Roman Quarrying and Stone Supply on the Periphery - Southern England: A geological study of first-century funerary monuments and monumental architecture 9781407306179, 9781407321677

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Colour Plates
Preface
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Chapter 1 The Geology of the Freestone Outcrop Southern England and Northern France
Chapter 2 Methods, Techniques, Applications
Chapter 3 Case Study 1: The Petrography of First Century Military & Civilian Tombstones
Chapter 4 Case Study 2: The Petrography of First Century Architectural Fragments
Chapter 5 Petrographic Summary of Early Tombstones and Architectural Fragments
Chapter 6 Freestone Type and Use in Early Southern Britannia
Chapter 7 The Character and Development of Early Freestone Quarrying and Supply in Southern Britannia
Chapter 8 Conclusions
Glossary
Bibliography
APPENDICES

Citation preview

l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m

Roman Quarrying and Stone Supply on the Periphery – Southern England .

monuments and monumental architecture Kevin M. J. Hayward

BAR British Series 500 2009

Roman Quarrying and Stone Supply on the Periphery – Southern England A geological study of first-century funerary monuments and monumental architecture

Kevin M. J. Hayward

BAR British Series 500 2009

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 500 Roman Quarrying and Stone Supply on the Periphery - Southern England © K M J Hayward and the Publisher 2009 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 9781407306179 paperback ISBN 9781407321677 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306179 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 2009. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Plates .................................................................................................................................................................... viii PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................................ ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ .x INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Previous Work .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Regional Studies ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Characterisation Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives & Aims........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Objectives................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Aims ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Structure of the book ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1. THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE...................................................................................................................................................................... .6 1.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................... .6 1.2. Defining the Resource ................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3. Resource Size and Distribution ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.4. Outcrop Sampling ........................................................................................................................................ 11 1.4.1. Sampling Difficulties .................................................................................................................. 11 1.4.2. Overall Strategy .......................................................................................................................... 13 1.4.3 Regional Strategy......................................................................................................................... 13 1.4.4.Geological Collections................................................................................................................. 14 1.5. Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 PLATES FOR CHAPTER 1…................................................................................................................................ .17-18 2. METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................... .19 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.2. Sampling Archaeological Collections.......................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1. Collections Sampled ................................................................................................................... .19 2.3. Discounted Methodologies .......................................................................................................................... 21 2.3.1. Non Destructive Methods ............................................................................................................ .21 2.3.2. Destructive Methods ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.4 “The Integrated Petrographic Methodology”............................................................................................... .22 2.4.1. Preliminary Visual Description ....................................................................................................... 22 2.4.1.1. Hand Lens and Binocular Microscope ............................................................................... 22 2.4.2. Thin-Section – Sample Preparation ................................................................................................ 23 2.4.2.1. Procedural Requirements ................................................................................................... 23 2.4.2.2. Procedural Implications ..................................................................................................... 23 2.4.3. Thin-Section – Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................ 24 2.4.4. Thin-Section – Quantitative Analysis .............................................................................................. 24 2.5. X-Ray Diffraction ........................................................................................................................................ .26 2.6. X-Ray Fluorescence..................................................................................................................................... .26 2.7 Stable Isotope Geochemistry (Carbon and Oxygen)..................................................................................... .27 2.8 Case Study of Geological Material ................................................................................................................ 28 2.8.1. Thin-Section Results........................................................................................................................ .28 2.8.2. XRD Results ..................................................................................................................................... 28 2.8.3. XRF Results ...................................................................................................................................... 28 2.8.4. Stable Isotope Results ....................................................................................................................... 28 2.8.5. Overall Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 28 PLATES FOR CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 33-36

i

3. CASE STUDY 1. THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY AND CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES .............................................................................................................................................................. 37 3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................... .37 3.2. Archaeological and Art-Historical Review.................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1. Quantity ........................................................................................................................................... .37 3.2.2. Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... .38 3.2.3. Depicted Professions......................................................................................................................... 40 3.2.4. Art-Historical Style .......................................................................................................................... .40 3.2.5. Assessing the Dating Evidence ........................................................................................................ .41 3.2.5.1. Archaeological Evidence – Cemeteries............................................................................... .41 3.2.5.2. Archaeological Evidence – Provincial Centres.................................................................... 42 3.2.5.3. Epigraphy............................................................................................................................ .43 3.3. Geological Review........................................................................................................................................ .44 3.3.1. Existing Studies ................................................................................................................................ 44 3.4. Geological Results ......................................................................................................................................... .45 3.4.1. Lithotypes ........................................................................................................................................ .45 3.4.1.1. Distribution ......................................................................................................................... .45 3.4.1.2. Style ..................................................................................................................................... 45 3.4.1.3. Chronologicial Use .............................................................................................................. 45 3.4.2. Source Rocks .................................................................................................................................... 45 3.4.2.1. Distribution .......................................................................................................................... 45 3.4.2.2. Style ..................................................................................................................................... 46 3.4.2.3. Chronological Use................................................................................................................ 46 3.4.3. Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................ .46 PLATES FOR CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 47-54 4. CASE STUDY 2. THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS. ....... 55 4.1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 55 4.2. Archaeological and Art-Historical Overview ................................................................................................. 55 4.2.1 Quantity ............................................................................................................................................... 55 4.2.2. Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 56 4.2.3. Art-Historical Style ............................................................................................................................. 58 4.2.3.1. Corinthian capitals ................................................................................................................. 58 4.2.3.2. Fluted column shafts .............................................................................................................. 58 4.2.3.3. Plain moulded capitals and Tuscan bases .............................................................................. 58 4.2.3.4. Undecorated column shafts and drums .................................................................................. 58 4.2.3.5. Inlays, Altar stones, Coping stones and Ashlar blocks .......................................................... 58 4.2.4. Building Function ................................................................................................................................ 59 4.2.4.1. Monumental Building Types – Absence................................................................................ 59 4.2.4.2. Temples ................................................................................................................................. .60 4.2.4.3. Bath-houses............................................................................................................................ 60 4.2.4.4. Monumental Archways .......................................................................................................... 60 4.2.4.5. Forum-Basilica....................................................................................................................... 61 4.2.4.6. Private Dwellings................................................................................................................... 61 4.2.4.7. Building Function Unknown................................................................................................. .61 4.2.5. Assessing the Dating Evidence ............................................................................................................. 62 4.2.5.1. In-Situ Colonnades................................................................................................................. .62 4.2.5.2. Reused Architectural Fragments ............................................................................................ .63 4.2.5.3. Summary ................................................................................................................................ .63 4.3 Geological Review.......................................................................................................................................... 63 4.3.1 Existing Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 63 4.4. Geological Results ........................................................................................................................................ .64 4.4.1. Lithotypes ............................................................................................................................................ .65 4.4.1.1. Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 65 4.4.1.2. Architectural Element and Class............................................................................................. 65 4.4.1.3. Building Type ......................................................................................................................... 65 4.4.1.4. Chronological Use .................................................................................................................. 65 4.4.2. Source Rocks ...................................................................................................................................... .66 4.4.2.1. Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 66 ii

4.4.2.2. Chronological Use .................................................................................................................. 66 4.4.2.3. Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 66 PLATES FOR CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................... .67-75 5. PETROGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF EARLY TOMBSTONES AND ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS .... 76 5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 76 5.2. Variety of Material........................................................................................................................................ 76 5.3. Distribution… ............................................................................................................................................... 76 5.3.1. Lincoln ................................................................................................................................................. 76 5.3.2. St. Albans............................................................................................................................................. 76 5.3.3. Colchester ............................................................................................................................................ 76 5.3.4. South-central England (excluding St. Albans)..................................................................................... 77 5.3.5. South-coast........................................................................................................................................... 77 5.4. Chronological Use ....................................................................................................................................... .77 5.5. Function ........................................................................................................................................................ 77 5.6 Overall Review ............................................................................................................................................. .77 6. FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA ........................................................... .83 6.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 83 6.2. Calcaires à Polypiers .................................................................................................................................... .83 6.2.1. Description ........................................................................................................................................... 83 6.2.2. Geological Source................................................................................................................................ 84 6.3 Painswick stone ............................................................................................................................................. 84 6.3.1. Description ........................................................................................................................................... 84 6.3.2. Geological Source................................................................................................................................ 84 6.4. Lower Lincolnshire Limestone “Base Bed” ................................................................................................. 85 6.4.1. Description ........................................................................................................................................... 85 6.4.2. Geological Source................................................................................................................................ 85 6.5. Bathonian Freestones – South Cotswolds..................................................................................................... 85 6.5.1. Description ........................................................................................................................................... 85 6.5.1.1. Athelstan Oolite ..................................................................................................................... .85 6.5.1.2. Bathonian Freestones .............................................................................................................. 86 6.5.1.3. Forest marble .......................................................................................................................... 86 6.5.2. Geological Source................................................................................................................................ 86 6.6. Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cainozoic Freestones – northern France............................................................. 87 6.6.1. Calcaire Grossier.................................................................................................................................. 87 6.6.2. Caen stone............................................................................................................................................ 87 6.6.3. Marquise oolite ................................................................................................................................... .87 6.6.4. Dolomitic chalk................................................................................................................................... .87 6.6.5. Lower Carboniferous Limestone ......................................................................................................... 88 6.6.6. Geological Sources ............................................................................................................................. .88 6.7 Other Freestones ........................................................................................................................................... .88 6.7.1. Weldon stone ....................................................................................................................................... 88 6.7.2. Inferior Oolites of the Cotswolds and Lincolnshire ............................................................................ .88 6.7.3. Unidentified Freestones ...................................................................................................................... .89 6.8 Freestones not used........................................................................................................................................ 89 6.8.1. Lincolnshire Limestones – Ancaster, Clipsham, Ketton and Barnack stone........................................ 89 6.8.2. Portland stone ...................................................................................................................................... 90 6.9 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... .90 7. THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA ............................................................................................................................................ 94 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 94 7.2. Claudian and Neronian Legionary Quarrying Operations ........................................................................... .94 7.2.1. Rhineland Freestone............................................................................................................................ .94 7.2.1.1. Quarrying and Supply ............................................................................................................ .95 7.2.1.2. Supply and use in southern Britannia...................................................................................... 95 iii

7.2.1.3. Stylistic Connections............................................................................................................... 97 7.2.2. Native Freestones – Painswick stone ................................................................................................... 98 7.2.2.1. Quarrying and Supply ............................................................................................................. 98 7.2.2.2. Organisation ........................................................................................................................... .99 7.2.2.3. Stylistic Attributes ............................................................................................................... .100 7.2.3. Native Freestones – Lower Lincolnshire Limestone.......................................................................... 100 7.2.3.1. Quarrying and Supply ........................................................................................................... 100 7.2.3.2. Stylistic Consideration .......................................................................................................... 102 7.2.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 103 7.3 Bath-stone quarrying and supply ................................................................................................................. 103 7.3.1. Origin and Development .................................................................................................................... 103 7.3.1.1. South Cotswolds ................................................................................................................... 105 7.3.1.2. Early Provincial Supply ........................................................................................................ 105 7.3.1.3. Early Quarrying at Bath ........................................................................................................ 105 7.3.1.4 The Procurator Tomb ............................................................................................................. 106 7.3.2. Later Provincial Supply ..................................................................................................................... 106 7.4. Continental Freestone along the south-coast............................................................................................... 107 7.4.1. The role of The Classis Britannica..................................................................................................... 108 7.4.2. Fishbourne Palace .............................................................................................................................. 108 PLATES FOR CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................................. 110-111 8. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 112 8.1 Characterisation Studies .............................................................................................................................. 112 8.2 Archaeological Studies Freestone Quarrying and Provincial Development ................................................ 112 8.2.1. Distribution ........................................................................................................................................ 112 8.2.2. Chronological Development .............................................................................................................. 113 8.2.2.1. Stage One – Claudian and Neronian Legionary Operations ................................................. 113 8.2.2.2. Stage Two – Flavian to Hadrianic Quarrying and Stone Supply .......................................... 114 8.3 A pre-conquest geological survey? ........................................................................................................... .114 8.4 Limitations of Research ............................................................................................................................... 114 8.5 Future Research ........................................................................................................................................... 115 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................................... 121 APPENDICES (INCLUDING DOWNLOAD*) ........................................................................................................ 133 Appendix 1a – Catalogue of Late First - Early Second Century Tombstones from Southern Britannia: Their Petrological Character and Geological Source .................................................................................................................................. .133 Colchester Marcus Favonius Facilis (RIB 200) ............................................................................................................ 133 Colchester Sphinx (RIB 211)....................................................................................................................... 133 Longinus Sdapeze (RIB 201) ....................................................................................................................... 134 Man with Altar tombstone ........................................................................................................................... 134 London Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus (RIB 12)................................................................................................ 135 Claudia Martina (RIB 21) ........................................................................................................................... 137 Camomile Street Soldier tombstone ............................................................................................................ 137 Celsus (RIB 19) ........................................................................................................................................... 137 Camomile Street Lion .................................................................................................................................. 137 Aulus Alfidius Olussa (RIB 9)...................................................................................................................... 139 Gaius Pomponius Valens tombstone........................................................................................................... .140 Saturnius (RIB 18)....................................................................................................................................... 141 Cirencester Sextus Valerius Genialis (RIB 109) ............................................................................................................. 141 Dannicus (RIB 108)..................................................................................................................................... 141 Philus (RIB 110).......................................................................................................................................... 141

iv

Alchester Lucius Valerius Geminus ............................................................................................................................. 142 Bath Lucius Vitellius Tancinus (RIB 159)............................................................................................................. 142 Antigonus (RIB 160).................................................................................................................................... 142 Julius Vitalis (RIB 156) .............................................................................................................................. .142 Gloucester Rufus Sita (RIB 121).................................................................................................................................. .142 Lucius Octavius Martialis............................................................................................................................ 143 Martialis ...................................................................................................................................................... 143 Lincoln Gaius Saufeius (RIB 255) .......................................................................................................................... 143 Lucius Sempronius Flavius (RIB 256) ........................................................................................................ 143 Gaius Valerius (RIB 257) ............................................................................................................................ 143 Marcus Gabled tombstone (RIB 260)........................................................................................................... 143 Saliga (RIB 253) ......................................................................................................................................... 143 Titus Valerius Pudens (RIB 258) ................................................................................................................. 143 Appendix 1b - Catalogue of Late First - Early Second Century Architectural Fragments from Southern Britannia: Their Petrological Character and Geological Source ............................................................................................................... 145 Colchester Temple of Claudius Precinct ...................................................................................................................... 145 London Calverts Building ...................................................................................................................................... 147 Regis House Engaged Column. ................................................................................................................ 148 Timber Amphitheatre ................................................................................................................................ 149 Silchester Neronian bath-house ................................................................................................................................. 149 Insula IX ................................................................................................................................................... 150 Flavian Forum-Basilica............................................................................................................................. 151 Bath Temple of Sulis Minerva and the Great Altar ........................................................................................... 152 Cirencester Corinthian Capitals ................................................................................................................................... 153 St Albans Column bases........................................................................................................................................... .153 Fishbourne Roman Palace ........................................................................................................................................... 154 Chichester Altar ......................................................................................................................................................... 156 Richborough Archway .................................................................................................................................................. .157 Canterbury Temple Precinct ....................................................................................................................................... 158 Appendix 2 – Listing of Maps and Geological Memoirs per Region Southern England Northern France .................... 160 Appendix 3 – Catalogue of sampled freestone types A3.1.British Freestones...................................................................................................................................... 162 A3.2 French Freestones ..................................................................................................................................... 165 Appendix 4 – Catalogue of petrological and geochemical results A4.1 Table summarising the petrological and geochemical results of the sampled tombstones and architectural fragments in this study ................................................................................................................... 166 A4.2. Point count results .................................................................................................................................... .170 A4.3. XRD results............................................................................................................................................... 176 A4.4. XRF results ............................................................................................................................................... 179 A4.5. Stable Isotope results ................................................................................................................................ 182

v

Appendix 5 –Catalogue – Dating Evidence A5.1. Tombstones................................................................................................................................................ 184 A5.2. Architectural Fragments............................................................................................................................. 187 Appendix 6 (DOWNLOAD*) Geology of Freestones in southern England and northern France ................................. 191 A6.1 British Jurassic Freestone .......................................................................................................................... 191 Lower Jurassic Freestone (Ham Hill stone) ............................................................................................... 191 Middle Jurassic Freestones (Inferior Oolite)............................................................................................... 191 Cotswolds (Leckhampton, Painswick, Guiting stone) ............................................................................... 191 Dundry and Doulting stone........................................................................................................................ .192 Lincolnshire (Base Bed, Silver Bed, Ancaster stones, Clipsham stone) ..................................................... 192 Rutland, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire (Ketton, Barnack, Weldon stone) .................................. 193 Middle Jurassic Freestones (Great Oolite) .................................................................................................. 194 South Cotswolds (Box groundstone, Box corngrit, Combe Down oolite, Monks Park oolite) ................... 194 Central-North Cotswolds (Athlete oolite; Minchinhampton and Taynton stone) ....................................... 195 Upper Jurassic Freestones – Corallian (Headington freestone) .................................................................. .196 Upper Jurassic Freestones – Portland and Purbeck (Pond freestone; Portland whit bed; Chilmark stone) ........................................................................................................................................................... 196 A6.2 Continental Freestone ............................................................................................................................... .197 Calcaires á Polypiers.................................................................................................................................... 197 Caen stone.................................................................................................................................................... 197 Marquise oolite ............................................................................................................................................ 198 Calcaire Grossier.......................................................................................................................................... 198 Dolomitic chalk ........................................................................................................................................... 199

vi

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Distribution Map showing principal sandstone units of south-central England in early carving ...................... 7 Figure 1.2 Current Settings conducive to the formation of ooids ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.3 Schematic Diagram showing common diagenetic environments that influence cementation and porosity in freestone ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 1.4 Map showing extent and location of freestone outcrop in southern England and northern France relative to Roman centres in south-east Britannia ............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 1.5 Table Summarising geological collections of freestone used in this study .................................................... 14 Figure 1.6 Summary Map for southern England and northern France showing extent of freestone outcrops and zones of sampling referred to in text............................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2.1 Table Summarising museums, archives and institutions of southern England and Germany that permitted sampling for thin-section of First to early Second Century Funerary Monuments and Monumental Architecture ............20 Figure 2.2a and b Diagrams summarising Dunham’s and Folk’s textural classifications of limestone............................ 25 Figure 2.3 Ternary Diagram summarising results of the point-count analysis - Case Study ............................................ 30 Figure 2.4 Ternary Diagram summarising results of the point-count analysis - Case Study ............................................ 30 Figure 2.5 Table summarising results of XRD Case Study .............................................................................................. 31 Figure 2.6 Graph summarising Stable Isotope Readings Case Study ............................................................................... 32 Figure 3.1 Table Summarising the tombstones sampled in this study .............................................................................. 38 Figure 3.2 Distribution Map of tombstones in south-east England................................................................................... 39 Figure 4.1 Table Summarising architectural fragments sampled in this study ................................................................. 56 Figure 4.2 Distribution Map of architectural fragments in south-east England ............................................................... .57 Figure 5.1 Distribution Map summarising the geological source of all freestone types used in First Century tombstones and monumental masonry in south-east England ............................................................................................................. 79 Figure 5.2 Distribution Map summarising the geological source of all freestones used in pre-Flavian Colchester ......... 80 Figure 5.3 Distribution Map summarising the source and direction of supply of freestone in pre-Flavian south-east England ......................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 5.4 Distribution Map summarising the source and direction of supply of freestone used in south-east England from the Flavian period into the second century.............................................................................................................. .82 Figure 6.1. Graph summarising Stable Isotope Readings for pre-Flavian worked freestone in south-east England ....... .91 Figure 6.2 Graph summarising Stable Isotope Readings for Flavian – early second century worked freestone in southeast England ...................................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 6.3 Distribution Map showing which freestones were not worked in early Roman Britain .................................. 93 Figure 7.1 Distribution Map showing the quarry source of Calcaires à Polypiers and its use along the Rhineland frontier and at Colchester .............................................................................................................................................................. 96 Figure 7.2 Comparative Figure showing similarity in style between two tombstones constructed from Painswick stone at Colchester and Gloucester .............................................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 7.3 Distribution Map summarising the locality of pre-Flavian legionary fortresses relative to the Middle Jurassic freestone quarried, supplied and worked in south-east England ..................................................................................... 104 Figure 7.4 Table summarising quantification study of stonework at Silchester Forum-Basilica.................................... 107 Figure 7.5 Table summarising quantification study of stonework at Fishbourne Palace ................................................ 109

vii

DOWNLOAD* Figure A6.1 Geological Map of Yeovil District showing sample location ..................................................................... 200 Figure A6.2 Geological Map of Gloucester District showing sample locations............................................................. 201 Figure A6.3 Geological Map of Lincoln District showing sample locations .................................................................. 202 Figure A6.4 Geological Map of Grantham District showing sample locations .............................................................. 203 Figure A6.5 Geological Map of Stamford District showing sample locations ............................................................... 204 Figure A6.6 Geological Map of Bath District showing sample locations ...................................................................... 205 Figure A6.7 Geological Map of Tetbury District showing sample locations ................................................................. 206 Figure A6.8 Geological Map of Norroy-les-Pont-a-Mousson showing sample locations .............................................. 207 Figure A6.9 Geological Map of Caen District showing sample location ....................................................................... 208 Figure A6.10 Geological Map of Marquise District showing sample location............................................................... 209 Figure A6.11 Stratigraphic Table of the Bajocian of the Cotswolds .............................................................................. 210 Figure A6.12 Stratigraphic Table of the Bajocian of the Lincolnshire Limestone Formation ....................................... .211 Figure A6.13 Stratigraphic Table of the Bathonian of the Cotswolds ............................................................................ 212

List of Colour Plates Plate 1 The use of a local Greensand in first century carving and its limitations ........................................................... 17 Plate 2 Ketton stone at a range of Visual Resolutions ..................................................................................................... 18 Plate 3 Composite Photomicrograph of Oolitic Freestones – Case Study ........................................................................ 33 Plate 4 Composite Photomicrograph of Bioclastic Freestones – Case Study ................................................................... 34 Plate 5 Composite Photomicrograph of Bio-oolitic Freestones - Case Study .................................................................. .35 Plate 6 Composite Photomicrograph of Continental Peloidal Freestones - Case Study ................................................... 36 Plate 7 Lithotype 1 Summary Diagram ............................................................................................................................ 47 Plate 8 Lithotype 2 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................... .48 Plate 9 Lithotype 3 Summary Diagram ............................................................................................................................ 49 Plate 10 Lithotype 4 Summary Diagram .......................................................................................................................... 50 Plate 11Lithotype 5 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................... 51 Plate 12 Lithotype 6 Summary Diagram .......................................................................................................................... 52 Plate 13 Lithotype 7 Summary Diagram .......................................................................................................................... 53 Plate 14 Lithotype 8 Summary Diagram .......................................................................................................................... 54 Plate 15 Lithotype 9 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................ .67 Plate 16 Lithotype 10 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 68 Plate 17 Lithotype 11 Summary Diagram ....................................................................................................................... .69 Plate 18 Lithotype 12 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 70 Plate 19 Lithotype 13 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 71 Plate 20 Lithotype 14 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 72 Plate 21 Lithotype 15 Summary Diagram ...................................................................................................................... .73 Plate 22 Lithotype 16 Summary Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 74 Plate 23 Lithotype 17 Summary Diagram ...................................................................................................................... .75 Plate 24 Comparative Figure showing similarity in style of tombstones constructed from Calcaires à Polypiers along the Rhineland frontier and at Colchester .............................................................................................................................. 110 Plate 25 Comparative Figure showing different uses of Painswick stone in early south-east England ......................... .111

*The download mentioned above is available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

viii

Preface The content of this report which examines the geological source of the earliest examples of fine freestone carving in the province - first century tombstones and architectural fragments, is primarily aimed at students and researchers of Roman archaeology, with only a passing interest in geology. For this reason I have included a glossary of geological terms and where possible made the geological terminology and techniques of analysis in the main text as clear as possible. However, I am also aware that academics from more scientific disciplines (archaeological scientists and geologists) will need to consult this monograph. For this reason, certain Chapters (two and six) and appendices A1.1; 1.2; 4 and 6 (CD-Rom*) examine the geological materials in much greater detail. The CD-Rom also has an overview of British Jurassic Freestones (Appendix 6), including amended geological maps of outcrops in southern England and northern France courtesy of the British Geological Survey (BGS) © NERC. All rights reserved. IPR/114-41CT and the French Geological Survey BRGM – www.brgm.fr – Autor. R09/18Ed. This section may therefore provide a useful tool for stone-masons, conservationists and cathedral archaeologists in identifying suitable limestone materials for restoration work. Finally, reference should also be made to the Corpus of Sculpture of the Roman World Great Britain, Volume 1 Fascicule 10 Roman sculpture from London and the South-East (Coombe et. al. forthcoming) and the section entitled types and sources of stone (Hayward forthcoming). This volume provides a geological overview of the sandstones used in Roman London as well as the types and sources of limestone used in later Roman sculpture from this region. This fascicule also provides more detailed art-historical information on some of the tombstones (e.g. RIB 12) and architectural fragments mentioned in this volume.

*Please note that the CD referred to above (and throughout the text) has now been replaced with a download, available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

ix

Acknowledgements I am especially grateful to the staff at the museums, archives, research establishments and archaeological units for not only allowing me access to their collections but for being so responsive, generous and trustworthy with me sampling and photographing their exhibits. Special thanks go to the staff at the British Museum, Museum of London, Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service, Museum of Reading, Silchester Town Life Project, Gloucester City Museums, Corinium Museum, Roman Baths Museum, Chichester Museum (Images reproduced courtesy of Chichester District Museum, Chichester District Museum Copyright 2009), Fishbourne Roman Palace (photographs by permission Christine Medlock, Director, Fishbourne Roman Palace), English Heritage (Dover Castle), Canterbury Museums Service, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, Verulamium Museum, Roman Legionary Museum – Caerleon, Hampshire Museums Service, The Collection (Lincoln), The University of Leicester Department of Archaeology, Dr Eberhard Sauer, Oxford Archaeology, Sedgwick Museum, Oxford University Museum, Natural History Museum, British Geological Survey (Keyworth) and the Building Research Establishment (Watford). On the continent to the staff at the Clemens-Sels Museum (Neuss), Römisch Germanisches Museum (Cologne), Römisch Germanich Zentralmuseum (Mainz) and Museum het Valkhof (Nijmegen). I am particularly indebted to John Shepherd and the staff at Mortimer Wheeler house for their support, training and advice in managing stone (and bulk) archive collections. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Gary Brown, Director of Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd for allowing me the time to produce this monograph. Geological maps included in the CD-Rom have been reproduced by permission of the British Geological Survey (© NERC. All rights reserved. IPR/114-41CT) and the French Geological Survey (© BRGM – www.brgm.fr – Autor. R09/18Ed). Also to the late Tom Blagg and the Reading Museums Service for the inclusion of extracts of the Silchester stone catalogue and images of architectural fragments (Plate 25). The reference collection may be accessed through Dr Kevin Hayward, with some thin-sections having been returned to the British Museum, Museum of Reading and the Roman Baths Museum. Thanks go to all the staff at the School of Human and Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, during my PhD, especially the help and support provided by my supervisors: Professor Mike Fulford and the late Professor Bruce Sellwood. I would also like to acknowledge the help and support provided by Dr Stuart Black, Professor John Allen, Professor Martin Bell, Dr Lesley Runnalls, Karen Wicks, John Jack, Mike Andrews and the late Alan Sylvester. Finally, special thanks go to Mum, Michael and family for support and encouragement and especially for putting up with the many rock samples in their garage.

x

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

of freestone carvings produced in the province during the first century AD. Much of this freestone probably came from the Middle Jurassic escarpment which defined the westernmost and northernmost limits of south-east England. Furthermore, many major freestone outcrops occur in northern France; a region within easy reach of south-east England.

According to the English Heritage publication (EH, 1991, 42) the characterisation of the geological source of worked stone in Britain has been identified “as a problem area”. It highlights how “poorly understood” the source of many of these portable and architectural stone artefacts are. This is particularly true for the characterisation of worked freestones, such as the soft, even-grained Middle Jurassic limestones (Leary, 1989; Stanier, 2000; Sutherland, 2003) used since Roman times for architectural decoration and tombstones. These materials are too fine-grained to be reliably characterised in hand specimen alone; yet this technique continues to be adopted as standard archaeological practice in the absence of evidence for Roman and Saxon quarrying (Jope, 1964; Blagg, 1990; Parsons, 1990a; Stanier, 2000; Pearson 2006). In addition, the terminology that is used is of insufficient detail to identify from where the material was coming. For example in Roman Inscriptions in Britain (Collingwood & Wright, 1965) rock descriptions such as “Bath stone”, “oolite” or just “limestone” tell us very little1. This problem of identification is compounded by the size and the variability of the British Middle Jurassic freestone outcrop, which stretches for over 400 km between Humberside and Dorset. There is therefore a need to readdress this situation with the introduction of a set of petrological and geochemical tests that are more able to refine and reinforce characterisation in freestones.

The first century AD has been selected for study because the petrological results provide a completely new type of material evidence that can shed light on this poorly understood phase of provincial development in southern England. The study also provides an insight into how quarrying began. Starting with the exquisitely carved Facilis tombstone from Colchester, which probably dates to pre-colonia (AD 49) occupation, the petrological results will help to establish a chronology of freestone use from the latter half of the first century into the middle half of the second century. In particular they may answer whether the earliest freestone was being brought in from the continent or whether sufficient knowledge had already been gained of the British freestone outcrop from an early postconquest, or even pre-conquest “geological survey”. This introductory chapter provides the background to the rest of the study. It starts with a review of previous work in order to assess how advanced characterisation studies of stone have become in British archaeology. This is followed by a section outlining the aims and objectives of this research, concluding with a summary of the research structure.

One area of research that would benefit from such a study is a geological reassessment of the freestone used in the earliest carving and inscription work in Britain. This tradition was brought over to these shores during the middle part of the first century initially, probably, by the Roman army. Therefore, the objective of this study will be to reassess the geological character and sources of freestones used in first to early second century tombstones and fragments of monumental masonry in southern England. For the first time, these monuments have been sampled and then analysed using reliable and accurate comparative geological techniques (Integrated Petrographic Methodology) in order to determine their provenance.

Previous Work An assessment of worked freestone study in Roman Britain has two purposes. Its primary objective is to highlight the need for a regional petrological study of first century architectural fragments and tombstones in south-east England. This literature review then shows the development of characterisation studies in Roman Britain, in particular how current methodologies compare to those adopted on the continent (Stribrny, 1987; Bessac et. al., 1996; Maritan et. al., 2003) . Only then can the specific aims and objectives of this research be laid out. Finally, the value of stone reports specific to a particular tombstone or fragment of monumental masonry are briefly outlined but are featured in greater detail later, in the relevant chapters (3.3.1 and 4.3.1).

This study focuses on south-east England, a region characterised by a deficiency of local material suitable for fine carving and inscription (Williams, 1971a; Blagg, 1990). Yet this area contains some of the finest examples

1 A case in point is a recent report on material use and epigraphy, gender and familial relations in 1st to 3rd century Romano-British tombstones (Adams & Tobler 2007) where adoption of these standard and misleading geological terms (p.64) has resulted in a misunderstanding of where these materials were being quarried from and supplied to

1

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

had suggested this was the reason why no Roman epigraphy survives from the quarry face in southern Britain. Studies of quarry inscription and relief carving elsewhere in the province at Chester (Thompson, 1965; Henig, 2004) and Hadrian’s Wall (RIB 998-1015, 1680) as well as the Rhineland provinces (Dworkowska, 1983; Bedon, 1984; Stribrny, 1987) show how valuable such evidence might have been to a regional characterisation study by dating the quarrying and identifying those who may have been responsible for the organisation of stone supply.

Regional Studies The starting point from which to assess the geological character of worked freestone in Roman Britain is with John Williams’ pivotal account of building material use in south-east England (Williams, 1971a). In a region “devoid of good building stone” ,2 Williams (1971a, 166) is the first to question existing “speculative” (1971a, of freestone use in 180) geological accounts architectural decoration. Rather, he proposes that the “Jurassic ridge” should be singled out as the principal supplier of freestone to this region, with “two sources, Bath and Lincolnshire” (1971a, 181) requiring further investigation.

Instead, it has only been possible to identify a handful of quarry sites from the Jurassic ridge that can be dated to the Roman period. At Cirencester (McWhirr et. al., 1982; Wilkinson, 1988), Blunsdown Ridge near Swindon (Walters, 1998) and Brimpsfield, Gloucestershire (Rawes & Gander, 1978) the archaeological evidence is not accurate enough to pinpoint when the stone was being extracted. Furthermore, the poor quality of the limestone would indicate that the material was being quarried for purposes other than fine carving or inscription (e.g. roofing, walling or road construction and metalling).

Although the Middle Jurassic ridge is one of the most extensively surveyed and studied regions in British Geology (see 1.4.1; A2), there has, with one exception,3 been no attempt to follow up Williams’ findings with a regional petrological study of Roman worked stone. Rather, the CSIR series4 on Roman worked stone for southern and eastern England (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Henig, 1993; Huskinson, 1994) and Blagg’s report (Blagg, 2002) on decorative stonework for the province as a whole continue to focus upon architectural decoration rather than the material itself.

Jope was the first person to have introduced a geological approach into a characterisation study of worked freestone for southern Britain in his account of the Saxon Building Stone Industry (Jope, 1964). The success of hand-specimen identification in sourcing freestone to outcrops at Barnack, Bath-Box, Taynton, Ham-Hill and Portland, however, was not taken up until Sedgley’s petrological report on Roman milestones (Sedgley, 1975). The identification in thin section of Ham Hill, Chilmark and Bath-stone in milestones from his “southern region”, and Barnack and Ancaster freestone from the centre of the province, is an indication of the diversity of material being quarried from the Middle Jurassic outcrop during the third century.

Part of the problem lies with the difficulty in locating and dating quarrying activity in the Roman period. Reference can be made to Edward Jope’s account of the Saxon Building Stone Industry of southern England, which, like the Roman period, has little or no documentary evidence to suggest the location of freestone quarries (Jope, 1964). Furthermore, the overprint of Roman or Saxon workings by medieval and post-medieval quarrying, made it all the more difficult to track down the source of a rock from the Jurassic ridge without the aid of petrological analysis (Blagg, 1990; Parsons, 1990a; Stanier, 2000). Both Blagg and Parsons

However, it was not until Blagg’s article on building stone in Roman Britain, that the petrological character of the very earliest decorative stonework to be used in the province, first came under review (Blagg, 1990). His regional assessment of stonework use at Claudian Colchester, Neronian-Flavian Bath and Fishbourne calls into question the legitimacy of many of the existing hand specimen identifications. He also raised some important issues associated with the early character of provincial freestone quarrying and supply that form the basis for the aims and objectives of this research. These include the absence of a provincial tradition of quarrying, supplying and working freestone for decorative carving and inscription work and the pioneering and speculative nature of the very earliest quarrying operations.

2 The geology of south-eastern England is, in the main, made up of poorly consolidated younger sediments (Cretaceous – Tertiary) whose qualities are not conducive to fine carving or inscription work. It is not the intention of this study to assess the geological character and source of the harder units (e.g. Kentish ragstone; Flint; Greensands; Bembridge Limestone; Septarian Nodules; Tufa) from these deposits which were quarried for Roman building materials (Williams, 1971a) in this region. Although they have been used for carving and epigraphy (see 1.2) they are neither soft nor porous enough to have been used as a reliable local substitute. Instead these materials could form the subject of a future petrological study. 3 Sedgley’s petrological report on Roman milestones (Sedgley, 1975). 4 Excluding the forthcoming CSIR volume for London and the SouthEast (Coombe et. al. forthcoming) which includes a section on types and sources of rock (Hayward forthcoming) based on the techniques and some of the findings from this research

Andrew Pearson’s comprehensive review of stone and quarrying in Roman Britain (2006) provides the most up

2

INTRODUCTION to date study of first century quarrying in southern England. He recommends the “detailed analysis” of “good-quality” materials used in tombstones at Colchester and London (Pearson 2006, 21).

(Wilkinson et. al. 2008) content of stone tesserae. Finally, thin-sectioning has also been used to determine the source and distribution of Old Red Sandstone quernstones used at Roman sites throughout southern and western Britain (Saunders, 1998).

To summarise, a regional assessment of existing accounts of worked freestone in southern Britain has identified a major gap in our understanding of the geological source and character of the earliest freestone to be used in the province. Next, a review of the geological techniques used for characterisation studies of Roman stonework in Britain and the continent will outline the most appropriate methodology for this research.

For characterisation studies of worked freestone in Britain, there is a good deal more that needs to be done before the level of analysis matches the success of mineralogical, geochemical and geochronological studies from the continent (Holmes et. al., 1986; Stribrny, 1987; Holmes & Harbottle, 1994; Bessac et. al., 1996; Holmes et. al., 2003; Maritan et. al., 2003). With studies of tombstones and architectural fragments from the first century this is especially true, as comparative hand specimen analysis (albeit with the trained eye of an experienced geologist or finds specialist) continues to be practised (Cunliffe, 1971; Drury, 1984; Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990; Wooders, 2000). Unlike Purbeck marble, which has the distinctive fossil Paludina visible in hand specimen, the fine grained and homogeneous oolitic freestones cannot be so easily distinguished without the aid of a petrological microscope. For a more detailed account of individual studies of these early tombstones and architectural fragments, reference needs to be made to the appropriate section of each chapter (3.3.2) and (4.3.2). For now, it is sufficient to say that most of these monuments have been incorrectly identified using ambiguous terminology such as “Bath Oolite” or just “limestones”.

Characterisation Studies Thin-section, mineralogical and geochemical analyses have rarely been undertaken to characterise the source of worked freestone used in fine carving and inscription work in Roman Britain. So far, only three published reports have adopted thin-section petrography to describe and successfully characterise these materials (Sedgley, 1975; Dimes, 1980; Ellis, 1986). 5 The same applies to other studies of worked stone (quernstones, tesserae, walling) from this period. In contrast, these techniques have found favour in ceramic provenancing studies of bricks and tile (Peacock, 1977) and pottery (Peacock, 1967; Williams, 1977; Sealey, 1985; Williams, 1985; Fulford & Huddleston, 1991), which is surprising given the difficulties sourcing a product that consists of a variety of raw materials which have been altered during the firing process.

One way to rectify this situation is to adopt some of the geological techniques referred to above that were used to successfully characterise worked freestone in studies from the continent. Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) has been used to source successfully medieval freestone to individual quarries at Caen and Burgundy (Holmes et. al., 1986; 1994; 2003) but is too sensitive a technique (see 2.3.2) to discriminate between the widely differing rock types that would be encountered in a regional study of the entire Jurassic escarpment of southern England. Far more applicable and relevant to the aims and objectives of this study are the techniques used by Stribrny to characterise the freestone used in first century tombstones and architectural fragments at Mainz (Stribrny, 1987). First of all, not only is this sampled dataset very similar to the material being considered in this research, it is also of a comparable date and, in addition, there are clear stylistic and legionary links between the Rhineland and southern Britain at this time. A very effective way of discriminating between the different limestones used at one centre is the comparison of archaeological materials with geological samples obtained from quarry sites using thin-section and other techniques (e.g. XRD and ICPMS etc). In this way, Stribrny was able to source the freestone used in the better quality carvings (mainly military tombstones) to the Middle Jurassic quarries at Norroy already known

This situation has begun to change, with the success of thin-section analysis in characterising the source of the materials used in the defensive wall and the amphitheatre at Silchester (Sellwood, 1984; 1989) and the recent use of heavy mineral analysis to determine the geological source of the walling from the Saxon Shore Forts (Allen et. al., 2001; 2003). Our understanding of the different types of early mosaic materials in southern Britain has been greatly enhanced by the use of thin-section analysis supplemented by X-Ray diffraction (Allen & Fulford, 2004) as well as fossil (Allen et. al.2007) and microfossil

5

Ibid note 3. Samples taken and analysed for microfossil content from the carved stonework reused in the Roman Riverside Wall in London including the Monumental Archway and Screen of Gods were comparable to Barnack stone. Samples thin-sectioned in 1958 (held at the British Museum (History Museum) from religious sculpture at the Temple of Mithras at London were comparable with oolitic and pisolitic limestones from the Inferior Oolite of the Cotswolds.

3

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY from epigraphic evidence. The poorer quality carvings, on the other hand, were from Tertiary outcrops closer to hand from the Mainz basin. Techniques adapted for this study and in others, for example the successful use of XRay Fluorescence (XRF) and 86Sr/87Sr in characterising the freestone used in Republican tombstones at Aquileia to the Carnician Alps (Maritan et. al., 2003), could all be applied to early British carvings.

improves the probability of matching the archaeological material with a particular type of freestone. An extensive archive of rock samples, thin-sections and geochemical data generates a resource that can be referred to time and time again, allowing people with limited geological experience to identify examples of worked freestone. Sampling at outcrop and from building-stone collections will be limited to the major freestone units, rather than an intensive programme of fieldwork collection, collation and analysis. The full extent and the variability of the freestone outcrop would generate a very large dataset of samples, swamping any comparative regional trends in freestone use identified from the petrological and geochemical results.

Objectives and Aims The origins of worked freestones in southern England during the early Roman period are very poorly known.

•

There is a perceived need to re-examine this material more thoroughly than before using sophisticated techniques adopted from continental research. I will now set out the aims and objectives of this study as a series of bullet points. A new methodology is proposed permitting a more accurate description and sourcing of the material. In addition results from the sampled datasets generate a series of questions that may help in the interpretation of how the industry, and indeed the province, developed during the first century.

The principal objective of this research is to reassess the geological character and source of the freestone used in the earliest examples of fine carving and inscription work in the province. For the first time it is possible to characterise these materials by sampling and then analysing them using the Integrated Petrographic Technique. The results will allow for a much greater understanding of the types of freestone (lithotypes) being worked early on, and from what part(s) of the Jurassic escarpment they were being quarried. Colchester forms the focal point of this study as it was the principal early centre of south-east England and contained the earliest and most exquisitely carved examples of freestone work in the province.

Objectives •

A method for discriminating and characterising freestone.

•

The initial objective is to design and implement a methodology that is able to distinguish between similar looking freestones from different parts of the Jurassic outcrop of south-central England and northern France. For archaeological material (architectural fragments and tombstones), this strategy must also fulfil the sampling requirements of the museums or the archive concerned, i.e. to obtain the maximum amount of information from the smallest sample of limestone. Emphasis will be placed upon combining conventional hand-specimen and thin-section description with geochemistry (Stable Isotope (Carbon and Oxygen), X-Ray Fluorescence)) and mineralogical (X-Ray Diffraction) techniques in order to refine and reinforce characterisation: The Integrated Petrographic Methodology. •

A provenance study of First to Early Second century tombstones and architectural fragments.

Distribution Studies – Locality

A distribution study records where each of the different freestones was being used in southern England. •

Distribution Studies – Chronological

The chronological reliability of the two sampled datasets (tombstones and architectural fragments) permits identification of changes in the usage of different freestone types over time.

Aims From the results of the characterisation study, and the location and chronological distribution of the different types of freestone, this study will address the following chronological issues.

Collating a comparative reference collection of freestone samples

The collation of a geological reference collection of freestone samples will then ensure that the entire Jurassic (and Tertiary) outcrop of southern England and northern France is represented for comparative study. This

•

4

Claudian Colchester and early quarrying and supply

INTRODUCTION •

In a province without a pre-Roman tradition of carving and inscribing in stone, from where did Claudian Colchester obtain the freestone used to carve its earliest tombstones and architectural fragments?

How transferable are the techniques and results obtained from this study with other types of worked stone research by period (e.g. medieval church restoration) and material type (e.g. sandstone)?

What was the character and scale of quarrying operations at this time and who would have been responsible for extraction, supply and working?

Structure of the Book

How much was previously known about the economic potential and extent of the Middle Jurassic outcrop of south-central England (i.e. by Roman surveyors, geologists, quarrymen and masons)?

Chapter one provides a geological background around which the rest of the book is based by assessing the character, stratigraphy and distribution of British and continental freestone. Chapter two introduces the methodology (Integrated Petrographic Technique) by which a reference collection of geological samples (Chapter two) was analysed and compared with examples of first century worked freestone from south-east England. Two small datasets are considered. Chapter three examines the tombstones, whereas architectural fragments are covered in Chapter four. The results from the two characterisation studies are brought together in a regional summary of freestone use in Chapter five and the geological source of the different lithotypes is explored in greater detail in Chapter six. The discussion (Chapter seven) which explores the chronological development of the freestone industry from the first to the middle of the second century is based on the evidence from these findings together with the infrastructure of the source region, the epigraphy of the representative stonework and the provincial status of the centre at which the worked stone is found. The closing chapter makes reference to the main archaeological conclusions of this research and suggests how further research may benefit from using the same techniques as in this study.

Was freestone selected for its aesthetic qualities or was proximity to outcrop the determining factor? Was the quality of English freestone in keeping with the imperial demands of Claudian Colchester? Was the Roman army or an official provincial body prepared to transport stone from continental Europe in order to fulfil the needs of the earliest imperial centre? •

Application to other stone studies6

Flavian – Early Second Century Stonework

Did an increase in demand for freestone in public building during the latter part of the first century result in a change in the sourcing of freestone? Was the character and scale of quarrying operations any different from the pioneering phase? What influence did the growth of London, Silchester and other early towns have on the supply of freestone to south-east England? Was the source of freestone used along the south coast (Richborough and Fishbourne) determined by proximity to outcrops in northern France? Were certain types of freestone overlooked by the Romans? •

Early Provincial Development

What contribution would freestone characterisation add to our understanding of the early development of the southern half of the province? Is it possible for example to single out a particular freestone type being used by just one legion or restricted in its use to one town ?

6 The CSIR volume for London and the south-east includes a section on rock type and source based on the methods adopted in this research (Coombe et. al forthcoming.). See also Hayward (2006b; 2007; 2008a; 2008b).

5

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Chapter 1 The Geology of the Freestone Outcrop Southern England and Northern France

1.2

Defining the Resource

The correct geological definition of freestone is the first stage in this process. Like a ragstone, it is an ambiguous building stone term that has been employed extensively in the archaeological literature. A definition too will recognise the range of sediments that may be represented by a freestone. The remainder of the section will, through a process of elimination, identify those rock types requiring further analysis. Only then can the full size and distribution of this resource be appreciated (1.3).

1.1 Introduction This background chapter sets the scene for the rest of the study by examining the geological character and distribution of the freestone outcrop of southern England and northern France. The first objective acts as an introduction to the material itself: its attributes, geological make-up, distribution and age. Perhaps more significantly it assesses how best to collate a comparative reference collection of freestone samples for a provenance study, one of the primary objectives of this research. Although, the British Jurassic outcrop remains one of the most extensively studied and surveyed areas of British geology, detailed analysis of the worked freestone quarried from it remains poorly understood. Assembling a reference collection would for the first time, improve the probability of identifying the geological source of the earliest examples of fine carving in the province, the tombstones and architectural fragments of southern England.

Freestone is a generic quarryman’s term used to describe a sedimentary rock that can easily be carved into ashlar or dimension stone. This material is described as soft, even grained and porous in order for it to be sawn or worked in any direction (Leary, 1989; Stanier, 2000; Sutherland, 2003). Freestones typify many lithological types from southern England, including rocks dominated by quartz (sandstone), ferruginous minerals (ironstone) or calcite (limestone) (Sutherland, 2003). Sandstones were often used for fine decorative carving in southern Britannia. The extensive use of Triassic Sudbrook Sandstone at Caerleon and Caerwent (Brewer, 1986; Zienkiewicz, 1986), Lower Cretaceous Greensands at London (Bishop, 1983; Coombe et. al. (forthcoming)1, Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971), Chichester (RIB 94 & 95) and Richborough (Strong, 1968; Blagg, 1984; Worssam 1990 & Tatton-Brown, 1990) bears this out. This is surprising given the hardness of quartz but compensated by the high porosity (10-25%) present in some monomineralic sandstones. This hardness however inhibited accurate and stylised carving and inscription work in funerary monuments (RIB 94 & 95) (Plate 1). Another drawback related to the rapid decomposition of glauconite in greensands. The intermittent use, for example, of a type of Reigate stone, at pre-Boudican (Drummond-Murray et. al., 2002) and in third century Southwark2 (Hayward in prep.) was probably because of its very high glauconite content and overall porosity (30%) The fact that these local sandstone resources were exploited does suggest that this was done for reasons of economic practicality rather than material quality (Figure 1.1). Ironstones, however, such as Marlstone Rock from Northamptonshire (Sutherland, 2003) do not appear to have been utilised by the Romans.

To achieve this will first require an understanding of the geology of the material (1.2) specifically to explain why this stone-type was the preferred over other natural materials for fine carving and detailed inscription. Defining the geological age (1.3) will then account for the present day size as well as the geographical distribution (1.3) for the entire freestone outcrop in relation to the Roman population centres in south-east Britannia. The remainder of the chapter identifies how this enormous resource may be investigated and sampled at outcrop (1.4.1-1.4.3) and from archive (1.4.4) so that a representative set of samples (1.5; A3.1; A3.2) can be collated, prepared and compared with the archaeological materials. For a detailed systematic examination of the stratigraphic units that bear workable freestone in southern England and northern France then consultation should be made of the CD-Rom at the rear of this report (A6.1 and A6.2). Outcrop localities and stratigraphic position are referred to in the accompanying geological maps and tables (Figures A6.1 to A6.13), whilst samples collected from building stone collections are prefixed with appropriate accession code.

A decision to exclude sandstones and ironstones from this study was because they could be easily identified in hand specimen (colour) and petrographically (detrital mineral content). However, a review of the geological

A geological glossary, that follows the bibliography should also be consulted to define and clarify the full sedimentological, palaeontological, stratigraphic and technical terms mentioned in this chapter and elsewhere.

1 Twenty two reused 2nd-3rd architectural fragments from Bastion 8 and 10 identified as Hassock stone (Hayward forthcoming) 2 A statue of a genius from a well in the crypt at Southwark Cathedral (Hammerson 1978)

6

THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE

7

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY source of worked sandstone is summarised in the forthcoming CSIR volume for London and the south-east (Hayward forthcoming.).

occurs best under agitated-water conditions that keep grains almost constantly in motion. Such environments are hostile to benthic organisms, so oolites often lack easily identifiable fossil fragments (Sellwood et. al., 1985).

Only a small proportion of the remaining sediments (limestone) from southern Britain have the unique physical attributes that epitomize a good freestone. Palaeozoic carbonates such as the Carboniferous Limestone from the Bristol Region should be discounted as they are far too hard and crystalline for intricate carving (Leary, 1989). Conversely, chalk from the Upper Cretaceous is mostly soft and perishable (Clifton-Taylor & Ireson, 1983), an exception being the Beer stone from Dorset

The range and variability in freestone type increases when the type of calcite cement and porosity are examined. This is a product of each sediment’s unique diagenetic history (Figure 1.3). It may also determine, too, the workability of each freestone. Sediments subject to deeper burial and infiltration of calcite-rich ground waters produce a lower overall porosity e.g. Barnack stone and may be difficult to shape. Others are subject to shallow burial and meteoric cementation, combining to produce a rock with a much higher overall porosity. Here, the improved workability of Ketton stone may also be enhanced by the small regular grain size and soft calcitic composition present in many types of freestone (Plate 2). The extensive use of ashlar dominated by calcite in the construction of monumental masonry from Roman London is a testament to the materials’ workability and durability.

A majority of the carbonates within the Mesozoic succession can be disregarded. Ragstones are ubiquitous but much harder and may only be hammer dressed (Clifton-Taylor & Ireson, 1983; Hayward forthcoming). The hard fossil-rich condensed limestones, incorrectly referred to as “marbles”, do however have relevance to this study. Their ability to polish and take lettering is evident from their frequent use in first century Roman funerary monuments and monumental inscriptions in southern Britannia (Dunning, 1949; Beavis, 1970; Williams, 2002; Pearson 2006). Unlike freestone, however, they can be easily identified in hand specimen because of the excellent fossil preservation of representative fossil groups. There is therefore no need to further characterise these “marbles”, (Purbeck, Petworth and Altwalton), particularly as their outcrops have a limited geographical distribution. The fact that they were used, however, does provide the researcher with a set of comparative carved materials that may help define freestone characterisation and their overall contribution as a material choice in Roman Britain.

Differentiating between limestones, consisting of small, regular-sized ooids and skeletal matter, may however be difficult in hand specimen. The identification of diagnostic fossil groups abraded in the original highenergy depositional setting, presents a particular problem (see above). There is therefore a need to re-examine these materials at a higher visual resolution, as well as to introduce geochemical techniques, in order to characterise and more precisely define, the source of these Roman monuments (Chapter two).

1.3

The Eocene freshwater (Bembridge) limestone of the Isle of Wight used at Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971) also has a distinctive fossil assemblage and need not be considered for further analysis3.

Resource Size and Distribution

This section sets out to define the overall size and locality of the calcareous freestone resource defined in 1.2. To do this, however, may only be possible through an understanding of the geological age of the material.

The focus of this research, therefore, lies with the characterisation of calcareous freestones. They consist of a variable mixture of even-sized (up to 2 mm) calcitic grains including shelly debris, peloids, intraclasts and spherical ooids. Sediments dominated by calcite grains form today in a range of warm shallow marine environments represented by the Bahamas Bank and Trucial Coast (Tucker & Wright, 1990) (Figure 1.2) These conditions also account for the generally high biodiversity of shallow marine fauna present and the frequency of coated grains formed by calcite precipitation in many freestones. Modern shoal oolites occur in these environments too, but oolite formation

A majority of the calcareous freestone from southern Britain and northern France are Jurassic in age (192-135 million years) (Cope et. al., 1980a). The presence of diagnostic fossil assemblages also serves to identify the geological age. With Jurassic limestone these are predominantly bivalves, gastropods, brachiopods and echinoids, and in exceptional cases ammonites. Freestones mainly outcrop within the Middle Jurassic (Aalenian to Bathonian) Formations 174 to 156 Ma (Cope et. al., 1980a). Representative freestones, however, from the Lower Jurassic (Toarcian) and Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian and Portlandian) including the Ham Hill stone and Portland Freestones also need to be considered. Mention too, of the younger and French

3 A Legio IX inscription from Hayling Island is made from this material (Hayward pers. obs.)

8

THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE

9

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

10

THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE

Dolomitic chalk (Upper Cretaceous) from Normandy and the Lutetian (Miocene) freestones from the Paris Region (Calcaire Grossier) provide the full range of worked calcareous materials from the study area. For a more detailed consideration of the regional stratigraphy for each of these units referral should be made to the CD-Rom (A6.1 and A6.2) at the rear of this document.

1.4

Outcrop Sampling

This section examines how this enormous resource may be sampled efficiently. In order to achieve this effectively it is first necessary to identify all the geological and practical difficulties (1.4.1) that are likely to be encountered during fieldwork. To balance this, a review of the resources available to the researcher will then be listed (1.4.2). Only then can a workable regional desktop and fieldwork strategy (1.4.3) be set out and applied to specific stratigraphic horizons from southern England and northern France that can be consulted in the CD-Rom at the rear of this report (A6.1 and A6.2). Sampling from building stone collections (1.4.4; Figure 1.5) is also considered. Ultimately the objective is to acquire a representative set of specimens from these two regions (1.5), which may then be compared with samples from south-east Britannia.

The overall size and distribution of the main Jurassic freestone outcrop in southern England and northern Europe can be defined in Figure 1.4. In England, it forms a narrow but continuous belt of sediment, trending in a North East-South West direction and running from the Humber estuary southwards to the Dorset coast. This distance is represented by an estimated 240 miles (380 km) of upland terrain, typified by the Cotswold escarpment which may be up to 20 miles (32 km) across. For Roman Britain this outcrop has added significance in that, along with the presence of major settlements, the north east- south west trending Fosse Way was sited along a large part of this escarpment. In northern Europe the outcrop is even larger, forming an arc around the Paris Basin, terminating at the Normandy coast with an additional coastal inlier at Boulogne.

1.4.1

Sampling Difficulties

Investigating an outcrop that is not only geographically extensive but can be represented by more than one workable horizon at a given locality will produce a very large database of samples. Variability within each freestone unit will only adds to this number and the time taken to analyse them. A sediment that forms in shallow marine seas (1.2; Figure 1.2) is likely to be represented by a whole suite of facies over a relatively short distance. Lateral variation of a freestone unit will therefore occur between two adjacent quarries or within the same exposure (Hayward, 1996).

Relative to the major Roman sites of south-east England (Colchester, London, St. Albans and Silchester) all of these outcrops lie at least 100 km away (Figure 1.4). The number of potential geological sources for a fragment of two thousand year old monumental masonry from this region can therefore be many and varied. Naturally outcropping freestone can be found along the entire length of these Jurassic escarpments enhancing material availability and choice. The harder limestone ridge of south-central England is often characterised by a thick sequence of exposed Jurassic freestone as at Cleeve Hill with 25 metres of sediment. Valley side exposures of Middle Jurassic freestone are revealed by the Avon and tributaries of the Thames (Evenlode and Coln) as well as the Welland and Witham in Lincolnshire. These rivers also provided a cheaper means of transporting the stone. Finally, the Jurassic freestone exposed along the Dorset coast (see A6.1) also benefited from cheaper waterborne transportation.

A petrological objective of this study, however, has been to differentiate regionally between the major freestone types rather than to identify any localised lateral variation thus reducing the number of samples significantly. Intensive outcrop sampling may only be appropriate once a source region has been established petrologically so that subsequent geochemical refinement may proceed in any future characterisation study. The range of local quarryman and stonemason terms that can be applied to the same limestone type may further hinder freestone identification. For example, Combe Down oolite and Box groundstone describe the same stratigraphic horizon in different areas of Bath (Green & Donovan, 1969). Furthermore, generic masonry terms such as “Bath-stone” have been used to describe many examples of Roman monumental masonry from southeast Britannia (Collingwood & Wright, 1965; Williams, 1971a; Phillips, 1975). Translating this traditional terminology into a modern and changeable stratigraphic framework based upon biostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic criteria further delays this research (Ashton, 1980; Wyatt, 1996).

The drainage system of northern France reveals most of the important economic freestone units. Valley-side exposures of Dolomitic chalk and Lutetian freestone are found alongside the Seine and its tributaries (Oise). The Middle Jurassic freestones from Normandy (Caen stone) and Lorraine (Calcaires à Polypiers) are exposed by the Orne and Moselle. All of these navigable rivers ultimately connect with the northern coastline of Europe (Figure 1.4). Coastal outcrops of freestone at Boulogne (Marquise Oolite) are only 20-30 km from the Kent coast.

11

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

12

THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE

Practical difficulties that were encountered included recent quarry disuse and infill at the Lee’s Quarry at Taynton (GR SP 235 141) or the Calcaires à Polypiers outcrop from Norroy (Stribrny, 1987) (A.6.2). Indeed, a “hills and hollows” topography may be all that remained from earlier workings as with the Barnack stone (GR TF 076 047) (Stanier, 2000). Furthermore, some freestone types were not represented at outcrop at all, such as Headington freestone and “Stamford marble”. In these instances, access to a building stones archive (see 1.4.4) in order to find representative materials was often the only alternative.

1.4.2

1.4.3

Regional Strategy

The principal objective here is to place the major freestone units as defined in Figure 1.6; A3; A6 into a meaningful spatial and chronological framework. To do this it is necessary to divide up systematically these large freestone outcrops region by region. Using Lincolnshire as an example, a further objective is to show both the benefits and drawbacks of a considered regional desktop and fieldwork strategy. A separate sampling strategy for continental freestone is also considered. With southern England, the outcrop was subdivided into two geological districts: Lincolnshire and Cotswolds each characterised by a substantial deposit of Middle Jurassic freestone and separated from each other in Northamptonshire by a zone of limited deposition (Cope et. al., 1980b).

Overall Strategy

This section looks at the best way of investigating the geology of these large and complex Jurassic freestone outcrops. It examines the range of cartographic, written and archival aids available to the researcher as well as the researchers’ own geological and archaeological knowledge. Only then could a comprehensive integrated desktop and fieldwork sampling strategy be implemented.

Identifying the location of contemporary workings and exposures of freestone within each district could be problematic. In order to achieve this it was necessary to have an up-to-date memoir together with an accompanying geological map and 1:25,000 Explorer Map. With much older memoirs, however, it was more appropriate to identify workings through the Annual Directory of Quarries (Cameron, 2002) or the internet (www.yell.com). These resources also provided a list of contacts and addresses when visiting times could be arranged during a reconnaissance trip.

The starting point was to review the results obtained from previous characterisation studies of worked Roman freestone (see 3.3.1 and 4.3.1). Recognising freestone from hand-specimen analysis (Hull 1955) or rarer petrographic examination (Dimes 1980) defined some of the target areas. This was substantiated by the researchers’ preliminary observations of these exhibits.

Quarry access and sampling were permitted only after a written request and compliance with safety guidelines (e.g. Daglingworth Quarry (GR SP 002 060)). Similarly access to freestone represented in type exposures with Geological SSSI status was allowed after consultation with English Nature (e.g. Lye Hill Quarry SSSI (GR SP 583 067)).

Second, reviewing the extensive geological literature in order to identify the principal freestone types found in the British Isles and France. Resources available to me included key building stone texts (Jope, 1964; Honeyborne, 1982; Clifton-Taylor & Ireson, 1983; Leary, 1989; Stanier, 2000; Eaton, 2001; Lott, 2001) that identified the important varieties of stone used in contemporary and medieval construction. Geological literature placed these materials into their stratigraphic context for southern England (Arkell, 1933; 1947; Anderton et. al., 1979; Cope et. al., 1980a; b) and northern France (Gignoux, 1955; Arkell, 1956; Pomerol & Debelmais, 1980).

For Lincolnshire it was possible to identify the locality and character of Middle Jurassic Freestones after consulting memoirs (Judd, 1875; Ussher et. al., 1887; Berridge, 1999), BGS Maps (114; 127; 143; 157) (see A2) and a series of regional texts and journal articles (Sylvester-Bradley & Ford, 1968; Ashton, 1980; Lott, 2001). Important texts (Woodward, 1893; Arkell, 1933) provided additional reference material.

Finally, identifying where each freestone outcrop was located was aided by a set of 24 contemporary topographic OS Explorer (1: 25000) and 26 OS Geological maps (1: 50000) for southern England seven Serie Bleue series (1: 25000) and six Carte géologique Maps (1: 50000) for northern France. Detailed geological memoirs for southern England (BGS) and northern France (Masson Guides) supplemented this cartographic information (A2). A familiarity with each of these resources was essential before a regional sampling strategy could be undertaken.

Identifying relevant workings around the Grantham and Ancaster Region was relatively straightforward, given the publication date of the memoir (Berridge, 1999). For Rutland and Lincoln, however, the two memoirs (Judd, 1875; Ussher et. al., 1887), necessitated access to the Internet, relevant papers (Ashton, 1980) and local knowledge of outcrops from staff at the nearby British Geological Survey at Keyworth. In this way the quarry at Greetwell (GR TF 005 720) near Lincoln was selected and contacted for a sampling visit.

13

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Collection Name

Type of Collection

Sample Y/N

Tolley Collection British Museum (Natural History) London Watson Collection Sedgwick Museum

British and Continental Building Stones

Yes

British and Continental Building Stones British Building Stones Outcrop Samples Outcrop Samples Boreholes Thin sections British Building Stones OutcropSamples Thin Sections Thin Sections

Yes

Oxford University Natural History Museum British Geological Survey Nottingham Building Research Establishment Watford University of Reading PRIS GRAND TOTALS

Digital Image Y/N No

Lower Jurassic

Middle Jurassic

Upper Jurassic

Post Jurassic

French Stones

Total

0

8

0

0

4

12(s)

No

1

21

5

0

5

32(s)

Yes

No

0

0

4

0

0

4 (s)

No

Yes

0

19

16

0

0

35 (t-s)

Yes

Yes

1

26

4

0

0

30 (t-s) 1 (s)

No

Yes

0

80

41

1

13

135 (t-s)

3

156

69

1

22

249 49(s) 200(t-s)

Figure 1.5 Table summarising the geological collections of limestone from southern England and northern France sampled (s) or viewed (t-s) in this study The final stage was the examination and sampling of the freestone at exposure. Observation and note taking of the units character, thickness, stratigraphic position at Greetwell and associated rock types was aided by a 5 metre Tape Measure, Hand Lens (Gowland x10) and Camera. Finally, a representative sample (50mm) from the freestone using 1kg geological hammer (Whitehouse) and chisel were taken along with reference samples from adjoining horizons and placed in labelled specimen bags. For Northern France it was not so practical to obtain representative freestone samples from outcrop. Samples were only obtained from exposures when there were no representative curated samples (e.g. Calcaires à Polypiers) or the outcrop was easily accessible (e.g. Marquise oolite). In all, 54 samples were collected and prepared for petrological and geochemical analysis (see A3; A4).

1.4.4

Geological Collections

As it was not always possible to obtain representative samples at outcrop (see 1.4.1 and 1.4.3), nearly half (49) of the remaining freestone samples used for this study were obtained by donation from large university or museum building stone collections.

these collections had been examined for the purposes of this research, three of which granted permission to sample (Figure 1.5). Institutions that housed older building stone collections such as the Sedgwick Museum at Cambridge were more receptive to the proposed sampling of their materials. These type-freestones were of the highest quality, donated from quarries, but with little (Watson, 1912) or no accompanying stratigraphic information. Their value as an exhibit meant that this material had never been sampled until this study. Examples of freestone not quarried today such as “Stamford marble” and Headington freestone could only be obtained in this way. Of equal standing was the consultation of recently assembled reference collections of Jurassic limestones held at national surveys and universities (Figure 1.5). With the British Geological Survey, the precise stratigraphical position and a detailed lithological description of a limestone (including freestone) is provided and published as a series of technical reports (BGS WH/92/OJR).4 Furthermore, many of these samples have an accompanying thin-section.5 The image may be downloaded to a CD-Rom using Data Image Capture for subsequent reference by the researcher. This process negates the need to sub-sample the curated material as well as saving valuable preparation time.

The locality, scale and value of these collections have been summarised recently (Peacock 1998). Five of 4 Access is enhanced via the surveys database. Precise location of quarry. Outcrop or borehole also given. 5 199 thin-sections viewed from these collections.

14

THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE

Summary In Chapter one, it has been possible to assemble a reference collection of 103 limestone samples (54 from outcrop; 49 from archive) for comparative analysis. All the major freestone outcrops of southern England and northern France are now represented (see Figure 1.6; A3; A6.1; A6.2)6 A dataset of this size fulfils the main petrological objective of this study, namely to differentiate regionally between the major freestone units rather than identify any localised lateral variation (1.4). Applying this sizeable geological database to a set of techniques that could both define and refine the regional differences of each freestone type is the objective of Chapter two. Only then can this comparative dataset be applied effectively to the archaeological material examined in Chapters three and four. Referral to the sample locality, accession number and thin-section number of each freestone type can be made in Appendix 3. For a more comprehensive review of the key stratigraphic units bearing freestone in southern England (A.6.1) and northern France (A.6.2), however, reference should be made to the accompanying CD-Rom.

6 Supplementing this information too are the microphotographs obtained from national building stone (BRE and BGS) and departmental collections.

15

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

16

THE GEOLOGY OF THE FREESTONE OUTCROP SOUTHERN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN FRANCE

17

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

18

METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS

Chapter 2

granites and porphyries and freshwater shelly limestones such as “Purbeck marble” (Dunning, 1949; Beavis, 1970; Pritchard, 1986; Williams, 2002; Pearson 2006) and “Sussex marble” (Bone 2003; Birch 2005) are all examples of stonework from Roman sites in Britannia that may be identified in this way. In contrast, a freestone in hand specimen is either dominated by identical looking oolitic grains or abraded fossil debris, neither of which are distinguishable at a low level of resolution (see 1.2). A considered intrusive sampling policy should be introduced with these calcareous materials as well as other fine grained exhibits in order to compensate for this homogeneity.

Methods, Techniques, Applications 2.1

Introduction

The objective of chapter two is to define and implement a methodological approach that can reliably characterise samples of limestone obtained from Roman monumental masonry. Comparison, however, will only be possible after the techniques ability and worth as a geoprovenancing tool has been tested on the dataset of geological samples already obtained from outcrop (Chapter One). Regional differences and “matches” between the archaeological and geological material may then serve to identify which parts of the Middle Jurassic outcrop were being exploited at this time.

Choosing an appropriate technique requires an understanding of the physical characteristics of the material to be sampled. The freestone texture is hard enough to withstand some impact. Robustness is enhanced by the larger size of curated freestone objects. Weathered flakes on the exposed surface, though, can provide the necessary samples and should always be considered first.

First, the chapter will explore the initial process of subsampling stone from archaeological collections (2.2). Some techniques will then be discounted (2.3) so that The Integrated Petrographic Methodology (2.4) can be incorporated into this study. A number of increasingly sensitive mineralogical (2.5) and chemical techniques (2.6-2.7) will then be introduced that will refine and reinforce the petrological results. Finally, applying these techniques to a case study of 22 freestone samples collated from chapter one will illustrate the benefits of this approach, as well as providing a valuable comparative database with which the archaeological material may then be compared (2.8).

Two intrusive methods need to be considered: chiselling and core drilling. The application of a small mason’s hammer (1 kg) and sharpened chisel is one intrusive method having particular advantages. Controlled impact upon the rock consistently produces a small (20-30 mm) flattened sample (5 mm thick) and leaves a fresh but natural looking break on the surface of the exhibit. This exposed thin slice of material can provide a wealth of lithological detail and variability that can easily be reduced for subsampling. This method consistently fulfils the curatorial policy of minimising sample size and maximising the amount of information that can be obtained.

From this point on, all the geological and archaeological samples analysed will be given a sample number, prefixed by the researchers initials (e.g. KH18).

Although, the value of core-drilling lies in its ability to produce smaller sub-samples (Sedgley, 1975) it leaves an obvious artificial impact mark which is not desirable.

2.2 Sampling Archaeological Collections The preliminary phase of analysis in any characterisation study is to decide whether to sample the material under investigation or not. With resources held at museums, universities and archives this decision can be influenced by both the finite nature and the national or academic value of the exhibit. A curatorial policy can therefore prevent or minimise intrusive sampling thus limiting the scope of this approach and refocusing the direction of the research. For examples of carved stonework, this policy can influence whether a destructive or non-destructive methodology may be required.

2.2.1

Collections Sampled

With the early Roman stonework under investigation there are only a small number of finely carved examples available at a large number of institutions (Figure 2.1). These in turn may either be on display or placed in an accompanying archive. For the present study, defining the current whereabouts for each carved freestone exhibit, using the existing literature, was the initial concern. Inscribed funerary monuments were traced using The Roman Inscriptions in Britain, with subsequent discoveries identified annually through Journal of Roman Studies and Britannia.

Given these limitations, can the geological provenance of a stone exhibit be determined visually in hand specimen? For colourful and coarser textured lithologies, the value of this approach is undeniable. Polychrome marbles, 19

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Collection/Company Name London-Museum of London. London-Museum of London Archaeological Archive London-British Museum London-British Museum Franks House Archive Colchester-Castle Museum Colchester-Museum Archive Lincoln-Museum The Collection Leicester-Dept. of Archaeology St Albans-Verulamium Museum Oxford Archaeology Unit Silchester-Reading Museum Silchester – University of Reading Town Life Project Silchester-Winchester Museum Cirencester-Corinium Museum Gloucester City Museum Gloucester City Museum Archive Bath-Roman Bath Museum Chichester- Museum Archive Fishbourne-Roman Palace Canterbury Roman Museum Richborough- Dover Castle Archive Neuss – Clemens Sels Museum GRAND TOTAL

Type of Collection Display Archive

Funerary Monuments 3 0

Monumental Architecture 0 5

Total Sampled 3 5

Display Archive

5 5

1 0

6 5

Display Archive Display Archive Display Archive Archive Archive

3 0 1 1 0 2 0 0

1 3 0 0 2 0 3 2

4 3 1 1 2 2 3 2

Archive Display Archive Archive Display Archive Display Display Archive Display

0 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 28

2 2 0 0 3 1 3 1 2 0 31

2 4 1 1 6 1 3 1 2 1 59

Figure 2.1 Table summarising the museums, archives and institutions of southern England and Germany that permitted sampling for thin-section of First to early Second Century Funerary Monuments and Monumental Architecture.

Similarly, the locality of uninscribed monumental architecture and funerary monuments could be easily identified in the Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani volumes for Wessex and Bath, The Chilterns, Eastern England, London and the south-east (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Henig, 1993; Huskinson, 1994; Coombe. et. al. forthcoming) and Tom Blagg’s report on Architectural Ornament in Roman Britain (Blagg 2002). Contact with curatorial staff provided the final confirmation of its existence and locality.

varied set of replies or alternative strategies. The overwhelming response, however, was to permit and often encourage this destructive approach, even if the museum had a strict policy on intrusive sampling. The benefits to research were consistently given as the reason to proceed with this strategy. The decision as to who should remove a sample from the exhibit depended upon the size of the staff resource at that institution. An establishment the size of the British Museum was able to utilise the direct services of a specialist stone conservator (Anne Broderick). In contrast, at all the smaller city and county museums, I was judged to have the necessary experience to carry out the sampling.

It was after this preliminary phase that a sampling proposal could be prepared and submitted to each museum. This report identified the benefits of applying an intrusive sampling strategy upon the selected worked stone exhibits as well as explaining why an alternative, non destructive method was not as effective. Results from previous studies were included, to provide the curatorial staff with an example of how this approach had been of benefit.

Choosing the part of the stone exhibit most suitable for removal was a straightforward process. The rear of a funerary monument was found to be always uncarved, whilst the base of an architectural fragment remained hidden. It was the limited access and illumination of a large stone exhibit at a gallery that was found to hinder sample choice and observation.

How receptive were these museums to a sampling proposal that requested the removal of a part of the carved freestone exhibit? The diverse range of collections encountered from national (e.g. British Museum) to site specific (e.g. Richborough) should be reflected in the

The carved freestone archive for London had particular characteristics that warranted the application of a more

20

METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS thorough sampling strategy. Tombstones and monumental architecture were housed in two collections at the British Museum and Museum of London, each with an accompanying archive (Franks House1 and Mortimer Wheeler House). Identifying the locality of uninscribed exhibits was further hindered by the absence of an accompanying CSIR volume for south-east England, at the time of the research (Coombe et. al. forthcoming). The London Archaeological Archive and Resource Centre, however, housed many of these pieces that could be located through specialist reports, gazetteers (Schofield & Maloney, 1998; Shepherd, 1998; Thompson et. al., 1998) and an accessible database.

2.3

(see A1.1; A4.4). Valid PXRF readings may therefore only be possible, once the weathered surface has been removed from the monument. Furthermore, the acquisition by the department of a Niton 700 series 2 probe was after I had obtained and analysed the archaeological samples from the museum exhibits. The decision to instead rely on XRF analysis in order to compare powdered sub-samples of archaeological and geological material was seen as more representative (see 2.6)

2.3.2

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) has frequently been used to determine the source of limestone in archaeological research. This chemical analytical technique identifies the subtle variations in element concentration between similar freestones. Its easy preparation coupled with this sensitivity has linked studies in medieval stonework with individual quarries for Caen stone (Holmes & Harbottle, 2003) and freestones in the Paris Basin and Burgundy (Holmes et. al., 1986; 1994). Arriving at such detail, however, has only been possible with a basic knowledge of that rock type and its outcrop extent supported by historical documents that identify the quarry names.

Discounted Methodologies

An essential pre-requisite for the implementation of a successful and workable methodology is a thorough understanding of all the characterisation techniques available to the researcher. Reviewing geoprovenancing articles of archaeological stone in Archaeometry, Geoarchaeology and The Journal of Archaeological Science is the first stage in this process. Many of these techniques may be disregarded because they may only benefit one particular type of lithology. Alternatively, this decision may depend upon the cost and availability of the equipment.

2.3.1

This approach is not appropriate for a regional study where the geological objectives aim to identify the freestone type and its probable source only. Individual Roman quarries, too, have rarely been identified from the archaeological record and this problem is compounded by an absence of supporting historical documentation. Its value therefore lies in a supplementary study as a technique that can both refine and reinforce this regional picture. Although, this method could be discounted, a decision was made to conduct a pilot study using an untried comparable technique, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES).

Non Destructive Methods

The recent success in using a Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (PXRF) probe upon a set of basaltic stone axes (Williams-Thorpe et. al., 2003) demonstrates that sampling does not always need to be carried out on an exhibit to determine the geological provenance. The benefit in obtaining multiple readings from one exhibit may also provide a set of more quantifiable and representative results.

It was selected for a number of reasons. First , the success of the related (ICP-MS) technique in refining and reinforcing limestone quarry sources in Egypt (MalloryGreenough, 1999) and France (Stribrny, 1987) using the elements Iron, Magnesium and Strontium indicated that it might be of some value. Second, reusing dissolved (100% supersatured Phosphoric Acid) samples prepared for stable isotope analysis (2.7) did not require the use for extra material. Finally, this multi-element geochemical technique (Walsh, 1998) provided near simultaneous and relatively low (1mg per litre) detection levels as well as easy and rapid preparation.

How adaptable, though, is this method in identifying the minor and trace element signatures in a monomineralic rock such as limestone? For a monument, exposed first to weathering and subsequently to prolonged burial, the impact of soil contamination upon its geochemistry may be profound. Readings of metallic elements from the weathered exterior may far exceed that expected for a limestone and contrast with the uncontaminated interior. Levels of lead, for example, identified from XRF analysis of two tombstones (KH37; KH180) from London were considerably higher (1283 ppm and 762 ppm) than the background levels expected of in carbonates (1‰) generally characterised the Aalenian and Bajocian freestones as opposed to lower readings for Bathonian (0-1‰) and Portlandian freestones (-1 to -2‰). Regional trends however, revealed that the Basal bed from Lincolnshire had a much lower δ¹³C levels (-1 to +1‰) but very high δ18O (+6 to +7‰) to the other Lincolnshire Limestones with Corallian freestone characterised by very low δ18O readings (+1‰).

8 Selected freestones were six oolitic grainstones-KH17 Ketton stone, KH18/KH121 Bathampton Down oolite, KH75 Painswick stone, KH82 Portland whit bed, KH93/KH119 Marquise oolite, KH96 Box corngrit. Six Bioclastic grainstones-KH70/KH255 Ham Hill (Yellow Bed), KH77 Headington freestone, KH125 Dundry freestone, KH127 Doulting stone,KH142 Calcaire Grossier, KH152 Calcaires à Polypiers. Eight Shelly oolitic grainstones-KH11 Barnack stone, KH16 Taynton stone, KH72 Weldon stone, KH15/KH94 Ancaster weatherbed, KH98 Combe Down oolite, KH117 Basal Beds Lincoln, KH135 Athlestan oolite, KH159A Minchinhampton stone. Two Peloidal grainstones/packstones – KH143 Dolomitic chalk, KH254 Caen stone. 9 Diagnostic foraminifera (Orbitolites; Amphistogenids and Miliolid) date Calcaire Grossier (Plate 4) to the Eocene.

2.8.5 Overall Conclusions The results from this case study demonstrate the effectiveness of the Integrated Petrographic Methodology in its identification and characterisation of freestone. It is now possible to differentiate freestone along the entire length of the Jurassic outcrop of southern England and northern France. Qualitative and quantitative

28

METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS petrological analysis has managed to separate out these freestones according to allochem type, cement style and porosity. XRD and XRF provide an additional set of diagnostic criteria. However, it is with Stable Isotope Geochemistry (Carbon and Oxygen) that the overall stratigraphic and regional trends can be identified within these the outcrops. For the second part of this research, the objective is to match archaeological samples (Chapters three and four) with the findings from this geological dataset to determine the source of the material being worked during the early Roman period.

29

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

30

METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS

31

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

32

METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS

33

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

34

METHODS, TECHNIQUES, APPLICATIONS

35

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

36

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES

Tombstone samples are referred to in Figure 3.1 and the geological review (3.3-3.4) by the same notation (e.g. KH25) as outcrop samples.

Chapter 3 Case Study 1: The Petrography of First Century Military &Civilian Tombstones 3.1 Introduction

3.2 Archaeological and Art-Historical Review. The objectives of this section are to identify the quantity, geographical distribution, character and contextual reliability of the first century tombstone resource of south-east Britannia. Only with this information could these tombstones then be examined as a separate geological dataset and compared alongside other contemporary groupings of worked freestone from southcentral Britannia (Chapter four) and the Rhineland (Stribrny 1987). Compiling this information was possible by reference to texts, catalogues and journals describing inscribed stonework RIB; Journal of Roman Studies, Britannia; (Birley, 1979; Keppie, 1991) and uninscribed examples (RCHM, 1928; Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Henig, 1993; Huskinson, 1994).

In Chapter three, the objective is to determine the petrological character and the geological source of a small dataset of archaeological samples obtained from first century military and civilian tombstones. This can only be achieved by directly comparing them with the freestone obtained from outcrop (Chapter one) using the Integrated Petrographic Methodology (Chapter two). First, an archaeological and art-historical overview (3.2) will determine the sample size (3.2.1), distribution (3.2.2), character (3.2.3-3.2.4) and contextual reliability (3.2.5) of tombstones from south-east England. This information can later be used to draw out the spatial, chronological and stylistic conclusions of this research. It is not the intention of this chapter, however, to describe in detail the archaeological significance for every monument in this dataset. This information is not directly relevant to the geological focus of this research and is referred to elsewhere (RIB; CSIR).

3.2.1

Quantity

The chapter will then focus upon the geological character of this dataset, initially to test the accuracy of existing studies (3.3.1).

Identifying the total number of tombstones present within south-east Britannia will provide this study with an initial comparative dataset. The proportion that are of first century date will also require clarification. Finally, direct comparison will be made with values from northern Britannia (RIB), Germania Superior and north-east Italy (Hope, 1994).

The remainder of this chapter (3.4) briefly summarises the petrological and geochemical findings obtained from 27 tombstone samples in south-central Britannia using the Integrated Petrographic Methodology (Chapter two). Accompanying this are a series of composite diagrams illustrating the petrological and geochemical findings of each lithotype (petrological description) and its geological source (Plates 7-14).

A total of 44 first to early second century funerary monuments were identified from the archaeological literature. Of these, the number lost (four) or assigned a rock name that was not a calcareous freestone (12) brought the dataset down to just 28 examples (Figure 3.1), including the recent tombstone discoveries at Alchester (Sauer 2005, a ; b; c) and Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008).

Lithotype (3.4.1) and geological source (3.4.2) are then reviewed according to provincial distribution as well as stylistic and chronological use. Only then will this data be compared with the petrological results from a second dataset of samples (architectural fragments) (Chapter four) in order to produce an overall picture of first century freestone extraction and use (Chapter five).

These totals form a tiny percentage of the estimated 175,000 inscribed tombstones worldwide (Saller & Shaw, 1984). Comparison with overall totals for Chester (93) (RIB) and Aquileia (1000) (Hope, 1994) emphasise just how poorly represented the study area is with regard to tombstones. With first century military and civilian tombstones, the totals at Mainz alone (200) (Selzer, 1988; Hope, 1994; 1997) far exceed the figures for south-east Britannia.

Chapter six assesses the geological character of these freestones in greater detail, whilst referral to appendix A1.1 should be made when determining the geological character of an individual monument.

37

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Centre

First century Tombstones

Colchester

London

Bath Gloucester Cirencester

Alchester Lincoln

RIB/Reference

Marcus Favonius Facilis Longinus Sdapeze Sphinx Man with Altar Tombstone Aulus Alfidius Olussa Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus Saturnius Celsus Claudia Martina Gaius Pomponius Valens Camomile Street Soldier Camomile Street Lion Julius Vitalis Lucius Vitellius Tancinus Antigonus Rufus Sita Lucius Octavius Martialis Martialis Dannicus Sextus Valerius Genialis Philus Lucius Valerious Geminus Saliga Gaius Saufeius Lucius Sempronius Flavius Gaius Valerius Titus Valerius Pudens Marcus (Gabled Tombstone)

RIB 200 RIB 201 RIB 211 Huskinson 1994 RIB 9 RIB 12 RIB 18 RIB 19 RIB 21 Painter 1963 Bishop 1983 Bishop 1983 RIB 156 RIB 159 RIB 160 RIB 121 Tomlin & Hassall 2005 Tomlin & Hassall 2005 RIB 108 RIB 109 RIB 110 Sauer 2005a,b,c, 2006 RIB 253 RIB 255 RIB 256 RIB 257 RIB 258 RIB 260

Sample KH25 KH41 no sample KH54 KH180 KH26/33 KH47 KH34 KH37 KH46 KH38/166 KH39/165 KH112 KH111 KH191 KH109 KH274 KH275 KH53 KH52 KH110 KH276 KH59 KH36 KH50 KH101 KH48 KH51a/b

Figure 3.1 Table showing the sampled (where appropriate) first century tombstones constructed out of freestone from southern England and sample number Only seven population centres within first century southcentral Britannia are represented by tombstones constructed out of freestone. 16 examples (57%) at five centres (Alchester, Bath, Cirencester, Gloucester and Lincoln) lie close or on Middle Jurassic escarpment (Figure 4.2). The remaining 12 (43%) concentrate at the two important provincial centres of south-east Britannia, namely, London (eight) and Colchester (four) (Figure 3.2).

Nevertheless, permission to sample from 27 of the 28 (96%) 1tombstones from this dataset was possible. This provided a very good representative sample base from which to determine the geological source of these materials.

3.2.2 Distribution Plotting the geographical distribution for these 28 tombstones relative to middle Jurassic escarpment southcentral Britannia formed the next objective. This section will identify which type of early provincial centre can be characterised by first century funerary monuments as well as referring to those lacking an epitaph. Only when the complete regional picture has been established can questions relating to the geological source of these archaeological samples (3.4, Chapters 5, 6 and 7) begin to be formulated and placed within the wider spatial framework of south-central Britannia.

This two-way split is accentuated by an absence of monuments at other early centres especially St. Albans and also at Richborough, Canterbury, Fishbourne and Exeter. First century examples from Dorchester (RIB 87),2 Chichester (RIB 94; 95)3 and Silchester (RIB 188)4 are, however, constructed from rock-types other than freestone.

2

Purbeck marble Lower Greensand 4 Purbeck marble 3

1

Exception being the Colchester Sphinx (RIB 211).

38

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES

39

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY The figured monuments have been studied elsewhere (Schleiermacher, 1984; Mackintosh, 1986; Mattern, 1989; Hope, 1997a; b) but only form part (12) of this varied dataset. With each tombstone style the quantity, distribution and professions commemorated will be summarised and where appropriate compared to examples from the continent (Stribrny, 1987; Selzer, 1988; Boppert, 1992).

The early function and status of each of these seven centres does vary. Five have evidence for an initial military occupation (Crummy, 1988; Hurst, 1988; McWhirr, 1988; Sauer et. al., 1999; Jones, 2002). Three of which (Colchester, Gloucester and Lincoln) 5 later become established as Coloniae. Only the first century development of Bath (religious and health centre) (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985) and London (Perring, 1991) cannot fully attest to an initial military foundation.

Figured tombstones from first century south-east Britannia are subdivided into three types. First, “The horseman with fallen enemy motif” (Mackintosh, 1986) is represented by five examples (RIB 108;109; 121; 159; 201) from three cavalry and one cohors auxiliary unit. Their execution varies from a high quality composition (RIB 201) through to crude provincial copies (RIB 108; 159) (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982). Examples are also present from the Rhineland (Schleiermacher, 1984; Mackintosh, 1986) five of which have been petrologically sourced (Stribrny, 1987).

3.2.3 Depicted Professions Identifying the professions commemorated on these first century epitaphs provides an idea as to which part of the population had a demand for, and had access to, freestone. 22 (79%) of the monuments commemorate the military profession from the first century to early second century population of southern Britannia. 15 (68%) of these commemorate individuals from legions with five (22%) from auxiliary units, two of which (RIB 121; 159) had attained citizenship. To these, the two individual lion and sphinx tombstone guardians (Bishop, 1983; RIB 211) may be added as they are frequently depicted on army monuments from first century southern Britannia (RIB 121; 201). The importance of military tombs at first century frontier zones is reflected elsewhere. At Mainz, the dominance of army tombstones (75%) over civilian (25%) is an indication of its function as a legionary fortress (Selzer, 1988).

Full-length compositions (Bishop, 1983; RIB 19; RIB 110; RIB 200) form a second group. The quality of workmanship is only equalled in other first century examples from the Rhineland (Phillips, 1975; Bishop, 1983; Mattern, 1989). The Facilis centurion tombstone (RIB 200) from Colchester can been compared to Cordus and Genialis 6 from Mainz, whilst the uninscribed beneficiaris consularis monument from London (Bishop, 1983) finds stylistic parallels with Oclatius monument from Neuss (Noelke, 1977; Mattern, 1989). This similarity in style with continental military figured tombstones has prompted authors (Toynbee, 1962; Henig, 1993; 1996) to speculate whether army sculptors from the Rhineland carved these monuments. In order to establish whether these monuments were carved from the same materials as those from the Rhineland, a sample from a continental figured military tombstone was required and then compared with these four examples.7

Of the remaining six tombstones, two from London, (RIB 12; 21), commemorate individuals involved with the early provincial control of Britannia. The importance of the procurator Classicianus (RIB 12) (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002) to the early development of Britannia is referred to by Tacitus (Ann. 14.38). Traders (RIB 9; 110) and a freed slave (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005) account for the remaining epitaphs. Their presence along with two tombstones commemorating beneficiari (Painter, 1963; Bishop, 1983) and one of a speculator (RIB 19) from the army at London emphasise the importance that these individuals had in the supervision, support and supply of goods to the Roman army.

3.2.4

Only one example of the Totenmahl design (Hope, 1997a) has been identified at Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005) in the tombstone of the slave Martialis. The majority of first century legionary tombstones from southern Britannia (Wright, 1962; Sauer, 2005a; b, c; 2006; Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; RIB 18; RIB 156; RIB 160; RIB 253; RIB 255-258; RIB 260), however, are

Art-Historical Style

The purpose of this stylistic review is to determine the variety and quality of tombstone carving in first century south-east Britannia. Ultimately, the petrographic types to be identified (3.4.1 and 3.4.2) may correlate with a particular style of monument or the quality of its execution.

6

These two full-length compositions as well as the five “horseman with fallen enemy” monuments from Mainz have been sampled and sourced to Norroy-lès-Pont-à-Mousson (Calcaires à Polypiers) (Stribrny, 1987). 7 Permission granted by Dr Carl Pause (Clemens-Sels-Museum) Neuss to sample the first century figured Pancuius tombstone (see A1.1) (Noelke, 1977). This has northern provincial stylistic affinities with Facilis, including the dip in the centre of the arch, flattish leaf patterns in the spandrels and comparable Julio-Claudian male facial features (Phillips, 1975).

5

Colchester established by AD 49/50 Tacitus (Ann. 12.32). Gloucester by AD 96 tombstone VI th Legion Rome CIL VI 3346 (Hurst, 1988); Lincoln by AD 96 tombstone Mainz (Jones, 1988).

40

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES characterised by the plain panelled design dominated by a central inscription.8 The dominance of this basic style is also replicated in army tombstones from the Rhineland (Selzer, 1988).

3.2.5

Assessing the Dating Evidence

The objective of this section is to reassess how reliable the dating evidence is for these first century tombstones. Given the small size (3.2.1) and geographical spread (3.2.2) of the dataset, the need for accurate and reliable contextual data is essential. Only with this information can the geological samples from these monuments be examined and compared alongside other first century datasets of worked freestone from southern Britannia (chapter four) or the Rhineland (Stribrny, 1987). The dating evidence will also aim to subdivide this dataset further into discrete Claudio-Neronian (AD 43-69) and Flavian-Hadrianic (AD 69-120s) time-frames. This information is central to an understanding of the initiation, development and demise of these earliest freestone resources described below.

Within southern Britannia, modified panelled designs can be identified. All four epitaphs from serving legionaries of the IX Hispana at Lincoln for example are gabled two of which (RIB 255-256) have a rosette design. In all of these instances, the monuments date from between AD 60 and 70 (Keppie, 2000), which would suggest that this was the work of one stonemason attached to this legion. Here, petrological analysis and characterisation would confirm whether or not one local freestone type was being utilised by this legion and its sculptor. The epitaph of a retired legionary (Legio II) at Alchester (Sauer, 2005a; b; c) and serving soldier from Legio XX at Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005) each have unique modified panelled designs.

The archaeological evidence will begin by identifying whether the tombstones were discovered from either a primary (cemetery) context or were found reused. The reliability of the dating evidence from these cemetery contexts will then be summarised with reference to their early (Victorian) discovery. A second objective is to identify how reliable the supporting dating evidence is from these early provincial centres, especially from recent fort and fortress excavations. The epigraphy will then be examined and compared alongside supporting historical documents (Tacitus - Annals) and dateable arthistorical criteria. After reviewing all the contextual evidence, a summary table (Appendix A5.1) will identify the date ranges for each of the tombstones from this dataset.

Altar tombstones are represented by one example (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002) commemorating the post-Boudican procurator Classicianus Tacitus (Ann.14.38) (RIB 12) at London. In terms of size and quality of workmanship it is unique amongst the memorials from the province and signifies the importance of this high ranking official. Only the tower tombs from the Rhineland provinces are of a comparable scale and style.9 This stylistic link with the Rhineland can be reinforced by the inscription.10 Petrographic analysis of the sample will confirm whether or not the freestone is from the continent. The remaining four examples are either tombstone guardians (Bishop, 1983; RIB 211) or unique compositions (Huskinson, 1994; RIB 21). First, the sphinx guardian from Colchester (RIB 211) is of classical design (Toynbee, 1962; Huskinson, 1994) that can only be matched stylistically with examples from the Rhineland (Selzer, 1988; Wolff, 2000). Its depiction elsewhere on first century cavalry tombstones (RIB 121; 201) from southern Britannia, suggests that it formed part of a military monument. Given the size of the sphinx group and the lion from London (Bishop, 1983) these pieces would have contributed to two military tombs on the scale of Firmus at Bonn (Bishop, 1983).

3.2.5.1 Archaeological Evidence - Cemeteries Identifying the contextual reliability of the discovery site for each funerary monument is the initial objective. All of the tombstones from this dataset have either been discovered within a cemetery context (64%) or have been subsequently incorporated as building material into later Roman and medieval defensive projects (36%). 18 tombstones were discovered at six extramural Roman roadside cemeteries from five of the early provincial centres (3.2.2). The cemeteries at Cirencester (RIB 108110) (GR SP 031 012), Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008; RIB 121) (GR SO 844 189), Bath (RIB 156; 160) (GR ST 753 658) Lincoln (RIB 253; 255; 257-258; 260) (GR SK 973 706 & GR SK

Finally, stylistic parallels cannot be found for the hexagonal tombstone dedicated to the provincial slave, Anencletus, London (RIB 21) nor the broken Man with Altar tombstone from Colchester (Huskinson, 1994).

8

One example of a civilian tombstone with this design (RIB 9). For example Neumagen (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002). The Clodius monument from Cologne (Wolff, 2000). Imbricated leaf patterns also common in stonework housed at the Landesmuseum, Cologne. 10 Son in law of Julius Indus of Trier documented in Tacitus (Ann. 3.42) (Morris, 1983). 9

41

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY 975 696) and Colchester (Huskinson, 1994; RIB 200; 201; 211) (GR TL 985 248) all date from between the mid first and early second century as indicated by the form of the cremation urns and other grave goods.11 These date ranges are consistent with the epigraphy of these tombstones.

subsequent civilian building concealed these structures (Crummy, 1988). Precise dating of the quingenary alae fort at Cirencester, for example, (McWhirr, 1988) was blurred by at least three phases of timber fort abandonment and reconstruction. Only at Alchester was a reliable construction date given for the vexillation fortress by dendrochronological dating of two gateposts, to autumn AD 44 (Sauer, 2001).

Relying on just the archaeological evidence from a cemetery in order to establish a tighter first century chronology for these monuments is however, fraught with difficulty. First, given that 15 (83%) of these tombstones were discovered prior to 1900, an accurate contextual record of the monument and of any associated grave goods would not have been made. Indeed most of the cremation urns found “associated” with these early finds (RIB 110; 156; 253; 257-258; 260) have since been lost. Second, surviving coarse ware urns cannot be used to date precisely an associated cremation on a decadal timescale (Fulford pers. comm.). The straight-sided grey ware cup associated with RIB 200 (Hawkes & Hull, 1947) for example, is of a style that may be found in Neronian burials from the Rhineland but is not exclusive to it.

Elsewhere, the reliability of the Claudio-Neronian urban sequence remained questionable. An early military foundation for both London (Perring, 1991) and Bath (Cunliffe, 2000) for example, could not be proven through lack of structural evidence. Nevertheless, a relatively tight mid-first century chronological sequence relating to the foundation, development and abandonment for five of these military structures could be identified.12 In addition to the treering dating at Alchester (Sauer, 2001), the finds evidence at excavation including coinage (Hurst, 1988; Jones, 2002), military equipment (McWhirr, 1988; Jones, 2002) and samian ware (Crummy, 1988; Hurst 1988; McWhirr, 1988; Jones, 2002) combine to provide a reliable dating source.

Tombstone reuse isolates the monument from this cemetery context and from any associated grave goods. This practice is most evident in London where six of the seven monuments (86%) under review, have been incorporated into medieval bastions (Bishop, 1983; RIB 9; 12; 19; 21). Dating these tombstones here may only be possible from the epigraphy or analysis of its artistic style and costume.

Further chronological refinement was possible at Colchester by comparing the structural and stratigraphic evidence at excavation with first century events described from historical sources Tacitus (Ann. 12.32; 14.38). Three phases of activity between AD 44 and AD 60/1 could be identified. First, the foundation of the legionary fortress at Lion Walk (Crummy, 1988) can be dated to AD 44. Second, the foundation of the colony, described by Tacitus (Ann. 12.32) as occurring between AD 49/50, was confirmed by the partial clearance and reuse of the fortress and its annexe for private and public buildings (Crummy, 1999). Finally, archaeological evidence for the Boudican revolt of AD 60/1 Tacitus (Ann. 14.38) was established by the presence of an extensive fire horizon throughout the colony (Crummy, 1984). The possibility of correlating this Claudio-Neronian sequence with samples obtained from the west cemetery monuments might help reinforce when these earliest of freestone resources were being quarried.

3.2.5.2 Archaeological Evidence – Provincial Centres The next objective was to assess how reliable the supporting dating evidence was from the associated provincial centres. Given that five of these populations (3.2.2) had a military foundation and that a majority of the tombstone dataset commemorated army personnel (3.2.3), this supportive information could be of value in reinforcing the dating evidence from the cemeteries and the epigraphy of the monuments. Defining an exact first century foundation date and sequence from the fort and fortress excavations at Alchester, Gloucester, Cirencester, Lincoln and Colchester was sometimes problematic. Many of the early building and defensive structures were of timber construction and not easily identifiable at excavation. Furthermore, successive fort rebuilds (McWhirr, 1988) or 11

12

Cirencester – Watermoor Cemetery (McWhirr, 1988); Gloucester – Wotton Cemetery (Heighway, 1980); Bath – Walcot Cemetery (Cunliffe, 2000); Lincoln – Monson Street cemetery (Magilton, 1983) South Common cemetery (Jones, 2002); Colchester – Western cemetery (Hawkes & Hull, 1947).

(1) Kingsholm late AD 40s-60s (Hurst, 1988) (2) Gloucester AD 60s80s (Hurst, 1988) (3) Cirencester (Leaholme Fort) AD 49-75 (Wacher & McWhirr, 1982; McWhirr, 1988) (4) Lincoln AD 60s-80s (Jones, 2002) (5) Colchester AD 45-49/50 (Crummy, 1988). (6) Alchester AD 44-AD 70s (Sauer, 1999; 2001).

42

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES at Lincoln (Jones, 1988) and Gloucester14 (Hurst, 1988; Tomlin & Hassall, 2005) date to before AD 96 with the two examples at Colchester to before AD 49/50 Tacitus (Ann. 12.32).

3.2.5.3 Epigraphy The remaining objective was to assess the epigraphic evidence in order to date these tombstones. Given that 24 examples (87%) from this dataset had an epitaph that was either in a complete or near complete state of preservation made it possible to analyse these inscriptions in their entirety. The section will first review the reliability of the dating evidence provided by formulaic phrases and then move on to more sensitive indicators such as military information and individual’s names. Direct comparison will also be made to the art-historical dating evidence provided from the figured tombstones especially for the uninscribed examples (Bishop, 1983; Huskinson, 1994).

Relying on just the legionary name and commemorative title in order to establish a secure construction date for these early tombstones is not always straightforward. Historical sources Suetonius (Vespasian 4) name only one legion associated with the actual invasion (Legio II Augusta), whilst their early post-invasion placements are not mentioned. Furthermore, establishing a firm foundation date for a legionary award may not be possible. For example, the title Valeria Victrix, awarded to Legio XX is only assumed to have been given directly after the Boudican Revolt (AD 60/1). Tombstones without an award (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; RIB 160; 200), will however, certainly pre-date those with it (RIB 18; 156) and are more likely to be assigned to a ClaudioNeronian date rather than a Flavian one.

First, the presence or absence of certain formulaic phrases in an epitaph (Keppie, 1991) can be used to date these tombstones to the first century. The concluding formula H.S.E., for example, which was in use until the end of the first century (Keppie, 1991), was present in 16 (67%) of these tombstones. Similarly, the widespread use of the father’s name and voting tribe at this time (Keppie, 1991) can be found in 58% and 54% of the dataset. Finally, the absence of a cognomen, characteristic of tombstones until AD 69 (Birley, 1979) is evident in six of the monuments (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; RIB 108; 121; 156; 255; 257).13

Relating the deceased or dedicator’s name on an epitaph with individuals attested to from reliable historical documents (Tacitus – Annals) provides the most accurate and dependable epigraphic dating evidence. It has been possible to establish an erection date for one monument from this dataset, the tower tomb commemorating the procurator Classicianus (RIB 12) to between AD 65 and AD 70 through reference to Tacitus (Ann. 14.38) (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002). The rarity of the cognomen Classicianus first alluded to by Roach-Smith (1859) in combination with his title, Proc. Provinc. Brit., should reasonably identify him as the procurator who succeeded Decianus Catus in AD 61 after the Boudican Revolt Tacitus (Ann. 14.38). Given the normal four year term of office for a procurator and his death during this posting, a date of between AD 61 and AD 65 has been suggested (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002). Furthermore, allowing for the time involved in extracting, transporting and carving this large monument an erection date after AD 65 may be given, say AD 65-70.

The epigraphy of an army tombstone contains specific information relating to the military career of a soldier that may reinforce or refine a first century construction date. Precise dating may be possible when this information is compared to epitaphs from elsewhere in the empire and with literary sources (Tacitus – Annals). Tombstones commemorating serving soldiers from Legio II Adiutrix Pia Fidelis at Lincoln (RIB 253, 258), for example can be precisely dated to between AD 71 and 78. The legion’s foundation date (AD 69) and transfer to Britannia by AD 71(Frere, 1987) are all attested to in historical sources, whilst its subsequent movement to Chester by AD 79 is shown by an inscribed dedicatory altar (RIB 463), lead piping (Whitwell, 1971) and thirteen tombstones (RIB 475-487).

The popularity of a particular praenomen or nomen on an inscription can also be used to date these tombstones. The use of the praenomen Flavius (RIB 108) and Titus (RIB 258), for example, may place these monuments within the latter half of the first century, the latter to after this emperor’s reign (AD 81).

Other tombstones commemorating serving soldiers at Lincoln (RIB 255-257; 260), Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; RIB 121) and Colchester (RIB 200-201) may also be reliably bracketed to mid-late first century date. The secure dating evidence for the foundation of these veteran colonies using literary and epigraphic evidence provides a terminus ante-quem date for tombstone erection of serving soldiers. Thus tombstones

Lastly, the quality of carving present in two of the figured tombstones (3.2.4) (Bishop, 1983; RIB 200) allowed for their military equipment, clothing, facial features and decorative elements to be dated and compared alongside the epigraphic evidence. In examples where the inscription was missing and the monument was found reused (Bishop, 1983), the art-historical element provided

13

The use of the cognomen in tombstones from Lincoln [RIB 255, 257] was used as evidence for a Claudian military foundation (Keppie, 2000).

14

43

Ibid note 5.

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY examined in thin section (Sanderson, 1998).15 Instead, attempts at describing and characterising the geological source of a freestone were undertaken in hand specimen either by geologists (Painter, 1963) 16 or stone-masons (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002) (Fawn pers. comm.). As has already been mentioned in the introduction, this level of analysis is not reliable enough to distinguish between these similar looking and often fine grained freestones. Another approach was to assume the locality of the source rock based upon the proximity of the tombstone to the nearest suitable rock outcrop. For the majority of this dataset, however, no attempt had been made to describe let alone characterise the rock-type.

the only viable alternative. Stylistic comparison with examples from the continent such as the Oclatius monument at Neuss (Noelke, 1977; Mattern, 1989) reinforced a first-century erection date in both monuments. The example of the Camomile Street Soldier from London found reused in Bastion 10 (Price, 1880) and without an inscription, illustrates the value, and some of the drawbacks, of dating a funerary monument solely using the art-historical approach. A Julio-Claudian date could have been given based upon popularity of figured infantry tombstones from the Rhineland at this time (Bishop, 1983). This, however, was contradicted by the evidence of the Trajanic hairstyle (Henig, 1978) and Flavian military equipment and costume (Bishop, 1983). A Flavian date for the monument was proposed, modelled on the Julio-Claudian figured tradition (Bishop, 1983).

Furthermore, the tombstones from south-east Britannia were sometimes described and sourced using generic building stone and quarryman’s terms (1.4.1) rather than by limestone classification (Dunham, 1962) and stratigraphic position. The source rock of the Longinus and Facilis monuments (RIB 200; 201), for example, was simply described as “Bath-stone” (Laver, 1928). Similarly, a sample from the Classicianus monument (RIB 12) (Cottrill, 1936 ; Grasby & Tomlin, 2002) was described as Cotswold Dale stone (Warnes, 1926). Compared to the level of analysis adopted in studies on the continent (Stribrny, 1987; Maritan et. al., 2003) the rock names and freestone sources assigned to these tombstones even in recent monographs (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Henig, 1993; Huskinson, 1994; RIB) remain unresolved or at best ambiguous.

To conclude, after assessing the archaeological, epigraphic and art-historical (3.2.5) dating evidence, most of the tombstones from this dataset could be placed between the second half of the first century and the early part of the second century. Narrower chronological subdivision was only possible from the epigraphy (RIB 200; 201; 253; 258) and art-historical evidence (Bishop 1983). Only one example (RIB 12) could be related directly to historical texts, which allowed for a relatively watertight construction date to be proposed. A table summarises the construction dates for each tombstone in this dataset (Appendix A5.1).

No study as yet has been made to describe and characterise the freestone from first century tombstones at centres along the Jurassic ridge (Bath; Cirencester; Gloucester and Lincoln). Instead the rock-type was always assumed to derive from the nearest available limestone outcrop (RIB 156; 159; 160). Toynbee. (1976), however, did refer to the Rufus Sita tombstone (RIB 121) as being carved from “Bath-stone” rather than local material. Likewise, Whitwell (1971) did not discount the possibility that the limestone used in the Lincoln tombstones may have come from the more distant source of Ancaster.

3.3 Geological Review The remaining objectives of this chapter which will focus upon the geological character of 27 first century tombstone samples by lithotype and geological source have been set out in the introduction (3.1).

3.3.1

Existing Studies

An assessment of existing geological studies will identify how reliable and accurate the current rock descriptions are for each tombstone. The section will begin with a review of the techniques used during these studies and then summarise the rock names and sources assigned to this dataset from both south-east Britannia and the Jurassic escarpment. For an overall assessment of characterisation studies of worked freestone in southern England and the continent, referral should be made to the introduction

To summarise, existing hand specimen and assumption based studies have failed to identify a single geological source from the freestone used in the first century tombstones from south-central and south-east Britannia. It is essential, given the success of the multidisciplinary technique on the continent (Stribrny, 1987; Maritan et

15

Of the 27 tombstones sampled for this geological study (3.2.1), only one, (RIB 201) had previously been

Sanderson’s thin-section of Longinus (BV 485) is included in an unpublished Colchester Museum Report (1998) and has been used in this study to reinforce the lithotype description and source rock of thin-section (KH41) (See Chapter 6; A1.1; A4). 16 A number of geological sources for the Gaius Pomponius Valens monument (Painter, 1963) were proposed none of which could be substantiated in hand specimen.

44

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES . al,. 2003) that these monuments are sampled and analysed in a similar way.

Gloucester. Similarly, lithotype 6 (KH36; KH48; KH5051; KH59; KH101) was only found at Lincoln, whilst lithotypes 3, 4 and 7 were exclusive to London (KH33; KH34; KH37-39; KH180), Cirencester (KH52; KH53; KH110) and Bath (KH111-112; KH191).

3.4 Geological Results

3.4.1.2 Style

A total of eight carbonate lithotypes (lithotypes 1 to 8) were identified using the Integrated Petrographic Methodology on the 27 of first century tombstones found in southern Britannia (Plates 7-14). Direct comparison with freestone samples obtained from outcrop (Chapter one) assigned 25 of them to source rocks from the Jurassic escarpment of south-central England including : ¾ ¾

It was possible to associated fine figure carving and accurate inscription with soft even grained oolitic (lithotypes 2 to 4) (KH33; KH34; KH37-KH39; KH41; KH52-54; KH109; KH274-275) or skeletal freestones (lithotype 1) (KH25). Their colour and finish could also be striking. Lithotype 2, for example (Huskinson, 1994; Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008; RIB 121; 201) had a white, polished surface. Lithotype 3 (RIB 11) left a yellow-brown almost golden hue. By contrast, the poorly executed panelled inscriptions of Bath and Lincoln used a much harder heterogeneous shelly oolite (lithotypes 6 and 7).

Painswick stone (Gloucestershire) (lithotype 2) (Plate 8). Bathonian Freestones from the Cotswolds. a) b)

¾

Athelstan Oolite (lithotype 3) (Plate 9). Oolitic limestones (“Bath-stones”) (lithotype 4) (Plate 10). c) Shelly limestones (Forest marble) (lithotype 7) (Plate 13). Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (Lincoln) (lithotype 6) (Plate 12).

3.4.1.3 Chronological Use Pre-Flavian tombstones from Colchester (KH25; KH41) and London (KH33) were constructed from a range of soft grained oolitic or skeletal lithotypes (types 1 to 3) that were both easy to carve and visually striking (see above).

Two more (Painter, 1963; RIB 200) were assigned to outcrops in Northern France Calcaires à Polypiers (lithotype 1) (Plate 7) and Dolomitic chalk (lithotype 5) (Plate 11) These results therefore substantially improve our understanding of the geological source for these monuments.

Flavian tombstones, however, did not include lithotypes 1 to 3. Instead were constructed from fine oolitic lithotypes (type 4) (KH34; KH37-KH39; KH52-53); or much harder shellier lithotypes (6 and 7) (KH36; KH48; KH50-51; KH59; KH101; KH110-112; KH180; KH191; KH276)

The use of an Integrated Petrographic Methodology also challenges the widely held assumption that the earliest tombstones from Colchester (RIB 200; 201; 211) were using “Bath stone” (Phillips, 1975). Instead, these materials were brought in from two widely differing sources; the Moselle (RIB 200) and Gloucestershire (Huskinson, 1994; Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; RIB 121; RIB 201).

3.4.2

3.4.2.1 Distribution All of the first century tombstones from Alchester (KH276), Cirencester (KH52-53; KH110) and Bath (KH111-112; KH191), and a majority from London (KH33; KH34; KH37-39; KH180), were constructed from materials that derived from the Bathonian formation of the Cotswolds (lithotypes 3; 4; 7). A total of 13 (46%) monuments from the dataset derived from this general area. A single rock source (Basal Beds Lower Lincolnshire Limestone) was also identified in all of the tombstones from Lincoln (KH36; KH48; KH50-51; KH59; KH101).

The review will now summarise the different lithotypes (3.4.1) and their geological source (3.4.2) used in first century tombstones according to their geographical distribution; stylistic attributes and chronological use.

3.4.1

Source Rocks

Lithotypes

3.4.1.1 Distribution

By contrast, the monuments from Colchester used widely differing source rocks Calcaires à Polypiers, for example, from the Bajocian of the Moselle Valley was used in the construction of the Facilis monument (KH25) (RIB 200). The Longinus tomb (KH41) together with one other

Many of the lithotypes identified had a restricted geographical distribution within the province. Lithotype 1 (KH25) was restricted to Roman Colchester, whilst lithotype 2 (KH41; KH54; KH109; KH274-275) was only found in tombstones from Roman Colchester and

45

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

example (KH54), however, were made from the white Bajocian freestones of Gloucestershire. Elsewhere, this rock type was used locally at Gloucester, in three first century tombstones (KH109; KH254; KH255). The greater distances that these materials travelled, (231 km), when a more localised suitable material (“Bath-stone”) was available suggests a very different mechanism was in operation at early Colchester compared with the rest of the province.

3.4.3

Chapter Summary

In this Chapter, the successful application of the Integrated Petrographic Methodology upon a small dataset of first century tombstone samples from southern England has significantly enhanced our understanding of their geological character and quarry source. The variety of materials encountered and the distinct spatial, temporal and stylistic patterns identified makes this a reliable dataset with which to compare the architectural fragments from the second dataset with (Chapter four).

3.4.2.2 Style The well executed figured and tower tombstones at London and Colchester derived from a range of rock sources from within the province (Bishop 1983; RIB 12; 19; 201; 211); and from Gallia Belgica (RIB 200). The use of better quality Bath stones (KH33-34; KH38-39); Painswick stone from Gloucestershire (KH41; KH54) and Calcaires à Polypiers from north-east France (KH25) meant that distance was no barrier when it came to the carving of military and procuratorial monuments in these two important early centres. By contrast, the roughly carved panelled tombs found at Lincoln (KH36; KH48; KH50-51, KH59; KH101), Alchester (KH276) and Bath (KH111-112; KH191) used inferior local materials from the Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (lithotype 6) and Great Oolite (lithotype 7 and 8).

3.4.2.3 Chronological Use Pre-Flavian tombstones from Colchester (KH25; KH41; KH54) and London (KH33) used a range of lithotypes that could be sourced to the Jurassic escarpment in the Cotswolds (lithotypes 2 and 3) and north-east France (lithotype 1). Flavian to early second century tombstones (KH34; 3739) from London, however, derived from one source rock; the Great Oolite of South Cotswolds (lithotype 4). This increased centralisation in the freestone industry during the latter part of the first century is further illustrated by the use of this stone at Cirencester (KH5253) (RIB 108 and 109). Only at Lincoln was one rock type; the Basal Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (lithotype 7) in continual use during the first century. It was identified in pre-Flavian (AD 61-70) military tombstones of the IX Hispana (KH36; KH50-51; KH101) as well as in the early Flavian (AD 71-76) army monuments of the succeeding legion; the II Adiutrix (KH48; KH59).17

17

It was also identified in late first-early second century tombstones sampled from Lincoln (KH49; KH58; KH102-KH105).

46

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES

47

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

48

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES

49

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

50

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES

51

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

52

CASE STUDY 1: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY MILITARY &CIVILIAN TOMBSTONES

53

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

54

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

appendices (A.1.2; A4) should be consulted when assessing individual pieces of monumental masonry sampled.

Chapter 4 Case Study 2: The Petrography of First Century Architectural Fragments 4.1 Introduction The principal objective of Chapter four is to identify and characterise the geological source of a second dataset of archaeological samples obtained from the earliest architectural fragments found in south-east England. These were used to embellish the earliest (mid-first to early second century) buildings in this region. The successful application of the Integrated Petrographic Methodology upon the tombstone dataset (Chapter three) ensures that this technique will once again be used to define the source of the carbonate freestone in these early carvings. The objectives and layout follow a similar format to Chapter three. First, the art-historical and archaeological overview (4.2) establishes the sample size (4.2.1); distribution (4.2.2) artistic style (4.2.3) and contextual reliability (4.2.5) of this dataset. One additional section (4.2.4) assesses the types of buildings that required the use of calcareous freestone in their construction. This information, when combined with the findings from Chapter three, can later be used to draw out the spatial, chronological and stylistic conclusions of this research. The remainder of the section will then focus upon the geological character of the freestone used in early monumental construction projects. First, a review of existing geological studies (4.3.1) will be followed by a summary of the petrological and geochemical findings (4.4) from the 36 architectural fragments sampled, using the Integrated Petrographic Methodology. Accompanying composite diagrams illustrate the findings for each new lithotype and its geological source (Plates 15-23). All lithotypes (4.4.1) and geological sources (4.4.2) are reviewed according to their provincial distribution, stylistic and chronological use with an additional heading (Building Type) assessing any connection between function and freestone type. Ultimately the objective is to produce a reliable set of results that may later be compared with the findings from the tombstone dataset (Chapter three) in order to produce a regional picture of freestone extraction and use in southern Britannia during the first century (Chapter five). For more detailed geological analysis of each lithotype, reference should again be made to Chapter six whilst referral to A.6 should be made when considering their locality and stratigraphic position. Finally, accompanying 55

Wherever possible, Blagg’s numbering system, consisting of site name followed by digit (e.g. Fishbourne 28) will be used to identify the fragments of monumental architecture referred to in the first part of this chapter (Blagg, 2002). A separate numbering sequence (prefixed by ID) will be used to recognise worked stone at Bath (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985). Whilst stonework from London will be identified by site code, consisting of three letters and two digits (e.g. KWS 94) denoting site name and year of excavation for the City of London (Schofield & Maloney, 1998) and for Southwark (Thompson et. al., 1998). Samples are referred to in Figure 4.1 and the geological sections (4.3-4.4) by the same notation (e.g. KH45) used to denote outcrop and tombstone samples.

4.2 Archaeological Overview

and

Art-Historical

The archaeological objectives of this chapter are set out in the introduction (4.1).

4.2.1

Quantity

The initial objective was to obtain a representative sample of early (late first to early second century) architectural fragments from southern England that were constructed from freestone. Individual examples of architectural stonework were identified following the consultation of architectural catalogues (Blagg, 2002; RIB; CSIR) and find reports (Strong, 1968; Cunliffe, 1971; Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985; Wooders, 2000). Museum and archive visits have then been used to ascertain whether these totals have been affected by subsequent loss,1 or addition.2 Finally, architectural stonework from on-going excavation (Insula IX Silchester) completes the picture (Hayward 2007). Nearly 250 first to early second century monumental fragments were available for analysis, considerably more than the tombstone dataset. Owing to the time constraints of a three-year research project, however, only 36 (15%) were selected for sampling and subsequent petrological and geochemical analysis (Figure 4.1). Nevertheless, this provided a small but significant comparative sample base from which to conduct a provenance study for this period.

1 Important losses included architectural stonework at Colchester (Huskinson, 1994 no.93 and 94). 2 Important additions included stonework from London (Regis House KWS 94; Amphitheatre (GYE 92) (Bateman et. al., in prep.) ; Calverts Building (CB80)).

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Centre Colchester London

Bath Cirencester Silchester

St. Albans Canterbury Richborough Lympne Fishbourne

Architectural Fragments Panelled Inscription Temple of Claudius. Paving Temple of Claudius CC77 Rubble Temple of Claudius CC77 Tuscan base Type 1 & shaft fragments CB80 Engaged Column KWS 94 Regis House Coping Stone Amphitheatre GYE 92 Rubble Forum-Basilica LCT 84 Fluted Column Shaft (ID.11) Great Altar (2A.2) Great Altar Reused in Compton Dando (2A.3) Corinthian Capital Class B (Cirencester14-19) Corinthian Capital Class C (Cirencester 20)

Reference Drury, 1984 Drury, 1984 Drury, 1984 Cowan, 1992 Brigham et. al., 1996a Bateman et. al., in prep Milne, 1992 Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985 Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985 Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985 Blagg, 2002 Blagg, 2002

Sample KH45 KH170 KH168/169 KH181/202-204 KH63 KH177 KH263 KH114 KH162 KH163 KH192 KH264

Tuscan Base Type 1 (Silchester 92) (Baths) Plain Moulded Capital (Silchester 42) (Baths) Tuscan Base Type 1 (Silchester 39) (Baths) Rubble Fragments Building 1 Insula IX Undecorated shaft fragment 1 Insula IX Tuscan Base Type 1 Corinthian Capital Class C Tuscan Base Type 1 Insula XXVIII Tuscan Base Type 1 Insula XIX Corinthian Capital Class C (Canterbury 12) Fluted Column Shaft (Richborough 4) Masonry Chippings Foundation Perimeter Rubble Foundation Perimeter Altar Corinthian Capital Class A Fishbourne 28 Undecorated Column Drum Flavian Palace Tuscan Base Type 1 Fishbourne 1 (Flavian)

Blagg, 2002 Blagg, 2002 Blagg, 2002 Fulford in Prep. Fulford in Prep. Wooders, 2000 Wooders, 2000 Frere, 1983 Wilson, 1975 Blagg, 2002 Blagg, 2002 Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990 Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990 RIB 66 Blagg, 2002 Cunliffe, 1971 Blagg, 2002

KH167/184 KH185 KH186 KH32/KH260 KH261 KH4 KH6 KH182 KH183 KH65 KH68 KH269 KH106/KH107 KH35 KH66 KH67 KH188

Chichester

Altar

RIB 90

KH189

Figure 4.1 Summary Table of all late first-early second century architectural fragments constructed out of freestone and sampled. The 36 samples were obtained from as many different sites as possible (see 4.2.2; Figure 4.1-4.2) so that a representative provincial picture of freestone use could be determined. The full range of architectural styles are also represented (see 4.2.3). The remainder were examined in hand-specimen as part of a quantification study at Silchester (Figure 7.4) and Fishbourne (Figure 7.5).

4.2.2

Distribution

be formulated and placed within the wider spatial framework of south-central Britannia. Eleven centres within the study area were represented by fragments of monumental architecture and sampled in this study (Figures 4.1-4.2), some lying a considerable distance from the Middle Jurassic outcrop. Bath, Fishbourne and Richborough, accounted for 172 (69%) examples. Of the 24 fragments (9.6%) identified from Richborough, some related to the building of the monumental Arch (Strong, 1968; Blagg, 1984). This number was exceeded by the 48 pieces from the Temple of Sulis Minerva and Altar at Bath (19.2%) (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985), and the 100 pieces from the Neronian and Flavian Palace at Fishbourne (40%) (Cunliffe, 1971). In each case, these quantities related to major construction projects built either for individuals (Fishbourne) or for imperial munificence (Bath and Richborough).

Where each of the 250 fragments of monumental architecture (4.2.1) in south-central Britannia were found relative to the Middle Jurassic outcrop of southern England required definition. Another objective was to identify the type of early provincial centre characterised by first to early second architectural fragments. Only when the complete regional picture has been established can questions relating to the geological source of these archaeological samples (4.4.1-4.4.2; Chapter five) begin to At Silchester, the 50 fragments (20%) identified from the Flavian and Hadrianic forum-basilica; Pre-Flavian bathhouse and Insula IX (Fox, 1892; St. John Hope & Fox, 1905; Wooders, 2000; Clarke & Fulford, 2002; Hayward 56

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

57

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY 2007) all relate to its important early provincial status (Fulford, 2003; 2008). By contrast, the remaining 28 (11%) examples were spread between six provincial centres located along the Jurassic ridge (Cirencester); south-coast (Chichester) and south-east Britannia (Colchester, London and St. Albans). Furthermore, certain types of site were characterised by an absence, or dearth, of worked freestone. The first century coloniae, for example, were bereft of surviving examples of monumental architecture constructed from calcareous freestone. Lincoln3 and Gloucester there were no examples, whilst Colchester was represented by just two surviving veneers (Drury, 1984).

4.2.3

Art-Historical Style

The purpose of a stylistic review of early monumental architecture, given its extensive coverage in the archaeological literature (Blagg, 1977; 1979; 1980; 1993; 2002) was to establish whether was any link between freestone lithotype and the type of class of architectural ornament (4.4.1.2). If successful these results could later be used to establish whether or not particular schools of stone masonry used different lithotypes. In the review, each component of monumental architecture is described, subdivided according to class and its whereabouts given. Representative samples are referred to in Figure 4.1.

4.2.3.1 Corinthian Capitals A small number of Corinthian capital fragments can be dated, on stylistic grounds, to the first century (classes AC) (Blagg, 2002). The Class A decoration, characterised by rams-horn volutes, was present at Fishbourne (Fishbourne 28) (Cunliffe, 1971; Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Blagg, 2002) and sampled for petrographic analysis. A single example of the Class B decoration, represented by just six miniature rams horn capitals at Cirencester (Cirencester 44-49) was sampled (Henig, 1993; Blagg, 2002). The Class C capital, however, was more widespread. Four centres; Cirencester, Bath, Silchester and Canterbury were represented from which three examples, Cirencester 20, Canterbury 12, and a capital fragment from the demolition layer of the Flavian basilica at Silchester (Wooders, 2000) were sampled.

3 The column bases of the Bailgate Colonnade (Jones, 2002) were constructed from Millstone Grit.

4.2.3.2 Fluted Column Shafts Fluted column shafts are often found with the Corinthian order as with the Neronian-Flavian Class C Corinthian capital (Blagg, 1979) from the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath together with fragments of pediment, cornice and architrave (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985). The remaining examples were identified at Richborough and from the Cakebread Robey site at Canterbury (Blagg, 1984). Two samples were taken; one each from Bath (ID.11) (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985) and Richborough (Richborough 4).

4.2.3.3 Plain Moulded Capitals and Tuscan Bases Small quantities of plain moulded capitals and Tuscan bases were also present. The capitals, typified by type VIB (ovolo mouldings with cymas and cavettos) were identified at Fishbourne (Blagg, 2002). A decision however was taken to sample from a class IIB (splayed upper cavetto or cyma with upright cavetto below) capital from Silchester (Silchester 42) (Blagg, 2002). Tuscan bases dated to the first century in southern Britannia were all typified by variations of the type I profile (bases with cyma moulding above the tori) (Blagg, 2002). These were widespread (seven centres) with three examples from Silchester (Silchester 39 and 92) (Wooders, 2000), two each from London (CB80) (Cowan, 1992) and St.Albans (Wilson et. al., 1975; Frere, 1983; Niblett, 2001) and one from Fishbourne (Fishbourne 1) sampled for petrographic and geochemical analysis.

4.2.3.4 Undecorated Drums

Column

Shafts

and

A majority of the remaining examples of monumental architecture, however, consisted of undecorated column shafts and drums together with a few highly fragmentary stratified pieces from Silchester. In each case, their stylistic affinity could not be identified. Nevertheless, a column drum from Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971) and another from London (Cowan, 1992) were sampled in order to determine their geological provenance. Similarly, the reused stonework and a quantity of rubble from the link room of house 1 of Insula IX at Silchester (Hayward 2007) were analysed.

4.2.3.5 Inlays, Altar Stones, Coping Stones and Ashlar Blocks The remaining worked freestone was carved either into thin veneers and inlays (two) or much larger pieces such as altar stones (four), inscribed dedications (one), coping stones (one) and squared building blocks (eight). Two small freestone panels were each identified and sampled

58

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

from the temple precinct at Colchester (Drury, 1984) together with a quantity of associated rubble.

4.2.4.1 Monumental Absence

The larger pieces included three, figured, corner blocks associated with the sacrificial altar at Bath (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985). Freestone samples were obtained from block ID.2.A.2 and the ID.2.A.3 corner stone reused in the Compton Dando Church (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985; Beeson, 2000). Petrological and geochemical comparison here would confirm whether or not the reused example originally belonged with the sacrificial altar.

Types

–

Monumental buildings and associated architectural ornament not represented in first century southern Britannia will now be reviewed. An explanation for their absence will also be given in order to account for the low quantities of freestone in circulation (4.2.1) at this phase of provincial development. Firstly, there is an absence at excavation, of many monumental buildings described in historical texts. The statue of Victory, senate and bathhouse, for example, all attested to at Colchester at the time of the Boudican uprising Tacitus (Ann. 14.38), have yet to be uncovered. These types of monument, however, have been identified from excavations in the Rhineland provinces. For example, a large “godenpijler” (Victory) monument discovered at Nijmegen was constructed from Lothringer freestone (lithotype one) (Panhuysen, 2002).4 Only continued excavation at Colchester will reveal the whereabouts of some of these buildings and honorary monuments.

The decision to include the dedicatory altars at Chichester (RIB 90) and Lympne (RIB 66) were because they provided the only examples of worked calcareous freestone from these centres. An engaged column recently excavated from the Thameside site at Regis House (KWS 94) (Brigham et. al., 1986a) was included for analysis. Completing the stylistic review, were eight limestone blocks of ashlar masonry reused in the west gate at Richborough Fort (Strong, 1968) interpreted as fallen vaulting from the quadriforms arch.

4.2.4

Building

Secondly, there is an absence of monumental architecture associated with mid-first century (AD 43-69) timber fortresses in southern Britannia. Excavations at Colchester, Lincoln, Gloucester and Kingsholm (Crummy, 1988; Hurst, 1988; Jones, 2002) bear this out. Only at Exeter, to the south-west of the study area was stone (including Purbeck marble) used in the construction of the Neronian (AD 60-65) legionary bath-house (Bidwell, 1979). Monumentalisation of legionary principia and bath-houses is a feature in contemporary fortresses elsewhere in the province (Zienkiewicz, 1986) and the Rhineland frontier zone (Blagg, 2000).5 This absence of architectural ornament in early fortress construction in part relates to the availability of timber in post-conquest south-east Britannia, which was far more ubiquitous and easier to work than freestone. Additionally, the short (pre-Flavian) time-span associated with many of these legionary bases halted the need to rebuild them in stone. Another factor was that principia monumentalisation on the continent (Blagg, 2000) was a comparatively late development (Flavian), after the abandonment of the Claudian and Neronian fortresses in southern Britannia. Finally, there is a possibility that surviving architectural elements from the fortress may have been demolished and reused in the fabric of younger buildings.

Building Function

The objective of this section is to review the size and probable function of the monumental buildings to which the individual elements of architectural stonework (4.2.3) belong. The excavation of a building can reveal a great deal of information relating to its possible function, to the people who built it and for whom it was built. Furthermore, the size of the structure and the variety of building materials employed in its construction generate a whole series of questions that relate to the scale of the operation as well as to any prestige attached with the monument. This type of information will be critical to an understanding of the nature and development of the British freestone industry during the first century. The initial aim however, will be to account for an absence at excavation of certain types of stone monumental buildings from first century southern Britannia that are attested to from historical documents or have been identified at excavation from other frontier zones (Blagg, 2000; Panhuysen, 2002). This is necessary in order to explain the scarcity of finely carved freestone fragments at this time (4.2.1), particularly at the important early centres of Colchester and London. The remainder of the section will then review each type of monumental building from the province that contains examples of worked freestone. Temples, bath-houses, monumental archways, forum-basilicas and private dwellings will in turn be reviewed as well as any architectural fragments whose function could not be identified at excavation.

Nevertheless, the need to construct bath-houses in stone in order to safeguard against fire and damp meant that legionary bath-houses at Colchester, Gloucester and 4

This monument dates to AD 17 (Van Enckevort & Thijssen, 2003) Column fragments from the principia and the temples of the Flavian fortress at Nijmegen were constructed from Calcaires á Polypiers (lithotype one) (Hayward pers. obs.). 5

59

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Lincoln must have been present as at Caerleon (Zienkiewicz, 1986) and Exeter (Bidwell, 1979).

with a possible temple at Canterbury (Blagg, 1984) was sampled.

First century rural temple sites at Greenwich Park, Hayling Island6 and Springhead (de la Bédoyère, 2001) were also bereft of freestone.

4.2.4.3 Bath-houses

To conclude, some types of monumental building have yet to be identified from excavation in first century southern Britannia. These include legionary bath-houses as well as equestrian and Victory statues. This in part relates to their urban locality, beneath successive Roman, Medieval and post-medieval construction phases as well as their re-use in the production of lime or building stone, at sites located away from the Jurassic escarpment. An absence of monumental architecture associated with fortress principia, however, must also relate to the transient nature of mid first century military occupation in southern Britannia and a reluctance to use more distant freestone materials.

4.2.4.2 Temples First century classical temples that used freestone in their construction are well represented in southern Britannia. There are two major structures: The Temple of Claudius at Colchester and the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath with a possible third candidate at Canterbury (see A1.2). Evidence for the Claudian Temple was first mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. 14.38), but its subsequent identification during excavation only revealed a temple substructure and podium (Drury, 1984). Nevertheless, the estimated size of the temple, altar base and excavated temenos7 (Hull, 1955; Hebditch, 1971; Drury, 1984) would have required large quantities of building material, appropriate for a temple dedicated to the imperial cult of Claudius. Worked freestone, however, was scarce8 and could only be identified and sampled from the monumental screen of the temenos and the paved courtyard (Drury, 1984). By contrast, larger quantities of architectural ornament including the pediment, Corinthian capitals and fluted columns could be identified and sampled from the much smaller Temple of Sulis Minerva (4.2.3). This formed part of the bigger temple-bath complex (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Cunliffe & Davenport, 1982). There was also freestone from the temenos and the raised altar platform (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985). Finally, a small quantity of scattered architectural fragments associated

6 The poorly carved Legio IX inscription is made of the hard local ragstone, Bembridge Limestone from the Isle of Wight (Hayward pers. obs.) 7 Temple 32x24m, altar 10m and precinct 150m x 120m. Estimates based on the size of the podiums and the dimensions of Insula 22 (de la Bédoyère, 2001) compared to estimates of the temple and precinct at Bath of 53m x 70m (Cunliffe, 2000). 8 The possibility that the temple columns were constructed from tiles covered in fluted stucco needs to be considered (Drury, 1984)

A scarcity of legionary bath-houses from the southern half of the province has been redressed by the identification of at least four early public bath-houses. Three of these:9 the central baths at Aquae Svlis (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985; Cunliffe, 2000), the bath-house from Insula XXXa at Silchester (St. John Hope & Fox, 1905; Boon, 1974) and the bath-house from Insula XIX at St. Albans (Niblett, 2001) also contain examples of monumental architecture carved from freestone. At Bath, freestone has been identified in engaged columns and pilasters from the Great Bath arcade of period one (Cunliffe, 2000). It was, however, not possible to obtain samples from this building. Monumental architecture from the baths at Silchester and St. Albans either derived from external colonnades of the bathing entrance (portico) or from the covered ambulatory surrounding the palaestra. At Silchester, for example, samples of freestone from the column base (Silchester 92) of the portico (St. John Hope & Fox, 1905) as well as the capital (Silchester 42) and column base fragments (Silchester 39) from the palestra were obtained. The column base of a smaller decorative (R.Niblett pers. comm.) colonnade from the bath-house at St. Albans was also sampled.

4.2.4.4 Monumental Archways The use of freestone in the construction of monumental archways can be identified from the Richborough Arch, one of two examples, from first century to early second southern Britannia. A second example from the Balkerne Gate at Colchester may, however, also contain small fragments of a worked freestone (Wheeler, 1920). 10 A late-Flavian (AD 80-100) construction date has been given for the archways foundation and superstructure at Richborough. Masonry limestone11 and marble chippings, identical in character to the archway stonework, have been found in workshop pits and layers containing late first century Samian and coinage (Bushe-Fox, 1926; 1932; 1949; Cunliffe, 1968). Occupation layers predating the archway foundation, however were found contain objects no later than AD 80 (Cunliffe, 1968).

9 In the fourth, the Flavian Huggin Hill bath-house (DMT 88) from London (Schofield & Maloney, 1998) no carved freestone was identified. 10 An earthy limestone (Wheeler, 1920) was identified in this structure and re-examined by myself. This was found to be a shelly limestone. 11 A limestone chip (KH269) was sampled.

60

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS However, the possibility still exists that this structure was constructed slightly later commemorates Hadrian’s final settlement in the province in AD122 (Coombe et. al. forthcoming).

1993) may link it with to an earlier (Trajanic) second century construction phase. Similarly at Silchester, the sampled capital fragment and Tuscan column base recently identified (Fulford & Timby, 2000) from the demolition layer of Flavian timber forum-basilica may in fact belong to the later Hadrianic masonry forum basilica. Alternatively, this material may have derived from an earlier monumental construction as with the reused carved freestone found in the earliest Flavian levels of “House 1” of Insula IX. One possibility, could be the Neronian-bath house (St. John Hope & Fox, 1905) or a Neronian client king’s palace (Fulford 2008). Nevertheless, samples obtained from Corinthian capital and base fragments from the Hadrianic forum-basilica (Fox & St. John Hope, 1893; Fulford, 1985; Fulford & Timby, 2000) will be examined.

In terms of quantity the Richborough quadriform archway would have used more building material (including freestone) in its foundation, structure and superstructure than in any other surviving similar public monument from first to early second century, southern Britannia.12 Furthermore, the variety of stone types identified from the ashlar blocks 13of the structure as well as marble facing and architectural ornament in the superstructure (Strong, 1968; Blagg, 1984) emphasise how important this public monument was as a statement of early Roman provincial munificence. Provenancing the calcareous freestone sampled from the ashlar blocks and possible fluted columns (Richborough 4) would determine whether or not the limestone was being extracted from one area for this large imperial construction programme.

4.2.4.6 Private Dwellings Only Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971) was found to contain examples of carved freestone. Three freestone types were identified in hand specimen (4.3) (Cunliffe, 1971). These materials were used in the construction of a large number (4.2.3.4) of columns forming a veranda that surrounded the first century gardens of the “palace”. They were identified from two discrete construction phases, one associated with the development of the Neronian protopalace and the other with the Flavian palace.

4.2.4.5 Forum-Basilica The final category of public building to contain evidence for monumental architecture in their construction are the late first-early second century forum-basilica. Of the four examples from southern Britannia, however, only those at Cirencester and Silchester (Holbrook & Timby, 1998; Fulford & Timby, 2000) are represented by examples of worked freestone. The dedicatory inscription (RIB 229), dated to AD 79 from forum-basilica at St. Albans was constructed from Purbeck marble (Niblett, 2001).14 Whilst, worked freestone was not identified from the proto-forum basilica at London (Marsden, 1987).15

A petrological and geochemical reassessment of this material determined whether or not original identifications, and their geological sources (Cunliffe, 1971), (4.3.1) were correct. Three samples were analysed; a Corinthian capital from the Neronian phase (Fishbourne 28), and a column base and drum from the Flavian phase. A quantitative study of all the carved stonework then determined the proportion of each of these lithotypes (Figure 7.5). Finally, an assessment of these quantities from the Neronian proto-palace and Flavian palace phases were used to chronicle the development of freestone use at Fishbourne during the first century.

At Cirencester, the sampled class C Corinthian capital (5.2.3) (Cirencester 20) is one of a number of examples (Blagg, 1993) of monumental architecture carved during the construction of the early second century stone basilica (Holbrook & Timby, 1998). Precise dating of this piece to one phase of the basilica’s development has not been possible, given the absence of reliable dating evidence at recent excavation (Holbrook & Timby, 1998) and the poor recording at the time of its initial discovery (Lysons, 1815). Instead, stylistic comparison with corinthian capitals from the Flavian Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Blagg,

4.2.4.7 Building Function Unknown Concluding this review are examples of reused monumental architecture where the original function of the building to which they belong could not be determined. Two sites have been identified; 15-23 Southwark Street (CB80) from London (Cowan, 1992) and the ongoing excavation of Insula IX at Silchester (Clarke & Fulford, 2002; Hayward 2007; Fulford 2008).

12

Structural dimensions estimated at 26m (length) x 14m (width) x 28m (high) (Strong 1968) with the total volume of building material at 8201m³ (Blagg, 1984) 13 Greensand, Ferruginous sandstone (Hythe Beds) and limestone were identified from ashlar blocks reused in the West Gate of the Saxon Shore Fort (Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990). 14 Column drums of Barnack stone found during the 19th century (Niblett, 2001) may belong to a later phase of masonry rebuild. The sampled large attic column base found reused in Insula XXVIII (Frere, 1983) may have originated from the Forum-Basilica. 15 Some freestone rubble dated to between AD 80 and AD 120 (Milne, 1986) has been sampled (KH263) and is identical to lithotype three (Chapter three).

61

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY The seven large fragments found at Southwark, were excavated from pre-Flavian 16 trenches beneath the mansio structure (Cowan, 1992) and may represent the earliest examples of worked monumental architecture from London. Four column shaft and base fragments have been sampled for petrological analysis in order to establish whether the geological material was the same throughout. Identifying a pre-Flavian building from these reused fragments has been problematic. Given the quantity of military equipment,17 and irregular Claudian coinage found here and at other sites in north Southwark (Sheldon, 1978), the possibility of it deriving from an earlier army-controlled supply base should not be discounted. Architectural fragments and rubble from the 2004 excavations of Insula IX at Silchester were found reused in “House 1”.18 The probable early Flavian date (AD80) (Fulford 2008) of the earliest phase of “House 1” building 1 indicates that these fragments would have derived from an earlier Julio-Claudian or Neronian structure. Samples of monumental architecture and rubble were obtained in order to establish the source of this material and whether this source was comparable with the other freestones used in first century buildings (the bath-house) and (a proto forum-basilica)) at Silchester . An absence of structural evidence for an earlier monumental building in Insula IX, would suggest this material was originally used in a building elsewhere in Julio-Claudian or Neronian Silchester. One possible candidate would be the client king’s palace (Fulford 2008).

4.2.5

Assessing the Dating Evidence

This section reassesses how reliable the dating evidence is for first century monumental architecture. Only with reliable and accurate contextual information may direct petrological comparison be possible between the lithotypes from the two datasets (funerary monuments and monumental architecture). The review begins by summarising the types of dating evidence in use and how these differ from the tombstone dataset. For monumental architecture, the absence of an inscription19 and stratified dating material places a greater

16

Dated to AD 60-70 on the basis of associated Irregular Claudian coinage, pre to early Flavian decorated Samian and Neronian to Early Flavian Lamps (Cowan, 1992). Furthermore the overlying mansio? of building 4 has been dendrochronologically dated to AD 74. 17 Examples of a lorica buckle and auxiliary cavalry horse pendant have been found in these trenches (Cowan, 1992) and at other sites in north Southwark (Sheldon, 1978). 18 35 kg of freestone rubble together with five examples of monumental architecture (20 kg) were identified from the threshold (4649) and walling (2083, 3297) associated with the construction of the link room in building one (Hayward 2007).. 19 Exceptions – Altars at Lympne (RIB 66) and Chichester (RIB 90)

emphasis upon the art-historical style of the carving (Blagg, 2002) (4.2.3) and the archaeological evidence from the related monumental building. However, given that many early examples of monumental architecture have been found broken up and reused as foundation material in later building work, the need for reliable contextual information becomes increasingly important. Nevertheless, the proportion of fragments of monumental architecture identified in recent controlled excavations (62%)20 is comparatively high and exceeds the tombstone total (Wright, 1962; Sauer 2005a; Tomlin & Hassall, 2005) .Furthermore, many reused examples found in older excavations do retain their architectural profile (Blagg, 2002). In addition, two freestone colonnades have been discovered in-situ (Cunliffe, 1971; Boon, 1974). Assessing the reliability of this archaeological evidence is the objective for the remainder of this section. Reassessing the stylistic evidence (4.2.3) in light of this information and summarising the date ranges to which each sample of monumental architecture belonged to will conclude the review.

4.2.5.1 In-situ Colonnades In-situ freestone colonnades from monumental buildings have been identified at the Fishbourne “palace” (Cunliffe, 1971) and the bath-house at Silchester (St. John Hope & Fox, 1905; Boon, 1974) and St. Albans (Niblett, 2001). At Fishbourne, the architecture can be assigned to the first century by using the dating evidence from the surrounding stratigraphy. The surviving colonnade from the north-west corner of the garden veranda was constructed during the Flavian rebuild phase as coinage and samian ware from this period were found beneath the floor levels (Cunliffe, 1971). The colonnade at St.Albans from the bath-house of Insula XIX could also be dated to the first century from the site stratigraphy (Niblett, 2001). It lay above structures containing Neronian -Flavian pottery and the presence of “thin walled” flue tiles placed it within the first century (Niblett, 2001). In contrast, the three in-situ column bases identified from the portico of the Silchester bath-house were excavated (St. John Hope & Fox, 1905) at a time when little consideration was given to the chronology of the site (Clarke & Fulford, 2002). Nevertheless, the oblique alignment of its frontage to, and the subsequent truncation by the replanned mid-first century street grid suggest a Claudian or earlier Neronian date (Fulford, 2003).

20

62

1950 onwards.

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

4.2.5.2 Reused Architectural Fragments

found in the Neronian-Flavian Temple of Sulis Minerva (Cunliffe, 1969) and the Flavian Richborough Arch (Strong, 1968).

The remaining examples used in the present study had been removed from their original context. A majority of these (60%) could be identified from controlled excavation of foundation material that had been reused in later first to early second century rebuilding projects (Cunliffe, 1971; Drury, 1984; Fulford & Timby, 2000). An absence of contextual information from earlier excavations meant that many of the remainder (40%) (Strong, 1968; Cunliffe, 1969; Blagg, 1979; Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985; Blagg, 1993; Blagg, 2002) could only be dated on stylistic grounds.21

4.2.5.3 Summary In the absence of epigraphy, first century-early second century monumental architecture cannot be as dated as well as the tombstone dataset (Chapter three). Nevertheless, at sites where recent controlled excavation has been undertaken, relatively accurate time-frames can be provided for many stratified examples of carved freestone. For the remainder, reliance upon the artistic style (4.2.3) provides the only alternative (Blagg, 1979; Blagg, 2002).

Reused fragmentary monumental architecture has been identified in recent excavation from the foundation levels of first century buildings at Silchester, Fishbourne and Southwark (Cunliffe, 1971; Cowan, 1992) (4.2.4.7). Dating these levels to the Neronian-Early Flavian period using reliable chronostratigraphic markers (coinage, military equipment and pottery) placed the monumental architecture in each case with an earlier (pre-Flavian) structure. At Fishbourne, for example, the Corinthian capital fragments reused as post-packing (Cunliffe, 1971) belonged to the Neronian Proto-Palace. The whereabouts of the pre-Flavian buildings, inferred from broken examples of monumental architecture found at Silchester (Insula IX) and London (CB80) could not be determined , although at Silchester one possibility could be a Neronian clients kings palace (Fulford 2008).

All the fragments of monumental architecture from the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Blagg, 1979), date to the Neronian-Flavian period on stylistic grounds (4.2.3). Less conclusive, however, is a precise construction date for the sacrificial altar podium and the bath-house. On the supposition that the bath-house, temple and courtyard were planned at the same time (Cunliffe, 1969), a Neronian-Flavian date could be inferred for these two structures as well. Artistic style was also used to date architectural fragments where the findspot was unrecorded (Cirencester 20; 44-49), (Richborough 12-14) or the remains poorly stratified (Canterbury 12-14).

Less precise is the dating evidence for the fragmented attic column base found reused in the early second century layer of “Building 1” in Insula XXVIII at St.Albans (Frere, 1983). It can only be surmised whether this example, together with fragments of monumental architecture found in the second century demolition layer of the timber forum-basilica at Silchester (Fulford & Timby, 2000), belonged to a much earlier monumental structures.

The date ranges of all 36 petrologically analysed examples of first century monumental architecture have been summarised (A.5.2).

4.3 Geological Review Introduction

Finally, a first century example of reused monumental architecture was identified in a late second century context22 from the Temple of Claudius precinct at Colchester (Hull, 1955; Drury, 1984). The complex stratigraphy of the temenos at Colchester (Drury, 1984), however, made precise dating here more difficult. The panel could only be dated using the circumstantial evidence from the associated fluted, stucco-faced, tiled column. Heavy convex fluting of this type was only

Chapter four concludes with a geological assessment of the 36 architectural fragments, sampled in this study (see Figure 4.1). The objectives and format are set out in the introduction and follow those of the first dataset (tombstones).

4.3.1

21 It is probable that much of the architectural stonework found reused in medieval bastions from London (RCHM, 1928) and associated with five of the tombstones from dataset one (3.2.5.1) could also be dated to the first century. 22 Found in the fill of pit three on the west side of the temenos dated to the late second century from pottery (Drury, 1984). Other examples of broken architectural material were identified reused in mid second century precinct drains on the south side of temenos (Hull, 1955). Ibid note 1.

63

Existing Studies

All 36 architectural fragments sampled in this study (4.2.1) had not previously undergone petrographic or geochemical examination and analysis. In contrast with the tombstone dataset, however, five studies (Hull, 1955; Cunliffe, 1971; Drury, 1984; Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990; Wooders, 2000) had at least used comparative hand specimen analysis as a technique to identify and source

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY some of the freestone types.23 Two reasons may be given for this. First, more than one freestone type would often be found associated with these larger-scale monumental constructions. This required geological analysis in order to differentiate each freestone type. Second, these excavations were comparatively recent (1953-1977) when compared with the Victorian tombstone discoveries (3.2.5.1). Over the last 50 years, site reports have included information from consultants (including geologists) engaged to identify and characterise the different materials. Nevertheless, these identifications still require petrological and geochemical reassessment especially given that different freestones (Chapter one) can appear similar in hand specimen. The earliest geological study was at Colchester (Hull, 1955). This identified Ham Hill and Taynton stone in hand specimen from the Kent Blaxhill site on the south side of the Temple of Claudius temenos. 24 Subsequent excavations on the west side of the temenos (Drury, 1984) identified Caen stone from a large panelled inscription and “Purbeck limestone” from the podium substructure and paved area around the temple itself (Drury 1984). Petrological and geochemical reassessment of the inscription (KH45) and temple paving (KH168170) has been undertaken to determine whether or not these identifications were correct. Along the south-coast at Fishbourne, (Cunliffe, 1971) three freestone types from the column shafts, bases and capitals of the Neronian and Flavian Palace were identified in hand specimen; Caen stone, a French foraminiferal limestone25 and an Inferior Oolite from Gloucestershire.26 These require (KH66; KH67; KH188) petrological and geochemical reassessment. Quantifying all of the carved freestone on display and in archive would also determine the proportion of each lithotype and identify any other freestone present.27 At Richborough, a quantity of Calcaire Grossier and Marquise oolite from the Archway had also been identified in hand specimen (Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990). Petrological and geochemical reanalysis would again be used to confirm whether or not these interpretations were correct (KH68; KH106; KH107; KH269). For the remaining examples of architectural stonework identified as being from first century south-central 23 Freestones were identified by staff from the Geological Museum and British Geological Survey with reference to the building stone collections. At Colchester, Morris (Hull, 1955) and Owen (Drury, 1984) were used, whilst Sanderson at Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971) and Worssam at Canterbury and Richborough (Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990) examined the freestone at sites along the south-coast. 24 Worked fragments (Huskinson, 1994) of a white skeletal limestone were also found here, possibly continental in origin (Hull, 1955). Ibid note 1. 25 Possibly Calcaire Grossier, Eocene. Paris Basin (see A6.2) (Blagg, 1990) 26 Osthill Quarry, Temple Guiting (Cunliffe, 1971). 27 Especially Marquise Oolite (Blagg, 1990), given that it is found at Richborough and at other sites along the south-coast.

Britannia very little geological analysis had been undertaken, prior to this thesis study. At centres sited close to the Jurassic ridge such as Bath, the source of the freestone was assumed to be local (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982). South-east of the escarpment, generic terms such as “white limestone” were used to describe carved stone such as the attic column base from St.Albans (Frere, 1983).28 Only at Silchester had some attempt been made to source the architectural stonework to a Bath-stone (Wooders, 2000). All of this worked freestone, may, however relate to the construction of the later Hadrianic masonry forum- basilica (Wooders, 2000). A petrographic and geochemical assessment of the freestone used in monumental architecture at Silchester (KH4; KH6; KH32; KH184-186, KH261-262) London (KH63; KH181; KH201-203) and St. Albans (KH182; KH183) would source the rock to either a native or a continental exposure. At London, the source of these freestones could then be compared (Chapter five) with the lithotypes from the tombstone dataset (3.4.1; 3.4.2). An absence of tombstones from Silchester and St. Albans, however, meant that the geological source of first century worked freestone could only be determined by samples from a second dataset. Finally, analysis of the architectural stonework at Bath (KH114; KH162-163) and Cirencester (KH192; KH264) will identify whether local freestones were used and whether their geological source was comparable with the lithotypes from the tombstone dataset. To summarise, this initial geological review identified relatively few source rocks from the archaeological literature. Furthermore, petrological studies from the continent (Bedon, 1984; Stribrny, 1987; Stuart & Bogaers, 2001; Panhuysen, 2002) continued to be more reliable and accurate in their sourcing of architectural fragments. For the remainder of Chapter four a summary of the geological character and source of the different lithotypes found, using the Integrated Petrographic Methodology conclude the findings from this second dataset

4.4 Geological Results In all, 14 carbonate lithotypes were identified from the 36 first century architectural fragments sampled. Nine of these were new to this study (lithotypes 9-17) (Plates 1523). Fifteen examples could be sourced to the Bajocian and Bathonian freestones exposed along the Jurassic escarpment of south-central England including: ¾

Painswick stone (Gloucestershire) (lithotype 2) (Plate 8)

28 At London oolite was used to describe the column fragments from Calverts Buildings (CB80) (Cowan, 1992).

64

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

¾ ¾

Weldon stone Northamptonshire (lithotype 12) (Plate 18). Bathonian Freestones from the Cotswolds a) Oolitic limestones (“Bath-stones”) (lithotype 4) (Plate 10) b) Athelstan oolite (Plate 9)

of two new lithotypes (12 and 13) (KH182; KH183) here in part reflects its northerly position relative to the other population centres from this region, and its proximity to other parts of the Middle Jurassic freestone outcrop.

South Coast

A further ten were characteristic of Jurassic and Eocene outcrops from Northern France including: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Four new lithotypes (14-17) were exclusive to carving (KH35; KH65-68; KH106-107; KH189; KH269) at first century Roman coastal sites and Canterbury including its use in large scale construction projects from Fishbourne to Richborough.

Calcaires à Polypiers (Lorraine) (lithotype 1) (Plate 7). Calcaire Grossier (Paris Basin) (lithotype 14) (Plate 20) Caen stone (Normandy) (lithotype 15) (Plate 21) Marquise Oolite (Boulonnais) (lithotype 17) (Plate 23)

4.4.1.2 Architectural Element and Class It was seldom possible to match a specific freestone lithotype to one type of architectural element or its individual style or class (Blagg, 2002). For example, different skeletal (lithotype 14) and oolitic (lithotype 4 and 17) grainstones had been used in the carving of first century Corinthian capitals. Furthermore, all three of these limestones had been used in Class C decoration (KH6; KH65; KH254).29 Lithotype 14 was also present in the Class A capital (Fishbourne 28) (KH66) and lithotype 4 occurred in the miniature Class B capital (Cirencester 44-49) (KH192).

For the remaining five lithotypes (9-11, 13, 16) (Plates 15-17; 19; 22) no precise geological source could be given, though even here the petrological and geochemical criteria were reliable enough to give some idea as to the age and locality of the freestone. Together these results significantly enhance our understanding of where early worked freestone was being quarried. The review will now summarise the different lithotypes (4.4.1) and their geological source (4.4.2) used in the earliest architectural fragments according to their geological distribution, stylistic attributes, building function and chronological use.

4.4.1

The exception was lithotype 15, a compact pelletal packstone, used only in column drums (KH67) and shafts at Fishbourne. Its selection would indicate a preference for a harder limestone in order to support the softer column capitals.

Lithotypes

4.4.1.1 Distribution

4.4.1.3 Building Type

Monumental architecture from each of the three regions was carved using different types of freestone.

There was also little correlation between building function and the use of a specific freestone. The temples at Bath (KH114; KH162-163) (lithotype 4), Colchester (KH45; KH168-170) (lithotype 1, 6 and 9) and Canterbury (KH65) (lithotype 14) had each used different skeletal and oolitic grainstones. In other types of building (bath-houses and forum-basilica), the quantity of freestone available was too small to produce meaningful results. However, the use of a white oolite (lithotype 2) at Silchester (KH184; KH186) was specific to the Claudian or early Neronian bath-house.

Colchester The three very different lithotypes (1, 6, 9) used in the construction of the Temple of Claudius precinct are unique to first century monumental architecture at Colchester (KH45; KH168-170).

South-central England This region was characterised by the widespread use of lithotype 4 in monumental architecture at centres close to the Cotswold escarpment (Bath and Cirencester) (KH114; KH162-163; KH192; KH264) and at centres to the south-east of it (Silchester and London) (KH4; KH6; KH32; KH185; KH202-203; KH260-261). The other lithotypes identified were present only in small quantities (KH184; KH186) at Silchester (type 2) and at London (KH63; KH181; KH201) (types 10 and 11). Only at St. Albans was there any deviation from this pattern. The use

4.4.1.4 Chronological Use The few pre-Flavian examples of monumental architecture present at Fishbourne (KH67); Bath (KH114); Colchester (KH184); Cirencester (KH192); London (KH63; KH181; KH202-203); St. Albans 29 Lithotype 14 was identified in hand specimen in many Corinthian capitals at Fishbourne.

65

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

(KH183) and Colchester (KH45;KH168-170) were constructed using many lithotypes (1; 2; 4; 9; 11; 12; 14). In contrast, the greater use of freestone in monumental masonry at larger scale Flavian building projects at Richborough (KH68; KH106-107; KH269); Bath (KH114; KH162-163) and Fishbourne (KH67; KH188), revealed comparatively few freestone types (lithotype 4; 14; 15 and 17). Furthermore, the use of each of these freestones was restricted to one particular site or region. For example lithotype 15 could only be identified in monumental masonry from Flavian levels at Fishbourne Roman Palace (KH67), whilst lithotype 17 was restricted to Kent (KH35; KH65; KH68; KH106-107). Lithotypes 4 (Bath, Silchester, Cirencester and London) and 14 (Fishbourne and Richborough) although identified over a wider area were regionally restricted. All of this implies a greater centralisation in the freestone industry during the latter part of the first century, a pattern already identified from the tombstone dataset (see 3.4.2.3 and Chapter five).

4.4.2

Source Rocks

4.4.2.1 Distribution Colchester The three source rocks unique to monumental architecture (KH45; KH168-170) from Colchester came from widely differing parts of the Jurassic escarpment of north-east France (Calcaires à Polypiers); Lincolnshire (Lower Lincolnshire limestone) and probably Somerset (Ham Hill stone) (see Figure 5.2) . Some of this material came from a considerable distance emphasising the important status that Colchester had in the early development of the province (Chapter five).

South-central England Freestones from the Great Oolite of south Cotswolds dominated the monumental architecture from the central region at Bath (KH114; KH162-63), Cirencester (KH192; KH264), Silchester (KH4; KH6; KH32; KH185; KH261262) and London (KH202-203) (see Figure 5.4). Elsewhere, the worked freestone (KH182-183) at St. Albans was carved from the southernmost part of the Bajocian outcrop from Lincolnshire and Rutland (Weldon stone). Bajocian freestone from the Cotswolds was also present in a few examples of monumental architecture at London (KH181; KH201) and at Silchester (KH184; KH186) (Painswick stone).

Boulonnais (lithotype 17) were represented by Caen stone at Fishbourne (KH67) and Marquise oolite at Richborough (KH68; KH106-107) and Canterbury (KH65). The use of Calcaire Grossier in monumental architecture from younger Lutetian sediments to the north of the Paris was widespread at both Richborough (KH269) and Fishbourne (KH66). Only at Fishbourne was a native freestone also used (KH188) (lithotype 4).

4.4.2.2 Chronological Use Pre-Flavian examples of monumental architecture derive from many different sources along the Middle Jurassic outcrop of Northern France and south-central England. (see Figure 5.3) For example, Painswick stone was identified from the Claudian or early Neronian bathhouse at Silchester (KH184; KH186) whilst Calcaires à Polypiers reused in the Temple precinct at Colchester (KH45) may be associated with the original temple. Each of these freestones is also present in pre-Flavian tombs (see 3.4.2). The freestones chosen for the larger scale Flavian construction projects at Bath, Fishbourne and Richborough, Cirencester and Silchester had not previously been used extensively. Bath freestone was used in central-southern England whilst continental freestone (Caen, Marquise and Calcaire Grossier) were identified along the south-coast (4.4.2).

4.4.2.3 Chapter Summary In Chapter four, the findings from a second characterisation study of early worked freestone (architectural fragments) have added to our understanding of the character and quarry source of these materials. The variety of materials (14 lithotypes) encountered and their geological sources (ten) were appreciably higher than in findings from existing studies. Furthermore, the distinct spatial and temporal patterns identified means that there are now two reliable geological datasets of first century worked freestone to work with. In Chapter five, these will be merged together so that the overall character of the early freestone industry of southern England can be established.

South Coast Freestones from the Middle Jurassic and Eocene of northern France dominated the monumental architecture at Fishbourne (KH66-67), Canterbury (KH65) and Richborough (KH68; KH106-107; KH269) (see Figure 5.4). The Bathonian of Normandy (lithotype 15) and the 66

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

67

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

68

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

69

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

70

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

71

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

72

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

73

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

74

CASE STUDY 2: THE PETROGRAPHY OF FIRST CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

75

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Chapter 5 Petrographic Summary of Early Tombstones and Architectural Fragments

5.3 Distribution It was possible to subdivide the province up into five regions according to the type of freestone in use. Lincoln, St. Albans, Colchester, South-central England and the South-Coast each used a specific set freestones in (where present) both monumental architecture and tombstones. Only occasionally was a freestone type used province wide (Painswick stone).

5.1 Introduction Chapter five brings together the petrological findings of Chapters three and four in order to assess the overall character of the freestone industry in southern England during the early Roman period. This short review will assess freestone use according to variety of material (5.2) provincial distribution (5.3) chronological use (5.4) and function (5.5) and will be illustrated in a series of distribution maps (Figures 5.1 to 5.4). Patterns of freestone use form the basis of the discussion chapter (seven), which explores the archaeological significance of these findings in greater detail.

5.3.1 Lincoln The six first century military tombstones at Lincoln (Figure 3.1) were each carved from a hard shelly oolite (lithotype 6) quarried from a local outcrop of Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (Basal Beds). The use of this freestone here and in rubble associated with the Temple of Claudius at Colchester is surprising given the availability of better quality local (Lincoln silver beds) and district (Ancaster freestone; Barnack stone) freestone from the Upper Lincolnshire Limestone.

5.2 Variety of Material

5.3.2 St. Albans

In all, 17 carbonate lithotypes were described out of a combined total of 64 worked freestone samples. Of the 11 source rocks identified, six belonged to Bajocian and Bathonian rocks of the Jurassic escarpment from south central England (Figure 5.1). A further five freestones could be sourced to the Lower Carboniferous, Middle Jurassic, Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary exposures of northern France (Figure 5.1). Only with six of the lithotypes (8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 16) could no definite geological source be given,1 though even here the petrological and geochemical criteria were reliable enough to give some idea as to the age or locality of the freestone. Nevertheless, these results mark a substantial improvement upon existing geological studies of first century tombstones and monumental architecture from southern Britannia. (3.3.1 and 4.3.1).

5.3.3 Colchester

Given that the quantity of first century worked freestone from southern Britannia was very small and disproportionate to the number of variety of limestone types described, it would be easy to assume that early provincial exploitation of limestone was random and speculative. Spatial, temporal and functional patterns, however, had already been identified from each of the two datasets (3.4 and 4.4). Whether these or any new patterns emerge when the two datasets are combined form the remaining objectives of Chapter five.

Three of the freestones can be sourced to native outcrops spanning the entire length of the Middle Jurassic escarpment at Somerset (Ham Hill stone), Gloucestershire (Painswick stone) and Lincolnshire (Lower Lincolnshire Limestone). A fourth (Calcaires à Polypiers), exclusive to first century military tombstones (RIB 200; 211) and monumental architecture from the

1

First century monumental architecture at St. Albans is characterised by freestone from the southernmost tip of the Lincolnshire Limestone Formation. Weldon stone (lithotype 11) identified in a bath-house column base is the closest available part of this outcrop to St. Albans.

The character and geological source of the four lithotypes (1, 2, 6, 9) identified in first century worked freestone at Colchester are quite unlike any of the other materials used in the rest of the province. A preference for easily carved white oolitic and skeletal freestones (lithotypes 1 and 2) at Colchester, some of which were moved over a considerable distance, emphasises the importance that this early centre had to Rome.

Each of these lithotypes were present in very small quantities.

76

PETROGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF EARLY TOMBSTONES AND ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS rock types6 were of high quality and suitable for accurate stylised carving and inscription work (lithotypes 1-3) especially in military and procuratorial tombstones, which were apparently discontinued.

Temple of Claudius precinct at Colchester (Drury, 1984), comes from a Middle Jurassic outcrop from north-east France (Norroy-lès-Pont-à-Mousson) (Figure 5.2).2 There were two surprising findings. The absence of “Bath- stone” at Colchester3 was unexpected, given that it was prevalent elsewhere and that the source of the Bath Stone would have been closer to Colchester than the stone that was actually used. The other unexpected result was the use of Painswick stone in funerary monuments only at Colchester (Huskinson, 1994; RIB 201) and at Gloucester (Tomlin and Hassall, 2005; RIB 121).4

In contrast, Flavian monumental architecture and some tombstones were using far fewer freestone lithotypes (Bathonian freestones, Caen stone, Marquise oolite, Calcaire Grossier, Basal Lower Lincolnshire Limestone) but in much greater quantities. Part of this increase relates to the greater number and the larger scale of public (Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath and early forum-basilicas at Cirencester) and private (Fishbourne Roman Palace) buildings being constructed out of stone. Many of these freestones are specific to each region (4.4.2.1) and must relate to a move towards centralisation and away from the smaller scale, though not necessarily, speculative extraction characteristic of pre-Flavian freestone (Figure 5.4).

5.3.4 South-central England (excluding St. Albans) A majority of the tombstones and the monumental architecture from this region were constructed from just three different freestone lithotypes (3, 4 and 7), all from the Bathonian outcrop of the South Cotswolds. Only at London were other freestones occasionally in use in monumental architecture (Inferior Oolites from the Cotswolds) and tombstones (French Dolomitic chalk).

5.3.5

5.5 Function The clear-cut patterns identified from the regional distribution and age of all the late first to early second century worked freestone were not nearly so apparent when the function (tombstone or architectural fragment) of the carving was considered.

South-Coast

First, different lithotypes were used in both monumental architecture and tombstones including Calcaires à Polypiers (Pre-Flavian Colchester), Painswick Stone (Pre-Flavian Colchester, and Silchester) and Bathonian freestone (Flavian Cirencester, Bath, Silchester and London). This shows that the earliest freestone quarries were being opened up to meet both a towns architectural and funerary requirements for stone. Second, different lithotypes were being used for the same type of architectural element or class or building (4.4.1.2), showing that early schools of stonemasonry (Blagg, 1977), particularly those in the south-eastern corner were prepared to experiment with a range of material to embellish public and private buildings.

Nearly all of the calcareous freestone identified along the south-coast came from continental sources (Caen stone, Marquise oolite and Calcaire Grossier) and was used in the construction of monumental architecture.5 Tombstones (RIB 94; 95), however, used a local greensand.

5.4 Chronological Use A clear temporal division based upon the type and range of freestones being used was apparent in both of the datasets. Pre-Flavian monumental architecture but especially tombstones used a range of different freestone lithotypes in small quantities but from a number of different Jurassic source rocks including the continent (Calcaires à Polypiers; Calcaire Grossier) and southern England (especially Painswick stone, Basal Lower Lincolnshire Limestone, Athelstan Oolite) (Figure 5.3). Many of these

5.6 Overall Review In conclusion, the petrological and geochemical results obtained from samples of carved stonework in Chapters three and four have identified a number of different native and continental freestone source rocks in use in the southern half of the province during first century. The use of each depended very much upon the Roman centre at which the worked stone was found and/or whether it was carved in the middle or the latter half of the first century. The regional development of first century

2 Prevalent in tombstones and monumental architecture along the Rhine (Bedon, 1984; Stribrny, 1987; Stuart and Bogaers, 2000; Panhuysen, 2002). 3 Suggested as the source rock for RIB 200; 201. 4 It was also present in monumental architecture from the Claudian or early Neronian Bath-house at Silchester. 5 Marquise oolite however was used extensively in tombstones at Boulogne (Belot, 1990).

6 Particularly Painswick stone. See Chapter six for a fuller description of its aesthetic qualities.

77

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

freestone quarrying was therefore both complex and dynamic, replicating the rapidly changing provincial situation to the south-east of the Jurassic escarpment at that time and the function of the settlements therein.

78

PETROGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF EARLY TOMBSTONES AND ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

79

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

80

PETROGRAPHIC SUMMARY OF EARLY TOMBSTONES AND ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS

81

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

82

FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

For more detailed geological analysis, of individual tombstones and architectural fragments appendices (A1.1-A1.2; A4) should be consulted. Whilst the CDRom (A6.1-A6.2) at the back of this volume provides the reader with details of each freestone’s stratigraphic position and geological source using the accompanying geological maps.

Chapter 6 Freestone Type and Use in Early Southern Britannia 6.1 Introduction

6.2 Calcaires à Polypiers

The aim of Chapter six is to examine, in greater detail, the geological character and the source of the freestone identified in first century tombstones and monumental architecture (Chapters three to five). This serves three purposes. First, it provides the reader with a quickreference, geological guide to each of the freestone lithotypes in use during the first century. Second, the stylistic attributes (colour, polish, ability to take carving and inscription) of each lithotype are assessed. Its main objective, however, is to refocus the direction of this study towards the source of the material rather than its use (Chapters three to five). Identifying each lithotype as a quarried resource will serve to identify which parts of the freestone escarpment of southern Britain and northern France were being exploited during this period. This in turn identifies which of the other native and continental freestone resources had not yet been exploited, perhaps because they had not been identified, or because they had not been assessed as appropriate decorative monumental building material.

This rock type was only identified in early tombstones (RIB 200; 211) and fragments of monumental architecture (Drury, 1984) from Colchester. Its use in the construction of the probable, pre-colonia Facilis monument (RIB 200) means that it is associated with the earliest known example of fine carving within the province.

6.2.1

Description

Lithotype 1 is a white, (5YR 8/1) Bioclastic Grainstone (Dunham, 1962). At greater magnification the rock can be described as a Coralline Intrabiosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) (see Plate 4; Plate 7; A1.1; A1.2; A4.1). Its homogeneous, open, porous texture made it a suitable material for accurate, stylised inscriptions and decorative carving as the exquisitely carved funerary monuments at Colchester (RIB 200; 211) show. It also had a surface suitable for the application of gesso and red paint (Drury, 1984).

The order in which each freestone lithotype will be described follows the chronology of their use (see 3.4.2.3; 4.4.4.2; 5.4) in the southern half of the province. This format forms the basis of the Discussion Chapter (seven). The earliest worked materials Calcaires à Polypiers (6.2), Painswick stone (6.3), Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (6.4) are described first, followed by the Bathonian freestones (6.5) and French Limestones (6.6) that typify stonework from the late first to early second century. Other types of freestone identified from stray finds (6.7) will account for all the freestone in use. The chapter concludes by drawing attention to the remaining quality freestone reserves that the early Romans could have used (6.8), but instead neglected or did not discover.

Outcrop samples (KH152-158) and worked freestone from Colchester (KH25; KH45) and Neuss (KH198) shared the following petrological and geochemical characteristics. ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Each lithotype will briefly be described in hand specimen and thin section using Dunham’s (1962) and Folk’s (1959; 1962) textural classifications. A series of bullet points will then summarise the textural, diagenetic, palaeontological and geochemical properties of each source rock. . Representative photomicrographs (Plates 7-14 and 15-23) and a summary table (A4.1) should be cross-referenced using the sample code (e.g.KH45) of each tombstone and fragment of monumental architecture represented by that lithotype.

83

Weathers pale grey. Fresh surface hard, white and powdery. Complete fossils rare. Fragmentary skeletal allochems (75-85%) dominate, especially coral (70%) and echinoderms (20%) each surrounded by a micritic envelope. Intraclasts (12-18%) common. Open porous texture. Developed bladed rim cement. Low strontium (Sr) readings (445-586 ppm) (XRF). High δ13C readings (+1.75‰ to +2.53‰) (Stable Isotope Analysis) (Figure 6.1).

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

6.2.2

Geological Source

The sourced freestone forms part of the 25-30 metre Calcaires à Polypiers formation1 (Allemmoz et. al., 1989) from the Middle Bajocian in north-east Gallia Belgica. The exposure extends along the eastern edge of the French Jurassic plateau between Metz and Nancy (Departèment Meurthe-et-Moselle) where it is bounded by the River Moselle (A6.2. Figure A6.8).

Oosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) (see Plate 3; Plate 8; A1.1; A1.2; A4.1). Samples from outcrop (KH146) and building stone collections (KH75) shared the following geological features with worked freestone from Colchester (KH41; KH54; BV485), Gloucester (KH109; KH274-75) and Silchester (KH167; KH184; KH186).

Comparative samples were obtained at outcrop and from loose blocks (KH152-158) at the disused quarries of Norroy-lès-Pont-à-Mousson,2 which had epigraphic evidence for first century Roman army stone extraction (A.6.2. ).

¾ ¾

Its petrological and geochemical identification in a midfirst century funerary monument sample (KH198) at Neuss3 (350 km away) (A1.1) (Hayward 2006b) as well as in the worked stone at Colchester (700 km away), is an indication of how far this material was being carried from source at this time. The wider archaeological implications of these results are assessed in Chapter seven.

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

6.3.2

6.3 Painswick stone Painswick stone is the second type of freestone to be identified in early tombstones at Colchester, including the pre-colonia Longinus monument (RIB 201). Its recognition , however, in early tombstones at Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Hayward 2008b; Henig & Tomlin 2008); (RIB 121), pre-Flavian column bases and opus sectile fragments at Silchester (Wooders, 2000), London (site code KWS 94) and further afield at Caerleon (Wright, 1970) shows that it was more widely in use than Calcaires à Polypiers.

6.3.1

White (2.5YR 8/1), weathering to calf-brown (10YR 8/2) smooth, monument surface. Prominent white ooids dominant in hand specimen and thin-section (78-97%) with very few fossil fragments. Ooid grains small (0.3-0.5 mm), compact with spalled rims (c.f. Sellwood et al 1985; 1987). Bound by low-ferroan poikilotopic cement. Comparable strontium values (572-676 ppm) (XRF analysis). High positive values of δ13C (+1.5‰ to +1.9‰) (Stable Isotope Analysis) (Figure 6.1).

Geological Source

Painswick stone is a workable freestone unit from the Inferior Oolite Group (Middle Jurassic) at Painswick Hill4 (SO 865 115), mid Gloucestershire, where it forms a large part of the 25-50 metre thick Upper Aalenian, Cleeve Cloud Member (Barron et. al., 1997). Painswick Hill is a Middle Jurassic outlier, detached from the westernmost edge of the Cotswold escarpment and is close to (8-10 km south) the first century legionary fortresses at Kingsholm and Gloucester (A6.1 Figure A6.2). In the absence of Roman quarrying activity in the vicinity of Painswick Hill Fort (A6.1), petrological characterisation has been able to confirm its use at Gloucester (Heighway et al., 1980; Bryant 1983; Hurst et. al., 1986) and southern England for the first time.

Description

Painswick stone (lithotype 2) is a compact, soft white (2.5YR 8/1) medium-grained Oolitic Grainstone (Dunham, 1962). Tombstones and architectural fragments characterised by this lithotype were intricately carved and polished, leaving a hardened smooth monument surface (RIB 201; RIB 121) suitable for the application of gesso and red paint (Huskinson, 1994). In thin section the freestone can be described as an

The early selection of Painswick stone for the purpose of first century monument construction in south-east Britain was unforeseen. The outcrop, located on the western edge of the early province is geographically isolated from Silchester (108 km) and especially Colchester (231 km) (Figure 7.3). Therefore, it could not have been chosen for reasons of economic practicality especially as more accessible native outcrops from Bath (93 km cf distance 6.5.2) or Lincolnshire (103 km) could have been quarried at each centre instead. An alternative explanation is required for this distribution which will be explored in greater detail in Chapter Seven (7.2.2).

1 Described elsewhere as Lothringer Freestone (Stribrny, 1987) limestone from Norroy-lès-Pont-à- Mousson (Röder, 1960; Bedon, 1984) or Jurakalk.(Schleiermacher, 1984) 2 From where comparative geological samples were obtained to source the limestone found in tombstones and monumental architecture at Mainz (Stribrny, 1987) (A1.1). 3 Tiberius Julius Pancuius tombstone (Noelke, 1977). The archaeological significance of identification is discussed in chapter seven.

4

84

Sample from Catsbrain Quarry SO 8676 1144 (Baker, 1981) (KH146).

FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

lie 3 km due east of the Neronian fortress and close to the earliest tombstone cemeteries (A6.1 Figure A6.3) Indeed, much of Roman Lincoln lies on this exposure. The petrological results confirm Whitwell’s (1971) suggestion that the source of the worked freestone at Lincoln was local rather than from Ancaster (Jones, 2002).

6.4 Lower Lincolnshire Limestone - “Base Bed” The identification of this freestone is restricted to tombstones at Lincoln (RIB 253; RIB 255-258; RIB 260)5 and two fragments of sampled rubble from the paving area between the Temple of Claudius podium and altar base at Colchester (Drury, 1984). Its recognition in stelae commemorating serving soldiers of the IX Hispana (RIB 255-257; RIB 260) may date the quarrying of this stone at Lincoln from as early as the Claudian period (see 3.2.5 and 7.2.3).

6.4.1

6.5 Bathonian Freestones – South Cotswolds In Chapter five (5.3.4) it was found that a large proportion of the first century tombstones (Bishop, 1983; Sauer, 2005c; RIB 9, 12, 19, 21, 108-110, 156, 158, 160) and fragments of monumental architecture (Cunliffe, 1971 ; Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982; Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985; Cowan, 1992; Henig, 1993; Wooders, 2000; Hayward 2007; Fulford 2008) worked throughout the central-southern region of England (see Figure 5.4) were carved from Bathonian freestones (lithotypes 3, 4 and 7).

Description

Lithotype 6 is a hard massive, orange-brown to darkbrown (10Y 7/6 – 10Y 8/4) ferroan, shelly, oolitic grainstone (Dunham, 1962) making it an unsuitable medium for intricate carving and fine inscription work yet resistant enough to withstand external weathering as the large quantity of plain panelled design tombstones at Lincoln show. It is also distinctive in thin section as a ferroan detrital bio-oosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) (see Plates; 5; 12; A1.1; A1.2; A4.1)

6.5.1

Taken as a whole, the Bathonian freestones (KH16;1821; KH95-98; KH134-135; KH258) obtained from outcrop share the following textural and geochemical characteristics as samples identified in early tombstones and fragments of monumental architecture from London (KH33; KH34; KH37-39; KH174; KH180; KH202-203; KH263), Cirencester (KH52-53; KH110; KH192; KH256), Bath (KH111-112; KH114, KH161-162; KH191), Silchester (KH4; KH6; KH32; KH185; KH261), Alchester (KH276) and Fishbourne (KH188).

Outcrop samples (KH117-118); tombstones at Lincoln (KH36; KH48-51; KH58-59; KH101-105) and rubble from the paving area of the Temple of Claudius at Colchester (KH168-169) share the following characteristics. ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

6.4.2

Description

Rough, coarsely oolitic tombstone surface with large sparry mollusc fragments. In thin section large (up to 2 mm), irregular shaped coated grains (micro-oncoids) common, as are gastropods. Ferroan microcrystalline cement and silt-grade quartz common (up to 30%). Low strontium values 460-510 ppm; High Fe2O3 readings (3.6-7%) (XRF analysis). δ13C values close to zero (+0.20‰ to -0.76‰) , high negative readings for δ18O (-4.65‰ to – 6.30‰). (Figure 6.1)

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

Bivalves (oysters) the diagnostic fossil group. Ferroan microcrystalline cement. Near absence of quartz Low positive values of δ13C (+0.32‰ to +1.50‰) (Figure 6.2). High values of strontium, reflecting the proportion of aragonite in the sediment rather than its stratigraphic position (up to 1306 ppm) and Fe2O3 (1-1.5%).

Textural differences, which in turn reflect the quality of the freestone carving, allow these Bathonian freestones to be subdivided into three distinctive source rocks.

Geological Source

The 1.5 metre “Base Bed” (Richardson, 1940) forms the lowest unit of the Greetwell Member (Ashton 1980) (Lower Lincolnshire Limestone) at Lincoln. Comparable outcrop samples (KH117; KH118) obtained from the type locality at Greetwell Hollow Quarry (TF 003721)6

6.5.1.1 Athelstan oolite (Cave et. al. 1977) Present only in worked stone from London (KH33; KH174; KH263), lithotype 3 is a fine Oolitic Packstone

5 See A1.1 and 7.2.3 for full list of other military and civilian tombstones made from this rock-type. 6 It was surprising however, that the much finer “silver beds” (Leadenham Member) (Ashton, 1980) from the same quarry were not used for the same purpose. Its use in the fine carving of later Roman

tombstones (RIB 250) and medieval cathedral construction attests to its value as a decorative stone.

85

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

(Dunham, 1962) making it conducive to fine carving and inscription work. This is reflected in the accurate stylised lettering and ornately carved bolster of the large Classicianus monument (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002; RIB 12). Its yellow-cream (2.5Y 8/2) colour also leaves an impressive golden hue on the monument. In thin-section, this Bio-oomicrite (Folk, 1959; 1962) consists of a mosaic of fine ooids, mollusc fragments and peloids bound together by a fine micrite seen in (KH134) Athelstan oolite (see Plates 5; 9; A1.1; A1.2; A4.1).

6.5.2

It is clear from the different Bathonian lithotypes (3, 4, and 7) identified in early tombstones and architectural fragments that no single quarry source along the South Cotswolds escarpment was responsible for the supply the freestone to southern Britain. This is not surprising given the size (70 km) (Wyatt, 1996), thickness and variability within the Bathonian freestone outcrop. Some of the worked examples from Bath (lithotypes 4 and 7) (KH111-112; 114; KH162-163; KH191), Cirencester (lithotype 4) (KH52-53; KH192; KH265)7 and Alchester (KH276) are likely to derive from local Bathonian outcrops.

6.5.1.2 Bathonian Freestones The most common variety, a fine cream-white (2.5 Y 8/1) to pale yellow (2.5 Y8/2) Banded Shelly Oolitic Grainstone (lithotype 4) (Dunham, 1962) is characteristic of many of the tombstones and fragments of monumental architecture at London (KH34; KH3739; KH202-203), Cirencester (KH52-53; KH192; KH256), Bath (KH114; KH162-63) and Silchester (KH6; KH32; KH185; KH261). Banding and calcite veining “watermarks” (Jope, 1964) do not prevent these bio-oosparites (Folk, 1959; 1962) from being finely worked as the elegantly carved Camomile Street Soldier and Lion demonstrate (Bishop, 1983) (see Plates 5; 10; A1.1; A1.2; A4.1).

Further afield, at Silchester and London, with the possible exception of Athelstan oolite and Combe Down oolite the source of these freestones remains unresolved. The tombstones from London (lithotype 4) for example have a range of values that could match with any number of Bathonian outcrops located along the southern part of the Cotswold escarpment.8 In the case of Athelstan oolite, comparative samples were obtained from the type locality is at Tetbury (SP 881943) (Cave et. al., 1977; Wyatt, 1996; Wyatt & Cave, 2002). At 166 km from London, it is not the closest source of freestone9 but is accessible to it from the Fosse Way (A6.1; Figure A6.7) and via the River Thames at Lechlade. Similarly, the main outcrop of Combe Down oolite, near Bath (A6.1 Figure A6.6) is not the closest source of Bathonian freestone to Silchester (93 km) or London (165 km). For example, the limestones from the Cirencester area are much closer to Silchester (79 km) and to London (152 km via Akeman Street) with the added possible benefit of river transportation at Lechlade where Ermine Street crosses the navigable part of the Thames.

Building stone samples of Combe Down oolite (KH95) and Box groundstone (KH98) shared particular petrological and geochemical affinities with fragments of monumental architecture from Insula IX House 1 Silchester (KH32; KH261) and at Calverts Building, London (KH202-203). ¾ ¾ ¾

Geological Sources

Small rounds ooids fairly common (0.4 mm) either plucked or retained micritic cortex. Very high levels of Strontium (1100 ppm) δC13 levels (+0.9-+1.2‰)

6.5.1.3 Forest marble

It was the quality of the freestones from the Middle Bathonian Chalfield Oolite Formation (Combe Down Oolite Member and Bath Freestone Member) (lithotype 4) (Wyatt & Cave, 2002) and the overlying Athlestan Oolite Member (Wyatt & Cave, 2002) (lithotype 3) that determined their early use. Nevertheless, the occasional use of poorer quality limestones from the uppermost Forest Marble Formation (lithotype 7), especially at Bath (KH111-112; 192) where superior material alternatives (lithotype 4) were available and used elsewhere, e.g. Temple of Sulis Minerva (lithotype 4 - KH114; KH162163)) showed this was not always the case.

The military tombstones at Bath (KH111-112; KH191) and Alchester (KH276), and a civilian tombstone from Cirencester (KH110) and from London (KH180) were each carved from a much harder, oyster-rich, Ferroan Banded Shelly Grainstone (Dunham, 1962) (lithotype 7). The tough, heterogeneous character of this Banded Pelbiosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) was not conducive to intricate carving or stylised inscription as the basic design and epigraphy of these monuments shows. Comparable outcrop samples (KH124; KH258) obtained from the overlying Forest marble Formation (Wyatt, 1996) shared a similar percentage of (40-75%) of bivalve shells and coarse high-ferroan calcite cement (See Plate 13; A1.1; A1.2).

7

White Limestone (Bibury and Barnsley stones) (Sumbler et. al., 2000) The topic of a future research project. 9 Weldon stone at Corby (120 km). 8

86

FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

courtyard colonnade at Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971). Its selection would indicate a preference for a harder material (overall porosity 24-27%) in order to support the softer capitals (Calcaire Grossier). A Pelsparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) in thin-section, this material (KH67) is petrologically and mineralogically identical to samples of Caen stone (KH254) (See Plates 6; 21; A1.2; A4.1).

6.6 Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cainozoic Freestones – northern France A further five freestones from northern France (Calcaire Grossier; Caen stone; Marquise oolite; Dolomitic chalk and a Lower Carboniferous Limestone) of variable age (Upper Palaeozoic to Mid Eocene) and geological character have been identified in fragments of monumental architecture from southern Britannia. In Chapter five, these were grouped together as they had a restricted geographical distribution at sites along the south-coast between the Thames Estuary and Fishbourne (see Figure 5.4).

6.6.1

¾ ¾

¾

Calcaire Grossier

¾ Easily the most widespread of these limestone types, this Shelly Grainstone (Lithotype 14) (Dunham, 1962) has been identified in column bases and capitals from the Neronian and Flavian palace at Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971) as well as rubble and architectural fragments from the monumental archway at Richborough (Strong, 1968) , 200km away. The very high overall porosity of 41.2% (Honeyborne, 1982) accounts for some intricate carving especially the Rams Horn Volutes in the Neronian Cornithian Capital at Fishbourne (KH66) but makes it very susceptible to weathering. These biosparites (KH66; KH269) (Folk, 1959; 1962) share a number of petrological and geochemical similarities with a building stone sample of Calcaire Grossier (KH142)10 from the Tertiary of the Paris Basin (see Plates 4; 20; A1.2; A4.1). ¾ ¾ ¾

¾ ¾

¾

6.6.3

Marquise oolite

The use of this white (5YR 8/1), medium, to coarse, Oolitic Grainstone (Lithotype 17) (Dunham, 1962) is restricted to sites from Kent. It has been identified in fragments of monumental architecture and ashlar blocks from the Richborough Quadriform Archway (Strong, 1968; Blagg, 2002) and the possible Temple at Canterbury (Blagg, 1984; 2002) as well as a dedicatory, altar-stone from Lympne (RIB 66). These worked examples (KH35; KH65; KH68) are petrologically and geochemically comparable with outcrop samples (KH93; KH119-120) of an Oosparite (Marquise Oolite) (Folk, 1959; 1962) (See Plates 3; 23; A1.2; A4.1).

A granular, porous, grey/white (5YR 8/1) limestone surface that is prone to weathering. A distinctive trace fossil fauna (Ditrupa worm casts) visible in hand specimen. In thin-section - Orbitolites, Miliolid and Amphistogenid foraminifera characteristic of the Lutetian (Lower/Middle Eocene) of Northern France. Silt size quartz abundant in thin-section, XRD (12%) and XRF analysis (4.69-7.84%) Very low levels of Fe2O3 (0.11-0.17%) and high levels of MgO (0.71-0.81%) XRF analysis.

¾ ¾ ¾ ¾

6.6.2

Even cream limestone surface with no discernable fossils. In thin section it is a fine mosaic of small peloids (70%) intermixed with bioclastic fraction (25%) made up of ostracods, Valvulinidae foraminifera and echinoid fragments. A high percentage of quartz, confirmed by XRD and XRF analysis (14%). Levels of strontium between 725-744 ppm (XRF analysis). Low positive values of δ13C (+1.16‰) (see Figure 6.2).

Caen stone

This fine yellow compact (2.5YR 8/1) Packstone (Lithotype 15) (Dunham, 1962) has been used exclusively in the column drums from the Flavian

6.6.4

A distinctive white “Millet seed” to oncolitic (Worssam & Tatton-Brown 1990) oolitic texture, atypical of any British freestone. Micritised ooid grains of varying size, supported by low ferroan poikilotopic cement. Levels of strontium between (413-517 ppm) and Fe2O3 between (0.25-0.47%) XRF analysis). Lower negative values of δ18O (-2.12 to 2.96‰) than British Bathonian freestones (Figure 6.2).

Dolomitic chalk

This material is present in only one tombstone (Wright, 1962) from London as a fine Cream-White (2.5YR 8/1) Wackestone (Lithotype 5) (Dunham, 1962) comparable 10 Freestone also known as Banc de St Leu or Ditrupa limestone (Worssam and Tatton-Brown, 1990)

87

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

in colour and texture to a hard chalk. It provided a suitable medium for the carving of a panelled inscription yet was too hard and brittle for relief work. A Pelmicrite (Folk 1959; 1962) in thin section (KH46), it is very similar to outcrop samples of Dolomitic chalk sampled from the Seine Valley (KH143; KH206) (See Plates 6; 11; A1.1; A4.1). ¾ ¾

¾ ¾

6.6.5

outcrop of Calcaire Grossier, is sited along the Oise Valley, 200 km upstream from the Seine Estuary. Its use at Fishbourne (c350 km) and Richborough (c420 km) indicates how far these materials were carried. Why, however, Calcaire Grossier (see A6.2) and Caen stone from the L’Orne valley (see A6.2; Figure A6.9) (c200 km) were used at Fishbourne in preference to Marquise Oolite (c180 km) is not clear. Chapter seven (7.4) will provide an explanation for the distribution of continental freestones along the south coast.

Small fossil fragments scattered over the tombstone surface. At a higher magnification a distinctive fossil assemblage consisting of Bolivinid foraminifera with broken ostracod, bivalve and echinoderm fragments, present only in the chalk from the Upper Turonian-Santonian of Haute Normandie (Kennedy & Juignet, 1974). Compression of micro-peloids into micrite. Small rhombs of dissolved dolomite atypical of the chalk succession of the British Isles (Sellwood pers. comm.) and only present in chalks in the area around Etretat.

6.7 Other Freestones The objective here is to characterise the remaining types of freestone identified in stray architectural finds.

6.7.1

The occurrence of this open textured pale yellow-brown (2.5YR 8/2) Oolitic Grainstone (Lithotype 12) (Dunham, 1962) is restricted to St.Albans (see 6.3.2) in one reused column base from the bath-house of Insula XIX. (Wilson, 1975; Niblett, 2001). In thin-section (KH183), this Bio-oosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) shared the following petrological and geochemical characteristics as with Weldon stone (KH72) (See Plates 5; 18; A1.2; A4.1). ¾ Large rounded ooids bound by a thin meniscus rim cement. ¾ Interbedded oyster bands. ¾ Low levels of Strontium (406 ppm) comparable with the related Ketton stone (494 ppm). ¾ High positive δ13C values (+2.66‰ and +3.24‰) and low negative δ18O values (- 0.22‰ and -0.12‰).

Lower Carboniferous Limestone

Unique to only one altar carving from Chichester (RIB 90) is a white Packstone (Lithotype 16) (Dunham, 1962) that both in texture and finish is reminiscent of a white marble. In thin-section, however, the rock is very different and can be classified as a Crinoidal Biooosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) (KH189). It is petrologically comparable to Lower Carboniferous limestones of Northern France such as Calcaire Joinville from the Boulonnais (Ager & Wallace, 1966), and the Ardennes (Gignoux, 1955), that have been used as ornamental marble (See Plate 22 A1.2; A4.1). ¾

¾

6.6.6

Weldon stone

Fusulinid foraminifera (Shagarinids) (R.Goldring pers. comm.) characteristic of the Lower Carboniferous (Tournaisian or Visean) of Northern Europe. Rock has undergone extensive diagenetic recrystallisation associated with deep burial, typical of older Palaeozoic carbonates hence the metamorphosed marbly appearance.

The outcrop of Weldon stone at Corby forms the southernmost tip of the Upper Lincolnshire Limestone Formation. At just 95 km from St. Albans it is also closer than either the high quality Bathonian freestone (lithotype 4) outcrops at Cirencester (117 km) and Bath (149 km) and the Bajocian (lithotype 2) of Gloucestershire (143 km).

Geological Sources

6.7.2

The recurring use of freestone from northern France at sites located along the southern coast of England appears to relate to the benefits of maritime accessibility and lower transport costs. For example, the Marquise oolite outcrop at only 60 km from Richborough is sited near to the port of Gesoriacum (Boulogne) (see A6.2; Figure A6.10), the closest crossing point between Britannia and Gaul. However, not all of these outcrops are located along coastal fringes of Gaul. The main freestone

Inferior Oolites from the Cotswolds and Lincolnshire

The textural and geochemical characteristics of three lithotypes (10, 11 and 13) identified in stray fragments of monumental architecture from London (KH63; KH181; KH201) and St. Albans (KH182) could not be matched with a particular freestone. Nevertheless, it was possible

88

FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

to specify their regional stratigraphic position using palaeontological and geochemical criteria.

Courtyard at Colchester (Drury, 1984) with any geological material. Although, the macroscopic and microscopic (KH170) textural characteristics of this Banded Biosparite (Folk, 1959; 1962) were very comparable to a Ham Hill Stone (KH70 KH255), their geochemical signatures differed (see Plates 4; 15; A1.2; A4.1). However, as there was also a great deal of petrological and geochemical variability within the formation (KH70; KH255) it would be unwise to discount this rock-type until a more intensive programme of outcrop sampling is undertaken. Furthermore, there is also no other freestone in the British Isles with such distinctive texture (Leary, 1989).

Biostratigraphic markers were used to characterise two of the freestones (lithotype 10 and 11) worked at London to the Inferior Oolite (Aalenian to Bajocian) of the Cotswolds. Lithotype 10 (KH181; KH201) a cream yellow (2.5YR 8/1), banded shelly grainstone (Dunham, 1962) present in the Claudio-Neronian column fragments from Calverts Building (CB80) (Cowan, 1992) contained a Ctenostreum bivalve characteristic of rocks from the Lower Inferior Oolite (Sellwood pers. obs.) (See Plate 16; A1.2; A4.1). In the second case, a fine white (5YR 8/1) oolitic grainstone (Dunham, 1962) (lithotype 11) described from a Late Claudian-Neronian engaged column at Regis House (Brigham et. al., 1996a; Pringle & Samuel, 2001) (KWS 94) (KH63), contained the echinoderm Clypeus common in the Upper Inferior Oolite (Goldring pers. obs.) (See Plate 17; A1.2; A4.1).

At 328 km from Colchester, the Ham Hill outcrop in Somerset is a very distant source (A6.1; Figure A6.1). However, given that Lothringer Freestone (700 km) and Painswick stone (231 km) were used in early Roman Colchester, it is still possible that this material may have come a very long way. Finally, Lithotype 8, a shelly oolitic grainstone (Dunham, 1962) used in one tombstone from London (RIB 18) could not be sourced as it had petrological and geochemical characteristics of both Bathonian rocks of the Cotswolds and Bajocian rocks from Lincolnshire (See Plate 14 ; A1.1; A4.1).

The early use of freestones from the Aalenian and Bajocian at London was unforeseen, given that the main Inferior Oolite outcrop at Gloucester, at 190 km, is a more distant source rock than the Bathonian materials (152 km) used later on (see 6.5). It was evident, however, from examples elsewhere in the province, that other parts of this exposure were being quarried early on. For example, Painswick stone (see 6.3) had been identified in Pre-Flavian Silchester and Colchester although its provisional identification at pre-Flavian London still requires petrological confirmation.11

6.8 Freestones not used Throughout this review it has been possible to identify the parts of the Middle Jurassic escarpment that had been quarried and worked during the first century (see Figure 5.1). The chapter now switches focus onto those parts of the outcrop, and more especially the freestones that were not exploited, whether they have yet to be identified, or because they were not valued as a decorative building stone. The objective of the remainder of this chapter is to briefly describe the whereabouts of each of these units which are summarised on a map (Figure 6.3) in order to emphasise the selectivity of first century quarrying operations.

Geochemical techniques (XRF and stable isotope geochemistry (carbon and oxygen)) were used to source the fine oolitic packstone (lithotype 13) (Dunham, 1962) from the reused attic column base (KH182) from St.Albans (Frere, 1983) to the Inferior Oolite of Lincolnshire (see Plate 19; A1.2; A4.1). Low levels of Strontium (457 ppm) and positive readings of δ13C (+1.76‰) were comparable to values obtained from samples obtained throughout this outcrop. Whether this second example from St. Albans belonged to the same part of the Lincolnshire Limestone outcrop as the bathhouse fragment (Weldon stone) is unclear.

6.7.3

6.8.1

Unidentified freestones

Lincolnshire Limestone – Ancaster, Clipsham, Ketton and Barnack stone

Several freestone types from the central part of the Lincolnshire Limestone outcrop were not identified in first century tombstones and monumental architecture in southern Britannia.

It was not possible to precisely match small quantities of a banded, orange-brown, skeletal grainstone (lithotype 9) (Dunham, 1962) used to pave the Temple

The apparent absence of Ancaster stone (weather-bed, hard white and freestone) (see Plate 5; A6.1; Figure A6.4) from early contexts at Lincoln in preference to inferior local materials (6.4) is particularly surprising,

11 Worked stone (guttering) from Regis House identified in hand specimen (Hayward pers. obs.) (Plate 25)

89

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

given that the principal outcrop at Ancaster GR SK 992410 is located close to a road junction that connects Ermine Street directly with the Neronian fortress 40 km to the north. Its identification in samples obtained from later Roman tombstones and sculpture in London (Hassall & Tomlin 1982; Hayward forthcoming.) and locally (Frere, 1961), however, attests to its later use.

suitability for carving (Leary, 1989) would have made it an ideal material for architectural carving but more especially for tombstones. Moreover, its geological character (see Plate 3), locality and accessibility (see A6.1) would have been known about early on as other coastal Jurassic rock-types from Dorset were being worked. The Claudio-Early-Flavian use of Purbeck marble throughout the southern half of the province in inscriptions (RIB 91; 92) inlays (Cunliffe, 1971; Wooders, 2000) and labrum (Bidwell 1979) and Kimmeridge Shale (Allen & Fulford, 2004; Allen et. al. 2007) in tessarae throughout southern Britannia attests to this. The preference for using Purbeck marble from this region with its suitability to take on a polish and accurate stylised inscriptions may have consigned Portland stone to an obsolete role in the early development of the province.

Similarly, the non-appearance of other types of building stone from this region (Clipsham, Ketton and Barnack) (see Plates 3; 5; A6.1; Figure A6.5) requires explanation. Once again these exposures are close to Ermine Street, but are a further 40 km south of the Ancaster outcrop, and are thus closer to centres in the southern half of the province. However, it is only in later Roman Britain that these materials appear to have been used. Barnack stone has been identified in Roman milestones (Sedgley, 1975) and in sarcophagi (Hayward, unpublished MSc thesis 1999), sculpture (Dimes 1980; Hayward forthcoming.) and by Sanderson in building material (Betts, 1993) from London.

6.9 Summary The freestone types identified and characterised in this petrological review of first century tombstones and architectural fragments shows that from the outset, the full extent and economic potential of the British Middle Jurassic freestone outcrop was known about. Along large tracts of the Middle Jurassic outcrop from north Lincolnshire (lithotype 6) as far south as Bath (lithotype 4) and possibly Ham Hill (lithotype 9), at least ten different freestones (lithotypes 2-4; 6-7; 9-13) had been targeted for use in the carving of first century tombstones and fragments of monumental architecture (Figure 5.1). A majority of these (lithotypes 2-4; 7; 10-11) outcrop, however, in the Inferior and Great Oolite of the Cotswolds, where the thickness and lateral extent is at its greatest. Nevertheless the quality of some of these freestones selected early on, particularly Painswick stone and Athelstan oolite shows a similar, in-depth knowledge of outcrops as that needed to locate and quarry Purbeck marble.

One explanation for the absence of these freestones may relate to the length (100 km) and breadth (10-20 km), of the main limestone ridge between Corby and Lincoln.12 It seems unlikely that all of the decorative building stone would have been discovered from preliminary surveying and mapping of such a large region. However, as Ermine Street runs over or close to these outcrops it seems that another explanation is required. Furthermore, the construction of two permanent early forts at Great Casterton (Corder, 1951; 1954; Todd, 1968) and Ancaster (Burnham & Wacher, 1990) along this ridge would probably have ensured that the whereabouts and character of these materials would have been known. It is possible that these smaller military establishments may not have had the necessary manpower or equipment to quarry and supply these freestones (see Chapter seven). The use of inferior local materials in tombstones in Lincoln (6.4), in preference to better quality freestone from this central outcrop would indicate that it was accessibility rather than desirability of the material that was the determining factor in choosing stone from the Lincolnshire Limestone formation (see Chapter seven). Similarly, at St. Albans the freestones from the southernmost part of this outcrop (Weldon stone) were chosen ahead of these major building stones.

6.8.2

Even with this knowledge, the continued reliance upon continental freestone sources is surprising. The six freestones (lithotypes 1; 5; 14-17) that could be sourced to northern France (Figure 5.1) also come from widely separate outcrops at Normandy (Caen stone) and Lorraine (Calcaires á Polypiers) 500 km to the east. Chapter seven will next explain the reasons behind their selection, distribution, and chronological use.

Portland stone

The absence of any Portland stone13 is perhaps the most startling discovery. Its white colour, durability and 12

It extends another 50 km north to the Humber as Cave Oolite. Including the Isle of Portland, Cliffside quarries of the Isle of Purbeck and the Vale of Wardour (Chilmark stone). 13

90

FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

91

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

92

FREESTONE TYPE AND USE IN EARLY SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

93

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Chapter 7 The Character and Development of Early Freestone Quarrying and Supply in Southern Britannia 7.1

order to ascertain who was responsible for the quarrying, transportation and use of each freestone source. Were the same organisations responsible in each case study or were separate groups (legionary; provincial; municipal; private enterprise etc) involved during this time period? Furthermore, can similar patterns of freestone procurement be identified in other north-western provinces of the empire?

Introduction

The main objective of Chapter seven is to provide an explanation for the different spatial, temporal and functional patterns of freestone use identified in southern Britannia during the first century. It has already been possible (Chapters three to five) to establish where, and generally when, each of the different freestone lithotypes were being used. Furthermore, petrological and geochemical analysis has identified the geological source of 11 of these, making it possible to relate the quarried resource (Chapter six) directly to the settlement at which it had been used. What emerges is a complex and dynamic picture of local and regional freestone extraction and abandonment (see Figures 5.1-5.4). Moreover, these findings, when combined with the existing body of evidence enhance our understanding of the early (late first to early second century) development of the southern half of the province.

7.2 Claudian and Neronian Quarrying Operations

Legionary

This section will account for the use of specific freestone lithotypes in the earliest military tombstones at Colchester (7.2.1-7.2.2), Gloucester (7.2.2) and Lincoln (7.2.3). It will also provide an explanation for the early use of freestone in fragments of monumental architecture found at Silchester (7.2.2). In each case, I will demonstrate that it was early legionary activity that was at least partly responsible for the procurement, transportation and working of the stone used in these monuments. The use of freestone at Claudio-Neronian Colchester (7.2.1 and 7.2.2) will be the initial focus of this section. In particular, the utilization of Calcaires à Polypiers (lithotype 1), where I will provide evidence for a petrological connection between the pre-invasion legionary bases of the Rhineland and the initiation and development of this, the earliest Roman fortress and colonia. I will next provide evidence for a link between the construction of the earliest legionary fortresses at Gloucester and Lincoln and the quarrying and transportation of the first native freestones to be finely carved and inscribed in the southern half of Britannia.

Chapter seven will set out to explain these changes as a series of chronological themes. It is not the intention of the chapter, however, to assess the significance of every type of freestone identified in this study. Native freestone and continental freestone represented by individual examples of worked stone (Lithotypes 5, 8-13, 16), are recorded elsewhere (Chapter six; A1.1; A1.2; A4) and only provide a limited amount of information, particularly if the carvings cannot be accurately dated or sourced. For this reason I will be concentrating only on the important types of worked freestone (lithotypes 1-4; 6-7; 14-15; 17) identified in large quantities, that can be reliably dated and characterised. I will start by explaining the very early use of continental freestone at Colchester (7.2.1), followed by the reasons behind the earliest quarrying of the native freestone outcrops (7.2.2 and 7.2.3) and its use at Colchester, Gloucester, Silchester (7.2.2.) and Lincoln (7.2.3). The chapter will end with an account of the later widespread use of Bathonian freestone in the south-central England (7.3), and the use of freestone from northern France along the south-coast of England (7.4). In each case I will seek to establish whether the causes for these changes relate in any way to the rapidly changing provincial situation during the latter half of the first century.

7.2.1

Rhineland freestone

Colchester is the starting point for any discussion on the provenance of materials in the province, already an abandoned legionary fortress and established colonia by AD 49/50 Tacitus (Ann. 12.32). The identification and use of Calcaires à Polypiers (Lothringer Freestone) (lithotype 1), only at Claudian Colchester, in three examples of early worked freestone (Drury 1984; RIB 200; 211) requires an explanation. This is particularly the case for its use in the legionary tombstone of Facilis (RIB 200), dated to before the colonia’s foundation (see plate 7) (Phillips, 1975), making it the earliest known example of fine freestone carving within the province, and its use in a reused inscription fragment (Drury, 1984), believed to have originally formed part of the Temple of Claudius precinct.

In each section, I will be looking closely at the early infrastructure of the source region, the epigraphy of the representative stonework, as well as the provincial status of the centre at which the worked stone was found, in

94

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA I will be assessing the restricted provincial use of this freestone in a number of different ways. First, it is helpful to consider its wider distribution through northwest Europe, specifically at pre-invasionary legionary bases, from the Rhineland frontier. This will establish who was responsible for, the quarrying and transportation and use of this stone at Colchester, at a very early stage in the province’s development. Second, why this freestone was chosen in preference to more accessible British resources at a time when the topography and geology of the southern half of the province was already being surveyed needs to be explored. Finally, it is appropriate to ask whether stylistic comparison be made between these carvings and those worked in Calcaires à Polypiers on the continent. This would establish whether civilian (? Gaulish), or possibly legionary, craftsmen had been brought over for the purpose of carving these monuments, using a material with which they were familiar.

(400 km) (Steures, 1995; Panhuysen, 2002; Van Enckevort & Thijssen, 2003); Maastricht (400 km) (Panhuysen, 1996) and Colijnsplaat (500 km) (Stuart & Bogaers, 2001). Its distribution was assisted by the proximity of the Rhine or one of its tributaries (Moselle, Lahn) and the Meuse at each of these centres (Figure 7.1). The quantity of freestone supplied was also large. For example, 90% of the worked freestone identified at the Römisch-Germanisches Museum, Cologne is hewn out of Calcaire à Polypiers (Hellenkemper pers. comm.) including an estimated 221 m³ used in the construction of the Poblicius tomb (Wolff, 2000). Similarly, proportions of Calcaires à Polypiers at Bonn (83%) (Bauchenß, 1979) and at Mainz (58%) (Stribrny, 1987) are high. Even at Maastricht (109,000 m³), (Panhuysen, 1996) and at Nijmegen3 (Panhuysen, 2002) very large quantities had been transported by river by as much as 400 km from their source.4 It is not surprising, therefore, that a proportion of this material had made its way over the Channel during this period of maximum exploitation.

7.2.1.1 Quarrying and Supply At least one of the Roman quarry sources of Calcaires à Polypiers is known through the discovery of three Flavian votive altars (CIL XIII 4623-4625)1 at Norroy in Gallia Belgica (Röder, 1960; Dworkowska, 1983; Bedon, 1984). It was from this locality that comparative geological samples were obtained, and found to share very similar petrological and geochemical characteristics as worked stone from first century Colchester. Moreover, freestone at Norroy had a comparable petrological character as 80 examples of first century worked stone from Mainz (Stribrny, 1987).

The level of organisation required to initiate this scale of freestone quarrying and supply would have been considerable. That the army was responsible for the initiation and organisation of freestone supply from Norroy has long been established (Dworkowska, 1983). The Flavian votive altars found at the quarry (CIL XIII 4623-4625) were dedicated by detached legionaries of the X Gemina, VIII Augusta and XX1 Rapax (Bedon, 1984). Furthermore, this can be reinforced by its earlier use mainly in legionary and auxiliary tombstones5 and in monumental architecture associated with Claudian fortresses in the German provinces (Dworkowska, 1983). Three of these forts at: Strasbourg, Mainz and Neuss formed the pre-invasion legionary bases of the II Augusta, XIV Gemina and Legio XX.

That this freestone was used extensively in north-west Europe at the time of the conquest of Britannia is indicated by its widespread distribution2 in three Rhineland provinces: Germania Superior, Germania Inferior and Gallia Belgica. Its identification has been confirmed as far as Strasbourg (450 km) (Bedon, 1984), Mainz (300 km) (Stribrny, 1987), Koblenz (200 km) (Röder, 1960), Trier (150 km) (Röder, 1960; Schleiermacher, 1984), Cologne (300 km) (Röder, 1960; Wolff, 2000), Waldegirmes (300 km) (Carroll, 2002), Bonn (250 km) (Bauchenß, 1978; Bauchenß, 1979), Xanten (375 km) (Heimberg & Reiche, 1998), Nijmegen

7.2.1.2 Supply Britannia

and

use

in

southern

The recognition of Calcaires à Polypiers at Claudian Colchester alone (Hayward 2006b) extends the legionary supply and use of this stone beyond the Rhineland

3

For example its use in the 7 m high godenpijler (Panhuysen, 2002). Calcaires à Polypiers outcrops at Norroy along the western bank of the Moselle between Metz and Nancy (Figure 7.1) 5 Caelius tombstone at Bonn dated to soon after AD 9 (Horn, 1981); Clodius tombstone Bonn AD 35-AD 50 (Horn, 1981), Cordus tombstone Mainz AD 13-43 (Stribrny, 1987) 4

1

Dedicated to the deity of quarrymen Hercules Saxanus (Dworakoswka, 1983). 2 Closer to the source it was also used in the construction of the first century aqueduct at Gorze (Briot & Sider, 2000) and Metz, 25 km away (Collot, 1988).

95

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

96

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA provinces for the first time.6 Furthermore, its identification in the pre-colonia legionary monument of Facilis establishes a petrological connection between the pre-invasion legionary base of Legio XX at Neuss with its new garrison base in southern Britannia. The use of Calcaires à Polypiers at Neuss just prior to the invasion is not in doubt, given its petrological and geochemical identification in a sample obtained from the JulioClaudian7 Pancuius military tombstone (Noelke, 1977; Hayward 2006b) of the auxiliary unit cohors Lusitanorum (see A.1.1; A4.1). Furthermore, the tombstone of a soldier of Legio XX, was also made from a comparable type of limestone (but not sampled) and is likely to have been made before AD 43, prior to this unit’s transfer to Britain (Noelke, 1977).

Genialis8 and Cordus monuments at Mainz were each constructed out of Calcaires à Polypiers (Stribrny, 1987). The latter, belonged to Legio XIV Gemina, which was based in Germania Superior just prior to the conquest, and this implies that this invading army had knowledge of this freestone. Second, at Neuss, the sampled Pancuius tombstone, although a Protomenstelen (Noelke, 1977), rather than the full-length military figure, is also stylistically comparable. As well as a slight dip in the centre of the niched arch, it had Julio-Claudian facial features. The Facilis tombstone would most probably have been carved by a continental, legionary craftsman, who worked a freestone with which he was familiar. The monument could have been completely carved at Colchester or partly worked on the continent during the lifetime of Facilis and completed at Colchester after his death.

The second example from Colchester, identified in a sample taken from a reused inscription from Insula XXII, is generally believed to have formed part of an architectural screen of the Temple of Claudius precinct (Drury, 1984). Although the date at which it was carved remains unclear, if the use of imported stone from the continent represents the earliest use of freestone at Colchester, it is more likely that the inscription is to be associated with a legionary building, perhaps the principia.

Thus the quarrying, supply, carving and use of Calcaires à Polypiers at Claudian Colchester is intrinsically linked with the invading Roman army. Rather than experiment with British freestones, which may already have been identified during the initial post-conquest surveying of the Middle Jurassic ridge, a continuation in the tradition of working with a tried and tested freestone medium was seen as more reliable and worthwhile. The transport opportunities available to ship large quantities of freestone from the Rhineland to Colchester after AD 43 could have been with surplus boats left after the invasion. The fact that quantities of Pompeian Red Ware (Dunnett, 1966) and Dressel Type 20 Amphorae (Sealey, 1985) as well as mortaria petrologically sourced to the Mayen District (Williams, 1985) were also being shipped over from the Rhine to supply the Roman army at Claudian Colchester would suggest that demand for materials from this route were high.

The limited provincial use of Calcaires à Polypiers in monumental masonry at Claudian Colchester, one of which (RIB 200) is the earliest known example of fine freestone carving in the province, suggests that at this stage the Romans had little knowledge of the local geological resources available. The high quality native freestones of the Middle Jurassic escarpment had not yet been fully surveyed or investigated for their worth as decorative stone, but that continental material was well known. The absence of a British tradition in fine freestone carving, enforced the army to instead rely on a material with which they were already familiar, rather than choosing these untried indigenous sources.

For the invading Roman army, continued access to a quality freestone, allowed impressive stone monuments characterised by accurate inscriptions and stylised carving to be set up quickly at what was the earliest fortress and later colonia in the province. The intention would have been to communicate to the native population a claim of superiority by the invading Romans. For a serving centurion in a new province, being commemorated in freestone used extensively at his pre-invasion legionary base, would have been a way of laying claim to this origin and identity.

7.2.1.3 Stylistic Connections The full-figured style of which the Facilis tomb provides such a good provincial example was prevalent in many other army tombstones along the Rhineland frontier during the middle of the first century (Plate 24). A petrological match between Facilis and some of these tombstones merely reinforces the stylistic link with the continent. For example, the stylistically comparable

6 The use of Calcaires a Polypiers in Roman Britain has recently extended to London with its identification in thin-section (CSIR 1) from a Jupiter column at Gracechurch Street (Hayward forthcoming). Unfortunately the exact find spot has not been located. 7 Dated on epigraphic evidence as was probably temporarily stationed at Neuss as support for Legio XX at Neuss (Noelke, 1977).

8 Genialis, especially is comparable to Facilis. As well as a dip in the arch of the niche, it has incised decoration along the edges of the niche, features characteristic of tombstones from the Rhineland area (Phillips, 1975).

97

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

7.2.2

Native freestones- Painswick stone

military tombstones (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008; RIB 121).9 Its proximity to Ermine Street would also have made it accessible to the rest of the province.

An investigation of the quarrying and supply of the first native freestone begins with Painswick stone. Its use in the Claudian Longinus Sdapeze (RIB 201) monument, at Colchester, suggests that, along with the Facilis monument (7.2.1) it is probably the earliest known example of fine freestone carving in the province.

Its early provincial use in Claudian to Early Flavian architectural fragments at Silchester (108 km) and Claudian tombstone at Colchester (Huskinson, 1994; RIB 201) (231 km) is an indication of how far this material was being carried at this time. Silchester and Colchester have both been identified as the two premier centres in the province between AD 50-AD 60 (Fulford, 2003) and each would have required a quantity of freestone material for the construction of early public buildings and for use in tombstones. At Silchester, the use of Painswick stone in a Tuscan-style column base in the probable Claudian bath-house is an example of one such enterprise. Each of these early settlements was serviced by a series of penetration roads (Davies, 2002). Ermine Street, Akeman Street10 and Stane Street would have each permitted the transport of this stone overland directly from source to centre.

The main objective will be to explain the reasons behind the widespread early provincial distribution of this material particularly at Silchester and Colchester, where equally suitable (see Chapter 6) and more accessible freestone could have been quarried. I will again link its early production, supply and use to post-conquest legionary movement and control. In this case, the establishment of the early (Claudio-Neronian) legionary fortresses at Kingsholm and Gloucester and the military supply routes that connect these fortresses with the rest of the new province, offers a context. I will also be examining the unique character of Painswick stone, and whether these properties (see 6.3.1) would, in any way, have influenced the choice of this freestone ahead of equally suitable but less desirable materials. I will again examine whether any stylistic comparison can be made with examples from the Rhineland in order to determine whether continental legionary craftsmen continued to be used.

Its identification, in hand specimen, in small quantities from a statue base inscription (Wright, 1970) at the Flavian principia at Caerleon and stone guttering from a Neronian quayside site at London (KWS 94) extends its use still further. It is nevertheless noteworthy that, at each of these centres, equally suitable and more accessible freestones could have been chosen. “Bath-stone”,11 for example, at 93 km is nearer to Silchester whilst Lincolnshire Limestone (103 km)12 is much closer to Colchester. From this one might infer that only selected parts of the Middle Jurassic escarpment had been surveyed. However, this ignores the unique stylistic qualities of Painswick stone (see 6.3.1).

Once again the legionary fortress and later colonia at Colchester will be the focal point for this discussion (7.2.2 and 7.2.4). There is a particular need to explain the very early supply of British freestone supply to Colchester which may have been occurring at the same time as Calcaires à Polypiers from the continent. I will assess the epigraphic evidence from the military tombstones from Colchester and Gloucester in order to explain these changes.

The scale of early freestone production and supply cannot have been great. For example, only 12 architectural fragments (7% of all monumental masonry) at Silchester were constructed out of Painswick stone, the largest being the13kg Tuscan column base (Wooders, 2000) from the demolition layer (Period 5) of the Flavian

7.2.2.1 Quarrying and Supply Although at outcrop, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest the early Roman quarrying of Painswick stone, there is other substantial evidence to indicate that this took place. By comparing the petrological and geochemical character of outcrop samples with ClaudioNeronian tombstones and fragments of monumental architecture at Gloucester, Silchester and Colchester, it has been possible to identify Painswick Hill (GR SO 865115) and the adjacent Jurassic escarpment as the probable sources. This site is a mere 10 km from both the Claudian Legionary Fortress at Kingsholm and its Neronian-early Flavian successor at Gloucester. It was already being used locally as the source of first century

9 Painswick stone is also used in seven (63.6%) of the 11 2nd century column base fragments from the colonia (Heighway et. al., 1980). This is the only instance where Painswick stone is in use after the first century. 10 The construction of Akeman Street at Wilcote (between Cirencester and Alchester) has been dated to around AD 47 from pottery and Claudian coinage (Hands, 1993). 11 Combe Down oolite 12 Weldon stone

98

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA Forum-Basilica.13 Larger individual blocks of Painswick stone would have been required for the military tombstones at Gloucester and Colchester, but examples (Huskinson, 1994; Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008; RIB 121; RIB 201) are scarce. Compared with the scale of freestone production operating at this time in north-west Europe (7.2.1.1), it is significantly smaller.

between AD 43 and AD 49/50 (Crummy, 1988) and its subsequent conversion to a colony of veteran soldiers after the legions movement westward Tacitus (Ann. 12.32) bears this out. Additionally, art-historical, epigraphic and archaeological evidence can each be used to link the carving of Painswick stone at Colchester with army quarrying and supply at Gloucester. First, there is the stylistic similarity between the RIB 201 (Type IVc) and the first century RIB 121, (Type VIb) Horseman and fallen enemy motif tombstones from Colchester and Gloucester (Schleiermacher, 1984), and both are carved out of Painswick stone (Figure 7.2). Tombstone epigraphy, has also identified serving soldiers from Legio XX at both Colchester (RIB 200) and Gloucester (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008). Given that the occupation dates for the legionary fortresses at Kingsholm (AD 40s-AD 60s) and Gloucester (AD 60sAD 80s) coincide with the erection of the military tombstone RIB 201 (AD 43-AD 49/50) at Colchester, it does not seem unreasonable to link its use to directly with army quarrying operations at Gloucester.

7.2.2.2 Organisation To initiate the use of this stone would still have required a considerable amount of organisation. First, it had to be identified as a material suitable enough for fine carving in a province without a tradition in working with freestone. Then blocks of stone, some as large as two metres in one dimension,14 would have needed to have been transported over distances exceeding 200 km, and then finely carved. The army had the necessary organisational ability and there is evidence to support this. An important phase in the early planning and construction of a 20 ha fortresses would have been an assessment of the local raw materials by a reconnaissance team (Shirley, 2001). This is likely to have included a team of specialists familiar with the quarrying, transportation and suitability of stone suitable for the construction of fortress defences, legionary bath-houses and principia. Given that the construction of the fortress at Kingsholm was begun before AD 50 (Hurst, 1988), the stone source at Painswick, located just 10 km away is likely to have been surveyed and assessed for its decorative worth around this time. That Painswick stone was used during legionary occupation at Gloucester is confirmed by its identification in two first century military tombstones at Wotton Cemetery (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; Simmonds et. al. 2008; RIB 121). Furthermore, the logistics involved in quarrying, shaping and transporting large stone blocks could also only have been achieved at this time with an organised labour force used to the practical demands associated with the construction and maintenance of a 20 ha. legionary fortress, and the supply roads that connected it with the rest of the province.

If the army was responsible for the quarrying, supply and working of Painswick stone from Gloucester, in public buildings at Claudio-Neronian to Early Flavian Silchester the evidence is not so clear-cut. Certainly the suggested Claudian-Early Neronian construction date (Fulford, 2003) for the column base carved out of Painswick stone used in the portico of the bath-house in Insula XXXIII is consistent with the period of occupation for the Kingsholm fortress (Hurst, 1988). Evidence, however, from excavation, of a Pre-Flavian military building at Silchester is, with the possible exception of the central, courtyard building of the first construction phase from Insula IV (Fulford & Timby, 2000; Fulford, 2003), lacking. Furthermore, there are no military tombstones at Silchester. Nevertheless, the identification of a quantity of pre-Flavian legionary and auxiliary metalwork (Boon, 2000) is indicative of some military activity. Also, the lathe-turned column bases, carved out of Painswick stone and used in early public buildings at Silchester are consistent in style with an example used in the Period 1 principia colonnade of the masonry legionary fortress at Caerleon (Boon, 1970), where Painswick stone had also been used in a statue base inscription (Wright, 1970). Although Pre-Flavian Silchester, primarily functioned as a centre of a client kingdom, including the possible construction of Neronian palace (Fulford, 2003; 2008) it may also have functioned as a statio, (Boon, 2000), for the early legionary fortress bases at Kingsholm or Gloucester. This may account the early use of Painswick stone here rather than the more accessible Bath stone source used later on.

Evidence supporting the early supply of Painswick stone to Colchester by the army is provided by its use in an auxiliary tombstone. Furthermore, its carving, dated sometime between AD 43 and AD 49/50, is associated with a busy period of legionary activity at Colchester. The settlement’s function first as a legionary garrison

13 This may, however, have been reused material from a simple construction project such as the Claudian bath-house. 14 The Longinus monument at Colchester (Huskinson, 1994)

99

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

7.2.2.3 Stylistic Attributes Another factor to have influenced the selection of Painswick stone, over a local freestone, is its exceptional lithological character and appearance. These properties include a distinctive white colour, and a fine evengrained texture that made it conducive to accurate and stylised inscription work15 and decorative carving. Another attribute was its ability to take a polish, thus mimicking the effect of a white marble or even the white travertine (Jackson et. al. 2005) used in Rome. Combined, these qualities would have made Painswick stone a highly desirable medium with which to work and an effective means of displaying the power of Rome, in stone, to the new province. Its use in arguably the finest example of an auxiliary tombstone carving in the province (RIB 201) in the province, is one such example. Moreover, its use in lathe turned tuscan column bases, opus sectile altar fragments (Wooders, 2000) and statue base inscriptions (Wright, 1970) and stone guttering (KWS94), is an indication of the quality and versatility of this material (Plate 25). Given that Longinus was so well carved and so early on , also strengthens the argument mentioned above (see 7.2.1.3) that the stonework at Claudian Colchester was carved by continental craftsmen. In a province without a tradition of fine freestone carving, it was inevitable that stone-masons, familiar with the carving of Calcaires à Polypiers here could also be deployed to work on the earliest native quarried freestone. Furthermore, stylistic comparison between Longinus and auxiliary tombstones from pre-invasionary legionary bases such as Mainz (Schleiermacher, 1984; Mackintosh, 1986; Stribrny, 1987; Selzer, 1988; Mattern, 1989) suggest that army stonemasons were being used. Further afield, however, the quality of workmanship deteriorates. At Gloucester, for example, the comparable (and later) figured auxiliary tombstone of Rufus Sita (RIB 121) is of a far inferior standard (Figure 7.2). Therefore, it would seem that the craftsmen with the greatest aptitude for working in stone were being deployed at Colchester, the principal early provincial centre. Perhaps there was need here to carve in an elaborate and grand style in order to impress the local population. One final item of interest is its use, together with Purbeck marble, as opus sectile wall veneers from the period 5 (Flavian) timber basilica at Silchester (Wooders, 2000). The selection here of two British

freestones each, with a unique ability to take polish, must have fulfilled the role normally given to a continental marble in the production of opus sectile inlays. Whilst Painswick stone is restricted in its use to the exterior cladding of the period 5 altar, Purbeck marble is found more widely and continued to be employed in the period 6 Hadrianic forum-basilica (Wooders, 2000) . Its limited chronological use is replicated in tombstones and architectural fragments elsewhere in the province. To summarise, the early use Painswick stone does seem to coincide with the termination of supply of Calcaires à Polypiers from the continent. At Claudian Colchester, however, the possibility that the two materials were being worked simultaneously (RIB 200; 201) does suggest that the switch from a continental to a British source was not an immediate one. The reasons for this change appear to relate to the establishment of the westernmost fortress at Kingsholm during the late 40s. Legionary surveyors and specialists would have discovered Painswick stone as part of an assessment of local stone for fortress construction. A series of penetration roads would have connected these fortresses and the supply of this stone directly with the rest of the province. In effect the changing provincial situation refocused the supply of freestone away from the legion’s continental origins and towards the newly established fortresses along the Middle Jurassic ridge.

7.2.3

Native freestones – Lincolnshire Limestone

Lower

The third freestone to have been used in ClaudioNeronian military tombstones from south-central Britannia is the Basal Bed of the Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (lithotype 6). Its identification in four epitaphs commemorating serving legionaries of the IX Hispana at Lincoln (RIB 255-257, RIB 260) date its extraction to before AD 70, possibly as early as Claudian (Jones, 2002). After Painswick stone (7.2.2) it is the second indigenous freestone source to be have been quarried from the Jurassic ridge. This section sets out to explain the reasons behind its early selection and restricted provincial distribution and whether its extraction and supply can once again be linked with the local activity of the Roman army, specifically the construction of the legionary fortress base at Lincoln.

7.2.3.1

Quarrying and Supply

Despite an absence of archaeological evidence for Roman quarrying at Lincoln, it has still been possible to 15 A white even worked surface would also allow for the lettering to be painted (Huskinson, 1994)

100

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

101

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

identify a local source for the limestone used in these tombstones. Comparative petrological and geochemical analysis has characterised the rock to the surrounding Basal Bed of the Lower Lincolnshire Limestone Formation (see 6.4.2). One important exposure at Greetwell (TF 003 721) lies 3 km to the east of the Neronian legionary fortress site and its surrounding vicus and cemetery (see A 6.1; Figure A6.3). Unlike Painswick stone, the early provincial supply and use of the Lincolnshire material is confined to tombstones from the immediate surroundings of the fortress and later colonia. Only at Colchester (187 km), in small samples of rubble from the paved area between the Claudio-Neronian Temple of Claudius and its precinct at Colchester (Drury, 1984), does its use extend beyond Lincoln. After its initial use in four pre-Flavian military tombstones, it continued to be quarried and worked locally into the second century. It is found first in legionary tombstones of the succeeding regiment, Legio II Adiutrix (RIB 253; RIB 258), garrisoned at Lincoln between AD 71-76, and later in veteran epitaphs (RIB 249; 252) erected after the colonia’s foundation in AD 96. The use of this material in five civilian monuments (Huskinson, 1994; RIB 251; 263-265) is also likely to have continued into this later phase. This situation is somewhat analogous to the local exploitation of Painswick stone at Gloucester where, after early legionary quarrying, it continued to be worked locally in column bases (Heighway et. al., 1980) during the construction of the later first to early second century colony. The scale of local, freestone production must have been high, given that all thirteen of the sampled tombstones (Huskinson, 1994; RIB 249, 251-253, 255-258, 263-265) were carved out of this material. Furthermore, some individual stelae are large, some requiring quarried blocks of limestone up to 2.3 metres in length (RIB 255). The initial demand for this stone would have come from an estimated 5,000 legionaries, serving at any one time at the Early Neronian to Late Flavian 15 ha. fortress (Jones, 2002). The requirements from the later colonia, on the other hand, would have focused on the needs of retired soldiers and civilians. It is unclear why Lincolnshire limestone was not chosen for the architectural elements from the colonia’s public building programme. The large column bases of the Bailgate colonnade, for example, are probably constructed out of Millstone grit (Fox, 1893). Once again, only the army would have had the necessary organisational ability, manpower and equipment to have quarried and supplied the quantities of freestone required by the pre-Flavian population of Lincoln. Six of the earliest tombstones are constructed out of Lower Lincolnshire Limestone and commemorate serving

legionaries from the IX Hispana (RIB 255-257, 260) and Legio II Adiutrix (RIB 253, RIB 258). As with early legionary occupation at Gloucester, an assessment of local materials by a reconnaissance team associated with the construction of this legionary fortress (Shirley 2001) may have lead to its identification. It was possible that the discovery of siderite iron-ore from the underlying Northampton Sand Beds for use in tools, military equipment and nails may have lead to its detection. At Greetwell (SK 98127 71740), which has been identified as a probable Roman extraction site for iron-ore at Lincoln, stone-lined shafts (or wells) and Roman sarcophagus burials have been found close by (Schrüfer-Kolb, 2004). The proximity to Greetwell of the River Witham may have facilitated the transport of this stone and iron to the fortress and later colony. One should also not discount its discovery being brought about during the initial search for water. The local source, the Lias Clay, lies directly beneath the Lincolnshire Limestone at Lincoln (Jones, 2003). One final piece of evidence to support the early legionary working of this stone is depicted on the Pudens tombstone (RIB 258). The carving of an Ascia, a modified quarryman’s hammer (Blagg, 1976), indicates that at least one of the deceased had once been involved in the quarrying or fine carving of this stone, or that he was a geologist (see Plate 12).

7.2.3.2 Stylistic Consideration By comparison with the much finer and more widely used Painswick stone, I will highlight its deficiencies, which are now briefly reviewed. As mentioned previously (6.4.1) its hardness, orange brown colour and heterogeneous texture did not make it a suitable medium for fine, intricate carving nor accurate inscription. The only feature of note lay in its tough unyielding character which made it resistant to weathering. This characteristic, at least, made it a suitable medium for external use in tombstone slabs. These features, along with the geographical isolation of the outcrop relative to the rest of the province (187 km to Colchester; 193 km to St. Albans; 204 km to London), must account for its restricted provincial distribution. The much wider provincial and functional use of Painswick stone, however, can be attributed to its unique and exceptional petrological character. The outcrop is also geographically isolated from Colchester (232 km). This did not deter the Romans from using it early on in large and impressive tombstones there. In addition it was used in inlays and column bases at other centres such as Caerleon and Silchester.

102

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

7.2.4

Summary

Painswick stone (Inferior Oolite Group) from Gloucestershire and Lower Lincolnshire Limestone Formation (equivalent to the Middle Inferior Oolite) from Lincoln were selected, quarried, transported and worked very early on in the development of Britannia as a province. In each case, the establishment of a ClaudioNeronian legionary fortress base along the Jurassic ridge was responsible for the initial discovery and procurement of each of these monumental stones (Figure 7.3). At Lincoln, with one exception, this legionary use did not extend beyond the territorium of the fortress because of the poor quality of the material. The freestone at Gloucester, on the other hand, was of a much higher quality and was distributed and used over a much wider geographical area. It is not as easy, however, to link the early quarrying, supply and use of each of these native freestones with an individual legion. First of all, with the exception of Lincoln, the dataset is very small. The second reason relates to the fluidity of troop movement during the first century. At Gloucester, for example, there is only one legionary tombstone present (Tomlin & Hassall, 2005). Furthermore, there were two legionary fortresses, first at Kingsholm and then Gloucester, each probably manned by a different legion (Legio XX and II Augusta) (Hurst, 1988). At Lincoln the earliest use of Lower Lincolnshire Limestone is restricted to tombstones of the IX Hispana, which would suggest there was a relationship between the two. However, even here, the material does not continue to be used by the legion after its redeployment to York,16 CAD 71. Instead the replacement legion II Adiutrix continued to employ the same limestone material. Only during the early period of legionary fortress construction, when the freestone was initially discovered and quarried, may a specific legion have been responsible for its production. Finally, Claudio-Neronian Colchester appears to be the focus for the early native freestone use. As mentioned earlier (5.3.3), the use of Painswick stone (231 km) and Lower Lincolnshire Limestone (187 km), in addition to the possible use of Ham Hill stone from Somerset (328 km) in paving at the Temple of Claudius, is an indication of the pull that this centre had upon the known resources right along the Jurassic ridge. The range in quality is also surprising, from the marble-like character of Painswick stone down to the poorer “ragstones” of the Lower Lincolnshire Limestone. Given that more easily worked and accessible freestones from Bath (206 km) and

Northamptonshire (100 km) were not being used, this pattern of stonework use would appear to indicate a still limited knowledge of the Jurassic outcrop at the time when Colchester was the defacto centre of the province. On the other hand this pattern may reflect the location of legionary organisation and supply along the Jurassic ridge during the Claudio-Neronian period. The two major legionary fortresses at this time (Lincoln and Gloucester) would each have been the focus of a considerable amount of organisation in man-power and local natural resources. Included in this would have been the local freestone, which would have been far easier to quarry and supply to the rest of the province than freestones located away from these centres of legionary organisation. Nevertheless, the use of freestone from these two native sources reflects a change in focus away from continental sources towards more local materials.

7.3 Bath-stone quarrying and supply The petrological and geochemical evidence shows that from the latter part of the first century onwards, there was a change in the source and provincial supply of freestone from established, Rhineland (7.2.1) and native (7.2.2 and 7.2.3) outcrops to rock types from the Bathonian escarpment of the Cotswolds. Its early development is characterised by the small-scale quarrying of poor quality material (6.5.2) for local use and the occasional provincial supply of finer oolitic freestone (6.5.2) to London and Silchester. By the turn of the first – second century AD, however, the quarrying of Bath-stone had developed into a much larger centralised operation involving the supply of freestone to public building projects throughout central-southern England.17 This next case study will explore the reasons behind these changes as well as the origin, development and later widespread use of Bathonian freestones at early Roman settlements in southern England.

7.3.1

Origin and Development

The initial objective of this case-study is to explain the origin and development of “Bath-stone” quarrying and supply with reference to its early use in two different parts of southern England. Firstly I will consider six Claudian to Early Flavian legionary and auxiliary tombstones (Sauer 2005, a; b; c; 2006; RIB 108; 109;

16

The material in the Rufinus monument (RIB 673) is a Permian magnesian limestone. The later construction of the Flavian fortress at York also co-incides with the widespread exploitation of local stone (Millstone grit and magnesian limestone) (Ottoway, 2004).

17 In addition to a large quantity supplied to South Wales at Caerleon (Boon, 1970; Brewer, 1986; Zienkiewicz, 1986) and Caerwent (Brewer, 1986).

103

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

104

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

156; 159-160) that were discovered at early military (Alchester and Cirencester) and civilian settlements (Bath) along the south-Cotswolds escarpment.. Then I will consider its wider provincial use in a few column fragments found at Southwark (Cowan, 1992) and Silchester (Wooders, 2000) and a separate consignment used for the large Classicianus tower tomb in London (RIB 12). Comparable petrological results will provide evidence for the start of a centralised quarrying operation based at Bath.

7.3.1.1 South Cotswolds The identification of Bath stone in six military tombstones from the South Cotswold district provides a starting point for an investigation into the quarrying of this material. The Genialis (RIB 109) monument, for example, dates from as early as the Claudio-Early Flavian military occupation of the Leaholme auxiliary fortress at Cirencester (See A5.1).18 A geological examination of each of the six army tombstones has shown that the source rock is local Bathonian material (Forest marble or White limestone) (See 6.5.2). This is not always the most suitable for fine carving. Near Bath, for example, the better quality Combe Down Oolite could have been used for the carving of the three tombstones (RIB 156; 159-160), but instead a harder, shelly limestone was preferred. The restricted provincial distribution of each of these source rocks19 is very different to the widespread use of the finer Bathonian oolites and it is evident from the few worked examples that the scale of early quarrying must have been small just satisfying local demand. The responsibility for the discovery, early quarrying and supply must have lain with the army, given the proximity of the probable legionary fortress at Alchester20 and the fort at Cirencester.21 Reconnaissance teams would have assessed the suitability of local stone for fort and fortress construction (Shirley, 2001) within the territorium of the legion, including freestone for tombstone construction (Sauer, 2005c; RIB 108; 109). Furthermore, the proximity of some of these outcrops to important early military arterial routes, notably at Cirencester, would suggest that road surveying and construction may have been factors in their discovery. For example, workable outcrops of the White Limestone Formation (probably Barnsley or Bibury stone as used in RIB 108) (Sumbler et. al., 2000) lie within 5 km of

Cirencester and close to the Fosse Way,22 and Akeman Street.23 The relatively short military occupation phase at both Cirencester and Alchester, may also account for the early abandonment of these quarries.

7.3.1.2 Early Provincial Supply From the Neronian to Early Flavian period, centres to the south-east of the Jurassic ridge (Silchester and London) are supplied with Bathonian freestone for the first time. My petrological identification of better quality freestones (Combe Down and Athelstan Oolite) in small column fragments and one tombstone (RIB 12) suggests a major departure from the harder shellier materials used close to source. This is also marks the start of the much wider provincial use of Bath-stone. Using comparative petrological and geochemical evidence I will explain the beginnings of a more centralised quarrying operation centred around Bath. The causes of this change will, in part, be explained by local demand (Blagg, 1979) but also a need for stone in buildings in Silchester and London, following a period of provincial reorganisation. The use of Athelstan Oolite (an outcrop of oolitic limestone within the Upper Fuller’s Earth, 30 km to the north of Bath at Tetbury (Cave et. al., 1977), in the Classicianus monument will however be viewed as an entirely separate consignment of freestone.

7.3.1.3 Early Quarrying at Bath The petrological and geochemical identification of Combe Down Oolite in architectural fragments reused in the foundation of Late Neronian- Early Flavian buildings at Southwark (Cowan, 1992) and the Early Flavian House 1, Insula IX at Silchester (Fulford 2008.) has major implications as to where and when this initial phase of quarrying began. Firstly, the main outcrop at Combe Down24 is located 2 km to the south of Bath which, at 93 km and 165 km, is closer by road to Silchester and London than Painswick. Secondly, given that each column must have belonged to a building that was at least Pre-Flavian in age it seems likely that the commencement of a much larger quarrying and supply operation at Bath may be linked to the construction of the nearby Neronian-Early Flavian Temple of Sulis Minerva Comparable petrological and (Blagg, 1979).25 geochemical results have been obtained from a fluted

22

At Foss-Cross (GR SP 055 093) 9 km to the north. At Quarry Hill (GR SP 099 058) 7 km to the north-east. 24 The building inscription (RIB 179) found at Monkton Combe refers to a later Severan involvement in the quarrying of these freestones. 25 The 3 altar blocks and a number of fragments from the architrave, pediment, shaft and cornice from the temple itself, (Cunliffe, 1969;Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985) indicates a very high local demand for “Bath-stone”. 23

18 The Geminus veteran tombstone reused in a later wall at Alchester may also be as early (Sauer 2005, a; b; c). 19 Apart from the Olussa tombstone from London (RIB 9). 20 Construction date AD43-44 by dendro-dating continued use until AD 60 (Sauer, 2001). 21 Military occupation at Leaholme AD 49-AD 75 (Wacher, 1982).

105

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

column shaft and the Great Altar from this early structure. However, only a small quantity of Combe Down Oolite has been identified in the column fragments from London and Silchester (see 4.2.4.7 & A1.2), which would indicate that earliest provincial supply of Bath stone could not have been great.

7.3.1.4 The Procurator Tomb The opening up of a second quarry of Bathonian freestone around the Tetbury district (Athelstan oolite) for London, in the construction of the large and impressive altar tomb commemorating the procurator Classicianus (RIB 12) cannot be compared to existing patterns of freestone procurement and supply in the province. Not only is this freestone identified here, and nowhere else, in the province it is used in quantities26 that greatly exceed the totals of all the other native freestone used in pre-Flavian tombstones (7.2.2. and 7.2.3).27 This suggests an entirely separate enterprise based on the extraction of a high quality freestone chosen mainly for the purpose of commemorating this wealthy and influential member of the governing staff. Its identification in an architectural fragment from the timber amphitheatre (Hayward 2008a) and the forum basilica at London does however indicate that this quarry was opened up for other purposes. Athelstan Oolite may have been discovered when the Gloucester to Bath part of the Fosse Way was being built or surveyed. Its postBoudican date fits in with the Late Neronian (AD 65-70) construction of this monument (Grasby & Tomlin, 2002). The fact that the stone is conducive to accurate stylised inscription work and fine carving in the lettering and the bolster of the monument merely emphasises its selection for this purpose. Its golden-brown colour is also visually impressive. Given the historical importance attached to this individual, Tacitus (Ann. 14.38), it is likely that no expense would have been spared in commemorating him. Even though the outcrop at Tetbury lies 166 km from London, and directly accessible by road, it would still, however have made economic and practical sense to transport the freestone by road to Lechlade and barge to London.

In summary, the early use of fine grained Bath stone (Athelstan and Combe Down Oolite) in London, but not at Colchester, implies a major change in the character of freestone supply during the first century. Rather than rely on the earlier British (7.2.2-7.2.3) and continental sources (7.2.1) that were supplied to Colchester it seems that demand for early freestone at the new centre (London) had refocused the source of the stone towards a larger quarrying operation at Bath. The fact that London was accessible to some of these outcrops by river via the Thames28 and its tributaries29 and good road links (The Fosse Way, Akeman and Ermine Street) may have been a contributory factor in this change.

7.3.1

Later Provincial Supply

This section continues from 7.3.1 in exploring the changing character of the Bath-stone industry from the latter half of the first century into the middle (HadrianicAntonine) part of the second century. It is a period marked out by an increase in demand for freestone in the construction of public building (amphitheatres, forumbasilica, bath-houses) throughout central-southern England. The geological evidence points to most of this being Bathonian freestone, quarried from different parts the South Cotswold escarpment. It is not the intention here, however, to identify which parts of the Bathonian succession were being quarried, particularly as the quantity of worked stone would make it impractical to undertake a detailed petrological and geochemical study. Rather, the quantity and the supply of Bath stone as a whole will be assessed as a way of measuring the growth of the freestone industry following its origin and early development. To start with, the centres at which I have been able to identify “Bath-stone”, will determine the direction and spread of supply. Its continued use at London in large public building projects, such as the masonry amphitheatre (Hayward 2008a) and army tombstones (Bishop, 1983; RIB 18) reflects the increasing influence the administrative capital had on the supply of the materials from the western part of the province. Furthermore, there is an uninterrupted supply to Silchester of architectural fragments as seen in one example from Insula XXXIII bath-house, the Hadrianic forum-basilica and possibly its timber predecessor (Wooders, 2000). “Bath-stone” gradually replaced Painswick stone, at Silchester. As we have seen (7.2.2) its use here is confined to Claudian to Flavian public buildings such as portico of the Claudio-Neronian Bathhouse and the altar from the period 5 timber-basilica.

26

Based on one current estimate, the total weight of freestone used exceeds eight metric tonnes (Ralph Jackson pers. comm.) 27 But substantially less than the quantity of Bath-Stone (Combe Down Oolite) used at the Late Neronian-Early Flavian Temple of Sulis Minerva

28 29

106

As far as Lechlade. River Thame, Cherwell and Windrush.

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

Freestone from the Hadrianic Forum-Basilica

Greensands

at Silchester

Painswick

Shelly Oolitic

stone

Limestone -

(Lithotype 2)

Combe Down

Totals

Oolite (Lithotype 4) 1

0

17

18

0

2

24

26

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.5%)

41 (93.2%)

44

Victorian Excavations (St.John Hope 1983; Cunliffe & Fulford 1982) - Museum of Reading Archive 1980s Excavations (Fulford 2000) Hampshire Museum Service Archive - Winchester Totals

Figure 7.4 Quantification by freestone type of the architectural fragments from the Hadrianic Forum-Basilica at Silchester.

As well as in both Bath (Cunliffe & Davenport, 1985) and Cirencester (Holbrook & Timby, 1998) it is also found, in architectural fragments in Winchester (Hennessey, 2001), Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971) and beyond the study area at the Flavian fortress and amphitheatre at Caerleon (Boon, 1970; Zienkiewicz, 1986) and Caerwent (Brewer, 1986) (see Figure 5.4). Quantification of carved freestone retained from the Hadrianic forum-basilica excavations at Silchester (Fox, 1892; Fulford & Timby, 2000) shows how important Bath stone was during the greatest period of public building construction. Of the 44 architectural fragments examined 41,30 (93.2%) were identified as a shelly oolitic freestone from Bath (Figure 7.4). It is clear from this overview that Bathonian freestone emerges as the principal calcareous freestone used in south-central England from the Neronian/Early Flavian period onwards. The quantity, distribution and variety of purposes (architectural fragments, tombstones) to which it was used all point to a larger centralised quarrying operation from this time onwards. This in turn suggests that a more stable provincial situation was developing in the southern half of the province than had existed before. Prior to this time, however, the supply of continental (7.2.1) and different native freestones (Painswick; Ham Hill), especially to Colchester, is more a reflection of the rapidly changing provincial situation in southern Britain

30 The combined totals from Victorian and 1980s excavation. Not including 22 Corinthian capital fragments (Cunliffe & Fulford, 1982) and four very large column bases identified from Victorian excavation that could not be provenanced. These are of a form and scale that would indicate that they could only have belonged to the forum-basilica. These too are of a shelly oolitic freestone from Bath.

in the early decades following the conquest. It appears to relate, in particular, to the legionary exploitation of native freestone outcrops close to the fortresses that were sited along the Middle Jurassic escarpment. The apparent abandonment of the quarries, following legionary movement northward and westward, effectively ended the army’s involvement in the quarrying of these early freestones in southern Britain.

7.4

Continental Freestones along the southcoast

To conclude this discussion, an explanation is required to account for the nearly exclusive use of continental freestone at sites located along the south-coast between Richborough, Kent and Fishbourne, West Sussex. Marquise Oolite, Caen stone and Calcaire Grossier (from France) have each been identified in large quantities from Flavian, palatial and monumental building projects in this region. The majority of architectural fragments demonstrate that continental freestones were the preferred choice in this area, despite the availability and use of native freestone in southern England at this time (7.3). To account for this difference, I will examine whether it was maritime accessibility that was the determining factor in the selection of these continental outcrops. In particular, I will assess whether the early supply of Marquise Oolite (from the Boulonnais), for use in the construction of the Quadrifons Arch at Richborough, could have been the responsibility of the Classis Britannica. Finally, I will examine the supply and use of freestone in the construction of the Neronian and Flavian palaces at Fishbourne as an entirely separate enterprise to building elsewhere in the province.

107

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

7.4.1 The role of the classis Britannica

outcrops, estimated to have been used in the construction at Richborough (Blagg, 1984).

The use of Marquise Oolite at Richborough, Lympne and Canterbury can be explained in part by the accessibility of this outcrop to eastern Kent. It is evident given the proximity of the exposure to the embarkation port at Boulogne (Gesoriacum), which at 32 km distance, is also the closest part of the French coastline to mainland England that proximity to source was a determining factor. Indeed, it is surprising that this freestone was not more widely used especially in London31 and Colchester as both are accessible by boat, and as we have seen, are located at some distance from the British stone sources.

Accounting for the use of Calcaire Grossier in the construction of the Flavian archway is not as straightforward. The main outcrop is 450 km from Richborough (Oise Valley) and this does not seem to make economic or practical sense. Even though it is directly accessible by boat from Richborough (via the Seine and English Channel) native outcrops that were already beginning to supply freestone throughout southern England were closer (7.3). However, Calcaire Grossier had already been used in the construction of the Neronian proto-palace at Fishbourne. Although, used for quite a different purpose (see below), the quarrying and the supply of freestone from the Oise Valley for use along the southern coastline of England, would have already been well established by the time the FlavianHadrianic archway was under construction. The availability of this freestone in large quantities, at a time when the development of the native freestone quarrying was still in its infancy would have been a more attractive proposition in a large provincial building programme, especially as large quantities of freestone could be imported in directly. Furthermore, given the large quantity of Carrara marble and Purbeck marble, used in its facing it is evident that no expense was spared in its construction.

One possible explanation for the unique provincial distribution of Marquise Oolite may have been the impact that the classis Britannica (British Fleet) had along this stretch of coastline. First of all, it has been identified as worked stone at coastal sites that were either fleet bases (Boulogne, Dover, Lympne) or the major and probable naval port of the province (Richborough) during the first and early second centuries. Furthermore, its use by naval staff to commemorate and dedicate in stone is evident on both sides of the Channel. In Boulogne, I was able to identify this freestone in hand specimen in a number of funerary monuments commemorating, and dedicated by, staff of the British Fleet (Blagg, 1989; Belot, 1990; Mason, 2003). At Lympne, its petrological and geochemical identification is confirmed in a midsecond century altar inscription (RIB 66), which was dedicated by a commander of the British Fleet. That the British Fleet had the necessary expertise to extract, process and work this freestone is borne out by the use of other geological materials located along the Channel coastline. For example, the identification of Fairlight Clay and clay from Liane used in the production of classis Britannica stamped bricks and tiles (Peacock, 1977) and the use of iron from the Weald for shipbuilding (Cleere & Crossley, 1985). The quarrying of a local freestone should therefore be viewed as an extension of this process. Its use in the substructure and superstructure of the Flavian-Hadrianic monumental arch at Richborough must surely be explained in terms of outcrop accessibility and this link with the classis Britannica. The distances involved, assuming that the embarkation point was the early fleet base at Boulogne (Gesoriacum), would have only been 60 km. Its carriage would have been as ballast or complete cargoes in the hull of supply vessels as, no doubt, would have been the 40,000 tonnes of other local stone (e.g. flint, chalk, greensand) hewn from coastal

31

Its identification in a coping stone reused in Bastion 10 of the early 3rd London Wall indicates use in a much later enterprise.

7.4.1

Fishbourne Palace

The final objective is to account for the unique character of the worked freestone identified at Fishbourne. A petrological and quantification study (Figure 7.5) of the architectural fragments belonging to the Neronian protopalace and its Flavian successor has permitted the recognition of types and quantities of worked freestone which are very different to those seen in the rest of the study area (7.4.1), and in the province. For example, none of the calcareous freestone used at Fishbourne could be identified in early tombstones (RIB 94-95) inscriptions (RIB 92) and altar (RIB 89) of the nearby (2 km) civitas capital at Chichester.32 What has emerged from these findings is an entirely different type of quarrying operation centred upon the shipment of freestone from the continent in response to the individual demands of a wealthy and influential member of the new province. First of all an explanation is required to account for the early selection of large quantities of calcareous freestone from the continent, first in the Neronian proto-palace

32 Instead local greensands (RIB 94-95), Purbeck marble (RIB 92) were used in addtion to an entirely different source of continental freestone (Lithotype 16) in the Lucullus altar.

108

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA Calcareous Freestone Types on Display

Calcaire Grossier

Caen stone

Shelly Oolitic

and in Archive held at Fishbourne Roman

(Lithotype 14)

(Lithotype 15)

Limestone –

M

Palace

Totals

Bath-stone (Lithotype 4)

Combined Totals of Neronian ProtoPalace and Flavian Palace 1960s Excavations Only (Cunliffe 1971)

39

50

11

100

Percentage Totals

39

50

11

100

Figure 7.5 Quantification study by freestone type of the architectural fragments belonging to the Neronian proto-palace and Flavian Proto Palace.

(100%) and then in its Flavian replacement (90%). Calcaire Grossier was used in the Corinthian capitals of the Neronian proto-palace before its use at Richborough (see 7.4.1), whilst the use of a second type (Caen stone) n the Tuscan column shafts of the Flavian palace is unique to the province.

The contribution that a study of stonework from Fishbourne Palace adds to understanding the early development of the freestone industry of south-east England is reviewed in the concluding chapter.

At 380 km (for the Calcaire Grossier) and 250 km (for the Caen stone) from Fishbourne, however, proximity could not have been the determining factor in their selection, especially as much closer continental freestones, such as Marquise Oolite (180 km) appear not to have been used. The fact that native freestones from Bath (157 km) account for only 10% of the architectural fragments serves to highlight this anomaly. Furthermore, given the large number of fragments identified, and size of some of the individual blocks (2 m long), some other factor has to be considered. When, however, one assesses the overall scale and grandeur of the Flavian palace at Fishbourne, it is evident that this construction project had considerable financial backing. The range of other British, continental and more exotic imported materials being shipped in for decorative inlay (Purbeck marble, Pouillenay Rose, Carrara, Turkish, Greek and Pyrenean marble) bears this out (Cunliffe, 1971). Furthermore, the use of craftsmen from Gaul (Strong, 1968; Blagg, 2002) and the use of Calcaire Grossier in the unique Class A Corinthian capitals of the earlier proto-palace would also indicate good links between its owner and Gaul. The palace was most probably the property of a Gaulish magnate. The continued use of French limestone (Calcaire Grossier and Caen stone) in the Flavian palace should be viewed in terms of this connection rather than as a reflection of the state of the British freestone industry towards the end of the first century.

109

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

110

THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY FREESTONE QUARRYING AND SUPPLY IN SOUTHERN BRITANNIA

111

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

Chapter 8 Conclusions The conclusion assesses the contribution that this research has added to characterisation studies of Roman stonework (8.1) as well as providing an insight into the development of the freestone industry during the first century and the wider, provincial development of monumental architecture and sculpture in the southern half of the province (8.2). On one level, the geological results have altered our perception of the areas of freestone outcrop being quarried in southern England and northern France during the first century. Applying these findings to the existing body of historical, archaeological and epigraphic evidence, that charts the early development of the province, has also illuminated and reinforced our understanding of this critical early phase. In particular, the changing character and source of the worked freestone has been used as evidence supporting the garrisoning of legions across southern Britannia during the post-conquest period.

8.1 Characterisation Studies The main findings from this characterisation study were based on the comparative geochemical and petrological analysis of 64 limestone samples obtained from first century tombstones and architectural fragments throughout southern England. Detailed geological examination had never before been undertaken on this material which was surprising given that these calcareous (mainly oolitic) freestones had not been easy to characterise in hand specimen (see 1.2). Therefore, the application of a set of rigorous petrological (Hand specimen; Thin- Section), mineralogical (XRD) and geochemical tests (XRF; Stable Isotope Geochemistry) The Integrated Petrographic Methodology (Chapter two) was undertaken on these materials in order to determine their true geological character. A comparative reference collection of 103 geological samples, collated for this research (Chapters one and two) also ensured that the entire Jurassic freestone outcrop of southern England and northern France was well represented

was entirely unexpected, given the distance (as the crow flies) from source to centre (700 km). It showed, however, that the Romans were prepared to bring over a material with which they were already familiar rather than experiment with new materials. This characterisation study also changes the way that British freestone quarrying, supply and use is viewed across southern England during the early Roman Period. For example, these results show that, from the outset, Roman surveyors, geologists, quarrymen and masons knew far more about the economic potential and extent of the native Middle Jurassic escarpment of south-central England than before. One only has to look at the variety of English source-rocks encountered at Claudian Colchester (Painswick stone -Gloucestershire; Lincolnshire Limestone and Ham Hill stone - Somerset) to show this to be the case. In fact, the quality of some of the freestone selected early on, particularly Painswick stone and Athelstan Oolite, shows a similar, in-depth knowledge of outcrops as that needed to locate and quarry Purbeck marble. Sufficient data has been gathered in this study to make the claim that provenancing of freestones is now as good as the provenancing of Purbeck marble (Dunning, 1949; Beavis, 1970; Williams 2002). It is also comparable with the database available from the Rhineland provinces (Stribrny, 1987; Panhuysen, 1996; Panhuysen, 2002), Gaul (Bedon, 1984; Bessac, 1996; Savay-Guerraz 2006) and Aquileia (Maritan et al., 2003). This can only add to an overall understanding of the character and development of freestone quarrying in Britannia and other western provinces of the empire during the first century.

8.2 Archaeological Studies - Freestone Quarrying and Provincial Development 8.2.1

Distribution

A distribution study has summarised where each of these different freestone source rocks was being used during the first century. It shows how complex the regional picture had become. In all, five zones could be distinguished. ¾ ¾

Using this approach, it has been possible to identify many more types of freestone (17), than before, 11 of which could be sourced to different parts of the Jurassic and Tertiary succession of southern England and northern France (see Figure 5.1). This research represents a significant advance on existing studies, in which most of the early freestone was assumed to have come from Bath (Williams, 1971a; Blagg, 1990; Henig, 1993). The identification, for example, of Rhineland freestone (Calcaires à Polypiers) at Claudian Colchester

¾

112

Colchester (see 8.1) South-Central England (London, Silchester, Bath, Cirencester) – Bathonian Freestone South Coast (Richborough, Canterbury, Fishbourne) – Jurassic and Tertiary Freestone from northern France (Caen stone, Marquise Oolite, Calcaire Grossier).

CONCLUSIONS ¾ ¾

to use by the legions in tombstones at fortresses (Colchester; Gloucester; Lincoln and Alchester) and colonia (Colchester). What the petrological evidence now shows is that the army was also at least in part responsible for the quarrying, supply and carving of these materials as they had been during this same period for Purbeck marble (Frere & Fulford, 2002; Fulford, 2003; Pearson 2006). A change in the petrological character of the freestone also coincides with the movement and garrisoning of these legions from the Rhineland and across southern England during the middle part of the first century.

St. Albans – Lincolnshire Limestone (Weldon stone) Lincoln – Lincolnshire Limestone (Lower Lincolnshire Limestone).

The results show that accessibility to outcrop was the determining factor in the choice of freestone at centres located along the entire length of Middle Jurassic ridge (Lincoln, Bath, Gloucester and Cirencester) or close to the coastal outcrops of northern France (Richborough), confirming earlier studies (Williams, 1971b; Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990). However, the distant source of some of the worked freestone identified at centres located to the south-east of the Jurassic escarpment (Colchester, Silchester and London) and the south coast (Fishbourne) required further explanation. At Colchester, for example, Painswick stone from Gloucestershire (200 km away) was chosen in preference to more accessible outcrops of Lincolnshire, mainly, perhaps, for its aesthetic qualities (white colour, ability to take polish and to inscribe).

8.2.2

The identification of Calcaires à Polypiers is the earliest example of fine, freestone, carving in the province (RIB 200) at Claudian Colchester, establishes a petrological link between this centre and the army-controlled quarries of the Rhine (Dworkowska, 1983; Stribrny, 1987). Of greater archaeological significance, however, was the petrological identification of this material at the preinvasion legionary base of Facilis (Legio XX) at Neuss in the Julio-Claudian Pancuius tombstone (Noelke, 1977; Hayward 2006b). This showed that Calcaires à Polypiers could be used to connect with the movement of legions from pre-invasion legionary bases along the Rhineland (in this case Legio XX at Neuss) with their new provincial fortresses in southern England.

Chronological Development

The success of the characterisation study and the contextual reliability of the two sampled datasets of worked stone (tombstones and monumental architecture) (Appendices A5.1-A5.2) has made it possible to chronicle the development of freestone quarrying and supply in southern England from at least the middle of the first century into the early part of the second century. It has been very opportune, for example, to sample all of the tombstones (Sauer 2005, a; b; c; 2006, Tomlin & Hassall, 2005; RIB 12; RIB 108-109; RIB 200-201; RIB 255; RIB 258-260), whose epigraphic evidence supported an early (Claudian-Early Flavian) date, thus providing an early chronological framework (see Chapter three; A5.1) around which the archaeological conclusions of this characterisation study were based. Dating evidence for most of the architectural fragments (Strong, 1968; Cunliffe, 1969; Cunliffe, 1971; Cowan, 1992; Fulford & Timby, 2000; Fulford 2008) (see Chapter four; A5.2), on the other hand, was of use in chronicling the later first to the early second century development.

The transition to native freestone, quarrying and supply was a rapid one, as shown by the identification of Painswick stone from Gloucestershire in a second Claudian tombstone (RIB 201) at Colchester and Lower Lincolnshire Limestone in Neronian tombstones at Lincoln. As the source of each of these freestones, lay very close to Claudian and Neronian legionary fortresses at Lincoln and Gloucester, it has once again been possible use the petrographic evidence to link the quarrying, supply and working of the materials directly with the army. The army would have had the necessary specialists, manpower, equipment and organisation at this time to survey, quarry and supply two metre long blocks over distances exceeding 200 km (RIB 201). However, it would be wrong to assume that this was the only body capable of quarrying and supplying stone province wide at this time. Early, official, procuratorial ownership of quarries is suggested from a single consignment of a high quality freestone (Athelstan oolite) used in the enormous altar tomb of the Neronian procurator Classicianus in London.

Combining these data with the existing body of evidence (archaeological; epigraphic; historical), has made it possible to identify two major chronological stages of freestone quarrying and supply (also see Chapter seven).

Finally, the successive replacement of one freestone type by another during this period has greater archaeological significance as it identifies legionary movement and garrisoning across the southern half of the province during the pre-Flavian period. The replacement, for example, of Calcaires à Polypiers by Painswick stone at Claudian Colchester, may correspond to the redeployment of the legion (Legio XX) in AD 49/50 westwards to the new fortress base at Kingsholm and

8.2.2.1 Stage One – Claudian and Neronian Legionary Quarrying Operations (Figure 5.3) It was shown in Chapter three, that the pre-Flavian use of freestone in southern England was restricted, in the main

113

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

away from Colchester or its pre-invasion legionary base on the Rhine. It follows that a cessation to the provincial supply of Painswick stone after the Flavian period may correspond with the abandonment of the fortress at Gloucester, following its conversion to the colony and movement of the troops northwards and westwards.

8.2.2.2 Stage Two – Flavian to Hadrianic Quarrying and Stone Supply (Figure 5.4) Towards the end of the first century there was an increase in demand for freestone in public building throughout central southern England. The petrological evidence from Chapter four showed that this demand was being met for the first time by Bath-stone quarrying and on a much grander scale. Its extensive use at source in the Neronian-Early Flavian Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath and further afield at the new premier centre, London, were no doubt contributory factors in its growth.

restricted geographical distribution and stratigraphic range1 (6.3.2; 6.5.2) of each outcrop. The possibility, therefore, that some sort of pre-Conquest geological survey may have occurred needs to be considered. As large areas of southern England were under the control of tribal groups who were clients and supporters of Rome just before AD43, such an undertaking would have been possible. For example, evaluating the potential of the oolitic limestone outcrops of the Cotswolds (including Painswick stone) could have been facilitated by the Dobunni, who were Roman allies2. Similarly, the recently-discovered pre-Conquest building complex interpreted as either a military base (Manley & Rudkin 2003) or a “Romanised” settlement (Creighton 2006) at Fishbourne , in the allied territory of the Atrebates, could have opened up the natural resources of the region to army engineers, surveyors and geologists decades before the invasion (Hayward forthcoming).

8.4

Limitations of Research

Of greater archaeological significance was its longevity. The continued use of Bath-stone into the middle part of the second century at least, as with the Hadrianic ForumBasilica at Silchester, is in direct contrast with its preFlavian predecessors and shows the stability of the stone quarrying operation in the southern half of the province.

As we have seen, this study has succeeded only in identifying the major stratigraphic units of freestone that were being quarried and worked by the Romans during the first century. To increase the level of precision, so that individual quarry sites may be identified is beyond the scope of this initial research.

Finally, confirmation that only continental freestone (Cunliffe, 1971; Worssam & Tatton-Brown, 1990) was being sought along the south-coast at Fishbourne and Richborough was borne out by the petrological findings from Chapter four. Different operations, however, were found to be responsible for the quarrying and crosschannel transport of freestone at each centre. At Richborough, it was shown that the Classis Britannica was probably responsible for the shipment of Marquise Oolite in the Flavian period, whilst the supply of Caen stone and Calcaire Grossier to Neronian and Flavian Fishbourne Palace could be linked to the wealth and influence of a Gaulish magnate.

Given a dearth of quarry sites (McWhirr, 1982; Stribrny, 1987; Walters, 1998) from this or any other period of Roman occupation, and the size of the freestone outcrops of northern France and southern England, such a task would be very difficult to achieve in a lifetime! Another factor to consider is the variability of an individual unit of freestone, even within a single outcrop. Instead, it would be more appropriate to focus in on the source of just one of these freestones, and introduce a programme of intensive outcrop sampling and petrological and geochemical analysis in order to refine and reinforce characterisation. In Chapter seven, for example, there was a particular need to identify which Bathonian freestones from the South Cotswolds were being quarried in order to understand how the demand for public building during the second century was being met.

8.3 A pre-Conquest geological survey? One of the major findings from this research (8.1) was that from the outset, Roman surveyors, geologists, quarrymen and masons knew far more about the economic potential and extent of the native Middle Jurassic escarpment of south-central England than before. This was shown by the identification of some of the best quality native limestones from the Jurassic escarpment (Painswick stone; Athlestan oolite; Purbeck marble) in some of the earliest (Claudian – Neronian) examples of fine freestone carving and inscription work in the province (RIB 12; 91-92; 201). The process, however of locating and quarrying these materials would have been time consuming, especially given the

A second limitation of this research lay with the small number of worked examples to have actually survived from this period. Although the tombstones are well represented, only a negligible amount of architectural

1

Purbeck marble outcrops in a narrow Access to Purbeck marble outcrops in east Dorset would have been restricted in and immediately after A.D.43, as the Durotriges were opposed to Rome. Before this, however, the situation may have been different, and there is plentiful evidence – in the form of Kimmeridge Shale bracelets, for example – for pre-Roman exploitation of other geological resources in the region. 2

114

CONCLUSIONS

Temple of Mithras) (Hill et. al., 1980; Pitt 2006.)3 could be analysed and compared with its earlier use. Indeed, one recent study has successfully adopted this approach to determine the geological source of Roman limestone sculpture from this region for the Corpus of Roman sculpture in London and the southeast (Hayward forthcoming.) It shows that there is a switch in limestone supply from the Cotswolds to Lincolnshire area from the third century onwards.

material has been found with an early (pre-Flavian) date, especially at the premier centre - Colchester. This study therefore only provides a snapshot of the real character of the freestone industry in southern England during the first century. Who knows, for example, what other materials could have been evaluated (and rejected) during this initial pioneering phase in the construction of the principia, legionary bath-house, statue of victory and senate house at Colchester. Finally, it must be stressed that the Strontium values obtained from one of the geochemical techniques (X-Ray Fluorescence) do not accurately reflect the stratigraphic position of that freestone. Rather, they only show the relative proportion of aragonite in the shell of the sediment. Nevertheless, many Bathonian freestones from the Cotswolds are shelly and the high Strontium values are of value in discriminating them from the Aalenian and Bajocian oolitic freestones from this region.

¾

8.5 Future Research This provenancing study has successfully characterised the source of the earliest freestone worked in the province and, as such, must provide the starting point for any future research into the geological source of this material. Furthermore, the potential of the Integrated Petrographic Methodology as a future research tool in characterisation studies of carbonate freestone and other geological materials (especially sandstones) must also not be underrated.

Any future research project would have the advantage of access to an existing reference collection of freestone samples, photomicrographs and analytical results (see Chapters one and two) which could be referred to time and time again for comparative geological analysis. A quick reference geological guide would also serve this purpose. As the number of samples analysed for future reference would increase, so the probability would be of increasing source precision.

Despite its limitations (see 8.4) the technique could make a significant contribution to our understanding of the source of worked freestone from the later Roman period (Williams, 1971a; Williams, 1971b; Blagg, 1990), Saxon and Early Medieval use (Jope, 1964; Eaton, 2001) and even during the Medieval and Post Medieval period (Rahtz & Hirst, 1976; Hirst et. al., 1983; Astill, 1993).

The use of the Integrated Petrographic Technique (chapter two) could also be modified to suit the material under investigation. The analysis of sandstones, for example, would still require thin sectioning but the need for stable isotope geochemistry (carbon and oxygen) would no longer be appropriate. Instead, greater emphasis could be placed XRD (X-Ray Diffraction), especially the clay fraction or the analysis of the heavy mineral content to refine and reinforce characterisation.

Petrological and geochemical analyses have rarely (Sedgely, 1975; Dimes, 1980) been undertaken on worked freestone from these periods and such a study would go some way to rectifying this situation. Research projects that would benefit from such a study would be; ¾

Identifying the source of the freestone in Saxon Shore Forts (Pearson, 2002; 2003) and Early Medieval Ecclesiastical buildings in southern England (Jope, 1964; Eaton, 2001) would be another way of determining whether stone was being reused from the earlier Roman period or freshly quarried. The petrological identification of Hildenley Limestone at Kirkham Priory, Yorkshire (Senior, 1990) and its possible reuse from the early Roman fort at Malton bears this out (Senior 1990). One area would be the reuse of stone in Essex; especially with the identification of Calcaires à Polypiers at Bradwell Saxon Shore Fort or early medieval buildings from Colchester and surrounding villages. This material could probably only have come from its original use in the Claudian fortress and subsequent colonia.

There is, for example, an urgent need to identify the source of the worked sandstone used in southern and northern England during the first century in order to

A follow up project to this study, assessing the source of freestone at London and south-east England during the later Roman period. Worked freestone used in sarcophagi and the major architectural and religious construction projects (Monumental Archways;

3

The opportunity compare petrological samples from a probable mid second century archway foundation (KH262) from Newgate Street in London (NEG 98) (Pitt, 2006.) with blocks of Barnack (KH3) and Weldon stone from a monumental arch reused in the Roman Riverside Wall (Hill et. al., 1980) has already shown that the two structures were made from different freestone materials. The samples from Newgate were constructed from a “Bath-stone”.

115

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY

understand the overall character and development of early building-stone quarrying in the province. ¾

A petrographic study of the sandstones and limestones used in later first century tombstones and architectural fragments at fortresses (Caerleon; Chester; York) to the north and west of the Jurassic escarpment would determine whether the legions were continuing to quarry materials from the immediate surroundings (see 7.2.2 and 7.2.3) as legionary movement progressed northwards. In light of this a corpus volume specific to the identification and geological source of tombstone and architectural decoration materials should be produced for the entire province of Britannia.

¾

A petrographic study of fine-grained sandstones used in first century south-east England (“Greensands”) would complement the carbonate study and identify the relative importance of local materials to the overall picture of early buildingstone quarrying. Indeed, in one recent study the geological source of these sandstones has begun to be understood through the application of this approach on Roman sculpture for London and the south-east (Hayward forthcoming).

The commercial application of the techniques and reference collections used in the study are also considerable. ¾

One major area that would benefit would be in the conservation and restoration of architectural and sculptural stone in major medieval and postmedieval ecclesiastical and palatial structures owned by national bodies such as English Heritage; The National Trust and Historic Royal Palaces. In particular, identifying the geological character and source of the original freestone material. Petrological and geochemical comparative analysis would help ascertain where consignments of freshly quarried stone could be obtained for future restoration programmes as well as providing an understanding into the deterioration and robustness of each material type.

116

GLOSSARY

Glossary Aalenian

Geological subdivision: Middle Jurassic (174-171 million years) represented in this report by Painswick stone from the North Cotswolds.

Allochems

Geological term to describe carbonate grains in thin-section.

Aragonite

A calcium carbonate mineral, with an identical mineralogy to calcite but having a very low magnesium content. It was present in the skeletons of many Jurassic marine organisms but was replaced during diagenesis to calcite.

Bajocian

Geological subdivision: Middle Jurassic (171-165 million years) represented in this report by limestones from the Lincolnshire Limestone Formation and in France by the limestone Calcaires à Polypiers.

‘Bath-stone’

Ambiguous quarryman’s term for all freestones from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) of the Cotswolds including Taynton stone, Combe Down oolite, Athlestan oolite and Forest marble.

Bathonian

Geological subdivision: Middle Jurassic (164-156 million years) represented in this report by the limestones from the South Cotswolds – “ The Bath-stones” and in France by Caen stone and Marquise oolite.

Biomicrite

Thin-section classification term (Folk 1959; 1962) used to describe a mud rich limestone dominated by shell (fossil).

Biosparite

Thin-section classification term (Folk 1959; 1962) used to describe a sparry calcite rich limestone dominated by shell (fossil).

Bio-oosparite

Thin-section classification term (Folk 1959; 1962) to describe a sparry calcite rich limestone domnated by ooid grains with a smaller fraction of shell (fossil).

Bladed rim cement

A type of calcite cement which forms around the rims of shell and ooid produced by near-surface meteoric waters.

Bioclastic limestone

A limestone containing broken up shelly material (bioclasts) including molluscs, brachiopods, echinoids and coral. These rocks form today in warm, high energy shallow seas such as the Bahamas bank where the conditions are conducive to the survival of many different carbonate marine organisms.

Calcite

The most common calcium carbonate mineral forming the hard skeletal parts of ancient and modern marine organisms and is also present in the cement produced by meteoric and sub-surface waters.

Cementation

Process of precipitation of space-filling crystals. In limestones this is by the mineral calcite.

Dolomite

A rhombic shaped carbonate mineral MgCO3 usually a product of the alteration of calcite. In the chalk it is only found only in the Turonian of Northern France.

Ferroan calcite

Calcite with a high concentration of iron. High ferroan calcite stains purple-blue in thin-section using potassium ferricyanide.

Foraminifera

Calcareous microfossil diagnostic of the limestone Calcaire Grossier.

117

QUARRYING AND SUPPLY AT THE PERIPHERY Freestone

Fine, even-bedded limestone or sandstone characterised by a soft, open porous texture, which enables the rock to be worked or carved in any direction.

Glauconite

Green clay mineral, a product of marine post-depositional processes and an important rock-forming mineral of the greensands (Reigate stone; Hassock stone and Kentish ragstones) from the Lower Cretaceous of the North Downs (Kent and Surrey) used in Roman sculpture from south-east England

Grainstone

Hand-specimen classification term (Dunham 1962) used to describe a rock almost entirely grain supported with no carbonate mud.

Greensand

Geological formations from the Lower Cretaceous of southern England characterised by sandstones containing the green mineral glauconite. These include the Lower Greensand (Hassock stone; Kentish ragstone) and the Upper Greensand (Reigate stone).

Hardground

Thin (10-40 cm) condensed horizons within a carbonate succession

ICP-MS

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. Complimentary chemical analytical technique used to identify trace elements in rocks.

ICP-OES

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry. Complimentary chemical analytical technique used to identify trace elements in rocks

Integrated Petrographic Methodology

The chosen technique for this study. A set of earth-science techniques combining conventional hand specimen and thin-section analysis with complimentary mineralogical (X-Ray Diffraction) and geochemical (X-Ray Fluorescence, Stable Isotope (Carbon and Oxygen) used to refine and reinforce the geological source of a piece of worked limestone.

Intrasparite

Thin-section classification term (Folk 1959; 1962) used to describe a sparry calcite-rich limestone with fragments of carbonate sediment.

Ironstone

Sedimentary rock dominated by the iron minerals e.g. limonite, siderite and chamosite.

Jurassic

Period of geological time (195-135 million years.) in which the climate and bathymetry (warm shallow tropical seas) of North-West Europe was conducive to the deposition of carbonate grains and freestones. The NE-SW trending Middle Jurassic limestone ridge which runs from Humberside to Dorset before reappearing in Northern France contains most of the units of freestone that were economically viable in the Roman period.

Kentish ragstone

A very hard calcareous sandstone of the Lower Greensand (Lower Cretaceous) – Maidstone area of Kent quarried on a very large scale by the Romans for use in the rubble cores of walls but also suitable for carving.

Limestone

Sedimentary rock dominated by the mineral calcite (CaC03).

Lincolnshire Limestone Formation

Unit of limestone forming the northern part of the Middle Jurassic ridge of central England and containing many of the economically-viable units of freestone (Weldon stone; Basal Beds) that were exploited to produce Roman tombstones and architectural fragments.

Low ferroan calcite

Calcite with a low concentration of iron. Low ferroan calcite stains pink in thin-section using potassium ferricyanide and Alizarin Red S.

Lutetian

Geological subdivision: Middle Eocene represented in this report by the limestone Calcaire Grossier from the Paris Basin.

118

GLOSSARY

Marble a) Masons Term

b) Geological Term

Any rock that can be easily polished e.g. granites, porphyries, limestones as well as the Mediterranean (e.g. Carrara) Marble. This includes condensed fossil rich native limestones such as Purbeck marble or Sussex marble. Only metamorphosed (altered) limestones the product of the recrystallisation of calcite grains by thermal heat. This makes it an ideal medium for fine carving and polishing. In this stricter geological sense, therefore, ‘marble’ includes only white and some polychrome marbles from the Mediterranean.

Micrite

Thin-section classification term (Folk 1959; 1962) used to describe a mud-rich limestone with