1/11 We all know about the Mithraeum in London, it's an incredible site and I highly recommend visiting it if you ever get the chance londonmithraeum.com
Conversation
2/11 But, about 20 metres to the south-east is a little known, equally mysterious site discovered in 1956, simply known as 'feature 8'. You can see the feature 8 in relationship to the Mithraeum, before it got moved a little bit to the north where it currently lies
3/11 Between thick layers of gravel, and in a slight pit a face pot was found, these types of pots are quite well known from Londinium, you can see one currently held by the BM here
2
7
4/11 The pot is surrounded by debris containing flint and iron which Merrifield describes as "a cairn-like deposit containing flints and pieces of iron." This laid on-top of a layer of burnt material which contained grass, and best of all three pieces of wood panelling.
1
6
5/11 The first piece of panelling had decorative arcading, the second piece had what was described as 'ribbed surface moulding' and laid at a right angle to the first piece and had a slot along one side, both are charred from the fire.
1
6
6/11 The third piece however had a simple flat surface and was unburnt, Wilmott suggest that this means "it was protected by being fixed to a wall".
1
6
7/11 The pot was laying on-top of a thin sheet of burnt wood, along with a bone ligula and the wooden handle of some kind of tool, probably part of the structure.
1
5
8/11 Based on the pottery it's been suggested that the fire occurred sometime in the early 2nd century AD, this would be in line with the Hadrianic fire of the same period, but I'm sure there were more fires around the same time.
1
5
9/11 It could also have been a small deliberate fire to destroy this structure, especially seeing as Wilmott doesn't mention any fire damage to the other features in the area.
1
5
10/11 The whole structure has been traditionally interpreted as a shrine, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. If it was a shrine holding the face pot, destroyed by fire, why isn't the pot more damaged? Are we so sure they were originally together?
1
5
11/11 How did the structure stand? Wilmott suggests the back panel was fixed to a wall, but we haven't seen any walls, we also don't see any legs that could have held the structure up.
1
5
My main source for this thread, and where all the images come from is T. Wilmott, ‘Excavations at Bucklesbury House (1954-5) and Temple Court (1922 & 1960)’, in Excavations in the middle Walbrook Valley, City of London, 1927-1960, vol. 13, 1991.
1
5
Also R. Merrifieild, ‘Roman Metalwork from the Walbrook – Rubbish, Ritual or Redundancy?’, Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archaeological Society, vol. 46, 1995.
1
4
You can see more sources here:
3