Beneath the castle is a vaulted building, divided by cross walls into four vaults. The walls are ragstone rubble, RCHM regarded the building as undoubtedly Roman and report that a cutting made in 1693 (see source 2) through the N wall uncovered, reportedly, a coin of Galbus. The cutting was made to facilitate removal of the sand filling from the vaults. RCHM were less certain as to whether the structure was a temple. Plan, section and photos in RCHM. <1> First shown to be Roman in this source. <3> Wheeler suggested it was the Temple of Claudius, referred to by Tacitus as the last refuge of the defenders of the colonia at the time of the Boudiccan revolt. <4> <5> <6> First plan of the podium was wildy inaccurate but small trenches excavated by Laver in the 1920's clarified the structure and established relationships between the keep and the podium. This work was the basis for Hull's detailed and thorough description (see source 8). The podium measures c.32 x 23.5m, with shallow robbed foundation to the south, forming the base of a flight of steps. The podium contained two long and two short so-called `vaults'. They had been filled with sand but were not really vaults but rather the largest areas of podium which were not load-bearing and therefore did not need to be stone thus enabling savings in materials and costs. The first published reconstruction (source 9) based on Hull's assessment is incorrect placing columns over the two small vaults, which were not load- bearing. Other inaccuracies include making it peripital on all sides. In fact a closed rear N wall is likely (parallels include the Temple of Mars Altor in Rome). Reconstruction of the superstructure is difficult as no accurate survey of the podium exists. The temple was undoubtedly octastyle and Crummy suggests a Eustyle arrangement. The temple stood within a precinct (Insula 22 of the town). In the centre of its S side stood a monumental gateway (see ) with a monumental arcade on either side. On the other 3 sides of the precinct (or enclosure) was a smaller scale arrangement of presumably rooms and colonnades. <7> <8> <9> In 1977 reconstruction of the floor of the subcrypt of the castle (in the SE corner) provided an oppurtunity too reopen a trench dug in 1933 by Laver and to excavate 2 adjacent areas. This, with evidence from 1960's excavations enabled a reassessment of the temples history and that of the temenos. Drury suggests that the temple was built in the centre of the fortress, the centre being set aside for that purpose. The temple is only likely to have been begun after Claudius' death in 54 andd may have been unfinished at the time of the Boudiccan massacre. The only major amendment by Drury to Crummy's reconstruction is position of a large flight of steps. Finds of segmented tile covered with fluted _________, in 1960.s excavations to the W of the temple precinct are probably from the temple columns. There is a list of black and white tessellated pavements associated with the building. The temple precinct seems to have been damaged by fire in the late C2 followed by rebuilding. There is evidence for drastic reconstruction to the temple in later Roman times, possibly the first half of the C4. A wall was built across the front of the temple. North of it a massive tile raft was found, following the shape of the apse but predating the Norman walls. The changes produced a structure of basilican plan with a narrow apsidal vestibule in front. There is evidence for marble internal decoration. The latest occupation in the early C4/C5 seems to have been domestic in nature, probably because of the security provided by the walls of the precinct, and perhaps even representing a great residence (evidence for this in the pottery found - late C4). See source 10 for full bibliography. <10> Other refs. <11> <12> <13>
In March 2010 an archaeological watching brief took place at 97 High Street, Colchester, during the machine-excavation of a series of test-pits by the developer. The remains of the south precinct wall of the Roman Temple of Claudius were uncovered close to the modern ground-level in the southern part of the site. Little of archaeological significance was reached in the northern part of the site, where the ground-level had been considerably made-up in modern times. <14>