Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:30:30.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology and Research into Sea-Level during the Roman Era: Towards a Methodology Based on Highest Astronomical Tide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

A.C. Waddelove  and
E. Waddelove
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During post glacial times relative land- and sea-levels have changed continuously but inconsistently, for reasons which are complex and numerous. Relevant studies can be found ‘among the works of astronomers, geophysicists, geologists, geomor-phologists, hydrographers, oceanographers, climatologists, biologists, archaeologists, historians, land surveyors, civil engineers’ and even ‘etc’. Further investigations ‘to identify and quantify the processes of sea-level change by producing detailed local histories that can be analysed and correlated’ have been undertaken by geographers: their approach involves the radiocarbon analysis of organic samples, but the difficulties encountered in fixing the exact position of these, determining the actual tidal level which they represent and assessing the errors associated with the dating method are recognised. It might, therefore, be expected that archaeological evidence from the Roman period, to which remains of major structures erected at locations on coasts and estuaries can be assigned with some certainty from the associated epigraphic, numismatic or ceramic finds, would make an important contribution to studies on sea-level changes. The findings, however, have often been ignored or repudiated, especially when they conflict with the deductions offered by researchers in other disciplines.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 21 , November 1990 , pp. 253 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © A.C. Waddelove and E. Waddelove 1990. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 Everard, C.E., ‘On Sea-Level Changes’ in Thompson, F.H. (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change (London, 1980), 1.Google Scholar

2 Tooley, M.J., ‘Sea-level studies’ in Tooley, M.J. and Shennan, I., Sea-level Changes (Oxford, 1987), 10–11.Google Scholar

3 Heyworth, A. and Kidson, C., ‘Sea-level changes in southwest England and in Wales’, Proceedings of the Geologists Association (IGCP Project 61) xciii (1982), 95–100.Google Scholar

4 See for example Akeroyd, A.V., ‘Archaeological and historical evidence for subsidence in southern Britain’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 272 (1972), 151–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hawkins, A.B., ‘Sea level changes around South-West England’ in Blackman, D.J. (ed.), Marine Archaeology (London, 1973), 67–87Google Scholar; and M.J. Tooley, ‘Theories of Coastal Change in North-West England’ in Thompson, op. cit. (note 1), esp. 84.

5 Waddelove, A.C., The Development of a Roman Road Network: the Lower Dee Valley Region before AD 138 (unpublished University of Manchester MPhil thesis, 1986), 199–204.Google Scholar

6 Evidence from an excavation by the present authors of the road to the south-west, summarised in Frere, S.S., ‘Roman Britain in 1982’, Britannia xiv (1983), 280Google Scholar, was included and discussed by Waddelove, op. cit. (note 5), 233–6, 248, 294–6 and pls. 36–8, but has been cited without explanation by Petch, D.F., ‘The Roman Period’ in Harris, B.E. (ed.), Victoria County History of Cheshire I (London, 1987), 219Google Scholar in support of the conventional argument originally proposed by Jones, H.L., ‘Roman Remains in Wales HI’, Arch. Camb.2 v (1854), 269, 272.Google Scholar

7 Wacher, J.S., Excavations at Brough-on-Humber 1958–1961 (London, 1969), 76–81.Google Scholar

8 Ogilvie, J.D., ‘The Fleet Causeway’ in Cunliffe, B.W. (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (London, 1968), 37–40.Google Scholar

9 Cunliffe, B., Britannia xi (1980), 284–8.Google Scholar

10 Amin, M., ‘A Note on Extreme Tidal Levels’, International Hydrographie Review lvi (July, 1979), 133–41, esp. fig 2.Google Scholar

11 de Bello Gallico IV, 28–9 and 31.

12 Strabo, Geographica IV, 5, 3. At the end of the first century Tacitus (de Vita Agricolae 10, 6) noted that many writers had discussed tides and added with reference to Britain: ‘nusquam latius dominari mare … nee litore tenus aderescere aut resorben, sed influere penitus atque ambire’.

13 Thomas, C., Exploration of a Drowned Landscape (London, 1985), 23–4.Google Scholar

14 Milne, G., The Port of Roman London (London, 1985), 81–4.Google Scholar

15 Murray, W.M., ‘The Ancient Harbour of Palairos’ in Raban, A. (ed.), Harbour Archaeology BAR Int. Ser. 257 (1985), 79 and fn. 22Google Scholar , Hemming, citing N.C. in Special Papers of the Geological Society of America 109 (1969), 8–9.Google Scholar

16 Phillips, C.W. (ed.), The Fenland in Roman Times (London, 1970).Google Scholar

17 As illustrated by the drop of 10ft. 8ins. (3.25m) between 1848 and 1932 in Godwin, H., Fenland: its ancient past and uncertain future (Cambridge, 1978), pl. 35.Google Scholar

18 Phillips, op. cit. (note 16), 292–3.

19 ibid., 290, although in Table 1 the appropriate HAT for Tabs Head is given as +4.7m (15ft. 5ins.) OD, a difference due presumably to the narrow channel of the River Weiland causing the additional rise. For a similar increase in the Dee at Chester see note 77 below.

20 ibid., 327.

21 Subsequently this road was found to be overlain by a silt of unknown origin, to the west at Flaggrass, during excavations by Potter, T.W., Britannia xii (1981), 118Google Scholar: ‘However … at 6–7 feet above Ordnance Datum, it is at about the level of third-century flood-horizons elsewhere in the central Fenland and precisely the height of the layer of silt dividing two phases of metalling of the Fen Causeway at Upwell. It is possible, then, that the Causeway at Flaggrass had been sealed beneath a flood-deposit of mid-Roman date and that an upper surface has disappeared.’

22 P. Salway, ‘The Roman Fenland’ in Phillips, op. cit. (note 16), 3.

23 Graham, A.H., ‘The Geology of North Southwark and its Topographical Development in the Post-Pleistocene Period’ in Bird, J., Graham, A.H., Sheldon, H. and Townend, P. (eds.), Southwark Excavations 1972–1974 (London, 1978), 502–4, 508–10, fig. 4.Google Scholar

24 A.H. Graham, ‘The Bonded Warehouse, Montague Close’ in Bird et al., op. cit. (note 23), 239.

25 Graham, op. cit. (note 23), 511.

26 E. Ferretti and A.H. Graham, ‘201–211 Borough High Street’ in Bird et al., op. cit. (note 23), 61.

27 ibid., fig. 18, Section M-N.

28 ibid., 61.

29 Milne, op. cit. (note 14), 81.

30 ibid., 37.

31 idem.

32 Sheldon, H., Trans. London Middx. Arch. Soc. xxv (1974), 1–116.Google Scholar

33 ibid., 14.

34 ibid., where figs. 4, 11 and 13, for example, recorded respectively red daub, clay and gravel floors.

35 J. Bird and A.H. Graham, ‘Gazetteer of Roman Sites in Southwark’ in Bird et al., op. cit. (note 23), 517–26.

36 G. Dennis, ‘1–7 St Thomas Street’ in Bird et al., op. cit. (note 23), 317.

37 Graham, op. cit. (note 23), 516.

38 H.L. Sheldon, ‘The 1972–74 Excavations: Their Contribution to Southwark's History’ in Bird et al., op. cit. (note 23), 46 citing Kenyon, K.M., Excavations in Southwark (Guildford, 1959), 14.Google Scholar

39 Bird and Graham, op. cit. (note 35), esp. fig. 227.

40 Graham, op. cit. (note 23), 516.

41 Marsden, P.R.V., Trans. London Middx. Arch. Soc. xxi (1965), 118–31.Google Scholar

42 Graham, op. cit. (note 23), 514; 516.

43 The evidence for this is Bird and Graham, op. cit. (note 35), 523 Site 57, for which the only indication of occupation, almost equidistant between the two roads, was a few sherds at c.+0.9111 (2ft. uins.) OD under waterlaid clays reaching a height of +2.44m (8ft.) OD.

44 ibid., 523 Site 53 (Road 1) and 520 Site 16 (Road 2).

45 H. Sheldon, ‘93–95 Borough High Street’ in Bird et al., op. cit. (note 23), 423–30.

46 Evans, J.H., Arch. Cant. lxvi (1953), 132.Google Scholar

47 Milne, op. cit. (note 14), 84.

48 Rigóid, S.E., Arch. Journ. cxxvi (1969), 90.Google Scholar

49 idem.

50 idem.

51 ibid., 92.

52 ibid., fig. 1.

53 Rahtz, P.A., Arch. Cant. lxxii (1958), 112–7Google Scholar ; 131–5.

54 Rigoid, op. cit. (note 48), 84–5, esp. Sites 13 and 19.

55 ibid., 83.

56 The dates included in the reports by Rigold, op. cit. (note 48), 82–9 and Rahtz, op. cit. (note 53), 116 were not accepted by Philp, B., The Excavation of the Roman Forts of the Classis Britannica at Dover, 1970–1977 (Dover, 1981), 1–2Google Scholar; 97–9; but see Breeze, D.J., Britannia xiv (1983), 373–4Google Scholar where the ‘attempt to relate the successive phases in the fort to events on the northern frontier’ was questioned.

57 Thomas, op. cit. (note 13), 25–6 and esp. fig. 2.

58 ibid., 26.

59 Boon, G.C., ‘Excavations on the Site of a Roman Quay at Caerleon and Its Significance’ in Boon, G.C. (ed.), Monographs and Collections: I Roman Sites (Cardiff, 1978), 5–9.Google Scholar

60 ibid., 2.

61 ibid., 4.

62 ibid., fig. 6B.

63 ibid., 4.

64 ibid., 10 and note 46.

65 ibid., 9.

66 ibid., 2.

67 Wright, R.P. and Richmond, I.A., The Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester (Chester, 1955), 47–8 No. 197, pl. XLIV.Google Scholar

68 Watkin, W.T., Roman Cheshire (Liverpool, 1886), 163Google Scholar; Shrubsole, G.W., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. NS i (1887), 79–85Google Scholar; Shone, W., The Antiquary xv (1887), 132.Google Scholar

69 Shrubsole, op. cit. (note 68), 79–81 and 89.

70 ibid., 82.

71 Shone, W., Prehistoric Man in Cheshire (Chester, 1911), Appendix I, 101–6.Google Scholar

72 ibid., fig. 41.

73 ibid., 101.

74 Hunter, R., ‘Notes on the Construction, and Experience in the Working, of the Gadd and Mason Spiral Guided Holder at the Chester Gas-Works’, Transactions of the Incorporated Gas Institute (1897), 81.Google Scholar

75 ibid., fig. 1.

76 Weston, A.E., ‘The Measurement of Interactive Freshwater and Tidal Flows in the River Dee, North Wales’, Journ. Inst. Water Engineers and Scientists (January, 1979), 76.Google Scholar

77 Laver's Liverpool Tide Table (Liverpool, 1985) predicted that there would be a tide of +10.im (33ft. 2ins.) OD, only 0.2m (8ins.) below HAT, on 8 March 1985 and, when the figure obtained then from personal observations at Wilcox's Point in Chester was compared with the corresponding one for Liverpool, provided in a pers. comm. by The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the difference of ift. 2ins. resulted.

78 Murray, op. cit. (note 15), 80, note 23 stated ‘that true dinghy docks average about 0.5m [1ft. 8ins.] in height’ and, if that margin applied here, it would be indicative of a HAT some 8ins. (0.2m) lower than calculated.

79 Hume, A., Ancient Meols (London, 1863).Google Scholar

80 Ecroyd Smith, H., The Reliquary v (1865), 212, pl. XVIII.Google Scholar

81 Thompson, F.H., Roman Cheshire (Chester, 1965), 98–9.Google Scholar

82 Massie, W.H., Journ. Chester Arch. Soc. OS i (1857), 55–60, 68–77.Google Scholar

83 ibid., facing p.56.

84 Dymond, D.P., Arch. Journ. cxviii (1961), 155Google Scholar included it as a bridge in the category which denoted that a Roman origin was reasonably certain and Margary, I.D., Roman Roads in Britain (2d edn., London, 1967), 300Google Scholar noted how it could have been associated with M670, but Bonser, W., A Romano-British Bibliography (55BC – AD440) (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar, failed to incorporate any reference to the Massie paper and Petch, op. cit. (note 6), 219, note 79 preferred to interpret the structure as a probable wharf, although reasons for this were not given.

85 Fergusson Irvine, W., ‘Birkenhead's Buried Bridge’, The Cheshire Sheaf liii (June 1958)Google Scholar, item 10,340 recorded how, at the behest of W. Boyd Dawkins many years previously, enquiries about the capabilities of the railway engineer had been made ‘and resulted in a report from the then authorities of The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, speaking in the highest terms of the then late Mr Snow, both as to his great care and accuracy’ in the work that he undertook.

86 Shrolbred, J.N., ‘On Tides in the Irish Sea and in the River Mersey’, Proceedings of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool xxxii (1878), 383.Google Scholar

87 Collingwood, R.G. and Richmond, I.A., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (London, 1969), 2Google Scholar cite examples of road bridges with stone piers and timber superstructures in Britain, similar to the Trajanic one over the Danube, across the Kelvin at Balmuildy, Tyne at Newcastle, Corbridge and Chesters, Irthing at Willowford, Eden at Carlisle, Tees at Piercebridge and Nene at Castor.