Roman Rochester (Dvrobrivae Cantiacorvm)

[gilius]

For me one of the biggest mysteries of Roman Britain is whether Rochester was a major Roman town or simply a village/small-town? What is so significant is that after the armies had been withdrawn from Britain at the end of the Roman occupation, Rochester immediately became one of the most important early Saxon centres in the whole of Britain, for Kent was converted to Christianity in 597, Rochester Cathedral built in 601 and the Diocese of Rochester founded in 604 with minster churches and parishes across half of Kent under its jurisdiction!

 

What was Rochester like during the Roman period and was the fact it become so important during the early Saxon period based on it's Roman foundation? I like to think so, and that it would have had a Forum-Basilica at it's center, but lack of archaeological investigations means it's not yet possible to know one way or another.

 

Identifying the Roman remains at Rochester has always puzzled me...

 

Directly behind where I am standing in the above photo is the River Medway that once apparently came right up close to the town defences before the esplanade was laid out. Old ground level is about halfway up the walls where the shrubs are sticking out, and the visible Roman remains are meant to be where the bricks are sandwiched between later Medieval brickwork above and underpinning below. However, I think more than those 3 layers are claimed to be Roman?

 

This section in the northwest is also claimed to be Roman, but is it!?

 

 

This section is also claimed to be Roman, but I have no idea...

 

Even the above section is claimed to be mixed Roman/Medieval.

 

This does not appear to be accurate at all.

Edited January 23, 2011 by gilius

[GhostOfClayton]

Interesting topic - you have whetted my appetite to know more.

 

In the first 2 photos, presumably the lower (tall) layer of facing stones is relatively modern, and can be ignored for our puproses.

 

There are loads of example of medieval stonework being laid ontop of Roman Stonework - the Multiangular Tower in York is one example, and there's a lighthouse down on the Saxon Shore somewhere (help me out, somebody - my memory has failed me). It's difficult to confirm without a closer examination, but the layer above the modern layer is very likely to be Roman.

 

The third photo looks just like many remaining chunks of Roman wall core. Again, very likely, but a good look at how any remaining facing stones were dressed would help. Also, looking at the map, the NW is the part that looks more classically Roman.

 

The 4th photo (if you ignore the layer at the bottom right which looks like a later addition to help with retention of a changing ground level) is classic Roman. Very likely!

 

There's nothing in the last photo that leads me to any real Roman influence. If I really squint, I could talk myself into thinking there's a broder piece of Roman wall core between the two rose beds, onto which a slightly narrower wall has been built.

 

The map is quite telling. The NW corner looks pretty Roman, as does the street layout of High Street and Northgate. Those factors should give you the approximate size of what was probably the original fort that may have become the town. There's usually a book written by a local historian, if you can track it down.

Edited January 24, 2011 by GhostOfClayton

[gilius]

Thanks for sharing your interpretations!

 

Unfortunately, there is no book for Roman Rochester, but I can tell you what there is out there on the subject (not much besides a leaflet).

 

In 2008 archaeologists uncovered a Roman bastion in the northwest part of the city wall, and as far as I'm aware that was the last excavation and it was meant to appear in the following year's Archaeoligia Cantiana, but so far no mention of it has appeared anywhere:

2008 Britannia

2008 Archaeoligia Cantiana

2009 Britannia

2009 Archaeoligia Cantiana

2010 Britannia

2010 Archaeoligia Cantiana

The web

Nothing!

 

During the same year they also found part of the wall near the castle keep, and this has been reported in an issue of Fortified England (available online in PDF albeit very brief with no photos). There was also a BBC news article, but the 2-3 pics were very tiny.

Edited January 24, 2011 by gilius

[gilius]

Rochester is only slightly smaller than Caistor!

 

Here is roughly the site where they found the Roman bastion in 2008.

 

Photo of the NW Roman bastion.

 

 

This is how the Roman brickwork looks like from excavations.

 

 

Hmmm...?

 

Some info....

[GhostOfClayton]

Good find, Gilius.

 

Wikipedia references "Rochester, The evolution of the City. Ronald Marsh. 1974 p&p Medway Borough Council".

 

You'd think that, of all the Roman Roads in Britannia, Watling Street would be one of the earliest to be established. Its first main river crossing would be at Rochester, and Aulus Plautius would (as suggested on Wikipedia) have wanted to defend this crossing. Typically, a small wooden fort would be established. If this was the case, it would be a natural choice for a later oppidum covering the region, and so would naturally have developed into a Romano-British settlement. 190 AD seems quite late for the first fortifications to appear, especially given the AD61 Iceni revolt.