Thirty-one years ago, Dominic Perring published a slim (150 pages) volume of synthesis on Roman London (Perring Reference Perring1991). Now he has returned to the same topic with a much more substantial tome, which reflects the huge amount of fieldwork, publication and research that has taken place since his previous effort. Due to the ceaseless pressure of redevelopment and the construction of new infrastructure such as Crossrail, the archaeology of the walled Roman city of London and its environs (including Southwark) has been very extensively explored over the last 200 years, which means that there is a vast amount of fully published or partly published data to synthesise. The amount of data means that to condense some 370 years’ worth of diverse material culture into a single volume is extremely problematic, as some topics either have to be briefly mentioned or excluded for reasons of space. Recently, Wallace (Reference Wallace2014) devoted a whole volume to a study of the first fifteen years of London. Subsequently, Hingley (Reference Hingley2018) published a volume of synthesis devoted to Roman London, opting for a chronological format. Perring has opted for an eight-part format subdivided into thirty-one chapters adopting a precise chronological framework for his narrative, apart from part 4, ‘The working city’, which considers topics such as industry and the urban hinterland. The drawback of a precise chronological framework is that it presents the misleading impression that almost every aspect of Roman London’s archaeological sequence is closely datable, which glosses over the fact that many early discoveries are poorly dated. For instance, the dendrochronological dating of oak timbers only started in the 1970s, and many early samples did not produce precise felling dates.

While Perring’s text demonstrates an extensive knowledge and understanding of the data, some of the interpretations he puts forward, although thought-provoking, are questionable, as the full range of possibilities are not properly considered; instead, a preferred view is promoted (see below). The establishment of London on a green-field site alongside a navigable river at a convenient bridging point and its subsequent development are well-known, but the discussion of some topics, such as the range of crafts or industries present within London, the formation of ‘dark earth’ or the final years of the settlement, are very informative. Presumably for reasons of space, some topics, such as the extra-mural cemeteries, food and diet, are only briefly mentioned. The whole issue of the relationship of London’s links with its agrarian hinterland is also not properly considered, as its population would have required a constant supply of food stuffs, implying the development of commercial agriculture. The linkage between the numerous sites mentioned in the text is handled by providing site codes in the chapter endnotes, which can be looked up in an appendix that includes the site addresses and key references; there are also a series of useful site location maps. Sadly, this volume is badly let down by its illustrations; the black and white figures and infrequent finds illustrations look drab, while the complete absence of any photographs of structures or fieldwork is inexplicable.

For reasons of space, I will only mention in detail three of the many topics of interest discussed in the text. First is the hypothesis that three completely separate discoveries of linear ditches define the provisional extent of a defended enclosure of Claudian date covering nearly 2.75ha, which might have functioned as a temporary military supply base (pp 51–7, fig 5.1). This is a fascinating idea, but the available dating evidence indicates that the ditches at two of these excavations (site codes ETA89 and WAO06) were dug and infilled before the Flavian period, so they could be Neronian. Also, the construction of a military supply base only makes any sense if there was a contemporary port facility capable of handling large sea-going vessels, so goods could either be unloaded here for road transportation (implying the existence of arterial roads) or upstream shipment in shallow draught vessels. The only contemporary evidence for a port facility consists of a post and plank revetment dated by dendrochronology to ad 52 at Regis House (KWS94) and another structure upstream at Arthur Street dating to ad 55/6 (Swift Reference Swift2008, 13–18). Possibly flat-bottomed vessels were beached at low tide on the foreshore for unloading, which would have only required areas of hard standing and for which there is some evidence. A proper quay was not constructed here until ad 63/4 (Brigham and Watson Reference Brigham and Watsonforthcoming). The construction of this quay was contemporary with the establishment of a fort at Plantation Place.

Secondly, Perring (Reference Perring2017) has already argued that London’s Hadrianic Fire of c ad 125–30 was an act of arson during a civil war and that the Cripplegate Fort was built afterwards to garrison the rebellious city (pp 235–42). This argument is highly speculative as, while there is plenty of contemporary evidence of warfare in northern Britain, which prompted the construction of Hadrian’s Wall, there is no evidence of conflict in southern Britain that withstands scrutiny (Watson Reference Watson2021).

Thirdly, did the outbreaks of the Antonine plague (possibly smallpox) that ravaged the Roman provinces of Asia Minor and the Mediterranean during ad 165–89 also affect Britain? The wording of a lead amulet recovered from the Thames foreshore seeking protection from plague uses a contemporary Greek spell, implying that this pestilence reached London (pp 289–95). While there is no contemporary evidence of mass graves in London, a noticeable slow-down in building construction and the presence of two coin hoards concealed in c ad 166 and after c ad 174 are all indicative of a period of political uncertainly and economic decline. In ad 541 there was an outbreak of Bubonic plague in the Byzantine Empire, which apparently reached England (Sarris Reference Sarris2022). In 2019 screening of the sixth-century ad human skeletal remains from Edix Hill in Cambridgeshire for pathogen DNA revealed several examples of the Bubonic plague bacterium (Keller etal Reference Kellar2019). Perhaps future DNA research will recover evidence from Roman burials in London to confirm the nature and presence of the Antonine plague.