A reconstruction of the amphitheatre drawn in the 1930s, probably by P H Lawson.
Click on the image for a high-resolution version.
The various investigations have shown that the first, timber-framed, amphitheatre on the site was built in the third quarter of the 70s ad, immediately after the establishment of the Roman fortress at Chester (Thompson 1976 , 134). It would have measured about 75 × 67 m. However, little is understood of its superstructure (although Nigel Sunter attempted reconstructions for Hugh Thompson (1976 , 222 ff.)).
The timber-framed structure was replaced, probably towards the end of the first century, by a stone amphitheatre that is sufficiently well preserved to allow detailed reconstruction of its architectural features. The work of construction was perhaps contemporary with the rebuilding of many of the legionary buildings and the fortress defences in stone c 100.
The stone amphitheatre measures 95.7 × 87.2 m externally (Thompson 1976 , 182) and its arena is 58 by 49.4 metres with an area of 2230 m2. Its long axis is aligned on that of the Roman fortress. There were main entrances on the long and short axes and two minor entrances between each of these. The major entrance to the east produced evidence for a tribunal (or box for dignitaries) above it. Although insufficient architectural detail survived to allow an accurate reconstruction of its form, it appears to have been relatively elaborate, with columns to support a roof structure.
A reconstruction of the amphitheatre drawn in the 1930s, probably by P H Lawson.
Click on the image for a high-resolution version.
The arena wall was between 0.6 and 1.1 m thick and can be calculated to have stood at least 2.6 m above the arena floor, as it would have had to bridge the main entrances. The seating is thought to have risen directly from the top of this wall. The arrangements of staircases in the minor entrances suggested that the main 'corridor' between seating rows ran halfway up the seating bank. Allowing for a rake of about 30 degrees to the seating, the outer wall would have stood to a height of at least 11.5 metres above Roman street level (as shown in Nigel Sunter's reconstruction, Thompson 1976, 236 fig. 53).
The outer wall of the amphitheatre was 2.7 m thick, with buttresses every 3.6 m or so. It is thought that these were not functional, as the outer wall was massive enough not to need further support. It is possible that they held the posts from which the awning (velum) over the seating was hung (Sunter in Thompson 1976, 231), although in the British climate, this type of awning appears superfluous as its main function was to protect spectators from the sun. Inside the wall was a corridor 2.1 m wide linking the twelve entrances. The inner concentric wall was 2.1 m thick. This is an unusual feature, and at Verulamium a similar wall is explained as the outer wall of an earlier, smaller theatre. This is equally possible at Chester and needs to be checked. Unlike the eighteen or so other amphitheatres known in Britain, whether military or civilian, Chester's also appears to have been unique in not possessing an earthen bank to support the seating, a feature that needs confirmation.
The amphitheatre seems to have been largely abandoned by the middle of the second century (Thompson 1976, 182). A thin layer of débris that accumulated over the gravel floor of the arena contained finds of mid second to late third century date (Newstead & Droop 1932, 19). In the late 270s (or possibly later), the arena was paved with sandstone flags (Thompson 1976, 151) and the amphitheatre enjoyed its longest continuous period of use, which was also to be its last. Pottery dating from the first half of the fourth century was amongst the rubbish that began to accumulate in the arena after its final abandonment (Thompson 1976, 183), perhaps around the middle of the century.Its post-Roman history is obscure and remains an important research question for any further archaeological work that might take place on the site.
Only two legionary amphitheatres are known in Britain, Chester and Caerleon. However, up to nineteen true amphitheatres are known in all in the province (Bateman 1997, 74 and a newly discovered possible site at Carlisle). A little under half of the Chester amphitheatre has been excavated, consolidated and displayed; as such it is the largest Roman monument currently visible in Chester (except for the north wall of the fortress). Although it has frequently been described as the largest amphitheatre in Britain, the example at Maumbury Rings, Dorchester, measures 105.2 by 101.2 m externally, and is therefore some 28% larger than Chester (Collingwood & Richmond 1969, 119). The layout of this amphitheatre is, however, dependent upon the earthworks of the late Neolithic henge it overlies and which forms the seating bank. The recently discovered amphitheatre at London measures approximately 98×106 m by 89 m (see plan in Bateman 1997, 70), up to 15% larger than Chester. The comparisons given by Fulford (1989, 188), which appear to show Chester and Maumbury Rings as of equal size, are based on the area of the arena: at Chester, the arena is disproportionately large. The buried masonry at Chester survives well (Buxton 1993, 12), but is obscured to the south by later deposits. The Caerleon amphitheatre is visible as a reconstruction, built in the 1920s, which makes it an easier monument to interpret visually. Those at Maumbury Rings, Cirencester, Chichester, Silchester and Aldborough (Yorks.) all survive as earthworks, many of them impressive structures. There is some evidence to suggest that Chester's amphitheatre was of Golvin's (1988, ii) Group 2, amphithéâtres à structure creuse (amphitheatres of hollow construction) (Thompson 1976, 148), so there is no reason to suppose that it necessarily left a substantial earthwork ruin. On the other hand, an assessment of the levels in the car park of Dee House and the stratigraphy beneath it (Cleary et al. 1994, 20) suggested that a hump corresponding to the position of a seating bank can be detected in the post-medieval deposits. This may, of course, be a 'bank' composed of rubble from the collapsed outer walls of the structure; at any rate, its evident presence is significant as no such feature appears to have been present in the northern half.
On to an assessment of what survives on the site