The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
Chapter Three
Roman History
Aerial Photo by Derek Edwards, Norfolk
Aerial Photo Unit 1996 (copyright).
London, this was the site of a small Ro-
man fort on the edge of the Roman town
(see plans page 51).
Note the mark of an encampment
outside
the Roman Fort.
Great Yarmouth is set midway between two Roman
forts. The two forts were built in different periods.
Caister was established earlier than the fort at
Burgh, in about the year 170AD, whereas Burgh was
established in about 298AD. There has been much
supposition as to why there should be two forts here.
In addition there were other Roman remains at Caister
that disappeared into the sea as the cliffs were eroded
by the sea. There must surely have been a Roman
town somewhere near. We cannot at present determine
whether there were yet more forts were further out to
sea, and we do not know whether there may have been
Roman settlements further out to the east, now under
the sea.
Whatever is below Yarmouth, we have yet to
examine it. Green excavated the wall at Alex-
andra Road, and found Roman tiles. A sherd
of a Roman pot was found at Blackfriars at the
lowest level, and Rumbelow reported that there
were many Roman coins found within the town
but has given no detail. For certain the forts
at Caister and Burgh are Roman in origin, and
deserve special attention.
The latest archaelology is written up in the
Norfolk Archaeology Reports
[i]
that draw upon
Greens earlier excavations. At Burgh there were
no signs of any monastery that might have been
attributed to St. Fursey, despite what Green had
said and written.
There have been some small finds of Roman materials
within the town area of Yarmouth itself, and the town
takes a Roman plan, with a river on one side and walls
around the other. There is also a cut-out section where
the wall turns in at right angle. In the town plan at
Philip E. Rumbelow wrote a book entitled
“The Saxon Shore Fort at Burgh Castle in
46
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
Wall (F) as on plan page 53, photo 8.10.2006
Suffolk 1938”. This was finished ready for binding on January 23rd. 1939. In various notebooks compiled
over a long period leading up to the writing of the above mentioned, there are some notable remarks and
observations:
“A considerable
number of Roman
Coins have been
found in the
neighbourhood of
Great Yarmouth,
some within the
town itself”
[ii]
There is
correspondence
with Professor
J.L. Myres at
Oxford. This
refers to Anglo-
Saxon pottery
from Caister,
collected and
recorded by
Rumbelow.
(Fallen) Bastion (G) as on plan page 53, photo 8.10.2006
47
The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
Bastion A on page 53, note that the brickwork is not tied into the main wall.
48
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
9.10.2006
The finds at Burgh Castle Included a pot with
Saxon decoration, found in the debris of a late
Roman building. According to Myres- “The pot...
shows clearly an entire fusion of the Romano-
British and Saxon techniques, and I know of no
close parallel to them, either in this country, or
abroad.”
[iii]
A description is given, of “polished
black pottery, decorated with tooled grooves and
circular depressions”.
Towards the end of 1917, erosion at “Dinah’s Gap”,
to the north of Caister on sea, uncovered on the
beach, a fragment of flint and mortar rubble with
bonding tiles resembling the Roman walls at Burgh
Castle. This was 5 feet long, 2-3 feet high, and 2 feet
thick, and in the cliff there, could be seen some 30
feet of the same wall, 2 feet thick. There was also
a heap of kitchen waste including oyster shells and
Roman coins.
[viii]
A letter from Roy R. Clarke refers to “the
discoveries over many years at Lound Run.”,
details of which he hopes to publish in the
proceedings of the prehistoric society in the
autumn.
[iv]
In a letter to the Yarmouth Mercury,
published 19th. August 1939, P.E.R. suggests the
origin of the idea that St. Fursey being at Burgh
Castle, as of “comparatively recent origin”.
[v]
There is a lithograph by C.J. Winter, of a
vase found in a field at Caister by
Yarmouth, 1851. The vase was shown
actual size and measured approx.4”
tall, and 2” broad.
[vi]
Six hundred and six silver coins were reported to
have been found in an urn, together with another urn
containing bones, also a six foot run of cobblestones,
all some 18 inches below the surface.
[ix]
Later the
hoard was declared “Treasure Trove”, the coins
ranging from 32 B.C., to 360 A.D., the bones were of
a dog, and the depth of the find was then reported as
2 feet.
[x]
In Norwich Castle museum there is
a rather unusual drawing by Mrs.
E. Luscombe, Aug. 2nd. 1886, of
part of the Roman encampment
at Caister Castle. This however
is the Roman settlement of Venta
Icenorum, at Caister by Norwich. It
was said to have been navigable from
Yarmouth.
[vii]
Photo of Burgh Castle, 1987.
49
The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
9.10.2006
In a field north-west of Caister Church, beside the
Norwich Road, discovered in 1837, there was a pit
11 feet by 7 feet, and 4 feet deep. This contained
ox and pig bones, mixed with fragments of Roman
Pottery and oyster shells.
[xi]
A Roman wall was discovered when sinking a trench
at the Sun Vale housing estate, Acle Road, Caister, in
1935.
[xvii]
In a report of the Suffolk Archaeology Society, a
wood lined well was seen in the beach at Covehithe,
together with Romano-British pottery, found in April
1840.
[xviii]
A Roman Kiln containing two mutilated urns came
to light. These urns came into the possession of
P.E.Rumbelow in 1929. The original labels were
preserved, and both give the date of their discov-
ery as 1854.
[xii]
A considerable quantity of human bones was uncovered
in a field south of the Filby Road (Caister), opposite
to the Sun Vale site. Beneath the pelvis of one were
Roman sherds.
[xix]
In some of his writings in 1927,
Rumbelow remarked that “The story of St.Fursey and
his mission work has been applied to Burgh Castle; the
result will bear so little examination that it ill repays
the labour.”
[xx]
Roman roof tiles were noted in the walls of the
church at Burgh St. Peter.
[xiii]
A Rhenish ware Roman flask was found at Burgh
Castle in 1851
[xiv]
; and another grey urn, also
a one handled flagon, in a field to the north-east
about 1/4 mile from Burgh
Castle.
[xv]
Rumbelow has
drawn some sketch-maps
of known roadways around
Burgh to try to determine
the Roman ways. The pit
at Clay Lane is apparently
referred to on old maps
as a sand pit.
[xvi]
There
is also reference to an old
road beside the Yarmouth
Road. (He would certainly
have been fascinated by the
aerial photos).
Photo. Burgh Castle,
1987.
50
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
fort
bankand
pallisade
This plan
shows the Saxon
town of Yarmouth or
“Cnobhere”. The layout is
virtually identical to that of
Roman London. If the are
more Roman remains, they
are more than 5 metres down,
and have never been exposed.
Roman tiles were found under
the town wall foundations at
Alexandra Road in 1956. Any
buildings were of wood and all
the buildings were burned to
the ground by the Vikings.
(Yarmouth)
Compare the above layout of
Yarmouth with the plans of
London in AD 125 and AD
375, below.
of mortar seven feet below
the Belton footpath. There
is also a photograph of a pit
beside the road opposite to
the Roman fort, which was
thought by Rumbelow to be
neolithic.
[xxii]
There are many such pits
across the area, which
appear to be neolithic,
and perhaps were for
excavating flints or clay,
both of which are resources
not far below the surface
locally.
This observation of Rumbelow’s was extremely
perceptive. It is unfortunate that when Charles
Green was given permission to excavate at Burgh
and Caister he had fixed preconceptions and then
kept inadequate records. The reports that were
subsequently written by the Norfolk Archaeology
Unit show very different interpretations to those
of Green.
The young historian John
Ives junior, born in 1750,
was elected a fellow of
the Royal Society of
Antiquaries in 1771, at
which time he appears to
have been compiling his
treatise “ Remarks upon
the Garianonum of the
Romans”. This small book
has some important items not covered elsewhere, and
also is the earliest written record of the ruin at Burgh
Castle. Some of his observations are as follows:
“In the area of the camp, and in many of the fields
around it, vast numbers of Roman coins have been and
are still found. None of them that I have met with rise
higher than the reign of Domitian, and the generality
are much later”. He says that he only personally saw
one coin of silver, the others all were copper, and
tells that his maternal great grandfather who owned
the castle and manor, had a considerable number of
silver coins, and two gold ones. The gold ones were
presented to John Moore, Bishop of Norwich. Ives
describes the foundations of the castle as being on a
deep bed of chalk and lime which had been compacted,
covered with earth and sand. Oak planks, two inches
thick were laid on top, and the flint and brick structure
built upon this firm base.
In Rumbelow’s book of notes on Burgh Castle
for 1930, there are items of correspondence and
reports relating to disputes over the closure of the
public footpath alongside the river at Burgh Castle.
An original deed is enclosed dated 1683, which
is a manor court deed referring to John Rake and
Charles Rokan. The latter is thought possibly to
have been the Lord of the Manor. Fourteen acres
of tenement is referred to.
[xxi]
In an extract of
Harrod’s report, there is reference to a solid mass
51
The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
He describes the mortar as being of lime, unsieved
sand containing gravel and small pebbles. He says
that the lime would have come from pits in Bel-
ton, some mortar would have been mixed cold, and
some poured on boiling hot. He refers to a descrip-
tion of a Roman brick by Pliny as being one and a
half feet long, one foot wide, and an inch and a half
thick, equal to the dimensions of those at Burgh. In
the field to the east of the castle were found many
funerary urns, and “innumerable pieces of them
were spread around”. “They are made of coarse blue
clay from the neighbouring village of Bradwell; ill
formed, brittle and porous.” Ives reports that, in
1756, a hole some five yards square was dug in the
field, and about two feet down, many fragments
of urns were found, thought to have been broken
by ploughing. With them were oyster shells, cattle
bones, and burnt coals. One urn when reconstructed,
was large enough to have contained more than a peck
and a half of corn. It contained bones and ashes,
some coins of Constantine, and a Roman spear head.
In 1771, Urns and ashes were found under part of the
hill of the praetorium, a layer of pure wheat, blacked
by burning, and a long handled silver spoon.
Plan of Burgh Castle
engraved for Ives’
book, dedicated to
Ducarel, from the
original by Henry
Swinden, now in the
British Library.
The drawings in Ives’ book of ground plans of the
castle area are very instructive. He shows how the
banking was laid out that had been erected as a
Norman fortification within the Roman walls. The
banking can be seen along the west side where later
authors have described a “quarry”. The original plan
is kept in the British Library, in Dawson Turner’s
collection. It was made by Henry Swinden, and an
engraving of it was made, dedicated to Dr. Ducarel,
and printed in Ives book. It was later copied by
Palmer (who didn’t I think, see Swinden’s original,
which was by then in the British Museum) in his
Perlustration.
coins was unlike other groups found at Roman sites
elsewhere. They cover a relatively short period, and
98% of them are irregular copies of Constantine’s
coinage issued between the years 330 and 348. Only
8 of 1180 coins date before the year 330. It is usual
for around 70% of coinage at these sites to be copies.
This is because regular minted coins were in short
supply, and the Roman army produced copied coinage
locally to pay the troops.
A most important and interesting observation by Ives
is one that might easily be missed. He points out that
there were no remains whatever to be seen at Caister
in the 1770’s, and remarks that Sir Henry Spelman,
the Elizabethan Historian, would not have called
Caister the “Garianonum”, if there had not then been
some significant remains still standing.
[xxiii]
I won-
der whether a drawing or engraving might yet come
to light. Many coins were discovered in a field near
to Caister Church.
[xxiv]
The coinage shows that the Roman fort at Burgh was
only occupied for a very short period, 330-350 A.D.
approximately, possibly longer, 300-350 or so, but
there was only one unclipped coin that indicates the
earlier date. There is still much of the ground at Burgh
castle that remains to be excavated in the future, and
new techniques to be used.
Ives also gives a print of a map similar to the Hutch
map. This is a copy of the map now in the Bodleian
Library. Ives’ effects were sold after his premature
death in 1776.
Ives’ observations on the foundations and structure
were remarkable. The foundation was found in Green’s
excavation to be of a few inches of rammed chalk
resting on a bed of clay, laid on the natural sand in
a shallow trench. On this chalk rested flint concrete
to ground level, capped on the outer face by a brick
plinth of two courses. At irregular intervals, timbers
had been laid at right angles across the wall embedded
in the clay, with chalk packed on the sides.
The coins at Burgh Castle found in Green’s excavation
were subsequently examined in great detail and the
findings are in the report by Steven Johnson, East
Anglian Archaeology 20, published 1983. 1,180 coins
were discovered in Green’s excavation. The expert report
was compiled by Michael Hammerson. This mass of
52
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
Plan of Burgh Castle in
1958, as excavated by
Green.
References:
[i]
Burgh Castle Excavations By Charles Green, 1958-61,
East Anglian Archaeology 20. Norfolk Archaeological Unit
1983.
[ii]
Vol.1 of notes on B.C. by P.E.R., p.148.(Norwich Castle
Museum)
[iii]
notes on B.C., p. 471, letter from Myres, dated 21st.
Feb.1938.
[iv]
Rainbird Clarke was curator at Norwich Castle Mu-
seum.
Bastion E
Bastion D
A
[v]
p. 492 of notes on B.C. by P.E.R.
[vi]
p. 495 of notes on B.C. by P.E.R.
[vii]
p. 499 of notes on B.C. by P.E.R.
[viii]
Yarmouth Mercury, October 19th., 1946.There is also
a detailed letter on the same subject in P.E.R.’s notes, page
53, from Alice Brown to Mr. Gerrish.
[ix]
Report in the E.D.P., Nov. 27th. 1946, with a subse-
quent report in Y.M. Dec. 28th.
N
G
A
AA
Excavated areas
Bastion C
A
positions of hoards
[x]
in Y.M. Dec. 28th.
[xi]
fully described in the “Gentleman’s Magazine” volume
VIII, p. 518.,
by Rev. Thomas Clowes.
G
position of
glass hoard
Quarry
[xii]
Norfolk Archaeology IV p.352. P.E.R.’s notes after
page 209.
[xiii]
notes by P.E.R., p. 216.
[xiv]
photo in P.E.R.’s notes, p. 238.
[xv]
notes by P.E.R., p. 315.
[xvi]
notes by P.E.R. p. 318/320
[xvii]
Reported in the E.D.P., April 12th. 1935. There are
photos on p. 339 of notes by P.E.R.
[xviii]
Notes by P.E.R., p. 543.
[xix]
p. 541 of above
[xx]
In a book of notes on Burgh Castle dated 1927.
[xxi]
P. 153 of 1930 book of notes by P.E.R.
[xxii]
p. 172 of above book
[xxiii]
Remarks upon the Garianonum of the Romans John
Ives jnr., p.16.
Bastion B
Motte
Ditch
Bastion A
Fallen Bastion
Wall F
0
G
15
Feet
[xxiv]
Ives p. 17, “Many Roman coins
(now the only evidences that remain)
have been found here. The earliest I
have met with was a Galba”. He quotes
Sir Thomas Browne’s Hydriotaphia
(1658) -”Most have been found in a
place called the East-Bloody-Burgh-
Furlong, belonging to Mr. Thomas
Wood, from whom we have received
diverse silver and copper coins.”
This shows the relative position of fallen wall and bastion,
8.10.2006
53
The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
Caister
Roman Fort.
Philip Rumbelow wrote in his diary that he
and A.R.B (Bishop). had a good search on
freshly cleared land, for Roman artefacts. The
cemetery extension had been tidied up, and
heavy rain had washed away some topsoil.
They found no Roman pottery, but did find
several worked flints.
This was constructed at first as a wooden fort
with ditches as part of the fortification of the
east coast by the Romans, 120 years or so after
the invasion in AD 55. The first defensive ditch
may have been dug in the time of political and
military crisis in AD 196-7. It may have been
dug in the subsequent reconstructive phase by
Septimius Severus just after that. The wall
and the inner ditch were built and dug most
likely in around AD 240. Late reorganisation,
with new work on the defences and ditches are
dated to around Ad 320.
On March 7
th
1936, the find of a coin hoard
was reported. Some workmen had been filling
in a trench, when some bronze coins fell out.
Mr Bishop visited the site next day, and along
with the workmen unearthed a hoard of about
40 more coins. Altogether over 60 coins
were found and sent to the British Museum
for identification. A report was received that
stated that 58 of the coins were official issues
minted between AD 330 and 337 at Lyon (17),
Treves (9), Arles (1), all only slightly worn,
and a coin of Constantine I, dated 337 entirely
unworn, indicating a date for the hoard of 337,
or not much later. It was also reported that on
a building site the spring before, coins were
found at different
times, of Victorinus,
A l l e c t u s ,
D i o c l e t i a n ,
C o n s t a n t i n e
II, Caesar, and
Constantius II.
The Caister fort was built as one of a series
of coastal forts, including Reculver and
Brancaster. It seems likely that there was a
nearby Roman town, and it is most likely that
this is now under the sea. That town might
possibly have been the town mentioned on the
“map” called the “Peutinger Table”, the Roman
town of Sitomagus. No-one knows where that
town actually was. It was somewhere near for
sure, but several sites have been postulated,
and developments in underwater archaeology
may one day give some answers.
When Henry Spelman wrote his 17
th
century
History of Norfolk, he reported that the whole
fort was then still standing. It is surprising
that there was never any drawing, sketch
or engraving of the fort then before it was
demolished. Perhaps there is such a drawing
somewhere, as yet unrecognised. Likewise,
maps do not exist that give any idea of the fort,
and at least for most of last century the remains
such as there were were largely invisible, and
thought to be those of a small town rather than
a fort. Certainly there were brick and flint
built buildings within it, including Roman
hypocaust heating. These buildings were
presumably visible to some extent, where the
farmer had to avoid them when ploughing his
field. Largely the whole was covered with mud
and vegetation.
On May 14
th
Rumbelow took a
photo of a Roman
jug, used as a
flower vase and in
possession of Mr Bishop. On the same page
of his 1936 diary, he reports a mortar found
by H Holmes the builder on the site at Caister,
which turned
out not to be
Roman, but to
have to have
been made in a
bell foundry at
Louvain 1543.
Sporadic investigations of the site have been
made over many years. On 26
th
January, 1933,
54
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
Caister Roman Fort, 8.10.2006
In his diary of 1951, he notes the excavation
trench reported in the Daily Mail, as showing 4
th
century Roman walls. Charles Green, who was
directing the work on the “SunVale” housing
estate was notoriously poor at taking photos
and of keeping adequate records. However,
he thought this was a Roman town, which
of course it wasn’t, and said that there was
evidence of a Roman diet of beef and oysters,
there being remains of cattle bones and oyster
shells. The Norwich road was then widened
and Saxon occupation both inside and outside
the Roman Fort was found, together with a
Saxon burial ground, that now is under the
Norwich Road.
Hypocaust at Pompei shows what that at Caister will have been like
before destruction. Most likely intact at Caister until 1620 or so.
Hypocaust heating system at
Caister
26.4.2006
Photo 10.8.2006
55
The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
CaisterRomanFort
With acknowledgement to Norfolk Archaeology Unit. Plan adapted from Ellison’s report.
NOT
Marsh,pronetoflooding
Areas 1.- 6. are Green’s excavations,
H. Trenches by Higgins,
TP. Tessera Park trenches.
E, trenches by Ellison,
M. Trenches by Musty
G. trenches by Gurney
Mc. Trenches by McEwen
56
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
The base of the building walls remain (only).
This is the (base of) the main wall of the fort.
57
The Revised History of Great Yarmouth
Chapter
Three
Roman
History
Over three years, 1960, ‘61, ‘62, archaeological
excavations were undertaken, funded by the
Ministry of Works. It was intended to build
Brooke Avenue and a new housing estate on
ten acres north of the Norwich Road. The
excavation consisted of a trial trench in 1960,
which was revisited more fully in 1962. This
proved to show the north-west corner of the
defences. It was the northern part of the fort
that was threatened and subsequently built
upon. Even in 1963, as reported by Ellison
in “Norfolk Archaeology”, the site was still
referred to as a “Roman Town”, even though
the walls of a typical fort as at Brancaster,
Reculver, Rochester and others, had been
seen. The excavations at this time consisted
of some six trenches, cut across the line of
the wall and ditches. Two trenches were
dug across the south-east corner of the fort,
two across the north-east corner, and two
across the north-west corner. The south-west
corner of the fort was already underneath
the Norwich Road. Nowadays such a site
would have all the topsoil stripped off with
mechanical diggers and after geophysics
had identified the features below. The whole
site could then be excavated. As was, then,
there was really only small piecemeal work,
and much was only discovered by residents
in their gardens by chance. Recording was
often totally absent. Even the professionals
then, were not half as thorough as now
would be the case. “Time team” could
easily be asked to do a thorough search with
geophysics across the areas both north and
south of the Norwich Road. All the gardens
in Brook Avenue could yet be systematically
examined, owners permitting.
bones, remnants of Saxon pottery and perhaps
10,000 or more oyster shells. In the excavation
of the wall foundations, the base of the wall
was built of large flints laid directly into clay
(presumably undisturbed ice age boulder
clay that overlies the glacial sand layers in
this immediate area). Outside the fort, some
thirty yards from the north-east corner, was
found an area of pits containing pieces of
fourth century Roman pottery. Notable small
finds included an antler hammer head, a brass
plate, which was most likely a belt buckle,
Central and East Gaulish Samian pottery, also
coarse ware - small bowls, jars and mortaria
(cremation urns).
The Roman Fort was built directly upon
glacial out-wash sand and clay. A large pit
was found in the section of the first trench on
the west side of the north-east corner of the
fort wall. There was late Samian pottery all
over the site dating from AD 200 or slightly
earlier. In the pit (which was just to the rear
of where the thirteenth house up the right
side of Brooke Avenue now is), was flint
rubble, occupation earth containing animal
This photo sets the wall remnants in context and
scale, against the bungalow in the background.
58
A New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth
The Gates of Rome, 24th April 2006.
59
