Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:23:50.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Late Roman Waterfront in London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

T. Brigham
T. Brigham
Affiliation:
Department of Urban Archaeology, Museum of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman waterfront in London has been discussed several times, most recently in The Port of Roman London (Milne, 1985) and The Roman Quay at St Magnus House, London (Miller, Schofield and Rhodes, 1986). The former dealt largely with the late-first-century waterfront and associated buildings recorded on sites excavated to the north of Thames Street, on either side of the Roman London Bridge, including Pudding Lane, Peninsular House and Miles Lane (FIG. I). The subsequent redevelopment of existing properties, and the construction of new buildings relating to succeeding waterfronts further to the south, were also covered in detail, although the later quays themselves (of early-second to mid-third-century date) lay beyond the site boundaries, and were only briefly discussed. The second report, however, dealt with the mid-second- to early-third-century waterfronts and the section of riverside wall recorded between 1974–78 at New Fresh Wharf (St Magnus House), adjacent to the more recent (1982) Billingsgate Lorry Park site. Both works discussed evidence for trade, as represented by finds from the various sites involved, in some depth.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 21 , November 1990 , pp. 99 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © T. Brigham 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 E. Rutter, Guildhall Museum Excavation Register, Book V, 416, 421, 422 (1958); Marsden, P., ‘The Excavation of a Roman Palace Site in London, 1961–1972’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxvi (1975), 1–102.Google Scholar

2 D. Jones and M. Rhodes, Excavations at Billingsgate Buildings 1974, L.A.M.A.S. Special Paper No. 4 (1980).

3 Summarised in G. Milne, The Port of Roman London (1985).

4 K. Flude, Excavations in the G.P.O. Tunnel, Upper Thames Street, 1977, D.U.A. Archive Report (1980).

5 S. Roskams, Excavations at Billingsgate Lorry Park, Lower Thames Street, 1982–3, D.U.A. Archive Report (in preparation).

6 L. Miller, J. Schofleld and M. Rhodes, The Roman Quay at St. Magnus House, L.A.M.A.S. Special Paper No. 8 (1986), 96–8.

7 ibid., 50.

8 J. Schofield, Excavations at Seal House, 106–8 Lower Thames Street, 1974–6, D.U. A. Archive Report (1977).

9 R. Harris, Excavations at Swan Lane, Upper Thames Street, 1981–82, D.U.A. Archive Report (in preparation).

10 Tatton-Brown, T., ‘Excavations at the Custom House site, City of London’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxv (1974), 117–219.Google Scholar

11 Lambert, F., ‘Some Recent Excavations in London’, Archaeologia lxxi (1921), 55–112, esp. 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 This technique was used in the quay at Xanten (von Petrikovits, H., ‘Die Ausgrabungen in der Colonia Traiana bei Xanten I’, Bonner Jahrbücher clii (1952), 41–161.Google Scholar

13 Previously thought to be fourth-century, on the basis of incorrect radiocarbon analysis: see C. Hill, M. Millett and T. Blagg, The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London, Excavations at Baynard's Castle, Upper Thames Street, London, 1974–76, L.A.M.A.S. Special Paper No. 3 (1980), 88–93.

14 T. Brigham, Watching Brief ai Billingsgate Market 1985, D.U.A. Archive Report (1985).

15 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6).

16 These were not included in the publication.

17 Jones and Rhodes, op. cit. (note 2).

18 Possibly the southern extension of a feature postulated by Milne at the east side of Peninsular House (Milne, op. cit. (note 3), 129–31).

19 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6), 96–8.

20 Jennifer Hillam has suggested that the derivation of timbers from several sources could reflect a period of storage, which may give a date more in accord with the later pottery, although normal Roman practice was to use ‘green’ timber.

21 K. Steedman et al, The early medieval waterfront of London, 1: The bridgehead and Billingsgate to 1200 (in preparation).

22 M. Shea, Excavations at Dowgate Hill House, 5–7 Dowgate Hill, 1986, D.U.A. Archive Report (1988).

23 M. Burch and J. Hill, Excavations at Cannon Street Station, 1988, D.U.A. Archive Report (in preparation).

24 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1).

25 A watching brief to the south of the site (Rutter, op. cit. (note 1)) uncovered opposing post-and-plank and stave revetments in the area between the wall and the third-century quay (p. 140); the 12.4 quay may belong to this phase. Although the revetments have not been dated, it seems likely that the canalisation was contemporary with the infilling of the basin, since this was the first occasion when this could have been carried out.

26 Hill et al., op. cit. (note 13).

27 Sheldon, H. and Tyers, I., ‘Recent dendrochronological work in Southwark and its implications’, Lond. Arch. iv (1983), 355–61.Google Scholar Cf. Hill et al., op. cit (note 13).

28 Jones and Rhodes, op. cit. (note 2).

29 Milne, op. cit. (note 3), 25–7.

30 Yule, B., ‘Excavations at Winchester Palace’, Lond. Arch., vi (1989), 31–9.Google Scholar

31 L. Miller, Excavations at Miles Lane and 132–7 Upper Thames Street, D.U.A. Archive Report (1985).

32 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 524.

33 Burch and Hill, op. cit. (note 23).

34 Flude, op. cit. (note 4).

35 Yule, op. cit. (note 30).

36 Dillon, J., ‘Excavations at Courage's, Park Street, Southwark’, Rescue News 46 (1988), 3.Google Scholar

37 H. Sheldon, ‘1972–74 Excavations: their contribution to Southwark's history’, in Southwark Excavations 1972–74 (1978), 11–49.

38 Parnell, G., ‘Excavations at the Tower of London, 1976–7,’ Lond. Arch., iii (1977), 97–9.Google Scholar

39 Marsden, op. cit. (note 1), 52–4.

40 The existence of this feature, possibly referred to in the thirteenth century as the Lorteburn, has been postulated by D. Bentley of the Museum of London on topographic, archaeological and historical grounds (Bentley, D., ‘A recently identified valley in the City’, Lond. Arch., v (1984), 13–16).Google Scholar

41 Excavations still in progress, August 1989.

42 A copy of a north-south section drawn at this time is retained in the D.U.A. Archive (BIG82).

43 Lambert, op. cit. (note 11).

44 As suggested in Merrifield, R., London, City of the Romans (1983), 223–7.Google Scholar

45 The similarity between the walls has led to confusion between the two (Hill et al., op. cit. (note 13), 3–6). At Billingsgate Buildings a piled chalk foundation was constructed over revetment (III) in the mid to late second century (Jones and Rhodes, op. cit. (note 2)). The wall apparently continued westward beyond Fish Street Hill (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London, III Roman London, (1928), 143), and 125 Lower Thames Street (Norman, P. and Reader, F.W., ‘Further Discoveries relating to Roman London, 1906–12’, Archaeologia lxiii (1912), 306–11).Google Scholar Eastward is passed the south end of the second- to third-century Billingsgate bathhouse (RCHM, op. cit. above, 94). The present northern pavement of Lower Thames Street therefore follows the wall, which was possibly contemporary with the land defences, being levelled as the waterfront was extended.

46 T. Williams, Excavations at St Peter's Hill, 223–5 Upper Thames Street, 1981, D.U.A. Archive Report (in preparation); Burch and Hill, op. cit. (note 23); RCHM, op. cit. (note 45).

47 Hill et al., op. cit. (note 13), 57–61.

48 Pottery at Seal House and Billingsgate covered generally the same range of Romano-British and imported wares as New Fresh Wharf, although the quantity involved was smaller. Similar imported material was also recovered from Swan Lane, but here the range of wares was more limited, particularly of North Gaulish and Rhenish forms (p. 163). Although it is dangerous to generalize on such a small sample, it seems possible that this was caused by the site's position further upstream: there may have been some zoning of imported wares from the regions mentioned above, in addition to the well-known concentration of samian wares around the bridgehead, suggesting specialist traders. An eleventh-century analogy exists in the concentration of Germanic pottery in the Dowgate area, which later became the London headquarters of the Hanseatic League.

49 Dunning, G.C., ‘Two Fires of Roman London’, Antiq. Journ. xxv (1945), 48–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There is a possibility, however, that the second-century bridge was situated beneath the present one, upstream from Regis House. This hypothesis depends upon the interpretation of a massive structure observed during the construction of Rennie's bridge in the 1830S. It is hoped to discuss this more fully in a future article. See Lambert, op. cit. (note 11), 68.

50 Marsden, P., ‘The County Hall Ship’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxi (1965), 109–17Google Scholar ; P. Marsden, A Ship of the Roman Period from Blackfriars, in the City of London (1967).

51 Documentary evidence suggests that Billingsgate and Queenhithe were in existence before the construction of the first archaeologically attested Saxon embankments (B. Hobley, ‘The London waterfront – the exception or the rule?’, in Milne, G. and Hobley, B. (eds.), Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and Northern Europe C.B.A. Res. Rep. 41 (1981), 1–9).Google Scholar The relationship of the embankments and late Roman waterfront implies that gaps in the latter had already influenced the position of the two harbours. At Billingsgate Lorry Park and New Fresh Wharf, two narrow inlets developed where the quay was completely removed; these later became St Botolph's Wharf and Roderesgate (Steedman et al., op. cit. (note 25)).

52 Milne, op. cit. (note 3), 129.

53 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6), 70.

54 Morris, J., Londinium, London in the Roman Empire (1982), 196.Google Scholar

55 Milne, op. cit. (note 3), 129–32.

56 ibid., 79–86; Milne, G. and Milne, C., Medieval Waterfront Development at Trig Lane, London, L.A.M. A.S. Special Paper No 5 (1982), 60–2.Google Scholar

57 R. Battarbee, ‘Diatom analysis of river Thames foreshore deposits … at Pudding Lane, London’, Working Papers in Palaeoecology 2 (1983).

58 R. Battarbee, Diatom Analysis - Swan Lane (SWA81), D.U.A. Archive Report (1981).

59 Louwe Kooijmans, L.P., ‘Archaeology and Coastal Change in the Netherlands’ in Thompson, F.H. (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change Soc. Antiq. Occ. Papers 1 (1980), 106–33.Google Scholar

60 Wilkinson, T.J. and Murphy, P., ‘Archaeological Survey of an Intertidal Zone: the Submerged Landscape of the Essex Coast, England’ J.F.A. 13 (1986), 177–93.Google Scholar

61 Graham, A., ‘The geology of north Southwark and its topographical development in the post-Pleistocene Period’ in Southwark Excavations 1972–4 (1978), 501–17.Google Scholar

62 Marsden, P., ‘A Boat of the Roman Period Discovered on the Site of New Guy's House, Bermondsey, 1958’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxi (1965), 118–31.Google Scholar

63 Greensmith, J. and Tucker, E., ‘Holocene transgressions and regressions on the Essex coast and outer Thames estuary’, Geol. en Mijnb. 52 (1973), 193–202.Google Scholar

64 Devoy, R., ‘Flandrian sea-level changes and vegetational history of the Lower Thames Estuary’, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 285 (1979), 355–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 idem.

66 Wilkinson and Murphy, op. cit. (note 60).

67 R. Canham (ed.), 2000 years of Brentford (1978).

68 C.E. Everard, ‘On Sea-Level Changes’ in Thompson, op. cit. (note 59), 1–23.

69 F.A. Hibbert, ‘Possible Evidence for Sea-Level Change in the Somerset Levels’ in Thompson, op. cit. (note 59), 103–5.

70 G.D.B. Jones, ‘Archaeology and Coastal Change in the North-West’ in Thompson, op. cit. (note 59), 87–102.

71 G. Boon, ‘Excavations on the site of the Roman quay at Caerleon’ in G. Boon (ed.), Monographs and Collections, 1, Roman Sites Cambrian Arch. Assoc. (1978).

72 Louwe Kooijmans, op. cit. (note 59), 106–33.

73 Cunliffe, B.W., ‘Excavations at the Roman fort at Lympne, Kent, 1976–78’, Britannia xi (1980), 227–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 B.B. Simmons, ‘Iron Age and Roman Coasts around the Wash’ in Thompson, op. cit. (note 59), 56–73.

75 idem.

76 Of the three boats of Roman date found in London, Marsden has suggested (P. Marsden, ‘Early shipping and the waterfronts of London’ in Milne and Hobley, op. cit. (note 51), 10–16) that the County Hall ship was a sea-going cargo vessel, requiring almost 2 m of water for berthing, while the Blackfriars boat was a coaster, which could be grounded. The New Guy's House boat was a river vessel, possibly a lighter, capable of navigating shallow waters.

77 C. Maloney, The Upper Walbrook Valley in the Roman Period (forthcoming).

78 Yule, op. cit. (note 30).

79 Dyson, T., ‘London and Southwark in the seventh century and later’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxxi (1980), 83ff., 7–10.Google Scholar

80 Parnell, op. cit. (note 38).

81 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6), 70.

82 Steedman et al., op. cit. (note 21).

83 Flude, op. cit. (note 4).

84 Milne, op. cit. (note 3); Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6).

85 F. Lambert, op. cit. (note 11), 66; Weeks, J., ‘Roman Carpentry Joints: Adoption and Adaptation’ in McGrail, S. (ed.), Woodworking Techniques before A.D. 1500 B.A.R. Int. Series 7 (1982), 157–68.Google Scholar

86 Although these may have been primary timbers, employed in the same way as at Xanten, by setting the beams on tenoned posts.

87 Milne, op. cit. (note 3), 65.

88 The third-century quay recently recorded at Cannon Street Station may be of similar type, and consisted of two rows of boxes, at least the rear row of which was infilled; the unrecorded northernmost boxes of Custom House II may also have been stabilised in this way. The Cannon Street example comprised a massive rear wall with an intermediate wall of smaller beams, which together supported a series of stacked tiebacks. The frontage was robbed, but had rested on closely-spaced piles.

89 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6), 68.

90 It should be emphasised, however, that the Romans were certainly familiar with submarine timber construction including bridge piers, coffer dams and other structures (Vitruvius V.XII; Milne, op. cit. (note 3); Oleson, J.P., ‘The technology of Roman harbours’, I.J.N.A. 17.2. (1988), 147–57)Google Scholar despite the constructional difficulties this entailed; the Xanten quay, for instance, was constructed in a non-tidal river, and stood permanently in up to 0.8 m of water.

91 Its closest analogy may be the Dover mole, found in the nineteenth century (Rigold, S., ‘The Roman Haven of Dover’, Arch. Journ. cxxvi (1969), 78–100).Google Scholar

92 Dillon, op. cit. (note 36).

93 R.C.H.M., op. cit. (note 45), 149.

94 Merrifield, op. cit. (note 44), 148.

95 ibid., 183.

96 Sheldon, H. and Schaaf, L., ‘A survey of Roman sites in Greater London’, Collectanea Londiniensia, L.A.M.A.S. Special Paper No. 2 (1978), 59–88.Google Scholar

97 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6), 70–3; M. Todd, ibid., 262–4.

98 See above pp. 77–9.

99 Barton, N., The Lost Rivers of London (1962), 82.Google Scholar

100 Morris, op. cit. (note 54), 258–9.

101 Merrifield, op. cit. (note 44), 197.

102 Roman pottery appraisals by Beth Richardson of the D.U.A.

103 Tatton-Brown, op. cit. (note 10); Fletcher, J., ‘The Waterfront of Londinium: The Date of the Quays at Custom House Site Reassessed’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxxiii (1982), 79–84Google Scholar; Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6).

104 Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6).

105 See instead Hillam, J., ‘Theoretical and applied dendrochronology – how to make a date with a tree’ in Phillips, P. (ed), The Archaeologist and the Laboratory C.B.A. Res. Report No. 58 (1985), 17, 23Google Scholar; J. Hillam and R.A. Morgan, ‘Tree-ring analysis of the Roman timbers’ in Miller et al., op. cit. (note 6), 75–85.

106 Baillie, M.G.L. and Pilcher, J.R., ‘A simple crossdating program for tree-ring research’, Tree-Ring Bulletin 33 (1973), 7–14Google Scholar ; Munro, M.A.R., ‘An improved algorithm for crossdating tree-ring sequences’, Tree-Ring Bulletin 44 (1984), 17–27.Google Scholar

107 Baillie and Pilcher, op. cit. (note 106). For more details of the Student t test in tree-ring dating, see M.G.L. Baillie, Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology (1982).

108 Hillam, J., Morgan, R.A. and Tyers, I., ‘Sapwood estimates and the dating of short ring sequences’ in Ward, R.G.W. (ed.), Applications of tree-ring studies: current research in dendrochronology and related areas, BAR S333 (1987), 165–85.Google Scholar

109 Hillam, J. and Groves, C., ‘Tree-ring analysis of waterfront structures from Billingsgate Lorry Park, City of London’, Ancient Monuments Laboratory report series 47/47 (1985).Google Scholar

110 Hillam, J., ‘Tree-ring analysis in the City of London: the dating of Roman timbers from Billingsgate and New Fresh Wharf’, Ancient Monuments Laboratory report series 66/87 (1987).Google Scholar

111 Sheldon, H.L. and Tyers, I.G., ‘Recent dendrochronological work in Southwark and its implications’, London Arch., iv (1983), 355–61.Google Scholar

112 Hillam and Morgan, op. cit. (note 105); Hillam, op. cit. (note no).

113 eg. E. Hollstein, Mitteleuropäische Eichenchronologie (1980).

114 Fletcher, J.M., ‘The waterfront of Londinium: the date of the quays at Custom House reassessed’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxxiii (1982), 79–84.Google Scholar

115 idem.

116 Hillam, J., Morgan, R.A. and Tyers, I., ‘Dendrochronology and Roman London’, Trans. L.A.M.A.S. xxxv (1984), 1–4.Google Scholar

117 Morgan, R.A., ‘Tree-ring dating of the London waterfronts’, London Arch., iii (1977), 40–5Google Scholar ; Morgan, R.A. and Schofield, J., ‘Tree-rings and the archaeology of the Thames waterfront in the City of London’ in Fletcher, J.M. (ed.), Dendrochronology in Europe BAR S51 (1978), 223–38.Google Scholar

118 Morgan, op. cit. (note 117).

119 Groves, C. and Hillam, J., ‘Tree-ring analysis of timbers from Swan Lane, City of London, 1981’, Ancient Monuments Laboratory research series 30/87 (1987).Google Scholar

120 eg. Hillam, J., ‘Tree-ring dating in the City of London: the Bridgehead sites and the dating of the Roman harbour’, Ancient Monuments Laboratory report series 47/94 (1986).Google Scholar

121 Milne, op. cit. (note 3).

122 Hillam, op. cit. (note 120).

123 See Baillie, op. cit. (note 107).

124 Milson, S., Within and between tree variation in certain properties of annual rings of sessile oaks (PhD thesis, CNAA, Liverpool Polytechnic, 1979).Google Scholar

125 C.E. Everard, ‘On Sea-Level Changes’, in Thompson, op. cit. (note 59), 1–23.

126 M.J. Tooley, ‘Theories of Coastal Change in North-West England’, Thompson, op. cit. (note 59), 74–86.

127 J.G. Evans, The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles (1975).

128 Vitruvius, op. cit. (note 90), X.2., 1–10; White, K.D., Greek and Roman Technology (1984), 79Google Scholar; Hill, D., A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times (1984), 110–11.Google Scholar

129 D. Ellmers, ‘Post-Roman waterfronts on the Rhine’, in Milne and Hobley, op. cit. (note 51), 88–95.

130 Rickman, G.E., ‘The archaeology and history of Roman ports’, I.J.N.A 17.3. (1988), 257–67.Google Scholar