Ths publcaton was dgtsed by Rochester Cathedral Research Guld Homepage: www.rochestercathedralresearchguld.org Adran s Wall Frends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report 20-202 G. Keevll Abstract: Test pts and a lmted ground penetratng radar survey have dentfed a door and walls possbly assocated wth the medeval Infrmary range. To cte ths work: Keevll, G. (202) Adran's Wall... The Frends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Report 20-202, pp. 25-28. To lnk to ths work: https://rochestercathedralresearchguld.org/cathedral-bblography/202.2 Publshed onlne: 7 th May 207 General Queres: jacob.scott@rochestercathedralresearchguld.org All artcles featurng n the Frends of Rochester Cathedral Annual Reports are copyrght - reserved to the Frends of Rochester Cathedral by the Authors. No part of any of the Artcles may be reprnted or reproduced or utlsed n any form or by any electronc, mechancal or other means wthout frst the permsson n wrtng from the Assocaton of Frends of Rochester Cathedral. Any vews and opnons expressed n ths work are those of the authors alone and do not necessarly reflect the offcal polcy or poston of ether the Frends of Rochester Cathedral or the Dean and Chapter.
ADRIAN'S WALL... Graham Keev//, Cathedra/ Archaeologst to the Chapter of Rochester INTRODUCTION If Rochester's cty walls are not exactly among our former Dean Adran's propertes, they are nevertheless a very mportant hstorc feature. The hgh walls would once have formed a complete defensve crcut around the Roman town and medaeval cty, but large stretches have been lost n the 800 years of ther use. Much of what s left was substantally rebult (or at least re-faced) durng the medaeval perod or later. The stretch of the cty wall n the Old Deanery Garden s probably the least known porton, largely because t les n a prvate area of the Cathedral precnct. Whle ths has been an advantage n protectng the masonry from development and accdental damage, t has also led to a hstory of neglect. Unfortunately ths meant that by 2007 the wall - already a run - was n a precarous state of repar. Wth Adran's actve encouragement, we therefore started a major programme of conservaton and repar. Ths ncluded ground-probng radar survey and excavatons carred out n 200. We expected to fnd out more about the wall's Roman orgns and later use but the results far surpassed our expectatons. THE ROMAN WALL Elements of the Roman cty wall were located or dentfed successfully n all of the excavatons, wth the best results comng from Test Pt 2. Here the ntact external (south) sde of the wall was found to survve less than 0.7m below ground, wth several courses of fne face masonry. Just as mportantly, the rubble core behnd the face was contnuous and nterrupted upwards nto the standng porton of the masonry. Ths demonstrated what we had suspected before the excavaton started: that the flnt and mortar core above ground was orgnal Roman work. + S7427COmE 684SO.ornNOld Deanery Easter 3 Garth 4 Mackean House 25 2 Test pts -4 Roman wall 0 20m
Unfortunately the face courses had been lost n the other pts (though the core stll survved) but the reasons for ths rased new and exctng questons about the later (re-)use of the wall. The radar survey, meanwhle, pcked up the foundatons of the wall very clearly to the east of the standng porton, where the masonry had been demolshed n the 7th or 8th century to allow the establshment of a large area of orchards. MEDIAEVAL RE-USE - A MAJOR BUILDING The standng secton of the wall n the Old Deanery Garden s about 37.5m long. Why dd ths survve when the wall to the east was torn down? Our excavatons gave us mportant clues on the lkely answer. core 3 Caen stone RubbleI core Mortar face contnung chanter lne blockng 309ß0C Cut away blockng 309ßtoc Caen stone RCODGIO slght chanter on test pt 3 comer (core).4 32 refaced Test Caen pt 3 stone chanfer obscured by render chanter Bedded nto core Contnuaton of chanter a flnt Kentsh rag N East secton s stone 3 3 m Test pts and 3 were opposte each other, on the south (external) and north (nternal) sdes of the wall respectvely. Both pts revealed a substantal and very well bult door, clearly of medaeval date. The threshold (doorstep) and lower parts of the jambs (sdes) were found n pt 3, wth a deep splay (nternal wdenng of the doorway) n pt. Here we also found some evdence for an earler door entrely, though the form of ths was unclear. The materals and form of the later door are ntrgung n ther own rght. Most of the step and sdes were made from greensand quarred from the Regate area n Surrey, but one pece cut to exactly the same profle as the Regate blocks was of Caen stone from Normandy. Why was ths? Careful examnaton of the door-frame gave us the answer. The door jambs actually contnued down below the level of the step. It was clear that the threshold had been rased durng the medaeval perod. Whle most of the Regate step could be taken out and re-used at the hgher level, the two stones runnng nto and under the jambs could not be removed. Thus the odd pece of Caen had to be used nstead. One other thng worth pontng out at ths stage s that the door was obvously for a buldng on the south (and thus outer) sde of the cty wall. 26
When were these successve doors n use? The evdence here s, shall we say, less than exact. The earlest door (the one pre-datng the Regate frame) nvolved the use of a shelly mortar that s typcal of Norman work at the Cathedral, and therefore suggests an early 2th century date. Ths n turn mples that the frst buldng whatever t was lay outsde the Norman cathedral precnct, just lke the Fratry on the south sde of the closter. The frst of the later doors, wth ts fne Regate frame, seems to date from the 3th or 4th century, on archtectural grounds and from the lmted datng evdence provded by pottery fnds. By ths tme the precnct boundary had been pushed further to the south, and the buldng would now have been wthn the enclosed area. Perhaps ths encouraged the use of fne new materals and detals n the new door. The nternal floors would only have bult up at a relatvely slow pace, so t may have taken another century before the door frame had to be re-set at the hgher level. These dates are only suggestons, but we are reasonably confdent that they are not too far off the mark. What was the buldng, though? There are two man canddates. It could have been part of the reredorter (tolet bloc) attached to the south end of the dormtory on the east sde of the closter. Ths s qute a long way to the east, however, and so ths s not our favoured nterpretaton. The alternatve s that t formed part of the nfrmary (hosptal), tradtonally located to the east of the monastc church (n ths case, of course, the cathedral). There s some hstorcal evdence to support ths the Chapel for Henry Vlll's short-lved palace n Blockng: Blockng: Wy medaeval medaeval doors wndows Areas of orgnal Roman corework the closter area, for nstance, lay n ths approxmate area, and t was descrbed at the tme as beng "late fermery", e recently part of the nfrmary. The radar survey provded evdence for several ranges of buldngs n the Old Deanery Gardens. We need to be careful not to press the nterpretaton too far here, but t s at least possble that the buldngs dentfed n the survey are the Infrmary Closter (n front of the Old Deanery, n the tea garden) wth the chapel a lttle further to the east, n the man part of the gardens. The qualty of the later medaeval door would be consstent wth the buldng on ts south sde beng the resdence of the Infrmarer (the senor monk n charge of the hosptal). Only one further (but mportant) set of questons reman. When and why dd the buldng fall nto dsuse (and presumably demolton), and what happened then? We are far from certan of the answers here. The remanng porton of the Roman wall can only have survved because the buldng tself retaned some usefulness, and thus was not demolshed (for nstance) when Henry Vlll's palace was abandoned n the 550s. It does not appear on surveys datng to the mddle of the 8th century, though
t s possble that ths s an accdental omsson. Nevertheless t does seem lkely that the buldng had gone by that tme but the wall retaned some resdual value as a boundary between prvate spaces n the Old Deanery Garden. One fnal clue about the date of the buldng's abandonment s worth mentonng. It was obvous even before we started dggng that the standng masonry of the Roman wall ncluded several areas of later nfll and re-facng. We now know that one of these had blocked up our medaeval doorway. The others probably marked the postons of former wndows, doubtless also of hgh qualty. Grante blocks are much n evdence n these areas of nfll, and also n what remans of the copng at the top of the wall. Grante, however, only came nto use n the Medway area n the early 9th century, or just possbly at the end of the prevous century. Thus the door and wndows were only blocked up just over 200 years ago. CONCLUSION The wall n the Old Deanery Garden may not actually have been Adran's, but these small test pts produced an extraordnarly wde and dverse body of evdence for the use of ths part of the precnct, from the Roman era to the 9th century. The radar survey complemented and extended the nformaton from the test pts. Taken together, ths represents one of the most successful archaeologcal projects carred out so far not just for the cathedral, but also for the cty of Rochester as a whole. 28