Although fortresses would have had their own work-shops, and there were legionaries skilled in many tasks, the legion also required a number of services, goods Fig. 6.9. Plan of remains of legionary principia from excavations in 1978–9 (SP 72). The east–west trench may have been dug to bring water from the well to a water tank in the courtyard (drawn by Dave Watt, copyright English Heritage).
and food-stuffs, space for compounds, industrial processes, grazing etc., which could only be provided outside the fortress. Moreover, the soldiers had money to spend on social activity. The demand for these things placed something of a burden on the local populace, but also offered opportunities; no doubt it acted as a stimulus to economic activity. The extent to which equipment was manufactured by the legion, and how much was obtained from external sources remains uncertain (Bishop and Coulston 1993, 183–8). Fulford (2000) has attempted to estimate just how much the army required in terms of equipment, animals and food, and the total is enormous. It points up the need for fortresses to be supplied by water transport and accordingly be situated on navigable rivers. Some provisions were, of course, obtained locally.
There may have been official structures outside bases such as Lincoln, riverside warehouses for example, and an amphitheatre or ludus (training ground) was sometimes amongst these, but little definite structural evidence for such structures has yet come to light here (Bateman 1997, 79–82). The traders’ ‘booths’ (canabae) were leased out by fixed-term agreements and would presumably have lain along the street outside one or more of the fortress gates (Webster 1985a, 209–10). In view of the presumed inclusion of the Lower City (later walled) in the subsequent colonia, it could be argued that the canabae lay principally in this area as they did, for example, at York. But a discreet distance was maintained by the military, whose property this was, for operational reasons, and there are examples at some other military bases of the demolition of buildings which had encroached too closely (Poulter 1987). Settlements outside fortresses could, however, become quite extensive, and polyfocal, as at Mainz, and areas at some distance from the fortress could still be under military control (Mason 1988a). The inhabitants would certainly have included traders, both locals and immigrants, but also soldiers’ partners and their families and, in time, veterans from the legion.
At a number of sites, including Carnuntum and Aquincum on the Danube, settlements at some distance from the fortress were actually given municipal status and self-government, but this was principally a 2nd-century development (Mocsy 1974, 126–30). The later designation of the colonia and extension of the walled area down to the river at Lincoln implies that a settlement of some sort had already developed on the hillside during the military occupation. The spread of the settlement at Lincoln would have been controlled by the military authorities, and particular areas zoned for the army’s needs, including some river frontage and cemeteries, although there may also have been scope for piecemeal commercial growth. Among amenities available would have been establishments offering a range of goods and services not supplied officially, including social intercourse. Space was needed additionally for designated burial grounds,
which may also have contained civilian graves. Be-yond the built up area were the prata (‘meadows’) of the legion, discussed below.
Archaeological work in the past quarter-century has revealed evidence for occupation at various locations outside the fortress, but much of that evidence is of a fragmentary and uncertain nature (Fig. 6.10). It is, however, clear that the army controlled a large area around its fortress, and beyond the river to the south.
Some sort of settlement must have existed to the west of the fortress, since excavations at the Lawn (L 86) produced so much pottery and glass of mid or late 1st-century date and several artefacts suggestive of military presence, including equipment for horses (Darling and Jones 1988, 45–54; Steane et al. 2003). Perhaps there was an annexe here where vehicles were stored; a ditch whose fill produced much legionary material, found in 1985, may have defined the annexe – alternatively it may be interpreted as a natural fissure or ‘gull’, or as a prehistoric feature. The pottery may represent evidence that the local potters could supply the legion with the vessels required for cooking. Unfortunately, later pitting at the Lawn site, perhaps stone quarrying associated with the building of the colonia, had removed any identifiable traces of military period structures.
Some of the legionary rubbish could in fact have been removed from existing dumps within the fortress to fill the pits so that the internal area could be developed.
The use of stone in the legionary period is likely to have been confined to the baths building and tomb-stones; the extensive quarrying for the building of the colonia post-dated the fortress.
There are only slight hints of contemporary occu-pation to the north and east of the fortress, but no modern excavations have taken place close to the gates.
First-century pottery found in 1995 in the grounds of Bishop Grosseteste College, c.600m north of the north gate, indicates early occupation of a Roman nature not far from the site (BGA 95, BGB 95, Wragg 1997). We might expect that some of the canabae, and perhaps burial grounds and a ludus, lay in this uphill area with its level ground, but perhaps not this far away. A small establishment of native Britons producing for the army seems most likely. The extensive surface at Winnowsty Cottages (WC 87), c.200m east of the east gate, would be more comfortably interpreted as a parade ground or ludus, but it cannot be dated definitely to the 1st century.
The hillside to the south of the fortress has also suffered from lack of penetration of the earliest deposits or, where these have been reached, dis-turbance from later activity (here including terracing).
Slight traces of timber structures to the east of Ermine Street were noted west of Steep Hill (SH 74). This site produced a peak in samian pottery in the late Ner-onian period, and some early glass. It may be, then, that occupation was principally to be found adjacent to the main north–south route, except close to the river.
The date of the early timber structure, interpreted as
Fig. 6.10. Resources in the hinterland of the Neronian fortress. Swanpool is shown in its modern location (drawn by Dave Watt, copyright English Heritage).
a store building, between Silver Street and Broadgate (LIN 73c) is uncertain, but if the earlier dating is preferred, it could have been of legionary date.
Certainly there was much early pottery from here, and it is probably significant that material of a similar
date also came from the nearby Broadgate East site (BE 73). The fill of a north–south ditch here was no later than the mid 2nd century. In view of the presence of a possible Roman ‘dock’ to the south-east of the site (p. 98–9 below), it may be that the ‘ditch’
repre-sents an early inlet of the river, or that there was a riverside focus to the south or south-east of these sites.
Several other sites on the hillside have yielded 1st-century pottery and other finds, from residual contexts, producing a peak in the amount of samian ware in the last decade of legionary occupation. This might be interpreted as indicating nearby structures as the canabae grew, or perhaps it merely reflects the reuse of legionary rubbish for levelling or terracing purposes.
The deposit at Spring Hill (SPM 83) including a Rhodian amphora may represent such dumping.
It is from further south, beyond the river, that most stratified early material has been recovered. Here it is necessary to consider in turn the evidence for struc-tures, cemeteries and roads. At the site of 181–3 High Street (HG 72), which overlay native structures built on a sand island, the artefactual evidence – including a spearhead – and the small collection of animal bones (for what they are worth) seem to indicate a clear discontinuity in material culture between the late Iron Age and the Roman periods. At least one rectilinear structure, with associated painted wall-plaster, belongs to the legionary period, and on this street-front site is best interpreted as a trader’s house, although a directly military use cannot be ruled out.
To the south was a further area of marshy ground, not drained before the mid 2nd century, and the road appears to have crossed it via a causeway, before the two routes to London (Ermine Street) and to Leicester, Cirencester and Exeter (Fosse Way) diverged, in the vicinity of modern King Street. At St Mary’s Guildhall (SMG 82), c.100m further south, pottery from an early road ditch for the Fosse Way seems to confirm its 1st-century origin. Unfortunately, it was not possible to excavate the earliest road surfaces here or those of the road to the east, provisionally interpreted as Ermine Street. Some of the cut features between the two roads dated to the late 1st century, but were not excavated over a sufficiently wide area to enable detailed interpretation or to give a more precise dating. At present we should probably accept that they did not pre-date the early colonia.
Even so, we should remember that this is one of the areas, on the gravel terrace south of Monson Street, where traces of any earlier military base are most likely to be found. The discovery of a 1st-century cemetery at Monson Street (on the east side of Ermine Street) in 1982 (M 82) confirmed the chance earlier finds of legionary tombstones and early cremation burials. The cremation graves consisted of shallow cuts into the natural sand, with human remains sometimes con-tained in pottery vessels, and other finds associated (Fig. 6.11). Small slots also cut into the sand may have held timber grave markers. Interestingly, although the analysis of those individuals found (at least four in number) indicated that only one was possibly a soldier, the burial rite had distinctively Roman elements rather than native (Philpott 1991, 8). The legionary stones show that soldiers were being buried here, but also
women, perhaps the legionaries’ partners and children or those of traders. The significance of the presence, also, of some animal bones is less certain, but such finds are common in Roman Britain and probably represent sacrificial meals (Philpott 1991, 195–200).
Hob-nails were common, as were glass containers (unguentaria) for anointing the corpse with oil or perfume (Fig. 6.12) (Ibid., 117–8). The Monson Street glass vessels were normally placed on the funeral pyre, since most – but not all – had melted. A mirror, not an unusual item of grave furniture from the late Iron Age
Fig. 6.11. Early Roman burial pit containing a cremation in a rusticated pot, with lid, found in excavations at Monson Street (M 82), close to the line of Ermine Street, south of the pool (photo and copyright, City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit).
Fig. 6.12. Hob-nails and unguentaria (bottles and phials to contain liquid offerings) from the early Roman cremation burials at Monson Street (M 82) (photo and copyright, City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit).
(Philpott 1991, 123), is a further indicator that those buried were of some status and wealth. A nearby stone building – unusual for this period – has been pro-visionally interpreted as a mausoleum for someone of even greater distinction, although no burials were found in the part that was excavated. Trollope and Trollope (1860) also noted an area of charcoal and soot nearby, perhaps the ustrina or pyre-site of the legionary-period cemetery (McKinley 2000; Polfer 2000), or possibly associated with the iron-working debris from later occupation of the site, which appears to date to the early colonia period.
A number of other burials is known from further south, by Gowts Bridge, c.200m south of Monson Street (and west of the Fosse Way), including the notable tombstone of Gaius Saufeius (Fig. 6.3), while that of Gaius Valerius (Fig. 6.5) came from South Common several hundred metres further south. Both Saufeius and Valerius had been soldiers of the 9th Legion. The South Common area has also produced two early cremations, both closer to the projected line of Ermine Street than that of the Fosse Way (Fig. 6.2).
It appears, then, that much of the drier land south of the river crossing was designated for burial purposes during the legionary occupation. Whether the large gaps between the known burial sites contained further burials, other classes of structures, or even another military base, is unknown, although the possibility that this was where an early fort is to be found has already been canvassed (p. 39–40 above). These southern cemeteries appear to continue in use into the early colonia period, but probably not beyond.
These were not, however, the only legionary ceme-teries. A legionary tombstone discovered incorporated into the rebuilt city wall north of the lower east gate suggests an area used for burial on the hillside south-east of the fortress – certainly both early cremations and later burials are known here. Cremations are also recorded for some distance to the east and north-east of the fortress’s east gate, and south-west of its west gate, but they were early discoveries and cannot definitely be assigned to the legionary period. The finding of a cremation in a rusticated jar on Newland Street West, several hundred metres west of the lower west gate (NSS 97), gives some idea of the extent to which the cemeteries had spread by the early 2nd century. However, like many of these earlier finds, this cremation probably belongs to the early colonia rather than to the military occupation.
The engineers building the new military road system outside the fortress must have been much preoccupied with the junction of Ermine Street and Fosse Way and with the problem of constructing the new ‘Wigford’
causeway over the damp, low-lying ground, connecting the islands in the pre-existing pool. Observations in the 19th century indicated the presence and structure of this causeway in a number of locations, and mention, among other elements, a layer of ‘concrete’. These were all assumed at the time to represent Ermine Street. The
data from these observations and from those made by the engineer Michael Drury in 1877–8 (Drury 1890) can be used to suggest that the ground dropped steadily going northwards from St. Botolph’s, but notably the concrete is not so substantial where there was a higher area of sand terrace in the region of Nos. 181–3 High Street (HG 72) (Figs. 6.13 and 6.14). Further north the causeway led to a wooden ramp and bridge based on timber piles.
The installation of such substantial engineering features is more likely to belong to the major re-development of this southern suburb in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries than to an early military context, and the second phase roadside ditch at the St Mary’s Guildhall site (SMG 82) had a fill dating from the early or mid 2nd century. We presume, however, that the road followed the same route in the 1st century and that it would have required some sort of embankment and surfacing over the lower ground.
The recent investigation of a road crossing marshy ground at Scraftworth, near Bawtry, gives some idea of an alternative, presumably military, solution. Here, also, the road lies close to a fortlet (Van de Noort and Ellis 1997, 284) and large tree trunks were laid down as a base for a causeway of smaller timbers and brushwood, and then covered by turves. In due course a gravel road, supported either side by oak posts, replaced it. Perhaps similar technology was employed for the ramp leading to the river crossing at Lincoln.
The external boundaries of the prata legionis (liter-ally the ‘legion’s meadows’), where military stock grazing and related activities took place, cannot easily be established. They must have lain somewhere within the territory taken over by the army (Mason 1988a;
1988b; 2001, 118–20), close to the fortress and including much land within the modern District. The area covered could well have been extensive, however – boundary-marker stones from Dalmatia and Spain indicate areas in excess of 500 km2 (Mason 2001, 118).
Evidence was found for use of the rural settlement at Claydon Pike (in the Thames Valley east of Gloucester) for storing foodstuffs, and the grazing of horses under military control, was apparently reorganised for the colonia there, but it seems that use of these lands to supply the city might have commenced in the legion-ary period (Miles and Palmer 1990). Hurst (1988, 68–
9) originally suggested that the prata legionis at Gloucester was subsequently taken up as the colonial territorium. Consequently, it would have reflected the area required to feed the troops and their associated communities. He estimated its extent at c.50–90 km2, but he has since accepted that it will be almost impossible to find definite evidence to confirm the location or size of the territory (1999a, 127). Other features of the prata might include groups of practice-camps and siege-works, and major sources of water serving the army, whilst it is also likely that potential military obstacles, such as the iron-age triple ditch-system at Lincoln, would be demolished. The Lincoln
ditch system does appear to have been slighted at about this time and this may reflect its inclusion within the prata legionis. Conversely, the survival of other types of features, such as iron-age rural settlements, into the Roman military period probably indicate that the prata did not extend this far. Recent aerial photo-graphy has identified what appears to be an iron-age forerunner of the Scampton villa, for example, and this probably suggests that here, 8km north-west of the fortress, we are outside the zone of close military control. Similarly, two settlements which continued in occupation from the late Iron Age into the Roman period were discovered in pipeline operations c.20km east of Lincoln in 2001, suggesting that the legion’s area of control did not extend to the Wolds.
It is assumed that, for reasons of political expediency, the foundation of the colonia would have involved minimal further appropriation of land beyond the land already appropriated for the fortress (Richmond 1946, 65), so that there could have been a close relationship between the prata legionis and the territorium coloniae.
Furthermore, it might be easier to establish the extent of the territorium coloniae, especially if it was dis-tinguished by a formal land allotment system such as
‘centuriation’. Some have assumed that the colony’s territory would include both the Ancaster quarries – source of the Bailgate milestone (RIB 1965, 2241) – and supplies of iron and timber (Whitwell 1970, 39; Todd 1991, 37; Mason 2001, 170). If so, the extent of both territorium and prata would have been considerable.
However, there is no obvious reason for thinking that all raw materials brought into the fortress would have been produced within either the prata or the territorium, and there were, anyway, supplies of good quality building stone in the immediate vicinity of the fortress, along exposures around the hilltop, and of timber, probably, in the valley floor in the Birchwood area south-west of the Roman settlement. We might see the early pottery found near Bishop Grosseteste College, c.600m north of the fortress, on the site of a later farm
However, there is no obvious reason for thinking that all raw materials brought into the fortress would have been produced within either the prata or the territorium, and there were, anyway, supplies of good quality building stone in the immediate vicinity of the fortress, along exposures around the hilltop, and of timber, probably, in the valley floor in the Birchwood area south-west of the Roman settlement. We might see the early pottery found near Bishop Grosseteste College, c.600m north of the fortress, on the site of a later farm