Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:43:08.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ornamental Stonework from Roman London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

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

Extract

The use of ornamental stonework in buildings was one of many important innovations introduced by the Romans into Britain. The demand for floor mosaics spread rapidly throughout the province and has been the subject of detailed study but other aspects of decorative stonework, including opus sectile paving and wall veneers, which were no less a sign of conspicuous wealth, have attracted little attention. This paper, therefore, attempts to trace the fashion for ornamental stones in interior and exterior design by examining the evidence from London. Despite the severe limitations of the archaeological evidence, shifts in taste and changes in the types of stone used can be discerned from the London material, which seem to reflect wider commercial activities within the Roman empire. When the material is compared with other parts of the province regional differences become apparent, emphasising the high status London enjoyed from the late first century A.D.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 17 , November 1986 , pp. 169 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Frances A. Pritchard 1986. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A Level III archive report on the ornamental stonework is held by the Museum of London. Copies are available upon written request.

2 I am grateful to many of my colleagues in the Museum of London for access to material and site information. I have also benefitted from the generosity of curators and members of archaeological units, who have permitted me to examine material in their care. In particular I should like to thank Nina Crummy, Colchester Archaeological Trust; Paul Sealey, Colchester and Essex Museum; Kenneth Reedie, The Royal Museum and Art Gallery Canterbury; Pan Garrard, Canterbury Archaeological Trust; Anne Bone, Chichester District Museum; and David Rudkin, Fishbourne Roman Palace and Museum.

3 Milne, G., The Port of Roman London (London, 1985), pl. 5b.Google Scholar

4 Marsden, P., Trans. London Middlesex Arch. Soc. xxvi (1975), 50.Google Scholar

5 This dating is based on dendrochronological analysis of timbers from the site undertaken by Jennifer Hillam, University of Sheffield.

6 Ashmole, B., ‘Aegean marble: science and commonsense’ A.B.S.A. lxv (1970), 1.Google Scholar

7 Gnoli, R., Marmora Romana (Rome, 1971), pl. 203.Google Scholar

8 The single example identified, recovered from the Huggin Hill baths, has not been seen by the author: Marsden, P., Trans. London Middlesex Arch. Soc. xxvii (1976), 59.Google Scholar

9 This subject has been a matter of considerable controversy since the term ‘Island marble’ was first coined: Lepsius, G.R., Griechische Marmorstudien (Berlin, 1890).Google Scholar Recent work on identifying the different types has employed isotope analysis and electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Gnoli, op. cit. (note 7), pl. 204.

11 ibid., pl. 126.

12 ibid., pl. 129–31.

13 ibid., pl. 249.

14 The fragment of veneer cut from this stone, MLK 76, Reg. No. 674, is missing. Correspondence in which the identification of the stone is stated is held in the archives of the Museum of London.

15 Gnoli, op. cit. (note 7), pl. 121.

16 ibid., pl. 90–1. It is possible that the grey stone cremation urn from Warwick Square, now in the British Museum, was carved from a type of porphyry: Valerie Rigby, pers. comm. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, An Inventory of Historical Monuments in London, Vol. III Roman London (London, 1928), 54 and pl. 59.Google Scholar

17 Gnoli, op.cit. (note 7), pl. 107–8.

18 ibid., pl. 117.

19 ibid., pl. 207.

20 Liversidge, J., Britain in the Roman Empire (London, 1968), 87.Google Scholar

21 GPO 75, Contexts 8666, 8678, 9792 and 8947.

22 For example, Pensabene, P., The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 7–2 (1978), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Ward-Perkins, J.B., P.B.S.R. xlviii (1980). 25.Google Scholar

24 Curiliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961–1969, Vol. II (London, 1971), 16;Google ScholarFrank, T. (ed.), Economie Survey of Ancient Rome, Vol. 3 (Baltimore, 1937), 104.Google Scholar

25 Blagg, T. in Hill, C., Millett, M. and Blagg, T. (eds.), The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London, London and Middlesex Archaeol. Soc. Special Paper 23 (London, 1980), 180–1.Google Scholar

26 The methods of use of these tools are described in Blagg, T.F.C., Britannia vii (1976), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 One is Purbeck marble and the other coarse-grained white marble. The pigment was identified by Helen Ganiaris, Museum of London.

28 The number of pieces from post-Roman deposits excludes all those of doubtful antiquity including one fragment of campan rouge.

29 WAT 78, Contexts 1806 and 2761, stone specimen Nos. 31806 and 32761E.

30 Strong, D., Roman Art (Harmondsworth, 1976), 57.Google Scholar

31 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 24), 33.

32 Bidwell, P.T., The Legionary Bath House and Basilica and Forum at Exeter (Exeter, 1979), 145Google Scholar ; Boon, G.C., Isca the Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon, Monmouthshire (Cardiff, 1972), 79Google Scholar ; Find No. E 153 232, unpublished, Chichester District Museum.

33 Marlowe Theatre and the Cakebread Robey sites, Canterbury: T. Blagg, (forthcoming); Scott, L., Sussex Arch. Coll. lxxix (1938), 15–16 and 43.Google Scholar

34 Gnoli, op. cit. (note 7), 14–17.

35 Morris, M.O. in Hull, M.R., ‘The south wing of the ‘forum’ at Colchester’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc, xxv (1955–1960), 24–61.Google Scholar The use of exotic marble in the temple's early construction phases has recently been disputed. Drury, P.J., Britannia xv (1984), 34–35.Google Scholar

36 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 24), 26.

37 Information provided by Friederike Hammer, site supervisor.

38 Merrifield, R., London, City of the Romans (London, 1983), 87.Google Scholar

39 R. Merrifield in C. Hill et al, op. cit. (note 25), 202.

40 Gnoli, op. cit. (note 7), 13.

41 Dworakowska, A., Quarries in Roman Provinces (Warsaw, 1983), 22.Google Scholar

42 Botfield, B., Archaeologia xxv (1853), 391Google Scholar ; Fox, G.E., Archaeologia liii (1892), 266.Google Scholar

43 RIB 15: Jenny Hall, pers. comm.

44 Ward Perkins, op. cit. (note 23), 41.

45 RIB 4.

46 Boon, G.C., Silchester: the Roman Town of Calleva (Newton Abbot, 1974), 115 and 213Google Scholar ; Dr M.G. Fulford, pers. comm; Clarke, G., Britannia xiii (1982), 210.Google Scholar

47 Crummy, N., Crummy, P., Colchester Archaeological Report 3: Excavations at Lion Walk, Balkerne Lane, and Middleborough, Colchester, Essex (Colchester, 1983), 28–9Google Scholar ; Blagg, op. cit. (note 33).

48 Braemar, F. in Mosaique: Réceuil d'hommages à Henri Stern (Paris, 1982), 87–8.Google Scholar

49 Ward Perkins, J., J.R.S. xli (1951), 91.Google Scholar

50 RIB 67; Morris, op. cit. (note 35), 49.

51 Meredith, D., Journ. Egyptian Arch, xxxviii (1952), 107.Google Scholar

52 Crummy, op. cit. (note 47), 29.; W., and Rodwell, K., Britannia iv (1973), 120.Google Scholar

53 Ward Perkins, op. cit. (note 23), 39–40.

54 Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 24), 17.

55 Burford, A., Econ. Hist. Rev. xiii (1960), 7.Google Scholar Evidence of any Roman presence on Guernsey is apparently scarce, Johnston, D.E. (ed.), The Saxon Shore, C.B.A. Research Report no. 18 (London, 1977), 31.Google Scholar

56 Gnoli, op. cit. (note 7), 124; Meredith, op. cit. (note 54), 101.

57 Gnoli, op. cit. (note 7), 13.

58 Erim, K. and Reynolds, J.M., J.R.S., lx (1970), 133–4.Google Scholar

59 Davey, N. and Ling, R., Wall Painting in Roman Britain (London, 1981), 33.Google Scholar

60 Ward Perkins, op. cit. (note 23), 26.