Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Roman Sarcophagus in London
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 1st December 2006
See
There seems to be some hype going on here, with the excavators suggesting we need to rethink the map of Roman London.
By law, all burials had to be outside the walls of the city, and they were often placed alongside roads. There is nothing to suggest that the burial was on sacred ground, or near a church, still less that it was in the suburbs of London. -
Message 2
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Friday, 1st December 2006
we write our history on what we know and you turn a corner and your view of your history changes,i would say that he is not the last one they will find either.
-
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 4th December 2006
What struck me as odd about that report was the absolute absence of context, normally at least a partial prerequisite before one archaeological find could be deemed important enough to counter accepted theory. Given that the sarcophagus has been dated to the early 5th century (though this has not been explained fully either) it therefore occupies a time slot when the area in and around London could have been described as many things - but purely Roman would no longer have been one of them.
For that reason I would beg to differ with the report's various assertions and suggestions. First and foremost that the burial represented one within the strict traditions of Roman custom is a huge assumption, given its isolated context. Secondly that the find indicates 'sacred ground' shows an amazing leap of deduction on the part of both the Director of the Museum of London Archaeological Service and the local vicar. While the vicar might be forgiven his presumption, Taryn Nixon should know better than to ascribe sanctity to every location an interred Roman turns up.
Until the find can be better contextualised, and until further evidence is unearthed to confirm whether or not it was a 'one off' (ie. a re-burial, a non-Roman using some Roman customs and equipment) claims that 'maps should be redrawn' etc should be held at bay. -
Message 4
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 4th December 2006
nordmann, I quite agree.
I wonder how they are so confident that the grave is dated 'around 410'? Presumably by coins but that evidence is ambiguous, particularly for this time, because the last coins were sent to Britain around 410, and so the presence of a coin of that date could easily mean that the person was buried, say, 50 years later. -
Message 5
Posted by nay_missus (U4090143) on Monday, 4th December 2006
Hi Fascinating
Sorry to interrupt. I was a bit cheeky on 'Choice'. Attempting to be funny (as per Erotica in Ponpeii). Hope you were not offended
NM -
Message 6
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 4th December 2006
nay_missus, I did not put in a complaint about your posting, Anna the host decided to close the thread on her own decisiion, I think.
-
Message 7
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Tuesday, 5th December 2006
as the tomb is before the 5th century you can be sure it is genuine,britan was not so densly populated and a lot of romans were here before the actual conquering of britan by the romans so a roman in london is not a far fetched as you might think,
there is another explanation it could be paddy murphy from ireland in the tomb buried when the ditch he was digging collapesed on top of him burying him there as he would not be the first. -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 5th December 2006
So he was digging a ditch in a sarcophagus...?
The grave is not in London, or at least not in Roman London as that is a mile or so to the east of where this grave is located (Roman London is in what is now called The City, this grave is by Trafalgar Square). However, as someone else pointed out Romans were required by law to bury their dead outside the city walls and often by roads and it is known that there was a road in this vicinity. -
Message 9
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Tuesday, 5th December 2006
yes he was digging a ditch in a sarcophagus as he did not have his rain jacket with him so he had to use something,and you could bury irish people where ever they fell.
-
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 5th December 2006
as the tomb is before the 5th century...
Ìý
No, it is from the 5th century (410AD), not before it
... you can be sure it is genuine,britan was not so densly populated...
Ìý
How does population density attribute to the genuineness of a corpse?
... and a lot of romans were here before the actual conquering of britan by the romans...
Ìý
Which was over three hundred years before the guy in the sarcophagus was born, which kind of rules out any relevancy to your observation.
... so a roman in london is not a far fetched as you might think...
Ìý
To whom are you addressing your observation? I doubt if anyone who has contributed thus far would find a Roman in London during Roman-age Britain far fetched in the slightest.
Em, you do know that the whole point to the story was that he was found outside London, don't you?
Sometimes gbu, it might be better to pause a little and exercise the grey matter slightly before hitting the enter button, methinks!
On the question of Roman custom to bury outside the walls, there is ample evidence - both in London and in many other Roman cities (including Rome) - that if such was a custom it was poorly observed with many families electing to inter the deceased within the domus. As a public health ordinance such a directive made sense, but it seems only to have been enforced in cases where other arrangements, equally commensurate with public hygiene, could not be managed. The presence of a tile kiln near the sarcophagus guy is already being taken as evidence that a villa might well have been situated in the vicinity, and it if so, then it is likely that this would have provided the raison d'etre for the burial's location and not hygiene ordinances in the town down the road. -
Message 11
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Wednesday, 6th December 2006
around the fifth century is that ok
population density is relavant because if there was density then there might be others near by and if there was no density then he would be alone,
there were romans in britan both before and after they gave up control of britan,what is wrong with this ,so at a time when they did not control britan and a time when they lost control of britan they still were romans there.
he was found outside london well did he live in london or did he live close to it,was he buried close to his home or far away from it,these are the questions that experts must ask of their find before they declare it,
sometimes nordmann i do not know how you got through colledge.??????????????????????????
you must have spent your grant in the pub.
-
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 6th December 2006
nordmann, can you give me examples of where people were buried within city walls. I spent about 10 minutes googling about Roman burials but no specific reference to this. There were several examples of human sacrifices around temples, but did not say if the temples were within cities.
-
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 6th December 2006
Hi Nordmann,
Hve you learned anything more about this strange sarcophagus story? Surely the fact that the sarcophagus is Roman doesn't prove that the skeleton is. Medieval re-use of sarcophagi is not unknown.
Although Roman burials were by law outside town boundaries, subsequent town expansion could result occasionally in burials being left the wrong side of the new boundary. I could probably dig up (sorry for the pun) some examples.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 6th December 2006
Hi Fascinating,
I don't know whether coin evidence was used to date this sarcophagus but in fact bronze issues ceased a bit before 410. The numismatists hold that the last Roman bronzes to appear in Britain are the Salus Republicae issue (395-402) of Honorius, although these are quite rare. The following issue Urbs Roma Felix, of 402 onwards, does not appear in Britain.
As you will appreciate the minting date of a coin may be very different from the dates when it ceased to circulate. As a child in the 1950s I was used to pennies showing the 'young' Victoria minted about a century earlier!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
nordmann, can you give me examples of where people were buried within city walls
Ìý
Hi fascinating
I agree that well documented burial finds are few and far between within London's walls but they have turned up from time to time, quite a few in the Georgian and Victorian eras when the city underwent organised and extensive street widening and drainage projects. The only one in recent years that I recall were when Prince Charles' favourite new addition to the city skyline was being erected on Pater Noster Row some years ago. I happened to get access to that excavation when it was in full swing and it was very exciting - a full thirty or more feet below the existing ground level. Roman foundations were found but at the time (and I have never heard of any conclusions being reached afterwards) it was not clear whether they indicated chambers within a dwelling complex or tight boundary divisions lining what is believed to have been a high profile thoroughfare linking the temple area with the 'forum'. Human remains (very disturbed) were also found. It looked like four individuals, and the remains of at least one coffin with the distinctive scallop shell motif was also found, indicating that they had been buried with some degree of reverence. Remnants of tessera were also mixed in with the remains and this could have indicated that they had been buried under an internal floor, a custom that has been noted in country villas but not so evident in city dwellings hitherto. The archaeology was such a mess that this was all conjecture in any case.
Canterbury has yielded Roman corpses within its walls with much more regularity. One find in recent years of four individuals (plus several parts) buried with little decorum judging by the lie of the bodies gave rise to speculation that the city had once been in the grip of a Roman serial killer. More sober conclusions drawn afterwards favour the idea that the burials might indicate a hurried interral, possibly due to plague, at a time when the normal civic ordinances could not be met for whatever reason (possibly also due to plague). The area just within the walls, as with a lot of Roman cities, was often regarded as utility space where only temporary structures could be erected and normally served as a market area or rubbish tip. It was in this area that the bodies were found and it is not inconceivable that the utility area had been used as a plague pit.
When I lived in Regensburg the demolition of a pub had revealed the remains of what looked like several generations of the same family, buried beneath the hearth of a large town house in the country style. The find sparked some debate about how common such burials were, and I was surprised to discover at the time that even within Italy they were frequent enough not to arouse excitement. It seems that Roman ordinances, much like modern ones, were made to be broken! -
Message 16
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
Hve you learned anything more about this strange sarcophagus story?
Ìý
Hi TP
Unfortunately not. I checked with a mate who works in the National Museum in Ireland and it seems that news of the excavation is being contractually handled by the City of London Museum in conjunction with St Martin's directors. It makes me even more dubious about the tenor of the press releases. I don't blame St Martin's for trying to maximise interest in the find as a part of their fund raising activities, but I think I'll wait until the renovation is complete before I take any further examples of the advertised 'conclusions' too seriously. The good news is that the C of L Museum retains exhibiting and publishing rights over the excavation so when the bru-ha-ha dies down some interesting archaeology and info should come into the public domain. -
Message 17
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
Hi Fascinating,
I always remember reading the gruesome human sacrifices recounted by Livy in his accounts of the Second Punic War:
"Two Vestal virgins, Opimia and Floronia, were found guilty of unchastity. One was buried alive, as is the custom, at the Colline Gate, the other committed suicide..."
and later from the same book and chapter:
"Meanwhile, in obedience to the Books of Destiny, some strange and unusual sacrifices were made, human sacrifices amongst them. A Gaulish man and a Gaulish woman and a Greek man and a Greek woman were buried alive under the Forum Boarium. They were lowered into a stone vault, which had on a previous occasion also been polluted by human victims, a practice most repulsive to Roman feelings."
SOURCE:
Livy Book XXII, 57
(n.b. The burial of the Gauls and Greeks are also recounted in Plutarch's "Life of Marcellus".)
I don't know if the Vestal virgin was buried outside or inside the Colline gate, but the Forum Boarium - according to Wikipedia - was:
"...the cattle forum venalium of Ancient Rome and the oldest forum that Rome possessed. It was located at a flat place near the Tiber(third longest river in Italy) between the Capitoline, the Palatine and Aventine hills."
SOURCE:
So I reckon that definitely makes the Gallic and Greek burials referred to by Livy (and the sacrifices on the other occasions in the same location) within the city limits of Rome.
Also, I'm not certain, but I'm sure I've read in some ancient text of some other Roman/Latin/Italian city that had burials within it's walls, or at least a necropolis inside. Tarentum or one of the other southern cities rings a bell, and it may again have been during the Second Punic War. If this was the case, it would have been before the city was granted Roman citizenship so it may not exactly be relevant.
Cheers,
RF
p.s. hmmm... would the bodies of Tiberius Gracchus and his followers being thrown into the Tiber count as "burial-almost-at-sea-but-within-city-walls"?
-
Message 18
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
Oh, almost forgot - quality posts from Nordmann and TwinProbe as per usual!
RF -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 7th December 2006
nordmann, thanks for your reply, message 15.
This has good examples of how evidence can be ambiguous. Regarding the Roman London burials, firstly let's note that the city did not have any walls until the second century, so until then any burial in any place in the city would technically have not been illegal. But from what you say I would interpret this as burials near a villa in the very earliest period of Roman settlement, when the built-up area of the city was very small, and this villa would have been on the edge of it. As the city expanded, this land was built upon, hence the presence of the tesserae.
The bodies in Canterbury - who knows they might have died in a fire. I assume there were no grave goods or indication of a coffin, so were these really formal burials, or just places where people happened to die?
It seems to me that the law was upheld in the vast majority of cases, as many hundreds of extra-mural Roman graves have been found in Britain alone. -
Message 20
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 9th December 2006
Hi fascinating,
I’m afraid that it was you who originally introduced the red herring of ‘city walls’ in your messages 1, and 12. The Roman prohibition, which dates back the Twelve Tables of Republican times, was to adult burial within the boundaries of a town.
The foundation of a planned Roman town would have been an important occasion. I understand that in a religious ritual the boundary would be marked by a furrow ploughed by an ox and cow yoked together. Subsequently a bank and ditch would act as a more permanent reminder. As you say actual masonry walls were a much later phenomenon in the Provinces.
It was civilians who were buried along the roads leading to towns. The military seemed to have preferred their own cemeteries. As far as status was concerned the nearer to the road, and the nearer to the town, the better.
Of course many towns in Britain were unplanned, in the sense that they grew organically along major highways and the like. Worse still 90% of the population lived in the country and it is not known what were considered appropriate resting places for country-folk. In ditches and along track-ways perhaps
There were some allowed exceptions to the Roman rule, most notably infant burial. As well as change of boundary (which I mentioned in an earlier posting) there are other possible reasons for an adult town burial. Murder is one of course! In the 4th century there were changes in religious ritual, Christianity being the most important. For Christians burial close to a shrine or place of worship must have been important. It is also important to establish that Roman town burials are in fact Roman, and not later intrusive internments, even if a sarcophagus is Roman in origin.
Best wishes,
TP
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.