|
Society of Antiquaries some bald and
unintelligent notes. For the rest, the evidence that might
have told the tale of Roman Canterbury was found, ignored,
destroyed, or buried.. Today we can only piece together
fragments of what might have been a real picture. We can
discern a town which looks as if it were a member, though
perhaps an unimportant member, of the class of Romano-British
country-towns already mentioned (p. 7). We find no difficulty
in believing that this country town was also a tribal capital.
But if anyone asks for details, the size of the town, the line
of its ramparts, the plan of its streets, the fashion of its
houses, the periods of its first beginning or its greatest
prosperity, we have no proper answers to give. We can merely
attempt a critical survey of the extent and value of our
present evidence. There is the more reason for this inasmuch
as nothing of the kind has been essayed before.
Our survey begins with the walls. It is a priori
likely that Durovernum was walled. It is equally probable
that the line of its Roman walls, like those of Rochester and
similar towns, was to some extent followed by its medieval
ramparts. Three or four pieces of definite evidence can be
cited in support of these probabilities. They indicate, first,
that two gateways and a part of the medieval wall, on the
south side of the town, stand on the site of two Roman
gateways and a Roman town-wall. The two medieval gateways are
Worth Gate and Riding Gate. These preserved, as late as the
18th century, some ancient arches, which have often been
imagined to be Roman work. The gates themselves have since
been altered out of all recognition, but sketches survive
which support the Roman origin of the vanished masonry. Near
Worth Gate, moreover, some masonry was found in 1867—8,
which might reasonably be thought part of a Roman town-wall.
This evidence suggests that the two gates represent Roman
gateways and that the ‘whole southern angle of the medieval
enceinte between and near them—some 600 yards in
length—follows the course of the Roman wall. This
conclusion, however, involves a difficulty. The piece of wall
in question lies some way outside the area actually occupied
by Roman buildings, and the interval contains both Roman
burials and also some watercourses which were seemingly open
in Roman times (pp. 69, 71). Neither of these things suits the
interior of a Roman town, and their occurrence here is hard to
explain away. But the evidence, as at present available, does
not lend itself to profitable discussion. The problem, like so
many others, must be left to the spade. Nearly the whole
stretch of wall now in question is accessible to excavation.
If it stands on the old Roman line, Roman masonry can easily
be laid bare. When the citizens of Canterbury spend a few
pounds on digging here, the discussion of the problem ,may be
resumed.
From the Riding Gate, a useful piece of evidence,
only lately identified, carries the Roman wall nearly 600
yards to the north-eastward, presumably on the line of its
medieval successor. To the east of the Cathedral, on the site
of the former Quenin Gate, long covered by sheds, is a
blackened fragment of the jamb and arch of a third Roman
gateway (fig. 13). The remains consist of large jamb-stones
and the first few courses of a brick arch embedded in the
existing town wall, and the whole structure was apparently
similar in type to the supposed Roman Worth and Riding gates
destroyed in the 18th century (P1.
XI). |