Excavation history
Enclosed by Humphrey Duke of Gloucester in the 1Sth century, adopted as a favourite Tudor royal resoJ1 in the 16th century, and landscaped under Charles II in the 17th, Greenwich Park has largely escaped major intrusions. A few buildings, such as Duke Humphrey's defensive tower and the Greenwich Royal Observatory on the same site, plus leisure and wartime installations, occasionally dotted the parkland. Gravel extraction, the reservoirs and a network of underground water conduits have also left their mark. Apart from the 1784 incursions into the large Anglo Saxon burial group in the west (Fig. t), however, the Park avoided the worst excesses of the antiquaries.2 Around the tum ofthe 20th century, the question ofthe route of Watling Street from the Kent coast to London focused new interest on Greenwich 46 Becky Wallower Park. Lying direcLly on a line projected from known remains of the Roman road (Fig. 1), it offered almost virgin territory in the search for the lost course ofthe road towards SouLhwark. In 02 Park Superintendent A D Webster led a
work group out into the Park, hoping to verify his theories on Watling Street.) One site probed by means of iron bars was a prominent mound, sometimes known as Queen Elizabeth's Bower, topped by a circle of trees. Recognising as Roman the material unearthed there by a labourer, Webster involved a local antiquarian, Herbert Jones FSA, who had previously excavated at Silchestcr. A trial trench, apparently 18ft by just
1.5ft wide, produced further building material and pottcry.4 Jones seems to have guided the excavation of a further trench over the mound, a series oftrenches on the southern flank, and eventually the wholesale stripping ofthe mound surface.s
Tne Roman "villa" attracted both press attention and visitors over the summer months.6 Railings were erected to protect the excavations, which were left exposed through the winter. In 1903, after further minor excavations, the trenches were filled in, apparently leaving a small patch of tesserae enclosed in railings for posterity (at TQ 3929 7742, approximately 44m above OD). Jones and Webster's efforts produced remains of three floors, one tesselated and lying three feet higher than the other two (at least one ofwhich was surfaced with opus signinum), and a six foot six stretch of ragstone walling. Their finds were prodigious and overwhclmingly Roman: over 350 coins ranging from Mark Antony to Honorius, four inscriptions on marble and sandstone, the right ann ofa fine limestone statue, fragments of two rare carved ivory pieces, quantities ofpottery, stone and ceramic building material, painted wall plaster, a key, a fine chain, a hipposandal and
various other metal artefacts.' It is likely that most of these would have come from ditches, pits and robber trenches, which were largely unidentified as such at the time.
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002
I
Fig 1: site location plan (Peter Hart-Allison, MoLAS)
Two less fortunate products of the 1902/3 excavations were inadequate records and inconclusive data.' Webster's accoum describes the site in ambiguous terms and catalogues the finds to some extent. Jones, in two articles and his address to the' Archaeological.!nstitute' (a nOle of which was published in 1902)', describes something of the techniques employed and provides the only plan, with an orientation map
that relates only vaguely to the site,lO Apart from these sources and a notebook (now apparently
lost) in Jones's hand listing the finds, II no other notes, stratigraphical records, drawings or details
appear to have survived. The finds assemblage is now also much diminished. 12
The inconclusive and incomplete nalure ofthe record seems to have prompted further excavation .in 1924/5 and 1927.0 This work entailed lrenches on the east and north Oanks of the mound, but .seemingly produced no results, and again left london Archaeologist Autumn 2002 47 almost no records. Other archaeological activity in the Park, notably in 1906 (focusing mainly on the area around Vanbrugh gate, and directed by
Jones) and 1911, may also have involved the mound area, but here too, records are poor. I~
Nevertheless, it seems clear from the evidence presented in 1902+3 that a significant, high status building (or buildings) stood on the mound, with occupation extending throughout the Roman period. Webster imaginatively conjectured that the large number of coins might point to "a pay place for soldiers, a canteen, or the residence of an officcr connected with the Mint" ,l!l but the site was generally referred to as a villa for some years. In 1928, Wheeler postulated, on the basis of finds and epigraphic evidence, that the building could be a shrine. Iii This theory was adopted by Lewis in 1966, who listed finds such as the almost 400
coins, the inscriptions and the statue, in nominaling the site as a temple ofuncertain fonn. l ? Othcr writers, notably Professor l'laverfield, have used the evidence ofthe mound remains as corroboration of theories that a major settlement, namely the 'lost' posting station of Noviomagus listed in the Antonine Itinerary, existed in the area. II This now seems very doubtful: Noviomagus is listcd in Iter II at some five miles farther from London than Greenwich, and other evidence for Roman activity in the immediate vicinity of Greenwich Park is limited
to some cremation burials on Blackhcath, a few isolated finds ofcoins, building material and pottery, a bronze lamp from the Thames and a bronze bowl from the Park. 19197819 excavations
In the I960s and '70s, age and Dutch Elm Disease claimed the large trees sunnounting the mound (apparently planted mid-17th century). The Southwark and Lambeth Archacological Excavation Committee was asked by the Department of the Environment in 1978 to investigate whether it would be possible to replant
trees, by deternlining what Roman levels had survived the free planting and removal, and relating these, if possible, to earlier discoveries.20 As the excavation (site code GP78), led by Harvey Sheldon and Brian Yule, was exploratory in nature, any structures exposed were to be left undisturbed. Three trenches were opened, mainly 48 to the south of the mound, in the area where it was thought the floors unearthed in the carlier excavations would lie, near the patch oftesserae which was presumed to have remained in siru
since 1903 (Fig. 2).
Amongst severe disturbance by tree planting! removal, root action. animal burrows. erosion, and late pits and trenches, significant new evidence was found. Two phases of building were noted, and, south ofthem, a metalled surface, several gullies and a deep natural channel. Based on the backfill evidence and stratigraphical relationships, the excavators posited that the Phase I structure was of timber and clay on flint footings (Fig. 2,
X), and that it dated to around the end of the 1st century. This structure had been replaced, in the 3rd century or later, by a slightly larger square or rectangular building with a raised tesselated floor. The robbed-out wall of this Phase 2 building was traced running east-west for about 10m (Fig. 2, Y), returning to the north from the south-west comer for c. 2m.
Sheldon and Yule concluded that the latcr structure and the railed-in palch oftcsscrae were part of the same structure. They argued on the basis oflhe setting, finds and raised rectangular architecture that the most likely fonn of building was that of a Romano-Celtic temple, with its entrance to the east. The newly discovered wall
and floor were suggested as the south side ofthe ambulatory, the 1902 tesscrac patch as flooring of the cella and two ofthe gullies as possibly belonging to a temenos boundary. No trace of the previously uncovered floors or walls was revealed, but it was thought thal some gullies and disturbance could have been evidence ofearlier excavations.
1999 excavations
Channel4's Time Team came to Greenwich in
1999 with the aim of establishing the location,
function, extenl, and the date and duration of use
of the structures discovered in 1902.21 The dig
(site code GMA99) was undertaken in the
customary three days, and organised jointly with
Hedley Swain, Museum or London, and Harvey
Sheldon, Birkbeck College; archaeologists from
MoLAS and students from Birkbeck College
supplemented the Time Team principals.
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002
Fig 2: plan of trenches and features from 1978179 (trenches I to III) and 1999 excavations (trenches 1 to 9)
(Peler Hart·Allison, MoLAS)
On the evidence of parch marks, previous
excavations and new geophysical surveys, eight
trenches were opened (Fig. 2): three of them (5, 8
and 9) were only briefly examined as no structural
features were obvious, and another (7) was not
recorded. Because ofthe fragmentary and limited
nature ofthe three day excavation; an incomplete
stratigraphical record; at)d the complex, disturbed
nature ofthe contexts, it has not been possible to
phase the site. The evidence docs, however,
indicate site usage -- probably cOnlinuous·· from
about AD 100 to 400, and confinns several phases
of acLivity.
Mound area
Trenches I and 4 were positioned on the mound,
the location ofthe 1902 excavations. In the south
ofTrench 1 near the patch ofexposed tcsscrac, a
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 49
massive robbed-out foundation trench (Fig. 2, A)
was revealed ncxt to a large tree bole. Although
only small fragments ofstone remained in the
bottom ofthc trench, its dimensions -- at least
1.910 wide and 1.210 deep -- indicated a
substantial masonry slrueture had stood there. As
well as painted plaster, mortar, tesserae and other
types of building material, the fill included 37
coins oflatc 3rd to late 4th century dates,
providing an earliest robbing date of c. AD 400.
To the north-east ofthis structure, possible
evidence ora further wall (Fig. 2, B) was found,
mostly robbed out, but comprising a length of
disturbed flint and mortar remains, apparently
running at an angle of about 30° to A. No
tcmporal relationship between the two structures
could be detennined.
Trench 4, laid out to investigate further evidence
ofthe western wall seen in 1978/9, yielded
another robber trench (Fig. 2, C). Its width
extended beyond the limit of excavation, but it
was at least 0.7010 deep, and a few mortared
ragstone blocks remained in silt at the base. It
aligned with the north-south segment ofthe
previously discovered robber trench V, and its
base was at about the same level (+42.5010 00).
Make-up layers appeared to have been laid to the
west of robber trench C where the ground level
dips away. A disturbed layer above the robber
trench contained one of the site's key finds: a
marble tablet inscribed with three lines oftex!
(Fig. 3, GMA99).
Extended complex
Excavations to the east of the mound produced
less disturbed features and deposits, and evidence
of a larger complex of buildings and other
features. The carli~st solidly dated feature was
found in Trench 2 (Fig. 2). Here the backfill of a
section of a substantial v-shaped ditch, at least
1.910 deep and c. 5 m wide, produced animal
bone, early building material and a good
collection of ponery, including samian, Highgate
and Verulamium wares. Ponery dates ofAD 70100
indicate that the ditch went out ofuse carly in
the 2nd century. A gravel surface overlying the
backfilled ditch was cut by an L-shaped robber
trench (Fig 2, D), at least 0.6810 deep and morc
than Im wide. On the northern side oro was a
substantial deposit ofbuilding material, including
some fine painted plaster with masonry
impressions in the mortar, whieh was interpreted
as being structural collapse against the then
upstanding wall D. The painted plaster and tile
date the fallen wall to the early 2nd century. A
shallow gully ofunknown function ran along the
surface of robber trench D.
Trench 3, 15m north ofTrcnch 2 and extended by
Trench 6, produced the remains of yet another,
mostly robbed out, structure (Fig. 2, E) a few
RIB 37 RIB 38
l00rnm
RIB 39 GMA99
Fig 3: Inscriptions from Greenwich Park: relevant RIB references refer to those excavated in 190213,
and GMA99 to the inscription from 1999 (all illustrations: author)
50 London Archaeologist Autumn 2002
centimetres beneath the surface. Gravel metalling
covered the ground surface either side of the one
remaining course ofthis cast-west ragstone wall,
and an uncxcavated feature running north-south
(apparenl1y another robber trench) abutted the
remains. CUlling this presumed noIth-south robber
trench was a post hole, apparenl1y one of a series
of four or five with centres c. 0.75m away from
and on the same orientation as wall E. Two
fragments of legula, found in two separate post
holes, appear to be part of the same tile, and are
marked with complementary portions of the stamp
PPBRLON (Fig. 4)."
Trench 5 was laid out to investigate geophysical
anomalies, and Trench 9 to locate any northerly
extension ofwall D: neither provided evidence of
cut features or deposits under the topsoil. Trench
8, also on the trail of magnetic anomalies.
revealed a substantial stretch ofmetalled surface,
possibly a road or pathway. Multiple layers
indicated that it had been repaired or resurfaced
several times, but its dimensions are unknown.
Finds
Finds from the 1999 excavations, particularly the
stratified building material, pottery and coins,
have added important pieces and worthwhile data
to an already noteworthy record. To paint a more
complcte picture, the results ofa re-examination
ofsome of the 1902 objects and building material.
and thc analysis of 1978 coins, have been
included in the following review of the 1999
artefacts.2J
The l77kg ofceramic building material, stone and
wall plaster recovered in 1999 included 15 tile
types, 981 tesserae and 283 fragments of painted
and decorated wall plaster. The high quality
plaster, mainly from Trenches I and 2 with small
collections from 3/6 and 4, has been dated to the
1st and 2nd centuries. Most ofthe ceramic
building material (74%) probably originated from
kilns north-west ofLandon along Watling Street,
before about AD 160. Another 18.3% was
manufactured in tilcries operating up to about AD
120, and only 7.5% in tileries in operation for
differing periods between AD140 and 300.
Sources other than London include Radlett., Herts,
a kiln on the south coast and Kent and Surrey
workS.24 Early Kent fabrics were found in Trench
I, and later, 3rd century, fabrics in Trench 3/6.
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002
Fig 4: procuratorial stamped tile excavated in 1999
(above, author), with composite example of Die 5
(from RIB).
The material from the 1902/3 dig is known to
have been similar,2S but. re-examination of the
small surviving corpus has revealed some nearly
complete lydion bricks (large rectangular bricks
used as bonding courses in masonry walls),
portions of two rare circular bessalis bricks, and
several combed flue tiles. Such bessales and flue
tiles, of Radlett fabrics, are comparatively rare in
the City. but are similar to types found in the early
phases oftwo Roman public buildings (at
Winchester Palacc and 15-23 Southwark Street)
and several other I st-ccntury sites in Southwark.
The presence of round bessales and flue tile
would normally indicate the presence of a
hypocaust system. No evidence for this has been
noted in any ofthe excavations, however, and it
seems possible thai the material was imported
from other sites, as rubble for wall building. In the
case of flue tiles, an alternative use might be in
window/door construction for lightness.26 and in
the case ofthe circular bessales, one ofwhich was
completely covered in mortar, it is conceivable
that they could have becn adapted as small
columns or bases for sculpturc.21
Among the eleven types of stone found in 1999,
Kentish ragstonc predominated. Oolitic limestone
was the principal medium for worked fragments,
with the Carrara marble of the inscribed slab
representing the most exotic.2s Several interesting
pieces of stone from 1902 survive. A fragment of
sandstone, briefly reunited with the 1902
inscriptions held by the British Museum, is clearly
the same stone as the inscription (Fig. 3, RIB 31).
and, as both are affected by fire, likely to be part
of the same objcct. This is ofa scale and thickness
great enough to be a possiblc altar or statue base,
rather than a wall plaque. Two pieces ofoolite
51
Fig 5: remains of a largely robbed-out wall found In
Trench 316. The procuratorial tile was recovered
from two of the post holes next to the wall.
from 1902 have proven to be fragments of one or
two column bases. The diameter for both is
approximately 0.68-0.70m, and analogy with
similar torus mouldings at Fishbourne would give
a column shaft of c. 0.5601 and a height of 16.1
Roman feet, or 4.76rn,29 a size appropriate to a
portico support or even a free standing column.
An examination of the fragments of inscribed
stone from 1902/3 appears to show that, contrary
to RIB 37-39, there may be four, not three,
separate inscriptions.30 With the 1999 discovery,
therefore, Greenwich Park may now boast Jive
inscriptions, making this an extremely rare site in
south-eastern Britain. The inscription from 1999
(Fig. 3, GMA99) has been posited as a dedication
to [NU]MIN[I AUG] 0' [NU]MIN[IBUS AUGG]
-- the spirit(s) of the emperor(s) -- by de la
52
Bedoyerc.l' The other two lines of this example
are perhaps the nomen and cognomen of the
dedicator -- Harvey Sheldon suggests the name
may have been Maeeilius Fuseus, a governor
(probably AD 238-241 or 244) whose name is
found on a dedication inscription for the
rebuilding ofthe headquarters at LanchesterY The
1902 sandstone fragment has NU as the first
letters in one line (Fig. 3, RIB 37) and may be a
similar dedication.
The PPBRLON stamped tile (Fig. 4) is the second
important individual find from GMA99. The
stamp is thought to signify the official tilery of the
procurators, whose office, based in London, was
charged with imperial property and finances in the
province. The letters arc interpreted as
P[ROCURATORES] P[ROVINCIAE]
BR[ITANNIAE] LON[DJNI]. The tileries appear
to have been centred around Watling Street kiln
sites north-west of London, source ofthe majority
of tiles from Greenwich Park. The proportion of
output which was stamped is unknown, but Betts
notes that fewer than I% tiles excavated in
London are stamped, so they are rare finds.H
Thirteen different stamps are known (some only
or also related to mortarium stamps). Die 5
examples such as the Greenwich specimen, other
instances ofwhich have been found around the
amphitheatre area of London, are some of the
least common. Evidence shows thal procuratorial
tiles were in primary use only between about AD
70 and 120, and most of the c. 200 stamped tiles
excavated come from sites related lo presumed
public buildings of the 1st and 2nd centuries in the
City of London and Southwark, such as the
Huggin Hill baths, 81. Peter's Hill complex,
"palace", forum/basilica, fort and amphitheatreY
Complete tegulae were also recently excavated
from the Gresham Street eastern well, dated
provisionally to the early 2nd eentury.JS Other
examples have been recovered from points in the
upper Walbrook valley, and a few outliers have
been found at Westminster (one fragment),
Barking (two fragments), and possibly Saunderton
Villa, Bucks (one fragment). These are without
known official status, so it is possible the tiles
were also sold for private buildings.JO
In the next issue, Part 2 will cover further finds
and discuss the results from the Greenwich Park
excavations.
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002
Acknowledgements
The excavation organisers arc grateful to the
Royal Parks for granting permission to dig in
Greenwich Park. The funding and assistance from
Time Team for post-excavation work is greatly
appreciated. Among those who have generously
contributed time and expertise to unravelling the
complexities of the history ofthc site and its finds
are Julian Watson and Frances Ward of the
Greenwich Local History Library, Dr Ralph
Jackson of the British Museum, Beverley Burford
and Chris Ford of the Greenwich Borough
Museum, Ian Nichols of the Royal Naval College,
Penny MacConnoran of MoLSS and Katie Hirst,
former Time Team archaeologist. Thanks arc due
to the MoLSS specialists for their reports,
especially to Sue Pringle and Robin Symonds for
additional input on building material and pottery.l
am also grateful to Julian Bowsher of MoLAS
(and chair of the Greenwich History Society) for
his coin reports on the site and a briefing on local
Greenwich archaeology. Martin Millen's
contributions on interpretation of the site have
also been helpful. I particularly appreciate the
good will and guidance of Hedley Swain,
Museum of London, and Harvey Sheldon,
Birkbeck College, who provided the opportunity
to study the site in depth and prepare the archive
report. The initial work for this article was
completed for my dissertation for a Birkbeck
Diploma in Field Archaeology. Any errors in this
article are mine.
I. 'Roman Remains in Greenwich Park' Ken/ish Mercury 7 February 1902.
2. Royal Commission on thc Historical Monuments of England 1994 Greenwich Park, an Archaeological Survey Reporr
for /he Na/ional Monumen/s Record Part 2.
3. A. D. Webster 1902 Greenwich Park: Its His/my and A~·s(Jciati(Jn.s.
4. 'Roman Remains in Greenwich Park' Blackheath Local Guide and Dis/ric/ Adverriser I March 1902.
5. H. Jones MS Address to thc Archaeologieallnstitute [presumably the Royal Archaeological Institute -- see fn 9J
(Greenwich Local History Library)1902: Jones notes "Sevcraltrcllches wcre run upon the top ofthe Hill but the
results not having becn found vcry satisfactory chiefly in consequence of the confined space and ofthe necessity of
almost immediately filling them up, which arose from the exigencies ofa public London Park, it was dccided to clear
and turnover the whole ofthe soil ofthe site leaving open anything found in situ but filling in again as quickly as
might be the unoccupied ground."
6. See e.g. Ken/ish Mercury 21 March 1902, Daily Graphic 31 March 1902, Lewisham Borough News 27 February 1902,
and Trans Woolwich Dis/ric/ An/iquarian Soc 1902.
7.0pcitfn3.
8.lt is not even clear who supervised the work: Jones credits Webster with directing the excavations in H. Jones 'Roman
Remains in Greenwich Park' Home Coun/ies Magazine Vol 5 (1903) 223-226; but Wcbslcr (op cit fn 3)
acknowledges Jones' assistance and later writers lend to credit Jones with the work. Elliston Erwood, excavator in
1916 ofehadton Roman settlement and a later member of the Antiquarian Society founded by Jones, held Jones" in
the main responsible" for the excavations, and decried his lack ofattention' 'to the important matter ofstratification"
in F. C. Elliston Erwood 'Roman Remains from Greenwich Park' Tram. Greenwich Lewisham AnliquarianSoc 3, no
1,(1924)62-75.
9. The Archaeological Journal, Proceedings, June 4th 1902. Vol LlX, 2nd ser. vol ix (1902) 21 0; sce fn 5.
10. Jones opcil fn 8, with article pp 49-55 same vol
11. Recorded by F.e. Elliston Erwood op cil fn 8, 62.
12. Inscriptions and carved ivory pieces have been in the British Museum since 1906. Other finds were placed in the
Borough Museum in Plumstead in 1964, having been stored at (he borough library, Charlton House and other
locatiol).s overthe years. Much was apparently lost, looted or destroyed during WWII when Charlton 1·louse was
bombed (J Watson,pers. comm.).
13. J. W. Stone 'Antiquarian NOles' 01) cit fn 8, no 2 (1925), 45-6; H. W. Ord 'The History of the Greenwich Anliquarian
Society' ibid, no 3 (1927),128-132.
14. Scant mentions arc found in the. Minutes orthe Greenwich and Lewisham Antiq Soc MS, and in Anliquarian Notes
sections ofthe Society's Transaclions, vol I and III.
15.0pci/fn3,71.
16. RC!'IM (England) An irtvenlory of/he His/oricol Monuments in London Vol 1J/ Roman London. (1928) Wheeler
apparently accepted evidence in Ephemeris Epig. IX 992 that one of the inscriptions included the letters CULAP,
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002 53
which could be interpreted as Aesculapio RIB, and recent inspection by the author, Hedley Swain and Dr Ralph
Jackson of the British Museum, show the last letter as a convincing R, not P. The cast in the Greenwich Borough
Museum may be the source ofthe confusion, as Ihe leller there appears more P-likc.
17. M. J. T. Lewis Temples in Roman Britain (1966) 126.
18 B. Platts'A Lost City of South London' Country Life (1969) 1236-38.
19. Many previously reported tinds, some of which appeared on early OS maps, have proven to be post-medieval objects or
the result ofconfusion. Recent unpublishedexcavalions in Greenwich have only produccd stray fragmcnts ofRoman
poltery (J. Watson and J. M. C. Bowsher,pers. comm.).
20.1'1. Sheldon and B. Yule 'Excavations in Greenwich Park 1978-9' London Archaeol J, no 12 (1979) 311-317.
21. Time Team EvaluOlion ofa Raman Site in the Royal Park aI Greenwich: Project Design (unpublished 1999); see also
H. Swain and H. Shcldon 'Roman Greenwich' Currenl Archaeol14, no 167,440; H. Swain and H. Sheldon
'Romans in Grccnwich' Minerva 11, 3, 6.
22. Hassall, who examined four fragmenl~, including the two stamped ones, concludes that the pieces almost cenainly fit
togcther, although naked edges make the join imperfcct. R. S. O. Tomlin and M. W. C, Hassall . Inscriptions'
Brilunnia 31 (2000) 439-446.
23. The surviving archive at Greenwich Borough Museum was examined by the lIuthor lind Sue Pringle. The collection was
last catalogued when it was accessioned after the amalgamation ofboroughs in 1964 (Beverley Burford,pers.
comm.). Uirge quantities of pottery appear to be missing, Apart from the coins, none of the matcrial from the 1978/9
excavation was available for inspection at the time of writing as it was in storage outside London during the
refurbishment of the archive. Only the coins have been assessed by specialists.
24. S. Pringle A.I·.~e.ument oflhe ceramic building ma/erial andpain/ed wail pla~'lerfrom Greenwich Park (GMA99)
unpublished MoLSS specialist report. 2001.
25. Op Cil fn 3. The bricks in the Plumstead Museum are labelled as tile, accounting for Webstcr's llssertion that
. 'exceptionally heavy roofing tiles" were found.
26. Opeit fn 17,43.
27. The only use in .~ilu in London is aspilae in tne hypocaust at 15-30 Southwark Street. (S. Pringle,per.I'. comm.),
28. S. Pringle, pers comm.
29. S. Pringle Greenwich Park Building Materials unpublished MoLSS specialist report, 2001.
30. RIB inscription 398 is 2-3mm thinner than 39A and C, closer to the thickness of the uninseribed fragments in the
archive. A total offour inscriptions in fact accords with Jones' description in his 1902 address (opcil, fn 5). All the
fragments in the British Museum except RID 37 are of Carrara marble (S Pringle,pcrs. comm.).
31. G. de la Bedoyere Companion 10 Roman Eriwin (1999) 182; accepted as feasible by Hassall op cit fn 22.
32. RIB 1092; H. Sheldon,pcrs. comm.
33, l. M. Betts 'Procuratorial Tile Stamps from London' Britannia 26 (1995) 207-229.
34. Martin Milieu cautions against the association ofPPBR tiles as a marhrofpublic buildings as sometimes buildings
have been presumed to be public by vinue of the prcsence ofstampcd tiles (M Millctt,pers. comm.).
35. S. Pringle,pers comm.
36. Op cit fn 33.
Books
Discovering London for Families
Peter Matthews
Shire Publications, 2001
128 pages. maps and many colourful illustrations,
index. £9.99 paperback
Many guides to London have been published
through the years, so what has London for
Families got to offer? Its introduction offers
guidance on how to get :=.round by public
transport. itemises the main shopping and eating
54
areas, and gives details of tourist information
centres. This is followed by a detailed listing of
major events, including daily routines such as the
Changing of the Guard and the Ceremony of the
Keys, and annual events such as the Chinese
New Year, the Boat Race, the London Marathon,
Trooping the Colour and the Lord Mayor's Show.
A brief history of London is given, starting with
the establishment of Roman Londinium and the
development of the Saxon settlement, and
London Archaeologist Autumn 2002
Document to view
No comments:
Post a Comment