Sarcophagi in Roman Britain

Bollettino di Archeologia on line I 2010/ Volume speciale E / E10 / 2 Reg. Tribunale Roma 05.08.2010 n. 330 ISSN 2039 - 0076

www.archeologia.beniculturali.it/pages/pubblicazioni.html

14

Ben Russell

Sarcophagi in Roman Britain Introduction

Burial practice in Roman Britain is traditionally divided into two distinct chronological phases, one

characterised by the dominance of cremation, the other inhumation, as the preferred burial rite1. The first of these is generally identified as running from the period of the Roman conquest (AD 43) to the late 2nd century AD, the second from this point onwards. Both are connected with developments beyond the confines of the province, and particularly at Rome where the gradual shift from cremation to inhumation had its roots in the late 1st or early 2nd century AD. Of course, neither of these phases brought sweeping changes to the cemeteries of Britain. The burial practices of pre-Roman Iron Age Britain were extremely localized, both in geographic and chronological terms. Cremation, the principal burial rite at Rome and in the western provinces at the time of the conquest, was already the dominant rite in south-east Britain, and had been since the mid 1st century BC2. Elsewhere, where inhumation was the norm, a shift towards cremation is noticeable but not ubiquitous3. Military and urban sites, where the number of non-native Britons was probably higher, offer the greatest density of cremations in the 1st century AD4. At many sites the different rites continued side-by-side: at the cemetery at Jordan Hill, in Dorset, for example, inhumations continued alongside cremations well into the 2nd century AD5. At the same time and in parallel with these developments pre-Roman inhumation practices continued unaffected in many more remote, less-urbanized areas.

In large areas of the province, therefore, the second major shift – this time from cremation to inhumation – in the late 2nd century AD represented a return to traditional practices; elsewhere it was a simple continuation. Nevertheless, in regions where Roman influence was greatest, where cremation rites achieved dominance post-conquest, the return of inhumation represented a more fundamental change in practice, one mirroring developments that had begun at Rome in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD6.

Though traces of wooden burial containers have been identified in early Roman, possibly even pre-Roman, contexts, it would appear that the use of coffins only became common in Britain in this later period – that is, the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD7. Inhumation was generally a cheaper form of burial rite than

1 See the recent syntheses by Philpott (1991) and Taylor (2001). 2 See WHIMSTER 1981 on the general subject of burial in pre-Roman Iron Age Britain; on the South-East, in particular, WHIMSTER 1981, 147–166, and PHILPOTT 1991, 6–7. 3 WAIT 1986, 83–121, and TAYLOR 2001, 87–90. 4 PHILPOTT 1991, 8. 5 WATTS 1991, 114. 6 See NOCK 1932, 325, and TOYNBEE 1971, 40. 7 See WHIMSTER 1981, 271, for the skeleton of a child in a wooden coffin from a cist burial at Worth Matravers in Dorset.

XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008

Session: Roman and Barbarian



15

cremation so the use of any coffin at all can be seen as a demonstration of some level of wealth or perceived status8. Materials

Three materials are used for coffins in Britain: wood, lead and stone. Unsurprisingly, lead and stone

appear to have been the more prestigious but this is not to say that wooden coffins were somehow low status. Of the 453 burials excavated at the Bath Gate cemetery at Cirencester, for example, only 72 (16%) were contained within wooden coffins; at the same time only one (0.2%) was contained in a lead coffin, and only five (1.1%) in stone coffins. At the somewhat wealthier Cemetery 3 at Poundbury, containing burials dating mainly to the 4th century AD, 856 (77%) of the 1118 burials excavated prior to 1982 were in wooden coffins, only 75 (7%) in lead or stone ones9. At the Trentholme Drive site in York, on the other hand, almost all of the 350 burials excavated were contained within coffins but only two of them were stone10.

In all of these cases the choice of material appears to have held particular significance. As Toller has noted in his catalogue of the lead coffins of Roman Britain the distribution of these 243 pieces is reflective less of the location of lead resources than it is of the ‘wealth in Roman Britain’ more generally11. In other words, people were not simply using the material that was to hand. The majority of the lead pieces are spread over south-eastern and southern Britain, with 55% coming from cemeteries directly associated with major urban centres, particularly York, Dorchester, Colchester and London12. Even in a province well-endowed with mineral resources, lead can never have been a cheap material in which to bury oneself. The same is no doubt true of stone. The decorated sarcophagi

Romano-British sarcophagi, or stone coffins, are relatively common but, due to the scarcity of

decorated pieces, have received little scholarly attention13. The same is true of the numerous undecorated sarcophagi from Gaul and the Rhineland. In part this is because these plain-sided pieces do not fit the research agenda of the more art historically minded scholars who have been responsible for the publication of the bulk of sculpted stone objects in the north-western provinces (fig. 1). In her comprehensive study of art in Britain under the Romans, for example, Toynbee mentions seven sarcophagi, of which only five are carved from local materials14. However, sarcophagi have also received little attention in studies of Romano-British funerary practice; in her study of high-status burials between the 1st and 3rd centuries, for example, Struck discusses built funerary monuments, grave goods, and the location of burials, but not sarcophagi15.

In fact, well over a hundred Romano-British sarcophagi have been identified. These fall into three distinct categories:

1. Imports (carved from non-British stone, probably outside of the province). 2. Locally-produced decorated or inscribed pieces (in British stone). 3. Locally-produced undecorated pieces (in British stone)16.…………………………………………

8 See PHILPOTT 1991, 53, and QUENSEL-VON-KALBEN 2000, 223. 9 See GREEN 1982, 64. 10 See VINER, LEECH 1982, 69–88, and WENHAM 1968, 33–39. 11 TOLLER 1977. 12 TOLLER 1977, 2–3. 13 On this point, see PHILPOTT 1991, 53. 14 See TOYNBEE 1964, 210–211; as Walker (1990, 9) has noted, un-decorated sarcophagi are only fleetingly discussed in KOCH, SICHTERMANN 1982, and were not catalogued by Espérandieu. 15 STRUCK 2000, 85–92. 16 There appear to be no examples of a possible fourth category, locally-produced sarcophagi carved from imported materials, like the north-Italian sarcophagi discussed in GABELMANN 1973, many of which are carved in Proconnesian marble.

B. Russell – Sarcophagi in Roman Britain



16

Abb. 1 – Undecorated Romano-British sarcophagi in the gardens of the Yorkshire Museum.

Only three sarcophagi from Britain can be assigned confidently to the first of these categories. Two

are products of metropolitan workshops while a fragmentary third example, carved from Pentelic marble, must be Attic in form17. All come from rural sites close to London and apparently date to the first half of the 3rd century AD. A fourth piece, the marble fragment depicting the Muses found built into the wall of a church in Harwich and now in the British Museum, is less certainly an ancient import18. The stone used in not of Mediterranean origin but could be Pyrenean. Since Koch and Sichtermann argued that it was a provincial copy of a metropolitan type, it might represent an import from Gaul19. However, this is pure hypothesis and, as Walker notes, it could just as likely be a later collector’s piece, perhaps reworked in the 18th or 19th centuries, and so not an ancient import. Since all of the imported architectural elements in Britain are of limited dimensions, these sarcophagi are the largest single imported stone objects in Britain20. Though none

17 The two metropolitan pieces, from Clapton (London) and Englefield Green (Surrey), are discussed by Toynbee (1964, 210–211), while the Attic piece from Welwyn (Hertfordshire) is described in Rook, Walker and DENSTON 1984, 149–160; more fragments of the Welwyn sarcophagus are due to be published by M. Henig in a forthcoming CSIR volume. 18 WALKER 1990, no. 70. 19 KOCH, SICHTERMANN 1982, 308. 20 Most marble was imported into Britain in panel form, for use as wall veneer or floor tiles; statues are found but they are generally small in size (exceptions being the busts from the villa at Lullingstone in Kent now in the British Museum (see TOYNBEE 1964, 59–62); the largest imported architectural elements meanwhile are the small columns and capitals in French limestone from the Neronian and Flavian phases of the palatial-villa at Fishbourne (see BLAGG 1990, 35).





17

are inscribed, their owners were obviously wealthy individuals: the fragmentary Attic piece, at least, was recovered from a large and prominent mausoleum at Welwyn21. Table 1 – The inscribed sarcophagi of Roman Britain.

Findsp ot S it e I nscription

1 York Driffield Est ate , The M ount D(is) M(an ibus) | Ae l( iae ) Seve r(a )e honest(a)e f em in(a)e | coniu gi Caec(ili) Rufi quo nd (am) | v(ixit) an (nos) X XVII m (e nse s) V III d(ies) I III Ca ec(iliu s) | Musicus lib (e rt us) e[ i]us p(osu it )

2 Yo rk Castle Y ard D(is) M(an ibus) | Au r(elio) S upero cent (u rioni) | leg (ionis) VI qu i vixit a n(n)is | X XXVI II m (ensibu s) IIII d(ieb us) XI II A ure|lia Censo rina co niux | m em oriam p os<s>uit

3 Yo rk S carbo roug h Ra ilway Brid ge D(is) M(an ibus) | Fl[a] vi Be lla toris d ec(urion is) co l(oniae ) E bo racen s(is) | vixit annis XX VII I m esib [us … | …] II I[…] II […]

4 York S carbo roug h Ra ilway Brid ge I ul( iae) Fo rtuna t(a)e dom o | S ardinia Ve re c(und io) Dio|geni f ida coniu ncta | m a rito

5 Yo rk Castle Y ard D(is) M(an ibus) | et m <a >em oriae Iuliae V ict orin(a)e | qu ae vixit ann os XXVI III me nse s I I d ie s XV | e t Constantio qu i vixit annos I V d ies X XI | menses XI Se ptim ius Lupian us (=cen tu rio) e x evoc(at o) | co niugi e t filio m em oriam pos<s>u it

6 Yo rk Driffield Est ate , The M ount D(is) M(an ibus) S imp lic ia e Flo re ntin (a )e | a nim e inno cen tissim e | que vixit m en ses dec em | Fe licius Sim p lex pa ter f ecit | leg VI V

7 York Driffield Est ate , The M ount M em (oriae ) [V] al(e rii) Theod ori|an i [N ]om ent(an i) vixit ann (os) | X XXV m(en ses ) V I E m i The o|do [r]a m ate r e(ius) c(ausa)

8 Yo rk S carbo roug h Ra ilway Brid ge M (arcus) V erec(undius ) Diogenes sevir col(on ia e) | E bo r(acensis) ide m q[ uinq (uenna lis) e t] cive s B it urix | Cubus hae c sibi vivu s fe cit

9 Yo rkshire S ut ton -u nder-W h itest one C liff

D(is) M(an ibus) | Co sc(on iae) M am m iolae co ni(ugi) p iisim (ae) | A ur(elius) Se renu s

10 L ondon W e stm inst er Abbey M em oriae V aler( i) A m an |dini V aleri S upe rve n|tor et M arcellus pat ri f ece r(un t)

More can be said about the decorated local products. These are represented by fifteen examples – two from London, thirteen from York – ten of which are inscribed.22 The data recoverable from their inscriptions are detailed in Table 1. Seven of these sarcophagi can be assigned tentatively to either centurions, civil magistrates or members of their families. Aurelius Superus and Felicius Simplex (no. 2 and 6) both give their legion as VI Victrix, stationed in Britain since at least AD 122. Septimius Lupianus (no. 5), a centurion ex evocatis, must have previously served in the Praetorian Guard23. Flavius Bellator (no. 3) records that he was a decurion of the colonia of Eburacum, while Aelia Severa (no. 1) might be the daughter or wife of another member of the ordo decurionum, given her title of honesta femina

24. Marcus Verecundius

Diogenes (no. 8), furthermore, on a now lost sarcophagus, identifies himself as a sevir coloniae Eboracensis and it is likely that Julia Fortunata (no. 4) is his wife. Of the York pieces, therefore, only Aurelius Serenus and Valerius Theodorianus give no indication of their status.

The names of these individuals are also reflective of their class: many are unparalleled in Britain, like the cognomina Bellator and Superus, while others are generally rare, like Lupianus and Censorina. Foreign links are specifically noted in the case of Marcus Verecundius Diogenes, a citizen of the Bituriges Cubi from

21 ROOK, WALKER, DENSTON 1984, 159. 22 London: RCHM England 1928, Plate 57. York: four from the Driffield Estate, The Mount (RAMM 1958, 412–413 (TUFI 1983, no. 77) and 414–415 (no. 1 (TUFI 1983, no. 64), 6 and 7)), three from the area of the Railway Station (TUFI 1983, no. 67–69) and three from the nearby Scarborough Railway Bridge (RAMM 1958, 414–415 (no. 3 (TUFI 1983, no. 62), 4 (TUFI 1983, no. 60) and 8 (TUFI 1983, no. 65))), as well as two from Castle Yard (RAMM 1958, 402–403 and 414 (no. 2 (=TUFI 1983, no. 63)) and 402–403 and 414 (no. 5 (=TUFI 1983, no. 61)); in addition, a single inscribed sarcophagus was found in 1956 at Sutton-under-Whitestone Cliff, near Thirsk (WENHAM 1960, 298–300). 23 RAMM 1958, 402–403. 24 See TUFI 1983, no. 64 (42–43 on this point).




18

Aquitania25. The inscribed sarcophagi of York in particular, therefore, give a remarkable snap-shot of the upper classes of the city. Most probably date to the 3rd century AD; those mentioning the colonia of Eburacum post-date 208–211 when the city was granted this status. Indeed it is surely no accident that these pieces date to the period immediately following the establishment of the colony.

The decorative schemes of these pieces also demonstrate an awareness of artistic trends outside of Britain. The sarcophagi of Julia Fortunata and Verecundius Diogenes both have tabulae ansatae with pelta-shaped ansae on their front facades, similar to three identical uninscribed pieces also from York26. Rougher versions of these pelta-shaped ansae are found on the sarcophagi of Aurelius Superus and Aelia Severa27. The sarcophagus of Flavius Bellator meanwhile has a more traditionally shaped tabula ansata. Ansae

shaped as peltae are not uncommon in Britain but close parallels for this overall scheme come from the Rhineland, Noricum and Pannonia28. Considering the stylistic parallels between the decorated British pieces and continental examples, it is possible that craftsmen associated with the military were involved. Certainly the sarcophagus of the family of Septimius Lupianus is of such quality that Toynbee preferred to see ‘the hand of a legionary artist of Mediterranean origin’ at work, rather than a local craftsman29. The closest parallel to this piece is the sarcophagus of Claudia Ursa from Carnuntum30. Members of the legio VI Victrix were certainly drawn from this rough area: a detachment of soldiers from this legion who describe themselves as citizens of Italy and Noricum dedicated a shrine and statuette to Mercury at Castlecary, in Stirlingshire31. However, it is equally possible that local craftsmen were simply responding to the demands of their military clients. The third-century uninscribed sarcophagus from the Minories in London, for example, shows an awareness of fashions in Rome but is clearly, as Walker has noted, ‘a provincial interpretation of metropolitan Roman work’32.

It is tempting to see the elite individuals who commissioned these decorated pieces as deliberately exploiting the sarcophagus as a monumental medium, and a quintessentially Greco-Roman one at that, for demonstrating their own romanitas, wealth and consequent status. Indeed a similar phenomenon, also datable to the 3rd century AD, has been observed by Mócsy among the upper classes of the urban elite in Pannonia and Moesia Superior33. The undecorated sarcophagi

Is it possible, however, to draw the same conclusion for the hundreds of undecorated, uninscribed

Romano-British sarcophagi? Did these objects indicate a particular kind of status that other modes of burial did not?

Walker has suggested that the undecorated sarcophagi of Britain and elsewhere in the north-western provinces often served ‘as a protective outer container for burials and grave goods, often of high value, and not, as in decorated sarcophagi of Mediterranean origin or inspiration, to express the cultural pretensions of those who commissioned them’34. Sarcophagi were certainly functional, often acting as an outer shell for internal lead coffins. However, though the number of sarcophagi excavated in controlled conditions is

25 Numerous individuals of Gaulish origin are attested in Britain in this period: for example, Philus, son of Cassavus, a Sequanian from the upper Saône, at Cirencester (RIB I.110) and Lucius Viducius Placidus, a cives Veliocassinius negotiator Britannicianus, also at York (HASSALL, TOMLIN 1977, 430 (no. 18)). 26 TUFI 1983, Plates 18 and 20. 27 TUFI 1983, Plate 19. 28 See KOCH, SICHTERMANN 1982, 300–308 and 323–343. 29 TOYNBEE 1964, 211. 30 KRÜGER 1972, no. 213. 31 RIB I.2148. 32 WALKER 1990, no. 71. 33 MÓCSY 1974, 237–238. 34 WALKER 1990, 10.





19

relatively low, several examples recently ex-cavated in Newcastle show that not all sar-cophagi contained rich burials. The first of these, with an unsealed lid, contained the ske-leton of a child and a possible secondary burial but no grave goods. The second, this time with an unopened lead-sealed lid, contained the burial of an adult, probably female with a jet hairpin being the only surviving grave good35. These sarcophagi did not, therefore, protect valuable grave goods. Instead, they were placed close to and well above the level of a Roman road, possibly that running out of the nearby town of Pons Aelius; they were obviously intended to be highly visible. These examples show that these undecorated pieces were not merely protective. Although certainly functional in this regard, there is suggestive evidence that they could have an additional symbolic meaning.

The overwhelming majority of sarco-phagi used in Britain were locally carved from native materials. These are listed in Table 2. The distribution of the known examples is mapped in Figure 2 even though documentation

exists for only a small portion of the total36. Though the stone type has been analysed in only a handful of cases some interesting results emerge. Where suitable local stone was available sarcophagi were carved from it, as one would expect: this is the case with oolitic limestone in Gloucestershire and Somerset and Millstone grit at York37. At Cirencester, the Bath Gate cemetery is immediately adjacent to the city’s main quarries so transport costs were kept to an absolute minimum38. However, the fact that value was attached to stone as a medium in itself is illustrated by the examples from the south-east of the province39. Here, limestone had to be imported. Stone from the quarries at Barnack and Ancaster, in northern Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire respectively, is used in London, southern Cambridgeshire and Essex, in the last case alongside oolitic limestone, the closest source of which is in Oxfordshire40. Some indication of the cost of moving this material can be gained from later sources. The stone used for the porch of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in 1583–1584, for example, which came from quarries in the vicinity of Barnack and nearby Weldon, cost 75% of its original value to be moved 16km overland41. When one considers that

35 This information comes from the preliminary report on the excavation in summer 2008 of the sarcophagi at the BEMCO site, Clavering Places, Newcastle upon Tyne, prepared by the Archaeological Services of the University of Durham. 36 Since so many of these pieces were recorded in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries details of their discovery are often patchy. 37 See GRAY 1922, 371–375, WILLMORE 1939, 158–161, and VINER, LEECH 1982, 88–92; on the Millstone grit examples seen RAMM 1958, 402–403 and 412–413, DICKINSON, WENHAM 1958, 291–292, WENHAM 1960, 317–318 and 327 (Appendix 3), and WENHAM 1968, 40–42. 38 VINER, LEECH 1982, 88–90; see VANHAVERBEKE, WAELKENS 2002 for a similar situation at Hierapolis in Phrygia where over 1474 sarcophagi have been identified to date, 89.9% of them carved from travertine quarried on the edge of the north-western necropolis. 39 Contrary to the view of Esmonde Cleary (1987, 12), I think that even in areas well-supplied with stone resources, stone coffins would be more expensive than wooden ones. 40 On London, see RCHM England 1928, 157 and 163, and TOYNBEE 1964, 210–211; on Cambridgeshire, WALKER 1908, 273–284, FELL

1955, 13–23, RUDD, DAINES 1971, 1–8, LIVERSIDGE 1977, 15 and 23, and TAYLOR 1984, 15; and on Essex, POWELL 1963, 146–147, and JONES 1979, 26–30. 41 ALEXANDER 1995, 127.

Abb. 2 – Distribution map of Romano-British sarcophagi.




20

Table 2 – Preliminary list of the uninscribed sarcophagi of Roman Britain.

Location Site Number Find date Materia l

Cambridge Arbury Road 2 1952 Barnack limestone

Cast le 1 1820

Huntingdon Road 2 1863 Barnack limestone

Cambridgesh ire S t Neo ts 2 1968 Barnack limestone

Cheste rton-W ater Newton 8-16 1828-1958

Ickle ton 1

L it lington 1 1821

Bourn 1 1942

S tilton 1

W ansford, Stibbing ton 1 1940

Heming ford Abbot s 1 1870

Eye 1

Broughton 1

Cast or 1

S tun tney 1 Barnack limestone

Lord's Bridge, B arton 1 1907 Barnack limestone

Upt on 1

Dorset Poundbury A t least 10 1970-1980 Hamstone

Poundbury 1 1970-1980 Portland limest one

Essex Heybridge 6 1873-1875 Ancaste r limestone

Mucking V illa 1 1978 Oolitic limestone

Old Ford, Bow 1

Rainham 1 1927

Gloucestershire Bath Gate, Cirenceste r 6 Oolitic limestone

Cirencester A t least 20 Oolitic limestone

Cold Ash ton Manor 1 1935 Oolitic limestone

Dyrham 2 1932 Oolitic limestone

K ingsholm A t least 1 Oolitic limestone

Hertfo rdshire Park Street V illa 2 1955 Limestone

Kent W hatmere Ha ll, Stu rry 1

Keston 1

Lincolns hire Ancas ter 7 1970 Limestone

London Various 12 1631-2006 Limestone

Northamptonsh ire Ircheste r 2

Somerset Ilcheste r A t least 5

Keynsham 2 1922 Oolitic limestone

Combe Hay 3

Midfo rd 1

Bath A t least 2

Yatton 1 1828

Tyne and Wear Newcastle 4 1903 & 2008 Sandstone

W orceste rshire Crowle 1

York Tren tho lme Drive, The Mount 1 1952 Millstone grit

Drif field Esta te, The Mount 1 1939 Millstone grit

The Mount 1 1807

Cast le Yard 1 1835 Sandstone

Apple tree Farm 3 1959

Holgate Road, The Mount 2 1881-1959 Millstone grit

W est Yorkshire Adel 6 1760-1849





21

London is over 145km from these quarries and that in the 14th century it took seventeen days to bring stone by cart from Nottingham to Windsor, a distance of around 200km, it is clear that significant amounts of money and effort were spent on procuring sarcophagi in these areas, even if they remained undecorated42. Stone as a material clearly had symbolic value.

There is also good evidence from the cemeteries themselves to indicate the prestige value of even undecorated sarcophagi. Alongside the decorated and inscribed pieces from York, undecorated sarcophagi have also been recovered, many of them from the same cemetery sites, including the richly furnished ones on the Driffield Estate and at the Railway Station site, near the Scarborough Bridge43. In 1807 a barrel-vaulted stone-built mausoleum was discovered in York that contained an undecorated sarcophagus with associated grave goods dating it to the late 3rd century44. Similar mausolea, also containing undecorated sarcophagi have been excavated in and around Cambridge45. Since funerary buildings are generally rare in Roman Britain, these examples suggest a level of investment well above the norm.

At Poundbury the ‘special burials’, in either stone or lead coffins were regularly arranged in clusters, the space between them filled with ordinary graves, arranged in approximate rows. Few of these clusters contained more than one sarcophagus while groups of up to eight lead coffins were common, perhaps indicative of the relative value of each material. In seven cases these ‘special burials’ were contained within built mausolea, one of which was decorated with wall-paintings apparently depicting a civic or religious scene46. Numismatic and ceramic evidence from the site dates the earliest of coffined burials (Cemetery 3A) to the 3rd century and many of the more elaborate ones to the 4th (Cemetery 3C).

Elsewhere, there is tantalising evidence for the integration of sarcophagus usage into traditional modes of localized elite burial customs. In the limited time available a single example, the barrow at Lord’s Bridge, near Barton in Cambridgeshire, will have to suffice47. This undecorated tapering sarcophagus was excavated in 1907 from beneath the centre of a large barrow on the edge of the Roman road south-west of Cambridge. According to reports made at the time of excavation, this barrow measured 14.6m by 7.3m and had a maximum height of 2.6m, and was clearly intended to be a visible monument in the landscape. Large barrows of this kind represent a continuation of late pre-Roman Iron Age practices and, as Struck has noted, ‘show signs of wealth such as internal grave constructions, valuable containers and costly grave goods, and quite frequently contain status symbols’48.

What these examples clearly demonstrate is the prestige value of stone coffins in late Roman Britain. The stone from which these objects were carved was often transported long distances at significant expense. Sarcophagi are frequently associated with built mausolea, and occasionally barrows, traditionally high status modes of funerary display. At York, where the epigraphic evidence allows us an insight into the character of the individuals commemorated, sarcophagi were the preserve of the social elite – the municipal and military officials who dominated the upper echelons of third- and fourth-century Romano-British society. All of this is true even of the undecorated pieces traditionally neglected by scholarship. Stone, as a material, achieved status in Britain during this period only under external influences and these locally produced sarcophagi represent the ambitions of a local elite influenced by such external pressures.

42 See SALZMAN 1967, 349, on transport times in Mediaeval England. 43 See RAMM 1958, 413, WENHAM 1960, 316–317, and 1968, fig. 2. 44 BANKS 1812. 45 TAYLOR 2001, 114 (fig. 48). 46 See GREEN 1982, 71–72. 47 WALKER 1908. 48 STRUCK 2000, 88.




22

Acknowledgments

I am especially grateful to Katherine Bearcock at the Yorkshire Museum, for allowing me access to the stores in which

most of the sarcophagi from York are kept, and to Richard Annis at the Archaeological Services of the University of

Durham for providing me with a preliminary report of the excavations at the BEMCO site in Newcastle upon Tyne. This

work is related to my doctoral research at the University of Oxford which is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research

Council.

Dr. Ben Russell

St John's College, Oxford

E-mail: [email protected]

Bibliography

BANKS J., 1812. A description of a Roman vault, discovered in the suburbs of the city of York. Archaeologia,

16, 340. DICKINSON C., AND WENHAM P., 1958. Discoveries in the Roman cemetery on the Mount, York. Yorkshire

Archaeological Journal, 39, 283–323. ESMONDE CLEARY A. S., 1987. Extra-Mural Areas of Romano-British Towns. BAR British Series169. Oxford. FELL C., 1956. Roman burials found at Arbury Road. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 49,

13–23. GRAY H., 1922. Roman coffins discovered at Keynsham, 1922. Antiquaries Journal, 2, 371–375. GREEN C. J. S., 1982. The cemetery of a Romano-British community at Poundbury, Dorchester, Dorset. In S. M. PEARCE (ed), The Early Church in Western Britain and Ireland. BAR British Series 102. Oxford, 61–76. JONES W. T., 1979. A Romano-British stone coffin burial at Mucking. Panorama. The Journal of the Thurrock

Local History Society, 22, 26–30. KOCH G., SICHTERMANN H., 1982. Römische Sarkophage. Munich. KRÜGER M.-L., 1972. Die Reliefs des Stadtgebietes von Carnuntum. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani:

Österreich I.3. Vienna. LIVERSIDGE J., 1977. Roman burials in the Cambridge area. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian

Society, 67, 11–38. MÓCSY A., 1974. Pannonia and Upper Moesia: a History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman

Empire. London. NOCK A. D., 1932. Cremation and burial in the Roman Empire. Harvard Theological Review, 25, 321–367. PHILPOTT R., 1991. Burial Practices in Roman Britain: a survey of grave treatment and furnishing, AD 43–

410. BAR British Series 219. Oxford. POWELL W. R., (ed). 1963. A History of the County of Essex. Volume III: Roman Essex. Oxford. QUENSEL-VON-KALBEN L., 2000. Putting Late Roman burial practice in Britain in context. In J. PEARCE, M.

MILLETT, M. STRUCK (eds), Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World, 217–230. Oxford. RAMM H. G., 1958. Roman burials from Castle Yard, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 400–418. RCHM England 1928. An Inventory of the Historic Monuments of London. Royal Commission on Historical

Monuments (England). Volume III: Roman London. London. ROOK T., WALKER S., DENSTON C. B., 1984. A Roman mausoleum and associated marble sarcophagus and

burials from Welwyn, Hertfordshire. Britannia, 15, 143–162. RUDD G. T., DAINES C., 1971. Roman burials from Duloe Road, Eaton Ford, St Neots. Proceedings of the

Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 63, 1–8.





23

STRUCK M., 2000. High status burials in Roman Britain (first – third century AD) – potential interpretation. In J. PEARCE, M. MILLETT, M. STRUCK (eds), Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World, 85–96. Oxford.

TAYLOR A., 1984. A Roman stone coffin from Stuntney and gazetteer of similar coffins in Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 73, 15–21.

TAYLOR A., 2001. Burial Practice in Early England. Stroud. TOLLER H., 1977. Roman Lead Coffins and Ossuaria in Britain. BAR British Series 38. Oxford. TOYNBEE J., 1964. Art in Britain under the Romans. Oxford. TOYNBEE J., 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London. TUFI S. R., 1983. Yorkshire. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani: Great Britain I.3. Oxford. VANHAVERBEKE H., WAELKENS M., 2002. The northwestern necropolis of Hierapolis (Phrygia). The

chronological and topographical distribution of the travertine sarcophagi and their way of production. In D. DE BERNARDI (ed), Hierapolis. Scavi e Ricerche IV: Saggi in Onore Di Paolo Verzone, 119–143. Rome.

VINER L., LEECH R., 1982. Bath Gate Cemetery, 1969–1976. In A. MCWHIRR, L. VINER, C. M. WELLS (eds), Romano-British Cemeteries at Cirencester, 69–111. Cirencester.

WAIT G. A., 1986. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain. Oxford. WALKER F. G., 1908. On the contents of a tumulus excavated at Lord's Bridge, near Cambridge. Proceedings

of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 12, 273–284. WALKER S., 1990. Catalogue of Roman Sarcophagi in the British Museum. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani:

Great Britain II.2. Oxford. WATTS D., 1991. Christians and Pagans in Roman Britain. London. WATTS D., 1998. Religion in Late Roman Britain: Forces of Change. London. WENHAM P., 1960. Seven archaeological discoveries in Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40,

298–328. WENHAM L. P., 1968. The Romano-British Cemetery at Trentholme Drive, York. Ministry of Public Buildings

and Works Archaeological Reports 5. London WHEELER R. E. M., 1943. Maiden Castle. Oxford. WHIMSTER R., 1981. Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain: a discussion and gazetteer of the evidence, c. 700

BC – AD 43. BAR British Series 90. Oxford. WILLMORE H. H., 1939. Stone coffins, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester

Archaeological Society, 61, 135–177.

Documents

Sarcophagi in Roman Britain