Article Review: The Roman Theatre at Canterbury

References:

Manning, William. "Sheppard Frere Obituary." The Guardian, 10 Mar. 2015. Web. 3 May 2015.

Accessed From JSTOR:

The Roman Theatre at Canterbury

Sheppard Frere and Grace Simpson

Britannia

Vol. 1, (1970) , pp. 83-113

Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/525834

Article Review: The Roman Theatre at Canterbury

Sheppard Frere is the author of the academic article. In 1945, Mr. Frere was awarded with the position as director of the rescue excavations at Canterbury. Canterbury had been highly focused by the German Luftwaffe during World War II, as a result many areas lay in rubble. Sheppard Frere was responsible for archaeology excavations in the area before any rebuilding took place in the area. Frere created an in depth sketch of the different archaeology components of the entire city. Sheppard published his results extensively over thirty years. Later in 1966, he became a professor of the archaeology of the Roman Empire at Oxford University.        

The article title focuses around the Roman theatre that is located at Canterbury, England. Frere divided the article into two major components: Description of the Site and Stratification. Both major components are broken down into smaller sections. The first part, Description of the Site, is divided into: Period I Theatre, Period 2 Theatre, Destruction of the Theatre and Other Surviving Portions of Theatre.  The second part, Stratification, is broken into different sections discussing objects discovered within the theatre and its surroundings. Before Frere begins his analysis of the Roman theatre he explains how most research done at the site was done after World War II. Sheppard admits that discoveries were made during 1868 by the city engineer, James Pilbrow, but no detailed excavations were done. The article is based mostly on facts and observations done while excavating. Occasionally, Frere theorized in his article about what might have caused the final demolition of the theatre or the use of a specific components within the structure. These theories are rare, Sheppard mostly takes an objective stance and communicates only facts that have been uncovered and agreed upon by professionals.

Sheppard Frere’s work is written in a fairly straightforward manner, but has certain technical terms. Unfortunately, the definition of these technical terms must be researched because they are not defined in the article. The article was designed to educate an audience that has at least a basic knowledge of archaeology and the technical terms of that field of study. Frere’s objective is to educate his audience on the many facts surrounding the Roman theatre at Canterbury and its different components. He explains how excavation was extremely difficult so he orientates his article less on the process of excavation and more on the result of the dig sites. His work includes many sketches and pictures to help communicate the main points of the article to his audience. 

Sheppard speaks about how evidence exists that the location might have been inhabited before Emperor Claudius was in power. Objective evidence, such as the remains of huts and their walls/plaster highlights how the area was definitely inhabited by 60AD. The architecture of the theatre demonstrates the style of two different periods: “The earlier building was of simple type, probably Roman-Celtic plan” (Frere). The large curve of the cavea (seating sections) hints towards the oval shape of an amphitheatre. Frere explains how the different style periods of the structure are seen in the different components of the theatre, such as walls. For example, ‘wall E’ was built earlier than both walls ‘C’ and ‘D’. In addition, Sheppard describes how his excavations unearthed show that ‘wall G’ was built into a trench before gravel had been added to the trench in order to help stabilize the structure. However, ‘wall D’ was “clearly laid” (Frere) into a trench that was created by cutting into the gravel.    

The theatre’s second period design is suggested to have come during 20-210AD when the structure was “completely remodelled” (Frere). Sheppard speaks about how certain walls of the theatre had multiple functions. The structure was designed so that one wall (wall ‘F’) connects both wall ‘D’ and ‘B’ together and also supported the weight of the audiences’ seats. The roman builders at the time used wall ‘A’ as a foundation, the wall was measured at a thickness of twelve feet.

Evidence from the structural design of Canterbury’s cathedral highlights the fact that the Roman theatre had been “built over by 1200” (Frere). By 1200AD the walls of the theatre had been degraded to the same level as they can be found today. Sheppard theorizes that the theatre could have been demolished under the reign of Henry I in order to build a stronghold. However, Frere admits that Christian builders could have also been responsible for the theatre’s destruction. This part of the article is interesting. No concrete proof exists to ever know why the Roman theatre was destroyed and by whom, but the demolition of the theatre highlights the end of the once mighty Roman Empire. Evidence exists of Saxon inhabitants living in the area, but not very much. This suggests that the structure survived the Norman conquest, but then was quickly demolished.

Portions of the ancient Roman theatre still exist today. As mentioned earlier, Pilbrow around 1868 discovered the first remains of the theatre. Pilbrow sketched what is evidently the “outer perimeter wall” (Frere). Sadly, Pilbrow did not put the exact location where this wall could be found. In addition, the presence of several of the theatre’s old walls can be found in underground cellars of buildings located around the area. “In the back cellar of Slatter’s Restaurant a magnificent portion of wall A occupies a large part of the room it seems to have been too tough for removal…” (Frere). Also, Pilbrow’s sketches allowed for the locations of the theatre’s components to be located using landmarks that still exist today. Supposedly, an area was uncovered that could have been the entrance to the theatre. Unfortunately, the remains of the ‘entrance’ had been damaged during excavation. Moreover, the location of the ruins lies in an unstable area that stops any further examination. Thus, confirming whether this is the ‘entrance’ to the theatre is impossible to prove. In 1950, a “small piece of Roman wall” (Frere) was discovered under St. Margaret’s Street. The piece of wall unearthed under St. Margaret’s was linked to the theatre’s design from its first period. Proof suggests that the wall is a section of the theatre’s old cavea. In 1956, trenches were dug behind an office building located on Margaret’s Street. In these trenches a “wall and a thick foundation of gravel were discovered” (Frere).  The floor discovered with its thick gravel foundation was unique. This uniqueness hints towards the location being “part of the stage or stage-building” (Frere).

Fortunately, even though several artifacts were lost or damaged throughout the centuries a few objects dating back to period I of the theatre still exist.  Objects found in layers underneath wall E can be dated back to period I. Also, several objects were found in the theatre that had been sealed by a gravel bank. Artifacts around wall ‘G’ were located too. Lastly, the exaction done on St. Margaret’s Street, 1950, led to the uncovering of more items from period I. Items discovered belonging to period I include:

-       “Coarse granulated grey-ware bowl” (Frere)

-       “Ringed jug, granulated buff ware with near grey core” (Frere)

-       “Samian bowl” (Frere)

-       “Wide-mouthed jar” (Frere)

-       “Bead-rim jar” (Frere)

Furthermore, objects dating back to the theatre’s second period design were uncovered too. These objects include:

-       “Belgic jar, corrugated neck, striated body, somewhat debased outline: neck pierced for suspension” (Frere)

-       “Bed-rim jar” (Frere)

-       “Spindle whorl made from sherd from lower side of a striated pot; inner side scored with cross”(Frere).

-       “Belgic pedestal base, splay very bruised” (Frere)

-       “Big Belgic storage jar” (Frere)

Also, ruins were discovered outside the perimeter walls. Evidence of a hut dating back to 60AD was unearthed. The layers under the hut led to the finding of several artifacts. Pottery of “almost entirely pre-Roman Belgic type” (Frere) was uncovered along with two samian sherds.  Objects recovered at hut I include:

-       “Cordoned bowl, leathery brown burnished ware” (Frere)

-       “Local copy of Gallo-Belgic platter” (Frere)

-       “Roman grey ware bowl or girth beaker” (Frere)

An additional hut was found too. The pottery found in hut II “is of brick red variety which seems to be typical of Flavian times” (Frere). Evidence suggests that this hut was habited from 80-170/180AD. Objects uncovered include:

-       “Storage jar in the later brick-red variety of Belgic ware which seems to date from Flavian times” (Frere)

-       “Mortarium, cream paste, Camulodunum” (Frere)