The New Perlustration of Great Yarmouth front page
This treatise will set out to show that from the end
of the ice age, when the ice receded, leaving a chalk valley overfilled with
sand, there was dry land at Yarmouth continuously to this day. In Neolithic
times there was rich and well drained soil, and the land was intensively
farmed. When the Romans came, the sea was miles further out, and they settled
widely in the area, though which useful navigable rivers flowed. The rich
farmland was highly attractive a source of food for their army in Europe. A
navigable estuary was essential as a trading port. All traces of any occupation
are gone or deeply covered, but certainly there were two Roman forts in the
vicinity, occupied at different periods. At least in Saxon times, the town
itself was substantial, but built entirely of wood; it was totally destroyed by
a Viking Raid.
there are a number of crop circles here the one at the
bottom right is very prominent a double ring ditch dug around a Neolithic hut.
© Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service, photo by Derek Edwards.
Crop Marks Show Pre-Historic
Settlement
Aerial photography of the area from Corton to Caister,
has revealed a well developed agricultural system of great antiquity.*7
If this represents most of the new stone age, then this has been rich farmland for several thousands of years.
Looking at these photos, there would appear to have
been a river that flowed inland from high ground to the east of Gorleston which
has long disappeared into the sea. This water in the ground flowed south-west,
and its route can easily be traced across the farmland, where it is represented by a pond at valley farm, and another small
pond at White House Farm, after which it can be seen to have flowed through
Hopton Run, Lound Run, into Fritton Lake, and thence into the Yare.
“White House” farmhouse at Hopton (Hall Road) is right
in the valley of the glacial melt stream
That it was never a fully flowing river, can be
determined from an examination of the cliff face at Gorleston, where the flint
layer in the sand under the topsoil is continuous, and unbroken right along the
cliff face. This includes the apparent riverbed, where there is neither any
erosion nor any deposition. The apparent "river feature", most likely
was created as a glacial melt flow- a river under the ice as it melted. Most
importantly, it runs into the Yare valley, created by a much larger melt flow
still.
Here can be seen the flint layer in the cliff at
Gorleston, and if you look carefully along the cliff you can see the position
of the glacial melt flow “river” valley.
Many fields and settlements can be seen from the
crop-marks over the fertile area from Lound to Caister, and flint implements
can be found with very great ease at many sites. Some of the finest of stone
axes to be seen at the Norwich Castle museum were found together with a
neolithic pot-sherd under a bed of gravel at Lound run in the 1920's, when work
was done to enlarge and deepen the peat diggings for water reservoirs. There is
an island of peat still in the centre of the man-made lake to the south-west of
Hopton Hall.
Regrettably, although many barrows can be seen from
the air, there have been no investigations made of these prehistoric burial sites, which can be expected to
reveal bones that could be carbon dated. This would need to be done at a number
of sites. (Dating was undertaken of bones at Burgh Castle, and these were found
to have dates covering a very much longer period than had been
anticipated.
The Druids at Newton
When there was a settlement at Newton, there was said
to be a druidical cross there*8 (Newton
Cross). The great stone crosses and prehistoric religious monuments including Stonehenge, Avebury,
Glastonbury, and others, are all on the "Ley Line" that can be traced
by divining with a willow twig across the country, and which can be seen to
pass through the centre of the ruined Church at Hopton. It may be stated with
some confidence therefore, that the lost village of Newton would have been on
the low sandy hills immediately east of Hopton, before they were washed away by
the north Sea. I have traced this Ley line myself. It is quite astonishing to
see a young willow twig respond to what is clearly a very narrow line of force.
The twig turns like a magnet, but only in
the line of force, which can be traced inland, passing to the north of
Lound church, across a point
immediately south of Lound Post-Office. (This was seen on a Channel 4
T.V. programme in 1992) Newton was a
village to the East of Hopton, on further sand cliffs that once stretched well
out into the sea, beyond Yarmouth and Dunwich when they were inland sites.
Peat Digging and the making of the
Broads
It had once been thought that the sea in recent times was higher than now, but the broads were created in medieval times by systematic peat digging in areas which are about a metre lower than the sea is at present, including Lound run and Fritton lake. These have only flooded recently, as the sea level has gradually slightly risen. It has been suggested that these peat diggings would have had to be regularly drained or bailed out. However, the flooding even now only occurs every thirty years or so, and in the meantime any area of working would be quite confined, and unaffected by any previous flooding. Therefore, bailing out of these would be entirely unnecessary. The workings that flooded could be left, separated by a few feet from a new digging, with a straight intervening section in-between to keep the new working dry. It was only after several hundred years that the average water level became too high to sustain the process. As far as economics are concerned, no doubt as the amount of remaining peat became much depleted; coal became readily available, transported around the coast by sea from the north during the 14th. and 15th. Centuries. It is also important to point out that the peat layer, formed after the last ice age, and which was dug out to form the broads, could not have formed or survived, had it been under the sea!
Since the rootlet bed at Corton and Caister (from before the last ice age) is clearly
continuous, it can be seen that the two main glacial deposits of sand and
gravels, the Devensian and the Anglian, above and below the rootlet bed, are
likewise continuous deposits. In post Devensian times, the river Yare, approx.
10,000 years old, became a tired old river, creating a typical meandering river
bed eroding some of the area between Caister and Burgh Castle. In fact the
glacier had already created the valley with a huge melt flow. There certainly
appears every indication of this from a study of the aerial photos and the
cliff geology.
The sea levels and the origins of
the sand layers
Since the sea post Devensian ice age has never been significantly
higher than it is now, other than at times
of flood, there never was a great open estuary as was formerly thought.
The sand that Yarmouth is built on is part of the Devensian deposit. It is not
a sea thrown sandbank. It has become thicker over the last two millennia,
partly due to wind blown deposition but mainly due to man made soil importation
during that period. Most of the layers found in the sewer trench at Nottingham
way were man made. There is some wind blown sand, but almost the whole of the
four metre depth excavated, is of imported soil.
the trench in Nottingham Way. At the bottom, the whole
way along was a perfectly undisturbed glacial golden deposit with fine
stratification, as found at Gorleston cliffs and in the cut for the new road,
all showing how there is a continuous glacial sand deposit from Corton, though
Caister and beyond.
bypass site by Middleton Road Gorleston (before bridge
built)
there was clearly defined glacial layering in the
cutting for the new bypass.
detail of glacial layering as seen in the Bridge Road
Underpass.
Early settlement within Yarmouth
Current findings in November 1993 support the idea of
early settlement at Yarmouth most emphatically. A series of posts supporting
the quayside have been found underneath the trench being dug for the new sewer along the South Quay. The tops of these posts were found 2.1 metres
below current ground level. This certainly indicates a sea level in occupied
times at least that much below the present, since in times of flood the sea
comes over the quay, even with the modern sea defences. These posts appear to
be the same run as were found under the Town Hall and at The "Dukes
Head". The timbers of a boat found
in the beginning of the pipe trench on South Quay were submitted for dating but
could not be dated by this means. Also unsuitable were the timber posts just
mentioned. The boat however has been compared to others of similar type and
said to be "early Saxon"*7b.
This boat certainly, being well above the timbers, and in the upper fill, means
that the bank timbers are of a date
prior to early Saxon, and further confirmatory work appears imperative.
photo of the trench on South Quay
When might this rising of the sea have occurred? If we
believe Ayers and Murphy, then there was a rising of the sea level by about 1
metre sometime around 1000 years ago. For the sea to be 3 metres lower implies
a date considerably earlier. Interestingly, it is now thought that the Thames
at Roman London was not tidal, since there has been found an ancient yew forest
on marshes below Dagenham, and yew does not like either damp or saline conditions.*9 The height of the sea at Roman London was 15 feet lower then. *9a As far as the previous rise of 1 metre is concerned, we should
note the evidence of archaeological excavations at Feddersen Wierde, on the
Weser. There was a large settlement there which was abandoned in about 450 A.D., apparently due to rising sea
levels. The interesting thing then is that Yarmouth appears to have survived
this flooding - how could this be?
wind blown layers easily seen in the trench on South
Quay
If all this is correct, then the tremendous amount of
wind blown sand and imported soil that has buried the ancient settlement which
now lies so many feet below the surface that it is hardly ever happened upon,
has allowed the town to rise progressively faster than the sea, and suggests
that the townspeople even in recent centuries were keen to rebuild their
dwellings at ever higher and higher levels, rather than face the risk of flood.
It can be seen from what excavation data
that there is, that soil was
imported in great quantities on top of
the windblow, (millions of tons, presumably to stabilise the land surface, but
also perhaps so that they could more easily keep animals within the open town
centre. The depths of various layers are different in the north and south of
the town. It seems that there was much more sand at Fuller's hill, whereas the
area of Nottingham way is nearly all imported earth.
this photo dating about 1935 shows how the wind blows
the sand across any obstruction, to settle in the town
Before the Roman Invasion
It seems likely that as part of the plan of defence
against invasion it was felt prudent to keep as many animals as possible within
the town walls in medieval times. There are many animal bones under the Market
Place, and few it seems more to the south, although there was a large quantity
in the trench at the west end of St.Peter's Road.*10 Certainly it is evident
from the aerial photos that the whole of the surrounding area was quite densely
populated and productive arable land before the Roman invasion, and when the
Romans came, they most likely took over a previously settled area of some
significance. There is new research just published that demonstrates that
Britain was an exporter of grain to the continent before the Roman invasion.
This is most pertinent, since we can see so clearly how the surrounding land
was intensely cultivated, and must surely have been involved in any such trade.
Although Caesar, in his "Conquest of Gaul"*11 does not refer to his expedition to
Britain in 55 B.C., as having any economic purpose, it certainly was known that
Britain was a prosperous place, and the grain supplies would have been
essential to the Roman army. I surmise that this is the reason for the two
forts, and so it may be for much of the Saxon Shore fort system, a protection
for the Roman army's food supply.
Ancient Yarmouth Destroyed by Fire,
probably by Swein or Thorkill.* 11a
It seems that Yarmouth could have become a settlement
during the Roman period. In January 1994, a layer containing burned straw and
wood was uncovered, which seems to represent the whole town, and to have been
burned out in its entirety at around 1000 A.D., just before the Norman
Conquest. A town of such size, equal it seems to the medieval town, must surely
have been in existence for some centuries before it was consumed with fire.
Roman roof tile remnants have been found at various sites with some ease
(considering the small excavation sites). It seems less likely that they were
re-used if there are greater numbers of them.It is just possible that there are also some pre-Roman township
remains to be found in this same level, which is situated immediately on top of
the Pleistocene sand and gravel.
Further excavation and detailed study is undoubtedly indicated. Prior to the
pipe excavations, I made suggestions to the archaeologist at Gressenhall (and
also on site)for a formal dig but was unable to persuade them due to the cost.
Study of Rogerson's work though, appears to show the same burned layer to have
been present at Fuller's Hill. Carbon
dating there showed a date for the fire of A.D.940 -1060, if this is indeed the
same fire. Attention then was drawn to the need for further planned excavation.
This layer was also found at the Crown Buildings site, and north of the
"Dukes Head", by Rye and Trett.
Andrew Rogerson in a hole dug for the concrete stands
for the permanent market stalls in the Market Place. (Norfolk archaeologist
previously in charge of the Fuller’s Hill excavations) Some 12th
century pottery sherds were at this level.
Possible moat site
Boreholes outside the north-west tower, on the site of
the new magistrate's court in 1992, have shown an area of silt below the
windblown sand, and on top of the glacial deposit, that could represent either
an early river channel, or possibly an old moat, now filled in. Here there was
found some timber at a three metre depth in the new sewer trench, that was only
partly removed by a mechanical digger. This was not properly examined, and was
thought by the site foreman to have been possibly the keel of a wooden boat. At
that time I didn't know of its existence, and also even if I had, didn't then
realise just how much lower the sea and river had formerly been. This should
one day be investigated further if ever the opportunity arises. Other buried
boats have been found, but see the next chapter.
Site of the Sixth Haven.
Some excavation took place on the South Denes for the
building of the power station in 1954, and was
reported on by Green, who describes wind-blown sand, beach deposits, a silt
layer, silty sand, and basal red beds. He drew attention to a deposit of
barnacles in one part. He was unaware, it seems, of the process of glacial
deposition, and certainly unaware that there had been a lower land/sea interface at the previous interglacial
period, at which time the deposit of barnacles may well have arisen, but the
likely answer is that this was the site of the sixth haven - it appears so from
inspection of the Elizabethan map. Some new work on these aspects is clearly
required.
"The making of the
Broads"
In this book there is a description of a borehole at
Queens Road, where a mixture of sand and gravel was found. This appears to be
the same as the material pulled up to a depth of 18 metres by the screw piling
machine on Regent Road in 1992. This showed continuous mixed sand and gravel to
its full depth. The explanation must surely be that the great glacial melt
stream ran through here as an enormous river, churning up the earlier glacial
deposit to a considerable depth.
screw pile at Regent Road
Pre-Historic Burials
In the stone age landscape, perhaps 5-8,000 years ago,
there was an intensely settled, and well marked out landscape of small
settlements and established and defined trackways. Burials took place in or
beside circular barrows, and possibly some of the circles noted in the aerial
photos and marked on the scale plan, were henge sites, where religious
ceremonies and burials, perhaps sacrifices may have taken place. Cinerary urns,
an early and a fourth century Roman coin, were found at Runham Vauxhall in
brick earth in 1879, apparently below sea level. This could not be explained,
since it was thought that the sea level had been higher, whereas evidence from
London showed it was lower (Roman_sea_level.). This
nevertheless, is one of several instances of Roman artifacts in an area that
was said not to have existed before a thousand years ago.
Prehistoric Roadways
The trackways are very clear in places, and it appears
likely that the subsequent Roman roads, and the modern roads from Yarmouth to
Lowestoft, Yarmouth to Haddiscoe, and Yarmouth to Caister, are extremely
ancient routes. A very fine stone axe was found beside Long Lane at Corton, and
I wonder whether Long Lane, which apparently leads nowhere, since it does not lead
directly to Corton, is the remnant of a roadway to Newton, where it perhaps led
in common with Station Road Hopton, and Stirrups lane, Corton. Although this
may be is more in the realms of imagination, nevertheless, since the north sea
was once dry with absolute certainty following the ice age, right across to the
continent, the coast was as far away as one might imagine, dependant only upon
the date.
Stone age axe head found at Peterhouse School playing
field.
A Roman Villa at Browston?
There clearly was a track that led from the north-east
to Browston Hall. This seems have led either to a stone age circle and
settlement, or possibly the site of a
Roman Villa. It has been suggested that the crop marks might alternatively
represent a formal garden for the Elizabethan Hall there, although there
appears evidence of a much more extensive settlement. This and the existence of
primitive trackways leading to it from the north-east, points to something much
older.
Aerial photo of Browston, 1976. © Norfolk Museums and
Archaeology Service, photo by Derek Edwards.
A Roman Villa at Cantley
There are similar crop-marks on high ground at
Cantley, that are thought by Derek Edwards*12a
to represent a Roman Villa site, although once again, there has been no
archaeological investigation.
Bronze Age Settlement
At Gorleston
there have been three finds from the bronze age that suggest a Bronze Age
village there. The first discovery of Bronze-Age axe heads was made at the
north-west corner of the Magdalen playing field. It may well be that excavation
of that field, as yet unbuilt upon, could reveal further evidence of Stone Age
and Bronze Age settlement.
A find of several axe heads was made in 1952 in a
trench cut to lay a pipe. This has been called "Gorleston hoard I".
Another hoard was discovered some years prior
to 1966, and
has been called "Gorleston hoard II". The latter was exchanged
with, and can be seen at, the Birmingham museum. The find was on the site of
the Magdalen Arms public house. It was privately discovered and kept secret at
the time. "Gorleston Hoard I", can be seen on display at the Tolhouse
museum. There are a considerable number of socketed axe-heads, parts of sword
blades, and some scrap bronze. It is thought to represent the secret store of a bronze merchant or
smith. It would have been very valuable. Andrews and Squires builders made one
further find of a bronze axe head, in May 1991, when Dr.Kumar's surgery in
Stuart Close was extended towards the pavement. The axe head was lying only
some nine inches or more below the surface, and beside the public
footpath.
Yet another discovery of Bronze age axes is recorded
to have been made, at the old Rectory at Somerleyton,
in 1926.*12 Somerleyton may be of further interest in
the future. On 12th.Sept.1994, I identified an area in a field about 500 yards
south-west of the church, which has many small fragments of brick and some
small pottery sherds.
Flint scrapers from Hopton, near White House Farm.
Small scrapers from field South of the 13th
hole at Gorleston Golf Course.
The modern village is nowhere near the church, and so
this may well be the site of the medieval village. There are other possible
reasons for the incidence of such fragments, and a careful survey is needed,
before jumping to conclusions. At the same spot I also identified an earlier
relic, a large flint scraper of the semi-circular variety.
Flint axes from Corton Long Lane, photo by
P.E.Rumbelow.
A hundred yards further south in the wood, is a most
unusual earthwork, that appears to be a claypit, but which has some curiously
shaped mounds at the north-east corner, that may also be well worthy of further
investigation.
Neolithic flint tools
There are finds of Stone Age tools that have been made
all over the area between Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Mr.Bullock at Hopton picked
up some remarkable examples of worked flints over a thirty year period to 1951,
and some of the best of these were photographed by Rumbelow.
these flint tools from Hopton photographed by
P.E.Rumbelow
Iron Age hut sites
There is a saucer-like depression east of the A12
road, immediately south of Links Road at Gorleston, which is in a field that exhibits
an enormous number of crop markings, and easily produces stone tools. This depression
appears to represent the remains of a stockade.*13 This type of
circular stockade is reported as being
used to contain the valuable livestock, dwellings being built around the outside. Another pair of such saucer-like
depressions can be found about 500 yards south of Lound Church, on top of a
small rise. Both these sites appear worthy of skilled investigation. Strangely,
they are both double depressions, so perhaps human habitation was within one,
with animals occupying the other. A significant number of ring-ditches can be
seen on the aerial photos. These would have been a fortification around an
individual hut. At least one of these is within the bounds of what seems to
represent a large ploughed-out bank. Such a bank may well be part of a larger
fortified site or "hillfort". (see "Prehistoric
Settlements" by Robert Bewley, 1994, p.110.)
This is the depression East of the A12, referred to
above.
And opposite Lound Church.
Further similar saucer-like man made settlements are
to be found beside Butt lane, opposite the Roman fort; to the north-west of the
Green Lane/ Beccles Road junction; at least four at Somerleyton, with
especially good examples beside the "Glebe House"; and S.W. of the
Haddiscoe to Hales road; also at Raveningham.
A great river 500,000 years ago
It was suggested to me by Andrew Rogerson that these
ideas were nullified by the finding of an ancient and huge river running from
the midlands, south-east of Birmingham and winding through Leicester, across
East Anglia and through Hoxne towards the North Sea. - Professor D.Coope, David Keen, et al*14 have reported a river bed at
Waverley Wood Farm, where there was an occupation leaving stone tools, at least
500,000 years ago. This surely represents the surface of the clay layer
pre-glaciation that overlies the chalk, and becomes overlain by deep sand to
the east of Hoxne. The sand was undisturbed from the glacial deposition when
excavated this year at Scole. This river, I suggest, ran into the chalk valley
(covered by clay) that I have described above.
We can surmise that there was a great river at Yarmouth some 500,000
years ago, no doubt with its banks occupied by ancient man, but in no way does
this river relate to the Yare or Waveney, which are post-glacial features, or
to the inter-glacial period, although there possibly was a river here then
also.
Medieval Yarmouth
It appears that there was an enormous fire in the
south part of the town before the Norman Conquest, whereas it is recorded that
the Priory of the Blackfriars was destroyed by fire much later in the Middle
Ages. It now seems clear that there was an enormous fire at least in the whole
of the area from South Quay to King Street in the line of Rows 128 and 129 in
about the year 1000. It appears so great that it spared nothing. The evidence
for this is an entirely continuous layer about 2 feet thick, 3.5-4 metres below
present ground level, which is in its entirety full of black charcoal and burned
fibre of straw and reed. This is such a substantial layer that it cannot
possibly represent any small or isolated fires of any cause, such as a firing
of a large area of marram grass. The layer contains fish bones in most places.
Due to the commercial nature of the excavation very little material was
examined, and only a very few pottery sherds have been recovered. The burned
fibres remain intact and unbroken in the ground, despite being burned entirely
to carbon. This shows that the ground here was never subsequently worked
(ploughed or dug in any way). A layer of sand immediately overlays this
remarkable feature, so that the layer is entirely discrete, sharply delineated
everywhere by the clean sand layers above and below. It had appeared from the
1886 ship discovery*15, that this
layer was at the very least, 10 feet above the post glacial surface, but this
proved not so. The 19th century brick built sewer (and presumably the
"Viking" ship) are both cut into the undisturbed glacial sand
deposit. The "Viking" ship may well be a ship burial; it has never
been examined.(see Rumbelow’s Diary for more detail)
Evidence of Iron Smelting
At a much later date, say 15th.C., there appears to
have been iron smelting, leaving two distinct layers of orange-red slag sited
to the north of the "White Lion" at the south side of the sewer
trench, about 2 metres below present ground level. The black layer full of
burned material referred to above, was sealed in by a great storm, since it is
covered by about 9 inches of pale wind blown sand, and then covered by further
layers of thick brown mud. A few artifacts have been found in these more recent
mud layers, including part of a green glazed jug. The flint and mortar walls of
the houses facing South Quay and King Street in the line of the trench were
encountered below ground under the roadway, but were neither more than one
metre deep altogether.
Flint wall at the White Lion.
A very ancient Flint and mortar wall was encountered
about a quarter of the way from Middlegate to King Street. The trench here was
4 metres deep, and this wall was certainly well above the burned layer,
and ran at right angles to the row,
parallel to Middlegate. In Nottingham Way, two brick wells were found , and
into King Street, the wall of a house uncovered. This was identifiable as the
front wall of no.113 King Street.
this photo in Nottingham way shows imported soil on
the sand and an ancient well
Pottery sherds found just above the burned layer at
the west end of St.Peter's Road in the sewer trench in February 1994, have been
dated as 15th/16th. century, showing the made ground here at least to be most
likely all a result of the ravelin and reinforcement of the walls in
Elizabethan times.
References:
*1 Palmer,
P.P., vol.I, p.4
*3a Encyclopedia
Britannica. vol.14,p.564.
*3b Oxford
Illustrated History of pre-Europe, Cunliffe, 1984. (pp.17,18.)
*3
Rumbelow's Diaries, vol.10, p.23; vol.8,p.15.
*4 Martin
George "The land use and ecology of
Broadland", p.6.
*5 Charles
Green, who was an archaeologist employed by the Ministry of works, died in
1972. He had undertaken useful excavations at sites such as Burgh Castle and
Caister fort, but did not produce reports on those particular digs. Such
reports and notes that he left have been examined subsequently, and much of his
thinking has proved to be misdirected and preconceived, rather than reviewed in
the light of the site evidence.
*6a
Rumbelow's Diary, no.9.,1934, p.19.
*6 Recent
work in the Middle East.
*7 Aerial
photographs are to be found in the archive of the Archaeological Unit at
Gressenhall beside Dereham. They were taken during the very dry summer in 1976,
mainly by Derek Edwards of that unit.
*7b confirmed
to me by Heather Wallace, archaeologist, Norwich, 17/8/94
*8 Newton
Cross was a well enough recorded village except that its position has never
been mapped as far as is known before
it fell into the sea.
*9
"The Lost Rivers of London", Nicholas Barton.(p.50) *9a same book, p.49.
*10 The
pipe trench at Nottingham way has revealed fish bones but virtually no animal
bones, whereas the material excavated at the west end of St.Peter's Road was
full of animal bones and teeth.
*11 The
"Conquest of Gaul" by Julius
Caesar is the earliest written account of Great Britain. (Penguin
books)
*11a Swein,
son of King Harold of Demark, invaded East Anglia A.D.1010. - Oxford
Illustrated History of Britain.
*12a Derek
Edwards, the aerial archaeological expert at Gressenhall.
*12 In
"1000 yrs. of village history", by Rev.Dr.Edward C.Brooks.
*13
"Current Archaeology"
*14a Andrew
Rogerson, based at Gressenhall.
*14
"Current Archaeology" no.133., dated March 1993.
*15
Rumbelow's Diary, 1936, p.141.
GREAT YARMOUTH IS AN ANCIENT
SETTLEMENT,
Saxon and substantial; Roman, perhaps so but very small.
The Archaeological evidence.
The archaeology and ancient history of this area has
been largely ignored. So little attention is paid to it that in the latest and
most authoritative history of Roman Britain, Burgh Castle merits a mere two sentences,
and the author erroneously places it in Suffolk, stating that it was built of
stone instead of flint, brick and tile. It is said to be without an earthen
backing, whereas the amount of earth placed within the castle must run to many
thousands of tons.*3
Caister on sea receives similarly scant treatment. It
is said to "command two river mouths", and to "act as the
terminus of the fen causeway". Nothing else is mentioned of these
artifacts whatsoever! *4
Venta icenorum, (Caistor by Norwich) at least given
some note, was 35 acres in size, and may possibly have been the site of a
woollen factory making uniforms for the Roman Army. The woollen factory could equally have been several hundred
miles away, we are told. *5
Brancaster at last comes into its own with the
revelation of an enormous township outside the Roman fort, of recent discovery
from cropmarks. The site was at least 57 acres, yet earlier in the same
treatise, it is stated that Brancaster was probably built to protect the sea
lanes on trade routes. Surely a Roman town of this size was one of the largest
in Britain.*6
During the last two centuries it has been accepted
almost without question that Gariannonum, the Roman outpost of the Stablesian
Horse, was at Burgh Castle, but this is no more than guesswork, and has not
always been the agreed conclusion:
In the years since Swinden's work was published, in
thoughts mainly promoted by Palmer, the notion that the location of Gariannonum
was anywhere other than Burgh Castle, seems to have been overlooked, yet
previously it was thought otherwise. Swinden himself called Yarmouth on his
map- "Gariannoni."
Directly upon the Pleistocene sand, lies a layer of
dark earth containing the remains of an ancient town, certainly Swinden's
Gariannoni, but the date of its origin has yet to be determined. Although at
various sites Roman tiles have been found, these may have been re-used, and no
solid building remains have to date been isolated. All the buildings pre-conquest were constructed of wood, wattle
and reed. Only very small excavations have however been undertaken.
The manuscript version of Manship's History copied by
John Mosse in 1736 has a side note saying "Yarmouth called in old time
Gariannonum"*7, whereas the
Cory copy thought to have been used by Palmer says "Yarmouth called
Garmud".
The shape of the town
wall at Gt.Yarmouth should not
pass without remark. The wall runs straight from the river at the north-west
tower, to and past the north gate. All
the rows run in a nearly straight line from west to east. It is most unlikely
that there was a row right up against the north wall when it was first built.
The strangeness is not in the north-west part however, it
is east of the north gate, to the north-east of St.Nicholas Church, as
described nine paragraphs hence.*8 A comparison of the shape and layout with
that of Roman London is remarkable.
Roman London
By word of mouth it was passed down that at one time the
river had two mouths, or rather, the one mouth was thought split into two by a
sand "island", and the northern river mouth in this greater estuary,
was called "Cockle Gat". Thus it has been known and agreed by all
without exception, that one part of the river was north of Yarmouth and one to
the south. The sand was always here though, as we have seen from the evidence
of glacial deposition.
It seems certain that at one time the sole flow of the
river to the sea must have been directly into it, to the north of the town. The
flow to the south therefore was at first a secondary flow, perhaps occurring at
times of high water, or great flood. Alternatively, perhaps it could have been
diverted. It must surely also be true that if there were two mouths into the
sea, whenever that may have been, the water in both channels, or at least the
lesser, would have been slow and shallow, and perhaps one could walk or ride
across it at low tide. (but see the conclusion of this treatise, since there is
new evidence regarding the sea-levels.)
All authorities have agreed that the river was at one time to the north,
but have not had all the information to hand, and have not followed the
arguments through.
It is possible that the river was at one time, close
to the northern boundary of the town, which might account for the
town being where it is. Such a proposition was put by
Arthur Lark, who spent a lifetime studying
the contours of
the ground and the windings of the river, and from his extensive study
decided that the northern channel came
out very close to the site of St Nicholas Church. This conclusion was made from an assessment of the height and
contours of the ground. The best
evidence is that the river was rather further north, at the site of the
Catholic Cemetery, where road widening revealed a dark peaty layer, suggestive
of a river-bed. At what date
these changes might have taken place can only be guessed
at. There is no conclusive evidence at present, and archaeological examination north of the town wall is very
desirable. Bore holes at the magistrates court site seem to indicate that there
could have been deep moat, or perhaps a river bed, at one time crossing this
site, to a maximum depth of 7.5 metres below sea level. Another possibility for that site is some kind of
dock. At least two Roman artifacts have
been found in the town wall itself. On 29th.Jan.1935, P.E.R. reports in a
letter that he sent to the Mercury - Mr.J.Johnson of 87 St.Peter's Road, has a
short section of speaking tube which his father removed from the wall when part
of it was demolished near to St.Peter's Church. There is a photograph of this,
it was of porous unglazed red earthenware, made in a neat two part mould. It
had a smooth circular bore one and three quarters inches in diameter.A similar,
but longer piece was described in the catalogue of Boulter's museum. (?1793)
"Pipe of red earth, 2 feet seven and a half inches long,one and three
quarters inches diameter, supposed to be Roman."*8A
As to the shape of the wall - this is most curious, yet by all earlier historians bar one*8 it has never been questioned. The wall runs a short distance to
the east of the north gate, and then turns at right angles for a distance, only
to turn at right angles again, and continue to
the east for
two hundred yards. It then turns
again at right angles from "King Henry's" tower, and proceeds around
the town to the south. The area
excluded by this right angle
passage of the wall has never been questioned, perhaps because no-one
could suggest an explanation, and yet the evidence of some sort of
fortification is clearly recorded on Swinden's map. Also, on the Elizabethan map in the Cottonian collection, which
shows all the features of the town in a pictorial manner and not to any scale,
yet the walls and towers
are faithfully reproduced,
there are some extra structures in
the angle of the wall in this
area described, east of and near to the north gate. I have carefully examined
this plan in the British Museum. These
extra structures are not very clear, and they certainly did not fill this void,
although it does appear that there was
an additional medieval complex in the
south-west portion of this area. An
examination of Henry Swinden's map of the early town is most helpful with
regard to any feature of Great Yarmouth. It has never been fully appreciated.
It has been suggested to date that the first accurate map of the town was that
drawn by Laing on a large scale in 1850. Henry Swinden produced a map every bit
as accurate. I have photographed it and its copy by Armstrong which on close
examination lacks much of the detail of
the original. By photo enlarging these maps it can be seen that every detail
and every street and row superimpose exactly and quite astonishingly on the
later maps, in a way that has never before been appreciated. It can therefore
be seen that Henry Swinden's survey, conducted in 1758, (the date is in faded
red ink, but just discernible) is truly authentic and accurate in every detail. Maps Master Link
Henry Swinden's map shows the moat around the north of
the town, as does Armstrong's copy, but what Armstrong's lacks is the wording
of a small but important structure at the north-east corner of the map. This structure, around which the
moat passes, is described on the original as "part of an ancient
fortification".
It therefore appears that there was a large
rectangular fort attached to the town wall, which was redundant later, and not
present, seen or mentioned by the historians, who had never been aware of its
existence. It is certain that large quantities of stone were required for the
construction of the town wall from the earliest date, and equally certain that
any previous redundant structures would have been used to provide materials for
the walls. There is no naturally occurring stone here, and it is likely that
dwellings at that time were made of wood and thatch, as was found this year in
the excavations of Roman Scole. Therefore none would survive save the fragment
at the northeast, as shown on Swinden's Map.
Most interesting also is the fact that the moat went
around the outside of this fragment, which clearly demonstrates that the moat
was present in this position before the fort was removed. This moat is often
referred to as the "Civil War Ditch", but it must have been present
in this position from a much earlier date than that.
As already stated, although it covers almost precisely
twice the area, a comparison of the plan of Roman London (Londinium),with
Yarmouth is most interesting. The shape and form of the town at it earliest is
virtually identical, indeed so is early medieval London, rather later on. It
can be seen that originally there was a ditch and fort in exactly the same
configuration in both town plans. Interestingly the monasteries in early
medieval times were also situated in very similar ways.
I suggest that the early town at Yarmouth had a ditch and
bank, and that the later wall then followed this exact line. It should also be
said that there is no sign at all of the moat ever having held water, certainly
not on either of Swinden's maps, and indeed there
is every reason to suppose that like a child's ditch on the beach, it could not
have retained water for five minutes.
Ancient Yarmouth, as it appears it may have been.
Now let us refer to the earliest
testimony:
In Bede's Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapt.19,
"Fursa built a monastery amongst the East Angles, and concerning his
visions and his sanctity, to which his incorrupt flesh, after his death bore
witness. Whilst Sigebehrt still governed the kingdom, there arrived from
Ireland a Holy man called Fursa, renowned for his words and actions and
remarkable for singular virtues, desiring to live as a foreigner for the Lord's
sake, wherever he should find an opportunity. When he came to the province of
the East Angles, he was received with honour by the aforesaid king, and
performing his usual employment of preaching the gospel, he converted many
unbelievers to Christ, and confirmed further in the faith and love of Christ
those who already believed, both by the example of his virtue and the
incitement of his words. Here he was attacked by some infirmity of the body and
was thought worthy of to see an angelic vision, in which he was admonished
diligently to proceed in the ministry of the word which he had begun,
and to exert himself indefatigably in his accustomed vigils and prayers.
Inasmuch that his end was certain, but the hour of this same end would be
uncertain, as the Lord says. "Watch ye therefore because ye know not the
day nor the hour." (Matthew XXV 13.) Being confined by this vision he
applied himself with all speed to build a monastery on ground given him by the
aforesaid King Sigebehrt, and to establish regular discipline. The monastery
was pleasantly situated near the woods and the sea, built inside a certain
fort, which is called in the English language- "Cnobheresburgh", that
is the town of Cnobhere. Afterwards, Anna, King of that province, and certain nobles, adorned it with more
stately buildings, and with gifts".
There certainly wasn't a town at Burgh, nor at Caister.*9
In the History of Norfolk by Mostyn John Armstrong*10, on the origins of Great
Yarmouth: "It is still a
disputable point whether this be the Gariannonum of the ancients or not. Camden
says- I dare not affirm that this was the old Gariannonum where formerly the
Stablesian Horse lay in garrison
against the barbarians, nor yet the neighbouring little village of Castor, formerly the seat of Sir
John Fastolf, an eminent knight,
famous amongst the inhabitants on account of its antiquity. Though there is
another report that the river Yare had another mouth just under it, but as I am
thoroughly convinced that the Gariannonum was at Burgh Castle in Suffolk, which
is scarcely two miles distant from the opposite bank of the river, so am I apt to
think that Yarmouth rose out of its ruins and that this Castor was one of the
Roman Castles placed also at the mouth of the river Yare now shut up. For as
the north-west wind blows the tyrant upon the coast of Holland, over against
this place, it has stopped up the middle mouth of the Rhine with sands. In like
manner has the north-east damaged this coast and seems by sweeping up heaps of sand to have obstructed this
harbour, for the cleaning and keeping
open of which, many statutes have passed in Parliament in regard to the great importance thereof for
carrying on the trade and navigation of
this Kingdom. Nor will it be any injury
if I call this our Yarmouth, for nearly joined to the old Gariannonum itself,
since the Gariensis from whence it had its name has now changed its channel,
and enters the sea below this town to which it also gave name. For I
cannot but own that this Yarmouth is of a later date, for when that old Gariannonum
was gone to decay, and there was none left to defend this shore, Cerdic the
warlike Saxon landed here, from whence the place is called by the inhabitants
at this day Cerdic Land, and by other historians- Cerdic Shore, and when he had
harassed the Iceni with a grievous war, he set sail from hence for the west,
where he settled the Kingdom of the West Saxons, and not long after, the
saxons, instead of Gariannonum, built a new town in that most watery field upon
the west side of the river*11 which
they called Yarmouth. But the situation thereof proving unwholesome, they
removed to the other side of the river, called then Cerdic Land, and there they
built this new town, wherein they flourished, in the time of Edward the
confessor, 70 Burgers."
On p.190 of Charles Parkin's History of Yarmouth- Ives
and Gibson say Cerdic never landed at Yarmouth: "I entirely explode
it" .
Armstrong continues- On this subject Sir Henry Spelman
in his "Icenia"*12 says-
"Yarmouth is neither the real Gariannonum nor different from the real, for
the situation of both was at the mouth of the river Garienis, from which also
both were named, but the one received its name from the old channel, and the
other from the new, and both in that space of the shore where Cerdic, a Saxon
in the year of Our Lord 495, with Cenric his son, and five ships, entering the
port, put the opposing Britons to
flight, and named the port Cerdic Shore, as Ethelwerd relates".*13 He continues- The river Yare
deserting its channel has consigned to oblivion the ancient situation of
Gariannonum. (an interesting thought
indeed!) The marks of both situation and the river are very uncertain. Two
places seem to claim it- Burgh Castle
in the county of Suffolk, which at this day hangs over the south side
of the river, and Castor, a little village about four miles distant to the
north. Both exhibit something of the Roman. The former a four sided oblong
pitched camp, crowned with a wall but too remote from the sea, and in a place
so surrounded by marshes and narrow passes as to be an incommodious situation
for troops and horse. The latter on the shore itself discovering also the ruins
of a wall and fortification in an open plain very commodious for the excursion
of horse, and for the defence of the shore (surely very incommodious for the
latter) which was given to the charge of the Count of the Saxon Shore, and this
cavalry for the interior and midland paths were guarded by another count, and
rather with cohorts of foot than troops of horse. I therefore place Gariannonum
at Castor, see below though Camden was pleased with Burgh."
"Of the two great authorities, regarding
Camden" says Mr.Parkin*14, "I am inclined to favour the latter, as
Sir Henry Spelman's reasons seem to be the most cogent and decisive."This
Gariannonum, which we may conclude was at Castor, was an ancient fortress of the
Romans, where their Stablesian Horse were stationed under the Count of the
Saxon Shore, who was hence called Gariannensis. He had in all under his command
2200 foot and 200 horse(men), which were stationed at different places on the
coast of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, and so on which had then the
denomination the Saxon Shore, from being situated nearly opposite to the native
country of the Saxons, a warlike people of Germany."
Another quote- "It appears says Mr.Ives, from the
Notitia Imperii*15, that of c.425 AD, an incomplete that the Prepositus Eqitum
Stablesianorum was stationed at the mouth of the Yare, and from that
circumstance this commander was titled Garionnensis, an assertion which carries
such positive proof none have been hardy enough to deny. The difficulty is
this- to fix the site of his residence, to discover where he pitched his tents,
and to inform posterity where the Roman Banner first displayed its eagle on the
Icenian shore".
Now that there is evidence of a fort at Caister, with
the Roman settlement there,*16 there
must be a case for Gariannonum
at Caister, but certainly this seems to have
been another small outpost and there is no reason to
suppose that it was ever a Roman town. We should also wonder why there was such
a range of forts to guard this estuary so well, but this was certainly not
unusual, and it seems possible that it may have been a strong naval base and
certainly a port, exporting grain glass and other goods.
The town of Sitomagus was marked on the Peutinger
Table, a map of the Roman world. It has never been known where this town was,
and it has been suggested without any evidence that it may have been Dunwich.
In fact as this was a fortified town, then it could at least as reasonably have
been Great Yarmouth or a site now out to sea on the east. The Peutinger table
is drawn on a plan, showing a route from Rome, in the manner of a route map,
but not to any scale whatsoever. Some
sort of small settlement at Yarmouth certainly is on the cards, although any
direct evidence is of course as yet lacking.*17b
The site at Burgh Castle was considered by all to be
unsatisfactory as a township. The reason they couldn't come to terms with a
site at Yarmouth was that they couldn't see it -whether or not there was ever
any stonework, whatever dwellings were there, were certainly covered by many
feet of sand and earth. Nevertheless, some potential evidence for the site was
there before their very eyes, it seems, since Swinden has marked part of it on his
map.
Domesday
There are several items of fact that become much more
acceptable if Yarmouth was present in ancient times. At Domesday, although
there was nothing recorded of London, the population in Norfolk was the
greatest in any county, and Domesday records seventy Burgesses at Yarmouth-
therefore it was a sizeable town and port, and it seems inconceivable that this
arose de novo at, or just before the time of the conquest. Another fact is the
presence of the Norman Church built by Herbert De Losinga in 1190.
This church is very large, and surely demonstrates a substantial
population to be present in the town. The monastery of St.Fursa is much more
likely to have been built within the precincts of the town of Yarmouth than in
a totally deserted Roman fort, miles from anywhere. There certainly were a
number of monasteries in the town at a later date. (also see below regarding
the excavations at Burgh Castle) Sitomagus was a known Roman walled town, but
the site never identified.
The line of the town wall clearly demonstrates a
previous fortification. The river is
most unlikely to have taken its course as at present by any natural phenomenon.
If this is so, only the Romans were capable of such a diversion, and it was
quite a usual undertaking of theirs. Thus it may be that Yarmouth was a Roman
fortified settlement of some size, and again, it is reasonable that the
families and camp followers at least, would have a fair sized settlement in
which to live, for which there is no
evidence at Burgh. There are some crop marks of a possible, but small camp
outside the walls, but no evidence has ever been found of a town there.
Finally, and perhaps most significant of all, a riverbank has just been
uncovered a full two metres below the present South Quay, inside of which, at a
similar depth, a Roman pot-sherd was earlier found.
Having shown the potential presence of Yarmouth as a
township in Roman times, I again call attention to the agreed fact that at one
time the river ran straight into the sea to the north of the town. This is not
in dispute. It seems to me that there is no way that this river would have
altered its course naturally to run parallel to the sea in the manner that it
did, especially as the sea was some way distant. It has been established that the Romans were fond of diverting rivers to their use*17, and one such disastrous diversion was made by them of the
river Ouse, as they were better at earthworks than predicting their effect.*18
The Romans were the only people capable at that time
of making a diversion of the river, and this may be an indication of their
presence at this site, and for the position of the previous outlet of the
river. The reason for the diversion may have been to provide a moat or harbour
to the west of the town, and quite possibly the water then was entirely fresh,
since the river bank, and hence sea-level has been seen to be at least 3 metres
lower, and the sea may well have been as much as 1-5 miles say, further out to
the east, with other settlements in the area now under the sea. The river
having been offered this course, the original channel in due passage of time
would block, and the water would have easily and rapidly increased the southern
channel in the soft sand, far beyond the intentions of the Roman engineers. I
am entirely convinced that the part of the Yare beside the town is a Roman
diversion, that was first designed as an enhanced harbour to gain access to
Caister. This would be in the style of a canal cut by Marius Gaius in about 120
B.C. at the mouth of the Rhone*18b,
where the estuary was silted up and unsuitable for shipping. The date of
Yarmouth would however be perhaps 200 years or so later, but entirely typical
Roman engineering style. Furthermore its bank seems to be an imported mix of
clay and sand, and quite un-natural.
There is, as stated earlier, some evidence of the site
of the northern-most channel, since excavations for the roadworks between
Yarmouth and Caister have revealed a level of silt in the soil which dips down
in the manner of an old river channel at the site of the cemetery on the
Caister road, which I have marked on the map accompanying this treatise. This
will have been, I think, the position of the northern channel before it finally
dried up. Looking at a map of Breydon, one would think that there may have been
a wide shallow estuary before the diversion of the river, but if the sea was
indeed much further out, this idea becomes much less likely, and the valley
probably produced entirely as the glacier melted.
The "Hutch Map" must be discredited as
nothing but the pure fantasy of an Elizabethan cartographer, and interestingly
there is more than one of these maps in existence, so that it may well have
been produced in a small quantity as a commercial enterprise.*1
There have been few archaeological excavations at
Yarmouth, despite its many antiquities. Such excavations that have been carried
out have been often hasty, and over the years remains have been uncovered that
have been either unreported, or not followed up or recorded. Many relics including stone coffins were
exhumed in the building of the flats post-war at St.Francis Way, for
instance. As far as well recorded digs
are concerned, there are three that showed Roman remains, and yet it was
suggested that these artifacts had somehow washed in on the tide!
The relevant articles are as
follows:
C.G.Rye reported on excavations at the base of the mid-sands cross. Whatever the
date of the cross, the clay beneath the monument contained Roman sherds, and one piece is first century A.D.
Terra Nigra,*19 a date somewhat earlier than the fort at Caister, where pottery
was found of second and third century
dates, and the fort wall has been thought to have been constructed at the end
of the second century. Any pottery of a first century date could indicate
occupation and settlement in the area from the very earliest Roman invasion.
The forts were of great importance in the second and
third centuries, by which time the garrison at Dover was well run down.*20 The
first invasion had been made on the Kent coast in A.D.55, by Julius Caesar, and
subsequent Roman activity certainly appears entirely centred upon East Anglia,
with the administrative base at Colchester.
In 1955 an excavation was made at the base of the town
wall by Charles Green, done in a mere three days, in the garden of no.4 Alexandra
Road. The excavators were surprised to find the wall laid upon a flagstone base
at a depth of thirteen feet below the soil surface. In the level of silt six
feet below the surface on the inside of the wall, were fragments of
Roman tegulae and imbrices and
also a single sherd of fourth century local grey ware.*21 Green had supposed that the sea levels had changed markedly
over the centuries, with Breydon under the sea, and thought that the Roman artifacts had been washed here from Caister,
but these theories have been disproved. It is recorded that the fragments were
water worn, and they were not especially deep, so it is not at all clear how
they came to be there.
In 1970 observations were made on an area cleared for
the new fire station, and even though the ancient remains of the Blackfriars
Church had come to light, it was still
not permitted to have a proper systematic dig. Nevertheless observations
of some importance were made, but excavation as always, seems to have been by
mechanical digger! Rye reported on this, *22
and I have copies of photos taken
by Percy Trett. Later though, in 1977
he reports*23 that a mechanical
excavator in demolishing the Yarmouth stores had exposed six or eight graves in
two rows. A small scraping of one of the
grave fills revealed medieval sherds, and also one unabraded Roman black
burnished ware sherd of 2nd.century. It
was unabraded, but assumed to have been washed up by the tide. No systematic
dig was allowed on this site. Whether or not other similar artifacts were
present has not been determined. Now that the top of the ancient riverbank has
been determined at much the same level, and the geology better demonstrated, it
is clear that the sea never came up to here in ancient times, and the coast
line was perhaps several miles away. It is likely that the river then was fresh
water and not at all saline.
The only formal and systematic dig of any Yarmouth
site was that by Rogerson, carried out
in 1974,*24 and this exposed
problems of shoring. It was clear to Rogerson that the earliest levels were
inaccessible due to their depth and the nature of the sand. In his opinion,
though, early deposits would be at such depth as to have remained undisturbed
by archaeological examination, and all
but the most large scale building operations. His own dig was of great
interest, but went only to an eleventh century level, and no attempt was made
to probe any lower.
In William Camden's Britannia, vol II, (Gough's
edition) 1789, p.109, Camden's History, "Ward (places) Gariannonum at
Yarmouth, making Ptolomy's Tappotihnon the river Yare, and of this opinion was
Baxter." *25
It remains highly desirable to
undertake some systematic excavations of old Yarmouth of a good area, and to a
sufficient depth below the made-up ground that would prove the earliest origins
of the town for ever. The depth will need to be substantial since the
medieval town has been built up so deeply within the walls. It is my contention
that Yarmouth's present car-parks should be buried below ground in the way that
was recently done at the Castle Mall site at Norwich. This would allow some new
well-built rows to be built with yards and gardens above, and also allow a full
scale archaeological investigation such as has never been done before. This
would truly breathe new life into the town and restore its unique and marvellous
qualities. What a legacy this would be.
We shall see throughout this book how Yarmouth's history is
spellbinding, and used to attract many visitors, as did its extraordinary
nightlife. Its attractions were much diminished by the destruction in the 50's
and 70's to build mere car-parks and roads and new dwellings that were instantly less attractive than anything
replaced. The great challenge of the 90's and the new century will be to ensure
the preservation of what still remains of our fine old town and its astonishing
history, and to reassemble the structure of a great medieval, perhaps even
Roman, port.
Roman Roads:
The evidence of the crop marks strongly suggests that
the main route south from Yarmouth was along an ancient trackway established
from the neolithic
period.
It follows that the Roman route, and that of the
modern A12 road was largely along the ancient trackway. There is a trackway in
the crop-marks that leaves the modern route opposite to valley farm, and then
leads towards Green Lane, indicating
that to be the likely ancient route.
There clearly was a profusion of ancient tracks, and
several routes were no doubt in use. The main route towards Venta Icenorum must
surely have been through St.Olaves and Haddiscoe. To the north, there is known
to be a Roman route that led from Durobrivae (Water Newton), passing by
Brampton, and skirting Barton Broad, swinging round its northern edge towards
Caister fort.
Charles Green excavated at Caister in 1951-55. The
fort was thought by Green to be a town, but there are only two ranges of
buildings in it - hardly a "town", and the structure is in size,
shape, and dimensions, a typical Roman coastal fort (thankfully now officially
recognized as such).
Durobrivae was a
township that grew up alongside Ermine Street. It was a typical Roman walled
town with a separate fort,
and was noted for its
pottery.
Brampton is
notable because there was an iron foundry there, also a pottery, and a quay on the river Bure would have
allowed the Romans to transport their goods from there to Yarmouth for export
to the continent across the north sea.
Venta Icenorum was a small settlement at Caistor
by Norwich, approached from Ipswich and Colchester (Camulodunum), via Scole
along the route of the modern A140. Venta had a glass factory, so that it
likely also to have had trade links with Yarmouth and Europe, accessed by
river, being on a tributary of the
Yare. It should be noted that the height of Venta above mean sea level is 5 metres, the same as Yarmouth, yet more
evidence that the sea level was no
higher then.
Recent Excavation:
It has been thought that Yarmouth's land height has been
much increased by wind-blown sand, and that it was altogether much lower 2000
years ago. There have been some substantial holes dug under the Market Place during the re-paving
and pedestrianisation.
I invited Andrew Rogerson the archaeologist to inspect
this site, (22nd. Feb.93) and several aspects were clearly evident
on inspection of the section revealed to a depth of 1.85 metres. There are
several layers of dark and clay soil together with thick layers of wind-blown
sand that effectively seal in the time
period below. The bottom of this particular site at this depth was a layer of
clay earth containing many fragments of animal bone, and some 13th and 14th.
century pottery sherds. One was a piece of brown glazed pot. Another was a
piece of grey cooking pot with a fire-burned bottom.
Thus it was felt that the depth here exposed
represented 13/14th century occupation, and again, earlier centuries are represented under deeper layers of
wind-blown sand and imported soil. To excavate this would require shoring to
achieve sufficient depth.
Rumbelow noted that on the site of the excavations for
the new Marks and Spencer's Store in 1951, there was dark earth and animal bones to a depth of 14 feet, when sand was
encountered. It now appears likely that
this sand was the wind-blown deposit just above the burned layer, and likely
it would not have been necessary to go
very much deeper to establish the earliest
occupation. Just what date may yet be established for the origin of
Great Yarmouth can only be guessed at. Astonishingly I now have a tape
recording of an eye-witness account in which Charles Green clearly examined the
Marks and Spencer's hole, yet he did not make any written report that I know
of, and he was said by the eye-witness, unprompted, to have found "Bronze
Age" remains at the bottom of the hole. Such a finding would however have
conflicted with his published ideas. An enormous number of animal bones were
certainly found at the site.
the excavation of Marks and Spencer’s in 1951, photo
by P.E Rumbelow.
Excavations at other towns such as London and Lincoln
have revealed*26 the existence of
dark earth and animal bones that were deposited in the last part of the Roman occupation, but it is still not
known why they are there. Other early settlements investigated have shown
"terpen" or mound settlements
in Holland (3rd.c.)*27
It is now known that the present day level of the
Thames is some 15 feet higher than in Roman times, and Roman huts have been
excavated at Tilbury, 13 feet below the present high water mark.*28
Settlement in the Romano-Saxon period, if it indeed exists, is likely to
have left deposits of pottery and other artifacts sealed in by the deep
sand and imported earth layers, but this could be at a depth of perhaps 20 feet
in the higher parts of the town.
On 15th.December 1993, I examined a bucket of mud from
a layer 2.8 metres below present day Middlegate, at the Nottingham Way
junction. In this were the signs of settlement, with oyster shells, charcoal,
unburned wood fragments, burned straw or reed, and the vertebrae of a fish. A
single unglazed, burned, sherd of a 12th.-14th century cooking pot was present.
A deeper level was not penetrated then, but on January 31st.1994, it was seen
in the pit on the east of South Quay, that the layer described in fact lay
immediately upon the undisturbed glacial sand, and so contained all of the most
ancient town, which had evidently been consumed by a devastating fire of
unknown date. In 1968, two sites were
excavated that demonstrated the same burned layer as described above. One was
at no.12 Hall Quay, the site of the "Greasy Spoon", immediately to
the north of the "Dukes Head", where the burned layer included a
burned upright post. The other, in the same year, was at the site of the Crown
Buildings, in Yarmouth Way.*29
Investigated by P.Trett and W.Rye.
Outside the walls, at the north-east junction of
Regent Road and Temple Road, there has been some boring done with a screw-piling rig. This involves boring out to a depth of
20 metres. I observed this,
(11th.Feb.93) and it was clear that there was no earth whatsoever, but that
there was an evenly distributed mixture of sand and gravel with no clay or
estuarine deposits, to the whole of this depth, which is considerably below
current sea-level. I can only suggest that
this is entirely an ice age
glacial deposit that has been churned into slurry by the melting ice cap
when the Breydon valley was created.
Again, the sand under Lancaster Road has proved to be
all clean wind-blow to the depth of the pipe trench. Interesting also were the
excavations at Gorleston for the new through-pass road, which were all above
sea-level, and which went down some 10 metres, showed a uniform sand deposit,
with only one continuous and thin shingle deposit at depths between 15 and 17
feet, and about 9 inches thick. This was evident both at the Bridge Road
underpass, and the Middleton Road bridge excavation. This undisturbed
pleistocene sand was quite different to the wind-blown deposits in the Market
Place, and also to the screw pile
borings on Regent Road. It was firm and laid down in different coloured
sheets, with fine deposits of gravels, also in distinct and continuous sheets.
These features can be seen at any time in the cliffs at Corton and
Gorleston-Hopton.
The
conclusion of all this is therefore that except
recently in times of extreme flood, Yarmouth following the ice age was never
under the sea. It was built upon an ancient sand slope that was never disturbed
after the ice melted some 12,000 years ago. It has not been established at what
date the site was first settled, but it was certainly well before the Norman
Conquest. There was a substantial town built beside a riverbank that was
reinforced with timber and clay. The Viking raids devastated the entire town
causing total destruction by fire. The town was laid out between the river and
defensive mounds and wall in a medieval strip fashion, becoming denser occupied
the Rows were thus laid out, becoming gradually more in number and closer and
narrower. An opportunity was taken in Elizabethan Times when housing first
became permanent, to rebuild the town at a higher level upon a huge man made
bank of earth, a great benefit, following rises in the sea levels. Subsequent
to the Norman conquest the sea-level has not altered much further, and the town
retains much of its original shape and form.
References:
*1 The
Hutch Map was regarded by Palmer as having some accuracy, although it was drawn
in Elizabethan times, yet purported to show the area in about the year 1000 A.D., and was so called from the name of
the town strongbox, in which it resided. There is another copy in the Gough
collection in the Bodleian, which perhaps suggests that a number may have been
produced for commercial purposes. ref. M.S.Maps, England a.2./30629.
*3 The
"Oxford Illustrated History of Britain", Salway,1993.p.194
*4 as
above, p.183
*5 as
above, pp.136,406,459
*6 as
above, p.182,406
*7 This
version of Manship differs little from the Cory copy, another small difference
is contra p.5 of Palmer, where the Mosse version says- "Yarmouth called a
city." This copy of 331 pages was copied in 1736 by John Mosse, the
original then being in the possession of the Mayor of Yarmouth. The
original has now been lost or
destroyed. The Mosse copy is in the Bodleian old library. (M.S. Gough, Norfolk
19/ref.18075.)
*8 a P.E.R., Diary 1935, vol.10.; Y.M.-
Feb.16th.1935.
*8
Rumbelow also noted this, saying "The position of the moat is shown on
Swinden's Plan 1779 (wrong date) and it seems unlikely that there ever was any
more of it than he shows. One wonders
why it was so far from the north wall and why it was carried round
beyond the low land now built on at Maygrove." - letter to the E.D.P.,
July 14th.1939.
*9 For
Caister, see Norfolk Archaeology, 1969.
*10
Published 1781, volume 4, page 65.
*11 This
sounds like Southtown, perhaps where the site of the church of Our Lady was.
(otherwise known as St.Mary ultra pontem)
*12 Sir
Henry Spelman is said to have been the first topographer who published anything
concerning Norfolk, and his work was "very slight". It was printed in
his "Reliquiae", Oxford,
1698; and again by Bishop Gibson in 1727, under the title of
"Icenia Sive Norfolciae Descriptio Topographica".
*13 The
idea that Cerdic ever had anything to do with Yarmouth has been universally
discredited.
*14 The
original manuscript of the Rev.Charles Parkins History of Great Yarmouth, is in
the Bodleian Library, Oxford. (ref.18094, M.S.Gough, Norfolk 40) Parkin was
rector of Oxborough.
*15 Another
ancient document at the Bodleian, is the Notitia, a coloured pictorial
catalogue of Roman strongholds. (see the
"Oxford Illustrated Roman Britain", 1993.)
*16 ref."The Roman Forts of the Saxon
Shore", by Stephen Johnson.
(1976)
*17 For
contemporary evidence, see Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome", p.76. (Penguin, 1989)
*17b In
Roman Roads in Britain(1955) by Ivan Margery, vol.1, Sitomago is 32 miles from
Venta Icenorum, and it was 127 from London to Venta, on the Antinine itinerary
ix. The direct route to Venta from Baylham is only 33 miles as against 54 on
the itinerary. In the Peutinger Table, Ad Taum (?Venta) was 22 miles to
Sitomagus.
*18
Ref."Roman Britain", p.267,"Oxford History of
England", by Peter Salway.
*18b
Plutarch - Gaius Marius (p.28 of Guild pub. edition)
*19 Norfolk
Arch. 1965, p.114, C.G.Rye.
*20 Ref.
Roman Britain, pp.258,259.
*21 Norfolk
Arch. 1955, p.113. Tegulae and imbrices are interlocking Roman roof tiles.
*22 Norfolk
Arch 1969, p.208.
*23 Norfolk
Archaeology 1978, p.208.
*24 Ref.
East Anglian Arch.1976, vol.2, pp.131,235.
*25
Camden's History.
*26 Ref.
The English Settlements, J.Myres, p.132.
*27 Ref.
English settlements, J.Myres, p.51.
*28 Ref. The
Lost Rivers of London. p.49.
*29
Described by Walter Rye in Yarmouth Archaeology bulletins, no.2 and no.3, 1968.