Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:00:43.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman Lincoln, 1953

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

F. H. Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The excavations carried out by the Lincoln Archaeological Research Committee during 1953 dealt with two sites of a very different nature, although of the same period. Yet together they provide a useful illustration of the two principal aspects of the history of Roman Lincoln and also of two types of archaeological investigation demanded in an urban centre. The first excavation, in East Bight, was deliberately undertaken in an attempt to find answers to certain problems relating to the early military and quasi-military occupation of Lincoln and was excavated methodically and without haste; the second was a hasty examination during building operations at no. 292 High Street where a structure, apparently connected with the communal life of the town in its later period of expansion, demanded immediate investigation, without the opportunity for unhurried and detailed examination.

The first excavations of the Research Committee, in 1945–6, at Westgate and North Row (fig. 2), resolved once and for all the question of the general siting of the Claudian fortress of the Ninth Legion and, in particular, demonstrated that on north and west the legionary defences underlay those of the later Colonia. These conclusions suggested the possibility that the defences might similarly coincide on south and east also, where the line of the Colonia wall was known; but, as Professor I. A. Richmond pointed out, if this was so, the area of the legionary fortress would only have been approximately 42 acres whereas a minimum of 50 acres might have been expected.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 1-2 , November 1956 , pp. 22 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © F. H. Thompson 1956. 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 JRS XXXIX (1949), 57–78Google Scholar.

2 Arch. Journ., CIII, 27.

3 ibid. 28.

4 The Committee is deeply indebted to Mr. H. A. Allman initially and subsequently to Dr. and Mrs. G. C. Wells-Cole for permission to excavate and for their forbearance and encouragement in the face of the resultant disturbance to the garden.

5 CIL XIII, 6679; cf. Arch. Journ., CIII, 29.

6 cf. JRS XL, 99.

7 I am much indebted to Professor I. A. Richmond, who studied the section, for a thorough and helpful discussion of the various features and their interpretation, and other assistance.

8 cf. JRS XXXIX, 63–4, for their recognition at Westgate and North Row.

9 Mr. J. P. Gillam kindly made a critical examinaion of the group as a whole and agrees with this dating.

10 See above, p. 22.

11 JRS XXXIX, 68.

12 JRS XL, 99.

13 I am indebted to Mr. J. X. L. Myres, F.S.A., for examining the sherd and suggesting this line of argument. On the whole question of Anglian Lincoln, cf. the same writer in Arch, Journ., CIII, 85–88.

14 I am indebted to Dr. C. H. V. Sutherland for pointing this out to me.

15 C. F. C. Hawkes and M. R. Hull, Camulodunum, (1947; Soc. Ant. Research Rep. no. 14).

16 Arch. Camb., XCV (1940), 101–152Google Scholar.

17 P. Corder, The Defences of the Roman Fort at Malton (Roman Malton and District Report no. 2).

18 James Curle, A Roman Frontier Post and its People (1911).

19 J. P. Bushe-Fox, Second Report on Excavations at Wroxeter, 1913 (Soc. Ant. Research Rep. no. 2).

20 K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at the Jewry Wall Site, Leicester (1948) (Soc. Ant. Research Rep.no. 15).

21 Wheeler, R. E. M., The Roman Fort near Brecon ( Y Cymmrodor, XXXVII)Google Scholar.

22 Grimes, W. F., Holt: The Works-Depot of the Twentieth Legion at Castle Lyons (Y Cymmrodor, XLI)Google Scholar.

23 Arch. Aeliana,3 VIII.

24 F. Oswald, The Commandant's House at Margidunum (1948).

25 P. Corder and T. Romans, Excavations at the Roman Town at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1936.

26 J. P. Bushe-Fox, Third Report on Excavations at Wroxeter, 1914 (Soc. Ant. Research Rep. no. 4.).

27 J. P. Bushe-Fox, Fourth Report on Excavations at Richborough (Soc. Ant. Research Rep.no. 16).

28 T. May, The Pottery Found at Silchester (1916).

29 Arch. Aeliana,4 XXVIII, 177–201.

30 Cambridge Antiq. Soc. 4to Pubns., New Series, VI.

31 Corder, P., Excavations at Elmswell, East Yorkshire, 1938 (Hull Museum Publication no. 207)Google Scholar.

32 Lincs. Topographical Society, 1841–2, 88. Cf. Arch. Journ., CIII, 44.

33 The Committee is indebted to both Messrs. Meaker, Ltd., and Messrs. Wm. Wright & Son, Ltd., for affording facilities for further investigation and particularly to Mr. G. Holmes, the site foreman, for practical help in many ways. Thanks are also due to the City Engineer, Mr. A. Adlington, and his staff for their co-operation at all stages.

34 Permission to carry out the work was kindly given by the owner, Mrs. J. W. Clarke, and tenants, Messrs. Singers, Ltd., the latter through the good offices of the local manager, Mr. J. H. Kay.

35 These dimensions relate to the inner stone structure before the addition of the tile wall, on which see below. Accurate measurements were very difficult to obtain for various reasons, not least being the difficulty of relating the part in one cellar to that in the other.

36 cf. Koethe, H., Die keltischen Rund- und Vielecktempel der Kaiserzeit (BRGK, XXIII (1933), 10–108)Google Scholar. In Britain, examples have occurred at Weycock, Berks. (Arch. Journ., VI, 118); Caerwent, (Archaeologia, LXIV, 447 ff.)Google Scholar; Pagan's Hill, Chew Stoke, Somerset (Proc. Som. Arch. and N.H. Soc., XCVI (1952), 112–142)Google Scholar.

37 Koethe, o.c., 68 and Abb. 19; cf. also the hexagonal temple at Alesia (ibid. 73).

38 ibid., pp. 78, 79, and Abb. 27; unusual in that it was underground.

39 Mayr, Karl M., ‘Das Nymphäum von St. Lorenzen im Pustertal (Südtirol)’ Festschrift für Rudolph Egger (Klagenfurt, 1952), 1, 294Google Scholar. Professor Richmond kindly drew my attention to this paper.

40 Archaeologia, XLV, 462–5, and pl. XXXVIII.

41 Proc. Som. Arch. and N.H. Soc., XCVII (1952), 99–101, fig. 1 and pls. VI and XGoogle Scholar.

42 Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc., LXXI (1952) 29, 30, fig. 2 and pl. IXGoogle Scholar.

43 Vict. Co. Hist. Somerset, I, 249, 250, and plan facing p. 244.

44 Archaeologia, XIX, 178–183, and pl. XIV.

45 Cf. JRS XLII, 94–5, XLIII, 114, and Arch. Journ., CXI, 106.

46 Arch. Aeliana,3 IV, 272–281, pl. VI and figs. 11 and 12.

47 Cf. Professor I. A. Richmond's analysis and reconstruction in Arch. Aeliana,4 XXVIII, 158–168, and fig. 1.

48 I owe this suggestion to Professor I. A Richmond after he had made an examination of the remains beneath no. 291 High Street.

49 The types recovered find their closest parallels with the material from a well at Margidunum dated A.D. 220–300. Cf. JRS XVI, 36–44, and pls. V–VIII.