Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:03:47.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cirencester, 1960: First Interim Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

John S. Wacher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most spectacular sections of the great mound, which embodies the rampart and town wall of Roman Cirencester, is visible in the grounds of St. Mary's Abbey Estate (pl. XIX). The exploitation of this area of the estate for building, bordering upon the London Road and Grove Lane, required excavation on as large a scale as possible, since the total area involved was about 11 acres. Accordingly, excavation took place during March and April 1960 for a period of seven weeks. It was, however, obviously impossible to trench the whole area with the available resources, and it was decided to concentrate upon a detailed study of the town defences, which, with the exception of a single section cut in 1952 by Miss M. Rennie in the Watermoor Recreation Ground at the south-east corner of the town, had not hitherto been systematically examined. This policy implied that any buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Wall would be left unexplored; but it was vindicated by a resistivity survey made by Mr. Anthony Clark, F.S.A., after the excavations had finished, which recorded only one stone building in the whole area. The walls of this building are only a few inches below the surface, and are being uncovered and planned by Mr. Peter Broxton, so that not all is lost.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 41 , Issue 1-2 , April 1961 , pp. 63 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 63 note 1 Antiq. Journ. xxxvii, 206 ff.

page 64 note 1 It is doubtful whether these conclusions could have been reached without the contribution of Canon L. W. Grensted, whose identification of certain freshwater molluscs from the ditch provided the necessary evidence for the presence of running water. Cirencester Arch. and Hist. Soc. Report for year 1960–1, p. 14.

page 64 note 2 A Survey of Romano-British Town Defences of the early and middle Second Century. Publication forthcoming.

page 64 note 3 Op. cit., fig. 2.

page 64 note 4 Ibid.

page 65 note 1 Cf. Aldborough (Y.A.J. xl. (1), fig. 20), and also Brough-on-Humber (unpublished).

page 65 note 2 Cf. Gates at Verulamium, Verulamium, pp. 63 ff.

page 67 note 1 Arch. lxxx, 260.

page 67 note 2 Arch. xcii, 130.

page 68 note 1 A possible parallel is that at Dorchester(Oxon.), where it was concluded from the evidence of one trench that the stone revetment covered the rear of the rampart for its full length. Oxon. ii, 46.

page 68 note 2 Op. cit., p. 210.

page 68 note 3 Arch. lxiii, pl. XLII.

page 68 note 4 Sussex Arch. Coll. 95, pl. III, facing p. 121.

page 68 note 5 Arch. lxxx, 263 ff.

page 68 note 6 Op. cit., pl. xxvb, and fig. 2.

page 69 note 1 The difference in form of the two abutments should be noted.

page 71 note 1 The South Gate. Arch. lxxx, 257 ff.

page 71 note 2 The West Gate. Ibid. lii, 754 ff.

page 71 note 3 The Balkerne Gate. Hull, M. R., Roman Colchester, p. 19.Google Scholar