Excavations at Chester: The western and southern Roman extramural settlements: A Roman community on the edge of the world: Excavations 1964-1989 and other investigations 9781407309316, 9781407322292

Citation preview

Excavations at Chester The western and southern Roman extramural settlements: A Roman community on the edge of the world

WARD ET AL

Building on this data, a series of discussions examine the development of the river channel; the nature of the occupation of the western extramural area and the status of the Infirmary Field cemetery through functional analysis of the small finds; the spatial and chronological development of the canabae as a whole; the origins and size of the civilian population; and the role of the canabae in framing the economy and society of the region.

BAR 553 2012

This publication presents the detailed results of eleven excavations which attest high-status civilian occupation in a distinct zone lying between the western and southern defences of the Roman fortress and the River Dee. The opportunity is also taken to summarise all other significant discoveries across the whole of the canabae up to the end of 2009.

Chester Archaeological Excavation and Survey Report 15 

Excavations 1964–1989 and other investigations

Simon W. Ward and others

EXCAVATIONS AT CHESTER

B A R

BAR British Series 553 2012

Chester Archaeological Excavation and Survey Report 15 

Excavations at Chester The western and southern Roman extramural settlements: A Roman community on the edge of the world Excavations 1964–1989 and other investigations Excavations directed by

Simon Ward, David Mason, John McPeake, Sybil Rutland and Tim Strickland Site reports compiled by Simon Ward, David Mason and John McPeake With other contributions by †Peter Alebon, Justine Bayley, Peter Carrington, H.E.M. Cool, Brenda Dickinson, Gillian Dunn, James Greig, Lesley Harrison, Alison Heke, David Heke, Glenys Lloyd-Morgan, Yannick Minvielle-Debat, Tim Morgan, Gaenor Morris, Quita Mould, Cheryl Quinn, Sharon Roberts, Dan Robinson, Ian Smith, Julie Vint, Margaret Ward and Barbara West Volume editors Peter Carrington with Catrina Appleby and Alison Heke

BAR British Series 553 2012

ISBN 9781407309316 paperback ISBN 9781407322292 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309316 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Foreword his is the first detailed, wide-ranging report to be published on excavations in the extramural settlement of the Roman legionary fortress at Chester, specifically those around the western side of the fortress.

T

It has been estimated that fifty percent of taxation in the Roman empire was spent on the frontier armies. The trade and development that this massive redistribution of wealth generated were important factors in creating the appearance of a culturally unified society presented by the ‘High Empire’. As the homes of the soldiers’ dependants, craftsmen and traders, one would expect the extramural areas of army bases (vici and canabae) to have had a major role in these economic and social processes. However, that wider role remains hotly disputed, and much remains to be learnt about the size and chronologies of the extramural settlements themselves and the activities carried on in them. This volume is offered as a contribution to that debate. Over the years a number of valuable summaries of the Chester canabae have been published. However, in order to ensure that the best use is made of future research opportunities, there is a need for detailed publication, and that is the aim of the current work. This publication concentrates on ten interventions carried out over twenty-five years in the area to the west and south of the fortress and attempts to summarise in more detail than has been done hitherto discoveries elsewhere around its perimeter. Discussions attempt to characterise the townscape, its development and population, and also to explore the role of the Chester extramural settlement in the wider processes referred to above. In no sense can this volume be regarded as definitive: the international debate about Roman economy and society continues, and in Chester some of the more recent excavations summarised in the gazetteers will deserve detailed publication in their own right. However, it is hoped that this publication will be useful in providing a context for future fieldwork and analysis. Michael N Morris BA, MIfA Team Leader, Historic Environment Service, Cheshire West and Chester Council

iii

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Contents Foreword List of illustrations List of tables List of contributors Acknowledgements 1

2

iii ix xii xv xv

INTRODUCTION The area and projects Fieldwork Analysis

1 1 1

History of research

3

Ceramic building material and pottery methodologies

3

GREYFRIARS’ COURT 1976–8 AND 1981 Introduction The site The project Previous discoveries

13 13 13 15

The excavations Phase I Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 5 Interpretation Dating Discussion Phase II Introduction Structure 3 Structure 4 (a) Rubbish-dumping Interpretation Dating Phase III Clay bank Structure 4 (b) Structure 7 Clay terrace Structure 6 Pit or cistern and arch Further features associated with Phase III Later developments in the Roman period Discussion

15 15 15 16 17 20 21 23 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 30 30 33 34 34 36

Building materials Ceramic building material Methodology Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Post-Roman and unstratified contexts Discussion

40 40 40 40 40 40 41 43 49

3

iv

Appendix: Chester box tile types Plaster Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III

49 50 50 50 50 53

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Pottery from GFC 76–8 post-Roman and unstratified contexts Pottery from GFC 81 post-Roman and unstratified contexts Discussion Glass Vessel glass Glass objects Coins Metal Silver Copper alloy Iron Stone objects Hones Organic artefacts Bone

53 53 53 54 58 60

Industrial remains Raw materials Jet Vessels Crucibles

77 77 77 77 77

Environmental remains Animal remains Introduction Methodology Phase I Phase II Phase III Discussion

78 78 78 78 78 78 79 80

66 67 68 72 72 72 73 74 74 74 76 76 76 76 76

NICHOLAS STREET MEWS 1988 Introduction The site The project

87 87 87

The excavation Phases II–III Phase II Early deposits at the north end of Trench I Phase III Early deposits at the south end of Trench I

88 88 88 88 88 88

Phase IV Structure 8 Phase V Structure 9 and surface (196) Phase VI Structure 10 Phase VII Build-up at the south end of Trench I Phase VIII Structure 11 Phase IX Clay deposits between Structures 10 and 11 Phases X–XII Structure 12 Structure 13 Wall in the north-western part of the site Dating of the Roman phases

88 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 92 92 93 93 94 95 95

Building materials Ceramic building material Methodology Introduction The retained assemblage The discarded assemblage Conclusions Cement mix Methodology Introduction Phase V Phase VI Phase VIII Phase IX Post-Roman phases Discussion Plaster Introduction Methodology Roman phases Post-Roman phases Discussion Window glass

97 97 97 97 97 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 101 101 101 101 105 105 107

Portable artefacts Pottery Methodology Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase VII Phase VIII Phase IX Phases X–XII

107 107 107 108 108 108 108 109 110 110 115 116 117 118

4

v

Post-Roman, unphased and unstratified contexts Discussion Glass Vessel glass Glass objects Coins Metal Copper alloy Iron Lead Stone objects Organic artefacts Bone Jet

118 128 132 132 133 134 134 134 136 136 137 137 137 137

Industrial remains Vessels Crucibles Waste products Phase II Phase VI Phase VIII Phase IX

137 137 137 138 138 138 138 138

Environmental remains Animal remains Introduction Species range Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase VII Phase VIII Phase IX

138 138 138 140 142 143 143 143 143 144 145 145

GREYFRIARS’ HOUSE 1983 Introduction

147

The excavation The Roman building Main room Rooms to the west Other features Interpretation Dating

147 147 147 149 149 149 150

Building materials Stone Ceramic building material Plaster Concrete

150 150 150 150 150

Portable artefacts Pottery Metal

150 150 151

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Environmental remains Human remains Animal remains 5

6

151 151 151

BLACKFRIARS’ HOUSE 1986 Introduction The site The project

152 152 152

The excavation Phase I Timber building Phase II Timber building Phase III Stone building Features at the southern end of the trench Later features

152 152 152 153 153 154 154 154 154

Building materials Plaster

156 156

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Catalogue Discussion

156 156 156 156 156 157 157 157

Environmental remains Animal remains

157 157

7

30–42 NICHOLAS STREET 1974 The excavation Introduction Phase I Timber building Phase II Timber building Phase III Stone building Ditch Concrete floor Road surfaces

159 159 159 159 160 160 160 160 161 162 162

Building materials Stone Ceramic building material Methodology Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Ditch ?Roman or ?medieval robbing Possible Roman contexts Post-Roman contexts Unstratified Catalogue Discussion

162 162 162 162 163 163 163 163 164 164 164 164 165 165 165 vi

Plaster Window glass

166 167

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Ditch Concrete floor Road surfaces Post-Roman and unstratified contexts Glass Vessel glass Lead

167 167 167 167 167 167 168 168 169 169 169 169 169

Environmental remains Animal remains

169 169

NUNS’ FIELD 1964 Introduction The site The project Previous discoveries

170 170 170 170

The excavation Trench I Trench II Trench III Trench IV Trench V Trench VI Trench VII Trench VIII Trench IX Trench X Trench XI Interpretation and dating

171 171 171 171 171 171 171 172 172 172 172 172 173

Building materials Ceramic building material Methodology Introduction Later Roman contexts Post-Roman contexts Unstratified Discussion Window glass

173 173 173 173 174 174 175 175 175

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Clay layers and timber slots Later Roman contexts: pits Later Roman contexts: soil deposits Post-Roman and unstratified contexts Discussion Glass Vessel glass Coins Metal Copper alloy

176 176 176 176 177 178 180 181 182 182 183 184 184

Contents Lead Stone objects Organic artefacts Bone 8

9

184 185 185 185

Environmental remains Human remains

201 201

Discussion

202

10 BEDWARD ROW 1977

SHIPGATE STREET 1983 Introduction The site The project Previous discoveries Research potential

186 186 186 186 187

The excavation Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase VII Discussion Topography Roman occupation

187 187 187 188 189 189 190 190 191 192 192 192

Building materials Ceramic building material Introduction Phase V Unstratified

192 192 192 192 193

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI Phase VII Unstratified Catalogue Discussion Glass Vessel glass and glass objects Organic artefacts Bone

193 193 193 194 194 194 194 194 195 195 195 196 197 198 198 198 198

Environmental remains Animal remains Introduction Species range Discussion Plant remains

198 198 198 198 199 199

200

Portable artefacts The lead coffin Pottery

200 200 200

203 203 203

The excavation Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Trench II Trench IV Discussion

203 204 204 205 206 207 207 207

Building materials Ceramic building material Methodology Discussion Catalogue Window glass

207 207 207 207 208 208

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Post-Roman and unstratified contexts Discussion Glass Vessel glass Coins Metal Silver Copper alloy Lead

208 208 208 208 208 210 212 212 213 215 215 215 215 215 215 216

Environmental remains Animal remains Introduction Species range Discussion

216 216 216 216 218

11 SEDAN HOUSE 1989 Introduction The site The project Previous discoveries Watergate Street c 1730 Watergate Street 1778/9 Watergate Street 1845 Watergate Street 1866 City Walls Road 1874 City Walls Road c 1890 Watergate Street 1894 and 1927 Watergate Street 1920

NORTHGATE ROUNDABOUT 1984 Introduction

Introduction The site The project

vii

219 219 220 220 220 220 221 221 221 221 221 221

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Nuns’ Road 1932 Watergate House 1949 Watergate Street 1958 Watergate House 1959 Stanley Street 1966 Post-Roman occupation Objectives and fieldwork methodology

221 221 221 222 222 222 222

The excavation Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IIIa Phase IV Phase V Phase Va Phase VI The end of the Roman building

222 222 223 225 226 227 228 229 229 231

Discussion Introduction Plan Dating Clientele

233 233 233 235 235

Building materials Stone Ceramic building material Introduction Fabrics Forms Discussion Catalogue Summary Plaster Window glass

235 235 236 236 236 236 238 239 239 241 242

Portable artefacts Pottery Introduction Fabrics Forms Date range Phases I and II Phase III Phase IV Phase V Phase VI The end of the Roman building Post-Roman and unstratified contexts Discussion Glass Vessel glass Glass objects Coins Metal Copper alloy Iron Lead Organic artefacts Bone Ivory

242 242 242 242 242 242 243 243 245 246 247 247 248 248 250 250 250 251 251 251 251 252 252 252 252

Industrial remains Vessels Crucibles

253 253 253

Environmental remains Animal remains Methodology Phase III Phase IV Phase V or end of Phase IV The end of the Roman building Discussion

253 253 253 254 254 256 256 257

12 DISCUSSIONS The development of the river channel Introduction Previous discoveries Interpretation The ‘quay wall’

260 260 261 261 262

The development of the western extramural settlement Chronology Building density, design and construction Phase I Phase II Phase III Building function Landscape development Summary

263 263 263 264 265 265 266 268 269

The western extramural settlement: artefact analysis Introduction Function Objects of uncertain function Material/objects associated with craft and industry Personal ornaments, equipment and dress Fasteners and non-structural fittings Objects associated with recreation Household utensils and furniture Toilet and medical equipment Structural fittings Objects associated with writing Military equipment Objects associated with religious beliefs Objects associated with transport Locks and keys Spatial and chronological distribution Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981 Nicholas Street Mews 1988 Greyfriars’ House 1983 Blackfriars’ House 1986 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974 Nuns’ Field 1964 Shipgate Street 1983 Northgate Roundabout 1984 Bedward Row 1977 Sedan House 1989 viii

269 269 270 270 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 279 279 280 280 280 280 280 281 282 282 282 282 283 283 283 283

List of illustrations The nature of occupation Summary

284 288

The Infirmary Field burials Introduction Summary Chronology Grave construction Grave goods Household utensils and furniture Personal adornment, equipment and dress Material/objects associated with craft and industry Toilet and medical equipment Objects associated with recreation Fasteners and non-structural fittings Locks and keys Animal remains Wealth and status The female burials The male burials The indeterminate burials Discussion Cemetery and settlement A ‘Romanised’ community Conclusion

289 289 289 289 291 293 293 295

The extramural settlements: an overview Introduction Land use South-west sector South-east sector North-east sector Boughton North-west sector Handbridge Street plan and building alignments Water supply and drainage Building plans, construction and function An extramural ‘clear zone’? East and west annexes? Chronology of the eastern canabae Cemeteries Analysis: analogies, form and symbolism Spatial patterns among canabae and vici Form and symbolism

301 301 301 302 303 304 304 305 306 306 307 308 308 309 310 310 312 312 313

Fortress, canabae and hinterland Introduction Models of Roman frontier economy and society The limits of expansion Taxes and trade Settlement and society in the north of Roman Britain The Chester fortress, canabae and prata legionis: a summary The occupation of the fortress The prata legionis and canabae The Chester canabae: function and population Introduction The population of the canabae: origins and roles

338 338 338 338 339

The population of the canabae: size Settlement in west and mid-Cheshire and adjoining areas The environs of Chester Industrial settlements and small towns Rural settlement The origins and status of settlements Military demand and supply Some basic commodities Demand and supply: some models Supply mechanisms An integrated economy? Artefacts Coins Conclusion: the impact of Roman occupation

296 297 297 297 298 298 298 298 299 299 300 300 300 301

Bibliography

373 376 376 377 382 386 389 389 390 396 398 398 400 413 416

Illustrations 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Map of Chester showing location of excavations

2

GREYFRIARS’ COURT 1976–8 AND 1981

2.1

Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: trench location plan 13 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase I Structures 1 and 2 plan 14 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase I terrace and W wall of Structure 2 16 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase I hearth and walls of Structure 2 Room 2 16 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Phase I Structure 5 plan 18 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: Phase I general arrangement plan 21 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase II Structures 3 and 4 (a) plan 22 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase II Structures 3 and 4 (a) walls 24 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase II Structure 4 (a) hypocaust 24 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase III Clay bank and Structure 4 (b) plan 28 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase III Structure 7 plan 29 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Phase III Structure 6 plan 31 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Phase III arch 33 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: Phase III general arrangement plan 35 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Structure 4 walls, tile deposit, Structure 3 wall and clay bank 35 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Trench I S section 37 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Trench I W section 37 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Trench I N section 38 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Trench I S section 39

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14

340 342 342 344 345 345

2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19

346 ix

2

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements 2.20 2.21 2.22

2.40

Greyfriars’ Court 1976-8: stamped tegula Greyfriars’ Court 1976-8: imbrex/ridge tile Greyfriars’ Court 1976-8: ceramic building material from post-Roman contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1981: stamped tegula Greyfriars’ Court 1981: ceramic building material from post-Roman contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I oven and associated contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I Structure 1 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I Structure 2 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from activity predating Phase I Structure 5 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase II rubbish-dumping Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III clay bank Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III clay terrace Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III Structure 6 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III pit/cistern Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian histogram Greyfriars’ Court 1981: silver object Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: copper alloy objects Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: organic artefacts Greyfriars’ Court 1981: detail of bone hairpin

3

NICHOLAS STREET MEWS 1988

3.1 3.2

Nicholas Street Mews 1988: trench location plan 87 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Phase IV Structure 8 plan 89 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Phase V Structure 9 plan 90 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Phase VI Structure 10 and Phase VIII Structure 11 plan 91 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Phases X–XII Structure 12 plan 93 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Phases X–XII Structure 13 plan 94 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Trench I E section (N end) 95 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Trench I E section through Phase IV, VII and VIII deposits 96 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Trench I W section (S end) 96 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Trench II E section (S end) 96 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: ceramic building material 98

2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11

3.12

43 44

3.13 45 48

3.14

48

3.15

54

3.16

55

3.17

57

3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21

58 60

3.22 3.23 3.24

61 62

3.25 64 65 67

4

GREYFRIARS’ HOUSE 1983

4.1 4.2 4.3

Greyfriars’ House 1983: trench location plan Greyfriars’ House 1983: excavation site Greyfriars’ House 1983: plan of excavated remains Greyfriars’ House 1983: hypocaust and opus signinum floor

68 4.4 69 75 75 77 77

102 115 116 117 127 129 130 133 134 135 136 137 143 143

147 147 148 148

5

BLACKFRIARS’ HOUSE 1986

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Blackfriars’ House 1986: trench location plan 152 Blackfriars’ House 1986: Phase I plan 153 Blackfriars’ House 1986: Phase II plan 153 Blackfriars’ House 1986: Phase III plan 154 Blackfriars’ House 1986: section A 155 Blackfriars’ House 1986: section B 155 Blackfriars’ House 1986: section C 155 Blackfriars’ House 1986: pottery from Phase III 157

6

30–42 NICHOLAS STREET 1974

6.1

30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: trench location plan 159 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: Phases I and II timber features at W end of Trench C 159 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: Phases I and II plan 160 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: Phase III plan 160 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: Phase III abortive foundation trench and stone foundation 161 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: Phase III ditch 161 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: slate pilaster capital 162 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: complete imbrex 165 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: lion’s head-type antefix 165 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: plaster with impression of combed box tile 166

6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10

x

Nicholas Street Mews 1988: plaster with cloth impression Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VI Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VII Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VIII Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Nicholas Street Mews 1988: samian histogram Nicholas Street Mews 1988: samian bar chart Nicholas Street Mews 1988: vessel glass Nicholas Street Mews 1988: glass objects Nicholas Street Mews 1988: copper alloy objects Nicholas Street Mews 1988: iron objects Nicholas Street Mews 1988: organic artefacts Nicholas Street Mews 1988: animal bones from Phase VI (161) Nicholas Street Mews 1988: Red deer bones from Phase VI contexts (161) and (173)

List of illustrations 6.11 6.12

30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from Phase III trench 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from ditch

7

NUNS’ FIELD 1964

7.1 7.2 7.3

7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12

Nuns’ Field 1964: trench location plan Nuns’ Field 1964: plan of excavated remains Nuns’ Field 1964: ceramic building material from later Roman contexts Nuns’ Field 1964: ceramic building material from post-Roman contexts Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from clay layers and timber slots Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from later pits Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from later soil deposits Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from post-Roman contexts Nuns’ Field 1964: samian histogram Nuns’ Field 1964: copper alloy mirror Nuns’ Field 1964: metal and bone objects Nuns’ Field 1964: lead mirror cover

8

SHIPGATE STREET 1983

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11

Shipgate Street 1983: trench location plan Shipgate Street 1983: excavation site Shipgate Street 1983: plan of excavated remains Shipgate Street 1983: Phase I culverts Shipgate Street 1983: N section Shipgate Street 1983: S section Shipgate Street 1983: Phase V tile drain Shipgate Street 1983: Phase VI tile drain Shipgate Street 1983: pottery Shipgate Street 1983: glass Shipgate Street 1983: bone spoon

9

NORTHGATE ROUNDABOUT 1984

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Northgate Roundabout 1984: location plan Northgate Roundabout 1984: lead coffin Northgate Roundabout 1984: lead coffin Northgate Roundabout 1984: pottery

10

BEDWARD ROW 1977

7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

Bedward Row 1977: trench location plan Bedward Row 1977: Phase I plan Bedward Row 1977: Phases II and III plan Bedward Row 1977: Phase IV plan Bedward Row 1977: pottery from Phase II Bedward Row 1977: pottery from Phase III Bedward Row 1977: pottery from post-Roman contexts 10.8 Bedward Row 1977: samian histogram 10.9 Bedward Row 1977: metal objects 10.10 Bedward Row 1977: lead strip 11

SEDAN HOUSE 1989

11.1 11.2

Sedan House 1989: excavation site Sedan House 1989: trench location plan

11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7

168 168

11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13

170 172 174 175

11.14

176 178

11.15 11.16 11.17 11.18 11.19

179 181 182 184 184 185

11.20 11.21 11.22 11.23 11.24 11.25 11.26

186 186 187 187 188 188 190 191 197 198 198

11.27 11.28 11.29 11.30 11.31 11.32 12

200 201 201 201

12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5

Sedan House 1989: Phase I plan 223 Sedan House 1989: wall W 1 223 Sedan House 1989: Phase II Room 1a plan 224 Sedan House 1989: Phase II plan 224 Sedan House 1989: Phase II tegula mammata lining of Room 1a 225 Sedan House 1989: Phase III apsidal wall 226 Sedan House 1989: Phase III plan 226 Sedan House 1989: Phase IV plan 227 Sedan House 1989: Phase V plan 228 Sedan House 1989: Phase V E end of drain D4 229 Sedan House 1989: Phase VI flooring in Room 1 230 Sedan House 1989: Phase VI E end of drain D4 230 Sedan House 1989: Phase VI plan 230 Sedan House 1989: Section B–B 231 Sedan House 1989: Section A–A 232 Sedan House 1989: Section C–C 232 Watergate Street baths: general arrangement plan 234 Sedan House 1989: pila 236 Sedan House 1989: ceramic building material 240 Sedan House 1989: opus spicatum from Phase VI 240 Sedan House 1989: pottery from Phase III 244 Sedan House 1989: pottery from Phase IV 245 Sedan House 1989: pottery from Phase V 247 Sedan House 1989: pottery from the end of the Roman building 247 Sedan House 1989: glass inlay from finger ring 250 Sedan House 1989: lead clamp 252 Sedan House 1989: ivory handle of clasp knife 252 Sedan House 1989: ivory handle of clasp knife 252 Sedan House 1989: butchery on equid humerus from context (8) 257 Sedan House 1989: gnawing on equid humerus from context (8) 257 DISCUSSIONS

The western extramural area: Phase I plan 264 The western extramural area: Phase II plan 265 The western extramural area: Phase III plan 266 Chester extramural settlement: monument plan 314 North-western extramural area: intervention plan 315 12.6 North-western extramural area: monument plan 316 12.7 Central western extramural area: intervention plan 317 12.8 Central western extramural area: monument plan 318 12.9 South-western extramural area: intervention plan 319 12.10 South-western extramural area: monument plan 320 12.11 Cumulative coin losses for periods 1–21 for the Chester fortress, extramural areas and the British army mean minus the British mean 403

203 204 205 206 209 211 213 215 216 216

219 219 xi

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements 12.12 Coin losses for periods 1–21 for the Chester fortress, extramural areas and the British army mean together with the British mean 404 12.13 Cumulative coin losses for periods 1–21 for Cheshire sites, Walton-le-Dale and the British army mean minus the British mean 404 12.14 Coin losses for periods 1–21 for Cheshire sites together with the British mean 405 12.15 Coin losses for periods 1–21 for Cheshire sites and Walton-le-Dale together with the British mean 405 12.16 Cumulative coin losses for periods 1–12 only for Cheshire sites and Walton-le-Dale minus the British mean 406 12.17 Value of coin losses (as-value per coin) from some north-west military sites and Wilderspool 407 12.18 Value of coin losses (as-value per coin) from Middlewich and Walton-le-Dale 407 12.19 Value of coin losses (percentage of denarii) from Cheshire casual finds 407

2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25

Tables

2.26 2.27

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Roman pottery fabric concordance

2

GREYFRIARS’ COURT 1976–8 AND 1981

2.1

Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: ceramic building material from Phase III Greyfriars’ Court 1981: ceramic building material from Phase III Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: ceramic building material from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1981: ceramic building material from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase I Structure 2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from demolition of Phase I Structure 2 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from demolition of Phase I Structure 5 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase II Structure 3 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase II build-up under Structure 4 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phases II and III Structure 4 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from rubbishdumping over Phase I Structure 5 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase III clay bank Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from Phase III clay terrace

2.2 2.3

2.4

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13

2.28

5–12

2.29 2.30

41

2.31

41

2.32 43

2.33 2.34

47

2.35

51

2.36

51

2.37

51

2.38

51

2.39

51

2.40

51

2.41

52

2.42

52

2.43

52 xii

Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from Phase III Structure 6 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from Phase III pit or cistern/arch Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase build-up over clay bank Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by year of excavation Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by phase and structure/activity Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I oven and associated contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase Structure 1 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase Structure 2 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase I activity predating Structure 5 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase I Structure 5 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase II build-up over Structures 1 and 2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase Structure 3 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase Structure 4 (a) Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase II rubbish-dumping Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III clay bank Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III Structure 4 (b) Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III Structure 4 (c) Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III Structure 7 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III clay terrace Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III Structure 6 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III pit/cistern Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III build-up over clay bank Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from Phase I Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from Phase II Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from Phase III Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian forms and fabrics Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by phase and year of excavation Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by ware and phase

52 52 III 52 53 54 54 I 55 I 55 57 58 58 II 58 II 59 59 61 61 61 62 62 62 65 65 66 67 69 69 69 69 71 71

List of tables 2.44 2.45 2.46

2.47 2.48 2.49 3

NICHOLAS STREET MEWS 1988

3.1

Nicholas Street Mews 1988: retained ceramic building material 97 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: discarded ceramic building material 99 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: plaster from the Roman phases 102 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: plaster from Phase IX 103 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: colour range of wall plaster from Phases XIX, XX and VI 105 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: colour range of wall plaster from the post-Roman phases 105 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: presence of crystalline calcite in plaster 106 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: window glass 107 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery quantified by phase 108 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase II quantified by ware 108 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase II quantified by form 108 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase III quantified by ware 109 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase III quantified by form 109 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase IV quantified by ware 109 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase IV quantified by form 109 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase V quantified by ware 110 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase V quantified by form 110 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VI quantified by ware 111 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VI quantified by form 111 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VII quantified by ware 115 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VII quantified by form 115 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VIII quantified by ware 116 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase VIII quantified by form 116 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase IX quantified by ware 117

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24

3.25

Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: vessel glass 73 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: coins 73 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: animal remains quantified by phase, taxon and no of fragments 79 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: main domestic species quantified by MNI and phase 79 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: age of main domestic species 81 Greyfriars’ Court 1976 and 1981: mammal bone measurements 82–6

3.26

3.27

3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 4

GREYFRIARS’ HOUSE 1983

4.1 4.2

Greyfriars’ House 1983: plaster Greyfriars’ House 1983: mammal bone

5

BLACKFRIARS’ HOUSE 1986

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Blackfriars’ House 1986: plaster 156 Blackfriars’ House 1986: pottery 156 Blackfriars’ House 1986: pottery from Phase II 156 Blackfriars’ House 1986: pottery from Phase III 157 Blackfriars’ House 1986: dog measurements 158

6

30–42 NICHOLAS STREET 1974

6.1

30–42 Nicholas Street Mews 1974: ceramic building material 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery

6.2

xiii

Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from Phase IX quantified by form 118 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from post-Roman, unphased and unstratified contexts quantified by ware 119 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery from post-Roman, unphased and unstratified contexts quantified by form 120 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pottery quantified by function 129 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: samian quantified by form and fabric 130 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: total pottery assemblage quantified by source and phase 131 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: vessel glass 133 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: coins 134 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: iron nails, plate and indeterminate objects 136 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: lead objects 136 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: crucible XRF analysis 138 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: industrial waste products 138 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: mammal bone zones 139 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: bird bone zones 139 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: mollusc zones 139 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: animal bones from Roman phases 140 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: no of diagnostic mammal and bird bone zones 140 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: cattle epiphyseal fusion data 141 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: pig epiphyseal fusion data 141 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: sheep epiphyseal fusion data 141 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: chicken bones 142 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: molluscs 142 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: cattle skeletal representation in Phase VI 143 Nicholas Street Mews 1988: animal bone measurements 144–5

150 151

163 167

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1 7.2

30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from Phase II 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from Phase III 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from ditch 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from concrete floor 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from road surfaces 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts 30–42 Nicholas Street 1974: mammal remains

167 167 168 168

169 169

8

SHIPGATE STREET 1983

8.1

Shipgate Street 1983: ceramic building material types quantified by phase 193 Shipgate Street 1983: ceramic building material quantified by form 193 Shipgate Street 1983: pottery quantified by phase 193 Shipgate Street 1983: pottery quantified by ware 193 Shipgate Street 1983: samian 194 Shipgate Street 1983: pottery from Phase IV 194 Shipgate Street 1983: pottery from Phase V 194 Shipgate Street 1983: pottery from Phase VI 195 Shipgate Street 1983: pottery from Phase VII 195 Shipgate Street 1983: unstratified pottery 196 Shipgate Street 1983: vessel glass 198 Shipgate Street 1983: mammal bone 198 Shipgate Street 1983: mammal bone from Phase IV 199 Shipgate Street 1983: mammal bone from Phase V 199 Shipgate Street 1983: mammal bone from Phase VI 199

7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6

Bedward Row 1977: pottery Bedward Row 1977: pottery from Phase I Bedward Row 1977: pottery from Phase II Bedward Row 1977: pottery from Phase III Bedward Row 1977: pottery from Phase IV Bedward Row 1977: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts Bedward Row 1977 samian Bedward Row 1977: vessel glass Bedward Row 1977: coins Bedward Row 1977: mammal bone quantified by skeletal element and taxon Bedward Row 1977: mammal bone quantified by taxon and MNI Bedward Row 1977: bird bone quantified by skeletal element and taxon Bedward Row 1977: bird bone quantified by taxon and MNI Bedward Row 1977: mammal bone measurements Bedward Row 1977: percentage of total meat yield from main domestic species

10.11

NUNS’S FIELD 1964

7.10 7.11 7.12

7.5

BEDWARD ROW 1977

10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10

169

Nuns’ Field 1964: ceramic building material Nuns’ Field 1964: ceramic building material from later Roman contexts Nuns’ Field 1964: phased pottery Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from clay layers and timber slots Nuns’ Field 1964: samian from clay layers and timber slots Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from later pits Nuns’ Field 1964: samian from later pits Nuns’ Field 1964: pottery from later soil deposits Nuns’ Field 1964: samian from later soil deposits Nuns’ Field 1964: samian forms and fabrics Nuns’ Field 1964: glass vessels Nuns’ Field 1964: coins

7.3 7.4

10

10.12

174

10.13

174 176

10.14

176

10.15

176 177 177 178

217 217 217 217 217 217

SEDAN HOUSE 1989

11.1

Sedan House 1989: ceramic building material 237 Sedan House 1989: plaster 241 Sedan House 1989: window glass 242 Sedan House 1989: pottery quantified by ware 242 Sedan House 1989: pottery quantified by ware and phase 243 Sedan House 1989: pottery from Phase III 243 Sedan House 1989: pottery from Phase IV 245 Sedan House 1989: pottery from Phase V 246 Sedan House 1989: pottery from the end of the Roman building 247 Sedan House 1989: samian 248 Sedan House 1989: vessel glass 250 Sedan House 1989: coins 251 Sedan House 1989: crucible XRF analysis 253 Sedan House 1989: mammal bone zones 254 Sedan House 1989: bird bone zones 254 Sedan House 1989: mollusc zones 254 Sedan House 1989: animal remains from Roman phases quantified by taxon, NISP and phase 255 Sedan House 1989: mammal bone from Roman phases quantified by taxon, NISP 255 Sedan House 1989: cattle epiphyseal fusion data 255 Sedan House 1989: pig epiphyseal fusion data 255 Sedan House 1989: sheep/goat epiphyseal fusion data 255 Sedan House 1989: animal remains measurements 259

11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13 11.14 11.15 11.16 11.17

11.18 11.19 11.20 11.21 11.22

xiv

213 214 215 215

11

11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

178 182 183 183

208 208 209 210 212

List of contributors 12

DISCUSSIONS

12.1 12.2

Objects from western extramural sites 271–2 Objects from Chester western extramural sites, York colonia, Caerleon eastern canabae and York fortress 285–7 Infirmary Field: summary of burials 290–2 Infirmary Field: grave goods 292 Infirmary Field: pottery vessels from graves 293 Infirmary Field: objects other than grave goods associated with burials 294 Infirmary Field: glass vessels from graves 295 Infirmary Field: items of personal adornment from graves 295 Infirmary Field: items associated with craft and industry from graves 297 Infirmary Field: slag from graves 297 Infirmary Field: animal remains from graves 298 Western canabae and Infirmary Field: comparison of frequency of artefacts by functional category 299 Infirmary Field: position of coins in graves 300

12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.12

12.13

12.14 Gazetteer of interventions and discoveries in the Chester extramural areas 321–37 12.15 Commemoration of/by soldiers at Chester 347–57 12.16 Recruitment and veteran settlement of men in Legions II Adiutrix and XX VV at Chester 358 12.17 Origin statements on tombstones of soldiers and veterans of Legions II Adiutrix and XX VV 359 12.18 Commemoration of soldiers and veterans of Legions II Adiutrix PF and XX VV 363 12.19 Inscribed and sculptured stones from Chester attesting non-combatants 364–9 12.20 Age statements on tombstones of soldiers and veterans of Legions II Adiutrix PF and XX VV 372 12.21 Age statements on tombstones of civilians 372 12.22 Chronological distribution of tombstones attesting civilians 373 12.23 Possible population of Chester canabae a & b (soldiers’ families only) 374 12.24 Roman Chester: grain requirements 391–2 12.25 Possible Roman sites in Cheshire 401–2

Contributors Site reports and discussions

Simon Ward BA, FSA, MIfA, CWaC Historic Environment Service John McPeake BA, formerly Grosvenor Museum Excavations Section David Mason BA, PhD, FSA, MIfA, Freelance Archaeological Consultant

Finds studies

Justine Bayley BSc, MSc, PhD, FSA, English Heritage Peter Carrington BA, PhD, FSA, formerly Chester Archaeology Hilary Cool BA, PhD, FSA, MIfA, Freelance Archaeological Consultant Brenda Dickinson BA, FSA, Freelance Archaeological Consultant Gillian Dunn BTech, AIfA, CWaC Historic Environment Service James Greig BA, PhD, University of Birmingham Lesley Harrison BA, Pg Dip, formerly Chester Archaeology Alison Heke BA, AIfA, CWaC Historic Environment Service Glenys Lloyd-Morgan BA, PhD, FSA, formerly Grosvenor Museum Gaenor Morris, formerly Grosvenor Museums Excavations Section Quita Mould BA, MA, Freelance Archaeological Consultant Sharon Roberts BA, formerly Liverpool University Dan Robinson BA, MPhil, formerly Grosvenor Museum Ian Smith MSc, formerly Chester Archaeology Margaret Ward MA, MIfA, Freelance Archaeological Consultant Barbara West BA, Faunal Remains Specialist +Peter Alebon, formerly Chester Archaeology Tim Morgan, Freelance Archaeological Draughtsman Cheryl Quinn BA, PIfA, AAHI, CWaC Historic Environment Service David Heke, Freelance Photographer Simon Warburton, formerly Chester City Council Thomas Ward LRPS, formerly Grosvenor Museum Julie Vint BA, Dip Cons, formerly English Heritage Conservator, Manchester Yannick Minvielle-Debat BSc, formerly University of Bradford Catrina Appleby BA, MA, FSA Scot, formerly Freelance Archaeological Consultant Peter Carrington BA, PhD, FSA, formerly Chester Archaeology Alison Heke BA, AIfA, CWaC Historic Environment Service

Draughtsmen

Photography

Conservation Editing

xv

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Acknowledgements For access to the 30–42 Nicholas Street site: CGT Construction Ltd and Hill Welsh Commercial Property Consultants, especially Mr D W Hill; also Anthony Brown & Partners, Leach, Rhodes and Walker, architects, and Bullivant & Co, agents for subsequent developers.

For access to Nuns’ Field site in 1964: the former Chester Police Authority and Cheshire County Council. For access to the Greyfriars’ Court site for the 1976–8 excavations: the then owners, J B Edwards & Co (Whyteleafe) Ltd and Brookling Ltd, especially Mr T W Bullivant, and their agents Biscoe & Stanton, especially Mr F J Hippolite; for the 1981 excavations: Methodist Homes for the Aged Housing Association Ltd, their development officer Miss A R Sillitoe and accountant Mr R F Fletcher, and their agent Mr R E Owens of Messrs Patterson, McCauley and Owens; the consulting engineers Mitchell, McFarlane & Partners, especially Mr I E McFarlane, who made available the results of a borehole analysis of the site; Bovis Construction Ltd, their regional director Mr R E Wooldridge and clerk of works Mr Wilkinson; Mr W F Seymour, Methodist minister, for his interest and local support.

For access to the Nicholas Street Mews site and financial assistance: Gordon Mytton of Gordon Mytton Developments For access to the Bedward Row site: the former Chester Health Authority. The Leisure Services Committee of the former Chester City Council, English Heritage, and the former Manpower Services Commission for their financial support. Finally, these projects involved a large number of temporary staff and volunteers over a period of many years, without whom they could not have been successfully completed. Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

For access to the Greyfriars’ House site: Mr K Hassall, then owner.

xvi

1 INTRODUCTION

The discovery of what was probably the mansio (official guest house) on the south side of Castle Street in 1976 (Mason 1980) had already shown that there was significant occupation south of the fortress. The opportunity was therefore taken to excavate a small plot on Shipgate Street in 1983. The size of the excavation again imposed limitations, but further substantial occupation was found and important inferences could be drawn about river levels.

The Area and Projects Peter Carrington

Fieldwork he excavations reported on in detail in this volume were all situated to the west or south-west of the Roman legionary fortress, mostly in the area between the modern Watergate Street and Lower Bridge Street. They were carried out by staff of the Grosvenor Museum and later of Chester City Council’s Archaeological Service.

North of Watergate Street, the construction of a small store and generator house for the former Royal Infirmary led to an excavation at Bedward Row in 1977. Just to the north of this site lay the Infirmary Field cemetery, investigated by Robert Newstead between 1912 and 1917 during extensions to the infirmary, while beyond that lay the small building excavated by F H Thompson in 1957 before construction of a new outpatients department. In fact, at Bedward Row neither more burials nor building remains were found, only slight timber structures and rubbishdumping. However, in the light of similar discoveries in analogous areas this now seems to be part of a pattern.

T

The first excavation was that in 1964 on the site of the former militia barracks on Nuns’ Field, just north of Grosvenor Road, in preparation for the construction of a new county police headquarters. The main aim of the excavation was the investigation of the Benedictine nunnery that was known to have occupied the site (Rutland 1965), but Roman deposits were also recorded and are reported on for the first time here. In fact the stratigraphy recorded was fairly slight, but the quantity and variety of finds hinted at intensive and wealthy occupation nearby. These hints were confirmed when extensive excavation in 2006/7, following the demolition of the police headquarters, revealed well preserved strip buildings and walls of a house with fragments of a polychrome mosaic.

The last excavation was at Sedan House on Walls Road in 1989, again in response to building extension. The site available was small, but here chance discoveries over a period of over two hundred years already pointed to the existence of a large bath house. The 1989 excavation shed some light on a number of the rooms and demonstrated a long and complex building history. It has now also been possible to draw together many of the earlier discoveries and start to reconstruct a plan of the building.

Five of the other excavations (30–42 Nicholas Street 1974, Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981, Greyfriars’ House 1983, Blackfriars’ House 1986 and Nicholas Street Mews 1988) were carried out in the area bounded by Nicholas Street, Watergate Street, Nuns’ Road and Black Friars. Much of this area is residential, with many eighteenthcentury town houses, and consequently sees little redevelopment. However, where poorer-quality buildings were redeveloped or standing buildings extended, it was possible to take the opportunity for excavation. From the first the results indicated high-quality Roman occupation. Unfortunately, the fact that the area had been occupied by the Dominican friary – itself a major research objective (Ward 1990) – meant that the Roman remains had been badly robbed. In addition, many of the parcels of land available for investigation were small. Consequently, although we are now able to characterise the nature of Roman occupation, we do not have a complete understanding of the chronology of the area or of building plans.

Analysis Reports on these excavations have been in preparation for several decades, but completion and publication have been hampered by a series of enforced changes in priorities. Specifically, the archives and reports on the Greyfriars’ Court, Greyfriars’ House, Blackfriars’ House, Nicholas Street, Nuns’ Field, Shipgate Street and Northgate Roundabout sites were largely compiled in the 1980s. Only those on Nicholas Street Mews and Sedan House and the various discussions have been compiled recently. It has only been practical to revise a few of the earlier reports; consequently many of the others are now out of date and should be read with the appropriate caution. In addition, because of the pressure of other commitments, the pottery records made in the 1980s were compiled in a very summary fashion. These delays also resulted in the volume going through the hands of a succession of editors. 1

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements The idea of publishing excavations at Chester in a series of synthetic volumes rather than on an individual basis was put forward by English Heritage in the mid-1980s in connection with the publication of pre-1973 excavations carried out by staff of the Grosvenor Museum. This mode of publication undoubtedly slowed things even more, but it also prompted a wider consideration of the nature of the Chester extramural settlement that might not otherwise have been undertaken. It was therefore decided to add two gazetteers, one attempting to list all discoveries in the western extramural area, and the second all discoveries in the eastern area, including Boughton, and south of the river in Handbridge. These take account not only of discoveries made before the excavations described here but also of the many developer-funded excavations carried out subsequently up to the end of 2009. This has made possible a re-evaluation of the character of the different sectors of the canabae. It was also decided to attempt to look at Chester – fortress and canabae – in the context of what is now known about surrounding rural and urban settlement and of the prevailing models of Roman frontier society.

Finally, perhaps the title of the volume should be explained. The excavations described here show that a substantial part of the extramural settlement, although badly preserved, clearly consisted of sophisticated houses, with hypocausts, bath suites, highly polished wall plaster and, at least in one case, architectural decoration, while their situation overlooking the river arguably shows a sense of the impressive. Portable objects, too, show a lifestyle that was comfortable, if not luxurious, and was based on the customary use of durable material culture. Clearly an attempt was being made to create a semblance of a Mediterranean lifestyle. Such a characterisation of the environs of a legionary fortress ought not to be surprising. However, much recent work has emphasised the position of north-west England as a whole as being on the ‘edge of empire’. Insofar as these observations are valid, they throw into higher relief the ‘Roman-ness’ of Chester revealed here, and to some extent that of west Cheshire as well.

Ill 1.1 Map of Chester showing location of excavations. (Scale 1/10,000)

2

1 Introduction The same can be said of tombstones and funerary rituals, where parallels can again be drawn with the heart of the empire. These lead us to consider what may have been a poignant aspect of Chester’s position. The precise connotations of the River Dee/Deva in antiquity are unknown, but the siting of burials overlooking it can hardly be coincidental. Rivers were associated with the underworld not only in Roman mythology (the Styx), but doubtless in native beliefs as well. Thus, in their more reflective moments, the inhabitants of Chester may have felt themselves not only on the frontier of the empire, but also on the boundary of the worlds of the living and the dead.

Ceramic Building Material and Pottery Methodologies Alison Heke & Margaret Ward

The ceramic building material was quantified by fragment count and weight, and measurements were taken of any complete dimensions. Small find numbers were assigned to stamps, signatures and atypical or unusual forms. Where possible, tegula lower cutaways were identified and assigned to dated groups after Warry (2006). Legionary stamps are numbered consecutively as follows:

History of Research

Holt types 1–33, assigned by W F Grimes (1930) Webster types 34–60, assigned by G Webster (1948–57) Chester types 61 onwards, assigned since 1957

Before the investigations published here, the only deliberate excavations carried out in the western canabae were those in the Infirmary Field in 1912–17 and those at Watergate House in 1949 and 1959. This was not so much a matter of choice as of opportunity. The main ‘research excavation’ of the inter-war years, on the barracks in the Deanery Field at the north-east corner of the fortress, was in one of the few areas of open ground in the city. Given the established residential nature of the western side of the city, already referred to, there was little opportunity for research and little development to prompt ‘rescue excavation’. By contrast, there was more excavation as well as salvage recording in the eastern canabae along Foregate Street, which has a more commercial character and consequently saw more redevelopment, as well as in expanding residential areas in Handbridge and Saltney.

The pottery was quantified for the archive by sherd count and weight by fabric group within each context. Initially, all forms and fabrics were identified in detail and quantified by sherd count, weight and EVEs (Estimated Vessel Equivalents calculated using rim and base percentages). It soon became clear, however, that there was insufficient time for such detailed analysis. It was therefore decided just to classify coarse pottery fabrics by ‘common name’ or descriptive terms and to abandon the use of EVEs. Fabrics and forms were only recorded in detail precisely for diagnostic sherds crucial to the dating of contexts or of intrinsic value. Where identifiable, all imports were quantified using individual fabric numbers. Many of the coarse grey and orange wares were probably locally produced. The kilns that produced the grey and black-on-brown wares found in Chester have not yet been located. Kiln sites at Holt, Wilderspool and Foregate Street, Chester, are known to have produced orange and white-slipped orange wares. It is difficult, however, to identify undiagnostic body sherds precisely and these sherds have been described as Cheshire Plain wares (see Webster, P V 1982, 13–31). The distinction between Cheshire Plain and Severn Valley ware is not clear cut.

Nevertheless, chance discoveries all around the fortress have now been made for over two centuries, and the deliberate excavations published here allow us to interpret these more fully. The first recorded discoveries relating to the extramural settlement go back to 1779, when parts of what is now interpreted as a bath house were found on the north side of Lower Watergate Street. The decades around 1800 also saw the recovery of fragments of what seem to have been high quality buildings during the rebuilding of Chester castle. A wide variety of finds on all sides of the fortress and in Chester’s expanding suburbs was discovered during the nineteenth century. During the 1950s and 1960s there was continued excavation along Foregate Street, but the main event was the excavation of almost all the northern half of the amphitheatre. In 1966 D F Petch discovered the parade ground immediately outside the fortress on the western side of Frodsham Street.

Apart from the Nicholas Street Mews 1988 assemblage, where time pressures did not allow this to be done, the catalogued pottery has been classified using the Chester form and fabric series . The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (NRFRC) codes, as defined by Tomber & Dore (1998), have been added where applicable. Sample sherds of the pottery fabrics are kept in the ceramic reference collection held by the Historic Environment Team and housed in the service’s offices at 22 Castle Street, Chester.

Since the 1990s developer funding and evaluation prior to redevelopment have resulted in an explosion of knowledge about widely scattered sites. Many of these excavations have been very small, but they have allowed us for the first time to attempt broad characterisations of areas previously wholly uninvestigated.

Roman pottery at Chester is broadly classified into five groups: Samian, Fine, Coarse, Mortaria and Amphorae. Each of these groups is then subdivided into categories using descriptive or ‘common ware names’, eg Fine 3

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements orange mica-coated ware. Within each of these groups, specific fabrics are identified numerically, for example: Mortaria - orange, fabric 139 is a Holt mortarium fabric. There is a separate numerical form series, with each form being unique to a specific fabric or common ware. Full descriptions of the main fabrics that occur on sites in the city (excluding samian) are given in Table 1.1 All these fabrics have been listed in detail even though not all have been recognised at the sites discussed. Given that it is many years since any large groups of Roman pottery from Chester have been published in detail and that the local fabrics will be unfamiliar to many readers, some fabrics that do not occur on sites in this volume are included.

South, Central and East Gaulish products. ‘Indet’ denotes indeterminate vessel forms. Dr refers to the Dragendorff form classification (Dragendorff 1895). For other samian terminology, see Bulmer 1979. All the stamps with decipherable letters have been listed. All those on plain vessels are basal. Miss B M Dickinson is to be thanked for her reports on all the stamps. These are recorded in the order: reading, die, potter, pottery of origin and, finally, a letter in brackets indicating: (a) a stamp attested at the pottery in question. (b) not attested at the pottery, although the potter is known to have worked here. (c) assigned to the potter on evidence of fabric distribution, etc.

It should be noted that amphorae have been classified according to three main fabric groups, defined before the publication of Peacock & Williams’ Amphorae and the Roman economy (1986). These three groups, Chester fabric numbers 142, 145 and 200, correspond respectively to the South Gaulish wine amphorae (op cit, classes 27–31), the South Spanish olive oil amphorae (op cit, classes 15 and 24–6) and all other amphora fabrics. Individual fabrics within this group may be defined when:

This is followed by notes on the stamp, the dating evidence and the date proposed for the particular stamp. Plain ware stamps have not been drawn, as illustrations appear in the definitive catalogue of stamps from Leeds University (Hartley & Dickinson 2008–10). For the sake of consistency and clarity, those potters identified stylistically from decorated sherds are given the reference employed in the Leeds catalogue as well as their reference (in brackets) according to Stanfield & Simpson 1958: thus Paternus v (II), etc. Following the date of each vessel in the catalogue, reference is made to the condition of the piece including notes on wear in use, repair and reuse, on abrasion and battering incurred after breakage, and on burning where the signs were clear.

a) the presence of diagnostic sherds makes it worthwhile because the form can be identified and b) for other reasons, for example because of their chronological significance. The amphorae from Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981, Bedward Row 1977 and Nuns’ Field 1964 were identified by Dr César Carreras Monfort (1992). Many of the comments and fabric descriptions below come from his report.

The date range given for each piece in the catalogue is more or less conventional. Where specific date ranges such as c 80–110 or c 120–160 are given for unremarkable pieces, these should not be thought to indicate greater precision than the conventional use of epochs such as Domitianic–Trajanic or Hadrianic–early Antonine. Date ranges were employed in the original archive in order to facilitate statistical analysis and to avoid future misinterpretation of the data.

The identification and dating of black-burnished ware is based on Gillam (1968) and (1976) and Wallace & Webster (1989); Oxfordshire ware on Young (1977); Nene Valley ware on Howe, Perrin & Mackreth (1980); Wilderspool vessels on Hartley & Webster (1973); Severn Valley ware on P V Webster (1976); Holt vessels on Grimes (1930); amphorae on Peacock & Williams (1986) and Callender (1965); Mancetter-Hartshill mortaria on Hemsley (1959); Brockley Hill white wares on M G Wilson (1972); and black colour-coated beakers from the Rhineland and north Gaul on A C Anderson (1980).

Only a basic statistical analysis of the samian has been attempted. More sophisticated techniques are left to the statistician. Quantified summaries have been provided where appropriate, and tables recording forms and fabrics are given. Maximum numbers of vessels have been employed, since it has so frequently proved impossible to estimate minimum numbers in larger groups. Further quantification is represented by histograms and line diagrams showing the maximum number of vessels (including plain vessels) according to date of manufacture. This method has been used despite the drawbacks in using such imprecisely dated material: the stamped or decorated vessels alone were too few to be meaningful statistically and some form of graphic representation was thought to be desirable. The questionable validity of using this method is discussed at greater length elsewhere (Ward, M 2011, 74– 6).

Vessels that provide dating evidence for a particular phase, are of intrinsic interest, or which are found in post-Roman deposits but help to extend the chronology of a particular site, have been illustrated. The samian archives consist of a complete record of all the samian ware recovered from these sites. The catalogues for publication have been selected according to significance for dating purposes, for the character of the site or for intrinsic interest. Where possible and appropriate, each catalogue has been divided by phase and set out by context in order of fabric and form, the plain ware preceding the decorated. The abbreviations SG, CG and EG denote 4

5

Table 1.1 Roman pottery fabric concordance

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

6

7

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

8

9

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

10

11

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

12

22 Greyfriars’ Greyfriars'Court Court1976–8 1976–8and and1981/The 1981/Theexcavations excavation

2 GREYFRIARS’ COURT 1976–8 AND 1981

Introduction

Simon W Ward

The site he excavation site lies on the west side of the city, just within the City Walls, south of the Water Gate. It was occupied by several properties fronting onto Nuns’ Road and Grey Friars that were derelict and due for redevelopment. Besides the small Victorian court after which the site is named, the area threatened comprised parts of the gardens of numbers 1 and 3 Nuns’ Road and number 4 and ‘New Cottages’ in Grey Friars, thus forming an irregularly shaped block some seventy-five metres north–south by about fifty metres east–west. The site is now occupied by a housing development known as Callin Court (Ill 2.1).

T

The site was considered important because it provided an opportunity to examine part of the western peripheral area of the city. It lay west of the Roman legionary fortress in the area generally considered to have provided Deva with its main harbour facilities (Strickland & Ward 1981), and consequently was thought likely to have been an important area for extramural development. Previously major Roman structures had been found immediately to the north and the south of the site (Mason 1978, 35–8). In the medieval period the western part of the city, although enclosed within the City Walls, was little used until it was granted in blocks to various religious houses. This site lies in the centre of the block granted to the Dominican friars (Bennett 1952; Ward, S W 1990, 24 and 62: the modern name of Grey Friars is a nineteenth-century misnomer).

Ill 2.1 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: trench location plan. (Scale 1/1250)

When these trenches had been completed there was a hiatus in the development plans and no further excavation was undertaken until 1981. However, with new owners and a new development scheme, it was considered desirable to examine the northern part of the site and a second phase was undertaken from September 1981 to March 1982. Again three trenches were opened, an area (Trench I) measuring 14 m x 7 m and two machine-dug trenches (Trenches II and III). The southern end of Trench II was examined archaeologically. Throughout the summer of 1982 further discoveries were made during observation of the building work

The project About fifteen percent of the site was formally excavated in two phases, in addition to trial holes cut by a machine and the observation of building work. In the first phase, from September 1976 to November 1978, two large areas in the southern part of the site and a smaller one just to the north were examined (Trenches I, II, and III). Trench I was initially 23 m long but was extended 2.5 m westwards and 1.5 m eastwards to explore as much as possible of the structures discovered. Trench II was initially a small trench that was expanded into a larger area after Trench I was backfilled. Trench III, a small exploratory cut north of the others, failed to produce anything of archaeological significance.

As a consequence of the two phases of excavation conducted on this site, there are two series of trench, context and feature numbers that are distinguished by reference to GFC 76–8 or GFC 81.

13

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Ill 2.2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase I Structures 1 and 2 plan. (Scale 1/125)

14

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Structure I

Extensive remains of both the medieval friary and Roman civil settlement were discovered. Some difficulty was experienced in examining all the Roman remains satisfactorily. In GFC 76–8 Trench I the considerable depth of the deposits restricted what could be safely excavated. In GFC 76–8 Trench II and GFC 81 Trench I shortage of time and the destruction caused by the friary foundations and levelling imposed a similar restriction.

This building lay at the western end of GFC 76–8 Trench I, at a depth of c 3.5 m below the modern ground surface, so only a small area could be examined. Before any buildings were erected the area was levelled by cutting platforms into the natural clay at vertical intervals of 0.5 m to counteract the natural slope of the hillside. The lower platform occupied c 10.5 m at the western end of the trench (Ill 2.3).

Previous discoveries On this terrace Structure 1, a stone building, was erected, occupying the western 3 m of GFC 76–8 Trench I. It was represented by its eastern wall, W13, and a small area of its internal surfaces. This wall ran at a distinct north-west to south-east angle, an alignment that proved to be characteristic of the Roman period on this site.

The topography of this area of Chester has perhaps undergone greater development and modification than any other part of the city. Falls in sea level, silting, the construction of the City Walls, land reclamation and infilling have all had an effect. Today the area presents a generally even surface running westwards from Nicholas Street (the Inner Ring Road), with a fall of a few feet to the City Walls. The ground surface meets the walls at parapet level, giving some indication of the amount of infilling that has gone on since the latter were built in the later twelfth century. Outside the walls there is an almost sheer drop of c 9.3 m to the flat expanse of the Roodee, the traditional site of Chester’s racecourse; in ancient times this was a reasonably smooth, rounded hill forming the river bank. The embanked River Dee now lies hidden in trees some 500 m away across the Roodee. The evidence for the topography in Roman times will be considered in detail in a later section. However, in general the Roodee formed a large expanse of estuary, under water at least at high tide. The present scarp formed by the City Walls was formerly interrupted by valleys falling westwards into the Dee. These have been known colloquially, and perhaps misleadingly, as creeks. One small valley lay immediately north of this site, its northern lip having been located in 1959 (Kelly 1965, 9). Another, much larger, valley has long been known under Nuns’ Field, running down from the vicinity of Cuppin Street (eg Lawson 1928, 179). In Roman times the Greyfriars’ Court site would therefore have occupied the northern part of a spur projecting from the main hill on which lay the legionary fortress. This spur is made of boulder clay which forms a stiff tenacious subsoil, unlike the sandstone bedrock in the centre of the city.

Wall W13 did not survive above its foundations. What remained, however, showed it to be of good quality workmanship, about 0.75 m wide and deep. The foundations included much mortar and were capped by a thick layer of that material that bore impressions of the missing stones of the lowest wall course. Overlying the natural sand that here masked the boulder clay was a light clayey sand, (391), which perhaps represents levelling prior to erection of the building and which was cut by the foundations. The floor of the building, consisting of very fragmentary remains of mortar (355), lay on this material. Patches of sandstone brash (the local red sandstone crushed to a coarse sand) which apparently underlay the mortar survived only slightly more extensively. Two features inside the building are worthy of note. At the junction of the wall with the surface there was a strip of reddish mortar. This was probably the remains of a quarter-round moulding, such as has been found in a similar position in other Roman buildings in Chester (eg the centurions’ quarters at 1–11 Crook Street excavated in 1973/4). In the western extension to the trench, which was dug after the rest of the trench had been completed, a pit, P26, was found set into the floor about one metre west of wall W13. It was about 0.72 m square with rounded corners and was 0.13 m deep. It was lined with mortar that was continuous with the floor surface. Its fill was continuous with the material in the layer above, which belongs to the next phase.

The Excavations

Neither occupation deposits nor demolition debris from this building survived. Any such deposits that might have once existed appear to have been swept away by a levelling operation prior to the erection of the next structure. The poor condition of the mortar floor certainly suggests this, as it seems unlikely that the floor would have been reduced to such a state by mere wear during its apparently short life without more evidence surviving of activity in the building.

Phase I The earliest phase of occupation on the site is represented by parts of three buildings, two in GFC 76–8 Trench I (Ill 2.2) and one in GFC 81 Trench I that extended into GFC 81 Trench II (Ill 2.5). It is not known if contemporary structures lay in GFC 76–8 Trench II since the excavation could not be carried down to the appropriate levels in the time available.

Contemporary deposits were identified in the area to the east of the building. This part of the lower terrace, an area about 7.5 m wide, had been badly disturbed by later foun15

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Ill 2.3 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase I terrace between Structures 1 and 2, looking SE; W wall of Structure 2, T 34, to left.

dations, which divided it into several ‘islands’. The light clay levelling found under the building continued eastwards for about three metres across this area, (380) and (435). Adjacent to the wall of Structure 1 was a very rough shallow gully or depression filled with dirty silt, (364). This presumably functioned as an eavesdrip gully, but if so it probably formed naturally and was not deliberately cut. Against the northern part of the short length of W13 exposed there was an area of silt and burning, (362), forming a rough hearth. Remains of the carcass of a large animal, including a number of articulated vertebrae, lay in this material. Towards the centre of this open area there remained a few rough patches of broken sandstone, (432), which probably once formed a more extensive surface. (These features not shown on plan 2.2). The eastern edge of this lower terrace was bounded by two gullies. The eastern one was well cut with square sides and a flat bottom and was partly filled with light silt (427). The western one was wider, shallower and generally had a much less regular profile. Both appear to have been in use simultaneously and were sealed by the demolition material (379) of Structure 2, a timber building on the upper terrace.

Ill 2.4 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase I hearth F51 looking N with walls of Structure 2 Room 2, T37 (left) and T24 (right).

The two depressions were probably cut for rubbish disposal. It is difficult to be certain whether the deposits predate Structure 2 or are associated with its construction or occupation. There were also patches of brown clay and charcoal, (450), including one sealing the pit P22, (460), which appeared to be cut by the timber impressions of Structure 2, and squares or rectangles of dark grey clay which were about 0.3 m by 0.2 m with little depth. Some larger patches may have been made up from several of these smaller pieces. They were spread in a fairly random fashion across the east end of GFC 76–8 Trench I. They may represent turves cut from the ground surface during the digging of the timber slots for Structure 2 and the clay deposits may have had a similar origin, although most would have been redeposited in the slots.

Structure 2 The whole of the remaining area of Trench I was occupied during this phase by a timber building on the upper terrace. However, there was also some evidence of activity preceding the erection of this building. About three metres east of the edge of the terrace there was a slight hollow in the natural clay, which could either have formed naturally or have been man-made. The remains of a small oven or hearth, F51, lay in the centre of this hollow (Ill 2.4). It consisted of a circle of heavily scorched clay about 1.15 m in diameter. A single stake hole was found to the north, within the hollow. No superstructure survived above the base. The hollow was filled with a mixed rubbish deposit, (451), before the timber building was erected. At the eastern end of the trench various deposits accumulated on the natural ground surface. The latter was represented by a grey clayey sand, (452), (489), (500), probably a buried turf layer that had a considerable quantity of finds trampled into it. Two small depressions (P22 (488) and (497) cut this surface and various patches of deposit lay on it.

The evidence for Structure 2 consisted of a series of north– south slots spanning the trench and defining parts of three rooms and two corridors, numbered 1 to 5 consecutively from the west. The plan is one of alternating rooms and corridors. In the extreme south-east corner of the trench lay a feature that is best interpreted as an east–west slot, T42, which would have formed the southern wall of Room 5. The remains indicated that this building was well laid out, regular in plan and built in typical, substantial Roman fashion. The slots were on average c 0.35 m wide and 0.4 m deep. However, the western wall of the building, which ran right along the edge of the terrace, stood in a slot 0.6 m deep, T34: no doubt the extra depth was due 16

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations to its proximity to the edge of the terrace. Posts were set in these slots at a regular interval of c 0.8 m to 1.0 m and the slots were then backfilled. The posts in the western wall, T31 and T32, were noticeably squared. Little survived of the wall structure above the slots, although above slot T37 a small section of white-painted plaster facing into Room 1, (369), survived on the stub of the clay infill. A clay stub also survived above the easternmost slot, T36. It bore the impression of a ground-level beam that would have run along the western side of the posts. Against the eastern side of the slot lay a strip of iron, 70 mm wide by 20 mm deep, with an inverted U section. It was traced in a very corroded and fragmentary state along the whole four metres of T36 excavated. Its purpose is not clear.

intrusions. This timber impression could represent a light partition wall subdividing Room 3, but since it cut the joist impressions, the timber floor must have been taken up before the partition was built. There was no replacement solid floor, however, so it must be assumed that the timber one was renewed, perhaps at a slightly higher level so that the joists failed to leave an impression. The western wall of Room 3, T24, also bore evidence of alteration. The slot had two fills, an upper one of mixed clays and sand, (382), and a lower one of stiff brown clay. Impressions of five posts were discovered in this slot, (labelled A to E from the north). All posts were traceable in the lower fill, while only A, C and D appeared in the upper. The southern part of the slot had been truncated by a later intrusion so the upper layer did not survive there. Post hole B was only visible in the lower fill and almost underlay A. Post holes C and D were surrounded by sandstone packing, an unusual feature in a slot. This evidence suggests that two phases were represented in this slot, post holes A, C and D belonging to the later phase and being set in a partially redug slot. Post hole A replaced B, while C and D may well have obliterated their predecessors; E could belong to either or both phases. The later posts had been dug or hammered into the earlier fills. Two-phase slots represented by different fills and sets of post holes have been noted elsewhere in Chester (Ward & Strickland 1978, 12).

As the building was constructed on a hillside the floor level of each room was slightly higher than the one to its west, the total rise over the length of the trench being 0.8 m. No recognisable solid floor levels survived in Rooms 1, 3 and 5, although there was evidence for timber floors. The corridors on the other hand (Rooms 2 and 4), had substantial clay floors, ((426) in Room 2), that in Room 4 being covered by some occupation trample, (377). The best evidence for a timber floor came from Room 3. Here the impressions of five joists, each about 0.1 m wide and 0.05 m deep and running parallel to the walls, were found in the deposits. If it is assumed a sixth impression had been destroyed by later foundations these would have been evenly spaced at about 0.8 m. Between these impressions lay a silty sand, (383), (434), (437). The joists had presumably been set into this material or it had percolated between the floorboards, or perhaps a combination of both. Beneath the floor of this room, midway between two joists, a human infant had been buried in a shallow scoop, B18. The evidence for a timber floor in Room 1 was similar, although only one timber impression survived. If a second is restored there would be a regular spacing of c 1 m, slightly greater than that in Room 3. The deposit between them was sand, (441). The final room, Room 5, probably also had a timber floor as it lacked any other solid surface. Any joist impressions in this room, however, would have lain beyond the extent of the excavation.

It is tempting to see all the alterations in this building as a single contemporary reorganisation of the internal arrangements. Room 3 would have been subdivided by a light partition wall and its western wall replaced, while Rooms 1 and 2 would have been combined to make a single larger one. At the same time changes were apparently made to the timber floors. In the initial arrangement the joists lay on the ground and may have suffered from rot so perhaps the alterations included raising them above the ground. The demolition deposit of Structure 2 was found in varying thicknesses across the upper terrace, (273), (356), (357), (367), (369)–(371), (377), (390), (394), (422), (425), (428), (439), (464), 465). It contained a quantity of wall plaster, largely painted white. Much of the demolition material was tipped down the slope onto the lower terrace where it was covered by a layer of charcoal and silt, perhaps derived from burning the unusable timbers from Structure 2. In many cases it appeared that the post sockets had been deliberately filled with sand and small stones after the posts had been removed.

There was some evidence for structural alterations during the life of the building. When the wall between Rooms 1 and 2, T37, was demolished, the post pipes were filled or covered by stone and tile. In one case a square tile was laid flat covering an otherwise void post pipe. A demolition deposit, (421), lay over the slot and brought the surface level with those adjoining to the east. No new slot was associated with the demolition and levelling: this may indicate that the wall was demolished and Rooms 1 and 2 merged into one.

Structure 5 This timber building lay in GFC 81 Trench I and was also traced in GFC 81 Trench II (Ill 2.5). It lay about sixteen metres north of Structure 2 and on the same alignment. There was only very scanty evidence of any activity predating this structure. This consisted of patches of charcoal and trample deposits in various locations, (199), (201), (204), (229), (238), (244), and a clay-filled pit, P10, beneath Room 4.

In the southern part of Room 3 there was a further timber impression, T26, lying at right-angles to the joist impressions. It was of a similar depth to the joist impressions but as wide as the slots. It appeared to terminate about 2.6 m from the western wall, T24, but could have continued after a short break as this area was disturbed by later 17

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Ill 2.5 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Phase I Structure 5 plan (internal features not shown). (Scale 1/125)

18

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations The remains of Structure 5 were somewhat sparse and their investigation was constrained by later intrusions and the limitations of time. However, enough was recovered in the area of the excavation to enable the plan to be reconstructed. This consisted of a range of rooms (numbered 1 to 5) about five metres wide and running diagonally across the trench. South of them, and revealed in the eastern part of the trench, there was possibly a veranda. To the north, and revealed in the north-west corner of the trench, there was a further range of rooms. In this area the natural ground surface sloped down quite sharply northwards into the small valley rather than westwards to the Dee, giving a drop of c 1.3 m over the width of the building.

clay. Besides, it would have been a very rash procedure to build a fire against a timber wall in a timber building. It is possible, however, to interpret these features differently. The fire could have been contained in a brazier or similar container, which would explain the lack of heavy burning on the clay deposit and the floor beneath. The clay would originally have been packed vertically against wall T6 to protect it from scorching and would only have fallen to the position in which it was discovered at the demolition of the building. The ash from the fire was perhaps collected in a container of some sort, of which post hole T16 may be a remnant. The spread of the charcoal deposit to the south perhaps indicates the way it was raked out.

Room 1 was the largest of those exposed, being at least four metres wide and floored with clay, (236). Two small post holes in the south of the room, together with a post hole in the southern wall slot, T11, formed an alignment running at right-angles to that wall. It may have formed a light partition, although no change could be seen on the surface between the posts. In the northern part of the room were two post holes which had no obvious relationship with any of the adjacent walls, and since the floor surface was absent in their immediate vicinity, the possibility remains open that they could predate the building.

The heating of Roman timber buildings in general must have presented some problems and is a subject on which there is little evidence. They do not seem to have adopted the medieval practice of placing hearths in the centre of the floor, away from the vulnerable walls. To the south of this room lay what is best interpreted as a veranda 1.8 m wide with its southern edge delimited by a slot, T8. This slot was the least regular of those excavated and terminated in the short section exposed. This arrangement would have been adequate if posts alone, without an intervening wall, were intended to be placed in it. As there appeared to be a further range of rooms north of Rooms 1– 5 the only way these latter rooms could have received light was from the south, which more or less obliges this southern strip of the building to be veranda. The clay surface of the putative veranda, (183), (219), was covered with a substantial trample or occupation layer, (178), (181), which in one place was sealed by a further clay surface (177).

Only a small section was excavated across Room 2 and its north–south wall slots T14 and T15. In this section there were no floor surfaces or occupation accumulation. Room 2 was only 1.7 m wide and so presumably formed a corridor. Room 3 was again floored with clay, (189) and (242). Its level was somewhat lower than the adjacent surfaces to the south, beyond slot T9, and across the room itself fell 0.5 m from south to north. Against the southern wall slot, T9, the clay flooring material was banked up to the level of the surface to the south, presumably to provide some structural stability, and thus formed a ‘bench’ c 0.65 m wide against the southern wall.

Evidence for the range of rooms north of Rooms 1–5 was found in the north-western corner of GFC 81 Trench I and in the section of the machine-dug GFC 81 Trench II. Owing to the slope of the ground the slot on the northern side of Room 1, T13, was c 0.35 m deep measured from the floor surface of that room but only c 0.04 m measured from the ground surface to the north. Two shallow slots were traced running north from T13. In Trench II, on the same line as T13 there lay, instead of a slot, two steps in the natural, T17, the northern one corresponding to the north edge of T13. The ground surfaces north and south of T17 corresponded in level to those north and south of T13. This step could be interpreted in three ways. It could have provided the seating for a beam into which uprights for the wall were jointed. There seems to be no reason, however, why this method should have been adopted here. Furthermore, the best line for such a beam would have been against the southern, upper step, which lay south of the projected line of T13. Alternatively, it is possible that by coincidence the section at this point passed through a doorway with steps down from the higher southern half of the building to the lower, northern one. Finally, it is possible that a slot did in fact exist here in the anticipated place but was backfilled with natural clay and so could not be distinguished in the section.

The floor of Room 4 was higher and more level than its neighbours. The natural sand which here masked the clay survived to a greater height for no obvious reason. The floor survived as patches of brown or grey clay, (205). Only a small part of Room 5 was excavated but this contained the remains of what was probably a hearth, F17, built against the western wall, T6 (not shown on plan). The floor of the room was again brown clay, (180), (197). On this lay a deposit of dark silt and charcoal, (179), (184), which in the southern part of the room spread right across the excavated area but further north was restricted to a band c 0.6 m wide against the wall slot T6. The eastern limit of this material was marked by an isolated post hole, T16. Over this northern area of silt and charcoal lay a deposit of clay, lightly scorched and with a quantity of small stones, (174). The interpretation of this feature presents some difficulties. The clay would seem insufficiently burnt to have been a hearth. In addition, although there was an associated charcoal deposit, this lay beneath it rather than over the 19

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements About three metres north of T17 the section cut a very substantial slot, T12, which was 0.6 m deep and 0.8 m wide. As only the southern half of the feature reached the full depth, this half only may represent the actual slot. The ground surface was level for c 0.25 m north of this slot, at which point there was a step down, and beyond this the natural sloped down sharply. This step may have functioned as one half of an eavesdrip gully, the other half being rendered superfluous by the slope of the hillside.

Generally there was little demolition material from this structure ((174) (186) (225)). The tops of the slots contained mixed clay and sand that must have accumulated after the timberwork had been removed. The rooms were generally sealed by the soil accumulation that followed this building. As noted as above in Room 1 there was some fallen wall plaster. This lack of demolition material perhaps reflects the largely timber construction of the building. Many of the post pipes appeared as voids in the material above, which suggests that the stumps were sawn off and allowed to rot in situ, unlike in Structure 2 where it was clear that the posts were withdrawn and the post pipes carefully filled in.

Some of the constructional details of this building are interesting. The plan, consisting of a long building divided longitudinally into two ranges of rooms and fronted by a veranda, is a fairly standard Roman arrangement. The slope of the hill would have caused some problems for the occupants. Even after compensating for it where possible, they must have accepted that some rooms had floors sloping by as much as 0.5 m. The two short lengths of slot discovered north of T13 may indicate that the northern range of the building had raised floors after the style of Roman timber granaries. They cannot have taken horizontal beams or joists that were removed at demolition because their fill was continuous with that of T13 and the post sockets in T13 were undisturbed. They may, therefore, have been for posts supporting floor joists above the ground. These posts presumably would have become longer to the north to keep the floor level. No trace of such posts was found in the short lengths of slot excavated.

Interpretation These three buildings clearly lie well within the Roman building tradition. Their peculiarities, especially those of Structure 5, can be accounted for as adaptations to the local topography. The details of the construction methods are fortunate survivals on a site where organic material generally did not survive. The buildings were built to a common alignment that corresponds to the Roman river front, as marked by the so-called quay wall (Lawson 1928, 186). The stone building, Structure 1, was parallel to it while the two timber ones, Structures 2 and 5, lay at rightangles to it (Ill 2.6). Structure 5 was c 10.4 m wide over the putative veranda and had a length as excavated of 17 m. However, Room 1 probably ended between Trenches I and II, giving it an east–west dimension of c 4.5 m. To this must be added a reasonable width for the room west of Room 1 (ie, that identified in Trench II), and also for Room 5 at the eastern end. This gives a minimum length for the building of c 20 m, although it could have been considerably longer. The lie of the land and the proximity of the valley to the north would have prevented it extending significantly further west than this. Natural features would not have set an eastern limit. The access to this building was clearly from the south because of the presence of the valley to the north. The corridor, Room 2, would have provided access from the front through to the rear.

The alignment of some of the slots was slightly irregular. Slot T7, between Rooms 3 and 4, lay at a distinct angle to the true alignment while slot T6 had an S-shaped plan. The posts in it, however, lay in a true line. As a result, the southern posts were jammed against the eastern side of the slot, while the northern one had been cut to lie half out of the western side of the slot. Obviously this poor layingout of slots was corrected during the erection of the timbers. Generally, where the evidence could be expected to survive, there were traces of a beam running directly from post to post (not to one side of them) at ground level. This had presumably been removed at demolition and the resulting depression filled with mixed material. Additionally, for slots T6, T7 and T9, there was a narrow strip of soft sand lying against the posts that perhaps represents timber cladding on the walls. Such cladding would have hidden the posts in Rooms 3 and 5. Similar cladding may have been provided to conceal the posts on the other sides of T6 and T7 in Room 4. If so, the evidence did not survive, possibly because the floor was higher. Evidence for timber cladding was not found in slot T11 where it might have been expected to survive, although the ground beam was present. However Room 1 produced a quantity of painted plaster in its demolition contexts and since it may not have been practical to plaster a timber-clad wall, at this end a clay infill may have been used in the walls.

Less of the plan of Structure 2 can be reconstructed. Its eastward extent is again unknown, as excavation could not be carried sufficiently deep in GFC 76–8 Trench II to enable the building to be traced there. However, it had a minimum length of c 17 m, allowing a reasonable width for Room 5. This building may have had a similar plan to Structure 5 although with the veranda to the north. The excavated remains would represent the principal range of rooms, with a narrower range to the south. There is slight supporting evidence for such a plan in the position of the light secondary wall, T26. It should be stressed, however, that this plan for the building remains hypothetical. On this plan there would have been a gap of c 12.5 m between Structures 2 and 5, ample for an east–west access road.

Slight traces of this timber cladding, but not the ground beam, were found east of the post slot of the veranda, T8, but not west of it. This may indicate that the veranda was partially enclosed to provide some shelter. 20

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Ill 2.6 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: Phase I general arrangement plan. (Scale 1/500)

Even less of the plan of Structure 1 was recovered. It was obviously a completely different type of building from the other two and probably lay at right-angles to them with its long axis parallel to the river. The one excavated wall of this building lay c 18.5 m east of the estimated line of the Roman river bank. This would have allowed plenty of space for a building, say 9 m wide, with a similar space between it and the river. The building could not have extended further than about 12 m northwards, where it would have reached the mouth of the valley, and if it did extend that far it would have blocked the end of the access street between Structures 2 and 5, preventing direct access to the river bank. There is no evidence for its extent southwards nor for any internal partitions. The mortar-lined pit, constructed as part of the floor of the building, is a curious feature. Its fill was not distinguishable from the general demolition material over the building, indicating that it remained open during the life of the building. It was perhaps used as the setting for an internal fitting of some kind, related to the use of the building. The open area east of the building possibly formed a small lane running alongside it.

clean condition of the site when the building was erected and the condition in which it was kept. Immediately outside the building to the east, however, rubbish was allowed to accumulate. The clean state of Structure 1 contrasts with the relatively large number of finds found in the buried soil and trample deposits beneath Structure 2. These contained a high proportion of Holt wares, suggesting that Structure 2 was not erected until the decade c 90–100. The absence of any clearly first-century contexts on the site also makes it likely that Structure 1 was built about the same time. Structure 5 was probably contemporary with Structure 2, since Holt wares were found both beneath the building and in its construction contexts, and the similarities in planning and construction technique clearly associate the two buildings. The date of the material in the demolition deposits is not significantly different from the rest of the material from Phase I, indicating that the phase was of short duration and had terminated by c 120. Two sherds of black-burnished ware in the demolition material from Structure 2 that was tipped down the terrace perhaps indicate a date soon after 120. An accumulation of soil and rubbish over Structures 2 and 5 indicates a period of disuse before the next phase of buildings were erected. This soil was absent from Structure 1, which perhaps suggests that it survived this period of disuse and was demolished immediately before the new phase started.

Dating The structures of this phase fall roughly within the first two decades of the second century, as evidenced by the occurrence of grey and Holt orange wares in them and the absence of black-burnished ware. However the quantity of datable material recovered was small. None of the contexts within Structure 1 produced any finds. This may simply be a reflection of the very small area of the building excavated, but it is probably also partly due to the

To summarise, Structure 1, the stone building, was built towards c 100, to be followed perhaps only two or three years later by the two timber ones, Structures 2 and 5. At some point during its life internal alterations were carried 21

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Ill 2.7 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase II Structures 3 and 4 (a) plan. (Scale 1/125)

22

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Phase II

out in Structure 2. Soon after 120 the buildings were demolished, the timber ones a short time before the stone one. Structure 1 therefore had a life of up to twenty-five years and Structures 2 and 5 about twenty years.

Introduction When the structures of Phase I were demolished they were replaced by two buildings, Structures 3 and 4, located in the area of GFC 76–8 Trench I (Ill 2.7). On the pre-existing upper terrace, a series of deposits accumulated representing a period of disuse after the demolition of Structure 2. The deposits consisted generally of a grey silty clay with, in places, a considerable admixture of demolition material from the timber structure below. Some of these deposits could also be due to trample when the new stone building was being erected, (351), (358), (359), (363). To the north, over the site of Structure 5 in GFC 81 Trench I, an extensive grey sandy soil was found, (166), (169), (167), (165), (234). This probably represents a soil layer developing on the side of the valley because this area was not developed during this phase.

Discussion The two timber buildings, Structures 2 and 5, were probably residential. The plan of two ranges of rooms, possibly with a veranda, would have provided such accommodation on a fairly ample scale and was a step up from the simplest Roman plan of a single range fronted by a corridor or veranda. The evidence for painted plaster on the walls and raised timber floors also indicates a fairly high standard of accommodation. It is also possible, however, to trace the hand of the military in these buildings. It is only to be expected that the restricted area between the fortress wall and the riverside would have remained under the supervision of the army. The alignment and siting of the buildings is suggestive of an overall authority, responsible perhaps for laying out a street grid and defining building plots, in the case of Structure 5 almost disregarding the natural topography of the area. The general plans and dimensions of the buildings, as far as can be judged, are reminiscent of barrack blocks, although the internal arrangements are more irregular. Furthermore, the construction techniques are similar to those found in the timber buildings in the fortress, although such techniques, of course, were not the monopoly of the army. It is possible, therefore, to see an overall official or military interest in the organisation of this development, although it is much more uncertain whether there was any direct military involvement in the construction. The situation may be similar to the early colonia buildings at Gloucester. If this development was undertaken by the army it must remain a matter of speculation for whom the accommodation was provided.

Similar deposits were absent from the lower terrace. Here, a large dump of clay, (424), was put down in the area of open land beside Structure 1 before the new buildings were erected. This dump tailed off across the site of the earlier stone building, (331), (545), (368). By this time all trace of the walling of Structure 1 had been removed down to foundation level and the mortar floor in it had been reduced to the condition in which it was found during excavation. The main purpose of the clay dumping appears to have been to extend the level of the upper terrace westwards to increase the area available for building. The stone buildings that were erected at this time suffered greatly from later activity. The medieval friary foundations and graves caused considerable damage to the floorand occupation deposits, destroying at least fifty percent of them. Similarly, robbing had removed all the walls at least down to the tops of the foundations and possibly some way into them. In consequence it is doubtful whether a complete sequence of the deposits survived anywhere, and in many cases the relationship between floors and walls had been destroyed. The quantity of datable material recovered from these contexts was very small so dating these developments is not easy.

It is possible to draw firmer conclusions for Structure 1. It is unlikely that anyone other than the army would have erected stone and mortar buildings in Chester around 100. The provision of a mortar floor with a skirting is also a feature also known from buildings within the fortress. However, at this period many of the fortress buildings were still timber, especially the barracks, which appear in some cases to have continued in timber well into the second century (eg Ward & Strickland 1978, 27). The few stone buildings of this period are associated with special functions. In this location, directly adjacent to the river front and apparently built parallel to it, the most obvious function for such a building is a warehouse for goods unloaded off ships. A stone building would have had the advantages of security and protection from fire as well as a greater life expectancy. The building lacks the distinctive architecture associated with Roman granaries but there were, no doubt, many other classes of goods that were required by the garrison and extramural settlement. There is, for example, evidence at Chester for amphorae and pottery from south-western Europe and building materials from north Wales, all of which probably came by sea.

Structure 3 This building, erected on the site of Structure 1, was, within the limits of the excavation, basically similar to the earlier building. Only the eastern wall, W12, was located, and of this only the foundations survived (Ill 2.8). The wall lay approximately 0.9 m east of the earlier wall W13 and parallel to it. The new foundation was built on a massive scale, being about 1.1 m wide and 1.5 m deep and was constructed of four courses of rough lumps of sandstone separated by substantial bonding layers of clay. The lowest level of stones consisted of rough, wedge-shaped pieces rammed narrow end down into the natural clay. These proved very difficult to excavate. Such preparations suggest that the foundations were designed to carry a 23

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements considerable superstructure. Internally, the deposits survived in a somewhat disturbed condition. The intended final surface was probably one of pink mortar set on broken sandstone and brash, (327), (552). The mortar did not form a definite layer on top of the brash but was intended to be mixed up with it, perhaps to help solidify and stabilise it. Such a surface would no doubt have been exceedingly hard wearing. On the eastern side of the building, adjacent to the wall, there was a further deposit below this, consisting of brash with dirty silt and charcoal, (328), (330). It was not clear if this formed an earlier surface or was a foundation material for the higher one. If the latter, it may have been restricted to the 2 m adjacent to the wall, thus raising the floor level above the general level in the west. Unfortunately, the surfaces again seem to have been much disturbed on demolition and were cut through to rob out the earlier wall foundation, W13.

Ill 2.8 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase II Structure 3 wall W12 (left) and Structure 4 (a) walls W 14 and 15 (right), looking N.

Structure 4 (a) This building lay over the western part of the timber Structure 2. It was aligned north–south rather than east–west, so the excavation revealed a transverse rather than a longitudinal section of it. It also encroached on part of the lower terrace, hence the clay dump. The building underwent a series of alterations and three phases have been distinguished: these are identified by the letters (a), (b) and (c). The building was c 11.8 m wide overall, divided by a central wall W11 into a wide west range, c 6.4 m internally, and a narrow east one, 2.8 m internally. In the area excavated the west range was further subdivided by a transverse wall, W15 (Ill 2.8). Parts of three rooms were therefore represented. The foundations were of much slighter build than those of Structure 3, being generally 0.8 m wide, 0.6 m deep and consisting of rubble piled into a trench, possibly topped by mortar which only survived in a few patches. The western wall, W14, was somewhat deeper, no doubt because it was cut through the newly laid dump of clay. The layout of this building was not quite regular. It is assumed that the correct alignment should have been parallel to the wall of Structure 3, W12, as this was the alignment followed in the preceding phase. The eastern wall, W10, and the transverse wall, W15, lay on this alignment. The central wall, W11, and the western wall, W14, however, were at a noticeable north-west to south-east angle to this line, so that thirteen metres north of the excavation the projected lines of walls W12 and W14 would have intersected. Thus either one or both of the Structures 3 and 4 must have terminated before that point.

Ill 2.9 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase II Structure 4 (a) hypocaust with wall W15 in foreground, looking N.

as it would have given a floor level fairly close to that of Room 2 immediately to the south. Only the lowest tile of the second pila survived. This lay 0.4 m from wall W15 rather than immediately adjacent to it. A second large square tile that lay in the gap so created may originally have been part of this pila. The displacement of the pila was possibly due to the uneven floor of the basement, which here sloped up sharply close to the wall. The rest of the hypocaust, towards the centre of the room, had been robbed out and the resulting cavity filled with demolition rubble, including fragments of mortar that had probably formed the upper floor of the hypocaust. It is not clear whether this demolition and robbing occurred at the end of the Roman period or later, some time before the construction of the friary. Beneath the concrete base of the hypocaust there was a broken sandstone foundation layer, (423), and then a brown clay and brash deposit, (424), part of the clay dump on the former lower terrace. It is possible that the hypocaust was a later insertion into the room but this cannot be proved on the evidence recovered. However, it makes sense as part of the original plan as it was built in that part of the structure that projected over the lower terrace, which would have facilitated the construction of the parts under the floor.

Only a small portion of the interior of Room 1 was excavated, situated to the north of W15, and this was only achieved by making a small extension to the trench. In this room there were the remains of a hypocaust system. This consisted of a white mortar basement floor, (F47, (417)), and the remains of two pilae (Ill 2.9). The better preserved of these was situated against wall W15 and consisted of two large and four small square tiles with a total height of 0.47 m. This was probably the full original height,

In Room 2 the only deposits that might have formed a surface lay on the eastern side, adjacent to wall W11. On the western side, which projected over the former terrace, there was only a series of clay dumps, the latest dating 24

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations from the medieval period. It is possible that the timber demolition deposits beneath, which here contained a large quantity of charcoal, and the early clay dumps were compressed through time and needed periodic additions. On this basis, only the lowest clay deposit, (361), has been assigned to this phase. Also, it is the only deposit that does not appear to have sealed or cut the surface in the eastern part of the room. This surface was a soft, brown, sandy brash layer, (345), which, in the one small area where the evidence had survived the stone robbing, sealed the footings of wall W11. If this deposit once formed a floor across the whole room it must have been destroyed during the insertion of subsequent clay deposits.

The gap between Structures 3 and 4 in the western part of GFC 76–8 Trench I had been much reduced from the lane or yard which existed here in Phase I. It was now no more than a very narrow alley between the two buildings. It was surfaced by the clay dump (here (368)), which was so laid as to form a wide, round-bottomed gully between the two buildings. This no doubt served to carry the run-off. Against wall W14 of Structure 4 there was a deposit of mortar, (365), forming a triangular fillet. This may have been a deliberate feature designed to form both the east side of the gully and to help waterproof the wall. Alternatively it may simply have accumulated from mortar droppings during building or repointing.

In the eastern room, Room 3, an area of a gritty brash, (349), was the lowest possible surface associated with this phase although it did not survive adjacent to either of the walls. It was similar to surface (345) in Room 2. A patch of dirty mixed clays, (347), on top of this surface may represent the occupation or demolition of this phase.

Rubbish-dumping To the north, in GFC 81 Trenches I and II, no buildings contemporary with this phase were noted. Instead there was a fairly complex series of rubbish deposits perhaps associated with the infilling of the valley to the north. Over the site of the demolished timber building, Structure 5, a clayey soil had developed, (164), (165), (166), (167), (169), (234), (235). This followed the general configuration of the earlier landscape. It sloped down from south to north by c 0.45 m over the former south range within the north-west corner of Trench I, with a marked break of slope on the line of the spine wall of the building. On this soil a very dark organic deposit accumulated which was particularly rich in finds. At the western end of the trench, (216), (232), (233), it was thinner and less productive of finds than at the eastern end, (114), (138), (145), (175). This was presumably a rubbish dump. At the end of this period of rubbish-dumping the layer was partly sealed by a further deposit which was not, however, uniformly present across the area. In the east and north this deposit was clay, (120) and (137), with patches of brash. In the north-western corner the deposits were more complex. First there was a greyish, hard clayey sand, (228), on which lay a brown silty clay, (227). These only occurred on the relatively level area south of the break of slope. Finally there was a dark brown silt layer, (224), which spread down the slope right to the north baulk.

The area to the east of this building, in the eastern part of GFC 76–8 Trench I, seems at this time to have been basically an open space. There was, however, a distinction in the deposits laid down here. In the western two metres or so, adjacent to the building, were the remains of a surface of grit and sandstone with clay and brash, (360), which had become quite dark with silt and charcoal; in fact it probably corresponded to the deposits inside Structure 4. East of this there was a clay deposit, (366), (461), which sealed the timber demolition and disuse layers beneath. The boundary between these deposits was marked by stones that had probably formed a kerb, although only two remained set vertically: the others, where they survived, had been knocked out of position. In the southern half of the trench these deposits had been swept away during later alterations to Structure 4. It is possible that surface (360) and the kerb were part of a veranda built on the eastern side of the structure, but if so, no posts or bases to support the roof were identified in the short stretch exposed. Alternatively it may just have been a well laid access route to the building. About 1.5 m east of the kerb, possibly set in a shallow pit in the clay deposit, was a jumbled heap of stones. They formed no discernible pattern but could have once have been part of a structure. They were also sealed by the alterations and extensions to Structure 4 and so might have been derived from a veranda if one ever existed. Finally, at the far eastern end of the trench, the western edge of a fairly wide but shallow gully, F92, was located. The gully was at least 1.3 m wide x 0.2 m deep and was orientated on the Roman alignment. By the end of this phase it had become filled with a deposit containing much demolition material, (378), including painted wall plaster. As this gully lay about seven metres east of Structure 4 and painted wall plaster was absent from the intervening deposits this material may have come from a building just to the east, forming an earlier phase of Structure 7 which subsequently occupied this site.

These deposits may indicate that rubbish-dumping ceased at the western end of the trench at an earlier date than at the eastern end, hence the thinner rubbish layers, and sand and clay layers were put down over them. The silt layer (224) over the western deposits is possibly another soil accumulation. At the eastern end the rubbish layer remained open and perhaps was added to throughout this period until it was sealed by clay. These clay deposits over both east and west sides were probably laid as levelling deposits as much as sealing ones, since they were thicker to the north and in some places absent from the south side of the trench. They could perhaps have been laid to provide access across this area if deposits were being dumped into the deep part of the valley further to the north.

25

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Interpretation

of a courtyard. If so, it is unlikely that such an additional range lay to the north because it would probably have been discovered either in the GFC 81 Trench I or during observation of building work. Furthermore, it would have lain across the front of Structure 6 in GFC 81 Trench I, which was built in the next phase. As noted above, the presence of painted wall plaster in gully F92 at the eastern end of GFC 76–8 Trench I suggests that there may have been a well appointed building to the east.

There are elements of both continuity and radical change between the buildings of this phase and the earlier one. The evidence indicates that the demolition of Structure 1, the extension of the terrace by clay dumps and the erection of Structures 3 and 4 were all part of one project. This is further evidence for supposing that a central authority, presumably the military, maintained control over this area. Structure 3 appears to have been more or less a rebuild of Structure 1, although apparently on a larger, more substantial scale, and much the same conclusions can be drawn about its plan and function. However, the presence of painted wall plaster in its robbing might suggest a residential function, at least in part. The building would appear to have been aligned north–south, parallel to the river front. The proximity of the valley and the converging line of Structure 4 mean that it is unlikely to have extended more than about twelve metres northwards. Its southern extent is unknown. Again a reasonable interpretation of the building is a warehouse, the substantial construction of the foundations and surface being well suited to such a function. The rougher foundations in comparison with those of the earlier building need not necessarily have been reflected in the stonework above ground. The possibility of a wide platform raised above the general floor level against the east wall was noted above. Such a platform could have been used to stack goods easily and conveniently. The massive size of the foundations suggests that the building may have had an upper floor, especially since the nature of the subsoil would not otherwise seem to have required such a major effort. Given that the ground slopes down westwards it would have been the western wall, not the eastern one, which would have needed extra precautions against subsidence. This rebuild therefore implies an expansion of the dockside facilities provided here.

Presumably the northern part of the site was not built upon during this period because the valley was being infilled. The organic nature of much of the fill would no doubt have made the outlook across it somewhat unpleasant.

Dating Little useful dating material was found in the contexts associated with this phase. The bulk of material belongs to the first two decades of the second century and, as has already been established, the phase did not begin until the end of that period. The duration of the phase is therefore difficult to judge and it did not cease simultaneously in all parts of the site. While Structure 4 continued in use throughout the next phase, Structure 3 to the west may not have survived much beyond the middle of the second century. In GFC 81 Trench I, the rubbish is again largely pre-120 but two sherds cannot be earlier than c 180, indicating that this southern flank of the valley remained undeveloped for at least sixty years.

Phase III This phase represents a number of later developments on site. It is not a clear-cut chronological horizon as the previous phases were: the changes and additions to the structures probably occurred over a long period and were not necessarily connected with each other. The evidence is very piecemeal because considerable damage was done to the relevant contexts by medieval robbing and site clearance, followed by the insertion of foundations and burials. Thus many important associations had been destroyed and probably much important dating evidence removed. Generally there are few finds dating to this later period, and this cannot be completely explained by later removal: it must also indicate that very little rubbish was disposed of on the site during this period of intense occupation, suggesting that efforts were made to keep the site clean.

The area to the east shows a complete change in layout, although perhaps not in function. Structure 4 was aligned parallel to the river front rather than at right-angles to it. The valley to the north again restricted the possible northward extent of the building to about twelve metres. The hint of a veranda and the proximity of Structure 3 on the western side indicate that the building faced east. However, as the clay deposit east of the building was not suitable for use as a road surface, it must be assumed that the main access must have lain north or south of the excavation. The internal division of the building was fairly standard, although the eastern range was rather narrow when compared with the western. There was little evidence as to the function of the building, but it may be supposed that it was residential. The provision of a hypocaust is evidence for a high standard of living. At this early date, assuming that the hypocaust was part of the original design, it is most probable that it was part of a bath suite rather than just room heating. It is therefore likely that further heated rooms lay to the north. The most convenient position for the furnace would have been on the lower terrace. It is possible that this structure was just one wing of a much larger establishment, perhaps set around two or more sides

Clay bank At the western end of GFC 76–8 Trench I Structure 3 was demolished, probably to slightly below ground level. As with the preceding structure on this site there was an absence of demolition material, presumably indicating that the building materials were removed for reuse or dumping elsewhere. Only in the trench above wall W12 was there a small deposit of soil and mortar (305). Further west, the earlier wall, W13, was also partially robbed, even though this entailed digging through the floor of Structure 3. 26

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations A large quantity of clay and turf, (311), (546), was then dumped over the site of this building forming a bank, F41, running north–south (Ill 2.10). It was c 3.5 m wide and its maximum surviving height was c 1 m. The eastern face stood at a near vertical angle and just sealed the robbing of wall W12. The western half of the bank was badly disturbed and cut by medieval features, principally the friary drain, but a small portion of what was probably the western face survived in the extreme north-western corner of the excavation. This suggested that it had much the same form as the eastern face. The line of the western face continued down below the clay dump into the deposits associated with the structures beneath (ie Structures 1 and 3). It was not possible to determine whether this was done deliberately to increase the effective height of this face or if it was simply a product of erosion. The original ground surface to the west of the bank and excavation probably fell away to the river. The reduced state of the western face of the bank, especially the northern part excavated, is also perhaps partly explicable as the result of erosion and was not due solely to later destruction. The east face was preserved because it was buried after only a short period.

phase. These were the only Roman walls to survive above foundation level and consisted of up to four courses of fairly neatly constructed masonry, bonded with clay and set on very slight footings. It is likely that these walls were just footings for a timber-framed superstructure. On demolition these footings would have been quickly lost in soil accumulations and perhaps it was for this reason that they escaped being robbed. Within the extension the primary floor was made of broken sandstone, (324), laid on a base of grey-green clay, (325). A rough secondary surface of crushed sandstone, (309), lay on a considerable build-up of mixed brown, yellow and grey clays which were excavated as three contexts, (315), (319), (321)), but were probably all deposited in one process. This raised the floor level in the extension by c 0.5 m. It may have been associated with a general rise in the external surfaces and the erection of Structure 7 to the east. It is possible that the extension was rebuilt at the time that the new surface was laid and that some of the clay deposit beneath was derived from the infill of the timber superstructure. The robbing of the rest of the building to the west makes it impossible to say whether that was also rebuilt, either when the extension was first constructed or when it was possibly rebuilt. In the external area north and east of the extension a clay deposit was laid down, (312), (329), (454), sealing the wall’s footings and the previous deposits in this area.

There was no discernible internal structure to the bank; it was apparently just a dump. The grey clay of which it was largely composed is usually considered in Chester to be buried turf. No turf lines were recorded however, apart from tip lines dipping into the robber trench of Wall 13, which lay beneath the middle of the bank.

There is no useful dating evidence for these alterations to Structure 4. They presumably occurred after the mid- to late second century. The modifications do not add any useful information about the function of the structure, although if the extension ran the whole length of the building southwards it would have significantly increased the accommodation it provided.

Several post holes were found cut in the top of the bank but, as the majority were clearly medieval, in the absence of firm evidence to the contrary it has been assumed that all were. There was very little material either beneath or within the bank to date it. The preceding building, Structure 3, was erected about 120, so allowing a reasonable period of use, it could have been demolished and replaced by the bank at any time from the mid-second century onwards. In the deposits immediately above the bank and in the depression between it and Structure 4 were two fourthcentury coins, indicating that it was still a feature of the landscape at that period.

Structure 7 As noted in the previous phase, there was some slight evidence for a building lying to the east of GFC 76–8 Trench I. Such a building clearly existed in this phase as its western wall just intruded into the excavation (Ill 2.10). This wall was much robbed and cut by burials and was designated F40 when it was first located because its significance was not immediately clear. Further fragmentary remains of what were probably parts of it were found during both construction work and excavation. Another wall, W29, was located in a builder’s trench 4.2 m east of F40. It could be distinguished from the medieval walls in the same trench by its alignment and greater depth. Further east, in GFC 76–8 Trench II, fragments of a further wall, W35, were located in the cuts for the medieval friary foundations and burials and also in nineteenth-century sewer trenches (Ill 2.11). This wall was traced for c 10.5 m north– south. The southern part of it had been largely robbed out. In the southern part of GFC 76–8 Trench II there were some indications of an internal wall running westwards from W35 but excavations were not carried deep enough to locate it satisfactorily, nor were any of the internal

Structure 4 (b) The main elements of this structure remained much as in the previous phase, although there was some evidence for resurfacing (Ill 2.10). The hypocaust in Room 1 presumably continued in use, although it had been so effectively demolished that no traces of alterations would have survived. A secondary deposit of clay over the former terrace edge in Room 2, (348), was possibly necessary to compensate for settling and compaction of the earlier deposits. However, no floor deposit survived on top of this. In Room 3 there was a new floor represented by the very fragmentary remains of a mortar and brash surface, (340), lying on a base of brown clay, (341). An extension of 4 m, Room 4, was erected on the eastern side of this building. Bounded by walls W8 and W9 on its eastern and northern sides, this would have replaced the putative veranda of the previous 27

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Ill 2.10 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase III Clay bank F41 and Structure 4 (b) plan. (Scale 1/125)

28

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Ill 2.11 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Phase III Structure 7 plan. (Scale 1/125)

29

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements deposits in this building excavated. It is unlikely that much survived below the destruction caused by medieval levelling and burials. If F40 and W35 represent the western and eastern walls respectively of this structure, its overall width would have been about 15 m.

ly on the Roman building alignment, the deposit tailed off. This ‘tail off’ was fairly sharp and narrow at the western end of the trench but became wider and less precisely defined to the east. Perhaps the clay dump was pushed further north across the eastern, upper end of the small valley. A small gully, F8, round-bottomed and about 0.8 m wide and 0.35 m deep, cut the clay just north of the break of slope. It ran along the Roman alignment, falling from east to west. It was presumably a drainage feature but may also have defined a property boundary. It is perhaps not surprising that the clay dumping contained only residual material. The evidence of finds from the previous phase shows, however, that it cannot have been laid down before the late second to early third century. One particularly interesting find in the clay was a republican Roman coin of 61 BC, which was therefore at least two hundred and fifty years old when it was deposited there.

On the western side of this building several associated deposits were found in the open area between it and Structure 4. A small strip survived in the north-eastern corner of GFC 76–8 Trench I between medieval grave cuts. A few fragments of mortar surface, (288), lay on a substantial layer of hard sand (287). This lay on the general clay deposit (312) in this area. The footings, F40, were clearly sealed by the upper two deposits but were cut into the clay. A different deposit lay in the south-eastern corner of GFC 76–8 Trench I. Here there was a broken sandstone and brash surface, F50, (448), similar to the later surface in Room 4 of Structure 4, which perhaps supports the contemporaneity of these deposits. The deposits on the western side of Structure 7 did not occur more than 1.6 m west of it. This may simply reflect survival but it is possible the deposits were laid over the clay in order to provide an access route up the side of the building. Alternatively, the area may have been a veranda since the mortar surface would have survived better under cover, but if this was the case no other structural evidence survived.

Structure 6 Structure 6 was largely situated to the north of this clay deposit but cutting its ‘tail’ northward after the eastern two-thirds of the gully F8 had been filled. Only part of the southern wall was located in the excavation but indications of the extent of the building were found in machine-dug trenches to the north. Like most of the other Roman stone walls on the site, those of this structure had been heavily robbed in the medieval period right down into the foundations. The south wall of this building consisted of two sections, W6 and W10, separated by a gap of c 4.2 m, which formed the buttressed entrance to an alcove 2.4 m deep, formed by walls W8, W9 and W 12 (Ill 2.12). The alcove probably lay between two equally sized wings of the building. Contemporary internal deposits survived only in the wings, although some external deposits were found in the alcove. The west wing contained the most complex sequence of deposits, which had probably survived here because of the protection afforded by the adjacent walls; they were not found to the north of the back of the alcove – a line approximating to the earlier break-in-slope – presumably having eroded down into the valley. The deposits in this wing had, nevertheless, been partly destroyed by a nineteenth-century sewer pipe that ran diagonally across it. The earlier deposits therefore survived better and more extensively than the later ones.

The overall width of about 15 m east to west for this building was very similar to that of Structure 4 after that building had been extended. Furthermore, the western section of Structure 7, between W29 and F40, at 3.4 m had a similar width to Structure 4’s extension, Room 4. It is possible therefore that Structures 4 and 7 were similar-sized buildings, erected to approximately the same, but reversed, plans. About two metres north of the GFC 76–8 Trench II excavation a further builder’s foundation trench was dug, similar to that which revealed W29. In this northern one, however, which cut well into the natural, no possible Roman walls were revealed. Consequently it is possible that the northern limit of Structure 7 lay in the intervening, unexcavated area. It should be noted, however, that Structure 4 must have continued north of this line to give Room 1, with its hypocaust, a reasonable north–south dimension. The limited nature of the excavation failed to produce any dating evidence for Structure 7 but the similarity in flooring materials suggests that it was built after the extension to Structure 4, or possibly at the same time that the floor in the extension was raised.

The lowest deposit was a mixed sand with many stone and tile fragments, (213) and (217). This probably constituted a build-up and levelling layer for a surface of some kind. Set in this was a large post hole, T10, with a pad stone at its bottom. It was sealed by a further build-up layer of soil and rubble, (212), on which lay the remains of a surface, F19. This consisted of patches of either mortar or hard clay, which perhaps indicates a well worn and repaired surface.

Clay terrace To the north, in the area of the 1981 excavation, a further building was revealed. Before it was erected, however, this area of former rubbish dumping had to be restored. Across the southern half of GFC 81 Trench I a large quantity of clay was deposited in a layer up to 0.6 m thick. It contained some wall plaster, presumably derived from earlier phases of the buildings to the south. The southern half of this deposit as excavated formed a fairly level surface, but beyond a line running diagonally across the trench, rough-

Above lay a further mortar surface, F18, again on a buildup of mixed sandy soil (209). This floor was also in a poor state of repair. Over this lay a soil layer with a large quantity of mortar and plaster fragments, (159), which possibly 30

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Ill 2.12 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Phase III Structure 6 plan. (Scale 1/125)

31

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements represented a partial demolition or collapse. This layer was, however, sealed by a dark, silty, charcoal-rich deposit, (152), which may have been a further occupation layer.

northern machine-dug section of GFC 81 Trench II. This revealed the remains of a clay and sandstone foundation, W15, lying 17 m north of the south wall of the building. No intervening wall was discovered but eight to ten metres north of the south wall there was a very large medieval wall, W11, which may have masked an earlier one. Such an earlier wall would have roughly bisected the structure. Neither the east nor the west walls of Structure 6 were found but if it is assumed that the wings on the south front were symmetrical their position can be estimated. The west wall must have lain west of 1981 Trench II as it clearly did not lie within Trenches I and II and there was not enough room for it to fall between them. This gives a minimum width for the wing of 7.5 m. North-east of GFC 81 Trench I a trial hole dug by the developers revealed clay terrace deposits that can be assumed to have lain outside the building; this would give a maximum length for the east wing of c 10.5 m. Taking a mid-point in this range the total east–west width of this building would have been c 23 m. At this width the line of the west wall would have corresponded with that of Structure 7 (F40) to the south, possibly indicating a regular layout of building plots.

There was therefore evidence in this wing for up to four phases of occupation; those represented by post hole T10 and associated deposits, the two mortar surfaces, F18 and F19, and the final occupation trample. This suggests a long and, to judge from the condition of the surfaces, intensive period of use. The heavy robbing of the walls made it impossible to know if any of the resurfacings represented a rebuilding of the whole structure. In the east wing, this accumulation of occupation layers was absent. The lowest deposit, found only against the wall foundations, was a brown clay, (136), which could be either the clay dumping deposits in situ or the material removed for the insertion of the foundations. This wing was then levelled with mixed sand and rubble, (149), on which a surface of light sand was laid (142). Some occupation debris in the form of charcoal and dark soil, (135), lay on this surface. This phase of occupation equates with the earliest phase in the west wing, build-up layers (149), (213) and (217) being equivalent and similar materials. Above this in the east wing the situation was not so clear. The next layer was a mixed soil with many stones and tile fragments, (119). This may have been the build-up deposit for the next surface or redeposited demolition debris after the intervening layers (assuming they had once existed) had been removed. Subsequent deposits clearly postdated the life of the structure.

There were only slight indications of internal walls. The difference in deposits between the wings and central section suggests there were partitions continuing the lines of W8 and W12 northwards and dividing the southern half of the building into three. These walls may well have been of timber because the deposits in the wings only survived where they were surrounded by stone footings. North of the wings they had been eroded away, which suggests that they lacked the protection afforded by stone walls. Post hole T10, in the earliest phase of the west wing, possibly indicates a partition forming a very narrow room at the front of this wing. Alternatively it was perhaps just a small lobby at an entrance. It was apparently dispensed with later in the life of the building. The use of timber for this feature, for the roof supports in the alcove and possibly for the internal partitions, raises the strong possibility that the building was timber-framed with the main walls on stone footings. The footings were, however, quite substantial enough to bear stone walls. The valley in this area, in spite of all the infill, was still a significant feature and the footings for the north wall, W15, were discovered at a depth of c 1.6 m greater than the floors on the south side of the building. Perhaps therefore the main floors in this half of the building were raised above a low basement.

In the central part of the building, north of the alcove, the only deposit that could be excavated was one of broken sandstone and brash, (231), on the extreme edge of the excavation. This was quite distinct from the deposits in either wing and so has implications for the internal arrangements in the building. This deposit was later than the earliest phase in the west wing but otherwise could not be related to the deposits on either side. Several timber features found in the alcove were associated with the building. A gully, F16, filled with stony soil lay along the front of the middle third of the alcove. It terminated to the west at a large but shallow post hole, T4. The eastern end of the gully lay in a narrow baulk across the trench where there could have been a similar post hole, so forming a symmetrical plan. A further smaller post hole, T5, was found just to the north-east of post hole T4. These probably held supports for a roof over the alcove. In the eastern corner of the alcove there was an additional series of deposits, absent elsewhere. Here, the clay of the terrace, (111), was an insubstantial layer, this corner being at the very limit of the clay dump. On it a dark, soft, very charcoal-rich deposit, (108), had accumulated during the occupation of the building. This was then cleaned up with a further deposit of clay, (107), which brought the ground level up to that in the rest of the alcove.

Structure 6 was probably built at the end of the second or in the early third century, as it was cut into the clay terrace, which was not built before that period. A coin of Marcus Aurelius of 172–3 in the foundation of W10 tends to confirm this date. Unfortunately, a recent sewer cut the foundation at this point so the coin cannot be considered firmly stratified. The structure appears to have continued in use throughout the third century. In the silty deposit (108), which accumulated in the eastern corner of the alcove, there was a late third-century fragment of blackburnished pottery, and mid- to late third-century pottery was found in the demolition debris over the west wing.

A possible north wall for Structure 6 was found in the 32

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Pit or cistern and arch These features were amongst the hardest to interpret on this site. Immediately south of the east wing of Structure 6, partly overlapping the entrance to the alcove, a large rectangular pit, F22, had been cut through the clay terrace and through the course of gully F8, which had probably been filled in by this time. Its northern half was spanned by a stone and mortar arch, W3, which was built diagonally from the north-western corner of F 22 (Ill 2.13). The purpose and period of these features are uncertain. F22 measured about 3.8 m long by 3.25 m wide and cut well into the natural clay. Its size could be fairly well established as all but the south-western corner lay within the excavation. It was excavated to a depth of about four metres by hand where considerations of safety and shortage of time called a halt. Subsequently a core was taken by boring and sandstone was found at a depth about 5.5 m below the Roman surface. The lowest metre or so excavated by hand consisted mainly of clay with some dark silt bands (parts of (206), (118)). It was virtually sterile of finds and generally fairly wet, although it does not seem to have been below the water table or saturated since there was no sign of preservation of organic materials. Above this, the deposits were more mixed and contained a little medieval pottery as well as Roman material. Amongst the Roman material there was a quantity of fine painted wall plaster. The uppermost 1.5 m or so was a mixed soil with some clay and rubble. These deposits sloped down sharply from the edges and from south to north, implying that they were put in after the arch had been built. The deposits close to the underside of the arch were still very loose and in some places an air space had formed. A small quantity of postmedieval material had percolated into this loose soil. The edges of the feature were generally very hard to define as there were thin layers of dark soil interleaved with clay that sloped down sharply and faded away across the width of the pit. This, and the compact sterile nature of the lowest deposits, suggests that the sides of the pit had suffered considerably from slumping that had filled the lowest 2.5 m or so of the feature. This slumping had presumably compacted, thus becoming difficult to distinguish from the undisturbed boulder clay. Samples from the borehole suggested that there was a silty deposit at the very bottom of the feature. The slumping of material from the sides must have widened the feature somewhat, although the sides had remained reasonably vertical. Clearly, a large quantity of fill was put in no earlier than the medieval period on top of this slumping, and at this time the arch was already in position.

Ill 2.13 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Phase III arch W3, looking N.

set on edge with tile and rubble filling the gaps, the whole bonded with generous amounts of mortar. The slabs were fairly well cut but not at all of a standard size or shape, and the arch depended on the mortar to hold itself together. The finish was generally rough and uneven, although not particularly worn; only at the crown of the arch were the stones smoothed. It was apparently never intended to be any larger, the only evidence for any part missing being the attempted robbing of the eastern limb from the top, which removed about half its depth before it was abandoned. Presumably the stone shattered as it was removed and so was made useless. As a result the arch had cracked transversely and sunk slightly, but otherwise it was strong and stable. As noted above, the arch was built diagonally across pit F22 and therefore not on the alignment followed by the great majority of Roman features on the site. It was, however, close to the medieval friary alignment, which raises the distinct possibility that it was a medieval feature. On the other hand, the arch and pit lay beneath the corner of a medieval building, which provides a terminus ante quem for its construction. The wall of the building was only 0.8 m wide, considerably narrower than the arch, whilst the generally slight nature of its foundations suggested that it carried only a half-timbered structure. This being so, the arch would appear to have been an unnecessarily elaborate and laborious way of bridging a potential soft spot beneath the building. Furthermore, the attempted robbing and the slight lean of the arch southwards occurred before the building was erected and the bulk of the fills were thrown in after the arch had been built. It therefore seems most probable that the arch was merely reused as a convenient feature during the construction of the medieval building and was not built specifically for it. In spite of the fragments of medieval pottery in the fills, it seems most probable that pit F22 was in origin a Roman feature. It was apparently closely associated with the Roman building Structure 6 and was dug on the Roman alignment. When first dug it was probably somewhat narrower and straight-sided. The most obvious function for such a feature is the storage of water. Its fills and dimensions preclude functions such as rubbish-dumping. It was conveniently situated by the alcove of Structure 6, which probably served as the building’s entrance. It was not how-

The arch W3 formed a depressed semicircle and leaned slightly to the south. The top lay c 0.16 m above the Roman ground level; its total length was c 5.2 m and the span 3.7 m. Its width was 1.3 m to 1.4 m at the ends, narrowing to 1.25 m in the middle. At each end the arch rested more or less on the natural clay on apparently little foundation but in pits cut into the clay dump deposits through which the pit F22 was cut. It was built largely of sandstone slabs 33

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements ever a true well, as it was not deep enough to hold ground water. During excavation water never accumulated in it to a depth greater than c 0.5 m and on occasion it dried out. The pit may therefore just have served for the local collection of roof and surface run-off, or conceivably a piped supply from elsewhere. It is also possible that it was lined with timber to help it retain water better. After abandonment and perhaps the removal of a lining the pit must have become virtually choked with material slumping from the sides; it is presumably this that forms the lower, compact and virtually sterile clay fills in the feature. It must be assumed that after the foundation of the friary the friars found the upper fills loose and soft and not suitable for building on and so dug them out until they reached more solid material beneath. The pit was then refilled with soil and clay and a quantity of wall plaster from the collapsed Roman buildings nearby. It was notable that apart from some small fragments there was little stone or tile in the fill; this was presumably saved for more worthwhile purposes. This refilling was a single deliberate operation as fragments from the same medieval vessel were found throughout. Also, since the quantity of medieval material was very small, it was obviously not left open to accumulate refuse at this period. The building erected over the feature dates from mid-way through the life of the friary so the infill beneath need not be a primary friary activity.

No firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the surviving evidence but it remains possible to fit the arch into the range of Roman features and structures on this site.

Further features associated with Phase III A trench designated GFC 81 Trench III was dug by machine westwards from GFC 81 Trench I as far as was practical on the site. It lay fifteen to eighteen metres north of GFC 76–8 Trench I and was intended to ascertain whether any of the features in that trench extended that far north; the main features sought were Structure 4 and the bank F41. However, neither of these was found. Instead a layer of clay, apparently the same as the terrace in GFC 81 Trench I, was revealed stretching the whole length of the trench. Its level at the western end corresponded with that on which bank F41 was built, ie similar to the floor level of Structure 3. Near the eastern end of the trench this clay stepped up to the level of the terrace in GFC 81 Trench I, this step presumably being a continuation of the terrace edge discovered in that trench. At a distance of 7.5 m from the modern street frontage GFC 81 Trench III cut across a foundation, W13, c 1.9 m wide and set in the top of the clay. On the Roman alignment, this wall corresponded roughly with the western wall of Structure 4 (Ill 2.14).

Later developments in the Roman period To reconstruct the history and function of the arch W3 is much more problematical. The only fixed points are that it was later than pit F22, for it is pointless without it, and it is earlier than the medieval fills that were clearly dumped beneath it. However, this still allows it to be Roman or medieval. If it was Roman, the arch could be interpreted as part of a well head or cover to enable water to be delivered to or withdrawn from the cistern more easily. However, if it was Roman, it was built on an anomalous line and it survived relatively unweathered until the thirteenth century at least. This latter point may indicate that it bore a superstructure more or less at Roman ground level, which was robbed out in the medieval period.

As in the previous phases the damage done to the later Roman remains in the medieval period was considerable. Very little survived of the demolition deposits of the Roman structures that might have dated their abandonment, but there was evidence to suggest that they may have continued in use for some time. At the western end of the GFC 76–8 Trench I there was a gap of some two metres between Structure 4 and bank F41 that formed a hollow about one metre lower than the top of the bank and the floor levels in the building. This gap originally served as the alley between Structures 3 and 4 and its level corresponded to that of the floor of Structure 3. It was filled with several deposits. Firstly, against Structure 4 and filling the eastern half of the area was a large deposit consisting mainly of broken roof tile and mortar, (299) (Ill 2.15). Several fragments of the mortar were shaped to fit beneath imbrices and bore the impression of the flanges of the adjoining tegulae. However, this deposit does not seem to indicate the destruction of Structure 4: rather, it seems to have been deliberately piled up against its west wall, W 14, to counteract the weight of the clay that had been used inside the building to raise its floor level. There is some evidence from the profile of the robber trench of this wall to show that it was leaning outwards. The tile sealed the demolition and robbing of Structure 3 but it is just possible that it was piled up between Structures 3 and 4 when the former was still largely standing and then slumped down over the remains of its eastern wall, W12, when that was demolished (ie at the start of Phase III). It is possible, therefore, that these tiles were derived from the roof of Structure 3. Alternatively, they could have come

If the arch was medieval then its most obvious function would have been as a strainer, carrying a wall foundation over this patch of bad ground. However since it is unlikely to have been for the building that was found over it, as argued above, it must be assumed that it was for a building that was projected but never built. In addition, a strainer arch would probably have been built as a single structural unit with the wall foundation and not as a separate element. It can be argued that the dependence of the arch on mortar is more likely to make it Roman than medieval, when the cutting of the stone would perhaps have been more important. In the medieval period it is hard to see for what other reason an arch would have been built across the pit, which by that time was obsolete and simply an inconvenience. There are problems therefore in assigning this feature to either the Roman or medieval periods, and it is not realistic to suggest that it was built in the intervening period. 34

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations

Ill 2.14 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: Phase III general arrangement plan. (Scale 1/500)

deposits apparently remained more or less exposed until the early medieval period. During this time the west face of bank F41 was eroded and cut back till it achieved an angle of about thirty degrees. Over Structure 4 none of the surviving deposits can be ascribed with certainty to the use or disuse of the building apart from those already described. Over most of the building (except Room 1 with the hypocaust) there was a deposit of brown clay, (304), (316), (326), (381), (297). In Room 4 deposit (297) contained much mortar and tile which was absent elsewhere and may well have been derived from the demolition. This deposit also sealed the remains of wall W8, which was in consequence not robbed. In Rooms 2 and 3 the clay deposit was delimited by the building and cut by the robbing of the walls. The hypocaust in Room 1 was also demolished and robbed.

Ill 2.15 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Structure 4 walls W14 and 15 (left), tile deposit (299) (middle), Structure 3 wall W 12 and clay bank F41 (right).

from the rebuilding of Structure 4. A further possibility for the origin of these tiles is that they were brought in from another building elsewhere.

This clay deposit appeared to be medieval in date and it suggests the following sequence of events. When the friars arrived the site of Structure 4 was a mound of stony debris, no doubt much overgrown, which would have required levelling before the area could be built on. The walls of the structure possibly survived to some height within this debris. Removal of the mound would have revealed large quantities of useful building material, and so all the debris was removed down to the old floor level. This activity would help to explain the poor state of the floors. At this stage it would appear that the walls of Structure 4 were left standing, at least to the height of the proposed new ground level. The remains of Structure 4 were then sealed with clay to level the site, although it was not built on in the initial phase of the friary. Before

The depression or gully remaining between bank F41 and the tile deposit was designated F35. It was backfilled after only a minimal period, during which a small amount of silt from the face of the bank accumulated at the bottom, with a deposit of soil and rubble. This rubble, (293), (296), was largely sandstone with some tile and mortar. It was not obviously a demolition deposit and it can be presumed that Structure 4 was still standing at this time. In a more soily deposit at the top of this, (282), there was a coin of the emperor Constantius II (AD 347–8). Immediately to the west, in the compact soil which accumulated on the top of the bank, (285), there was a coin of the emperor Valens (AD 367–75). These two finds suggest continued occupation into the second half of the fourth century. These 35

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements the area was built on, which could have been some decades later, the walls were robbed out and it was possibly only at this time that the hypocaust in Room 1 was discovered and also dug out.

intensification of the previous activity. Bank F41 is possibly the most significant feature. The most obvious function for such a bank built under official aegis would have been defence, although the surviving height of slightly over a metre would not have been very daunting. However, the clay and turf of which the bank was composed has probably been compressed somewhat. Furthermore, the heavy erosion of the western, presumably outer, face may also have removed some of the upper levels. The height of the bank may also have been reduced deliberately later in the Roman period to make it correspond to the level of the upper terrace and Structure 4. It is also possible that the deposits at the front of the bank had been removed, including the terracing on which Structures 1 and 3 had been built. All this would have increased the effective height of the front face of the bank to possibly as much as 2.5 m or more. In addition, the bank could well have been topped by a timber palisade.

This sequence of events has implications for the end of Structure 4, for it suggests that during the Roman period it was abandoned and collapsed rather than being deliberately demolished and levelled with the reusable material being removed. It also accords with the received impression that this area was little used in the early medieval period before it was granted to the friars. Perhaps of significance to the later phase of occupation is the occurrence on the site of a few sherds of Biv and Bv amphorae. Little is known of the later history of Structure 7, although it was perhaps similar to that of Structure 4. In the open space between the two structures there was a grey-green clay deposit, (313), which remained the surface deposit until the thirteenth century. In consequence, the upper levels had a high humus content.

The section across this feature suggests that it was a linear feature running more or less parallel to the river bank. However, some seventeen metres to the north, in GFC 81 Trench III, there was instead a dump of clay forming a terrace on the south side of the small valley. If F41 was the same as this terrace and simply turned eastwards round the south side of the valley, it would not have been a defensive obstacle, particularly as shortly after it was built Structure 6 was built outside it. Another, perhaps more satisfying, explanation may be that the bank crossed the mouth of the small valley, which, in spite of its infilling must have still been a major dip in the landscape. Consequently, on the southern flank of the valley the back of the bank was extended eastwards to form the terrace. The western face could still have presented a tall bank topped with a palisade. Unfortunately it was not possible to excavate the front edge of the terrace. Another possible function of the terrace was to provide access to the stokehole of the hypocaust in Room 1 of Structure 4. This stokehole would have been served from the level of the terrace and formerly perhaps could have been approached around the north end of Structure 3. When that structure was replaced by the bank this approach would have been blocked.

To the north, Structure 6 apparently had a different history. On the uppermost occupation level in the western wing there was a deposit of crumbled mortar and plaster with some sand and light blue clay, (151). This was sealed by rubble, tile and mortar, (143). These deposits probably represented an initial demolition or perhaps abandonment followed by a general demolition. The gap between this wing and the terrace edge was filled with tumbled masonry and rubble, presumably from the demolished wall W10. In the east wing the later occupation layers had been destroyed. The soil sealing the surviving deposits, (106), (104), again contained large quantities of tile, mortar and rubble. This soil would therefore appear to represent the later occupation and demolition layers, disturbed by cultivation perhaps in the Saxon and early post-Conquest periods, to judge by the occurrence of the tenth-century pottery. None of the undisturbed demolition or occupation deposits can be dated later than the end of the third century. Also it is notable that no fourth-century coins occurred in the northern half (ie the 1981 excavations), the latest being one of Julia Mammaea (AD 222–35). By contrast, as noted above, those found in the southern half of the excavation (ie the 1976–8 trenches) go up to the reign of Valens (AD 367–75). It seems most probable therefore that Structure 6 was demolished at about the end of the third century. The ‘cistern’ F22 remained open and it was notable that it contained no significant demolition material, which it surely would have done if Structure 6 had been allowed to collapse beside it. The so-called cistern was presumably kept open for the benefit of the inhabitants of the buildings to the south.

If the terrace and the bank were contemporary then the date of these features can be much more closely defined, for although the bank could have been built any time from the mid-second century onward, the terrace must be dated to the very end of that century. However, it remains a possibility that the terrace was a later extension to the back of the bank but unfortunately the mechanical excavation could not be carried deep enough to elucidate this point. This feature has very important implications, for it suggests that the civil settlement at Chester, like many purely civilian settlements in Britain, received earthwork defences at this period, a fact that probably reflects on the status of the settlement. It also has important implications for land use in this area and the provision of harbour facilities.

Discussion This phase is of great importance for understanding the extramural development of Roman Chester. Adjacent to the river front there was a complete change in land use, whereas to the east there was basically a continuation and

The next development was apparently the construction of the foundation W13, cut in the top of the terrace. This wall 36

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/The excavations aligned with the western wall of Structure 4 rather than with either face of the bank. It was, therefore, apparently not a defensive wall added to the front of the bank. The degraded condition of the front of the bank in GFC 76–8 Trench I makes it virtually certain that there never was a wall there. It is tempting to equate W13 with that found on the northern side of the valley (Kelly 1965, 9), tentatively dated to the early second century, which would then have blocked its mouth. On the other hand, the wall may have been just a boundary wall, although a very substantial one, erected to separate a ‘state-owned’ strip of river frontage from privately developed land to the east. It could also have been contemporary with Structure 6 and be associated with more intensive use of the small valley. A subsidiary purpose of the wall may have been as a flood barrier in a period of rising sea level. Clearly the flanks of the valley where the remains of the wall have been found were never threatened but the central part of the valley could still have been low enough to suffer inundation.

rebuilt and Structure 6 built on a site unoccupied for up to eighty years. After this there was continued but declining occupation for up to two centuries. The presence of Biv and Bv amphorae could suggest activity into the fourth century, and there is no reason to suppose that this was other than regular occupation of the standing buildings. Since this pottery is very rare in Chester, the likelihood of it having been brought onto the site as residual rubbish in the early medieval period is negligible, as is the possibility that it was broken during transit from the harbour to the fortress. Even so, there were remarkably few finds of the period. This lack can be explained in several ways. Most obvious is the almost complete removal of the later stratigraphy in the medieval period. Also, the standard of living implied by the buildings may have been associated with the disposal of rubbish elsewhere. Another possible factor whose significance is impossible to judge is periods of abandonment. Only Structure 6 has stratigraphic evidence for refurbishment and new flooring that could have terminated such periods and it has been argued above that Structure 6 was demolished at the end of the third century.

Elsewhere on the site the evidence indicates a considerable expansion of activity at about the start of the third century with Structure 4 extended, Structure 7 built or

Ill 2.16 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Trench I S section. (Scale 1/50)

Ill 2.17 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Trench I W section (N end). (Scale 1/50)

37

Ill 2.18

Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Trench I N section. (Scale 1/50)

Ill 2.19

Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: Trench I S section. (Scale 1/50)

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements No ceramic building material was recovered from Phase I GFC 81 contexts. This lack suggests that the timber building, Structure 5, may also have been roofed with thatch or wooden shingles rather than with ceramic roof tiles.

Building Materials Ceramic building material

Phase II

Alison Heke

Methodology

Phase II produced just two fragments of ceramic building material weighing 802 g from GFC 76–8, from contexts (358) and (423) associated with Structure 4 (a), and four fragments weighing 630 g from GFC 81 Trench I rubbishdumping contexts (137), (138), (145), (175).

The ceramic building material was analysed in terms of quantity, range, condition, source and date range and was recorded to the level set out in 2.6 of the Archaeological Ceramic Building Materials Group minimum standards draft document for the recovery, curation, analysis and publication of ceramic building material (Hunter-Mann 2001), with the addition of ‘part’ (eg middle, edge, end, corner, etc) as a sub-term of ‘form’. The archive was compiled in 1997 and the report written in 2006.

Structure 4 (a)

(358) is a possible trample layer from the construction of Structure 4 (a). It produced an end fragment of tegula with a double curved signature mark (Cat no 1). Catalogue

Introduction

1

A small assemblage of ceramic building material was recovered from the site, comprising 147 fragments weighing 37,630 g from GFC 76–8 and 210 fragments weighing 54,472 g from GFC 81. The Roman phases produced just eight fragments weighing 3155 g from GFC 76–8, with 55 fragments weighing 19,406 g coming from GFC 81. The remainder occurred residually (135 fragments/ 33,187 g from GFC 76–8; 143 fragments/28,581 g from GFC 81) or was unstratified (4 fragments/1288 g from GFC 76–8; 12 fragments/6485 g from GFC 81).

End of tegula with double curved signature; th 25 mm. GFC 76 I (358); SF 1074.

(423), the foundation of the lower hypocaust floor F 47 in Room 1, produced the corner of an imbrex/ridge tile. Mortar attached to the surfaces only suggests that the tile had been mortared into place on a roof. Structure 4 (a) contained two surviving brick-stack pilae, although no loose bricks, or any box tiles, were found, possibly the result of later robbing. Structure 3

No ceramic building material was recovered from this building, although GFC 76–8 (299) from Phase III, Structure 4 (b), contained tile which may be derived from the roof of Structure 3 (see below).

Phase I Phase I produced just two fragments, one of ?brick and one indeterminate, weighing 418 g from GFC 76–8, from contexts (379) and (369) associated with Structure 2.

Rubbish-dumping

Four fragments, one each of ?brick, box tile, ?facing tile and indeterminate, weighing 630 g came from GFC 81 Trench I contexts (137), (138), (145), (175), which formed part of a series of complex rubbish deposits. There were no buildings contemporary with Phase II in GFC 81 Trenches I or II, which partly explains the small amount of ceramic building material recovered.

Structure 2

I (379) is a dark soil with much charcoal between W12 and W14. It represents the demolition of the timber building, Structure 2, spread over the space between Structures 1 and 2 and produced an indeterminate fragment of Roman ceramic building material weighing just 7 g. No occupation or demolition deposits from the stone building, Structure 1, survived. They appear to have been removed during levelling of the area and dumped off site, which would help to explain the almost total lack of ceramic building material recovered during this phase.

(138), (145) and (175) are deposits which formed at the east end of Trench I and were rich in portable artefacts. They produced a worn, edge fragment of ?facing tile, SF 98, with diamond-shaped knife-scoring on the sanded face; the burnt edge fragment of a brick and a worn, undiagnostic piece, which has a fragment of corroded iron attached to its surface. (137) is a layer of clay and patchy brash which partially sealed the dark soil in the north and east of the trench. It produced a middle fragment of box tile, probably of type 1 (although this is not certain as the interior is missing) (see Appendix: Chester box tile types). The fragment is burnt and had been reused in the Roman period, as mortar is attached to the broken edges and surfaces.

I (369) is a small patch of demolition material and white painted wall plaster just east of T37 and again represents the demolition of Structure 2. It produced a middle fragment of ?facing tile with shallow, diamond-shaped scoring on the partially sanded face. The piece had been reused in the Roman period, as there is mortar attached to the broken edges. The lack of ceramic building material may indicate that Structure 2 was roofed with thatch or wooden shingles rather than with ceramic roof tiles.

40

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Building materials

Phase III

pottery. A single fragment of ceramic building material, comprising an end fragment of ?tegula, was recovered from (136), a brown sandy clay in the robber trenches in the north-east corner of the trench.

Four fragments of ceramic building material weighing 1935 g were retained from GFC 76 contexts (329), (299), (309) and (448) associated with Structures 4 (b) and 7 and the build-up over the clay bank. GFC 81 produced 51 fragments of ceramic building material weighing 18,776 g from contexts associated with the clay terrace, Structure 6 and the pit or cistern F22. There was much damage to the later Roman remains by medieval robbing and very little survived of the demolition deposits of the buildings, which partly accounts for the absence of ceramic building material from this phase. (Table 2.1–2).

Structure 6

Structure 6 produced just 12 fragments/8856 g from contexts (104), (119), (142), (143), (159), (173) and (217). The building was heavily robbed in the medieval period, which may account for the small amount of ceramic building material that was recovered. (217), a levelling deposit for a floor in the west wing, produced a fragment of a type 2 box tile, probably predating the early second century. The use of knife-scored keying, which occurs on types 2, 8, 9 and 10, seems to be an early Roman feature in London and the south-east of England generally (Betts 2000, 3; Black 1996; Pringle 2006; Ward, C 1999, 48). The same context produced the corner of a tegula, ?overfired, with a surviving upper cutaway and a clear finger groove at the base of the flange.

Structure 4 (b)

(329) is a clay deposit north and east of the eastern extension of Structure 4 (b). It produced a worn indeterminate fragment of ceramic building material, weighing just 4 g. (309), a deposit of crushed sandstone forming the secondary floor of the eastern extension, produced a corner fragment of a type 8 box tile, with a sanded, knife-scored exterior and a sanded interior. This type of keying is thought to predate the more efficient combed method of keying on box tiles (Brodribb 1987, 109) (see also below).

(142), a surface of light sand in the east wing of the building, produced a fragment of brick with a worn, sanded underside. The complete width of 285 mm and thickness of 70 mm indicate that it is probably a Holt pedalis. Grimes records a variety of large square bricks (presumably pedales) from Holt, ranging in size from 273 x 273 mm to 291 x 291 mm and varying in thickness from 50 to 88 mm (Grimes 1930, 135). The average size of pedales in Britain is 281 x 281 mm with a thickness of 46 mm (Brodribb 1987, 142). The chief function of the pedalis was to act as a capping or base brick for brick-stack pilae composed of the smaller square bessales (Brodribb 1987, 36).

Structure 7

As with the other Phase III buildings, Structure 7 was badly robbed during the medieval period. (448) was a rough surface immediately west of the building and produced a middle fragment of a type 1 box tile. It had been reused, as mortar is attached to the broken edges. There is a problem with the provenance of this item as it is marked with context number (218) – a medieval deposit – although it is bagged and labelled as (448).

(119), a build-up layer over (142) for the next surface, or redeposited demolition debris, produced the corner of a brick, mortared on the surfaces only, presumably indicating that it was mortared into position, which bears a signature mark (Cat no 2). The dimensions of the brick indicate that it is also likely to be a fragment of pedalis (see above).

Clay terrace

A large quantity of clay was deposited over the area of former rubbish dumping before the construction of Structure 6. It contained some wall plaster, probably from the earliest phases of the buildings to the south and residual Table 2.1 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: ceramic building material from Phase III quantified by structure, form, number of fragments and weight

Catalogue

2

Form

Structure/activity Structure 4 (b) Structure 7 Build-up over clay bank Total

Tegula

Box tile

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

1 1

1655 1655

Corner of ?pedalis with single, slightly curving signature; L 245 mm+, th 65 mm. GFC 81 I (119); SF 209.

Total

Indet No Wt (g)

1 1

180 96

1

4

2

276

1

4

No Wt (g) 2 1

184 96

1 4

1655 1935

Table 2.2 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: ceramic building material from Phase III quantified by structure, form, number of fragments and weight Form

Structure/activity Clay terrace Structure 6 Pit/cistern F22 Total

Tegula

Imbrex/ridge tile

Brick

Box tile

Indet

Total

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

1 2 1 4

161 838 64 1063

1 1 2

903 42 945

2

6078

2

6078

6 1027 32 8997 38 10024

41

1 4 5

10 656 666

1 161 12 8856 38 9759 51 18776

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements (159), a soil layer containing a large quantity of mortar and plaster, which possibly represents a partial demolition or collapse of the west wing of the building, produced a worn, corner fragment of tegula with a partial legionary stamp, which may be either Holt type 3 or Chester type 76 (Cat no 3). Holt type 3 stamps have been noted only on group A tegulae and can therefore be dated between c 90/ 100 and 120 (Warry 2006, 137).

using a nine-toothed comb. It had also been reused, as mortar is attached to the broken edges and surfaces. Of the five type 1 tiles, one had been keyed with a five-toothed comb; another with a seven-toothed comb and a third with a nine-toothed comb; three are burnt inside, probably through use; two are worn and one is also battered. One also has mortar attached to the exterior surface, probably from use. The three type 5 tiles all have burnt interiors; one has a mortar wash on the exterior surface – probably from use – and one had been reused, as mortar is attached to the broken edges. The type 9 tile has a burnt interior, probably from use, and traces of mortar on the exterior, also from use.

Catalogue

3

Corner of tegula with a very faint, partial legionary stamp; it is unclear where the end of the frame lies after the final ‘V’; th 30 mm. GFC 81 I (159); SF 201. The form of the ‘V’ is similar to Holt type 3 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.6) and, less so, to Chester type 76 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.64).

(*Keying on box tiles is usually, although not always, on the faces only (Brodribb 1987, 77); it is possible, therefore, that type 5 represents the uncombed side of type 1 or the unscored side of type 9).

(143), an area of demolition rubble in the west wing, produced the corner of an imbrex/ridge tile, SF 78, with the imprint of a dog’s paw in the centre of the arch of the tile. Imprints such as these are very rare on imbrices/ridge tiles and usually take the form of claw marks on the edge or end of the tile, as though the animal had reached up to the tile as it was drying on a raised rack (Brodribb 1987, 125).

(118) produced three undiagnostic fragments, two of which may be tegulae. One of the latter has a slightly burnt upper surface; the other bears a signature mark and, at 35 mm, is at the thicker end of the range for Holt tegulae (Cat no 4). Catalogue

Five box tiles were recovered from (173), the fill of the robber trench of W10. All are of type 1 and, along with the other combed box tile types, may date from the early second century onwards (Betts 2000, 3; Black 1996; Pringle 2006; Ward, C 1999, 48). All are worn and three are burnt through use. All had been reused in the Roman period, as mortar is attached to broken edges and surfaces. One fragment had been combed using a seven-toothed comb.

4

Indeterminate middle fragment (?tegula) with quadruple, curved signature; th 35 mm. GFC 81 I (118); SF 207.

A fragment of a type 1 box tile, with a burnt interior, was also recovered from (118), as well as the end of an ?overfired imbrex/ridge tile. (196) contained a small amount of medieval pottery. It produced two fragments of type 1 box tile, both with burnt interiors. One had been keyed using an eight-toothed comb. The latter has mortar attached to the interior and exterior surfaces, possibly from use.

(104) is a deposit of plaster and mortar in a dark soil, containing some tile, to the north of the robber trench. It produced a small, slightly curved, indeterminate fragment, possibly part of an imbrex/ridge tile. Pit or cistern

(206) contained small amounts of medieval and post-medieval pottery. It produced sixteen fragments of box tile, representing thirteen tiles of three different types. These comprise eight of type 1, one of type 2, three of type 3 and one of unknown type. Eight are burnt, probably through use, although one is also burnt along a broken edge, and two are worn. The type 2 example is the only type with scored keying; it also has a circular air vent and complete dimensions of height 310 mm, width 185 mm and thickness 30 mm. This is closest in size to the Grimes type 2 size, which measure 304 x 152 x 152 mm (Grimes 1930, 136). The examples of types 1 and 3 have been combed using a variety of combs, comprising a six-toothed comb (three examples), an eleven-toothed comb (two examples) and a ten-toothed comb (one example). Two of the type 1 tiles have mortar on external surfaces, probably from use. Five had been reused, having mortar on broken edges.

This feature produced 39 fragments/9759 g from contexts (94), (102), (113), (118), (196), (206) and (240). (94) contained small amounts of medieval and post-medieval pottery and medieval floor tile. It produced two fragments of box tile, one of type 1 and one of ?type 3. The latter is badly burnt all the way through, possibly from use. The former had been reused ?in the Roman period, as mortar is attached to broken edges and surfaces. (102) contained a small amount of medieval pottery. It produced a type 1 box tile fragment, the interior of which is burnt through use. Both types have combed keying and may therefore date from the early second century onwards (see above). (113) produced ten box tile fragments, five of type 1, three of type 5* and one each of types 3 and 9. The knife-scored example, type 9, may be earlier in date than the others, which all have combed keying (see above). The type 3 tile is badly burnt (probably through use) and has been keyed

This context also produced a tegula flange fragment and a very battered and worn indeterminate fragment. The latter is more than 35 mm thick and is probably part of a brick. 42

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Building materials (240) comprises the sandstone masonry, tile and mortar of the arch, W3. The only find retrieved comprises a corner fragment of box tile with an unusual plaid-like pattern of knife-scoring on the exterior. The piece is coated in mortar and the type is therefore indistinguishable. The presence within the construction of the arch, W3, of a large fragment of Roman box tile indicates that Roman ceramic building material was incorporated into its structure, whatever the actual date of this feature.

A 26 tegula from (692), dated between c 90/100 and 120, and a group B 6 tegula, SF 1076 (Cat no 21), from (257), dated between c 120 and 140 (Warry 2006, 137). Catalogue

6

Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 2 legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.4); th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (192); SF 357. 7 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 8? legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.32); triple curved signature; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (213); SF 372. 8 Middle of tegula with partial Chester type 66 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); Chester type 66 is probably the same as Holt type 21: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.16); th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (235); SF 391. 9 Middle of tegula with partial Chester type 65 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (208), SF 402. Cf Webster type 58, although the points of the Vs are closer to the edge of the frame in type 65; not in RIB. Ill 2.20 10 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 18? legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.39); th 20 mm. GFC 76–8 (249); SF 431.

Build-up over clay bank

The tile and mortar deposit against the west wall of Structure 4, (299), produced the end of a tegula with a signature mark (Cat no 5). This deposit could represent debris from Structure 3, the rebuilding of Structure 4, or it could have come from another building; it may have been put in position to buttress W14. Presumably this tile fragment represents only a single sample kept from the context. Catalogue

5

End of tegula with triple curved (?circular) signature; th 25 mm. GFC 76 I (299); SF 1075.

Post-Roman and unstratified contexts GFC 76–8

Post-Roman contexts on the GFC 76–8 site produced 135 fragments/33,187 g of ceramic building material. Just four unstratified fragments weighing 1288 g were recovered: 3/1212 g from Trench II and 1/76 g from an unknown location (Table 2.3) Tegulae comprise 25.9% by fragment count and 40.5% by weight of the residual and unstratified assemblages. Ten bear legionary stamps, comprising two each of Holt types 1 and 2 and one each of all the others (Cat nos 6–15). Holt type 2 stamps have been noted only on group A/B tegulae and therefore can be broadly dated between c 90/100 and 140 (Warry 2006, 137). The only other datable stamp comprises a partial Holt type ?18, which has also been noted only on group A/B tegulae (Cat no 10). There are seven signatures, two of which occur with stamps (Cat nos 7 and 15) and a ?tally mark (Cat no 21). Eight fragments are worn; three are battered; two are burnt and one is overfired. One middle fragment, from I (409), bears a dog’s paw print on the upper surface. Another, from II (649), bears what appears to be a smudged cloven hoof (?deer) print on the upper surface. Datable forms comprise a group

Ill 2.20 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: stamped tegula Cat no 9.

Table 2.3 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: ceramic building material from post-Roman and unstratified contexts quantified by form, number of fragments, weight and percentage Form

Post-Roman contexts Unstratified Total no % total no % total wt

Tegula

Imbrex/ridge tile

Brick

Opus spicatum brick

Box tile

Facing tile

Indet

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

35 13877

19

3455

9

6484

4

1105

51

5709

7

2491

1 94 36 13971 25.9 40.5

19 13.7

3455

9 6.5

6484

4 2.9

1105

1 52 37.4

76 5785

2 9 6.5

1118 3609

10.0

18.8

3.2

43

16.8

10.5

10

10 7.2

76

Total No Wt (g) 135 33187

4 1288 139 34475 100.0 0.2 100.0 76

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements 11 Corner of tegula with complete Chester type 67 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); not in RIB; type 67 is an unusual stamp which is unlike any other in the Chester series; th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (409); SF 477. Ill 2.22.11 12 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 2 legionary stamp (Grimes 1930, 211 fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.4); th 20 mm. GFC 76–8 (409); SF 479. 13 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 1? legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.29); th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (409); SF 480. 14 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 1? legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.29); th 35 mm. GFC 76–8 (676); SF 658. 15 End of tegula with partial Chester type 75 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (279); SF 1070. Not in RIB; but cf Webster type 40 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.56); single curved signature. Ill 2.22.15 16 End of tegula with single looped signature; th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (297); SF 1071. 17 Middle of tegula with double curved (?circular) signature; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (259); SF 1072. 18 End of tegula with double straight signature overlapped by single curved signature at end of tile; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (381); SF 1073. 19 Middle of tegula with triple straight signature slightly overlapped by triple curved signature; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (472); SF 1077. 20 Middle of tegula with triple curved signature; th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (609); SF 1078. 21 Corner of tegula with two downward knife-cuts on end edge – possible tally mark; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (257); SF 1076.

22 Edge of imbrex/ridge tile with triple, scored ?signature parallel to edge; th 15 mm. GFC 76–8 (310); SF 1079. Ill 2.21

Ill 2.21 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: imbrex/ridge tile Cat no 22.

Bricks comprise 6.5% by count and 18.8% by weight of the residual assemblage. One bears a legionary stamp (Cat no 23) and five bear signatures (Cat nos 24–8). The bricks range in thickness from 35 mm (x 2) to 55 mm (x 5); of the two remaining bricks, one is 40 mm thick; the other is 50 mm. Catalogue

23 Middle of brick with partial Chester type 68 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); Chester type 68 is probably the same as Holt type 14: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59; Hassall 1979, 261–66 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.58); th 55 mm. GFC 76–8 (158); SF 300. Ill 2.22.23 24 Middle of brick with double straight signature; th 55 mm. GFC 76–8 (207); SF 1082. Ill 2.22.24 25 Middle of ?brick or thick ?tegula with quadruple curved signature; th 35 mm. GFC 76–8 (326); SF 1085. 26 Edge of brick with quadruple curved signature overlapped by double straight signature; th 55 mm. GFC 76–8 (386); SF 1089. 27 Corner of brick with double curved signature; th 55 mm. GFC 76–8 (631); SF 1091. 28 Corner of brick with triple curved signature; th 55 mm. GFC 76–8 (675); SF 1093.

Together with the imbrices/ridge tiles, the tegulae may derive from the stone structures on the site. On the other hand, as 27.8% had been reused (?Roman mortar is attached to broken edges and surfaces), it is also possible that they also include rubbish dumped at the site from elsewhere. Imbrices/ridge tiles comprise 13.7% by count and 10.0% by weight of the residual assemblage. An edge fragment from I (310), SF 1079, bears an unusual scored ?signature, in the form of three unequally spaced, lines, roughly parallel to the edge (Cat no 22). The practice of using a comb, rather than the fingers, to produce signatures on tegulae and imbrices started towards the end of the third century and only a limited number of examples are known (Warry 2006, 91). It is possible that this scored ?signature may be roughly contemporary with the combed examples or it may simply have been done at the whim of an individual tiler and so cannot be assigned to a particular trend or closely dated. One edge fragment, from II (598), has Roman mortar attached to the underside, indicating that this particular tile had been mortared into position on a roof. 11.1% of the group had been reused, as ?Roman mortar is attached to broken edges and surfaces. Two are worn; one is burnt; and one is burnt/overfired.

According to Grimes, the average thickness of Holt bessales (the bricks generally used to form brick-stack pilae) is c 50 mm (Grimes 1930, 135). Brodribb gives the average thickness of the four larger brick types as pedales (46 mm); lydion bricks (41 mm); sesquipedales (52 mm) and bipedales (60 mm) (Brodribb 1987, 142). As is usual for the products of legionary kilns, however, Holt sizes tend to be larger than average. The ‘large [square] bricks’ (pedales), which Grimes describes as having been used for paving, drain covers and kiln walls at Holt, range in size from 273 to 292 mm² and in thickness from c 50 to 88 mm (Grimes 1930, 135). Pedales are generally used for capping brickstack pilae. 44

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Building materials

Ill 2.22 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: ceramic building material from post-Roman contexts. (Scale nos 11, 15, 23 1/2; nos 24, 34, 35 1/4)

The two thinner (35 mm) ‘bricks’ may be unusually thick tiles. For example, SF 1081, from II (648), has a combed, unsanded face, and may be a very thick box tile or facing tile. SF 1085, from I (326) may be a thick tegula. The others are probably bessales and floor tiles deriving from a hypocaust – possibly the hypocaust in Structure 4 (a) of Phase II. It is notable, however, that, as with many of the other forms, 44.4% of this small group had been reused in the ?Roman period.

Catalogue

29 Complete opus spicatum brick; L 100 mm, W 55 mm, th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (245); SF 1095. 30 Almost complete (three corners) opus spicatum brick; L 100 mm, W 60 mm, th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (326); SF 1096. 31 Complete opus spicatum brick; L 100 mm; W 65 mm, th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (326); SF 1097. 32 Complete length (two corners) of opus spicatum brick; L 100 mm, W 65 mm, th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (326); SF 1098.

Opus spicatum (herringbone floor) bricks comprise just 2.9% by count and 3.2% by weight of the GFC 76–8 residual assemblage. Of the four bricks recovered, two are complete, one has three corners surviving and the other has a complete length (two corners surviving) (Cat nos 29–32). Three are from I (326) and the other is from I (245). Two are worn through use along the exposed upper surface. SF 1095, from (245), has traces of mortar adhering to all surfaces – suggesting reuse (in the ?Roman period). The three examples from I (326) are of uniform size, perhaps suggesting that they came from the same batch of bricks.

The average size of opus spicatum bricks in Brodribb is length 114 mm, width 62 mm and thickness 26 mm (1987, 142). Opus spicatum bricks made at Holt have a playing card shape with an average size of length 113 mm, width 75 mm and thickness 32 mm (Grimes 1930, 135). The Greyfriars’ Court bricks are slightly smaller in overall size than the average for Holt but closer to the average for Britain as a whole (Brodribb 1987, 142). They would have originally been laid with the narrow edge down in a thick bed of concrete and arranged in a herringbone pattern as part of a 45

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements hard-wearing flooring. At Chester, herringbone floors are known from the fortress bath house (Mason 2005) and also from the extramural bathhouse in Watergate Street (Mason this volume). Herringbone flooring is known to have been used in bathhouses at other British sites, as well as in a ?kitchen, a ?stable or cart shed and in other rooms of unknown function (Brodribb 1987, 52).

difficult to determine whether box tiles used after that date were new products or old stocks (Black 1996, 70). Facing tiles comprise 6.5% by count and 10.5% by weight of the GFC 76–8 residual and unstratified assemblages. They range in thickness from 20 mm (x 1) to 35 mm (x 4); there are three with a thickness of 30 mm and one with a thickness of 25 mm. Four bear signatures, three of which are closely similar (Cat nos 34–7) and one bears hobnail imprints on the smooth (inner) face (Cat no 38). Facing tiles from Holt occur in two sizes: type 1 is 25 mm thick and type 2 is 50 mm thick (Grimes 1930, 135). Brodribb gives the average thickness for facing tiles as 28 mm, with length 402 mm and width 270 mm (Brodribb 1987, 143). As well as being thicker, both Holt types are much larger than the average for Britain: type 1 is length 609 mm, width 304 mm and thickness 25 mm; type 2 is 609 mm² and thickness 50 mm. Type 1 is scored, whereas type 2 is pierced with holes for attaching to a wall (Grimes 1930, 135). Most of the Greyfriars’ Court examples are thicker than Grimes type 1 but smaller than his type 2. They are also generally thicker than the average for Britain. One tile, from I (326), SF 1086, has an unusual stepped edge (Cat no 39). Two are worn; none show signs of reuse.

Box tiles comprise 37.4% by count and 16.8% by weight of the GFC 76–8 residual and unstratified assemblages. The fifty-one fragments from post-Roman contexts comprise forty-eight different tiles of seven different types. The majority (thirty-four tiles) are type 1; there are four of type 3, two of type 6 and one each of types 5*, 7, 9 and 10; six are of indeterminate type. Combing was carried out with a variety of comb sizes, ranging from five (x 2) to ten or more (x 3) teeth. Four have been keyed using a sixtoothed comb, single examples with a seven-, eight- or nine-toothed comb. A middle fragment of ?box tile from II (548), SF 1094, has an unusual and elaborate keying pattern of fine, closely spaced, wavy-line combing. The interior of the tile is missing (Cat no 33). Three of the box tiles have the straight edge only of a knife-cut air vent. In one case, from II (669), the straight edge is clearly from a square or rectangular vent; the other two, from II (652) and I (409), could be square, rectangular or possibly triangular in shape. The vents had all been cut into a keyed (combed) surface. The example from II (669) is also coated in a creamcoloured wash or slip. It is unusual for the sides of box tiles to be keyed, as opposed to the faces, as the keying would be redundant. Twelve fragments are worn (one is very worn) and seven are burnt/sooted through use. Two fragments from II (521) had been reused in the Roman period, probably as aggregate for opus signinum concrete.

Catalogue

34 Corner of ?facing tile with elaborate, slightly overlapping, squiggle finger marks on smooth face; diamond-shaped knife-scoring on opposing sanded face; th 35 mm. GFC 76–8 (409); SF 482. Ill 2.22.34 35 Middle of ?facing tile with deeply impressed, overlapping finger marks on one face, forming a lattice pattern; deeply cut diamond-shaped knife-scoring on opposing face; cf SF 1087, 1088, 1090 and 1091; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 (279); SF 1084. Ill 2.22.35 36 Edge of ?facing tile with shallow overlapping finger marks on smooth face, forming a lattice pattern; shallow, diamond-shaped knife-scoring on sanded face; cf SF 1084, 1087, 1088 and 1091; th 30. GFC 76–8 (544); SF 1090. 37 Middle of ?facing tile with triple straight shallow signature in smooth surface; diamond-shaped knifescoring on opposing sanded face; th 35 mm. GFC 76– 8 (631); SF 1091. 38 Middle of ?facing tile with hobnail imprints in smooth (inner) face; diamond-shaped knife-scoring on opposing smooth face; th 25 mm. GFC 76–8 (270); SF 1083. 39 Unusual stepped edge of ?facing tile (W 15 mm, H 25 mm); diamond-shaped knife-scoring on sanded face; th 35 mm. GFC 76–8 (326); SF 1086. 40 Middle of ?facing tile with deeply impressed, overlapping finger marks in smooth face, forming a lattice pattern; deeply cut, diamond-shaped knife-scoring on opposing sanded face; cf SF 1084, 1088, 1090 and 1091; th 30 mm. GFC 76–8 u/s; SF 1087. 41 End of ?facing tile with shallow, overlapping finger marks in smooth (inner) face, forming a lattice pattern; diamond-shaped knife-scoring on opposing smooth face; cf SF 1084, 1087, 1090 and 1091; th 35 mm. GFC 76–8 u/s; SF 1088.

(*Type 5 could be the uncombed side of type 1 or the unscored side of type 9). Catalogue

33 Middle of box tile with closely spaced wavy-line combing; incomplete thickness. GFC 76–8 (548); SF 1094. Some of the box tiles may derive from the hypocaust of Phase II Structure 4 (a). On the other hand, 40.4% had clearly been reused, as ?Roman mortar is attached to broken edges, making their origin less clear. The varying types of box tile (both scored and combed) could represent different periods of production or merely different but contemporary manufacturing techniques. In London and other sites in south-east England, scored keying seems to be an early feature, superseded by combing and rollerstamping in the early second century (Betts 2000, 3; Black 1996, 62). It is unclear whether this is also the case at Chester and other sites in the north-west, as not enough stratified material has yet been recovered or studied in detail. The demand for box tiles fell away from the midsecond century and it is possible that old stocks continued to be used into the second half of the century. From c 150 they also remained the same shape, which again makes it 46

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Building materials Facing tiles (parietales) characteristically bear diamondshaped or lattice-scored keying on one face to aid the adhesion of mortar or plaster (Brodribb 1987, 58–9). They were used to line interior walls, with the keyed side facing into the room. The fact that none bear signs of reuse may suggest that they derive from the structures on the site. The overlapping finger marks which appear on SF 482, 1084 and 1090 are an unusual feature of unknown purpose. On 1084 and 1090, they appear to mimic the knife-scored keying on the opposing face. The finger marking is unlikely to be functional as it occurs on the side that would have faced away from the room and so would not require keying. Perhaps it merely reflects the whim of a particular tile maker. Finger marks do not seem to occur on facing tiles from elsewhere in Britain, although they are known on rare examples of box tiles from Fishbourne (finger-made squiggles and curves), Bitterne and Newcastle (Brodribb 1987, 109). It is perhaps notable that similar overlapping finger marks appear on a facing tile from Nicholas Street Mews 1988 (I (227), SF 603.

fragments bear legionary stamps; there is one each of types 1, ?11, 46, 3 or 51, 65, 89 and 90; the other is illegible (Cat nos 42–9). There are five signatures (Cat nos 44 and 50– 53), one of which occurs with a stamp (Cat no 44). One middle fragment, SF 57 from I (106), bears the hoofprints of a roe deer. An end fragment, SF 33 from I (49), bears a dog’s paw print. The latter fragment has been reused as mortar is attached to broken edges and surfaces. In total, 31.6% of the tegulae had been reused. The tegulae range in thickness from 15 mm (x 1) to 35 mm (x 1), although the majority fall within the range of 25–30 mm. Catalogue

42 Middle of tegula with partial ?Webster type 46 legionary stamp (RIB 2 (4), 2463.9); th 30 mm. GFC 81 I (79); SF 47. 43 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 3 or Webster type 51 legionary stamp. It is similar to Holt type 3, although the distance between the L and the edge of the frame is greater than that illustrated in Grimes (1930, 211, fig 59, no 3); in the latter respect it is more similar to Webster type 51, although type 51 has a bar across the top of the two Xs; th 30 mm. GFC 81 I (106); SF 55. 44 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type 1 legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59, no 1 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.29); signature comprising two pairs of slightly curved finger marks running up to edge of stamp; due to the presence of mortar obscuring the marks and damage to the surface, it is unclear whether the finger marks underlie or partially overlie the stamp; th 30 mm. GFC 81 I (62); SF 76. 45 Middle of tegula with partial Chester type 89 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); th 30 mm. GFC 81 I u/s; SF 41. cf Chester type 81 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.25). Ill 2.23 46 Middle of tegula with partial Chester type 90 legionary stamp (for which this is the type stamp); th 30 mm. GFC 81 I u/s; SF 42. cf Holt type 24: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59, no 24 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.14). Ill 2.24.46 47 Middle of tegula with partial Chester type 65 legionary stamp; it is a more complete example than the type stamp, GFC 76–8, SF 402 (Cat no 9), which lacks the ‘G’; th 25 mm. GFC 81 II u/s; SF 92. Ill 2.24.47 48 Middle of tegula with partial Holt type ?11 legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59.11 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.44); th 25 mm. GFC 81 u/s; SF 202. 49 Middle of tegula with illegible, badly worn, partial legionary stamp; th 30 mm. GFC 81 I (144); SF 83.

Facing tiles, used with ceramic spacers, formed a continuous jacketing which created a space for the circulation of heated air and these tiles must have come from a centrally heated room or rooms. Facing tiles were in use in Britain during the first and early second centuries. They are often found in association with thin-walled, knife-scored box tiles and half-box tiles (tegulae hamatae) during this period (Black 1996, 60; Pringle 2006, 128). ). This suggests that they may predate the combed box tiles recovered from the site. However, by the Hadrianic period, although the use of standard-shaped box tiles was all but universal, wall jacketings of facing tiles with ceramic spacers persisted in some areas (Black 1996, 67). Indeterminate ceramic building material comprises 7.2% by count and just 0.2% by weight of the residual and unstratified assemblages and is composed of small fragments. GFC 81

Post-Roman contexts from GFC 81 produced 143 fragments of ceramic building material weighing 28,581 g. In addition, 12 fragments/6485 g were found unstratified: 5/ 1275 g from Trench I, 2/1302 g from Trench II and 5/3908 g from an unknown location. (Table 2.4) Tegulae comprise 12.3% by count and 22.8% by weight of the GFC 81 post-Roman and unstratified assemblages. Six fragments are worn and two are burnt, one badly. Eight

Table 2.4 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: ceramic building material from post-Roman and unstratified contexts quantified by form, number of fragments, weight and percentage Form

Post-Roman contexts Unstratified Total % total no % total wt

Tegula

Imbrex/ridge tile

Brick

Box tile

Facing tile

Indet

Total

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

No Wt (g)

13

5333

6

831

3

2917

111 17444

5

1959

5

97

143 28581

6 19

2658 7991

6

831

1 4

2704 5621

4 1117 115 18561

5

1959

1 6

6 103

12 6485 155 35066

12.3

3.9 22.8

2.6 2.4

74.2 16.0

3.2 52.9

47

3.9 5.6

100.0 0.3

100.0

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements 50 End of tegula with double S-shaped signature; th 35 mm. GFC 81 I (106); SF 56. 51 End of tegula with single, widely curving signature overlapped by single straight signature; th 25 mm. GFC 81 I (7); SF 199. 52 End of tegula with quadruple, curved (‘rainbow’) signature; th 25 mm. GFC 81 I (56); SF 200. 53 Middle of tegula with double straight signature; burnt black (or overfired/misfired); th 25 mm. GFC 81 I (15); SF 204. Together with the imbrices/ridge tiles, the tegulae may derive from the stone structures on the site. On the other hand, 31.6% have been reused, a similar percentage to that from GFC 76–8, and so it is also possible that they include debris dumped at the site from elsewhere. Imbrices/ridge tiles comprise 3.9% by count and 2.4% by weight of the GFC 81 residual assemblage. Three are worn but none had been reused. A worn corner fragment, SF 66 from I (96), bears a dog’s paw print along the edge of the tile. The animal had probably jumped up against stacked tiles, leaving the drag marks of its claws along the edge. Ill 2.23 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: Stamped tegula Cat no 45

Bricks comprise 2.6% by count and 16% by weight of the GFC 81 residual and unstratified assemblages. All were retrieved from I (36). One battered fragment is pierced by a nail hole and had also been reused, as mortar is attached to the broken edges and surfaces. Another fragment bears a signature (Cat no 54). Only two fragments have a complete thickness. One, of 60 mm, may be part of a Holt pedalis, as it is of comparable thickness to the pedalis, SF 209, from I (119) in Phase III Structure 6 (see Cat no 2 above). On the other hand, it may come from a bipedalis, as these large square floor bricks have an average thickness of 60 mm (Brodribb 1987, 142). The other brick, which has a thickness of 50 mm, is too large to be a Holt bessalis and must be one of the larger brick forms, possibly a Holt type 1 pedalis.

46

Catalogue

54 Middle of brick with triple curved signature; th >20 mm. GFC 81 I (36); SF 205. 55 Corner of brick with partial Holt type ?21 legionary stamp: Grimes 1930, 211, fig 59, no 21 (RIB 2 (4), 2463.16); single curved signature at edge; dog’s paw print partially overlies the stamp; th 50 mm. GFC 81 u/s; SF 208. Box tiles comprise 74.2% by count and 52.9% by weight of the GFC 81 residual and unstratified assemblages. The 115 fragments of box tile comprise 113 different tiles of six different types. The majority (87 tiles) comprise type 1; there are fourteen of type 3, three of type 9 and one each of types 4, 5 and 11; six are of indeterminate type. The majority (types 1 and 3) are combed, three are unkeyed (types 4, 5 and 11) and three are scored (type 9). The majority of the box tiles may therefore date from the early second century onwards. Twenty-four are worn; five are battered and one appears to be unused. Sixty-three are

47

Ill 2.24 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: ceramic building material from post-Roman contexts. (Scale 1/2)

48

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Building materials burnt/sooted, mainly through use; three are burnt or overfired and two are stained. 59.1% of the box tiles had been reused, as mortar is attached to broken edges and surfaces. Combing has been carried out using a variety of comb sizes, ranging from four (x 3) to eleven or more teeth (x 1). Nine had been keyed using a seven-toothed comb; seven with a six-toothed comb, five with a nine-toothed comb; four with a five-toothed comb; three with a ten-toothed comb; two with an eight-toothed comb; and single examples each with an eleven-, seven or more- and seven/ eight-toothed comb.

building material, especially hypocaust bricks. There also seems to have been levelling of parts of the site in the Roman period, during which much building debris appears to have been cleared away and dumped elsewhere (S W Ward pers comm).

1 2

single box single box

Facing tiles (parietales) comprise 3.2% by count and 5.6% by weight of the GFC 81 residual assemblage. The five fragments comprise three tiles, none of which are worn or show any evidence of reuse. The tiles range in thickness from 25 mm (x 1) to 40 mm (x 1); the third tile is 35 mm thick. One bears signature marks (Cat no 56). Facing tiles from Holt occur in two sizes; type 1 is 25 mm thick and type 2 is 50 mm thick (Grimes 1930, 135). Brodribb gives the average thickness for parietales as 28 mm (Brodribb 1987, 143). One of the tiles equates in thickness to Grimes type 1, the other two are thinner than his type 2 but are thicker than the average given by Brodribb. All three tiles bear the diamond-shaped or lattice-scoring that is characteristic of the form. None bear signs of reuse, suggesting that they may derive from the stone structures on the site, rather than representing rubbish dumped from elsewhere. The signatures are unlikely to be functional as they occur on the unkeyed side that faced away from the room.

3

single box

4

single box

5 6

double box single box

Appendix: Chester box tile types Holt types (Grimes 1930, 135–6)

152 x 152 x 152 mm 304 x 152 x 152 mm (ie as type 1 but twice the length) 317 x 317 x 317 mm (ie as type 1 but twice the size) 444 x 152 x 152 (ie as type 1 but 3 x the length) 304 x 177 x 292 mm 228 x 228 x 177 mm long

Chester (25 BS 01) types

1

box with combed, unsanded exterior and sanded interior 2 box with sanded, knife-scored exterior and unsanded interior 3 box with combed, unsanded exterior and unsanded interior 4* box with sanded exterior and unsanded interior (*type 4 could be the unscored side of type 2) 5* box with smooth, unsanded exterior and sanded interior (*type 5 could be the uncombed side of type 1 or the unscored side of type 9) 6 box with combed and sanded exterior and sanded interior

Catalogue

56 End of ?facing tile with single straight signature overlapped by single, curving signature; diamond-shaped knife-scoring on sanded face; th 35 mm. GFC 81 I (117); SF 206.

Chester (NF 64) type

7 Indeterminate ceramic building material comprises 3.9% by count and 0.3% by weight of the residual and unstratified assemblages and consists of small fragments. One has been reused, as mortar is attached to the broken edges.

box with combed exterior and unsanded interior impressed with ?vegetation (?grass/straw) (or is it just the rough impression of the wooden mould?)

Chester (GFC 76–8) type

8

Discussion

box with sanded, knife-scored exterior and sanded interior

Chester (GFC 81) type

The ceramic building material assemblage from GFC 76– 8 and GFC 81 is small, with few indeterminate and small fragments. Because of a lack of resources during the excavation, in general brick and tile was neither collected nor quantified, although its presence was noted in context descriptions. Consequently only ceramic building that appeared special (eg marked or stamped) was kept. This has biased the assemblage, giving a much higher proportion of box tiles in comparison to roof tiles, for example, than would be expected, which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the nature and character of the structures from which the ceramic building material may have originated. A large proportion of the assemblage also occurred residually, and the Roman structures were badly damaged by robbing during the foundation of the friary; this robbing seems to have particularly targeted ceramic

9

box with unsanded, knife-scored exterior and sanded interior

Chester (GFC 76–8) type

10 box with unsanded knife-scored exterior and unsanded interior Chester (GFC 81) type

11* box with unsanded exterior and unsanded interior (*type 11 could be the unscored side of type 10 or the uncombed side of type 3) Chester (AMP 04) type

12* box with sanded exterior and sanded interior (*type 12 could be the uncombed side of type 6) 49

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Plaster

contexts remained undisturbed in the buildings whence it came (although it will be argued below the plaster associated with Structure 1 actually originated in Structure 3). By contrast, the figures from GFC 81 suggest that the plaster was removed on a large scale from its original contexts, and indeed from the site altogether. The large quantities of plaster from the bank and arch/well seem to have originated elsewhere.

Peter Carrington

Introduction The wall plaster comprised small scattered fragments. Fragments of plain white plaster, probably but not certainly Roman, from post-Roman contexts, were discarded on site without recording. Once a basic record had been made of the plaster that was kept, statistical tests were carried out to compare the actual quantity found in the various phases and structures with the expected random distribution for each campaign of excavation (76–8 and 81) (RD = quantity of plaster in Roman contexts on site divided by no of Roman contexts producing plaster x no of contexts in phase producing plaster) in an attempt to analyse how it had been removed from its original contexts (ie those immediately after it had left the wall) and to assign the plaster in non-structural contexts (eg, clay bank; arch/well) to its original contexts. This was done in order to further illuminate the structural history of the site, and to assemble larger samples of plaster hopefully of one decorative scheme. Both numbers of fragments and weight were used for initial quantification; weight was used as the basis for further analysis as not being distorted by comminution.

Phase I Earliest activity, Structure 1, Demolition of Structure 1, Build-up over Structure 1 (GFC 76–8)

No plaster came from these deposits. Structure 2 and Demolition of Structure 2

The plaster from this structure and its demolition deposits was overwhelmingly plain white. The colours represented in combination with white were yellow, black and red. These could have been from stripes defining panels on the white ground, or could have come from Structure 5, demolished at the same time (Tables 2.5–.6). Demolition of Structure 5

The colours found in combination were red/white, black/ red, black/yellow, yellow/red (Table 2.17). The small quantity of plaster recovered makes reconstruction of a scheme of decoration very hazardous, but it is possible that it comprised white and ? red panels with yellow and black lines or stripes. As noted above, the plaster in the demolition material from Structure 2 could have come from this building.

A total of 703 fragments weighing 22290.7 g were recorded from 112 contexts in the GFC 76–8 excavations: 316 fragments/ 14,528.5 g from 28 Roman contexts (average wt 45.97 g) and 387 fragments/7762.2 g from 84 postRoman contexts (average wt 20.05 g). From GFC 81 overall there were 2662 fragments weighing 87,537 g: 2359 fragments/ 83,460 g from 35 Roman contexts (average wt 35.38 g) and 303 fragments/ 4077 g from 47 post-Roman contexts (average wt 13.45 g).

Phase II Structure 3

Overall, 65 per cent by weight of all the recorded plaster from GFC 76–8 came from Roman contexts; the comparable figure for GFC 81 was 95.34 per cent. Compared with the expected random distribution, the amount recovered from each structure was as follows:

This plaster nominally came from context (344), above Structure 1 Wall 13, but this had been badly disturbed during the demolition of Structure 3, and this event provides the most likely occasion for the deposition of the plaster. The colours found in combination were green/ white/black, black and yellow, black/yellow/blue, yellow/ blue, white/blue, blue/black and yellow/white. A possible reconstruction of the scheme is white and yellow panels with black stripes and blue and green lines.

GFC 76–8

Structure 2: 218.80% Demolition of Structure 2: 186.21% Structure 3: 389.59% Build up under Structure 4: 40.99% Structures 4 (a) (b), (c)+ undefined: 55.9% Clay bank: 70.84 % Structure 7: 19.5% Build-up over bank: 9.56%

Build-up under Structure 4

No useful comments can be made about the source of this plaster (Table 2.9) Structure 4 (all sub-phases)

GFC 81

The contexts associated with this building produced remarkably little plaster, even when all its sub-phases are considered together – probably as a result of the demolition of the building in the post-Roman period. Statistical analysis of the material from each sub-phase would be meaningless in view of the small sample size. Analysis of the lot would be meaningless given that the modifications to the building were presumably accompanied by redecoration. The colours found in combination in Struc-

Structure 5: 32.62% Disuse of Structure 5: 10.07% Clay terrace: 145.15% Structure 6: 24.90% Arch/Well 168.22% Overall, the figures for GFC 76–8 suggest that the plaster that stayed on site and was not displaced to post-Roman 50

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Building materials Table 2.5 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase I Structure 2 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt (g)

Yellow

Red

Black

28 82.35 26.84 2422.5 69.87 1433.08

Unpainted

Total

Other*

6 17.65 1.00 1044.5 30.13 151.44

34 100.00 27.84 3467.0 100.00 1584.52

Table 2.6 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from demolition of Phase I Structure 2 demolition quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

Yellow

Red

Black

68 76.40 46.97 5357.5 84.99 2525.39

Unpainted

Other*

Total

1 1.10 1.75 15.5 0.26 265.02

20 22.60 19.53 930.0 14.75 594.51

89 100.00 68.25 6303.0 100.00 3384.92

Table 2.7 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from demolition of Phase I Structure 5 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

17 35.42 40.06 582.0 74.81 1435.21

Yellow

1.94

28.69

Red

Black

8 16.66 12.8 21.0 2.70 452.78

Unpainted

Other*

Total

2 4.17 1.34 113.0 14.52 91.91

21 43.75 7.17 62.0 7.97 283.64

48 100.00 67.4.0 778.0 100.00 2384.56

4.09

92.33

Table 2.8 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase II Structure 3 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour

No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

White

Yellow

31 32.98 6.71 427.0 22.82 360.77

20 21.28 0.82 464.0 24.79 18.04

Red

Black

Unpainted

14 14.89 0.64 380.0 20.30 16.63

Other*

Total

29 30.85 2.79 600.5 32.09 84.93

94 100.00 10.96 1871.5 100.00 480.37

Table 2.9 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase II build-up under Structure 4 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

Yellow

Red

Black

Unpainted

Other*

20 100.00 26.84 591.5 100.00 1443.08

Total 20 100.00 26.84 591.5 100.00 1443.08

Table 2.10 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phases II and III Structure 4 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

14 51.85 33.55 781.0 60.19 1803.85

Yellow

Red

Black

Unpainted

2 7.41 4.10 3.5 0.27 90.2

* = colours found in combination

51

Other*

Total

11 40.74 13.95 513.0 39.54 424.65

27 100.00 51.60 1297.5 100.00 2318.7

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Table 2.11 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from rubbish-dumping over Phase I Structure 5 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

27 90.00 240.36 1348.5 93.55 8611.26

Yellow

11.64

172.14

Red

Black

1 3.33 76.80 22.0 1.53 2716.68

Unpainted

24.54

8.04

553.98

551.46

Other*

Total

2 6.67 43.02 71.0 4.92 1701.84

30 100.00 404.40 1441.5 100.00 14307.36

Table 2.12 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase III clay bank quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour

No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

White

Yellow

Red

25 65.79 13.42 453.0 68.84 721.54

3 7.89 1.64 41.0 6.23 36.08

1 2.63 0.28 8.0 1.21 1.32

Black

Unpainted

Other*

Total

9 23.68 5.58 156.0 23.72 169.86

38 100.00 20.92 658.0 100.00 928.80

Table 2.13 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from Phase III clay terrace quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour

No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

White

Yellow

Red

Black

Unpainted

Other*

Total

705 66.20 520.78 27622.0 61.39 18657.73

25 2.35 25.22 435.0 0.97 372.97

75 7.04 166.4 5836.5 12.97 5886.14

69 6.48 53.17 1875.0 4.17 1200.29

38 3.57 17.42 1964.0 4.36 1194.83

153 14.37 93.21 7262.0 16.14 3687.32

1065 100.00 876.20 44994.5 100.00 30999.28

Table 2.14 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from Phase III Structure 6 quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour

No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

White

Yellow

Red

Black

Unpainted

Other*

Total

594 51.90 320.50 17572.0 54.80 11481.70

43 3.80 15.50 569.0 1.80 229.50

355 31.00 102.40 9054.0 28.20 3622.20

73 6.40 32.70 1327.5 4.10 738.60

7 0.60 10.70 1140.0 3.60 735.30

72 6.30 57.40 2427.5 7.60 2269.10

1144 100.00 539.20 32090.0 100.00 19076.50

Table 2.15 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: plaster from Phase III pit or cistern/arch quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

59 81.90 280.40 3108.0 74.80 10046.50

Yellow

13.60

200.80

Red

Black

9 12.50 89.60 914.0 22.00 3169.50

1 1.40 28.60 29.0 0.70 646.30

Unpainted

9.40

643.40

Other*

Total

3 4.20 50.20 105.0 2.50 1985.50

72 100.00 471.80 4156.0 100.00 16691.90

Table 2.16 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: plaster from Phase III build-up over clay bank quantified by no of fragments, weight, percentage and colour Colour White No % RD frags Wt (g) % RD wt

Yellow

2 100.00 13.40 69.0 100.00 721.50

Red

Black

Unpainted

Other*

Total 2 100.00 13.40 69.0 100.00 721.50

* = colours found in combination

52

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts ments included vegetal decoration like that from the bank. The deposit could be downwash from the bank.

ture 4 (a) were white/red/black, red/white, black/white. Structure 4 (b) produced only white plaster from surface (340); Structure 4 (c) produced only red and a red/?blue/ yellow fragment from make-up (321), therefore residual. (Table 2.10)

This plaster cannot satisfactorily be ascribed to any building found during the GFC 1976–8 or 81 excavations. However, plaster with yellow arcs and green swags was found on the Nicholas Street 1974 site, Phase I (C (25)) of late first-or early second-century date, so it is possible that the two lots of plaster have the same source.

Rubbish-dumping over Structure 5

Again only a small quantity of plaster was found, and the colours were so common as to make attribution to a building or scheme of decoration impractical. The colours found in combination were red/white (Table 2.11).

Build-up over clay bank

No useful comments can be made about this plaster (Table 2.16).

Phase III Clay bank

The colours found in combination in these deposits were yellow/white and black/green (Table 2.12). The bank immediately succeeded Structure 3, and, with the exception of the one fragment of red plaster, all the plaster it contained could have come from that structure.

Portable Artefacts Pottery

Alison Heke & Margaret Ward

Structure 7

Introduction

This building produced only twelve fragments of plaster: 1 x red; 2 x black; 1 x green; 2 x red/green; 6 x red/white.

The coarse pottery archive was compiled by Peter Carrington before 1984. The archive was revised by Alison Heke in 1991 after a partial re-examination of the collection and a report written for publication; this was revised in 1994/5, with minor changes in 2009. This mainly comprised the reassignment of some sherds to different coarse ware categories. The samian report was compiled by Margaret Ward in 1984, with very limited revision in 2010. The pottery was quantified by sherd count and weight by fabric group within each context. The report has been ordered by date of excavation. In other words, a discussion of the material recovered from Phase I deposits deals first with Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 (GFC 76–8) followed by Greyfriars’ Court 1981 (GFC 81) and so on.

Clay terrace

The colours found in combination in these deposits were red/black, red/white, yellow/green/white, red/white/black, yellow/white/red, red/black/yellow, black/white, white/ black/yellow, green/white, green/yellow, red/yellow/ black, green/yellow/white, white/black/white/black/ white, black/white/yellow, white/red/white/black, red/ yellow/red). The yellow/white included curved yellow lines on a white ground and the green/yellow/white included foliage. (Table 2.13) This is suggestive of white panels bordered with black, yellow and red stripes and with lines in the same colours plus green. The white areas seem to have had curvilinear and vegetal yellow and green decoration. There were also signs of white and green curvilinear decoration on black.

The two excavations produced a total of 4375 sherds weighing 66,132 g (see Table 2.17). The Roman phases produced 2398 sherds weighing 34,731.5 g or 55% by sherd count and 52.5% by sherd weight of the total. The remainder came from post-Roman and unstratified deposits. There is a notable difference in recovery rates between the two sites, with c 74% (by count) and 65% (by weight) coming from the Roman phases of Greyfriars’ Court 1981, and only 38% by count and 43% by weight coming from the Roman phases of Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8.

This material could be the source of the plaster in the ‘well’ (see below). The lack of other building debris in the bank suggests that the plaster may have been incorporated with the remains of cob walling, and was therefore derived from a timber-framed building. Structure 6

The combined colours were yellow/black/red, red/white, green/white (Table 2.14). Again, interpretation is very hazardous, but a possible interpretation is white panels with red stripes and yellow and black lines, and with green decoration on the white panels.

Table 2.17 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by year of excavation, no of sherds, weight and percentage Site

Pit or cistern/arch

The colours found in combination were black/white, black/ red, white/red/yellow/black, white/yellow/black/green, white/red/black, black/yellow, white/green/yellow/black, white/yellow, yellow/white /green (Table 2.15). The frag53

No sherds

GFC 76–8 Roman phases Post-Roman & u/s Total GFC 81 Roman phases Post-Roman & u/s Total

%

Wt (g)

%

886 1434 2320

38.2 61.8 100.0

15916.5 21219.5 37136.0

42.9 57.1 100.0

1512 543 2055

73.6 26.4 100.0

18815.0 10181.0 28996.0

64.9 35.1 100.0

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Table 2.18 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by phase, structure/activity, no of sherds, weight and percentage Phase Phase I Structure 1 Oven F 51 & assoc contexts Structure 2 Activity predating Structure 5 Structure 5 Phase II Build-up over Structure 1 Structure 3 Structure 4 (a) Rubbish-dumping Phase III Clay bank Structure 4 (b) Structure 4 (b) (modifications) Structure 7 Clay terrace Structure 6 Pit/cistern F22 Build-up over clay bank Total

No sherds

%

Wt (g)

%

75

3.1

1609.0

4.6

94 354

3.9 14.8

1139.5 7476.5

3.3 21.5

25 56

1.0 2.3

629.5 410.0

1.8 1.2

33 11 58 778

1.4 0.5 2.4 32.4

368.5 247.0 582.0 9553.5

1.1 0.7 1.7 27.5

16 114

0.7 4.8

333.5 2667.0

1.0 7.7

33 44 270 204 179

1.4 1.8 11.3 8.5 7.5

169.5 641.5 3475.5 2990.5 1756.0

0.5 1.8 10.0 8.6 5.1

54

2.3

682.5

2.0

2398

100.0

34731.5

100.0

Ill 2.25 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I oven F51 and associated contexts. (Scale 1/4)

The remaining coarse pottery comprises sherds of amphorae. Vessels include a base, handle fragment and body sherds, probably all from a single vessel, of a Dressel 2–4 amphora, which was found scattered over six contexts (Cat no 5). According to Peacock & Williams (1986, 105–6), this type of amphora dates from the late first century BC to the mid-second century but was in decline by the late first century. However, more recent evidence suggests that it continued to be produced in the third century (Arthur & Williams 1992, 250–60). The Chester example is in Peacock and Williams’ Campanian fabric (Peacock & Williams 1986, 87–8). The main content of this type of amphora was wine. A second Dressel 2–4 amphora came from (451), but this vessel is from Baetica in southern Spain. Also from (451) are sherds from a Gauloise 4 wine amphora, with a date span from the mid-first to the early fourth century, and sherds from fish sauce amphorae from southern Spain. The exact forms are uncertain, as only body sherds were recovered, but these vessels have a general date span from the late first century BC to the mid-second century AD.

Phase I Oven F51 and other contexts predicting Structure 2

The oven and a group of deposits forming an occupation spread, represent the earliest activity in Phase I. They are probably contemporary with the erection of Structure 1 but earlier than the erection of Structure 2. Table 2.19 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I oven F51 and associated contexts quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware

No

Wt (g)

Black-on-brown Grey Orange Amphora

10 11 60 1 12 94

30.0 169.5 320.5 141.0 478.5 1139.5

Total

S Gaulish Other amphorae

Holt orange wares, conventionally dated between about 90/100 and 130, form the bulk of the collection and provide a terminus post quem for the earliest activity on the site. They consist mainly of small, fragmented body sherds but diagnostic sherds include the rim of a hemispherical bowl, (Cat no 3), and the lug handle from a bowl (Cat no 4). Recent work on the samian ware and coins from Holt, however, suggests that activity began in the 80s, with intensive occupation in the late Trajanic to early Hadrianic period. There was a decline in production in the 130s with some activity continuing into the Antonine period, possibly ending about 165/70. This was followed by a brief, small-scale resumption in the early to mid-third century (Swan 2004, 262–3).

It is thought that this early activity was probably more or less contemporary with Structure 1. The absence of blackburnished ware from this phase and also from Structure 1 (see below), could be cited as negative evidence to suggest that both were of relatively brief duration, coming to a close at or before about 120. Catalogue

1

2

Other coarse wares which commonly occur in late firstcentury deposits in Chester and which are consistent with the dating of this phase include a single grey ware jar rim (Cat no 2), and the base and wall of a black-on-brown jar (Cat no 1).

3

54

Base and wall of a black-on-brown ware jar; Chester fabric 10, form 16: late first century. GFC 76–8 (452); SF 1061. Ill 2.25.1 Rim of a medium-mouthed grey ware jar; Chester fabric 193, form 819: late first century. GFC 76–8 (444); SF 401. Ill 2.25.2 Rim of a Holt orange ware hemispherical bowl; Chester fabric 154, form 1148; NRFRC code HOL

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts

4

5

OX. GFC 76–8 (486); SF 728. Cf Grimes 1930, nos 153–4: 90/100–130. Ill 2.25.3 Lug handle of a Holt orange ware ?bowl; Chester fabric 152, form 1175; NRFRC code HOL OX; not in Grimes 1930: 90/100–130. GFC 76–8 (373); SF 689. Ill 2.25.4 Base, handle and body sherds of a Dressel 2–4 amphora; Chester fabric 191, form 1176; Peacock & Williams 1986, Class 10: late first century BC to midsecond century AD. GFC 76–8 (451); SF 639. Ill 2.25.5

a single body sherd from a ‘carrot’ amphora should be noted. ‘Carrot’ amphorae are associated with early military sites in Britain and Germany, dating from the early first century onwards, and are thought to have carried dates (Peacock & Williams 109–10, class 12). None of the construction or internal deposits produced any pottery. As noted above, the earliest contexts on the site produced Holt pottery, suggesting a start date of about 90/100. The absence of black-burnished ware suggests the phase came to an end before about 120.

Structure 1

Structure 1, a well made stone building with a mortar floor, was built parallel to the contemporary river front. Its plan and standard of construction suggest a military influence. Both this, and its location, suggest the building may have been a warehouse. A mortar-lined pit was set into the floor of this building but its function is uncertain. A roughly surfaced ‘lane’ lay to the east of Structure 1. Rubbish was allowed to accumulate on this, particularly against the wall of the building. At the end of the phase, Structure 1 may have been abandoned and not immediately demolished. This could explain the lack of clear demolition deposits associated with Structure 1. It is also possible that demolition material was removed and reused as levelling for the next phase.

Catalogue

6

SG samian Dr 18 dish; small fragment of base stamped [PRII]MV I: die 4j of Primulus i, La Graufesenque (b). This stamp has been noted at Rheingönheim and York. One of his others comes from the main site at Corbridge. GFC 76–8 (362). c 70–90. 7 SG samian Dr 27g cup, stamped OFMONT.CR: die 3a of Monti- Cres-, La Graufesenque (a). This stamp presumably records an association of two potters, but neither can be certainly equated with South Gaulish potters stamping with a single name. It seems only to have been used in the Flavian period, and appears occasionally on form 29. Footring worn; possibly a fragment of a graffito on the external lower wall. Slightly burnt? GFC 76–8 (427). c 70–90. 8 SG samian Dr 27g cup with fragment only of stamp; footring worn; within it, below the base is a fragment of a graffito X. GFC 76–8 (362). c 70–90/100. 9 SG samian Dr 27g cup with fragment only of stamp; four adjoining sherds, forming the complete profile; footring a little worn;. GFC 76–8 (364). c 70–100. 10 Rim of a Holt orange ware medium-mouthed jar; Chester fabric 191, form 1176; NRFRC code HOL OX. GFC 76–8; (364); SF 726. Cf Grimes 1930, no 68? 90/100–130. Ill 2.26.10

Table 2.20 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I Structure 1 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Black-on-brown Grey Orange White-slipped orange White Amphorae

Total

SG

Baetican Dressel 20-type S Gaulish Other amphorae

No

Wt (g)

13 5 25 24 1 2 3 1 1 75

147.0 116.5 305.0 466.0 49.5 15.5 449.5 51.0 9.0 1609.0

This phase sees the first appearance of samian ware, all South Gaulish and all falling into the date range 70–110. The coarse wares include late first-century black-on-brown wares and late first–early second-century grey wares; diagnostic sherds in the latter are from medium-mouthed jars. The orange wares, which form the commonest group of coarse wares, all appear to be ‘Cheshire Plain’ types, dating from the late first to the early second century (see Webster, P V 1982, 15) and include a medium-mouthed jar rim, in a micaceous Holt fabric (Cat no 10) and a Holt jar base. There is also a single white ware body sherd of unknown provenance with a micaceous exterior surface.

10 Ill 2.26 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I Structure 1. (Scale 1/4) Table 2.21 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I Structure 2 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Red cc Black cc Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 Shell-tempered White-slipped orange White Mortaria Amphorae

The amphorae recovered include the handle and body sherd of a globular Dressel 20 olive oil amphora (Peacock & Williams 1986, class 25). These vessels range in date from the late first to the early third century. There was also a sherd of a Gauloise 4 wine amphora. Although these vessels have a date span from the mid-first to the early fourth century, they are most common in Britain in the second century (Carreras Monfort 1992). The presence of

Total

55

SG

White-slipped orange Baetican Dressel 20-type S Gaulish Other amphorae

No

Wt (g)

36 1 1 7 76 176 2 4 17 3 1 16 6 8 354

217.0 27.5 3.5 73.0 1134.0 2407.0 10.5 99.0 257.5 18.0 14.5 2742.0 217.0 256.0 7476.5

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Structure 2

The small collection of white-slipped orange wares from this phase all came from the demolition deposits and included a relatively high number of misfired sherds. A group of misfired and waster sherds, both orange and whiteslipped orange wares, was collected as part of a watching brief in 1970, during the construction of the City’s inner ring road, and suggests the location of a kiln or kilns in the extramural area to the north-east of the fortress (Carrington & Ward 1982). The misfired sherds from Greyfriars’ Court, however, do not appear to be products of these kilns. A single rim sherd from a white-slipped orange mortarium was recovered from (371) but its provenance is uncertain (Cat no 23).

All of the samian associated with this building is South Gaulish and most is dated 70–100, although three sherds are dated 60/70–90. There is a single red colour-coated ware body sherd. The form and fabric are very similar to the red colour-coated platter lid found in 1981 (Cat no 24). If not part of the same vessel, it would be notable to find two such unusual vessels on the same site. The post pipe fill (479) produced the body sherd of a Lyons ware beaker. Lyons ware products are generally dated from c 40 to c 70 and this sherd is clearly residual, although one would expect such mixing of deposits to have occurred when the timbers were removed during demolition.

The amphorae comprise sherds from Dressel 20 olive oil amphorae, Gauloise 4 wine amphorae, a fish sauce amphora from southern Spain, the form of which is uncertain, and two sherds from a Dressel 2–4, ‘Graeco-Roman’ amphora in an Italian (Campanian) fabric. This vessel type has distinctive long, bifid handles and was used to carry wine. It was produced between the mid-first century BC and the mid-second century AD (Peacock & Williams 1986, class 10: 105–6 and 87–8 for the fabric).

The black-on-brown sherds consist of two jar rims, SFs 160 and 183, datable to the late first century. It also includes a possible black-surfaced sherd from (371). The fabric is very similar to the Chester Terra Nigra-type fabric, 160, except it is somewhat finer and contains less quartz. The exterior surface of the sherd is partially burnished and is decorated with horizontal girth grooves and rouletted bands. It is probably from a jar or beaker.

Catalogue

A relatively high proportion of the greyware (68 sherds weighing 1073.5 g) came from the demolition deposits and suggests that these incorporated old broken, pottery from the life of the building.

11 SG samian inkwell; five sherds, two adjoining; an airhole survives through the collar, and the surviving internal wall of the inkwell is largely slipped; there is no trace of ink. GFC 76–8 (371). Cf for instance Hartley & Dickinson 1982, fig 47.1: not closely datable but c 70–110 and probably Flavian. 12 SG samian Dr 29 bowl; a fragment of a small fivebudded leaf terminates a scroll above a slight basal line. GFC 76–8 (422). Late Neronian or early Flavian. 13 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small sherd; above a basal line a fragment of scroll contains a small blurred and fragmentary goose facing right. GFC 76–8 (371). Probably c 70–90. 14 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; three sherds including the rim, two large and adjoining; excellent ware. The neat ovolo with a beaded, trifid-tipped tongue is one which appears very frequently on bowls of Germanus (see Hermet 1934, pl 99, 37). Below, the compartments of a winding scroll include a frontal mask (Oswald 1301A) between two spirals, and a dolphin (Oswald 2398) between nine-petalled rosettes. At the bottom is a fragment of leaf and outside the scroll to the right, a fragment of spindle. Style of Germanus: the mask appears on Knorr 1919, Taf 34.21 and the dolphin on Taf 35.42; for a scroll composition employing the dolphin and a mask, see Knorr 1952, Taf 29.2. GFC 76–8 (371); SF 1099. c 70–90. Ill 2.27.14 15 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; two adjoining sherds. Immediately below the bottom of the ovolo is a winding scroll composition with tendrils terminating in a large leaf. Below a horizontal wavy line there appears to be a blurred wreath of leaves. Probably the style of Germanus, cf Jacobs 1912, Taf i.1 in the Bregenz cellar, and Ulbert 1959, Taf 54.18 from Ristissen. GFC 76–8 (371) and post-Roman context (381). c 70–90.

The orange wares form the bulk of the coarse ware collection. Recognisable Holt forms include a medium-mouthed jar, SF 703 (Cat no 18), the rim form of which is identical to that of jar SF 718 from the demolition deposits of this phase; a beaker SFs 740 and 711 (Cat no 19); a reeded rim bowl, SF 710, comparable to Grimes 1930, nos 80–6; a dish (Cat no 20); and lids, SFs 717a (Cat no 21), 717b (Cat no 22) and 723b. Undiagnostic body sherds are mostly in ‘Cheshire Plain’ fabrics. However, a Severn Valley ware jar base, SF 706, was recovered. Severn Valley wares first appear in significant quantities in Chester from about the mid-second century onwards (Carrington 1988, 20), but it is not possible to date this vessel more closely. Other orange ware fabrics are present but cannot be closely identified. They include three body sherds, probably from a single vessel, in a very coarse gritty orange fabric tempered with crushed limestone and shell fragments. The demolition deposits also produced two sherds of black-burnished ware, its first appearance in a Phase I deposit. Both are cooking pot body sherds which can only be dated from about 120. Their presence suggests that demolition of Structure 2 took place shortly after 120. A notable sherd from (371) is the body sherd of a shelltempered ware vessel, most probably from the base of a jar. Shell-tempered wares usually appear in late Roman contexts in Chester, from about 360, as a replacement for black-burnished wares, and so this sherd is presumably intrusive to the phase. 56

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts 22 Rim of a Holt orange ware lid; Chester fabric 152, form 173; NRFRC code HOL OX. GFC 76–8 (480); SF 717b. Cf Grimes 1930, no 99? 90/100–130. Ill 2.27.22 23 Rim of a white-slipped orange mortarium; Chester fabric 201, form 790: provenance unknown. GFC 76– 8 (371); SF 1062. Summary of Oven F 51 and Structures 1 and 2

The presence of Holt orange wares in the earliest deposits on the site, underlying Structure 2, indicate initial activity from about 90/100 and suggest that Structure 2 was slightly later than Structure 1. The small amount of pottery recovered from Structure 1, (75 sherds weighing 1609 g), in comparison to that recovered from Structure 2, (354 sherds weighing 7477 g), could reflect the clean condition of the building, or merely the fact that not much of it was excavated. The absence of black-burnished ware also suggests that the building had a short life, with occupation coming to an end at, or just before, about 120. It seems probable, however, that Structure 1 remained standing after it was abandoned and was demolished immediately before the start of Phase II, because the accumulations of rubbish over Structure 2 are absent over Structure 1. The presence of two black-burnished ware sherds in the demolition deposits of Structure 2 suggests that demolition occurred there shortly after about 120.

Ill 2.27 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase I Structure 2. (Scale nos 14–17 1/2; nos 18–22 1/4)

16 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a single sherd. To the right of a vertical wavy line is a small ?column and a stylised feature (grassy knoll?); below, a basal wreath of leafand-bud motifs used by Germanus among others (Knorr 1919, Taf 35.58). Another bowl of Germanus may display a similar composition including panels with columns and running animals (Knorr 1952, Taf 29.A). GFC 76–8 (371); SF 1100. c 70–90. Ill 2.27.16 17 SG samian Dr 37 bowl. A small sherd with an animal’s forelegs running right above a stylised feature (grassy knoll? cf Knorr 1919, Taf 39.T) towards a budded leaf belonging to a small tree. Trees with this sort of budcluster feature on bowls in a style influenced by, but frequently later than, Germanus; similar compositions appear in the Domitianic cellar at Bregenz (Jacobs 1912, Taf i. 4 etc). Apparently contemporary with the work of Germanus, amici cognatique (cf Knorr 1919, Taf 74.c for a Dr 29 stamped OFSECVND). GFC 76–8 (371); SF 1101. c 70–90. Ill 2.27.17 18 Rim of a ?Holt orange medium-mouthed jar; Chester fabric 152? form 141? NRFRC code HOL OX? GFC 76–8 (480) and (471); SF 703. Cf Grimes 1930, no 71? 90/100–130. Ill 2.27.18 19 Rim of an orange ware beaker. Chester fabric 511, form 1177. GFC 76–8 (437); SFs 740 and 711. Cf Grimes 1930, nos 196–9: 90/100–130. Ill 2.27.19 20 Rim of a Holt orange ware dish; Chester fabric 154, form 254; NRFRC code HOL OX. GFC 76–8 (437); SF 471. Cf Grimes 1930, no 131: 90/100–130. 21 Rim of a Holt orange ware lid; Chester fabric 152, form 173; NRFRC code HOL OX. GFC 76–8 (480); SF 717a. Cf Grimes 1930, no 99? 90/100–130. Ill 2.27.21

Activity predating Structure 5

Evidence of activity predating Structure 5 comprises patches of charcoal and trample deposits in various locations and a small, clay filled pit beneath Room 4. Table 2.22 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase I activity predating Structure 5 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware

No

Wt (g)

Red cc Black/brown Orange Amphorae Total

21 2 1 1 25

452.0 136.0 1.5 40.0 629.5

S Gaulish

The pottery from these deposits all came from (199). It includes a single red colour-coated form (Cat no 24), an unusual lid with upturned rim reminiscent of Pompeian red ware vessels. A lid such as this would have covered a shallow, flat-bottomed dish or platter; these vessels were probably used for baking flat loaves. David Peacock, who examined a sample from the Greyfriars’ Court vessel in 1982, suggested that it is probably an imitation of Pompeian red ware, made in Britain and is comparable to his Pompeian red ware fabric 3. Pompeian red ware was imported to Britain from the early first century, especially from the mid- to late first century (Swan 1988, 13). The late Vivien Swan, however, who examined the vessel in July 1992, identified it as a platter from Gallia Belgica. The vessel would not have been traded but would have been brought over to Britain by a soldier in his kit bag (V G Swan pers comm).

57

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements A terminus post quem of 90/100 for this phase is provided by a single rim sherd from a Holt orange ware dish (Cat no 26). Other coarse pottery from (199) includes a late firstcentury black-on-brown jar base, (Cat no 25), and the body sherd of a Gauloise 4 wine amphora, with a date span of the mid-first to the early fourth centuries.

Catalogue

27 SG samian Dr 18 dish; three adjoining sherds from a fine vessel with fragment only of stamp; footring worn. GFC 81 (168). c 70–90? 28 SG samian inkwell; two wall sherds, from GFC 81 (179), probably from the same vessel as a small fragment in GFC 81 (180), and possibly the same vessel as Cat no 47 below. The surviving internal wall is unslipped and displays traces of ink. Not closely datable but c 70–110, probably Flavian.

Catalogue

24 Red colour-coated ?lid of shallow platter; provenance unknown; Chester fabric 463? form 705. GFC 81 (199); SF 110. Ill 2.28.24 25 Base of a black-on-brown ware jar; Chester fabric 10, form 16. GFC 81 (199); SF 130. Late first century. 26 Rim of a Holt orange ware ?dish; Chester fabric 152, form 236; NRFRC code HOL OX. GFC 81 (199); SF 195. Cf Grimes 1930, nos 131–2? 90/100–130. Ill 2.28.26

Phase II Build-up over Structures 1 and 2 Table 2.24 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase II build-up over Structures 1 and 2 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Grey Orange Total

Structure 5 Table 2.23 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase I Structure 5 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight

Samian Black-on-brown Orange White-slipped orange Total

SG

No

Wt (g)

7 2 45 2 56

41.0 19.0 322.0 28.0 410.0

No

Wt (g)

1 10 22 33

3.0 104.5 261.0 368.5

As the pottery evidence suggests that Phase I drew to a close about 120, this activity must have taken place shortly after that date. A single sherd of South Gaulish samian, with a date bracket of 70/80–110, was recovered from (368). Much of the coarse pottery is not closely datable but there are recognisable Holt orange wares from (363). The absence of black-burnished ware suggests either a shortlived period of activity or the dumping of old material.

Ill 2.28 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from activity predating Phase I Structure 5. (Scale 1/4)

Ware

SG

Structure 3

Structure 3, which replaced Structure 1, may well have had the same function as its predecessor, although the new building had a more substantial superstructure, with massive foundations and a hard wearing sandstone brash and mortar floor. The history of this building is unclear as the occupation and demolition deposits were removed or destroyed by later activity.

The samian comprises South Gaulish vessels dated 70– 100/110, including Dr 18 dishes and at least one inkwell. There are two late first-century black-on-brown ware sherds from (180), including the rim of a medium-mouthed jar. The coarse wares mainly comprise undiagnostic body sherds in ‘Cheshire Plain’ fabrics, but there some possible Holt types. These wares are all generally dated between the late first and early second centuries. The demolition deposit (225) produced a single orange ware body sherd, possibly from a Wilderspool vessel. The remaining Roman pottery from this small collection consists of two misfired body sherds from (170). One appears to have traces of slip on the exterior surface and may have come from a white-slipped orange vessel. It is possibly a Foregate Street kiln product.

Table 2.25 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase II Structure 3 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Grey Orange Total

SG

No

Wt (g)

1 7 3 11

2.0 217.0 28.0 247.0

The destruction and robbing of Structure 3 meant that the surfaces that survived were much disturbed and only a handful of sherds was recovered (see Table 2.25). The pottery includes a single vessel of South Gaulish samian, dated 70–100, from (328). The other pottery comprises coarse grey and orange wares. Diagnostic sherds are late first to early second century in date and are presumably residual, as Phase II must be later than c 120. The grey wares include a carinated bowl, SF 252, from (343), and a flat-rimmed dish, SF 251, from (328). Context (327) produced a sherd of grey ware, the exterior surface of which is decorated with a double vertical row of self-coloured barbotine dots. The interior surface is partially oxidised.

The construction deposits produced material which need be dated no later than the late first to early second centuries: there is no sign of any significant time lag between the earliest activity in this area and the erection of Structure 5. The absence of black-burnished ware also suggests that this phase drew to a close before about 120, although such negative evidence should be regarded with caution considering the small quantity of pottery recovered. 58

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts Table 2.27 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase II rubbish-dumping quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight

A terminus ante quem for the demolition of Structure 3 is provided by a Central Gaulish samian vessel dated 150– 175 from the Phase III clay bank which overlay the remains of the building.

Ware Samian Black-surfaced Orange mica-coated White eggshell Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 White-slipped orange White Mortaria

Structure 4 (a)

Structure 4 was built on the site of Structure 2 but was aligned parallel to the river, rather than at right angles to it, as Structure 2 had been. It was a stone building divided into two ranges by a central wall. It also had a hypocaust, although this may have been a secondary feature in the building. There was also some evidence for a veranda. All these features suggest a residential building of a fairly high standard. Structure 4 continued in use in Phase III.

Amphorae

Total

Table 2.26 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase II Structure 4 (a) quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Grey Orange White Total

SG

No

Wt (g)

2 15 40 1 58

8.0 205.5 359.5 9.0 582.0

SG CG

White-slipped orange White Verulamium area Baetican Dressel 20-type S Gaulish Other amphorae

No

Wt (g)

53 1 1 10 1 13 274 245 1 119 10 2 2 18 2 27 779

254.0 17.0 1.5 31.0 3.0 274.5 2325.0 2986.0 36.5 1070.0 88.0 40.5 90.5 1172.5 20.5 1143.0 9553.5

and white eggshell wares in this phase is of note as they form part of a suite of vessels known as ‘legionary wares’. These vessels are now thought to have been produced at Holt and elsewhere for a short-lived period in the decade between c 118 and 128. Their production was probably linked to the transfer of troops to Britain, especially from Upper Germany and Spain (Swan 2004, 279).

As with Structure 3 there is much residual material of late first- to early second-century date in this group (although, as noted above, the deposit must postdate about 120). The samian vessels, both South Gaulish, consist of an indeterminate vessel dated 70–100/110 and a Dr 37 bowl with a date bracket of 60–100. The grey wares include few diagnostic sherds but (361) produced a jar rim, SF 432. The orange wares include typical Holt products, for example a medium-mouthed jar from (361) and a shallow dish from (227). Some of the dishes, reminiscent of Grimes 1930, no 131, have exterior sooting.

The black-on-brown and grey wares include typical firstcentury forms, such as jars and bowls. Most of the grey and orange wares consists of undiagnostic body sherds. However, recognisable Holt forms include a flagon handle, jars (including Grimes 1930, no 57 with shoulder girth groove), beakers (including Grimes 1930, no 197), carinated reeded-rim bowls, a tazza with notched decoration (see Grimes 1930, no 214) with a very roughly finished, untrimmed and unsmoothed base, a dish comparable to Grimes 1930, nos 153–4, and lids.

Rubbish-dumping

A particularly notable form from this phase is a multispouted lamp in coarse orange ware. One sherd of this vessel came from (114) and three sherds, two adjoining, came from (138). Lamps were produced at Holt and Wilderspool but none are known to parallel the Greyfriars’ Court example, in which the wick holes are in the form of small spouts emerging from the top of the base ring (Cat no 39).

With the demolition of Structure 5, this part of the site remained open and a clayey soil developed. Above this, a very dark organic soil formed, presumably a rubbish dump, that was particularly rich in finds, especially at its eastern end. It produced 79% by sherd count and 76% by weight of the total, with much of the material coming from (145). Towards the end of this period, the organic deposit was partially sealed by layers of clay, silt and sandstone brash. Some of these deposits may have been put down for levelling to provide access for rubbish-dumping further to the north (see below). Taken together these deposits produced the largest pottery assemblage on the site.

A single sherd of black-burnished ware came from (145). This is an early flanged bowl form comparable to Gillam 1976, type 42, dated between the late second and the early third centuries. Along with the Central Gaulish samian sherd from (114), dated roughly 150–200, this provides important dating evidence for the phase as these vessels provide a terminus post quem of at least the late second century for the close of the deposit.

The high proportion of residual late first-century pottery in these deposit is again notable. Most of the South Gaulish samian falls within the general date range of 70– 110, although nine vessels are dated 60–90. Context (114) produced a single sherd of Central Gaulish samian, with a date range of 150–200. A handful of fine wares was recovered, orange mica-coated wares from Holt? being the commonest. The only diagnostic form is an indented beaker from (145), comparable to Grimes 1930, nos 201–5. The base of a white eggshell ware bowl was also recovered. The presence of a small group of Holt orange mica-coated

The white-slipped orange wares include a three-ribbed flagon handle in a Holt fabric, two rim sherds, one with a very worn spout, and an unusual ring-necked flagon rim, comparable to Gillam 1968, type 6 (Cat no 41). These vessels are again late first to early second century in date. The mortaria include two Radlett-Brockley Hill rims, both datable to the late first and early second centuries. 59

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements The amphorae comprises sherds from Dressel 20 olive oil amphorae, dated between the early first and mid-third centuries, and from South Spanish fish sauce vessels, with a broad date span from the late first century BC to the midsecond century AD. Examples of Dressel 2–4 came from (216), in a Catalan fabric and from (244) in an Italian fabric. These forms both date from the mid-first century BC to the mid-second century AD (and possibly into the third century). Catalogue

29 SG samian inkwell; a small sherd; the surviving internal wall is unslipped and displays traces of ink. GFC 81 (166). Not closely datable but c 70–110 30 SG samian Dr 29 bowl; a tiny fragment, which could possibly have come from the same vessel as Cat no 59 below; basal grooves below a fragment of tendril or stalk. GFC 81 (114). Late Neronian or early Flavian. 31 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small sherd with a horizontal wavy line above the neat, single-bordered ovolo (cf Atkinson 1914, pl vii. 37, 38); below another wavy line, a wreath of godroons (as on the Pompeii bowl Atkinson 1914, no 37). GFC 81 (114); SF 210. c 70– 90. Ill 2.29.31 32 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a single sherd with a wreath of leaf-and-bud motifs above a panelled zone with vertical wavy lines surmounted by an eight-petalled rosette. To the left, a fragment probably of a poppyheaded motif; to the right, a goose (Oswald 2246A) on top of a composite ornament including the eightpetalled rosette and lanceolate leaves (cf Knorr 1912, Taf xxiii.9). The wreath was used on Dr 29s of Cosi Rufi among others (Knorr 1919, Taf 24.7, and Textbild 12, central motif). GFC 81 (145); SF 211. c 70–90. Ill 2.29.32 33 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small sherd with a blurred ovolo used by M Crestio, above a wavy line border and a very blurred, stylised leaf. GFC 81 (227); SF 212. c 75–95 (B M Dickinson pers comm). Ill 2.29.33 34 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small sherd with a blurred ovolo with a trifid-tipped tongue turned right, which Miss B M Dickinson notes was used on work of Sulpicius at Wilderspool. GFC 81 (114). c 80–110. 35 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; three sherds, two adjoining, with coarse, badly blurred decoration: the ovolo appears to have a rosette-tipped tongue; below, a compartment of a scroll is filled with coarse arrowheads. GFC 1981 (138). c 80–110. 36 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small sherd with an ovolo with trifid-tipped tongue turned to the left, which Miss Dickinson notes has not been recorded so far on stamped bowls; below the wavy line, the head of a (female?) figure to the right of a vertical border. GFC 81 (138). c 80–110. 37 SG samian Dr 37 bowl ; a small, badly burnt sherd with very indistinct decoration: the ovolo has a trifidtipped tongue turned to the right; below, a blurred horizontal border, and a vertical wavy line topped by a rosette forms a panel border. GFC 81 (224). c 80– 110.

Ill 2.29 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase II rubbish-dumping. (Scale nos 31–9 1/2; nos 40–1 1/4)

38 CG samian Dr 36 dish; a large basal sherd. GFC 81 (114). c 150–200. 39 Multi-spouted lamp in orange ware; Chester fabric 194, form 1317: provenance unknown. GFC 81 (138); SF 196. Ill 2.29.39 40 Rim of a black-burnished ware 1 flanged bowl; Chester fabric 19, form 38; NRFRC code DOR BB1. GFC 81 (145); SF 198. Gillam 1976, no 42: late second to early third century. Ill 2.29.40 41 Rim of a ?Holt white-slipped orange ring-necked flagon; Chester fabric 107? form 1178; NRFRC code ?HOL WS. GFC 81 (137); SF 197. Late first to early second century? Ill 2.29.41 These deposits produced a general spread of residual material broadly dating between the late first and early second centuries. It is clear from the presence of black-burnished ware in the demolition deposits of Phase I Structure 2 that Phase II must postdate about 120. The high proportion of late first-century wares, particularly grey wares, is suggestive of the redeposition of old broken pottery and rubbish in this phase. Evidence to indicate when this phase drew to a close is provided by a Central Gaulish samian vessel, dated between 150 and 200 and one sherd of black-burnished ware, dated between the late second and early third centuries. This suggests rubbish dumping continued for at least sixty years, coming to a close towards the end of the second and the beginning of the third centuries.

Phase III Clay bank

After Structure 3 was demolished, a large quantity of clay and turf was dumped over the site where it had once stood, forming a bank which ran from north to south. This may 60

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts Structure 4 (b)

Table 2.28 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III clay bank quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Grey Orange White-slipped orange Amphorae Total

CG

S Gaulish

No

Wt (g)

1 4 9 1 1 16

14.0 55.5 200.0 9.0 55.0 333.5

The pottery from this structure derives from the clay deposits used for resurfacing the floors and contains clearly residual material; it therefore gives no evidence as to when this resurfacing took place. Table 2.29 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III Structure 4 (b) quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware

have been a defensive barrier, perhaps constructed under official authority.

Samian Grey Orange White-slipped orange White Amphorae

A small collection of pottery, 16 sherds weighing 333.3 g, was recovered from the bank (see Table 2.28). The small deposit of soil and mortar, (305), presumably containing demolition material from Structure 3, produced a single sherd of Central Gaulish samian, a Dr 37 bowl with a date bracket of 150–175. This vessel provides a terminus post quem for the start of Phase III.

SG

Baetican Dressel 20-type Other amphorae

Total

No

Wt (g)

2 25 82 2 1 1 1 114

11.0 988.5 1077.0 17.5 5.0 557 11.0 2667.0

The pottery collection includes little of note. The grey wares include several jar bases, all datable to the late first century. The orange wares consist mainly of Holt types, including medium-mouthed jars from (325) and (329) and a beaker and a reeded-rim bowl from (333). Two sherds of amphora were recovered, comprising a large body sherd from a Dressel 20 olive oil amphora, with a date range from the early first to the mid-third century, and a Gauloise 4 wine amphora with a date range of the midfirst to the early fourth century.

The coarse pottery, where datable, is clearly residual. The grey wares comprise late first-century types. The orange fabrics appear to be Holt types, as is the only diagnostic sherd, a carinated, reeded-rim bowl, SF 357, in a micaceous Holt fabric (cf Grimes 1930, fig 65). The remaining coarse wares comprise a single white-slipped orange ware sherd and a sherd from a Gauloise 4 wine amphora. This vessel type has a broad date range of the mid-first to the early fourth century, although it occurs most commonly in Britain in second-century deposits (Carreras Monfort 1992).

Structure 4 (c)

In this final sub-phase of Structure 4, only Room 4 shows evidence of further resurfacing. Medieval robbing, however, has destroyed the later deposits.

Catalogue Table 2.30 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III Structure 4 (c) quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight

42 CG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small, battered sherd. The battered decoration is bordered vertically by a beadrow (?), probably Rogers A2. To the left is a cushion (see Stanfield & Simpson 1958, pl 161.50 and p 266), and to the right an animal ran left above a leafy cross motif (Rogers L11). The latter is cut off at the bottom as on such bowls as Stanfield & Simpson 1958, pl 158.22 and Karnitsch 1959, Taf 66.2. Complete examples of this motif occur on two bowls from Heronbridge (Petch, J A 1933, pl xii.51, 52) and with a fragmentary stamp of Cinnamus from Love St, Chester (Newstead 1939, pl xxix.12). The Greyfriars bowl will also have been in the style of Cinnamus: the cushion appears in the Mumrills pit group (Hartley, B R 1961, fig 8.1) as well as on bowls from Colchester and Lauriacum (Hull 1963, fig 43.7; Karnitsch 1955, Taf 5.1,5); both the cushion and the leafy cross occur on a bowl from Dover (Bird & Marsh 1981, fig 51.3247). GFC 76–8 (305); SF 1102. c 150– 175. Ill 2.30.42

Ware Samian Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 White-slipped orange White Total

SG

No

Wt (g)

2 1 12 13 2 2 1 33

4.0 18.0 60.5 70 5.0 9.0 3.0 169.5

As with the previous sub-phase, (b), the pottery from Room 4 provides little useful dating evidence. Only two sherds of samian were recovered, both South Gaulish vessels. They comprise a Dr 27 cup with a date bracket of 70/80–110 and a dish/bowl dated between 70 and 110. The remainder of the pottery consists mainly of coarse grey and orange wares, broadly datable to the late first to early second centuries. The black-burnished ware sherds can only be said to postdate 120. Deposit (313), which is thought to have formed the ground surface from the end of the Roman occupation of the site to the construction of the friary, produced just two sherds of Holt orange ware. Structure 7

Again the collection of pottery is small and mainly residual. It consists almost entirely of orange wares, including narrow- and medium-mouthed jars from Holt, conventionally dated between c 90/100 and 130. Three sherds of

42 Ill 2.30 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III clay bank. (Scale 1/2)

61

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Table 2.32 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III clay terrace quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight

black-burnished ware were also recovered. These are from closed forms, probably cooking pots, but can only be dated from about 120. The only other coarse pottery is the body sherd of a white-slipped orange amphora, the source of which is unknown.

Ware Samian Orange mica-coated Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 White-slipped orange White Mortaria Amphorae Total

Table 2.31 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III Structure 7 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware

No

Wt (g)

Orange Black-burnished 1 Amphorae Total

40 3 1 44

599.0 16.5 26.0 641.5

Other amphorae

Clay terrace

SG CG

Other white Other amphorae

No

Wt (g)

15 1 10 3 112 77 3 33 7 4 5 270

79.5 9.0 94.5 13.0 1136.0 1324.0 23.0 324.0 73.0 79.0 320.5 3475.5

numerous and so the full die is likely to have had a comparatively short life. GFC 81 (108). c 80–90. 44 SG samian Dr 27g cup; two adjoining sherds of the slightly worn footring, stamped OFCALVI: die 5t of Calvus i, La Graufesenque (b). This is one of Calvus i’s less common stamps and so cannot be closely dated, but its occurrence at the Caerleon and York fortresses suggests use in the Flavian period. GFC 81 (109). c 70–95. 45 CG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small battered sherd with panelling with a very blurred vertical border. To the right, a fragment possibly belonging to a (corded?) medallion; to the left, a fragment of a naturalistic leaf (Rogers H29 or H35), used by such potters as Laxtucissa and Paternus v. GFC 81 (108); SF 213. Probably c 150–180/200. Ill 2.31.45 46 Rim of a black-burnished ware 1 cooking pot; Chester fabric 19, form 320? NRFRC code DOR BB1. GFC 81 (68); SF 165. Gillam 1976, no 11: late third to early fourth century.

As mentioned previously, the pottery from the Phase II rubbish-dumping deposits indicates that the start of Phase III must postdate the late second to early third centuries. In the light of this the great bulk of the material from the terrace must be residual. The high proportion of grey wares suggests the redeposition of old rubbish to build up the terrace, as does the frequency of wall plaster from demolition deposits. As a result there is little clear dating evidence from the terrace itself. The only contemporary material comes from (108), which may have accumulated over the terrace during the occupation of Structure 6. This comprises a Central Gaulish samian vessel with a date range of 150–180/200 and the rim of a black-burnished ware cooking pot dated between the late third and early fourth centuries. This vessel is the latest dated black-burnished ware form from the Roman phases of the two excavations. Context (108) produced the greatest quantity of pottery from the phase, with 35% of the total sherd count and 42% of the total sherd weight. Only two other sherds of blackburnished ware were recovered from the terrace deposits, both only broadly datable from about 120. Apart from the Central Gaulish sherd mentioned above, all the samian is South Gaulish. The orange wares comprise mainly Holt types, including a jar with a shoulder girth groove from (136), carinated, reeded-rim bowls from (162) and (77) and a lid from (108). Context (109) produced three sherds from a mortarium from North Gaul, with a general date range of c 65–100. The only other pottery of note includes the rim and handle of a Rhodian amphora from (136) (Peacock & Williams 1986, Class 9). These vessels date between the late first century BC and the early second century AD and their main content is thought to have been wine (Peacock & Williams 1986, 103). Two sherds from a South Spanish fish sauce amphora, dated between the late first century BC and the mid-second century AD, were also recovered from (136).

Ill 2.31 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III clay terrace. (Scale 1/2)

Structure 6

Structure 6 was erected after the construction of the clay terrace and so must postdate this feature. The samian consists of two sherds from South Gaulish Dr 37 bowls from (104) and (217), dated 80–110 and 70–90 Table 2.33 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III Structure 6 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian

SG CG

Red cc Orange mica-coated Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 and imitation black-burnished 2 White-slipped orange White Amphorae Baetican Dressel 20-type Other amphorae Total

Catalogue

43 SG samian 15/17 or 18 dish; a small, burnt basal sherd stamped OF[CO.IVC]: die 1a of Co(sius?) Iucundus, La Graufesenque (c). This potter was almost certainly not active in the pre-Flavian period and an example of the stamp from Newstead suggests that the die was in use in the 80s (Newstead 1939, pl xxix.8 and .8a). Stamps from a broken version of the die are more 62

No

Wt (g)

2 7 1 2 2 13 69 87 9 1 7 4 204

49.0 113.0 3.0 15.0 17.0 89.0 1247.0 761.5 128.5 6.0 511.5 50.0 2990.5

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts respectively. (159) produced seven sherds from a Central Gaulish Dr 37 bowl dated 100–120.

Catalogue

47 SG samian inkwell; three sherds forming a large part of the rim, possibly from the same vessel as Cat no 28 above; there is no inner flange extant. The surviving interior is unslipped and may display traces of ink. GFC 81 (119). Not closely datable: c 70–110. 48 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; very battered zonal decoration: basal wreath of bifid leaves in high relief (cf Knorr 1912, Taf xxi.10; Knorr 1952, Taf 30 K NATALIS); above, a series of festoons with ?six-petalled rosettes are divided by pendants terminating in inverted grass plant motifs. The latter recur, truncated, beneath each festoon. For the complete and cut-off version see Knorr 1919, Textbild 12 and Taf 83.11, 11a OFVITAL; the cut-off version was used below figures on bowls of such potters as Mercato (r) (Knorr 1919, Taf 57D, F etc). For the motif used upside down, see Curle 1911, pl xli.14; Grimes 1930, fig 35.17; Newstead 1939, pl xxiv.7 from Love Street, Chester. GFC 81 (104); SF 214. Probably c 80–100. Ill 2.32.48 49 CG samian Dr 37 bowl; complete profile, including the slightly worn footring, formed by seven sherds from GFC 81 (159) and two others from GFC 81 (144), a post-Roman context; SF 215. Good orange-red gloss on a yellow-flecked red fabric. All of the decoration is very badly blurred: the ovolo (Rogers B37) and wavy line (A24) are set above a frieze of animals including a boar (Stanfield & Simpson 1958, pl 19.245; Térrisse 1968, pl xiv.1051), panther (Stanfield & Simpson 1958, pl 17.211) and a partially impressed tree (Rogers N4); below the whole, a battered wreath of bifid leaves (G284). Style of Igocatus, a potter of Les Martres-de-Veyre previously known as X-4; for the tree, see Stanfield & Simpson 1958, pl 18.225 and for the wreath, pl 18.233. c 100–120. Ill 2.32.49 50 Base of a red colour-coated lamp from ?Central Italy (D M Bailey pers comm. Loeschcke type VIII. GFC 81(217); SF 106. Late first to mid-second century. Ill 2.32.50 51 Rim of an imitation black-burnished ware 2 cooking pot; Chester fabric 764, form 1169; cf NRFRC code COL BB2. GFC 81 (143) and (151); SF 171. Cf Gillam 1976, nos 7–8; ?early to mid-third century. 52 Rim of an imitation black-burnished ware 2 cooking pot; Chester fabric 764, form 1169; cf NRFRC code COL BB2. GFC 81 (143); SF 194. Cf Gillam 1976, nos 7–8; ?early to mid-third century. Ill 2.32.52

A vessel of note from these deposits is the stamped base fragment of a red colour-coated lamp of Loeschcke type VIII (Loeschcke 1919) from context (217) (Cat no 50). D M Bailey, who examined the sherd in 1983, suggests that it was made in Italy, probably Central Italy, by one of the Munatii, and dates the vessel between the late first and mid-second centuries. A Holt orange mica-coated bowl? rim was recovered from (149). A black-on-brown ware base sherd came from (217). Coarse grey wares consist entirely of indeterminate body sherds apart from a single medium-mouthed jar rim from (142). Coarse orange ware forms include Holt types, for example a flagon handle from (159), a medium-mouthed jar from (212), bowls from (119) and (217), and a lid from (217). This phase sees the first appearance in any quantity of black-burnished ware, especially from (143) and (151), both apparently demolition deposits. Context (151) produced an early to ?mid-third-century cooking pot rim with obtuse-angled lattice, while an early third-century cooking pot rim was recovered from (104). This group of black-burnished ware is notable for a further reason in that it includes two cooking pots, (SFs 171 and 194), both in what appears to be a wheel-made imitation black-burnished ware 2 (BB2) fabric, dating to the first half of the third century (pers comm Jason Monaghan, who examined a sherd from SF 171 in 1992). Monaghan concluded that the very orange core and rather brown surface of the sherd is indicative of one of the derivative industries: local kilns which produced vessels in vaguely BB1/BB2 traditions. Distribution maps consistently restrict the range of BB2 to eastern England and Scotland (Gillam 1976, 58 and Williams, D F 1977, 165). Both vessels come from context (143), although six sherds from SF 171 (Cat no 51), join nine from (151), a rubble deposit sealed by (143). On rim form, both vessels date to approximately the mid-third century. If these vessels are indeed imitation BB2, their presence in Chester seems to be unique. As it has always been assumed that all black-burnished ware found in Chester is BB1, it is possible that ‘imitation BB2’ vessels may have been overlooked. It is unfortunate, because of the residual nature of the collection and the disturbance caused by later robbing of the building, that the context of these vessels cannot be more reliably dated.

Pit/Cistern F22

The arch, W3, and the large pit or cistern, F22, are the hardest features on the site to interpret. Both their purpose and their date are uncertain, although the pit is believed to be Roman and may have served as a cistern. Its upper fills contained mixed deposits with some medieval and post-medieval material, as also did the loose soil deposits close to the underside of the arch which spanned the pit.

The amphorae comprise sherds of Italian and Catalan Dressel 2–4 wine amphorae, together with those from South Spanish Dressel 20 olive oil vessels. It is possible that context (108), discussed above under Phase III Clay terrace, represents an occupation layer from Structure 6. If so, the presence of a black-burnished ware cooking pot rim of late third- to early fourth-century date pushes forward the period of occupation.

The samian ware is all South Gaulish and ranges in date from about 70 to 110, apart from a single vessel from Central Gaul with a date bracket of 120–160. 63

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements

Ill 2.32 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III Structure 6. (Scale nos 48–50 1/2; no 52 1/4)

64

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts Table 2.34 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III pit/cistern F22 quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Red cc Black cc Orange mica-coated Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 White-slipped orange White Mortaria Amphorae

Total

No

Wt (g)

8 2 5 1 1 1 60 75 7 11 1 White-slipped orange 1 Baetican Dressel 20-type 1 S Gaulish 2 Other amphorae 3 179

45.0 33.0 40.0 4.5 4.0 6.0 512.0 773.5 53.0 72.0 7.0 21.0 24.0 13.0 148.0 1756.0

SG CG

55 CG samian Dr 37 bowl; fine ware with an excellent pinkish red gloss. Decoration rather battered: a double-bordered ovolo with a central core and a tongue with a blurred terminal. Below, superimposed on the horizontal beadrow (Rogers A2) is an astragalus terminating the vertical border of the panelling. To the left next to a double medallion is a small cross, and to the right is a cruciform composition including a trifid ornament (Rogers G67?). The style may be associated with that of Advocisus, but the general appearance of the sherd is earlier; Miss B M Dickinson notes that the only other style in which the cross is known is that of the ‘Medetus-Ranto’ group. GFC 81 (134); SF 216. Probably c 120–150/160. Ill 2.33.55

The red colour-coated ware, which includes a bowl rim, is similar to the Holt fabric described by Grimes as ‘imitation samian slip of red or brown-red colour ... frequently occurs on ware in which an attempt has been made to attain the characteristic samian “body”’ (1930, 145). A Nene Valley ware vessel can only be dated loosely between the mid-second and the late fourth centuries. The remaining fine ware comprises a single orange mica-coated sherd.

Ill 2.33 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from Phase III pit/cistern F22. (Scale 1/2)

Build-up over clay bank

Apart from a handful of sherds, almost all of the pottery came from context (285), the compact soil deposit which accumulated over the top of the bank.

The coarse wares include a relatively high proportion of orange wares. These include several recognizable Holt forms, for example, a medium-mouthed jar with shoulder girth groove from (93), medium-mouthed jars, sooted internally and externally, from (102) and (94) and shallow dishes from (113) and (102).

Table 2.35 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from Phase III build-up over clay bank quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian Orange mica-coated Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 White-slipped orange White Amphorae

The black-burnished ware from this phase was scattered more or less evenly throughout the contexts. It consists mainly of indeterminate body sherds and includes a wheelthrown body sherd in a fabric similar to the ‘imitation black-burnished 2 fabric’ discussed previously. Context (94) produced the rim sherds of a black-burnished ware lid (see Wallace & Webster 1989 for a discussion of blackburnished ware lids).

Total

SG

Baetican Dressel 20-type S Gaulish Other amphorae

No

Wt (g)

2 1 1 14 18 3 9 2 2 1 1 54

12.0 17.0 17.0 122.0 222.5 32.5 128.0 21.0 49.5 25.0 36.0 682.5

Two South Gaulish samian vessels, including a Dr 37 bowl and dating between 70 and 110, came from (285).

The recognisable amphorae comprise the common forms, Dressel 20 and Gauloise 4, which date between the early first and mid-third centuries and the mid-first to early fourth centuries respectively.

Coarse grey and orange wares are the most common. The grey wares are mainly late first-century types. However, there is also the handle fragment of a probable grey ware copy of a black-burnished ware beaker, SF 511, dated on rim form to the second century. The orange wares include typical Holt forms, for example, medium-mouthed jars.

These features are loosely contemporary with Structure 6, which appears to have been occupied in the third century. However, as can be seen, none of the pottery need be dated later than the mid-second century.

The black-burnished ware comprises two small body sherds from (285) and the rim of a flat-rimmed dish or bowl from (282), dated to the mid-second century.

Catalogue

53 SG samian Dr 18R dish; flattened rim and rounded external junction of wall and base. Rim sherd from GFC 81 (94), from the same vessel as one in GFC 76–8 (161) and five sherds in GFC 76–8 (216). Probably c 80–110. 54 CG samian Dr 18/31R dish; two adjoining sherds of worn footring, battered and burnt black. GFC 81 (206). c 120–160.

As mentioned previously, much of the pottery from the clay bank, F41, is residual, apart from a Central Gaulish samian vessel with a date bracket of 150–175, which provides a terminus post quem for the start of Phase III. The accumulation of soil deposits over the bank must, there65

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements Table 2.36 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight

fore, date from at least the mid-second century, although no pottery was recovered which is clearly later than this. The presence of two coins of mid- to late fourth-century date suggests that occupation of the site, or activity in the area, continued into the second half of the fourth century.

Ware Samian

Red cc Black cc Orange mica-coated Black-surfaced Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 Shell-tempered White-slipped orange White Mortaria

Pottery from GFC 76–8 post-Roman and unstratified contexts Vessels from these deposits supplement the meagre collection of third- and fourth-century vessels from phased contexts. They include two examples of East Gaulish samian, a Dr 45 mortarium, with a date bracket of 170/ 180–260, from (53), and a flagon from (270), dated 200– 260. Red colour-coated wares include an Oxfordshire dish from (286) dated to the mid-third century and a beaker from (475) dated from about 240. Other fine wares from the site include two fourth-century Nene Valley ware black colour-coated dishes from (52) and (532).

Amphorae

Total

The coarse wares include a mid-third-century black-burnished ware cooking pot rim, SF 810, from (201) and a late third- to early fourth-century cooking pot, SF 1064, from (268) (Cat no 64). The mortaria include several vessels from Mancetter-Hartshill, three of which date from the midthird century. These vessels came from (42), (177) (SF 808), and (702) (SF 811). (561) also produced the base of an Oxfordshire red colour-coated mortarium, SF 1063, which can only be broadly dated from approximately 240. The presence of shell-tempered wares also suggests activity continued well into the fourth century.

No

Wt (g)

41 13 2 10 24 17 3 30 330 785 15 5 56 31 Orange 8 White-slipped orange 1 White Mancetter-Hartshill 7 Baetican Dressel 20-type 18 S Gaulish 14 Other amphorae 24 1434

229.5 42.0 37.0 150.0 66.5 331.5 11.0 261.5 3426.0 9789.0 1301.0 119.0 659.0 276.0 562.0 20.0 485.0 1621.0 453.5 1379.0 21219.5

SG CG EG

(241). This vessel is in a sandy orange fabric (Chester fabric 454) with a polished red-slipped surface. It may belong to the same vessel as cooking dish rim, SF 130 (Cat 62), from (419). Chester fabric 454 is bright orange in colour with sparse mica, white limestone and voids, abundant quartz and occasional black and red grains. The dark red/orange slip is generally matt, although the type sherd has also been lightly polished. The latter two vessels may be North African red-slipped ware imports (cf Tomber & Dore 1998, 61–2) or they may be Antonine Wall products, as SF 709. Petrological analysis is needed to determine the source of these vessels.

A notable vessel from this site is a Biv ‘micaceous’ amphora, SF 635, comprising four body sherds and one rim fragment (Cat no 65). The sherds were scattered across four contexts, (160), (188), (217) and (259), all medieval deposits, but are likely to have come from a single vessel. The Biv amphora is a rare form which occurs in a very distinctive reddish-brown micaceous fabric. According to C Thomas (1982, 24), these vessels served as fresh water jars which were handed out as curios or makeweights from ships reaching British ports. The close dating of Biv amphorae is dependant on the number of handles: the onehandled type has a broad date range of between the late first and fifth centuries, whereas the two-handled type is dated more closely between the late fourth and the late sixth centuries (Peacock & Williams 1986, 189). Because of the size of the sherds found at Chester, it is not known whether they came from one- or two-handled vessels; however, they are almost always found in post-Roman deposits, which suggests that they arrived as late- or even subRoman imports.

The cooking dishes were designed to be used over a small portable clay brazier (Swan 1999a, 539) and were probably used for cooking flat breads. The presence of these North African-type vessels is notable as they could be associated either with the return of troops from the Mauretanian War in the early 150s or with the southward transfer of men from the Antonine Wall in the period 157/ 8 (1999a 541; 1999b 443). Catalogue

56 SG samian Dr 27g cup; slightly worn footring stamped MOM: die 26e of Mommo, La Graufesenque (bb). One of his less common stamps, occurring in the Chester fortress and the pre-Flavian cemeteries at Nijmegen. Mommo worked in the Neronian–Flavian period; this stamp is likely to be c 65–90. GFC 76–8 (433); SF 619. 57 SG samian Dr 29 bowl; a small sherd, possibly belonging to the same vessel as 30 above with a fragment of decoration apparently from a scroll, with two small heart-shaped leaves cut off by the basal grooves. GFC 76–8 (304). Late Neronian or early Flavian. 58 CG samian Dr 33 cup; battered chip from base with a band worn in use at the internal junction with the wall, stamped AL[BV F]: die 3b of Albucius ii, Lezoux

A small group of North African-type vessels was recovered from medieval contexts. These comprise a coarse orange ware cooking dish with a stepped, concave base, SF 709 (Cat 63), from (636). It is in a bright orange sandy fabric and has been described by Swan as a possible Antonine Wall product (1999b, 471). The stepped, concave base of another cooking dish, SF 110 (Cat 61), came from 66

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts Table 2.37 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts quantified by ware, no of sherds and weight Ware Samian

Red cc Black cc Orange mica-coated Black-surfaced Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 White-slipped orange White Mortaria

Ill 2.34 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts. (Scale nos 59 and 60 1/2; no 64 1/4)

59

60

61

62

63

64

(a). This stamp is recorded from Camelon and Hadrian’s Wall (Chesters Museum). It was used on forms 18/31R, 31 and 44. GFC 76–8 (630); SF 89. c 150–180. CG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small sherd, probably from Les Martres-de-Veyre. Decoration blurred: cut-off spirals above a horizontal border and panels with the same vertical border surmounted by a rosette with a central hole. Possibly the same decoration as Bulmer 1980, 78, no 330, published there as South Gaulish with an ovolo. GFC 76–8 (216); SF 1104. Probably c 100–120. Ill 2.34.59 EG samian flagon; base only, worn on the standing surface of the outer edge; dullish, dark orange-red slip on an orange-pink fabric with occasional yellow flecks. The base lacks a footring and probably belonged to a single-handled flagon. It appears more upright than those on such white-painted samian flagons as Oelmann 28c and 28d, and may have been closer to another with white barbotine from Bonn (Oswald & Pryce 1920, pl 82.7); see also the plain flagon in the Trier Massenfund of the mid-third century (Huld-Zetsche 1971, 37 Abb. 9.20), although this has a slight footring; and see also the pinchedmouthed flagons in coarseware such as Gose 1976, Taf 50.513 from Speicher. All these instances are probably third-century. On grounds of fabric alone, it is impossible to ascertain the origin of this vessel, but it presumably was manufactured at Trier or Rheinzabern. GFC 76–8 (270); SF 1103. c 200–260. Ill 2.34.60 Base of a red-slipped orange ware dish; Chester fabric 454; form 665. Possibly same vessel as SF 130 (Cat no 62). GFC 76–8 (241); SF 110; cf Hayes, J W 1972, form 181: second half of second century to first half of third century. Rim of a red-slipped orange ware dish; Chester fabric 454; form 665. Possibly same vessel as SF 110 (Cat 61). GFC 76–8 (419); SF 130. cf Hayes, J W 1972, form 181: second half of second century to first half of third century. Complete profile of an orange ware dish; Chester fabric 194; form 1377. GFC 76–8 (636); SF 709. cf Hayes, J W 1972, form 181: second half of second century to first half of third century. Rim of a black-burnished ware 1 cooking pot; Chester fabric 19, form 1320; NRFRC code DOR BB1.

Amphorae

Total

SG CG EG

Orange White-slipped orange White Verulamium area White Mancetter-Hartshill Baetican Dressel 20-type S Gaulish Other amphorae

No

Wt (g)

16 33 2 2 3 3 2 12 75 247 75 29 4 4 1 1 5 17 6 6 543

76.5 343.5 8.0 54.0 15.5 24.5 45.0 102.0 975.0 3549.5 1626.0 315.5 17.5 178.5 34.0 73.0 216.5 1949.0 191.5 386.0 10181.0

GFC 76–8 (268); SF 1064. Gillam 1976, no 11: late third to early fourth century. Ill 2.33.64 65 Rim and body sherds of a Biv amphora; Chester fabric 251, form 614; NRFRC code ASM AM. GFC 76–8 (160), (188), (217) and (259); SF 635. Peacock & Williams 1986, class 45: late first to late sixth century.

Pottery from GFC 81 post-Roman and unstratified contexts The post-Roman and unstratified contexts from GFC 81 produced only one possible East Gaulish samian vessel, dated between about 120 and 200. No other East Gaulish samian was recovered and there were no vessels dated later than 200. A single vessel of North African type, the flanged rim of a red-slipped orange dish, SF 117 (Cat 70) was recovered from medieval context (67). It is in a sandy oxidised fabric (Chester fabric 473) with moderate red grains, sparse mica and black grains and occasional voids. The red/orange slip is matt, micaceous and unpolished. In form, it is comparable to Hayes, J W 1972, form 3C (20, fig 2), which corresponds to the samian form, Dr 36. Form 3C is dated between the early and mid-second centuries (op cit, 25). The dish would have been intended for use at table. The coarse wares produced a few late Roman forms. The black-burnished ware collection includes two early to midthird-century cooking pots; this dating is based on the presence of body sherds with obtuse-angled lattice decoration (Gillam 1976, 63). Mortaria from the kilns at Mancetter-Hartshill in Warwickshire, which began to supply Chester in quantity from the late second century onwards (Carrington 1988, 20), include two hammer-headed types from (115) and (116), both dated from about 240. The Roman pottery retrieved from the unstratified and 67

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements composed 75.2%; the Central Gaulish (CG) vessels (including two products of Les Martres-de-Veyre) 23%; and the East Gaulish (EG) vessels 1.8%. At least three of the EG sherds were of Rheinzabern or Trier origin; they appear to be the latest vessels represented in the collection, dating to the late second or third century: vessel no 58 was almost certainly manufactured in the third century. For the low proportion of EG ware in this collection, compare, for instance Bulmer 1980, 87 on the quantity at 11–15 Castle Street. The most remarkable feature of the collection as a whole is the high proportion of first-century material, as is immediately obvious from a glance at the histogram (Ill 2.36) and tables 2.38–.41, where the numbers of SG vessel forms are clearly in a very great preponderance over the Antonine types which usually reflect the peak of mass production at Lezoux. Indeed, apart from the three later EG pieces noted above, only two vessels (both Dr 31Rs, on in a post-Roman context and one unstratified) were dated exclusively after 160. It is noteworthy that in Phase I contexts, not one of the closely datable vessels was manufactured after c 90: both of the stamps (Cat nos 6 and 7) and almost all the decorated bowls were dated c 70–90; four worn footrings survived. In Phase II, only one vessel (Cat no 38) was of firmly second-century date (c 150– 200), while many of the remainder fell in the range 80–110; only one worn footring survived, on a late Neronian– Flavian dish. In Phase III, the four CG bowls included two of later second-century date (Cat nos 42 and 45), one of the Hadrianic or early Antonine period and also one of the Trajanic period, with a worn footring (Cat no 49); again, the SG vessels formed the bulk of the material, three displaying worn footrings. It was only in the samian recovered from post-Roman contexts that the CG vessels reached the same proportion as the earlier SG ware, and even here only one (a Dr 31R with a worn footring) was certainly manufactured after 160. However, the three late EG vessels found in post-Roman contexts provided some evidence of the later Roman activity in the area: of these, the two mortaria must have been manufactured in the late second or third century, and the flagon (Cat no 60) was probably a third-century product which had seen at least some life in use. In all, there were ten vessels from post-Roman contexts which showed signs of wear in use: four of these were South Gaulish, and five Central Gaulish and Antonine. In the Greyfriars collection as a whole, there were twenty worn vessels, of which twelve were South Gaulish, seven Central Gaulish, and one East Gaulish; two of the South Gaulish cups from Phase I may also display graffiti (Cat nos 7 and 8). There were no repaired vessels and no evidence of any secondary usage at all; this is in marked contrast with such late collections as that from Castle Street (see Bulmer 1980, 89).

Ill 2.35 Greyfriars’ Court 1981: pottery from post-Roman and unstratified contexts. (Scale nos 67 and 69 1/2; no 70 1/4)

post-Roman contexts of GFC 81 therefore suggests continued occupation or activity on the site until at least the mid-third century, but the absence of shell-tempered ware suggests activity had ceased before c 360. Catalogue

66 CG samian Dr 33 cup; slightly worn footring stamped SOSIM[IM]: die 2a of Sosimius, Lezoux (c). His output seems to have consisted almost entirely of form 33, although one example is known of form 31, from a different die. Stamps from the Rhineland suggest that he started work before the middle of the second century, but examples from Bainbridge, Binchester and Malton, associated with Antonine forms and fabrics, extend his range into the 160s. There is no dating evidence for die 2a. GFC 81 (144). c 140–170. 67 SG samian Dr 37 bowl; a single sherd, burnt black with rather blurred decoration, probably zonal. Above the basal wreath of leaf-and-bud motifs (see Cat no 32 above) is a series of festoons divided by pendants with tasselled terminals and including a dolphin (larger than Oswald 2390A). GFC 81 u/s; SF 217. c 70–90. Ill 2.35.67 68 CG samian Dr 37 bowl; a small fragment with ovolo Rogers B223 above a guideline: probably the style of Pugnus rather than Secundus. GFC 81 (116). c 150– 180. 69 SG samian Dech 67 beaker; a small sherd with blurred decoration. Panels bordered vertically by a wavy line with a rosette in high relief include a satyr or faun (Oswald 597). This figure type appears on several bowls in the Domitianic cellar at Bregenz (eg Jacobs 1912, Taf 1.7, 8). GFC 81 u/s; SF 218. c 80–100/110. Ill 2.35.69 70 Rim of a red-slipped orange ware dish; Chester fabric 473; form 1036. GFC 81 (67); SF 117. cf Hayes, J W 1972, form 3C: early to mid-second century. Ill 2.35.70

Discussion

In all, there were twenty-eight burnt vessels composed of thirty-one burnt sherds (c 12% of the total). Of these, a high proportion came from Phase I contexts, where nine sherds from seven vessels had been burnt. In contrast, only four burnt SG vessels were retrieved from Phase II, and

Samian

A total of 267, generally small, sherds formed a maximum of 221 vessels. Of these, the South Gaulish (SG) vessels 68

2 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981/Portable artefacts

Ill 2.36 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian quantified by max no of vessels per half-decade

Table 2.38 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from Phase I quantified by fabric, form and max no of vessels Form Fabric

18

18 or 18R

18R

27

27g

35

inkwell Indet

29

37

Total

SG

9

8

3

4

3

1

2–3

1

7

42

3

Table 2.39 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from Phase II quantified by fabric, form and max no of vessels Form Fabric SG CG Total

15/17 or 18 15/17R

18 or 18R

18R

27

35

35 or 42

36 2 1 3

1

3

2

6

11

1

1

1

3

2

6

11

1

1

Inkwell Indet

29

37

Total 51 1 52

1

7

1

15

1

7

1

15

Table 2.40 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from Phase III quantified by fabric, form and max no of vessels Form Fabric SG CG Total

15/17 or 18

15/17 or 15/17R

15/17R or 18R

18 or 18R

1

2

1

5

1

2

1

18R 18/31R

27

27g

2

1

1

2

1

1

3

5

1 1

3

29

37 Total

8

1

8

1

6 4 10

Inkwell Indet

31 5 36

Table 2.41 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: samian from all contexts quantified by fabric, form and max no of vessels Form Fabric

C 11

15/17 15/17R or 15/17R

SG CG EG Total

1

Fabric

35 or 42

36

38

1

2 3

1

5

1

1

3

15/17 or 18

18

18 or 18R

18R

1

14

17

16

2

3

2

1

14

17

16

18/31 18/31R 18/31 or 31

31

18/31R 31R or 31R

27

27g

33

35

21

5

1 6

2

21

5

7

2

37

Dech

Total

35 11

2

2 2

46

2

167 51 4 221

1

1 2

1

1

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

2

29

29 or 37

30 or 37

5

1

Form

SG CG EG Total

1

43 or 45

45

46

W 79 Inkwell Flagon Indet 4?

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

4?

four (3 SG, 1 CG) from Phase III. From the post-Roman contexts thirteen burnt sherds, representing twelve vessels, were recovered: of these, four sherds (three vessels) were SG and nine CG of Hadrianic or Antonine date. One of the nine unstratified sherds was also burnt (Cat no 67).

1 1

33 17 1 51

5

1

In the whole collection, the ratio of plain to decorated samian was fairly low (67% : 33%, excluding all indeterminate fragments); it is noteworthy that in the material collected from 76 Lower Bridge Street 1976, which displayed a similar preponderance of SG ware, the proportion 69

Excavations at Chester: the western and southern Roman extramural settlements of plain ware was even lower (Bulmer 1980, 74 and 87). Only seven of the Greyfriars’ Court plain vessels bore identifiable stamps: five were on SG vessels, one dating to c 65–90 (Cat no 56) and the rest firmly Flavian (Cat nos 6, 7, 43, 44); and two were on CG cups of early to midAntonine date (Cat nos 58 and 66). None of the decorated vessels were stamped, but the styles of a number of potters were recognisable on the Dr 37s (none of the small fragments from the late Neronian or early Flavian Dr 29s were attributable to specific potters). A group of fragmentary SG Dr 37s in the style of, or contemporary with, Germanus (Cat nos 13–17) was recovered from a Phase I context, GFC 76–8 (371), together with pieces of eighteen plain vessels of similar date. In Phase II, two ovolos were attributable to the styles of M Crestio and Sulpicius (Cat nos 33–4), but other sherds of early Flavian date (Cat nos 31– 2) and Domitianic–Trajanic date (Cat nos 35–7) could not be identified with the work of any named potter. Unattributed too was the strangely decorated sherd from a post-Roman context (Cat no 59) and also the unstratified Dech 67 (Cat no 69). Amongst the CG Dr 37s, vessels nos 49 and 59 were the only product of Les Martres-de-Veyre recovered from the excavations, and no 49 was attributable to the Trajanic potter Igocatus. Of the later potters, only one sherd (Cat no 42) was in the style of Cinnamus and one (Cat no 68) displayed an ovolo of Secundus. Another sherd (Cat no 55) may have had some connection with the style of Advocisus, but appeared to be of earlier date; thus the latest decorated sherd may perhaps have been no 45, although it was impossible to identify this with certainty as the work of Laxtucissa or Paternus v.

by weight of the site total coming from Roman phases. Why should there be such a difference in the distribution pattern of phased pottery between the two sites and is this difference significant? There were difficulties in examining all the Roman remains satisfactorily. In GFC 76–8 Trench I, some of the deposits were too deep to be safely excavated. In GFC 76–8 Trench II and GFC 81 Trench I, a shortage of time to excavate fully affected retrieval. Both GFC 76–8 and GFC 81 were affected by medieval robbing but GFC 76–8 was more heavily disturbed than GFC 81. Differences between the two excavations are also shown in the pattern of residuality for the Roman building materials. From GFC 76–8, only 6% of tile and brick was retrieved from Roman contexts, with 94% coming from post-Roman and unstratified contexts. From GFC 81, 23% of tile and brick was recovered from the Roman phases with 77% coming from post-Roman and unstratified contexts. Thus there is still a higher level of residuality among the GFC 76–8 material than among that from GFC 81, but there is also a general higher level of residuality among the tile and brick than the pottery. The wall plaster collection again shows the same general relationship between the two phases of excavation, but for GFC 76–8, 65% of the Roman wall plaster recovered was from Roman contexts, while for GFC 81 the figure was as high as 95%. The difference in residuality rates for tile and brick and wall plaster is presumably a reflection of the fact that the former would have been robbed out, together with the stone from the walls of the buildings, for reuse in later periods. The wall plaster, however, would have been of little value. The small percentage of tile and brick recovered from GFC 76–8 may also be a result of the heavier robbing and disturbance suffered by this site in comparison to GFC 81, although selective recovery may also be a factor.

Finally, attention may be drawn to the small group of SG inkwells, probably three or four in number (see Cat nos 11, 28, 29, 47); of these, nos 28, 29 and 47 appear to contain traces of ink, while absence from no 11 may be due only to the extensive slip within the vessel. A similar group, apparently unused and probably from a military store of Neronian date; was found in a ditch at Cirencester (Hartley & Dickinson 1982, 133 and 141); inkwells have also been noted recently in the Chester fortress from the Northgate Brewery excavations (see Bulmer 1979, 11). The Greyfriars’ Court group was probably of Flavian date and may be presumed to have been used in the vicinity of the site in the early years of its occupation.

As can be seen from Table 2.43, which shows the pottery totals by ware and phase, the assemblage reflects the heavy robbing and disturbance of the later Roman layers in the medieval period. The post-Roman and unstratified contexts produced much higher percentages of material dating from the mid-second century onwards. For example, all the Mancetter-Hartshill mortaria came from post-Roman deposits. These vessels only begin to appear in quantity in Chester from the end of the second century. 76% by weight of the black-burnished ware 1 collection; 69% by weight of the Central Gaulish samian, and all of the East Gaulish samian (only four sherds) came from post-Roman deposits. Not surprisingly, the late first- to early secondcentury wares (South Gaulish samian, black-on-brown, grey, orange and white-slipped orange wares) are concentrated in the Roman phases, and particularly in the first two phases. With Phase III, there is a sudden rise in blackburnished ware 1, from one sherd in the preceding phases to 102 sherds/859 g (91.5% by weight of the black-burnished ware 1 collection from the Roman phases). Phase III also sees a sudden rise in Central Gaulish samian, from one sherd to ten sherds (90% by weight of the total Central Gaulish samian collection from the Roman phases).

Fine and coarse wares

The Roman pottery recovered from the two excavations, GFC 76–8 and GFC 81, amounts to 4375 sherds with a weight of 66,132 g. The Roman phases produced 2398 sherds weighing 34,731.5 g or 54.8% by sherd count and 52.5% by sherd weight of the total collection from both excavations (see Table 2.42). This clearly illustrates the problem of residuality encountered on sites in Chester. However, the table also reveals a marked difference between the excavations. With GFC 76–8, only 38.2% by sherd count and 42.9% by weight of the Roman pottery was recovered from Roman phases. With GFC 81, this position is reversed, with 73.6% by sherd count and 64.9% 70

Wt (g) 10225.0 1197.5 4494.0 15916.5 42.9 21219.5 57.1 37136.0

GFC 76–8

523 102 261 886 38.2 1434 61.8 2320

No 81 778 653 1512 73.6 543 26.4 2055

No

71 374.5 1608.5 3517.0 10.5 99.0 335.0 33.5 14.5

26 112 306 2 4 20 5 1

19 3191.5 9 449.0 21 743.5 604 11264.5

479.5 3.5

405.0

Wt (g)

22 1

56

Red cc Black cc Orange mica-coated Glazed Black-surfaced White eggshell Black-on-brown Grey Orange Black-burnished 1 & imitation black-burnished 2 Shell-tempered White-slipped orange White Mortaria Orange White-slipped orange White Mancetter-Hartshill White Verulamium area Other white mortaria Amphorae Baetican Dressel 20-type S Gaulish Other amphorae Total

No

Samian

SG CG EG

Ware

Phase I

90.5

2 18 1172.5 2 20.5 27 1143.0 880 10751.0

40.5

1070.0 97.0

119 10 2

36.5

1.5 3.0 274.5 2852.0 3634.5

1 1 13 306 310 1

31.0

267.0 17.0

Wt (g)

10

57 1

No

Phase II

21.0

688.0 115.0

891.5

71.0 2963.5 5513.0

43.0 4.5 130.5

200.5 169.0

Wt (g)

Phase III

4 79.0 11 1142.0 4 93.0 15 591.5 914 12716.0

1

67 13

105

8 240 383

6 1 14

31 11

No

Wt (g) 604 880 914 2398 54.8 1977 45.2 4375

No

No

522.5 8.0 161.5

76.0

938.5 99.0 2093.0 245.5

2 90.5 4 79.0 48 5506.0 15 562.5 63 2478.0 2398 34731.5

4

108 4 206 28

1 1.5 1 3.0 47 720.0 658 7424.0 999 12664.5

28 2 24

872.5 186.0

Wt (g)

Total phased pottery

144 12

1039.5 9553.5 8222.0 18815.0 64.9 10181.0 35.1 28996.0

GFC 81

Table 2.43 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by ware, phase, no of sherds and weight

I II III Total % site total P-R and u/s % site total Site total

Phase

Wt (g) 11264.5 10751.0 12716.0 34731.5 52.5 31400.5 47.5 66132.0

56.0

306.0 385.5 45.0 204.0 82.0 356.0

Wt (g)

90 2927.0 5 119.0 85 974.5 34 258.5 12 740.5 2 54.0 12 701.5 1 73.0 1 35.0 35 3570.0 20 645.0 30 1765.0 1977 31400.5

42 363.5 405 4401.0 1032 13338.5

5

57 46 4 12 27 20

No

Total pottery from P-R & US deposits

Total

Table 2.42 Greyfriars’ Court 1976–8 and 1981: pottery quantified by phase, year of excavation no of sherds, weight and percentage

No

198 9 291 62 12 6 12 3 5 83 35 93 4375

6 1 89 1063 2031

201 58 4 40 29 44

Wt (g) 1178.5 571.5 45.0 726.5 90.0 517.5

4.5 3865.5 0.2 218.0 6.7 3067.5 1.4 504.0 0.3 740.5 0.1 130.0 0.3 701.5 0.1 163.5 0.1 114.0 1.9 9076.0 0.8 1207.5 2.1 4243.0 100.0 66132.0

0.1 57.5