At present much of our detailed knowledge of Londinium is based on simple descriptive records of its buildings, material culture and chronology, and relatively little is known about its social, cultural and economic character. Future research should begin to redress the balance, and answer some of the fundamental issues which everyone – from schoolchild to academic – wants answered: what was life like in Roman London?
Londinium was a Roman implant on the native landscape, and quickly became a major meeting point for Briton and Roman, incorporating the main elements required by a Roman city. This process, often called ‘Romanisation’, might equally be described as ‘cultural interaction’ (Woolf 1998). To be a Roman Londoner was to live in a complex and diverse society, and our critical understanding of how this society worked is sketchy at best and, it must be said, influenced by our own contemporary views of social inclusion. We assume that there was a cultural affinity towards the ‘legacy’ of Rome – through language, literature, the western church, law, architecture and art – but there was also much about a Roman Londoner’s attitudes which would be alien to us – such as views on the institutions of family, marriage and slavery (Bradley 1994). The ‘Roman’ experience of the elite would also have differed substantially from that of marginalised groups such as out-of-favour tribal societies, women, slaves and the poor.
The physical residue of Roman London’s four centuries of occupation has been documented in a systematically collected archaeological record, presenting an extraordinary opportunity for the study of long-term processes of continuity and change in one of the western Empire’s major settlements and capitals. Identification of the social, economic and personal processes which drew people into the Roman experience, or led to its sometime rejection, will help to further define what it was to be a Romano-British Londoner.
Other major themes deserving more thorough investigation include the environmental impact of Roman development, the status of the settlement and its public and private institutions, its economic character, the role of the family in social organisation, systems of belief, and attitudes towards work, recreation and death. In all these areas, later Roman London is less well understood than the early town, as are the factors which influenced its contraction and decline. There has been even less research into aspects of Londinium’s hinterland and its wider region – mainly because of the relative scarcity of data outside the urban core. Roman London’s interaction with rural settlement in the Lower Thames Valley is as important a subject for research as the nature of urbanism and the role of the city within the province and the Empire.
More has been written about the archaeology of Roman London than that for any other period, but there is still a vast quantity of unpublished data on Londinium in the London Archaeological Archive; the success of much future research will depend on ‘unlocking’ this evidence. While the archive is our largest ‘unpublished site’, its exploration will take place at the same time as new excavation work. Research into Roman London, as with other periods, will need to make the most of complementary initiatives involving both archive- and field-based work. In both cases there will be a continuing need for further publication of analysed site sequences, well beyond the large number of publication projects presently underway.
We have but a general understanding of the topography, geology and soils of the London region and of the pre-Roman ground cover and climate.The diversity of soil types and landscape types can be seen in the range of cultivated ground, grassland, forest and wetlands. Study of this complex landscape has been hampered by the ‘hard surfaces’ of modern development which cover most of the Greater London area.
To overcome this, a more co-ordinated approach to landscape studies is needed to make the most of the numerous small-scale interventions. More extensive sampling for palaeoenvironmental data will provide information on changing landscapes, exploitation strategies, agricultural systems and environmental and hydrological conditions. There must have been major woodland industries near London, in Essex, Middlesex and Surrey, which presumably would have involved large numbers of people. Roadside settlements might have represented woodland industry rather than agriculture. Synthetic study of existing data would help to advance this work, considering the impact of Londinium on the prehistoric landscape, and its exploitation through land reclamation, woodland management, and agriculture and extractive industries.
Study of the Thames and its tributaries is equally important to consideration of the Roman landscape and environment. The river was heavily exploited – the subject of reclamation and the victim of pollution. Overall, the relationship between settlement location and topography, hydrology, soil type and vegetation cover needs to be investigated and mapped.
The multi-disciplinary study of archaeological evidence relating to subjects as diverse as patterns of occupation, diet and changes in the tidal regime of the Thames, may also provide important insights to changing climatic conditions during the period.
A great deal is known about the chronological development of Roman London, particularly for the first three centuries of its existence, and this provides us with a remarkably solid base for further research. In a few instances archaeology documents a major event which is also known from a literary source – most notably in the case of the Boudican destruction of the settlement in AD 60, which provides a terminus ante quem for the buildings, artefacts and environmental evidence beneath it.
This freeze-frame of life in frontier Roman London is arguably of comparable research value to the final occupation phase at Pompeii and Herculaneum destroyed in AD 79. Site archives also include many hundreds of structures and events from Roman London which have been precisely dated by dendrochronology, from an AD 47 drain beneath the main east–west road at 1 Poultry in the City of London (Rowsome 2000, 19) to an AD 294 construction of a palace by the usurper Allectus (Milne 1995, 75). Work on the archive and on future sites will reveal many more such structures, continuing the important development of chronologies and typologies for the settlement and for many categories of artefact.
Characterising the nature and purpose of development is less straightforward. The settlement has been accorded both a trading origin and, given its strategic location, a military origin (Millett 1990). Recent research is helping to present more evidence from both the City of London and Southwark (for example, Cowan et al in prep), but whether the detection of a military presence indicates the existence of significant military infrastructure remains a matter of debate. Significant pieces of the jigsaw remain missing and may yet provide information of fundamental importance to our understanding of the larger settlement. Roman finds from Westminster hint at a focus of activity on Thorney Island (AGL 2000, Gz WM12–18) and to its north around St Martin-in-the-Fields (AGL 2000, Gz WM6), and represent a case in point. Theories on the status of London (eg Wilkes 1996; Hassall 2000 for a summary) will no doubt continue to contribute to our understanding of the character and social economy of the urban centre and broader region.
In contrast with the data available for the central urban settlement, much more information is needed about how the countryside was managed during the invasion period. It is to the London region that we need to look for new evidence of the Boudican revolt, and here that we may have the best chance of understanding how ‘Romanisation’ affected the native population. The rural transition from the late pre-Roman Iron Age to the Roman period is poorly understood, and little is known about the origins of roadside settlements, villages, outlying villas and non-villa farmsteads, and their subsequent development.
There was extensive settlement, farming and industrial activity throughout the region and known sites seem to be located where there were better soils (Bird 2000). Were some of the roadside villages settlements in their own right, with their own economic region, as opposed to being dependent on passing trade? The evidence is biased towards higher-status or larger-scale sites, and the excavation and study of non-villa farms should be a priority, particularly in relation to changes in settlement patterns in the later Roman period. The development and distribution of agricultural settlement in different parts of the London region also needs study, and we need to compare the pattern to that elsewhere in the province. More fundamentally there is a need to explore the Roman experience away from the urban centre and to consider whether there was transparency of movement between town and country.
Research should also be directed to the transition at the end of the Roman occupation, to investigate socio-economic and political change and develop explanatory models: Roman London is sometimes considered a failed settlement, unlike other Romano-British towns that continued into the 5th century. Some structural evidence survives from the late Roman period, and areas adjacent to the Thames and Walbrook may have the greatest potential, as shown at 1 Poultry in the City of London. Publication of key site sequences from Roman Southwark and the City will contribute to our perception of later Roman Londinium but broader syntheses, and a wider knowledge of the London region, will be needed. The analysis of well-dated artefacts (such as pottery, and certain types of glass) will help to gauge the extent and nature of occupation, and the analysis of reworked deposits and residual artefacts may provide valuable secondary evidence of late Roman levels destroyed in antiquity – although this will require further development of sampling strategies. In all, the surrounding region is crucial to understanding the demographic and economic mechanisms at work. At some East Anglian settlements deposits of ‘grey earth’ have been found in late Roman and post-Roman contexts, apparently the remains of ploughed-out middens (Crummy 1992), and similar deposits may exist in the London region.
London developed as a strategic and economic centre, the focus for road and river transport. The study of the interplay between these and other key elements of the infrastructure – public building and amenities, residential, industrial and work areas – will help to elucidate the factors influencing its development and regulation. Detailed study of the morphology of the town, both through the analysis of site sequences and inter-site comparison, is also a prerequisite to understanding the social structure and demographics of the settlement and the relationship between public and private services.
A sound basic knowledge exists of river crossings and major roads in Londinium itself, and their relationship to the settlement (Watson et al 2001), but some refinement of their dating and evolution is needed. Within the settlement, on both the north and south banks of the Thames, analysis of the internal street system should consider the reasons for variations in street pattern in different areas and the arrangement of insulae (Rowsome 1998). Were different parts of the town subject to different levels of planning and did this change over time? In the environs of the settlement, an accurate chronology for roads, including their prehistoric antecedents, will help to foster a clearer understanding of the relationship between settlements and their economic development. The nature and chronology of radial development along the main roads leading from the urban area has received relatively little attention and is under-represented in the archaeological record, with roadside areas along Ermine Street outside Bishopsgate, the Silchester Road in Holborn, and Watling Street along the Old Kent Road all deserving closer study (C Thomas, pers comm). The relatively few excavated roads outside the settlement vary considerably in size and construction (Bird 2000), and whereas the road network would have resulted in a number of roadside settlements on the approaches to London, relatively few of these so-called ‘roadside villages’ are known (for example along the Colchester road at the River Lea crossing). Many minor roads and tracks must have linked farms and settlements in rural areas.
Roman London’s early port – particularly its central waterfront – is well documented (Brigham 1998; Milne 1985), but evidence is less plentiful downriver. Future research should be conducted in the context of the published research framework for the greater Thames estuary (Williams and Brown 1999). Development of the early quays in Roman London may have included wharves and warehouses devoted to particular commodities. A greater understanding is also needed of the stream channels on the south bank, and associated port facilities in the Fleet and Walbrook rivers; study of the mouth of the Walbrook to determine the presence of a 1st to 2nd century harbour basin (Milne 1995, 93) would be revealing and might throw light on the nature of the ‘palace’ site to the west (Marsden 1975; Marsden 1978). At present, no late Roman ports have been recorded but, given known importation during this period, this is unlikely to be a real dearth. Neither do we really know how far upriver the Thames – or its tributaries – were navigable, and how the tidal regime changed over time.
The water supply and drainage systems in the main settlement are known at a site-specific level, but overall understanding of the system is poor, with little evidence for ‘networks’ and systematic provision and maintenance. There is no clear evidence of aqueducts on either bank of the Thames, and few examples of piping systems (AGL 2000, 129). The overall water demand, though large, may have been met by a more piecemeal system and the use of private and public – either communal or commercial – wells. The dramatic discovery in 2001 of mechanised water-lifting equipment in wells at Blossom’s Inn and Arthur Street (Blair 2002) indicates that some wells were capable of high-capacity supply, and a review of evidence in the London Archaeological Archive may add to this picture. The reconstruction of varying water table levels may help to explain why different types of water management were used at different locations. An overview of the existing water supply evidence from Southwark and the City should include topographical reconstruction to identify likely locations of wells, routes of piping systems and possible aqueducts. Similar questions relate to private and public drainage, and the 1998 discovery of a large storm drain at Monument House, running south from the area of the forum (Blair 2000), demonstrates the potential for further field and archive based work.
Hundreds of Roman houses and properties have been recorded in the City and Southwark. The integrated analysis of this information is in its infancy and offers a tremendous opportunity for the study of objective evidence relating to social organisation and other key issues in understanding the Roman town. As well as a wide range of building styles and construction methods throughout the Roman period, there is evidence for the coexistence of different building traditions, with rectilinear ‘Roman’ buildings in the centre of the settlement and ‘British’ circular buildings in peripheral areas. Larger townhouses are seen as centres of prestige and power where important people did business and received guests, but little is known about attitudes towards the home, or even if Londoners owned or rented buildings. The many ordinary buildings of the average inhabitants combined residential, commercial and industrial activities which can sometimes be identified in detail (Hill and Rowsome in prep), and the potential for studies in this area has already been touched on with the ‘High Street Londinium’ exhibition, based on findings from 1 Poultry (Hall and Swain 2000).
Much more work is needed, however, on the analysis and synthesis of site archives. The identification of the average life-spans and replacement cycles of buildings would be of great value. Allied research should consider the transition from the public space of the street to the private home by studying evidence from drains and street frontages. Evidence of the creation and maintenance of property boundaries could provide information on patterns of ownership, security and legal protection of even the humblest private building. Central sites such as Bucklersbury and 72–5 Cheapside indicate a remarkable degree of continuity of boundaries despite destructive fires which necessitated total rebuilding. Evidence for the late Roman extension of early properties was seen at 1 Poultry, and a review of existing data at the LAARC may reveal similar instances of this phenomenon, but at present it is unclear whether the continuity of property boundaries in the middle Walbrook area and along major thoroughfares was repeated elsewhere (AGL 2000, 140). The comparative analysis of the construction of buildings before and after destructive fires and other disruptive events is deserving of particularly close study as a measure of the settlement’s changing resilience.
A broad analysis of building types and materials, including construction techniques and internal layout can provide information on many aspects of daily life but may equally offer insight into the cultural identity and social strata of their users and inhabitants. The study of function is essential, and finds and environmental assemblages have an important contribution to make, as demonstrated for example at Lincoln (Darling 1998), wherein the analysis of artefactual and environmental evidence is integrated with the detailed land-use data from buildings and their associated yards.
Aside from the forum-basilica, our interpretation of the function of most other public or governmental buildings and our knowledge of their builders, is tentative. (The notable exceptions include the amphitheatre and public baths, which are discussed separately, below). Londinium’s public, non-religious buildings may include: on the north bank an aisled hall near the forum (AGL 2000, 137, Gz CT45), a ‘palace’ – possibly Flavian – beneath Cannon Street Station (Milne 1995, 91–3), a late Roman ‘palace’ at Peter’s Hill (Milne 1995, 91–3); and on the south bank a complex of buildings with military connections at Winchester Palace, Southwark that might also be considered a ‘palace’ (Milne 1995, 84; Yule in prep). The Treasury and mint may have been within the area of the Tower of London.
Opportunities should be taken to improve our understanding of the purpose and role through time of Londinium’s public buildings, through either excavation or archival research. Many public buildings were located on the banks of the Thames, and issues of display may have influenced their prominent siting – an important theme in the study of Roman urbanism and the significance of connective architecture (MacDonald 1986). As symbols of power, public buildings are linked to an understanding of the political organisation of the city and province, including the role and status of individual officials. Research and publication of the Cannon Street Station ‘palace’ sequence would be particularly valuable (Hill 2001). The refinement of dating for public buildings, and research into the resources used in their design, construction and use may provide valuable insights into the changing economic and political circumstances of the town (DeLaine 1997). The identification of other buildings, such as a circus and a theatre, postulated as lying near Knightrider Street and between Queen Victoria Street and Ludgate Hill respectively (Fuentes 1986), remains unproven. The Knightrider Street wall has also been cited as evidence of terracing and even as a possible low-level aqueduct. The distinction between public and private was not always rigid and comparative analysis of buildings is required, as is consideration of who paid for them and how processes of munificence may have worked in Londinium (Bateman 1998).
Critical surveys of Roman society published in recent years (Garnsey and Saller 1987) are establishing new approaches to the study of various aspects of daily life, many of which might be applied to Roman London when framing research questions in the future. Although most of the population of Roman Britain was probably rural, most citizens, with their defined rights, would have lived in or belonged to the city, with its complement of public buildings and amenities, and would have enjoyed rights there. There has been little research into the people of Roman London, either as individuals, as class members – including ruling and servant classes – or family members. The Roman familial system was centred on a paterfamilias who exercised legal and social control over an extended family (Dixon 1992), but it is unclear to what extent this model held sway in Londinium and how it was influenced by Romano-British traditions. As already stated, detailed study of domestic buildings and their use may reveal social arrangements. Burial evidence also offers opportunities to learn about groups of Roman Londoners and individuals, as in recent cases such as the Spitalfields Roman (Swain and Roberts 1999) and the Great Dover Street bustum burial (Mackinder 2000). Evidence for the presence, role and experience of women and children is generally absent from the archaeological record or has gone unnoticed, and this represents a significant gap in our knowledge.
Finds and environmental assemblages have the potential to answer many questions about people and society, particularly when integrated with contextual information and land-use analysis. Stratigraphically excavated finds can also date and contextualise unprovenanced artefacts in museum collections. Pottery, faunal and botanical assemblages can provide evidence of change between Iron Age and Roman communities and, indirectly, levels of acculturation. The spatial and chronological distribution of finds, coupled with analysis of functional categories and examined in conjunction with building types may enable different functional, cultural or ethnic zones to be defined across Londinium and within the London region. Perring (pers comm) suggests a direct comparison between patterns of artefact use in buildings of AD 65 and AD 120/125.
Epigraphic evidence, particularly inscriptions from tombstones, and documents preserved on writing tablets, provide specific information on the identity and background of Roman Londoners. Though relatively few in number they will continue to make a valuable contribution to our understanding of cultural and ethnic diversity.
Direct demographic evidence for Roman London is restricted to cemeteries, with inhumations being the most informative, as demonstrated by the publication of the eastern cemetery (Barber and Bowsher 2000) describing 550 inhumations and 136 cremations. Early Roman burials tend to be cremations, but good-sized assemblages exist for the 2nd–4th centuries. The Great Dover Street cemetery, with 25 inhumations and 5 cremations (Mackinder 2000), and recent work at 1 America Street and Union Street which has uncovered over 80 inhumations, provide important comparanda from Southwark. The western cemetery is represented by antiquarian findings, supplemented by 18 inhumations and 29 cremations from Atlantic House (Watson 2002) and 127 inhumations from Giltspur Street (as yet unpublished). Recent work at Spitalfields, Broadgate and Houndsditch has led to the recovery of over 100 burials from the less well-known northern cemetery which flanked Ermine Street, raising the possibility of worthwhile comparative study with London’s other cemeteries (C Thomas, pers comm). A large number of artefacts in museum collections (Barber and Hall 2000) had already testified to a relatively large burial population in the northern cemetery. Isolated graves and small cemeteries have been found elsewhere, and their relationship to settlement patterns and roads remains unclear.
Published data from the eastern cemetery provides an important baseline for further synthetic work. Future fieldwork should aim to locate additional cemeteries in the London region for comparison with rural cemeteries from the Upper Thames Valley as well as those of Londinium, providing insight into the social character of urban and rural settlements. The existing skeletal archive is large enough to permit population-based research into many demographic questions, including pathology, disease, ageing and sexing. This is a major resource for further research, and at the broadest level may provide insights into the realities of life and death for men, women and children (Saller 1994).
Indirect demographic research might consider evidence from private buildings and their use, particularly by looking at family size, and looking at the estimated manpower used in public building campaigns (Brunt 1971). Research into population change should also consider any evidence of population movement between town and country, at different times. A tacit but unacknowledged tendency to assume a sort of ‘sub-Roman’ population surviving in the countryside around London, and surviving into the 6th century, might be elucidated by marrying demographic studies with questions about food supply and the production of goods within the region.
Major buildings associated with recreation, and already the subject of detailed excavation, are the amphitheatre at Guildhall Yard (Bateman and Cowan in prep) and the public baths at Huggin Hill (Rowsome 2001). Publication of the evidence for these important public amenities and their settings is a priority as they provide the strongest evidence for inclusion in Roman society. Several smaller, private or commercial bath houses have also been excavated, many of them several decades ago. The unusual baths and late Roman building complex at Billingsgate has the potential both for detailed academic publication and public display (Rowsome 1996). An overview of Londinium’s baths could be the catalyst for an investigation of wider social and economic aspects of daily life (Rowsome 1999), and the provision of recreational facilities, particularly baths, should be compared with other major Roman towns.
Other important recreational facilities, such as theatres or a hippodrome, remain to be found. Artefacts associated with recreation also merit synthesis: gaming boards and pieces and dies used for gambling are examples. The synthetic analysis of artefacts may indicate activity foci and help to locate London’s unidentified public and recreational buildings.
While there is evidence for a military presence in the city, especially during the late Roman period, we need a better understanding of the interaction between military personnel and other political and administrative sectors, and of the intended and perceived role of the military in the development and building of Londinium. Evidence for a military ‘presence’ in London may take many forms, and what appears in the archaeological record might also reflect the lives of soldiers on leave or off-duty, veterans and families in civil society.
The publication of Bishop’s corpus of military objects (Bishop in prep) will give a new impetus to addressing military issues, as will important evidence from Plantation Place, in the south east of the City, of a large defensive enclosure on Cornhill and immediately post-dating the Boudican revolt (Brigham 2000). The involvement of the governor and procurator also needs further consideration (Fulford 1995). Numerous theories have been put forward for military installations in Greater London which, in turn, would have influenced the development and siting of settlements and roads. A detailed review of the archival evidence, coupled with recent discoveries, could help to explain the situation. In the case of Cripplegate fort, work on the Grimes’s archive (Shepherd in prep) and recent fieldwork (Howe and Lakin in prep) have both proved valuable in gaining a better understanding of its chronology, internal organisation and character.
The history of the City Wall and Riverside Wall, and associated bastions and gates, is a major topic for investigation. We have a poor understanding of how the 3rd-century wall line related to earlier perimeters and local topography, or of the subsequent effect of the wall on settlement and topography. Later evidence for military occupation comes from tombstones and military equipment. The 3rd-century tower at Shadwell has been cited as a military structure, but recent re-evaluation of the site has now identified it as a mausoleum (Lakin et al 2002). Further investigation of linear earthworks such as Grim’s Dyke/Pear Wood and a large late Roman linear feature in Southwark is needed to clarify their date and function.
Few dedicated religious structures or sites are known from Londinium or its surrounding region. A handful of temples have been identified from dedications or references, and a range of religions can be identified. There is some evidence for a public religious complex west of Huggin Hill, and evidence for worship of Olympian gods from excavations of the riverside wall at Baynard’s Castle (Hill et al 1980). Ritual activity is clearly identified along the Walbrook valley – where a Mithraeum was discovered by Grimes in 1954 (Shepherd 1998). Shrines or religious structures would have been expected in buildings such as the Cripplegate Fort and the amphitheatre (Haynes 2000), although no such evidence survives. The presence of Christianity is known, and a tentatively identified basilica building at Colchester House in the south-east corner of 4th century Londinium has been postulated as a cathedral (Sankey 1998). The areas around Tower Hill and St Paul’s may yet provide further evidence, the latter for the capitolium or principal temple complex.
Antiquarian finds and more recent work in Greenwich Park has identified a masonry building on the prominent hill which may have been an important temple complex (AGL 2000), but further fieldwork and a review of existing archives will be needed before firm conclusions can be reached. Evidence for religious activity has been identified at many other sites and in many forms throughout the Greater London area and its hinterland, ranging from Romano-Celtic temple sites such as Wanborough in Surrey (Williams 2000), to a statue of a genius – a guardian spirit – recovered from beneath Southwark Cathedral in 1977 (Haynes 2000).
In all, the evidence from Roman London paints a picture of tremendous diversity in religious belief. More positive identification of the many cults and religions, including Christianity, remains a priority in order to understand how divers belief systems coexisted and in some cases blended to give a unique character to life in London and in the surrounding countryside.
Most worship took place within the home and research into the evidence from private houses is needed, as is greater emphasis on the socio-economic context of religious beliefs. Synthetic analysis of finds and environmental assemblages, combined with land-use evidence, may allow identification of ritual sites and practices. The possibility of continuity with pre-Roman rituals should be considered. Burials and cemeteries remain a rich source of information, and would repay further research. Religious observance in the home and alongside other activities, is suggested by the quantity and variety of religious evidence from the Walbrook Valley, and a review of the archive may identify evidence for household shrines and other religious structures. The religious significance of the Thames, Walbrook, Fleet and other rivers needs further consideration and synthesis.
Roman farming methods have been closely studied across the Empire (White 1970). Agriculture must have been an important area of economic endeavour around Roman London but it has left little trace in the archaeological record and is poorly understood. Good soils are not common in the London region (Bird 1996), and farm sites were often located on well drained soils near the junction with other soil types, perhaps implying a preference for mixed farming. There are virtually no villas on the gravels.
It may be that there were different landscapes: villa country, open gravels, extensive (managed) woodland on the clays, heathland, meadows on the river alluvium, and so on (Bird, pers comm). Where were the vineyards, or fisheries along the rivers? A synthesis of the available archaeoenvironmental evidence is overdue and would contribute significantly to our understanding of site location, of the use and perception of the countryside generally, and our knowledge of the chains of food production, distribution and consumption. Understanding the strength of the economy in the countryside is a prerequisite to understanding its strength in the city.
Similarly, although Roman London was a major consumer of cereals and animal products, there is little understanding at a regional level of how this new market affected agricultural production in different parts of the region or neighbouring regions, or to what extent demand was supplied locally or by imports. The absence of nearby rural settlement requires explanation – some have suggested that fields around the settlement were used for market gardening and cultivated by the townspeople themselves. A review of existing evidence should examine agricultural specialisation or improvements in reaction to the growth of Londinium. Weed seeds can provide an indication of the habitat in which grain crops were grown, and DNA and other biomolecular techniques applied to plant and faunal remains may throw light on the sources of production. Exotic imports have been identified but more work is needed to establish whether they were a significant part of the diet. Comparison of the diet of the population with those in different parts of the region may also be revealing.
There is a danger of assuming that settlement evidence in the countryside must mean agriculture; it might equally represent woodland industry centres (David Bird, pers comm). Research should set out to determine how the major woodland industries around London were managed, and how their products were delivered to the city.
An understanding of how the Roman economy worked continues to develop. Londinium was a major consumer of raw materials, from luxury goods to grain and other foodstuffs, and the sources of supply and organisation of this trade require clarification. An improved understanding of the relationship between Londinium and its surrounding area is an essential component of the investigation of production, distribution and consumption, and has been identified by English Heritage as a nationally significant theme (English Heritage 1991a). Analysis and publication of site sequence evidence needs to be complemented by a broader and more synthetic approach to evidence from the city and region to identify geographical and chronological changes in economic structures.
More work is needed to understand how crafts and industries were organised and functioned. The identification of industrial sites, in conjunction with integrated artefact studies, can address various aspects of craft and industry, including technological expertise, sources of raw materials, the influence of traditions, and market structure. Integrated examination of artefactual and environmental evidence, allied to land-use analysis, should be used to improve our understanding of industrial and craft production. Evidence of glassworking (Perring 1991, 52) and pottery manufacture (Drummond-Murray 2000) from sites in the area of the Upper Walbrook should be compared with Romano-British and Continental data on production and supply. The same approach can be taken with a range of industries related to food production, cloth-making and leatherworking.
Roman London’s consumption of energy is still quite poorly understood. Timber and fuel were required for building and industrial processes, but the amounts are unquantified and the implications for woodland management at a regional level barely known. Even less is known of the use of water power, although some evidence suggests the presence of mills on the Walbrook (Perring 1991) and Fleet. We cannot say whether Roman London was usually supplied with its chief necessities (fuel, timber and food) from its region (Bird 2000).
Londinium’s role as a redistribution centre is difficult to document, but evidence such as the supply of north Gaulish grey wares up the east coast of England (Richardson and Tyers 1984) indicate that the city did play such a role. More work is needed on this and other industries to gain an overview of distribution patterns between London and other centres.
Artefacts that can be securely provenanced and dated have a special role to play in evaluating the flow of goods in and out of Londinium, and pottery is particularly useful in understanding patterns and mechanisms of distribution. Pottery supply and pottery source studies can be used to identify further London’s economic territory and how it changed over time. The compilation of standard fabric and form typologies for the late Roman period will enable closer comparison between sites and regions. Mortarium and samian stamps and decorated samian which are particularly sensitive because of their precise dating and sourcing have been relatively understudied. Building material supply, particularly timber, may contribute to understanding of the organisation of the building industry.
Evidence relating to the evolution of Londinium’s waterfront should also be used to inform our understanding of the settlement’s changing fortunes as a place of import and export. The internal organisation of the waterfront installations on the north and south banks of the Thames and on the Walbrook are poorly understood – for example, the lack of 4th-century quays may reflect the organisation of trade during this period.
Londinium’s importance as a centre of consumption is seen in the wide array of imported products that appear in varying quantities throughout the Roman period. Analysis of the settlement’s material culture – related to land-use data – may identify regional variations and chronological changes in patterns of consumption among different groups and individual households. Detailed finds analysis may also reveal economic cycles and broader patterns of over-arching importance to the understanding of Roman London (MoLSS 2001).
Part of the Research Frameworks Network