% sete tras mays sf r} at > oe ay} acres stash xe a ft Bt ve AI aberels Afhe iy aA ey ee ‘ “s K x, OTe ate Se 6 ete weed vas oP my Ay Or, we aks Patter oF a a a lls TE aie og ot ie Sve 7s Gro (O™ pated, Rah Te ale Fibs LONDINIUM ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS LONDINIUM ARCHITECTURE AND THE CRAFTS BY W. R. LETHABY NEW YORK D APPLETON AND COMPANY MCMXXIV Bis i MADE AND PRINTED IN GRE MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., TAN CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. Burtpinc Mareriats anp Metuops ‘ : 7 II. Buitpincs anp SrreETs . : , y aag'a III. Waris, Gates anp Bripce . : " BS dir IV. Cemeteries anp Tomss . ; : pa bs Ld. V. Some Larcer Monuments : ; , SIG! VI. ScuLprure ; . : ee pa, VIL. THe Mosaics : : ‘ : ae © VIII. Watt Paintincs anp Marsie Linincs . i162 LX. Lerrertnc anp Inscriptions ; : a 76 X. THe Crarrs ; ‘ ; : «aes 4 XI, Earty Cxreistran Lonpon sie ; seta XII. Tue Oricin or Lonpvon . : ; angen INDEX : . : : : hh THESE chapters were first printed in “The Builder” during the year 1921. For that reason, and because the earlier records of Roman discoveries 1n London given in this ‘fournal seemed to have been less worked over than other sources, a large number of references are given to tts pages. The account of Roman London in the “‘ Victoria County History,” C. Roach Smith's “< T]lustrations of Roman London,” and Mr. T. Ward's “Roman Era 1n Britain,” and “ Roman British Buildings,’ may be specially mentioned among the works consulted. The first named is cited as V.C.H. Mr. A. H. Lyell’s “ Bibliographical List of Romano- British Remains” (1912) 15s indispensable to the student. LONDINIUM CHAPTER I BUILDING MATERIALS AND METHODS T is curious that Roman buildings and crafts in Britain have hardly been studied as part of the story of our national art. The subject has been neglected by architects and left aside for antiquaries. Yet when this story is fully written, it will appear how important it is as history, and how suggestive in the fields of practice. This provincial Roman art was, in fact, very different from the “ classical style ” of ordinary architectural treatises. M. Louis Gillet in the latest history of French art considers this phenomenon. “It is very difficult to measure exactly the part of the Gauls in the works of the Roman epoch which cover the land, such, for instance, as the Maison Carrée and the Mausoleum at St. Remy. ‘There is in these chefs d euvre something not of Rome. ‘The elements ar used with liberty and delicacy more like the work of the Renaissance than of Vitruvius. In three centuries Gaul had become educated: these Gallo-Roman works, like certain verses of Ausonius, show little of Rome, they are already French.” We should hesitate to say just this in Britain, although the Brito-Roman arts were intimately allied 7 8 LONDINIUM to those of Gaul. In fuller truth and wider fact, they were closely related to the provincial Roman art as practised in Spain, North Africa, Syria, and Asia Minor. Alexandria was probably the chief centre from which the new experimenting spirit radiated. We may agree, however, that in the centuries of the Roman occupation, Britain like Gaul became educated and absorbed the foreign culture with some national difference. In attempt- ing to give some account of Roman building and minor arts in London, I wish to bring out and deepen our sense of the antiquity and dignity of the City, so as to suggest an historical background against which we may see our modern ways and works in proper perspective and proportion. Tools, etc-—Roman building methods were re- markably like our own of a century ago. The large number of tools which have been found and brought together in our museums are one proof of this. We have adzes and axes, hammers, chisels and gouges, saws, drills and files ; also foot-rules, plumb- bobs and a plane. The plane found at Silchester was an instrument of precision; the plumb-bob of bronze, from Wroxeter, in the British Museum, is quite a beautiful thing, and exactly like one figured by Daremberg and Saglio under the word Perpendicularum. At the Guildhall are masons’ chisels and trowels; the latter with long leaf- shaped blades. At the British Museum is the model of a frame saw. Only last year (1922) many tools were found at Colchester. (For the history of tools in antiquity, see Prof. Flinders Petrie’s volume.) A foot-rule found at Warrington gave a length of 11°54 in. The normal Roman foot is said to be BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 9 11°6496 in. (also 02957 m.). ‘This agrees closely with the Greek foot and the Chaldean. (What is the history of the English foot ?) The length of the Roman foot, a little over 114 of our inches, is worth remembering, for measurements would have been set out by this standard. For example, we may examine the ordinary building “tile” used in Londinium. Inthe Lombard Street excavations of 1785 many Roman bricks were found which are said to have measured about 18 in. by 12 in. Ihave found this measurement many times repeated, and also three more precise estimates. Dr. Woodward said that bricks from London Wall were 17,4, in. by 11,°, in., and he observed that this would be 14 by 1 Roman foot. Mr. Loftus Brock gave the size of one found in London Wall as 17 in. by 118 in. Dr. P. Norman gave the size of another tile as about 174 in. by nearly 12 in. At the Guildhall are several flue and roof tiles about 17% in. long, and a large tile 234 in. long. We shall see when we come to examine buildings that the dimensions in many cases are likely to have been round numbers of Roman feet. Masonry.—Walling had three main origins in mud, timber and stone. Walling stones were at first, and for long, packed together without mortar. Mud and stone were then combined ; later, lime mortar took the place of mud, being a sort of mud which will set harder. In concrete, again, the mortar became the principal element. Stone walling was at first formed of irregular lumps. When hewn blocks came to be used a practice arose of linking them with wood or metal cramps. There are also three main types of wall construction— aggregation of mud, framing of timber, and associa- 10 | LONDINIUM tion of blocks of stone. A later development of mud walling was to break up the material, by analogy with hewn stone, into regular lumps separately dried before they were used; thus crude bricks, the commonest building material in antiquity, were formed. Roofing tiles were developed from pottery, and such tiles came to be used for covering the tops of crude brick walls. ‘Then, later, whole walls were formed of baked material, and thus the tile or brick wall was obtained. An alternative method of using mud was to daub it over timber or wattle (basket work) of sticks; and this seems to have been a common procedure in Celtic Britain. Interesting varieties of concrete walling were developed by Roman builders. One of these was the use of little stones for the faces of a wall, tailing back into the concrete mass and forming a hard skin or mail on the surfaces, very like modern paving. ‘Triangular tiles with their points toothed into the concrete mass were also used. ‘Then tile courses were set in stone and concrete walls at every few feet of height. I have been speaking of general principles and history, not limiting myself to Britain and Lon- dinium, but the evolution of the wall is an interest- ing introduction to our proper subject. In Londinium wrought stonework must have been very sparingly used because of the difficulty and cost of transit. ‘There were columns, pilasters, plinths, cornices, etc., but it may be doubted whether there were any buildings other than small monuments wholly of such masonry. Even in the first century the “ details’ of masonry were far from being “correctly classical,” and ornaments were very redundant and inventive, Provincial BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 11 Roman building was something very different from the grammars propounded by architects. As we may study it in the fine museums of Tréves, Lyons, and London, it seems more like proto-Romanesque than a late form of “classic.” ‘The Corin- thian capitals of Cirencester are very fine works indeed; the acanthus is treated freshly, the points of the leaves being sharp and arranged as in Byzantine work; a sculptured pediment and ornamental frieze at Bath are also free and fine. On the other hand, moulded work is usually coarse and poor. An interesting architectural fragment found in London was the upper drum of a column which had several bands of leafage around the shaft and was a remote descendant of the acanthus column at Delphi (Fig. 1). Parts of small columns and their bases have been found, the latter with crude mouldings. I mention them because small cir- cular work was usually turned in a lathe like Saxon baluster-shafts. A small capital from Silchester in . the Reading Museum is of the mre a bowl form so characteristic of Romanesque art. A few fragments of mouldings and other stones are in our museums (Fig. 2), and a considerable number of semicircular stones have been found which must have been copings. Large wrought 12 LONDINIUM stones were usually cramped together ; lewis- holes show how they were hoisted; smaller wall- facings were, I think, cut with an axe instead of a chisel. We find mention of one stone arch (a small niche ?) in a Minute of the Society of Antiquaries : “Mar. 8, 1732: Mr. Sam Gale acquainted the Society, yt in digging up some old foundations near ye new Fabric erected Anno 1732 for ye Bank of England Mr. Sampson ye architect dis- covered a large old wall, eight foot under ye surface of ye ground, consisting of chalk stone and rubble, next to Threadneedle Street, in which was an arch of stone and a Busto of a man placed in it standing upon ye plinth, which he carefully covered up again: there was no inscription but he believed it to be Roman.” Mortar and Concrete—Roman builders early learnt how to make good mortar and concrete, being careful to use clean coarse gravel and finely divided lime. They also found that an addition of crushed tiles and pottery was an improvement, and for their good work used so much of this that the mortar became quite red. ‘‘ Roman mortar was generally composed of lime, pounded tiles, sand and gravel, more or less coarse, and even small pebbles. At Richborough the mortar used in the interior of the walls is composed of lime and sand and pebbles or sea-beach, but the facing stones throughout are cemented with a much finer mortar in which powdered tile is introduced ” (T. Wright). One of the advantages of coarsely-crushed tiles is that it absorbs and holds water so that the mortar made with it dries very slowly and thus hardens perfectly. In Arch@ologia (|x.) an analysis is given of ‘‘ mortar made with crushed tiles as grit in place BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 13 of, or in conjunction with, sand.”’ In Rochester Museum a dishful of the crushed tile is shown which was taken from a heap found ready for use at the Roman villa at Darenth. I may say here that I have found mortar prepared in this way wonderfully tenacious, and suitable for special purposes like stopping holes in ancient walls. A strong cement made of finely powdered tiles, lime and oil was used by Byzantine and medizval builders and probably by the Romans also. Villars de Honnecourt (thir- teenth century) gives a recipe: “Take lime and pounded pagan tile in equal quantities until its colour predominates; moisten this with oil and with it you can make a tank hold water.” ‘The use of crushed pottery in cement goes back to Minoan days in Crete. In London a long, thick wall of concrete formed between timbering was recently found between Knightrider and Friday Streets; it showed prints of half-round upright posts and horizontal planking ; it bent in its course and may have been the boundar of a stream. On the site of the old Post Office a Roman rubbish pit was found, about $0 ft. by 35 ft. in size. ‘‘In late Roman times the whole pit had been covered with concrete about a foot thick and a building had been erected on the spot” (Archeol. Ixyi.). At Newgate the Roman structure was erected on a “ raft” of rubble in clay finished with a layer of concrete. Rubble in clay formed the foundation of the City Wall. Many walls, described as of chalk, rubble or rag-masonry, have been found in London—one instance at the Bank has been quoted above. Chalk and flints were the most accessible material after local gravel, clay and wood. Mr. F. W. Troup 14 LONDINIUM tells me that “‘in the foundations for the Blackfriars House, New Bridge Street, we exposed a remarkable foundation (possibly not Roman). It consisted of rammed chalk, fine white material about 4 ft. wide and high, laid on great planks of elm 6 in. thick, which appeared to be sawn. . These were laid side by side in the direction of the length of the wall, which ran along the west bank of the Fleet River.” I mention this, although it was probably a medizval wall, as an example of a record; we ought to have every excavation registered. The walls of a room found in Leadenhall Street in 1830 were of rubble forming a hard concretion, with a single row of “ bond tiles through the oOo ¢hickness ol alain ZOBB oY, about every 2 ft. in AD-@-O@-O@-Cz (da height. A sketch of Fic. 5. this wall at the Society of Antiquaries shows it plastered outside and in. This was one of the common types of walling. Better stone walls were formed with face casings of roughly-squared little stones—what the French call petit appareil—as described above. An immense amount of piling was used in wet ground under streets and wharves, as well as walls. Foundations have been discovered of three rows of piles close together with a wall coming directly on their heads (Fig. 3). A wall found on the site of the Mansion House seems to have had only one row of piles; it was plastered outside. 7 Tile Walling—The brick commonly used in Rome was a crude or unbaked block; the burnt walling tile was, as said above, developed from BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 15 pottery, and it always remained pottery-like in texture and thin in substance. As Mr. I’. May has said of bricks: ‘‘’ They were made of heavy clay, well tempered and long exposed; the modern practice is to use the lightest possible clay right off without tempering.” Walling tiles were used in Londinium not only as bonding courses, but for the entire substance of walls. It is usual to write “Roman tiles or bricks”? interchangeably, but in origin and character the thing was a tile, and, indeed, roofing tiles with flanged edges were used as a walling material occasionally. ‘Tiles were of various sizes and shapes, but an oblong, 14 ft. by I ft. and about 14 in. thick, was most usual. In the Guildhall Museum are several triangular tiles which must, I think, have been used for facing walls with concrete cores. Solid tile walling was used in Londinium so extensively that it was evidently a common material for better buildings. ‘The Lombard Street excavations of 1785 exposed “a wall which consisted of the smaller-sized Roman bricks, in which were two perpendicular flues, one semicircular and the other rectangular; the height of the wall was Io ft. and the depth to the top from the surface was also 10 ft.”” Here we have evidence of a brick wall rising the full height of one story at least (Arche@ol. viii.). Roach Smith noticed a wall in Scott’s Yard “ 8 ft. thick, entirely composed of oblong tiles in mortar.” Mr. Lambert has recently described some walls of brick 3% ft. thick found at Miles Lane. A building in Lower ‘Thames Street had walls of red and yellow tiles in alternate layers. ‘This fact I learn from a sketch by Fairholt at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and such use of bricks of two colours was a common practice. In 16 LONDINIUM Hodge’s sketches of the tile walls of a great building discovered at Leadenhall Market it is noted that some of the courses were red and buff. Price recorded of walls, 24 ft. thick, found in the Bucklers- bury excavations, that “the tiles were the usual kind of red and yellow brick.” More recently a bath chamber has been found in Cannon Street built of tiles which on the illustra- tion are indicated in alternate courses of red and yellow. In the description in Archeologia, it is remarked : ‘‘ It would appear that the yellow was preferred, the red being employed where they were not visible.”” Years ago Charles Knight observed that the tiles used in the City Wall at America Square varied from “ bright red to palish yellow.” This has been confirmed by more recent accounts in Archeologia. Finally, Roach Smith, describing the discovery of a part of the South or River Wall of the City (Archeological Fournal, vol. 1.), says that the tiles used as bonding bands were straight and curved-edged (that is, flanged roof tiles), red and yellow in colour. At the Guildhall there are a roof tile and a flue tile of yellow colour. Building with tiles may for long have been customary, but the use of red and yellow tiles in the way de- scribed would probably have been a fashion during a limited time only, and in that case it follows that the buildings erected with red and yellow tiles are likely to be nearly contemporary ; the date would, I suppose, be the fourth century. Specially made tiles were used for columns. At the Guildhall are several round tiles 8 in. diameter, suitable for the piers of a hypocaust. Also some semicircular tiles I2 in. in diameter. In Rochester Museum are some quadrants making up a circle about 14 ft. in BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 17 diameter. ‘Tiles, eight of which made up a circle, have lately been found at Colchester, and in the Guildhall Museum is a course of a round column made up of twelve tiles around a small central circle. A large number of columns were evidently of such bricks plastered. Arches and Vaults—The arches in the City Wall, where it passed across the Walbrook, de- scribed by Roach Smith, were of no great span (3% ft.). They were constructed of ordinary tiles and were of a roughly-pointed shape. Arches of this form were not infrequently used in Roman works; they were not the result of inaccurate building. About a dozen years ago a well-built pointed arch of alternate tile and tufa, found at Naples, was described in Archeologia. ‘The tiles, although thin, were sometimes made slightly wedge- shaped, and the city gates at Silchester seem to have had arches of such bricks. The only London vault which I can find men- tioned is one found exactly two hundred years since at St. Martin-in-the-Fields. A Minute of the Society of Antiquaries reads: ‘“‘ May 2, 1722: Mr. Stukely related that the Roman building in St. Martin’s Church was an arch built of Roman brick and at the bottom laid with a most strong cement of an unusual composition, of which he has got a lump. ‘There was a square duct in each wall its whole length, of 9 in. breadth; there were several of these side by side: this building is below the springs on the gravel.” This building that was an arch, with its many flues, and cement floor— doubtless opus signinum—was obviously a Roman bath chamber, but probably it was quite small. Evidence of the existence of fairly large vaults 2 18 LONDINIUM has been found at the Baths of Silchester, Wroxeter and Bath. These were all constructed in a most interesting and suggestive way of voussoirs made as hollow boxes in the tile material. Similar box voussoirs have been dis- covered at Chedworth and else- where. I have found two such box voussoirs in the Rochester Museum, each about g in. by 6 in. on the face and 5 in. on the soffit (Fig. 4). The surfaces are roughly Fra. 4. scored across with parallel lines form- ing an X. ‘These two tiles together show an obvious curvature; they came from a villa at Darenth. In the Guildhall Museum I have also found a box voussoir which is almost identical with those at Rochester. It is thus described: “74, Flue (?) tile, red brick, the front decorated with incised cross lines; in the centre both front and back is a circular perforation: 94 in. long, 6} in. high, 64 in. wide.” ‘The longest dimension is not in the direction of the tube, and the height is greater at one end than the other, so that the wedge form is quite apparent. The small holes in both the larger sides were doubtless to give better hold to the mortar in which they were set (Fig. 5). Roach Smith recorded what must have been broken parts of similar voussoirs as found in Thames Street in 1848 (Fourn. Brit. Archeol. Assoc., vol. iy.), but here they seem to have been used as waste material Fic. 5. BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 19 in building the little piers of hypocausts. Roman builders also constructed vaults of pipes and pots set in mortar concrete as were our box voussoirs, but I know of no British examples. Vaults of wide span seem to have covered large chambers in the Basilica at Verulam (see Victoria County History). ‘The method of using the box voussoirs has been well explained from the Silchester examples by the late Mr. Fox in Archeologia (cf. Fig. 6). A fragment at Westminster Abbey is either part of a voussoir or of a short flue tile (Fig. 7). Fic. 7. Fic. 8. Some notes made at Bath further explain the interesting methods of building vaults with box voussoirs. ‘‘here are several such voussoirs in the ruins of the Great Bath, 12 in. to 13 in. deep by 6 in. and 6% in.; 6# in. and 7% in.; 83 in. and Io in.; 20 LONDINIUM 8 in. and 11 in. at the top and bottom. Fig. 9 is a sketch of the third; it is scored on the face. The notches cut in the sides take the place of the holes in the London examples, and doubtless were for the mortar to get a better key; Fig. 10 is from Fic. 10. a vault of this construction which was further strengthened by a series of curved tiles set in the outer concrete mass, which was 6 in. thick; Fig. 11 shows the ridge of such a vault—this may be an imagination of my own. One of the fragments Fig, 11. showed six or eight flat tiles set longitudinally crossing the lines of the box-tiles (Fig. 12). The ridge termination (Fig. 16) is also from Bath. Some large voussoir box-tiles from Gaul are shown in the British Museum, No. 394, in the section of Greek and Roman life. BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS a1 Well-constructed arched sewers have been found in the City (see Victoria County History). Many socketed water-pipes are in our museums. Such pipes were occasionally used in Rome as down- pipes, and we might do worse than revert to the custom and get rid of the iron rust nuisance. In the British Museum there are some larger socketed pipes with small holes cut in them along a line. These must, I think, have been for draining surface water, for which purpose flue tiles were also used. Larger sewers were of brick or stone. Carpentry.—In medieval days the carpenter was the chief house builder, and much timber would have been used in Roman London. In 1901-2 remains of piling was found in the bed of the Walbrook at London Wall. These piles had served as supports for dwellings. ‘The large quantities of loose nails indicated that the super- imposed dwellings were of timber” (Buzlder, December 13, 1902). ‘Timber piling has also been found at St. Martin’s le Grand and other sites. There was clearly much soft wet ground in the City. The better-class dwelling in Bucklersbury, to which belonged the fine mosaic floor now at the Guildhall, seems to have been largely of timber. In December last (1921) Mr. Lambert described at the Society of Antiquaries a remarkable piece of wharfing on the river bank at Miles Lane. This was a solid wall of squared balks of timber about 2 ft. square, laid one over the other and having ties into the ground behind. The construction showed an interesting set of tenons, halvings and housings. A bored wood pipe was also found. In Thames Street a house found in 1848 had a well-made drain made with 2 in. planks forming bottom and 22 | LONDINIUM . sides, which is said to have been covered in with tiles. ie Wattle and Daub.—It was ever a problem in London how to build without stone. Wood, gravel and mud were plentiful, and these were the common walling materials during the Middle Ages. As lately as the eighteenth century some of the suburban churches were described by Hatton as being of “* boulder work,” that is, a concrete of coarse gravel; and the walls of the Temple Church, before the falsifying restorations, were of some sort of concreted rubble skinned over with plaster on the face. Hearne reports that Wren said that there were few masons in London when he was young. Mud walls are mentioned in medieval records, and “‘ daubers ” were, I suppose, primarily those who did the filling in of post and pan work. The smaller houses of Londinium were largely of wattle and daub, and doubtless others were of crude brick. For the use of wattle and daub we have plentiful direct evidence. In the account of the excavations in and about Lombard Street in 1785 (Archeol. viii.) curious fragments were found which are thus described: ‘About this spot and in many other places large pieces of porous brick were met with of a very loose texture, seeming as if mixed with straw before they were burnt. They are commonly channelled on the surface; their size is quite. uncertain, being mere fragments, their thickness about 14 in. or 2 in.” Again, chalk-stone foundations and ‘channelled brick” are men- tioned together. The “brick”? fragments were of daubing, and the channels were the marks of laths, as has been shown by other finds. Similar remnants have recently been discovered on the Post BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS 23 Office site and in King William Street. ‘ Débris of a wood and daub house which had been destroyed by fire. . . . In several cases the plaster was still adhering to the daub” (4rche@ol. Ixvi.). Other fragments are preserved in the Silchester collec- tion at Reading. The London fragments were found under conditions which showed that they had belonged to first-century dwellings. This method of building had been practised by the Celts, and we may imagine that the “‘ populace ” of Londinium was housed in small huts of wattle and clay roofed with reed thatch. In the country, old garden walls are occasionally found, I believe, built of mud daubing on both sides of wattle work, and sheep shelters of wattle-hurdles and dry fern are, I suppose, direct descendants of the old British manner of building. Mr. Bushe Fox has remarked that one of the earliest houses at Silchester and the earliest houses at Wroxeter were of wattle and daub construction. See also Mr. Lambert’s paper in - = ney ery) : (Hal random rubble’’; it was separate from the City Wall, and the foundation was deeper than that of the wall. A second was built in a very soft spot. ‘Why it should have been selected 1s not easy to see, as at a little distance either way the builders could have found firm soil.” Its site was an old stream bed, and the conditions might well be the cause of a settlement at the point. This, as suggested WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 65 above, may have been the reason the bastion was erected just here. (For the bastion by Giltspur Street, see §. 4. Proceedings, 2 S. xxii. 476.) Nothing very definitely Roman was found in these bastions, but one at All Hallows was certainly Roman. This is described as (I condense) “ built of stonework which, like the rest, so far as they have been observed, is of random rubble, built principally of irregular pieces and ragstone with portions of Roman tile (none complete) and other material ; much of it appears to have done duty in some previous building. A base was formed of large square stones a uniform height of 2 ft.; they had been employed in some former building; several had lewis holes. ‘This base rested on a table of large flat stones 9 in. thick. Most of these seem to have been portions of a cornice. Roman origin was shown by red mortar in which the joints had been set.” The foundation was about 3 ft. below that of the City Wall, and projected into the original Roman ditch. What is called the “‘ table”? above was a square-fronted lower base; the back of this base was set in advance of the City Wall; indeed, it was 3 ft. in front of it on the eastern side and “‘ the gravel in this intervening space was undisturbed.” This gap is specially to be noted. ‘The description of the masonry as random rubble must apply mainly to the core of the work, for the illustrations show an approximation to courses on the face ; indeed, on the east side, thirteen courses may be counted in the photograph up to a line which seems to be the top of a sloping plinth; these courses averaged about 4% in. high. The full significance of this account is only brought out on comparing it with Price’s description of what was found in excavating the 5 66 LONDINIUM Camomile Street bastion. ‘This bastion was founded on two deep courses of heavy stones taken from Roman buildings, many sculptured, and having lewis holes in them. ‘These masonry courses were set 1 ft. in advance of the City Wall, one over the other, forming a straight joint, and leaving a gap “‘ separated from the wall by an intervening space filled with rubble” (Price) which was filled with small stones. ‘This curious and carefully-arranged construction in both bastions was clearly with the object of making the foundations of the bastions take their bearings away from the wall so that they would tend to lean inwards against the wall; it is analo- gous to the arches of the Constantinople towers. ‘This bastion had a batter or slope at the bottom of about 4 ft. high. Price describes the masonry as “‘ rag rubble wall- ing faced with random courses. The size of the blocks of which the facing was composed varied from 3 in. to 84 in. thick [high] and from 5 in. to 14 in. long.” This account is supported by the carefully- executed illustrations which show coursed facings of small stones which seem almost identical with the facings of the City Wall. Such masonry of small facing “‘ blocks” with concreted rubble behind is certainly Roman. The masonry at the All Hallows bastion seems to have approximated to the same character; there it may be noticed the courses became narrower upwards. ‘This was cer- tainly not so regular as the masonry of the City Wall, but it may be said to have resembled it (Fig. 32). WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 67 At the Guildhall Museum is “a group of archi- tectural remains and fragments of sculptured stones from tombs, public buildings, etc., found in a bastion of London Wall, Duke Street, Aldgate, 1881.” ‘This find is best described in The Atheneum for that year. Mr. Watkins, while excavating in Houndsditch and Duke Street, found the City Wall and a mass of masonry extending 18 ft. out- ward from the wall; the stones were dressed and weighed from I cwt. to1¢¥ tons. “In the structure he observed a channel 15 in. deep by 18 in. wide, which showed signs of use as a watercourse. It had been filled with concrete composed of chalk and flints. ‘The site was the foundation of one of the bastions composed of sculptured stones in character similar to those previously recorded, upwards of twenty in number.” ‘This was the second bastion east of Bishopsgate. The channel filled with con- crete suggests a gap dividing the bastion from the City Wall as already described ; but see also account i y..G.i2. In 1887 Mr. Loftus Brock reported to the British Archeological Association the, removal of part of the City Wall on the east side of Wormwood Street. Nearly opposite Bevis Marks Synagogue the founda- tion of a circular-fronted bastion was found of worked freestones and not bonded into the main wall (The Builder, May 28, 1887). A paper by J. E. Price in 1884 (London and Middlesex Archzol. Soc.) referred to the discovery of a bastion con- taining several sculptured stones in St. Mary Axe (The Builder, November 22, 1884, and compare VCH). In 1852 an excavation was made against the outside of the City Wall on Tower Hill, and a 68 LONDINIUM number of large wrought and carved stones were found (The Builder, September 4, 1852) (Fig. 33). In an account given in the Fournal of the British Archeological Association the workmen are said to have discovered a “complete quarry of : si — 7 ZS LG 1 Gal ABALPINICLASS SABA = Fic. 33. stones cut in various forms and evidently belonging to some important building ... 125 making 4o cart loads.” Fairholt made an etching of the place while the work was in progress, which shows that the WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 69 “quarry ” was heaped against the external face of the wall like the bases of the other bastions, and that, in fact, it was a ruined bastion (Fig. 34 from Roach Smith’s Roman London, slightly modified). Another account is given in the Antiquarian Etch- ing Club by A. H. Burkitt, with a plate: ‘“ ‘These interesting remains were discovered during the excavations in June 1852, which laid bare the wall to its base. The various portions of stone, which at “SS SSS ae on oe one Fic. 34. amounted to about forty cart loads, bear evidence of having belonged to an important building. The inscription and band of laurel leaves, which probably formed an ornament above it, indicate a monument of considerable magnitude to the memory of a commander of the Roman Navy. ‘There were found at the same time fragments of frescoes with inscriptions.” (In Fig. 33 the fragment with laurel leaves is represented upside down.) The two stones specially mentioned are now in the British Museum. It appears from the accounts and illustrations that this bastion was 70 LONDINIUM built against the wall without being bonded to it in the lower part, that its foundation was formed of large carved and moulded stones, and was at a lower level than that of the wall. (The part below the plinth in Fig. 34 on the left is rough foundation.) We thus have clear record that several of the bastions on the east and north sides of the City were constructed in a similar way. ‘Those farther west near the Post Office were probably rebuilt in medieval times. ‘These were hollow at the base, not solid like the others. 5 The towers of the city 7 wall of Carcassone, de- Yi scribed by Viollet le Duc SS SEXSy93n NSA A AN x SSS SY SSS “AN (Dict., vol. i.), were so similar in construction that it is plain our bastions were constructed accord- ing to general custom. In the illustration we see big stones at the base of Fie. 35. the bastion only; large window-like openings closed with woodwork above ; and an upper storey rising higher than the wall top. Fig. 35 is a suggested restoration of one of the London bastions, showing the foundation gap A, and an upper storey over- lapping the City Wall. It is probable that most, or all, of the bastions from Tower Hill to Cripplegate were built in the same way as those just described, and there is evidence to suggest that the western bastions were also similar. In 1806 fragments of Roman monu- ments were found near Ludgate ; “ these may have WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE yp come from a later Roman gate or from the adjoining bastion” (V.C.H.). Allen says: “‘ At the back of the London Coffee-house, Ludgate Hill, a circular tower and staircase was discovered ; and about 3 ft. below the pavement some remains of Roman art were found.” An etching of the stones published by T. Fisher in 1807 describes them as “ dug out of the foundations of the wall of the City, a few yards north of Ludgate.” Archer, speaking of an inscribed pedestal, says it was found “in extending the premises at the back of the London Coffee- house. It appeared in a bastion of the City Wall, and was built in with the masonry near some remains of a circular staircase” (Illust. Family Four., c. 1850). Now, Horwood’s plan of 1799 shows the back of the Coffee-house adjoining the line of the old wall -and extending a long way north—apparently much more than sufficient to overlap the bastion numbered 55 on Mr. Reader’s plan. ‘The Post Office excava- tions recently made down Ludgate Hill show that the natural ground is here only about 10 ft. below the modern level. The Camomile Street and All Hallows bastions were about 20 ft. wide and projected about 16 ft. In medizval days the bastions rose above the para- pet walk on the main wall, and each formed a round- ended chamber having loopholes. This is well shown on the Survey of Holy Trinity, Aldgate, 1592, which I published about 1900 in Middlesex Notes and Queries. (Several round-fronted bastions are planned as well as Aldgate itself.) The medizval arrangement, I have no doubt, followed the Roman scheme. ‘The openings in the original bastions would, we may suppose, have been wider than medizyal loops, and have had semicircular arches 72 LONDINIUM of brick overthem. (See Viollet le Duc’s Dictionary, vol. i. p. 333.) The walls and bastions which still exist at Le Mans and Senlis more closely resemble those of Londinium than any others I have seen. At Le Mans a long portion fronting, but some way back from the river Sarthe, has three bastions 60 yds. to 70 yds. apart, round on the front about 20 ft. wide, and 15 in. or 16 in. projection. The curtain is about 30 ft. high, and the bastions rise Kn higher—say, to 45 ft.; they rise sloping for some way from the ground ‘(Fig. 36). The bastions at Senlis are very similar, but some of these have two storeys of large openings, three in each. For a long time it was argued that the bastions of the Wall of London were medieval; then very considerable difference of construction from the City Wall has been alleged. It has been said that their masonry was unlike the other, and that there were no tile bands. We only know with any | —— WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 73 certainty the lower parts of the bastions now re- cognised as Roman, and there is no reason for assert- ing that there were no tile bands in the upper parts. The bastion illustrated by Roach Smith from a sketch by Gough had bands of brick, but in the illustration this bastion appears as square, and this is unlikely (see Archeol. Ixiii.). It is possible, however, that the form is a misreading of a rough sketch. This, I think, is more likely than the suggestion in V.C’.H. that it was medieval. An illustration of a round-fronted bastion near Falcon Square given by Thornbury (Old and New London), shows two bands of tile. ‘This seems to be bastion 40 of V.C.H., which was about 4o ft. high; “in the upper part was a row of tile-brick, probably due to later patching.” ‘There are also some other references to tiles in bastions, and on the whole I conclude that they probably had tile bands more or less like the wall. Both the bastion just men- tioned and that of Gough’s sketch had openings below the upper storey, showing that in these bastions there were chambers below the level of the parapet. So there must have been at Le Mans (Fig. 36) and Senlis. Compare also V. le Duc’s Dictionary, vol. 1. p. 333. In an article on the City Walls in the Fournal of the London Society (November 1922), Dr. Norman says: ‘‘ Last summer the remains of another bastion were laid bare not far from the west end of the Church of St. Anne and St. Agnes.” This was “the inner angle bastion ” near Aldersgate. It is not exactly known when the City was pro- tected by walls. Stow says: “‘ It seemeth not to have been walled in the year of our Lord 296, because in that year the Franks easily entered way LONDINIUM London.” He accepted the legend that “ Helen, the mother of Constantine, first enwalled this City.” Camden held the same view, and has a note: ‘Coins of Helena often found under the walls.”’ It is now agreed that the walls were built around a late and extended city, for rubbish pits and burials have been found within the walls. A belt of the former occupied the site of St. Paul’s and the Post Office. It was Roach Smith’s impression that the walls were probably built ‘‘ after the recovery of the province by Constantine, or even later, when Theodosius restored the towns” (Archeol. ‘Four., 1844). Mr. Lambert, from planning the find-spots of Roman coins, comes to the conclusion that the wall was not in its later position until the fourth century. The type of walling is especially char- acteristic of the fourth century. MHaverfield has pointed out some earlier cases of the use of bonding tiles, but these seem to be exceptional. (See also what is said of Colchester in 7.R.S., 1919.) Darem- berg and Saglio give 309 as the date of the earliest wall of our kind in Rome. (They illustrate an example from Timgad, in North Africa, which closely resembles the wall of London.) I suggest that a point of evidence may be found in the Con- stantinian coin, which has a city gate or fortifica- tion for device, and the inscription PROVIDENTIAE CAESs, With the mint mark of London (Fig. 37). This device was not invented for London, but I cannot think that at such a time it could have been adopted if Londinium still remained an open city—it would have invited too obvious irony after what had happened in 296. ‘This coin was issued WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 75 between 320 and 324, and I suggest that it may be accepted as a record of the walling of the City, or, perhaps more probably, the beginning of the works. The coins of Helen mentioned by Camden were issued about this time. In the later half of the fourth century London acquired the title of Augusta, and this change of style probably followed on the change of status of its having then been completely walled. (I find that Mr. Reg. Smith has already made this same suggestion in V.C.H.) Sir Arthur Evans has recently called attention to a silver coin of Valentinian the Elder as having in an ab- breviated form the mone- tary stamp of Londinensis Augusta. “A group of coins shows that the Mint at London, which had been closed since the time of Constantine, was re- stored by Valentinian in A.D. 368” (Proceedings, Se erots. p. 105).. I suggest that this is a prob- able date for the completion of the river wall. Several of the cities of Gaul were protected by walls at a still later time. Many of the carved fragments found in the bastions can be little earlier than the year A.D. 300. The important monuments of which remnants have been found must have been destroyed when the long, wide strip required for the original wall and its ditch was cleared, for the bastions themselves did not go beyond this ground. It seems possible that the big stones were reserved for founding 76 LONDINIUM bastions; this is more likely than that distant monu- ments were destroyed to provide foundation stones. “To put an end to incessant pillage the Gallo- Roman towns sacrificed their faubourgs, and, re- trenching their extent, surrounded themselves with strong walls, which were very often supported on sculptured blocks taken from destroyed edifices. Le Mans, like the towns of Senlis, Tours, Autun, Bourges, Fréjus, etc., girded itself with ramparts flanked with round-fronted towers, of which important remains still exist, especially along the river Sarthe. The enceinte of Le Mans enclosed an area about 500 by 200 metres ” (A. Ledru, 1900). Gates——The excava- tions of 1903 at the Old Bailey revealed some SS remnants of the Roman gate on the site of New- gate. ‘The most signifi- Fic. 38. cant of these was a portion of plinth on the City side, with a return at the south end. This, as shown in Archeologia, lix., by Dr. P. Norman, when linked up with earlier discoveries made in 1875, allowed of the recovery of the plan of the gate (Fig. 38). The plinth had been removed from its place before I saw it, but the stones were certainly shaped in Roman days; they had a chamfer 8 in. wide, with a square face of similar width below, and they had been strongly cramped together; one had a “return end,” and clearly came from a corner (A and B). A portion of the western plinth was discovered in 1909 (Archeol. Ixiii.). ‘The gate, with its towers on either side, had a frontage of about 96 ft.—probably 100 Roman feet, as a Roman WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 77 foot was about 11°60 in. The space between the towers appears to have been about 35 ft., which is not more than sufficient for two large archways. The great gate at Colchester, which was about 107 ft. wide, had two carriage-ways 17 ft. wide, and two small side openings 6 ft. wide as well (see 7.R.S., 1919). Enough of the walling was found in 1875 to show that the London gate was of stone bonded with tiles; it was erected on a thick platform of “‘ clay and ragstone,”’ which raised the plinth about 5 ft. above the plinth of the adjoining City Wall. Fig. 39 is a restoration of the front. Several years ago a mass of masonry with a face to the south was found under Bishopsgate Street | a little within the line | 07 simi of the wall; underlying it was ‘‘ puddling of flint and clay” over a wide area. It was suggested ea 32) at the time (Archeol. |x. p. 58) that this masonry and foundation might have belonged to Roman Bishopsgate, and the finding of what seems to have been a similar platform at Newgate strengthens the hypothesis. It had long ago been pointed out by T. Wright that the gate at Lymne was raised on a platform of big stones. At Lymne and Pevensey entrance gates had round- fronted towers, and the great gate at Colchester had quadrants. Medieval Aldgate had two _ round-fronted towers; these are shown in the Survey of Holy Trinity Priory mentioned above, and they are so similar to the bastions of the wall that I was led to suggest that the double gateway and towers were 78 LONDINIUM probably substantially Roman work (Fig. 40). Some confirmation of this is given in V.C.H., but com- pare Archeologia, xliii. Fitzstephen, writing at the end of the twelfth century, says that London had “‘ double gates,’ and this was doubtless so from Roman days. The Roman ditch outside Aldersgate, with a foundation for a bridge pointing towards the gate, was found about thirty years ago, and this is evi- dence for a Roman gate on this site (Archeol. lii.). Ludgate is guaranteed as Roman by the antiquity of the Strand and Fleet Street. Stow says that in 1595 he observed on the north side of Fleet Street ALA Fic. 40. from Chancery Lane to St. Dunstan’s Church, 4 ft. below the surface, “‘a pavement of hard stone, more sufficient than the first, under which they found in the made ground piles of timber almost close together, the same being black as pitch and rotten, which proved that the ground there, as sundry other places of the City, had been a marsh.” Close piling was such a common Roman procedure that it may not be doubted that what Stow observed was the Roman road to Ludgate. Medizval Aldgate can be restored very fully by comparing the plan mentioned above with the view of the City given by Braun and Hogenberg (c. 1550). The gate is so accurately represented that two stair turrets appear over the positions where stairs are WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 79 shown in the plan. If this gate is so accurately drawn, then the other indications may be accepted. In the Pepys collection, Cambridge, is an engraved view of a gate dated 1688; in the list of contents this is described as Cripplegate, but I believe it is rather Bishopsgate. It was an unaltered medieval structure, with corbelled battlements and three statues in niches, one on each of the towers and one in the centre. Newgate is also represented in a woodcut view of about the same time, and in an engraving of considerable accuracy, from a book entitled Herba Parietis; here even Whittington’s coat-of-arms plainly appears. For a possible view of the Bridge gate, c. 1416, see an article by Mr. Weale in the Burlington Magazine, 1904. A Roman road on piles has recently been found in Southwark (Archeol. lxiii.). Adding the Bridge gate, we now have evidence for the existence in Roman days of the six chief gates of Londinium. It has been suggested that there may have been an earth bank inside the walls, as at Silchester, but the different relation of the fronts of the gates to the walls in London are contrary arguments. Ditches—When the site of Newgate was ex- cavated I saw the slope of the ditch clearly defined by the blacker earth lying above the clean yellow gravel. The latest and clearest account of the ditches is in Archeologia, |xii. ‘There was first a narrow V-shaped ditch dug when the wall was first built. A second wider ditch was excavated out- side the other, which was at least partly filled when the bastions were built. ‘There were similar double ditches at Silchester, and it has been pointed out that there the earlier V-shaped ditch probably supplied the gravel for building the wall; possibly 80 LONDINIUM this was the case at London too. The wide ditch was probably further expanded in front of the gates ; it was about 75 ft. wide at the top of the bank out- side Aldersgate. The Original Port of London and the Bridge.— The space within the completed walls has been computed to have been about 330 acres by Dr. Philip Norman. Dr. Haverfield says: “At London, Silchester, Trier, Cologne, the walls seem to have enclosed the town at near its largest ” (Romaniza- tion). Roach Smith first remarked that from the position of burials within the area of the City we might infer the position of an earlier Londinium. Loftus Brock also, following Woodward, in pointing out that the northern cemetery had come within the space enclosed by the City Wall at Bishopsgate, used the same argument. Mr. Reginald Smith plotted all the known burials on a plan. Mr. Lambert has also laid down the find spots of coins of different dates. In his recent paper in Archeo- logy he suggests that a stratum of charred material between London Bridge and the Walbrook re- presents the early Londinium destroyed by Boadicea. A large number of rubbish pits have been found within the walls. Putting these facts together it is evident that the original site of Londinium must have been by the inlet of the Wal- brook, and it is probable that this little tidal creek was the first port of London—the seaport of Celtic Verulam, to which an old road led by Aldersgate and Islington. It is likely that before the Roman walls were built some defensive bank would have been thrown up between the Fleet and the Wal- brook; compare the earth banks at Colchester. Can Barbican represent such a defence ? WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 81 London Bridge is mentioned in the tenth cen- tury. Stow tells us that it was first of timber. Then in 1067 a charter speaks of ‘‘ Botolph’s Gate, with a wharf which was at the head of London Bridge.” He goes on: ‘‘ About the year 1176 the stone bridge was begun near unto the bridge of timber, but towards the west, for Botolph’s wharf was, in the Conqueror’s time, at the head of London Bridge.” Nothing was known of a Roman bridge until last century. Then when the old stone bridge was destroyed evidence was found which con- vinced observers of the time that a Roman bridge had preceded it on the same line. Recently some writers, while accepting the Roman bridge as proved, have preferred to put it back to Stow’s line.. Haver- field says: ‘‘ No traces of a Roman bridge have yet been found (Archeologia, |x.) : the oldest medizval bridge (eleventh century) is said by Stow to have been. near Botolph’s wharf (see plan).”” ‘This plan shows the bridge “‘ temp. William the Conqueror ”’ far to the east of Fish Street Hill (see also V.C.H.). Exactly what Haverfield meant by saying that no traces of the bridge had been found is hard to say; it seems to have been as loose a statement as the one which seems to imply that the earliest medizval bridge was of the eleventh century. Roach Smith, a cautious observer, was entirely convinced by the evidence that the medieval bridge followed the course of the Roman bridge. “Throughout the line of the old bridge many thousands of Roman coins, with abundance of Roman pottery, were discovered, and beneath some of the central piles brass medallions of Aurelius, Faustina and Commodus. The enormous quantity 6 82 LONDINIUM of Roman coins may be accounted for by the practice of the Romans . . . they may have been deposited upon the building or repairs of the bridge, as well as upon the accession of a new emperor... . The beautiful works of art which were discovered alongside the foundations, the colossal bronze head of Hadrian, the bronze images of Apollo, Mercury, Atys ... and other relics were possibly thrown into the river by early Christians” (Archeol. Four., vol. i.). This seems substantial evidence. The charter cited by Stow only speaks of a wharf as being at the head of London Bridge ; it does not tell us that the bridge ran into the middle of the wharf. The Roman bridge was linked up with an approach from the south over a raised causeway; the bridge-ends would have required much consolidation, and the foundations in the great tidal river must have been extremely difficult to construct. We should need very clear demonstration before we could believe that the early Saxons did more than patch up the work of skilled Roman engineers. Altering of the bridge to the Gracechurch Street line on the City side in 1176 would have meant replanning on a big scale. ‘The ancient line of approach on the south side is guaranteed by the area of Roman finds (see V.C.H. plan). Gracechurch Street is known to have existed before the Conquest, and the positions of the ancient churches of St. Magnus’s and St. Olaf’s at each end of the bridge are significant : the bridge, I believe, was in the parishes of these two churches. Much more might be said, but I cannot think it is necessary. I conclude that the Roman bridge followed the line between the “ Borough” and WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE 83 Gracechurch Street, and that the phrase in the charter was nothing more than a general indication of the position of the wharf. After the building of the Roman bridge, Billings- gate may have succeeded the Walbrook creek as the chief port of London. One of the sights of Londinium which may best be imagined is the approach over the bridge. Or we may think of the ring of turreted walls of the City by the river as seen from the northern heights. Or, again, we may think of the sights from the walk on the City Walls; the Kent hills beyond the Thames estuary, with ships coming up to make fast at Dowgate; then, turning to look inward over the City, we may imagine the narrow streets and plastered, red-tiled, houses. It must have been grim and grey when the roofs were covered with snow, and we may wonder what dwellers from the south thought of our fogs. Yet Londinium was a romantic city, a little Rome in the west, and we want some good story about it which shall bring it out of archeology into the minds of the citizens and the hearts of the children. From a CarvING ON AN ALTAR AT RISINGHAM, CHAP Th hai CEMETERIES AND TOMBS ‘*O more than mortal man that did this town begin, Whose knowledge found the plot so fit to set it in. Built on a rising bank within a vale to stand, And for thy healthful soil chose gravel mixed with sand.” Drayton’s Polyolbion. CEMETERIES HE site of London by a noble tidal river, or rather at the head of a long estuary, on clean gravel ground intersected with streams, was well chosen. The ground was open heath with scrubby vegetation, except for woods here and there where the soil was suitable. Sir Thomas More planned his “‘ Utopia” on a site similar to that of London. The buildings of London have spoilt an excellent golf course! ‘The walled city set down in the fair land must have been beautiful indeed, as seen from the Hampstead or Surrey hills. On approaching the turreted walls by the straight and narrow roads, the traveller would have had to pass through a wide belt of cemeteries. Around Londinium in its later state, the gardens of the dead would have come right up to the city ditch, just as at Constantinople the beautiful ‘Turkish cemeteries, with their noble cypresses, lie close beside the walls of the city. ‘* Around Rome was a great belt of cemeteries ; the sides of the main roads issuing from the gates 4 CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 85 were especially favoured sites; the chief region of all was that crossed by the Via Appia and Via Latina ” (Lanciani). ‘An immense field of the dead had extended all along the north-eastern quarter of ancient London, from Wapping Marsh to the fen beyond Moorfields ” (C. Knight). Goodman’s Fields, Moorfields, Spitalfields, were all cemeteries, and it is curious that they all have in common the name of fields. In the valley of the Fleet River by Ludgate and Blackfriars on the west were also cemeteries; and others lay beyond Southwark (Battersea Fields and St. George’s Fields ?). The city of the dead must have been impressive on account of its extent and the number of its population, and doubtless it was beautiful. The harsh horror of modern cemeteries is a new thing on the earth. In antiquity, cemeteries had beauty, poetry, history. The monuments of Londinium would have been of many kinds, small and big—columns, sculptures, mausolea, altar-tombs, tomb-houses, and_ steles or slabs. ‘These tombs were not cold and pale, but profusely carved, and, doubtless, in most cases, coloured. The monuments in the museum at Tréves show many traces of colour—red, green and yellow, if I remember aright. Dr. Ashby recently described a huge Roman necropolis at Syracuse in words which might apply to Londinium. “ Frag- ments of memorials were found, varying from simple steles and columns to the chapel with rich archi- tectural forms, the decorative portions being in soft limestone with considerable traces of polychromy.”’ Painting over coarse soft stone was a general tradi- tion, and bright colour liberally applied would greatly 86 LONDINIUM change the aspect of rather crude carvings. At Bath an inscription mentions the repair and re- painting of a building. This might be internal painting, but it was an external inscription and probably included outside work. The Corinthian temple at Bath was decorated with colour on the exterior. Mr. Irvine says of a piece of the cornice : ‘* Considerable portions of the red paint with which it had been covered remained among the carving.” Finds of burials are still not infrequent in London ; as specimen cases I quote two recent newspaper clippings: “A workman excavating in Cannon Street Road, Stepney, has unearthed an urn con- taining bones at a depth of 2 ft. below the road level; Sir C. H. Read observed that it provided a link in the track of the Roman road eastward, as the custom was to deposit these urns at the sides of the roads” (December 19, 1919). ‘‘ The discovery of two Roman urns in Mansell Street, Goodman’s Fields, is of considerable importance. The urns were found about Io ft. below the garden of a house. Both contained inner cinerary urns with calcined remains. ‘The perfect one resembles an ordinary jar with a cover; the outer urn is perfectly round, and has handles on each side by the mouth. It is believed that the site was that of a Roman villa ; bricks and tiles having been discovered in other parts of the site” (1913). The urns are now in the London Museum. The actual monuments once on the east of the City are represented by the fragments found in the Tower Hill bastion ; those to the north, by the stones found in the Camomile Street and other bastions ; those on the west, by the soldier’s monu- ment found at Ludgate Hill by Wren, by later CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 87 discoveries near Ludgate Hill, in 1806, and the fragment of the monument of Celsus found on the Blackfriars site. Steles—A memorial slab in the Guildhall Museum is particularly interesting, as it is obviously in the tradition of Hellenistic art. It is a true stele of the usual small scale, about 2 ft. wide and 24 ft. high ; it bears a relief sculpture of a soldier in a panel bordered by pilasters and finished with a pedimental top (Fig. 41). This broken flapewie) in the reserve collection and is not usually visible, nor is it ine the )-catalogue; the supposition is that it was found in one of the bas- tions with so many other remnants of tombs. It must, I think, be one of the earliest Roman monu- ments discovered in London. At the Guildhall is ae shown a sculptured slab thus described: ‘“‘ Monumental tablet, marble, bearing in relief the figure of a man armed with a trident and sword (?), and having a shield-like protection to the upper portion of his left arm; above is a fragmentary inscription; Greek; 212X154 X3% in.: Tottenham Court Road.” It was illustrated in an early volume of Archeologia (xi. p. 48). On the original drawing at the Society | of Antiquaries is written: ‘‘’This white marble slab was found by Mr. Miller among the ruins of a 88 LONDINIUM ANIAMAPTIA APITQ ANAPI “FE KAIPE Fic. 43. house at Islington. It is now fixed up on the front of a warehouse in High Timber Street, near Labour-in-Vain Hill.” (This was south of ‘Thames Street in the City.) The in- scription is given by Hiibner. With the writer in V.C.H., we may doubt whether this slab is not an importation like the Arundel Marbles; but other works in white marble will be de- ' scribed in this section, and gladiators were well known in Lon- dinium (Fig. 42). In~ ‘the Britten Museum is a _ small stele with awell-carved relief of a man heavily draped in a dignified pose and classical taste, and also having aGreek inscription. ‘This stone slab is little more than 1 ft. wide by about 2% ft. high (Fig. 43). It was obtained in 1911, but it was drawn by Archer about eighty CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 89 years ago. It was found in White’s Conduit Fields, that is, near Lamb’s Conduit Street. This, too, has a Greek inscription of which I can only make out the last word and a few other letters : OC Siew sOY: E XAIPE The last word is Farewell. I have felt some doubt as to this really pretty little work being a London antiquity. My sketch is given from Archer’s draw- ing. Although he may have restored it to some degree, it is probable that it has suffered from decay since he drew it. Other Greek inscriptions have been found in Britain. There is another stele at the Guildhall which is so similar in several respects to the one just described that it might have been carved in the same shop. It is described in the catalogue as a *“*Monumental slab, limestone, on which is re- presented a figure of a man and child; the former is clothed in a toga, the folds of which he is holding in his left hand; 26x13$x2} in.” That two slabs so much alike should be discovered in one city, is a strong argument in favour of their having originated there. Notice, further, how the little pediment over the British Museum slab resembles that of the slab of the soldier first described. Again, the wide, plain margins are like those of the Gladiator slab. ‘The evidence seems to be in favour of our accepting all the four slabs described as truly London works. In the British Museum (the Roman corridor) is a tall inscribed slab of the headstone type, about 90 LONDINIUM 6% ft. high (Fig. 44). We may see clearly that it is a descendant of the steles by noting a few little points. It has the side pilasters and a pediment on which some lumps carry on the tradition of acroteria. An inscription occupies the field where the steles have sculptured reliefs, and a lower space is occupied by a festoon. From the inscription, NA ATIENI, it seems that it commemorated a man born in Athens. This slab is especially like a large stele at Cirencester which had two panels, the upper one having a relief and the lower an inscription. Pro- portions, pilasters, pedi- ment are all like our London slab. Haverfield assigned the Cirencester slab to the end of the first century, and the London one can only be a little later. The in- scription terminates with the early formula: H[1c] . S[itus] EST. arabs This (slab is9)mwe weathered and it stands at the Museum in a bad light, where it is difficult to make out the details. Running stems, with flowers on the pilasters, are quite pretty (Fig. 45), and, indeed, the whole thing has dignity. The lettering was free and doubtless more elegant than the painted forms now suggest. aan! exh ‘4 OUR RFS Ss = SPSS 5 ‘2 -. ONE o ? CEMETERIES AND TOMBS gi Several larger memorial slabs have been found in London which had big reliefs of soldiers. One at the Guildhall and another at Oxford will be described under sculpture. There are two frag- ments in the British Museum which may stand for the type and be discussed here. One is a head a little less than life-size, part of a standing figure in a round-topped recess. Above is an inscription naming Celsus a specu- lator; it was found at. Blackfriars in 1876 (The Builder). ‘This much- injured fragment appears very rude, but the others of this class were competent works of sculp- ture. The second is only a head now in the upper gallery at the Museum; both were probably works of the first half of the second century. Four known examples of Fic. 46. remains to allow of the this type must repre- sent many—perhaps dozens which once existed. At the Guildhall is a fragment of sepul- chral sculpture, which may have been part of a larger monument rather than of a stele, but I will speak of it here. Just enough restoration of the 92 LONDINIUM scheme. A winged Cupid at the end of a panel which doubtless bore an inscription, would have been one of a pair. The Cupid holds an ivy-leaf, symbol of the grave, and above is a festoon with a bird perched on it (Fig. 46). Two or three grave slabs at Chester with reliefs of sepulchral banquets have similar festoons and birds which must have had symbolic reference to an after-life. A much-battered fragment of relief sculpture at the Guildhall may, I think, be a remnant of a sepulchral banquet ; it shows the upper part of a man in a recess with the point of what looks like the arm of the usual sofa- like bench behind him. Chests and Coffins. } —In earlier Roman Fieoay Britain bodies were cremated and _ the ashes disposed in urns, lead boxes, and in other ways. There is in the British Museum a truly magnificent urn of hard porphyry-like stone which was found in Warwick Square. At the Guildhall is part of a sarcophagus-like chest about 2 ft. by 24 ft. (Fig. 47). Its discovery was recorded by Price thus: “A coped stone of a marble tomb has been discovered near to the west door of St. Helen’s Church, Bishops- gate; associated with it was a coin of Constantine Junior, A.D. 317-3407” (London and Middlesex Archeol. Soc. Trans. vol. v. 413). The material has shining particles, and seems to be white marble. CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 93 In this respect it should be compared with the gladiator relief already described, and the fine Clapton sarcophagus mentioned below. ‘The association with the coin must have been accidental, for this chest cannot, I think, be later than the second century. It would have contained an urn holding burnt bones; compare a rude stone cist from Harpenden in the British Museum. An excellent account of London graves is given in V.C.H. Stow described the finds in Spitalfields in his day thus: ‘‘ Divers coffins of stone, and the bones of men without coffins, and great nails of iron were found a quarter of a yard long. I beheld the bones of a man lying, his head north, and round about some such nails, wherefore I considered them to be the nails of his coffin.” Many plain coffins of stone have been found in the City and suburbs. In an old MSS. collection which I have, is the note: ** About Dec. 1717, was taken up out of ye ground near ye new church of Rotherhithe, a stone coffin of prodigious size in which was ye skeleton of a man 10 foot long” (!). A Minute of the Society of Antiquaries (July 28, 1725) reads: ‘‘ An ancient glass vase of bell-shape found in a stone cofhn, 14 ft. under the ground by the portico of St. Martin’s Church [in the Fields]; ’tis now in Sir Hans Sloan’s collection.” ‘The “‘ vase’? was doubtless one of the little L-shaped bottles. Price described a stone cofin found in Fleet Lane nearly 8 ft. long, con- taining a skeleton in lime. The wooden coffins must have been still more common. Conyers, about 1670, recorded the finding of one in an excavation at Fleet ditch. ‘‘ About ye middle of the new ditch as low as ye bottom of ye old wall there were found an oak coffin turned 94 LONDINIUM black, of boards with bands, a man’s length from ye old ditch wall, upon the old wharfing, or, as I suppose, natural ground wharfed upon. In this coffin was a glass vial in ye fashion L [an expanded base with long neck], and brass like a hinge, these lay amongst the bones, the glass I have by me” (Conyer’s MS.). ‘This was evidently one of the chests described by Mr. Ward: ‘‘ Wooden coffins or chests were in common use, as the presence of iron nails, iron or bronze bindings, hinges, and other mountings prove.’’ An oak coffin was found in Moorfields in 1873, the objects from which are now in the British Museum. Two stone coffins are preserved in the Guildhall collection. ‘Two containing lead coffins were found at Pie Corner, St. Bartholomew’s, in 1877 (London and Middlesex Archeol. Soc. Trans., vol. v.). Lead coffins were usually ornamented, and will be further considered. It is probable that some of the coffins of wood and of stone were Christian burials. The coffins of stone described were roughly wrought, and they were buried in the ground. Others, however, have been found which are hand- some pieces of workmanship, and bear inscriptions. Three well-decorated stone sarcophagi found in London are at the Guildhall, the British Museum and Westminster Abbey. The sarcophagus at the Abbey is the earliest in style. It was found under the green at the angle between the north transept and the nave in 1869, and now rests by the entry to the Chapter House. On the cover is a large cross which seems to have been cut on the old stone in the twelfth century. Yet the evidence seems to have been against reuse in Christian times. It was the opinion, however, of the discoverers that it had been CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 95 moved from its original site, but it was found close to the presumed Roman road to the river bank. The front has a panel with an inscription in excellent lettering, giving the name of Valerius, a super- ventor in the army, and beginning MEMoRIAE. This form is found in two or three other British inscriptions, and was frequently used on tombs at Lyons. ‘The Westminster inscription and the panel in which it is placed are of comparatively early style, and it is dificult to think that such work can be later than about a.p. 200. On the other hand, it is said that the new mode of burial at full length in a sarcophagus was not adopted in Britain until about a.p. 250. I do not suppose that our example is so late as this. ‘The front may be compared with a slab in Edinburgh Museum, c. a.p. 160 (F.R.S., il. p. 128). The Lyons inscriptions of a similar type are also of the age of the Antonines. Alto- gether, [ cannot think that the Westminster tomb is later than a.p. 200. It is possible that it may first have contained cinerated remains and not have been a sarcophagus proper. The sarcophagus at the British Museum was found in Haydon Square, Minories, the site of a part of a cemetery where in 1797 “‘ many curious fragments of Roman pottery as well as glass vessels were dis- covered, and two complete urns with bone ashes, etc., were taken up.” This stone sarcophagus contained a lead coffin, now also in the British Museum. At the Society of Antiquaries is an accurate drawing of both made at the time of the discovery. ‘The cover was securely clamped down with iron (Fig. 48). At the centre of the front is a simple medallion portrait head, the rest is filled with flutes (Fig. 49). The outer face of the cover, 96 LONDINIUM which slants up to a ridge, is carved with acanthus leaves (Fig. 50), the inner slanting side is plain, and this shows that it stood in a building or against a 5 v Ser Were AN i} | ata Se Hiss : d f on ANKS Yo Vo Yet 2AM J A eeG iy y Ny $s BAL < IV \ KR RAKE X ) dT 4 OK SOS ry ! “, NNT WAIAIAA 744 “« “YYVYWAAAK A el a — ae eee : 4 Fic. 48. wall. At the two ends are carved baskets of fruits, and these must be symbolical (Fig. 48). ‘This tomb had no inscription; it belonged to a time when Fic. 49. inscriptions were few. Whether itself the tomb of a Christian or not, it is of a Christian type, and I should date it about a.p. 340. CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 97 The sarcophagus now at the Guildhall was found at Clapton in 1867; it resembles that last described, and must be very nearly of the same date. It lay east and west, ‘“ the Christian orienta- BiG, $0. tion,’ as Mr. Reginald Smith notes. The cover was attached to the lower part by strong iron straps (cf. Fig. 48). It is described as white marble or oolitic limestone, and there are many sparkling Se Cee CS hae nee Rn PR =a ~AN NT Sar ea as oe ae i a es Fic. 51. particles in the material. The front, which is 80 in. long, has a portrait bust at the centre in a circle, above a panel in which is the inscription, and the rest is filed with vertical flutings (Fig. 51). 7 98 LONDINIUM The cover is lost, the back and ends are plain, and it probably stood in a building. The portrait relief is curiously early Christian in character. The fluting is exceptionally refined and effective. This is a truly beautiful work, and doubtless if it were in an Italian museum it would be much better known to Englishmen than it is. A full and excellent account of it is given by Price (London and Middlesex Archeol. Soc. Proceed., vol. iii.), in which he com- pared it with some tombs in the Lateran Museum, showing that it is in the style of early Christian monuments ¢. 340-50. (Ihe same paper contains descriptions of several plain stone coffins.) The inscription on the Clapton tomb was very short, hardly more than names, and it does not seem to have contained any expression of faith. The Haydon Square tomb had no inscription. This reticence is characteristic. ‘“‘ The historical inscriptions of this age can be counted on the fingers of one hand. . . . It is curious to find a noteworthy lack of ordinary sepulchral inscriptions of private persons in the fourth century; there are very few Christian tombs, but it is much more surprising to find a lack of those of the ordinary heathen type. Conceivably fourth-century tombs were handiest for the Saxon invader” (Sir C. Oman, England before the Norman Conquest). Christian inscriptions are very few in France also; there are not, I believe, half a dozen of the fourth century existing. This tomb and the other are good examples of the skilful way in which forms were obtained in a block of stone without cutting to waste; observe how the mouldings in Figs. 49 and 50 lie just on the surfaces. ‘This is a lesson for our own days. I have felt that this able work in fine material could CEMETERIES AND TOMBS 99 hardly have had its origin in Britain, but further consideration suggests that the balance of evidence is in our favour. We have seen that other works are in white marble; there are in the British Museum two or three fragments of white marble slabs, while in the London Museum there is a complete one. Several fragments of dado linings are also known. In the heyday of the mosaic pavements there must have been some “ firm” of marble importers in London. ‘The general re- semblance of the Clapton sarcophagus to that found at Haydon Square is strongly in favour of their common origin. The cover was attached to the receptacle in a similar way with iron straps in both; in each case the flutes are separated by a sunk line. The man’s bust is very similar to the upper parts of the figures on the third and fourth steles above described. Altogether, I could suppose that both sarcophagi came from one shop, and that they were both the resting-places of Christians. A number of tablets which have been found must have been fixed in buildings or against walls. At the British Museum is a small fragment with a part of an animal incised, probably one of a pair facing a central object. (Compare the griffins on the enamelled plate found in London, in the British Museum.) Some of these tablets are of Purbeck and other native marbles, and this shows that we had competent marble masons settled here —probably the same as the mosaic workers. A small tablet, found in Goodman’s Fields, about 12 in. by 15 in., now at the Society of Anti- quaries, was described by Roach Smith as of native green marble; and a fragment in the British Museum, found in Philpot Lane, is of green marble. I0o LONDINIUM The former (Fig. 52), judging by the wording of the inscription and style of the lettering, may be dated about A.D. 100. On the whole, these Roman tombs had dignity and beauty, and a study of picked examples through- out Britain would be worth making. ‘The lettering he: : is admirable, and the in- f= pd + “mM ~> scriptions often have a quite FL‘AGRIGLA-MIL’ { human sound which is LEGVI-VICT-V-AN''] touching. The portrait XLITDXALBIA # reliefs are competent FAY. STINA~@NIVG@ |} common work. We should , INENPARABILI now have to go to an R.A. oe eae for such things, and come Fig. 62. away again without getting them. Some of the sym- bolic decoration speaks a universal language; the flowering scroll border and festoon of the slab, and the baskets of fruits on the sarcophagus, both in the British Museum, are more than ornaments. A stele at Colchester having a relief of a seated woman putting away her spinning into her work- box is really poetical. The sculpture is crude, but the idea is as fresh and beautiful as any tomb in the world can show. os NS Sd Be Od SOME LARGER MONUMENTS ** The Cemetery had for years been overcrowded with burned and unburned burials; rains had caused the mounds to settle and the ground had resumed its even surface. . . . I beg you to see that the earth is raised to a mound again, and to have a smooth slab placed upon it.”’— SIDONIUS, A.D. 4.67. JOVE AND GIANT COLUMNS FEW of the more important sepulchral monuments have been reserved for special consideration. First among these I wish to discuss the fragments of what I suppose to have been examples of Jove and Giant columns, a class of monu- ment frequently found on the Continent. These columns, it has been thought, were not naturalised in Britain. In Archeéologia, lxix., Professor Haver- field, calling attention to an inscription at Ciren- cester, which seems to have formed part of a small column of the kind, said that except for this in- scription no other evidence had been found in Britain for the existence of such columns. Again, in another place, after speaking of figures of the Mother Goddesses, he added, ‘‘ We may ascribe to another immigrant the Colonne au géant found at Cirencester ” (Romanization). A large number of these monuments has been found in north-east Gaul. The main element was a decorated column the capital of which supported a sculptured group of 102 102 LONDINIUM ‘‘Juppiter and a fallen barbarian giant.” Such a column usually stood on a pedestal having an inscription to the god; around the pedestal were relief sculptures of several figures, and there were four busts on the capital. Professor Haverfield, whose description I have been condensing, agreed with a suggestion made by Mrs. Strong that a fine Corinthian capital at Cirencester, which has four busts set among the acanthus leafage, may have belonged to the Jove and Giant pillar. This, however, is negatived by the scale of the capital as compared with the inscribed stone, which is only about 14 ft. square. Further, as he himself allowed, a second capital similar to the other exists, except for its upper part. Both the com- plete capital and the fragment were found on the site of the Basilica, and we may hardly doubt that both belonged to that building. Jove and Giant pillars, as I have called them, have been exhaustively treated in a German work (Hertlein, 1910). Espérandieu, in his volumes on Roman sculptures in Gaul, very fully illustrates two of these monuments, one at Cussy-la-Colonne, near Autun (2032), and another at Merten (4425), also a large number of fragments. He describes the Cussy column as having been about 44 ft. high (including the scupltured group) and 2 ft. in diameter ; the bottom of the pillar was carved in a trellis pattern (Fig. 53). The column at Merten was about 48 ft. high with a diameter of 2} ft. Under the number 4130, Espérandieu says of a SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 103 square sculptured stone: “ It is generally agreed that these ‘four-god stones’ are not altars but pedestals. ‘They supported a second stone, usually of octagonal form, with representations of the Gods of the Week upon it. From this rose a column and capital, and, crowning all, a god riding and crushing under the hoofs of his steed a giant who terminates in two snakes.” Such columns had a religious significance, and “ their frequency, above all on the banks of the Rhine, is surprising” (No. 4425). A good résumé of what had been said of these monuments was given by Mrs. Strong in 1911 (7.R.S.); the general conclusion was that the Jove of the pillar was a sun and thunder divinity, ‘‘A Romanised sun-god”; the columns embodied “‘ a whole allegory of times and seasons.” ‘“‘Hertlein interprets the columns as Irmin-saulen, symbols of the universe ; columns such as, according to Teutonic mythology, supported the heavens, here typified by Juppiter as lord of the skies.” Some writers had preferred to see a Roman emperor riding over a barbarian. In the British Museum there is a carved frag- ment of a highly decorated column which, I have little doubt, belonged to a Jove and Giant column. This stone was found built into the lower part of the City Wall along the river bank. Roach Smith, in whose collection it was, described it first in 1844 (Archeol. Four., vol. i.) as: ‘‘ A portion of a de- corated stone which appears to have formed part of an altar.” Later he visited the Jove and Giant column near Autun, and in describing it in Col- lectanea Antiqua (vol. vi.) he refers to our stone. Subsequently in the Catalogue of his collection he spoke of the stone as: ‘‘ Fragment in green sand- 104 LONDINIUM stone, with a trellis pattern with leaves and fruit. It appears to have formed part of a sepulchral monument, and was taken from the foundations of a Roman wall in Thames Street.” In saying this he doubtless had the Cussy monument in his mind, for that was understood to be a sepulchral monument. Our fragment is from a circular shaft which must have been about 2% ft.in diameter. The surface is carved over with a pattern like a trellis of laths, in the interspaces of which appear leaves and bunches of grapes (Fig. 54 is restored - from the fragment). There is another stone in the British Museum which also probably formed part of a Jove and Giant column (Fig. 55). ‘This was found at Great Chesterford, an important Roman site in Essex. It is described as a “* Basin with bas-reliefs of the Roman deities.” ‘These figures have long ago been identified as four of the seven gods of the days of pagar FO a the week (Thos. Wright). | Beet an, yee | The fragment was made ah into a basin in modern times ; it is really half of an octagon, and on the top surface appear the sinkings for two big cramps which linked this to an adjoining similar stone (Fig. 56). For what is known of it, see Roach Smith’s account in Collectanea Antiqua and the SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 105 Fournal of the Archeological Association, vol. iii. In the latter it is said that it is irregular and not semi-octagonal; but the breaking down of the upper part into the recesses which contain the reliefs gives the appearance of irregularity—that is all. ‘The octagon was 33 ft. in diameter. One of the sides was blank. One-half of this blank side remains, and also half of the opposite side, which retains enough of the sculp- ture to show that the figure carried a spear over the right shoulder. The next figure, going clockwise, was Mercury; he had a mantle over his left shoulder and carried his wand; points remaining by his hair show that his cap was winged. The third figure was Jove, a mature figure with broad breast, bearded head, and long hair. The fourth figure, who carried a hand- mirror, was Venus. ‘These figures agree very closely with a set of the planets arranged in similar order on a mosaic floor found at Bramdean, and by this comparison it is evident that the one with a spear was Mars. ‘The eighth, or blank, side followed the figure of Venus, so that the series must have begun with Saturn, in the Roman way. We may now say that the eight sides contained figures of the Deities of the Days in proper order: Saturn, Sol, Luna, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus. TT I ae a | 106 LONDINIUM Espérandieu illustrates two stones from a very similar monument found in France at D’Yzeures (iv. p. 136). These are the halves of an octagon about 3 ft. 7 in. across which was built up in courses. One of the stones comes from a lower course, the other from an upper. ‘The vertical joints ran from an angle to an angle so that they should not cut through the sculptures on the sides. These reliefs were “‘ possibly the Divinities of the Days of the Week.” We have also in England remnants of a similar sculptured octagon which was built up in courses. ‘These are in Northampton Museum, and are illustrated in V.C.H. One of two stones shows the tops of the heads of a series of figures, the other stone has their feet. They are described as ‘Two fragments of an octagonal monument having figures in shallow niches, possibly the Deities of the Days of the Week”’ (Haverfield, vol. i. p- 181). Both these stones were of little height, the upper one only contained the crowns of the heads of the figures and flat curves forming the tops of the niches (compare Fig. 56). We are now in a position to restore the Chester- ford octagon (Fig. 56). The heads of the figures on the stone in the British Museum are not complete, for a bed joint runs just over the eyes, and the crowns of the heads must have been on another stone, as at Northampton. ‘T'wo other courses, at least, beneath what is represented by the existing fragment, would have been required to complete the figures, and indeed their feet were possibly on a narrow base-course, as at Northampton. The Chesterford stone and the fragments at North- ampton must represent important Jove and Giant pillars. ‘The size of the former, it should be ob- SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 107 served, seems most suitable for a column shaft of about 24 ft. in diameter, the size of the lattice column represented by the fragment in the British Museum (Fig. 54), which probably, as said above, was itself part of a Jove and Giant column. There is thus high probability that there were important Jove and Giant columns, having pedestals sculp- tured with the Deities of the Days, at London, Chesterford and Northampton. If this is so, such columns must have been frequently erected in Britain, and we may look for evidences for the existence of others. In vol. iti. of Collectanea Roach Smith illustrated a small highly deco- rated column found at Wroxeter, 13 in. in diameter. It was similar to the Cussy column in having a lattice pattern below and a scale pattern above. Here and there were little relief subjects—a Cupid and a youthful Bacchus with grapes. Thiswas probably part of another Jove and Giant column, or at least of a single sepulchral column; there would hardly have been more than one so decorated. Several pieces of small highly decorated columns have been found in London, which must, I think, have belonged to memorial pillars and not to edifices. One of these found in the Houndsditch bastion, only g in. in diameter, was decorated with a simple lattice pattern (Fig. 57). Another is in the London Museum, which, in the part preserved, has a scale pattern (Fig. 58). A third fragment, at the Guildhall, has again both lattice and scale patterns (Fig. 59). 108 LONDINIUM Jove and Giant columns were doubtless sepulchral, but they were also religiously signifi- cant. They were intended to sug- gest ideas of the conquest of evil powers and of renewal. Dr. Haverfield was, I think, mistaken in the passage quoted above in speaking of the giant as a barbarian ; he was rather a power of darkness, and this is brought out by a piece of British evidence. Figures of ! four such creatures, each terminat- Ries £8. ing in two serpents, fill the corners of a mosaic floor found at Horkstow; they support a large circle divided into two rings and a centre; in the outer ring are Nereids and swimming creatures, in the inner one little genii with baskets of flowers, etc. The rings are divided into four parts by radial bands, and the general suggestion must be of the seasons and the cosmic order.. The snake-legged creatures in the corners are the Aloada@, the giants who attempted to scale Olympus by putting Pelion on Ossa. They are here in their proper places in the chaos outside the circle of the ordered world, “‘ the wheel of nature.” “This pavement helps to explain the general idea which led to the erection of Jove and Giant pillars, and shows that these ideas were current in Britain. The column is the world- SOME LARGER MONUMENTS 109 axis set round by planets and seasons; above, the power of light and order hurls back the giant of gloom and strife (see Daremberg and Saglio, Aloade). In the foreign examples of the sculp- tured groups which rested on the capitals of the columns Jove sometimes had a wheel as his weapon, and wheels have been found carved in Roman altars in Britain. ‘‘ The sides of two large altars to Jupiter at Walton House bear the thunderbolt for Jupiter and a wheel, which possibly equates the Jupiter of these altars with the Gaulish ‘ wheel- god’ ”’ (Ward). An altar at Housesteads invokes the sun-god. The Jove and Giant pillars are evi- dence of a time when the old mythological names had been refitted to express ideas of good and evil, cosmic forces, and supposed planetary influences. The mosaic floors, as we shall see, provide further evidence of what was “higher thought” in third- century Roman Britain. Mausolea.—When the bastion of the City Wall in Camomile Street was destroyed, many sculptured stones from small but very richly decorated edifices were found. Price recognised that some of them must have belonged to an important sepulchral monument comparable with the Igel monument near Tréves. I saw, in 1912, some stones at T'réves which had a scale pattern cut on a roof-like slope, and soon after my return I noticed a stone of the same sort in the Guildhall Museum. Without having Price’s words in my mind I came to the conclusion that in the cemeteries of Londinium there must have been mausoleum-like monuments of the kind which the Museum at Tréves had shown me were common in the neighbourhood of that city. Several of these mausolea are now IIo LONDINIUM illustrated in Espérandieu’s great work on the Roman sculptures of Gaul. Fic. 60. In 1913 I offered a tentative restoration of a London monu- ment of this type in the Architectural Review. In Fig. 60 I have roughly sketched two stones at the Guildhall which evidently came from a mausoleum of the Tréves type, also a course from a fluted angle pilaster, showing part of an inscription. Compare No. 5153 in Espérandieu’s work, where we find a similar scale pattern, angle pilasters bonded in courses with masonry, and the lettering of an inscription coming close up to the pilaster. Another stone at the Guildhall has a capital of a small angle pilaster on Ay” Ae a similar course. This capital has heads set amongst the leaves almost exactly like the capitals of the Igel mausoleum at Tréves (see Fig. 61). Another stone at the Guildhall is part of a frieze in two bands, the upper one of festoons and the lower one of SOME LARGER MONUMENTS ua es trees, and dogs coursing hares (Fig. 62). Similar hunting subjects are found on foreign monuments ; the festoons and the scale of the work are also appropriate for a structure of the mausoleum kind, and these five stones may very well have belonged to the same monument (Fig. 63). On another stone at the Guildhall is part of an inscription in widely-spaced lines containing the letters... R Lxx, doubtless part of ANNOR Lxx, which actually occurs on the tall headstone in the British Museum. At least two mausolea are probably represented by the stones at the Guildhall. Like the Tgel monument, they were prob- ably the tombs of rich merchants. There must have been a large number of tombs of this type Fic. 63. in Britain. Bruce and Roach Smith illustrated and described foundations of three tombs by the Roman road near High Rochester, one circular and two square ; the first was possibly big enough to have been a tomb-house. At Bath, some years ago, I noticed a stone which could only have been part of a square monu- ment (Fig. 64). This had the Fic. 64. tops of the niches cut like shells. Another stone at the Guildhall, found like the others in the Camomile Street bastion, has a short IL2 LONDINIUM length of a decorated angle column recessed as a “‘nook-shaft”’ and about a foot in diameter (Fig. 65). This, I think, must have formed part of a similar | monument. (This stone is not, I think, given by Price, but it appears in an illustra- tion in 7.B.4.A.) The mausolea of Londin- ium must have been very similar to the monuments at Tréves, and it may not be doubted that they would have been coloured as some of those were coloured. (I have a note that sculpture, as well as the decorative Fic. 65. carving, was coloured.) The braided work of Early Saxon monuments would have been “ picked out” in colour in a similar way, and I believe that fragments which have been found prove this. ALTAR- TOMBS Another type of tomb, of which many examples exist in the Museum at Tréves, is an altar-like structure having a square body surmounted by a slab ending in two big bolster-like rolls covered with scale or leaf ornament (see Espérandieu). ‘Tombs of this type have been found in Pompeii. We have in the British Museum parts of a very fine monument of this class. One of two stones is a great roll, and another has an inscription in hand- some letters. ‘These were found together in the foundations of one of the bastions of the City Wall SOME LARGER MONUMENTS | 1123 at Tower Hill, as described in The Builder, September 4, 1852. In the illustration which was reproduced before (Fig. 33), a pile of other stones is shown, one of which, a moulding with a return, may have been the base of the same monument. The inscribed stone in the British Museum shows that the body of the monument was made up of four stones arranged as in the plan (Fig. 66), and PAANIBVS leis" /ABALPINI CLASSICIAN] LAB) ’ Rate v Att sland Pt, ne [MAS