(PAGE 11)

• Fragments of Corinthian column capitals and a fluted column shaft (70 centimetres wide) both made from Jurassic limestone.
• Over 1000 pieces of green and white marble-mouldings, wall and floor veneers imported from Italy.
• A fragment of a bronze monumental inscription with the letters 'SC'.

(PAGE 17)

Other Features of Roman Canterbury

Private Housing

It is worth noting that people did not immediately adopt 'Roman' ways following the conquest of AD 43. Evidence in Canterbury shows us that as late as the end of the 1st century AD, some local people were still living in native style 'round houses' made of wood, clay and thatch (Fig. 5).

Many remains of Roman domestic dwellings have been excavated. Because of the nature of urban archaeology, it is usually only partial excavation of the original building. The spread of domestic buildings in the reconstruction is therefore based both on substantial excavated remains in some parts of the town and on more scanty evidence in others.

We can assume from the available evidence in Canterbury, that the centre of the Roman town accomodated many domestic premises. They surrounded the core of public buildings and flanked the main streets and ranged from small homes adjoining workshops to grand town houses with baths.

Construction techniques
Many of the first houses to be built were constructed in timber with wattle and daub or clay walls and thatched roofs. Timber and thatch were the building materials of the Late Iron Age peoples in the construction of their 'round houses'. As Romanisation took hold the house shape changed from round (most commonly, although a few rectangular ones have been found) to a typical Roman rectangular structure. Traditional materials endured for some time. Building in timber and thatch must have been cheaper but there would have been considerable fire risk.

Later houses were built in masonry (largely flint and mortar) or with masonry foundations and timber superstructure. Tile roofs became more common and workshops were established to make the necessary building materials. A typical tile roof was constructed by laying rows of overlapping imbrices (curved tiles) and tegulae (flat and flanged) onto a timber framework (Fig. 7).

Tile kilns
Many of the tiles used on Canterbury houses must have come from the tile kilns discovered by archaeologists outside the town at St. Stephens Road (to the north) and at Whitehall Road (to the north-west). There is some evidence to suggest that this general area may have been an industrial 'suburb' in Roman times (Fig. 4).

Looking closely at the reconstruction, you will see that there are no chimneys on the tile roofs. This is because we have no conclusive evidence for them being used. Certainly the use of charcoal in the home for heating and cooking would reduce the need for them. Where they may have existed, it is likely that standard building materials were used to construct them. Four flat tiles or stone slabs could be built into a roof, or a hole may be left in an outside wall with a curved imbrex 'hood' projecting out from it.

(PAGE 18)

Amongst the rubble that we tend to find as evidence for a building's structure it would be almost impossible to distinguish any such materials and say they were specifically used as chimneys. There are rare examples of purpose built Roman tile chimneys from Italian sites. These are cylindrical with a small double-pitched 'roof' of pyramid shape. This style of chimney is still in use in Italy today.

Different types of floors have been found. Some were made of simple clay or pink opus signinum. Others were paved with tesserae set in mortar creating plain red brick or (probably most expensive) mosaic panels of different coloured clays and stones. Floors could also be made by placing small rectangular shaped tiles on edge in a herringbone pattern. This work was known as opus spicatum. A large house may have had rooms with different types of floors, depending on their functions.

Often houses went through phases of structural alteration and refurbishment during their lifetime, as houses do today. Some rooms were clearly redecorated several times with successive layers of painted wall plaster, as we might put up new wallpaper over old, when styles change.

Towards the end of the Roman period there was a return to the use of thatch and timber to build houses in some parts of Canterbury. It is likely that this was due to general economic decline at this time when other building materials were in short supply.

The 'Roman Painted House' at Dover

It is worth mentioning the 'Painted House' here. It is a remarkable case of survival of Roman remains, now preserved under cover for public viewing. A visit is a 'must' as you can see much of the building's structure still standing, including decorated walls standing up to 1.8 metres in places. These examples of painted plaster are considered to be the best in Britain. A hypocaust system under one of the rooms is also clearly visible. The 'Painted House' gives you a good idea of how the better quality houses in Canterbury would have looked.

What evidence have we found?

The reconstruction drawing shows houses built both in timber and in masonry.

Timber framed houses
Any one or more of these features may appear:

Wood will decay in most soil conditions. Evidence for these features usually shows up as dark staining in the ground.

(PAGE 19)

Masonry and half-masonry houses
A masonry building of flint and mortar needs deep masonry foundations. Either we find these or the robber trenches where they once stood. Foundations of around 60 centimetres (2 Roman feet) or more indicate a substantial building, possibly more than one storey in height. Another indication of a masonry building is a mass of building rubble found nearby, from its demolition or dilapidation. 'Dwarf' masonry walls with an even finished top surface indicate a timber superstructure. Sometimes an impression of the first horizontal timber beam can be seen along the top of these small walls.

Where internal walls can be detected, these may be of flint and mortar, wattle and daub construction or simply of clay. At the Longmarket site in the High Street we found a chunk of internal clay wall in situ. The wall's clay core had been keyed by running a roller (probably wooden) over its surface. The diamond pattern cut into the roller produced a repeated pattern over the clay. A thin layer of sandy clay was then applied to this and finally a layer of white plaster. The type of roller used for this job would also have been used to key the surface of flue tiles used in hypocausts (Fig. 7). Some of the designs were very elaborate and presumably were a way of advertising the products of a tile 'factory'. It is a shame that they were destined to be covered up by mortar!

Where roofs were built in tile we tend to find quantities of imbrices and tegulae. A noticeable absence of roof tiles is important negative evidence and would suggest that the roof was thatched. Apart from these structural remains, we find fragments of painted wall plaster (Fig. 8), hearths made in tile, remains of clay ovens, clay and opus signinum floors, tesselated floors and where heated rooms occur, hypocaust materials. Although fragmentary, this kind of archaeological evidence gives us probably our best picture of how houses were decorated internally and some idea of the function of different rooms.

'Town houses'

Although we have found random evidence of coloured mosaic panels suggesting high class residences, there are as yet few structural remains which we can confidently say belong to the type known as a 'town house'. Just three are mentioned here. Two of these can be seen in the reconstruction drawing. They both appear to be of 'wing corridor' style with a central courtyard, a fairly typical architectural design. Their remains lie beneath the general area of the present Marlowe Shopping Arcade.

Centre of reconstruction
Evidence shows us that this house was built with a timber frame around a central courtyard. The floors were of simple clay and fragments of internal walls showed that they were decorated with painted plaster.

Centre bottom of reconstruction
The owners of this property must have had considerable wealth and were perhaps of some standing in the community. The house was built in masonry and parts of it were possibly two storey in height. Even though there were public baths literally across the road a substantial private bath suite was incorporated into this spacious residence.

A cautionary note about interpretation...
In the hypocaust of the hot room (which was well preserved) we found evidence that we would not normally expect to see. We found stacks of box flue tiles and voussoir tiles in the hypocaust chamber where we would expect to find stacks of flat tiles. Within the walls (where the flue tiles would normally be) there were instead flat tiles placed together in box shapes as if imitating flue tiles... In other words, everything was the reverse of what we would expect to find. There seems to have been no real advantage to this. Was there a foul-up at the supplies depot - or maybe an apprentice was to blame! We found this evidence in situ, so the way the different tiles had been used in this building was clear. Had we found the tiles as building rubble we would have made a more conventional interpretation for how they had been used (see Fig. 7 for the usual arrangement). Disturbed evidence can lead archaeologists to a wrong conclusion. . .

'The Longmarket Roman House' (not visible in reconstruction)

The best known local example of a town house lies preserved beneath the Longmarket shopping development fronting the High Street. Canterbury's Roman Museum has been built around the remains (entrance in Butchery Lane, Fig. 3). The site was partially excavated after the Second World War and then in 1990 by Canterbury Archaeological Trust. The original Roman masonry building was altered and extended over a long period. At the museum visitors can watch a computer generated video reconstruction* of the various building phases. In its later stages the house had a range of several rooms and corridors lined with colourful mosaics. These can still be seen in situ. A hypocaust system has also been found showing that part of the house was heated.
* Produced by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and Kent University.

A Roman hotel?

In the reconstruction, notice the big building sitting at the far end of Roman Watling Street (extreme top right corner). When we excavated in this area we found part of a structure in flint and mortar with evidence for painted walls. Our trench was located at some distance back from the line of Watling Street. We had discovered an outside wall to the Roman building, a length of about 15 metres. We wanted to find out how far this extended and infact whether it ran right up to the edge of Watling Street. By using geo-physical equipment to try and detect any structures below ground, we could explore this area which was not available for excavation. We found that the wall did indeed extend right up to the street (about another 40 metres). If this wall is the boundary to a single property then we are dealing with a substantial building, possibly a mansio, or hotel. This is a reasonable interpretation given that the building is situated just inside the London Gate, next to the busy London-Dover stretch of Watling Street (Fig. 4). This is one interpretation. However, the wall may equally well enclose more than property.

(PAGE 21)

Streets within the town (Fig. 4)

Limited evidence from small scale excavation during the post-war years once suggested to archaeologists that the Roman town had a regular chequer-board street pattern. However, more recent large scale digging has shown that this was not entirely so. There is some regularity, for example the street running straight from London Gate to Riding Gate (Roman Watling Street in reconstruction); and another running from West Gate to Burgate, with a third located equidistant between them (neither of these last two visible in reconstruction, but see Fig. 4). There is further evidence of two other streets at right angles to these. One of them is visible in the reconstruction, running diagonally across the picture from approximately the mid-top-left edge down to the 'private bath' of the town house bottom centre. You can see that this street runs at right angles to Roman Watling Street. Elsewhere, the street 'plan' seems to be rather random, developing through time from around the end of the 1st century onwards.

What evidence have we found?

Typically, evidence for Roman streets in Canterbury appears as extensive areas of rammed river gravel. Some streets were re-surfaced several times, the one at the Longmarket (High Street area) on 14 occasions! Most of the streets do not appear to have had any kind of substantial foundations. The stretch of Watling Street passing through London Gate did show an area of large rounded flints (cobbles) but this seems to be exceptional.

Town wall and Gates (Figs. 1, 3 and 4)

Only a small section of the Roman wall and a single gate (Worth Gate) are visible in the coloured reconstruction (extreme top left corner). The stretch of wall between Worth Gate and London Gate can be seen in the black and white version. Because the boundary of a Roman town is a significant feature a summary of the evidence is given here.

Town wall
The sections of wall that we see today are almost entirely of Medieval date but they follow the same line as a Roman predecessor (Figs. 3 and 4).

Archaeological excavation has shown us that Canterbury's first masonry town wall was built at the end of the 3rd century. This date broadly coincides with the building of 'Saxon Shore' forts along the eastern and southern coasts of Britain at (going clockwise) Brancaster (Branodunum), Burgh Castle (Gariannonum), Bradwell (Othona), Reculver (Regulbium), Richborough (Rutupiae), Dover (Dubris), Lympne (Lemanis), Pevensey (Anderida) and Portchester (Portus Adurni). This was a time when the Roman Empire was under considerable threat and such defences were no doubt erected for a number of reasons. Among these would be the need for protection against continental invaders (Anglo-Saxons) and Picts from northern Britain sailing down the coast to attack southern shores.

(PAGE 22)

What evidence have we found?

A considerable section of Roman city wall can still be seen where it was incorporated into the north wall of the old St Mary's church in Northgate (Figs. 3 and 9). The piece has survived the centuries by being 'recycled' in a medieval structure.

To find it, you must turn into St Radigund's Street off Northgate and stop at the small grassed garden area to your left. The section of Roman wall is then straight across the grass infront of you. It shows clearly how the wall was faced with large rounded (unlike Medieval knapped) flints and sandstone boulders. Above this, regular rows of smaller rounded flints were added and topped with crenellations.

A second section of Roman masonry survives on the southern side of the town in the part of the wall which encloses Canterbury's Norman Castle keep. You will need to go into the Castle grounds. The section faces the southern (Wincheap) side of the keep and again is identified by its rounded flints (Fig. 3).

Archaeologists have suggested that the face of the wall may have originally been plastered over to make it smooth, thus hindering any intruders trying to scale the protruding flint work. However we have no evidence of this.

There have been numerous excavations around the present walls which show us that the Roman wall was about 2.3 metres thick and that the original Roman core was made of whole flints.

Gates
The names of the town gates used in these notes are the ones in use today and have no known Latin origins.

In the reconstruction you can just see the Roman gate at Worth Gate, leading to Lympne. It was blocked up in the 16th century and finally removed in the late 18th century when a wider gateway was opened nearby. Excavation revealed the foundations of the Roman gate, establishing where it was located; there is a marker in stone at the south end of present day Castle Street. We have evidence of how it looked above ground from an 18th century drawing made by the antiquarian William Stukely, which has survived in the historical record (Fig. 10).

Going clockwise, we arrive at the Roman gate at London Gate; a stone marker is laid in the grass at Westgate Gardens, near to where Rheims Way (the southern part of Canterbury's ring road) crosses the River Stour.

Further round the circuit, evidence for a Roman road at medieval West Gate suggests that there was a gate here in the Roman period. This would have led to Rochester (Durobrivae) and London. Similarly, remains of a Roman road at Northgate suggest a Roman gate here which led to Reculver and Thanet (Tanatis).

(PAGE 23)

Remnants of Roman Quenin Gate can still be seen in the city wall at the Queningate car park in Broad Street. To find it, first go to the foot of the present day steps leading into the Cathedral precincts. Walk about 16 metres north (right) keeping the line of the wall on your left. The blocked Roman gate is found in the wall just before the first tower (Fig. 3 and 10). The Kentish Ragstone blocks supporting a red brick arch were first recognised as being Roman in 1640 by the historian William Somner. It is likely that this was a simple postern gate. By the end of the 15th century it had been blocked and incorporated into the now Medieval town wall. A new gate was built approximately 16m. to the south of the Roman one.

Although no evidence has been found as yet, it seems likely that a Roman gate would have stood in the area of the later Burgate (top of present Burgate Lane). A road leading out of the town from here would take you directly to Richborough.

Completing the circuit, remains of two Roman arches at Riding Gate (where present day Watling Street leaves the city walls in the direction of Dover) were visible until the late 18th century, again recorded by William Stukely (Fig. 11, bottom). Roman Watling Street ran from Dover, meeting Canterbury at Riding Gate, then on through the town leaving the walls at London Gate. No doubt this major route between the coast and London demanded a suitably impressive entrance. Riding Gate was built with two arches, flanked by guard chambers. All of the other identified Roman gateways were single arch structures.

What evidence have we found?

At Roman London Gate only the foundations were discovered of the single arch gateway. 'Courses' or bands of flints were found resting on blocks of Kentish Ragstone.

Stukely's illustration of the Roman gateway at Worth Gate is our best piece of evidence for how this once looked. He shows again a simple archway, with stone jambs either side supporting a brick arch. We can compare the appearance with the surviving remains of Roman Quenin Gate. It is likely that most of the gateways into Roman Canterbury were built in this simple style, using local building materials.

To date, Riding Gate has undergone the most extensive excavation by far with investigations in the mid 1950's, 1970 and most recently in 1986. It is a good example of the hazards of interpretation.

A case study: Interpreting the evidence for Riding Gate
The investigation of Roman Riding Gate is an example of the combined use of different historical sources, in this case archaeological, documentary and pictorial. It also illustrates well the hazards of interpretation when evidence is limited.

Archaeological remains
The earlier excavations were restricted to small trenches. The discoveries made then together with observations made from Stukely's drawing led archaeologists to conclude that the Roman gateway had one high and wide archway (a carriageway) and beside this a low, narrower one for pedestrians, like Newport Arch at Lincoln (Lindum) which still stands today.

(PAGE 24)

However, in 1986 further archaeological exploration revealed a more complete plan of the original foundations for Roman Riding Gate and the interpretation had to change. We now had measurements for the width of each gateway and the evidence suggested that the whole structure was more symmetrical, with 'twin' gates of virtually equal size (Fig. 11, top).

Archaeologists discovered foundations of flint and mortar beneath a plinth of massive greensand blocks. These blocks were tied together with iron clamps. The plinth supported the main walls which were built in flint and mortar. The walls had evidence of regular string courses made of red tiles, to ensure even construction.

The jambs of the twin gateways were edged with greensand blocks. No part of the arches themselves survive. They may have been in red brick (as Roman Quenin Gate).

Traces of the lower part of one of the timber doors were found and at the base of the other doorway, large iron nails and fittings were still in situ. These held together the heavy planking of the door. We also found a massive iron hinge set into the stone block work of the central wall between the two doors and another iron fitting which may well have been a bolt.

A problem of interpretation ...
In an article about Stukely's work, the archaeologist Stuart Piggott writes: '...those (archaeologists) who have had occasion to check his field observations know him as an accurate and careful observer.' (Antiquity, Volume 9; 1935).

Stukely has drawn one high and one low arch in his illustration of the Roman remains at Riding Gate.

So how do we justify our re-interpretation?
There are two things to consider:

1) Architectural evidence from the Roman Empire shows us that the architects of the day had a strong tendency towards regularity in style. It is unlikely that they would design Riding Gate with arches of equal width (as seen in excavation) but differing in height (as shown by Stukely).

2) In Stukely's drawing, the curve of the two arches is very similar suggesting they were symmetrical and not differing in size.

That one arch is so much lower than the other is probably due to restoration work on the town walls in Medieval times.

Documentary sources tell us that orders were given for major repairs in the 14th century. Our evidence comes from letters sent by the king's secretary to the town's central administration, giving instructions for specific building works to be carried out.

Perhaps a whole chunk of decaying Roman masonry containing an arch fragment was re-located lower down the wall. Maybe the area of wall which surrounded the arch subsided as a result of the major alterations taking place.

So while Stukely's observations may be correct, they are misleading.

What about the evidence of the Newport Arch at Lincoln? There is indeed a main gateway standing beside a much lower one. There is however an important difference between this and Canterbury's Riding Gate; the lower archway at Lincoln is much narrower than its neighbour.

(PAGE 25)

Cemeteries (Fig. 4)

Cemeteries are a significant feature of any Roman town and give us a lot of information about the lives of the Romano-British people. It was Roman practice to bury the dead outside the town, bordering the main roads. So most of the evidence for Canterbury's cemeteries lies outside the reconstruction image. You will need to look at the plan for their location. A few cremation burials have been found within the masonry walls (as at Rosemary Lane at the south end of Castle Street). We think that in the early years of its development, the Roman town may have occupied a smaller area than you see in the reconstruction, possibly with an earthern boundary. In this case these burials would have been outside the boundary.

From 19th and early 20th century observations during building works and small scale excavation, we can see that the cemeteries flanked most, if not all, of the principal roads leading into the town. While we can plot the general location of Canterbury's cemeteries, we only have a rough idea of how far they extended beyond the town. Given the intensive occupation in Roman times, it would be a fair assumption that the cemeteries needed would be quite extensive.

To date, the greatest number of cremation burials found has come from the 'St. Dunstan's/London Road' cemetery to the west of the town. Fifty-three cremations were found in 1982 at a site in London Road On another occasion, a few inhumations were discovered in New Street and Kirby's Lane (same cemetery but nearer to the town walls). Depending on how long they were in use, Roman cemeteries may have both cremation and inhumation burials.

Elsewhere in Kent (mainly along Watling Street and in the central Medway valley) archaeologists have found evidence for cemeteries enclosed by walls. At Keston (about 3 miles west of Orpington) they excavated a Romano-British villa-estate with a walled cemetery containing a circular structure. This contained a number of burials and has been identified as a mausoleum. It was about 9 metres in diameter, built in Kentish Ragstone, with the outside plastered and painted dark red.

We have found no evidence for walled cemeteries at Canterbury but it is possible that such boundaries did exist.

What evidence have we found?

Broadly speaking, for the first two centuries of Roman Britain it was normal practice to cremate the dead. Towards the end of the Roman occupation, burial custom changed to inhumation.

Cremations
Most of the burials found so far have been cremations. A typical cremation burial would contain whole pottery vessels. These may include locally made dishes and flagons, imported wine or olive oil amphorae (very large jars or flagons) and fine tableware, like glossy red samian from Gaul. The pieces of burnt bone are usually placed in one of the vessels but are so fragmentary that it is often impossible to determine the age or sex of the individuals. Sometimes we find other personal possessions such as jewellry buried inside a pot, or the remains of a pair of boots which had been placed in the burial pit.

Inhumations
We have found relatively few burials where the complete skeleton has been interred (inhumation). One found recently near Lady Wootton's Green in Broad Street, was identified as an adult female. There were six bracelets (one shale and five copper alloy) and an intaglio ring in the grave with her.

(PAGE 26)

At North Lane, just beyond the West Gate and presumably part of the St Dunstan's/London Road cemetery we have found a number of inhumations. Most recently (1996) archaeologists discovered an isolated group of 5 graves here. This may well have been a family plot. The skeletons were in perfect alignment and one adult had a young child of around 8 to 10 years old lying beside it. The archaeologist who specialises in human skeletal remains (osteo-archaeologist) was able to tell the age of the child quite easily by looking at the development of milk and second teeth.

An Extraordinary Discovery

In 1976, a double burial of two adult males with their swords was found on an excavation at the south end of Castle Street (Figs. 3 and 4 ), not far from the site of the Norman keep. The skeletons lay head to toe, apparently thrown in hastily. Their swords suggest they were Roman cavalrymen, but soldiers dying of natural causes would not be buried with their weapons. The whole sinister business suggests murder or maybe the unfortunate outcome of a drunken brawl. There is a display about this discovery in Canterbury's Roman Museum in Butchery Lane (Fig. 3).

Another intriguing burial, made in the troubled times at the very end of the Roman period is described on p. 30. Both of these unique discoveries are dealt with in more detail in Roman Canterbury, a journey into the past (see bibliography).

Burial mounds

A number of mounds survived until recent times and have been located by using documentary and pictorial sources. None of them has been excavated but artefactual evidence in the vicinity of two suggests that they have Roman origins. The mounds cluster on the south-east side of the town with two of them lying just inside the walls. One of these, now known as the Dane John mound in the public gardens near Canterbury East Railway Station, is the only one visible today (Fig. 3). We think that the Dane John mound was later re-used as the site for Canterbury's first Norman castle, built in timber.