DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.13856#0016
10
Roman Antiquities recently discovered on the site of the
If not the actual fabrications of the forger they have ofttimes come from
collections made abroad, have found their way to the dealers in such articles,
and thence to the cabinets of the unwary. It is rarely the case now that
antiquities can be collected from any London site with that certainty as to
locality which is after all the chief feature in the interest that appertains to their
discovery. The result is that statements are sometimes made upon dubious
authority, and conclusions arrived at of at least a questionable kind.
In order that the discoveries now made may be alike intelligible to the
casual reader as well as of utility to those whose pursuits may lead them more
deeply into the regions of archaeology, it becomes necessary to review briefly some
of the opinions expressed by former writers as well as the discoveries which they
have described and illustrated in connection with Roman London, and in doing
this it is proposed, while recapitulating what is known of the topography of the
district immediately under consideration, to ascertain as we proceed how far
labours already undertaken are confirmed and illustrated by the present inves-
tigations. The early history of London will be first noticed, nest the excavations
themselves, and lastly a description given of the numerous antiquities which have
been exhumed.
As with all places whose foundations belong to a period anterior to written
testimony, the early history of our city is involved in obscurity. It commences
in the regions of myth and fable, with traditions * which found credence in the
twelfth century and on through a period late in mediaeval history, but are never-
theless now commonly considered as speculations alike worthless and untrue. Of
anything like aboriginal barbarians such as in the present day it is customary to
assign to "prehistoric" times no remains exist. The megalith builders have left
no evidence of their works, no trace whatever of " stone," " bronze," or " iron,"
which can be appropriated to pre-Eoman times, not a single flint implement has
(to our knowledge) ever been found within the City, nor any article of pottery,
which in a clay district like London it may be presumed would have been plentiful,
no early British or Gaulish coins f prior to the Roman era, nor any of the relics
* See References to the Traditions of Geoffrey of Monmouth preserved in the Liber Albus ; and in the
Recordatorium Civitatis Speculum,
•j- Mr. Akerman writes: " If the Britons had a coinage of their own previously to the arrival of Csesar
the fact is not proved by existing examples."—Ancient Coins, p. 198.
A flint implement was found in Gray's Inn Lane which gave rise to a romantic story which may
Roman Antiquities recently discovered on the site of the
If not the actual fabrications of the forger they have ofttimes come from
collections made abroad, have found their way to the dealers in such articles,
and thence to the cabinets of the unwary. It is rarely the case now that
antiquities can be collected from any London site with that certainty as to
locality which is after all the chief feature in the interest that appertains to their
discovery. The result is that statements are sometimes made upon dubious
authority, and conclusions arrived at of at least a questionable kind.
In order that the discoveries now made may be alike intelligible to the
casual reader as well as of utility to those whose pursuits may lead them more
deeply into the regions of archaeology, it becomes necessary to review briefly some
of the opinions expressed by former writers as well as the discoveries which they
have described and illustrated in connection with Roman London, and in doing
this it is proposed, while recapitulating what is known of the topography of the
district immediately under consideration, to ascertain as we proceed how far
labours already undertaken are confirmed and illustrated by the present inves-
tigations. The early history of London will be first noticed, nest the excavations
themselves, and lastly a description given of the numerous antiquities which have
been exhumed.
As with all places whose foundations belong to a period anterior to written
testimony, the early history of our city is involved in obscurity. It commences
in the regions of myth and fable, with traditions * which found credence in the
twelfth century and on through a period late in mediaeval history, but are never-
theless now commonly considered as speculations alike worthless and untrue. Of
anything like aboriginal barbarians such as in the present day it is customary to
assign to "prehistoric" times no remains exist. The megalith builders have left
no evidence of their works, no trace whatever of " stone," " bronze," or " iron,"
which can be appropriated to pre-Eoman times, not a single flint implement has
(to our knowledge) ever been found within the City, nor any article of pottery,
which in a clay district like London it may be presumed would have been plentiful,
no early British or Gaulish coins f prior to the Roman era, nor any of the relics
* See References to the Traditions of Geoffrey of Monmouth preserved in the Liber Albus ; and in the
Recordatorium Civitatis Speculum,
•j- Mr. Akerman writes: " If the Britons had a coinage of their own previously to the arrival of Csesar
the fact is not proved by existing examples."—Ancient Coins, p. 198.
A flint implement was found in Gray's Inn Lane which gave rise to a romantic story which may