The Colchester Archaeologist 1996-7 - Colchester Archaeological ...

A reconstruction with allthe missing parts onLonginus and his horserestored photographically.Done just before the facewas found. (By StephenCrummy.) This was to bea book illustration solicence was taken with thespear which, as shown bythe surviving socket onthe tombstone, did notcontinue to the rear of thehand. This face proved tobe too large.So it seems that we can accept theidea that the stone was indeed deliberatelydamaged but we need to withholdjudgement on the date of the event andwhy it was done. In theory it couldhave happened any time. Doesthe apparent freshness ofthe carving reallvrule out a laterdate for thedamage? If ittells us anything,it isthat thestone waspushed onto its faceearly on butthe freshnessof the carvingsaysnothingabout thedate of thedamage. Thetruth is that wecannot say howwell or how badlythe stone wouldweather. And if the damage really wasBoudican, why was the tombstone ofFacilis apparently left untouched whenit stood on the other side of the street,less than 50 m away?On top of all these doubts, we cannotdiscount the possibility that the realdespoilers of the monumentwere the workmen who foundit in 1928. Contemporary photographsshow some verycrisp, sharp breaks in thestone. We have no knowledgeof how the stone waslifted, but it lay facedown and it couldhave sufferedrough treatmentuntilthe menmanaged toget it out ofthe ground,turn it over,and see what itwas. Longinus'face mighttherefore havecome off asthey levered upthe stone andhauled it piece bypiece out of theground. We canimagine the workmenbreaking up the stoneand putting levers in theground against the right-handside of the monument — justwhere the damage is the greatest.It all seems sickeninglyplausible. Shame about thenice story...The tombstone of the legionary centurion Facilisstood less than 50 m away. It too faced on to theRoman road but was never damaged and brokenin the same as Longinus' tombstone.13