Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain 9781841712925, 9781407319667

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Opening Photograph
THOMAS FREDERICK COLSTON BLAGG MA, PhD, F.S.A. (1942-2000)
List of Publications by T.F.C. Blagg
SUMMARY
Table of Contents
List of Text Figures
List of Plates
List of Tables
List of Maps
Text and Figures
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II. TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF THE ROMAN STONEMASON IN BRITAIN
CHAPTER III. DECORATED CAPITALS
CHAPTER IV. DECORATED COLUMN BASES
CHAPTER V. ORNAMENTAL MOTIFS
CHAPTER VI. DECORATED COLUMN SHAFTS AND PILASTERS
CHAPTER VII. DECORATED MOULDINGS
CHAPTER VIII. COLUMN BASES AND TUSCAN CAPITALS
CHAPTER IX. FINIALS
CHAPTER X. THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TWO ROMAN MONUMENTS FROM LONDON
CHAPTER XI. CONCLUSIONS
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY, PLATES, TABLES, MAPS
ABBREVIATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PLATES
TABLES
MAPS

Citation preview

BAR 329 2002 BLAGG ROMAN ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENT IN BRITAIN

9 781841 712925

B A R

Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain Thomas F. C. Blagg

BAR British Series 329 2002

Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain Thomas F. C. Blagg

BAR British Series 329 2002

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 329 Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain © The Estate of T F C Blagg and the Publisher 2002 Typesetting and layout: Darko Jerko The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712925 paperback ISBN 9781407319667 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712925 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2002. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Tom Blagg on a visit to Wroxeter, 1987. Photo: Diana Bonakis Webster.

THOMAS FREDERICK COLSTON BLAGG MA, PhD, F.S.A. (1942-2000) By Grahame Soffe, Martin Henig and Anthony King

Dr Blagg died on August 11th 2000, a few hours after his fifty-eighth birthday. He was rightly regarded as the leading British scholar in the field of Roman architecture and architectural sculpture with an ability to go beneath the surface and to interpret the messages which lie beneath the external articulation of Roman buildings and he always intended to tum his thesis on Architectural Ornament in Roman Britain into a book and for many years was under contract with B. T. Bats ford to do so; the problem lay in his perfectionism and the result was that as the years passed he seemed less and less willing to complete the task, even though some ofhis published papers (see bibliography) were moves towards it. This was frustrating for scholars who had seen the thesis because this was not only well written and in a form suitable for publication but in its essentials it had not dated at all even though it inevitably lacks material excavated over the past 20 years. We have decided that our first act of pi etas should be to remedy this deficiency, and simply to add a general list of his publications together with a more select one confined to his writings on Roman Britain. We hope to publish a selection of these in due course. The bibliography is not complete: One of us (Martin Henig) is in the process of completing a fascicule of the Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani dealing with the North West Midlands; the sections on architectural sculpture from Cheshire and Shropshire are in large part his work. Tom, himself, was well on the way to finishing a fascicule of his own on all the Roman sculpture (not just the architectural sculpture) from south-east England and that too is in hand. Tom was educated at Oakham School and Keble College, Oxford, where he read Modem History. It was during these formative years that he acquired a a traditional grounding in the Classics which was to prove so important in his later research. His family was of gentry stock, coming from the village of Car Colston, Nottinghamshire, and he was immensely proud of his forbears, one of whom had (in the reign of Charles II) attempted to storm the Tower of London. Another, his grandfather Thomas Matthews Blagg, the prolific genealogist and antiquary, had edited and published extensive records of the eastern counties. Coming down from Oxford, Tom was articled to the family firm of solicitors in Newark from 1967, but this work did not satisfy his aesthetic sympathies or his enquiring spirit, and he was encouraged by his interests and an involvement in the archaeology of his local area to move to a career in Roman archaeology. In 1970 at the Institute of Archaeology, London, Tom began his work on Roman decorative stonework in Britain. During this period, his first experience at directing an excavation (with Hugo Blake and Tony Luttrell) was at San Paolo di Valdiponte, Perugia. In 1973, he went on to direct the excavations of the Roman "small town" at Hacheston, Suffolk, and the report, co-authored by him, is now about to be published by his friend Jude Plouviez. After holding temporary teaching and research posts at London University and with the British Museum Education Service, in 1978 the University of Kent at Canterbury appointed him to run its extra-mural programmes in Archaeology. There are many students at Kent who can bear witness to his inspirational teaching and large numbers were lured to his weekend courses, some of which were edited as important publications in their own right. He was promoted to Senior Lecturer at Kent in 1991, by which time he was widely recognised, internationally, as an authority on Roman architecture and sculpture. His output of publications was considerable, including important work on the great temple at Bath iii

(published in Britannia in 1979) and the monumental riverside arch in London (published in 1980). All the time he was contributing to excavation reports and publishing new discoveries of ancient sculpture in Britain. His work for the Corpus Signorum lmperii Romani included the definitive study of architectural sculpture in the Cotswold region. His interests were by no means confined to architecture.For example his survey article on Art and Architecture published in 1989, showed the extent of his reading, and to discuss the iconography of a relief such the possible representation of Venus and Adonis from Lincoln was an education in itself. Tom consciously emulated another Nottinghamshire romantic, Lord Byron, and like him extended his interests to the Mediterranean world. In Italy there was a fruitful collaboration with scholars based at the British School at Rome and elsewhere, for instance he had a major involvement in the Anguillara Roman villa excavation (with Tony Luttrell and Margaret Lyttelton) and at Perugia. He published a useful Empire-wide survey of Roman architecture (in Phaidon 's Handbook of Roman Art edited by Martin Henig, 1983) and the major part in a monograph on the sanctuary of Diana at Nemi (1983). Further afield he wrote on the sculpture at Petra ( 1990). Apart from his work on the Roman period, Tom also made important contributions to medieval archaeology, for example on bell-casting. Asked to speak at the Nottingham conference of the British Archaeological Association, he chose to speak not on the county in the Roman period but gave a brilliant account of this major medieval industry much praised for its erudition by the dyed-in-the-wool medievalists who attended, and providing an important contribution to the conference transactions published in 1999. He also undertook a substantial study with Tony Luttrell on the papal palace at Sorgues near Avignon (inArchaeologia, 1991), and the Hal Millieri church excavations, Malta. Alongside archaeology Tom had impressively wide aesthetic interests. He had a profound knowledge of European literature and grew to be a passionate devotee of opera and ballet, thinking nothing of an evening in Paris if the production merited the journey. He did much to encourage gifted writers and dancers to work towards successful careers. Many of his archaeological colleagues were no doubt surprised when he embarked on his Ballet Studies which led to an MA in 1998 (he was proceeding to a doctorate in interpretations of the ancient world in classical dance when his final illness intervened) but those who understood him best, knew he could never be satisfied with a single field of endeavour. We feel privileged to have known Tom as a friend and to have shared his insights as a colleague. He was a great academic archaeologist, rigorous and discriminating, but never ambitious, 'dry as dust' or affected by the latest fashion in archaeology. He could be engagingly flamboyant in the spirit of the Grand Tour with interests spanning every field of human endeavour. He was fond of travel and conversation, country pursuits and good food and wine. He was generous and humane, and a quiet supporter of several charitable causes. For him life was fun, an occasion to rejoice, characteristically with a glass of good French wine in his hand while he kept us amused with his learning and wit. His imitations whether of another archaeologist, a roue of the 'naughty nineties' or a ballet dancer kept us in fits of laughter. He was not only one of the greatest scholars of Roman Archaeology of the later 20th century but a truly wonderful character of a type altogether rare in our prosaic age. His death diminishes us all and we shall miss him very much indeed, all the remaining days of our lives.

List of Publications by T. F. C. Blagg 1972 'The Roman army in Britain', The Scroll (Journal of the Maidenhead and District Archaeological Society) 2.1, 9-14; 2.2, 7-9.

1974 (with H. McK. Blake and A. T. Luttrell) 'An Umbrian abbey: San Paolo di Valdiponte, part II', Papers of the British School at Rome 42, 98-178. 'Abbadia Celestina, Civitella Benazzone (prov. Perugia)', Notiziario di Archeologia Medievale 9, 6-8. 'Hacheston', in E.Owles, 'Archaeology in Suffolk, 1973', Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology 33 (i), 97-99.

1975 'Civitella Benazzone (Perugia)- scavo dell'abbadia medievale di San Paolo di Valdiponte', Archeologia Medievale 2, 359-66. Review of P. Varene, La Taille de la Pierre antique, medievale et moderne (197 4 ), Britannia 6, 306-7.

1976 'Tools and techniques of the Roman stonemason in Britain', Britannia 7, 152-72.

1977 'The London Arch', Current Archaeology 57 (vol. 5, no. 10), 311-15. 'Schools of stonemasons in Roman Britain', in J. Munby and M. Henig (eds), Roman L(fe and Art in Britain (British Archaeological Reports 41), Oxford, 51-70. 'The decorated stones from the Riverside Wall', in B. Hobley and J. Schofield, 'Excavations in the City of London: first interim report', Antiquaries Journal 57, 63. 'The architectural stonework', in K. Branigan, Gatcombe Roman Villa (British Archaeological Reports 44), Oxford, 103-108. (with S. Read) 'The Roman pewter-moulds from Silchester', Antiquaries Journal 57, 270-76. (with A. Bonanno and A. T. Luttrell) 'Hal Millieri, Malta', Notiziario di Archeologia Medievale 21, 44-5. 'Western Europe', 'Crete and Mycenae', 'Greece', 'Rome', in B. L. Myres and T. Copplestone (eds), The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Art, London: Macmillan, 24-25, 38-39, 42-47, 50-55. 'Archaeology', 'Persia and Greece', Readers Digest Library of Modern Knowledge XI: History of Mankind, London, 551; 554-5. Review of R. P. Wright and E. J. Phillips, Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in Carlisle Museum (1975), Britannia 8, 469-70.

1978 The Nomads o_fEastern Siberia, London: British Museum Publications. Christianity in Roman Britain, London: British Museum Education Service Notes for Teachers. 'Bell-founding in Italy: archaeology and history', in H. McK. Blake, T. W. Potter and D. B. Whitehouse (eds), Papers in Italian Archaeology I (British Archaeological Reports suppl. ser. 41), Oxford, 423-34. V

(with S. J. Fleming) 'Casting a bell for the Abbey of San Paolo di Valdiponte', MASCA Journal (Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, Philadelphia) 1, 14-15. 'A decorated Roman cornice from Brixworth, Northamptonshire', Journal of the British Archaeological Association 131, 110-12. 'The decorated stonework from Kingscote', in Kingscote Archaeological Association, Excavations, The Chessals, Kingscote 1975-77 Seasons, 20-21. Review ofD. Nikolov, The Roman Villa at Chatalka, Bulgaria (BAR S 17, 1976), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 15, 259-60. Review ofG. D. B. Jones, Hadrian s Wallfrom the Air (1978), Aerial Archaeology 2, 778. Review of A. Luttrell (ed), Hal Millieri: a Maltese Casale, its Churches and Paintings (1976), Antiquaries Journal 58, 434-5.

1979 'The date of the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath', Britannia 10, 101-7. 'The use ofterra-cotta for architectural ornament in Italy and the western provinces', in A. Mc Whirr (ed), Roman Brick and Tile (British Archaeological Reports int. ser. 68), Oxford, 267-84. 'The votive column from the Roman temple precinct at Springhead' ,Archaeologia Cantiana 95, 223-9. 'The stone sculpture', in W. Mcisaac, I. Schwab and H. Sheldon, 'Excavations at Old Ford, 1972-197 5 ', Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 30, 81-3. (with A. T. Luttrell and M. B. Lyttelton) 'Ligorio, Palladio and the decorated Roman capital from Le Mura di Santo Stefano', Papers of the British School at Rome 47, 10216. Review of E. J. Feuchtwanger, The Department of Adult Education, University of Southampton, 1928-1978: an appreciation (1979), The Tutors' Bulletin for Adult Education 2.2 (Autumn), 31.

1980 'The sculptured stones', in C. Hill, M. Millett and T. Blagg, The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London (London and Middlesex Archaeological Society special paper 3), London, 125-92. 'Social organisation', ch. II in P. Clayton (ed), A Companion to Roman Britain, London: Phaidon, 36-68. 'The decorated stonework of Roman temples in Britain', in W. Rodwell (ed), Temples, Churches and Religion: recent research in Roman Britain (British Archaeological Reports, Brit. Ser. 77), Oxford, 31-44. 'Roman civil and military architecture in the province of Britain: aspects of patronage, influence and craft organisation', WorldArchaeology 12, 27-42. 'Roman pewter-moulds', in C. Heighway and P. Garrod, 'Excavations at Nos. 1 and 30 Westgate Street, Gloucester: the Roman levels', Britannia 11, 103-5, and notes on small finds 8 and 16, ibid. 105, 107, 109-10. Review of D. Alicu, C. Pop and V. Wollmann, Figured Monuments from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (BAR int. ser. 55, 1979), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 17, 153-4. Review of P. Barker, Techniques of Archaeological Excavation (1977) and P. J. Fowler, Approaches to Archaeology (1977). Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 17, 195-7.

1981 'Architectural patronage in the western provinces of the Roman Empire in the third century', in A. King and M. Henig (eds), The Roman West in the Third Century (British Archaeological Reports int. ser. 109), Oxford, 167-88. 'The column capital', in B. J. Philp, The Excavation of the Roman Forts of the Classis Britannia at Dover, 1970-1977, Dover, 177. 'Some Roman architectural traditions in the Early Saxon churches of Kent', in A. Detsicas (ed), Collectanea Historica: essays in memory of Stuart Rigold, Maidstone, 50-3.

1982 'Roman Kent', in P. E. Leach (ed), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500 (Council for British Archaeology res. rep. 48), London, 51-60. v!

'A Roman relief carving of three female figures, found at Lincoln', Antiquaries Journal 62, 125-6. 'Reconstruction of Roman decorated architecture: proportions, prescriptions and practices', in P. J. Drury (ed), Structural Reconstruction (British Archaeological Reports Brit. ser. 110), Oxford, 131-51. Review of E. J. Phillips, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain I.I (1977), Britannia 13, 442-3.

1983 'Architecture', ch. 2 in M. Henig (ed), A Handbook of Roman Art, Oxford: Phaidon, 2665. 'The reuse of monumental masonry in late Roman defensive walls', in I.Maloney and B.Hobley (eds), Roman Urban Defences in the West (Council for British Archaeology res. rep. 51), London, 130-5. 'The finds from the Sanctuary of Diana', etc., in Mysteries of Diana: the antiquities from Nemi in Nottingham Museums, Nottingham: Castle Museum, 21-58 and 85-88. 'The Sanctuary of Diana at N emi', Proceedings of the Classical Association 80, 20-1. (with E. Fen tress, S. Judson, M. de Vos and P. Arthur) 'Excavations at Fosso della Crescenza, 1962', Papers of the British School at Rome 51, 58-101. 'Two decorative relief carvings at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire', Antiquaries Journal 63, 355-9. 'Introduction', Canterbury Archaeological Trust Annual Report 1982-83, Canterbury, 46.

Review ofM. Bell, Excavations at Bishopstone (Sussex Archaeological Collections 115, 1977) Agricultural History Review 31, 61. Review of C. Lindgren, Classical Art Forms and Celtic Mutations. figural art in Roman Britain (1980), Britannia 14, 365-6. Review of B. W. Cunliffe and M. G. Fulford, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain 1.2 Bath and the Rest of Wessex (1982), Antiquaries Journal 63, 171. Review of J. and T. Marasovic, S. McNally and J. Wilkes, Diocletian Palace. report on Joint Excavations in Southeast Quarter, Part One (1972) and S. McNally, J. and T. Marasovic, Diocletian sPalace. American-Yugoslav Joint Excavations, Part Two (1976), Antiquaries Journal 63, 428-9. Review ofF. B. Sear, Roman Architecture (1982), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 20, 215.

s

1984 (ed, with R. F. J. Jones and S. J. Keay) Papers in Iberian Archaeology (British Archaeological Reports int. ser. 193), Oxford. (ed, with A. C. King) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: cultural relationships in a frontier province (British Archaeological Reports, Brit. ser. 136), Oxford. 'An examination of the connexions between military and civilian architecture in Roman Britain', in T. F. C. Blagg and A. C. King (eds), Military and Civilian in Roman Britain (British Archaeological Reports, Brit. ser. 136), Oxford, 249-63. Contributions on 'Stone' and 'Stucco', in P. J. Drury, 'The Temple of Claudius at Colchester reconsidered', Britannia 15, 37-40 and 42. (with J. R. Hunn)' Architectural fragments from the vicinity ofVerulamium', Antiquaries Journal 64, 362-5. 'Roman architectural ornament in Kent', Archaeologia Cantiana 100, 65-80. 'Introduction', Canterbury Archaeological Trust Annual Report 1983-84, Canterbury. Review of J. Liversidge (ed), Roman Provincial Wall Painting of the Western Empire (BAR Sl40, 1982), Antiquaries Journal 64, 156-7. Review of S. Rinaldi Tufi, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain 1.3, Yorkshire (1983), Antiquaries Journal 64, 472-3. 1985 'Cult practice and its social context in the religious sanctuaries of Latium and Southern Etruria: the sanctuary of Diana at Nemi', in C. Malone and S. Stoddart (eds), Papers in Italian Archaeology IV (British Archaeological Reports int. ser. 246), Oxford, vol. 4, 33-50. 'A portrait head of Septimius Severus and an Isiac bust in the Maison Dieu Museum at Ospringe, Kent', Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4, 245-9.

'Britons and Romans c. 100 BC - AD 409: culture and religion', in C. Haigh (ed), The Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44-52. (with R. F. J. Jones, C. M. Devereux, D. W. Jordan and M. Millett) 'Settlement, landscape and survey archaeology in Catalunya', in S. Macready and F. H. Thompson (eds), Archaeological Field Survey in Britain and Abroad (Society of Antiquaries of London, occ. paper 6), London, 116-28. (with P. M. Barford) 'Carved stonework', in K. Blockley, Marshfield: Ironmongers Piece Excavations 1982-3 (British Archaeological Reports, Brit. ser. 141), Oxford, 238-43. 'A relief carving of two female figures from Housesteads', Archaeologia Aeliana ser. 5, 13, 1-5. 'Unstratified column capital', in F. and N. Ball, "'Rescue" excavation at Wall (Staffordshire), 1980-81 ', Transactions of the South Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society 25 (1983-1984), 11. 'Decorated architectural stonework', in G. Parnell, 'The Roman and Medieval defences and the later developments of the Inmost Ward, Tower of London: excavations 195577' Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 36, 67-8. Review of A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (eds), Images of Women in Antiquity ( 1983), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 21/22, 162-3.

1986 'The cult and sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis', in M. Henig and A. King (eds), Pagan Gods and Shrines of the Roman Empire (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph 8), Oxford, 211-19. Comments on architectural fragments in L. Miller, J. Schofield and M. Rhodes, The Roman Quay at St. Magnus House, London (London and Middlesex Archaeological Society special paper 8), London, 244-5. 'Report on carved lion's head from Clementhorpe', in D. Brinklow, R. A. Hall, J. R. Magilton and S. Donaghey, Coney Street, Aldwark and Clementhorpe, Minor Sites and Roman Roads (The Archaeology of York 6/1), York: Council for British Archaeology, 67. (with M. Henig) 'Cupid or Adonis? A new Roman reliefcarving from Lincoln', Antiquaries Journal 66, 360-3. 'Roman religious sites in the British landscape', Landscape History 8, 15-25. 1987 'Society and the artist', in J. Wacher (ed), The Roman World, London: Routledge, 717-42. Contributions on Roman stonework in L. P. Wenham, R. A. Hall, C. M. Briden and D. A. Stocker, St. Mary Bishophill Junior and St. Mary Castlegate (The Archaeology of York 8/2), York: Council for British Archaeology, 118 and 154-5. 1988 'Sculpture and architectural decoration', in A.G. Poulter, Nicopolis ad ]strum, an interim report 1985-7, University of Nottingham, 21. Review of A. Mc Whirr (ed), Cirencester Excavations 111:houses in Roman Cirencester (1986), Archaeological Journal 145, 426-8. Review of J. C. Coulston and E. J. Phillips, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani 1.6: Hadrians s Wall West of the North Tyne, and Carlisle (1988), Antiquaries Journal 68, 353-4. 1989 Report on ceramic column base in A. Down, Chichester Excavations VI, Chichester: Chichester Excavations Committee, 159. 'Richborough', in V. A. Maxfield (ed), The Saxon Shore, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 140-5. 'Art and architecture', in M. Todd (ed) Research in Roman Britain 1960-89 (Britannia Monograph 11), London, 203-17. Review ofG. Brodribb, Roman Brick and Tile (1987), Journal of the British Archaeological Association 142, 84-5. Review ofB. Cunliffe and P. Davenport, The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, vol. L The Site (1985), Antiquaries Journal 69, 356-7. viii

1990 (ed, with M. Millett) The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford: Oxbow Books. (with M. Millett) 'Introduction', in Blagg and Millett 1990, 1-4. 'First-century Roman houses in Gaul and Britain', in Blagg and Millett 1990, 194-209. (with A. Bonnano and A. T. Luttrell) Excavations at Hal Millieri, Malta, Msida, Malta: Malta University Press. 'Column capitals with elephant-head volutes at Petra', Levant 22, 131-8. (with M. B Lyttelton) 'Sculpture in Nabataean Petra and the question of Roman influence', in M. Henig (ed), Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 91-107. (with M. B. Lyttelton) 'Sculpture from the temenos ofQasr el-Bint at Petra', in S. Abousayd (ed), ARAM2, 267-86. 'The Temple at Bath (Aquae Sulis) in the context of classical temples in the west European provinces', Journal of Roman Archaeology 3, 419-30. 'Building stone in Roman Britain', in D. Parsons (ed), Stone: quarrying and building in England, AD 43-1525, Chichester: Phillimore, 33-50. 'Architectural munificence in Britain: the evidence of inscriptions', Britannia 21, 13-31. 'Architectural stonework', in S. Wrathmell and A. Nicholson (eds), Dalton Parlours Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa, Wakefield: Yorkshire Archaeology 3, 160-2. 'Between Greek and Roman: cities of Illyria', Proceedings of the Classical Association 87, 19-20. Review of Shaika Haya Ali Khalifa and M. Rice (eds), Bahrain through the ages (1986), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 27, 150-1. Review of A. Barbet (ed), La peinture murale romaine dans !es provinces de ! 'Empire (BAR int. ser. 165, 1983), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 27, 155-6. Review of M. A. Cotton and G. Metraux, The San Rocco villa at Francolise (1985), Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 27, 179-81. Review of J. H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses, arenasfor chariot racing (1986), Antiquaries Journal 70, 487-9.

1991 'Architectural benefaction in northern and southern Britain', in V. A. Maxfield and M. J. Dobson (eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1989, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 28-34. (with A. T. Luttrell) 'The papal palace and other fourteenth-century buildings at Sorgues, near Avignon',Archaeologia 109, 161-92. 'Buildings', in R. F. J. Jones (ed), Britain in the Roman Period: recent trends, Sheffield: John Collis Publications, 3-14. 'Roman carved and sculptured stones', microfiche pp. 147-152 in J. Evans, R. F. J. Jones and P. Turnbull, 'Excavations at Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham, 1978-1979', Durham Archaeological Journal 7, 5-48. Review of A. L. F. Rivet, Gallia Narbonensis: southern Gaul in Roman times (1988), Journal of the British Archaeological Association 144, 119-21. Review of J. McKenzie, The Architecture of Petra (1990), Antiquaries Journal 71, 286- 7.

1992 'Objects of stone: architectural fragments', in J. Hinchliffe and J. H. Williams with F. Williams, Roman Warrington. Excavations at Wilderspool 1966-9 and 1976 (University of Manchester, Brigantia Monograph 2), Manchester, 159-61. 'Archaeology in Albania'. Review of P. Cabanes (ed), L 'Illyrie meridionale et l 'Epire dans l'antiquite, Actes du Colloque International de Clermont-Ferrand (1987), A. Eggebrecht (Hrsg.), Albanien, Schatze aus dem Land der Skipetaren (1988), G. Koch, Albanien, Kunst und Kultur im Land der Skipetaren (1989), Journal of Roman Archaeology 5, 341-8. 'Provincial architectural ornament: Pannonia'. Review of A. Kiss, Pannonische Architekturelemente und Ornamentik in Ungarn ( 1987), Journal of Roman Archaeology 5, 395-400. Review of G. de la Bedoyere, The Buildings of Roman Britain (1991), Journal of the British Archaeological Association 145, 121.

1993 'Architectural carvings', in M. Henig, Roman Sculpturefrom the Cotswold Region (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain I. 7), Oxford: British Academy, 63-77 and 86. 'Column base fragment', in A.G. Kinsley, Broughton Lodge (University ofNottingham Archaeological monographs 4), Nottingham, 11. i)(

'Le mobilier archeologique du sanctuaire de Diane Nemorensis', in 0. de Cazenove andJ. Scheid (eds), Les Bois Sacres (Collection du Centre Jean Berard 10), Naples, 103-9. Review ofM. C. D'Ercole, La stipe votiva del Belvedere a Lucera (1990), and A.-M. Comella and G. Stefani, Materiali votivi del santuario di Campetti a Veio ( 1990), Journal ofRoman Studies 83, 188-9. Review of R. Han worth, The Heritage of North Cyprus (n.d.), Turkish Area Study Group Newsletter 37 (November), 6-7. Review of J. Stephens Crawford, The Byzantine shops at Sardis (Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, monograph 9, 1990), Journal of the British Archaeological Association 146, 125-6.

1994 Review ofD. M. Bailey, Excavations at El-Ashmunein IV- Hermopolis Magna: Buildings of the Roman period (1991), Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 80, 266-8. 1995 'Roman architectural and sculptural stonework', in D. Phillips and B. Heywood (ed. M. Carver), Excavations at YorkMinster, volume I, London: Royal Commission for Historical Monuments, 223-45. 'The Marlowe excavations: an overview', in K. Blockley and others (ed), Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas (The Archaeology of Canterbury 5), Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 7-25. 'Column tiles; the marble and stone inlay, and the architectural stonework, Roman', in K. Blockley and others (ed), Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park, etc. (as preceding item), 1295, 1298-1303. 'The House in Area M: internal decoration', in A. Poulter (ed), Nicopolis ad lstrum, A Roman, Late Roman and Byzantine City (Journal of Roman Studies Monograph 8), London, 243-57. Review of G. Milne, From Roman Basilica to Medieval Market (1992), Journal of the British Archaeological Association 148, 174-5. 1996 'Monumental architecture in Roman London', in J. Bird, M. Hassall and H. Sheldon (eds), Interpreting Roman London: Papers in Memory of Hugh Chapman (Oxbow Monographs 58), Oxford, 43-47. 'The external decoration of Romano-British buildings', in P. Johnson (ed, with I. Haynes), Architecture in Roman Britain (CBA Research Report 94 ), York, 9-18. 'Apollodoros of Damascus'; 'Apollonia'; 'Arausio'; 'Arles 1 (i), Arelate'; 'Augusta Emerita'; 'Autun 1, Augustodunum'; 'Bath (i), 1 Aquae Sulis'; 'Butrint'; 'Calleva Atrebatum'; 'Dyrrhachion'; 'Fishbourne'; 'Frontinus'; 'Hadrian's Wall'; 'Lyon 1 (i), Lugdunum'; 'Nemi'; 'Nimes 1, Nemausus, 2, Pont du Gard'; 'Rome, ancient II, architecture 1 (ii), materials and construction techniques, (a) stone, general, (b) brick and tile; architecture 1 (iv), architects and masons; architecture 2 (ii), provinces, (a) northern, western and central Europe and the Balkans'; 'St.Albans 1 (i), Verulamium'; 'Severus and Celer'; 'Vasio Vocontiorum'; 'Vienne 1, Vienna'; in Jane Turner (ed) The Dictionary of Art, London: Macmillan, Vol 2,227, 286-7, 418-9, 721-2, 840; Vol 3, 368-9;Vol5,313,436;Vol9,495;Volll,137-8,802-3;Voll4,22-3;Voll9,845;Vol 22, 730-1; Vol 23, 147-8; Vol 26, 874-5, 877-9, 884-6, 903-8; Vol 27, 525-6; Vol 28, 510;Vol32, 72,463. Review of Martin Henig, The Art of Roman Britain (1995), Archaeological Journal 153, 383-4. 1997 (with A. T. Luttrell) Le Palais Papal duXIVeme siecle a Sorgues (Les Etudes Sorguaises 10), Sorgues. 'Romanity on the frontier'. Review of J.-P. Adam, Roman Building Materials and Techniques (1994), J. S. Wacher, The Towns of Roman Britain (1995), J. Crow, English Heritage Book of Housesteads (1995), A. K. Bowman, L(fe and Letters on the Roman Frontier (1994), The Times Higher Education Supplement, 10 January, 26 1998 'The sculpture', inH. E. M. Cool and C. Philo (eds),Roman Castleford I, Wakefield, 247-53. 'Architectural details: the stonework' and 'Table-tops', in J. R. Timby, Excavations at Kingscote and Tfycomb, Gloucestershire, Cirencester, 73-7 and 179-81.

1999 'The development of bell-casting, and some Nottinghamshire bell-founders', in J. S. Alexander (ed), Southwell and Nottinghamshire: medieval art, architecture and industry (The British Archaeological Association Conference Transactions 21), Leeds, 126-35. 'The architectural fragments', pp.228-232 in P. Ellis, 'North Leigh Roman Villa, Oxfordshire: a report on excavation and recording in the 1970s', Britannia 30, 199245. Review of F. Fontana, I Culti di Aquileia Repubblicana: Aspetti dell a Politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III ed il II Sec. A. C. (Studi Richerche sulla Gallia Cisalpina 9) (1997), Journal of Roman Studies 89, 227-8. 2000 'The architecture of the legionary principia', in R. J. Brewer (ed), Roman Fortresses and their Legions (Occasional Papers of the Society of Antiquaries of London 20), London: The Society of Antiquaries ofLondon and the National Museums and Galleries ofWales, 139-147. 'The votive model. Etrusco-Italic temples from Nemi', in J. R. Brandt, A.-M. Touati and J. Zable (eds), Nemi - Status Quo. Recent research at Nemi and the Sanctuary of Diana, Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 83-90. 2001 'The carved and sculptured stones, clay and metal figurines', in A.S. Anderson, J.S. Wacher and A.P. Fitzpatrick, The Roman 'small town' at Wanborough Wiltshire, Excavations 1966-1976, Britannia Monograph 19 (2001), pp. 153-5. Forthcoming or in preparation Report on architectural fragments in P.R. Wilson et al., 200 l (forthcoming), Cataractonium (Catterick): a Roman town and its hinterland. Excavations and research 1958-1997 (CBA Research Report), York. (with J. Plouviez and A. Tester) Excavations at the large Romano-British Settlement at Hacheston, Suffolk in 1973-1974 (East Anglian Archaeology). (with A. T. Luttrell, M. Lyttelton et al.) Le Mura di Santo Stefano, Anguillara. 'A Corinthian Column Capital' in P. Ellis, Wroxeter, Archaeology, Excavations and Fieldwork on the defences and in the town. 1975-1992 (Shropshire Archaeology Trans.). Stonework report for the 165 Great Dover Street site, Southwark. (with M. Henig) 'Architectural Sculpture' in M. Henig, Roman Sculpture in the North West Midlands (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani I) Oxford, British Academy. (with M. Henig) Roman Sculpture in South East England (Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani I) Oxford, British Academy. Other Peoples' Treasures (unpublished novel, c. 1999).

Compiler's note: there are also several unpublished stonework reports amongst TFCB's files, currently held at Dept of Archaeology, King Alfred's College, Winchester. This archive also houses many of the original drawings and photographs for TFCB's thesis and other publications. In addition, Dr Blagg himself deposited a set of 35mm black-and-white film contact sheets and larger prints of his own photographs of architectural sculpture with the National Monuments Record, Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England. These are now held at the National Monuments Record Centre, English Heritage, Swindon, in three boxes titled 'TFC Blagg. Roman Architecture Corpus'. Compiled by A. C. King, based on computer files by TFCB, with additions.

Xi

SUMMARY This work was originally written as a London Ph.D. thesis. It is a study of the decorated stonework used in the construction and embellishment of Roman buildings in Britain. Stonemasons' tools and techniques are considered first, the main evidence for the former being the toolmarks which remain on stonework. There follow classifications and discussion of various categories of architectural ornament. Among Corinthian column capitals, one class was characteristic of public buildings in the south and east of the province; in common with other features of Romano-British ornament, it can be closely related to the products of masons in north-eastern Gaul. Two other classes of Corinthian capital indicate a separate regional tradition in the north-west midlands. The rarity of Corinthian capitals and the prevalence ofF oliate capitals in the northern military zone is among the features which distinguish between civilian and military architecture within Britain. The same distinction is observable in the typology of column bases, Tuscan capitals and finials, and in the choice of decorative motifs on entablatures. The relative frequency of column bases and Tuscan capitals makes possible some statistical quantification of proportional relationships and of stylistic features, permitting more detailed definitions of regional variations, and identification of the products of individual craftsmen. The limited evidence for the use of overall schemes of proportion is also considered. Two recently reconstructed monuments from Roman London are presented as a case study in the archaeological use of architectural ornament. The concluding chapter contains a discussion of the historical and social contexts for the introduction into Britain and the subsequent development there of Roman architectural decoration in stone, including aspects of patronage and craft organisation, the relationship of civilian to military and of rural to urban architecture. The distinctive features of the British provincial version of Roman architecture are summarised.

Xii

CONTENTS Page Introduction and Apprecitiation of Dr T. F. C. Blagg by Martin Henig, Grahame Soffe and Anthony King .............................................

iii

Bibliography of the published works by T. F. C. Blagg .......... ........................ ............ v Summary ...............................................................................................................

xii

Contents ................................................................................................................

xiii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................

xvii

List of Plates ........................................................................................................

xviii

List of Tables ........................................................................................................

xxi

List of Maps ..........................................................................................................

xxi

Chapter/ Introduction .................... .......... .......................................... .............................. ..... 3 Acknowledgements

...........................................................................................

6

Chapter/I Tools and Techniques of the Roman Stonemason in Britain ....................... ...... 7 Sources of Information ......................................................................................

7

Tools and Techniques ........................... ............................ ................................. 7 (a) Quarrying ...............................................................................................

8

(b) Dressing ................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .............. 8 i. The Axe and the Adze ........... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... 8 ii. The Point ...........................................................................................

9

iii. The Drove ......................... .............................. ................................ 11 iv. The Claw Chisel ..............................................................................

12

v. The Chisel ....................... ................................ ................................ 12 vi. The Drill ..........................................................................................

13

vii. The Lathe .......................................................................................

13

viii. The Setting-out of Decoration ........................................................

15

(c) Finishing ...............................................................................................

15

Chapter/II Decorated Capitals .............................................................................................. The Composite order .......................................................................................

18 19

The Corinthian order ............................. ............................ ............................... 19 Class A ......................................................................................................

19

Class B ......................................................................................................

20

Class C ......................................................................................................

21

Typical Class C capitals ......................................................................

25

Variant Class C capitals .......................................................................

30

xiii

Class 0 ......................................................................................................

32

Class E ......................................................................................................

33

Class F ......................................................................................................

36

Class G ........................................... ............................... ........................... 37 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................

38

Foliate capitals ................................................................................................

39

Group A ........................................... .............................. ............................ 39 Group B ..................................................................................................... Miscellaneous decorated capitals ....................................................................

40 42

Doubtful cases .................................. ........ .......... ............ ........ .......... ............... 43 Conclusions .....................................................................................................

44

1 . Proportions ............................................................................................

44

2. Historical and social contexts .............. ........................... ....................... 45

Chapter IV Decorated Column Bases ...................................................................................

49

ChapterV Ornamental Motifs ............................................................................................... 1. Cymation .....................................................................................................

51 51

2. Anthem ion ....................... ................... ........... .......... ................... ........... ...... 55 3. Running Leaf Scroll ..................................................................................... 4. Astragal .......................................................................................................

60 60

5. Ovolo ................................................. ............................... ........................... 64 6. Modillions and Brackets ...............................................................................

64

7. Dentils ............................................... .............................. ............................ 68 8. Fluting .................... .............................. .............................. .......................... 68 ..............................................................................................................

~

10. Guilloche ...................................................................................................

69

9.F~

11. Overlapping Leaves ........... ......... ............................. ........ ......... .......... ....... 70 12. Acanthus Spray .........................................................................................

70

13. Drooping Flowers and Leaves ...................................................................

70

14. lmbricated Leaves .....................................................................................

72

15. Lattice ........................................................................................................

74

16. Leaf Band ..................................................................................................

74

17. Chip-carving ..............................................................................................

74

18. S-scroll ......................................................................................................

75

Chapter VI Decorated Column Shafts and Pilasters ............................................................ 77 (a) Fluted Columns .........................................................................................

77

(b) Functional Fluted Pilasters ........................................................................

79

Discussion of (a) and (b) .................... ............................ ........................... 81 (c) Pilasters on Decorative Reliefs ..................................................................

82

(d) lmbricated Column Shafts and Pilasters .................................................... 83 Jupiter Columns ........................................................................................

83

Columns from Buildings ................ ........ .................... ........ ........................ 85 Columns of uncertain use ..........................................................................

86

The Spring head Column ............................................................................

86

(e) Lattice-decorated Columns ............ ........ .......................... .......................... 87 xiv

Chapter VII Decorated Mouldings ..........................................................................................

88

(i) Architraves ................................................................................................

88

(ii) Friezes ............. .............................. ................................ ........................... 91 (iii) Cornices ....................................................................................................

92

a. With projecting corona ...................... ............................ ......................... 93 b. With modi IIions ......................................................................................

93

c. With dentils but without mod ill ions .................................. ....................... 96 d. Others ...................................................................................................

97

(iv) Conclusions ....................................... ............................ ............................ 99 Appendix: The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath ....................................................... 101 The Quadrant Monument at Bath .................................... ........................ 102 Chapter VIII Column Bases and Tuscan Capitals ................................................................

105

Bases ............................................................. .......................................... ..... 106 The Romano-British Column Base .......................................................... 108 Proportions ............................................ .................... .............................. 108 Typological Classification ........................................................................

112

I Bases with a cyma moulding above the tori ................. .................... 112 A Cyma without bead or fillet ....................................................... 112 B Cyma with fillet above .............................................................. 112 C Cyma with bead above ............................ ................................ 114 D Wide-splayed cyma .................................................................

117

II Bases with a cavetto moulding above the tori ................................. 117 A Short cavetto ............................................................................

117

B Tall cavetto without fillet or bead .............................................. 120 C Cavetto with overhanging bead or fillet .................................... 120 111Squared tori ...................................................................................

120

IV Torus with fillet and astragalus ...................... ................................ 122 V Single torus and mouldings ............................................................ 123 VI Upper mouldings of a fascia or fillets only ..................................... 125 VII Tori with fillets but no upper mouldings ......................................... 125 VII I Tori without fillets or mouldings ............................ ....................... 125 IX Single torus without fillets or mouldings ........................................ 125 Pier and Pilaster Bases ...........................................................................

125

Column Bases: Conclusions (regionaland chronologicalcharacteristics)...... 126 Column Capitals ............................................................................................ 126 The Provincial Tuscan Order ................................................................... 126 Proportions ..............................................................................................

127

I Two clear cyma mouldings .............................................................. 127 II Clear cyma and cavetto .................................................................. 129 Ill Two clear cavettos .................................................. ....................... 129 IV Shallow cyma and cavetto mouldings ........................................... 129 A Upright cavetto with tall fillets ................................................... 129 B Splayed upper cavetto or cyma ................................................ 132 C Upright mouldings ....................................................................

132

D Gentle cyma or cavetto-like mouldings .................................... 132 General comments ............................................... ....................... 132

V Variants on the cyma profile .............................. ......... .................... 132 A Steep cyma with beads, indented fillets ................................... 133 B Short steep cyma with beads, indented fillets .......................... 133 C Steep cymas, indented fillets, no beads ................................... 136 D Wide-splayed shallow-profiled cyma ........................................ 136 E Cyma or cavetto with multiple indentations .............................. 138 F Cyma mouldings with torus above ............................................ 138 VI Ovolo mouldings with cymas and cavettos .................................... 139 A Ovolo with double cyma or cavetto .......................................... 139 B Ovolo with single cyma or cavetto ............................................ 139 C Ovolo with fasciae ....................................................................

139

VII Capitals with multiple mouldings ..................... ............................. 139 A Multiple angular mouldings ...................................................... 139 B Multiple curvaceous mouldings ................................................ 142 VIII Capitals with a single cyma or cavetto moulding ......................... 142 Miscellaneous ...................................................................................

142

Column capitals: Conclusions (regionaland chronologicalcharacteristics)... 143 Columns ........................................................................................................

144

Size and use ............................................................................................

144

lntercolumniation .....................................................................................

145

Proportions: Dwarf Columns ....................................................................

145

Appendices: 1. Bases without mouldings, with bead or fillet only, and with additional mouldings .............................................................. 147 2. Bases having tori with fillets ................................................................. 147 3. Bases having tori with median grooves .................. ............................. 148 4. Bases with plinths ................................................................................

148

Chapter IX Finials .................................................................................................................

149

Tower finials ...................................................................................................

149

Type A .....................................................................................................

149

Type B .....................................................................................................

151

Date ........................................... .............................................................. 152 Manner of use .........................................................................................

152

Origin of the type .................................... .......... ................... .................... 152 Pine-cone finials ............................................................................................

154

Phallic finials ..................................................................................................

155

Miscellaneous ................................................................................................

155

Appendices 1. Tower finials: table of heights, provenances and dates ........................ 156 2. Pine-cone finials: table of dimensions and references ......................... 158

ChapterX The Reconstruction of two Roman Monuments from London ...................... 159 Introduction ....................................................................................................

159

Description and Classification of the Stones .................................................. 159 The London Arch ...........................................................................................

165

Reconstruction ........................................................................................

166

Discussion ...............................................................................................

171

The Screen of Gods ...................................................................................... Reconstruction ........................................................................................ Discussion ............................................................................................... Techniques of Construction and Masonry ......................................................

174 174 177 179

Chapter XI Conclusions ....................................................................................................... (a) Patrons and Craftsmen ............................................................................

181 181

Pre-Flavian building in stone ................................................................... 181 The role of the army in early Romano-British civilian architecture ........... 182 Imperial initiatives in architecture ............................................................. 183 Regional traditions in Romano-British architectural decoration ................ 185 (b) Buildings and their ornament .................................................................... 188 (c) The use of architectural ornament for dating, attribution and reconstruction .................................. ................................ 190 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................

193

Bibliography ......................................................................................................

195

Postscript ...........................................................................................................

200

List of Text Figures 1. Roman Stonemasons' Tools ..............................................................................

10

2. Reconstructions of a lathe for turning architectural stonework ........................... 16 3. (a-c) Corinthian capitals, Kahler Forms C, D, H; (d) Principal parts of the Corinthian capital ....................................................... 23 4. Cyma recta motifs: (a) Acanthus, type ii; (b) Acanthus, type iii .......................... 52 5. (a) Cyma recta motif: Acanthus and lotus; (b) Cyma reversa motifs: Leaf and tongue, types i and ii, and simple leaf ........ 54 6. Leaf Spiral motifs ...............................................................................................

56

7. Acanthus Scroll motifs .......................................................................................

58

8. (a) Rosette Scroll motifs; (b) Running-leaf Scroll motifs .................................... 59 9. Astragal: types of bead-and-reel ........................................................................ 61 10. Decorated modillions .......................................................................................

65

11. Plain brackets and dentils ................................................................................

67

12. Continuous band motifs: (a) Guilloches; (b) Overlapping leaves ...................... 69 13. Pilaster motifs: (a) Acanthus Spray; (b) Drooping Flowers and Leaves ........... 71 14. lmbricated leaves ............................................................................................ 15. S-Scroll ornament ............................................................................................

73 76

16. Sections of Fluted Column Shafts .................................................................... 78 17. Sections of Fluted Pilasters ....................... ........................... ........................... 80 18. Profiles of Architraves ......................................................................................

89

19. Bath: Quadrant corner of the Great Bath, and conjectural reconstruction of a monument .............................................. 103 20. Column bases from the villa at Great Witcombe ............. ............................... 109 21. Column bases from the forum portico at Wroxeter ........................................ 110 22. Bases of Type I A ..........................................................................................

111

23. Bases of Type I B ................................... ............................. .......................... 113 24. Bases of Type I B ..........................................................................................

114

25. Bases of Type IC ................................... ............................. .......................... 115 26. Bases of Type ID ..........................................................................................

116

27. Bases of Type II A .........................................................................................

118

xv!!

28. Bases of Type II B .................. ........ ................... ........... .................. .......... ..... 119 29. Bases of Types II C and 111 .............................................................................

121

30. Bases of Type IV ...........................................................................................

123

31. Bases of Types V and VI .......................... ............................ ......................... 124 32. Capitals of Type I ...........................................................................................

128

33. Capitals of Types 11and 111.............................................................................

130

34. Capitals of Type IV ........... .......................... ........................... ......................... 131 35. Capitals of Type VA ......................................................................................

134

36. Capitals of Type V B ......................................................................................

135

37. Capitals of Type V C and D ............................................................................

137

38. Capitals of Type V E, F ..................................................................................

138

39. Capitals of Type VI .........................................................................................

140

40. Capitals of Types VII and VIII .........................................................................

141

41. Finials of Tower Type A ............................. ............................ ......................... 150 42. Finials of Tower Type B ..................................................................................

151

43. The London Arch, decorated voussoirs, block 2 ....................... ..................... 161 44. The London Arch, figures in niches: blocks 10 and 11, Season or Abundantia block 12, helmet of Minerva .................. ..................... 162 45. The London Arch, blocks no. 19 (cantharus), 7 (pedestal) and 23 (head of Venus) .................................................................................

163

46. The Screen of Gods, blocks 29 and 30 (Mercury) and 32 (Vulcan and Minerva) .........................................................................

164

4 7. The London Arch: ornament of soffit ..............................................................

165

48. The London Arch: elevations of front and left end .......................................... 166 49. The London Arch: elevations of back and right end .................. ..................... 168 50. The London Arch: perspective reconstruction ................................................ 170 51. The Screen of Gods: reconstruction ................................ .............................. 176 List of Plates I. Block from the east gate of the fort at Chesters, showing tool marks of drove, axe and adze ................................................. 201 II. Column base, North Leigh 2, with marks of point ...................................... 201 Ill. Corinthian capital, Cirencester 4 ............................................................... 202 IV. Lathe-turned column capital, Witcombe 13 .............................................. 202 V. Cornice fragments, Cirencester 104 and 105, showing chisel-marks ........ 203 VI, Lathe-turned column base, Witcombe 7 ................................................... 203 VII. Top of column capital, Witcombe 13 ....................................................... 204 VIII. Column drum, Cirencester 15, dressed with claw-chisel (left), and underside of sarcophagus (right) .................................................... 204 IX. Corinthian capital, Chester 5 .................................................................... 205 X. Corinthian capital from principia, Chester 7 ............................................... 205 XI. Composite capital, Bath 80 ......................................................................

206

XII. Fragment of Composite capital, Chester 101 .......................................... 206

XIII. Composite capital, Corbridge 134 .......................................................... 207 XIV. Composite capital, Chester 103 ............................................................. 207 XV. Corinthian capital, Fishbourne 28 ............................................................

208

XVI. Volute of Corinthian capital from basilica, Silchester 2 ........................... 209 XVII. Upper part of Corinthian capital, Silchester 25 ...................................... 209 XVIII. Lower half of Corinthian capital, Silchester 27 .....................................

210

XIX. Volute of Corinthian capital, Silchester 131 ............................................ 210 xviii

XX. Rosettes of Corinthian capitals, Silchester 114 and 115 .......................... 211 XXI. Rosette of Corinthian capital, Silchester 128 ......................................... 211 XXII. Corinthian capital from Temple of Sulis Minerva, Bath 4 ....................... 212 XXIII. Upper part of Corinthian capital from basilica, Caerwent 15, 16 .......... 212

XXIV. Fragments of Corinthian capital, Canterbury 12 and 13 ....................... 212 XXV. Lower half of Corinthian capital, Cirencester 20 .................................... 213 XXVI. Lower half of Corinthian capital from basilica, Cirencester 51 ............. 213 XXVII, Upper half of Corinthian capital, Cirencester 50 ................................. 214 XXVIII. Calyx of engaged Corinthian capital, Cirencester 34 ......................... 214 XXIX, Figured Corinthian capital, Cirencester 60 ........................................... 214 XXX. Volute fragments of Corinthian capital, Cirencester 87 and 88 ............. 215 XXXI. Calyces of the same capital, Cirencester 108 ......................................

215

XXXII. Upper part of Corinthian capital, Cirencester 39 ................................. 216 XXXIII. Volute of Corinthian capital from theatre, Verulamium 12 .................. 216 XXXIV. Lower half of Corinthian capital from theatre, Verulamium 22 ........... 216 XXXV. Corinthian capital, Gloucester 27 ........................................................ 217 XXXVI. Upper half of Corinthian capital, Gloucester 23 ................................. 217 XXXVII. (a) Volute of Corinthian capital, Gloucester 24 ................................ 218 (b) Seating of Corinthian capital, Gloucester 26 ............................... 218 XXXVIII. Figured Corinthian capital, lrchester 1 ............................................. 219 XXXIX. Volute of Corinthian capital, Lincoln 9 ..................... .......................... 220 XL. Upper part of Corinthian capital, London 90 ............................................ 220 XLI. Corinthian capital from basilica of principia, Chester 14 ......................... 220 XLII. Corinthian capital from principia, Ribchester 18 .................................... 221 XLIII. Volute of Corinthian capital, Wroxeter 116 ............................................ 221 XLIV. Corinthian capital, Wroxeter 119 ..........................................................

222

XLV. Corinthian capital, Wilderspool 7 ........................................................... 222 XLVI. Corinthian pier capital, Chester 34 .......................................................

223

XLVII. Corinthian capital, Chester 3 ...............................................................

223

XLVIII. Upper half of Corinthian capital, Wroxeter 110 ................................... 224 XLIX. Lower half of Corinthian capital, Wroxeter 109 .................................... 224 L. Corinthian pier capital, Carlisle 7 ............................................................... 225 LI. Upper part of Corinthian capital, Wroxeter 118 ......................................... 225 LIi. Fragments of Corinthian capital from votive column, Spring head ............ 225

LIii. Lower half of Corinthian capital, Chesters 50 ......................................... 226 LIV. Corinthian capital, Housesteads 1 ..........................................................

226

LV. Corinthian capital, Leicester 48 .................. .......... .................... ................ 227 LVI. Figured Corinthian capital, Catterick 14 .................................................. 227 LVII. (a) Corinthian capital, Carlisle 8 ............................................................ 228 (b) Foliate capitals, Wroxeter 105 and 106 ........................................... 228 LVIII. Foliate capital, Bathford 1 .....................................................................

228

LIX. Decorated bases, Cirencester 41, 42, 56-59 and Rudchester 1 ............. 229 LX. Cornice from Temple of Sulis Minerva, Bath 6-16 ................................... 230 LXI. Cornice from Quadrangular Monument, Bath 49-50 ............................... 230 LXII. Cornice, London 16 ...............................................................................

231

LXIII. Cornice, Brixworth 1 .............................................................................

231

LXIV. Cornice, Cirencester 43 .......................................................................

232

LXV. Cornice, Verulamium 16 ........................................................................

232

LXVI. Cornice from legionary baths, Wroxeter 117 ........................................ 233 XiX

LXVII. Border of building inscription from Corbridge, (R/B 1148) ................... 233 LXVIII. Decorated mouldings, Corbridge 142, 143, 144 ................................. 234 LXIX. Cornice, Leicester 49 ...........................................................................

234

LXX. Cornice, Lincoln 40 ...............................................................................

234

LXXI. Relief of a Tyche, Lincoln 26 ................................................................

235

LXXII. Decorated architrave of Quadrant Monument, Bath 68 ....................... 236 LXXIII. Opposite face of the same architrave, Bath 68 .................................. 236 LXXIV. Frieze from Quadrant Monument, Bath 65 ......................................... 237 LXXV. Pediment, Leicester 16 .......................................................................

237

LXXVI. Frieze, Cirencester 40 .......................................................................

238

LXXVII. Cornice from temple, Wroxeter 6 .....................................................

238

LXXVIII. Cornice, Bath 81 ..............................................................................

238

LXXIX. Cornice, Bath 84 ................................................................................

239

LXXX, Cornice, Corbridge 140 ......................................................................

239

LXXXI. Cornice, Chester 40 ..........................................................................

239

LXXXII. Cornices, Chedworth 21-23 ..............................................................

240

LXXXIII. Cornice, Housesteads 22 ................................................................

240

LXXXIV. Bracket, Winchester 3 .....................................................................

240

LXXXV. Moulding, Corbridge 55 ....................................................................

241

LXXXVI, Mouldings, Hexham 15, 16, 20 ........................................................ 241 LXXXVII. Cornice, Upton St. Leonards 1 .......................................................

242

LXXXVIII. Frieze, Chichester 4 ......................................................................

242

LXXXIX. Cornice, Aries .................................................................................

242

XC. Pilaster capital and marble mouldings and veneers, Temple of Claudius, Colchester ......................................... ...................... 243 XCI. Frieze, York 18 ......................................................................................

243

XCII. Architrave, Richborough 1 ....................................................................

243

XCIII. Frieze, London 90-91 ...........................................................................

244

XCIV. Cornice, Corbridge 102 .......................................................................

244

XCV. Frieze, Chester 94 ................................................................................

245

XCVI. Cornice, Richborough 11 .....................................................................

245

XCVII. Detail of pediment of Temple of Sulis Minerva, Bath .......................... 245 XCVIII. Column from Colliton Park house, Dorchester .............. .................... 246 XCIX. Column base, Chester 16 ...................................................................

246

C. Column capital, Bignor 15 .........................................................................

246

Cl. Finial, Nettleton 19 ...................................................................................

247

CII. Finial, Nettleton 20 ..................................................................................

247

CIII. Finial, Caerwent 2 ..................................................................................

248

CIV. Finial, Holbury ........................................................................................

248

CV. Finial, Silchester 124 ...............................................................................

248

CVI. Finial, Caerwent 1 ..................................................................................

249

CVII. Finial, Silchester 139 ............................................................................

249

CVIII. Pine-cone finial, Housesteads 125 ......................................................

249

CIX. Pine cone finials, Housesteads 10 (right), 11 (left), Kirkby Thors 1 (centre) .............................................. ............................ 250 CX. Pine-cone finial, Caerleon 16 ..................................................................

250

CXI. Pine-cone finial, Birdoswald ................................................................... 250 CXII. Snake and pine-cone finial, Carlisle ...................................................... 251 CXIII. Phallic finial, Corbridge 128 .................................................................

xx

251

CXIV. Phallic finial and marble moulding, Exeter 3 and 4 ......... .......... ........... 251 CXV. Cornucopiae, Corbridge 123, 124 .........................................................

251

CXVI. Finial or ridge piece, Caerwent 8 ......................................................... 252 CXVII. Foliate capital, Aldborough 6 ..............................................................

252

CXVIII, Foliate capital, Corbridge 136 ............................................................

252

CXIX. Foliate capital, Corbridge 141 .............................................................. 253 CXX. Foliate capital, Corbridge 60 ................................................................. 253 CXXI. Foliate eapitals, Corbridge 121, 125, 129 ............................................ 253 CXXII. Decorated capital, Caernarvon 7 ........................................................ 254 CXXIII. Architectural fragment, London 98 ....................................................

254

CXXIV. Foliate capitals: (a) Bar Hill 1; (b) lnveresk 4; (c) York 53; (d) London 63 ....................................................................................

254

CXXV. Foliate capital, Housesteads 19 .........................................................

255

CXXVI. Head of Mars, from London Screen of Gods ........................... ......... 255 List of Tables

1. Dimensions of Corinthian Capitals ............................................................. 256 2. Proportional parts of Corinthian Capitals - Percentages ............................ 257 3. Proportions of Corinthian Capitals: ratios ................................................... 258 4. Shaft diameters of Corinthian Capitals ...................................................... 259 5. Dates of Corinthian Capitals ...................................................................... 260 6. Diameters of Fluted Shafts and widths of Fluted Pilasters ......................... 261 7. Diameters of Column Shafts with lmbricated Leaves ................................ 261 8. Relationships between proportions of Decorated Mouldings and Column Shafts ....................................................................................

262

9. Heights of Decorated Mouldings ................................................................ 263 10. The use of Decorated Mouldings in buildings .......................................... 264 11. Angles from horizontal of the profiles of different types of Tuscan Capital ........................................................................................

265

12. Correlation of types of Column Base and Tuscan Capital ........................ 266 13. Aggregate frequencies of Column Shaft diameters ................................. 267 14. Dwarf Columns: ratios of total height to shaft diameter at base ............... 267 15. London Arch and Screen of Gods: construction holes ............................. 268 16. London Arch and Screen of Gods: lengths of dove-tail cramp-holes ....... 269 17. London Arch and Screen of Gods: relative widths of dove-tail cramp-holes .......................................................................... 270 List of Maps

1. Distribution of Corinthian and Foliate Capitals in Britain ............................ 271 2. Gaulish architectural ornament: sites mentioned in ChapterV .................. 272 3. Distribution of lmbricated Column Shafts and Jupiter Column Pedestals ....... 273 4. Distribution of Tower and Pine-cone Finials ............................................... 274

XXi

Text and Figures

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

Chapter I INTRODUCTION The city buildings fell apart, the works Of giants crumble. Tumbled are the towers ' Ruined the roofs, and broken the barred gate ... And grit holds in its grip, the hard embrace Of earth, the dead departed master-builders. 1 Time has not dealt kindly with the architecture of Roman Britain. Nothing survives with the degree of completeness that would permit comparison with the Maison Carree at N'imes, the Porte Noire at Besarn;on or the Aula Palatina at Trier. When such visible remains are absent, no amount of reconstruction drawings can fully succeed in doing what a standing monument can achieve so directly in creating in the mi~d's eye_the visual appearance of a Romano-British city, or m restonng the elevation of a building and the sense of its interior space where only a few courses of its foundations now remain. In other parts of the Roman Empire, Roman buildings have survived comparatively intact, by accident, default or as a result of continued use. The covering of the Hunting Baths at Lepcis Magna by windblown sand, the abandonment of malarial sub-Roman Ostia, the adaptation for Christian use of temples at N'imes and Vienne, for habitation of the amphitheatre at Lucca, or for defence of the gates of Perugia, have preserved substantial remains of the Roman structures for posterity. Only to a limited extent did this happen in Britain. In the Jewry Wall at Leicester and the Old Work at Wroxeter we have walls of the basilican halls of the public baths, and we have the Newport Arch at Lincoln and some town and fort walls. Partial destruction by the Romans themselves has ironically, preserved for us the Painted House at Dove/ standing over eight feet high beneath the rampart of the Saxo~ Shore fort2 , and the London Arch, partially reconstructible

from the dismantled stones re-used in the city's riverside defences 3 • Earlier generations were a little more fortunate. If the gilded roofs of Arthurian Caerleon existed only in Geoffrey of Monmouth's imagination 4 , we have surer literary evidence in the Life of St. Cuthbert that a Roman fountain was still to be seen in Carlisle in 685 5, and in Bede for the church of St. Maiiin in Canterbury, where part of the present structure is certainly Roman, though we cannot be sure that it was designed as a church as Bede t~o~ght 6 . Until the end of the seventeenth cent'ury the bmldmgs of the fmi at Housesteads provided a base for the moss-trooping activities of the notorious Am1strongs 7 . The cross-hall of the principia at York was still standing in the eighth, possibly even the tenth, century 8 , and the theatre at Canterbury survived until shortly after the Norman Conquest 9 . Roman techniques of architectural construction and decoration did not survive the two centuries of pagan Saxon ascendancy in what had been the most Romanised part of the province. Benedict Biscop had to send to France for craftsmen to _executethe masonry, the opus signinum floors and the glass wmdows of the monastery which he founded at Monkwearmouth in 674. The ability and the occasions were absent for the preservation of Roman structures after the end of Roman administration. Even more than in other western provinces, the stone from buildings which could no longer serve a useful purpose was incorporated into medieval walls and most limestone and marble was destroyed for ever in th~ limekilns. See below, pp. 159 ff. 4

Vita Sancti Cuthberti Auctore Anonymo IV, 8. 6

2

History of'the Kings of'Britain IX, 12.

Ecclesiastical History I, 26.

The Ruin, 2-4, 6-8, translated from the Anglo-Saxon by R. Hamer, A Choice of Anglo-Saxon Verse (London 1970): the description is usually considered to be of Bath.

7 Birley 1961, 179.

Britannia iii (1972), 351.

9 Frere 1970, 91.

8 Hope-Taylor 1971, 37-39.

T. F.

Bisgg

This loss of most of the architecture of Roman Britain may be one of the reasons why the study of what does survive of its ornament has so far attracted little attention, since the immediate visible context to which it might be related is no longer present. Less fortunate in this respect than his counterpart in Italy or Provence, the archaeologist in Roman Britain has learned to make do with less, an exigency which contributed to the great compensating advances in, for example, excavation techniques and coarse pottery studies in what one might call the Wheeler generation. In such circumstances, discussion of a building's plan and the stratigraphy of its occupation will be much more firmly based on the excavated evidence than a consideration of its superstructure and appearance, where little of its walls survives above foundation level. One cannot reconstruct much of an elevation from a couple of column capitals, and if those were all that an excavator discovered from it, there might be little that he felt able to say about them. Indeed, architectural stonework seems to have proved very inconvenient to many Romano-British archaeologists. Its decoration perhaps lacks the immediate appeal and potential religious or social meaning of figure sculpture and, since it tends to be found in large heavy pieces, one should not underestimate the practical difficulties of handling and storing it when resources of money, men, time and space are limited, as has often been the case. There is more than one excavator who has published all his coarse pottery and small bronze bindings, for example, in admirable detail, but who has reburied column bases and mouldings with no further record than the fact of their discovery. From the backyards of museums to the rockeries of country houses, many are the pieces which have suffered a fate worse than publication.

is based is indeed made with the eventual publication of a Corpus in prospect. The purpose of that will be to make generally available a body of information from which social, economic and historical conclusions can be drawn, some of which will be presented below. The interests of the user of such a Corpus demand that the items it contains should be arranged in relation to the sites at which they were found, where in most cases the buildings in which they were used once stood. Regional and chronological patterns are no more than the aggregates of the histories of individual sites. The study of the way in which these general histories relate to or differ from one another depends on what can be discovered about the individual characteristics, groupings and life histories of the archaeological 'population', that is, of the particular items of stonework as such. The most obvious division of the material for the purpose of analysis is that of its function. The constituent parts of decorated buildings - column bases, shafts and capitals, entablatures and rooffurniture - have been treated as separate elements. Subsidiary distinctions have been based on the degree of technical elaboration: between column capitals, bases and entablatures decorated with horizontal plain mouldings and those with foliate, figurative or geometrical detail; between plain column shafts and those that are decorated with fluting or other designs.

Aims and Methods of the Research

The study of these various categories has involved different methods of approach to each one. Thus, column capitals have as an obvious point of departure the formal division into the Orders of classical architecture. The regular constituents of a Corinthian or Composite capital provide a standard in relation to which the provincial variants may be defined. The elements of a Corinthian capital may be considered from two standpoints: the manner in which they are carved, that is, the detail of the foliage and variations in the disposition of acanthus leaves, calyces, volutes, etc.; and the proportions of the various parts to the whole. In a plain-moulded capital, the former standpoint involves only the profile of the individual mouldings and their combination, and the mathematical scheme of proportions, the relation of heights to diameters, has a greater relative importance. Thus, whereas the ornament of Corinthian capitals will require discussion at some length, the variations of the profile and proportions of plain-moulded capitals can be summarised in a much more compact way, and it would be otiose to present a catalogue description of each of some 500 capitals of this type.

In many cases, because of the poor preservation of most buildings and the fact that much architectural stonework does not come from a context which can be related to its original function, single pieces may tell us little by themselves. The first aim of the research has therefore been to make a comprehensive survey of decorated architectural stonework throughout the province, and to provide a classification of the material. Much of what follows consists, therefore, of the detailed description of individual items which are indispensable to any basic typological study.

Cornices, friezes and architraves are decorated with a finite range of motifs, but with a far wider range of combinations than column capitals. If these motifs and the manner of their carving were to serve as a basis for classification, it was necessary first to consider them individually. A chapter on ornamental motifs, therefore, provides the formal analysis preliminary to the chapter on decorative mouldings, which then deals more concisely with the individual buildings to which they belonged and the regional and chronological patterns.

The information is not, however, arranged or intended as a catalogue. The collection of material upon which this thesis

With such items as decorated column shafts and finials, the numbers that survive are too small, on the whole, for more

Interest in this subject may also have been deterred in more recent years by the fact that the canons of classical architectural ornament re-introduced in the Renaissance are no longer fashionable. Until the early years of this century, traditionallytrained architects with interests in archaeology, such as G.E. Fox and W.H. Knowles, found their education of direct relevance in understanding, interpreting and, indeed, in leading them to publish fully the architectural stonework they excavated. Although archaeological techniques and standards of publication have improved immensely in other ways since then, architectural stonework became, if anything, increasingly neglected until comparatively recently.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

than broad conclusions to be drawn about the manner in which particular types of decoration were employed. Thus, there is a clear distinction between Pine-cone finials, used on funerary monuments in the north, and Towertype finials, used on private houses and temples in the south-west. Little can be said, however, about any one pine-cone fin.ial as compared with another.

1. How was this aspect of the stonemason's craft organised in Britain: how far can the work of particular groups of masons be identified: from what centres, over how wide an area and how long a period of time did each work? 2. What is the relationship of architectural ornament in Britain to that of other parts of the Roman world? 3. What sorts of building were chosen for decoration: what schemes of ornament were employed: how far can this aspect of the surroundings of those who lived in Roman Britain be reconstructed?

Certain categories of material have been treated in considerably greater detail than others. The full discussion of Decorated Capitals has resulted in a chapter of Alexandrine length, which may be justified by their intrinsic interest, their complicated detail, and the amount of information to be derived from them, for the chapter serves also as the foundation for much of the rest of the thesis. Plain column shafts and plain mouldings, however, though numerically predominant among site finds, are likely to yield little information except where they can be associated with other elements of architectural decoration or attributed to a particular building. Separate treatments of these categories promised inadequate returns for the labour involved, and they have only been considered, therefore, in the context of other material.

4. For whom was the carving executed and what were their preferences: what was the relationship between military and civilian architecture or, within the latter category, between public and private building? The thesis, therefore, has two main elements. First, it aims to provide a classification of a group of archaeological material, to show as far as possible the place of individual items of stonework in relation to others in the province, regionally and chronologically, and in terms of the buildings in which they were employed. In this connexion, it will examine the use of architectural decoration in the reconstruction of buildings and the interpretation of their functions; as an illustration of this, the reconstruction of the Arch and the Screen of Gods at London will be used as a case study (Chapter X). Secondly, it aims to explore the historical aspects of the subject, its relevance to the economy and society of this province of the Roman Empire.

Professor Cunliffe has aptly criticised the tendency of earlier studies to view the British Iron Age as if it 'consisted only of animated ceramics endowed with all the quality of living creatures, with evolutionary properties appropriate to the theories of Lysenko' 10 • In any study such as this, which seeks to establish a basic typological classification, much attention has to be paid to purely formal analysis, and there is always the danger of viewing the emerging patterns and variations as if they were the movements ofheavenly bodies and constellations, remote from human interference. One should perhaps be reminded at this stage, therefore, that each piece of stone which will be considered was carved by a Romano-British stonemason, for a particular building, and paid for, one hopes, by the RomanoBritish employer who commissioned it.

The bounds of the subject had to be set, and if they were to be kept manageable, it was necessary to exclude a number of related areas, and to leave them for future study or the work of others. John Williams has already studied the use in Roman Britain of various types of building stone, in common with other building materials 11. His work has provided a useful overall picture, and while there is room for a much more refined study, e.g. of the various types of oolitic limestone, this would require the qualifications of a professional geologist and an expensive programme of petrological analysis to achieve substantial results. lacking both of these advantages, I have not been able to add significantly to our knowledge of that aspect of the building trade.

One important aspect of this study was the way the stonemason worked: to see not only what was carved, but how it was carved. To this end, I spent some time learning how to handle stonemasons' tools and to carve limestone at the Camden Adult Education Institute, and have observed stonemasons at work wherever I could. I do not claim that I reached a standard of proficiency equal to that of most of the stonemasons whose work I have been studying, but I found it of immense help in evaluating the tools and techniques that they used. The second chapter, therefore, is an essential preliminary to assessing the Romano-British stonemason's work.

There is no a priori reason why the men who carved architectural stonework should not also have been employed in carving sculpture, tombstones, altars, building inscriptions or in dressing stone walls. Each of these, however, is a subject for research by itself, and some have already received attention from others, in part at any rate 12. At certain points some of

Although the functional and decorative divisions of the material are necessary for the formal analysis, they do not correspond with the way in which the stonemason's daily work was divided, and they obscure the relationships between the constituent elements in individual buildings. While some wider social, economic and architectural conclusions can be drawn within each division, the results will remain to be collated and compared in the concluding chapter. Among the broader questions to be examined are:

11

In published papers (Williams 1971 A and B) and in an unpublished MA dissertation for the University of Manchester (Williams 1968).

12 E.J. Phillips, A Workshop of Roman Sculptors at Carlisle, Britannia vii

(1976), I 01-108, uses a range of motifs as his criteria rather than stylistic features which, as he observes, vary. J. Kewley, Antiq. Journ. !iv (1974), 53-65, however, fails to define any diagnostic features to substantiate the workshop that she considers was producing altars at Lanchester or Chester-le- Street. Biro's interesting paper (1975) on the inscriptions of Roman Britain makes good use of ornamental detail in his classification of tombstones.

10 B. Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain (London 1974), 9-10.

5

T. F.

Bisgg

the decorative detail e.g. of the borders of inscription tablets or the mouldings on altars, will be cited in comparison with similar detail on architectural fragments, but I have not studied those large classes of material systematically. Similarly, I have felt obliged to exclude a full treatarent of the use on tombstones and other reliefs of architectural detail such as pediments, fluted columns and Corinthian pilaster capitals, and my references to it are selective. It appears in any event to bear little relationship to the standing architecture of the province, but to have derived rather from a repertoire previously established outside it. Nor have I dealt separately with the decorative architectural elements used in interior decoration in fine-grained hard stones such as imported marbles or Purbeck marble, materials which demand a specialised technique, nor, by the same token, those represented on painted wall-plaster.Although both these topics are of interest in their own right, and germane to the subject-matter of this thesis, they may be regarded as supplementary rather than of radical importance to its conclusions.

Acknowledgements Many have helped me along what has proved to be rather a long path, and I have great pleasure in thanking them. The Institute of Archaeology of the University of London has provided me with hospitable and congenial accommodation and, from the Gordon Childe Fund, a grant for travel to France and Italy to study comparative architectural material. The Central Research Fund of the University also made me a grant for travel to sites and museums in Britain. I hope to be able to thank more publicly and more fully elsewhere the excavators, curators of museums and owners and custodians of sites who

have made available to me the material in their care, but I would mention with particular gratitude Hugh Chapman of the Museum of London, Susan Read of the Reading Borough Museum (the Silchester collection), David Viner of the Corinium Museum and John Rhodes of the Gloucester City Museum, the last of whom in addition most generously allowed me to use his unpublished notes and drawings of Romano-Hritish architectural material. I am grateful to Brian Hobley and Ralph Merrifield of the Museum of London for inviting me to work on the decorated stonework from the riverside wall of Roman London, found in 1975 and 1976, the results of which are the reconstructions of the London Arch and the Screen of Gods discussed in Chapter X. During that work I was fortunate to have the generous advice and criticisms of Professor Jocelyn Toynbee, and I owe much to discussion with Sheila Gibson, who was commissioned to draw the stones and who contributed greatly to the ideas that eventually emerged. I have also had the benefit of advice on parts of the thesis at various stages of its writing from Professor Toynbee, Professor S.S. Frere, Dr. J.B. WardPerkins, Professor J .J. Wilkes and not least, and throughout, from my supervisor, Mark Hassall. Rosalind Passmore has efficiently saved me from the desperate task of producing a final typescript. My deepest debt is to Donald Strong, under whom I began my study of Roman architecture and who suggested to me the subject of this thesis. I greatly valued the stimulation and encouragement that he gave me in its first stages, and I much regret that the work was not further advanced at the time of his early death in 1973. What I now submit cannot fail to be the poorer for want of the guidance that he was uniquely qualified to give, and I can only hope that it will not be thought too unworthy.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

Chapter II TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES OF THE ROMAN STONEMASON IN BRITAIN associated it with the ritual act of consecration of the tomb denoted by the phrase sub ascia dedicatum 6 . The significance of such reliefs for this study, however, is that they illustrate implements which were completely familiar to those who carved them. Such representations are rare in Britain 7. Here the principal source of direct information is the toolmarks left on surviving stonework. Their evaluation is based in part on the published Writings of others 8 , and in part on my own experience of stone-carving and observations of stonemasons at work.

Sources of Information Few examples of stonemasons' tools have been found in archaeological contexts in Britain 1 . Analogy with tools and techniques known to have been current in classical antiquity may, however, be helpful. From the studies of Bluemel, Casson and Adam 2 it is clear that the main range of sculptors' and stonemasons' tools was established by the end of the sixth century BC. Although this range does not appear to have been substantially extended in classical or Hellenistic times or, with certain exceptions, in the Roman period, the favouring of particular tools at different times and periods, and the manner in which they were employed, does vary considerably. During the Roman period many of these tools were represented on funerary reliefs. Deonna has collected 92 examples from Italy and the provinces, and Lugli has also illustrated a number of them 3 . While in some instances these reliefs explicitly commemorated either a stonemason or one engaged in the building trade, in others reference to the occupation of the deceased shows that it was unlikely or impossible that a stonemason was being honoured, even one so employed coincidentally with his primary occupation 4 •

Tools and Techniques The stages in the production of a piece of architectural ornament are (a) quarrying the stone, (b) dressing it into a block which is then shaped and carved with the required decoration, and (c) the finishing: smoothing, polishing and inserting it into its position in the building. Each process tends to require its own implements and, although some tools are capable of use at more than one of these stages, the manner in which they are employed will vary where different results are intended. It will thus be convenient to use these stages as a framework for considering the principal tools used by the stonemason.

Deonna concluded that in such cases the representation of stonemasons' tools signified 'seulement le travail qui a ete necessaire pour amenager la tombe, et qu'ils evoquent un notion funeraire, imprecise'. 5 Hatt, however, in considering the significance of the ascia (for which see below, p. 9), a tool which frequently occurs in such representations, has

6 J.J. Hatt, La Tambe Gallo-Romaine (Paris, 1951), 85-107. 7 Colchester (RIB 204), Lincoln (RIB 258) and York (RCHM Eburacum 1962, 124 No. 77) have each produced one tombstone with mason's tools. Six arc known from Chester (Wright and Richmond 1955, Nos. 37, 61, 67, 110, 112 and 151; fig. 3), of which one (No. 37 =RJB 491) has, with a mason's mallet and square, the inscription sub ascia d carved on its left-hand side, the only instance of this formula yet found in Britain. I do not include representations of axes on altars, where they arc often associated with other sacrificial utensils and do not necessarily represent a mason's tool.

1 Manning 1969. 2

Bluemel 1953; Casson 1933; Adam 1966.

3

Deonna 1932; Lugli 1960.

4 E,g, a funeral monument erected by Pettia Ge for herself, her patron C. Pettius Pylades, C. Clodius Antiochus marm(orariu,1) and others ( CIL xi, 961; Deonna 1932, 428 No. 6 and fig. I 7), but cf the tombstone of Aebutius Agatho, curator peculi reipublicae, sevi1; nauta Araricus ( CIL xii, 689, Aries) and commemorations of women and children. 5

8 In particular, Adam 1966; Varene 1974, containing his detailed observations of the tools and techniques still used by two Provencal craftsmen; Richter 1943; Martin 1975, i. Mat6riaux ct Techniques. For examples of picks, wedges and chisels excavated at the Roman Quarry of Kriemhildensluhl in the Rhenish Palatinate, see Roder 1969, laf. 8.

Deonna 1932, 459.

7

T. F.

Bisgg

(a) Quarrying The number of quarries which can be positively identified as having been worked in the Roman period in Britain is small 9 . Handbridge, outside Chester, is one 10, and the area of Hadrian's Wall has produced a well-known series of quarry inscriptions 11• In the face of the sandstone quarry on Barcombe Down, above Vindolanda (NY 77 6662), can still be seen three wedge-holes in a vertical line, so placed as to run parallel with a natural fissure in the rock, and with a large phallus incised further along the face. Two stonecutting wedges were discovered at Brunton Bank in the core of the Wall, with 'feathers' or nicks cut obliquely in two diagonally opposite edges to prevent the wedges from rebounding when driven into the rock 12 . At Limestone Comer wedge-holes may be seen in the blocks of dolerite which it proved too difficult to dislodge from the Wall ditch. This technique of splitting blocks of stone from their bed by driving in a line of wedges is one for which there is ample evidence from other parts of the Empire, as Ward-Perkins has shown. 13 There is no evidence that I have yet seen in Britain for another of the methods he mentions, the cutting of separation-trenches with a pick to remove blocks of stone in steps going down the face; this, however, is a technique which seems to have been observed principally in quarrying marble, whose hardness and non-sedimentary character generally make wedges ineffective. Nevertheless, one might expect the pick to be used in quarrying, both by itself and in conjunction with wedges. The Romans used several types of hafted stonecutting tool; some of these are more adapted to dressing, and are described below. Of those which have at least one pointed end, and could be termed picks, there seem to be at least two versions. One is long and relatively thin in section, tapering to a point at one end and with an adze blade at the other (Fig. 1 A). The length of known examples from Britain varies from 22 to 27 cm., and they have been found at Housesteads, Newstead, Castlecary and London. 14 This type should be distinguished from the second; this is shorter, square in section, facetted to a point at one end, with the other left square as a hammer head, and is known in French as tetu (Fig. 1 B). No example has been found in Britain, but three are illustrated from the collection of iron tools at Saint-Germain 15 • Both Martin and Varene 16 describe this tool as being used for dressing stone, the pointed end being used as a point (in the 9

Williams (1968) considers the evidence for the organisation of quarrying and gives (pp.20-21) a list of quarries of probable Roman date in Britain.

lO

Thompson 1965, 52-53.

11

E.g. RIB 998- l O16, 1442, 1946-1952.

12

AA4 xxxvi (1958), 313.

13

Ward-Perkins 1972. Sec also, Roder 1969.

14

That from Housesteads is in the Museum of Antiquities, Newcastleupon-Tyne. Newstead: Curle 1911, pl. lviii.5. A pick is among the tools carved on the side of a Chester tombstone, Wright and Richmond 1955, No. 110 and fig. 3.

15

Champion 1916, Nos. 15863, 15863a and 15863b. Dr. Ward-Perkins tells me that there is an unpublished example of this tool in the museum at Tumovo in Bulgaria, found at the Trajanic quarries of Nicopolis ad lstrum.

16

See note 8.

technical sense, see below, p.9) and not as a pick. It would seem better to confine the term 'pick' to denoting function as well as form, and in that case only the type first mentioned qualifies. There is no evidence for the use of the saw in quarries in Roman Britain, and apart from its use in cutting marble veneers 17 its marks are extremely rare on any Romano-British masonry. I have observed them on a plinth at Silchester and a plain moulding from Kingscote (both unpublished). Both pieces were left unfinished, the saw having been used to cut rebates for mouldings. Such sawmarks are unlikely to be visible on finished carvings.

(b) Dressing In practice much of the preliminary dressing of the stone took place at the quarry, partly to reduce the weight to be transported. The process is, however, distinct from the quarrying, and it seems more convenient to consider together all the ways in which the dressing was done, wherever it took place. The types of tool fall into two classes, depending on whether they were used to remove stone by direct percussion (the pick and tetu, the axe and the adze), or by indirect percussion, through the stroke of a mallet (the point, the drove and the claw chisel). Both classes were used to produce the plane surfaces which were either to be the final faces of the block, or were to be shaped with decorative detail. Several of the tools were also used in the subsequent carving, in common with the smaller chisels employed in the finer decoration, the drill and the lathe. The direct-percussion tools and the point all share the characteristic that their impact detaches a flake of stone from the surface. Although the limestones and sandstones do not have the special fracturing properties of flint, they have this much in common with it, that the size of the flake is determined by the direction, angle and force of the blow. The tools may be used at a steep angle with a sharp blow to remove large flakes, or gently at a low angle to take out minute fragments or slivers. Once a piece of convenient size for handling has been detached, either directly from the quarry face, or by being split from a larger quarried mass, the larger excrescences are removed to produce a broadly rectangular outline. This requires experience, in seeing how a rectangular block of the maximum size can be produced with the minimum work and wastage. One side has to be levelled first as a basis from which the others can be dressed. All the direct-percussion tools are capable of being used at this stage, as well as a heavy point, but where the flaking is rough it is not always clear which of them was the one actually employed. Where the pick and the pick-hammer (tetu) have been used, the result is usually a rather irregularly flaked surface with pitting or short crooked scratches where the metal has dug into the stone. This surface was occasionally left without further dressing, other than drafting round the edges, to form the outer face of the building. This so-called rusticated masonry may be seen, for example, in the courses above the moulded plinth of the second-century 17

As al Fishboume: Cunliffe 1971, i, 59.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

store-building at Corbridge 18 . It displays an easily-achieved decorative effect, one which had found favour in important public buildings in Rome itself.

the chisel, being held to the stone, will follow through and pare its surface. It is essentially by this paring that its work is done. If the chisel is held at a high enough angle to the stone and struck hard, it will tend to dig down, but this will produce a rilled or undulating surface if the blows are repeated. The marks of the blade may be visible (see remarks on the drove, below p. 11-12) but will not be so deep and clear as those of the adze. Another distinguishing feature of the adze- or axemark is that one side is often a little deeper than the other, where the edge has met the stone at a slight angle and one comer has bitten in that much more. Such marks can often be seen on the face of inscription panels, particularly in the military zone, where the adze has been used for dressing prior to the chiselling and smoothing. 23

(i) The Axe and the Adze The mason's axe (Fig. 1 E) usually had two blades expanding towards the edges, and was hafted to a short handle. In form, and so presumably in use, it was very similar to the present mason's walling hammer, though this tool has one sharp edge and one that is blunt, used for making a straight edge to the stone. Although no example of this tool has been found in Roman Britain, it certainly existed: for example, the marks of a blade 3 cm. wide and blunted so as to have a thickness of 3 mm. are present on the sides of what was probably an impost moulding from the east gate of the Severan fort at Carpow. 19 It was also used to dress the underside of a sarcophagus at Cirencester (Plate VIII) 20 . The tool appears quite commonly in reliefs: Lugli illustrates some, and identifies this axe as being used for the primary roughing out (sbozzatura) of the block. 21

The evidence of these toolmarks shows that the adze was employed not only to rough out the rectangular block but also for some of the more refined work of producing smoother plane surfaces and shaping column shafts and mouldings. The ascia was a form of adze peculiar to the Roman world and particularly well-adapted to this purpose (Fig. 1 D). It has a shortrectangularsectioned hammer on one side of the shaft and a long blade on the other, bent back sharply at an angle of 45°. Although it has sometimes been classed as a wood-working tool, possibly because it is lighter than many mason's picks, etc., the frequency with which it is found carved on reliefs, either with other stonemasons' tools or chosen to be uniquely representative of them, leaves little room for doubt about its use on stone. Lugli's description of it as a quarryman's axe would seem questionable in view of its relative lightness and the number of occasions on which it is found in archaeological contexts far from a quarry.24 There is, however, a variant which has an axe blade in place of the hammer, and such a tool would be suitable both for roughdressing the blocks in the quarry and for giving the stone a finerdressed finish. An ascia of this type is shown on the tombstone of T. Valerius Pudens from Lincoln, while that of Domitia Saturnina from Chester illustrates the more usual adze-hammer type. 25 The purpose of the hammer may also have been the rough-dressing of stone, as examination for traces of wear might establish; one from Silchester in the Reading museum has its hammer-end considerably impacted by heavy use. 26 Alternatively its function might have been as a counterpoise to give balance to the tool.

Several examples of the adze (Fig. 1 C) have been found here. One in the Silchester collection is of elongated section, 20 cm. long, with two blades approximately 3.5 cm. wide and with a central shaft-hole. Similar double adzes are known from Newstead and Templeborough. 22 The marks ofa blade are quite often visible, particularly on the softer stones. One cannot, however, always be certain whether they have been caused by the blade of an axe or of an adze. Where, as in the right-hand face of a block from the east gate at Chesters (Plate I), the surface has been left fairly rough, with marks of a blade which has dug into the stone at several different angles, either tool might have been used. The left-hand face of that stone, however, has been more neatly dressed, and the marks are all fairly closely in the same line; it would seem more likely that an adze has been used, worked backwards to clear parallel strips along the face of the block. It is not normally difficult to distinguish between the traces of the axe and adze and those of the chisel. They all indeed have a straight, sharp edge; and although the blade of the axe is usually wider, those of the adze and the broader chisels, or droves, are within much the same range - between 2.5 and 6 cm. But the tools are used in totally different ways. Though the adze can be used with quite delicate precision, it still does its work by impact, detaching flakes or slivers of stone. The chisel does not strike the stone, but is held against it and is itself struck. It is true that if it is struck hard enough, the blow will detach a flake; but the difference between the indirect percussion of flint and that of stone is that, in the latter case, 18

Knowles and Forster 1909, 326, fig. 6.

19

Dundee Museum; information from Professor J.J. Wilkes.

20

My previous and somewhat cautious identification of these toolmarks as those of a gouge (Blagg 1976, 164) I now think was wrong; I have since observed Maltese stonemasons dressing stone with an axe, and the resulting marks, in particular their radiating effect, arc very similar to those on the Cirencester stone.

21

Lugli 1960, i, 220-1 and ii, tav. xxv.

22

Silchcstcr: unpublished; Newstead: Curle 1911, pl. !viii, 12; Tcmplcborough: May 1922, 77, pl. xvii, 6. Manning (1969) gives additional examples.

(ii) The Point The point (Fig. 1 G) is the oldest, the simplest and the most versatile of masons' iron tools. Bluemel, indeed, said that Greek sculpture at its peak was created with this one tool, though that is something of an overstatement. 27 But in a variety of sizes and weights it was used from the earliest roughingout stage to the carving of the most detailed ornament, which 23

Ofnumerous examples, the inscription from the governorship ofLollius Urbicus from Corbridge (RIB 11,47) is a good one.

24 Lugli 1969, i, 220. The type is exemplified by the implement from Bull's Wharf in the City of London: British Museum 1964, 53 and fig. 24. 25

'Lincoln: RIB 258; Chester: Wright and Richmond 1955, 44 and fig, 3, No. 110.

26 Reading Museum. lllustratcd in Evans 1894, 148, fig. 13. 27 Adam 1966, 11.

9

T. F.

Bisgg

C - --=---=-

_

,.

::--::

~

"-\~

D

E

G

j

K

Fig. 1. Roman Stonemasons' Tools: (A) Pick, (B) Pick (Tetu), (C) Adze, (D) Adze (ascia), (E) Axe, (F) Drill, (G) Point, (H) Drove, (I) Claw-chisel, (J) Flat chisel, (K) Bull-nosed chisel. Sea/es: A-F, c. 1:1O; G-K, 1-2. Sources: A, after Curle, Newstead (1911 ); B and E, after Varene (note 8); C, after May, Templeborough (1922); D, after BM Guide to the Antiquities of RB (1964 ); F, after Bluemel (note 2); G-K, modern stoneworkers tools (reproduced from Blagg 1976)

10

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

required only polishing with abrasive to give the finished effect. The point is used for the detachment of large flakes, both to dress down to a roughly flat surface and to block out a column-shaft or other, more complicated, profile. If held to the stone and driven along by a series of blows, it will gouge out a channel and can be repeatedly used in this manner to produce a surface which is more or less level, but retains the ridges between the channels which make the technique unmistakeable. These ridges were occasionally left without further tooling as a rather unsophisticated form of decoration, or cross channels were driven to give a reticulate pattern known as diamond broaching, visible for example in the Severan granaries at South Shields and in the legionary compounds at Corbridge. This vigorous use of a heavy point, however, was normally only a preliminary to further dressing, either with a lighter point or with a drove or claw-chisel. The smaller points, held at an angle either of 45° or less to the stone to detach a wide flake, or at a higher angle approaching 90° to detach a very small flake, provide one of the quickest means of modelling the stone. The capital from Bridge Street, Chester (Chester 5, Plate IX) appears to have been dressed by using a point alone. The dimpled surface of the soft red sandstone is characteristic of the marks left by the point when used in this way. This capital is of particular interest in assessing the techniques of the Romano-British stonemason. It has been described by Wright and Richmond as 'an excellent example of the simplified treatment of the Composite order in military regions'. 28 One might, however, describe it as in a sense unfinished. Two similar, though more damaged, capitals were re-used in the room west of the sacellum of the principia. 29 There is also the much larger capital from the cross-hall of the principia 30 whose leaves and calyces are carved in a manner identical with the other three. These capitals were placed in position and intended to be seen in the state in which we see them now, and are thus not 'unfinished' in that sense. But this state of carving is also the preliminary to the more detailed working of the foliage normal in capitals of the Corinthian and Composite orders. We are fortunate in being able to see just what this further work would have involved in another capital, Chester 7, found in the excavations of the principia and now in the Grosvenor Museum (Plate X). This is identical with the Bridge Street capital in its dimensions and in the disposition of the leaves, the calyces and the knob bed stem of the flower which rises between them. It is in fact a somewhat crude version of the Corinthian rather than of the Composite order. The Bridge Street capital thus also illustrates a stage of carving prior to the execution of the detail seen in the second, principia, capital. The former, and the other capitals from the principia mentioned above, are indeed examples of a simplified treatment, but one might take the implications of this further than Wright and Richmond's plain statement. For when seen, as they would have been seen in the Roman period, in the same building as the finished version, they demonstrate clearly that the masons were content to produce the appearance of ornament with an economy of effort 28 29

for a military customer who was not discriminating in such matters. Richmond and Webster gave a slightly different nuance in their comments on the large capital from the cross-hall of the principia: 'It is of special interest to see how the military stonemason or provincial carver, faced with the problem of providing architectural detail of an elaboration to which the military mind was unaccustomed, reduced the elements of a purely classical design to his own terms and produced a result which probably harmonised better with the general treatment of the building than a rigid adherence to Mediterranean practice would have done'. 31 But those words were written before the discovery of the second capital (Plate X), which calls, I believe, for a rather different emphasis. It was suggested (p.5) that one of the questions to examine in assessing the achievement of the Romano-British stonemason would be how military standards compared with those observable in civilian architecture; and it should now be clear that some of the differences are entirely a matter of technical execution. The Bridge Street capital was considered finished at a stage before the finer and more lengthy work with point or chisel required to carve the detail of the foliage; it thus shows economy of time, and consequently of expense, which were no doubt relevant considerations for the military paymaster. The very simple forms of the column-bases of the legionary principia at York 32, and those from the headquarters building at House-steads, for example, also show a lack of concern with the detailed shaping and finer tooling shown by pieces with more subtle mouldings, such as the capital from the Great Witcombe villa (Plate IV). Finer and more detailed work was, of course, produced on occasion in a military context, such as the border of the Lolli us Urbicus inscription at Corbridge 33, which consists of a leaf-and-tongue cymation over a beadand-reel motif. But it becomes clear that in military building there was not sufficient need for fine architectural ornament to encourage the training of most masons employed there to a high standard of proficiency. This has further implications: for whatever view one takes of the part played by military architects in the laying out of civitas capitals and their public buildings, there is little sign that the British legions were capable of providing masons of the skill required to carve the ornament that such buildings as the Silchester basilica contained. The stone building of the Chester principia was probably Trajanic 34, and may thus be taken as a reasonable reflection of military masons' skills during the fifty years that saw the development of most of the centres of the civitas capitals. (iii) The Drove The tools discussed so far have been those whose first use is in the dressing of the irregular block to a regular shape, but I 31 Richmond and Webster 1950, 34.

Wright and Richmond 1955, 57.

32

Petch 1970-1, 14-15 and pl. V.

33 RIB 1147.

30 Richmond and Websler 1950, 35.

Hope-Taylor 1971, pl. 15.

34 Richmond and Websler 1950, 21.

T. F.

Bisgg

have gone on to consider the use of some of these tools for more detailed work. There remains one tool, the drove, whose main use was in the smooth dressing of plane surfaces, normally to remove the roughnesses left by the adze or the point. The drove is a broad-bladed chisel with a cutting edge of between 3 and 6 cm., as a rule (Fig. 1 H). Richter first distinguished the characteristic striations left by its blade from the marks of the saw, with which they had often been confused. 35 These striations are formed of closely-set cuts made by the edge of the blade as it worked across the stone, and thus lie at right-angles to the direction in which the drove has been struck. The way in which the marks lie close and parallel distinguishes them from those of the adze, which are in any case deeper. The drove was essentially the tool used to dress a completely flat surface, and its marks may often be seen on well-finished ashlar masonry unless they have been removed by abrasion to give an even smoother effect, or have been weathered away.

used to dress the column-shafts and the tops of some of the Corinthian capitals of the Silchester basilica. Its traces are visible on several of the Purbeck marble mouldings from the legionary baths at Exeter, where it had also been used over flat surfaces first dressed with a point, whose pitting had not been completely cleared away by the claw tooling. 39 A finetoothed claw-chisel was also used on the marble decoration of the monument at Richborough. 40 The claw was, however, much less commonly employed in Britain than the drove. Indeed, it is essentially a tool developed for working marble and very hard stone; the flat-bladed drove can do the same work equally well on the softer stones, such as those of Britain, and is easier both to make and to keep sharp. 41 Indeed, some of the masons who carved the Silchester basilica capitals preferred it to the claw-chisel: see below, p. 77.

(v) The Chisel Although much of the basic work of shaping can be done by techniques which are simple and easy to learn, and with the same tools as are used in the preliminary dressing, really detailed modelling demands more skill. While the point is capable of extremely refined use, as Bluemel showed, the chisel (Fig. I J) is the main tool employed in Roman architectural decoration of this more elaborate kind. It is the only one which can produce sharply-cut mouldings, or foliage such as that on the miniature Corinthian capital, one of six, from Cirencester, with the deep cutting between its volutes (Plate III).

The first stage in producing such a surface was to draft a strip round all four edges of the face to give a truly rectangular outline. Such an edge may be seen at Chesters (Plate I), where the striations are of a blade about 4 cm. wide. The rougher adze- or axe-dressed area within the drafting has not been removed, but the next stage in the dressing would be to work the drove across the stone from the cleared edges to remove the irregularity. The drove was also used on curved as well as flat surfaces, as on the shaft of a column-base from the North Leigh villa (Plate II), where the marks show that the tool was worked round the shaft while being held with its blade at a slight angle to the vertical. This base appears to be unfinished, because between the shaft and the outside of the torus (round) moulding there is a chamfer rather more roughly executed with a point. This point-work would seem to represent the stage anterior to the chiselling of the cyma moulding which normally effects the junction between the shaft and the torus in this part of Britain. We thus have here a rare illustration of an intermediate stage in the production of an item of architectural ornament which permits us to re-create the way in which the mason went about his work.

In contrast with some of the other masons' tools, the problem with chisels is not that of finding them, so much as of identifying which belonged to the mason rather than to the carpenter. One distinction is that, whereas in most woodworking chisels the blade is attached by a tang or socket to a wooden handle, the mason's chisel is usually wholly of metal. Some mason's chisels are larger and heavier than those used in carpentry, but the stonemason, and even more the sculptor, also use quite slender narrow-bladed chisels for their finer work.

(iv) The Claw-chisel

Where the chisel is used with small strokes, its marks are very difficult to see on all but the finest-grained stones. Where longer strokes are used, they produce contiguous furrows, narrower than the width of the chisel blade, as the practice is to overlap one stroke with the next to keep an even surface. In a fragment from Cirencester of a large moulding decorated with foliage (Plate V) these furrows show how the tool has worked round the contour of the leaf. Marks of this clarity are rare, however, as often the chiselled surfaces have later been smoothed by abrasion. The chisel is also used with its

This is another tool used to clear the bumps left by the adze or the point and produce a level surface. It has a blade divided into straight-ended teeth (Fig. 1 I), which vary in number. The tool appears not to have been identified in sculptured reliefs. Two claws with three surviving teeth are in the SaintGermain collection, 36 but no example has apparently been found in Britain. 37 The marks left by the teeth, however, provide unmistakeable evidence of its use. Column-drums from Cirencester found south of the basilica in 197138 have very clear marks of a claw with a blade of at least 4.8 cm. width and nine teeth (Plate VIII). A similar implement was

39

Britannia iv (1973), 313.

40 Strong 1968, on cornice and base mouldings (66, Nos. 12, 15 and 17)

and fluted column casings (65 and 67, No. 19); pis. xii, band c, xiv, d and xvi, a.

35 Richter 1943; for Roman examples of the tool, with blades approximately

3 and 4.5 cm. wide, see Roder 1969, taf. 8 nos. 7 and 8.

41 I am grateful to Miss Amanda Claridge for this observation. It would

36 Champion 1916, fig. 5, 15913 and 60956.

appear to account for a provincial preference; Dr. Ward-Perkins tells me that it contrasts with the practice he has observed in Italy, Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, where marble was extensively used and where the claw's toolmarks arc seen more often than those of the drove at equivalent stages of the dressing.

3 7 Adverse soil conditions might well cause the teeth to be corroded beyond

recognition. 38 Corinium Museum, unpublished; information from Mr. David Viner.

12

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

edge at an angle to the stone to incise the lettering of inscriptions and, as in the Cirencester miniature capital, to outline leaves and execute other fine relief-work and deep cutting. One of its simplest uses is to cut precisely straight edges, as in the 'steps' of the profile of the Great Witcombe Tuscan capital (Plate IV), and to dress a very smooth flat surface, either for visible effect, or where required on the sides of blocks which are to be fitted closely together; the drove is also often used in this way. In executing curves and concave surfaces, two other types of chisel might be used: one with a curved edge to its blade (the bull-nosed chisel, Fig. 1 K), and the gouge, noted by Strong on the Corinthian capital from Fishboume. 42 Both leave concave grooves, but it is not easy to distinguish between the two when they appear, which is very rarely. Casson attempts to define the criteria 43 , but the distinctions are likely to be clear only on hard stones in an unweathered condition. Romano-British masonry rarely meets these conditions. The edge of a small gouge is delicate and thin, which led Adam to deny that there was any reason why ancient sculptors should have used the tool; but this criticism has less force in the case of larger versions (such as are present in the Silchester collection, for example) and their use on softer stones than marble.

(vi) The Drill It remains to consider two mechanical devices employed by the stonemason. The drill (Fig. 1 F) has most frequently been observed in use on marble, where it appears to have had three main functions. 44 The first two used its capacity to bore a vertical hole. This was a quick and accurate way of removing a quantity of stone down to a given depth, as the stone which remained round the drill-holes could then be struck away down to that depth in the knowledge that there was little danger of removing too much. The speed was derived not so much from the act of drilling, which was quite laborious, as from the consequence that subsequent work with other tools could be done more quickly and without the need for constant measurement. The drill could also be used to begin a cavity which could be enlarged by a point or chisel, and to make a neat round hole for decorative effect, or for the insertion of dowel-pins to secure wall-veneers or the bronze letters of inscriptions. Adam has argued that its third use was with the bit held obliquely to cut a groove, as a so-called running drill, though the same implement seems to have been employed. The use of the drill becomes increasingly obvious in sculpture and ornament during the second century AD, in the deep cutting and chiaroscuro effects on hair, drapery and foliage, which often show a rather mechanical effect. Apart from these features, which are clearest in marble carving, the marks of the tool are not always easy to see. Occasionally the round hollow where the end of the bit has rotated has not been removed by later tooling, or the side of the drilled shaft may be seen. These marks are often very slight, and are less likely to be visible on softer and coarser stones than marble.

Nevertheless, the use of the drill can be demonstrated in Roman architectural ornament in Britain. Strong noticed a series of drillholes on parts of the first-century Corinthian capital from Fishbourne. 45 The same decorative use of drill-holes may also be seen on the volutes and helices of the miniature Corinthian capitals in the Corinium museum (Plate Ill), and between the lobes of the leaves on a Foliate capital from the villa at Warleigh, Somerset 46 • Its use in drilling down to a uniform depth as the basis for further work with other tools can be seen on rather less elaborate pieces. The round pits where the bit has rotated appear in the grooves which define the edges of the leaves on a foliate column-shaft from York.47 Such holes may also be seen in the scotiae of column-bases from Exeter and Housesteads, drilled as a preliminary to the definition of the torus mouldings. Here the drill was obviously being used as a short cut, and should not be seen as the sign of a mason of sophisticated techniques as the rather rough character of all these three pieces confirms. These instances are uncommon; either the drill was only rarely used by the Romano-British mason, or it was not used in a way which leaves clear traces. None of the more deeply-cut decorated pieces, such as the Silchester basilica capitals or the cornice from by the theatre at Verulamium48 , gives any indication of its use.

(vii) The Lathe The employment of the lathe in turning columns, though quite often asserted by excavators, has never, it seems, been demonstrated with full critical discussion. The questions which I will try to answer are, what is the evidence for the use of the lathe on stone, at what stage of the work was it employed, and how did it work? There is little literary evidence. Vitruvius, although he mentions the lathe occasionally, does not refer to its use on stone. Pliny writes of a soft stone from Siphnos which was turned (cavatur tornaturgue) to form cooking-utensils and tableware, not an operation on the same scale as turning a stone column. More appositely, he refers to the labyrinth of Lemnos (apparently meaning the Temple of Hera on Samos) as having a hundred and fifty column-drums 'so well balanced as they hung in the workshop that a child was able to tum them' 49 • Kretzschmer discusses the matter briefly and provides a reconstruction drawing. 50 In it the column is mounted horizontally on a frame by means of a spindle at each end; a cord is wound round the shaft and its two ends are pulled alternately to rotate the column. The tool (about which 45

See note 42.

46

Roman Baths Museum, Bath. Scarth 1864, 119 and pl. ii. below, p. 40 (Bathford).

47 RCHl\1 Eburacum (1962), 112; the illustration (pl. xlviii, no. 9) does

not, unfortunately, bring out this detail clearly. 48

Kenyon 1934, 238 and pl. !xiv.

42

Strong 1971, 14.

43

Casson 1933, 193 and fig. 72.

49 NHxxxvi, 90; Loeb translation, which adds 'on the lathe'. The Latin, however, is not so specific: quarum in officina turbines ita librati pependerunt ut puero circumagente tornarentur. It is significant, though, that Pliny uses the same term for turning the utensils from the stone of Siphnos: tornaturque (NH xxxiii, 159).

44

Adam 1966, 40 ff.

so Krelzschmer 1958.

T. F.

Bisgg

Kretzschmer does not speculate) is held against the rotating column, being braced against the lathe frame. The principle of motion is basically the same as that employed in the bowdrill, where the cord is wound round the handle in which the bit is mounted. It is, however, questionable whether such a principle could be applied to an object as large as a column shaft, which once set in motion would require great effort to check and then rotate in the opposite direction: the method does not permit continuous rotation.

be suitable as chuck holes for the insertion of the spindle of the lathe. The use of these holes for lathe-mounting would not preclude their subsequent use for dowelling, and it would be going too far to take them as positive evidence for latheturning. Their absence, on the other hand, must mean that the piece in question could not have been mounted on a spindle, but it is possible that some form of wooden or metal clamp attached to the abacus or plinth might have been used instead. The tops and bottoms of pieces which show other signs of lathe-turning often have a reserved circle occupying most of the area, outlined occasionally by a compass, more usually by two or three concentric grooves, and with rougher tooling within it. The chuck hole is situated precisely in the centre (Plate VII). Such a circle, which does not appear to have any practical purpose related to the installation of the architectural member in its building, would seem best explained as being intended to centre the piece on the lathe and, by the rougher surface, to make its attachment to the face-plate more secure. It should be distinguished from a compass-drawn incised circle on a plane surface, which seems to be part of the laying-out of the decoration (see below, p. 15).

More thought is given to the matter by Mutz who, though concerned principally with the use of the lathe on metal, does give examples of its use on other materials. 51 Relevant here are a round sandstone table with pedestal, found in a Roman cellar, and the columnar moulded foot of another table, both now in Rottweil Museum. Mutz points to the following features which he considers to be evidence for lathe-turning: 'die abgetreppten Stufen mit ihren Wiilsten und Rillen und den unterschnittenen Partien sind eben Formen, wie sie nur auf einer Drehbank in solcher Vollkommenheit hergestellt werden ki.innen'. What is distinctive about the profiles is their complication and fussiness. The stepped profile, favouring horizontal tops and bottoms to projecting mouldings, as in Plate IV, contrasts with the more usual gentle curves. What Mutz calls the rolls, channels and undercutting of the profile, as may be seen on the capitals from the principia at York, are also much more mechanical in appearance. The multiplicity of mouldings in such profiles contrasts notably with what is usual in column capitals and similar pieces, suggesting the full exploitation of a different technical means of making them.

In summary, I suggest the following features as indicative of lathe-turning: 1. A complicated profile, with multiple mouldings, strong horizontal elements and a mathematical precision in its cutting.

2. Continuous horizontal parallel rilling or grooving on the face of the stone. 3. Square holes in the top and bottom of the piece, and roughened circles marked out around them.

Two other features are relevant evidence for the use of the lathe. The first is the parallel rilling, most often seen on the mouldings of column-bases, such as those from Great Witcombe (Plate VI) and Holcombe. 52 The edges of these rills are straight and horizontal, and contrast with the usually slightly wavy outline of the toolmarks left by the chisel. On the shaft of a column they have an occasional counterpart in continuous horizontal grooves, as on one of the columns from the Shakenoak villa 53 , and on the shaft of the Great Witcombe capital (Plate IV). The regularity of these marks would be almost impossible to produce unless the column were rotating, as they often go all round the circumference with hardly a break. Where they appear on a rounded moulding, its profile in fact constitutes a series of facets rather than a true curve.

The markings which have been associated with the use of the lathe are on the surface of the finished stone, and it is difficult to say whether the piece was put on the lathe after its mouldings had been roughed out, for the detailed cutting of the profile and final chiselling, or whether the whole operation could be performed on it. If the former, the work could be done with the normal range of mason's indirect percussion tools, hand-held but braced against the lathe frame. If, however, substantial quantities of stone were to be removed, this would suggest the need for a strong tool firmly clamped to the lathe. That used by modem masons is a rather crudelooking square bar with a tapered end which curves up slightly at its tip. On the modem apparatus it is secured in a clamp which is fitted to slide backwards and forwards, to left and to right, with an attached marker which follows the outline of the drawn profile of the balusters, which it is principally used to turn. Nevertheless, in the case of softer stones, a recent parallel provides an interesting comparison. Hugh Braun writes 55 that, when he was engaged in architectural restorationwork in Malta after 1945, his local master-mason built a lathe to tum columns some five feet in length. A rectangular block was held by its ends between two L-shaped spikes fixed in two masses of stone. A rope was twisted round the block and tightened round a large stone flywheel some four feet in

Secondly, there is the apparent arrangement for mounting such pieces on a lathe. Many of them have square holes in the top and bottom. Such holes were also made for dowels to join together the drums of a column, or to secure its capital to the member above; and in excavated examples they have often been widened at the top in extracting the metal of which the dowels were usually made. 54 The holes would also, however, 51

Mutz 1972.

52

Pollard 1974, pl. xxiv.

53

Brodribb, Hands and Walker, ii (1971), 51-52, No. 18.

54

Vitruvius, De Architectura X, ii, 11, notes another use, for affixing attachments by which the columns of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus were drawn by oxen from the quarries, rolling along the ground; this ingenious device would seem lo be exceptional.

55

14

H. Braun, Parish Churches: their Architectural Development in England (London, 1970), 92-93. Mr. George Boon kindly told me about this source.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

diameter, mounted at right angles to the axis of the block on a sturdy wooden frame. The flywheel was turned very fast on an iron rod with a cranked handle at each end, and the cutting was done with a heavy chisel set in a wooden handle nearly a yard long, at first detaching large spalls which flew in all directions. Admittedly, Maltese stone is particularly soft, and it might be much less easy to treat harder stones in this way. Braun speculates that this lathe was constructed in a tradition handed down from Byzantine, if not from Imperial Roman, times.

also appears without the plumb-bob on two fragmentary tombstones in the same collection. 59 Occasionally it is carved as a right-angle, in which case it would also serve as a square, but L-shaped squares are also represented, 60 as are graduated rules. The tombstone of Anni us Felix also shows what Wright and Richmond describe as an instrument resembling compasses or callipers, 61 and the miniature Corinthian capitals from Cirencester have compass-drawn circles on top, of the same diameter as their column-shafts. The centres of the circles are at the point of intersection of incised straight lines joining the mid-points of opposite sides of the abacus (the topmost moulding). By measurement from these markings the decoration of the capitals could be laid out and carved symmetrically relative to the shaft of the column.

For the form that a Roman stone-lathe might have taken, one might suggest two possibilities. Kretzschmer's reconstruction was criticised by Mutz on the ground that the profiles and marks on the stone implied a continuous motion. By modifying it in the light of Braun's description and of Mutz's own reconstruction-model ofa metalworker's lathe, 56 with a cord attached to a fly-wheel at the side, this objection would be overcome (Fig. 2 A). One might propose an alternative reconstruction (Fig. 2 B). Instead of the stone being given motion from a wheel mounted at the side, the spindle is here rotated directly, without a cord, by turning a wheel at one end of the lathe, through which the spindle passes, with a handle offset to one side in the manner of a rotary quern. In such a model the end of the stone would have to be secured to a face-plate through which the spindle was fixed, to prevent friction between the stone and the lathe frame. That this is already suggested by the roughened circles on the ends of many apparently lathe-turned pieces might lend support to this reconstruction.

The use of incised guidelines in laying out inscriptions is well known, 62 and is evident occasionally on architectural mouldings, though they would often have been removed by subsequent tooling. Chalk or charcoal could also have been used. One might suppose that templates were employed for drawing mouldings; in several cases, however, where enough matching pieces of a scheme of architectural decoration survive for comparison, the variations between them, although not obvious to casual observation, are sufficient to show that no templat e could have been used. Six column-bases from the villa at Great Witcombe, and eight bases from that at Bignor, show the following variations in the height of their mouldings: up to 2.2 cm. (ranging from 11.9 to 14.1 cm.) at Great Witcombe, and up to 2.5 cm. (ranging from 18.7 to 21.2 cm.) at Bignor. There are also minor discrepancies in diameters, and in the heights and relative proportions of the individual mouldings. 63

Some of the items from Roman Britain that appear to have been lathe-turned are large: the York principia capitals, for example, are 89 cm. high and 95 cm. in their lower diameter; Boon has also noted that the equally large column bases of the principia at Caerleon were lathe-turned. 57 That it was possible to turn such heavy objects on a machine of this sort is shown, both by Braun's description and also by analogy: Theophilus in his twelfth-century treatise De Diversis Artibus described the heavy clay moulds for bronze church bells being turned on a very similar apparatus. 58 The lathe does not, however, seem to have been used for complete full-length columns. It was used for the miniature Tuscan verandahcolumns which are rarely more than 1.5 metres high. The particular problems of stress that column-shafts longer than this would have imposed were not overcome, even if they were faced: for of the small number of such monolithic column-shafts from Britain, none shows signs oflathe-turning.

(c) Finishing After the detailed shaping and modelling of the architectural ornament, the toolmarks and remaining irregularities could be removed by a rasp or file, and the fine finish for which marble-work was notable was produced by laborious rubbing with various grades of sand and emery. The minute scratches which these tools leave can usually be seen only on the harder stone, such as Purbeck marble, on which very fine scratches may be observed, possibly from a sandstone rubber if not from a rasp. Traces of a coarser rasp are visible on the foliage of the better-preserved fragments of the Corinthian capitals from the Silchester basilica. The stone used in Romano-British architecture is often of a texture which retains little evidence of these finishing processes, particularly after weathering. It is only from the absence of other toolmarks on a fresh surface

(viii) The Setting Out of Decoration

59

In addition to these tools, the stonemason made use of a number of devices to assist him in measurement and in laying out precise guidelines for his work. One most commonly represented on reliefs is a level in the form of a letter A, frequently shown with a plumb-bob suspended from the apex, as on the tombstone of the veteran Annius Felix at Chester; it 56

60 Deonna 1932, fig. 5, 11 (Burnum), 12 (Carthage). RCHM Eburacum 1962, 124, mentions a mason's square and hammer(? mallet) on the tombstone of Flavia Augustina, No. 77. They also appear on one of the Chester tombstones: Wright and Richmond 1955, No. 37. 61 Wright and Richmond 1955, 32. 62

Susini 1966, 30 ff.

63

All unpublished; a drawing by St. Clair Baddeley ( 1907, 246) included one of the Great Witcombc bases, but there arc inaccuracies of detail in lhe profile. See also Blagg 1977 A, 59 and fig. 4.3.

Mutz 1972, 39, Bild 58.

57

Boon 1970, 48.

58

C.R. Dodwell, Theophilus: De Diversis Artibus (London, 1961).

Wright and Richmond 1955, fig. 3, No. 61 (Annius Felix), Nos. 112 and 151.

15

T. F.

Bisgg

A

B

Fig. 2. Reconstructions of a lathe for turning architectural stonework. (A) Lateral drive; (B) End drive (reproduced from Blagg 1976)

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

that one may infer that such work was done. As these toolmarks can be seen quite frequently, one can tell that the finishing was not always regarded as essential.

on the pine-cone and acroteria which surmounted a Towertype finial from Nettleton Shrub (no. 20). White or cream paint or limewash remains in patches on two column bases from the villa at North Leigh, and there are traces ofred on a fragmentary column base from the Wallbrook Mithraeum, London, and of red and grey (? faded blue) on white chalk mouldings from the Bignor villa. 69 Plain mouldings found at the site of the south gate at Winchester in 1971 were decorated in purple, red and orange over limewash. 70 Remains ofpaint, of unspecified colour, were also noted on a column of Purbeck marble found in the Norman bank of Colchester Castle, so probably of Roman date. 71

It would have been regarded as superfluous in some cases, where the final appearance of the stone was covered by paint. There are several examples from the north-western provinces of the survival of paint on sculpture, and some where it survives on architectural ornament. These include some of the cornices from Neumagen 64, on which red, yellow and green were used to pick out the foliage, and entablatures from Xanten, where red and yellow survived in the channels of the leaves. 65 It is likely that the practice was far more common than the action of chemical weathering has allowed us to see.

Architectural schemes in wall-paintings also show the use of colour. Fourth-century wall-plaster from the principia at York has a scheme with columns, modillions and ovolo mouldings picked out in various colours, and a more fanciful architectural painting in the early second-century house at Blue Boar Lane, Leicester, is similarly treated. 72 The capitals and shafts of the columns between the orantes figures in the Christian frescoes at Lullingstone are painted red, as are the bases of those on the wall-painting from Room 9 of Insula XXVlll, 3 at Verulamium. 73 Given that these represent internal or purely decorative designs, and the possibility of artistic licence, this evidence is suggestive if not conclusive of a more general use of paint on architectural features than one might infer from the surviving examples. It is worth bearing this in mind in assessing the technical achievements of the stonemason, for an apparent crudeness in some of the features on the naked stone might have been less obvious under a coat of paint.

The examples from within Britain are quite widespread, being restricted neither to any one type of site nor to a particular area. It is also of interest that almost every type of architectural element - column capitals, cornices, etc., - has painted examples. A fragment of a Corinthian capital from the theatre at Verulamium (no. 12) was painted bright yellow, with the details of the foliage picked out in red and orange 66 . The acanthus leaves on a cornice found reused in the London riverside wall in 1975 (below, p.160) was painted white, with the marks of the brush still visible, and the deeper grooves of the leaves were coloured red. Other decorated cornices on which red paint survives in a similar position include those from a large monumental building at Bath (nos. 81-84) 67, and one from Brixworth. 68 Traces of the same colour are visible

69 64

Von Massow 1932, tafu. 65-68.

The North Leigh and London bases are unpublished: for Bignor, Winbolt and Herbert 1930, 18.

65 Hinz, Kramer and Kiihn 1972, 144-145.

70 Information from Professor M. Biddle; see also, Antiq. Journ. Iv (1975), 113.

66 Kenyon 1934, 221 and pl. !xvi.

71

67 Cunliffe 1969, 197, nos. 3.1 and 3.4.

72 Davey 1972, figs. 8 and 9 (Leicester), 13 (York).

68 Blagg 1978, 110.

73 S.S. Frere, Antiq. Journ. xxxix (1959), 13. A7

Ii

Hull 1958, 188.

T. F.

Bisgg

Chapter Ill DECORATED CAPITALS The capitals of columns or piers, other than those with plain mouldings of Tuscan type, are here divided into three main groups: Composite, Corinthian and Foliate. In the past, the terminology of Roman classical architecture has beer applied to its British provincial equivalents with insufficient precision. In some cases the difficulty of correct recognition derived from the distance the provincial form had travelled from its classical prototype, as in that of the Corinthian capital from Bridge Street, Chester (Chester 5, plate IX, described by Wright and Richmond 1 as representing a provincial treatment of the Composite order. In other cases, the misdescription derived from ignorance of architectural forms: so, the imbricated column drums from Springhead, published as Corinthian capitals. 2 It is perhaps necessary, therefore, to define these groups more specifically than would be required in a work on classical architectural ornament. By Composite is meant the combination of the double or single tiers of acanthus leaves of the lower part of the Corinthian capital with the scrolled angle volutes of the late-Republican version of the Ionic order, 3 with mouldings between the volutes, most commonly including a decorated ovolo forming the echinus, and surmounted by a Corinthian abacus. The essential features of the Corinthian order consist of two tiers of eight acanthus leaves in the lower half; in the upper half, calyces of foliage which spring from the cauliculi and encase spiral tendrils (the volutes at the angles, the helices in the centre of each side). a rosette decorates the abacus immediately above the helices, usually sprouting from a stem which passes behind the helices as it rises from a small calyx or single leaf above the middle acanthus leaf of the upper tier (Fig. 3). In many of the Gaulish and British examples to be considered below, the enlarged scrolled leaf-sprays of the 1955, 57. 2

Penn 1967, 123.

3

Strong 1960, 119-120.

calyces adopt the form of the volutes and helices, which become overgrown to the point of total submergence within the foliage; the cauliculi lose prominence, or disappear altogether; or only one of the tiers ofleaves is carved. Rather than attempt to distinguish between Corinthian and Corinthianising capitals and invent intractable borderline disputes, I have treated all such capitals as belonging to the same order, with the presence in the upper part of a capital of some sort of calyx and volutes and of acanthus foliage in the lower part as the ultimate criteria. The capitals here described as Foliate have decoration with leaf forms which often appear originally to have been inspired by the Corinthian acanthus but which lack the formal disposition of elements of the true Corinthian order. In some cases the result is the crude and simplified single row of upright leaves of such capitals as Corbridge 3. In others, notably Bathford 1 and Wroxeter 105 and 106, a far more elaborate scheme of decoration is closer to classical antecedents but at the same time outside the conventional orders of architecture. In cases in which only fragments ofleaves remain, it is usually possible to determine, from the way in which they are disposed and carved, whether they should be relegated to the Foliate group. If not, they are ascribed to the Corinthian. Admittedly, one cannot be sure that a piece of a lower leaf might not equally well have come from a Composite capital. Securely identifiable examples of that order are so uncommon in Britain, however, that the chances against such an origin are high. There is, however, a number of figured capitals. Of these, some are essentially Corinthian save that they have human or mythological faces or figures in the upper part. These are distinguished on the map (Map 1) by a separate symbol, but are otherwise treated as members of the Corinthian group. Other instances of figured decoration appear on capitals not basically of Corinthian type. These have been grouped on the map under a common symbol, and will be treated with other unclassifiable pieces in the Miscellaneous section (p.42.ff.), but they do not form a homogeneous class.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

The Composite Order

prominent. The leaves are simply and flatly carved, with a strong mid-rib but no other channelling. The capital seems to have been intended for a position immediately in front of a wall, as it was not thought necessary to execute the detail of the ovolo and leaf-carving on one side, in which a central vertical recess 6 cm. deep and 14 cm. wide has also been cut.

Only three sites in Britain have produced examples of the true Composite order: Bath, Chester and Corbridge. The capital Bath 80, found in the reservoir of the Great Bath in about 1878, is the best surviving example, damaged though it is (Plate XI). 4 None of the abacus is intact, but the single remaining volute, though much weathered, appears to be decorated with a rosette in the 'eye' of its scroll. An egg-anddart moulding and an astragalus of simple beads without reels decorates the echinus, and the Corinthian bell of the lower part bears fluting and a single row of acanthus leaves.

The final example of the group ( Chester 103) is extremely simplified. 9 Beneath the volutes is an astragal moulding, and there is a single tier of leaves, carved in outline only (Plate XIV). Lacking any ornamental carving, this is to the other three examples what many of the Foliate capitals are to the Corinthian. Although they differ in execution, the first three examples belong basically to the same version of the Composite order. Their heights range from 43 cm. (Chester 95) to 32 cm. (Corbridge 134) and their base diameters from 25.5 cm. (Chester 95) to 39 cm. (Corbridge 134), while the overall proportions vary considerably, but they were used on colu~ns of medium size, giving a total height of 3-4 m. While employed, therefore, in buildings oflargerthan domestic ~~ale, they were not used in such imposing contexts as the bas1hcas in which, for example, the Silchester and Cirencester Corinthian capitals appeared. Unfortunately, there is no recorded evidence to tell us more than that.

This treatment reflects the period of decorative elaboration to the basic Composite scheme which probably began in Rome under Tiberius and was well-developed by the Flavian period. 5 The fluting below the echinus and the rosette in the 'eye' of the volute appear to be favourite features of one type of Composite capital adopted in eastern Gallia Belgica an_d Germania. 6 Of those examples illustrated by Kahler, none 1s sufficiently close in its decoration to provide an exact parallel. It must be borne in mind that this type of western provincial capital does not seem to have been studied outside the area of Kahler's work. Nevertheless, the choice of motif, the preference for a single tier of leaves and thus for relatively squat proportions, and such detail as the incision at t~e top_of the fluting, combine to demonstrate a general affirnty with the products of north-eastern Gaul and the Rhineland, which is reinforced as an indication oflikely origin when other types of architectural ornament, notably that of Corinthian capitals, can be shown to have the same affinity. The manner in which the foliage is carved is very close to that of the Corinthian class C (see below p.21 ), and in particular to that on the capital from the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, so far as one can tell from the present battered state of our example. By analogy with these, a late-first or early-second century date may be suggested.

The Corinthian Order This is the most important group of decorated capitals in the province, in number, in the quality of their execution, and in their geographic range. Several distinct subdivisions can be observed, rather broader in some cases than types, in the normal archaeological usage of the word, and here termed classes and given an alphabetic designation. Some of these classes (A, B, F and G) are represented by only one or two examples, but have been distinguished because they can be related to particular styles of carving found elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Others (C, D and E) are larger, and permit the identification of schools of stonemasons ( on which see further, p.46 ff.). A final Miscellaneous category contains unique examples which cannot be related stylistically to others, either inside or outside the province.

The first of the Chester capitals (95) is a fragment from which the volutes and abacus have been broken. Unfortunately the piece cannot now be found, but the decoration is clear i~ the published photograph (cf Plate XII) which shows an echmus decorated with an egg-and-tongue, an undecorated astragal and a single tier of acanthus leaves. 7 The ovolo is not so deeply cut as on the Bath capital, while the leaves are proportionately taller and have more pronounced ribs.

Class A

The Corbridge capital (134) is even simpler (Plate XIII). 8 There is a trace of a projecting rosette on the abacus, and an incised flower on what is intended as the volute, but is carved as a diagonally-placed cylinder. The ovolo consists ofan eggand-dart, carved upside-down; the dart is very wide and 4

Cunliffe 1969, 196 and pl. lxi, a.

5

Strong 1960, 127-128.

FISHBOURNE 28 (Plate XV) The capitals which were found in fragments, broken up to provide packing for posts in the palace-period garden, provi~e the earliest archaeologically-dated example of the order m Britain, belonging to the Neronian or early Flavian period. The number of surviving comers and volutes shows that there were at least four capitals originally. On their antecedents there is little to add to Strong's detailed analysis. 10 He argued

6 Cf. Kahler 1939, nos. R2 (Mainz), S2 (Cologne), SI 0 (Trier); Musee de Luxembourg 1974, nos. 22, 25 and 30 (from around Luxembourg). 7

8

Wright and Richmond 1955, pl. xii, no. 174a.

9

Knowles and Forsler 1909, 334, fig. 9, and 348.

10 Strong 1971, 11-15.

19

Wright and Richmond 1955, pl. xii, no. 175.

T. F.

Bisgg

that they were carved by craftsmen from southern Gaul, and remarked that 'the design as a whole is without parallel, but the source of inspiration is obviously the rich 'Corinthianising' series of Italian capitals of the first century AD. 11 Notable features are the rams-horn volutes, the combination of ovolo and fluting on the abacus (rare after Julio-Claudian times), a mask in place of the abacus rosette, and the eight pairs of upright leaves which support the scrolls and stalks of the volutes.

differs in that the growth rings are indicated, not by incised transverse lines but by series of chiselled holes running along the channels. Fishbourne 28 had volutes only, springing from a pair of leaves on the vertical axis of the abacus rosette. Here, however, the volutes are accompanied in the more conventional manner by helices, and they spring from a small calyx ofleaves which rises from the mouth of a simple conical cauliculus. The helices are so large and widely-splayed that there is no room for any indication of the stem of the abacus rosette, or of the leaf or calyx which usually sheaths it. Instead, the spiral terminals of the helices overhang an acanthus leaf of the upper tier in the same manner as those of the volutes.

This class of capital is also umelated to any other in Britain, either by the manner of its carving or in the formal disposition of its elements. There are, it is true, instances in which some of the idiosyncracies can be observed elsewhere: Strong himself remarked on the rams-horn volutes of a set of six small and probably early Corinthian capitals from Cirencester (44-49, see below); a mask in place of a rosette (of which, admittedly, von Mercklin has published quite a number of examples from the Empire as a whole) 12 was used on the Catterick capital 14 (below, p.38); and the solecism of the inverted ovolo has been noted on the Composite capital Corbridge 134 (above, p.39).

The upper tier of acanthus leaves is higher than the lower. The leaves are wide and well-spaced. The top lobe of each leaf hangs over markedly. The side lobes at the bottom are single and unserrated, which is unusual. In the case of three of the capitals the carving of the leaves is executed in less detail, there are no holes pierced in the channels of the volutes and helices, nor are the triangles of stone between the upper edges of the volutes and helices and the lower edge of the abacus cut away. These features may possibly be explained as the work of a different craftsman, rather than as a result of the capitals being left unfinished: they must certainly have been regarded as completed, as it is not credible that three capitals should have been left in identical and uniform states of partial execution. Nevertheless, the difference between the two lots of three is more a matter of finishing touches, and a slightly different handling of the leaf shapes.

In none of these cases do the techniques of carving and the other stylistic and formal features suggest a relationship with this Fishbourne capital. So far as surviving evidence can tell us, its carvers did not go on to work elsewhere in the island, nor did they train any successors here. This is not surprising; the palatial building upon which they were working is also unique in the province. Not until the end of Vespasian's reign, with the development of the fora and basilicas of several towns, attested under Agricola's governorship 13 but probably initiated by Frontinus, was there any really extensive need for Corinthian capitals and the men to carve them.

All six are decorated on three sides only, the fourth being cut back vertically to the width of the shaft. All have a circle of the same diameter as the base marked out on the top, its centre at the intersection of two straight incised lines drawn from the mid-point of each side of the abacus. This feature must have been the basis from which the scheme of decoration was measured and laid out.

Class B CIRENCESTER 44-49

Strong has observed that these 'seem to be among the earliest examples of Roman Corinthian in Britain' .15 It is difficult to be more precise than this, for two reasons.

Six capitals in the Corinium Museum (Plate III) are also unusual in their decoration when compared with most other Romano-British examples, and also for their small size: they are 20 cm. in height and their diameter at the base ranges from 14.5 to 16 cm.

First, the small size of the capitals appears to have caused some distortion in the proportions. The abacus is very high (4.8 cm.) in relation to the total height of the capital (20 cm.). The two tiers ofleaves are also relatively high (11.2 cm.) in proportion to the volutes; in a larger capital this might be considered evidence for a later date. Presumably it would have been difficult to execute their detail adequately had they been lower, and the effect is in any case offset visually by the prominence given to the volutes and helices at the expense of the calyces and cauliculi. One should therefore be cautious in applying general criteria of proportion rigidly to such smallscale work, specially when carved on a fairly coarse oolitic limestone.

The abacus is divided into a shallow ovolo and a cavetto moulding, booth of them plain, and carries a prominent rosette. The equally prominent volutes and helices are deeply undercut and widely splayed. Attention has already been called to them (above, p.19±) because three of the capitals are distinguished by additional treatment to these elements which can best be explained as an attempt to imitate the rams-horn volutes of a small number of Italian capitals, considered by Strong in his discussion of the Fishbourne capital. 14 The treatment here 11

Ibid. 13.

12

Von Mercklin 1962, e.g. nos. 210,214,219,231,265,273,285,293.

13 Tacitus Agr. 21; Antiq. Joum. xxxvi (1956), 8-10; xxxvii (1957), 216218.

Secondly, these capitals have proved very difficult to parallel. The prominent volutes and helices are particularly unusual,

14

15

Strong 1971.

20

1971, 14.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

and contrast with what is common on most other capitals in the province, where they are richly encased or even replaced by acanthus shoots (classes C and E, below) or are flattened and simplified (class D). Both these characteristics originate in the provincial carving of Gallia Belgica and Germania, 16 from where much of Romano-British architectural ornament can be shown to derive. Futhermore, the specific detail of the leaf-carving, one of the most useful features in demonstrating associations, is less easy to compare with that on the majority of the other capitals, which are much larger.

be), suggests that all the columns stood in line, or possibly that they were placed immediately in front of a wall as a screen or blind colonnade. In view of this feature they may be thought unlikely to have come from the pronaos of a classical temple or the portico of a Roman-Celtic temple, where the blank side would have been visually unattractive and, indeed, apparently pointless. Whatever the use of Corinthian capitals of this size was in Cirencester, it is virtually unparalleled in the province, where Tuscan or Tuscan-type columns were almost invariably employed when columns of comparable height were required. 20 That fact alone suggests that the building, whatever its purpose, was of some importance.

Nevertheless, the fact that most of the main constituent features of the normal Corinthian capital, which tend to attenuate or become transformed in later provincial examples (notably, the volutes, helices and cauliculi), are here clearly executed favours the view that these capitals may be placed relatively early in the sequence of development. It is unlikely that the originals from which the carvers of these capitals learned their trade were much later than the :middle of the first century AD. The wide spacing and splaying out of the leaves, with the tips of the lower lobes of adjacent leaves clearly separated, and the outwards-pointing rain-drop shaped cavities between the lobes, are common features of metropolitan Roman architecture under Augustus and the Julio-Claudians 17 and of contemporary Italy 18 and southern Gaul. 19

Class C This is one of the three main classes of Romano-British capital, and is the dominant form in the east and south of the province. Its origins lie in the area of north-eastern Gaul and the German provinces, but within Britain it shows a variety and a chronological range which attest its naturalisation and subsequent evolution here. Many of the examples come from important public buildings, such as the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, the basilicas of Silchester, Cirencester and Caerwent, and the theatre at Verulamium. The development of the towns ofRoman Britain as administrative centres began towards the end ofVespasian's reign,21 and their furnishing with buildings appropriate to their role and status was a process which occupied at least half of a century. 22 These buildings required a befitting decoration, which such few stonemasons as may have been working in early Flavian Britain had not been trained to provide. None of the ornament on early military tombstones, for example, is of sufficient quality to demonstrate the necessary ability. 23 Competent craftsmen had therefore to be found from outside the province, and the introduction and establishment of this class of capital was one of the results. Many of its examples may be argued to be the work of a group of masons which travelled round the country for a couple of generations, in much the same way as the cathedral stonemasons of the middle ages.

Admittedly, this does not serve to identify with any precision the origins of the craftsmen who carved these capitals: nor does it permit one to say how early is 'early' in this context. One should perhaps remain cautious, and conclude that the capitals were inspired by those of southern and central Gaul, and are likely to belong to the second half of the first century. Their findspot is unrecorded. They were probably found during the last century, though they are not numbered among the items from the Bathurst and Cripps collections in the Corinium Museum catalogue. It is remarkable that as many as six should have been preserved; indeed, this is the only case in Britain in which so many of a set of capitals survive. There are no bases or column shafts which can be associated with them. If the Vitruvian calculation (III,5 and IV,6) is used, the diameter of the bottom of the column shaft should have been about 18 cm. (6/5 x 15). With a shaft nine diameters high, the overall height of the columns would have been about 1.80 m. They would just have been tall enough, therefore, to carry the entablature of a small portico. This might have been a public colonnade, though in view of the total difference in style from the capitals of the basilica (below, p.27) it is perhaps unlikely to have been that of the forum. The peristyle of a private house would be a theoretical possibility, though no peristyle houses of appropriate date have been excavated at Cirencester. The fact that one side of each capital is cut back to the width of the shaft, if an original feature (as it seems to

Reference has already been made to Heinz Kahler's study of 1939, Die Romischen Kapitelle des Rheingebiets. If this has long been a landmark among architectural studies in the western provinces, more scholars have observed it in the distance than have steered their course towards it. It is fortunate for the present study that the important class of capital now under consideration originated from about the only area (extending rather further than the Rhineland itself) 20

16 Kahler 1939, passim. 17

18

Wilderspool 7 is an exception (below, p.34).

21 For a summary of the evidence for individual sites, sec Wachcr 1975.

E.g. Temple of Mars Ultor, Basilica Aemilia: Strong and Ward-Perkins 1962, pis. xi, xii b.

22

One might take the epigraphic evidence for the fora at Verulamium (79 AD; Frere 1967, 202) and Wroxeter ( 129-130 AD; RIB 288) as markers of the beginning and end of the development.

23

E.g. those ofM. Favonius Facilis at Colchester, RIB 200, and S. Valerius Genial is al Cirencester, RIB 109.

E.g. Verona, theatre: Kahler 1939, beil. 3, no. 4.

19 E.g. Nimcs, Ported' Auguste: Baity 1960, pl. xv; Autun, Ported' Arroux: Kahler 1939, 16 and beil. 5, no. 4.

21

T. F.

Bisgg

from which a large body of comparative material has been published and analysed. While it is tempting to devote particular attention to accessibly published evidence, even where it forms a small, perhaps dangerously small, sample of the available total, in this instance nothing from the comparative material from outside north-eastern Gaul that Kahler illustrates, 24 from the limited number of other published examples or from my visits to site and museum collections elsewhere in Gaul contradicts the identification which Kahler himself made 25 of the capitals of the Silchester and Caerwent basilicas with those of his Form C.

over the upwards-pointing tooth of bottom lobe, giving an arched effect. The chief feature of the upper part of the capital is the enrichment of the leaf-calyx. This encloses virtually the entire lower part of the volutes and helices, and their upper edges are overlapped by a long tendril terminating in an upturned spiral on the side of the abacus. Only the end coils of the volutes and helices peep out from under the vegetation. This treatment is an accentuation of features that can be noted in an early stage of development on a number of Augustan capitals in Rome, such as those of the Temple of Castor in the Forum Romanum, 27 but evolve much further on some south Gaulish capitals of the first century AD. Examples may be seen in the theatres of Orange and Vaison, a capital from an arch at Arles and one in the museum at Autun. 28

This should not perhaps be seen as the acquisition by Britain in ready-made form of the fruits of a long development in that area. The evolution of this characteristic Gaulish capital only really gets under way there after the civil wars of 68-69 AD, associated, as in Britain, with a large new building progiamme, 26 though its type, possibly its pattern, is the capital from the Mainz Jupiter column, dated by the prosopography of its inscription to between 58 and 67 AD.

Additional features are the lobed leaf at the base of the stem of the abacus rosette, the indented over-fold of the lip of the cauliculus, the inclined serif-like curved incisions on the cavetto of the abacus which derive from more orthodox fluting, and the V-shaped incision atthe comers of the abacus.

It is not therefore surprising to find here, right from the start, a number of variant forms; they reflect Britain's participation in a period of creative development in architectural ornament. The province is not isolated, nor an empoverished relation architecturally. It is sharing directly with others in a process of transformation, though this will only be fully elucidated when the evidence for the whole north-western region of the Empire has been comprehensively studied.

In later examples (Kahler's Form D) the channelling of the lobes of the leaves in the lower part of the capital is deepened. The leaves are carved closer together, so that their bottom lobes are contiguous and the effect is rather of a mass of foliage than of individual leaves. Deep cutting of the spaces between the teeth, combined with the deep channelling, produces a strong chiaroscuro effect. In the upper part of many of the Form D capitals the volutes and helices have disappeared altogether, and the kalathos is totally hidden. There tends to be a narrowing of the lobes relative to their height, and a stronger vertical emphasis to the channelling, and the tiers of leaves in the lower part of the capital occupy a proportionately greater part of the total height.

The Class C defined here does not equate simply with Kahler's Form C, but is also to be related to his Form D, which comprises the second and third century developments from Form C, particularly in the area round Trier, as well as with his Forms E, F and G, which are variants intermediate between C and D. The number of capitals in the British class is much smaller than the total of those attributed to the five Gaulish forms. It seems preferable to accept the common inspiration and lineage of the class as a whole rather than to produce an over-refined scheme of subdivisions, each containing only one or two capitals. The affinity between his Forms C-G is emphasised by Kahler's generic name for the capital of which each form is a variant, das stark akanthisiert Kapitell.

It should be emphasised that there are notable individual variations among the thirty-six capitals or fragments that Kahler uses to illustrate his Forms C-G, and the above description is offered as a generalised basis for comparison.

SILCHESTER (Plates XVI-XXI) The chief diagnostic features are in the manner of carving the leaves and in the arrangement of the upper part of the capital. These can best be indicated by describing the capital of the Mainz Jupiter column (Kahler's Cl).

The excavations by Joyce in 1867 and by Knowles and St. John Hope for the Society of Antiquaries between 1890 and 1910 produced a number of pieces of large Corinthian capitals. 29 Of these, thirty now remain in the Reading Museum's Silchester collection, ranging in size from an entire lower half(Silchester 27) to small fragments of foliage. They were found in various contexts, but several came from excavation of the Forum and Basilica, and there is no doubt that they formed the internal colonnade of the latter building. The distribution of the other pieces is explicable as the result

In the lower half, the leaves are disposed in a natural and organic way. A deep concave channel runs from the central tooth of the middle lobe on each side down to the bottom of the leaf, so that the mid-rib stands out prominently and the two bottom lobes are isolated. The spatulate tooth of each lobe is related to the channelling. A notable feature which becomes accentuated in later examples is the way in which the lower edge of the middle lobe rises in a smooth curve 24

27

Strong and Ward-Perkins 1962.

28

Kahler 1939, beil. 6, nos. 7, 2,

29

Fox and St. John Hope 1890, 757 and pl. xxxiv; 1893, 552 and 555 and pis. xxxvii and xxxviii; St. John Hope and Fox 1898, 120; St. John Hope 1909, 474.

1939,beil.1-7.

25

ibid. 32.

26

Ibid. 24.

22

I

and 3 respectively.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

volute

-

s~w:~~~~ he I Ices

•v.1.1111,,.1.1

calyx

(d) Principal parts of the Corinthian capital (reconstruction of the capital from the Temple at Bath, after Cunliffe 1969, fig. 4)

Fig. 3. (a-c) Corinthian capitals, Kahler Forms C, D, H; (d) Principal parts of the Corinthian capital

T. F.

Bisgg

of stone-robbing, some indeed being discovered by the West Gate of the town, where their departure had been arrested.

Three abacus rosettes may be compared (Plates XX, XXI). No. 114 is 12.5 cm. high and 17.5 cm. broad. It consisted of five petals originally, with an inner quatrefoil measuring 8 x 8.5 cm.

Although it is not possible to reassemble a complete capital, sufficiently large pieces remain for its dimensions to be calculated accurately. Its overall height (including the astragalus) is 85 cm., and the diameter of the shaft beneath it 77 cm. It measured 140-150 cm. across the volutes. The relative proportions are: Abacus

10.5

Calyx

27.5

No. 115 is broken but must, if symmetrical, have been about 20 cm. wide originally. The rather crude inner quatrefoil measures 9.5 x 10.5 cm. No. 128 is 14.5 cm. high. Its original width must have been about 16 cm. In place of the qua trefoil it has a round boss 8.5 cm. in diameter, divided into three segments.

Upper leaf 18.0) Lower leaf 18.5) Astragalus

36.5

These variations seem best explained as the products of two or three different craftsmen working together. They are all of a minor character, and to a casual observer the capitals would have appeared identical. In considering that the basilica had been reconstructed under Constantine, Fox referred to one of the capitals as' looking like a clumsy copy of the older examples'. 32 Boon repeated this view in the 1957 edition of his Roman Sil chester. It was supposed that it was a copy made to replace one broken during the suggested fourth-century reconstruction. None of the remaining pieces is so different as to require such an explanation; possibly the rather heavierweathering of the piece in question which, as Fox remarked, had been rescued from the farmyard where it had been used as a mounting block, gave rise to the observation. The fact that Boon does not reiterate the statement in the second (197 4) edition of his book may mean that he no longer maintains the earlier view.

9.5

This gives ratios of 1:2.5:3.5: 1.30 The Silchester basilica capital will be considered in some detail, for it will serve as a British model with which to compare less complete examples from other sites. It has all the principal features of the typical Kahler Form C capital. The abacus is decorated with inwards-curved seriflike incisions, and its comers with a V-shaped incision with a transverse line (Plate XVI). The scrolled terminal of the upper swathe of the calyx over the volute rises almost to the top of the abacus. Only vestiges of the two volute terminals survive beneath the comer of the abacus: the rest is entirely encased in foliage. The helices are likewise invisible save for their coils beneath the abacus rosette, the stem of which rises from a leaf with two lobes one ach side (Plate XVII). The cauliculus is flattened and its sides are hidden behind the leaves of the upper tier. The lobes of the leaves are deeply hollowed and retain traces of the rasp with which they were finished. Their teeth are cut rather square and spade-shaped, and small bridges of stone are left joining their tips to the lower edges of adjacent lobes, leaving deeply-cut triangular spaces. The bottom lobes of the leaves in the lower tier have three teeth, and those of adjacent leaves do not quite join. The mid-ribs are flat and taper sharply upwards (Plate XVIII).

The capitals were, like Bath 4 and most of the Cirencester capitals, carved on two superimposed blocks. Silchester 27, with a lewis-hole in the top, is the only such block surviving more or less intact, and represents the lower half, up to the top of the upper acanthus tier. The blocks were not, however, of uniform height. In contrast with no. 27, a block later broken into three horizontal sections (nos. 106, 25, 156)33 comprised the upper two-thirds, down to the middle of the upper tier of acanthus leaves. Fox's drawing gives the misleading impression that the bottom is broken: it is flat, and carries the marks of the drove used to dress it.

The date of the Forum and Basilica at Silchester is placed towards the end of the first century AD. 31 Several pieces show minor variations in the depth of carving, in the detail of the ends of the leaves at the comers of the abacus and in the abacus rosette. The volute fragment 131, for example, (Plate XIX) has less deeply channelled, more fleshy leaves than 153 and the outermost lobe of the upper tendril of the calyx comes over the top of the last lobe of the lower leaves, rather than just in front of it as in 153 and 2. The upwards curl on the abacus is also more pronounced in 131.

Here again, the preferences of individual workmen for different tools can be noted. The top of one capital (no. 35) was dressed with a point, with a square marked out by an incised line from which the design was subsequently laid out. The comer of an abacus, no. 131, however, had its top dressed smooth with a drove, whereas a similar fragment, no. 153, had its top dressed with a claw chisel. Other technical differences between these two latter pieces have already been noted. No. 133, a larger abacus fragment simillar in execution to no. 153, also has claw tooling on a border 10 - 11 cm. wide round a slightly raised square platform.

30 To within a centimetre, which is perhaps an acceptable margin of error, particularly as there are minor discrepancies between pieces which appear to belong to different capitals. 31

Boon 1974, I 08. Excavation in 1977 showed that the western ambulatory floor was laid after 95-96; the different character of the masonry of its wall suggests that it belongs to the latest stage of construction (informalion from lhe excavalor, Dr. M. Fulford).

32 Fox and St. John Hope 1893, 555 and pl. xxxvii, fig. 1 = Silchcster

33 Fox and SL John Hope 1893, pl. xxxviii.

24

35.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

No doubt the roughing out of the decoration was done with a point, but all traces of any such preliminary dressing were removed in later work. The detail was executed with a flat chisel, marks of which are occasionally visible, as on the spirals of the helices on no. 25 (Plate XVII). Finishing was done with a rasp, which has often left its marks in the more deeply cut channels of the leaves, visible on the same piece, despite the slightly rough texture of the stone, which is a coarse to medium grained oolitic limestone.

to an Augustan or Tiberian building. One need not place it quite so early, and it might equally well post-date the foundation of the Claudian colonia. The Bath capital can probably be placed rather later in the same formative period. It still retains some of the features visible on early first-century south Gaulish capitals which were not adopted by the evolved Rhineland type. The carving and, particularly in the calyx, the disposition of the leaves, are much closer to the Mainz Jupiter column capital than to that from Cologne. It thus seems to show that Britain was already within the area of operation of the masons of the north-east Gaulish school, though that is not to insist on a precise origin there for the craftsmen concerned.

Typical Class C capitals BATH

Bath 4 (Plate XXII) Of its date, Cunliffe wrote 'the two-part capitals, the sprig spreading on the abacus and the wide volutes, are all features which in Rome would not be out of place in first-century contexts, but how they should be dated in Bath is another matter.' 38 He remarked that it might plausibly be suggested that the Temple precinct and the Baths were all first laid out at the same time, but this does not help us greatly, as the archaeological evidence for the late first-century date of the Baths is admittedly tenuous. Richmond and Toynbee have argued that the cornice of the Temple is of second or earlythird century date. 39 Arguments will be adduced against this opinion below (p.101) but even if it were accepted, their associated view that the cornice represented a refacing would mean that in any event the date of the capital would not have to be tied to that which they assigned to the cornice.

The capital from the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath is probably the earliest example of the class in Britain. 34 Indeed, in some ways it should perhaps be seen more in relation to some of the precursors ofKahler's stark akanthisiert Kapitell. Among its closest parallels is the capital from Cologne (Kahler's Form A no. 1) with which it shares the feature of the little leaf calyx shaped like a lotus bud on a stalk in the space between the volutes and the helices, and, below it, the sequence of two triangular and one oval cavity between adjacent lobes of the calyx. The second is a trait common to many Italian and Gaulish capitals of Augustan date and their derivatives, such as a pilaster capital from an arch at Langres, which also has the lotus bud. 35 A feature which does not seem to be reproduced in north-east Gaul is the trailing tendril which rises from the lotus and runs along the abacus between its angles and the rosette. This is comparable with the running scroll on a capital of the Porta di Augusto at Rimini and the tendrils on the abacus of a capital in the museum at N'imes and on that of another, also Augustan, from the Forum at Vienne. 36

Other features of the capital's ornament are significant. The ovolo at the top of the abacus is rare on buildings in Rome after the Julio-Claudians but occurs on the Neronian or early Flavian capital from Fishbourne (Class A, above). Comparison of the Bath capital with that of the Mainz Jupiter column might indicate a Neronian date, but the stopped fluting of the lower part of the Bath column shaft is not a common feature before Flavian times. On stylistic grounds the Bath capital should be earlier than the first of the basilica capitals to be described below, which can be dated to the late first century. Balancing these various factors, it would seem reasonable to propose an early Flavian date for it. If that is acceptable, one should observe that the Bath capital presents a sharp contrast to what would then be its near contemporary, the capital at Fishbourne, considered above as the likely work of south Gaulish masons. 40

The carving of the leaves, however, particularly in the shaping of the teeth, the form of the channelling of the middle lobe and the way in which it arches over the top of the bottom lobe, point to the line of developments visible in the early Rhineland capitals. Additionally, the upper part of the volute and also the helices are encased in foliage in the north-east Gaulish manner. Damage causes these features to be obscure on a photograph, but Lysons' drawing, reproduced by Cunliffe, 37 shows them clearly. The upper and lower parts of the capital are carved on separate blocks of stone, a common feature of the larger capitals of this class. Damage to the edges where the two pieces join has removed the detail of the cauliculus.

Bath 85 and 86 Two fragments of a large Corinthian capital are listed by Cunliffe under the heading 'Monumental Building North of the Temple'. 41 The place and date of their discovery are not

Kahler, in describing the Cologne capital mentioned above, postulated the movement of craftsmen to the Rhineland from the south of Gaul in the early years of the first century AD. That capital is not dated archaeologically, and he assigned it 34

Cunliffe 1969, 183.

35

Kahler 1939, 16 and abb. 3.

36

Ibid. bcil. I., no. 6 and 5, no. 2; p.19, abb. 4.

37

1969, 15, fig. 4.

38

1969, 37.

39 1955, 99 and I 05.

25

40

This might be held to reinforce the rather tentatively argued Rhineland affinity: the central and southern Gaulish features are explicable if Kiihler's hypothesis of a movement of craftsmen from there to the Rhineland is acceptable.

41

Cunliffe 1969, nos. 3.5 and 3.6.

T. F.

Bisgg

known, and one cannot therefore be certain that they are truly to be associated with the large building from which came the several fragments of an entablature with which they are listed, discovered in 1869. The pieces comprise part of an upper acanthus leaf with the lower leaves of the calyx, and another part of the calyx. The triangular cavities between the teeth of the lobes are narrower and more upright, and the midrib is thinner and flatter, than the corresponding features of the Temple capital. In these respects they are more akin to the Silchester and Cirencester basilica capitals, and they probably come from a late Flavian or Trajanic building.

CAERWENT 15 and 16 (Plate XXIII) Three large pieces, representing the upper parts of Corinthian capitals, are recorded as having been found during excavation of the Forum and Basilica there in 1907 and 1908.42 Their present location is unknown, and though they were illustrated, further details have not been published. By taking comparative measurements of some of their features from the published photographs and from those in the National Museum of Wales,43 it would appear that the Caerwent capitals were about one-seventh larger than those at Silchester. They must have been between 90 and 100 cm. high when complete, if the proportions of the lower parts were also congruent with Silchester's. The carving of the leaves is almost identical to that on the Silchester capital, though the tips of the teeth are rather more square and the hollowing of the central channels is deeper and more spoon-shaped. Comparison of Caerwent 16 with Silchester 25, both of which bear the lower part of the calyx, in the former to the right and in the latter to the left of the central axis, shows that the arrangement in both is very similar. Among minor differences, the small bridges between the tips of the teeth and the arched lower edge of the lobe above are not present on the Caerwent example, and the two lobes on each side of the stem of the abacus rosette are much closer together. Although the stone has suffered damage, there does not seem room for the prominent terminal coils of the helices clearly visible on Silchester 25, unless they had been pushed upwards. Caerwent 15 shows an abacus of much the same form as the Silchester calyces, with curved serif-like incisions and the foliage encasing the volutes rising almost to the top of it. The Caerwent capitals are thus very close to those from Silchester, and can be attributed to the same school of stonemasons. Stylistically they have evolved a little further. Nash-Williams took the view that the Forum and Basilica were in existence by the end of the first century, 44 but in the absence of properly recorded stratified evidence it is obviously unsafe to base that opinion on a coin series which begins with a coin ofNerva, as Wacher has objected. 45 He, although 42 Ashby, Hudd and King 1909, 572-3 and fig. I; Nash-Williams l 953B, 161 and pl. iv. 43

For copies of which I am grateful to Mr. George Boon.

44

Nash-Williams 1953B, 163.

45

Wacher 1975, 375-377.

he does not explicitly suggest an alternative, places Caerwent in a chapter headed 'Hadrianic stimulation', referring to the restoration of confidence and renewed building activity in town inspired by the Emperor's visit to the province in 121. While an early Hadrianic date for the ornament on the Caerwent capitals would be quite in keeping with the degree of evolution it shows from that of the Silchester capitals, there is no reason why they should not be Trajanic. If the argument advanced here, that the large Corinthian capitals from the Silchester, Cirencester and Caerwent basilicas and possibly a few other major buildings also are the product of one school of stonemasons, one might just as well imagine them continuously employed over a number of years, becoming available to move on to another site after finishing work on one, as that they were unemployed for a long period while they waited for Imperial incentives.

CANTERBURY 12- 14 (Plate XXIV) In 1976 three small fragments of a large capital were found in excavations on the site of what was probably a monumental building which stood on the other side of the street northwest of the theatre. They had been re-used in the packing of a post-hole of a post-Roman structure. A wall divided the site from the road, and within it was the stylobate for a colonnade. The excavations did not extend far enough for any part of the building enclosed within this precinct to be discovered, but the juxtaposition of the site to the theatre is suggestive, and one might not unreasonably speculate that the building was a temple. Stratigraphical evidence showed that the stylobate had been laid after the reign of Vespasian, and had been destroyed by the fourth century, but the precise date of construction within those limits is not known. 46 Of the three pieces, one bears just the trace of what is probably the junction between the top of a leaf of the lower acanthus tier and the two leaves of the upper tier. The other two consist of an abacus rosette with part of the calyces below it, and a comer volute, from which the extremity had been broken in antiquity and re-attached with three square pegs, and is now missmg. The closest parallels to this capital are those of Silchester and Caerwent. The rosette is simpler, lacking the internal quatrefoil, and it is distinguished by having a spray ofleaves beneath it in place of the helices. The deep hollowing of the leaves, however, their spade-shaped teeth and the flat broadlobed spray which rises on to the abacus, are closely comparable, though the spaces between the teeth are less deeply cut. If anything, the Canterbury capital is slightly closer to Caerwent than to Silchester, and can probably be given a date in the first quarter of the second century. It thus provides an interesting example of the range and dominance of the masons responsible for the early members of this class of capital. The abacus is 6 cm. high, compared with Silchester's 10.5, but appears to be rather low in proportion to the size of the leaves. Although the upper lobe of the calyx is of about the 46 Informalion from the excavalor, Mr. T.W. Tallon-Brown.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

same width (15 cm.) as Silchester's, it spreads wider than it does on the Silchester capital. It is thus difficult to relate the proportions exactly, but it would seem that the Canterbury capital was somewhat smaller than Silchester's, about 75 cm. high, giving an overall height for the column of 7-8 m. CIRENCESTER

The collection of Corinthian capitals in the Corinium Museum is unique in Britain. Whereas the other sites that have been considered so far can offer only one or two different examples, Cirencester has preserved no less than five and possibly six quite distinct versions. It is fair to presume that it boasted an equal number of fine monumental buildings and must, on that basis, have been outstanding among the civitas capitals of the province in its public architecture. It is sad, then, that of these buildings, only the imposing basilica of the Forum is known to us in plan; the other capitals are all unprovenanced nineteenth-century discoveries. In a town which has fortunately escaped many of the rigours of urban development in recent years, it is fairly unlikely that there will be the occasion in the near future for us to learn much of the temples or theatre which are the likely sources for the other capitals. Cirencester 20 (Plate XXV)

The largest and finest is the lower half of a capital found at the Leauses in 1808.47 It is 71 cm. high, and the diameter of its shaft measures l 07 cm. The column from which it came cannot have been much less than 13 m. in total height: some fragments of a very large cornice (below, p.94) must come from a building of similar size. The leaves are carefully cut and well-finished. Although the precision of the work is clear, the surface of the stone is rather weathered and no toolmarks are visible. The spaces between the lobes are deeply cut, and small bridges are left between the ends of the broad spade-shaped teeth and the undersides of the lobes above. The resulting cavities are square-ended, and longer and narrower than is usual on Romano-British capitals of this class. Individual leaves are well-separated, so that the mid-rib of the upper tier extends right down to the bottom. The bottom lobes of the leaves of the lower tier are single and unserrated, reminiscent of the rather small bottom lobes of the capital from the Temple ofSulis Minerva at Bath in that respect. The bottom lobes of the upper tier, however, are more vertical and less closely attached to the rest of the leaf than there, approaching more closely those of the Silchester capitals. The cauliculus is flat, with two incised channels, and its overfold is divided above and below to form a diamondshaped lappet.

Cirencester 51

The Leauses was the site of the Forum and Basilica, among other buildings, but the capital 20 is different from and considerably larger than another lower half, found by Cripps in his excavations of the basilica in 1898 (Plate XXVI). 48 Appreciably more weathered, but in any case not so wellcarved, this capital also occupies an intermediate place between the Bath capital and that from Silchester. Although by a different hand, it is thus probably of similar date to the previous example. Its pointed teeth are very close to those of Bath 4, as is the way in which the underside of the middle lobe of the lower leafoverlaps the bottom lobe. These bottom lobes are carved with three teeth, and adjacent pairs are well separated. The channelling is not so deep, however, the leaves are more squat, and the lower edges of the deep cavities between the lobes are straight, as on the Silchester capital, rather than rounded, as at Bath. With a height of 41 cm. and a diameter of77 cm., it is about the same size as the Silchester capital. Cirencester 50 and 34

The upper part of a capital (No. 50) without known provenance (Plate XXVII) appears not to have been part of the same set as the last example, though it is close to it in size. The carving is deeper and more refined, and the tips of the leaves are more spade-shaped. As well as this upper part, which was decorated on at least three sides, the back and the top being broken, there is half of the upper part of a capital identical in style (No. 34) which must have been placed immediately in front of a wall (Plate XXVIII). One half of the calyx is carved against a flat panel with a rebate below it. The foliage which encases the helices and volutes (the coils of which project from it at the top), the ribbing incised on the sides of the calyces beneath the volutes, and the incisions on the abacus, are all familiar features of this class of capital. There are one or two features which distinguish these two capitals from those of Bath, Silchester and Caerwent. In place of the pair ofleaves in the middle of the calyx there is a single leaf; there are small semi-circular incisions below the triangular spaces between each lobe; the leaf which normally sheaths the stem of the abacus rosette is transformed into a bunch of vertical tendrils with spiral terminals; and the overfold of the cauliculus is elaborately treated with incised lines and deep triangular cuttings. These refinements, and a more flowing line and delicacy of carving than are observable in the Silchester and Caerwent capitals, combine to suggest the work of one rather more closely in touch with the northeast Gaulish prototypes, and also give the impression of a later date.

Stylistically it can thus be placed somewhere between Bath 4 and Silchester, and on that basis a late-Flavian date might be suggested.

This is reinforced by comparison with some of the capitals of Kiihler's Form D, with the division of the calyx into two clear halves separated by a single leaf(e.g. his D12 and Fl), which appears to be a provincial phenomenon first observable in the Temple at Sbeitla (139 AD). Kahler argues that its

47 Lysons 1817A, 124.

48 Cripps 1898, 207.

T. F.

Bisgg

appearance on a capital from Alesia must come between the first and second destructions of the site, for which the termini post quos are given by coins of Galba and Commodus respectively. The more detailed treatment of the lip of the cauliculus ( cf D9 and 10) is also a feature of this second-tothird century Trier school, but in other respects these Cirencester examples do not follow it in detail. The form of the remainder of the calyx follows the already established Romano-British form much more closely. One may see these capitals, therefore, as a later development by masons still in touch with trends in Gallia Belgica but operating within what by now is a well-established native tradition. A date some time after the middle of the second century is likely. The next two capitals also display local variations within a well-established British tradition.

Cirencester 60 (Plate XXIX) This is perhaps the most widely known of all Romano-British capitals on account of its figured decoration. The subjectmatter of this has recently been reconsidered by Phillips, 49 who has argued convincingly that all four of the waist-length figures which occupy the upper part of the capital come from Dionysiac mythology. The carving of the leaves is very close to that of the preceding example, though their tips are a little more pointed, the intervals between the ribbing on the underside of the calyces below the volutes are closer, and the volutes stand up more vertically. The disposition of the leaves behind the shoulders of the figures allows a space for a single leaf and not a pair in the middle of the calyx, had the figures not been present. In the lower part, the teeth of the bottom lobes of adjoining leaves are touching, the lobes themselves being framed in an arch formed by the undersides of the middle lobes; the tendency is to subordinate the individuality of the leaves to an overall patterned effect. The upper tier is higher than the lower, and this combines with the greater verticality of the volutes to enhance the impression ofheight. All these are features that develop during the second century, and the result is a scheme of proportions that differs markedly from that of the Silchester capital (above, p.22). Cirencester 60

Silchester

Overall height

107

85

Width across volutes

135

140-150

Diameter at base

60

77

Relative proportions (ratios in brackets) Abacus

9 (1)

10.5 (1)

Calyx

46.5 (5.1)

26.5 (2.5)

Upper leaf Lower leaf

28 ·0 } 51.5 (5.7) 23.5

18.0} 18.5 36.5 (3.5)

parts ofboth capitals are approximately equal, the Cirencester 60 calyx is proportionately taller (at the expense of the abacus), as is the upper tier of acanthus leaves (at the expense of the lower). Phillips proposes a date from the late second to mid-third century on the ground of the capital's affinity with those of Rhineland Jupiter columns, most of which belong to that period, where datable. For the same stylistic reasons as were advanced for the previous example, that date seems perfectly satisfactory so far as the architectural ornament is concerned. That ornament can be seen as a continuation of the tradition established in Cirencester by the turn of the first century. The direction of its evolution, however, is broadly the same as that followed in the area of the tradition's origin, and the presence of the figures also suggests an acquaintance with the occasional practice of decorating capitals in such a way in that region, the only previous (and sot closely comparable) example from Britain being the Flavian capital from Fishboume (above, p.19f.). This practice becomes more popular in the Rhineland in the later part of the second century. While the practice is often to be found associated with Jupiter columns, the shafts of which also are often highly decorated with overlapping leaves, vine scrolls and reliefsculpture, 50 it is arguable whether the Cirencester capital surmounted such a column. A number of factors suggest the contrary. There is a dowel hole on top of the abacus, in the middle of a slightly raised circle 91 cm. in diameter. Both of these are regular features of capitals which carry the architrave of a building, and neither suggests the attachment of the freestanding sculpture that stood on a Jupiter column. Most known Jupiter column capitals are much smaller. 51 The condition of the Cirencester capital does not lead one to think that it had been exposed to serious weathering out of doors. While Dionysiac figures do appear among the wide range of subjects which decorated Jupiter columns or their capitals, 52 they are sufficiently commonplace in Roman decorative art for it to be difficult to use them as evidence for the function of the column or of the building in which it may have stood. These factors are too circumstantial as evidence to permit a firm conclusion to be drawn one way or the other, but on balance it seems more likely that the capital was used inside a building and not on a free-standing column. It was found in 1838, to the west of the site of the Forum.

Cirencester 87, 88, 89, 108 (Plates XXX and XXXI) The final example in the direct line of the Cirencester capitals which can be attributed to the work of one school is represented by one large and three small fragments of the upper part of a capital, the diameter of which at the bottom would have been about 60 cm. The underside of the large piece is flat, and though the top is broken, a small part of the original surface survives, giving a height of 34 cm.

so

Cf Bauehhenss 1976. Walter 1970.

It is thus higher in proportion to its breadth at the top, and considerably slimmer at the base. While the upper and lower

51

Nevertheless, some of the Romano-British Jupiter columns must have been of similar size to Cirenccstcr 60 - sec below, p.85.

49

52

See Phillips 1976. 40, for examples.

Phillips 1976.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

The large fragment bears part of two calyces, with in the middle the lower part of the terminals of the helices, with the stem of the abacus rosette below them. Instead of being sheathed in a leaf or tendrils, the stem rises from a simple flower-pot shaped recess. In the centre of the calyx is a pair ofleaves, their lower parts joined together as one, with deep triangular cavities between the teeth, the tips of which are also joined. Otherwise, the relief is rather shallow. The way in which what were originally the adjacent parts of two separate halves of the calyx have come to form a third motif dividing the halves, and the elongation of the lobes, both distinguish this piece from the early products of the Cirencester school.

it likely to have come from the Period I stage building, which she dated to 140-150 AD, but which in the light of subsequent excavation should probably be considered to have been built after the fire of c.155 AD. 55 The rebates in the side wails of the stage suggest the presence of some sort of columnar screen in front of the stage building proper, on the line taken by the brick-faced piers of the Period II theatre. If this is accepted, it may be inferred that the fragment was broken off when the columns were taken down and presumably re-erected on top of the Period II piers. The mortar debris in which it was found is also likely to have been the result of the demolition of part of the Period I structures. This seems more likely than that a Period II capital had somehow broken during building work before the stage floor was laid. The capital had been painted, and that decoration would surely have been executed after the building work was finished.

A third such feature is to be seen on No. 88, the comer of a volute. The terminal leaf is broad, flat and club-shaped. It has lost the little curl at the top of its Silchester counterpart, and comes right up to the corner of the abacus.

The ends of the leaves which rise on to the abacus, with rather lumpy terminal curls upwards and downwards, derive ultimately, if in a cruder version, from the Silchester basilica type, as do the leaves which encase the volutes, the ends of which have been reduced to a flat bar with a V-shaped central tooth. The flat club-shaped encasing leaves are reminiscent of Cirencester I 08, but the workmanship is coarser than on any of the pieces in this class considered so far.

These developments from the original form of Class C suggest that the capital from which these pieces came can be placed later, probably some time in or after the middle of the second century, in common with the two preceding examples.

Cirencester 39 (Plate XXXII) The last of the capitals in this class from Cirencester is very different in the manner in which its leaves are rendered, but the way in which they are disposed shows that its inspiration goes back to the same source. It is a piece from the top of a capital, broken at the bottom and at the comers. The abacus bears serif-like incisions and a broad fillet under them. Two calyces of broad fleshy leaves enclose the kalathos almost completely. An upright three-lobed leaf occupies the position of the abacus flower between them, and there are no helices; the volutes are broken away.

The height of the abacus is 9 cm., which suggests that the whole capital was 70-80 cm. high. It is of particular interest that it was painted: it now appears cream, but the excavator, who presumably saw it fresh from the ground, describes it as bright yellow; the leaves were outlined in dark red and orange. The colouring of architectural sculpture was probably more common than the few surviving traces of paintwork attest explicitly.

Verulamium 22 (Plate XXXIV) The fat leaf with ogival edges is characteristic of a style of carving found on the Quadrant Monument at Bath and on other pieces from Caerwent and Caerleon (see below, pp. 91, 97). This outline for the lobes of individual leaves was also applied to those of the sprays over the top of the helices and volutes of the Silchester and Caerwent capitals, but these are less emphasised in the other Cirencester capitals. This one is probably to be seen as the product of a stonemason of the Bath-Caerwent school, where this type of leaf was more favoured. The shape of leaf is not unlike those of the rather battered capital from the Baths at Sens, and of a figured capital built into the walls of Melun, though the upper part of the latter is set out in a quite different manner. 53

The lower part of another capital also came from the theatre. 56 It has now been re-erected on a replica column on the site, and is not only inaccessible for close examination, but has suffered from weathering. The following comments are therefore based on the published information and photograph. It had still formed part of the structure in the latest period of the theatre, but Kenyon appreciated that it might well have been of considerably earlier date, and associated it with the addition in Period II (after 160 AD or, with the later dating now of the Period I theatre, after about 175) of three substantial brick-faced piers about 140 cm. square across the front of the stage building, presumably erected to carry columns. Since it can be demonstrated, by the fragment 12 just considered, that the Corinthian order was also employed in the Period I building, it is equally possible that No. 22 had been re-used from the first period.

VERULAMIUM Verulamium 12 (Plate XXXIII) The comer of an abacus and volutes was found by Kathleen Kenyon in her excavations of the theatre, in mortar debris beneath the second-Period stage floor.54 She therefore thought

The surviving part of the decoration comprises a moulded astragalus and the lower tier of acanthus leaves, with the

53 Esperandieu IV, 2856 and 2944.

55 Frere 1974, 278.

54 Kenyon 1934, 221 and pl. !xvi, where it is described as 'a fragment ofa

56 Kenyon 1934, 222-3 and fig. I

carved cornice or brackel'.

29

T. F.

Bisgg

midribs of the upper tier between them. The teeth of the lobes are broad and club-shaped, similar in that respect to those of the Caerwent capitals, though more poorly executed. Although they come from different parts of a capital and are thus difficult to compare in detail, both Verulamium pieces are similar to the techniques and quality of their execution, which supports the suggestion that they both belonged to the same period of the theatre's construction. One distinctive feature is that in place of the lower lobes of adjacent leaves there is a single small three-toothed leafbetween them. This occurs on capitals of Kahler' s Form H, with a cradleshaped calyx, and on some of his variant capitals without helices, notably Forms J, M and N, in the area around Trier, Mainz and Cologne. Few of these come from a context which is dated archaeologically, but J1, the capital of the Giant column from Schierstein (Wiesbaden) is dated by an inscription to 28 February 221, and Nl, from the Heddernheim Jupiter column, must also antedate 240 on the basis of epigraphic evidence. 57 Another such capital from Alzey has been dated to 200-230 by the style of its sculpture. 58 The motif spreads further west, on a capital from Regensburg in Rhaetia. 59 In all these dated examples, however, the form of the leafcarving is elongated in shape and has a tendency towards a patterned rather than an organic effect, both of which are features of the later second and third centuries. There are examples among the undated capitals with this motif in which the style of the leaf-carving is clearly earlier. One might argue, therefore, that the replacement of the two lower lobes by a single leaf takes place some time after the middle of the second century. To place this Verulamium capital about 155 AD, by associating it originally with Period I of the theatre, would be just acceptable, though it would make it a very early example; the later it was placed, the more comfortable it would become, and on that ground the Period II association is also possible.

Variant Class C capitals

GLOUCESTER Gloucester 27 (Plate XXXV) The capital is complete, save that it was carved without an abacus. Below the astragalus is a short length of column shaft 31 cm. in diameter, decorated with downwards-pointing imbricated leaves. There is a single tier of acanthus leaves, which are coarsely carved, with prominent midribs. The tips of the club-shaped teeth are rounded, and the channels are almost vertical. The two bottom lobes of adjoining leaves are here replaced by a single small upright leaf, enclosed within a sharply pointed arch formed by the undersides of the larger leaves. This feature is repeated in the upper part, where the calyx has been

separated into two clusters ofleaves, divided by a small fivetoothed upright leaf. That this section is indeed the calyx and not an upper tier of acanthus is shown by the way in which adjacent clusters ofleaves incline towards each other to form the volutes. There are no helices. The form is that ofKahler's capital Ml, from Trier, though on that the cutting of the leaves is much sharper. There is a single acanthus tier with the separate small upright leaf in place of the two bottom lobes; there are no helices, but the calyx does not have the single leaf dividing its parts, but the more usual pair. The single leaf in the calyx has been discussed above (p.27) in relation to Cirencester 34 and 5 0, as has the single leaf in the acanthus tier which appeared on Verulamium 22 (p.29). Both seem to start about the middle of the second century, independently, for it is more usual for the one to be found without the other. This Gloucester capital, however, can probably be dated to the early third century. The narrow leaves with a strong vertical emphasis are typical of a number of capitals from Jupiter columns which are dated by inscriptions to that period, such as that from Heddernheim of240 AD. 60 Other examples with a similar style ofleaf carving are cited above; Britain is still clearly participating in this architectural continuum. The style is fairly widespread in the other northwestern provinces from Gallia Belgica to Rhaetia, and many of the capitals on which it appears can be shown to have surmounted Jupiter columns. These frequently have a shaft decorated with imbricated leaves, and it is possible that this Gloucester capital also came originally from such a column. Its size is appropriate for this function.

Gloucester 23 (Plate XXXVI) Consolidation work on the nave of St. Oswald's Priory in 1950 revealed the upper part of a Corinthian capital which had been reused in one of the clerestory windows of the Norman South wall. It had suffered considerable damage at the hands of Norman masons or previously, and none of the volutes and parts of only three of the calyces survive. The carving is of poor quality. The lobes of the leaves have deep concave hollows. Small triangles are cut below the grooves which separate the lobes and the teeth are indicated by mere incisions round the side of the lobe. The opposed spirals of two helices have similar incisions round the edge, as if to represent tendrils of leaves rather than the orthodox flat ribbons. A tall lanceolate leaf occupies the triangular space beneath them. The overall effect is flat, crude and twodimensional. The upper diameter of the capital as it survives is 115 cm., and its lower diameter is 7 6 cm. The height of the fragment is 29 cm. It is thus of comparable size to the basilica capitals described above.

58 CSJR Dcutschland 11.i, no. 8, taf. 23.

The poor quality of the modelling makes dating difficult. The use of the inverted triangle beneath the junction of the lobes can be paralleled on third century monuments from

59 CSIR Deutschland I.i, no. 459, laf. 127.

60 Von Mercklin 1962, no. 239; Fillzinger 1974, abb. 26.

57 Kahler 1939, 65.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

Neumagen, 61 but appears to be of earlier origin. It is essentially the same idea as the semicircular nick in that position on Cirencester 50 (above, p.27). Both types of incision are present on the Springhead capitals. The general affinities of the capital are with those of Kahler's Form D (second and third centuries). It would seem reasonable to assume that this Gloucester capital was carved some time after the latest of the Cirencester school, i.e. not before the end of the second century, and quite possibly considerably later.

is 73 cm. in diameter at the bottom, and the diameter of the column shaft would have been about 70 cm. It has in the centre what appears from the drawing published by Baker66 to be a bust, framed in a pair of the leafy tendrils which cover the helices in Class C Romano-British capitals. It has suffered considerably from weathering in the century since it was found, and much detail has been lost, but the line of the figure's chin is still clear. At the comers are double bands ofleaves rising more in the manner of volutes than of the foliage of the calyx, which is what one would expect to be carved at this point. These bands and the helix tendrils both rise from inverted pendent sprays, each of three small leaves. If the bands are to be seen as volutes, their decoration with leaves recalls that on the dolphin capitals of the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli, 67 but the parallel is remote. Moreover, there does not seem to be room on the broken comers for proper volute scrolls. More probably the bands derive from the sprays that lie on top of the volutes in the Class C capitals. This is suggested in particular by the fact that the lobes of the leaves point downwards from the underside of the ribs, and do not spring upwards from them as they would in a calyx. I have not observed parallels for these bands in published continental material, where the calyx, here absent, is normally the dominant feature in the upper part of a capital. The pair of figured half-capitals from Bavai has a general resemblance, however, in that the busts are framed between the helix tendrils, which are matched at the sides by the sprays over the volutes. 68

Gloucester 24 (Plate XXXVlla) A second fragment had also been re-used in a medieval building, in this case the precinct wall of St. Peter's Abbey, now the Cathedral. It is the volute comer of a capital of similar size to the preceding, with an abacus 9 cm. high, the cable decoration of which is unique in Britain. The absence of volutes and the flat leaf rising on to the abacus identify it as one of this class. 62 Gloucester 26 (Plate XXXVllb) The seating of a capital, with the astragalus moulding and part of a column drum 64 cm. in diameter, has on the top the outline of the lower tier of acanthus leaves. The piece came from a nineteenth-century collection and is unprovenanced. Gloucester 85 An upper and a lower half, probably but not certainly of the same capital, were on display in Gloucester Park in 1934, but are now lost. Fullbrook-Leggatt's drawing is not sufficiently detailed to make clear the precise manner of the carving of the leaves. 63 There appear to be sprays of leaves over the calyces, and the wide spacing of the acanthus leaves and the suggestion of an inclined cauliculus at the top of the lower half are also features of the earlier capitals of this class, such as those from Bath, Silchester and Caerwent, and Cirencester 20. The drawing shows the diameter at the base to be 2'6" (76 cm.) and the height of the two parts together 2'11" (89 cm.), i.e. almost identical in size to the capital from Cirencester basilica, No. 51. These pieces are possibly to be identified with the Corinthian capital recorded as having been found in 1835 beneath a house in Westgate, with column shafts about three feet in diameter and bases still in situ. The contemporary newspaper account describes it as 'a rich Grecian capital corresponding in size with the columns ..... rather resembles in foliage the Corinthian capital, but differs in some respects'.64

Despite its individuality, the Irchester capital seems best explained as a version of the Class C capital, particularly in its use ofleaf ornament in place of the volutes and helices. In some details it differs, notably in the spray ofleaves in place of the lip of the cauliculus, and certainly in its overall layout, which contrasts strongly with the other figured capital in the Class, Cirencester 60. Nevertheless, the shape of the lobes of the leaves is not unlike those on Cirencester 39, and the leaves on the bands are carved in a similar manner to those encasing the volutes on the Silchester, Caerwent and Canterbury capitals. There is no good archaeological evidence for its date. Although Lewis tentatively proposed an early second century date for the temple, the capital is too large to have formed part of it, as he observed, suggesting that it might have come from a Jupiter column. On the ground of its stylistic idiosyncracy, one might argue that it should be placed late in the Class C sequence, possibly late second or early third century in date. This line of argument is notoriously hazardous, but such a date would fit well with the span of the majority of dated continental Jupiter columns, 170-246 AD, though it should be remembered that few of those resemble the Irchester capital in detail.

IRCHESTER 1 (Plate XXXVIII) This upper half of a capital was found in 1879 in the centre of the town, within the precinct of a Romano-Celtic temple. 65 It 61

Von Massow 1932, taf. 34, no. 184 cl and c3; taf. 68, no. 248.

62

Unfortunately it was not available for study, and l am grateful to Mr. John Rhodes, Curator of Gloucester Museum, for a copy of his drawing.

63

Knowles and Fullbrook-Leggatt 1934, 70-1, fig. 1968, 42.

64 65

2;

It is of interest that on another site in the town, about 50 m.

from where the capital is said to have been found, there were

Fullbrook-Leggatt 66

Baker 1879, pl. ii.

Gloucestershire Journal, 21 November 1835; Fullbrook-Leggatt 1968, 42.

67

Von Mereklin 1962, no. 526, abb. 997-1005.

VCI!Northanls 1902, 181 and plan, p. 179; Lewis 1965, 2, 45.

68

Ibid, no. 289, abb. 519, 521.

31

T. F.

Bisgg

discovered two parts of an octagonal pedestal with standing figures in niches, of a kind which commonly carried Jupiter columns in the Rhineland, and also a square platform of masonry of unstated size, 'thirty or forty stones of a built-up column .... rather less than three feet in diameter', and dust and chippings, suggesting to the excavator a stonemason's yard, but perhaps the debris from working stone near the place where it was required for construction. 69 It seems very likely that this is where a Jupiter column had stood, but it is not now possible to say whether the capital belonged to it (in which case its presence in the temple temenos would be fortuitous), or whether it surmounted a second votive column. Certainly, figured capitals were commonly employed on Jupiter columns, and it would seem attractive to link the capital with the other Jupiter column remains at Irchester.

over at the top of each one. Among the later Trier capitals the lappets tend to be more elaborate, with multiple indentations, and the cauliculi are increasingly hidden in foliage or lose their cone-like form. This would suggest a date in the late first century AD, or perhaps very early in the second; this finds some support in Britain from the Silchester capital, where the cauliculus has similar lappets, though less pointed at the bottom. On the other hand, the deep vertical grooves which represent the channels of the two middle lobes of the calyx, the teeth of which join in the centre to leave two triangular spaces immediately above the cauliculus, do not have the softer organic quality of the carving on some of the earlier Rhineland capitals; this deeper, straighter cutting may be seen, for example, on Kiihler's D7 and D8, both from Trier,70 and has its British counterpart in the deep channelling of the Caerwent and Canterbury capitals. This feature might bring the date further into the second century.

LINCOLIN 9 (Plate XXXIX)

While this is rather a distant relative, it can be placed in this class on the strength of the V-shaped incision at the end of the abacus which it has in common with the Silchester capital. In other respects it is most unorthodox. In place of the rising shoots of the calyx which encases the volutes on the examples so far considered, there is a spray ofleaves with overlapping club-shaped shoots, which hangs down from the abacus like a garland. In place of the abacus rosette there is a palmette.

The capital's maximum width at the top is 65 cm. and its height 43 cm., which comprises the height of most of the calyx and volute zone and a little more than half of the upper tier of acanthus. This would give an original height approximately the same as the Silchester capital for one proportionately rather more slender.

Class D

The incised decoration on the abacus shows that the mason was familiar with the detail of other capitals of this class, and the carving of the leaves is competent if uninspired. The unorthodoxy is too far different and at the same time too coherent to be explained as a misunderstanding of the conventions, and must be interpreted as a deliberately inventive treatment, though one which would have caused Vitruvius some surprise.

In contrast with the capitals of the previous class, which cover a wide area, and develop from a highly specific scheme of decoration over a considerable period, those of class D are restricted to three places - Chester, Wroxeter and Ribchester - and, insofar as they are closely datable, to a limited period of production. At the same time, their scheme of decoration is less consistent. There are two main variants, and a capital, No. 7, from the 1969 excavations of the Principia at Chester, will serve as a model of the first71 (Plate X).

The provenance is unrecorded, and because of its individuality there are no satisfactory grounds on which the capital can be dated.

There is a single tier of acanthus leaves, squat and widely spread, with a broad midrib, splayed at the bottom. The side lobes are small and rounded in profile, tapering to a slightly curved tip, and are not serrated. In the upper part the volutes are very prominent, and, combined with the calyces, form two swags hanging from a knob on the rosette stem, from which the helices also spring. It is 40 cm. high, and its diameter at the bottom is 36 cm.

LONDON 90 (Plate XL)

This capital is now on display in the undercroft of the church of All Hallows by the Tower, where it was found in 1956, built into the east wall of the seventh-century Saxon church. Little of its original decoration remains, as it appears to have been dressed square to accommodate it in its reused position, and this has removed the projecting parts of the volutes and helices. The lower part is in any case broken away, so all that survives is part of the calyces and the cauliculi.

The discovery of this capital has permitted the elucidation of the decorative scheme of another capital of similar dimensions, found near Bridge Street, Chester, in 1954 (Chester 5), where the basic outlines have been carved but the detail of the leaves was left unexecuted. This has already been fully discussed from the technical point of view (above, p.11 ). 72 This, and three other capitals from the Principia excavations (Chester 89, 90 and 91), illustrate well the details of the decoration described above, and show rather more clearly how the helices, beginning at the knob on the rosette

The manner of carving finds closest parallels among some of the capitals of Gallia Belgica of Kahler's Forms C and D, which suggests that it should be seen as related to the British Class C capitals, though this cannot be established with certainty in view of the loss of most of the features which would be diagnostic of that class.

°

7 Kahler 1939, taf. 3.

The cauliculus is inclined outwards, with three simple flat longitudinal facets representing the flutes, and a lappet folded

71 Petch 1970/1, 14-15 and pl. v,b.

69 Baker 1879, 54-56 and plan on pl. i.

72 See also Blagg 1976, 159-161.

32

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

stem, describe a semi-circle, to terminate in small scrolls higher up the stem. Even where the detail of the leaves is carved, the effect is extremely simplified when compared with the more orthodox ornament of class C. In all other examples than that first described, however, that detail is absent, and the capitals have been left for the most part in the anterior stage of carving, where the outlines of the decorative scheme have been blocked out with a point. The second variant is exemplified by the other capital of this class from Chester, No. 14 (Plate XLI). This also came from the Principia, but from Richmond and Webster's earlier excavations in 1948.73 It is considerably larger, being 54 cm. high as it survives (the top is damaged) and c.70 cm. in diameter at the base. It came from one of the columns of the cross-hall of the Principia, in which it was found in the company of a column base in situ and fallen column drums. It has two tiers of leaves in the lower part, the bottom tier being so squat that part of it must have been carved on the block below. It also differs from the other Chester capitals in having cauliculi, the lips of which have been left as inclined raised ridges. As with the other examples apart from No. 7, it carries no detailed leaf-carving, but it can be described as unfinished only in that sense, as it was placed in position, and consequently intended to be seen, in the state of execution in which we now observe it.

capitals of variant I, and the Ribchester examples are also different in that their helices issue from the cauliculi and not from the stem of the abacus rosette. Their form, however, is essentially the same. It would appear that the masons who carved the smaller Chester capitals consolidated the calyces towards the centres of each side to preserve the spacious flowing effect. The final capital which can be attributed to this class is a fragment with the volutes and a comer of the abacus from Wroxeter, No. 116 (Plate XLIII). It was found lying just to the east of the Forum portico, but unstratified. 76 It may well have come from the Forum, but we cannot be sure. The scroll of the volute has been rendered in a way that is very close to that of Chester 7, and there is a V-shaped casing with a small billet carved below it. The rest of the carving has been left as it was blocked out with a point. The connexion between these capitals will be seen to be reinforced by the discussion of column bases from the same sites, below, p.120, since those from the Principia at Chester can be linked with those from the Forum at Wroxeter and others from Ribchester. It would seem that all these are products of a school of stonemasons operating in the area in the first third of the second century. The point is discussed in more detail below, p.187.

Class E

For further elucidation of the appearance of this type of capital one must tum to the fort at Ribchester, which has produced two capitals which were appropriately cited by Richmond and Webster as comparanda for the previously considered example. The capitals, Ribchester 18 and 19, were found in a well in the principia courtyard in Thomas May's 1906 excavations. They may have come from columns in its crosshall, which was only partially explored, but a more likely alternative is that they surmounted the columns which flanked the entrance to the courtyard, the bases of which were found in situ. 74 These, together with the smaller columns which formed the rest of the portico, also presumably served to carry the roof of the basilica equestris exercitatoria which was attached to the front of the principia. Although the date at which the principia was rebuilt in stone is not known, recent excavations have shown that addition of a stone face to the defences was probably Trajanic,75 and it may be thought likely that the stone phase of the principia was contemporary. The more complete of the two is 65 cm. high and 50 cm. in diameter at the base (Plate XLII). lt also has two tiers ofleaves in the lower part, the lips of which have been rather more finely outlined than those at Chester. From prominent inclined cauliculi spring the calyces and the volutes. The rib below the volutes may be compared with those on the Bridge Street, Chester (No. 5) capital and the plainer capitals from the Principia there. The steep outwards sweep of the calyces is comparable with the swags that take their place on the Chester

Clear antecedents for the previous class in other provinces of the Empire have been difficult to find, but in one respect, namely the garland-shaped calyces, it resembles the capitals ofKahler's Form H. Much closer to that Form, however, are the capitals of Class E. Its members are found in much the same area as those of Class D, most notably at Chester and Wroxeter. The formal connexion thus coincides with a geographical overlap. (Fig. 3, c, p.23) Kahler's Form H, die Kapitell mit dem weigenformigen Kelch, is contemporary with his Form C, but much more limited in extent, its members coming almost exclusively from Trier and its immediate surroundings. The principal differences from Form Care, first, that the volutes and helices stand up above the calyces and are not encased or submerged in foliage; and secondly, that the calyx adopts a cradle shape suspended above the cauliculi, rather than appearing to sprout from them, giving the effect of hanging like a garland from the volutes and helices. The type capital, from the Barbarathermen at Trier, also possesses a highly decorated abacus, and the lobes of the leaves are carved with deep spoon-shaped central channels. Their teeth are broad and rounded in outline, their tips drawn out to a slight point.

74

Atkinson 1928, 16 and pl. vi.

The best example of the class from Britain is a large capital from Wroxeter, No. 119. It was found a short way outside the north-east gate of the town, where it had been used as hard core for road-filling in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. It is 77 cm. high (Plate XLIV).

75

Britannia ii (1971 ), 255.

76 Alkinson 1942, 229-230 and pl. !ix D.

73 Richmond and Webster 1950, 35.

T. F.

Bisgg

The top is damaged and the volutes are now missing, but the cradle-shaped calyx is very clear, as are the spoon-shaped hollows in the lobes. Small vertical leaves, described in the report of the original discovery as stylised com ears, 77 occupy the spaces between the calyces.

comparison. He gives its height as 2'2.5" (67.5 cm.) and its width as 1'7" (48 cm.). It must have come from an imposing building. The lower half of a pier capital from Chester (No. 109), now in the Grosvenor Museum, can be identified with this group on the basis of the carving of its leaves. It is that described by Wright and Richmond as having been found in 1887 in the North Wall.79 It is 4 7 cm. high and 64 cm. wide above the moulding at the bottom. There are some points on which Wright and Richmond's description of the ornament should be corrected. They explain the 'moulding' as the top of a lower row of acanthus leaves, and the other decoration as two pairs of opposed leaves, separated by cauliculi, of which the tops are broken. (See also the illustration, Plate XLVI, of its companion piece, No. 34.) It seems clear, however, that the scheme is of three tall leaves, one at each comer and one in the centre, of each side. The 'cauliculi' are their mid-ribs, and the 'pairs of opposed leaves' are in fact their lower lobes, framed in a broad arch formed by the underside of the middle lobes of adjoining leaves. The incisions on the moulding, not very clear on the photograph, form a continuous series of lotus-bud or foliate motifs.

The lobes of the leaves are broad and rounded. The two lower tiers are worn and badly damaged, but there is an evident tendency to indicate the teeth of the lobes solely, if at all, by slight incisions on the edge, thus simplifying the outline of the leaf in comparison with those of Class C. The helices and volutes have not survived. A small capital discovered in 1976 in excavations at Wilderspool (No. 7) illustrates a considerably simplified treatment, probably a result of its small size (Plate XLV). The bottom is broken, but although only a single tier ofleaves is present below the calyces, the proportions suggest that there was no second tier, and the capital is therefore virtually complete, 23.5 cm. high. It was found at the top of the fill of a Roman ditch in a layer dated to the late second or early third century. The lower leaves are simple and upright, with a raised midrib. The lobes are unserrated and unchannelled, and the sides of each leafrise up almost vertically. The upper part of the capital is remarkable in that there are two different designs. On one side is the unmistakeable cradle-shaped calyx of Kahler's Form H, carved with two lobes. The volutes on this side are broken, and helices do not seem to have been carved. In place of the rosette is a square projection with a U-shaped incision, with a cordon below it, and possibly intended as a palmette. The other three sides have a pair of upright five-lobed leaves on each side of the rosette stem below the helices, and taller sprays inclined outwards at the comers below the volutes. The rosettes are circular projections with oval knobs in the centres. There are minor variations in the detail of these three sides, on one of which the helices were not carved.

The lobes have broad teeth with tips drawn out to a slight point, and wide spoon-shaped channels. Adjacent bottom lobes incline towards each other in a gentle curve, and it is this feature, very similar to the pair of lobes in the calyx of Wroxeter 119, as well as the shape of the lobes and their teeth, that identify Chester 109 with this class. One complete side of the capital survives, but it is broken vertically through the middle of the two sides to right and left. Another pier capital, similarly broken, may be the other half (No. 34), It is now in the 'Roman Gardens', in a sadly the worse condition for the experience, and it is difficult to be sure without bringing the two pieces together whether they do join. If they do not fit, they must nevertheless have belonged to the same set: the decoration is identical. If the second piece is to be identified with the 'capital of a pilaster with foliation' listed but not illustrated by Wright and Richmond, 80 it would seem that they were right to have been cautious in stating its provenance, as 'found apparently in 1863 in Bridge Street'. It would be a remarkable coincidence for two halves of a single piece to have come together again from such widely separated spots.

The reasons for these differences in design are a mystery: it seems far-fetched to suppose that more than one mason could have been working on such a small capital. Its original use is equally conjectural. Corinthian capitals from sites other than coloniae and civitas capitals are uncommon. Its size would suit a small temple, a mansio or a private house. The site has not so far produced any buildings of the required quality, but the considerable evidence for a wide variety of industrial activities suggests a prosperity among those in control of the production (whether their status was official or private) that could account for something out of the ordinary in a 'small town'.

A similar style of carving, though with broad flat unchannelled leaves, is visible on the capital Chester 3 from Handbridge, just south of Chester (Plate XLVII), which has the cradleshaped calyx above a single tier ofleaves. 81 A denarius of Trajan is said to have been found beneath this capital. 82 A fragment of the acanthus tier, Chester 101, is similar in the curved outline of its lobes and the small incisions along the edge which divide their teeth. This style ofleaf carving was

In this connexion it is worth recalling that a considerably larger capital was found here in the last century. Unfortunately it cannot now be found, but Watkin's illustration shows a pair of cradle-shaped calyces with an upright leaf between them. 78 The remaining detail is not sufficiently clear for close 77 78

79

Wright and Richmond 1955, 56 no. 176 and pl. xiii.

80

Wright and Richmond 1955, no. 177.

JRS !vii (1967), 185.

81 ibid.,

Watkin 1886, 263.

82

34

no. 174.

Newstead 1928, no. !xv.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

also employed on the Composite capital from Chester (No. 95, above p.19) and it is so close that this fragment may be another piece of that capital. (Plate XII)

fan-shaped leaf, and the influence is probably indirect. This suggests that Wroxeter 109 should be placed among later examples of this Class.

Two of the remaining three members of this class come from Wroxeter. The attribution is on the basis of the treatment of their leaves, as the distinctive calyx of the class is not securely identifiable. Wroxeter 110 is the upper half of a capital, 34 cm. high, with diameters of92 cm. at the top and 61.5 cm. at the bottom (Plate XLVIII). It has stood outside for many years since it was discovered in Wright's excavations, and the drawing Fox published in 1897 gives a rather clearer impression of some of its detail. 83 The volutes are broken away, but there are clear and prominent helices. Beneath them, the leaves of the calyx are more upright and less hollowed than, for example, those ofWroxeter 119 (p.33f.), and as the bottom part of the calyx is not present on this capital it is not certain that it adopted the cradle-shaped form. The absence of a rosette stem and its enclosing leaf in the space beneath the helices is a common feature of capitals of this class, however, and the presence of volutes and helices, otherwise rare on Romano-British capitals, and the treatment of the leaves, would seem to be adequate indicators. Fox considered that the capital might have come from the basilica, but the large capital since discovered on the site is not of the Corinthian order, though its original use in the building cannot be demonstrated either. 84

The feature of the fan-shaped leaf links a pier capital from Carlisle (No. 7) with the group (Plate L). Its provenance within the city is unknown. It is 36 cm. high and 35 cm. square at the bottom. Along the upper margin is a narrow band of wave meander. If the block was crowned with the usual calyces and volutes, they must have constituted an entirely separate zone.

Wroxeter 109 is the lower half of a capital found in the same place (the courtyard of the market hall opposite the forum). 85 In common with all the other capitals in the class, it is carved in a fine red sandstone; as a result of a further century's exposure out of doors, a differentially weathered band of gravel running through the lower tier of leaves is now more unsightly than it presumably was originally (Plate XLIX). It is 49 cm. high and the diameter of the shaft below the half-round moulding in 54 cm. The top is dressed with a point.

Considering the relatively restricted area in which the class is found, with correspondingly restricted opportunities for employment, and also the greater geographical remoteness from other provinces, this is not surprising. One of the results of the restricted scope for employment is that a canonical form is not established in quite the same way as can be observed in the south-west. The idiosyncracies are already apparent in the small Wilderspool capital, No. 7. Within a broad range of similarities, variations in detail are common. In the Carlisle capital, the organic scheme of the conventional two tiers of acanthus foliage has been forgotten, and a different sort of patterning is emerging.

In this case the fan appears in both the upper and the lower tiers. The side lobes above them have broad club-shaped teeth, reflecting the outline of those of the fan, which are curtailed to fit into the arch which frames them. In fact, the side lobes are treated rather as if they were separate leaves, their inner teeth overlapping the central lobe, which is virtually reduced to its overhanging tip. One seems to see here a capital at the extreme end of a line of internal development. In contrast with the capitals of Class C, which display a continued connexion with the area of their origin during the second century, those of Class E seem to follow their own rather local line of variation, with little outside influence after their initial establishment, probably early in the second century.

At first sight, it looks very different from the more complete Wroxeter capital 119 with which the discussion of this class began. The difference, however, is largely to be accounted for by a flatter style of carving, without the deep spoon-shaped hollows of 119. Both possess the broad mid-rib, the widely splaying leaf, the curved outline to the lobes, and the subordination of the lower lobes to those in the middle, both in width and height.

83 Wright 1872, 157; Fox 1897, 169 and pl. i, fig. 2.

There is one further piece which can probably be identified as belonging to this class. The large fragment, Wroxeter 118, is probably to be identified with that which Bushe-Fox said he found in front of the podium of the temple on Site V in 1914, describing it as the top part of a 'fair-sized Corinthian capital'. 86 By way of excluding other possibilities, it seems fairly certain that it was not available to be considered by George Fox, who had a lively interest in Romano-British architectural ornament, when in 1897 he described other Wroxeter material in some detail, and would surely have mentioned it.87 It can safely be assumed that it was not among the pieces found by Atkinson, which he published fully in 1942, nor by subsequent excavators. Although Bushe-Fox did not illustrate it, it does correspond with the little that he says about it: it is large, Corinthian, and has a dressed upper surface, though this is in fact the top of the lower half of a capital carved on two separate blocks (Plate LI).

84

86

Bushe-Fox 1914, 6-7.

87

Fox 1897.

In one further feature, however, 109 is distinct. In the upper tier, the place of the bottom lobes of adjacent leaves is taken by a single fan-shaped leaf with five teeth, separated by grooves which run down to the bottom of the leaf. This amalgamation of adjacent bottom lobes into one has already been noted in the calyces oflater capitals of class C, and also in the acanthus tier (above, pp.27, 30). It is a feature oflatersecond- and third-century capitals in Gallia Belgica and Germania, though there are not direct parallels there for the

Fox 1897, 144; for the recently discovered capital, personal observation.

85 Wright 1872, 156-157; Fox 1897, 168-169 and pl. i, fig. I.

35

T. F.

Bisgg

If its identification with Bushe-Fox's capital is acceptable, the piece acquires additional importance in that the latter came from a known building, a temple in the classical style, which was also adorned with decorative mouldings (see below, p. 95). The temple belongs to the reconstruction after the midsecond century fire which burnt much of the centre of Wroxeter, the dating evidence coming from a layer ofburning under the paved courtyard and from a pit containing a foundation deposit. 88 On the basis of detailed study of the samian ware since Bushe-Fox wrote, the fire had been generally dated to 155-165, though Hartley prefers a date a decade later. 89 The block represents a segment comprising about one-sixth of the circumference. The diameter was approximately 75 cm. The top is dressed with a point, but the underside is broken. What survives of the decoration represents the central and two flanking lobes of one of a single tier of leaves in the lower half of the capital. That it was a single tier is suggested by the way in which the flanking lobes spread out sideways, their lowest tooth being arched over and connected with the tip of the lobe below; this lacks the prominent overhang normal in the central leaf of a lower tier, and is thus more likely to be the side lobe of a leaf of a single tier. The height of the surviving piece is 18 cm., implying an overall height of 30-35 cm. for the whole leaf, which would be disproportionately tall for a capital of this diameter if it were other than a single tier. There is no trace of a caulicuius between this leaf and the much abraded remains of the next one to the right, but there is the bottom of a carved protuberance which may be that of a cradle-shaped calyx. This feature suggests the identification of this capital as one of Class E, which is confirmed by the ogival outline of the broad rather club-like lobes of the leaves and the thin pointed lowest teeth, which are very similar to those on the Chester pier capitals 34 and 109, which also have single tiers ofleaves. The treatment of the leaves is also similar to that on the rather smaller Wroxeter capital 110, but differs markedly from the deep hollowing of the leaves of Wroxeter 119.

Class F

SPRINGHEAD 1-6 (Plate LIi) A pit dug in front of a brick pedestal 1.31 m. square in the temple precinct at Springhead, Kent, contained fragments of a Corinthian capital. Four of these were published: two joining pieces from the upper tier of leaves, a comer of the abacus and volutes, and a piece from the lower tier.90 Other fragments, now in Gravesend Museum, presumably came from the same pit, which is dated to the late third century or later by a coin of Postumus. The capital was carved from Jurassic limestone. 91 88 Webster 1975, 43-44 for the fire, 61-2 for the temple. 89 Hartley 1972, 27. This dating refines that given by Bushe-Fox 1914, 9, of not before and probably after Hadrian's reign. 90 Penn 1958, 87, 95 fig. 11and106-110 (nos. A-C). See also, T.F.C.Blagg,

Archaeologia Cantiana xev, 1979, 223-229.

91 Ibid. 107, appendix 2.

The decoration is well preserved. The abacus is carved with slightly inclined fluting, and has a deeply-cut V-shaped recess at the end. The volutes, with their spiral terminals linked by a crossbar, rise well above the leaves of the calyx. The acanthus tiers have leaves with a very slight overhang of the central lobe, and prominent middle lobes, each with three teeth. The central tooth is broad and has an ogival outer edge, terminating in a point. The lower lobes also have three teeth, the uppermost of which overlaps the middle lobe. The centres of the lobes are deeply scooped out to form a spoon-shaped channel within a flat border round the edge of the leaf. In the upper tier, a long downwards-pointing triangle is cut below the join between the middle lobes and the mid-rib; in the lower tier, this is replaced by three curved incisions. The midrib is outlined by deep grooves, and tapers towards the top. The capital appears to have been carved in one piece, terminating below the astragalus, part of which is preserved on one of the unpublished fragments. The leaves are well-spaced, with the mid-ribs of the upper tiers running down to the astragalus. Not enough pieces survive to permit a precise reconstruction of the overall dimensions, but the upper tier measured about 56 cm. through the top of the middle lobes. Since the leaves are only slightly splayed outwards, the lower diameter of the capital can be estimated as about 50 cm. Its height was in the region of 65 cm. or a little more, the height of the abacus being 65 cm., and that of the upper and lower tiers ofleaves together 35 cm. The excavator's estimate of29 inches (73.5 cm.) is, if anything, a little on the high side. 92 There is no evidence that the capital had a fluted column, as restored in the reconstruction drawing. 93 Indeed, it will be suggested below (p.87) that the fragments of imbricated column also found on the site may have belonged to it. It seems likely that the column stood on the pedestal, as the excavator suggested. The construction of this was dated in the report to the early second century, on the evidence of coarse pottery in the layer below the chalk make-up associated with the pedestal. The quantity of pottery was not stated, and in any case it provides only a terminus post quern for the event. Furthermore, it would appear that the pottery at Springhead has been dated a little too early. 94 A later archaeological date for the pedestal would harmonise much better with the date one would prefer for the capital on stylistic grounds. The sharply outlined spoon-shaped channels in the leaves are the first indicators of a date no earlier than the middle of the second century. They are not found on capitals of Kahler's first-century Form C, but seem to be foreshadowed on some of those of his Form H, notably that on the Iphigenia monument at N eumagen, dated by von Mass ow to the middle, and by Kahler to the second half, of the second 92

Ibid. 109.

93

The scale of the reconstruction drawing (Penn 1958, fig. 11 no. 3) is 1/32, not 1/40 as stated. In other respects the drawings reproduce the appearance of the fragments most faithfully.

94

Information from Mr. S.R. Harker, present director of excavations at Springhead, based on his subsequent unpublished work on the site and ils material.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

Class G

century. 95 They occur also on later monuments at Neumagen, together with the ogivally-shaped lobes. 96

Two capitals from forts on Hadrian's Wall illustrate influence from a different quarter. They bear the spiky-toothed acanthus leaf which was a feature of East Mediterranean carving, particularly that of Asia Minor, from where it began to have a wide influence on the architectural ornament of the west in the later second century. 102

Closer to the way in which the leaves of the Springhead capital are scooped out are his J6 (Mainz) and K6 and K7 (Strasbourg), all of which are dated by Kahler to the third century. 97 The K6 capital also has the pointed ogivai outline to the leaf and the incisions below the cavities where the lobes join, though in other respects the disposition of the leaves of these capitals is not similar, indeed, their carving is considerably less accomplished than that of the Springhead capital. The dating of these pieces is stylistic, but is based on comparison with the appreciable number ofKahler's Forms J to M capitals from Jupiter columns, dated by their inscriptions to the late second and third centuries. The chronology therefore seems reasonably sound.

That from Chesters (No. 50) displays this best (Plate LIII). 103 The basic form of the conventional acanthus has been simplified, so that the side lobes are represented by three sharply-pointed teeth with deep V-shaped channelling. The overhang of the middle lobe is converted into two small festoons, carried on a prominent mid-rib. The upper tier is taller (17 cm. compared with 12 cm.) and the leaves are split into two halves by a deep cavity where the mid-rib should have been. There are equally deep triangular cavities between adjacent leaves, giving a strong chiaroscuro effect which is enhanced by the facetted carving of the leaves; this recalls the chip-carving of late Roman metalwork, and is a practice which can be observed in the relief decoration of altars and inscriptions in the northern military zone.

Further examples assist in defining the area in which these stylistic features are to be found. The fragment of an abacus and volutes from Gerouville in Belgian Luxembourg has an almost identical leaf to that of Springhead, and the volute is similarly treated, though it lacks the transverse bar and the abacus is decorated with leaves, not fluting. 98 The scooped leaf with ogival tip also appears on the capital of a small imbricated column from Brumath, Alsace, discovered with third-century material which provides a terminus ante quern. It occurs again, in Lorraine 799 , on the figured capital of a Jupiter column from Merten, though on that piece the side lobes of adjacent leaves are replaced by a single small leaf between them. 100 The same scooped lobes appear, this time with semi-circular nicks under the cavities between the middle lobes and the midribs, on the capital of an engaged halfcolumn built into a later Roman wall at Dijon. 101 Again, the single small leaf replaces adjacent side lobes, and the leaves are clumsier and the teeth more elongated. Otherwise, it provides the closest parallel for the detail of the Springhead capital.

The Housesteads capital (No. 1) (Plate LIV), has the same spiky, deeply channelled leaves, but with rather less deep cutting between them. While its overall dimensions are close to those of the Chesters capital - it is 46 cm. high and 38 cm. in diameter at the bottom - the internal proportions are very different, for it preserves the upper zone with volutes and helices as well as the two acanthus tiers. This layout, and the carving of the individual leaves, is much more conventional. The bottom lobes of the leaves are very small, and encased below the downwards-curving tips of the teeth of the lobes above. These are carved with widely spread teeth, and there is a heavy overhang to the central lobe. The diamond-shaped cavity formed where the tips of the teeth of adjacent lobes join is typical of Asiatic capitals in the west from the second half of the third century onwards. 104

In all of these, the placing of the leaves close together, and also the single small leaf on the two capitals last cited, as also on Kahler's capital J6 from Mainz, are features which suggest that they are stylistically later than the capital from Springhead. Unfortunately, none is dated archaeologically. On these general grounds, however, that from Springhead may be placed some time in the second half of the second century. It is unique in Britain, and its decoration cannot be shown to have developed from earlier Romano-British examples. Consequently, it may probably be assigned to a mason from eastern Gaul, working in an earlier version of the style which is represented by the more evolved examples cited above. 95

In the upper zone the ends of the volutes are broken, but the helices are clear and prominent. The calyces, however, have lost their organic form, and their central lobes have given place to single upright leaves which are not integrated into the overall design - a feature reminiscent of the fan-shaped leaves on the Wroxeter 109 and Carlisle 7 capitals of class E. Both capitals are likely to belong to the second half of the third or the first half of the fourth century.

Miscellaneous

Kahler 1939, 49 no. H34, and 51-52; von Massow 1932, 51fl and 280285.

FISHBOURNE 29

96 Von Massow 1932, no. 184; taf. 32-34. 97

Kahler 1939, 65-66.

98

Musee de Luxembourg 1974, 65 and 102, no. 419.

99

Gallia xxviii (1970), 337 and 338, figs. 34 and 35.

A piece of a Corinthian capital different in design from the Class A capital Fishboume 28 was found in late rubbish 102 Heilmeyer

JOOEsp6randieu V, 4425, plate on p.452.

103 Chesters

JOIIbid. IX, 7188.

104

37

1970, 164-172.

Museum Catalogue 1903, no. 248.

Pensabene 1974, tav. xxxv no. 355, xxxvi-xxxviii.

T. F.

Bisgg

deposits in the palace garden. 105 It is likely to have stood in the Flavian palace which succeeded the proto-palace to which Fishboume 28 belonged. It is the comer of the abacus of a capital estimated as 80-85 cm. high. It has the V-shaped incision on the comer panel which, as Strong remarked, is unknown in Rome and Italy but is a common feature on north-east Gaulish capitals. While this is one of the features of the Romano-British Class C defined above, it is not exclusive to that class; it appears also on the Wroxeter fragment No. 116 (Class D) and on the capital from Springhead (Class F). The bead-and-reel decoration on the abacus is not one of the features generally observable on other Rhineland examples, though the Neronian Jupiter column capital from Mainz does have an astragal of small beads, 106 and indeed it is rare elsewhere. The raised curved ridge on the side must be the upper edge of a volute not encased in acanthus foliage, and this excludes the capital from being considered an early example of Class C. Although its decoration can be linked with north-east Gaulish work, the implied relationship to the Silchester capital, mentioned in the published description, 107 is only that of a common background, and a stylistic distinction must now be drawn between them. Its Gaulish link is more likely to have been with the capitals with unencumbered volutes that were ancestral to those of the Romano-British classes E and F, though the Fishbourne capital must be earlier in date than any of the latter. The capital may thus be considered as evidence of the presence in Britain of other craftsmen working in a different style, coming from the same area of Gaul as their contemporaries who produced the early examples of the Class C capitals. LEICESTER 48 (Plate LV)

The carver of this sandstone capital clearly knew the conventions of the Corinthian order, but his execution was very poor. The upper and lower leaves of the acanthus tiers are carved with prominent midribs with double grooves, on each side of which the lance-shaped teeth of the side-lobes point outwards and upwards. Those of the bottom lobe are much reduced in size. In the upper zone the calyx is also very small, and springs from a minute cauliculus, like a bunch of flowers in an egg-cup. The top has suffered damage, but the volutes and helices also appear to be very small, and in very low relief.

CATTERICK 14 (Plate LVI)

The capital is of yellow sandstone, 87 cm. in height, of which 19 cm. is taken up by the astragalus and part of the column shaft, 37 cm. in diameter and decorated with imbricated leaves pointing upwards. The disposition of its tall leaves, with a strongly vertical emphasis in the cutting, has a very similar appearance to that on the Gloucester capital 27, but the manner of carving is here much cruder. The leaves have adopted the simple outline that is to be seen on some of those of Class E, though they are carved in a more angular manner. This applies also to the foliage of the calyx, where the lobes have been homogenised into an evenly-ribbed fem-like leaf. In the centre of one side is what was described by Toynbee as a bearded male head, though the features of the mouth are more suggestive of a lion's mask. 109 There are small tendrils on each side of it. On one adjacent side is a prominent bowlshaped projection, identified by Toynbee as a patera. The other two sides also have heads, one apparently female, the other defaced. The figures, the imbricated shaft and the size would all be appropriate to the capital of a Jupiter column. It was found in a context which suggests that its date can be associated with the main construction of the mansio at Catterick between the mid-second and third centuries. CARLISLE 8 (Plate LVlla)

A monolithic column with a capital of extremely simplified Corinthian type was found, unstratified, outside the south gate of Carlisle Castle in 1974, broken in two pieces. Its overall height is 2.21 m. and the diameter of the shaft about 30 cm. 110 The capital is approximately 40 cm. high, with two tiers of upright oval leaves in low relief, with no veins or serration. At the corners are the outer sprays of the calyces, again, carved only in outline, with the spirals of the volute scrolls at the top, and reversed. There is a central stem rising from behind the middle leaf of the upper tier, with two pairs of small leaves sprouting from it and a disc on the abacus, representing the flower at the top. The helices spring from the same point and their spirals are carved well-separated on each side of the central stem.

The way in which the foliage of this capital is treated is so individual and unlike any other in the province that it is probably to be explained as the work of a local mason. It was found in 1844, between Bath Lane and Talbot Lane, i.e. in the insula west of the Jewry Wall Baths, but there is no indication of the nature of the monument from which it came. 108

This scheme of decoration is not such a case as one finds with the Chester principia capitals, on which the leaves were left blocked out, but in the form in which, as was actually done on Chester 7, the detail could subsequently have been executed. Here the relief is too low, and it represents an extreme simplification of the Corinthian pattern. Nevertheless, the details that were selected show that its antecedents do not lie in any of the classes of Corinthian capital found in lowland Britain, where the volutes and helices are obscured in foliage (Class C), or the layout and proportions are very different (Classes D and E). Its origins may be looked for, perhaps on capitals like Housesteads 1. The Carlisle capital represents, in a crude way, as do the Foliate capitals Corbridge 136 and

105

109 Toynbee

Strong 1971. 14-15 and pl. iii.

106 Kahler,

1939, taf. i.

107 Strong

1971, 15.

lOS Haverfield

1918, 38 no. 14a and pl. vii.

1964, 145-146; JRS 1 (1960), 218 and pl. xxii, fig. 2; information on dating from the excavator, J.S. Wacher.

IIO

Wright and Phillips 1975, no. 247, and information from the Curator of the Tullic House Museum, Carlisle. The column was discovered since my visil lhere, and I have nol had an opportunity lo examine it.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

141, ultimately more metropolitan ideas than it does the developed and well-established provincial variants.

Foliate Capitals The capitals of this group present a rather varied picture, for they are essentially those which, though decorated with some form ofleaves, cannot be accepted within the conventions of the Composite or Corinthian orders. Even so, the rules of membership may be thought to have been interpreted rather liberally to admit some very eccentric provincials. Those left outside the orders can be divided into two groups: A, those whose decorative motifs can be closely linked with regular classical ornament; and B, the majority, those which take the idea of a capital decorated with foliage in the Corinthian manner, and simplify both the idea and the treatment to the extent that the references to the 01ihodox form are often very slight or non-existent. The former group is found only on civilian sites in the lowland zone; the latter is distributed almost entirely among sites of military origin in the north of the province, extending no further south than York.

Group A WROXETER 105 and 106 (Plate LVllb)

These two capitals of local sandstone were fished up from the bed of the River Severn in the middle of the last century. They were first illustrated by Anderson in 1867, 111 who remarked that they had been placed on top of column shafts, also Roman though not originally belonging to them, on each side of the gateway to Wroxeter parish churchyard. Five years later Wright said that they were becoming more and more defaced by the weather, 112 and after a further century's deterioration only the faintest traces of their elaborate relief decoration survive. Wright also mentions a third capital 'of identical style ..... but presenting further varieties in detail', but this is now lost. The two which remain also differ slightly in their detail, and in their dimensions: 105 is 38 cm. high and its diameter at the shaft is 39 cm.; 106 is 41 cm. high with a shaft diameter of35 cm. The overall scheme of decoration is, however, the same.

There are minor variations between the three drawings of these capitals, i.e. those by Anderson and Wright, and a further drawing of 106 published by Fox in 1897, 113 where the more rounded outline of the leaves may reflect the weathering of the capital, which he noted, rather than a difference in draughtsmanship. It is worth noting that he drew the capital from a slightly different angle and saw on the fascia a rosette which does not appear on the other drawings. The decorative motifs are wholly classical; the manner of their use in this combined form is unique in Britain, nor is it easy to find direct parallels in other western provinces. This mode of enrichment of the Tuscan order is uncommon even in Italy, but it is there that one must look for the closest comparisons. From Ostia, Tuscan capitals in the Piazza delle Corporazione, datable by their provenance to the reign of Claudius, were decorated in stucco with an inverted ovolo below the abacus, a cyma recta with alternate acanthus and lotus leaves, and a second ovolo on the astragalus, the decorated mouldings being separated by fasciae and fillets. 114 Something of the same idea is present on the Hadrianic marble capitals from the portico of the Forum, on which the abacus is decorated with a cyma recta with 'acanthising' leaves, and the tips of lotus buds filling the spaces between them, a bead and reel and a band of flowers and calyces at the bottom. 115 Although the origins of this manner of decoration thus seem to be traceable back to the mid-first century, the real period of architectural enrichment at Rome begins with the Flavians. It is possible that the application of elaborate motifs to Tuscan capitals should be seen more in the light of the inventiveness bestowed during their reigns and later on capitals of the other orders. In this connexion one might cite the composite capital in the church ofS. Cosimato in Trastevere, Rome, considered by Strong to be Flavian, 116 which has a similar band of acanthus leaves on the echinus above an astragal; others with vertical fluting and small upright leaves; 117 or the use of upright lanceolate leaves and stopped vertical fluting on the Dolphin capitals from Hadrian's villa at Tivoli. 118 Possibly the closest parallel for the bands of ornament is provided by a marble capital from an Italian site, Le Mura di Santo Stefano, near Lake Bracciano. 119 This capital is of some antiquarian interest, since it was drawn by Pirro Ligorio, who visited the site in about 1546, and by Palladio and another sixteenth-century artist. 120 It can be identified with an unprovenanced piece in the Vatican collection. 121 ll3 Fox 1897, pl.

It is a highly decorated version of the Tuscan order. There is

no square abacus, but a plain vertical fascia at the top which carries a rosette. Below this, a bead and a cable moulding surmount a cyma recta decorated with upright acanthus leaves. A second cable divides this from a band of upright lotus petals. These and the leaves of the cymation are more elaborately carved on 106 than on 105. There is an astragalus with, on 106, a small cymarecta of leaves on its lower side and a bead decorated with a wavy band beneath it.

114 Pensabene

V.

1974, no. 65 (p.34 and tav. v).

115Ibid. nos. 72-9 (p.35 and tavv. vi-vii). 116 Strong

1971, 13 and pl. v,a.

117 Strong

1960, 127-8, pl. xv, nos. 6 (once in S. Saba) and IO (Palazzo Farnese).

118Von Mercklin 1962, fig. 977 ff.; Aurigemma 1961, 76-7, fig. 52. 119 For

the site, see Ashby 1907B, 311-323; Lyttelton and Sear 1977.

120 Lyttelton

111Anderson 1867, 48-49 and pl. vii. JJl

Wright 1872, 209.

and Sear 1977, 247; Blagg, Luttrell and Lyttelton 1979, 111114 and pis. x-xiii. (Refs. below, in addenda to bibliography)

121Amelung 1903, 232, no. 89a.

T. F.

Bisgg

The abacus has a band of cyma reversa, and there is an echinus with an egg and tongue, followed by a bead and reel, a band of stopped fluting, a cyma recta with leaves, and a double guilloche. These mouldings are framed between four tall acanthus leaves which reach the bottom comers of the abacus. Below these is a projecting fillet with another cyma recta under it, decorated with lotus petals. 122 The detail of the ornament suggests a Hadrianic date. 123 This may be inferred from the broad casing of the ovolo and the use of the tongue rather than the dart, the form of the astragal, 124 and indeed the overall effect. 125 Save for the obvious difference in the absence of the acanthus leaves at the comers of the Wroxeter capitals, their appearance is very similar to that of the Santo Stefano capital, notably in the use of the lotus petal motif; the leaves on the astragalus of Wroxeter 106 also recall the projecting lowest bands on the Italian piece. The mason who carved the British capitals would thus seem to have been surprisingly familiar with some rather uncommom details of architectural ornament in central Italy towards the middle of the second century, and these capitals can probably be dated to Hadrian's reign or that of Antoninus Pius. How this influence was transmitted must remain unknown; there is no doubt that the capitals were carved in or near Wroxeter, for they are oflocal sandstone. It is true that Hadrian himself visited the province and inaugurated important construction works on the northern frontier. It may be that masons came en suite, or were sent later to assist the building programme. Large building works were also under way in Wroxeter itself, where the forum was dedicated in his reign. Nevertheless, the Italian influence is not reflected in other work in the province, still less in Wroxeter itself, which as has been seen above (p.33f.) was in the area of operation of distinctive local schools whose repertoire came originally from Gallia Belgica. Nor do we have any archaeological context to help us, since the capitals were found, together with other architectural pieces, in the River Severn.

BATHFORD 1 (Plate LVIII) The pier capital from Warleigh, Bathford, Somerset, is among the earliest recorded discoveries of Roman architectural ornament, having been found in 1655. 126 Little is known of the site or of its date, but the presence of a hypocaust has suggested that it was a villa, and the polychrome figured mosaic which lay over the hypocaust floor is more likely, in a rural context, to be of third or fourth century date than earlier. It is, however, conceivable that the hypocaust might have been part of a set of baths attached to a rural temple, in the manner of those at Lydney. Since, with the exception of the palace at Fishbourne, no villa in Britain has produced a capital 122 Blagg,

Luttrell and Lyttelton 1979, 103 ff.

123 ibid.

I 08, refining the date of around the middle of the second century suggested in Lyttelton and Sear 1977, 249.

124 Strong 125

1953, 120; Strong and Ward-Perkins 1962, 21-22.

Cf Leon 1971, for illustrations comparanda.

126 Scarth

of late Trajanie and Hadrianic

decorated other than with plain mouldings, a temple rather than a villa would provide a happier context for the Bathford capital, particularly in view of its relatively large size (52 cm. high). Only excavation could tell. The ornament of the capital suggests a fourth century date, and it is not therefore surprising that it finds no parallels in the Corinthian or corinthianising capitals considered above, most of which come from urban sites, and which date from the late first century to the middle of the third. The capital is square, measuring 44 cm. at the bottom. Its main decoration consists of two rows of acanthus leaves with unserrated lobes, raised edges and a mid-rib marked by two deep lateral grooves. The abacus has a row of small vertical lotus-like buds with triangular petals in the spaces between their tips, a motif adapted from that which often decorates a cyma moulding in earlier imperial ornament, though in this capital the profile is straight and not ogival. The bottom of the grooves between these leaves and between the lobes of the leaves of the acanthus tiers are drilled. On one of the sides, two of the bottom acanthus leaves are replaced by a single wide-spreading leaf with two helices behind it. It has curved, deeply grooved and pointed lobes, a manner of carving characteristic oflate Roman architectural ornament, deriving from the spiky Asiatic type of acanthus which became fashionable in the west during the second half of the second century and predominant during the third. The abacus on this side has small leaves in place of the lotus buds. The use of the drill, the angular modelling and the chiaroscuro patterning of flat surfaces and deeply-cut grooves are all typical of the architectural ornament of the late empire.

Group B

ALDBOROUGH 6 (Plate CXVII) The original findspot of this capital is unrecorded, but it probably came from somewhere within the walls of the town, where various excavations had been undertaken prior to 1852, when Ecroyd Smith illustrated it. 127 It is 38 cm. high and 32 cm. in diameter at the bottom. It is decorated with two rows of upright leaves, oval in shape and convex in profile, standing on short stalks, giving the impression more of a plantation of small bushes than of proper leaves. Their veins are indicated by incised lines.

CORBRIDGE 136 (Plate CXVIII) The upper part of a column or possibly a pilaster capital, 52 cm. wide at the top and surviving 27 cm. high, has an abacus decorated with a rosette in shallow relief within a square projection, and with a chain of small leaves to each side of it. At the comers, what would normally be the calyces and volutes in a Corinthian capital are carved as flat slab-like leaves with rounded tops, rather roughly chiselled. The central leaf is 127 Ecroyd

1864, 119 and pl. Ii.

capital).

LO

Smith 1852, pis. iii (for the town plan) and xiv, fig. F (for the

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

carved with a mid-rib widely splayed towards the bottom and a wavy seamed border, which seems to recall the curves and spiral terminals of helices. There are two smaller rosettes in the spaces to right and left. Below is the top of a leaf, presumably of an upper tier, with a similar outline and midrib to that in the centre.

detail is not clear on the other capitals. There is a double astragalus below the leaves. The columns from which the capitals came cannot have been much more than 1.1 to 1.2 metres high. They must therefore have stood on the dwarf wall of a verandah. In lowland Britain this would almost certainly have been in a private house or a Romano-Celtic temple. That type of temple is not known north of the Humber, 130 but among other buildings Corbridge, with its legionary workshops and cantonment and its thriving vicus presents numerous possibilities.

This seems to be a version of the type of capital with leaves at the angles in place of Corinthian volutes which received detailed study by Ronczewski. 128 They were particularly popular at Pompeii from the middle of the first century AD, where the usual form had a lower tier of acanthus leaves and two more at the comers, with a pair of rosettes on spiral and often entwined stems between them. This seems to be the design reflected at many removes at Corbridge.

Though simple, the capitals are quite well executed, with the degree of competence present on the ornament round some of the Antonine inscriptions. 131 It would be rash, however, to press this and assign a close date to them.

CORBRIDGE 141 (Plate CXIX) CORBRIDGE 3 and 60 (Plate CXX) The capital was found with other architectural carvings immediately south of the south wall of the second-century storehouse on site XL The excavators remarked that the material had apparently been used as filling to raise the level of the street, so the date and the original function of the capital must remain uncertain. 129 It is 35 cm. high, including the astragalus, and the shaft diameter is 32.5 cm.

The two remaining foliate capitals from the site are much less accomplished. No. 3 is 49 cm. high, including a 7 cm. length of shaft 28 cm. in diameter; No. 60 is 41 cm. high, without any shaft, though its diameter would have been about the same. Each has a plain abacus, a tier of eight upright leaves and an astragalus. The leaves have slightly raised mid-ribs, and are divided into nine lobes. The modelling on 60 is rather better, with shallow relief, rounded tips and lightly hollowed channelling. On 3, the space between the leaves is deeply cut, and the lobes are indicated solely by incised lines between them; no attempt was made to model their tips round the edge of the leaf. It could have been produced with very little experience of stone-carving.

The abacus is decorated on three sides with two curved recesses with a small panel between them. Below it is a single tier of leaves carved in a rather ambiguous manner. At each comer are two leaves with bulbous tips and raised edges and mid-ribs, the latter having two narrow vertical grooves. On the inner sides of these are two narrower leaves, their tips bent over towards the comer nearest them. In the space between them in the middle of the capital is a triangular boss, probably the tip of another leaf

The capitals were found on site XI in 1912, but in what context the report does not state. 132 Curiously, No. 3 is illustrated, and what is referred to as a capital of unfinished design, and is presumably No. 60 is not; it is described as unfinished, perhaps because the leaves are less deeply cut.

The abacus is chiselled, but the rest of the capital has been executed with a point. Oblique grooves in the concavities of the leaves represent their veins. The detail is now obscure as a result of weathering since the excavation, being much clearer on the published photograph.

BAR HILL 1 (Plate CXXIV, A) The nadir of decorated capitals seems to be reached with that found with much other architectural stonework in the well of the Principia. 133 It is of gritstone, 30.5 cm. high with a further 28.5 cm. of shaft, 28.3 cm. in diameter, below it.

CORBRIDGE 121, 125 and 129 (Plate CXXI) These three miniature capitals form part of a set, though there are minor variations in their dimensions and execution. Their heights to below the astragalus range from 16.6 to 18 cm. Their shafts are 11 to 11.5 cm. in diameter and are fluted. In one case there are 18, in another, 19, flutes: the shaft of the third is too damaged for them to be counted.

A single tier ofleaves decorates three of the four sides. They have rounded ends and a raised border scored by oblique incisions. The first stage of carving was executed with a point, and a drove with a blade 3.5 cm. wide was used at a steep angle to chisel the face of the abacus, the shaft and the area of the leaves within the borders, leaving clear marks of the blade. Only the astragalus appears to have been smoothed, and it is undercut by a slightly inclined band of smooth chiselling 4 cm. wide at the top of the shaft.

In all, the abacus is divided into two parts: the upper fascia has two concave recesses with an incised rectangle, separating three square panels with incised circles. Below it is a cable moulding. There is a single tier of eight leaves with prominent overhangs, a lobed outline, and veins represented by grooves radiating from the bottom. On No. 121 there are small separate leaves at the bottom between those of the main tier, but this 128 Ronczcwski 129 Knowles

130 Lewis 131 RIB

1147 and 1148. See below, p.53.

132 Forster

1931.

133 Ross

1965, 9 and fig. 41.

and Knowles 1914, 300-1 and fig. 12.

1906, 135 and fig. 46; Robertson, Scott and Kcppic 1975, 40 no. 20 and fig. 11.

and Forster 1909, 334-5, 340 fig. 10, and 348.

41

T. F.

Bisgg

INVERESK 4 (Plate CXXIV, B)

LONDON 63 (Plate CXXIV, D)

The capital of a square pilaster was found in the area of the vicus outside the fort when the modem cemetery was extended in 1946. 134 Its decoration recalls that of Corbridge 121, 125 and 129 in that the abacus has two small concave recesses between square panels, in this case marked with a saltire cross. The simple unserrated leaves, broad at the base and tapering to a point, were carved with a mason's point, their edges and mid-ribs being finished with a chisel. The astragalus consists of a cable moulding.

The pilaster capital is carved at the comer of a rectangular block which had probably formed part of a funeral monument, as had many of the other stones with which it was found reused in the fourth-century Camomile Street bastion. 136 It is 27 cm. high and had large upright seven-lobed leaves at the comers and a similar but smaller leaf between them in the middle of each side. Above this is a round face with fleshy cheeks and a pudding-basin hairstyle. On each side of the face is a round boss with a central dimple, similar to the roundels on the Corbridge 136 capital and, like them, probably representing a flower. The abacus is divided into two fasciae with a band of beading below it. The teeth of the leaves are rounded in outline and are defined by simple incised grooves. Only on the central lobe is the midrib indicated. The techniques cannot be related to the work of carvers of Corinthian capitals in lowland Britain, and its simplicity and small scale indicate that it was probably carved by a man who usually worked on monumental masonry or sculpture, unfamiliar in detail with the carving of architectural ornament on buildings.

The capital is 18.5 cm. high and the shaft below it measures 11.8 x 13 cm. in section. Two sides are decorated with two flutes, with round-ended lappets filling them at the top. The pillar stood in a position where only two adjacent sides would be clearly visible: on the others the profiles of the mouldings were left as roughed out with the point. This suggests a position on one side of a porch or doorway. An Antonine date is probable. Evidence has not been found that occupation of the vicus continued after the fort had been evacuated, nor that there was a Severan reoccupation.

Miscellaneous Decorated Capitals

YORK 53 (Plate CXXIV, C)

CORBRIDGE 157

Probably of Roman date is a capital found in the remains of a building aligned with the Roman street during construction of the Railway Offices in Tanner Row in 1901. It is now lost, but there is a drawing, reproduced by the Royal Commission, on one of the plans of the new offices. 135 The height, to the bottom of the astragalus, is 43 cm. and the shaft diameter is 38 cm. It is thus rather larger than other Foliate capitals in this group. It is carved with acanthus leaves at each comer and in the middle of each side, each of five unserrated lobes. The form ofleaf as drawn is unlike others in the province, notably in the ogival edge and curved pointed tips of the lobes. It is this that calls its date into question: the form and layout of the decoration are otherwise unexceptionable; the difficulty may arise, however, from the artist's interpretation of what he saw.

A capital with Ionic volutes and plain mouldings, 20 cm. high with a shaft of the same diameter, was found in excavation of site VIII (the Fountain) in 1907. 137 It is no longer among the large collection of architectural sculpture from the site. The volutes have plain circular ends and there is a narrow band round the expanded centre of the roll. This and the following example are the only capitals of Ionic form in Roman Britain.

NEWCASTLE 8 The provenance of this piece, now in the Museum of Antiquities at Newcastle upon Tyne, is unrecorded. 138 It has two holster-like volutes suspended below the abacus, with a band round the centre. Between them is the upper part of the horned head of a ram.

HOUSESTEADS 19 (Plate CXXV) The capital is rather different from the majority in this class, which for the most part represent variations on a single row of broad crudely-carved upright leaves. It is 41 cm. high and is broken from a shaft 23 cm. in diameter. The abacus is 40 cm. square, rectangular at the comers, with hollowed sides. At each comer is a small upright three-toothed leaf. Between these on each side is a semicircular cradle-shaped calyx divided into a broad outer part and a narrower inset margin. From the centre rises a vertical stem, expanded and bifurcated at the top. There is, perhaps, a suggestion here of the central rosette and pendent swags of the Chester capitals of Class D, but too remote to imply a direct ancestry. Below this part are three bold annular mouldings, with a smaller bead dividing the top and middle rings. The marks of a drill are visible in the hollow between the top moulding and the leaves. 134 PSAS

It is 19 cm. high and the abacus measures 40 x 32 cm. The

shaft is approximately 26 cm. in diameter. A rectangular recess measuring 20 x 25 cm. and 2 cm. deep is cut in the top of the abacus. A ram's head decorating a column capital is otherwise unknown in Britain, though ramshom volutes were employed on Corinthian capitals from Fishbourne and Cirencester (above, pp.19f.). It is also extremely rare elsewhere. Von Mercklin illustrated the top of an apparently Corinthian capital in the Terme Museum in Rome with a goat's head in this position; 139 Esperandieu records a plain-moulded capital from 136 RCHl\1 London 137 Forster 138 CSJR

ci ( 1968-9), 293 no. 18 and 294, fig. 4.

135 RC! IM Eburacum ( 1962),

1908, 279 and 280, fig. 19.

Great Britain Li, no. 355, where it is incorrectly stated to be lost.

139 Von Mercklin

112 no. 11a and fig. 79.

42

1928, 45 and pis. 16, 20.

1962, 207, no. 506b, and abb. 963.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

the department ofHerault with a ram's head and two human faces, which he considered to belong to the Celtic art of the late first century BC or the early first century AD. 140 Neither furnishes a close parallel.

YORK 40 A small capital from a tomb is 18 cm. high. It is decorated with a male figure holding a net or a cloak and a trident or staff if the first alternatives are preferred, a gladiator. On the opposite side is an eagle. The other two sides are plain. The figures are carved partly on the square abacus and partly on the slightly oval moulding below it. 141

BAR HILL 7 and 13 Two capitals were found with Bar Hill I above (p.41) in the well in the Principia. They have a simple tapered profile with a band of chevrons in low relief at the top. These, together with Castlehill l (below), provide such a motif in the province on architectural stonework, though it was employed more often on altars in north Britain. It may be that the capitals were carved by men more familiar with the latter aspect of the stonemasons' work than with regular architectural ornament. 142"

CAERNARVON 7 (Plate CXII) This piece has been hollowed out at the bottom for re-use as a mortar. Two features identify its original purpose as a column capital: the astragalus moulding, and the vertical grooves above it. These are cut in eight groups of three, with regular intervals, alternately 10.5 and 13.5 cm., between every third groove (which is deeper and longer). The grooves seem best explained as those dividing the leaves and defining the mid-ribs on a Foliate capital with eight leaves, four larger ones at the corners and four slightly narrower in the middle of each side. The piece is extremely weathered and battered, so the suggestion may be plausible but remains uncertain. It is possible that the capital might have been Corinthian, but the leaves of the lower tier of that order are usually of equal width. It would also be unusual to find a Corinthian capital in an auxiliary fort or its vicus, certainly outside the area of Hadrian's Wall. Most Foliate capitals, however, come from such sites.

CASTLEHILL 1 A capital from the Antonine fort on this site is decorated on the abacus with a band of chevrons in low relief, below which is a cyma recta moulding with simple unserrated oval leaves. The mouldings on the circular part of the capital consist of a plain fascia and an astragal. 142b 140 Esperandieu 141 RCHM

XII Suppl., 8026.

The stone is decorated on at least two faces with a relief of a water nymph reclining beneath a tree by the bank of a stream. There is a trace of similar decoration on a third side. The sides taper downwards to give a base diameter of20 cm. The capital is flat on top and bottom and lacks an abacus or any other conventional feature of architectural ornament, but there seems no reason to doubt that it did serve as a column capital, as originally suggested by Richmond. 143 Its findspot is unknown, but it had been re-used, first hollowed out for a gully and later employed as a paving slab.

Doubtful Cases WROXETER 130 A large block 4 7 cm. long and 26 cm. high as it survives was found in the Fomm. It is carved on its curved surface with four contiguous male heads in a vigourous native style. Although it has hitherto been described as a capital, by Atkinson with a query 144 and by Toynbee with a more positive 'most probably', 145 there is nothing about it to suggest how it might have been used architecturally. It has no foliage or other element of architectural ornament, and the curvature of its side would seem rather a slight basis for the identification.

LONDON 98 (Plate CXXIII) The piece is 16 cm. high. It is circular, 11 cm. in diameter at the top (as illustrated here) with waisted sides belling out to 25 cm. at the bottom. Top and bottom are flat, with slight pitting from a mason's point, and the top has a small round hollow in the centre, 25 mm. wide and about 5 mm. deep. It is decorated with four rows of hexagonal honeycombing, with fifteen cells in each row. There are no parallels for this decoration on Roman column capitals in Britain, nor do I know of any elsewhere in the Empire. Furthermore, it has no abacus, and the height and the width at the bottom, as drawn, are disproportionately large for a shaft of 11 cm. It seems most doubtful, therefore, whether it did serve as a column capital, as has previously been assumed. 146 As an alternative, it may be conjectured that it was the top stone of a funeral monument, perhaps surmounted by a pine-cone finial. The hexagons would represent roof-tiles or the scales of a pinecone, and they recall in their pattern the imbricated leaves on the rooves of a type of funeral monument not uncommon in the Rhineland, 147 and represented in Britain by fragments from London and Silchester. The doubt attaches, in the above two instances, to whether they are capitals; in the following case, it is whether it is of Roman date.

Eburacum (1962), 132-133, no. 134, and pl. 63; Toynbee 1964,

146. 1420

CORBRIDGE 156

Robertson Scott and Keppie 1975, 40, nos. 21 and 22 and fig. 1I. Examples of altars with this decoration include those from Maryport (RIB 824), Carrawburgh (RIB 1532) Carvoran, pro salute L. Aeli Caesaris so dated AD 136-8 (RIB 1778) and Castleheads (RIB 1980, 1982).

142b Ross 1906, 538, fig. 49.

143 Richmond

1943, 204-6 and pl. x; Toynbee 1964, 144-5; CSIR Great Britain Li, no. 36.

144 Atkinson

1942, 227-9 and pl. 60.

145 Toynbee

1964, 146.

146 RCHM

London (1928), pl. 20.

147 Gabelmann

1973, bild 40.

T. F.

Bisgg

LONDON 94

capitals are fairly constant, between 13.2% and 14.1%, rather lower than the class D capitals. There is a tendency for later capitals to have lower abaci: Cirencester 60, Carlisle 7, Springhead and Housesteads I are all datable to the second half of the second century or later, and have abaci of between 8.4 and 10.8%.

A small pilaster capital and its shaft, carved on separate blocks of greensand, was said by Roach Smith to have been found among Roman remains in Queen Street, Cheapside. 148 The closely-set diagonal marks of a broad chisel on the flat surfaces of the top and sides of the capital are uncharacteristic of Roman work, and much more suggestive of Norman or later masonry. It is decorated on the front with two leaves, curving outwards, with sharply facetted edges and midribs, with a large and a small roundel between them. The shaft has threequarter round mouldings at the edges, incised with spiral channels. The area between them is bevelled back on each side of a central ridge. None of these features are at all like other Romano-British decorated capitals, and pilasters, and in view of these, and of the techniques of carving, the piece should probably be regarded as medieval.

In class C, the two tiers of acanthus leaves which comprise the lower part of the capital usually occupy marginally less than half the total height. This is also true of Wroxeter 119in class E. The single tier possessed by other class E capitals and by some of those in class D occupies approximately 40%, but the proportions of class D capitals as a whole show a lack of uniformity which is surprising, considering that most of them came from the same building. When percentages are translated into vulgar fractions, some modular designs can more readily be identified, if a small margin of error, up to a centimetre each way, is permitted.

Conclusions

Abacus Calyx

1. Proportions The regularities that have been observed above among decorated capitals have, to a large extent, been stylistic. It remains to consider to what extent they are complemented by mathematical regularities, that is, systems of proportion applied to the shaping of a capital, to the layout of its decoration, and to the whole architectural scheme of which a capital was a part.

Acanthus Tiers Fraction 14rhs 7/14

Silchester 25 etc. 2/14

5/14

Bath4

2/15

6/15

7/15

Ribchester 18

3/20

6/20

11/20 (4/20+ 7/20)

15ths 2otl1s

Wroxeter 119

2/15

6/15

7/15

15ths

Housesteads 1

1/10

2/7

2/7 + 1/3

Leicester 48

1/12

4/12

mixed 12ths 7/12 (1/4 + 1/3)

The greatest margin of error is in the case of the Bath capital, 5%. The acanthus tiers of the Silchester and Bath capitals are of almost equal height, the differences being only half a centimetre. The Wroxeter capital, though carved to a module of a fifteenth in the same proportions as that from Bath, differs from the latter in the division of the acanthus tiers, the lower being a little more than twice the height of the upper. The Leicester capital appears to have been divided in Roman inches (= 24.6 mm.). That from Wroxeter has measurements which correspond quite closely to 4, 12 and 15.5 inches, but in the other cases the proportions are insufficiently close to whole numbers of inches for it to be clear whether that standard of measure was used.

If it can be shown that certain systems of proportion were used, it may be possible either to relate these to the regional preferences of masons working in different areas, thus assisting with the attribution of particular pieces to an otherwise identified school of craftsmen; or to explain them as the result of changes through time, thus assisting with the dating of otherwise undated material.

Some such conclusions can, in fact, be drawn, but the fragmentary nature of much of the Romano-British material means that they do not extend so far as one might have wished. It is not possible to deduce Vitruvian modules with any degree of assurance in more than a few instances.

The most that these calculations can be said to show is that some of the complete capitals were laid out to a recognisable metrical formula. That is no great surprise. They do not, however, show any particular formula that can be identified as the attribute of a known school of craftsmen or of any one class of capital, and a far larger sample would in any case be necessary to produce a conclusion that was statistically valid. It is, however, more surprising that there is an appreciable number of capitals for which no reasonably simple system of fractional division is obvious. Other systems, literally rules of thumb, may have been used instead, but would be hard to demonstrate from this sort of data.

The information is tabulated as follows: in Table 1, absolute measurements of Corinthian capitals; in Table 2, percentages of the total height taken up by the abacus, the calyx and the tiers of acanthus leaves; in Table 3, the ratios of the height of the capital to the diameter of the shaft, and of the widths at the abacus and at the base of the calyx to one another and to the shaft. So far as the proportions in Table 2 are concerned, the results are disparate. The height of the abacus can range between 8.4% and 18.9%, with those of the small Cirencester capitals 44-49 disproportionately tall at 30%. The early class C

The relationships set out in Table 3 do, however, show more patterns. The heights of the class C capitals are in a ratio of between 1.16 and 1.26 to the bottom diameters, that is, the diameters of the top of the column shafts. They thus lie close

148Roach Smith 1848 (i), 139 and pl. xlviii B, fig. 2. Nothing further is said about the discovery or why the remains were thought to be Roman. RCIIM London (1928), 93 and pl. 19.

44

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

to the proportion 6:5. Silchester is exceptional, nearly 1:1. Later capitals have larger ratios, e.g. the figured capital Cirencester 60 (1.78, i.e. c. 7:4); Housesteads 1 (1.64). The height/diameter ratio of Leicester 48, at 1.71, together with the low abacus, seems to confirm the indication of its devolved style of decoration that it is also a late piece.

diameters and column height. Even if we knew this, say, for the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, the same system would not necessarily hold good for the basilica at Cirencester, for example. A Vitruvian calculation will, however, provide a rough and ready guide, which will enable at least some idea to be formed of the size of the buildings to which these decorated capitals belonged. In many cases these buildings are not known, but certain deductions can be made from size alone.

Four of the class C capitals have a ratio close to 1: 1. Chester 91 is disproportionately tall in relation to its companions 89 and 90. Perhaps a use in some special position in the building might account for the discrepancy. The Ribchester capital, with its ornament laid out in vertical divisions of twentieths, has a height/ diameter ratio of 5 :4 exactly.

According to Vitruvius, for columns of20-30 feet the upper diameter of the shaft should be in the proportion 6:7 to its lower diameter, and for a column of30-40 feet the proportion should be 6.5:7.5 (Ill, iii, 12): and the Corinthian column of a colonnade should be ten lower diameters high (V, ix, 4). On the basis of these prescriptions, the corresponding range of heights to upper diameters of 60-80 cm., that of almost all the class C capitals, would be between 7 m. and 9.33 m. (23 to 30 feet).

Thus the majority of early capitals, those of first to mid-second century date, seem to conform to a ratio of 6:5 or 5:4, with the former generally being preferred in class C and the latter in class D. There is an observable tendency for later capitals to be taller in relation to the diameters of their columns. The small size of the Wilderspool 7 capital may account for its eccentric proportion of nearly 2: 1. The ratio of the Flavian capital at Fishboume, however, is unusually large, possibly reflecting its tall abacus. The dimensions are in any case restored, so the figures for this example tabulated here are inevitably less precise.

This calculation may be borne in mind in considering Table 4, in which the shaft diameters of decorated capitals within each class are given. It seems preferable to list them in this way, rather than to list a series of estimated column heights where the Vitruvian assumptions made in producing the estimate cannot be proved valid. The nature of the conclusions to be drawn is, however, the same. Various aspects of this table will be considered in more detail below, but two observations may be made here.

The capitals considered so far are restricted to those which survive to their full height. There are several cases where only half a capital survives. Table 3 also shows the ratios between the width of the abacus and the diameter at the bottom of the calyx, and between the latter and the diameter of the shaft. There is a correlation between these sets of measurements. In the majority of cases (eleven) the former ratio is between 1.3 7 and 1.44. Two are below, the exceptionally small Cirencester capitals 44-49 (1.16) and Wroxeter 119, (1.29). Three are greater, up to 1.51. The latter ratio in the majority of cases (sixteen) ranges from 1.11 to 1.27, with three below and five above.

First, the capitals of class C are immediately distinguished by the fact that only one of them was placed on a column of less than 60 cm. diameter at the top. The remainder falls within the range of 60-80 cm., with two larger exceptions. Quite clearly, these capitals were used only in monumental public buildings, which certainly included basilicas (Silchester, Caerwent, Cirencester), temples (Bath and? Canterbury) and a theatre (Verulamium).

These proportions seem to have been used generally, irrespective of class, region and date. They cannot therefore serve as criteria diagnostic of provenance or chronology. They may, however, serve as criteria for restorations, since they permit the upper dimensions to be deduced, within limits, from the lower, and vice versa, where only one of the two ratios is known. This observation may be of use when it comes to restoring capitals of which only part remains, or in testing the possible association of separate pieces. Thus, the calyx diameter of Gloucester 23 is in a ratio of 1.16 to the shaft of Gloucester 26, which is consistent with the suggestion that the two formed part of the same capital or, at least, the same set. The relationship between Cirencester 50's calyx, however, and the shaft of Cirencester 51 is 1.39, which reinforces the disparity suggested by their respective ornament.

Secondly, Foliate capitals, with one exception, all had shafts of less than 40 cm. diameter at the top. The difference in scale complements the already observed difference in their distribution from that of Corinthian and Composite capitals.

2. Historical and Social Contexts

In the final part of the last section, the discussion of proportions moved from what was, in effect, an analysis of certain craft practices, however mathematically dissociated from the mind and hand of the craftsman it may have seemed, towards some inferences of a social or historical nature. These will now be considered further, under the headings of Distribution, and of Classes of Capital and Schools of Stonemasons.

The column diameter to which the heights of the capitals have been related is that of the upper part of the shaft. Unfortunately, we do not have any instance where a complete column survives with its Corinthian capital, so that we cannot tell what was the practice in Britain, so far as concerns the relationship between the upper and lower diameters, and between the

(a) The Distribution of Decorated Capitals (Map 1)

Decorated capitals within the province fall into two main groups: the Corinthian and the Foliate. The Composite order is represented by only four examples; there is none of the 45

T. F.

Bisgg

true Ionic, and only two (Corbridge 157 and Newcastle 8) which owe their original inspiration to it.

been made to it in the preceding pages, that Kahler's fundamental study of the capitals of the Rheingebiet has provided much of the comparative material by which the origin of the Romano-British class C style has been identified, and the debt is acknowledged with gratitude and admiration. Nevertheless, it must be observed that the scope and title of Kahler's work, and the absence of similar studies of capitals in other parts of the western provinces, has encouraged the assumption that British capitals of this type are specifically Rhenish in origin. 149 It should be observed that the region in which capitals of Kahler 's Forms C and D were current is considerably wider than the Rhineland. Nor did Kahler claim otherwise, as the examples that he cites from outside the primary area of his study make clear. Thus, Esperandieu illustrates capitals of these forms from Merten (Lorraine), Dijon and Reims in Gallia Belgica and from Auxerre and Evreux in Lugdunensis. 150

As a general rule, the use of the Corinthian order is restricted to civilian sites, and of these the majority are the civitas capitals. Of the coloniae, only at Gloucester is the order well represented. Lincoln has produced a single and eccentric fragment, though this is perhaps a reflection of the surprisingly small quantity of its monumental architectural sculpture, considering its situation in an area of good building stone, when compared with the towns at the south-western end of the Jurassic ridge. At Colchester the scarcity of such stonework is more easily explained, as much must have been consumed by the medieval limekilns of a town outside the limestone area. Roman London, too, has obviously fallen prey to the destruction of later centuries. The use of the order is rare on military sites. Among the legionary fortresses and their canabae, only Chester contributes. Caerleon, though reasonably well-represented in other types of ornament, has not produced decorated capitals. York is a poorer relation in this sphere, and the ornament of its late colonia follows suit. Among auxiliary forts and their associated civilian settlements, the two late capitals at Housesteads and Chesters must reflect the prosperity of their third- or fourth-century vici. Additionally, they are stylistically independent from other such capitals in the province. South of Hadrian's Wall, only Ribchester provides an example. Little support is thus to be found here for those who take the view that the army played a significant role in the early development of the major towns of Roman Britain. The skilled stonemasons who decorated the public buildings of the civitas capitals and coloniae were not furnished by the British legions.

The capitals from the Gallo-Roman Temple II at Elst, Over Betuwe, provide an important parallel for the British Class C capitals. The abacus has the serif incisions and the terminal curl of the leaves, and the carving of the latter, though somewhat flatter, is similar to that on the Silchester and Canterbury capitals in particular. The temple appears to have been started in Vespasian's reign, replacing an earlier temple probably destroyed in the Batavian revolt of 69-70. 151 The area from which masons may have come to Britain, introducing the class C capital, has therefore to be extended beyond the middle Rhine and the lower Moselle as far as the North Sea coast and westwards beyond the Seine. The range of variation observable in such cities as Trier and Mainz remains suggestive that they were centres of architectural stonecarving, but until comparable work to Kahler's has been done elsewhere in the region, they should not be overstressed.

This division between military and civilian work is further emphasised by the distribution of the second major group, the Foliate capitals. With the exception of the wholly distinctive capitals from Wroxeter and Bathford, the only one which may not come from a fort or its vicus is that from Aldborough. The distinction in classification is complemented by distinctions in style and technique. Although some of the features ofFoliate capitals can be related ultimately to Italian models, the route by which they reached Britain appears to have been quite separate, and they are unrelated to the ornament of civilian lowland Britain. In the quality of their execution they are also considerably inferior.

The programme of town building which began in Britain late in Vespasian's reign clearly called, initially, for skilled stonemasons from outside the province. There was plenty of work for them, for they covered the whole of south Britain where their surviving products at Bath, Cirencester, Silchester, Canterbury, Caerwent and Gloucester were executed over a span of perhaps forty years. Their work shows an internal development, and it seems likely that some of them settled here and that later generations were probably born here. That some continued connexion with their provinces of origin was maintained, however, is demonstrated by the way in which new stylistic features are shared by both areas. One might see this more as an element of interchange, operating at a personal, family level as sons or sons-in-law learned the fathers' trade, the particular provincial origins becoming obscured, than as a relationship of dependence by British patrons on Gaulish craftsmen.

(b) Classes of Capital and Schools of Stonemasons Of the seven classes into which the Corinthian capitals have been divided, A, B, F and G are of relatively minor importance. A is the capital from the exceptional villa at Fishbourne, B those from a small building in Cirencester, F is the capital from the temple complex at Springhead and G those from Chesters and Housesteads just mentioned. The three major classes, C, D and E, merit further discussion.

What probably began as a single workshop was later divided between more than one centre. Obviously, stonemasons were 149

Thus, Boon 1974, 108.

150 Esperandieu

The origins of class C were traced to the provinces of Gallia Belgica and Germania in the late Flavian period. It will be clear, from the number of occasions on which reference has

151 Bogacrs

4425, 7188, 3746, 2905, 8330 respectively.

1955, pis. xxix, xxx, xii, xiii; pp.156-158 (English summary, 239); for the date, p.176.

46

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

unlikely to have been employed solely in carving Corinthian capitals, though these probably demanded the greatest skill. Other types of carving will be considered below. As a preliminary conclusion, however, one such centre may be identified at Cirencester, where a number of stylistically later capitals have been found, which can thus be attributed to a Cirencester school. The contemporary capitals of Verulamium, Gloucester and Irchester, however, seem to show the existence of other schools. (See list of datable capitals, Table 5.) The capitals of class D represent the work of another group altogether, which can be named the Chester-WroxeterRibchester school. Its work is not connected with that of the Cirencester school, though it was executed in the first third of the second century, when the latter was already wellestablished. It is not clear whether it derived from another province. It does not appear to have obvious antecedents in the only western provincial area where Corinthian capitals have been studied in detail, Kahler's Rheingebiet, unless the V -shaped incision on the comer of the abacus of Wroxeter 116, a feature of north-east Gaulish work, can be taken as a hint. The distribution in Britain is biassed towards sites with military connexions; further study of material from the Rhine and Danube frontiers might prove fruitful. The class D capitals all fall within the area of operation of Legio XX, which had been at Wroxeter until Agricola's campaigns in the north, and subsequently replaced Legio II Adiutrix at Chester. It may be that assistance came from Chester for the rebuilding ofRibchester in stone, probably in Trajan's reign, the period when Chester itselfreceived its stone walls and principia. An inscription from Ribchester shows that the legion was responsible for building work there at some time, though unfortunately the inscription lacks an archaeological context. 152 It must, however, have been erected before Ribchester was transferred to the command of Legio VI at York, which is attested by inscriptions of 163-166 and 198-209. 153 The capital fragment from Wroxeter is of interest in that it was found close to the forum. The column bases of the forum can also be linked with bases from Chester and Ribchester (below, p.120). It may be, however, that the legion was involved in earlier stone construction at Wroxeter, in the form of the baths which were begun on the site later occupied by the forum, but never completed, and possibly of a principia on the later baths site. It has been suggested that Legio XX may have returned to Wroxeter for a short time at the conclusion of the Agricolan campaign before being transferred to Chester in about 90 AD. 154 Certainly, the legionary-type baths contained decorated mouldings, later re-used in the street portico of the forum. A later context for the Wroxeter class D capital, however, one closer in date to the Chester and Ribchester capitals, would be presented by the building programme of the Hadrianic 152 RIB

592.

153 RIB

589, 591.

154Frere 1974, 139-140.

civitas capital of the Como vii. Here, in contrast with the towns of the south, it would seem reasonable to have looked towards the Chester legion to provide stonemasons trained on military constructions to assist with the civic development of its former station. That does not in itself require that the stonemasons should themselves have been legionaries of the XX th: they could equally well have been civilians in military employment or, originally, draftees from the Rhine or Danube garrison. Their repertoire was largely determined by rather more austere tastes than were prevalent in the civitas capitals of the south. The blocking out of the Chester and Ribchester capitals was competent, but a demand for the finesse required in the detailed carving of foliage was usually absent, and where it occurred, as on the Chester principia capital 7, no great skill was displayed. The type of building in which these capitals were employed is also different from those of class C. Only in the cross-hall of the Chester principia did any class D capital match the size of the majority of the former class. The range of column shaft diameters lies between 34 and 50 cm. (Table 4). Most of them appear to have been employed in porticos (mainly, it would seem, those of headquarters buildings). In this they also differ from the practice further south, where Tuscan columns were used in equivalent positions. The life of class D was relatively short, and it was succeeded by a second and wholly different version of capital, which is best represented in Wroxeter, though it is also found at Chester, Wilderspool and Carlisle. It must be explained as the result of the coming to Britain of a further group of stonemasons from north-eastern Gaul, in this instance almost certainly from in or near Trier, which has produced most of the capitals of Kahler's Form H, the model for the capitals of this class. There is little archaeological information about the buildings in which these class E capitals were used; consequently, they are poorly dated: but the jloruit of this class seems to have been the second half of the second century (Table 5). The Wroxeter capitals and the Chester pier capital 34/109 approach the class C capitals in size, and must have had similar functions. The fact that Wroxeter 109 and 110 were found in the market next to the public baths and opposite the forum may suggest that they were used in one of those buildings. Wroxeter 118 is probably to be identified with the Corinthian capital of a classical-style temple. The Wilderspool and Carlisle capitals decorated rather smaller buildings. Clear regional, social and chronological patterns can thus be identified. The major dividing line runs from Caerwent via Gloucester to Lincoln. South of it is the area in which the class C capital was dominant in monumental public architecture from the time of its introduction under Vespasian until about the middle of the third century. North of the line there are two main divisions. South of Hadrian's wall and west of the Pennines, two versions of the Corinthian capital are found, the early second-century class D, with strong military connexions, and the later second-century class E, covering much the same area, but predominantly in civilian buildings. The latter seems to provide an exact counterpart

T. F.

Bisgg

to the later products of class C in the south, and the two classes do not overlap geographically. Along Hadrian's wall, to the north of it and east of the Pennines, the second division of the northern zone was an area where military patronage dominated. Foliate capitals were employed on buildings of much smaller scale than in the south, and standards of execution were notably poorer. There is little influence from either of the two other regions. Only the Catterick capital can perhaps be related to the same Gaulish antecedents as those of the south and the north-west. Elaborately decorated buildings seem to have been rare, and those to which the Housesteads and Chesters capitals of class G belonged must have been late, possibly after the last masons of the class C and E schools had died out. These capitals represent a new current in architectural decoration, introduced from outside the province. In this, though not in form, the Bathford pier capital is their only broadly contemporary counterpart in the south. The pattern that has been outlined above for the origin and development of the class C school of carvers received little interruption from competitors. The class A and B capitals of the first century are earlier than all but the capital of the Temple of Sulis Minerva, which itself is something of a precursor for the rest of the class C capitals. Thereafter, only the Springhead capital (class F) represents a clear outside influence from a different quarter, one which to a Kentish patron might have been more accessible across the Channel than were the masons of Cirencester, 120 miles away by road. In the southern and north-western regions, decorated capitals are found almost exclusively on buildings of public and monumental character. We have no building inscriptions to tell us who paid for them; nor is it clear, when Tacitus writes that Agricola '(Britannos) hortari privatim, adiuvare pub lice, ut templa fora domos extruerent', what form any such public assistance might have taken. 155 It seems evident, however, that it did not take the form of making available the services of skilled stonemasons already employed in the province on imperial building projects. In Britain, neither the coloniae nor the legionary fortresses provided a model of Romanisation for the architectural ornament of the civitas capitals, for reasons which will be considered in the final chapter. Nor were the resources brought to two particular buildings in Flavian Britain in which official direction or assistance is most clearly to be seen, namely the Quadrifrons Arch at Richborough and the palace at Fishbourne, applied towards the building programme of the civitates.

It therefore seems reasonable to deduce that, however much

their task may have been made easier by well-placed official recommendations or financial concessions, it was with the civitates themselves, and the ambitions or aspirations of those who governed them, that the initiative lay, and to whom the credit is consequently due: 'ita honoris aemulatio pro necessitate erat' .156 That is to say, that these public buildings were commissioned and paid for by the curia/es of the municipalities and the civitates, or by private benefactors of greater individual wealth than the majority of the provincial nobility. The quantity of buildings that has survived may not, at first sight, be very large: but six different versions of Corinthian capitals from Cirencester, and five from Wroxeter, imply as many different buildings decorated in this way, and attest a civic munificence which continued through most of the second century. The conclusion remains to be tested by consideration of other forms of architectural decoration. Corinthian capitals by themselves, however, implying as they do the internal and external treatment of buildings in the classical manner, serve as one of the best indications of the outward appearance of urban architecture in Roman Britain, when so little remains standing or even traceable in plan. One would not expect a result to equal the cities of the Mediterranean. The impression obtained, however, is one of a solid and successful provincialism, comparable in its adoption of romanised standards with the achievement of the towns of northern Gaul and the Rhine and Danube provinces, a measure of the culture of the Romano-British upper class which is so poorly represented in the epigraphic record. The latest capitals in the south and the north-west are unlikely to have been carved later than the mid-third century. This type of decorative work was hardly ever applied to private building - to villas or town houses. There was little occasion for public building within the towns after that time. During the third century, the money formerly available for it was demanded by the construction of stone defences which, in the case of walls did not require, and in that of gates does not appear to have received, the ornamental treatment that had embellished basilicas temples and theatres. The need for this aspect of the stonemason's craft died out. As is shown by the 'technical ineptitude' of the decoration copied from earlier styles for the Arch of Constantine in Rome, 157 or the eclectically oriental ornament of Diocletian's palace at Split, Britain was in good company in the west at this time in the decline of its architectural standards.

156 ibid. 155 Tacitus,

Agr. 21, i.

157 Boelhius

and Ward-Perkins 1970, 507.

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

Chapter IV DECORATED COLUMN BASES much closer relation to the style of decoration on the Cirencester base is provided by the foliated cymation and the broad guilloche on the pilaster bases of the large Merchants' Monument and of the School Relief Monument from Neumagen. 6

(Plate LIX)

Cirencester has produced the only British example of a conventional column base with enriched mouldings, but there are some other pieces that may conveniently be considered under this heading.

Also from Cirencester is a number of low moulded drums which are perhaps most suitably described as bases.7 They are similar both in form and in profile, which are unique in Britain, and they are thus clearly members of a set, though each one is different in its scheme of decoration. They are between 9 and 11 cm. high, and 42 cm. in diameter, except for No. 42 which is only 34 cm.

The unprovenanced base Cirencester 56 has the profile, usual the region, of a cymation and two tori with fillets. It stood on a rectangular plinth. The base is damaged, so that only about half of it survives. The mouldings are 14 cm. high; the lower torus is 29 cm. in diameter and the shaft, which is broken off, would have had a diameter of about 19 cm. The complete column is likely to have stood about two metres high. The cyma moulding is decorated with a leaf and tongue, and the lower torus with a guilloche in which the bands are of double thickness. 1

41 has an incised circular groove in the top 39 cm. in diameter. There is a torus moulding decorated with upright leaves with sharply incised central veins, inclined slightly to the lefl Below this is an angular scotia with facetted vertical bars. Top and bottom are rather summarily dressed with an adze.

Roman decorated column bases have not received comprehensive study, even in Italy: Wegner's monograph was admittedly selective,2 and many of those that he studied do not come from dated contexts, though it can be shown that examples survive from the reign of Augustus onwards. 3 Most of Wegner's bases are considerably more richly decorated than that from Cirencester, and do not provide useful comparisons for it, though some now in Rome and one from Hadrian's villa at Tivoli, which employ a band of acanthus leaves and a guilloche on the lower torus, may be cited. 4

42 has as its main decoration a band offacetted rectangular panels reminiscent of fluting. This is bordered by a row of short beads above, with vertical incisions and a row of short beads alternating with single-ring 'reels' below. These in tum are edged by an undecorated half-round moulding. The top is dressed with an adze, but the bottom is rough and may be broken. 57 has a torus moulding

decorated with five-lobed overlapping leaves, with an angular fillet below it, and above and below these mouldings a band with oblique incisions. It is broken at top and bottom.

Comparable published examples closer to Britain are even harder to find. There is a decorated base from Sens, on which the upper torus has a wreath and the lower a leaf and tongue, and the base of a circular altar from Lyon has a decorated cymation and a double guilloche on the torus below it. 5 A

58 has a torus moulding decorated with alternately upright and inverted cradle-shaped acanthus calyces separated by an undulating ribbon, with diced bands above and on a fillet below. The upper band has a dimaeter of 40.5 cm. Top and bottom are dressed smooth.

Corinium Museum B 587. 2 Wegner 1965. D.E. Strong, Classical Review xvii (1967), 206, criticises Wegner's opinion that they do not occur before Nero's reign. 4

6 Von Massow i, 1932, no. 179, abb. 76 and no. 180, abb. 83.

Wegner 1965, tafu. 16b, 18 and 19.

7

Esperandieu IV, 2856 no. 7 and III, I 755.

49

Corinium Museum C 2953, 2955, 2969, 2978, 2979: all from the Cripps colleclion, and unprovenanced.

T. F.

Bisgg

59 has as its main decoration on the torus a guilloche, the ribbon divided into four strips of equal width. There is an astragalus of simple short beads below it and a fillet above. The top is dressed smooth, without toolmarks, and the bottom is rough.

series of figures on funeral structures such as the Iphigenia Monument and the large Merchants' Monument at Neumagen. 9 These pedestals apparently derive from the cauliculus of acanthus vegetation employed in a similar manner on the School Relief Monument, also from Neumagen, 10 and may also spring from shoots of foliage. 11 Their tops are decorated with broad-ribboned guilloche and with various forms of foliage. The likenesses are somewhat generalised and the style of carving is rather different. Nor do the Neumagen reliefs provide examples of the forms of bead and the facetted fluting on the Cirencester pieces.

In each case the profile is steep and the torus moulding is flattened. The mouldings only occupy one half of a circle: the remainder of the block is variously fashioned, with the rear parallel to the diameter on 58 but otherwise wedgeshaped. Clearly, they were made to be built into a wall so as to project in the manner of engaged half-columns.

In view of the individuality of these pieces, in decoration and profile as well as in their form, it is difficult to be certain how they were used. They may have carried columns which would have been between 3.5 and 4 metres high. Alternatively, one might suggest that they served as brackets, inserted into a wall or screen to support free-standing statuary or other objects, rather in the manner of the pedestals on the Neumagen reliefs. They are not likely to have carried relief sculpture in stone, as were that the case one can see no particular reason for carving the bases on such thin separate blocks.

Although in general the motifs which decorate these bases fall within the repertoire of Romano-British ornament, in no case does any of them find a precise parallel either in Cirencester or elsewhere in Britain. The note in the Corinium Museum catalogue entry for No. 57, comparing it with the columns from Reculver that now stand in the crypt of Canterbury cathedral, is misconceived. Those bases are quite differently decorated, and in any event there is no ground for regarding the Reculver columns as re-used Roman work. 8 As noted above, the form of these bases is unique in Britain. No. 57 is, and the bottom of 42 appears to be, broken. The others, however, are intact, as moulded discs which are unlikely to have been the components of double-torus column bases, as in all other bases of this diameter the whole profile is carved on a single block. No. 41 has a scotia, and it and Nos. 58 and 59 have an upper diameter which is smaller and may have carried a column shaft.

The other piece to be considered under this heading is Rudchester I. It has a tall square plinth, decorated on one side with two cable mouldings, between which the edges are scalloped and a lozenge is carved in the middle. The torus above the plinth carries a cable moulding and the shaft has spiral fluting. The diameter of the shaft is 13.5 cm. The size suggests that the column could not have been much more than 1.50 cm. The size suggests that the column could not have been much more than 1.50 m. high, and is likely to have stood on the dwarf wall of a verandah, or was perhaps used internally: it was found in the underground strongroom beneath the sacellum of the headquarters building. 12

Nevertheless, the closest continental parallels for the proportions and type of moulding come from the tambourinelike tops of the tapered pedestals which support the vertical

8

Following G.E. Fox, Archaeol. Journ. !iii (1896). 355 and the author of VCH Kent iii (1932), 21. Fox's comment still holds good: ,nor have either their bases or capitals any resemblance to any known fragments of Roman architecture lo be found in this country'.

9

Von Massow 1932, no. 8, abb. 33; no. 179, abb. 76.

10

Ibid. no. 183, abb. 83.

11 Walter 1974, pl. v no. 20, from Luxeuil. 12 Brewis 1925, I 02 and pl. xiii, fig. 18.

50

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

ChapterV ORNAMENTAL MOTIFS The motifs that are described below appear for the most part on the mouldings of entablatures. They were also used on pilasters and on decorated panels. Before examining these architectural elements individually (below, Chapters VI, VII), it is convenient to examine the ornament as such, so as to group together all instances of the various motifs, in whatever manner they were used, and to investigate their origins, dating and distribution within Britain. In certain cases the motifs of architectural ornament are to be found in other types of stonework, notably on tombstones and altars and on the borders of building inscriptions. These additional instances have been noted where appropriate. Motifs which are found only on such monuments, and not in architectural decoration, have not been included in the categories which follow. Those which are found only once are not considered here, but noted in the discussion of the item on which they appear.

1. Cymation The decorated cymation is relatively common among Romano-British mouldings, but there are several different forms, none of which can be described as canonical. Only in the case of Type (b) can close comparisons be made between different buildings on which the motif was used.

(a) Cyma recta: Acanthus, type i The finest example in Britain is that on the corona of the cornice of the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Bath 6-16, 23). 1

(Plate LX) The profile is steep. The widely-spaced leaves have five lobes, clearly separated by tear-shaped cavities. The thin mid-rib is splayed at the bottom, and the side lobes have Cunliffe 1969, 184 nos. 1.8 - 1.19 and pls. xxxi-xxxii on which, with the exception of the raking cornice no. 1.16, they arc illustrated upside down.

central grooves, with subsidiary grooves indicating their edges and overfolds, though the rather flat style of carving makes this substitute for modelling less effective. The tips of the lobes are serrated. Between each pair of leaves the mid-rib and central lobe of another leaf appears behind them. The motif appears, much more simply carved, on the monument of quadrangular form with niches in each side, found north of the reservoir of the Baths in 1895 (Bath 49, 50).2 (Plate LXI) The leaves have seven lanceolate lobes with shallow central grooves in the outermost, with three lobes of a third leaf appearing between each pair of principal leaves. It was used on a mid-second century temple at Wroxeter, though the stones now seem to be lost. 3 The leaves are rather crudely carved, the lobes being defined by C-shaped channels which curve outwards around a ve1iical central vein, and their edges are unserrated. A tongue stands up between adjacent leaves. (Plate LXXVII)

(b) Cyma recta: Acanthus, type ii (Fig. 4a) The principal feature of this motif is the manner in which the central shoot of the leaf is bent over to one side. The most elaborate instance is on two cornice blocks found reused in the riverside wall of Roman London. 4 (Plate LXII) The profile is bold, with a strong projection at the top. The decoration consists of large leaves divided into five lobes, the bottom two of which have three, and the remainder five, teeth. The central channel is inclined to the right, giving the impression that the leaves are waving in the breeze. A decorated moulding from Brixworth (No. I) is carved in a rather simpler and stiffer manner. (Plate LXlll) In this case there are, in effect, separate upright leaves which are flatly 2

Cunliffe 1969, 33 and fig. 12, p. 189 and pl. xliv.

3 Bushe-Fox 1913, fig. 6 no. v. Another piece was found before 1867: Anderson 1867, 49 and pl. viii, no. 3. 4

Blagg forthcoming, 171-173 and below, p.165.

T. F. C. Biagg

~ Arion

Neumagen

Ribemont

Igel (a) Acanthus , type ii.

Duntocher (b) Acanthus, type iii. Fig. 4 . Cyma Reeta Motifs

5 Ln

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

carved without the gentle modelling of the surface of the London cornice leaves, and without channelling. A shoot with its broadened tip bent over to the right rises between each pair of leaves. A version of the motif appears on two other cornices, one from Cirencester (No. 43), the other from Verulamium (No. 16). (Plates LXIV and LXV) In each case there is a single leaf divided into two parts by a slightly curved central groove. The tip of one part is bent over the top of the leaf in the same direction as the curve of the central groove, to the left on the Cirencester piece, to the right on that from Verulamium. In the latter case there is a tongue in the space between two leaves: the Cirencester cornice is damaged, but it appears to have the same feature. The last version (and indeed, other ornamental features of the pieces on which it appears) is closely paralleled in a cornice from Ribemont (Somme). 5 Generally, the fashion for what is often carved as an inclined acanthus leaf with foldedover tip is well represented on funeral monuments of Germania and the eastern part of Gallia Belgica, notably at Arlon, 6 Neumagen, 7 and on the monument of the Secundinii at Igel. 8 In all these, however, the inclination of the leaf and the overfold of its tip are in the same direction, whereas on the London and Brixworth cornices their directions are opposite.

(c) Cyma recta: Acanthus, type iii (Fig. 4b) Six cornice blocks at Wroxeter are carved with a version of a rather less common classical acanthus motif, though at several removes. 9 (Plate LXVI) The midrib is isolated by deep grooves, and bifurcated at top and bottom, the recess at the top containing a knob representing the overhanging tip of the leaf. Each side of the leaf has three deep grooves separating the lobes, which have slightly hollowed surfaces. The deep and angular cutting of the grooves produces a strongly patterned and formalised effect. Between each pair ofleaves is a bifurcated tongue, shaped like the mid-rib and flanked by two ribs, curved outwards so as to form a sort of cartouche round the leaf. The probable origin of this motif can be seen in the acanthus leaves framed in the cartouches formed by the borders of the intervening tongues on a moulding from the base of Trajan's column, the palmettes contained within oval cartouches formed by similarly bifurcated bands on the fascia of a cornice in S. Nicola in Carcere (Rome), or, in a rather leafier version, above the ovolo of a cornice from the Aula Regia of the Flavian palace on the Palatine. 10 The upper moulding of a cornice from Neuss has a Y-shaped surround to the leaves, with a knob in its upper angle similar to Wroxeter 's. 11

The Wroxeter cornices were found in the foundation of the east wall of the Basilica of the Forum, and appeared to have come originally from the west wall of the frigidarium of the legionary Baths which had previously occupied the site. These were built at the end of the first century and demolished before AD 128 when the Forum was dedicated. It is thus of considerable interest that the form of the motif is closely paralleled on the borders of two inscriptions from early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, from Auchendavy and Duntocher, particularly in the bifurcated stems which separate the leaves. 12 It was not, however, used on all the distance slabs from the Antonine Wall, nor even on all those of Legio II Augusta, 13 which was responsible for those three. Furthermore, the acanthus leaves which border two further inscriptions of that legion, both from Corbridge, are treated differently and by a more competent hand (Plate LXVII), 14 As these inscription tablets must all be one if not two generations later than the Wroxeter cornices, it could be argued that one of the masons of the Second Legion owed his training ultimately to those of Legio XIV Gemina (or possibly II Adiutrix from nearby Chester) who worked at Wroxeter. A distinctive version of the motif derives from bands ofupright acanthus leaves alternating with lotus flowers, such as may be seen on a cornice from Trajan's Forum, or on that of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina. 15 It is found on only one site in Britain, at Corbridge. As an architectural decoration it was carved on nine pieces of cornice moulding (Corbridge 143, a-j) (Plate LXVIII) 16 and it also appears in the border of an inscription of Legio II Augusta dedicated in the third consulship of Antoninus Pius in 140 AD (Plate LXVII). 17 The fan-shaped leaves have nine lobes with hollowed channels and rounded tips, and the lotus flowers, which stand up separately between them, not joined to them by scrolls, are transformed into two upright stalks with spiral terminals and, on the inscription, a small central shoot at the top: the corresponding part of the flowers on the cornices has been lost through damage. Both the cornices and the inscription tablet have a bead and reel below the cyma moulding. The workmanship is so similar that it suggests that the same stonemason was responsible for executing both commissions, and thus permits a date to be proposed for the cornices.

(d) Cyma recta: Acanthus and lotus flower (Fig. 5a) Two cornices from Leicester, Nos. 13 and 49 (Plate LXIX) have widely-spaced tripartite leaves, consisting of two side lobes with deep central channels, and their edges divided into broad teeth with pointed, slightly ogival tops, and a central

5

Gallia xxix (1971 ), 231 and 232, pl. 32.

6

Marien 1945, fig. 36; and 1967, pl. iii.

7

Von Massow 1932, ii. taf. 22 no. 172, an altar tomb.

8

Dragendorffand Kruger 1924, 51 abb. 29 and taf. 15.

9

Atkinson 1942, 35, 229 and pl. 59c.

15

Leon 1971, tafn. 23 and 99.4.

IO Lean 1971, taf: 27.3, 77.4 and 41.2.

16

Knowles and Forster 1909, fig. 13, no. 9.

11 Novaesium 1904, taf. xxiii, no. 24.

17 RIB

12

RIB 2180 and 2203.

13

Thus RIB 2204, also from near Duntocher and stylistically similar in its relief carving, lacks such a border.

14 RIB

1147 and 1148, dated AD 139 and 140 respectively.

1148.

Bourges

London 62 (1 :2)

(a) Cyma recta: acanthus and lotu s

rn

Leaf and tongue, type i. London 64 (I :5)

Leaf and tongue, type ii. Benwell (1 :5)

Simple leaf Carlisle I (1 :3)

(b) Cyma reversa

Fig. 5 Cyma recta and reversa motifs

54

Rornan Architectural Orramont in Britain

hole with a prominent splayed mid-rib. Between the leaves are fleur-de-lys-like lotus flowers with short trumpet-shaped stems.

upwards. 23 The manner in which the leaf is carved is quite different; it has a raised border, a lozenge-shaped central lobe and no grooves.

Although rare in Britain, the acanthus-and-lotus is common enough on conventional Roman ornament. There is, however, a close parallel for the particular design and manner of carving of the Leicestar cornices on the Monument of the Secundinii at Igel. 18 A moulding on an arch from Bourges is of similar form, particularly in the slightly ogival tip to the leaves, 19 and that piece may be linked with the Rhineland by its use of inclined fluting, which was a favourite motif there, though not one that was used in Britain. The ogival-tipped leaves and the deeply hollowed channels are found also on the Corinthian capitals from Springhead, Kent.

The leaf and tongue also appears on a flat band on the sloping upper side of what may have been the roof of a funeral monument from London (No. 64).24 The leaves are straightsided and round-tipped, with a central groove and no serrations.

The Brixworth moulding mentioned above (p.151, 153) also has a cyma recta of this type. It is badly damaged and only a small part of the leaf remains, and the upper petals of a flower or palmette. The form of the latter, the shape and angular cutting of the leaf and its flatness are similar to those on several of the Neumagen monuments, notably the lphigeniaMonument. 20 The hood-mould of a small archway, possibly over a niche of a funeral monument, from London (No. 62) is decorated with diagonally-placed leaves. 21 Alternate pairs are joined at their upper or lower tips and palmettes occupy the angles between them. The design is effectively and economically produced by intersecting semi-circles, and more commonly appears on a vertical fascia. (e) Cyma reversa: Leaf and tongue, type i (Fig. 5b) The motif appears in two different contexts at Lincoln: on three cornices (Nos. 2, 14 and 40) of which the third had been re-used in the fourth-century West Gate of the lower Colonia (Plate LXX) and as a moulding along the top of the pilaster with a relief figure of a Tyche (No. 26) (Plate LXXI). On the cornices the profile is bolder. The leaf is proportionately wider, and has a very deep central groove which divides it in half. Its edge is indented to form rather lumpy lobes. There is a space of about 1 cm. between the leaves, occupied by the sharply ridged upper part of the tongue, the tip of which is also serrated. On the pilaster the leaves are carved with a similar central groove, they are set closer together, and the indentations round their edges are very slight.

(f) Cyma reversa: Leaf and tongue, type ii (Fig. 5b) The only example in Britain of this standard architectural moulding was carved in shallow relief on what was probably a statue base in the Temple ofAntenociticus at Benwell (Tyne and Wear). The leaves have broad blunt tips. The end on the tongue is also broad, but the rest of it is mostly concealed behind the leaves. (g) Cyma reversa: simple leaf (Fig. 5b) A row of single shield-shaped leaves decorates a small moulding found in the excavation of a shrine in the garden of the Tullie House Museum, Carlisle (No. 1). The edges are slightly raised and there is a broad midrib which tapers to a point at the bottom.

2. Anthemion Included within this category are spirals and scrolls ofleaves, with flowers and palmettes. The compositions are varied, and there are few instances in which the composition of the motif on one building can be closely linked with that on another. The forms identified here are thus rather general subdivisions. It was used in two main contexts: on a frieze, and on a vertical

fascia as part of a series of cornice mouldings. (a) Leaf spiral (Fig. 6)

At York the motif decorates a cyma reversa profile on one of the mouldings of an arch, but with the leaves pointing

A conventional, though stylistically distinctive, scroll of acanthus and palmette decorates three of the four blocks of the Quadrant Monument at Bath (Nos. 65-67) (Plate LXXIV). 25 There are flowers at the centres and on the stalks of the spirals, which run alternately clockwise and anticlockwise and have tall fleshy-leaved palmettes between them. The overhanging ends of the palmette petals and the leaves which spring from the tendrils have one rounded and one ogival side, with a pointed re-curved tip. This characteristic way of carving a leaf is rare in Britain, but it also occurs on a decorated cornice from Caerwent (Fig. 7b),26 and on the side panels of a relief of four Mother-Goddesses from London. 27

18

Dragcndorff and Kruger 1924, 51 and abb. 29, I and 2.

23

RCHM Eburacum 1962, 113 and pl. 48, no. 13.

19

Esperandieu II, 1440.

24

RCHM London 1928, I 03 and pl. 16.

20

Von Massow 1932 (i), 56, abb. 37, 38.

25

Cunliffe 1969, nos. 2.1-2.3, p.194 and pis. li-liii.

The version of the leaf on the Quadrant Monument from Bath (No. 68), while essentially similar, is narrower and more pointed than those from Lincoln (Plate LXXII). The carving is equaliy lumpy, but the curved grooves that define the side lobes are more marked. 22

21 RCHM London 1928, 103 and pl. 15.

26 Nash-Williams 1953B, 161 and pl. IV.I.

22 Cunliffe 1969, no. 2.4, p. 194 and pl. liv.

27

Antiq. Joum. !vii (1977), 63.

;•

\.

;;:·:;.;\~ ..-:.:. ·.. :::: ::·.. ·••rs··
, -, _ -.. · _ ".'\:" tt I··' .--~•---~~----···-~·-, ,·,"·I\ (ii.(\ f ..:~r~~i(': I, I,)~)-~l i\ \-..:·,> \~~\,\\ A .'i

1i~"}-y~~I~-¾~--;,.:-.

l~"'!-j ,,:,L,,,._ 1.,:11· 1/i1'"; < i 1,i J: 1 t ,, 1 1,

1 ; Ii :

.....,_ 1

~!

11_ \__,., • '\ •,-.......

\'

~

----

.. ?"""7r.•.,..,,.. . . _ .

\

1: ,-.,...,,.-~1(11-'.· 1,1

.

1

·· ,,, _.I

·-

·

.--.

:

....~IcJ;-.--t'~--;

• ·

/

•

:_

_; _

v'.Y/ .! _J) ./.. j .•. ,,'\·•l••V'.-:1:·•·' •:.. \. _\ \i _/ r'_ {,_../. ·_._: __._; __ 'I

0-··! :;,fl ,/ ·;C: /i!

j -.:.;._

~ i r-,L~~.C

: ;

:')/~

•

i,, , ·'' , ··.:1, ' r; _,,. ..l· ' /"., I .. I! · -· 'i 1

ex_~_-,_~-~,·--::{ _·.

v.1.+J~ V,f'I'• ;J \\.. .,

1:

1! Ac: !.·!1 · ·,1:yi,A,f) •. , n·

:, , +:;~ I . d.. lY :::-:s:

Block 19: Cantharus

/ /

I I

i\_, '•


..• • 0

•

4>

i

...

•

•

+

•+

0

t

+

• • • •

0

&

Cm

6

8

9

10

ii

t2

13

(from Blagg, 'The Sculptured Stones' in Hill, Millett and Blagg, 1980, fig. 100)

270

A A

A,ehw&y

■

Arch

An;.-h Ni-ehe:s. Fri-ezc

Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain

■

c l as.s C. D

•

•

e

♦ ◊

other Foliate

o

G Corint hiiin

••

0

[) ■

■

■

■

IIIO

•

Map 1. Distribution of Corinthian and Foliate Capitals in Britain

T F

Blagg

&E'JIUVAJS

•

J111,•"1·

•c-l't.l«r

-.,.,.,....--..e,5£1.'UI

•

Yrll>((.ff

Map 2. Gaulish Architectural Ornament: sites mentioned in Chapter V

Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain

•

@

Imbrioated aha!ts Two imbx-icated shttf'ts

■ l?edestale

@

co.rbr:i.age

•

Ca.tterick

•

Irch.eater

R.in.gstead

:■

Map 3. Distribution of lmbricated Column Shafts and Jupiter Column Pedestals

T, F, C, Blagg

•

P1necone

◊

Tower

A

A

Tower

8

••• •

0

•

Map 4. Distribution of Tower and Pinecone Finials

274

Roman Architectural Ornament in Britain

0

•

Pinecone

◊

Tower

A

6

Tower

B

••• • •

•

◊

Map 4. Distribution of Tower and Pinecone Finials

275