Appendix 4 Market Buildings and Shops W1 Market Buildings, New / Comprehensively Rebuilt Of dimensions, the structure measures ca. 27.8 m by The study of market buildings in Late Antiquity is somewhat ca. 30.1 m, hand-measuring off the plan. difficult, when compared to Roman macella of the first Of architectural form, this phase of the complex saw a three centuries AD or market halls of the Hellenistic pe- substantial rebuilding, with the replacement of the inter- riod. Firstly, the architectural form of new market build- nal rooms and their courtyard by a design based on an aisle ings is less well-defined than it was in earlier centuries. and two naves, represented by two long walls with piers at When compared with ecclesiastical architecture from the “10 ft” (3.05 m) intervals, which may have supported vault- same period, late market buildings seem heterogeneous. ing over the central aisle, whilst the apse in the east wall Their identification rests on: (i) an inscription (as at Ostia); was levelled and a new wall built further back [although (ii) their form, echoing that of earlier structures (as at this ‘further back’ wall does not appear on the plan for this Geneva and at Athens, although the latter is too large); phase]. Along the street façade, to the west, the veranda (iii) their physical connection to a site where an exist- was replaced by a massive frontage supporting a portico or ing market building is well-attested (as at St. Bertrand or monumental entrance, with a foundation of 19 ft (5.79 m) Sagalassos); (iv) finds and paving details (Geneva produced by 7 ft (2.13 m) set down on its northern end, perhaps to a deposit of sheep and cattle bones; Ostia had holes for the support an arched side entrance, in the view of the report canopies of stalls). In contrast, resemblances in architec- author. The surface in part of this area was of pebbles tural form are rarely enough to be convincing: Ostia and (p. 88). Whilst the plan has changed, the degree of change St. Bertrand have no central roundel, for example. Even so, is small, and there is nothing on site to indicate a change typologies do seem to exist: either of a porticoed plaza set in function. back from the road, of cellular rooms set around a small Of internal features, adjacent to the former apse in the courtyard, or of the persisting Hellenistic market build- east wall were inserted two large rectangular blocks of ma- ing, at a time when old courtyard macella are still repaired. sonry, of which the first is 16 ft 3 inches (4.95 m) by 10 ft 3 The absence of a universal standard form of macellum is inches (3.12 m) by 8 ft in depth (2.44 m)), and the second best thought of in terms of a time where existing types of 14 ft 3inches (4.34 m) long, with no other dimensions re- structure that were slowly disappearing: there were few ex- ported. These foundations may have supported statues [a amples of any market buildings built anew in the 4th c., bit too large for this] or possibly water tanks (the sugges- and perhaps only one after. Increasing irregularity should tion of the report author, perhaps because they respect an be expected, as this tradition of building came to an end. earlier drain). Repairs to market buildings in Late Antiquity can present Of phasing and dating, the late work is characterised by difficulties, at least when they are not based on an inscrip- coarse and unfinished masonry, very different to the previ- tion. In some cases (as at Verulamium), it is not certain ous building. It is particularly visible in the piers abutting that the repairs to a market building reflect continuity of the west wall, which are unequal in size and not straight function, although in others we do have some suggestion (p. 88). I am not tempted, as is the report author (p. 89), to from fixtures and fittings (as at Ostia, with its odd drains) connect the phase 5 building work to the alleged ‘renewal’ or from finds within (as at Thasos). Thus, the reader should of the city under Constantius Chlorus after the reconquest keep a critical spirit in reviewing the examples proposed of Britain from Allectus. Rather, I prefer to base the dating here, but should also realise that we are not in the same on some Rhenish and Castor Ware found in a foundation position in terms of the clarity and quantity of evidence as trench (thought to be late 3rd to early 4th c.), whilst a sub- we were for earlier centuries. sequent repair of a metalled surface inside the north-west 01BRI Verulamium (2): The courtyard macellum at entrance yielded a coin of Constantius II (AD 340–61). For Verulamium was rebuilt, along with a new monumental the pottery finds, see p. 120, which are described as “a few street portico, in the early 4th c. AD (called the “3rd stone sherds of Castor Ware in white clay coated with highly me- building”): K.M. Richardson, “Report on excavations at tallic black slip and fragments of Rhenish ware”. They are Verulamium: Insula XVII 1938”, Archaeologia 90 (1944) illustrated on fig. 18 on p. 121. Today, Castor Ware is known (81–126) 88–89 with plan of late antique phase on pl. 22. as Nene Valley Colour Coated Wares and its dating falls into This macellum is not on a forum, being two insulae away 150–400 on Potsherd.net. Today Rhenish Ware is known as from it. Trier black-slipped ware (‘Moselkeramik’) and it is widely © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423824_019 Luke Lavan - 9789004423824 Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 05:11:13AM via free access APPENDIX 4: W1 Market Buildings, New / Comprehensively Rebuilt 903 distributed in Lower Germany and Britain during the 2nd come from two separate areas. Firstly, we have the fill of and 3rd c. AD: 180–250 on Potsherd.net. I am not qualified a sewer which produced 2nd c. material, from US 8374 to judge what date within these time frames the relevant (amphora Gauloise 4 [50–300 RADR], Drag. 37 de Montans wares should now be given, which is a problem, as the empâté [ca. AD 70–165 (S. Willis pers. comm. 2017)]) and overall revised range of these wares looks earlier than the US 8368 (coin of Faustina, of after 141 [must be before her report envisaged. In consequence, I prefer to note the aes- death in 175]) and US 8402 (Dr. 23 dated at earliest to the thetic disjuncture of the irregularly-sized and un-straight 3rd c. [Dressel 23 is 200–512.5 RADR]). Secondly, imme- piers of the façade, which does make a date after the mid- diately outside the north wall of the complex, associated 3rd c. likely. There does not seem to be any dating evidence material was recovered of the second half of the 2nd or to give a TAQ for the macellum construction. The single first half of the 3rd c. (sondage 9 US 8093, 8095, 8096). The coin of 340–61 from the repair to the surface is not enough dating of the second group of material is difficult to cal- to do this: it only provides a TPQ for the repair. Rather we culate, as authors seem to disagree with each other. In the must take a generic TAQ of 400, based on regional develop- main text, Fabre and Paillet tell us that some of this 2nd / ment, as no civic secular building work is known after this first half of 3rd c. material has been dated later by Atlante date in Britain. (to the 4th to beginning of the 5th c.), although they do Of function, the unconventional final plan does make not agree with these later datings. In the ceramic report, one wonder if it was still a macellum in the 4th c., or if per- Réchin believes that the same material indicates a date of haps it could have become a basilica-like building with an the end of the 3rd or 4th c. for the last phase of the monu- audience function, such as a secretarium. ment. Our difficulties increase as the authors of the main Dating summary (comprehensive rebuilding of macel- text do not specify which wares are uncertain / possibly lum): range 250–400, midpoint 325, class Cs5 (catch-all, late, amongst many listed for these deposits. In the ceram- aesthetic disjuncture), z (regional development), publica- ics report, the relevant sherds can be identified on Réchin tion 3/3. (2009) 243. Dating summary (repair): range 340–400, midpoint 370, Thus, the following sherds are critical to the revised dat- class Cs7 (TPQ coin), z (regional development), publica- ing of état 3: (i) the first ceramic is Hayes 23B = Lamboglia tion 3/3. 10A on Atlante p. 217 [Hayes 23B is 100–400 Bon]. This type 04VIE St. Bertrand de Comminges (‘portique en pi’): This is a is mentioned on Fabre and Paillet (2009) 130 as coming porticoed square, which was built so as to project from the from US 8096, which is considered to be a demolition layer, south side of the macellum, a basilica-like structure which being notable for the presence of building debris within was demolished in this phase (‘état 3’). At the same time, a it. (ii) The second ceramic is Hayes 197 / Ostia I 267 (from new basilical hall may have replaced the macellum, on the the same context US 8096), which is dated by DCAMNO to north side of the square (only a possible tribunal at one end 175–250, by Hayes to end of 2nd to end of 3rd, and at Ostia survives): G.