skeleton lying east and west, 7 ft. deep, and called it ‘a very early and regular burial,’ but it may just as well be medieval and irregular (see p. 79). Battely (in Somner, op cit. ed. 1703, pp. 191, 192) mentions as Roman a well, certain pits which he thought cisterns, and also ‘an oven with wood-coals in it,’ 7 ft. deep. We can only register and pass on.
   (21) Sun Street and Guildhall Street revealed in 1868 Roman walling on which important theories have been based. Unfortunately it has been as inadequately recorded as most Canterbury remains. From Pillbrow’s plan, section, and very brief text it seems that he found in Sun Street a substantial wall of flint and concrete with bonding-tiles, built in Roman style, running along the street for about 130 ft. Apparently his drainage trench passed along its east face; its west face was not uncovered nor its thickness ascertained. About 90 ft. to 100 ft. west of this he found a precisely similar wall running along Guildhall Street, about 95 ft. long. Here his trench seems to have passed along the west face? and the east face was not found. These two walls are not parallel, but if produced would meet in Palace Street and enclose an angle of about 30^o. Having thus two similar faces of walling, 100 ft. apart, he conceived the theory that they formed the two faces of some unusual feature in the Roman town wall, ‘a strong gateway or massive work of defence’ (Arch. xliii, 162, 164, nos. 57, 58). But the trapezium shape of the space within the two walls is too irregular for any such purpose, and we may dismiss the wild guess. A quite different suggestion was made by Faussett (Arch. Journ. xxxii, 376). He explained the remains as part of the city wall, but supposed that to have run not along, but across, Sun and Guildhall Streets. This is plainly a total misreading of Pillbrow, and incidentally results in a city wall 45 yds. thick. What the two converging walls really represent it would be rash to guess. As the plan shows (P1. XII) their site does not fit any natural line for the town wall. More probably they belong to two buildings not standing parallel or at right angles.
   Pillbrow further marks under Guildhall Street, close to High Street, a wall of which he gives no details (no. 56). Two querns have also been found here (Arch. Cant. xv, 349) and a clay figurine of Gaulish type in Sun Street (Cant. Olden Time, 40; Arch. Journ. i, 281).
   (22) The Cathedral and its precincts are stated by Brent (Cant. Olden Time, 18) and Pillbrow (Arch. xliii, 164) to have yielded no Roman remains, although extensively trenched during the drainage works, and, indeed, the one recorded Roman discovery in this quarter is ‘a large collection of Roman vases discovered in the precincts of the Cathedral’ shown to the Archaeological Institute in 1844 (Arch. Journ. i, 279; Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ. Cant. Meeting, p. 330). It does not appear that any Roman work in situ, or, indeed, any great amount of Roman material used up again, has been found in or under the Cathedral, and Somner’s assertion that it stood on the site of an old Roman building seems wholly unfounded. Under the north-west (Arundel) tower a deposit of black silt was noted about 1830, and in it the bones of a man upright and two oxen, ‘some drover who perished with his cattle in the bog’ (Arch. Cant. iv, 39; Arch. Journ. xxxii, 377). Perhaps this may belong to the water channel conjectured above.
   (23) In Palace Street, Pillbrow marks walling in line with, and about 80 ft. north of, the walling in Sun Street noted above (sec. 21), but he does not describe it. Further along the street, opposite St. Alphege’s Church, he found 7 ft. deep a broken tessellated floor, nearly 18 ft. wide, principally red, but with a small panel of red and white in the middle (Arch. xliii, 162, no. 61). This is the most northerly piece of building which can be ascribed with certainty to the Roman period. With it we may perhaps connect a find made about 1703, 8 ft. deep in a cellar somewhere in St. Alphege’s parish, a structure of large Roman bricks, strongly cemented and ‘indentwise,’ about 4 ft. broad and high (Battely, Somner’s Cant. ed. 1703, p. 192; hence Hasted, iv, 411 ; Brayley and Britton, viii, 753, etc.). Towards the north end of Palace Street a noteworthy burial occurred (see p. 79).
   (24) Still further westward, in Staplegate. and King Street, Pillbrow found Samian and other potsherds and a coin of Lucilla, and at the south end of King Street an old foundation of flint and tiles, the tiles 2 ft. thick, and the wall built on them (Arch. xliii, 154), possibly Roman concrete and a bonding-course of tiles. A deposit of silt underlay both Staplegate and King Street.
   D. Remains in the suburbs.
   (25) On the west and north-west, that is beyond the Stour, remains are few. St. Dunstan’s contains a large cemetery beside the Roman road to London. But apart from sepulchral objects, Very little that is certainly Roman has been recorded. Pillbrow found only a mortarium and a quern near St. Peter’s Church; a deposit of iron slag and ‘ferruginous concrete’ (of unknown date) at the point where Grove’s Lane enters St. Peter’s Street; some ancient road surfaces under the London Road, in part as much as 7 ft. deep, and therefore possibly Roman) and below them some Roman coins, potsherds, nails and keys (Arch. xliii, 153). It seems plain that on this side the Roman inhabited area did not extend beyond the King’s Bridge channel of the Stour. But it is Puzzling to read in Pilibrow’s account that the marks of exposure to fire were especially clear on the remains found here (ibid. p. 152).