Is UK's -Most Interesting- Anglo-Saxon Site Actually Roman!

Hidden behind this library in York is a very special, one-of-a-kind slice of British history, and most visitors have no idea it's here. Well, literally nobody had an idea it was here until 1839, when the owner of Number 9 St Leonard's Place was having a tunnel built from his house to some stables behind. Workers tunnelled through the ground and came across what they described as a cavern. The 19th century tunnel has since been demolished, but its path is still clear, through the front of the structure and out the back and through the rivetment to the side. But little did they know, they'd just cut through something that went on to be called the most interesting historical site in the UK, by Historic UK. Visually, this title doesn't appear warranted, but the interest lays in the temporal mystery, which begins at the discovery. You see, this entire area that I'm stood in right now was, until 50 years ago, a rampart, the outer face of which still exists on the other side of the medieval city wall. Clues around the tower allow us to picture the rampart. From the top of this modern pebble infill to the medieval rivetment opposite, it was levelled to a garden, as demonstrated behind the tower. This extremely helpful display is vital to the story. It labels the medieval rampart atop the Norman Bank, which itself sits on top of a Danish bank. The Vikings occupied York in 866 and soon built ramparts, that encased all beneath them, including this part of the tower. All you see now is the ground floor, but originally it would have extended far higher when the upper floor was still intact, likely as a defensive platform of sorts. The tower also leaves clues regarding poor craftsmanship. Part of the front of the tower has fallen away and a large crack was found in the wall immediately beneath this western corner, which if you look carefully you can see where this corner collapsed. It's since been filled back in, but prior to this the Danish bank did fill the gap. The stone is evidently different, which tells us this building dates to at least before the Viking invasion of 866 to 67. So that is certainly the upper bound. So where did it get its current name? Well right here on the southeastern wall was once a plaque dedicated to a Geoffrey Radley. He was the lead archaeologist behind the first proper excavation of this site in 1969, before this whole rampart was removed to 10 feet in depth and 170 feet in length in 1971. He sadly died in an accident on this site during the excavation, but his notes are still to be found in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, which I'm using for this video. From then it's officially been known as the Anglian Tower due to his belief that the tower is Anglo-Saxon, which would make it an almost one-of-a-kind non-ecclesiastical Anglo-Saxon stone structure. But after looking through the 1852 OS map of York, which was 13 years after the tower's discovery, I found a different name. The Roman Chamber. See the wall at which this sign is attached makes up some of the best surviving remains of Eberarchum, the Roman fortress founded in 71 AD at York. This southwesterly wall extended north of the tower again to St Leonard's Place and south to the very impressive Corner Tower. This wall retains its outer saxa quadrata in good condition and we can still see the tiled cornice which presumably formed the base of the parapets on top. The wall dates to either the time of Constantius Chlorus who died in York in 306 AD or Septimius Severus who died in York in 211 AD. It's evident that the tower was built into a recess cut into the pre-existing Roman wall in alignment with it, consequently giving us our lower bound. The tower was certainly not built before the late Roman period. So I'm going to show you the features that led Radley to give the tower an Anglian date and then the features, including this strange stub near the tower, that led more recent experts to give it a Roman date. The first feature Radley observed was the arch and gemstones at the entrances. They go through the wall from the outer face all the way to the inner face rather than just a thin layer on the outside. He noted this as a distinguishing feature of several pre-Norman churches. Also characteristically pre-Norman is the width of the tower's walls at around 18 inches as opposed to the much thicker Roman walls. Radley also claimed the stones possess an angularity which suggests they were exposed to atmospheric weathering for just a brief period of time before the arrival of the Danes. But it's in the stone where the main point of contention lies. King Edwin created the first York Minster in 627 out of timber but soon upgraded it to stone. This is known as the first recorded stone Anglian building in the north. It's also likely that Edwin would have had the city's defences strengthened in stone at this time too, just like the Minster. So Geoffrey sees this as a possibility. But the Anglian tower remains the only structure found in York constructed only with oolitic limestone. In the same year as this excavation, Radley excavated some Anglo-Saxon buildings on High Ousegate, also in York. All stone fragments associated with this timber building were of oolitic limestone. A very small amount of oolitic limestone was also used as rubble in the Roman wall. He also noted the lack of the usual Roman masonry in the building, i.e. the magnesium limestone that was predominantly used for the Roman buildings in York. However, recent thought leans into this very fact as an argument for late Roman origins. All subsequent settlers in York reused and repurposed Roman masonry, of course. St Mary Bishop Hill Junior, for example, south of the river where the Roman civilian settlement was. The tower is pre-Norman, the oldest in York. This was built with all sorts of Roman material. Magnesium limestone, gritstone, tiles and also oolitic limestone. This is something we see all over York, so why would they use freshly quarried limestone for the Anglian tower? This hints at a late Roman society where the Roman buildings still survived, or an early post-Roman society where the previous structures were still too respected to be robbed. Evidence exists that the Romans and immediate post-Romans built in this kind of limestone elsewhere in the country. The functionality of the tower also may leave unexpected hints as to its origins. The lower chamber was to provide a three-century walk behind the Roman wall. For some reason, the builders chose to set the tower not on the Roman bank but seven feet into it. You can see the supposed height of the Roman bank compared to the base of the tower, meaning for this north-eastern entrance, excavation showed that access was provided by a sloping path into the entrance point. But that was not the case for the opposite entrance. It just led straight out to the Roman bank, meaning this door could never have been used, and maybe it was just 50 years ago that the first human actually walked through here. But this suggests the construction efforts here were never completed, possibly due to an exit of a certain group from the country. Again, just speculation. But what about the stubs further along the wall that project at a 90 degree angle? Well, these are the forlorn remains of an interval tower built with this stretch of Roman wall, which tells a clear story of pre-Viking subsidence. Another Roman interval tower was found in a similar state, roughly the same distance to the north of the Anglian tower. So it's possible the creation of the tower may be due to the breakdown of these other two interval towers, which again could have happened in the Roman period or just after it. But the bottom line is that we don't know and we may never know. This is part of the mystery that makes up the UK's most interesting historic site. There will be people in the comments with far superior historical rationale than myself, so please do let me know your thoughts. And if you enjoyed this one, please leave it a like.