman Remains in Greenwich Park' Blackheath Local Guide and Dis/ric/ Adverriser I March 1902. 5. H. Jones MS Address to thc Archaeologieallnstitute [presumably the Royal Archaeological Institute -- see fn 9J (Greenwich Local History Library)1902: Jones notes "Sevcraltrcllches wcre run upon the top ofthe Hill but the results not having becn found vcry satisfactory chiefly in consequence ofthe confined space and ofthe necessity of almost immediately filling them up, which arose from the exigencies ofa public London Park, it was dccided to clear and turnover the whole ofthe soil ofthe site leaving open anything found in situ but filling in again as quickly as might be the unoccupied ground." 6. See e.g. Ken/ish Mercury 21 March 1902, Daily Graphic 31 March 1902, Lewisham Borough News 27 February 1902, and Trans Woolwich Dis/ric/ An/iquarian Soc 1902. 7.0pcitfn3. 8.lt is not even clear who supervised the work: Jones credits Webster with directing the excavations in H. Jones 'Roman Remains in Greenwich Park' Home Coun/ies Magazine Vol 5 (1903) 223-226; but Wcbslcr (op cit fn 3) acknowledges Jones' assistance and later writers lend to credit Jones with the work. Elliston Erwood, excavator in 1916 ofehadton Roman settlement and a later member ofthe Antiquarian Society founded by Jones, held Jones" in the main responsible" for the excavations, and decried his lack ofattention' 'to the important matter ofstratification" in F. C. Elliston Erwood 'Roman Remains from Greenwich Park' Tram. Greenwich Lewisham AnliquarianSoc 3, no 1,(1924)62-75. 9. The ArchaeologicalJournal, Proceedings, June 4th 1902. Vol LlX, 2nd ser. vol ix (1902) 21 0; sce fn 5. 10. Jones opcil fn 8, with article pp 49-55 same vol 11. Recorded by F.e. Elliston Erwood op cil fn 8, 62. 12. Inscriptions and carved ivory pieces have been in the British Museum since 1906. Other finds were placed in the Borough Museum in Plumstead in 1964, having been stored at (he borough library, Charlton House and other locatiol).s overthe years. Much was apparently lost, looted or destroyed during WWII when Charlton 1·louse was bombed (J Watson,pers. comm.). 13. J. W. Stone 'Antiquarian NOles' 01) cit fn 8, no 2 (1925), 45-6; H. W. Ord 'The History ofthe Greenwich Anliquarian Society' ibid, no 3 (1927),128-132. 14. Scant mentions arc found in the. Minutes or the Greenwich and Lewisham Antiq Soc MS, and in Anliquarian Notes sections ofthe Society's Transaclions, vol I and III. 15.0pci/fn3,71. 16. RC!'IM (England) An irtvenlory of/he His/oricol Monuments in London Vol 1J/ Roman London. (1928) Wheeler apparently accepted evidence in Ephemeris Epig. IX 992 that one ofthe inscriptions included the letters CULAP,

London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 53 which could be interpreted as Aesculapio RIB, and recent inspection by the author, Hedley Swain and Dr Ralph Jackson ofthe British Museum, show the last letter as a convincing R, not P. The cast in the Greenwich Borough Museum may be the source ofthe confusion, as Ihe leller there appears more P-likc. 17. M. J. T. Lewis Temples in (1966) 126. 18 B. Platts'A Lost City ofSouth London' Country Life (1969) 1236-38. 19. Many previously reported tinds, some ofwhich appeared on early OS maps, have proven to be post-medieval objects or the result ofconfusion. Recent unpublishedexcavalions in Greenwich have only produccd stray fragmcnts ofRoman poltery (J. Watson and J. M. C. Bowsher,pers. comm.). 20.1'1. Sheldon and B. Yule 'Excavations in Greenwich Park 1978-9' London Archaeol J, no 12 (1979) 311-317. 21. Time Team EvaluOlion ofa Raman Site in the Royal Park aI Greenwich: Project Design (unpublished 1999); see also H. Swain and H. Shcldon 'Roman Greenwich' Currenl Archaeol14, no 167,440; H. Swain and H. Sheldon 'Romans in Grccnwich' Minerva 11, 3, 6. 22. Hassall, who examined four fragmenl~, including the two stamped ones, concludes that the pieces almost cenainly fit togcther, although naked edges make the join imperfcct. R. S. O. Tomlin and M. W. C, Hassall . Inscriptions' Brilunnia 31 (2000) 439-446. 23. The surviving archive at Greenwich Borough Museum was examined by the lIuthor lind Sue Pringle. The collection was last catalogued when it was accessioned after the amalgamation ofboroughs in 1964 (Beverley Burford,pers. comm.). Uirge quantities ofpottery appear to be missing, Apart from the coins, none ofthe matcrial from the 1978/9 excavation was available for inspection at the time ofwriting as it was in storage outside London during the refurbishment ofthe archive. Only the coins have been assessed by specialists. 24. S. Pringle A.I·.~e.ument oflhe ceramic building ma/erial andpain/ed wail pla~'lerfrom Greenwich Park (GMA99) unpublished MoLSS specialist report. 2001. 25. Op Cil fn 3. The bricks in the Plumstead Museum are labelled as tile, accounting for Webstcr's llssertion that . 'exceptionally heavy roofing tiles" were found. 26. Opeit fn 17,43. 27. The only use in .~ilu in London is aspilae in tne hypocaust at 15-30 Southwark Street. (S. Pringle,per.I'. comm.), 28. S. Pringle, pers comm. 29. S. Pringle Greenwich Park Building Materials unpublished MoLSS specialist report, 2001. 30. RIB inscription 398 is 2-3mm thinner than 39A and C, closer to the thickness ofthe uninseribed fragments in the archive. A total offour inscriptions in fact accords with Jones' description in his 1902 address (opcil, fn 5). All the fragments in the British Museum except RID 37 are ofCarrara marble (S Pringle,pcrs. comm.). 31. G. de la Bedoyere Companion 10 Roman Eriwin (1999) 182; accepted as feasible by Hassall op cit fn 22. 32. RIB 1092; H. Sheldon,pcrs. comm. 33, l. M. Betts 'Procuratorial Tile Stamps from London' Britannia 26 (1995) 207-229. 34. Martin Milieu cautions against the association ofPPBR tiles as a marhrofpublic buildings as sometimes buildings have been presumed to be public by vinue ofthe prcsence ofstampcd tiles (M Millctt,pers. comm.). 35. S. Pringle,pers comm. 36. Op cit fn 33. Books

Discovering London for Families areas, and gives details of tourist information Peter Matthews centres. This is followed by a detailed listing of major events, including daily routines such as the Shire Publications, 2001 Changing of the Guard and the Ceremony of the 128 pages. maps and many colourful illustrations, Keys, and annual events such as the Chinese index. £9.99 paperback New Year, the Boat Race, the London Marathon, Many guides to London have been published Trooping the Colour and the Lord Mayor's Show. through the years, so what has London for Families got to offer? Its introduction offers A brief history of London is given, starting with guidance on how to get :=.round by public the establishment of Roman Londinium and the transport. itemises the main shopping and eating development of the Saxon settlement, and

54 London Archaeologist Autumn 2002