Vol 55

Wo)DlEllMl(l g^LÎfflî"1

Hon Archaeological Editor:GjjeatepvLspjjijcl'Ot^^j'thaeological Advisory Service"TEfigliHi Heritage23 Savile RowLondon WIS 2ET020 7973 3215Hon Local History Editor:Eileen Bowlt7 Croft GardensRuislipMiddlesex HA4 8EY01895 638060Production Editor:Lynn Pitts5 Whitehead DriveKenilworthWarwicks CVS 2TP01926 512366Reviews Editor:John SchofieldMuseum of LondonLondon WallLondon EC2Y 5HNEditors' note: the editors are happy to consider articles for publication in Transactums. New contributors areadvised to ask the Production Editor for a copy of LAMAS Notes for Conlribuims before submitting papers.LAMAS also welcomes the submission of books for review in 'Irnnsacliom,.© Published by the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 2005ISBN 0 903290 58 8Front cover: 'Near Highgate': undated watercolour by Charles Earle (1832-1893),See Frontispiece. © Michael Hammerson1860-1870.Back cover: Bronze Age 'bronze knife or dagger' recovered from the excavation of a round barrow formerlyon Sandy Lane, Teddington, in 1854, described in Archaeologia in 1855 and appearing in print in Volume 1of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Transactions for 1855-60 (p 140).

LAMAS LIBRARYREFERENCE ONLYLAMASTransactions of theLondon and MiddlesexArchaeological SocietyVolume 552004Museum of London, London Wall, London EC2Y 5HN

^ • ;S 3: a:1â:)i:• ^.rr;,>r-^^'-^:—•^5•2£ī^^•;2gs-^

ContentsList of presidents and officers149th Annual Report of LAMAS Council for the year ending 30thSeptember 2004vviIncome and Expenditure Account for the year ending 30th September2004 and Balance Sheet as at 30 September 2004 viiiWelcome!The Publication Committee 1So, what have you done for us lately?John Clark 3Archaeology in London: annual round-up and news for 1855/6Barney Sloane 9Some early LAMAS meetings and outingsEileen MBowlt 17'The Lesse Set By': an early reference to the site of Middle SaxonLondonRobert L Whytehead 27The Tower of London and the Jewish expulsion of 1290Jeremy Ashbee 35'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the firstLondon water conduitDavid Lewis 39Spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medievalLondon and evidence for a co-operative supply networkLisa Yeomans 69Police graffiti, New River Head, FinsburyPeter Guillery 85'Our lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essayMichael Hammerson 89

Local History CommitteeThe Committee held a total of five meetings, in October 2003 and January, March, June, and September 2004.The Annual Conference on 15th November 2003 was on the subject of'Lunatick London' and was well attended,despite its rather unusual title. Delegates heard talks on 'Medieval London hospitals' by Christopher Thomas,'Care of the mentally ill in the 17th and 18th centuries' by Sara Pennell, 'Charles and Mary Lamb' by LionelLambourne, 'The architecture and design of Victorian asylums' by Dr Jeremy Taylor, and 'Psychiatry and war' byDrs Michael Neve and Trevor Turner. The Conference concluded with two talks by members of Affiliated LocalHistory Societies: Robert Leon from Camden on St Luke's, and Dr Oliver Natelson from Friern Barnet on FriernHospital.The assistance of the Committee was sought over a proposed 20th Century Gallery at the Museum of London,and a projected web site on the same topic. This seemed an ideal opportunity to promote the closer involvementof Affiliated Societies both with LAMAS and each other. Societies were invited to a half-day Conference at LAARCin March 2004, which included an interesting tour of the Collections. The project is on-going.The Committee received 29 submissions for the Publications Award and met in September to create a short listfor final assessment by three independent judges.Historic Buildings and Conservation CommitteeThe Historic Buildings and Conservation Committee have had ten meetings and looked at 123 planningapplications over the past year. 21 were from Kensington and Chelsea, 15 each from Westminster and Lambeth, 8each from Camden and Tower Hamlets, 7 from Hounslow, 6 each from Haringey, Harrow and Bexley, and 5 fromthe City. There were 3 cases from Islington and 1 or 2 each from 14 other London Boroughs.We have responded to the pressures of Local Planning Authority deadlines by increasing the number andfrequency of our meetings, allowing for a faster response rate.We have also dealt with extremely complex cases, Thameslink 2000 and the Kings Cross/St Pancras developmentbeing the most difficult. These two have taken much of the Committee's time because of the impact on so manyhistoric buildings across such a wide area. Other large proposals have included Farrell's scheme for the RoyalInstitution, the proposals for Smithfield Market, the Royal London Hospital redevelopment scheme, and the newblocks planned around the Lots Road Power Station. We have also looked at the Ram Brewery in Wandsworth, andBrixton Prison. In the West End, the Queens Theatre and the Crown Commissioner's proposals for Regent Streethave also taken up much time. The Grade 1 Listed Ickenham Manor, East End Farm, Pinner and other timberframed buildings in the outer Boroughs form a contrast to this work.Numerous other projects have been considered across the Greater London area and detailed comments made toLocal Planning Authorities. The work continues and we look forward to the 150th Anniversary for which we shallbe organising a series of Central London walks examining some local historic buildings and some of the issuesconsidered by the Committee.BY DIRECTION OF COUNCILJohn ClarkChairman of CouncilNikola BurdonHonorary Secretary

^ 'rtoINtooc^»n (>JC^J OloOJOJ!!0ajlOoo(7MCMlOinC7100OO O 00 «2inTôwHWC/5" -S SU o gO =« !>

so, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR USLATELY?John ClarkChairman of Council1855-1955For the Society's Transactions in 1955 the thenChairman of Council, Cdr G Bridgmore Brown,wrote an account of the first 100 years of theLondon and Middlesex Archaeological Society.It falls to me, his successor, to bring the story upto date.Bridgmore Brown's article is a workmanlikepiece, tracing the Society's origins in the establishmentof a provisional committee in July1855 and the inaugural meeting in Crosby Hallon 14 December that same year where it wasunanimously agreed 'That a Society, to be calledthe London and Middlesex ArchaeologicalSociety, be now established'. Perhaps he couldhave made more of the Society's flamboyantearly activities: the excursions or 'countrymeetings' described by Eileen Bowlt elsewherein these pages, when a train was hired for thejourney, and the meeting ended with the servingof a 'collation' at a local hotel or suitable hall —or in the absence of such a convenience in ruralMiddlesex, on one occasion a large barn; or the'conversaziones' held in City livery companyhalls, with music (on one occasion provided bya string band from the Royal Artillery) as wellas suitable displays of 'various objects of artand antiquity'. Perhaps he should have drawnattention to the strictly limited social class fromwhich the first members of the Society came— that middle-class 'Victorian establishment'discussed by Sally Brooks in her analysis of theSociety's membership published in Transactions36 (1985). He commented that the Society'sannual subscription had been maintained at oneguinea (£1.05) ever since 1879 (it did not rise (totwo guineas) until 1958) without noting that this— a fall in real terms — might have encourageda much wider membership. And perhaps hemight have noted in passing the whiff of scandalthat surrounded the extraordinary dilatorinessof an early Honorary Secretary in paying intothe bank subscriptions he had received frommembers, which resulted in a loss to the Societyof 'as far as the Council could ascertain £59 2s3d' — no small sum in 1857.Bridgmore Brown recognised that the fortunesof the Society had fluctuated over the years, notingthe period in the early 1900s when membershipfigures had fallen to little more than 100. Hehimself had joined in 1912, and was one of onlytwo individual members whose membershipdated back to before the First World War. Herecalled 'the halcyon days of cheap railway travel'between the two World Wars when the Societyhad once again organised full-day visits to placesoutside the London area, and regretted thateven with the ending of the Second World War'the delay in restoring excursion facilities on therailways made it impossible to resume summervisits to distant objectives' — but since 1948 visitshad been made by coach. Membership figureshad risen, he was pleased to report (although itwas 1950 before they had again reached a figure,about 350, that approached the 395 reported in1857) — at the time he wrote, membership stoodat nearly 500.But changes in the Society and its activitiesreflected much broader changes that hadtaken place during the years 1855 to 1955. Theestablishment of the Metropolitan Board ofWorks, in the same year that LAMAS itself wasfounded, was the first step towards London-wide

John Clarkgovernment and to major public improvementsthat were to entail both the destruction of historicbuildings and archaeological discoveries. Duringthe Society's lifetime the first national legislationhad been introduced to protect ancient monumentsand buildings — a major concern ofLAMAS's founders. The Royal Commission onHistorical Monuments had published its volumeson London between 1924 and 1930 and onMiddlesex in 1937. The London County Councilhad begun its Survey of London series in 1900. TheVictoria County Histories had been established,although only one volume on London (in 1909)and one on Middlesex (in 1911) had been published.Local record offices and libraries hadbecome much more accessible for research. Oneof the Society's stated objectives, the foundationof a museum, had been overtaken by events,with the reopening on a sounder footing ofthe Guildhall Museum in the 1870s, and thefoundation of the London Museum in 1912.LAMAS had been joined in the London area byother local historical and, later, archaeologicalsocieties; its Affiliated Local Societies schemewas established in 1954 and by 1955 included16 societies (from the East London HistoryGroup to the Watford and South-West HertsArchaeological Society). Other societies hadbeen formed to campaign for the preservationof ancient buildings, from the Society for theProtection of Ancient Buildings in 1877 to theGeorgian Group in 1937. By the time BridgmoreBrown wrote, the days when membership ofLAMAS was the only option for those in Londonor Middlesex who had an interest in and concernfor the past of their city and county were longgone.1955-2005But what of the broader picture in 1955? Tothose interested in London's archaeology thefirst date in the 1950s that springs to mindis probably not 1955 but 1954 — when thediscovery of the Temple of Mithras brought toexcited public attention the work of the Romanand Mediaeval London Excavation Council onLondon's bombed sites. When that Councilwas established in 1946, LAMAS was invited— perhaps out of politeness — to nominate arepresentative. (The Society did however makea grant, of £10, to the expenses of RMLEC'swork.) However, in 1950 the Society invitedW F Grimes, Director of both RMLEC andthe London Museum, to become President— the first practising archaeologist to hold thatposition since the brief tenure of General Pitt-Rivers in the 1880s. It was Grimes who presidedover the 1955 centenary celebrations, whichincluded a special viewing of the finds from theTemple of Mithras, on display for the first time inthe Guildhall Museum, reopened in 'temporary'quarters in the Royal Exchange.For local historians 1955 is a significantdate for another reason — not mentioned byBridgmore Brown — the reinvigoration of theMiddlesex Victoria County History. The post-Warperiod had seen the establishment of nationalbodies not just for archaeology — the Councilfor British Archaeology — but for local history— the Standing Conference for Local History.The latter encouraged the setting up of countycommittees, and the Middlesex Local HistoryCouncil was formed in 1951. It does not seemto have been seen as a rival by LAMAS, althoughwhen it eventually merged with LAMAS in 1965,becoming the Society's Local History Committee,the marriage at first was not an entirely happyone.The Middlesex Local History Council tookthe initiative in trying to revive the abortiveMiddlesex Victoria County History, of which onlyone volume had appeared in 1911. A successfulapproach for funding to local councils led to theestablishment of the Middlesex VCH Council in1955. Since then eleven volumes of painstakingand invaluable research on the historic countyhave been published. Although, as membersof LAMAS will know (our Society is still — assuccessors of the Middlesex Local History Council— represented on the Middlesex VCH Council),there have lately been very serious financialproblems, there is still hope that the projectbegun so well 50 years ago can be completed.In 1959, LAMAS attempted to reach a newaudience by forming a Schools Section, withmembership open to schools, but not to individualschoolchildren, in the London area. Withchanges both in the educational system and insyllabuses this concept had limited success, butwas to lead to the later LAMAS Youth Section (orYoung LAMAS), which was very active for severalyears in the 1980s and 1990s until, for variouspractical reasons, it closed in 1995.To those who wish to follow the progress ofarchaeological investigation in London afterthe Second World War, volumes of our Society'sTransactions during the 1950s are disappointing.

So, what have you done for us lately? 5It was only in 1960 that the first regular reports'contributed by staff of the Guildhall Museum'(notably Peter Marsden) began to appear. Butan increased pace of archaeological discoveryand greater public interest can be seen in theSociety's lecture programme, which in 1968included speakers like Glyn Daniel, SheppardFrere and Rupert Bruce-Mitford.The 1960s saw the establishment of theSociety's special committees. The HistoricBuildings Preservation Committee (now HistoricBuildings and Conservation Committee) beganthe still essential task of considering the impactof planned developments on the built heritageof London and responding with advice onparticular cases. The Archaeological ResearchCommittee organised its first annual conferencein ] 964; the Local History Committee — thenow integrated Middlesex Local HistoryCouncil — soon followed suit. Held on Saturdayafternoons in the Livery Hall at Guildhall, theseevents included tea (with dainty iced cakes). Atthe archaeological conference of 1968, memberspaid 5s (25p), non-members 7s 6d (37.5p) andheard reports on excavations by Roy Canham,Nick Farrant, Harvey Sheldon, John Kent andPeter Marsden. (The price had risen to 75pby 1976, the last year that the archaeologicalconference was held at Guildhall.) 1967 saw thefirst issue of the Society's Newsletter (originallyNews-letter) replacing an earlier Bulletin. From thebeginning this included notices of the activities ofour affiliated societies, still an essential elementof the Newsletter. But that LAMAS was no longeralone in the field was emphasised in 1968 when anew type of archaeological magazine for London,the London Archaeologist, made its appearance— thanks to the enthusiasm of Nick Farrant(Fuentes) — and Londoners could find out aboutrecent and current excavations without joining asociety!In many ways the Guildhall Museum'sexcavations at Baynard's Castle in 1972 markeda turning point, with wider recognition ofthe special nature and problems of 'rescue'archaeology. Our Society contributed to thefirst group of published surveys of London'sarchaeological knowledge and potential in itsfirst Special Paper The Archaeology of the LondonArea: Current Knoxvledge and Problems in 1976,alongside Rescue's The Future of London's Pastand the joint Museum of London/Departmentof the Environment/Greater London Councilpublication Time on Our Side? In 1975 the Societytook a more active role as local units wereestablished or reconstituted to carry out rescueexcavations in London, with the formation ofthe Inner London (North) Archaeological Unit— the '(North)' seems to have become optional.This was managed by a committee of LAMASrepresentatives together with representativesof seven inner London boroughs which,with the Department of the Environment,provided funding. In the next few years theunit investigated over a hundred sites, rangingfrom Westminster Abbey to a sheet iron sentrybox at the West India Dock, as well as publishingbooklets on the archaeology of the boroughsfor which the unit was responsible. For the firsttime the Society found itself in the position ofemploying full-time archaeological staff. Onlythe hard work of the then Honorary Treasurer,Allan Tribe, made this possible. It was, I suspect,with some relief that after long campaigning towin central funding from the Greater LondonCouncil (little did we know) we saw 'our'archaeological unit merge with others in theMuseum of London's Department of GreaterLondon Archaeology in 1983.LAMAS had long had informal links with staff ofthe Guildhall Museum and the London Museum— members of the museums' staff served in apersonal capacity on the Society's committees,and Roy Canham and his successor AlisonLaws, the London Museum's archaeologists,had organised the annual archaeologicalconferences. With the establishment of thenew Museum of London in 1976 these linkswere formalised, by an advantageous agreementmade with the Museum's Board of Governors(although the suggestion that this madethe Society a wholly-owned subsidiary of theMuseum is one that should be strongly denied!).The Society's library and its meetings movedfrom the Bishopsgate Institute, which had beenthe Society's headquarters since 1911, to thenew Museum of London building in LondonWall. The archaeological conference in 1977was one of the first events to be held in theMuseum's Lecture Theatre, and took the nowfamiliar form of a full-day meeting. The twoannual conferences remain a major feature ofour programme — the local history conferencein particular, with displays by our AffiliatedSocieties, is very popular.For some while after 1976, with myself asHonorary Secretary and the late Hugh Chapmanas Honorary Archaeological Editor, much of the

John ClarkSociety's business centred on the Museum. Apartfrom the annual archaeological conference, theSociety's contribution to the growing pace ofarchaeological work in the London area becamechiefly that of publication — particularly thatof the work funded by English Heritage (orDepartment of the Environment) and otherpublic authorities, carried out by the Museum ofLondon'sDepartmentof Urban Archaeology andthe local units. Reports appeared in Transactionsand in a greatly expanded series of Special Papers.For a while members might receive two or eventhree publications in a year: in 1979, Transactionsplus two volumes (these issued jointly with theSurrey Archaeological Society) on excavations inSouthwark; in 1980, Transactions \Aus, the SpecialPaper on the Roman Riverside Wall; in 1988,Transactions plus St Nicholas Shambles plus SurreyWhitewares. The pace could not be maintainedby what remained an essentially amateur society.Publication of Transactions began to lag behind,eventually appearing four years in arrears. Thelast Special Paper of that series was published in1992, and the decision was taken to concentrateon Transactions. The employment after 1992 of aproduction editor, first Gillian Clegg and morerecently Lynn Pitts, took a major burden off thehonorary officers, and Transactions appearedtwice a year until the arrears were made up.In many ways the 1980s were to all appearancesa golden age for LAMAS. The Society's visitsprogramme was flourishing, particularly throughthe enthusiasm of Edward Biffin, who providedcopious historical notes to accompany each visitand organised evermore ambitious excursions.Trips lasting several days to the Welsh Marches,to Hadrian's Wall, to North Yorkshire werefollowed in 1983 by one to Belgium. EdwardBiffin resigned in 1984, and although, thanksto the efforts of Rupert and Natalia Morris, theplanned trip to Normandy in that year did takeplace, nothing so ambitious has been arrangedsince. Gradually attendances on the traditionalfull-day coach trips began to fall off; some hadto be cancelled for lack of interest. The seriescame to an end in 1993, and since then — untilthe special series organised for this year of2005 — only occasional one-off visits have beenorganised. Evening lectures held at the Museumof London have similarly sometimes attractedvery small audiences — there does seem to havebeen a welcome upswing recendy.To judge by the membership figures includedin our Annual Reports the peak of the goldenage came in 1984, when membership apparentlystood at the extraordinary figure of 932.However, it was admitted that many memberswere in arrears with their subscription — someby several years. Many who should have beenstruck off long ago were still on the books — thedecision by Council to impose the Society'sregulations more strictly led to a 'loss' of onpapermembers of about 130 over the next twoyears. But a real fall was to follow. From the 1990sto today membership has remained closer to 600— although currently rising.LAMAS's golden age coincided with the lastflowering of publicly-funded rescue archaeology.Changes were heralded when hard on theagreement of the GLC to fund archaeologycentrally came the news that the GLC itselfwas under threat. The Society was involved incampaigns to ensure that following the proposedabolition of the GLC there should be adequateprovision for London-wide archaeology, for theGreater London Record Office, and indeed forthe funding of the Museum of London. Soonthe introduction of the PPG16 regime andfunding of archaeology by developers, togetherwith competitive tendering by independentarchaeological units, changed the archaeologicallandscape totally. In 1992 LAMAS joined withthe Surrey Archaeological Society, the CBA,and the Society of Antiquaries to form theStanding Conference on London Archaeologyto represent the interests of London archaeologyand to lobby the many public bodies that nowwere involved.This is not the place to discuss either thedetails or the effects of the current system. It has,however, resulted in more archaeology requiringpublication. Even if it had been suggested,LAMAS would not have had the resources torevive the Special Paper series for this purpose.Our Transactions is now just one of a number ofmedia available, alongside the monograph series— not just those of the Museum of LondonArchaeology Service but of other units workingin London — and the London Archaeologist. It hasnever been so difficult to keep up to date witharchaeological activity in London. There is noshortage of articles being offered for publicationby the archaeological units — these usually comewith full funding. It remains a concern thatpapers on historical topics are not forthcoming,and it is to be hoped that the historical contentof Transactions can be increased in future.The years since 1990 have not been without

So, what have you done for us lately ? 7advances. In 1997, thanks to Francis Grew,our website went live. In the same year theArchaeological Research Committee (nowArchaeological Committee — since its brief isfar wider than research) introduced the RalphMerrifield Award, named in honour of our Past-President, to reward contributions to the studyor popularisation of London archaeology. TheLocal History Committee has since taken up theidea of an annual award, by the introduction of aprize for publications by local societies or societymembers.The Society's finances are in a good state— the work of our last Honorary TreasurerRupert Morris has put them on a firm footing.A feature of the Society's activities in recentyears has been the selective use of those funds tosupport external bodies and projects that accordwith our objectives and our charitable status. In1998, like many other groups and individuals,LAMAS contributed towards the costs of theestablishment by the Museum of London of theLondon Archaeological Archive and ResearchCentre. Recognising the impracticability ofreviving our own 'Young LAMAS' organisationwe have made a grant towards the YoungArchaeologists Club, Central London Branch.We have made grants towards publications— on the Neolithic in South-East England, onLondon tin-glazed wares, on London coinage(not all yet published). And Council has nowdecided to reserve funds to support researchprojects undertaken by LAMAS members on thearchaeology or history of our area.CONCLUSIONIn 1955 the then Chairman looked back ona century of fluctuating fortunes and hugechanges in the climate within which LAMASfunctioned; I look back similarly on 50 yearsof fluctuating fortunes and climate changes(although my own membership of LAMAS andpersonal involvement goes back only to 1968!).In the course of this short report I have nameda number of individuals — no slight is intendedto the work of so many others. The Societyhas depended and continues to depend onall its officers, its committees, and the unsungcontributions of its members at large — notjust their subscriptions (though they are vital!)but their presence at our meetings and theirwholehearted support for our objectives and ouractivities.When LAMAS was founded it was, except forthe national archaeological societies based inLondon and the neighbouring county societiesin Surrey and Essex (and later, Kent), the solesociety with an interest in the archaeology andlocal history of the London area. The originalconstitution set out its interests:the Ancient Arts and Monuments of theCities of London and Westminster, andof the County of Middlesex: includingPrimeval Antiquities; Architecture, Civil,Ecclesiastical, and Military; Sculpture;Works of Art in Metal and Wood; Paintingson Walls, Wood, or Glass; Civil History andAntiquities, comprising Manors, ManorialRights, Privileges and Customs; Heraldryand Genealogy; Costume; Numismatics;Ecclesiastical History and Endowments, andCharitable Foundations, Records, and allother matters usually comprised under thehead of Archaeology.Now, for Londoners interested in any one ormore of these topics (or any embraced by thatuseful catch-all at the end) there are dozensof national, local, and regional societies, mostof them with publications and programmes oflectures, visits, and social activities. There isthe CBA and its regional groups. The BritishAssociation for Local History. Easily accessiblemuseums, libraries, and record offices. Eveningclasses and opportunities for on-line study. YoungArchaeologists Clubs. The London Archaeologistand Current Archaeology. Historical and archaeologicalmagazines in the local newsagent. TVprogrammes for the armchair-bound.Does LAMAS still serve a useful purpose?Our Victorian founders defined the Society'sobjectives (here abbreviated):1. To collect and publish the best possibleinformation...2. To procure the careful observation andpreservation of antiquities discovered inthe progress of works...3. To make, and to encourage individualsand public bodies in making, researchesand excavations...4. To oppose and prevent, so far as maybe practicable, any injuries with whichMonuments and Ancient Remains ... maybe threatened...5. To found a Museum and Library...6. To arrange periodical Meetings...Well, in the words of the song, 'we're still here'— and with changes in style and now recognising

John Clarkthat we can do these things best in co-operationwith other bodies or by supporting directlyor indirectly the efforts of others, we canstill pursue these objectives. Where we haveperhaps enlarged on our ancestors' objectivesis by recognising that we must extend ourmessage beyond the safe middle classes of the'Victorian establishment'. And perhaps like the'archaeological establishment' in general wehave not yet identified quite how to do that.Will the local Hackney kids who participateso enthusiastically in activities at the monthlySaturday meetings of the Young ArchaeologistsClub at LAARC — or their counterparts at theRotherhithe YAC —join LAMAS when they growup? Or any similar traditional archaeologicalsociety?The next 50 years (indeed the next 10 years)may show us.Like most of us today, I lack that facility forresounding if pompous phraseology that was toVictorian taste, and can be found extensively inthe printed accounts of LAMAS's early meetings— taken from shorthand notes, so we can beconfident the words were actually spoken. So, asour Society enters its next 50 years, I'll concludewith remarks with which my predecessor the firstChairman of Council, the Rev Thomas Hugo,introduced the first ordinary meeting of theSociety in January 1856:... with consciousness of right motives anda desire of doing good, prepared for anyfortune but hopeful of the better, we entrustour bark to the winds and waves, and steerfor utility if not for fame.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN LONDON: ANNUALROUND-UP AND NEWS FOR 1855/6Barney SloaneThe London and Middlesex ArchaeologicalSociety is 150 years old this year. While theSociety has always tried to look forward ratherthan back (often difficult in the fields of historyand archaeology!), there is room, on occasion,for a pause and ponder about where we havecome from and how we got to where we are now.In this context, the less-visited sections of journalsand volumes, the 'proceedings' or 'notes' pages,as well as the indexed and thus well-read articles,often hide little-known gems provoking wonder,amusement, and reflection; the 1850s were yearsof no exception. This article therefore offers agentle trawl through the archaeological journals,reports, and newspapers available at the time ofour founding.Since the first provisional committee meetingto discuss the establishment of the Society tookplace in July 1855, and the first meeting of fullmembers in January 1856, I have drawn materialfrom both years. The results show at once (andunsurprisingly) that so very much has changed,and yet at the same time that some 'current' ideasand research themes in London and Middlesexarchaeology have very long pedigrees indeed. Thesummary comes in the form of a chronologicalcollation to show the range of interest in eachbroad archaeological period, and a news board thatlifts up some of the less well-known archaeologicalstories of the time. If the tone seems a little lighthearted,it is not meant to detract from thehugely valuable work of our past antiquaries bothin bringing to light lost wonders of the region'sarchaeology, and in making absolutely certainthat the climate was created, and has endured, forus to have a Society and a Transactions of which wecan be very proud. They should be rememberedwith very grateful affection.THE DISCOVERIESPrehistoricProbably the most widely reported and presentedwork was that of J Akerman at the great roundbarrow that formerly stood off Sandy Lane inTeddington. Already damaged by road widening,and threatened by further development in 1854,the barrow, then measuring 96ft (29.3m) acrossand 12ft Sin (3.7m) high, was subjected to whatwe might call a classic work of rescue archaeologyin advance of development impact. Akerman andhis team cut to the centre of the barrow, recordeda heap of calcined bones, and recovered a beautiful,intact bronze 'knife or dagger' as well assecondary burial evidence, worked flints and a'half-baked urn'. The event was marked by anarticle in Archaeologia (36, 1V5-6), and the knifewas exhibited widely at the Society of Antiquaries,LAMAS, and the Archaeological Association. Itformed the subject of a colour finds illustrationpublished in our Transactions (1, 140), with anapology that the technology of the day did not allowentirely accurate colour reproduction. For shame,editor! We also learn that so much exhibiting couldtake its toll on the artefacts: the knife was readilydisintegrating by the end of the year.The Thames, long renowned as a source of fineantiquities, in 1855 yielded up to the founderand trustee of the London and Middlesex ArchaeologicalSociety, the Reverend Thomas Hugo,two fine 'celts' of black flint from Battersea, withothers from Blackfriars and Teddington {TransLondon Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1, 133).RomanNaturally, the greatest area of interest shown by

Archaeology in London: annual round-up and news for 1855/6 11and ashes at a depth of 16ft (4.9m). Cuming,admirably connecting disparate stratigraphicobservations, and anteceding many currentdebates about large scale Roman city fires,suggested, somewhat emotively, and 'with a fairshow of probabiHty that these ashes are thedebris of the City, sacked and destroyed by theinfuriated Britons in revenge for the outrageoffered to the brave queen of the Iceni — thebeautiful and ill-fated Boadicea'.Cuming did not stop there with his remarkablevision to set research agenda. Roman London,he surmised, was a city only as far west as theWalbrook valley. To the west of this line lay thesuburbs, composed in part of manufacturingareas, but also containing the grand Roman villasof which the Cannon Street remains was but one.Perhaps recognising inevitable disappointmentthat this proposal would raise in confident minds,he noted: 'It may be less honour to Londonersthat London was not the large Roman city it hadbeen supposed, but truth demanded that weshould not conceal that point' {JBAA 10, 196).Such heresy exercised at least one meeting of theSociety of Antiquaries too {Archaeologia 36, 211).Setting aside the fact that he was as mistaken asTite about the city's topography, the importantpoint is the nature of the approach. For no otherperiod of London's archaeology was this kind ofthinking being published at the time, and theidea of developing theories that he and otherscould test against observed data was arguablyconsiderably ahead of its time for the capital.Antiquities from the City and its environs were,of course, also collected and displayed. Anotherreference to the Deae Matres was unearthed inBudge Row in 1855, in the form of a white marblecornice just IB'/zin long by 4in high, carrying theinscription: 'to the mother goddesses, the districtrestored [this shrine?] at its own expense' {ProcSoc Antiq London 4 (1856), 113). The ubiquitousReverend Hugo had obtained a statuette ofthe young Hercules with the Nemean Lion,found at the junction of Cannon Street with StPaul's churchyard {Arch Journ 12, 286), whilethe bronze of an archer discovered in QueenStreet, Cheapside, in 1842 was still consideredcurrent enough for exhibition and display tothe new Society (Trans London Middlesex ArchaeolSoc 1, 133; see also RCHM(E) 1928, 46). Slightlylower down on the 'Wow!' factor scale werethree Roman lamps, and bits of Roman horsefurniture from Queen Street (Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc 1, 134). Further afield.the Chairman of another brand new countyarchaeological society, Leicester (antedatingLAMAS by just a handful of months, and manyhappy returns to them indeed!), exhibited threebronze Roman coins, from the Fleet Ditch at thebottom of Holborn Hill. We are told one of thesecoins bore the name LICINIUS and the image of afortress (Leics Archaeol Soc Trans 1, 34).Moving outward from the City, in Bow, the discoveryof a Roman stone coffin, accompaniedby a vase, an urn, and a patera, may (sort of)represent the earliest enactment of the BurialAct (of 1853): the finder being unsure as to howto proceed in the matter of the human remains,a member of the local constabulary was quicklysummoned to provide formal direction. His solidand practical advice was to reinter the bones in anearby gravel pit, advice which was immediatelyfollowed: the skeleton was apparently 'huddledinto a hamper'(!) and duly disposed of {TransLondon Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1, 193). From asite not too far from Bow, in Ratcliff Highway,discovered in 1852, Thomas Hugo provided forexhibition and publication a beautiful exampleof a Roman fibula brooch (Trans London MiddlesexArchaeol Soc I, 22; JBAA 10, 88) (Fig 1).Perhaps, in comparison with other displayedantiquities, pride of place for least unique artefactshould go to the single (and as far as isreported, unremarkable) Roman brick fromthe city wall, proudly exhibited to the Society byHenry Ely (Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1,146). One wonders how long the gathering wasengaged by this object.SaxonThe Saxon period, ever ephemeral and mysteriousin London, was represented only byReverend Hugo's exhibition of Merovingiangold coins from the Thames (unhappily notwell located) and a lovely lead Saxon fibula'brooch' in fine enough a condition to meritan illustration and the disconcerting descriptor'nearly new'! A Saxon cross was claimed fromthe site of Christ Church, Newgate Street, but nomore information was provided {Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc I, 123, 143, 146).MedievalMedieval archaeology in contrast was wellrepresented and religious life was, perhapsunsurprisingly, at the top of the archaeological

12 Barney SloaneBoman bronze Fibula, actual size, found in Katcliff Highwiiy,October 27, 1852.In the possession of the liev. Tlionias Hugo.Fig 1. Hugo's Ratcliff Roman brooch (image enlarged here)agenda. The study of extant antiquities was ofobvious importance, with our Society publishingarticles on St Helen's Bishopsgate, and work onmonumental brasses in the region in its firstvolume. Religious architectural fragments werealso of interest. During late 1854-56, stoneworkderived from Blackfriars, St John Clerkenwell(Fig 2), Greyfriars, and St Stephen's chapelWestminster was exhibited (Illustrated LondonNews]une 1855; Trans London Middlesex ArchaeolSac I, 121, 133; Proc Soc Antiq London 3, 248).Westminster was ripe for antiquarian pickingsfollowing the fire that had gutted the palacein 1838, and the massive rebuilding projectstill under way in 1855, and the accounts offurther medieval antiquities give wonderful (andsobering) details of how they were acquired(Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1, 143). Anentire medieval painted panel deriving from thepalace's Painted Chamber was purchased in acellar on the palace site from workmen usingthe proceeds to 'buy liquor'. At the same time,Tudor painted glass could be obtained fromHenry VII's chapel by paying boys to clamberup the exterior water pipes and tease quarriesout! To set academic curiosity at ease in theabbey itself, the stone step between the shrine ofEdward the Confessor and Henry V's tomb wasbroken out to free the previously obscured endof a worn medieval grave slab. What was revealedis really quite beautiful and formed the very firstcolour plate published by LAMAS. It was (so it is

Archaeology in London: annual round-up and news for 1855/6 13Fig 2. Architectural fragments from St John Clerkenwell (Illustrated London News)believed) the memorial of the one time Earl ofPembroke, son of William of Valence, and it wasinlaid with an extraordinary rich glass mosaic.Whether this can in any way be tied to thefabulous Cosmati pavement not a million milesdistant from the slab's location is something Iam not able to tell, although the dates of thecompletion of the pavement (finished 1268)and John de Valence's death (January 1277) aresuggestive (Fig 3).Sharp-eyed antiquarians were also interestedin artefacts. Hugo had obtained a beautiful 14thcenturyivory triptych piece from the Minories,site of the Franciscan nunnery of St Clare, whilethe members of LAMAS were invited to examinea sample of the shroud cloth from the body of aknight whose grave had been discovered duringrepairs to the Temple {Trans London MiddlesexArchaeolSoc 1, 120, 133). Medieval pilgrim badgeswere recovered from the Thames: three leadbadges from London, one showing the Virgin andchild, one a bishop, and one an initial 'T' withChrist crucified, were displayed by Hugo {Proc SocAntiq London 3, 144, 250). The carved figure ofan ecclesiastic in slate was found by Mr Gibbs atWhite Row, Whitechapel (JBAA 10, 190).Secular medieval life was not ignored however.The medieval defences set atop the westernRoman city wall (see above) comprised massivePNorman or Early English work and a laterpassage or window from the medieval Dominicanfriary which took in the site following the westerncity defence extension in the later 13th century.A detailed study of Crosby Hall was includedin the first volume of LAMAS Transactions, andthe foundations of the great mansion knownas Tower Royal (originally a 13th-century winemerchant'smansion, later that of high nobility)were uncovered during excavations along NewCannon Street {JBAA 10, 191). Another Londoninn, the Abbot of Waltham's house near St Maryat-Hill,was the subject of a historical study inArchaeologia (36, 400-17). A fourth great house,Gerrard's (or Gisor's) Hall, about 200m west ofthe Tower Royal, and dating back to the 12thcentury, was also affected by the New CannonStreet road scheme. Its crypt, built c.1290,was carefully dismantled in 1852 in advanceof the building of the new street itself. LikeTite's mosaic, it had been crated and shippedto Sydenham as a gift to the Crystal PalaceCompany, for future display. There it languished

14 Barney SloaneFig 3. 'Knlaid'graveslnh /mm Weslminster Abbeyunreconstructed before being crushed up inthe year of the foundation of IJ^MAS for roadrnetalHng and foundation material for theengine house there {Daily Neius, 17 December1855). Its wasteful fate considerably focusedenergies to found our Society.Secular finds were also considered. SidneySmirke reported on the removal of some'modern' ashlar to restore the old masonry atWestminster Hall: within cavities in the wall hewas surprised to see an immense quantity of smallbones and other detrittis which he supposed hadbeen dragged in by mice and rats living off theleavings of great feasts. Among this detritus wasa fine decorated medieval leather knife sheath(Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Sac 1, 119).Hugo recovered 14th-century horse furniturefrom the Fleet Ditch {Proc Sor Anliq London?>, 136) during the extensive reorganisationof the valley of the River Fleet to permit theconstruction of Farringdon Road, the railway,and the Fleet Sewer. Works here were to go onfor more than a decade, and stretched fromCJerkenwell down to the Citv waterfront.Post-medievalLittle of post-medieval date was reportedupon at this lime, although there were somenotable exceptions. Hugo proved himself anarchaeologist unrestricted b\' period or fashicjn,reporting the excavation of a Russo-(ireektriptych from a grave in llie churciiyard of ChristchurchSpitalfields {Trans London MiddlesexArehneol Sor 1, 133; Arrh journ 12, 186-7), andreminded members of the Royal ArchaeologicalInstitute of a discoveiy of a remarkable silverreliquary found suspended by a chain of silverfrom the neck of a skeleton in St Dunstan FleetStreet in 1831. W Pettit-Griffith presented someTudor terracotta pieces from buildings in StJohn Clerkenwell, and a piece ol plaster ceilingornament from nearby Berkeley House (TransLondon Middlesex Arehaeol Soc 1, 133). Meanwhile,stone cannon balls had been recovered from themoat of the Tower of London, and an armorialset of helmet and gauntlets from West Diavtonchurch, Middlesex (Trans London Middlesex ArchaeolSod, 143-4).

Archaeology in London: annual round-up and news far 1855/6 15The Transactions of the Leicester ArchaeologicalSociety held a report of a singular postmedievalLondon Thames find: at WaterlooBridge was found a plate of copper, I'/ain square,engraved on one side with the words 'JohnWheatley Citizen and Poultirer of London' andon the other with an image of John himself,smoking a pipe at the door to his emporium (LeicsArchaeol Soc Trans 1, 34). The date of this curio isnot clear — perhaps readers could shed light onWheatley for a future Transaction?The final substantial structure is one reportedonly in the newspapers of the day, specificallythe Illustrated London News, and canonly be surmised as being post-medieval— it may indeed be earlier in origin. Thereport actually dates from 14 October1854 (361-2), but readers will forgivethe slight digression. On the corner ofOld Fish Street and Lambeth Hill stooda house, apparently built in 1668, withextensive cellarage. During the cleaningout of these cellars a vaulted two-celledchamber was revealed. The inner, smaller,cell had at its head a 'raised seat' canopiedin part, and stone recesses to either sidesuggestive of cupboards or aumbries.One of these contained a 'marble trough'which the correspondent considered to bea baptismal font for infants. The vaults ofboth cells were 'curiously groined' and thewhole was richly decorated with polishedmarine shells, fragments of antique glass,pieces of quartz and calcareous spar,formed into patterns or devices. Theoverall view of the outer, larger chamberis given (Fig 4). Was this, as the reportersurmised, a secret Catholic chapel of somekind, or is there some other explanation— again, readers might wish to air theirviews to the Editor?public lecture in June of this year (2005)provided a wonderful account of some of thepeople, customs, and places associated with thisfirst year. The origin of the society was, as theGerrard's Hall fiasco exemplified, essentiallyto help protect and preserve the antiquitiesof London from wanton destruction withoutrecord or consideration.Individually, some remarkable antiquarianshad already been fighting a lone battle in thisregard, and there are none so celebrated asRoach Smith. Active for over twenty years in thetsmfMMjaBAnNOTES AND NEWSArchaeology has never been a strangerto controversy, and 1855 and 1856 wereno exceptions. Obviously, the most importantnews was the founding of ourSociety, and the society archives, availableat the London Metropolitan Archive inClerkenwell (Acc/2899/03/), contain aremarkable scrap book of early newspaperarticles relating to the genesis and earlymeetings. Maev Kennedy's fascinatingFig 4. Old Fish Street 'chapel' (Illustrated London News)

16 Barney SloaneCity, from his premises in Lothbury and thenFinsbury Circus, he had collected a renownedmuseum of antiquities covering every periodof occupation of the City. Wishing to ensurethat the collection, well known by antiquariansthroughout Britain and the Continent, andvisited on at least one occasion by royalty in theperson of Prince Albert, should enter publichands rather than be dispersed, Smith hadentered into negotiations with the Corporationof London. The City authorities refused to takeon the collection, as did the British Museum,following subsequent approaches to them. RoachSmith had valued his expenses in gathering thecollection at some £300 but it would appearthat officers in the Antiquities Department ofthe Government considered the worth to be farlower. The issue became a cause celebre, and inJuly 1855 petitions were submitted to the Houseof Commons, and a memo to the Treasury,signed by influentials of the day. On 3 May 1856,the Illustrated London News (from which this briefextract is drawn) was able finally to publish anannouncement that following pressure from theAntiquities Department to the British Museum, asum of £2000 had been agreed for the purchase,lamenting in summation that 'it is much to beregretted that the directors of our national establishmentsshould appreciate so little whateveris really national'! Roach Smith retired fromLondon that year, but his collection survives tothis day (for a fine potted biography of RoachSmith see Hobley in London Archaeologist vol 2 pt13 (1975), 328-33).Members of our Society also had their trialsand tribulations at this time. Our ReverendThomas Hugo was in 1855 very active in theBritish Archaeological Association, and heldoffice on their council. In an alarming andembarrassing affair, he had brought forwardaccusations of a terrible sort against the Association'sTreasurer of the day, apparently relatingto the misappropriation of funds at a certainexcavation. An Extraordinary General Meetingwas convened to consider a motion to removeHugo from office. Factions developed and aconsiderable debate ensued, but the membersdecided outright that the hapless Hugo was guiltyof impugning the name of the Treasurer and hewas ejected from the Association forthwith (JBAA10, 88). It may have been a reporter friend ofone of the anti-Hugo camp who quite viciouslyreported in The Athenaeum in October 1858, onthe failure of the arranged hosts of a LAMASouting to Enfield to appear, that 'the unhappyexcursionists found themselves floundering inthe antiquarian shallows of the Reverend ThomasHugo'! What irony it would be if Hugo's forcedexpulsion from the BAA (no matter whetherdeserved or not) had catalysed his will to establishour own LAMAS?One penultimate piece of news is not (as far asI am aware) London-related, but deserves widercirculation in the light of the current Treasure Actand the associated very positive agreement madeby DCMS to support the Portable AntiquitiesScheme from this year onward. It is tucked awayin the Archaeological Journal (12 (1855), 200), so Ithink it worthy to quote in full:A few weeks since, as a servant was choppingwood, the log of wood which had served fora chopping board for several years suddenlysplit and out flew fifty guineas of the reignsof Charles II and James II. These were atonce sent to the Lords of the Treasury,who, having allowed the British Museum toselect such as were required for the nationalcollection, sent back to the proprietor theremnant and also the amount paid by theMuseum for the selected pieces. It is hopedand believed that the liberality displayedby the Lords of the Treasury upon thisand other occasions will be a means ofpreserving from destruction many objects ofinterest and value.I could not possibly speculate on what the view ofthe DCMS (or indeed of the current Chancellor)would be on a request to return to this Treasuryledapproach, but would very much like to thinkthat in this particular case the largesse shown byHer Majesty's Government found its way in turndown to the lowly woodcutter! Fifty is such anice, round number, is it not?AND FINALLY...Subscription to LAMAS in 1855 was 10/-, or 50pin current parlance. Using the fabulously crudeestimate of 2.5% inflation over the last 150 years,that would according to my calculations equala sum of £20.30. Members should not panic,as Council have no immediate intent to raise itto this dizzying height, but it does demonstratewhat a fantastic bargain membership is in the21st century! Many, many happy returns!!

SOME EARLY LAMAS MEETINGS ANDOUTINGSEileen M BowltSUMMARYIn 2005, LAMAS proclaims its interests as Archaeology,Historic Buildings and Local History'. To celebrate the150th anniversary of LAMAS's inauguration, a programmeof three types of walks has been organised. Onedealing with archaeological matters, along the river fromWestminster; three to look at buildings of historic andarchitectural interest within the Cities of London andWestminster; and four called 'Exploring Middlesex' toRuislip, Harmondsworth, Uxbridge, and Twickenham,covering local history. This short paper shows that the 2005trips were loosely based upon similar ones undertaken in the1850s, 60s and 70s and points to the social and physicalchanges that have occurred in the past 150 years withinthe LAMAS membership and at the sites visited and noteschanged attitudes towards archaeological matters.INAUGURATIONThe inaugural meeting of the London andMiddlesex Archaeological Society was held atCrosby Hall (on its original site in Bishopsgate)(Fig 1) on 14 December 1855, as the result ofthe work of a Provisional Committee set up theprevious July. George Bish Webb, HonorarySecretary of the recently founded Surrey ArchaeologicalSociety and the Rev Thomas Hugo,Vicar of St Botolph's, Bishopsgate (Fig 2), were theleaders in the formation of the new county societyand other committee members were mainly drawnfrom Hugo's friends in the Society of Antiquaries.The Marquis of Salisbury agreed to be Patron andLord Londesborough, President, and it was at thelatter's suggestion that 'London' was inserted intothe title. The Lord Mayor and several Aldermenwere appointed Vice-Presidents to ensure a closeconnection with the Corporation.Eig 1. Crosby Hall, Bishopsgate Street, scene of the inauguralmeeting of the London and Middlesex ArchaeologicalSociety on 14 December 1855 (Erom Watford's 'Old andNew London')17

18 Eileen MBowltFig 2. St Botolph 's, Bishopsgate Street where the Rev Thomas Hugo was vicar 1852-8 (From Walford's 'Old and NewLondon')The objects of the Society were all embracing,'to collect, record and publish information onthe Topography, Ancient Arts and Monumentsof the Cities of London and Westminster and thecounty of Middlesex'; to preserve 'antiquitiesdiscovered in the progress of works, such asExcavations for Railways, Foundations of Buildingsetc'; to prevent injury to monumentsand ancient buildings and to collect accuratedrawings and descriptions of them; and tofound a museum for the reception of works andobjects of archaeological interest connected withLondon and Middlesex.'To fulfil these designs, periodical meetingswere to be held in the Cities of London andWestminster and soon after its foundation theSociety started making excursions to variouslocations in the county. Meetings were alsoheld where communications could be readand antiquities exhibited by members andtheir friends. The appointment of an HonoraryPhotographer, Professor Philip H Delamotte,in March 1856 was a practical step towardsrecording the changing scene. The last officialphotographer was H E Chiosso from 1938-62.At first there was no particular meeting placefor the General Meetings (as opposed to CouncilMeetings). They were held in places where aSociety member either worked or had influence.The first two were held in Crosby Hall and thethird in the French Gallery, Pall Mall.MEMBERS AND THEIR COLLECTIONSMany of the members did indeed have collectionsfrom which objects could be brought tomeetings for exhibition and discussion. SallyBrooks has shown that the membership (191 in1855, rising to 395 in 1857) was drawn mainlyfrom the male middle classes, with about 40%having a professional qualification, amongwhom was a scattering of clergy with antiquarianinterests, who played a particularly large part inthe life of the Society.^ A high proportion were

Some early lA-MAS meetings and outings 19members of other societies, such as the Societyof Antiquaries, as well as LAMAS and many wrotepapers on their special subjects, some of whichwere published in Transactions, the first part ofwhich was issued in June 1856.The Rev Thomas Hugo was the first chairmanand an indefatigable writer of papers on a widerange of subjects and places within London andMiddlesex, from the buildings of the Ward ofBishopsgate at the eastern end of the City toMoorhall at the western extremity of the county.The Rev Charles Boutell, Rector of Norwood,Surrey, served on the Council and presented acopy of his work on monumental brasses to theSociety at the first meeting. He was also an experton heraldry and his work in that field is stillvalued by students. In some ways he was a ratherstrange man. He became Secretary and later leftthe Society, having apparently misappropriated£56 15s of the Society's funds. He went on to dosomething similar at the Surrey ArchaeologicalSociety. Charles Roach Smith, who had beencollecting artefacts ever since finding a Romancoin in his shop till in the 1820s and who isespecially famous for his identification of twoportions of the Julius Classicianus monument(now in the British Museum), had been on theProvisional Committee and later became anhonorary member.Joint Evening Meetings were established bythe councils of LAMAS and the Surrey ArchaeologicalSociety in August 1860, to allow membersto immediately communicate archaeologicaldiscoveries and exhibit artefacts. On Tuesday,18 September 1860, for instance, Barsett SmithEsq FGS exhibited a deed dated 16 June 1635,relating to the Evelyn family, a lead pipe fromOld Broad Street, Roman pottery from Ivy Laneand St Paul's Churchyard, a massive egg-shapedwatch c. 1600s, and two soapstone Chinesesnuff bottles. There was also an account of asubterranean chamber in the grounds of 12Canonbury Place; a coffin with a female skeletonat The Angel, Pentonville Road; a stone coffinat Ironmongers' Hall, Fenchurch Street; some16th-century silver seals, a grant of arms to theHare family and two miniatures of the Harefamily.'^ Objects of all kinds — 17th-centuryengravings of London, stone crosses found inNewgate Street, genealogical notes, for example— were donated to LAMAS on a regular basis."*By 1860, the Society had rooms at St Mildred'sCourt, Poultry, but there were many movesand presumably the donated items went withthem. The library and stock was moved to theBishopsgate Institute in 1910.^Some members displayed their collections athome. George Harris, LL.D, FSA, of the MiddleTemple, built a new house on an ancient site atIslipps, Northolt, which was ready for occupationin 1866. The extract from his diary for 9 June1869 runs:Today we had a large out-of-doors party ofthe Council of the London and MiddlesexArchaeological Society, whom I invited toexplore the objects of interest in this neighbourhood,and to partake of a cold collationon the lawn afterwards. Everything went offcapitally, and the whole thing was a greatsuccess. In the dining-room I had out forinspection my Rembrandts, the engravingsof London and Middlesex, etchings andforeign sketches; in the study my autographs,manuscripts and rare books; and in thebreakfast-room hung up my diagrams ...''The following June almost an exact replica ofthis event was held, but with the Council of theAnthropological Society, of which he becamevice-president, as guests.George Harris was typical of the LAMASmembership of the period. He was a professionalgentleman, with sufficient means to indulge hiswide interests. Although mainly tending to thehistorical, George Harris had a scientific bent aswell and was joint founder of the PsychologicalSociety in 1875. He also had influence. TheHistorical Documents Commission was set upas a result of a deputation to Palmerston, whichhe headed in 1859. He was a keen collector ofantiquities, which he was anxious to displayto those likely to appreciate them. He wasconnected with several learned societies and hadthe confidence to lay his considered ideas beforehis peers. He read a paper on 'The AncientBritons' to The Historical Society in London on12 February 1876. It was the first of a series on'Domestic Everyday Life, Manners and Customsin this Country from the Earliest Period to theEnd of the Last Century'. According to his diarythe paper, which was illustrated with diagrams,was well received and 'a good discussionfollowed'. He laid extracts of some other workbefore Professor Huxley, who considered thatthe questions raised were so large that he wouldhave to set them aside until he was at leisure tolook at them carefully.' He seems to have treatedHarris seriously. He might best be described as agifted amateur.

20 Eileen M BowltIt may be difficult for us to assess the quality ofhis ideas, but his thoughts on the preservation ofancient buildings strike oddly on modern ears.Writing to Matthew Bloxam, author of Principlesof Gothic Architecture, in 1875, he asks 'is therelikely to be anything done about the rebuildingof the parish church, and are you disposed togive a plan for it? What say you to preservingthe tower and adding a Norman church to it?I should like to have the design by you, andwould in that case do what I could to organisea committee in London to raise subscriptions'.®The church in question can hardly be St Mary's,Northolt, as there was no tower there, only a bellturret added to the medieval chancel in the 16thcentury.HISTORIC BUILDINGSAt the first Council meeting there was a reportby the Rev Charles Boutell on the mutilatedcondition of some ancient statues at the westernend of Westminster Hall and the loss of othersduring cleaning.^ The chairman agreed to makerepresentations to Sir Charles Barry who wassupervising the slow rebuilding of the Palaceof Westminster after the 1834 fire. A letter wassent in January 1856. The Society had begun itsefforts at the preservation of ancient buildings.(The Society for the Protection of AncientBuildings was not founded until 1877.)The recording of London buildings wasbecoming essential in the 1850s as much of thelate medieval and Tudor built heritage was fastbeing torn down as sewers, railways, and wideroads were being planned and built. The RevThomas Hugo who lived in Bishopsgate Streetwas aware that many of the timber-framedbuildings in that corner of the City would soondisappear. He read a paper to the Society on 18February 1857 at the Gallery of British Artists,Suffolk Street, called an 'Itinerary of the Wardof Bishopsgate', describing in detail the housesin all the streets and alleys. His purpose was to'preserve the remembrance of edifices which thecrowbar and the shovel are daily annihilating'.'Ît is not clear whether he had also led a grouparound the ward, but he had obviously workedout an itinerary for himself. When the paperappeared in Transactions}^ it was embellishedwith many engravings of the decorative andarchitectural details of such buildings as Sir PaulPindar's house (Fig 3), parts of which are now inthe V&A.Fig 3. A view of Sir Paul Pindar's house when it was aninn (From Walford's 'Old and Neiv London')MEETING CUM OUTINGS(LOCAL HISTORY)The early outings were in fact General Meetingsand Annual General Meetings held at variousvenues of historic interest. They were usuallyheld on weekdays and occupied most of theday, a reflection on the fairly leisured life styleof many members. The costs covering transportand either tea or dinner were in the order of 6shillings, again perhaps reflecting the social andfinancial standing of the members. Subscriptionshad begun at 10 shillings per annum, but hadrisen to one guinea, plus a 10 shillings entryfee. In January 1856 local Honorary Secretarieswere appointed for the principal towns in thecounty, perhaps with the object of arousing localinterest and facilitating such meetings. Mr PThompson offered to be local secretary for StokeNewington.The meetings were not for the faint heartedas they usually involved the reading of severallearned papers, followed by a sometimes stren-

Some early LAMAS meetings and outings 21uous examination of the site, leavened by acollation of some kind at the end.The first AGM was held on Thursday, 27 July1856 at the Architectural Museum, Cannon Row,Westminster'^ where Lord Robert Grosvenor wasin the chair. The company then proceeded tothe Abbey where George Gilbert Scott Esq (theeminent architect knighted in 1872) addressedthe members on the architectural peculiaritiesof the structure and the Rev Charles Boutell, MAdescribed the most important and interestingof the monuments. 'Every part of the Abbey,from crypt to triforium, was successively visited;and some of the party, including several fairarchaeologists, followed their conductors to thevery roof of the edifice.''^ By a special favourthe party had entered the Abbey through thegreat West doors, which had been opened forthe first time since Queen Victoria's coronation!In the evening the party reassembled at theArchitectural Museum to hear a paper on 'RegalHeraldic Badges', read by Dr Bell, and one onearlier structures at Westminster by the RevThomas Hugo.''*Four years later on Thursday, 25 October 1860members went there again and were treated tofour papers — on the library, ancient bindings inthe library, an ancient organ, and discoveries inthe Treasury. An inspection of the Abbey churchfollowed with a paper on 'The Monuments as aMuseum of Sculpture' and one on the Order ofthe Bath at the Henry VII chapel. After afternoonservice the architecture and decoration of theChapter House (Fig 4) was described, followedby a visit to the Jerusalem Chamber, where theRev Thomas Hugo obliged with another paper.After this marathon a welcome dinner followedat The King's Arms Hotel in New Palace Yard,where George Gilbert Scott took the chair,supported by the Dean of Westminster and 'anumerous party'. The cost on this occasion was 4shillings for tickets in advance or 7 shillings and6 pence on the day.'"'On 21 July 1857 between 700 and 800 peopleattended a meeting at the Tower of London ona Tuesday. There must have been many 'friends'present as the membership stood at only 395 atthis time. Perhaps the greater number of themwere members' wives. The Society admittedwomen from the start, but there were rarelymore than eight or nine in the early years. Evenso newspaper accounts of meetings mention thatthe ladies were occasionally more numerousthan the men."' The Rev Thomas Hugo readhis paper on 'The History and Topography ofthe Tower'. Then the company was divided intoten groups, each in the charge of a warder whoconducted them to various parts of the Tower,where a member of Council was waiting to actas guide. Mr F W Fairhurst was stationed at theHorse Armoury, Mr Alfred White at the Chapelof St John, the Rev Thomas Hugo in the CouncilChamber, Mr Charles Baily at the BeauchampTower, Mr Deputy Lott at the Wakefield Tower,Professor Tennant and Mr Garrard at the JewelTower, the Rev Henry Christmas at Traitors'Gate, and the Rev Charles Boutell at St Peter adVincula. The write-up in Transactions mentionedthat 'each had to tell his story ten times over'.''^When venturing further afield the Societyorganised trips by special train. In October 1857,again on a weekday, 'members accompanied byseveral hundred guests', went to Hampton Court,where, once again, the Rev Thomas Hugo beganthe day's activities by giving a lecture in theGreat Hall and 'afterwards conducted the partyto every part of the palace where anything wasseen worthy of notice'. 'The Society having thusbrought its labours to a close the Rev Chairmaninformed the meeting that the Committeewhile catering to the best of their ability forthe intellectual had not forgotten the physicalman, but had entered into an arrangement withthe proprietor of the Prince of Wales Hotel toprovide dinner at 5 o'clock, an announcementthat was most cordially received. The partyreturned to London by special train'.'Ânother special train started from Paddingtonon the 9 August 1864, stopping at Hayes,Harlington, Cranford, and Heston. In each placethe church was examined and at Harlington thestained glass in the Rectory staircase as well. MrAlfred White spoke about the monuments atHarlington and Cranford, where the rector alsoproduced the parish registers. Mr W H Blackexplained the sepulchral monuments at Hestonand Hayes. The Rev Thomas Hugo as usual madehis mark by reading a memoir on Moorhall,Harefield, which had been visited three yearsearlier. 'The company then adjourned to thenew schoolroom kindly lent for the purpose bythe rector, where ample justice was done to ahandsome collation which terminated the day'sproceedings.''^General meetings held in more rural parts ofMiddlesex were often arranged in conjunctionwith local clergymen, who lent schoolroomsand sometimes their houses as a venue for

22 Eileen M BowltFig 4. The Chapter House at Westminster Abbey before its restoration: George Gilbert Scott had discovered the floor tobe composed of parchment documents trodden into a mass (From Walford 's 'Old and New London')the reading of the necessary papers and wereclearly organised by LAMAS members (usuallyCouncil members) who had connections withthe locality. The vicar of Enfield, Rev JohnMoore Heath, was away from home in 1858,but graciously permitted members to use thevicarage, where his collection of the works ofearly Netherlandish and German masters in oilpaintings was displayed. John Gough Nicholsread a paper on Richard Gough, director of theSociety of Antiquaries, who had been a residentof Enfield in the 18th century. The Rev ThomasHugo and Mr John Tuff also contributed paperson the principle historic sites and antiquitiesof the neighbourhood. Visits were made to thechurch, the grammar school, and the palace.At Bedfont church, visited in the course of atrip from Staines to Laleham church, Littletonchurch, Littleton House, and the church andLord Knyvett's Free School at Stanwell, theparty were lucky enough to see wall paintingsjust discovered during works to enlarge thebuilding.So far as the places which LAMAS revisitedin 2005 are concerned, Ruislip, Uxbridge,and Harmondsworth were included in longer

Some early LAMAS meetings and outings 23Fig 5. St Margaret's Church and the Market Hall, Uxbridge, visited by LAMAS members on Friday, 23 August 1861itineraries, sometimes so long that one canscarcely credit that so much was accomplishedin one day. Members assembled at noon onFriday, 23 August 1861 at the Market Room inUxbridge, where the Rev G Parker Price, vicar ofSt Margaret's, Uxbridge (Fig 5), took the chairand later read a paper on the Uxbridge Treaty of1844. Mr C J Shoppee, who had been responsiblein part for the restoration of St Margaret's,showed some antiquities and curiosities fromthe neighbourhood, including 17th-centurytrade tokens. He was an architect and surveyor,living in Doughty Street at this time, but he hadbeen born in Uxbridge where his father was abuilder. Other papers were by George Eves onthe antiquities of Uxbridge and Mr W DurrantCooper FSA on some former inhabitants ofthe town, and Mr Woodbridge exhibited theUxbridge Panorama dated c.1800. Mr Eves wasanother architect and surveyor and lived inUxbridge until his death in 1892. Mr Woodbridgewas a member of a family of solicitors (still inexistence) who lived in an 18th-century housein Uxbridge High Street. Visits were paid to StMargaret's and to the Treaty House.The party then went in carriages to DenhamChurch, and thence to Harefield, inspectingMoorhall en route (Fig 6). The Rev C T Weatherlytalked about the manor and church of Harefieldand there was a paper on the armour in thechurch by Mr C T Baily. The group then movedon to Ruislip church to hear a paper on themonuments there by Alfred White of WestDrayton. A call at Swakeleys in Ickenham wasunproductive as there was no one to show themaround, so the whole party returned to Uxbridgeto have dinner at the Market Hall.Harmondsworth and West Drayton were visitedtogether on 4 September 1872. The church andGreat Barn at Harmondsworth (Fig 7) were viewedand papers read by A White and A Hartshorne.Twickenham does not seem to have featuredamong the visits.THEN AND NOWThis year, 2005, the outings concentrated on oneplace at a time, rather than a long itinerary. Onewonders how cursory some of the visits must havebeen. This year the Market Hall, St Margaret's

24 Eileen M Bowlt.^^.Fig 6. Moorhall, Harefield, photographed in 1911. These buildings were owned by the Knights Hospitallers of St John ofJerusalem until the Reformation. The 13th-century flint hall on the left became a bam and the hall house on the right, datingin part from the early 14th century, became a farmhouse. The house was burnt down in 1922 and the bam was demolishedby order of the local authority in 1961.and the Treaty House featured on the Uxbridgetrip. The Panorama and the 17th-centurytrade tokens were displayed in the library, butthere was no time to visit Denham, Moorhall,Harefield, Ruislip, and Swakeleys as well.One reason for this change is that ourpredecessors concentrated their studies upon'important' buildings and 'notable' inhabitantsof the various neighbourhoods and had lessinterest in early economies and ways of hfe thanwe have. Although there was a great desire tosee artefacts, little attempt was made to placethem in context. With recent developmentsin both archaeology and local history, there isnow much more to appreciate about the markettown of Uxbridge than was then realised. Muchhas been lost there in the way of timber-framedbuildings, but much has been discovered byarchaeologists. 'Digs' between the River Colneand the Canal and behind the High Street inrecent years have revealed important prehistoricsites, including the nationally important ThreeWays Wharf Upper Palaeolithic site, and themedieval layout of the burgage holdings. Manyof the timber-framed buildings in Cross Streetand in the alleys off the High Street were notin good condition in Victorian times, had neverbeen of high status, and were little more thanslums in 1861 and therefore did not catch theattention of antiquarians.Similiarly with Ruislip the historically importantbuildings at Manor Farm, such as the GreatBarn (dendrochronological date 1293), andthe earthworks now scheduled as an ancient

Some early LAMAS meetings and outings 25Fig 7. The Great Bam at Harmondsworth (now under threat from the third runway at Heathrow) as it was in the 1880s.It was built for Winchester College in 1424-6. LAMAS has written to the relevant authorities protesting about the likelydestruction of this part of our heritagemonument, were part of a working farm until1932 and simply not considered as worthy ofnote. Ruislip Woods in 1861 contributed tothe income of many poor households, wherethe women and children were employed in themaking of bundles of kindlewood and the menworked at coppicing the hornbeam and makingbundles of pea and bean sticks. Gamekeeperscontrolled the woodlands for the productionof game birds for the sporting estates based onEastcote House and Haydon Hall, so there wasno easy public access. The embankment of the'Park for woodland animals' mentioned in theDomesday Book was therefore ignored at thattime. Not so in 2005, when LAMAS membersdid indeed go to the church, which is still wortha visit, but spent even more time looking at thestructure of the Great Barn and other buildings.After a lunch break (the party had to find theirown collation) members went through ParkWood to see the Domesday Park embankment.However, the larger, but younger Great Barn atHarmondsworth, did get attention even in 1872.The membership of LAMAS has also changed.The membership is larger now than it ever was inthe 19th century — 690 members on the registerin April 2005.^" Male and female numbers aremore equal, but males are still predominant.The figures for single members are 305 menand 180 women. There are 45 joint members (90people), but they do not split into half male, halffemale. There are also 26 'doctors' and one 'rev'of unknown sex, and 133 corporate members(including affiliated local societies) .^^Members tend to live further out from thecentre of London than was the case in the 1850s,a trend that was noticeable in the later 19thcentury. Sally Brooks found that in 1857 just over10% of members had an address outside theLondon postal districts, but the percentage hadrisen to c.27% in 1906.^2Although early Transactions were filled with adiversity of papers, they were actually written bya fairly small active group, who mostly served on

26 Eileen M BowltCouncil and organised the outings as well. Thegrowth of archaeology as a profession and theclose association of LAMAS with the Museumof London have meant that recent Transactionscontain papers based on scientific method andmostly written by professionals. In that area ofLAMAS's interests at least the day of the giftedamateur seems to be over. The proliferation ofsocieties devoted to the study of local historyall over the Cities of London and Westminsterand the former county of Middlesex has led tothose studies mainly being published outsideTransactions.Nevertheless LAMAS continues to act as anumbrella organisation and provides a forumfor both archaeologists and local historians withits annual conferences. The Rev Thomas Hugowould surely have loved to preside over themand to have contributed a paper or two!NOTESTrans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1.2 S A Brooks 'L.A.M.A.S. - A Victorian establishment'Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 36 (1985),203-22^ London Metropolitan Archive: Ace 2899: EveningMeetings Book."* LMA: Ace 2899: Minute Book 1.•'' ibid: Minute Books 2 and 3.Ealing Central library: George Harris LL.D, FSA1809-1890, printed for private circulation, London1888.ibid.* ibid.^ LMA: Ace 2899: Minute Book 1.Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1." ibid.^^ The Architectural Museum was formed in 1852,mainly through the efforts of George Gilbert Scott, inthe loft of a wharf at Cannon Row. The artefacts weremoved to the South Kensington Museum in 1856 andwere absorbed into the V & A collection.Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1.14 ibid.15 ibid.^^ Brooks op cit (note 2).Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 1.18 ibid.Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 2.Communication from Patricia Clarke, SubscriptionsSecretary, 18 April 2005.^1 ut supra." Brooks op cit (note 2).

'THE LESSE SET BY': AN EARLYREFERENCE TO THE SITE OF MIDDLESAXON LONDON?Robert L WhyteheadAnd, in the ende of the same yere, a greteparte of the cytie of London was wastedwith fyre; but howe it began myne auctourmyndeth nat. But ye shal understande that,at this day, the cytie of London had mostehowsynge and buyldynge from Ludgatetowarde Westmester; and lytell or nonewhere the chefe or herte of ye cytie is nowe,except, in dyvers places, was howsynge,but they stode without ordre; so ye manytownes & cities, as Caunterbury, Yorke, andother dyvers in Englande passed Londonin buyldynge at those dayes, as I have seenor knowen by an olde boke sometime inye Guyldehall of London, named Domysdaye: but after the conquest it encreaced,and shortly after passed and excelled all theother.Entry for AD 982, from Robert Fabian's Chronicle,first published by Pynson in 1516, of his authorityhe also comments:Theyse [a list of Portreeves], of olde tyme,with the lawys & customys than used withinthis cytie, were regestryd in a boke calledthe Domysday, in Saxon tunge than used:but in later dayes, when the sayd lawesand customes alteryd and chaunged, & forconsideracion also that the sayd boke wasof small hande, & sore defaced, it was thelesse set by, so that it was enbesylyd, or loste;(Prologue to Part 2)^This tantalising reference to the site of SaxonLondon has caused historians considerabledifficulties in interpretation ever since, thoughoften repeated. Although we can now showfrom archaeological evidence that Fabian wasin essence correct about the location of theMiddle Saxon city, by appending his statementto an episode in AD 982, some 100 years afterAlfred is said to have restored the walled area, hepresented great problems in its resolution.For historians and archaeologists studyingSaxon London the few documentary referencesto it, coupled for many years with a paucity ofarchaeological evidence, left much open toconjecture. There was a natural assumption thatthe Saxon town would have been establishedwithin the protection of the City walls {eg Page1929; Eades 1966). Those historians keen tochampion the rights and freedoms of the Cityof London even felt the need to demonstratecontinuity of occupation from the Roman periodto the present day (Loftie 1892), although othersconsidered a break in occupation from themid-5th century to the later 6th century to beacceptable (Besant 1908, 142-3).The few key primary documentary sourcesfor Middle Saxon London appear to refer to athriving town, one where in AD 604 Augustinemight appoint a bishop, and which could expelhim in AD 617. Many of the sources in the 7thand 8th centuries refer to trade, exemption fromtolls, and the mention of regulation of tradethrough a 'wic-reeve' for the men of Kent in theLaws of Hlothere and Eadric (AD 673/685); aswell as Bede's oft-quoted description of Londonas 'an emporium for many nations who come to itby land and sea' (written c.AD 730, in referenceto the events of AD 604). More dramatic were thethree disastrous fires, in AD 764, 798, and 801,and the Danish attacks of AD 842, 851, 871-2,and 886 (for summary of documentary sources.27

28 Robert L Whyteheadincluding coins: Cowie in Malcolm & Bowsher2003, 198-201).Yet archaeological finds from the walled area, oroutside it, were sparse, and few were attributableto the Middle Saxon period. Vulliamy commentedthat 'the archaeological evidence of a peacefuloccupation of the site of London during the earlySaxon period is pitifully meagre, while some ofthe objects mentioned above were not foundwithin the walls of the City' (Vulliamy 1930, 233).In Wheeler's view 'archaeologically the cultureof sub-Roman Britain ... is largely negative incharacter; i.e. on non-Saxon sites known tohave been occupied in the 5th or 6th centuries,little that can be regarded as distinctive of thosecenturies has come to light'; but he countedsome thirteen relics of the period AD 400-850within the City west of the Walbrook, and threeto the east (Wheeler 1935, 104). Merrifield'slater summation of the archaeological evidencefrom the City, with the redating of earlier finds,however, left little hope of finding the Saxonemporium there (Merrifield 1983, 236-68). Anextensive search of the basement of the Museumof London caused Vince to posit the location ofMiddle Saxon London, on the basis of some 17findspots, admitting that 'the total quantity offinds ... discovered to date is very small', and alack of stray finds of sceattas such as were madeat the site of Hamwic (Saxon Southampton), yetcontrasting these with the few finds from theCity and the absence of coins there. He alsodrew on the 'Aldwych' placename (Vince 1983;1984). Biddle developed this theme, reassessingthe documentary evidence in light of the findsevidence (Biddle 1984). Thus the scene wasset for the first excavations of Lundenwic, some500 years after its location was apparently firstdescribed.Robert Fabian was born in London, dateunknown, to John and Agnes Fabian (a JohnFabyan of Coggeshall, Essex left a will dated 1477).He became a member of the Drapers' Company,and was an Alderman for Farringdon Without,and Sheriff of London 1493, but resigned asAlderman in 1502, pleading poverty, to avoid thecost of the mayoralty. He may have then retiredto his mansion, Halstedys, at Therdon Gernon inEssex, to complete his Chronicle; he died thereon 28 February 1513. He left a detailed will, hisbeneficiaries being his wife Elizabeth (who borehim 16 children) and five surviving children,four sons and a daughter.Âs an Alderman of the City of London Fabianwould have had privileged access to the recordsof the Corporation, that apparently includeda 'Domysdaye' book; and also possibly othersources that may not have come down to us,such as: 'an olde regestre within the churcheof Paulis of London, wherin is conteyned manythynges concernynge the firste foundacion ofthat churche, with certain olde cronicles ofthis lande...' (Ellis 1811, 111). Fabian is said tohave been fluent in French and Latin, and forthe First Part of his Chronicle drew largely onexisting manuscript Chronicles, of the historiesof both England and France, including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The Second Part commencesin the reign of Richard 1, from which time hecan list the Aldermen of London for each year,and tie his history to that of the government ofLondon.''Fabian's first work, that he termed 'TheConcordance of Chronicles', was completedin manuscript in 1485, although he appearsto have made further additions up to 1512.Fabian's Chronicle was the first to be printed— by Richard Pynson in 1516, who used the 1485manuscript, and called it 'The New Chroniclesof England and France' (Kingsford 1908, 306);further editions followed — in 1533, withadditions to 1508, printed by William Rastell; athird, much edited, edition in 1542, publishedby Reynes, Bonham et al; and in 1559 a restorededition, continued to that date, by Kingston(Ellis 1811, preface; Flenley 1911, 38-40).Subsequent Chronicles drew heavily on theirpredecessors, not least Fabian's editions, thusJohn Stow, in his Annales or A Generall Chronicle ofEngland, reproduced Fabian's entry for AD 982,and the fact that most buildings stood betweenLudgate and Westminster, without comment(Stow 1631-2, 86). In his Survey of London Stownoted that Fabian had access to a Domesdayfor London (Kingsford 1908, II, 147); but inhis Chronicle he also compared William I's 'Rollof Winton' (Wilton), named Domesday, withanother 'Such a role and very like, did KingAelfred once let forth, in which he taxed all theland of England' (Stow 1631-2, 118).John Norden in his Speculum Britanniaerepeated Fabian's entry for AD 982, and impliedthat the reference to a lack of housing in thewalled city was the result of the fire destruction(Norden 1723, 28). He also mentioned an'Ancient high way to High Barnet from PortePoole, now Gray's Inn, through a lane eastof Pancras Church called "Longwich Lane"'

'The Lesse Set By': an early reference to the site of Middle Saxon London I 29(Norden 1723, 15). Maitland, too, paraphrasedFabian, only referring to the 'Greatest part ofthe buildings being without Ludgate' and not'towards Westminster'. He was anxious to provethat London at that date had not slipped in sizeof population in comparison to other towns, andpointed to the number of moneyers allotted tothe City under Athelstan, being twice that ofany town, including Winchester (Maitland 1V75,34).Lambert, who, in his four-volume Historypublished in 1808, avowedly 'omitted nothinginteresting in the expensive works of Stowe,Strype, and Maitland', presented a traditionalchronicle of events and included Fabian'sreference to the location of London in AD 982(Lambert 1806, 30). More critical was Mackay(1838), who followed Fabian's account (afterStow) and commented: 'Stowe, in narrating thisevent, gives a brief description of London as itthen existed, which is rather curious' (Mackay1838, 15). Wheatley (1904), too, found it a'remarkable statement' (Wheatley 1904, 10); butneither knew what to make of it.Colonel Prideaux (1898) made a furthercontribution to understanding the location ofSaxon London. He stated that, south of GreatQueen Street 'the district in former times wasgenerally co-extensive with the area of what wasperhaps the oldest suburb of London, the villageof Ealdwic or Aldwic, known later as Aldewych,and of which, so late as the days of the Stuarts,some vestiges remained in Oldwich Close, anopen space which lay to the south of Lincoln'sInn Fields. This village in the tenth century waslargely colonised by the Danes, after whom theneighbouring church of St Clement was named.The high road of the village, which connected itwith the Hospital of St Giles was known as the Viade Aldwych, and is represented by the modernDrury Lane, with the exception of the southeast extremity, which led to the Holy Well of StClement, and the name of which still survives inWych Street' (Prideaux 1898, 81; no sources arecited). Further to this, Gomme suggested thatthere may be significance in the archaic practiceof paying manorial dues at the site of a stonecross which stood in the Strand opposite whereSomerset House is now, and that the Strand wasalso the location for the Maypole (Gomme 1912,99-102). In addition Sir W Besant is quotedin An Encyclopedia of London to the effect thatthere was once an 'Aldewych Cross' of stone atthe north-east end of Drury Lane; it stated thatOldwych Close was later known as White HartClose (Kent 1937, 6).The first entire book devoted to London beforethe Conquest, by W R Lethaby (1902), took atopographical approach to the subject. He toofound Fabian's location of London 'curious', andrationalised it as referring for its authority to theDomesday of 1087, when he believed there was asuburb to the west of the City, around St ClementDane's church, given support by FitzStephen'sstatement that 'the Palace of Westminster wasjoined to the city by a populous suburb' (hisitalics). He goes on; 'The early existence of thissuburb would explain satisfactorily the name ofWestminster, and possibly its origin' (Lethaby1902, 112-13).Subsequent writers reinforced the idea of aDanish suburb around their church, Gordonquoted Fabian and stated: 'that the Danes hada settlement here is incontestable' (Gordon1903, 49). Besant referred to 'memories ofDanish settlement around St Clement Danes'(Besant 1908, 194). Gomme, keen to promotethe independence of London, believed thatthe Danish settlement lay outside the City walls,unlike, as he pointed out, Rochester or Dublin,through the strength of its citizens derived from'the power of Roman London', that kept bothAnglo-Saxon kings and Danes at bay (Gomme1914, 126-9). He asserted that for the Danes'Aldwych stood for them as London, was in facttheir London' (Gomme 1914, 113). He it waswho suggested the name 'Aldwych' when thatroad was constructed (Kent 1937, 6).*What references we have are to the church ofthe Danes: a story of the time of Edward Confessorthat Siward killed Tosti, Earl of Huntingdon, andhis men who were buried near London, in a fieldwhere a memorial church was constructed; in theChertsey Register, that Danes who had attackedChertsey Abbey were subsequently slain 'at theplace which is called the church of the Danes';the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle account of Harold I'sbody being reburied at the church (Vince 1990,63); and possibly an event in the JomsvikingaSaga when Danes who had gathered unarmedfor a church service were massacred (Lethaby1902, 113-14). The street by St Clement Daneschurch was called 'Dencheman's Street' in the13th century, but this need refer only to thechurch and not necessarily a suburb (Wheeler1927, 15-17).Wheeler sought a division within the walledcity: 'the new Saxon town of St Paul's and the

30 Robert L Whyteheadold Roman city (shall we say) of St Peter's layside-by-side, essentially distinct from each other,with the Walbrook between them' (Wheeler1934, 301; Myres 1934; Wheeler 1934). Wheelerrelied heavily on William Page's study of earlyLondon, the only London history he appearsto have consulted, and one that consideredvery little outside the City walls (Page 1929).^Nevertheless he interpreted four loomweights,a round bottomed pot, and an Ipswich Warerimsherd with stamped decoration, from theSavoy, as probably derived from a sunken-flooredhut, and stated that: 'On general grounds it isunlikely that the Savoy hut stood alone. We maysuppose that the riverside strip of gravel whichlater bore a string of palaces between the Cityand Westminster was already occupied by groupsof huts or houses in Saxon times' (Wheeler 1935,141). The idea of farmsteads adjacent to theCity was reinforced by the EPNS Middlesex thatrendered the variants on Aldwych, from Vetusvicus (1199) to Adwych (1551) as 'The old dairyfarm' (Cover et al 1942, 166).Ivimey described Fabian's statement as 'remarkableinformation': 'A glimpse of the actualappearance of London in 981 ... though whatthe sources of his information were so longafter the event is not quite clear ... Perhaps — ifthis is not all merely so much nonsense — the"houseinge towards Westminstre" refers to theDanish settlement at Aldwych and the Saxonvillage of Charing'. He speculated what the stateof the City would have been at that time, andwhat traces of Roman London 'had survivedthe unhandy and uncivic Saxons' (Ivimey 1937,38-9). In the same year An Encyclopedia of Londondeveloped the concept of a Danish suburb,stating that Alfred the Great, having wrestedLondon from the Danes, 'allotted territoryfor their occupation outside the City' (Kent1937, 6). It cited Fleetwood, recorder to LordBurghley: 'who may have had some authority,now vanished, said that when the Danes weredriven out of England, those who had marriedEnglish women were ordered by Alfred the Greatto dwell between the Isle of Thorney and CaerLud (Ludgate) and there erected a place ofdevotion called "Ecclesia dementis Danorum"'(Strype 1720, vol 4, 113).Post-World War II, excavations in the Cityinitially raised hopes that Middle Saxon Londonmight yet be found there. Grimes's descriptionof 'hut-pits' at Cannon Street, Bucklersbury,and Addle Street demonstrated what carefulexcavation might reveal. Comparisons weredrawn with sunken-featured buildings at SuttonCourtenay (Oxon) and Bourton-on-the-Water(Glos), but the huts at Cannon Street at leasthad to be dated to the Late Saxon period, as theothers have been subsequently (Grimes 1968,153-60). Grimes asserted that the absence ofevidence for what he called 'the "lost" centuries',the 5th-6th centuries AD, was 'one of theoutstanding negative results of the ExcavationCouncil's work over more than sixteen years'.This 'appeared to corroborate the view thatLondon was indeed largely unoccupied', andraised a 'puzzling ... contradiction that itembodies with the situation in London ... asimplied by the records'. He speculated 'that thearea of early Saxon occupation was much lessextensive than has been thought' (Grimes 1968,153-4).Dolley's study of coin hoards from the Londonarea showed that those from the City are datedto the reign of Alfred or later; however he sawthe earlier coin hoards, including three from theimmediate vicinity of the City in the Strand area,as part of a string of hoards along the Thames(Dolley 1960, 41-3). He pointed to the apparentdistinction in Anglo-Saxon London 'as a wic aswell as a burh, a place of commerce as well as amilitary stronghold' (ibid, 45, with n 53, 50).Green's discovery of a Middle Saxon sunkenbuilding and subsequent timber hall in Whitehallwas added to the number of apparentfarms of that date identified along the Thames(Green 1963, 1004-7). Haslam pointed to thesimilarities between the Saxon ceramics found atthe Whitehall site and those found, redeposited,at Arundel House on the Strand. He suggestedthat from these finds, together with those fromthe Savoy and Whitehall: 'A pattern emerges...indecisive in its details, of a series of settlementsor farms situated at intervals along the dry ridgeforming the north bank of the river betweenthe City and Westminster' (Haslam 1975,221-2). Hurst's review of the evidence, in thelight of recent research on the Continent andat Winchester, posited a cathedral and royalcomplex 'around which were clustered scatteredthanes' establishments', probably in the vicinityof St Paul's. 'That settlement was by no meansconfined to the area of the Roman city is shownby the finding of Saxon farms at Arundel House,the Savoy and Whitehall which suggests a widelyscattered settlement along the Thames withsuitable access to the River'. He also pointed

'The Lesse Set By': an early reference to the site of Middle Saxon London ? 31to the comparative archaeological evidencefrom the two excavated large urban centres atHamwih and Ipswich, centres of trade with theContinent, and the potential of the unexcavatedsite at Fordwich. He did not believe, on thebasis of existing archaeological evidence, thatLondon became a fully urban centre until the10th century (Hurst 1976).Biddle drew attention to the significance ofthe -wic place-name ending, both in Englandand on the Continent, in light of the excavationsat Hamwih. In particular he pointed to thosethat lay outside Roman walled places, on thecoast or beside rivers, and appear to havebeen undefended, but related to some othersettlement inland, such as Hamwih to Winchester,and Fordwich to Canterbury (Biddle 1976, 114-16). However in the cases of London and York hebelieved that the Roman walled areas would haveprotected the later trading towns, despite whathe called the 'current poverty of archaeologicalevidence relating to seventh-, eight- and ninthcenturyLondon' which was 'negligible' {ibid,116).Riddle's and Vince's reassessments of the evidencefor the location of Middle Saxon Londonin 1984, followed by excavations from 1985, havegone some way to clarifying Fabian's crypticcomments that earlier historians grappled with.What can we make of Fabian's account in thelight of current knowledge? His descriptionof 'the city of London' having most housingbetween Ludgate and Westminster would fit withwhat can be discerned from the archaeologicalevidence, principally from the Covent Gardenarea, for a town that reached its greatest extentin the mid- to late 8th century (Blackmore 1997,127). Occupation evidence has been found fromthe National Gallery in the west to the Templein the east, from Shorts Gardens in the north tobelow the Strand, and Whitehall, to the south.The paucity of excavated evidence for occupationin the City at this period would reflect the lack ofhousing 'little or none ... stood without order',although documentary evidence would suggesta Royal palace and chapel, possibly aldermens'residences (Vince 1990, 50-7), and of course StPaul's, and other churches (Vince 1990, 58-76).The lack of order described in that settlementmay be an implied contrast with the systematiclayout of Lundenwic now apparent from theRoyal Opera House excavations (Malcolm &Bowsher2003, 145-8).There is the difficulty of Fabian's entry beingascribed to AD 982. It is believed from theexcavated evidence that the trading city alongthe Strand had been severely reduced by thelate 9th century, as a result of Danish attacks,the surviving populace possibly taking advantageof the 'restoration' of the walled area by Alfred.There is little sign of occupation, at least fromthe excavations in the Covent Garden area,into the late 9th century, let alone the 10th(Malcolm & Bowsher 2003, 141-3; Leary et al2004, 144-5), although Alfred's interventionin London may not have been as welcome aspartisan contemporary accounts suggest, and theresettlement of the walled area may have takensome time to achieve (Dyson 1990, 99-110).Perhaps Fabian does characterise the City in AD982, after a disastrous fire, which only a Danish'suburb' escaped. Little excavation of survivingSaxon levels has taken place near St ClementDanes, but distinctive 'Danish' artefacts havenot yet been identified to support the idea of asubstantial Danish suburb around the church.Nor has evidence for a disastrous fire of thatdate been found within the City walls, althoughfire damage is apparent in the Royal OperaHouse excavations (Malcolm & Bowsher 2003,156) that can be associated with the 8th-centurydocumentary evidence. To what extent a Danishsuburb might have grown up around St ClementDanes, from what date, and in what politicalcontext is uncertain. Tatton-Brown favouredan early 11th-century foundation date for StClement Danes, in Cnut's reign, in what mighthave been an open market area for the MiddleSaxon town (Tatton-Brown 1986, 25). Brookeand Keir associate St Bride (Fleet Street) andSt Clement of the Danes, suggesting they servedthe area 'over which settlement was spreadingfastest in the Viking period, in the late tenth andeleventh centuries' (Brooke & Keir 1975, 140).Could Fabian have appended his statement totoo late an entry for a fire of London, and shouldhe instead have related it earlier in his Chronicle,in respect of one of the later 8th-century fires?Just as it seems probable that Bede's descriptionof London as an emporium would better relateto London at the time he was writing in AD 730,than as early as the events of AD 604 which he wasrecounting.Fabian's authority for his statement, referenceto a lost Saxon Domesday, is intriguing. Couldthis have been the Alfredian Domesday surveyto which Stow refers? If so, of course, it mustdescribe London some one hundred years

32 Robert L Whyteheadbefore Fabian's Chronicle entry. Studies of theNorman Domesday show that it must have beenbased on pre-existing surveys for assessment ofgeld (Harvey 1971, 753-73), including those ofmonastic estates (Clarke 1985, 55). The practiceof recording estates, with origins in the LateRoman Empire, seems to have revived in the9th century on the Continent, possibly due tothe influence of Charlemagne (Perceval 1985,13-16). Could Alfred have been inspired tocompile such a survey through his connectionswith Charlemagne? From his description,Fabian's source appears more like a 'doom', thatis a collection of laws (such as those of Hlothereand Eadric mentioned above, or the Ordinancesof Athelstan's reign AD 924-940 (Vince 1990,104-5)). It is, however, difficult to know whattopographical information such a source mighthave contained.In retrospect, Fabian's Chronicle entry mighthave helped resolve the 'enigma' (Cowie &Whytehead 1988, 75) of Middle Saxon Londonrather sooner than it was, and points to thepotential value of combining both primary andsecondary historical material with archaeologicalevidence.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank the staff of the Guildhall Library,Corporation of London, and English Heritage, SavileRow, Library for their help in locating sources for thisarticle.NOTESThese excerpts are taken from Henry Ellis (ed) RobertFabyan - the New Chronicles of England and France (1811):entry for AD 982, 202; Prologue, 293. This is based onthe 1559 version with added editorial comment." Biographical details from Ellis op cit (note 1), whoalso reproduces Fabian's will (preface 3-13).^ Fabian's authorship is assessed by: C L Kingsford(ed) Chronicles of London (1905), thus: 'Robert Fabyanwas but one of the last in a long line, and built onlya little that was new on the foundations which othershad laid' (v), but: 'the first place must be given toRobert Fabyan to whose labours all knowledge of theChronicles was for three centuries chiefly due' (xxvi);A H Thomas & ID Thornley (eds) The Great Chronicle ofLondon (1938), who consider the possibility of anotherauthor, as the original manuscript was unnamed, andthat Fabian was dependent (as others) on a lost 'MainCity Chronicle'.Sir Laurence Gomme was Clerk to the LondonCounty Council.Page was General Editor of the 'Victoria Historiesof the Counties of England', and did devote onechapter to the Sokes surrounding the City.BIBLIOGRAPHYBESANT (1908), W Besant Early London Survey ofLondonBIDDLE (1976), M Biddle 'Towns' in D M Wilson(ed) The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England,114-16BIDDLE (1984), M Biddle 'London on the Strand'Popular Archaeology July 1984, 23-7BLACKMORE (1997), L Blackmore 'From beach toburh: new clues to entity and identity in 7*- to 9*-century London' in G de Boe & F Verhaeghe (eds)Urbanism in Medieval Europe, 127BROOKE & KEIR (1975), C N L Brooke & G KeirLondon 800-1216: The Shaping of a CityCLARKE (1985), H B Clarke 'The Domesdaysatellites' in P Sawyer (ed) Domesday Book: AReassessment, 55COWIE & WHYTEHEAD (1988), R Cowie & R LWhytehead with L Blackmore 'Two Middle Saxonoccupation sites: excavations at Jubilee Hall and21-22 Maiden Lane' Trans London MiddlesexArc/ia«o/5oc 39, 47-163DOLLEY (1960), R H M Dolley 'Coin hoards fromthe London area as evidence for the pre-eminenceof London in the later Saxon period' Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc 20 Part 2, 37-50DYSON (1990), T Dyson 'King Alfred and the restorationof London' The London Journal 15 No. 2,99-110FADES (1966), G E Fades Historic London City ofLondon SocietyELLIS (1811), H Ellis (ed) Robert Fabyan - the NewChronicles of England and FranceFLENLEY (1911), R Flenley Six Town Chronicles ofEnglandGOMME (1912), L Gomme The Making of LondonGOMME (1914), L Gomme LondonGORDON (1903), C Gordon Old Time Aldwych,Kingsway, and NeighbourhoodCOVER e< a/ (1942), J E B Cover et al The Place-namesof Middlesex, English Place-name Society 18GREEN (1963), HJ M Green 'Evidence of Roman,Saxon and Medieval Westminster' IllustratedLondon News 242, 1004-7GRIMES (1968), WF Grimes The Excavation of Romanand Medieval LondonHARVEY (1971), S P J Harvey 'Domesday Bookand its predecessors' English Historical Review 86,753-73HASLAM (1975),J Haslam 'The Saxon pottery andthe Tudor pottery group from the cesspit' in M JHammerson 'Excavations on the site of ArundelHouse in the Strand, W.C.2, in 1972' TransLondon Middlesex Archaeol Soc 26, 209-51

'The Lesse Set By': an early reference to the site of Middle Saxon London ? 33HURST (1976) J G Hurst 'Anglo-Saxon and Medieval'in D Collins et al The Archaeology of the London Area:Current Knowledge and Problems London & MiddlesexArchaeol Soc Special Paper 1IVIMEY 1937, A Ivimey A History of LondonKENT (1937), W Kent (ed) An Encyclopedia ofLondonKINGSFORD (1908), C L Kingsford (ed) John Stow:A Survey of LondonLAMBERT (1806), B Lambert The History & Survey ofLondon and its EnvironsLEARY (2004), J Leary et al Tatberht's Lundenwic:Archaeological Excavations in Middle Saxon LondonLETHABY (1902), W R Lethaby London before theConquestLOFTIE (1892), WJ Loftie LondonMACKAY (1838), C Mackay A History of LondonMAITLAND (1775), W Maidand The History ofLondon from its Foundation to the Present Time: NewEdition continued to 1772 (edj Entrick)MALCOLM & BOWSHER (2003), G Malcolm &D Bowsher with R Cowie Middle Saxon London,Excavations at the Royal Opera House 1989-1999MERRIFIELD (1983), R Merrifield London - City ofthe RomansMYRES (1934), J N L Myres 'Some thoughts on thetopography of London' Antiquity 32, 437-42NORDEN (1723), J Norden Speculum Britanniae,Description of MiddlesexPAGE (1929), W Page London: its Origin and EarlyDevelopmentPERCEVAL (1985), J Perceval 'The precursors ofDomesday: Roman and Carolingian land registers'in P Sawyer (ed) Domesday Book: A Reassessment,13-16PRIDEAUX (1898), W F Prideaux Notes and Queries(9th series), vol 2STOW (1631-2), J Stow, continued by E Howes,Annales or A Generall Chronicle of EnglandSTRYPE (1720), J Strype (ed) / Stow's Survey ofLondonTATTON-BROWN (1986), T Tatton-Brown 'Thetopography of Anglo-Saxon London' Antiquity60, 21-8VINCE (1983), A Vince 'In search of Saxon London:the view from the pot shed' Popular ArchaeologyOctober 1983, 33-7VINCE (1984), A Vince 'The Aldwych: mid-SaxonLondon discovered' Current Archaeology 93,310-12VINCE (1990), A Vince Saxon London: AnArchaeological InvestigationVULLIAMY (1930), C E Vulliamy The Archaeology ofMiddlesex and LondonWHEATLEY (1904), H B Wheadey The Story ofLondonWHEELER (1927), REM Wheeler London and theVikings London Museum Catalogues 1WHEELER (1934), REM Wheeler 'The topographyof Saxon London' Antiquity 31, September,290-302WHEELER (1934), REM Wheeler 'Mr Myres onSaxon London: a reply' Antiquity 32 December,443-7WHEELER (1935), R E M Wheeler London and theSaxons

THE TOWER OF LONDON AND THEJEWISH EXPULSION OF 1290Jeremy AshbeeSUMMARYA closer look at the accounts of Ralph of Sandwich,Constable of the Tower of London, for the year 1290reveals the involvement of the Tower in the expulsion of thefews from England in that year. The Jews had to pay theConstable a toll before embarking for France.The historical relationship between the Jewsand the Tower of London is often portrayed incompletely negative terms, with the Jews herdedin their hundreds into the 'dungeons' underthe White Tower, and thence taken out eitherto forced conversion or to summary execution.'Modern scholarship, by contrast, is revealingthat this relationship was in fact a very mixedone.2 Episodes of mass-imprisonment did occur,as in the confinement of 600 and execution of269 Jews between 1278 and 1279,^ and earlierin the century, in connection with allegations ofritual murder, such as the death of 'Little SaintHugh' of Lincoln,'' but, for much of the periodof Jewish settlement, the Tower was equallyinvolved with the Jews' protection and welfare.As royal 'property', the Jews of London wereentrusted to the authority of the Keeper orConstable of the Tower. There are numerousdocumented instances in which the Jews andtheir chattels were taken into protective custodywithin the fortress;^ on one occasion, duringthe 1267 London uprising led by Gilbert deClare and the 'Disinherited', the Jews wereeven recruited by the papal legate Ottobuonoto assist in the defence of the Tower, in theevent, successfully.'' The Constable of the Toweralso held his own judicial sessions for the Jewryinside the fortress, and maintained an officer,the Serjeant of the Jewry, responsible for theregulation of all activities, Jewish and Christian,within the district, located well away from theTower, in which Jews predominantly lived.^Relations between the Jews and the Tower havealso left a more tangible legacy in the moat, theouter curtain wall, and the building now knownas 'Traitors' Gate', their construction funded inpart by a 'tallage' (tax) on the Jews during the1270S.8The medieval documentation for the Towerof London in the National Archive (PublicRecord Office) at Kew is likely to deter all butthe unwary and the obsessive. Hundreds ofrolls, many legible only under ultra-violet light,written in abbreviated Latin or idiosyncraticold French and in a variety of hands, theyencompass a huge range of activities. Documentsinclude inventories of contents (from weaponryto prisoners), writs ordering works to becarried out, documents of the Mint and RoyalWardrobe, and, most voluminous, accounts ofofficials working at the Tower, declaring theirincome and expenses to be refunded. Most ofthese accounts are formulaic and repetitive, anda cursory scan can easily leave the small detailsunnoticed.Such a document is ElOl 4/25, unpromisinglylabelled as an account of the income and expensesof Ralph of Sandwich, Constable of the Tower ofLondon, running from July 1289 to September1301. At the very end of the manuscript areseveral useful entries about building works inthe fortress, mentioning repairs to the king's andqueen's chambers, the kitchen and bakehouse, astable next to the Great Tower (now the WhiteTower), the drawbridge outside Pycardesgate (thepresent Middle Tower), and Ralph's expenses inmaintaining Welsh prisoners. The bulk of the35

36 Jeremy Ashbeedocument is at first sight much less interesting,concerned with Ralph's income during theperiod, and the entries for most years talk aboutthe same things: tolls levied on merchant vesselsin the Thames, revenue from the sale of brickearthfrom the Tower's moat to the tilers ofLondon, and paltry rents from three 'old andunsound' cottages in East Smithfield. In themiddle of these accounts, easily missed, is thefollowing entry:Idem reddit compotum de xxiii li et vi s receptisde consuetudine predicta tempore transfrettationisJudeorum predicto anno xviii videlicet pro transfrettationem ccc xxxv Judeorum de Londoniisusque Whitsand de quolibetjudeo Hit d. Et de cxxvipauperibus Judeis de quolibet ii d.The same (Ralph) declares receipt of 23pounds and 6 shillings by the said customat the time of the crossing of the Jews inthe same year 18, namely for the crossingof 1,335 Jews from London to Wissant, eachJew paying 4 pence, and additionally from126 poor Jews, each paying 2 pence.^The 18th year of the reign of King Edward I(1272-1307), the year of Ralph of Sandwich'sreceiving this sum of money, was 1290, andthe 'crossing of the Jews' refers to the welldocumentedevent of that year, in which theentire community of Jews was ordered toquit the territory of the English King and gointo perpetual exile. The expulsion has beenextensively analysed by modern historians.The reasons for Edward I's decision continueto arouse debate, invoking political, economic,and financial arguments on the one hand,and hardening cultural and religious attitudeson the other.^" The historical record is clearthat in the decades immediately before theexpulsion, the Jewish communities were increasinglyhard-pressed, subject to cripplingtaxation, their lives regulated by ever morerestrictive legislation, and, most dramatically,their numbers reduced by episodes of massarrestand hanging, connected with accusationsof coin-clipping'' and non-payment of taxes.It has been estimated that by 1290 the totalpopulation of Jews in England may havenumbered as few as 2000. With a few notoriousexceptions, such as the stranding of Jews on asandbank at Queenborough, the departure ofthe Jewish population took place in an orderlymanner and without incident.'^Hitherto it has generally been believed thatthe Tower of London played little part in theexpulsion. This account, on the other hand,shows that the Constable of the Tower took animportant supervisory role in the embarkationand departure of a large number. He clearlyregarded the embarkation and departure ofseveral shiploads of Jews in the same terms asmany other classes of traffic on the Thames, as afit subject for the extraction of a toll, just like theherring-boats from Yarmouth, the various vesselsof Londoners and 'outsiders', and the pilgrimsmaking for Santiago, whose toll-payments tothe Constable are documented in this andmany other accounts. Like a modern travellerpaying 'airport tax', 1,461 Jews, 126 of themimpoverished by recent events and only able topay half the toll, secured the permission of theConstable of the Tower before embarkation.These formalities concluded, they crossedfrom London to the north coast of France, intowhose existing Jewish communities they all butdisappeared.'-''It may be coincidental, but is nonetheless aresonant point of historical circularity, that themost famous monument of the revived post-Cromwellian Jewish community, Bevis MarksSynagogue, first opened in 1701, should standso close to the Tower of London, the fortresswhich witnessed the forced departure of thatcommunity's medieval predecessors.NOTESG Parnell The Tower of London (1993), 54.^ V D Lipman 'The jurisdiction of the Tower authoritiesoutside the walls' in J Charlton (ed) The Tower ofLondon. Its Buildings and Institutions (1978), 144—52.^ National Archive, Public Record Offfice (PRO),E352/74 rot 1 mid, ElOl 249/22, printed and translatedin H G Richardson (ed) Calendar of the Pka Rolls of theExchequer of theJewsvoX 4 (1972), 148-94; E372/123 rot 10mid.H R Luard (ed) Matthei Parisiensis Monachi SanctiAlbani Chronica Majora vol 5, Rolls Series, 7 vols (1872-83), 552.eg H R Luard (ed) Annates Monastici, volume 3,Annates Prioratus de Dunstaplia etc (1866), 57; Z E Rokeah(ed) Medieval English Jews and Royal Officials. Entries ofJewish Interest in the English Memoranda Rolls 1266-1293(2000), 107.C Roth, The Jews in the Defence of Britain, Thirteenthto Nineteenth Centuries, Presidential Address deliveredbefore the Jewish Historical Society of Great Britain in1940 (1943); H R Luard (ed) Flores Historiarum, vol 3,Rolls Series (1890), 14-16.

The Tower of London and the Jewish expulsion of 1290 37H G Richardson, The English Jewry under AngevinKings (1960), 155-60. For the London Jewry, seeparticularly J Hillaby, 'London: the 13th-century Jewryre-viAted' Jewish Historical Studies i2 (1993), 89-153.^ eg Calendar of the Patent Rolls of Edward I, 1272-1281(1901), 100; Rokeah op cit (note 5), 186; Richardson opdi(note 3), 131.^ PRO, E 101/4/25 ml. This item has been mentionedin print, but the reference to the 'poor Jews' has, tomy knowledge, not been discussed before. See R RMundill 'Medieval Anglo-Jewry: expulsion and exodus'in F Burghard, A Haverkamp and G Mentgen (ed)Judenvertreibungen in Mittelalter undfruher Neuzeit (1999),75-97, esp 94.10 YoT recent commentaries, see R R Mundill, England'sJewish Solution. Experiment and Expulsion, 1262-1290(1998); 'Edward 1 and the final phase of Anglo-Jewry' inP Skinner (ed) Jews in Medieval Britain (2002), 55-70.'' Z E Rokeah 'Money and the hangman in late-13thcentury England: Jews, Christians and coinage offences,alleged and real' Jewish Historical Studies 31 (1990),83-109.12 Mundill op cit (note 9), 93.^^ ibid, 94, reports the observation that Jews of Englishorigin formed an identifiable group in two particularareas of Paris.

'FOR THE POOR TO DRINK AND THERICH TO DRESS THEIR MEAT': THEFIRST LONDON WATER CONDUITDavidLewisSUMMARYThis paper traces the history of London's first piped watersupply that operated for at least four hundred years fromC.1260. The London water supply system or 'conduit'was a complex and expensive piece of infrastructure— construction costs were probably equivalent to thoseof a cathedral — yet it has undeservedly been omittedfrom many accounts of the urban history of the city. Thispaper contends that an appreciation of medieval watertransportation technology not only demonstrates the truescale of the enterprise that conceived of the London conduitin the first instance, but also explains the subsequentdifficulties in building and developing the system.Although there are few documentary sources on which toconstruct a comprehensive account of the medieval Londonconduit, the recent excavation of a small section of theoriginal pipe-xvork (Paternoster Square, 2001) has providedimportant new evidence on how the system was built, itscapacity, and the likely reasons for the incorporation ofever more remote sources of supply. The development of thesystem is tracked from a single public fountain in the City(Cheapside) in the 13th century, to a network of elaboratefountains by the 15th century that used only the forces ofgravity to transport water (eventually) more than 6kmthrough underground pipes, from springs near the modemsite ofPaddington Station to the fountain heads. Althoughthe physical remains of London's first water conduit arenow almost entirely lost, this paper seeks to reappraise thisimportant part of the medieval City and to rediscover whythe conduit was the subject of such celebration at the time,attracting financial donations from the City's wealthiestmedieval merchants.In his book on the history of water supply inEngland, Norman Smith notes that 'before1600 London had made little attempt to pipeor channel water supplies from clean sourcesoutside the City' (Smith 1975, 96). Whilst thisopinion is at the very least contentious, it reflectsthe fact that most narratives on the history ofmedieval London pay scant attention to theavailability of clean water; a surprising omissionconsidering the fundamental importance ofwater for many facets of life. In mitigationperhaps it might be contended that as the City islocated on the Thames — and a number of otherriver systems — water would have been readilyavailable. Moreover, given the maritime climateof the British Isles and the geological basinthat forms London's underlying rock strata,rainwater would have filled the many City wellsthat are known to have existed. The supply ofwater should therefore have been the least of theproblems facing the medieval City authorities.Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there wasno shortage of water, the real issue was notavailability, but purity. As early as the mid-13thcentury many of the London water sourceswere becoming heavily polluted, and the Cityauthorities perceived that they needed to takeaction to provide clean water; well and riverwater might have been suitable for washing, butwere rapidly becoming unsuitable for personalconsumption. The pressure of population growth,including industrial activity within the City, waspoisoning the local environment. Althoughthe exact date is unclear, probably by 1260the City had built, at considerable expense, anunderground piped water system that broughtspring water from about 5km to the west of theCity, a system known as the London conduit or39

40 David Lewislater the Great Conduit. The system used onlythe forces of gravity to move water through thepipes that ascended Ludgate Hill — apparentlycontradicting the forces of nature — to reachan elaborate conduit fountain at the easternend of Cheapside. Although the developmentof the system was tentative at first, it wasgradually extended, so that by the 15th centuryit represented a significant distribution networkthat stretched from Fleet Street to GracechurchStreet (Schofield & Vince 1994, 52). Regrettably,this early public utility, incorporating a complexof water filtering devices, pipes and cisterns,was largely destroyed in the Great Fire or in thesubsequent reordering of the City infrastructure.In addition, and probably at the same time, itseems that the primary records of the system, mostlikely consisting of wardens' accounts, journals,and plans, were comprehensively destroyed.Although the London conduit was probablythe first purely urban water system in England,the paucity of either direct documentary orarchaeological evidence has consigned it to aminor footnote in the history of the City. It isnot known, for example, who designed andbuilt the system, although undoubtedly theapplication of complex hydraulic technologywithin an established city environment wouldhave required considerable expertise.Evidence of the London conduit however isnot entirely lost. Most significantly, the recentarchaeological discoveries of the undercroft ofGreat Conduit house or fountain (1994) anda section of the conduit pipe (2001) allow theLondon conduit to be reassessed and comparedto other conduit water systems that are betterpreserved and even, in some cases, documented(Birch et al forthcoming; Rowsome 2000, 61).The relatively few documentary references to theconduit that have survived, such as the City letterbooks, property deeds, and wills, add furtherdetail, together providing sufficient informationto piece together the likely history of the system.From a review of the available source materialand considering the likely existing knowledgeof conduit technology, the construction ofthe London conduit was an extremely boldproject. There could have been little certaintyat the outset that the system would work,although its construction consumed largequantities of raw materials (particularly leadand timber) and required a substantial labourforce, of both skilled and unskilled workers. Itrepresented a considerable financial risk. Thefact that it subsequently operated for threehundred years until the Great Fire representsa major achievement that should be rankedin importance beside the building of LondonBridge or the Guildhall. Clearly it deserves to bebetter understood.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONDONCONDUITThe availability of drinking water from springsand streams was one of the principal reasonswhy the Romans decided to site London on theterraces above the marshy north bank of theThames. Geologically, London sits on a basin ofchalk approximately 200m thick, with a northernrim coming to the surface at the Chilterns anda southern rim at the North Downs. Overlayingthis deposit of chalk are relatively thin beds oftertiary sands and pebbles, which themselves areoverlaid first with a thick layer of London clayand then with a clay and sand mixture knownas Bagshot sand. The water-bearing strata forLondon are found in the tertiary deposits andwhere these levels are exposed or cut, fresh watersprings form. The dissection of these levels in theLondon basin by the Thames accounts for thenumber of fresh water springs found close to itsbanks, such as the St Clements well spring nearFleet Street. The cutting action of the Thamesis not consistent however, and particularly inthe area occupied by the western part of theCity, the number of natural springs is limited.With the growth in the population of Londonfrom the 11 th century and the parallel increasein demand for fresh water, there was an evermounting pressure to access new convenientsources of water.At first this demand was met through diggingwells, but for these to be certain of reachingthe tertiary levels that held pure, filtered waterthey would need to be, in most cases, greaterthan 16m deep. These wells were thus known as'deep wells'. To be sure of only containing purewater, these wells would additionally require aninterior lining of stone to prevent the ingress ofsurface and ground water that could be pollutedwith soakage from stables and cess pits, decayingmatter from burial grounds, and the residuefrom water intensive industries such as tanningand metal working (Foord 1910, 250). Inevitablysuch wells were expensive to construct and wereconsequently infrequently built. A more commontype of City well was the insubstantial 'shallow

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 41well'; this appeared to provide clear water, inexactly the same way as a deep well, but with thesignificant advantage of being both quick andcheap to build. One 13th-century descriptionnotes their rudimentary construction: that thewell wall bracings consisted of knocked-throughwine barrels stacked one on another 'five or sixbarrels deep', making the well perhaps 6m deepin total (Keene 2001, 173). With insufficientdepth to reach clean water, no protection fromcontaminated surface water, and the minimumfiltering of ground water from other levels, thewater in such wells was inevitably impure. 'Shallowweir water might have been clear and possiblypalatable but it was poisonous, and at worst couldhave brought 'death in the cup' (Foord 1910,250). The impurity of City water was dramaticallyunderlined in the 1860s when it was noted thatonce mains drainage was installed, the City wellscomprehensively dried up (Church 1877, 16).The water contained in these wells, from theMiddle Ages onward, was nothing more than whatwe would now classify as drain water.The connection between clean water andhealth was appreciated by London citizens,Stow notes that citizens were 'forced to seekesweete waters abroad' — City water was knownnot to be wholesome (Stow 1908, I, 16). Fordirect consumption or for the preparation offood the preference was for water obtained fromunpolluted sources such as spring water fromClerkenwell, Skinner's well, or one of the otherperpetual springs close to the City. But as wateris heavy to carry — a typical three-gallon woodenpipe would have weighed approximately 301b— the personal transport of water from thesesources must have been at best inconvenient,and at worst rendered pure water inaccessiblefor many households. The temptation to use animpure, but more convenient source, such as a'shallow weir shared between tenements, musthave prevailed in many cases. As an alternative,water could be purchased from one of the Citywater-bearers who made a trade of supplyingThames river water from horse drawn deliverywagons. Presumably such water was consideredof better quality than simple well water, althoughthe purity was entirely dependent upon whichpart of the river the water was taken from.Thames water could be variously polluted, withsea salt, due to the tidal action of the river,or contaminated by the poisonous water ofthe Fleet and Walbrook tributaries that wereeffectively open drains running through theCity. Equally river bank water was renderedunfit for consumption by mixing with groundwaterand other floating debris (Riley 1868,223). Clean Thames water could be taken froma central section of the river on an ebb tide,but as this part of the river was also subject todangerous currents, some skill was requiredin correctly collecting the water. There couldbe no guarantees, however, that a water-bearerhad necessarily taken the trouble to ensure apure supply. In recognition of the hazards ofcollecting water, and in an attempt to control thequality of the water-bearers' product, the waterbearersbecame the object of 'craft' designation,with their charges being standardised by the Cityauthorities in 1350 (Keene 2001, 169).It would have been impossible to ensurethat Thames water (however it was collected)was consistently of any better quality than wellwater, as fundamentally London rivers serveda conflicting dual purpose. They were both asource of water for consumption and also theprimary means of waste disposal for the City— this duality becoming increasingly untenableas the City population expanded in the 13thcentury (Keene 2001, 162). One solution mighthave been to simply specify the use of waterresources: Worcester, for example, regulatedthat waste had to be thrown into the River Severndownstream from the town, allowing clean waterto be taken from the river upstream. However,such a solution was not viable in London becauseof the city's size and the potential difficulty ofenforcement (Holt 2000, 97).The concern to obtain clean — and preferably'sweet' —water was not limited to the demand fordrinking water, as plain water was only regularlyconsumed by the poor. Good quality water wasalso needed to brew ale — the drink consumedby the majority of the City's population. Whilstale was (mostly) rendered safe to drink througha production process that required maltedgrains to be boiled with water, poor qualitywater would produce inferior tasting ale. Whereale was brewed for commercial purposes theimportance of 'taste' and a finished product thatwould readily sell could be appreciated. But theconcern for taste would not have been restrictedto commercial brewers; ale was widely brewedand consumed domestically, being a major partof the medieval diet. A household of five people,for example, could require one-and-a-quartergallons per day or eight-and-a-quarter gallonsper week (Bennett 1996, 17-19). Barbara Harvey

42 David Lewisnotes that 19% of the energy in a monk's dietat Westminster Abbey was supphed through theconsumption of ale, compared to c.5% from thissource in the general population today (Harvey1993,58).Clearly the pressures of a growing Londonpopulation (possibly c.80,000 by 1300) and industrialexpansion were contaminating watersources, and some action was necessary to ensurepublic access to pure supplies. Uniquely amongstEnglish cities in the 13th century, the Londongovernment turned to technology to create anew source of piped water within the City.WATER TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGYThe diversion of naturally occurring watersources to centres of population was not a newtechnology; since the 12th century the monasticcommunities in England had used either stonelined open trenches or closed lead pipes toobtain a supply of running water within theirdomestic buildings. Of the two methods oftransporting water, stone lined trenches had theadvantage of being technically unsophisticated,but the disadvantage of being expensive andpotentially difficult to construct. They dependedon having both a conveniently situated andgeographically aligned source and destinationpoint, given that water would only flow along atrench if there was a downward slope between thetwo points. Without the construction of expensiveaqueducts to overcome river valleys or othergeographic features, stone lined trenches werein most cases not a viable means of transportingwater over substantial distances. The Romans,who are associated most with this method ofwater transportation, were only able to constructtheir urban water systems with an army of slavelabour, a resource unavailable to medieval urbangovernment. Occasionally medieval trench conduitswere built, but in these cases the diversionof water was over a relatively short distance and ina location where geography allowed a trench tobe constructed without the requirement to buildwater tunnels or aqueducts. Exceptionally, thereare also examples of a trench system being usedin conjunction with a piped supply, such as at StMary Spital, London (Thomas et al 1997, 43).Closed lead pipes or 'conduit' systems on theother hand were considerably more flexible;the source could be several miles from thedestination and the underground pipe couldrise and fall as the local topography required— the pressure within the pipe providing theenergy to make water flow uphill, if necessary.The critical requirement for these systems towork was the creation and preservation of 'head'water pressure within the system, by tapping asource spring that was at an elevation above thatof both the intermediate pipe and the destinationfountain. Typically water would be collected ata source spring (or springs) into a receipt tank(or head cistern) that provided both a reservoiragainst intermittent supply from the spring(s)and also a source of consistent pressure withinthe pipe. The greater the difference in heightbetween the source and the destination, thegreater the head pressure within the pipe andthus the greater the volume of water that could betransported. The disadvantage with lead conduits,however, was that they entailed the resolution ofa range of construction issues that did not applyin open trench conduits, and, in addition, postconstructionthey required a considerable amountof continuous maintenance. Take for examplethe lead pipes. The pipes had to be perfectlysealed to preserve pressure within the system;any imperfection in manufacture or subsequentdamage could result in local flooding and acomplete loss of water at the destination fountain.Not only was the production of perfectly sealedpipes difficult, but the buried pipes could beaccidentally damaged by inadvertent excavation,excessive surface pressure from urban traffic, orfrost damage in the winter. These dangers couldbe minimised by burying the pipe in a deeptrench, but if the pipe needed to be accessed formaintenance work, a deep trench would incurexcessive location and re-excavation costs. Abalancing of opposing technical issues was notlimited to the pipes, a range of other operationalaspects of the system also required carefulbalancing. Without the correct resolution ofthese issues, lead pipe conduits would eitherperform poorly, or not at all.The manufacture of robust water pipes wasthe initial technical difficulty in implementinga conduit system. Although some early conduitsin towns outside London used earthenware andwooden pipes, all the contemporary descriptionsof the first London conduit indicate that thepipes were made of lead. This metal was chosenbecause it is very malleable and has a relativelylow melting point, a necessary condition if thejoints between the sections of pipe were to besealed with molten metal as the pipe was laid.The method of making lead pipes was first to cast

'Far the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 43a flat sheet of lead on a sand-bed approximately4m by 22cm, in a similar method to making leadroofing sheets. Next, the partly cooled sheetwould be pressed around a circular woodenmandrel, forming a tube with a pear-shapedoval cross-section. Finally the upper seam jointwould be sealed by either casting additionalmetal along the seam or soldering between thetwo sides of the formed sheet (Homer 1991,64; Hodge 2002, 313-15). The casting methodwas used for the Waltham Abbey conduit pipes(built in 1220-22) and is described in BritishLibrary Harley ms 391 (Skelton & Harvey 1986,66). The manuscript describes how this involvedpacking the pipe with sand and then buildinga clay mould along the horizontal seam intowhich molten metal was poured. The finishedpipe would have a distinctive ridge along theseam joint. As this production process required anumber of additional steps to simply soldering thejoint, it would have been a slower, and thereforemore expensive, method of pipe production.Although cast joints appear on the earlier conduitsystems, there is no clear evidence that there wasnecessarily a switch to soldered joints at a laterperiod (Magnusson 2001, 67-9).Making conduit pipes was deemed to be anespecially skilled task. The plumbers ordinancesof 1365 state that working 'a clove of leadfor gutters or roofs of houses take only onehalfpenny, for working a clove of lead forbelfries and conduit pipes, one penny' (Waldo1923, 22-3). The section of London conduitpipe excavated at Paternoster Square in 2001appears to have been produced with a cast joint,as there is a clear ridge of metal on the uppersurface of the pipe that seems to indicate the useof a clay mould. The almost circular appearanceof this pipe, compared to the likely pear-shapedcross-section when it was originally fabricated,probably resulted from the internal pressureswhen it was in use (Hodge 2002, 311). Leadpipes would have been placed in the groundwith the seam joint uppermost, to facilitaterepairs, if and when they were necessary. The1350 London conduit warden accounts coveringtwo years record 'one fozer (fodder) of leadfor repairs, 8 marks 12 pence'. This is almost aton of lead, a considerable quantity for simplemaintenance of the system, suggesting thatrepairs to leaking joints were made by pouringsubstantial quantities of molten lead onto theleaking section in the hope of reinforcing thepipe by the quantity of metal used. There is nomention of lead-tin solder in these accounts(Riley 1868, 264-6). The installadon in 1447 ofconduit pipes to provide a Westminster 'town'water supply as an extension of the Palace ofWestminster system used soldered pipes, as theclerk of the King's works sold 461b of solder forthe project (Magnusson 2001, 68). Recordingrepairs to the Aldermanbury conduit in 1585/86, the Chamberlain's accounts refer to moneypaid to John Mardn (plumber) for 'burntpipes' (soldered pipes) and solder 'at 56/- thehundred' (Masters 1984, 78). It would also seemthat the flat sheet of lead used to make conduitpipes was, in some cases, shaped rather thanbeing formed around a mandrel. The 1588 grantof arms to the Plumbers Company states 'on achevron sable towe soodring irons in saultor witha cutting knife and a shaver argent'. The cuttingknife was sufficiently important an instrument inthe plumber craft that it was included on theirarms. The text notes that 'a cutting knife is a toolfor shaving and making pipes hollow' (Waldo1923, 14).The London plumbers were located in CandlewickStreet, which 'for many years past had beenlet to men of the trade' (Homer 1991, 65). In1371 the smoke from their furnaces was deemeda danger to the local population and they wereenjoined to maintain suffiiciently high chimneys(Riley 1868, 355). Presumably the plumberswould have been engaged in maintaining thelead roof of St Paul's and in making conduitpipes, in a similar arrangement to that of theplumbers who built the Exeter Cathedral conduit(Magnusson 2001, 74). The plumbers' premiseswould have been relatively substantial toaccommodate not only the furnaces but also thecasting tables and workshops required to formthe finished pipes. Lead sheets had to be castindoors in order to carefully control the coolingprocess, otherwise the castings had a tendency tocrack whilst being formed and were then uselessfor making sealed pipes (Rodwell 1981, 116).The typical dimensions of a medieval water pipewould be between 2cm and 10cm in diameter.The pipes excavated at Paternoster Square werewell within the typical range of medieval waterpipes and their location is reported as:The pipe was laid e.2m below contemporaryground level, parallel to the south side ofPaternoster Row. Survived in two truncatedsections measuring three metres and fourmetres in length respectively. The lead wasbetween 4mm and 6mm in thickness, and

44 David Lewisthe pipe had a diameter of 95mm. Recordedat the west end at 12.26 mod and at the eastend at 12.22 mod. (Birch et a/forthcoming)Although there appears to be no standardisationof pipe dimensions between different conduits,presumably within a single system the dimensionsof the pipes were fixed, to aid both constructionand repair.Sections of pipe would be transported to theinstallation site and joined either by simple buttjoints or by flaring one pipe end and insertingthe next pipe (male/female joints). The jointsbetween sections would then be sealed by wipingmolten metal across the joint. The use of moltenmetal to provide the seal would have required amobile furnace to be built close to the installationsite and the construction of an elementarymould around the pipe joint, probably in thebase of the protective trench, to guide the flowof the molten metal. Clearly the construction ofthe conduit pipe would have been a slow processas the furnace and its fuel was moved from siteto site. Of the possible methods of joining pipes,simple butt joints may have been less demandingto make, but they were weak and ideally neededadditional protection. Pipes could be encasedwithin a further stone or brick housing, but sucharrangements added further expense and wereomitted where either finance was tight or it wasconsidered that the pipe was safe from damage.The Dover conduit, for example, was constructedwith butt joints protected in a stone linedconduit channel one foot square (McPherson& Amos 1931, 170). Whereas the Windsor Castleconduit was buried unprotected in land outsidethe castle, only being given a brick 'paving' onceit entered the busy upper ward of the castle,close to the distribution fountain (Tighe &Davis 1858, I, 602). A common improvementto medieval conduit systems was the subsequentinstallation of a protective housing for thepipe, to reduce the incidence of maintenanceand consequently improve the reliability ofthe supply. The Exeter conduit was relaid in astone lined channel in the mid-14th century toprotect the pipe, with the new channel beingwide enough to gain access for repairs (Holt2000, 92-3). If the pipe was not to be providedwith a housing throughout its length, thentypically critical components would be providedwith some protection. The London Greyfriarsconduit trench incorporated a marble stone, tomark both the position of underground taps andto afford some protection (Norman 1899, 259).Flared joints between sections of pipe may havebeen stronger and thus required less protection,but they suffered from the disadvantage of notproducing a smooth interior surface to the pipe.This would have made cleaning more difficult andprobably also encouraged the development ofadditional internal deposits that could eventuallycreate a blockage (Hodge 2002, 98).Conduit pipes thus incorporated two joints— a horizontal seam joint along the pipe and anend joint between pipe sections. The seam jointwould have been subject to the greatest internalpressure from the operation of the pipe, whilstthe joint between sections, although under lessstress, was potentially weak as it had to be madein situ (Hodge 2002, 314-15). Of the two joints,it would appear that the quality of the jointbetween sections was the most critical in ensuringthat the conduit system remained 'closed' andtherefore operated effectively. It is not knownhow the London conduit pipes were joined orif other external protection was provided whenthe pipe was first installed. Unfortunately, thepipes excavated at Paternoster Square did notinclude a joint between two sections of pipe,although one piece was approximately 4m longand it might have been anticipated that such asubstantial section would have had at least onejoint. A possible explanation might relate to thecommon practice of recovering (valuable) 'old'pipes to reuse the lead for other purposes. Whenthe pipe was removed it is likely to have beencrudely pulled from the soil fracturing it at theweak joint between pipe sections, resulting inonly complete pipe sections remaining buriedand unrecovered — perhaps locked in placebecause of other obstructions built on top ofthe pipe. The recently excavated pipe thereforerepresented a section that for some reason couldnot be recovered and was simply left in theground, after the pipe sections on either sidehad been extracted.Clearly, a calculation had to be made betweencasting longer pipes that would have been heavyand difficult to transport intact to the installationpoint without damaging the seam joint, andshorter pipes that would have been easier totransport but required more joints betweensections. It seems that the conduit builderspreferred longer pipes, on average 3-4m long(Magnusson 2001, 70).The standard method of construction was tolay the pipe from the source to the destination.

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 45so that a check could be made as the pipe waslaid that the water continued to flow. Althoughthe pipe did not have to continuously slopedownwards, if possible, the trench followed adownward path, to avoid any sudden changein gradient that might give rise to maintenancedifficulties when the pipe was in use. As alreadynoted, the depth of the trench in which the pipewas buried was a further important considerationto avoid freezing in the winter or mechanicaldamage from, for example, passing heavy carts.Too deep a trench, however, would subject thepipe to pressure from the weight of soil above,leading to potential fracture. The LondonGreyfriars conduit, built in 1432, seems to havebeen buried in a 1-1.5m trench that provideda satisfactory combination of protection fromdamage and reasonable accessibility (Norman1899, 259, 265). The pipe was said 'in the depthof winter never to fail', yet the succession ofcocks that were used to close the system formaintenance were accessible from ground level.However, this system passed mostly through openfields with little likelihood of surface mechanicaldamage and could therefore safely operate witha shallow trench. The London conduit passedalong busy urban streets, probably at a depthof 2m (Birch et al forthcoming). Stow refers tothe poor quality of the road between the Cityand Westminster (Fleet Street/Strand), 'beingvery ruinous and the pavement broken, to thehurt and mischiefe of the subjects' (Stow 1908,I, 265). It is likely that the conduit pipe laidunder this road suffered from surface pressurewhich, combined with the increased internalpressure in the pipe from the gradient towardsthe Fleet river, would account for the persistentcomplaints of leaking conduit pipes in thelocality. Certainly, later London conduits, suchas the conduit built in 1535 at Aldgate (knownas the Dalston conduit), buried the pipe muchdeeper, at depths between 2.6 and 6m (Foord1910,269).Although a conduit pipe could simply beburied unprotected, normally the trench wascrudely lined with either stone or clay whichwould serve a double function — stabilitywhilst the pipes were joined and a rudimentaryfoundation once the pipe was buried. Theconduit pipes found at Paternoster Squarewere described as being laid in a foundationof clay and this would fit with the constructiontechniques in other conduit systems (Birch etal forthcoming; Magnusson 2001, 83). A claylining, however, was likely to be of mixed benefit.It would certainly have held the pipe in positionas molten metal was poured to join sections ofpipe, but, if the clay subsequently hardened, itcould assist in fracturing the pipe. There are noreferences in the London letter books to theconstruction techniques used in the Londonconduit and equally the one set of survivingwarden's accounts for 1350 makes no mention ofstones or tiles purchased to line the trench or layover the conduit pipe for protection. However,16th-century London Chamberlain accounts domention stones purchased to 'pave over the pipethat leads from Ludgate to Old Bailey', includinggravel, presumably used to line the trench;this indicates that at least part of the pipe wasprovided with better protection at a later date(Masters 1984, 77). It seems that the Londonconduit, at least initially, was of relatively basicconstruction, presumably to minimise cost onwhat was a highly speculative venture.Although the principles of conduit technologywould at first sight appear to be quitestraightforward, the practical execution of asystem required an experienced conduit builder,who understood the difficulties of convertingtheory into practice. Each conduit site haddifferent local geography and constructionmust have involved a good deal of trial anderror. Where records have survived of earlyconduit systems, the architect of the system isoften mentioned, such as Master Lawrence ofStratford, who built the Waltham Abbey conduit(Magnusson 2001, 65). The concentration ofthe first systems within monastic communitiesis probably explained by the requirement ofthese institutions for large quantities of runningwater, particularly under the Benedictine rulegoverning personal hygiene. This demand wasexacerbated by the regulation of monastic lifethat resulted in 'peak period' consumptionbetween offices. To meet this requirement themonasteries invested in water transport, storage,and distribution systems, which were initiallybased on Roman designs found in the revivedstone buildings used as early monastic institutions(Magnusson 2001, 6). In addition, it appears thatthe monasteries took a longer term view of thesubstantial investment required to implementnew water systems, certainly in comparison totemporal authorities, further concentratingthe initial development of water technology inthese institutions (Holt 2000, 88). The closelyconnected continental monastic communities

46 David Lewisdisseminated their knowledge of water systemsthrough their network of related houses, andthus the first conduit systems came to Englandthrough the monasteries. Personal connectionsbetween institutions accounted for their furtherdevelopment (Magnusson 2001, 20). The LichfieldCathedral conduit, for example, can betraced to Walter Burden who was appointedbishop in 1166, having previously been prior ofChrist Church Canterbury, where he initiatedthe installation of a conduit, completed underPrior Wilbert in 1167 (Holt 2000, 91). Some ofthe early civic water supplies resulted from thesemonastic systems, such as at Westminster, Exeter,and Canterbury, where a pipe was extendedoutside the monastic buildings for public useor, alternatively, where the overflow from aninternal fountain was used as a basic civic supply(Brown«

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 47the succession of water filtering devices, knownas 'spurgels', located between tlie source andthe first distribution point; mostly located infield settings. As conduit water was collectedfrom field springs, it generally contained asubstantial quantity of suspended matter, suchas fine grit or sand, that had to be removed bothfor the purity of the water and to prevent itsaccumulation within the pipe, leading to pipeblockage. The first level of filtration was a simplemesh covering the source pipe that removed anylarger pieces of debris. The plan of the WalthamAbbey conduit clearly shows this feature (Fig 2).Finer suspended matter would then be removedFig 2. Waltham Abbey conduit plan (Harley ms 391, Co 6r) (By permission of the British Library)

48 David Lewisthrough a succession of sealed separation tanksor 'spurgels'.Spurgels operated by allowing unfiltered waterto enter a tank through a pipe set approximatelyin the centre of one side of the tank. As the tankfilled, 'cleaned' water would be drawn from apipe set at the top of the opposite side of thetank; any suspended debris falling to the bottom(Fig 3). The tank was cleaned by draining offthe collected sediment through a tap in thebase; these are clearly visible on the Canterburyand Waltham Abbey conduit plans, marked aspurgatorium. A succession of spurgels could belinked together to increase the effectiveness ofthe cleaning process. The cleaning tanks werereferred to under a number of different namesin medieval documents, such as expurgatorium,spurgellum, suspiral, or separall — although oftencalled spurgels (Magnusson 2001, 85). Despitefiltering water through several spurgels, somesediment could still enter the pipe and overtime create a blockage, particularly if the waterpressure was low. Any sediment needed to beremoved by regular maintenance and cleaningof the pipes. In addition, the water would depositdissolved calcium salts, known as 'sinter', insidethe pipe, especially if the water was 'hard',also potentially accumulating and creating ablockage. A layer of sinter, however, did havesome beneficial effect, as it provided protectionagainst the leaching of poisonous lead into thewater, but excessive accumulations had to beremoved. It seems that the method of cleaningthe pipes was to scour them with the aid of aheavy gauge wire, access to the pipe normallybeing gained at the spurgel. A reference is madein the 16th-century London Chamberlain'saccounts to 'seventy-seven feet of great wire'delivered to the conduit head by John Frenche,girdler, and a payment to William Palmer of £4Is lOd, for 'scouring the City's latten squirts'(cleaning the conduit taps) (Masters 1984, 27).A further maintenance requirement was theprompt repair of any leaks to the pipe or spurgels,as the operation of the system depended on thecareful preservation of water pressure withinWaterWaterinPurging valve/ PergatoriumFig 3. Schematic operation of a medieval conduit water filter or spurgel

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 49the pipe. Leaks could most obviously be causedby damage to the pipe from external forces,such as physical movement of the soil or othermechanical damage. Perhaps less obviously,excessive water pressure within the pipe couldalso give rise to pipe failure. The water pressurein closed pipe systems varies over the lengthof the pipe, being at a maximum where thedifference in elevation of the pipe from thesource is at its greatest. Typically this wouldoccur in sections of pipe that passed througha valley floor. Excessive internal pressure couldgive rise to premature failure of joints betweensections of pipe or substantial leaks fromareas of minor damage to the pipe. Low lyingsections of conduit pipe could therefore requiredisproportionate amounts of maintenance. Toguard against this problem the designers ofconduit systems turned to a secondary featureof the 'spurgeF separation tank. Spurgels havethe effect of dissipating water pressure due totheir dimensions, and by inserting additionalspurgels in a low lying section of pipe theinternal pressure can be reduced, creating anartificial new 'head' within the system. In Fig 4,the pressure in the pipe between System A and Bis halved by inserting an intermediate tank.The medieval designers of the Londonconduit were well aware of this aspect of conduittechnology, as in 1388 the City ordered that aconduit 'penthouse' be built in Fleet Street.This was the section of lowest elevation of theLondon conduit and therefore the part mostlikely to suffer pressure leakage (Appendix 1).The objective of the additional 'penthouse'was to avoid the regular inundations of localproperties from burst conduit pipes 'in orderthat it might be seen whether the damage couldby such means be averted' (CLBH, 503). Theword 'penthouse' is Riley's translation of theLatin word aventum, a term that implies somefunction of venting the pipe — an operationthat it was believed a spurgel performed (Riley1868, 503). The concept of water pressure is amodern notion. To the medieval mind a pipefailed because of excessive quantities of trappedand compressed air within the pipe that neededto be released and spurgels were thought toprovide this venting function (Hope 1902, 301).Presumably the belief that compressed gasseswere the source of pipe failure arose from theobservation that air bubbles could be seen risingfrom falling water and that these needed to bedissipated, as they would have been if the waterwas not trapped within the pipe.The design of the Charterhouse conduit,installed in 1430, provides an interesting casestudy of how spurgels were used for pressureregulation. This conduit had a drop of 21mover the course of a 1.2km pipe and includeda succession of eleven spurgels. This can becompared to the London conduit that originallycontained only three spurgels (two in theoriginal design and an additional one addedat Fleet Bridge) in a drop of 15m over a 4.8kmpipe. The insertion of spurgels into the systemwas therefore a further feature of conduitdesign that required the balancing of opposingrequirements. A greater number of spurgelswould allow the water to be better filtered andavoid the potential problem of debris beingdeposited in the inaccessible underground pipe.Fall from headsource, S metresFall fromhead source(intermediate tank), 2.5metresFig 4. Schematic diagram to show the reduction in pipe pressure, by inserting an intermediate tank

50 David Lewisbut, on the other hand, the greater the numberof spurgels, the lower the pressure in the system.A lower pressure system would deliver less waterand be less capable of successfully crossingsteep river valleys. It could be deduced fromthe apparent design of the London conduit,with the limited number of spurgels, that thepreservation of pressure took precedence overthe requirement to filter the water, probablybecause of the unknown forces required tolift water from the Fleet valley to Cheapside.Whether this would have represented a riskydecision would in part depend on the soil surroundingthe field springs, as inevitably some ofthis soil would be carried by the water and wouldneed to be removed. Very fine, light, or sandysoil would require more filtering than othertypes. If insufficient spurgels were included inthe London system, the conduit risked failurefrom blocked pipes. The incorrect balancing offiltering versus preservation of pressure appearsto have been the problem with the extremelyexpensive Windsor Castle conduit (costing over£3,000 in 1552-59) which operated for little overfifty years, being reported as 'broken' as earlyas 1609. It operated in an area of very fine soil,but only incorporated three spurgels, the waterpressure being preserved to power an elaboratefountain inside the castle (Hope 1917, I, 290).The criteria for selection of the appropriatesprings to feed a conduit system therefore hadto include a combination of elevation above theintended site of the distribution fountain, yearroundproductivity, and the absence of suspendedmatter in the spring water or, alternatively,sufficient additional elevation to allow it to beremoved. It would seem that there were fewpotentially useful spring sites to feed the Londonconduit.Perhaps the most critical issue in constructingthe London conduit was the location of thesource spring at Tyburn, to the west of theCity. This site would require a conduit pipe4.8km long to connect to a conduit house inCheapside, probably longer than any otherEnglish system. It would have been unknown atthe outset whether such a pipe could be madeand installed, whilst remaining perfectly sealed.Monastic systems generally had a short runfrom source to destination, involving fewer pipesections and consequently less loss of pressurefrom leaks at the temperamental joints betweensections. The Canterbury and Charterhousesystems, for example, ran for less than 1.5km.It would have been difficult to predict theeffective pressure within a long pipe, such as theLondon conduit, and ultimately whether therewas sufficient pressure to transport the water overthe intended route. The existing experience ofbuilding monastic conduits, where these werebuilt in an urban setting, had only installed pipesunder streets that sustained the pressures of amuch lower population density than London.Moreover, monastic conduit systems could oftenbe optimised by avoiding difficult topographicfeatures such as river valleys or steep inclinesby routing the pipes through open fields. Thepipe for the London conduit had to follow theexisting street pattern — there was no flexibilityto avoid such difficult features as the FleetValley. Clearly there were significant differencesbetween the installation of a monastic systemand the London conduit that would stretch theexisting knowledge and experience of conduitbuilding.Despite the practical problems, conduit systemshad been successfully installed in a number ofcontinental European cities, in some cases initiallysharing resources with the monastic communitiesor in other cases reviving systems originallydeveloped by the Romans. Early systems wereinstalled in Essen (1039-58), Magdeburg (1125-60), Paris (before 1119), and Salzburg (1136)(Magnusson 2001, 6). Whilst the motivationfor installing a conduit system in London wasmost likely the improvement of City health,particularly for the poor, there must also havebeen some pressure on the City authorities todemonstrate the status of London by emulatingcontinental developments. Although there areno surviving plans of the London conduit, theplans of the Canterbury (1153-67), WalthamAbbey (1220-22), and London Charterhouse(1430) conduits give an indication of how theLondon conduit might have worked.The grant of land to the City for a conduitsource was made by Gilbert de Sanford in1236, and the first reference to the, presumablyoperating, conduit in Cheapside was made in1261. From these dates it would seem that thesystem took approximately twenty-five years toplan and build (CCR ii, 38). The conduit headat Tyburn (opposite the modern Bond Streettube station) probably gathered water fromseveral very close springs, that together made asufficient supply, into a collection reservoir tankor cistern. The original grant states '...all thosesprings and waters arising from those springs

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 51which they have made to unite into one place'(CLBA, 14). The cistern fed a single lead pipethat was laid, for the most part underground,to the conduit head in Cheapside. The exactcourse of the pipe is unknown, but four sectionsof pipe have subsequently been found andthese give an indication of the likely route. Twosections were found in Fleet Street (1743) andSt Clement's church (1765) during buildingwork, and a further two sections close to thenorthern boundary wall of St Paul's Cathedralin Paternoster Square (2001) (Foord 1910, 266).The conduit warden accounts refer to mendingthe pipe between the Mews (Charing Cross)and the mill in the field (Windmill Street),suggesting a course of the pipe to the north ofthe modern day Strand. The pipe is assumed tohave initially followed the course of the Tyburnvalley, south towards the Thames, as usingthe valley would have provided a ready madegradient for the pipe and have saved the cost ofdigging new trenches. On reaching the brow of ahill known as 'James head' (StJames's), the pipeentered an inspection tank or 'spurgel'. Thepipe then turned sharply east, following a pathbeneath the road to the King's mews at CharingCross, where there was a further spurgel, andthen north of present day Strand and FleetStreet to the Fleet valley (Morley Davies 1910,47). The Fleet would have been crossed at FleetBridge, as there are references in the letterbooks in 1350 to 'mending the spurgail brokenat Flete bridge 6s.3'/2 d., for mending the pipesthere Gs.S'/ad.' (Riley 1868, 265). The pipe wouldthen have ascended Ludgate Hill and passedaround the precinct of St Paul's to Cheapside.The conduit 'house' was located outside thechurch of St Mary Colechurch, at the extremeeastern end of Cheapside, on land close to thebirthplace of Thomas Becket. The technicaldesign of the conduit head or fountain, apartfrom its elaborate decoration, was likely to havebeen an elevated lead cistern that received waterfrom the conduit pipe and in turn deliveredwater through brass or latten taps at street level.Users would fill portable vessels from these taps,with a stone basin beneath to collect any spilledor wasted water. The water collected in the stonebasin could also be used by those without accessto the taps.The volume of water passing through theconduit is thought to have been relativelyinsubstantial, Keene has suggested that it wasonly sufficient to support 45 households orabout 1% of the City population in 1350 (Keene2001, 178). However, calculations based onthe dimensions of a section of pipe excavatedat Paternoster Square would indicate that thepressure at the Cheapside conduit head would beC.20 psi or equivalent to a delivery of 1.25 gallonsper second, given the location of the sourcespring, the likely elevation of Cheapside in themid-14th century, and assuming the conduit pipewas entirely 'closed'. Engineering calculationswould, therefore, indicate that the problem withthe London conduit was not insufficient waterpressure, but excess (Appendix 1). There wouldhave been some difficulty in containing thepressure within the pipe, especially in the spurgelat Fleet Bridge. The assumption that a medievalpipe, especially one almost 5km long, could becompletely 'closed', is certainly unrealistic, buteven assuming that 20% of the pressure was lostat the point of highest pressure in the system,the Fleet valley, the water pressure at Cheapsidewould still have been c.13.4 psi or equivalentto a delivery of 0.84 gallons per second (Fig5). This volume of water is significantly morethan was required to support 45 households,especially given the relatively restricted use offresh water. As the contemporary records implythat there was a shortage of water at the conduithead, there must have been some other factorsaccounting for the poor quantities delivered.This could have been either that the Tyburnsource did not provide a sufficiently regularsupply; that the pipe was partially blocked inplaces and did not run freely; or that the pipesleaked significantly more than 20%; or possiblya combination of all these factors. Whatever thecause, there appeared to be an excess of demandover supply.Despite the apparent deficiency in watersupply, the conduit buildings played a specialrole in civic and royal pageants when theCity reaffirmed its loyalty to the monarch.The conduit head was elaborately decorated,becoming one of the regular stopping pointsof the celebrations — running with wine in1273 for the coronation of Edward I and beingdecorated for the passing procession of HenryV on his return from Agincourt in 1415 (Foord1910, 253, 259). Although there are severalreferences in the City record to the conduit'flowing with wine', it is uncertain how this wasachieved. There is no indication on the monasticplans of a 'master tap' to close the system at thesource, allowing wine to be poured into the

52 David LewisConduit atTyburn (29MOD)James head,separation tank(spurgel)• ^ .Mewsgate(Charing Cross)(spurgel)Conduit atCheapside(14 MOD)Fleet'Penthouse'•-D\Source springs(additionalsprings added,1355)Purge pipe forcleaningFleet bridg-...dWater pressure(psi) in the pipe.5.5 33 20* Appendix 1.* using a factor of 4.3 psi, per 10 feet of fall.Fig 5. Schematic London conduit map based on Stow's descriptionconduit in substitution for water. Simply closingthe pipe at the conduit head would have causedextreme pressure elsewhere in the system. Themost likely means of stopping the flow wouldhave been to entirely divert the Tyburn source,emptying the system of water and, having closedthe pipe between Cheapside and the Fleet valleyso that the wine did not flow backwards down thepipe, simply pour wine into the top cistern of theconduit building. Wine would then issue fromthe taps below, appearing to make the entireconduit 'flow with wine'.The attitude of the City to public infrastructureprojects, such as the conduit, was that theyshould 'live of their own', be self-financing andmanaged by dedicated officials (Tucker 1995,244). Conduit wardens, elected by householdersin the vicinity of the conduit, were responsiblefor the maintenance of the conduit, regulationof the conduit head, and the collection of anyfees for the use of conduit water (Keene 2001,176). The London conduit wardens appear tohave also had some function with regard tomaintaining the pipes, as their names indicatethey were drawn from the non-ferrous metaltrade, such as William le Latoner (1325), Geoferyde Gedelstone (1325), Thomas le Peautrer(1333-35), Robert le Foundour (1350, 1352-53), and Arnold le Peautrer (1353) (Magnusson2001, 119; CLBC, 11). Unfortunately, other thanthe 1350 accounts that were presented by awarden who was subsequently judged dishonestand are therefore recorded in the City letterbooks, no other conduit accounts survive toconfirm this arrangement.The undercroft of the conduit head in WestCheap was accidentally discovered in 1994under the current road junction of Poultry andCheapside, close to the Tesco supermarket (Birchet al forthcoming). Although a full excavation wasnot carried out, a significant amount of additionalinformation was gathered on the building. Theinternal dimensions are 1.6m high, 2m wide, and6.5m long. Curiously the walls on three sides are

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 532m thick, compared to an expected thicknessof approximately Im for a building of thesedimensions. Possibly the additional structuralstrength was thought necessary to support thevarious lead cisterns that were enclosed withinthe building; it perhaps also points to a degreeof over-engineering, reflecting the uncertaintyof the required tolerances in a conduit buildingproject that was itself at the margins of existingknowledge. An unusual feature of the excavatedremains was evidence of water damage withinthe undercroft. The excavation team speculatedthat the undercroft also acted as some form ofreservoir in addition to the cistern above roadlevel. However, if this was the case, there mustalso have been some mechanism to raise thewater from the undercroft to the above groundcistern. There was no evidence of such a device.The street level at the time the building was inuse could be accurately estimated as 14m abovesea-level.The conduit seems to have operated effectively,albeit that the volume of water was insufficient.Complaints recorded in the letter books refer towasting the conduit water or its inappropriateuse for industrial purposes, underlining theproblems of supply (CLBF, 200; Riley 1868,77-8). Unsurprisingly, one of the industrialuses for conduit water specifically mentioned,and apparently a cause of local friction, was thecommercial production of ale and beer, near SaintPaul's Cathedral — the producers competingwith the local inhabitants for access to the water(Bennett 1996, 20). The first attempt to improvethe level of water supply was made in 1355, whenadditional springs close to the existing Tyburnsource were connected to the head cistern. Thiswould have had a potentially double effect.Firstly, by increasing the head pressure, morewater would have flowed through the existingpipes and secondly, by increasing the rate offlow, any underground blockages in the pipewould have been cleared, making the pipes moreefficient. It seems that the 1355 improvementsdid increase the supply of water, as an additionaldestination fountain was tentatively approvedin 1390 for the 'substantial men of Farringdon'(CLBH, 521). Such an extension would not havebeen contemplated if the supplies to the existingconduit head were still considered inadequate.By the close of the 14th century, therefore, theLondon conduit system consisted of a numberof enclosed springs in the vicinity of the originalTyburn source, a single lead pipe, laid mostlyunderground from Tyburn to Cheapside, withan extension to Farringdon made close to thechurch of St Michael le Quern, and an elaborate,castellated conduit fountain at the eastern endof Cheapside.LAW AND FINANCEThe legal issues associated with the constructionof a conduit system can be analysed into threeparts; firstly, obtaining property rights over thesource spring and permission to construct acollection cistern; secondly, permission to laypipes between the source and destination eitherfrom private landlords or from the King (if thepipe was laid beneath the King's highway); andfinally, property rights to construct a conduithouse to distribute the water to the public.The 1236 grant by Gilbert de Stanford ofthe lands at Tyburn allowed springs on the siteto be enclosed and a collection cistern built.The construction of a cistern would have takenrelatively little space and presumably the rest ofthe land at Tyburn could continue to be usedas it had been previously, provided that thesprings were not contaminated or otherwisecompromised. Clearly, once the collection cisternhad been built to gather water from a group ofadjacent springs, it was important that the samesprings were not diverted for another purpose,leaving insufficient water for the conduit tooperate. This concern was specifically mentionedwith regard to the 1420 extension of the Londonconduit, that was planned to enclose springsalso used by the Westminster Abbey waterconduit. The Abbot had the right, by charter,to disconnect the London conduit if it proveddetrimental to the Westminster supply.The wording of the grant by Gilbert de Stanfordimplies that royal permission to build the conduithad been obtained, as a clause states (referringto the king) 'for his honour and reverence' thatthe conduit should be built 'for the commonbenefit of the City and citizens of London'(CLBA, 14). The charter, however, appears tobe deliberately vague about the likely courseof the conduit pipe and the arrangements forcollecting water, presumably to give a free handto those building the system. Equally the 1355extension to the Tyburn source to incorporateadditional springs on the same site, granted byAlice Chobham, was similarly vague — 'to have aplot of land twenty-four feet square for a spring,wherever they might choose' (CLBG, 210).

54 David LewisThe right to lay the pipes under privateproperty would have required a documented wayleavefrom the property owner, whereas the rightto lay pipes under the highway required a royallicence that would normally have been recordedin the national record. Royal grants would besubject to an option to order an inquisition'ad quod damnum to determine if there waslikely to be any damage to royal interests bygranting permission to construct a conduit. Itseems, however, that not all royal authorisationswere recorded, as there is no grant for theconstruction of the London conduit. The grantfor the Chester conduit provided a considerabledegree of latitude 'to open and pierce andreclose the said land, the City wall and thehighways where necessary' — presumably, asin the construction of the collection cistern, togive the conduit builders some flexibility in theirwork (CPR (1272-81), 165).Once the pipe had been laid, there was alwaysthe danger that new buildings would encroachon the site of the conduit pipe, renderingsubsequent maintenance of the pipe — or indeed,its replacement — either difficult or impossible.This point was specifically mentioned in the 1443grant for the extension of the London conduit,'whereas both our land of Mews and others', overand under which the water pipes are situated,are lately enclosed by walls and other edifices,so that the Mayor, Alderman and Citizens cannotexamine or repair them without much troubleand difficulty...' (CPR (1441-46), 198).Land for building the conduit fountain onCheapside was donated by the City in c.1240.There had been an earlier plan to construct abasilica on this site, dedicated to the birthplaceof Thomas Becket, but this plan had not cometo fruition and a much smaller scale churchwas built instead, leaving a vacant plot for theconduit house (Keene 2001, 178). The locationof the conduit house, with its flowing water, hadobvious religious symbolism, enhanced by theassociation with Saint Thomas.Maintenance incomeThe financial arrangements to pay for the maintenanceof the London conduit can at best bedescribed as haphazard. It seems that no seriousconsideration was given to the requirementto establish a source of funds for this work.Whether this was the result of ignorance — thatthe conduit once built would operate withoutsubstantial additional expense — or design —that water charges were assumed to be sufficientto cover maintenance costs — is not known. Onefinancing scheme after another was tried, foundto be inadequate, and replaced. The result wasthat a system, which probably operated belowexpectation from the start, slowly deterioratedduring the 14th century, albeit that the sourcesprings were enhanced in 1355. Repairs to thesystem were carried out as and when the fundsbecame available; if there were insufficientresources, then the conduit was allowed todecay. By the early 15th century, it was reported'whereas the fountain heads and conduitsserving the City ... diminish and dry-up' (CPR(1441-46), 198). The inadequacy of routinemaintenance eventually threatened the systemwith complete collapse.In striking contrast to London Bridge,the other major piece of City infrastructure,the conduit had virtually no fixed source ofincome, although they had economic features incommon — namely, the requirement for a highlevel of continuous expensive maintenance,to be funded through the collection of a largevolume of relatively insignificant usage charges.London Bridge was endowed with a substantialportfolio of London properties, donated bycitizens wishing to be associated with the cult ofSaint Thomas, to whom the Bridge chapel wasdedicated. Bridges were often seen as objects ofpious offering, but this does not appear to haveapplied to the conduit, notwithstanding the factthat the poor were seen as major beneficiaries ofclean water and that such associations normallyelicited giving (Webb 2000, 230). The locationof the conduit head, outside the birthplace ofSaint Thomas, also appears not to have gatheredmany bequests, although the possibility of sucha source of income was surely contemplated.The substantial value of properties attached tothe Bridge did result in the rather unexpectedoutcome that the Bridge wardens were almostas much involved with managing and exploitingthe landed endowment as they were withmaintaining the fabric of the Bridge (Harding& Wright 1995, 11). Rental income from Bridgeproperties located near St Paul's accountedfor at least three-quarters of the Bridge's totalrevenue of £796 per annum between 1404 and1537, whilst the income from crossing charges at2d per cart and Id per ship passing under theBridge amounted to only £7 in 1420 (Harding &Wright 1995, 17). If the Bridge wardens had only

'Far the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 55to rely on the insecure usage charges to fund therepairs, then the Bridge would soon have falleninto disrepair, as they were simply inadequate.The conduit wardens, like the Bridge wardens,were also responsible for substantial repair costs,but were expected to maintain the system withusage charges and a small number of relativelylow value endowments established in the late14th century. The majority of water chargeswere levied on brewers, fishmongers, and cookswho took conduit water in connection withtheir businesses. The difficulty with relyingon variable usage charges was that they variedin an exact contrary pattern to the incidenceof maintenance expense. When the systemfailed and needed substantial repair, incometo meet the repair costs declined because of areduction in the available water on which to levycharges. The concept of building a reserve orcontingency fund within conduit finances to payfor exceptional costs appears not to have beenconsidered. In the one set of surviving conduitwarden's accounts, for 1350, although a surpluswas declared, it was not allocated to a reserve tomeet repair costs in later years but appears tohave been available for distribution. In commonwith other public works, the accounts for theconduit were prepared on a simple cash receiptand payment basis.The first reference to conduit finances occursin 1310, when the conduit warden, WilliamHardy, was enjoined not to sell water on painof losing his freedom (CLBD, 237). The clearintention was that conduit water was supposed tobe supplied without charge and that there hadbeen some attempt, presumably by the conduitwarden, to profit from water sale. This policy waschanged in 1312, when the cooks, brewers, andfishmongers were granted an 'easement' to useconduit water in exchange for an unspecified fee;the money was to be used to repair and maintainthe conduit (CLBD, 107). The next reference in1333-35 notes that £6 18d had been received bythe conduit wardens for tankard 'quitrent', withthe implication that, whilst the water from theconduit was free, the use of tankards to transportthe water incurred a charge (CLBD, 237). By1350 when the conduit warden's accounts arerecorded in the letter books, two years revenuefrom tankard quitrents amounted to £11 15s 4d.Despite these charges, it was thought necessaryabout this time to implement a new revenuestream to support the maintenance costs;properties in the vicinity of the conduit head inCheapside and Poultry were charged half a markper year as a fixed fee (Riley 1868, 264-5). Thissource of income appears, however, to have beeneither judged inequitable, as those who used theconduit waters lived outside the vicinity of theconduit head, or uncollectable, as a meticulouslist of those who had not paid was kept by thewardens. There is no further reference to thismethod of collecting revenue.The next solution to the problem of matchingconduit income and expenditure was to leaseout the entire conduit pipe for twenty marksa year for ten years from 1367, with the lesseeenjoying 'the profits and advantages' aboveground. This presumably included routinemaintenance tasks such as cleaning the conduitheads, with the lessors (the City) retaining therepair costs of the underground pipe, 'providedthe Sheriff, Aldermen and commonalty couldtake water without charge, as old accustomed'(CLBG, 223). It seems this scheme also failedto solve the financial problems of the conduit,as it was not renewed after the initial termexpired. The underground repair costs musthave been greater than the twenty marks leaseincome received by the City and the conduit wastherefore taken back into public control at theend of the lease.The next reported solution, in 1378, was anattempt to increase revenue through voluntarydonations. The City tried to persuade the 'goodmen of each ward to make a free gift accordingto their wealth and zeal for the City' to supportthe cost of the conduit. Where such moralpressure was insufficient to raise funds fromthose who were thought capable of paying, anassessment was to be made against those who'maliciously refused' (CLBH, 116). In addition,perhaps recognising the real problem, it wasnoted that an inquiry was to be held to achievesome better method of raising money for theconduit. The exact result of the inquiry is notknown, but in the following year each residentof the City wards was asked to supply one day'sfree labour during a five week period between16 May and 21 June, to work on the City conduitand ditches (CLBH, 127-8). Presumably theidea was the reverse of the 1378 'solution', thatif revenue could not be increased, perhaps costscould be reduced, by substituting free labour forpaid. Labour costs, based on the 16th-centuryChamberlain's accounts, represented the onlysubstantial element of cost that was not relatedto raw materials, such as lead and timber, and

56 David Lewistherefore seeking to reduce this element of theconduit's maintenance costs would seem to bea reasonable means of achieving some saving(Masters 1984, 78). Again, the exact outcomeof this experiment is not known, although itseems not to have resolved the problem, as thereare further references to the pressing need formaintenance expenditure. In 1383 the roomsand walls over Cripplegate were reported asbeing 'ruinous and infirm' but could only berepaired if there was any surplus 'over and abovereasonable outlay on the conduit' (CLBH, 477).The conduit was to receive preferential access toCity's resources.The lack of conduit warden accounts makesit difficult to draw any definitive conclusions onthe effectiveness of the financial administrationof the conduit. Accounts for public utilities werenormally rendered following the end of theresponsible warden's term of office and werenot necessarily produced annually (Harding& Wright 1995, 10). It seems that in the late14th century the urgent need for more fundsto support the conduit was partly met frombequests. An examination of the wills proved inthe Court of Husting shows that of nine bequestsmade to the conduit between 1259 and 1499, fivewere made in the period 1380-1400 (McEwan2000, 38). The repeated changes in gatheringrevenue, the call in 1379 for free labour towork on the conduit, and the later relianceon bequests and other donations suggest thatthe conduit was not covering its costs (CLBH,127-8). The City records specifically note thatmodifications to the conduit were to be at thecost of the local inhabitants, as if the conduitwardens had no available reserves or surplusfunds (CLBH, 326).In 1415 there is reference to a differentcharging mechanism — the collection ofadditional revenue from 'industrial' users ofthe conduit. Brewers were to 'rent' the upperpipe of the conduit, for both malting andbrewing, with the lower tap (ie the waste water)being allowed for the 'common people' withoutcharge (CLBI, 617). After 1420 the conduit wassubject to substantial renovation and presumablythe issue of maintenance expenditure was thenless pressing and this would account for thesilence on this topic in the letter books, untilthe 1470s. It would appear that later in the 15thcentury routine conduit maintenance costs werebeing paid by the City authorities, as there isreference in the City journal to a fourth part ofthe fifteenth being collected in 1471, a furtherfifteenth in 1472, and a quarter of a fifteenth in1475, for 'the repair' of the conduit (Journ. 8, fo23,27,101).CONSTRUCTION FINANCEThe total cost of constructing the first conduitis not recorded, but it would probably havebeen c.£I,900, based on the known costs for theconduit extension in 1442 (Appendix 2). Themajor part of the capital construction cost musthave been raised from pious donations, possibly,as with London Bridge, associating the donorwith the cult of Saint Thomas (Barron 2004,256). The contribution of £100 recorded fromthe merchants of Amiens, Corby, and Nele inPicardy for a licence to offload and warehousewoad within the City, represented a relativelysmall drop in the financial ocean of the overallproject (Keene & Harding 1987, 612). This is theonly reference to the construction costs of thefirst conduit in the letter books.The finance and control of the Londonwater conduit changed significantly in the 15thcentury, switching from a mixture of City andprivate funds to, almost exclusively, wealthymerchants, most of whom were at some timeeither aldermen, sheriffs, or mayors of London.This change begs two questions: why was therea switch from public funds to private donationand why was the provision of water selected as aworthy project for charitable giving?The answer to the first question is complex.The Cheapside conduit head was a very symbolicbuilding; it demonstrated the modernity of the Cityin the application of technology and the generousprovision made for the poor; its importance wasacknowledged in City pageants. Early 15thcenturyLondon was a boom town that had made anumber of leading merchants extremely wealthy.Key amongst these were perhaps Whittington(Mercer), Estfield (Mercer), and Eyre (Draper).These merchants wished to leave their markon the City, both as an act of piety and as agesture of civic pride. Estfield, in particular, isassociated with the development of the Londonconduit, although there is no obvious reasonwhy he selected 'water' as a suitable vehiclefor donation, other than the obvious religiousassociations and the benefits clean waterbrought to public health. Perhaps, in the oftenmixed motivations of 15th-century public giving,it was the position of the conduit on Cheapside,

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 57located immediately outside the Mercer's Hall,an area in which many mercers lived, that wouldact as a visual reminder to his business associatesfor post-mortem prayer. Undoubtedly Estfieldwould have seen the daily competition for waterat the conduit taps and he must have decidedthat an improvement to the City water supplywould be a worthwhile act of charity. Estfieldappears to have become increasingly involvedwith water-related projects during the early yearsof the 15th century, eventually becoming directlyinvolved in financing the expansion of theconduit — paying in 1443 for new source springs,located in Paddington, to be incorporated intothe system. He left bequests in his will in 1446 forthe completion of a new conduit to the churchof St Mary Aldermanbury, where he was to beburied. His executors subsequently built the newconduit by 1471 (Cal Wills II, 509-11).By the 15th century it seems that the Cityunderstood the necessity for sound financesto support public works. The 'new work' ofthe Guildhall, in 1413, demonstrated the newthinking, as it was funded by a collection of'pious alms of citizens and helping hands ofdivers generous and benevolent persons' and afurther hundred marks of the City's profits fromLondon Bridge (Riley 1868, 589). Significantly,public funds were used to supplement privatedonation. The City did not commission new civicamenities until a means of financial support hadbeen agreed.EXPANSION OF THE CONDUIT SYSTEMThe early 15th-century conduit system, althoughincreased in capacity in 1355 through theaddition of new source springs at Tyburn, wasalmost two hundred years old by 1440 and wouldsurely have appeared to be a very tired piece ofCity infrastructure. The cumulative effects ofinadequate maintenance, probably resulting insilted and leaking pipes, would have significantlyreduced the flow of water through the conduit.The inadequacy of supply was leading to disputesbetween tradesmen and ordinary consumers aseach group competed for access to the water; in1415 some of these disagreements were recordedin the letter books (CLBl, 617). The convenienceof the conduit had stimulated its own demandand whilst increasing numbers of people wantedaccess to the water, at the same time the supplydiminished and became more unreliable. Thesystem was in need of a complete overhaul.The difficulty with increasing the supplythrough the existing conduit pipe was that thesource at Tyburn had already been fully exploitedand the option of simply linking in more springsin the immediate vicinity of the head cistern wasnot available. In addition, the existing pipe wasin need of substantial repair that would requireits excavation, recasting, and relaying. Thesystem needed to be completely renewed. At thispoint it is not known whether a radical solutionto the failing conduit was contemplated, such asfinding a completely new source that might havebeen available to the north of the City. Any newsystem, however, would have involved investing ina new pipe and trench, with the implicit risk thatthe new source would not provide the necessarypressure to ensure an improved supply. It seemsthat a two stage improvement was planned: firstlyto incorporate new source springs — these wouldsimply consist of tapping the Westminster Abbeysupply in Oxlease, 2 km west of Tyburn, closeto the modern site of Paddington station; andsecondly, to excavate and relay the problematicsection of pipe in Fleet Street (CLBK, 233).In order to minimise the amount of pipe andtrench that was required to connect Oxlease tothe existing conduit system, a new pipe wouldneed to be laid south of Oxlease (probably partlyfollowing an existing river bank) to link with thespurgel at Charing Cross. By 1430 negotiationshad been concluded with the Abbot and Priorof Westminster, but conditions were attached.Firstly, that 'should the ancient supply of waterto the Abbey of Westminster from the manorof Hyde be interfered with, the granters shallbe entitled to resume possession of the headand springs now granted' (Morley Davies 1910,26). In addition, it was established that anywater extracted for use in the London conduitincurred a charge. Presumably this conditionwas included as double protection, that if theLondon conduit refused to resite their conduithaving diminished the Abbey supply, the Abbeycould then charge a usage fee, sufficient to payfor the construction of a new Abbey supply.The initial charge was set at an immaterial twopeppercorns per year (Foord 1910, 269).A second condition was that any new pipeswere not to cross the manor of Hyde — thereason for this is not known, presumably it wasnot just a question of the disruption that layingnew pipes might cause. However, this conditionwas problematic as the most direct route to thespurgel at Charing Cross was through the manor

58 David Lewis1-53SrgI'*i.'^r.

'Far the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 59of Hyde (Fig 6). The alternative of laying a pipeto the cistern at Tyburn, to link in with theexisting system, would have involved the pipemounting the high ground at the junction ofthe manors of Hyde and Tyburn (present dayHyde Park corner). As the difference in elevationbetween Oxlease and Tyburn was only about 3m,a closed pipe in this location would not havetransported a sufficient quantity of water over theintervening high ground to significantly increasethe total capacity of the system (Morley Davies1910,24-8).To solve this problem a 'long drain' (an opentrench conduit) was to be built between Oxleaseand Tyburn with sufficient capacity to increasethe head pressure at Tyburn. This 'solution' wasnot without technical difficulties; the drain wouldhave to operate within a very shallow gradient,over a relatively long course, and, given thecrude instrumentation available to the builders,construction would have involved a considerableamount of trial and error. A committee hadbeen formed by 1439 to plan the new works andraise the required finance; investment in theconduit was clearly seen at this point as a projectto be managed by the City authorities (Barron1971, 270). Estfield was chosen to supervise thework and this appears to be his first recordedinvolvement with 'water' projects. The new workon the conduit is not mentioned in the Cityjournal for a two year period at this time, andit could be speculated that the construction ofthe 'long drain' accounts for the apparent delay(CLBK, 243, 249).At the same time it seems that the pipes inFleet Street and Strand were being repaired onthe basis that the new conduit would extendfrom Tyburn to the Charing Cross spurgel andfrom there to the City using the repaired 'old'conduit pipes (Barron 1971, 270). Stow refersto 'water conveighed ... in pypes of lead into apype begunne to bee laide besides the greateConduit heade at Maribone [Tyburn], whichstrecheth from there unto a separall ....madeagainst the Chappell of Rounsevall by CharingCross, and no further' (Stow 1908, II, 41). In1442, William Cliff (the City building surveyor)promised to account for his work on the FleetStreet conduit, but was unwilling to estimatethe likely future expenditure (Barron 1971,270). It could be that the construction work wasmore costly than anticipated, as the 1,000 markstax revenue raised by the wards in 1440 seems tohave been exhausted by 1442. Conventionally,the project is thought to have ground to a haltat this time.An alternative explanation might be that newplans were drawn up to radically increase thecapacity of the conduit by laying additionallead pipes from Tyburn to the City, includingintermediate spurgels (Barron 1971, 271). Thereason to suppose that there might have beensuch a plan is two fold. Firstly the 16th-centurydrawing of the conduit by Treswell clearly showsthe system in the vicinity of western Cheapsidecomprised of a number of supply pipes and notthe single pipe of the original system. Secondly,the 1443 royal grant for the construction work,including laying pipes under the King's highway,{ie after the initial project appears to havestopped in 1442) records 200 fodders (c.l90tons) of lead being purchased for the project. Asthe standard practice was to recover lead fromthe old pipes in making the new, this amountof lead is far in excess of the amount requiredto repair a single pipe. For the repairs to theWindsor Castle conduit in 1603, that used a pipeof similar dimensions to the London conduit,56 tons of new lead were required to recasttwo miles of pipe, two thirds of the total leadrequired being met from melting the old pipe(Hope 1917, 230). Even if it is assumed thatthere was little or no recovery from removingthe 'old' London conduit pipe, the lead orderedin 1443 would have been sufficient to install adouble pipe from Tyburn to Cheapside, basedon the dimensions and weight of the recentlyexcavated section of conduit pipe (Appendix2). As no accounts of the extension to theconduit exist, what exactly was installed in theearly 15th century has to remain speculative;however as the technology of pipe manufactureonly allowed pipes of a c.lOcm diameter to bemade, the only way of increasing the capacity ofthe system would have been to lay a double pipe.The evidence of the Treswell drawings and thepurchase of substantial quantities of new leadwould support this conclusion.Initial financing of the extension to theconduit appears not to have been resolveduntil 1446 when it consisted of a mixture of Cityfunds, private loans (including 250 marks fromEstfield), and bequests (Barron 1971, 274). Theelement of public finance in the project was to bedeferred and collected over the period 1446-50,presumably to meet the planned constructioncosts as they arose (CLBK, 318). However, withthe exception of the inhabitants of Cheap ward.

60 David Lewiswho had a vested interest in completion of theproject, the funding was either not collected bythe aldermen or appears to have been divertedto other purposes. It has been speculated thatEstfield, who had died some time before 29April 1446, provided funds for the completionof the conduit project by a verbal codicil to hiswill and, knowing this, the wards diverted fundsto other priorities (Barron 1971, 275). Certainly,however, the executors of Estfield adopted themanagement of the project from 1453 afterlengthy negotiations with the City, includingpermission to lay new pipes between Fleet Streetand Cheap (Journ. 5, fo.l85). Stow notes thatthis work was completed in 1471 (Stow 1908, I,17; CLBK, 355-7; CLBL, 158, 207). The transferof the conduit project from the City authoritiesto private hands points towards a changedattitude in the management of public worksprogrammes. A development also reflected in anumber of other projects, such as the grain storeat Leadenhall built by Simon Eyre (1445) orWhittington rebuilding Newgate prison (1431)(CLBK, 49-52).The extension of the conduit to incorporate thesource springs at Oxlease took over thirty years tocomplete and cost between a phenomenal £3,200,and possibly as much as £5,000, but dramaticallyincreased the supply of conduit water to theCity (Barron 1971, 277). The new conduit wasover 6.5km long from Paddington to Cheapsideand was efficient enough not only to supply theoriginal conduit in Cheapside, but also a numberof new distribution points.Little Conduit on CheapsideAlthough Stow attributes the building of theLittle Conduit 'close to Powles gate' to Estfieldin the 'ninth of Henrie the sixth' (September1430-August 1431), this point is not clear fromother City records (Stow 1908,1, 268). The letterbooks refer to the Little Conduit being built atthe same time as an extension to the church of StMichael le Quern 'half on the common soil' andthe Little Conduit being 'repaired' at the City'sexpense in 1430, implying that it was built sometime before this date — previously the repaircosts being met by local inhabitants (CLBK,110; CLBL, 106). A possible earlier constructiondate might be 1390 when the 'substantial menof Farringdon, near St Michael le Quern' weregranted permission to construct a conduit — theLittle Conduit forming part of this development.Undoubtedly, however, the Little Conduit waslocated at the extreme western end of Cheapsideand was fed from the same pipe as the firstconduit house at the eastern end of Cheapside,that became known as the 'Great Conduit'following the construction of the Little Conduit.The Little Conduit was drawn by RalphTreswell in 1585, in one of his earliest drawingsof London (Fig 7). The dimensions on this planshow the Little Conduit as being approximately32ft long, compared to the Great Conduit(excavated in 1994) that was approximately34ft long — the 'Little' Conduit was, therefore,only a slightly smaller building than the GreatConduit (Schofield 1987, 56-7). The Treswellplan also shows that three pipes were laid underCheapside, one of which enters the Little Conduitwith the other two passing (presumably) to otherdistribution points on Cheapside. Surprisinglythe plan does not show the 1390 extension of thesystem to Farringdon, suggesting that Treswell waseither not aware of the underground pipe or thatthe pipe was joined at some other point (CLBH,521). The Treswell drawing of the Little Conduitand the church of Saint Michael le Quern is itselfmysterious, as it was unrelated to other Treswelldrawings of London streets and apparently wasnot part of a larger scheme. Equally it is notknown who commissioned the drawing. It couldhave been made simply to note the path ofLondon conduit pipes, avoiding confusion withany other pipes that may have been laid by 1585,allowing them to be located for repair. It has beensuggested that early monastic water supply mapshave survived for this same reason.As the term 'little' did not refer to the size ofthe conduit building, it possibly referred to thequantity of water delivered there, as there are noreferences to disputes over access to the water;it may only have supplied 'domestic' quantitiesof water. Regulation of the volume of water wasachieved by attaching a very narrow diameter pipeto the main supply, often referred to in the letterbooks as a 'quill' of water — the 'quill' referringto the thickness of the pipe that was probably nomore than a swan or goose quill (8mm). Thetechnology to restrict the flow of water by meansof a valve did not exist (Magnusson 2001, 70).It would also probably have been symbolicallyimportant not to divert an excessive quantity ofwater into the 'Little' Conduit, in substitutionfor water delivered to the 'Great' Conduit, giventhe problems of supply being experienced in theearly 15th century.

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 61WVFig 7. The Little Conduit at St Michael le Queme, Cheapside (BM Grace Collection 1880-11-13-3516) (By permission ofthe British Library)Standard on CheapsideThe Standard was located in the centre of Cheapside,opposite Honey Lane, and was originally aplace of public execution (Stow 1908, I, 265).It appears to have been built of wood and Stowrefers to it first having 'water conveyed to it' in1285, the same date he gives for the building ofthe Great Conduit, implying (improbably) thatthe Standard was part of the original conduit plan(Stow 1908, I, 17). How the Standard worked asboth a place of execution and a water conduit isuncertain. Presumably, if Stow was correct, theStandard would not have included a lead cistern,but simply a succession of running taps thatonly flowed when there was sufficient pressurein the main pipe. Wooden framed conduitswere not unknown, however; Stow mentions awooden standard in 'Old Bayly' forming part ofthe supply to Ludgate prison '...delivering fayrespring water' (Stow 1908, II, 38).The Standard on Cheapside therefore couldhave been initially a wooden structure rather likea scaffold, being (re)built with stone following abequest from John Wells (ex-mayor) c.1442 (Stow1908, I, 26). The new Standard was decoratedwith an image of Wells being embraced by angelsand contained a small lead cistern 'having onesmall cock continually running, when the samewas not turned or locked' (Foord 1910, 259).The regulation of water pressure at the Standardwould have been achieved by using a narrowdiameter 'quill' attached to the main pipe, in asimilar arrangement to that at the Little Conduit.The rebuilding of the Standard in 1442 confirmsthat it formed part of the general improvementto the conduit that included the work beingcarried out on the Fleet Street/Strand section

62 David Lewisof the conduit pipe. Although there are noreferences indicating that the rebuilt Standarddelivered greater quantities of water, the factthat work was simultaneously being carried outto increase the conduit's capacity might suggestthat the 'new' Standard relied on the conduit'sgeneral improvement.Cornhill conduitExtending the conduit to Cornhill had been anambition of the City fathers since the late 13thcentury, as Cornhill, in common with Cheapside,was on the traditional processional routethrough the City and the location of a market.The first reference to a conduit in Cornhilloccurs in 1378 when 500 marks were givenunder the will of Adam Fraunceys (ex-mayor) forcarrying conduit water to 'cross-ways on the topof Cornhiir (CLBH, 108). This gift presumablyformed part of general improvements plannedfor the Cornhill market, which until 1394 hadoperated under relatively restricted openinghours, with the City granting permission afterthis date for the market to open in the eveningon feast days (Archer et al 1988, 9).The early references in the letter books toa conduit on Cornhill refer to the crosswaysjunction of Gracechurch Street and Cornhill,but as this is the highest point in the City(c.20mod), there would have been insufficientwater pressure within the system to operate awater fountain at this location, even allowingfor the 1355 improvements to the head cisternat Tyburn (Appendix 1). It seems that at somepoint a compromise was reached and that anexisting building, called the 'Tun' or 'Tonne',part way up Cornhill was to be modified andincorporated into the conduit system. As theTun was at a lower elevation than the crossways,it accessed greater pressure from the pipe andtherefore was more likely to provide a reliablesupply. The Tun on Cornhill was built in 1282by Henry Wales (Wallis), ex-mayor, as a prisonfor 'night walkers', prostitutes, and otheroffenders, obtaining its name from its barrelshape (Schofield 1984, 110). It was locatedclose to Birchin Lane and Stow refers to it being'cisterned' in 1401, presumably the installationof a lead cistern at some height above street levelwith exterior taps, in a similar arrangement tothe Great Conduit (Stow 1908, I, 17, 188). Thehomecoming of Henry V from Agincourt in 1415mentions the pageant at the conduit in Cornhill,and this gives the latest date for its conversionfrom a prison to a public utility. It is likely thatit was either a relatively small fountain or that itran intermittently, as it was fed from the samepipe as the Great Conduit, which at this time wassuffering from a shortage of supply. Calculationssuggest that it was operating below 5 psi,equivalent to delivering half a litre per second,at best (Appendix 1).Stow notes that in 1475 the cistern of the Tunwas enlarged together with an 'East end of stone,and castellated in (a) comely manner', theimprovements being paid for by the ex-majorRobert Drope (Stow 1908, I, 191). Again theenlargement of this fountain could only havebeen contemplated once the overall capacityof the system had been increased through theincorporation of the Oxlease source.Gracechurch Street conduitThe conduit on Grasses Street (or GracechurchStreet) was located between the crosswaysintersection and Grace church. It was builtfollowing a bequest from Sir Thomas Hill, exmayor,in 1484, who left 'one hundred markstowards the conveyance of water to this place'(Stow 1908,1, 211). Dame Elizabeth Hill (ThomasHill's widow) was granted permission by the Cityauthorities to 'turn up the soil in GracechurchStreet for the purpose of the conduit' in 1491,and Stow reports that the building of the conduithead was apparendy completed in the sameyear (CLBL, 280). Hill's executors also reportedcompleting building it in 1491. In commonwith the Cornhill conduit, the GracechurchStreet fountain was located, significantly, on themain processional route for City ceremonialsbetween London Bridge and Cheapside. It wouldappear that building conduit fountains hadbecome a fashionable means of post-mortemcommemoration for late 14th-century civic officeholders.The Gracechurch Street conduit was obviouslya local landmark, as Stow notes that the Citywatch was directed to pass 'the Grasse Streetconduit' on returning to Cheapside (Stow 1908,I, 102). It was connected to the Great Conduitvia the Tun on Cornhill, but, due to its elevation,it appears to have had a poor or intermittentsupply of water. In the case of this fountain,however, the cause of insufficient supply wasnot solely related to the capacity of the system.It seems that with the post-1470 improvement to

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 63the conduit, it was realised by Londoners thatan underground pipe could as easily providethe convenience of a domestic supply as providea public function. The practice of private, andprobably illegal, tapping of conduit pipe becamecommon in the late 15th century and clearlythe City authorities disapproved. A case wasrecorded in the letter books in 1478 concerninga brewer, William Campion, who seems to havetapped into the conduit main below Fleet Street,probably by using a narrow diameter pipe or'quiir that provided a ready supply of waterfor his business, saving the cost and effort oftransporting water from his local public waterfountain. As a discouragement to others, whomay have contemplated emulating Campion, hewas paraded through the streets on horseback,with a 'vessel like unto a conduit' on his head,that ran with water; the water being refilled as itwas wasted (CLBL, 160).Although an example was made of Campion,private tapping of the conduit was a more generalproblem. The licences granted in the mid-16thcentury to tap the conduit mostly concernedresidences in the Strand, owned by aristocraticor wealthy merchants, and not simply theoccasional resourceful artisan. The problem withtaking private supplies from the 'high pressure'section of the system in the Fleet Street/Strandarea was that public fountains further along thepipe, and at a higher elevation, would suffer anoff-setting reduction in pressure and thereforean interrupted supply. By 1543 it was notedthat water in the Cornhill, Aldermanbury, andGracechurch Street conduits had stopped,due to the reduction in pressure caused byprivate tapping into the conduit pipe (Foord1910, 276). The problem of regulating accessto conduit water so as to provide an adequatepublic supply, whilst also granting some privatesupplies, concerned the City authorities into the16th century.The Standard on Fleet StreetThe Fleet Street Standard, built in 1471,according to Stow, was located opposite ShoeLane close to Fleet Bridge. In 1478 the localinhabitants had obtained a licence from theCity authorities to install two new cisterns tobe linked to the Fleet Street Standard. The firstwas to be decorated 'as a fayre tower of stone,garnished with images of St Christopher on thetop, and angels round about lower down, withsweet sounding bells before them, whereuponby an Engine placed in the Tower, they, divershours of the day and night chymed such Hymmeas was appointed' (Stow 1908, II, 41). Clearly thisconduit fountain was intended for display. Thesecond cistern apparently collected the wastewater, in a similar arrangement to the GreatConduit, and was located near Fleet Bridge.Stow does not mention whether the two cisternswere connected, although it is probably safe toassume that they were. The local inhabitantspaid for the installation of the Fleet Standard,presumably the sounding of hours was associatedwith either the hours of prayer or the Inns ofCourt, located in the area. A conduit warden wasappointed to maintain the Fleet Street conduitin 1485, together with a separate warden for theAldermanbury conduit (CLBL, 228).A further extension was made to the conduitat Fleet Bridge in 1475 to supply the nearbyprisons at Ludgate and Newgate. William Cliff,the City building surveyor, and the aldermenWilliam Hulyn and Hugh Middleton supervisedthe building of the extension. Althoughauthorisation for the work was received in1459, the Paddington source was not connecteduntil 1471, and so the completion of the prisonextension was not finished until 1475 (Barron1971, 277). The City agreed to pay for themaintenance of the new pipes (CLBL, 130).Ludgate prison had been enlarged, improved,and endowed by Agnes Foster (widow of mayorStephen Foster) in 1463, being reserved forLondoners, to save them from suffering the dirtyand cramped conditions at Newgate prison. Aspart of the endowment to Ludgate, prisonerswould not have to pay for either lodgings orwater and Stow notes that the water to theprison was provided 'by certain verses grauven inCopper, and fixed on the side quadrant' (Stow1908,1, 39-40; Archer et al 1988, 98).CONCLUSIONStow attributes the development of the Londonconduit system to the charitable objectivesof providing good quality water to those whocould not otherwise afford it. Although thereis no specific mention of the motivation forsuch giving, inferences can be drawn from theway the conduit was developed that place itexactly within the pattern of pious donationsseen elsewhere in the 15th century. In additionto constructing a funerary monument in a

64 David Lewiscrowded London church that competed withmany others, perhaps post-mortem prayer couldbe encouraged by making a unique contributionto the City infrastructure — especially elicitingthe potent prayers of the poor. The placing ofboth the Little and Great Conduit heads nextto the churches of St Michael le Quern and StMary Colechurch respectively, and close to thebirthplace of Saint Thomas, was surely intendedto illicit remembrance.It is significant that the pattern of expansionof the conduit largely followed the processionalroute of those entering the City on specialpageant days, providing the maximum opportunityto remind Londoners, and perhaps a widercircle from outside the City, of those responsiblefor providing the City infrastructure. This is notto imply that the pious provisioning was theonly motivation. No doubt competition betweenwealthy merchants to out-do one another intheir giving and an element of civic pride playedtheir part.During the course of the 15th century theattitude of the recipients of City infrastructureprojects was seen to change. Profits from tradeduring the 13th and 14th centuries had beentainted with the possibility of containing anelement of usury and were therefore thought'distasteful'. The use of these same profits tofinance the construction of public buildings andmonuments potentially cast these projects in asimilar light. By the 15th century, however, profitscame to be seen differently; they were the meansof performing good works and were therefore tobe encouraged, or as Little states, 'philanthropyheld one of the keys to the justification ofprofit-making' (Litde 1978, 213). The Londoneconomy was fast growing in the early 15thcentury, overseas trade was increasing, and anumber of individual merchants were becomingextremely wealthy. As much as anyone else,these individuals wished to shorten their time inpurgatory and to achieve this, they constructedtheir monuments within the urban space fromwhich they derived their wealth. Simon Eyre inbuilding the grain store at Leadenhall, Whitingtonin numerous public buildings, includinga college of priests, a library, and the Guildhall,William Estfield in augmenting the conduitsystem. Hill, Drope, and Foster all left theirmark, amongst many others.Setting aside the problems of finance and thepossible motivations for its building, the Londonconduit represented a remarkable engineeringachievement. It transported fresh, wholesomewater through almost 7km of undergroundpipes, with some sections rising against the forceof gravity. It represented the earliest Englishapplication of hydraulic technology to overcomethe problems of pollution resulting from urbangrowth, yet seems to have undeservedly fadedfrom the historic record since its physicalremoval. What was at one time a complex andunique technology has become as understated asStow's simple description of the motivation forits installation: 'For the poor to drink and therich to dress their meat'.

APPENDIX 1.ENGINEERING CALCULATION OF THECAPACITY OF THE CONDUIT PIPE'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 65(Calculations kindly provided by Gordon Fitch, MSc(Eng))HeadH•1 rN~ ~-sHydraulicgradientActual course of thepipeIrrespective of the actual course of the pipe, thehydraulic gradient governs the head pressureand therefore the static pressure in the pipe atany point, calculated by the formula:Difference in heightbetween sourceand destination2 X friction factor X length of pipe X velocity of flow 'gradient factor of the pipe X diameter of the pipeor AH2FLV2GDAHGDand - feet per second,2FL48 X 32.2 ft/sec2 X 0.29 ft2 X 0.0075 X 15,682 ftV= 4.3 psi per 10 feet of fall or 1.25 gallons per secondAs a large part of the data within this formulais fixed, once the characteristics of the pipeare known, there is a direct trade-off of thedifference in elevation between source anddestination and the velocity of flow.

66 David LewisConduit at crossways,(20 mod)Conduit atTyburn. (29mod)James head,separation tank(spurgel)Lead pipeConduit atCheapside(14 mod)\Springs(additionalsprings added,1355)Purge pipe forcleaningFleet bridge(3 mod)Conduit planned,but not buihPressure (psi),using a factorof 4.3 psi per10 feet of fall,assuming nopipe leakage0 5.5 33203.8Pipe pressure(psi), assuming20% loss ofpressure at FleetBridge26.413.40Fig 8. Schematic London conduit map based on Stow's description of the system, including the planned extension to the topof CornhillConduit sectionElevationInformation sourceSource springs, TyburnFleet BridgeCheapside conduit head29 mod Spence 2000, 245 mod ibid14 mod Birch et al (forthcoming),

'For the poor to drink and the rich to dress their meat': the first London water conduit 67APPENDIX 2CALCULATION OF THE LENGTH OF THELONDON CONDUITStow's description of the length of the conduit:'The water course from Padington to Jameshed hath 510 rods; James hed on the hil tothe Mewsgate 102 rods; from the mewsgate tothe crosse in Cheape 484 rods' (Stow 1908,I, 17). (NB The field next Oxlease was called'Hill Field', suggesting that this was a local highpoint.) Total 1096 rods @ 20ft to a rod* = 21,920feet, or 6.68km. As a deep trench, presumably inalmost a direct line, would have been excavatedfrom 'the close' at the Paddington spring toTyburn of 1.9km, the 'old' conduit from Tyburn,was therefore 4.78km.*The length of a rod varied by region; Moriey Davie.sestimates Stow's rod as 19ft, although this assumes adirect measurement from Charing Cross to Cheapside.The conduit had to skirt St Paul's precinct and thereforeMoriey Davies's calculation may be a slight underestimateof the length of a 'rod' as used by Stow (Moriey Davies1910, 18,46).EXTENSION OF THE CONDUIT IN1442 TO INCORPORATE SPRINGS ATPADDINGTON200 fodders of lead ordered to be purchased 25Jtme 1442, by writ of privy seal (CPR Henry VI,1441-46, 198). 200 fodders oflead are equivalentto approx-imately 190 tons.Waste allowance in manufacture of the pipesapproximately 7.7%. ('waste of a wey oflead whennewly molten [he shall have an allowance of] twocloves, as has been the usage heretofore'.This isabout 14 pounds in 180 (7.7%), the weight ofclove and wey varying (Riley 1868, 322).)Finished weight of pipe therefore 175.2 tons.The recently excavated conduit pipe found atPaternoster Square weighed 19.5kg (43Ibs) fora Im (3.3ft) section. 175.2 tons (178,003 kg) ofpipe would therefore have been approximately9.128km (5.7 miles) long.Two pipes from Tyburn to Cheapside wouldhave required 9.56km of pipe, allowing for theinaccuracy in some of the weights and measuresused. It seems reasonable to assume that thepurchase oflead was sufficient to build a doublepipe from Tyburn to Cheapside. This wouldaccord with the drawing of the Great Conduit byRalph Treswell, showing three pipes. One pipebeing the original conduit and the other tworelating to the 1442 extension.Cost of one fodder of lead in the 1350 warden'saccounts, 8 marks 12 pence (total l,292d).Cost of 200 fodders, 258,400d or £1,076 13s 4d.The cost of the 1442 extension was c.f2,790(Barron 1971, 277). Approximately £1,100represented the cost of lead pipe and £1,870other installation costs — mostly labour wagesand timber.The first conduit pipe was a single pipe with anapproximate cost of £550 (50% of the 1442 pipecost), assuming labour costs in 1250 were 30%lower than in 1442, the total cost of the firstconduit would have been c.£l,900.BIBLIOGRAPHYAbbreviationsCCR: Calendar of Charter Rolls (1906)CLBA, CLBB, etc. R R Sharpe (ed) Calendar of LetterBooks of the City of London (1899-1912)CPR: Calendar of Patent Rolls (1909)Cal Wills: R R Sharpe (ed) Calendar of Wills Provedand Enrolled in the Court of Husting, London 1258-1688{\^

68 David LewisHOMER (1991), R F Homer 'Tin, lead and pewter'in J Blair & N Ramsay (eds) English MedievalIndustries, 57-80HOLT (2000), R Holt 'Medieval English waterrelated technologies' in P Squatriti (ed) Workingwith Water in Medieval Europe: Technology andResource UseHOPE (1902), W St John Hope 'The LondonCharterhouse and its old water supply' Archaeologia8, 293-312HOPE (1917), W St John Hope Windsor Castle andArchitectural History (2 vols)KEENE (2001), D Keene 'Issues of water in medievalLondon' Urban History 28, 161-79KEENE & HARDING (1987), D Keene & V Harding'The Great Conduit: St Mary Colechurch' in DKeene (ed) Historical Gazetteer of London Before theGreat Fire, 36LITTLE (1978), L K Litde Religious Poverty and theProfit Economy in Medieval EuropeMAGNUSSON (2001), RJ Magnusson Water Technologyin the Middle AgesMASTERS (1984), B R Masters (ed) Chamberlains'Accounts of the Sixteenth CenturyMcEWAN (2000), J McEwan The Water Conduits ofMedieval London unpub MA thesis, University ofLondonMcPHERSON & AMOS (1931), E R McPherson & EG J Amos 'The Norman waterworks in the keep ofDover Castle' Arch Cant 43, 166-72MORLEYDAVIES (1910), AMorley Davies 'London'sfirst conduit system: a topographical study' TransLondon Middlesex Archaeol Soc 2, 9-58NORMAN (1899), P Norman 'On an ancient conduitheadin Queen Street, Bloomsbury' Archaeologia 6,257-66RILEY (1868), H T Riley Memorials of London andLondon Life in the Xlllth, XLVth and XVth CenturiesRODWELL (1981), W Rodwell Archaeology of theEnglish ChurchROWSOME (2000), P Rowsome Heart of the City:Roman, Medieval and Modern London Revealed byArchaeology at 1 PoultrySCHOFIELD (1984), J Schofield The Building ofLondonSCHOFIELD (1987), J Schofield (ed) The LondonSurveys of Ralph TreswellSCHOFIELD & VINCE (1994), J Schofield & AVince Medieval TownsSKELTON & HAR'VEY (1986), R A Skelton & P D AHarvey Local Maps and Plans from Medieval EnglandSMITH (1975), N Smith Man and WaterSPENCE (2000), C Spence London in the 1690s, aSocial AtlasSTOW (1908), J Stow A Survey of London (ed C LKingsford, 2 vols)THOMAS et al (1997), C Thomas, B Sloane & CPhillpots Excavations at the Priory and Hospital of StMary SpitalTIGHE & DAVIS (1858), R R Tighe & J E DavisAnnals of Windsor (2 vols)TUCKER (1995), P Tucker Government and Politics:London 1461-83 xmpub doctoral thesis. Universityof LondonWALDO (1923), F J Waldo History of the WorshipfulCompany of PlumbersWEBB (2000), D Webb Pilgrimage in Medieval England

SPATIAL DETERMINANTS OF ANIMALCARCASS PROCESSING IN POST-MEDIEVAL LONDON AND EVIDENCEFOR A CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLYNETWORKLisa YeomansCertain animal products were specially importedinto London for use in the manufacturingindustries. These included high quality hidessuch as goatskin from rural areas and the ContinSUMMARYent, furs, and horn imported from America andAfrica, as well more exotic materials such as ivory.The manufacturing industries in post-medieval London However, much of the animal material consumedutilised vast quantities of animal carcasses; these were by London's industries derived from two sources:intensively processed and converted into a wide variety carcasses of livestock driven into the city for meat,of products forming essential articles of day-to-day life in and animals living in the city as work animals.the capital. The aim of this short article is to show how Carcasses needed to be intensively processedarchaeological and historical evidence can highlight the to provide London's population with leather forco-operation needed between the many trades dependent on shoes, tallow for candles, and horn for lanternpanes,cutlery handles, drinking vessels andthese raw materials and how this was achieved by using aprocessing sequence involving onward trade of by-products combs, as well as bone that was manufacturedbetween craftsmen. Modifications identified on discarded into many items. Hence butchery waste was inanimal hone waste, andfaunal assemblage characteristics, much demand and regulations were instigated incan be used to substantiate collaborations between the medieval and post-medieval periods to helpdifferent craftsmen and to identify the sequence of carcass ensure supply to the craftsmen requiring thedistribution. The large scale spatial arrangement of London materials. This is demonstrated by ordinancesaffected the location of industrial areas but carcass supply from numerous towns across England statingchains also influenced the layout of local neighbourhoods. that butchers were to bring hides into marketThe leather industry became widespread, taking advantage along with the flesh so leather producers couldof locations suited to its manufacture and influencing obtain raw materials (Clarkson 1960). Likewiseassociated trades at the local level. The horn industry was the London Homers Company had purchasemore spatially restricted, and the conclusions reached in rights over all rough cattle horn sold within anthis paper suggest that the role of the Homers Company in increasing radius from the City. Some of theseprotecting their track was a major factor.ordinances and concessions did not differ innature from the laws governing supply in theMiddle Ages when trade rights were muchINTRODUCTIONguarded privileges. Other industries were less69constrained by trading rights, provided theydid not infringe on other crafts and the qualityof goods produced was controlled. The spatialdistribution and expansion of the industries in

70 Lisa YeomansLondon witnessed a notable shift during the16th and 17th centuries, the period in which thepresent study is set.POST-MEDIEVAL INDUSTRYRELOCATIONTowards the end of the medieval period theCity authorities began imposing new legislationbanishing many of the noxious animalprocessing industries that had previously takenplace within the walls. For example, in 1455the cutting of 'green horns' was prohibited inthe City. Butchering of animals in the City hadlong been a cause for complaint and in 1361the King, in a writ to the Mayor and Aldermen,protested against the slaughtering of animalswithin the walls and ordered that such activitiesbe limited to Stratford or Knightsbridge (Sabine1933). This did not conclude the matter as thebutchers' activities in the City continued to bea subject for complaint. In 1391 another orderby the King seems to have been more forcefullyimposed, leading butchers to raise prices andthereby compelling the City to allow butchers'houses close to the Thames, into which theentrails could be directly cast. Numerous efforts,although ineffective at eliminating slaughteringin the City, would have increased the use ofareas outside the City for this task. The saga ofbutchers causing nuisance, complaints againsttheir activities and the effects of these, is coveredby Sabine (1933) and Jones (1976). As thepopulation began to expand rapidly in the later16th century (Harding 1990), greater pressurewould have been placed on the resources in theCity. Access to the Fleet and Walbrook wouldhave been reduced as the tributaries were pavedover, limiting the tanners' all-important watersupply. Gradually, therefore, the various tradesprocessing animal carcasses shifted towards thesuburbs. Additional factors, including cheaperrent, potential for expansion, good watersupply, improved access to raw materials, andless stringent monitoring by the establishments,facilitated this relocation. Rebuilding after theGreat Fire also provided an opportunity toremove industrial activity from the City.A new spatial distribution of the industrieswhich processed animal products was arrangedto allow good communication routes betweenvarious crafts. For instance the developmentsaround Aldgate, east of the City, grew up aroundthe long established slaughterhouses. Theirpresence caused the horners, relocated fromthe City, to centre their trade within the adjacentstreets (Keene nd). Horners' workshops couldeither prompt intensification of associated craftsor could be placed in response to rises in demandbecause other favourable conditions causedgrowth. Before describing how the livestockand meat markets served as the main pointsof entry for the animal carcasses and the otherinfluential, spatial characteristics of suburbanLondon, some discussion is required of thecarcass processing sequence which reducedanimal carcasses into the various constituentelements required by different craftsmen.CARCASS REDUCTION SEQUENCEO'Connor (1993) proposed a hypothetical model(Fig 1) to convey possible carcass reduction/utilisation sequences which shows the variousprocesses animal carcasses can undergo toyield different raw materials, and illustrates thepotential uses of carcasses and possible resultingfaunal assemblages. Developing the model forpost-medieval London by adding details on howdifferent craftsmen procured raw materials fromcarcasses at different stages in the sequence,and the sources where they gained them, helpsincrease the understanding of one variableinfluencing industry location. This can thenbe compared to both the large scale and localspatial distribution of craftsmen to assess theextent to which easy access to raw materialsinfluenced craft location.ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FORA CARCASS UTILISATION SEQUENCE INPOST-MEDIEVAL LONDONSome modifications to bones and faunalassemblage characteristics allow links betweencraftsmen to be interpreted, providing additional,case specific details to the model of thecarcass utilisation sequence. Evidence frompost-medieval London is described to show thepotential of such analytical methods.Use of waste cattle horncoresHistorical evidence, in the form of the 1641 listof the Company of Horners and occupationsgiven in the parish registers, proves that manymembers of the Horners Company lived on orclose to Petticoat Lane in Aldgate in the mid-

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 71Slaughter and .^ Primary ^ Horn & hide > Horncores"primary butchery butchering waste recovery » Feet and tailiDressed carcassIFurther carcassreductionDepletedprimary wasteSelection for• Butchering waste —•• artifacts orconsumption> Selected parts -•"AntlerJoint of meatiDomestic foodprocessingPortions1ConsumptionKitchen wasteDepletedbutchering wasteStructural use•Making artifactsyN.Bones in walls,floors, etcArtifactsBone workingwaste> Table wasteFig 1. Hypothetical flow diagram to illustrate carcass/skeleton utilisation (from O'Connor 1993,I7th century. Large accumulations of cattlehorncores recovered from sites in the vicinityare confirmed as horners' waste because the tipsof some horncores were sawn-off and other coreswere sawn into segments. Removing the tips inthis manner would have helped accelerate thebreakdown of the bond connecting the coreto the horn-sheath, whilst sawn segments ofhorncore provide evidence that the horners werereadily preparing horn sections of the desiredlength. The evidence indicates that the hornerswere, at least some of the time, purchasingcomplete horns and preparing them at theirworkshops. Inventories of horners' premisescorroborate this and describe large quantitiesof unwrought horn; for instance, the inventoryof Thomas Mann's property in 1673 describes 'apcell of white pieces unwrought cont 800, a pcellof dozen pieces unwrought cont. 300, a pcell ofblack pieces cont 4000 and a pcell of shavings'stored in the 'presse shope behind the howse'(Fisher 1936). Such unwrought items would havebeen obtained at the nearby slaughterhouses,whilst additional horn-sheaths seem to havebeen purchased in a ready state from the tannerssouth of the Thames or in other parts of EastLondon.Cattle horncores still had their uses even afterthe horners had removed the sheath. Fig 2 showsthe positions of post-medieval sites producingassemblages interpreted as horners' waste andindicates where horncores have been reused toline pits; horncores would have provided supportto the sides of the pits without compromisingdrainage. Supply of horns to horners did not,therefore, end the supply sequence. This factis reinforced by the description of Holtzapffel(1843) who informs us that after the removalof the horn-sheath the horncore 'is not thrownaway, but burnt to constitute the bone earthused for the cupels for assaying gold and silver'.The porous structure of horncores allows themto burn easily to ash which, when made intocrucibles for the assaying of gold and silver,absorbs lead oxide. Furthermore Kalm (1748)notes a method of constructing earthen walls

72 Lisa Yeomans1 SQIJ942 SRP983 STE924 ( PNO5 MSE886 OI'S887 ClJ'r788 C .\P869 BLM87I(K;1>C8()11 MAN8212 AL7413 X\VL79I4ASQ87I5CRT8916CST8517MrN86^ Horncores reused as pit lining N^5 Direct evidence of homworking4^ Slaughterhouse waste but^•^ possibly homers waste(Jl Reused homcores and dumped wasteThe T.500mJiFig 2. Characteristics of archaeological assemblages oj homers' wastefrom horncores, demonstrating the wide rangeof uses for horncores.Supply of sheep hornUse of sheep horn was also common in postmedievalLondon and faunal evidence showsthat the horns were removed from the skullin a standardised manner by chopping thecomplete horn from the frontal bone. Tracesof this process are detectable on both removedhorncores and frontal bones. Whilst these clearly

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 73demonstrate that sheep horn was being used, thepresence of such bones alone does not indicatewho was responsible for preparing and tradingthe horn. A number of options may have existed:the butcher could have sold either the completehorn or the horn-sheath, separate from thehide, direct to the horn user; alternatively, theskull may have remained attached to the hidewhen it was distributed to the leatherdresserwho could then sell on the horn-sheath, againeither removed from the horncore or complete,to craftsmen using it as raw material.The distribution sequence used to supplysheep horn can be determined by examiningadditional characteristics of the faunal remains.A flow diagram (Fig 3) indicates how variousattributes of a faunal assemblage can be used tointerpret the processing sequence that led to theremoval of sheep horn, and the trade betweencraftsmen. Four important attributes are used:(1) the part of the skull discarded with evidenceof horn removal; (2) the presence of naturallypolled animals in the sample — importantsince it demonstrates that waste is not that ofa hornworker who would have had no use forsuch animals; (3) the relative frequency ofmandibles compared to the horncores; (4) therelative frequency of metapodials compared tothe horncores. A high proportion of mandiblesand possibly metapodials is typical of primarybutchery waste, whilst a high proportion ofmetapodials without frequent mandibles istypical of leatherdressers' waste. The use ofthese multiple attributes aids the interpretationof zooarchaeological patterning, suggesting oneprocess amongst many possibilities.Sheep skulls and horncores chopped toremove the sheath have commonly been foundin Bermondsey and other parts of Southwarkassociated with leather producing or associatedindustries. Summarising the zooarchaeologicalevidence from this district a number ofobservations can be made about the supply ofsheep horn. Much of the sheep horn appearsto have been prepared by the butchers, bychopping the complete horn from the frontalbone and allowing the bonds between thehorncore and the horn-sheath to rot, possiblyaided by soaking. This process allowed sheathsof horn to be detached and it was generally justthis part that was sold on to craftsmen workingwith the raw material. Where the butcher soldthe skin to the leatherdresser with the skullstill attached, the leatherdresser would assumea similar supply role providing horn to othercraftsmen. There are few assemblages that couldbe interpreted as the horn user purchasing morethan just the sheath and undertaking to separatethe two before using the horn. This differs fromthe specialist hornworkers described above whoresided north of the river and purchased cattlehorn both on and off the horncore, resultingin the numerous accumulations of cattle horn-Tanners supplying the bone working craftsCattle hides which were distributed to tannersoften had the horn and lower limbs stillattached. The fact that these craftsmen soldhorn to hornworkers is reflected in historicaldocuments which indicate that the tannersdrew some of their revenue from the sale ofhorn. Accumulations of cattle horncores havealso been found at sites associated with thetanning industry. The distribution of horn andthe use of waste horncores represent just oneof many forms of by-product distribution thattook place. Additionally, tanners either sold, ormade available, cattle metapodials to the variouscraftsmen who worked in bone. These bones wereprobably used as handles to aid the movementof skins in the tanning pit and stretching thehides. After the transformation to leather wascomplete the tanners had no further use for themetapodials and they would have been addedto the waste products in need of disposal. Aswith the spent oak bark that could be pressedinto fuel blocks for sale to potters and claypipe manufacturers, the bone was also of use inother crafts. Fortunately for tanners metapodialswere sought after since the thick bone of thediaphysis provided a good raw material andthe regular cross-section of the metatarsal inparticular made it suitable for working. Off-cutsfrom bone working are frequently found in thearchaeological record; some of these providedirect evidence that they were obtained fromtanners. Tanners drilled holes through theproximal articulation of the bone, probably toallow the stretching of the hide; where theseholes are identified on bone working off-cuts oron artefacts such as pinners' bones, the supplyroute from tanners is indisputable.Use of horse carcassesThe carcasses of work animals in London were in

74 Lisa YeomansEvidence ofhorn removalHomcoreschopped fromthe skullmm>,.^'^^Êvidence ofhorn removalFrontal boneswith thehorncoreschopped offPresence of skullsfrom naturallypolled sheep 100m/(m+h) 100(mp/2)/{(mp/2)+h)NoPresence of skullsfrom naturallypolled sheepYesNoHigh>40%20-40%Low40%20-40%Low40%20-40%Low40%20-40%Low40%40%40%100mp/(mp+((f+h)/2))InconsequentialButchery waste with the butchers sellingboth complete horns and prepared sheathsat a ratio of f:hBoth homcoreschopped fromthe skull andfrontal boneswith horncoreschopped offYes20-40%Low40%20-40%InconsequentialHigh>40%

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 75just as much demand as those of animals driveninto the city to meet the population's nutritionalrequirements. Horsehide, although not of thesame quality as cattle hide for making leather,was frequently obtained by leatherdressers. Thebody-part distribution of horse skeletal elementsfound at leatherdressers' sites indicates that theentire carcass was taken to the leather producerwho skinned the animal, and occasionally seemsto have defleshed the carcass, perhaps sellingthe meat as dog food to places such as the bearbaiting rings. The horses that the leatherdressershad access to were old work animals whose bonesoften display pathological modifications causedby a long life of hard work.SummaryThese examples briefly demonstrate how thesequence of carcass supply can be interpretedusing zooarchaeological evidence and suggestthat the working lives of the different craftsmenwere intertwined through the need to obtain oneanother's by-products. Access to raw materials asa carcass was reduced was, however, only oneinfluence on the spatial location of industry.The roles of other factors in determining thepositioning of industry in post-medieval Londonneed to be considered.INFLUENCES ON LOCATIONResource input: livestock marketsLivestock was driven to markets, fairs, and grazingareas relatively close to London where farmersand graziers purchased the animals to fattenthem before sale either at London's livestockmarkets or through private arrangements withbutchers. Although it is difficult to estimatethe number of animals sold at the markets,McGrath (1948) provides an approximationof 500,000 sheep per year passing throughSmithfield market during the early 18th century.This quantity had certainly increased since thepreceding centuries as it was found necessary toadd Mondays to the official trading days, whichwere confined to Wednesdays and Fridays before1613 (McGrath 1948; Passingham 1935).Smithfield was not the only livestock market:Barnet market had been established at the endof the 16th century; a patent allowing cattle tobe sold was granted to Rotherhithe market acentury later; and a cattle market was permittedin Houndslow in 1686. Unlicensed markets hadoperated since at least the early 17th century atPaddington, Kensington, Mile End, and in thelanes around Smithfield market; by the end ofthe century a substantial portion of the cattletrade took place in Islington. Brookfield marketreportedly supplied thousands of people living inWestminster, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth,Putney, Fulham, and Chelsea (McGrath 1948).Primary butchery location: slaughterhousesand butchersAnimals entered London through the livestockmarkets but they would have subsequently beendispersed to slaughterhouses and butchers. Inthe 17th century the intermediate role of carcassbutcher developed — a person employed inbuying livestock and selling meat to retailingbutchers. The authorities objected to such menas they provided an unnecessary link in thesupply chain and many butchers preferred to usethe slaughterhouses themselves or else slaughterthe animals behind their own shops. The saleof meat to the public took place at butchers'shops or in markets. The City's six mainmarkets were Newgate market. Honey Lane orMilk Street market, Woolchurch or the Stocksmarket, Leadenhall market, the Beef market,and the Herb market (Armitage 1978; Masters1974). Additionally butchers would gather atshambles found on the City margins at TempleBar, Smithfield Bars, Bishopsgate Bars, AldgateBars, Field Lane, Fleet Street, Cripplegate, andSt Katherines (McGrath 1948). The populationof Westminster could purchase meat on KingStreet, and that of Southwark used the marketon Borough High Street in addition to butchers'shops. It would have been at the slaughterhousesthat other craftsmen could gain straightforwardaccess to raw materials in large quantities. Bynecessity these were distributed throughoutLondon, but concentrations clearly existed suchas that around Aldgate.Land: cost and suitabilitySpace was at a premium in the expanding city,and tanning, for instance, whilst not providing asubstantial return for men practising the trade,required sizeable plots of land. Power (1986)used the hearth tax assessments of 1662, 1664,and 1666 to provide an estimation of buildingsize and therefore wealth in most parishes. The

76 Lisa Yeomansstudy demonstrated that buildings of the EastEnd and Southwark were generally the smallestin London. Similar investigations {eg Jones1980) corroborate these results, suggesting thatoverall the populations of these two districts werethe poorest to be found in 17th-century London.These conditions provided cheap rental anda high concentration of unskilled labour thatcould be employed as and when required.These were not, however, the only importantdetermining factors. A plentiful water-sourcewas required for some of the carcass processingindustries, particularly tanning. The marshyenvironment of Southwark provided the idealconditions, with the numerous watercourses anddrainage channels aided by the tidal currentsclose to the Thames which both supplied waterand drained away effluents. The area was also welllocated to take advantage of oak bark suppliedfrom parts of Surrey.Areas of the eastern suburbs adjacent tothe Thames could also supply sufficient waterand a few tanneries utilised this environment.Compared to the tanning industry, there were lessphysical constraints on other carcass processingindustries, although places where discard ofunpleasant waste was possible would have beenadvantageous.Distribution: transport costs and specialistmarketsSpecialist markets aided the distribution ofsome raw materials. A leather market had longexisted at Leadenhall, but by the 17th centuryit was clear that the City resented its presence.In 1603 an attempt was made to move themarket to Aldgate but this lasted just threeweeks; continued complaints about the stenchcaused the Court of Aldermen to contemplatemoving it to Smithfield, but again the movenever happened (Clarkson 1960). A secondleather market was set up in Southwark, buttrade through these specialist markets formedonly part of the hide distribution system. Manytanners and leatherdressers would have madeseparate arrangements with butchers to helpensure supply, and butchers benefited from nothaving to take hides to market. Although there isevidence of some long distance trade in hides, themajority were bought locally, allowing the tannerto inspect his purchases. Other supply routes tothe leatherdressers included the fellmongerswho brought numerous skins into London andmiddlemen were common in the light leathertrades to the extent that Clarkson (1960, 131)argued that 'the bulk of sheep skins must haveoriginated from animals dying naturally or byaccident in the countryside rather than in themeat markets'. Although such sources wereundoubtedly important, the concentrations ofsheep bones associated with leatherdressers'workshops found during excavations clearlydemonstrate the frequent direct trading betweenbutchers and leatherdressers.LARGE SCALE SPATIAL PATTERNINGThe factors discussed in the preceding sectionaffected the industrial areas of London on thelarge scale, since the industries using animalproducts were broadly grouped together allowingthe distribution of carcass parts. Craftsmen ofthis type were primarily found in two areas ofLondon, although occasionally small separategroups would have been situated to supply aspecific market or to take advantage of othersmall scale industries. Generally the two districtswhere the processing of animal carcasses tookplace were the eastern suburbs and south of theriver in the parishes of St Olave, St George, andparticularly Bermondsey.In both areas, cheaper land was a key factorin the placement of the industries. The tanningindustry was further constrained by the naturalenvironment leading to its placement inSouthwark, and the less densely occupied Bermondseybeing particularly suitable. The effectof inertia is perhaps visible in the case of theHomers Company with members continuingto reside north of the river even if moved fromtheir original dwellings inside the City walls. Theprevailing wind and the downstream locations ofthe areas would also have played a decisive part.LOCAL DISTRIBUTION CASE STUDY 1:BERMONDSEYThe parish of Bermondsey forms the basis for alocalised case study. Numerous industrial faunalassemblages have been recovered from thisparish and relatively good historical evidencefor occupations is available in the form of parishregisters. Fathers' occupations are given inbaptism records from the end of the 17th century,throughout much of the 18th century, and intothe 19th century. Spatial data is provided in theform of street names throughout much of the

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 77Fig 4. Map of Bermondsey showing the eleven zones usedto provide a spatial indication of industry location withinthe parishperiod and these can be used to approximatetrade location since place of work was normallywithin the immediate vicinity of place ofresidence, if not actually on the premises. Apartfrom a few entries in the parish register that didnot provide a place of abode, or cases where theplace of residence was outside the parish, the datawas divided into eleven spatial zones as indicatedon Fig 4. This division of the parish is based onbroad occupational differences observed in thedata and on cartographic and archaeologicalrepresentations of industry, as well as accessfrom the main roads. The occupations givenin the baptism register were analysed by thesezones to investigate how changing proportions ofmen employed in the animal carcass processingindustries clustered spatially.During the years containing the relevantdata between 1698 (when occupation was firstrecorded) and 1850 over 8,000 entries in theBermondsey baptism register were of craftsmenemployed in the processing of animal carcasses,from butchers to tanners and tallow chandlers.The accumulated totals of the main trades areshown by zone in Fig 5 to provide an indication ofthe areas most intensively engaged in such trades.Unfortunately it is not possible to calculate theproportion of the population within the zonethat was employed in the respective industrieswithout recording the place of abode of eachentry in the Bermondsey baptism register regard-12001000Zone: II 02 n406 08 ^9 DIO 111800600 -I400200i: IL iiButcher I Fdlmonger I LeatherdresseLeatherdresser | VeHum/parchment Glue boilermakerSdnner Comb maker TannerLeatherfinisher TallowchandlerFig 5. Total number of entries in the Bermondsey parish baptism register between 1698 and 1850 for craftsmen involvedin the processing of animal carcasses. Occupations towards the beginning of the carcass consumption sequence are shownon the left of the graph

78 Lisa Yeomans16 1Zone 214121016 nZone 314121086 -/N4 -20 :-^-.17001750 1800 185017001750 1800 185016 TZone 51416Zone 714 H12 ^121010 A8642 H01700 1750 1800 185016Zone 814 H121086 -4 -2 -::;;>^fe;Â»:::^.01700 1750 1800 18506 -201700A^ i * * ^ ' ^ i^-"-^.»o

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 79Close spatial associations between differentcraftsmen using animal carcasses at differentstages in the consumption sequence are evidentin Fig 6. For instance, the number offellmongers follows similar periods of growthto the leatherdressing industry, especially inZone 3. This pattern tends to diminish afterc. 1800 suggesting that the leatherdressers weresupplied by another source, and interestingly thenumber of butchers occupying the same zoneincreases after this date. Not illustrated in thegraphs are comb makers who would have utilisedthe sheep horn provided by the leatherdressersand butchers; these craftsmen also tended to liveclose to their source of raw material. The graphsdemonstrate a certain degree of specialisationwithin zones, which would have allowed demandfor raw materials to be concentrated, whichin turn facilitated distribution. Cost of landand local environment would also have beenimportant, but the data does seem to suggest aneighbourhood where supply to related craftswas important for the spatial arrangement ofindustry and where expansion in one industryhad knock-on effects in related land use.LOCAL DISTRIBUTION CASE STUDY 2:THE EAST ENDA second geographical spread of industriesprocessing animal carcasses was found inthe eastern suburbs. Analysis of the baptismregisters from the mid-17th century indicatesthat this concentration, compared to the overallemployment structure of the area, wassubstantially lower than in Bermondsey. On thelocal scale there were tight clusters of specificindustry types, an extreme example being thehorners who were more or less limited to thePetticoat Lane area in the mid-17th century (seethe list of Horners Company members dated to1641 reproduced in Fisher 1936). Supply wasevidently still important, with the slaughterhouseat Aldgate providing an important source ofraw material. Work in progress on the parishregisters, and corroborated by archaeologicaldata, is demonstrating that expansion in theindustry in the later 17th century led to newworkshops operating further north in streetsin Spitalfields. This was presumably a responseto renewed demand for horn instigated by thedevelopment of street lighting and the expansionof the export trade (Fisher 1936).Petticoat Lane and the surrounding areawas no better situated for the horners thanother parts of east London or indeed, moreimportantly, other suburbs. The horners did notcluster immediately around the slaughterhousesof Aldgate but spread northwards away fromthe area. An absence of horners in Southwarkand Bermondsey is particularly curious for theywould have been served by the same factors thatdrew the leather industry to the area and theywould have had a readily available source ofhorn. The parish registers of the area mentioncraftsmen presumably working in horn, butreferences to actual horners are all but absent.The Horners Company records may offer anexplanation for the spatial distribution of thehorners. Throughout the 15th, 16th and 17thcenturies the Company continued to playan active role in ensuring the supply of rawmaterials to its members. In 1465, for instance,a statute was passed restricting the right topurchase unwrought horns within 24 miles ofLondon to freemen of the Company (Compton1879). Then in 1590 a co-operative purchasingsystem was instigated by only allowing hornersto purchase horn within the 24 miles for useof the whole Company. In 1638 a number ofby-laws and ordinances were passed which, ineffect, made the horners a joint-stock tradingcompany. Although the only restriction oncompany members was that they had to livewithin seven miles of the City, close contact withthe storehouse and sheds rented in WentworthStreet from 1604 would have been practical.The presence of horners in the vicinity ofPetticoat Lane seems to have attracted othercraftsmen working in horn into the area. Thetypological development of combs during thepost-medieval period suggests that horn wasfrequently used as a raw material (Dunlevy1972). This is corroborated by the prosecutionof a London comb maker in 1689 for pressinghorns and thereby breaching the rights of thehorners (Compton 1879). Fig 7 displays thedecadal occurrence in the St Dunstan baptismregister of different tradesmen who used animalproducts or, in the cases of cutlers, buttonmakers,and comb-makers, may have used thehorn produced by the horners in crafting theirfinished articles. The graphs are separated intothe hamlets covered by the St Dunstan registersfor the period and provide a crude estimateof the importance of various industries in thehamlets of Spitalfields, Wapping, Shadwell, MileEnd, and Ratcliff. Data extracted from parish

80 Lisa Yeomansss•Âso2£=.2O^Co••cM5O•Ô^r-sONrôOst6—H- Homer/horn-tumer-C- CutlerComb-maker—B— Button-maker—I— Ivory worker—S— SkinnerTanner—L— LeatherdresserFig 7. Occurrence of different craftsmen in the baptism registers of St Dunstan, Stepney, by decads, separated byhamlet. Graphs for Bethnal Green, Limehouse, and Popular are excluded because they do not present data relevantto the arguments discussed in the textregisters indicates that by the 1670s hornworkerswere starting to occupy Spitalfields. Although thepopulation of this parish increased overall, thenumber of craftsmen in related trades, presumablyrelying on the homers to supply them with someof their raw materials, also increased withinSpitalfields. Cutlers, for instance, increased inboth Spitalfields and Wapping, where horncould have been obtained from horners inWhitechapel. The presence of ivory workers isalso interesting given the evidence from CutlerStreet (CUT78) where approximately 340 piecesof waste ivory were recovered from the fill of apit lined with horners' waste dated to between1650 and 1750 (Drummond-Murray nd). AtAldgate (AL74) two off-cuts of ivory, including

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 81one identified as waste from bead or buttonmanufacture, and bone working off-cuts werefound with cattle horncores in deposits dating tothe 17th or early 18th century (Armitage 1984).Although the horncores displayed cleaver chopsintended to remove the horn from the skull, andothers had cut-marks visible around the base, theassemblage was interpreted as slaughter waste asopposed to exclusively horners' waste (Armitage1984). Combining the historical data obtainedfrom the parish registers and the archaeologicalevidence, it is clear that trades involved inprocessing various parts of animal carcasses wereclosely related spatially. Spitalfields, in the laterpart of the 17th century, is an example of this.Whitechapel would have been equally important,although the historical data of occupation fromthe parish registers is not sufficiently completefor the parish to be used as a case studyhere. Further data collection from the areassurrounding this parish will provide details onthe spatial patterning witnessed so far.The leather producing industry was fairlywell represented in the Stepney hamlets. Power(1986) provided evidence of tanners in Shadwelland this is supported by the data displayed in Fig7. Other tanners could be found in the riversideareas of Ratcliff, Wapping, and, to a lesserextent, Limehouse (data not displayed). Thereseems to have been a balance between access tothe water from the Thames and the distance tothe slaughterhouses around Aldgate. Registers atSt John of Wapping and St Mary of Whitechapelwould have covered parts of Wapping close tothe river and these have not yet been analysed;tanners could be found in the part of Wappingwithin Stepney and these men presumablyworked at tanneries supplied with water fromthe Thames. Tanning was an important tradein Shadwell, at least until the 1670$ when thehamlet became a parish. Further to the east, inRatcliff and Limehouse, tanneries do not appearto have been as common. Leatherdressers,without a need for a plentiful water source,occupied other hamlets where there was noaccess to the Thames.CONCLUSIONS: THE INFLUENCE OFSUPPLY ON POST-MEDIEVAL URBANINDUSTRIAL LOCATIONThe 16th century witnessed the beginning ofthe rise of capitalism; those who would haveonce used land could become the owners ofland. Additionally, as some of the guilds werebecoming less powerful, the requirement to workwithin the area controlled by the guild, wherethe establishment could oversee the conductof business, was diminishing (Vance 1971;Langdon 1975). The economic productivity ofland became more important and as suburbanproduction increased the control of the guildswas further undermined (Kellett 1957). Theinitial complaints and attempts to remove thecarcass processing industries from the Citytowards the end of the Middle Ages set the scenefor more profound changes than relocation.Specific suburbs began specialising in certainindustries and the trade network betweencraftsmen working with animal carcasses atvarious stages in the carcass reduction sequencewas reinforced. Not all of the guilds went intodecline at the same stage, and the HornersCompany continued to dominate the businessof its members. This effectively led to a ratherunusually clustered concentration of horners inpost-medieval London compared to the otherindustries manufacturing goods from animalproducts. The leather producing industry,although substantially larger, was also morewidespread. Factors other than the availabilityof raw materials were important. There doesnot appear to have been any shortage of the rawhides; Clarkson (1960, 73) notes that 'suppliesof hides coming into London on the backsof animals, in relation to supplies of tanningmaterials, [was so great] that the capital wasable to supply raw hides to other parts of thecountry'. Tanners could arrange their ownsupplies with butchers or otherwise purchasematerials at the markets of Leadenhall andSouthwark, so supply was not constrained. Thelocations used for the production of leatherneeded to meet many criteria, with open space,water resource, and oak bark supply all evidentlyimportant. The horn industry, however, seems tohave congregated because of the need to obtainsupplies from the Horners Company. Proximityto the operations of the company became moreimportant, since becoming an active memberof the company entitled a horner to additionalstock.Zooarchaeological evidence has beenshown to demonstrate links between differentindustries that may not be detectable in thehistorical documents. It also reinforces thespatial association between crafts which must beseen to partially result from their trade networks.

82 Lisa YeomansSpecific zooarchaeological methods have beendeveloped for this aspect of the project, althoughapplication to large datasets is as yet incomplete.When finished, the zooarchaeological study willprovide an additional source of information ontrade links between industries in post-medievalLondon.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research was funded by a student grant from theAHRB. The resources of the London MetropolitanArchive, Guildhall Library, and LAARC were used.Additional information was provided by Pre-ConstructArchaeology and Kevin Rielly of the Museum ofLondon Specialist Services. Supervisors of the workare Dr Jane Sidell and Dr Louise Martin.NOTES' The interpretation of the horn distribution networkusing the combined faunal assemblage characteristicshighlighted in the text is achieved by following theflow-chart. Additional explanations of the formulaeare given here.The formulas in the third column all provide an indexfor the representation of mandibles compared to skullsor parts of skulls. Where only horncores and no frontalbones are present the representation of mandibles (m) iscalculated compared to the number of horncores (h). Iffrontal bones but no horncores are present the numberof mandibles is compared to the number of frontal bones(f). Where both horncores and frontals are present anaverage of the MNE of the two is used.The formulas in the fourth column providesimilar indices for the representation of metapodialscompared to horncores/frontal bones. Since thereare four metapodials in the skeleton of a single animaland only two horncores (with the exception of therare four-horned sheep), the metapodia MNE valuesare divided by two in the formula.The horncores, mandibles, and metapodia aretypically discarded during primary butchery andtherefore the over-representation of one or more of theelements indicates that part of a butchery assemblagehas been removed or that the bones were discardedfurther down the carcass utilisation sequence. An indexof approximately 50 indicates equal representation ofmandibles or metapodials to skulls.The index values together with the characteristicsin the first two columns allow interpretation of thestage in the carcass utilisation sequence when thefaunal assemblage was discarded and which craftsmenremoved different usable parts of the carcass. Forinstance, if a context contained frontal bones with thehorncores chopped off, a similar representation ofmandibles compared to frontal bones, but few metapodials,the assemblage is interpreted as butcherywaste where the butcher was selling the entire hornand horncore to craftsmen and also, although notshown on the diagram, probably selling hides with themetapodia still attached to leatherdressers.BIBLIOGRAPHYARMITAGE (1978), P L Armitage 'Hertfordshirecattle and London meat markets in the 17th and18th centuries' London Archaeologist ?i, 217-23ARMITAGE (1984), P L Armitage 'The faunalremains' in A Thompson, F Grew & J Schofield'Excavations at Aldgate, 1974' Post-MedievalArchaeology 18, 130-43CLARKSON (1960), L AClarkson 'The organizationof the English leather industry in the late sixteenthand seventeenth centuries' Economic History Review30, 245-56COMPTON (1879), C H Compton 'The Homers ofthe City of London' British Archaeological Journal35, 372-9DRUMMOND-MURRAY (nd),J Drummond-MurrayExcavations on the Site of the East India CompanyWarehouses at Cutler Street, Narrow Lane, El, unpubreport in LAARCDUNLEVY (1972), M Dunlevy 'Some comb formsof the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries' NorthMunster Antiquarian Journal \b, 22-7FISHER (1936), M A Fisher A Short History of theWorshipful Company ofHornersHARDING (1990), V Harding 'The population ofLondon, 1550-1700: a review of the pubhshedevidence' London Journal 15, 111-28HOLTZAPFFEL (1843), C Holtzapffel Turningand Mechanical Manipulation Intended as a Workof General Reference and Practical Instruction on theLathe and the Various Mechanical Pursuits followed bythe AmateursJONES (1980), E Jones 'London in the earlyseventeenth century: an ecological approach' TheLondon Journal Q, 123-33JONES (1976), P E Jones The Butchers of London: AHistory of the Worshipful Company of Butchers of theCity of LondonKALM (1748), P Kalm A Einnish Visitor to theChiltemsKEENE (nd), D Keene Industrial Clustering in London,c. 1300-1930 (Accessed on 11/03/04 at http://www.dicboldinstitute.org/paper27.pdf)KELLETT (1957), J R Kellett 'The breakdown ofGuild and Corporation control over the handicraftand retail trade in London' Economic History Review10, 381-94LANGDON (1975),J Langdon 'Residential patternsin pre-industrial cities: some case studies fromseventeenth century Britain' Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 65, 1-27

spatial determinants of animal carcass processing in post-medieval London and a co-operative supply network 83MASTERS (1974), B R Masters The Public Markets ofthe City of London Surveyed by William Leyboum in1677 London Topographical Society Publication117MCGRATH (1948), P V McGrath The Marketing ofFood, Fodder and Livestock in the London Area in theSeventeenth Century unpub MA thesis University ofLondonO'CONNOR (1993), T P O'Connor 'Process andterminology in mammal carcass reduction'International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, 63-7PASSINGHAM (1935), W J Passingham London'sMarkets: their Origin and HistoryPOWER (1986), MJ Power 'The social topography ofRestoration London' in A L Beier & R Finlay (eds)London 1500-1700: The Making of a Metropolis,199-223SABINE (1933), E L Sabine 'Butchering in medievalLondon' Speculum di, 335-53VANCE (1971), J E Vance 'Land assignment in theprecapitalist, capitalist, and postcapitalism City'Economic Geography 4.7, 101-20

POLICE GRAFFITI, NEW RIVER HEAD,FINSBURYPeter Guillery, Survey of LondonJust west of Sadler's Wells Theatre, along thenorth side of the New River Head site and facingMyddelton Passage, there is a plain brick wallof 1806-7 (Fig 1). New River Head was establishedin 1613 as the London terminus of theNew River, bringing water to the metropolisfrom Hertfordshire.^ This waterworks quicklyexpanded, with the outer ponds on the siteFig 1. New River Head in 2005 (English Heritage, based on Ordnance Survey)85

86 Peter Guillery, Survey oj LondonFig 2. Police graffili on the New River Head perimeter wall of 1806-7 on Myddelton Passage (English Heritage)

Police graffiti. New River Head, Finsbury 8 7remaining essentially open, and much usedfor angling. Low timber hurdles around theperimeter began to be replaced in 1770, largelyby high brick walls, with some timber fences,secure enclosure of this vitally important watersupply being completed in 1780 immediatelyfollowing the Gordon Riots, during which troopswere stationed at the site.^ The last section oftimber fence along the northern boundary wasreplaced in brick in 1806-7. The eastern lengthof this wall is all that remains of New RiverHead's early perimeter security. It runs fromArlington Way to the west for about 100m, is ofpurple/grey stock bricks, and stands about 3mhigh with diagonal brick coping.^ More westerlyparts of the wall, beyond a pier, were rebuilt inyellow brick at a later date, perhaps 1935,^ andthere has been other yellow brick repair.The remaining wall of 1806-7, which is 'Listed',would be otherwise unremarkable, but for thefact that it bears a quantity of carved graffitiof mid-19th- to early 20th-century date (Fig 2).These have been misattributed to prisoners, inthe List description and in local histories. In fact,the graffiti were carved here by police constables,in what appears to have been a circumspect rite;until 1950 Myddelton Passage was a narrowalley, not overlooked as it is now, and the graffitiare all some distance from Arlington Way.^The policemen usually recorded their 'collarnumbers', two or three digits followed by a letterrepresenting their division in the MetropolitanPolice, most frequently 'G' for Finsbury Division,based at King's Cross Police Station. Thesuccessive holders of these collar numbers wererecorded in Divisional Registers many of whichare held in the Metropolitan Police Store andArchive. Through these registers identificationof the graffiti artists is possible when dates orinitials accompany the collar numbers on thewall. The boldest contributor was FrederickAlbert Victor Moore, from Cornwall, who joinedG Division in 1886 having served at DevonportNaval Dockyard. Before his transfer in 1894he not only recorded his collar number andinitials, 'FM 365G Aug 17 189?', but also carved'365 PLYMOUTH'. Collar numbers alone, ofwhich there are many, cannot be attributed.but where there is other information identitiescan sometimes be deduced. 'TK 1913' may havebeen Thomas Kirkpatrick, a gamekeeper fromDumfries who joined the Division in 1910 andbecame an Inspector. 'FAH 103' must have beenFrederick Albert Huntley, Hackney born, whosecollar number was 103G, and who served inFinsbury from 1899 to 1906.An oral tradition has it that this practice wascommemorative, in honour of a fallen colleague,and the graffiti lend some support to this in somuch as the only name carved into the wall is'ROBINSON', and in 1888 a Detective SergeantRobinson of G Division was stabbed while onduty. However, the wall also bears the carveddates 'Dec 9 1865' and 'Feb^ 1866', the latter with185G, which collar number also appears with theinitials 'JMK', for John McKinley, a butler fromCounty Antrim who joined the Met in April 1865and who was promoted to the elite AR Divisionin November 1866. So the origins of the customremain obscure. Perhaps the boredom of nightduties is sufficient explanation.ÂCKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis account derives from text prepared for theSurvey of London's forthcoming volume on Clerkenwell,and therefore arises from the work of ateam. 1 am grateful to colleagues, particularly toHelen Jones and Derek Kendall, for the map andthe photograph, respectively.NOTES1 R Ward London's New River (2003).^ ibid, 187, 207; London Metropolitan Archives(hereafter LMA), New River Company Minutes Ace2558/NR/l/l, ff. 37v, 84r, lOlr; /2, pp 35 and 54.3 LMA, Ace 2558/NR/1/6, p 106.4 LMA, District Surveyor's Returns, LCC/AR/BA/04/609/010, No. 582, June 1935.^ LMA, New River Company Deeds Ace 1953/C/1101 and 1110.^ Metropolitan Police Archives, G Division Registers;information kindly supplied by Maggie Bird,Metropolitan Police Archivist, and Guy Smith; http://www.ligh tage.demon.co.uk/POL_RaRob.pdf,viewed April 2005.

'OUR LOST ELYSIUM' - RURALMIDDLESEX: A PICTORIAL ESSAYMichael HammersonWritten as recently as 1954, Middlesex, Sir JohnBetjeman's famous lament for the lost countrysideof his childhood, recalled a rustic landscape whichhad, in the main, vanished:Gaily into Ruislip GardensRuns the red electric train.With a thousand Ta's and PardonsDaintily alights Elaine,Hurries down the concrete stationWith a frown of concentrationOut into the outskirts' edgesWhere a few surviving hedgesKeep alive our lost Elysium - Rural Middlesexagain.Well cut Windsmoor flapping lightly,Jacqumar scarf of mauve and greenHiding hair which, Friday nightlyDelicately drowns in Drene;Fair Elaine, the bobby-soxer,Fresh-complexioned with Innoxa,Gains the garden - father's hobby -Hangs her Windsmoor in the lobby,Settles down to sandwich supper and thetelevision screen.Gentle Brent, I used to know youWandering Wembley-wards at will;Now what change your waters show youIn the meadowlands you fill!Recollect the elm-trees mistyAnd the footpaths climbing twistyUnder cedar-shaded palings.Low laburnum-leaned-on railings.Out of Northolt on and upwards to theheights of Harrow Hill.Parish of enormous hayfieldsPerivale stood all alone.And from Greenford scent of mayfieldsMost delightfully was blownOver market gardens tidy,Taverns for the bona fide.Cockney anglers, cockney shooters,Murray Poshes, Lupin Footers,Long in Kensal Green and Highgate silentunder soot and stone.Yet even at that late date, people whose memoriesreached back no more than 30 or 40 years wouldhave been able to recollect a Middlesex whichhad changed so dramatically in such a shorttime; and it is perhaps difficult today for thoseof us living in the Metropolis that is GreaterLondon to grasp how rural much of the area wasless than a century ago.Although the movement of London's clerks,shopkeepers, and low salaried workers out oftown was made possible by the great expansionof London's suburban railways from the 1860s,Middlesex was still essentially rural in the year ofBetjeman's birth, 1906. Tongues of developmenthad stretched out between the 1880s and 1914 tothe west from Shepherd's Bush, through Actonto Ealing and Brentford; to the north-west, asfar as Willesden and Cricklewood; and to thenorth, to Tottenham and Wood Green. However,the remainder of the county was a scatteringof villages, most of whose names still survive— though to most of their inhabitants theyhave little or no meaning now, except as a wayto find the way to where they live — set in a busyagricultural landscape providing food and fuel (iehay for horses) for the greatest city in the world.It was the massive expansion of London'spopulation during the period between the Firstand Second World Wars, combined with cheapfares on the suburban railways, which was thecatalyst for the creation of what was to becomeknown as Metroland, the expansion of which89

90 Michael Hammersonwas to eclipse the horrors of urban developmentforewarned less than a century earlier in GeorgeCruikshank's 1829 cartoon London Going Out ofTown. Between 1901 and 1921, 930,000 peoplewere added to 'outer' London. Between 1919and 1939, the built-up area of London doubled.Between 1924 and 1939, 860,000 new houseswere built; in 1934 alone, 1,500 new suburbanhouses were being built every week.The story of the expansion of London hasbeen told many times. By contrast, the story ofwhat was effectively the destruction of a countyand a rural society, within a period of 60, 30 oreven 20 years — depending on the benchmarkone chooses to use — remains virtually untold;Guy Williams' London in the Country: The Growthof Suburbia (1975) and Andrew Saint's LondonSuburbs (1999) remain the only easily availableworks on the subject.Conversely, there are a number of earlierbooks, written at a time when the expansion ofLondon was only just commencing, which focuson the Middlesex countryside and its value toLondoners, encouraging them to visit its rusticattractions. Presciently, perhaps, the majorityof them appeared between c.1890 and theFirst World War, as if they were trying to alertLondoners to the beauty of the countryside ontheir doorsteps and the fate which threatenedit. Two booklets, both undated but dating toc.1885-95, give a selection of rural walks. Thefirst was Our Lanes and Meadowpaths; or, Ramblesin Rural Middlesex by H J Foley, who writes, 'Tohow many a North Londoner does the greaterportion of his own county of Middlesex remain awholly undiscovered region? If you speak to sucha one of the spots of quaint beauty and ruralseclusion that lie within a comparatively shortdistance of his own doorstep, he will probablyregard you with astonishment' and commends'the rustic quiet of the Middlesex lanes andmeadowpaths', all of which can be reached'by a sixpenny railway ticket from the heart ofLondon'. The 112-page book — with a large mapand an appendix for cyclists — gives detaileditineraries for 22 walks, much of them over landnow totally built up.The second guide is Rustic Walking Routesin the London Vicinity: West to North District byW R Evans, who remarks on the solitude andisolation which are a feature of walks within thisregion so close to London, observing that thisis not because 'Londoners avoid the fields, butsimply that they do not know the ways acrossthem'. As if to emphasise the rural isolation ofMiddlesex at this late date, he further notes thatthe numerous field paths of the region 'in manycases... form the only direct routes betweenneighbouring villages or hamlets'. In an earlydefence of walkers' freedom to roam, he citesthe public's 'indefeasible right with regard tofootpaths', but reminds his readers strictly torespect private property and fences, crops, andanimals. An ominous note to the third edition,'in c.1895-1900, adds that a number of alterationshave been made, 'consequent, for the most part,on the spread of population and the extent ofbuilding'.Several books on Middlesex appeared within ashort period. The first, by John B Firth, was theMiddlesex volume of the familiar Little Guidescounty series, still easily available on antiquarianand secondhand bookshelves. Published in1906, it contained general and topographicaldata, and an alphabetical gazetteer describingthe towns and villages of Middlesex and a 2 milesto 1 inch map. Though the second edition waspublished as late as 1930, there is nostalgia evenfor today's motorist who reads that 'The NorthCircular Road provides an excellent means ofpassing across the North of London'!Picturesque Middlesex, a book of nostalgic andhistoric sketches by Duncan Moul and R HErnest Hill, is undated but probably dates toc.1905-10. In the preface, they observe that 'itis fortunate that so much that is picturesque stillexists unspoilt by the ever-increasing influence ofLondon and the onslaughts of the Jerry-builder.It is possible, however, that in a short time manyof the sketches in this volume will possess adistinct value as records of rustic scenery thathave hopelessly disappeared'. The book endson an optimistic note: 'notwithstanding theever-increasing ravages of bricks and mortarand similar abominations, it will be a long timebefore Middlesex ceases to be picturesque'.Rural Nooks Round London (Middlesex andSurrey), a similar book by Charles G Harper, waspublished in 1907. At the time of writing, hewas able to remark on 'the pleasant regions ofGolders Green...' where 'you are but seven milesfrom the very hub of and centre of the City'— though, by the time the book was published,development of the crossroads area had alreadycommenced and, when talking of the still-ruralvillage of Highgate, he recommends that thoseof his readers 'who would see, in a manner,what the "Garden Suburb" at Golders Green

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 91will be, on a larger scale, should certainly visitHolly Village'. The book's large coloured mapemphasises, particularly for today's reader, howlittle London had yet expanded beyond the oldLondon County Council boundary. The sameyear saw the publication of A R Hope's more arthistoricalMiddlesex.Perhaps the most well-known of the volumeson rural Middlesex was Walter Jerrold's volumein the popular Highways and Byways series,published in 1909. Following a similar formatto other volumes, it apologises to the reader forhaving the 'temerity to seek to interest readersanew in the homeliest of the Home Counties',but observes that 'there are yet some people whodo not allow the fascination of the far to destroytheir interest in the near', and reminding themthat 'there are still some rustic "bits" to be seenaway from the tram-dominated highways', andthat 'if Middlesex has lost much of its naturalbeauty owing to its relation to the capital... it isstill in its more agricultural parts well favouredin... these most attractive byways'.Just before the outbreak of war, the Middlesexvolume of the Cambridge County Geographiesappeared. It reminded readers that Middlesexwas, after Rutland and London itself, the smallestcounty in England, but that it would enable us tomuch better understand our national history 'ifwe first study the geography and history of thissmall, but very important, portion of our land'. Italso reminded us that, as late as 1913, 'yet thereare picturesque spots and beautiful villages'and could still illustrate this, on page 17, withan astonishingly rustic landscape, with ancientoaks, a footpath across grassland, and distanttree-clad hills, identified as 'East Finchley', andwith a description of Highgate as commanding'splendid views of the Metropolis and thesurrounding country'.Perhaps the last book of the true era of ruralMiddlesex was The Footpath Way Round London;Field-Path and Woodland Rambles, a small, 80-page, pocket-sized book which, in style, appearsto date to about 1910-20, when change was atlast beginning to have its impact. 'This districthas', it says, 'in the last twenty years [since the1890s] altered almost beyond recognition owingto railway and tramway developments. Thesefacilities', it naively continues, 'have enabledmany people to live in the country who beforedwelt in London. They cannot be said, however,to have added to the rural delights of Middlesex,but... even now... there are remote and prettyspots that are astonishingly green and unspoilt,from which the "great smoke" is almost withinsight... There are still plenty of footpath walksin rural Middlesex in spite of the great railwaydevelopments of last thirty years to the west ofLondon'. Yet of Harmondsworth and Ickenham,it could still claim that few villages 'prettier intheir quiet charm exist today in England'.It can still recommend Hendon station asa good starting point for those walking fromPreston to Harrow. The state of the county by thesecond decade of the 20th century is summarisedby the observation that 'London has not yet eatenup all the meadows of Middlesex, though if youtravel along the main roads you may get thatidea. But between the great arteries of macadamthere are cantles of green that stretch for miles,whose silence is only disturbed by the lowing ofcattle and the droning of aircraft'. On the dayhe visited the Greenford and Northolt areas,the anonymous writer continues lightheartedly,'there were almost as many aeroplanes as cattle,and, although I cannot guarantee you the sameexperience, you may get all the elements of anexciting adventure when a machine prepares todescend in a field with a rather irritable herd ofbullocks looking for trouble.' Though 'thereare now seven or eight stations... where twentyyears ago there was none', the area betweenAlperton and Greenford 'is still a pleasant ruraldistrict whose main occupation when I passedwas getting in the last of the hay'. He adds, moreominously, 'In a few years, judging from the waythings are going, this district will be a humminghive of industry. So you had better see it whilethere is still time and it is still green'. How greenMiddlesex still was is evident from the last of the18 Rambles in the book, 'Meadows near Home',recommending a walk from Long Lane, Finchley,to the Orange Tree at Totteridge. 'Thus will youget to know how really remote and rural some ofthe meadows near home remain.'In 1934, when thejuggernaut of the Metropolishad rolled over much of the area which 20 yearsbefore was still rural, Martin Briggs, in MiddlesexOld and New, realised what were the problemsand suggested what needed to be done to savewhat remained: 'Fifty years ago, Middlesex waspredominantly rural and contained less thana quarter of its present population. Now it islargely suburbanised and partly industrial, witha population which is growing at a sensationalrate and is rapidly approaching two millions...But this is not to say that all is lost in Middlesex.

92 Michael HammersonMuch may still be saved from the wreck... Takingthe new townships... I have shown... what [each]may still do to preserve its surviving amenitieswithout obstructing reasonable development.It is my hope that this study may create aspirit of civic consciousness and civic pride inthe inhabitants, most of whom have come toMiddlesex from other parts of England, and thushave no roots in its soil.''Full of the brash, confident optimism of the1920s' is Oliver Green's description of Metro-Land, a handbook published annually by theMetropolitan Railway Company between 1915and 1933. Its purpose was partly to encourageleisure excursion travel from London, but alsoto stimulate residential development alongthe line of the new suburban railway network,built between 1880 and 1905, which the newresidents of the same developments would,of course, use to travel into London to work.The publication, which also served as the mainmethod of advertising these developments, lastappeared in 1933 when the company became apart of London Transport, but the name Metrolandhad entered the language, and was the titleof John Betjeman's nostalgic 1973 televisionprogramme. The Metropolitan Railway Companyitself became involved in development, its firstventure being the Willesden Park Estate onrailway land near Willesden Green station in the1880s and '90s; other developments followed atPinner (Cecil Park) and at Wembley Park, onthe site of the failed attempt to build London'sequivalent of the Eiffel Tower (never risingabove its first stage, 155ft high, it was demolishedin 1907). What was revolutionary about thesedevelopments was the fact that, until this period,virtually no-one owned their own homes, rentingbeing the main type of tenure, even among thebetter-off; the rise of the well-paid middle classesmeant that, at a time of low interest rates, theprospect of home ownership was opened up tomillions, and the prospect of that home beingin the countryside, 'where charm and peaceawait you', was even more of a spur. The processcame to a halt with the outbreak of war in 1939,followed, in the 1940s, by the designation ofLondon's Green Belt. The full story of Metrolandcan be read on the London TransportMuseum's website, www.ltmuseum.co.uk.Other similar publications appeared duringthe 1930s, doubtless endeavouring to climb onboard the Metro-land bandwagon. One examplewas London and Suburbs Old and New by FrankGreen, providing information about London, itshistory and amenities, but primarily advertisingthe new suburban developments mushroomingthroughout the area.During his childhood and early adulthood, SirJohn Betjeman (1906-1984) witnessed at firsthand the destruction of the rural Middlesex heloved, from the Metropolis' first flexing of itsmuscles after the First World War to its climax onthe eve of the Second. The destruction was not,of course, total. It is still possible, even today, tofind remnants of rural Middlesex in areas suchas Enfield, Totteridge, Mill Hill, Pinner, Ruislip,Kingsbury, Harefield and others, while thehearts of ancient and picturesque villages suchas Harrow, Pinner, Hendon, Ruislip, Northoltand Hillingdon (threatened in its entirety by theexpansion of Heathrow) have been preserved.Even Highgate, Norwood, Ealing, Sunbury,and Laleham still survive, surrounded now bysuburbs but, as is coming to be realised, with thepotential to become the historic, cultural, andeven economic focus of the drive to regenerateMetro-land's declining suburbs.How this is to be achieved is the challenge. Toalmost all of the population of Greater London,these still attractive and historic villages are littlemore than the residential dormitories whencethey commute to work by day, and where theycan indulge in the pleasures of the 'eveningeconomy' at night. Martin Briggs' was right, asfar back as 1934, when he realised that, to savesomething from the wreck without obstructingreasonable progress, we need to 'create aspirit of civic consciousness and civic pride inthe inhabitants, most of whom have come toMiddlesex from other parts of England, andthus have no roots in its soil'. There is a riskthat modern pressures, not least the drive tosolve London's severe housing shortage andaccommodate its massively-growing population,will relegate such longer term issues as London'shistoric and rural heritage to a low position inthe priorities of local, regional, and nationalgovernment, and that what Metro-land did notentirely destroy, these new pressures will. Publiceducation must become a critical element inour efforts to ensure that the new Londondoes not destroy its own historic environment,and the expertise and passion of its manyarchaeological, historical, and civic amenitysocieties undoubtedly have a central role to playin making sure that this happens.The purpose of this essay is to remind

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 93Londoners of how dramatic and rapid was thechange in transforming Middlesex from a ruralsociety to a giant suburb, much of it within livingmemory — a change perhaps unparalleled inEngland in the short time in which it occurred.It would be interesting to know how a skilledand sensitive writer and observer of rural lifesuch as Richard Jefferies might have chronicledthe decline of rural Middlesex had he livedanother thirty years. However, it was Betjemanwho became the best-known chronicler of thesechanges, and his poem Middlesex perhaps singleshim out as the chief mourner for the demise ofthis rural society.The best way of illustrating these changes,and losses, must be through photographs, andwe are fortunate that the destruction of ruralMiddlesex coincided with the boom years of thepicture postcard; as a result, rural Middlesex wassurprisingly well recorded for us by the postcardmakers; even the process of destruction wassometimes the subject of a postcard.The choice of no more than 50 out ofthousands of photographs to illustrate thistheme was a difficult and inevitably personal one,but it seemed most appropriate to be guided inthat choice, as far as possible, by Betjeman'sown words in Middlesex, encapsulating hismemories of the Middlesex countryside in itslast days. The illustrations have therefore, asfar as possible, been chosen to illustrate theplaces and events — or, where not possible, themood — memorialised in various lines from thepoem. It is hoped that they will help Londonersto realise how rural Middlesex was, not so verylong ago, and to understand the importance ofLondoners working together to ensure that whatremains to us is not entirely lost in the drive toresolve real current social problems which can,many believe, be satisfactorily achieved withouthaving to destroy what remains of this uniqueand important cultural asset. Once it is lost, it islost forever, and no amount of new thinking willbring it back.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe text of Sir John Betjeman's poem 'Middlesex' istaken from pp 87-8 of The Best of Betjeman, selectedby John Guest (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth,Middlesex, 1978) and is reproduced by permissionof John Murray Publishers. All photographscourtesy of the author.NOTES1 Since going to press, a first edition has beenlocated, dated 1887.

94 Michael Hammerson'Gaily into Ruislip Gardens...'Fig 1. Ruislip Metropolitan station, c.1930. The old village stands at centre background. Just left of centre,two pairs of semis have just been built. In the background, 'a few surviving hedges' await their fate'A few surviving hedges...'* 'ttÂi'*'i* ROE GREEN /fOW the Air.Fig 2. Roe Green 'Garden Village', Kingsbury, in 1920. The development was commenced in 1917 foremployees of the nearby Airco factory, one of several aircraft industry factories attracted by the pioneeringaerodrome at Hendon

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 95'Gentle Brent, I used to know you...'Fig 3. Greenford village, from across the ford over the River Brent, c.1910'...wandering Wembley-wards at will...'Fig 4. The River Brent near Wembley, 1922. Lines in the fields at left and rear, only discernible undermagnification, suggest the survival of possible ridge-and-furrow systems in the area

96 Michael Hammerson'Now what change your waters show you in the meadowlands you fill'Fig 5. J Lyons' factory at Greenford, c.1930-^^w^^wM^T^mmfFig 6. An idyllic rural scene in Hendon Lane, Finchley, where it crosses Dollis Brook, a tributary of the Brent,1909. The sign behind the horse-and-trap at far right reads 'White Hall Estate: To let on building lease or forsale'

'Our Lost Elysium' — rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 97'Recollect the elm-trees misty...'Fig 7. Whitchurch Lane, Edgware, 1907'...and the foot-paths climbing twisty...'Fig 8. 'Rough Lois', a remnant ofFinchley Common, near Squire's Lane, c.1910; some of it remainsopen today, though no rural quality remains

98 Michael HammersonFig 9. Footpath from Finchley to Summers Lane; an unidentified rural path, probablyof the busy A1000, during the 1920swithin earshot'Low laburnum-leaned-on railings'Fig 10. It's very difficult to find a photograph of a laburnum leaning on railings; but here are some railings leanedon by a profusion of vegetation, in a Lordship Lane, Tottenham scene unrecognisable today

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 99'Out of Northolt, on and upwards...'Fig 11. The old village pump, Northolt, c.1910'...to the heights of Harrow Hill'Fig 12. Harrow from the fields between Pinner and Wealdstone in about 1910-20

100 Michael Hammerson'Parish of enormous hayfields, Perivale stood all alone...'Fig 13. Perivale, seen from the direction of Ealing, 1904[but there were hayfields throughout Middlesex, to meet London's insatiable demandfor horse fodder before the motor-car became dominant]Fig 14. In Edgware: a view in Edgmarebury Lane, c.1910

'Our Lost Elysium '-rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 101"%'t"•MK:/?*^gjlK^'".fK'*;..-^,Biitiiin-iiilniii ItMi iiiiMiili ikwttl^^Fig 15. In Crichlewood: rustic Oxgate Lane, now an industrial estate near Willesden Green, c.1910Fig 16. Haystacks somewhere in the ['inner area, 1906

102 Michael Hammerson802. WOODHDUSt- LAME.Fig 17. Woodhouse Lane, New Southgate, 1910Fig 18. Even on Hampstead Heath: haymaking for the Earl of Mansfield in 1891 in Kenwood Fields, which becamepart of the Heath only in 1923. The spot was hut a few hundred yards from Betjeman's childhood home at 31 HighgaleWest Hill

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 103.and from Greenford scent of mayfields most delightfully was blown...'?Fig 19. Footpath from Horsenden Hill to Greenford, 1911'...over market gardens tidy...'MA -%thiFig 20. Ferguson's sweet peas, Northolt, 1911

104 Michael Hammerson'taverns for the bonafide...'Fig 21. The Plough, Norwood Green, 1924•!..• • Wcsl End, Hayes End, Ifiddx.Cycle Clubs speciaUy catered for.Proprietor A. R. Nice.Fig 22. The White Hart, Hayes End, 1908

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 105Fig 23. The Old Welsh Harp, Hendon, 1906Fig 24. The White Swan, Golders Green, 1909

106 Michael HammersonFig 25. 'Down at the Old Bull and Bush': in 1903, 'Arry and 'Arriet were beating a path to its doors: hut it wasstill a country pub•AftEMfFOR TillFig 26. The Old King of Prussia, East Finchley Village, 1904

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 107.. .Cockney fishers'Fig 27. Fishing on the Grand Junction Canal, Alperton, 1920Cockney Shooters'Fig 28. No pictures of cockney shooters — but one of a hunt about to set off from Harefield in 1908

108 Michael Hammerson'Our Lost Elysium': rural Middlesex, not so long agoFig 29. Greyhound Hill, Hendon, c.1910i .;•!.. OS, #. FIMCHLEYFig30. Totteridge Fields, North Finchky, 1907. Thanks to far-sighted pre-War local planning policies, theview today is, miraculously, almost unchanged

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 109Fig 31. The Finchley Road crossroads at Golders Green, 1904, looking north; the building of HampsteadGarden Suburb is just starting in the distance. A well-known view, which nevertheless forcibly reminds ushow rural was the area now covered by London's inner suburbs until relatively recently. The Estate Agent'sboard at the crossroads signals that the development of Golders Green is imminentEast Finchley from HighgateFig 32. East Finchley from Highgate, 1913; probably looking across the farmland now occupied by AylmerRoad

110 Michael HammersonFig 33. Neasden, 1909. A view in such contrast to what might today be a candidate for London's dreariestsuburb that we could doubt the accuracy of the identification, were it not for the signpost pointing toKingsbury and Hendon''^ *."*^^^*=s-^«Fig 34. Dollis Hill Lane, Cricklewood, 1904. Another view so in contrast to its appearance today that one's firstreaction might be incredulity

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 111Fig 35. Blackpot Hill, Kingsbury, c. 1905Fig 36. 'This picture was taken from the end of our garden We... would not like to go back to London'. Thuswrites a resident of Wembley Hill in 1911

112 Michael HammersonFORTY FARM, W«li»Bi.eV.Fig 37. Forty Farm, Wembley, 1922Fig 38. Bryant's Farm, Harlesden, 1928

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 113\Fig 39. Windsor Dairy, Wilksden, c.1910Fig 40. The village smithy, Eastcote, c.1920. The tattered Daily Mail poster on the door advertises a TreasureHunt at Robart's Field, Northwood on Whit Monday

114 Michael HammersonFig 41 Powys Lane, Palmers Green, 1906. In the background is a farm with haystacks. The sign warnscyclists against using the footbridge,,p__-,^^^^_^^^^K^WHf^^^BL ^^KBIP'%...•:•:.•• .... ^ . ROSlO«S£L.AN(X, AMD M^HiL...-»|tT RPjrom NEW SOUTHS ATE,mmFig 42. Osidge Lane and East Barnet Road, from New Southgate, still 'truly rural' in the 1920s

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 115Fig 43. The Old Smithy, Southgate, 1910. The sign advertising William J Cain, Gas and Hot WaterEngineer, Locksmith, Bell Hanger and Farrier, visible in photos only five years earlier, has been erased by thephotographerFig 44. Footpath to Sudbury Hill Station from Horsenden Hill, 1915

116 Michael HammersonElysium Lost...Fig 45. 'The King and Queen passing Ravenor Park Estate', Greenford, c.1910 — clearly not tempted tostop, even by the offer of freehold plots for only £5 downFig 46. 'Cross Roads, Western Avenue, Perivak', 1937

'Our Lost Elysium' - rural Middlesex: a pictorial essay 117Fig 47. New housing in Southgate, 1913: 'London Going out of Town; Or, ; March of Bricks and Mortar'on a scale dwarfing the growth caricatured by George Cruikshank in 1829Fig 48. New houses in Ruislip, 1909 -family lived in this very house?- and no surviving hedges! Perhaps Elaine and her

118 Michael HammersonFig 49. New houses going up somewhere in Wembley, 1920sFig 50. The destruction of rural Middlesex illustrated in graphic detail: broposed layout of the Lyon Farmand Preston Manor Estates, Kenton, 1935

FURTHER PREHISTORIC FINDS FROMGREATER LONDONJonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenWith a contribution from Bill WhiteSUMMARYThis paper rounds up a further selection of prehistoricfinds from Greater London which have been reported tothe Museum of London. 30 of the 42 objects err groupsof objects were recovered from the modem foreshores of theThames or areas adjacent (with a clear majority from theSurrey bank). Many remain in private possession. Notablefinds include two antler-beam mattocks (Nos 12-13) fromMortlake, a Neolithic ground axe of 'near-jadeite' (No. 14)from Enfield, a possibly later Neolithic or Early BronzeAge serrated barbed and tanged bone point (No. 25) fromChamber's Wharf Bermondsey, and an Early Iron Age irondagger in a composite wooden sheath (No. 34) from thesame locality. In addition, the opportunity has been takento bring together a number of antiquarian finds, someof which — like the group of Mesolithic flint adzes (No.11) recovered during river dredging and the two Neolithicground axes (Nos 16-17), one from King's Cross and theother probably from the Thames at Chelsea — hark back tothe early days of archaeological endeavour in the capital.A concluding discussion places these finds within theirregional context and draws attention to the importance ofthe Portable Antiquities Scheme for the capital.INTRODUCTIONThis is the third in an occasional series of contributionsdesigned to round up stray prehistoricfinds from Greater London reported to theMuseum of London. As before, the majority ofthe finds dealt with were recovered from theforeshores of the Thames and areas adjacent(Fig 1). Unless otherwise stated, they remain inprivate hands.Unlike the two previous roundups (Cotton119& Merriman 1991; Cotton & Wood 1996),the present one also incorporates items fromhistoric collections of finds which, for onereason or another, have only recently resurfaced.Otherwise the same chronological arrangementas before is followed. The paper concludes witha brief consideration of the importance of thesestray finds for the region's prehistory.PALAEOLITHIC1. Fragmentary pointed flint biface (Fig 2)found in the garden of 94 Fairholme Crescent,Hayes, Middlesex and reported by the owner,Ron Vickers, in 1997. Fairholme Crescent iscentred on TQ 100 824 and overlooks theYeading Brook, a tributary of the River Crane.The implement measures 94mm in lengthand weighs 86.12g. It forms part of a pointedbiface worked on a small river cobble. It isin rolled condition and lightly olive-stained.Although the findspot appears to lie onLondon Clay, it is likely that the piece derivesfrom one or other of the various graveldeposits in the locality: the nearest comprisethe Boyn Hill terrace to the west, and theLynch Hill terrace to the south.2. Small pointed flint biface (Fig 2) from the'Boyn Hill terrace. West Drayton'. Togetherwith No. 3 below, this formed part of ateaching collection donated to the Museumof London by Queen Mary and WestfieldCollege, University of London in 2002 (MoL2002.58).The implement measures 75nim in lengthand weighs 138.6g. It is heavily worn and of

120 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenFig 1. Location mapgrey flint. Large numbers of bifaces havebeen recorded from the area of West Draytonand Yiewsley.3. Small pointed biface (Fig 2) from 'TaplowTerrace, Hanwell, Middlesex'. As No. 2 above,this formed part of a teaching collectiondonated to the Museum of London by QueenMary and Westfield College, University ofLondon in 2002 (MoL 2002.58).The implement measures 96mm in lengthand weighs 201.42g. It is worn and stained adark ochreous brown. There were a numberof gravel pits in this area, including Seward'sPit in Boston Road, where the River Brentcut through a sequence of former Thamesterrace gravels (Gibbard 1985, 37).DiscussionThese first three pieces were all recovered fromthe terrace gravels in west London, an area wellknown for its Palaeolithic finds {egWymer 1968;Collins 1978). Moreover, the two pieces fromQueen Mary and Westfield College formed partof a teaching collection, a majority of whosepieces originated from Milton Street (BarnfieldPit), Swanscombe and were collected by JamesCross prior to 1908. Other pieces include afurther small pointed biface from 'PSouthall',and several Mesolithic adzes from the Thamesat or near Windsor formerly in the L V VenablesCollection.4. Pointed flint biface (Fig 3) donated to theMuseum of London (MoL 98.5) by Mr Wrightin 1997. Reportedly found prior to the SecondWorld War by his father, a plumber by trade,'during the digging of foundations close to StPaul's Cathedral' (possibly those belongingto Faraday House on its south side?).

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 121• cmsFig 2. Palaeolithic flint artefacts (Nos 1-3, 5 & 6). Scale 1:2

122 Jonathan (Milan and Adrian (WeenFig 3. Palaeolithic flint biface (No. 4) from the area oj St Paul's, CJty (Photo: John CJia.se, Museum ofLondon)5.The implement measures 170mm in lengthand weighs 570.8g. It is fashioned on a noduleof mottled dark grey cherty flint. An expanseof worn dark cortex has been retained at thebutt, extending up one face. The butt givesthe impression of having been used as ahammerstone, which has resulted in localisedcrushing and bruising of the surfaces. Thesehave also been affected by Hre, and thishas produced some localised spalling andcrazing. Otherwise the piece is in a relativelyfresh, unrolled condition, unlike many of theother Palaeolithic finds from the area of theCity, which are heavily rolled and stained.Small pointed flint biface (Fig 2) found byAnita Freeman on the Middlesex foreshore ofthe Thames at Bull Wharf, City, and reportedin May 2000. The findspot lay on the surfaceof the foreshore some 15m south of the riverwall, and at a point 30m west of Queenhythein front of the Samtiel Pepys Public House(TQ 3223 8075).The implement measures 89mm in length,54mm in breadth, is 3Imm thick and weighs158.48g. It has been radially and invasivelyflaked across both faces; all high points andlateral edges are heavily worn and rolled.The 'dorsal' face (left) has light olive-brownochreous staining; the flatter 'ventral' face(right) appears to retain a patch of hea\iKworn cortex, and has been stained a darkbrown/black.DiscussionThese two pieces can be added to otherPalaeolithic finds recovered from the area ofthe City {eg Wymer 1968, 287-8). It is clearfrom their reported provenances that neitherpiece was recovered from an in situ context (egHolder & Janiieson 2003, illus 5). The conditionof the Bull Wharf piece suggests that it waseither eroded from a higher gravel terrace orimported with other material to make up a bargebed. Either way it can be added to a nimiberof heavily rolled pieces recovered from theThames foreshores (eg No. 6 below). The StPaul's biface is in somewhat fresher conditionand it is possible that it was brought into the areain Roman or later times, either accidentally or— perhaps more likely — as a curio. Palaeolithicartefacts have, for example, been recovered onRoman cult sites both in France and in Britain(Merrifield 1987, 16; Turner & Wymer 1987).

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 1236. Small rolled flake (Fig 2) found in spring 2004by Richard Read on the Middlesex foreshoreof the Thames near the River Police Station atWapping (C.TQ3485 8000).The flake comprises a small squat blankmeasuring 35mm in length, 60mm in breadth,13mm thick, and weighing 29.67g. It is rolledand stained a light olive-brown. There is a smallpatch of cortex surviving on its dorsal face.The findspot liesjust upstream of ExecutionDock, from whence came a small Palaeolithicflake struck from a prepared core publishedin an earlier roundup (Cotton & Wood 1996,2, fig 2 no. 4).MESOLITHIC7. Mesolithic flint tranchet adze (Fig 4) foundin March 1995 by Richard Hill on the Surreyforeshore of the Thames at St Mary OverieDock, Southwark (TQ 3262 8044). It lay closeto low water slightly upstream of the mouthof the dock and c.2Qm from another adzereported previously (Cotton & Merriman1991,38-9, fig 6 no. 7).The implement measures 147mm in length,47mm in breadth, is 30mm thick, and weighs267.05g. It is made of lightly peat-stainedcherty grey-brown gravel flint, with a tranchetremoval at the blade on one face, and a largeexpanse of smooth cortex at the butt. It is invery fresh, sharp condition.As noted above another, somewhat larger,adze was recovered ten years earlier by thesame finder towards the back of the foreshoreat this same general location; he suggestedthat this piece may have been disturbedduring dock construction. Part of a third adzehas since been found 100m further upstreamby Fiona Haughey (see No. 8 below).8. Incomplete Mesolithic flint tranchet adze(Fig 4) found during spring 1998 by FionaHaughey on the Surrey foreshore of theThames at Winchester Wharf, Southwark(TQ 3252 8045). The implement lay closeto the base of a gravel deposit over peat andabout three quarters of the way down theforeshore on a low tide.The implement measures 135mm inlength, 50mm in breadth, is 35mm thick, andweighs 279.80g. It is made of cherty mottledgrey flint with light orange-brown surfacestaining. There are patches of smooth cortexsurviving on one face. The butt is missingand the blade has been re-sharpened with atranchet blow. It is in fresh condition.DiscussionThese two adzes (and the third piece from St MaryOverie reported previously) can be added to thegrowing evidence for Mesolithic activity notedin this area since Lacaille's (1966) pioneeringsurvey. Although adze-sharpening flakes havebeen recovered from various locations away fromthe river here (ggSidell et al 2002, 70-1, table 4),there are no complete adzes. These appear to berestricted to the modern river and its foreshoreand may even hint at deliberate deposition, anexplanation more usually invoked with regard toNeolithic and later material.9. Mesolithic flint tranchet adze (Fig 4) foundin March 2004 by Richard Read on theSurrey foreshore of the Thames at Nine Elms,Vauxhall (TQ 3000 7794). The adze was foundat low water on a 0.1m tide and lay some10-15m upstream of the Bronze Age wooden'bridge' or 'jetty' recorded previously {egSidelleiaZ 2002, 29-30).The implement measures 118mm in length,45mm in breadth, is 25mm thick, and weighs182.70g. It comprises a small slender adzeof cherty flint stained a glossy black, with aresharpened, tranchet, cutting edge; a largethinning flake has also been removed fromone edge on the flatter 'ventral' face (right).To judge from surface encrustation, the'dorsal' face (left) had been lying uppermoston the foreshore.10. Mesolithic opposed-platform bladelet core(Fig 4) found at low water by Richard Readon the Surrey foreshore of the Thames atNine Elms, Vauxhall, a few metres furtherupstream from, and subsequent to. No. 9above (TQ 2896 7794).The core measures 77mm in overall length,50mm in breadth, is 28mm thick, and weighs110.22g. A minimum of eight main bladeletscars are visible on the core, a majority ofwhich were detached from a single carefullyprepared platform. The core is ofmottled dark grey river cobble flint and theunillustrated face retains expanses of smoothcortex and thermally-altered surfaces.DiscussionA number of such bladelet cores have been

124 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Green•cms10Fig 4. Mesolithic flint adzes (Nos 7—9) and opposed-platform core (No. 10). Scale 1:2

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 125recovered from this reach during recent workassociated with the Bronze Age 'bridge' or 'jetty'immediately downstream {eg Cotton & Wood1996, 5, fig 3 no. 8). These two latest piecesfrom Vauxhall can be added to a growing bodyof lithic material recovered from this stretchof the foreshore, much of which appears to beof Mesolithic character. It seems likely that theflintwork was originally strewn across a seriesof low sandy eminences overlooking the Effra/Thames confluence.11. A group of Mesolithic flint adzes and a singleNeolithic flaked axe have recently come tolight in the collection of the Croydon NaturalHistory and Scientific Society (CNHSS).These formed part of the collection belongingto Walter Hellyer Bennett (1892-1971),having been purchased by him at the sale ofthe Corner Collection in 1948.Frank Corner, son of the well known antiquarianGeorge Corner, was a medical doctorand a collector with eclectic tastes. He livedin the Manor House, Poplar, and was a majorearly benefactor of the London Museum(Sheppard 1991, 50, 57). Following his death,the residue of his large collection of localprehistoric flintwork and other artefacts,together with the original manuscript copyof the collection catalogue, was sold off in180 separate Lots by Puttick & Simpson Ltdat their galleries in 22 Bering Street, NewBond Street, Wl in April 1948. Three of theSale Lots of flint artefacts were purchasedby Bennett, whose large and equally eclecticcollection was left to the CNHSS on his deathin 1971.The artefacts bought by Bennett compriseLots 4,19, and 53 in the Corner Sale Catalogue.Lot 4 is described as 'A fine collection of large[Palaeolithic] tools from Protheroe's Nursery,Bent's Farm, etc (12)' in east London. Lot53 is described as 'Another collection [ofPalaeolithic tools and other specimens], fromMilton Pit, Swanscombe (60)' in Kent. Lot 19is described as 'A similar lot [of MesolithicThames picks], mostly dredged (21)', and it isthis latter Lot that concerns us here.The following table lists all 21 Mesolithicpieces contained in Lot 19, with the additionof a single flaked Neolithic flint axe (B512)which, while not apparently included withinthe original Sale Lot, probably also formedpart of the Corner Collection. One piece,B404, is now missing. The surviving piecesare variously marked in pencil, black ink, andwhite block lettering. All have the CNHSSaccession numbers marked in white ink; fivehave original numbers (PCorner) marked inblack ink.Table 1. Contents of Lot 19 from the Corner Collection Sale, Monday 3 April 1948CNHSSAce no.B400B401B402B403B404*B405B4()7B408B409B410B411B412B413B414B415B416B417B418B419B499B500B512(*Missing)DescriptionFlint adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint adzeFlint adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint pickFlint adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint pickFlint pickFlint tranchet adzeFlint tranchet adzeFlint flaked axeProvenance as markedOriginal no.(black ink)Thames dredged NorthfleetThames at RichmondBlakehall Road WansteadThames Long Reach 2972Thames Long ReachNo provenance survivingThames dredged Long Reach Oct 96Thames dredged Long Reach May 94Thames dredged Broadness with BronzeThames Alluvium below peat Becton Gas Works Oct 93 -Thames dredged Erith Oct 90 5Thames ReadingFootings for new iron bridge Poplar 2025No provenance surviving 543Thames dredged Long Reach Ap 99Thames dredged Broadness with Bronze Hord (sic)Thames dredged Long ReachThames dredged PutneyThames dredged Hammersmith May 07Thames BatterseaClements Reach 12.7.08Thames dredged Hammersmith 97 2435

126 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian (WeenDiscussionIn terms of provenance, a number of the artefactscome from the Thames downstream of the City,particularly Long Reach. (To judge from theSale ("atalogue the latter locality seems to havebeen very well represented within the CornerCollection.) One example (B410), from BecktonGas Works, appears to have been stratified withinThames alluvium sealed by peat. Others comefrom locations further upstream at Richmond,Hammersmith, Putney, and Battersea, all areasknown to have produced similar finds in the past(«g-Field 1989, fig 7; appendix II).Though not local finds, two pieces (B409 andB4I6), from Broadness, Kent, are of particularinterest as having been found at the same timeas the hoard of bronze spearheads dredged fromthe Thames in 1892. This large Late Bronze Age'Broadward' hoard passed into three separatecollections: those belonging to Canon WilliamGreenwell (now in the British Museum), WilliamLloydjunior, and Frank Corner (both now in theMuseum of London). In his original publicationof the spearheads R A Smith (1910, 161) notedthe presence of 'neolithic {sic) flints, whichnumbered several hundreds and comprisedflakes as well as finished implements' broughtup from a lower level to that of the spearheads.The two Mesolithic adzes now in the CNHSScollection appear to be the first of these flints tohave been positively identified.Two other Lots from the (Corner Sale (Nos27 and 151) were piuchased by the LondonMuseum, and are now in the collections of theMuseimi of London. Lot 27 comprised a groupof 16 'polished celts' from various Londonlocalities, while Lot 151 comprised a series offinds from Baker's Hole in Kent, including ahiuTian skull and a collection of Palaeolithic(Levallois) cores and flakes. Finally, part ofanother Corner Sale Lot sini'aced briefly inthe trade following its discovery in BirkenheadSchool on the Wirral in 1994'(Cotton 1997).This comprised a group of 15 Palaeolithic artefactsfrom various localities in east London,but it has since been split up and sold on b} itspurchaser (Bonhams of Knightsbridge, Sale ofAntiquities, Tuesday 7 October 1997, Lot 17).The rediscovery of the original Côrner maruiscriptcatalogue would no doubt allow furthersimilar piuchases to be identified in other putilicand private collections.12. Red deeran tier-beam mattock (Fig5) foundinOctober 2004 by Peter Bryan one third of tliewav down the Sinrey foreshore of the Thamesand 'two hundred metres or so downstreamFig 5. Antler mattock (No. 12) (Photo: Richard Stroud, Museum of London)

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 127from the Ship Inn' at Mortlake (TQ 20757610). The piece was initially thought tocomprise a natural unworked antler untilcloser inspection by the finder revealed thepresence of the chamfered cutting edge. Thepiece has now been acquired by the Museumof London (2004.170/1). (The same finderalso recovered part of another perforatedantler mattock a little further downstream onthe same reach some three years prior to thepresent piece at c.TQ 213 762. This had beenallowed to 'air dry', and had cracked and splitapart as a result.)The mattock measures 244mm in lengthand has an oval shaft (or 'beam') 48mm by38mm in circumference; it weighs 440.97gin its wet state. An oval perforation 28mm by24mm has been neatly drilled through thebeam. The short 'blade' of the mattock hasbeen created with a single angled axe strike.The piece is in fresh condition, though thesurface lying uppermost on the foreshoreappears to have suffered some wear and tear,which has resulted in the production of aseries of striae seemingly unrelated to theobject's manufacture and use.13. Red deer antler-beam mattock (Fig 6) foundin the late 1970s by Frank Berry on the Surreyforeshore of the Thames about '100 yardsupstream from the Ship Inn' at Mortlake (TQ2037 7616). The finder noted that the antlerwas picked up on an abnormally low tidewhich had 'uncovered parts of the river bednot usually seen'. It has since been donatedto the Museum of London (MoL 2004.167)by its finder.The mattock measures 235mm in lengthand has an oval shaft (or 'beam') 47mm by35mm in circumference; it weighs 242.26g.An oval perforation c.21mm by 17mm hasbeen drilled through the beam in broadlythe same plane as the tines. This had clearlyreplaced an earlier failed perforation some36mm further along the beam; the implementwas, therefore, originally much longer.The 'blade' of the mattock appears to havebeen created with a single angled axe strike,though the worn condition of the surface inthis area makes its original extent difficult todetermine with precision. Wear aside, thepiece is in reasonably good shape, with sometraces of cracking around the perforationsand slight surface loss towards the cuttingedge.DiscussionAntler-beam mattocks Nos 12 and 13 fall withinSmith's (1989, 278) 'unbalanced or laterallyperforated' Type D, a majority of which have beenrecovered from the Thames. Smith regarded theantler-beam Types C and D as typologically laterthan his antler-base Types A and B, a view borneout by a subsequent programme of radiocarbondating (eg-Bonsall & Smith 1989) which produceddates spanning the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic.Further dates, however, for example on an antlerbeammattock from a silted channel/ditch featureat Beddington, Surrey (Adkins et al 1987, 349; IscaHowell pers comm), would appear to extend themanufacture and use of such objects down intothe earlier Bronze Age.The function of these pieces has also beenmuch discussed, with the general consensus onthis side of the Channel being that they wereprobably used for digging rather than woodworkingor flenching (Smith 1989, 282). However,experiments conducted at Lejre, Denmark, havedemonstrated the efficiency of such tools whenhafted and used as axes to split and trim wood(Jensen 1991; Damian Goodburn pers comm), sotheir function is perhaps best left open.The two (possibly three) beam mattocks fromMortlake noted here can be added to the singleantler-base mattock and three antler-beam mattocksalready known from this wide southerlyloop of the Thames {eg Lawrence 1929, 82-4;Lacaille 1966, 16-17, fig 3 no. 5; Smith 1989,274). These form part of a concentration of overfifty such finds from the west London Thameswhich is unparalleled anywhere else in thecountry. Other recent mattock finds from theLondon area include a single example retrievedfrom the Middlesex foreshore of the Thames atRichmond Bridge as part of the Thames ArchaeologicalSurvey (Cowie & Eastmond 1997,120), together with the radiocarbon-datedexample from Beddington, Surrey, mentionedabove, found during the excavation of a Romanvilla and bath house (Adkins et al 1987, 349; IscaHowell pers comm).NEOLITHIC14. Neolithic ground stone axe (Fig 6) found in1985 by a British Telecom employee duringcable-laying operations in Pretoria Road,Enfield N18. The axe was reported to havebeen lying in the top of the brickearth at a

128 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Green13• cms1415Fig 6. Antler mattock (No. 13) and Neolithic stone (No. 14) and flint (No. 15) axes.Scale 1:2 (Nos 13-14) and 1:4 (No. 15)

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 129depth of 2ft 6in (0.75m) during the diggingof a new trench in previously undisturbedground (Les Whitmore pers comm). PretoriaRoad runs north-south between TQ 338 922and TQ 337 913; the findspot is situatedbetween the 10m and 20m contours to thesouth of the Pymme's Brook. The latter flowsinto the River Lea 1.5km to the east. The axeis currently in the possession of Forty HallMuseum.The implement measures 113mm in length,53mm in breadth, is 19mm thick, and weighs182.53g. It comprises an axe worked on a smallnodule of banded, fine-grained grey-greenrock characterised as 'near jadeite' followingthin-sectioning at the Natural History Museum(Valerie Jones pers comm). One face (left) hasa smooth glassy surface, with the remains ofthe parent nodule's original surface presenttowards the butt where it has not been fullyground out. The other face (right) is palerin colour and has a matt surface. Here theoriginal nodular surface has survived in twoareas, one close to the centre point, andthe other towards the butt. A thin brownishsurface deposit is present in patches close toone lateral edge. The cutting edge is sharpand undamaged, save for one tiny chip.DiscussionJade axes, which encompass those made fromjadeite or nephrite, are still unusual finds inBritain and have an uneven distribution (Pitts1996, 319-20). Jadeite occurs in restrictedoutcrops across Europe from Glenely in Scotlandto Brittany and in the French, Swiss, Italian,and Austrian Alps. Nephrite is slightly morewidespread and can also be found in nodularform in stream beds. Overall, jade is scarce inBritain and would have been highly valued. It wasselected for its robustness and visual appearance,but was difficuk to work.Four true jadeite axes have been recordedfrom the London region hitherto: two from theThames, at Mordake (Mol 31.48) and VauxhallBridge (BM 1907,6-19,1), one reworkedexample from a Roman context in King Street,City (MoL 29.121) (Jones et al 1977), and onebroken example from Staines Moor in the Colnevalley (Field & Woolley 1983). Remarkably, thefirst three all passed through the hands of G FLawrence, the well known dealer in antiquitiesof West Hill, Wandsworth. (A further example.purporting to have come from the Thames atStrand-on-the-Green (MoL O701) (Adkins &Jackson 1978, no. 244), may be an ethnographicimport.) In addition, a single nephrite axe hasbeen recorded from Hendon, close to the RiverBrent (Jones et al 1977, 290, contra HADAS 1977,where the axe is described as 'jadeite').15. Partially-ground Neolithic flint axe (Fig 6)found 'about 1930' in the back garden of 36Danvers Street, Chelsea, by the grandfatherof James Reid, who reported the discovery in1998 (it had been shown to staff at the BritishMuseum some time before this). DanversStreet is centred on TQ 2695 7760 and runsnorth-west off Chelsea Embankment at a pointa little downstream from Battersea Bridge onthe Middlesex bank of the Thames. Prior tothe construction of Chelsea Embankmentin 1871-74 (Weinreb & Hibbert 1983, 149),the area would have formed part of the riverforeshore and floodplain.The axe measures 180mm in length andweighs 380g. It has been fashioned out ofcherty grey flint and is of slender lenticularform with markedly faceted sides; the cuttingedge bears traces of recent damage.The present piece can be added to a numberof other axes recorded from this stretch ofthe river and its floodplain {eg Adkins &Jackson 1978, 67). Recent archaeologicalexcavations have recovered evidence of thearea's topographic development and of lowlevel flint knapping activity conducted withinit (eg-Farid 2000, 119; Divers 2001, 4), someof which may be referable to the Neolithic.16. Reworked blade section of a Neolithic groundflint axe (Fig 7) (Northampton Museum InventoryI, C.1893, lA 166; now MoL 2000,287/1). The original label is illegible, but theaxe was subsequently marked 'Kings Cross,London, Bateman Collection'.The implement measures 135mm in length,67mm in breadth, is 40mm thick at themidpoint, and weighs 448.81g. It comprises asubstantial portion of a ground flint axe withfaceted sides and reflaked butt. A number ofthe original flake scars on the body of the axehave not been fully ground out. A modernchip at the cutting edge indicates that it wasfashioned out of mottled cherty grey flint,which was stained an ochreous yellow-brownsubsequent to the re-flaking of the butt.Its provenance and likely date of discovery

130 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Green• cmsFig 7. Neolithic axes of flint (Nos 16, 18 and 19) and stone (No. 17). Scale 1:2(which must have occurred prior to August1861, when Thomas Bateman died after ashort illness aged 40 (DNB)) suggest thatit could have been recovered during theconstruction of the terminus of the GreatNorthern Railway at King's Cross in 1851-2(Weinreb & Hibbert 1983, 448). King'sCross lies on the left or east bank of the nowculverted River Fleet and opposite the pointat which a western tributary stream joined themain channel (Barton 1962, 27-8).17. Small Neolithic ground stone axe (Fig 7)(Northampton Museum Inventory I, c.1893lA, 164; now MoL 2000.287/2). The axe ismarked 'Thames' and has a worn label which(under x20 magnification) reads '97. R Celt

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 1314'/4" long, [variega] ted green stone like signite.Found with huma[n? skulls] in theThames. 1854'. Also 'Thames 1854. BatemanCollection'.The implement measures 110mm in length,65mm in breadth at the blade, is 32mmthick at the midpoint, and weighs 367.9g. Itcomprises a complete stone axe of plump'hachette' type, with ground facets at theedges and slight damage to its rounded butt.The rock comprises a smooth, fine-grained,speckled dark green material and remainsunsourced.The reference to 'huma[n? skulls]' and thedate '1854' given on the label provides a clueas to the implement's original provenance,for a number of collectors, Bateman amongthem, were known to have been obtainingobjects dredged from the river during thebuilding of Chelsea Bridge between December1854 and October 1855. These objectscomprised various items of Bronze Age andlater metalwork including the BatterseaShield (Cuming 1858, pi 23) — the latternow in the British Museum — together withlarge numbers of human skulls. Indeed, somany of the latter were found here that it ledthe Walworth antiquarian H S Cuming to dubthe reach 'our Celtic Golgotha' (1857, 238).DiscussionThe two Neolithic axes, Nos 16 and 17, one offlint and one of stone, both originally part ofthe collection belonging to Thomas Bateman ofYoulgrave, Derbyshire, were transferred to theMuseum of London from Northampton Museumin 2000 (MoL 2000.287/1-2). They formedtwo thirds of Lot 16 in the sale of the BatemanHeirlooms held at Sotheby, Wilkinson andHodge on Wednesday 14 June 1893. The thirdaxe in the Lot was from Northampton, and hasbeen retained by the museum there.An annotated copy of the Sale Catalogue heldin the British Museum records that Lot 16 waspurchased for 15 shillings by 'Fenton' (presumablythe London antique dealers Fenton & Sons Ltd),who may have been acting for NorthamptonMuseum. Whether or not this was so, all threeaxes were certainly quickly incorporated into thecollections of the museum, as they feature in itsInventory which was compiled around this time.Although resident in Derbyshire and bestknown for his archaeological fieldwork in thePeak District, Thomas Bateman was an activecollector on the London scene throughout the1850s. In addition to the axes (Nos 16 and 17above), a number of other London antiquitieswere amongst the objects on offer at the 1893sale, principally pieces of Bronze Age metalwork,including swords and spearheads dredged fromthe Thames. Several of these passed into thecollection of Canon William Greenwell and arenow in the British Museum.18. Broken blade/narrow flake (Fig 7) from aground flint axe found by Margaret Wooldridgeof the West London ArchaeologicalField Group during site watching on thesouth side of North Street, Isleworth (c.TQ163 759) in the early 1970s.The blade/flake measures 47mm in length,33mm in breadth, 10mm in thickness, andweighs 21.94g. Originally struck from apartially-ground axe of good quality mottledgrey flint it has been reflaked at its butt andalong both lateral edges for use as a knife,before being snapped at its distal end.Another flake from a ground flint axe wasrecovered during excavations on the site ofRichard, Earl of Cornwall's moated manorhouse in Church Street, Isleworth (site codeCSI86; Thompson et al 1998, 95) a litfle tothe east, while various complete axes havebeen dredged from adjacent reaches of theThames {eg Lawrence 1929, 78; Adkins &Jackson 1978,64).19. Butt of a Neolithic ground flint axe (Fig 7)found in 1992 by Richard Hill on the Surreyforeshore of the Thames at St Mary OverieDock, Southwark (c.TQ 3263 8044). Thepiece lay 'close to the mouth of the dock atlow water'.The fragment measures 59mm in length,45mm in breadth, is 30mm thick, and weighs85.9g. It is of mottled light grey/dark greyflint. There are traces of ground facets at thelateral edges.The piece can be added to a small body ofNeolithic material recorded from the area ofnorth Southwark and Lambeth, at least someof which appears to reflect sedentary activity(eg-No. 20. below; see also Sidell etal2Q02, 21),as opposed to short-stay hunting or foraging.20. Eleven sherds of Neolithic pottery (Fig 8)collected independently in 2001 and 2002 byFiona Haughey, Andyjohannesen, and MikeWebber from the same confined area (c.2m

132 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Green20Fig 8. Neolithic pottery (Nos 20 and 22) andflintwork (No. 21). Scale 1:2.cmsi21 22

Fi^ 9. The Thamesfijreshore at Chamber's Wliarf, Rermondin,lookinjr upstream. Thefindsput of the Meolithk potteryis marked by the vertical stake behind the three figuresengaged in excavating a post-medieval human Imrial(Photo: Robert Whitehead, English Heritage)in diameter) close to low water on the Surreyforeshore of the Thames at Cliambers Wharf,Bermondsey (TQ 3430 7975). Several othersherds have already been reported from thissame locality (('otton & Merriman 1991, 43,no. 14; Cotton & Wood 1996, 10-12, no. 16).(A partial, articulated, human burial initiallythought to have been associated with thesesherds — but in reality some metres distant,see Fig 9 — has since been radiocarbondated to the post-medieval period (Baylis el al2004).)At least three vessels appear to be representedby the sherd.s: an apparently imdecorated'open bowT (1 sherd; weight 19.43g); thelower section of a decorated PeterboroughWare bowl of Mortlake type (3 sherds;combined weight 121.79g); and a decoratedPeterborough Ware bowl of Mortlake/Fengate type (7 sherds, several conjoining;combined weight 288.45g). The sherds areas follows:Further prehislorir finds from Greater London 133(a) Worn, undecorated rim sherd ofnecked open bowl with upright, externallyexpanded rim, weight 19.43g. Hard sandyfabric fired grey/black internally and brown/black externally, tempered with moderateamounts of sub-angular crushed burnt flintup to 4mm in size. A coil junction is visiblejust below the rim; there are traces of wipingon the interior.(b) Three sherds representing the lowerwall/base of a round-based bowl with anexternal zone of finger-tip/finger-nail decoration,combined weight 121.79g. Hard,laminated sandy fabric fired grey internallyand grey/brown externally, tempered withsparse-moderate amoimts of sub-angularcrushed burnt flint up to 8mm in size.Contraction cracks are visible on the interiorwall surfaces. Peterborough Ware: Mortlake/Fengate type.(c) Seven sherds of a large, upright, voluminousstraight-sided bowl decorated withhorizontal zones of finger-tip/finger-nailand 'bird-bone' type impressions arrangedin rows, the latter predominating, combinedweight 288.45g. The rim and shoulder havebeen carefully but firmly decorated withoverlapping oval motifs (Pcoarse twisted cord)and 'bird-bone' type impressions, although— four small finger-nail impressions apart— the neck itself has been left plain. Interiordecoration is confined to a zone below therim and comprises a herringbone/diamondpattern lightly incised with a bone or woodenpoint. Hard, laminated fabric fired grey/brown, tempered with sparse-moderateamounts of sub-angular crushed burnt flintup to 8mm in size. The exterior surfaceshave been smoothed prior to decorationand the interior surfaces have been wiped.Peterborough Ware: Mortlake/Fengate type.DiscussionNeolithic pottery has now been recorded bothfrom the foreshore and from a number oflocalities in north Southwark (eg Sidell et al2002, 21; Cotton 2004, 141-2, fig' 15.5). Giventhe restricted distribution of the material fromChamber's Wharf, it is conceivable that it wasoriginally deposited within a pit (or pits) underactive erosion by the tide. Moreover, 'birdbone'type impressions were noted on a sherdpublished previously from the Bermondsey-

134 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenRotherhithe area; this could even belong withvessel 'c' above, though its reported NGR isslightly different (Cotton & Merriman 1991, 43,no. 14).21. Neolithic discoidal flint scraper (Fig 8) foundon the Surrey foreshore of the Thames infront of Chamber's Wharf, Rotherhithe byFiona Haughey in 2001 (TQ 343 797). Thefindspot lay a few metres downstream fromthe Neolithic pottery described above, andclose to a partial human skeleton radiocarbondated to the early modern period (Baylis et al2004).The implement measures 55mm in length,48mm in breadth, is 15mm thick, and weighs44.52g. It has been radially worked on a sturdycortical flake of dark black-brown flint, andhas patches of a calcareous deposit (Thames'race') adhering to both faces.Prehistoric flintwork of Mesolithic toBronze Age date is a recurrent find along thisstretch of foreshore (eg-Cotton & Wood 1996,nos 7 and 15). The present piece is probablyof Neolithic date.22. Body sherd of later Neolithic Grooved Warepottery (Fig 8) picked up at low water inAugust 2004 by Andy Johannesen on theSurrey foreshore of the Thames a littledownstream from the mouth of St Saviour'sDock, Bermondsey (TQ 3418 7987). (Asmall portion of brown stained adult humancranium measuring 80mm by 60mm hadbeen recovered from the same general areathe previous December.)The sherd measures 35mm by 30mm andthe vessel wall is 11mm thick; the sherdweighs 15.3g. Hard sandy fabric with ?grogfiller, fired grey-black. External decorationhas been deeply scored with the point of astick or a bone, and comprises a series ofoverlapping horizontal and vertical grooves.The deeply scored 'plastic' decoration fallswithin the Clacton style of Grooved Ware, asdefined by Longworth (Wainwright & Longworth1971, 236-8). Garwood (1999) has sincesuggested that the Clacton style falls relativelyearly within the overall Grooved Waresequence, ie early-mid 3rd millennium BC.DiscussionGrooved Ware is an unusual find from the Thamesand its foreshores, though a few sherds have beenrecognised previously from Hammersmith, withindividual sherds from several other reaches.Peterborough Ware is more commonly met with,as for example No. 20 above. It may be that thepresent sherd was eroded out of a feature duginto Horseleydown, closest of a sequence ofhigher, drier sand islands in the north Southwarkand Bermondsey areas. Moreover, a few scrapsof Grooved Ware have been reported fromlandward sites elsewhere in the Horseleydownlocality, eg^Three Oak Lane adjacent to Dockhead(Proctor & Bishop 2002, 8).23. Flint arrowhead of later Neolithic transverse'chisel' form (Fig 12). Found in 2001 duringan evaluation carried out by SuttonArchaeological Services at the junction ofNew Road and Bath Road, Heathrow (TQ0840 7695) (NEDOl [003]).The piece measures 45mm in length,c.50mm in breadth at the (now incomplete)leading edge, is 5-6mm thick, and weighs13.23g. It is fashioned on a broad flakeof handsome mottled dark yellow-brown'gravel' flint, with invasive retouch used toachieve straight, thinned, lateral edges.Large numbers of transverse arrowheadshave been recovered from the west Middlesexarea in association with both PeterboroughWare and Grooved Ware, though few are aslarge or fine as the present example. Thechoice of yellow-brown coloured flint for themost elaborate pieces is a recurrent feature,and presumably deliberate {eg Elsden 1997,4).?NEOLITHIC/BRONZE AGE24. Part of a human skull (Figs 10-11) spotted inOctober 2003 by Bob Wells towards low wateron the Surrey foreshore of the Thames atPutney (TQ 2430 7562). It was subsequentlylifted by Jane Sidell and the first writer anddeposited with the Museum of London (MoL2004.97).The cranium was lying upside down withinthe foreshore and was filled with river silts,from which a further fragment of bonewas later recovered in the laboratory. Onexcavation the skull was found to be lyingwithin a black-grey silty sand deposit.A report on the skull was prepared byMuseum of London osteologist Bill W^hite,who writes as follows:

Further f/rehistorir finds fro7n Greater London 135Fig 10. The 'Fhames fitreshore at Putney, looking downstream. Thefindspot(Photo: Bob Wells)of the huw.an .skull (No. 24) is marked by a cro.ssFig 1L Jane Sidell holding the humanskull (No. 24) (Photo: Bob Wells)

136 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenThe remains comprised two pieces of human cranialbone. The larger one was a calotte, the vaultof the skull with frontal, parietal and occipitalbones united; the minor fragment was a portion oftemporal bone (see below). The bone was staineddeep brown and there were patches of a calcareousconcretion, typical of 'Thames race'.The features of the surviving part of the craniumwere strongly suggestive of the male sex. Theseincluded principally well defined supra-orbitalridges, a sloping forehead, marked temporal lines,and a nuchal crest.Unfortunately the reduced state of integrity ofthe skull did not permit accurate estimation of theage at which this individual died. The coronal andsagittal sutures were fused but not obliterated andfusion of the lambdoid suture had commencedbut was incomplete. This individual was fullyadult and the state of fusion of the cranial suturessuggests a mature adult, rather than a youngadult, but because of the known variation withinpopulations it is impossible to state the age atdeath with greater precision.The maximum length (L) of the skull was 198mmand the maximum breadth (B) was 148mm. Thesefigures allow the calculation of the cranial index(B/L X 100) as 74.7, interestingly just withinthe dolichocranic ('long-headed') range

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 13723 25A27=.cms28• cms31Fig 12. Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts of flint (Nos 23, 25, 2 7 and 28), bone (No. 26) and copper alloy (Nos29, 31a-b and 31.2-18). All scale 1:2 except No. 26 (1:1) and 31.2-18 (1:3) (Drawn by Stuart Needham)

138 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Greenthe summit of the hill during the excavationscarried out by the Wembley History Societyfrom 1973 onwards (Bloice 1974, 134;1976, 370). These included pottery of laterprehistoric type, together with a fragment ofLate Iron Age enamelled strap junction (IanStead pers comm).The knife is 43mm in length, 18mm inbreadth, 5mm thick, and weighs v5.37g. Ithas been fashioned on a small narrow flake/blade of glossy, semi-translucent light brownflint. Neat, invasive retouch covers the dorsalface; retouch on the ventral face is confinedto the tip, otie edge and the butt.The form of the piece suggests that itshould be characterised as a small planoconvexknife rather than as an asymmetricleaf arrowhead. As such, it is likely to dateto the end of the Neolithic and earlierpart of the Bronze Age. Most of the fewother plano-convex knives known from theLondon region appear to be distributedalong the Thames and its floodplain or onthe brickearth-capped terrace gravels aroundHeathrow.26. Tip of a serrated barbed and tanged bonepoint (Figs 12-13) reported in May 1998by Richard Hill as having been found closeto low water on the Surrey foreshore of theThames at the downstream end of ChambersWharf, Bermondsey (f.TQ 344 798). A widerange of other prehistoric (and later) findshas been recovered from this same stretch offoreshore in recent years.The point measures 23mm in length,15mm in breadth at its widest surviving point,is 2mm thick, and weighs 0.86g. It lias beenfashioned from bone (as opposed to antler),although its small size and polished sinfaccshave made it impossible to identify to species(Alan Pipe and Kevin Rielly pers comm). Aseries of fine, rounded, but unevenly spacedserrations have been worked along bothlateral edges starting some 7mm from thetip. The latter is slightlv chipped, possiblythe result of an impact fractiue. The tangand one of the barbs appear to have beenbroken off; the other barb seems to havebeen deliberately foreshortened, which mavhave given the original object a somewhatasymmetric form. Surface scratches are visibleon both faces, at least one of which appearshave been the result of a loss of control of thePflint blade used to work the barbs.DiscussionThere are no immediate parallels for this piece,which makes dating a somewhat hazardousexercise. However, if it was intended as a copy ofan asymmetricallv barbed arrowhead (as Sidellet al 2002, 21, fig 17) or — peihaps more likelyFig 13. Serrated barbed and tanged bone point (No. 26). Scale approx 3:1 (Photo: JohnChase, Museum of London)

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 139— of a serrated barbed and tanged arrowhead,then a later Neolithic to Early Bronze Age datewould be appropriate.Green (1980, 53) regarded serration onbarbed and tanged flint arrowheads as 'primarilya decorative rather than a functional trait' and itoccurs most often on his fancy Green Low andEjlmarnock types. The best known group ofserrated pieces are the thirteen fine arrowheadsthat accompany a burial at Breach Farm, Llanbleddian,Glamorgan (Grimes 1938, 115, fig 6).These are dated to the latter part of the EarlyBronze Age. A similar date is also usually ascribedto the small series of bone daggers assumed to becopies of bronze originals (eg-Gerloff 1975, 175-6, pi 28). While it is possible that the presentpiece shared a common inspiration with thesebone skeuomorphs, it was presumably perfectlyfunctional in a way that the daggers were not.27. Early Bronze Age barbed-and-tanged flintarrowhead (Fig 12) found by Patrick Wrightapproximately 1ft below the surface in thegarden of 8 Heath Road, Hillingdon, andreported to Hillingdon Library Service inApril 1999. Information, including a colourphotocopy of the object, was recorded byMaria Newbury at Central Library, Uxbridgeand passed on to the Museum of London.Recent attempts to contact the finder at theaddress have been unsuccessful.The arrowhead measures 23mm in lengthand 24mm in breadth across the squareshapedbarbs. It appears to have beenfashioned out of banded yellow-brown flint.Damage is evident at the tip and along oneedge just below the tip. It appears to be avariant of Green's (1980, 123, fig 46) fancy'Conygar' type, the finest examples of whichhe notes to have Food Vessel associations{ibid, 130, 138-9).Heath Road lies on the north side of theUxbridge Road between Hillingdon andHayes End (centred TQ081 823), close to thejunction of the Boyn Hill terrace gravels withthe London Clay. Little relevant material hasbeen recorded from the immediate localityhitherto, although a group of six 'Conygar'type flint arrowheads were found associatedwith the dismembered remains of an aurochsat Holloway Lane, Harmondsworth some4.5km to the south (Cotton 1991).28. Early Bronze Age barbed-and-tanged flintarrowhead (Fig 12) reported to Nick Merrimanat the Museum of London in May1987 as having been found on the Surreyforeshore of the Thames at Mortlake (TQ206 761). The findspot indicated lies 100mor so downstream of The Ship Inn.The arrowhead measures 22mm in lengthand 20mm in breadth across the pointedbarbs. No information survives as to thecolour of the raw material or the qualityof the knapping. However, a photocopiedoutline of the piece survives and this makes itclear that it belongs to Green's (1980, fig 46)fancy 'Green Low' type with barbs projectingbeyond the tang. According to Green (1980,130) the type has exclusively late Beakerassociations.29. Small Middle Bronze Age copper-alloydagger or dirk (Fig 12) found in August 1978by Mr J Toms on the Middlesex foreshore ofthe Thames off Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, andsubsequently acquired by the Museum ofLondon (MoL 79.17). The findspot lay justupstream of Battersea Bridge and at a point'c.200 yards out from the embankment' (TQ2680 7738).The piece measures 115mm in length witha maximum surviving width at its butt of30mm, and weighs 22.9g. It has a low, lozengesectionedblade with a poorly defined mid-riband bevelled edges terminating in a rounded,trapezoidal butt pierced by two rivet holes.One rivet hole survives intact; the secondhas torn through. One loose twisted rivetof circular section weighing 0.8g survives,though this was in place in the undamagedrivet hole when the finder discovered theblade.DiscussionBlades of this type fall within Burgess andGerloff's Group II (1981, 19-20), a number ofwhich have been recovered from the Thames 'inand near London' {ibid, 46, pis 119-20; Rowlands1976, 406-14). They are broadly dateable to theearly phases of the Middle Bronze Age in Britain,ie during the currency of 'Acton-Taunton'metalwork (c.1500-1300 BC) (Rowlands 1976,66-7; Needham et al 1997, 84-6).30. Middle Bronze Age copper-alloy, basalloopedspearhead (Fig 14) found in thesummer of 2004 by Andy Horwood on the

140 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenI \32m nnf33mWW) .!:34.cms30m42Fig 14. Bronze Age (Nos 30 and 32-34) and Iron Age (No. 42) artefacts of copper alloy. Scale 1:2

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 141foreshore of Brentford Ait, which hes off theMiddlesex bank (TQ1844 7765). The find layon the outer or riverward foreshore halfwayalong the upstream or smaller Ait and hardby the modern sheet-piling which protects itfrom erosion. It is possible that the piece hadbeen disturbed during the works associatedwith the insertion of the piling.The spearhead has a surviving length of390mm (original length c.410mm), a survivingwidth of 41mm across the blade wings, and asocket diameter of 25mm at the mouth. Theremains of a wooden shaft tip (species notdetermined) survives in the socket. In itscurrent state the spearhead/shaft tip weighs341.4g. The spearhead conforms to Rowlands'(1976, 58) Group 3 in having a triangularblade with straight, right-angled base, internalbevels to the blade wings, a rounded mid-rib,and string loops set at the blade base on thesocket side. Traces of blocked pegholes c.5mmin diameter are visible in the same plane as theblade v^dngs and loops at a point 81mm fromthe mouth of the socket.Though the underlying metal is solidenough, the spearhead is in poor condition:the tip of the blade and portions of bothblade wings are missing and there is muchsurface pocking and localised evidence ofbronze disease. There are also traces of olderdamage in the form of three nicks on thesurviving original edge of one of the bladewings.DiscussionDamage to the blade wings notwithstanding, thepiece clearly comprises a triangular basal-loopedspearhead of Middle Bronze Age 'Penard' type,whose currency is currently centred c.1275-1140BC (butisofprobablylongerduration) (Needhamet al 1997, 87). A number of spearheads of this,and of the earlier 'Taunton' leaf-shaped basalloopedtype have been recovered from theThames between Staines and Vauxhall in westLondon (eg-Rowlands 1976, 386-90, map 28).One triangular-bladed piece in the Museum ofLondon's collection (Ace No. A27600) was found'opposite one of the islands between Kew Bridgeand Brentford Ferry', ie close to the findspot ofthe current spearhead.3LTwo fragments of Late Bronze Age copperalloyplate scrap (Fig 12) found some timeafter 1976 or 1977 by John Gibson on theMiddlesex foreshore of the Thames at SyonReach (TQ 175 764). They were picked upat the foot of an erosion scarp towards lowwater, and subsequent to the discovery of asmall hoard of scrap bronze at this same spotby the same finder (Needham & Burgess1980, 443, fig 2, 445; Needham 1987, fig5.15, nos 2-18). Other finds reported fromthe findspot include a ground stone axe anda perforated quartzite pebble macehead(Cotton & Wood 1996, 9, nos 12 & 14).(a) Rectilinear fragment of flat plate scrapwith two low ribs on one face. The piecemeasures 78-80mm in length, 26-30mm inbreadth, 2-3mm thick and weighs 41.34g.(b) Rectilinear fragment of flat plate scrapwhich measures 40mm in length, 24mm inbreadth, 2-3mm in thickness and weighs20.26g.It is reasonable to regard these two pieces ofplate scrap as strays from the 17-piece hoardrecovered in 1976 or 1977 (MoL 93.13/1-17).The original find comprised 15 fragmentsof plate scrap, together with a fragment ofsword blade and the tip of a tongue-shapedchape (Fig 12). The two new pieces have beendonated to the Museum of London by thefinder and re-united with the rest of the hoard(MoL 2004.146/1-2).DiscussionHoards of this type are diagnostic of 'Wilburton'stage metalwork (egBurgess 1968, 36-7), and canbe of very large size, as at Isleham, Cambridgeshire(Britton 1960). The Syon hoard is somethingof an outlier in the London area. Wilburtonmetalwork as a whole has been back-dated towithin a focal range of c.l 140-1020 BC followinga recent radiocarbon programme (Needham et al1997,90).32. Fragment of Late Bronze Age copper-alloyingot (Fig 14) found around 1972 by DavidPearson on the Surrey foreshore of theThames in the Barn Elms locality. The objectwas lying on the surface about 20ft out fromthe embankment wall.The fragment comprises part of the edgeof a plano-convex ingot. It measures 47 by32mm by 19mm in maximum thickness, andweighs 79.71g. Such ingots often form partof so-called 'founder's hoards' alongside

142 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Greenscrapped objects, although there is nothingto indicate that the present piece is anythingother than an isolated stray find.33. Late Bronze Age copper-alloy 'bugle-shapedobject' (Fig 14) found in June 2001 by PeterBryan on the Surrey foreshore of the Thameson the downstream side of Richmond Lockand Weir (TQ 1700 7510). The piece lay ona small sandy portion of foreshore at the footof the second set of river stairs below the lock.It has now been acquired by the Museum ofLondon (2004.170/2). The spot is well knownfor artefacts of all periods, many of whichwere dredged from the riverbed during theconstruction of the lock and weir in 1891-2(Thacker1920, 487-8).Cast, tubular 'bugle-shaped' fitting withhollow, gently barrel-shaped body and sharplyexpandedterminals; overall length 70mm,diameter of expanded terminals 11-12mm. Inits current, unconserved, state it weighs 47.93g.The barrel-shaped body is pierced by a narrowelongated rectangular hole, 26mm in lengthand 6mm wide, defined by a low collar whichlies opposite a solid side-loop 52mm in length.The side-loop is of rounded-oval section andits recurved ends lead into a crease on themain body to form a neat moulding flanking anarrow, curving, parallel-sided slot. Althoughthere are no obvious traces of wear alongthe slot consonant with its suggested use as astrap-housing, both of the expanded terminalsof the object have markedly flattened wornfacets indicating an 'angle of rest' for theobject when in use.Discussion'Bugle-shaped objects' are generally thought tocomprise strap junctions or fasteners, though asnoted above their precise method of use remainsobscure. O'Connor (1980, 194-5) has definedseveral different forms including solid tubularand hollow-backed types, with a distribution thatis centred on northern France and south-easternBritain. The present piece belongs to his solidtubular type. Local hoard associations for bugleshapedobjects are of Carp's Tongue/Ewart Parktype and include Cassiobridge Farm, Watford(Coombs 1979, 215-16, fig 11.6, no. 50) andPetters Sports Field, Egham (Needham 1990).Local parallels include the group of four hollowbackedpieces from the Thames at Syon Reach inthe collections of the Museum of London (Acenos A11947-8; A15467 & A19001), which can bematched by a single hollow-backed example inthe Petters hoard just mentioned.34. Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age copperalloyroll-headed pin (Fig 14) found at lowwater in August 2003 by Andy Johannesenon the Middlesex foreshore of the Thames atLimehouse (TQ 3670 8060).The pin measures 82.5mm in overall lengthand weighs 2.47g. It is formed of a taperedlength of wire of squarish section which hasbeen flattened and turned over to create thehead.DiscussionSuch pins are usually only loosely dated to theLate Bronze Age or Early Iron Age (O'Connor1980, 200), though one from a ditch at PettersSports Field, Egham, is securely dated to theLate Bronze Age (Needham 1990, 62-3). Anumber of pins of this form have been recoveredfrom the river previously, all from reaches wellupstream of Limehouse (e^ Cotton & Merriman1991, 49-51, fig 10, nos 25-26).IRON AGE35. Early Iron Age iron dagger in a woodensheath (Fig 15) found in December 2003 byAndy Johannesen on the Surrey foreshoreof the Thames in front of Chambers Wharf,Bermondsey (TQ 343 797). A post-medievalhuman burial was found close by (Baylis el al2004). The dagger has now been acquiredby the Museum of London (MoL 2003.120).Full publication will follow once conservationwork has been completed.The dagger itself measures 439nim inoverall length (blade 350mm; tang 89mm);the dagger and sheath are 47mm in breadthat the hilt and 16mm in overall thickness;the combined weight of the two objectsis currently 403.03g (though removal offurther concretion is likely to reduce thismeasurement). Both dagger and sheath arein a reasonable state of preservation, althoughthe dagger's organic hilt-plates and pommel,and the sheath's decorative outer cover,suspension loop(s) and chape are all missing.Initial cleaning of the surface corrosionproducts on the wooden sheath in thelaboratory by Rebecca Lang has revealed

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 143Fig 15. Iron Age dagger in woodensheath (No. 35), held by its finder(Photo: John Chase, Museum ofLondon)negative traces that clearly demonstrate theformer existence of a series of overlapping,probably copper-alloy strips decorated withhorizontal bands of punched repoussedots. It is possible that these strips copiedleather originals. X-rays have also revealedthe positions of a number of pins arrangedin a broadly linear fashion down the back ofthe sheath, by which means the now-missingdecorative strips were presumably secured.A further series of three narrow ?iron bandsclasp (rather than encircle) the sheath, andthese may have been the means by which themissing suspension loop(s) were attached.The wooden sheath itself appears to havebeen constructed of two separate slenderplano-convex leaves of ash cf. Fraxinusexcelsior (Anne Davis pers comm), effectivelybound together by the (missing) overlapping?copper-alloy strips. It is hoped that furtherconservation work will be able to confirmother constructional details.DiscussionThe Chambers Wharf dagger and sheath can beadded to a small group of slender late Hallstattsheathed examples of likely British manufacture,all but one of which were recovered from thewest London Thames (Jope 1961; 2000, 17-18;

144 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenMacdonald 1978). (The group also includes abroad-bladed dagger of continental origin fromMortlake apparently resheathed by a Britisharmourer (Jope 1982).) The single outlier in thegroup, from Luttre in Belgium, may be a Britishexport. As a group, these daggers and sheathsare usually dated to the later 6th century BC; it ispossible that radiocarbon dating of the woodenChambers Wharf sheath will be able to supplyindependent corroboration.36. Group of ten Late Iron Age potin coins(Fig 16) deposited with Gunnersbury ParkMuseum in 1997. Said to have been dug upin the 1930s on an allotment in BrunswickRoad, Sudbury. The reported findspot liesjust south of the Western Avenue (A40) onthe left (south) bank of the river Brent inBrentham Allotments (c.TQ 177 826).1. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type A.Weight 2.37g.2. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type A.Weight 1.88g.3. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type ?B.Weight 1.78g.4. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type?C2. Weight 3.05g.5. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type?D1. Weight 2.57g.6. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type D2.Weight 3.36g.7. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 134) type E.Weight 2.05g.8. Potin Class I, incomplete, Allen (1971,134) type ?F1. Weight 1.25g.9. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 135) type?H2. Weight 2.26g.10. Potin Class I, Allen (1971, 135) type?J4. Weight 2.69g.10Fig. 16. Possible cache often Class Ipotins (No. 36). Scale 1.5:1 (Photo: John Chase, Museum of London)

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 145DiscussionThe range of coin types and weights is diverse,as is the condition of the individual coins, anddoubts surround the integrity of the group asa complete and closed cache (John Kent perscomm). However, other potin hoards have beenrecovered from the Thames and areas adjacentin west London: the closest to Sudbury comprisesa now lost hoard of twelve Class I coins found inGunnersbury Lane, Acton, in 1955 (Allen 1960,205). Potins comprise a class of 'chill-cast hightinbronze' coinage thought to have originatedin the north Kent area in the late 2nd or early1st century BC.37. Two Late Iron Age gold coins (Fig 17) foundabout 'four feet (c.l.2m) apart' in 1976 or1977 by John Gibson on the Surrey foreshoreof the Thames between Putney and Barn Elms(TQ 2350 7634). The coins were discoveredon a very low tide some 40m upstream of themouth of the Beverley Brook and in an areawhich had also produced a number of potins,including one or more caches (see Cotton &Wood 1996, no. 36). There are unconfirmedreports that further gold coins of unspecifiedage had been found here at low tide 'longago' (John Gibson pers comm). Neither coinis now available for study; the informationis derived from surviving photographs andthe finder's recollection. They are recordedin the Celtic Coin Index at Oxford as CCI04.1293 and CCI 04.1294(a) AV stater of Gallo-Belgic E 'uniface'type (Allen 1960, 113-16; Van Arsdell 1989,no. 52-1). Obv. Blank. Rev. Disjointed horse r.•jf^37b37a38 39 40 41Fig 17. Iron Age coins of gold (Nos 37a-b), silver (Nos 39-40), silver-flated copper alloy (No. 41), andcopper alloy (No. 38). Scale 2:1 (Photos: John Gibson (Nos 37a-b and 40) and John Chase/RichardStroud, Museum of London (Nos 38, 39 and 41))

146 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Greenwith pellets in field and pellets and crescentsbeneath a continuous exergual line.(b) AV quarter stater of Gallo-Belgic D'geometric' type (Allen 1960, 110-13; VanArsdell 1989, no. 69-1). Obv. Pboatwith threeoccupants. Rev. Ptree, crescent and wavy line.DiscussionIt seems likely that the two coins described hereoriginally formed part of a larger cache, nowdispersed. The presence of one or more potincaches from the same general area is also noteworthy.The uniface stater (a) is traditionally thoughtto have been struck under the authority of theAmbiani. Uniface staters appear to have beenimported into Britain in large quantities in themid-1 St century BC, possibly as payment to Britishmercenaries engaged across the Channel againstJulius Caesar (deJersey 1996, 17-18).John Kent(1978, 55) pointed out that the London area is'in no way significant' in terms of the distributionof the type, which clusters in north Kent, andarcs round London to the north and east.The quarter stater (b) was struck 'by an uncertainBelgic authority' and imported intoBritain, again perhaps as payment to Britishmercenaries engaged across the Channel againstJulius Caesar (de Jersey 1996, 18). Allen (1960,111) suggests two routes of entry into Britain forsuch coins: via Kent and the Sussex coast.38. Small Late Iron Age bronze unit (Fig 17)found in February 2002 by Andy Johannesenon the Surrey foreshore of the Thames infront of Chamber's Wharf, Bermondsey (TQ343 797). The coin lay close to the daggeralready described (No. 35, above) and to apartial human skeleton of post-medieval date(Baylisei 0^2004).Uninscribed South-Eastern AE unit (Hobbs1996, nos 2480-3; Van Arsdell 1989, no. 154-1). Diameter 12mm; weight 1.47g. Obv. Wolf?1, above ?, above tail ring, below pellet, pelletborder. Rev. horse r., foreleg raised, aboveanimal T, below ring, above tail 2 pellet-inringsand pellet, pellet border.DiscussionCoins of this type are often described as Kentishon the basis of their distribution pattern, andare dated c. 50-30 BC by Van Arsdell (1989, 95).Hobbs notes an example in the British MuseumCollection from 'the site of Old LondonBridge' (1996, no. 2483) a little upstream fromChamber's Wharf.39. Small Late Iron Age silver unit (Fig 17) foundin June 2002 by Bob Wells on the Surreyforeshore of the Thames at Wandsworth (TQ2466 7547).Uninscribed AR unit of PWestern 'Regular'type (as Hobbs 1996, 165-7). Diameter 12mm;weight 0.55g. Dished flan. Obv. Head r. withpellets. Rev. horse 1. with pellets.DiscussionThe general type has been dated c.30-15 BC by VanArsdell (1989, 273). Several of these coins wererecovered from the Wanborough (Surrey) Romantemple hoard (eg Hobbs 1996, nos 2961-2), thelatter probably deposited sometime around themiddle of the 1st century AD (O'Connell & Bird1994,57).40. Late Iron Age silver unit of Tasciovanus (Fig17) found in 1976 by John Gibson on theMiddlesex foreshore of the Thames off thedownstream tip of Isleworth Eyot (TQ 16857598). The coin is no longer available for study;the information is derived from the survivingphotographs and the finder's recollection.It is recorded in the Celtic Coin Index atOxford as CCI 99.0268, based on informationcontained in Seaby's Coin & Medal Bulletinfor August 1976, where it was reported to havebeen found 'in the Thames near Sion Reach'(Philip de Jersey pers comm). Other objectsfrom the same location include a lipped terretring and a multiple find of potin coins (Cotton&Woodl996, no. 35).AR unit. Obv. Winged griffin r. inside ring,pellet ring and ring. Rev. winged horse?1., below 'TA', between forelegs 'S', pelletborder (Hobbs 1996, no. 1660; Mack 1953,no. 159; Evans 1864, no. V16; Van Arsdell1989, no. 1790). Type dated c.15-10 BC byVan Arsdell (1989,378).41. Late Iron Age silver-plated, copper-alloyinscribed unit of Epaticcus or Caractacus(Fig 17) said to have been found on theSurrey foreshore of the Thames at Kew,opposite Old England, in or about 1977 (TQ182 773). An unknown finder gave it to MrFrank Mellish who donated it to the Museumof London (MoL 77.219).

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 147AE/AR unit. Diameter 9mm; weight0.47g. Dished flan, much worn with tracesof silver plating on reverse; obverse virtuallyobliterated. Obv. Traces of head r. Rev. Eaglestanding, ring ornament above. Variant ofMack 1953, no. 263 ('EPATF on obverse;date CAD 25-35) or Mack 1953, no. 265 (asno. 263 but 'CARA" on obverse; date c.AD35-40). Such coins are often regarded ascontemporary forgeries.DiscussionThe present coin may have been one of a numberof silver units purporting to have been found onthe Brentford/Kew foreshores of the Thamesaround this time. According to Robinson (1978)most went unrecorded, though five coins ofVerica (Mack 1953, nos 115; 118; 120; 123; 128),three of Eppillus (Mack 1953, nos 107; 108), andtwo of Caractacus (Mack 1953, no. 265) were saidto have been in the possession of Mr H Mossopof South Humberside. It is possible that someof these coins were originally from the hoardfound at Waltham St Lawrence in Berkshire in1977 (Burnett 1990).42. Copper-alloy (probably brass) brooch (Fig14) found in July 1995 by Bob Wells 100mdownstream of Putney Road Bridge on theSurrey foreshore of the Thames at Putney(TQ 2430 7561). The brooch lay 10cm deepin gritty, iron-stained silt, at a point twothirdsof the way down an eroded area of theforeshore on a 0.7m tide.The piece comprises a composite Rosettebrooch (Hull Type 26A), 60mm in overalllength and weighing 13.60g, with a reeded,P-shaped bow terminating in a cylindricalspring-cover, 7mm in diameter and 28mmin length, within which five spring-coilssurvive. The bow is soldered to a separatethin flat plate comprising a disc and reededtapering foot and a catch-plate with parts oftwo cut-outs remaining. The disc has traces ofconcentric decoration at its outer edge anda central semi-circular raised ridge whichmarries with the base of the bow. The baseof the bow itself is decorated with a series oftriangular punched impressions; there are afurther set of rounded punched impressionsat the junction of the bow and disc plate. Thepiece is heavily worn and has a very distinctivegolden surface.DiscussionRosette brooches are common in Gaul andalong the German frontier (eg-Bayley & Butcher2004, 150), where they appear in Ist-centuryBC contexts. They circulated somewhat laterin Britain and Mackreth (1995, 973) notesthat practically all British brooches of this typehad passed out of use by AD 45/50, while anyin contexts dated later than c.AD 65 'can bediscounted as residual' (Mackreth 1999, 219).A clear developmental sequence has beenestablished {ibid, 218); the present piece fallsrelatively late within it and can probably bedated to the decade or so leading up to (andbeyond) the Roman conquest.Though present on settlement sites andin cemeteries around London, as at KingHarry Lane, St Albans (Stead & Rigby 1989,93-4), for example. Rosette brooches are notcommon within the London area itself. Apartfrom a handful of dubiously documented orunstratified strays therefore, only two exampleshave been excavated from the urban centreseither side of the river hitherto: one fragmentarypiece from a pre-Boudican context in BoroughHigh Street, Southwark (Drummond-Murray& Thompson 2002, 218, ), and another(presumably residual) from a Trajanic contextat No. 1 Poultry in the City ( [3837])(Angela Wardle pers comm).Beyond the confines of Londinium and northSouthwark, there are single examples from a'late first century pit' at Keston (Philp et al 1991,171, fig 51, no. 92) and from the Thames atKingston (Alderman Gould Collection, KingstonMuseum ace no. 615; Cheryl Smith pers comm).Other material of Late Iron Age date (includingcoins such as No. 39 above) has been recoveredfrom the Putney/Wandsworth reaches of theThames previously, although the naggingpossibility remains that the present piece wasintroduced amongst material dumped on theforeshore from further downstream.CONCLUDING DISCUSSIONThis latest selection of prehistoric finds can bedivided into those found and reported to theMuseum of London recently, those known sincethe 1970s but only reported recently, and thosefound and/or recorded many years ago. Like thetwo previous roundups, however, the objects fallmost conveniently into one of two groups: those

148 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian Greenrecovered from the modern foreshores of theRiver Thames and its adjacent floodplain; andthose recovered from findspots further inland.It is noticeable that the latter, smaller, group(Nos 1-3, 14, 16, 23, 25, 27 & 36) is almostentirely made up of flint/stone objects: anddoubt even surrounds the reported provenanceof the one metal exception (potin coin cache.No. 36). This squares with the picture emergingfrom the large-scale excavations conducted inthe hinterland: examination of a vast expanse ofprehistoric landscape ahead of the constructionof Passenger Terminal 5 at Heathrow, forexample, has produced only a handful ofmetal objects (John Lewis pers comm). Thethree Palaeolithic bifaces (Nos 1-3) and bothNeolithic/Bronze Age flint arrowheads (Nos23 & 27) can be comfortably accommodatedwithin the general run of lithics known fromthe brickearth-capped terrace gravels of westMiddlesex. The two Neolithic ground axes (Nos14 & 16) were both found close to tributarystreams of the Thames (the Pymme's Brook/Leaand Fleet, respectively). It might also be notedthat the 'near jadeite' No. 14 is the third exoticaxe to have been found away from the Thamesin recent years (c/others of'jadeite' from StainesMoor in the Colne valley and of 'nephrite'from Hendon, close to the River Brent). Thisleaves the small plano-convex flint knife fromHorsenden Hill as something of an outlierfrom a small group of such knives from the westMiddlesex terrace gravels.The majority of the larger group of 'river'finds were recovered from the Surrey shoreof the Thames, although, as has been notedpreviously, many may not actually have beendeposited in the waters of the river itself, butmay have been strewn across or buried withineyots or low eminences of its floodplain. Thisseems particularly likely with regard to theobjects recovered from the modern foreshorein front of Chambers Wharf, Bermondsey: thegroup of fresh, unabraded Peterborough Waresherds (No. 20) are best explained as the erodedcontents of a small pit cut into the northernedge of one of the many sand islands in thelocality. It is possible that other pieces, such asthe iron dagger in its composite sheath (No. 35)and the Rosette brooch (No. 42), may have beenredeposited on the foreshore following dredgingoperations carried out elsewhere.By and large, these 'river' finds are consistentwith the previous selections published in 1991and 1996. Notable amongst them, however,are two (probably originally three: one havingdisintegrated) antler-beam mattocks from Mortlake(Nos 12 & 13) whose function and datingremain somewhat equivocal {pace Smith 1989).Their survival in the river must surely in partat least reflect the benign nature of the burialenvironment, which makes the presence of afurther similar mattock in a silted feature atBeddington all the more remarkable. It canbe noted too that no pieces of worked bone orantler were recovered on either of the recentlyexcavated Mesolithic sites in the Colne valleyat Uxbridge (John Lewis and Craig Halsey perscomm) — and this despite a favourable burialenvironment which had preserved quantities ofunworked animal bone (some cut-marked), andthe presence of flint burins usually associatedwith bone working.Equally significant are the small serratedbarbed and tanged bone point from Bermondsey(No. 26), here suggested to be a copy of an EarlyBronze Age flint arrowhead, and the Early IronAge dagger in its wooden sheath (No. 35). Thislatter piece will form the subject of a separatepublication once conservation work is complete.Other organic finds include the (undated)human skull from Putney (No. 24), which canbe added to the numerous human skulls alreadyrecorded from various stretches of the river.Finally, the various coin finds gathered togetherhere seemingly proffer a tantalising glimpse ofactivity either side of Caesar's expeditions in themid-lst century BC and beyond. However, any reassessmentof the local Late Iron Age evidencewill need to take careful and critical accountof the dubious circumstances under which anumber of these finds appear to have been made(eg-Nos 36 & 41). This latter task will be rendereddoubly difficult without the wise counsel of thelate John Kent.Prehistory is now regarded as a legitimateconcern by archaeologists working in London.Its study has been greatly aided by the provisionsof Planning Policy Guidance note 16 at sitessuch as Heathrow Passenger Terminal 5 andalong the A13 in east London, for example,and by the publication of an archaeologicalresource assessment (MoLAS 2000) andresearch framework (Nixon et a/2002). With theinception of the Portable Antiquities Schemeand the establishment of a Finds Liaison Officerpost at the Museum of London we might alsoreasonably anticipate — given continuance

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 149of the necessary funding — that the futurerecording of stray finds such as those noted here(and by Burdon et al 2000) has been placed on asurer footing too.Furthermore, during its short but influentiallife the Thames Archaeological Survey (1996-1999) successfully refocused attention on thearchaeology of the Thames and its foreshores(Webber 2000). The Survey is surely worthreviving. Among many other initiatives, forexample, it prompted a renewed interest in thegentlemen antiquaries responsible for amassingantiquities dredged from the Thames and itsforeshores {eg Cotton 1999). Two of them, DrFrank Corner and the Derbyshire antiquaryThomas Bateman, collected finds representedamongst the current selection (No. 11 and Nos16-17 above). These ineluctably transport us backto the dawn of scientific archaeological enquiryin London — something that seems singularlyappropriate in LAMAS's sesquicentenary year.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks are due to all of the finders for allowingtheir discoveries to be incorporated in this latestround-up; special thanks are due to Frank Berryand John Gibson for donating finds to the Museumof London. We are also grateful to Dr W Frenchfor facilitating the transfer of material from QueenMary and Westfield College; to Les Whitmore andJan Metcalfe of Forty Hall Museum for their helpregarding the stone axe from Enfield; to Jeff Perry(Sutton Archaeological Services) for allowing usto incorporate the transverse arrowhead fromHeathrow herein, and to Graham Reed for hisillustration; to Bill White for his report of thehuman skull from Putney; to Stuart Needhamfor sanctioning the use of his drawings of thescrap hoard from Syon; to Rebecca Lang for herconservation work on the Chambers Wharf daggerand to Anne Davis for her identification of thewood; to Philip de Jersey and the late John Kent fortheir help and advice regarding the Iron Age coins;to Nina Crummy, Angela Wardle (MoLSS) andCheryl Smith (Kingston Museum) for commentingon the Rosette brooch; and to John Chase andRichard Stroud (Museum of London), RobertWhytehead (English Heritage), John Gibson, andBob Wells for providing the photographs.BIBLIOGRAPHYAD KINS etal (1987), L Adkins, R Adkins &J G Perry'Excavations at Beddington 1984-87: the finalinterim' London Archaeologist b (13), 349-52ADKINS &JACKSON (1978), R Adkins & RJacksonNeolithic Stone and Flint Axes from the River ThamesBritish Museum Occasional Paper 1ALLEN (1960), D F Allen 'The origins of coinage inBritain: a reappraisal' in S S Frere (ed) Problems ofthe Iron Age in Southern Britain University of LondonInstitute of Archaeology Occasional Paper 11, 97-308ALLEN (1971), D F Allen 'British potin coins: areview' in Jesson & Hill (1971), 127-54BARRETT & BRADLEY (1980), J Barrett & R Bradley(eds) Settlement and Society in the British Later BronzeAge British Archaeological Reports 83BARTON (1962), NJ Barton The Lost Rivers of LondonBAYLEY & BUTCHER (2004), J Bayley & S ButcherRoman Brooches in Britain: A Technological andTypological Study Based on the Richborough CollectionReport Research Committee Society of AntiquariesLondon 68BAYLIS et al (2004), A Baylis, P Marshall &J Sidell 'Apuzzling body from the River Thames in London'Radiocarbon AG (1), 285-91BIRD et al (1978), J Bird, H Chapman & J Clark(eds) Collectanea Londiniensia: Studies in LondonArchaeology and History Presented to Ralph MerrifieldBLOCKLEY et al (1995), K Blockley, M Blockley,P Blockley, S Frere & S Stow Excavations in theMarlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas CanterburyArchaeological Trust vol 5BLOICE (1974), B Bloice 'Excavation round-up1973' London Archaeologist 2 (6), 133-5BLOICE (1976), B Bloice 'Excavation round-up1975' London Archaeologists (14), 370-2, 375BONSALL & SMITH (1989), C Bonsall & C Smith'Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic bone and antlerartefacts from Britain: first reactions to acceleratordates' Mesolithic Miscellany 10 (1), 33-8BRADLEY & GORDON (1988), R Bradley & KGordon 'Human skulls from the River Thames,their dating and significance' Antiquity 62, 503-9BRITTON (1960), D Britton 'The Isleham Hoard,Cambridgeshire' Antiquity 34, 279-82BROTHWELL (1981), D R Broth well Di^ng UpBones: the Excavation, Treatment and Study of HumanSkeletal RemainsBRUCE & BIRLEY (1987), J Bruce & M BirleyHorsenden Hill: Archaeological Survey Report 1987BURDON et al (2000), N Burdon, A Green & CSmith 'Portable antiquities from the Thamesforeshore' London Archaeologist 9 (5), 123-8BURGESS (1968), C B Burgess 'The Later BronzeAge in the British Isles and North-Western France'Archaeoljoum 125, 1-45BURGESS & COOMBS (1979), C Burgess & DCoombs (eds) Bronze Age Hoards: Some Finds Oldand New British Archaeological Reports 67BURGESS & GERLOFF (1981), C B Burgess & SGerloff The Dirks and Rapiers of Great Britain andIreland Prahistorische Bronzefunde series Abt IV,Band 7

150 Jonathan Cotton and Adrian GreenBURNETT (1990), A M Burnett 'Celtic coinage inBritain III: the Waltham St Lawrence TreasureTrove' Brit NumismaticJourn 60, 13-28COLLINS (1978), D Collins Early Man in WestMiddlesexCOOMBS (1979), D Coombs 'A Late BronzeAge hoard from Cassiobridge Farm, Watford,Hertfordshire' in Burgess & Coombs (1979),197-233COTTON (1991), J Cotton 'Prehistory in GreaterLondon' Current Archaeology 124, 150-3COTTON (1997),J Cotton 'Some "new" Palaeolithicflint artefacts from metropolitan Essex' EssexArchaeology & History 28, 267-70COTTON (1999), J Cotton 'Ballast-heavers andbattle-axes: the "Golden Age" of Thames finds' inMark Dion: Archaeology, 58-71COTTON (2004), J Cotton (with R Johnson) 'Twodecorated Peterborough bowls from the Thamesat Mortlake and their London context' in Cotton& Field (2004), 128-47COTTON & FIELD (2004), J Cotton & D Field (eds)Towards a New Stone Age: Aspects of the Neolithic inSouth-EastEngland Council for British ArchaeologyResearch Report 137COTTON & MERRIMAN (1991), J Cotton & NMerriman 'Some recent prehistoric finds fromGreater London' Trans London Middlesex Archaeol5oc 42, 33-57COTTON & WOOD (1996), J Cotton & B Wood'Recent prehistoric finds from the Thamesforeshore and beyond in Greater London' TransLondon Middlesex Archaeol Soc 47, 1-33COWIE & EASTMOND (1997), R Cowie & DEastmond 'An archaeological survey of theforeshore in the Borough of Richmond uponThames, part 2: down by the riverside' LondonArchaeologists (5), 115-21CUMING (1857), H S Cuming 'On the discovery ofCeltic crania in the vicinity of London'/owrw BritArchaeol Assoc 13, 237-40CUMING (1858), H S Cuming 'On further discoveriesof Celtic and Roman remains in the Thames, offBattersea' Joum Brit Archaeol Assoc 14, 326-30DE JERSEY (1996), P de Jersey Celtic Coinage inBritainDIVERS (2001), D Divers 'Excavations at 552 KingsRoad, Chelsea' Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc52, 1-9DRUMMOND-MURRAY & THOMPSON (2002),J Drummond-Murray & P Thompson with CCowan Settlement in Roman Southwark: ArchaeologicalExcavations (1991-8) for the London UndergroundLimited Jubilee Line Extension Project MoLASMonograph 12ELSDEN (1997), N J Elsden 'Excavations at NobelDrive, Harlington, and six sites to the north ofHeathrow Airport, Hillingdon' Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc 4Si, 1-13EVANS (1864),JEvans The Coins of the Ancient BritonsFARID (2000), S Farid 'An Excavation at 6-16 OldChurch Street, Royal Borough of Kensington andChelsea' Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 51,115-41FIELD (1989), D Field 'Tranchet axes and Thamespicks: Mesolithic core tools from the West LondonThames' Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 40,1-26FIELD & WOOLLEY (1983), D Field & A WooUey'AJadeite axe from Staines Moor' Surrey ArchaeolCollect 74, 141-5GARWOOD (1999), P Garwood 'Grooved Ware inSouthern Britain: chronology and interpretation'in R Cleal & A MacSween (eds) Grooved Ware inBritain and Ireland, 145-76GERLOFF (1975), S Gerloff The Early Bronze AgeDaggers in Great Britain and a Reconsideration of theWessex Culture Vrzlnstori&clie Bronzefunde, Abt VI,Band 2GIBBARD (1985), P L Gibbard The Pleistocene Historyof the Middle Thames ValleyGREEN (1980), H S Green The Flint Arrowheads of theBritish Isles: A Detailed Study of Material from Englandand Wales with Comparandafrom Scotland and IrelandBritish Archaeological Reports 75GRIMES (1938), W F Grimes 'A barrow on BreachFarm, Llanbleddian, Glamorgan' Proc Prehist Soc4,107-21HAD AS (1977), Hendon & District ArchaeologicalSociety 'Ajadeite axe from Hendon' Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc 28, 271HOBBS (1996), R Hobbs British Iron Age Coins in theBritish MuseumHOLDER & JAMIESON (2003), N Holder & DJamieson 'The prehistory of the City of London:myths and methodologies' Archaeol Joum 160,23-43JENSEN (1991), G Jensen 'Unusable axes? Anexperiment with antler axes of the Kongemoseand Ertebolle cultures' Eksperimentel Arkaeologi 1,10-21JESSON & HILL (1971), M Jesson & D Hill (ed)The Iron Age and its Hill-Forts: Papers Presented toSir Mortimer Wheeler University of SouthamptonMonograph 1JONES et al (1977), V Jones, A C Bishop & A RWoolley 'Third supplement of the catalogue ofjade axes from sites in the British Isles' Proc PrehistSoc 43, 287-93JOPE (1961), E M Jope 'Daggers of the Early IronAge in Britain' Proc Prehist Soc 21, 307-43JOPE (1982), E MJope 'Hallstatt D daggers: Britainand Europe' Bull Inst Archaeol 19, 83-9JOPE (2000), E MJope Early Celtic Art in the BritishIslesKENT (1978), J P C Kent 'The London area in theLate Iron Age: an interpretation of the earliestcoins' in Bird et al (1978), 53-8

Further prehistoric finds from Greater London 151LACAILLE (1966), A D Lacaille 'Mesolithic fadesin the transpontine fringes' Surrey Archaeol Collect63, 1-43LAWRENCE (1929), G F Lawrence 'Antiquities fromthe middle Thames' ArchaeolJourn 86, 69-98MACDONALD (19V8), J Macdonald 'An Iron Agedagger in the Royal Ontario Museum' in Bird et al(1978), 44-52MACK (1953), R P Mack The Coinage of AncientBritainMACKRETH (1995), D F Mackreth 'Pre Roman andRoman brooches' in Blockley et al (1995), 955-83MACKRETH (1999), D F Mackreth 'The Brooches'in Niblett (1999), 216-22MERRIFIELD (1987), R Merrifield The Archaeology ofRitual and Ma^cMOLAS (2000), Museum of London ArchaeologyService The Archaeology of Greater London: AnAssessment of Archaeological Evidence for HumanPresence in the Area now Covered by Greater LondonNEEDHAM (1987), S Needham 'The Bronze Age'in D G Bird &J Bird (eds) The Archaeology of Surreyto 1540, 97-137NEEDHAM (1990), S Needham The Fetters LateBronze Age Metalwork: an Analytical Study of ThamesValley Metalworking in its Settlement Context BritishMuseum Occasional Paper 70NEEDHAM & BURGESS (1980), S Needham &C Burgess 'The Later Bronze Age in the lowerThames valley: the metalwork evidence' in Barrett& Bradley (1980), 437-69NEEDHAM et al (1997), S Needham, C B Ramsey, DCoombs, C Cartwright & P Pettitt 'An independentchronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: theresults of the Oxford Radiocarbon AcceleratorProgramme' Archaeoljoum 154, 55-107NIBLETT (1999), R Niblett The Excavation of aCeremonial Site at Folly Lane, Verulamium BritanniaMonograph 14NIXON et al (2002), T Nixon, E McAdam, RTomber & H Swain A Research Framework for LondonArchaeology 2002O'CONNELL & BIRD (1994), M G O'Connell& J Bird 'The Roman temple at Wanborough,excavation 1985-1986' Surrey Archaeol Collect 82,1-168O'CONNOR (1980), B O'Connor Cross-ChannelRelations in the British Later Bronze Age BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 91PHILP et al (1991), B Philp, K Parfitt, J Willson, MDutto & W Williams The Roman Villa Site at Keston,Kent: First Report (Excavations 1968-1978)PITTS (1996), M Pitts 'The Neolithic axe in Britain'Proc Prehist Soc 62, 311-71PROCTOR & BISHOP (2002), J Proctor & B Bishop'Prehistoric and environmental development onHorsleydown: excavations at 1-2 Three Oak Lane'Surrey Archaeol Colkct 89, 1-26ROBINSON (1978), A Robinson 'Silver coins foundon the banks of the Thames' Surrey Archaeol SocBulletin 148, 3-4ROWLANDS (1976), MJ Rowlands The Productionand Distribution of Metalwork in the Middle Bronze Agein Southern Britain British Archaeological Reports31SHEPPARD (1991), F Sheppard The Treasury ofLondon's Past: An Historical Account of the Museum ofLondon and its Predecessors, the Guildhall Museum andthe London MuseumSIDELL et al (2002), J Sidell, J Cotton, L Rayner & LWheeler The Prehistory and Topography ofSouthwarkand Lambeth MoLAS Monograph 14SMITH (1989), C Smith 'British ander mattocks'in C Bonsall (ed) The Mesolithic in Europe: PapersPresented at the Third International Symposium,Edinburgh 1985, 272-83SMITH (1910), R A Smith Proc Soc Antiq London 2ndseries 23, 160-71STEAD & RIGBY (1989), I M Stead & V RigbyVerulamium: The King Harry Lane Site EnglishHeritage Monograph 12THACKER (1920), F S Thacker The Thames HighwayVolume II: Locks and WeirsTHOMPSON et al (1998), A Thompson, A Westman& T Dyson (eds) Archaeology in Greater London1965-90: a Guide to Records of Excavations by theMuseum of LondonTURNER & WYMER (1987), R Turner &J J Wymer'An assemblage of Palaeolithic hand-axes fromthe Roman religious complex at Ivy Chimneys,Witham, Essex' AntiqJoum 67, 43-60VAN ARSDELL (1989), R van Arsdell Celtic Coinageof BritainWAINWRIGHT & LONGWORTH (1971), G JWainwright & I H Longworth Durrington WallsExcavations 1966—1969WEBBER (2000), M D Webber Report on the ThamesArchaeological Survey 1996—1999WEBBER (2004), M Webber (with H Ganiaris) 'TheChelsea club: a Neolithic wooden artefact fromthe River Thames in London' in Cotton & Field(2004), 124-27WEINREB & HIBBERT (1983), B Weinreb & CHibbert (eds) The London EncyclopaediaWYMER (1968), J J Wymer Lower PalaeolithicArchaeology in Britain: As Represented by the ThamesValley

NEW WORK ON CRIPPLEGATE FORT:EXCAVATIONS AT 25 GRESHAM STREET,2000-2001Jo LyonWith contributions by Ian M Betts and Susan Pringle (ceramic building material), Lisa Gray (plant remains),Jackie Keily (registered finds), Jane Liddle (animal bone), Jacqueline Pearce (post-Roman pottery), and RobinSymonds (Roman pottery)SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONThe site of 23 Gresham Street is located in the financialcentre of the modern day City of London. This area becamethe focus for Roman military and civil activity in the early2nd century AD, when Cripplegate fort was built. The mainsignificance of the site lies with the fact that it straddles thesouth wall of the fort. The Museum of London ArchaeologyService (MoLAS) carried out excavations on the site in2000-2001 which uncovered the foundations of the southwall of the early Roman Cripplegate fort, an interval tower,d£fensive ditch, and ancillary buildings. These remainsform the largest portion of the southern section of the fortwall discovered to date. By the 3rd century the fort hadfallen into disuse, and there was little activity in the area bythe 4th century AD.Reoccupation of the Roman city occurred during the earlymedieval period. The main evidence of occupation at thesite was dated to between 1050 and 1150. Intensificationof activity was linked with the development of metalworkingand dye production in the Cripplegate area. Theseindustries played an integral role in the development ofthe early economy and society in this part of London,echoed in the modern street names, eg nearby Silver Street.During the post-medieval period the area became built upwith tenements, and was the site of the church of St JohnZ.achary. The remains of this church (destroyed in the GreatFire of 1666) are now preserved under the garden area ofthe new development.153The site is situated on the north side of GreshamStreet and is bounded by Staining Lane on theeast, Noble Street on the west, and Oat Lane onthe north side. The national grid reference forthe centre of site is 532243 181444 (see Fig 1).The Museum of London site code is NHG98.The area around Gresham Street and NobleStreet was virtually destroyed during the Blitz.Post-War reconstruction of the City provided anunprecedented opportunity for the study of itsarchaeology. The Roman and Medieval LondonExcavation Council (RMLEC), led by W F Grimes(then Keeper and Secretary of the LondonMuseum), conducted a series of archaeologicalinvestigations throughout the area. During thecourse of these excavations, Grimes discoveredthat the Roman city wall had been preceded bya fort, in the north-west area of the settlement(Grimes 1968, 17-28). Investigations carriedout on the site of 25 Gresham Street during the1950s located the remains of three courses of thesouth wall of the fort, in a small trench (WFGIO;Grimes 1968, 23). It was not possible to definethe exact alignment of the wall from this limitedevidence.The Museum of London Archaeology Service(MoLAS) carried out an evaluation of the sitein 1998, which indicated a potential for survivalof archaeological remains from the Roman,medieval, and post-medieval periods. Due to

154 Jo Lyon7SP n^:Fig 1. Site location showing the outline of the Roman fortproblems with access into relevant areas duringthe evaluation, the presence or absence of thefort wall could not be confirmed. As a result acontingency was built into the foundation designfor the proposed redevelopment, which madeprovision for the preservation of the fort wall.A second phase of evaluation was undertaken in2000, immediately prior to the main excavation,which confirmed that large segments of thefoundations of the south wall of the fort survivedon the site. No trace of Grimes's earlier trenches(WFGIO) were discovered at this time.The discovery of the fort wall enabled thepiling design to be finalised to ensure preservationin situ of the fort wall and interval tower.The resulting mitigation strategy for the sitewas complicated and limited the excavationto a series of pile holes, lift pits, and groundbeams. Excavation took place in a number ofphases between 2000 and 2001. This reportdescribes the results of the investigations atthe 25 Gresham Street site, and puts them incontext with the findings of the RMLEC carriedout during the 1950s, and those of more recent

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 155archaeological sites in the vicinity. The findingsfrom 25 Gresham Street are also discussed inthe recent monograph on Cripplegate Fort(Howe & Lakin 2004), and the monographdetailing work conducted by W F Grimes andA Williams on Cripplegate Fort during the post-War years (Shepherd in prep). The site archiveis available for consultation in the LAARC byarrangement.^NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY ANDPREHISTORIC ENVIRONMENTThe underlying solid geology of the City ofLondon consists of London Clay. Overlying thisare Pleistocene drift deposits laid down by theThames in a series of terraces. In the area ofCripplegate river gravel terraces are overlain bybrickearth deposits, which are of considerablethickness in places. On the site itself brickearthwas found to be up to 4m thick, whilst on othersites in the area brickearth was recorded up to2.8m thick (Howe & Lakin 2004, 10). Depositsof truncated natural brickearth were recordedon site at an average level of 12.27m OD; naturalgravels were located at 8.27m OD. By comparisonmodern street level in Gresham Street to thesouth of the site is at 16.3m OD. The recordedlevel of truncated natural on neighbouring sitescompares closely with that on the site.No pre-Roman features were identified onsite; however, a fragment of residual prehistoricpottery (dating 4,000 BC—AD 43) was recoveredfrom the primary backfill of the fort ditch. A smallnumber of residual worked and burnt flints wasalso discovered on site. Prehistoric activity hasbeen identified on surrounding archaeologicalsites, with a number of struck and burnt flintsbeing found, for instance, at 3 Noble Street(NST94), 31-45 Gresham Street (GAH95), and90-91 and 100 Wood Street (W0097). On thelast site a prehistoric north-south aligned ditchwas found, along with other more ephemeralfeatures (Howe & Lakin 2004, 11).THE ROMAN SEQUENCEPre-fort activity c.50-120 (Period 1)At the beginning of the Roman period the sitewas situated on the fringe of the new settlement.Grimes indicated in his interim publication(Grimes 1968, 32-7) that clay and timber buildingswere established in the area later occupiedby the fort. Indeed evidence for such buildingshas since been identified on many sites in thearea {eg 3 Noble Street, 31-45 Gresham Street,and 90-91 and 100 Wood Street). During Period1 natural brickearth was sealed by a layer ofredeposited brickearth, forming Open Area 2(Fig 2). This deposit extended across the wholesite, and contained pottery dating to AD 60-100.Fragments of four clay and timber buildings(Buildings 1-4, Fig 2), which appear to pre-datethe fort, were identified at the site. Beamslots,indicating wall lines, had not survived and sothe orientation of the buildings could not bedetermined. The buildings consisted of internalbrickearth floors and occupation debris. Thefloors in Building 1 contained the base of a glassphial () and a small amount of HighgateWood ware C pottery, dating to c.AD 70-160. InBuilding 2 the floor layers contained pottery datedto c.AD 70-120, and a fragment of burnt ceramic,probably from a hearth. A fourth structure(Building 4, Fig 2) was situated further to thesouth and consisted of a brickearth floor, laid ona thin layer of gravel, with a series of associatedpostholes. Building 4 is dated c.AD 50-100 by thepresence of South Gaulish samian ware, earlyRoman micaceous sandy ware, and early Romansandy ware B. A series of small, shallow pits(Open Area 3, Fig 2) was associated with the earlyRoman buildings. The pits contained sherds ofpottery, including Verulamium region coarsewhite-slipped ware and ajar and lid in HighgateWood ware C, dating to c.AD 70-120. The potteryassemblage from Open Area 3 also includedtwo rare amphora types: a Lipari amphora anda Fishbourne form 148.3 amphora in a similarfabric to an example from earlier excavationsat 3 Noble Street (Seeley 2004); the former wasfrom the Aeolian Islands near Sicily, and the latterprobably originated from North Africa.Due to the paucity of remains it was notpossible to establish the form or function ofthe buildings, although they probably had aresidential and industrial purpose similar topre-fort buildings excavated on sites at 3 NobleStreet, 31-45 Gresham Street, and 90-91 and100 Wood Street, which had evidence of hearths(Howe & Lakin 2004, 23-4). The buildings onthese sites were similar to those with a residentialand industrial function in the centre of the earlyRoman city, further to the south-east (Perring &Roskams 1991, 3-18; Hill & Rowsome in prep).They must have been demolished immediatelyprior to the construction of Cripplegate fort.

156 Jo LyonN.-

structure 1south wall of FortCWBuilding 6LjStructure 2ditctiOpen Area 4 /_interval "^ ,^ • ^ /• ^—'^ /llinit of excavationwall: foundand conjecturedbeamslots: found and conjectured,-^-1'C) Xdrain: found and conjectured(arrow indicates direction of flow if known)ditch: foundand conjecturedfloorpits: found and conjecturedpost- and stakeholes10mFig 3. South wall of Cripplegate fort, ancillary structures and external contemporary features c.AD 120-200 (Period 2)

158 Jo LyonCripplegate fort, CAD 120-200 (Period 2)The construction of Cripplegate fort took placec.AD 120-160. This date has been refined as aresult of recent work (Howe & Lakin 2004, 39-40), as it was previously believed that the fort wasconstructed before AD 120 (Grimes 1968, 38).The dating of the fort has relied largely on findsassemblages from small fragments of internalbuildings and roads, excavated on neighbouringsites. No new dating evidence for the fort wasobtained from the site of 25 Gresham Street;this was mainly due to deep truncation caused bymodern basements on the site.The line of the south wall of the fort crossesthe northern part of the site. Initial evaluation(both by Grimes and MoLAS) was unable toestablish the level of survival of the fort wall andFig 4. Foundationsof south wall ofCripplegate fort(Structure 1), lookingeast (0.50m scale)

New work on Crippkgate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 159foundations. However, subsequent excavationson site confirmed that three separate fragmentsof the foundations of the fort wall and aninterval tower (Structure 1, Fig 3) had survived.The foundations were found to be composedof packed Kentish ragstone (with occasionalfragments of brown sandstone) and tile, bondedtogether with grey/green puddled clay (Fig 4).The discovery of these in-situ fragmentsconfirmed the exact location of the south wall,which is further to the north than had beenanticipated. This discrepancy occurred becausethe line of the wall was originally projected usingthe south-west corner of the fort in Noble Street,the alignment of the north wall of the fort, anda small section of the south wall discoveredrunning across Staining Lane (WFGll, Grimes1968, 23). More recently, evidence for thelocation of the south wall was suggested by thediscovery of an east-west aligned robber trenchat 90-91 and 100 Wood Street in 1997 (Howe &Lakin2004, 36).In addition to the discovery of the south wallfoundations, the remains of an interval tower(Structure 1, Fig 5) were identified. Grimes hadpredicted the existence of this tower but hadthought that it would be further to the east.The discovery of the tower confirms that it wassituated approximately half way between thesouth-west corner of the fort and the gatehouselocated in the area of Wood Street. The Kentishragstone foundations of the south wall andinterval tower were preserved in situ below thenew development.Other features relating to the fort included thefort ditch (Structure 2, Figs 3 and 6), discoveredin two different locations and situated approximatelyIm from the southern face of the fortwall. A fragment of one of the internal fortbuildings (Building 5, Fig 3) was discovered atthe northern extent of the site. This consistedof an east-west orientated, robbed-out Kentishragstone and clay-packed wall foundation(similar to the fort wall foundation). Examples ofstructures like this have been discovered on sitesat 3 Noble Street, 31-45 Gresham Street, and90-91 and 100 Wood Street. The external wall ofBuilding 5 was part of a much larger structure.Fig 5. Foundations of interval tower (Structure 1), looking north-east (0.50m scale)

160 Jo LyonFig 6. Section through external fort ditch (Structure 2), looking west (0.50m scale)first identified on the adjacent site at 3 NobleStreet. This building is identified as Building12 in the Cripplegate monograph (Howe &Lakin 2004, 31-5), but has been numberedindependently as Building 5 for the purpose ofthis study. The building would have been oneof a series of large rectangular barrack blocks.The discovery of the south wall of Building 5 hasallowed the overall dimensions of the barrack tobe more accurately predicted, at 50m long and8-lOm wide. The internal area of Building 5 wasnot seen. Excavation of the northern portion ofthis building at 3 Noble Street, however, revealedinternal floor deposits, a partition, and a hearth(Howe & Lakin 2004, 31). A gulley was identifiedrunning parallel to the south of Building 5;this was part of the fort's drainage system. Inaddition to the fort wall, ditch, and barrack, itwas expected that fragments of the intramuralroad (via sagularis) and clay bank might survive.It is possible that the compact, dirty gravel dumpin Open Area 4 (Fig 3) was part of the road, orthe bank. This deposit contained fragments ofbrick and Kentish ragstone rubble, which couldbe debris related to construction work inside thefort.Occupation activities thought to be contemporarywith the fort were identified outside itssouth wall. These remains, which were extremelysparse, included parts of three clay and timberbuildings. Buildings 6 and 8 (Fig 3) were situatedin close proximity to the fort wall; both consistedof internal brickearth floors and occupationdebris. The deposits in Building 6 containeda turquoise glass melon bead (), and aredated to c.AD 120-160 by a rim sherd of a blackburnished-style ware everted-rimmed jar, a bodysherd of a colour-coated beaker (which may beColchester colour-coated ware), and sherds of anunusual fine micaceous reduced ware bowl withcompass-inscribed decoration (, Fig 7). Thefloors in Building 8 contained pottery includingCentral Gaulish samian, and jars and bowls inblack burnished wares 1 and 2, dating the buildingto CAD 120-160. Building 9 (Fig 3), which wasslightly further south, consisted of the remainsof brickearth floors, levelling, and trample, whichhad slumped into an earlier quarry pit, dating

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Oresham Street, 2000-2001 161Fig 7. Unusual reduced ware bowl [910] (Scale 1:4)to AD 150-200. At the southern extent of thesite was Building 7 (Fig 3), consisting of a seriesof beamslots, make-up layers, and a hearth. Acopper-alloy coin () and bowls, dishes andjars in black burnished wares 1 and 2 dated thebuilding c.AD 120-160. Building 7 may have hadan industrial purpose as samples taken from thehearth had a high iron-working slag content.It is likely that the buildings in Period 2 weresimilar in form and function to the pre-fortbuildings of Period 1. They are also likely to havebeen similar to buildings from nearby sites; a 1stcenturybuilding at 3 Noble Street also containeda hearth with slag fragments. Given that there wasnot a large amount of industrial waste associatedwith Building 7, it is probable that small scalesmithing or repair work took place rather thanmass production. This is corroborated by thenature of the finds contained in the pits in OpenArea 5 (Fig 3), associated with Buildings 6-9.The pits associated with Building 7 contained arange of domestic finds, such as glass fragments,including part of the rim of a small cast bowlin marbled polychrome glass (, Fig 8),fragments of a burnt oxidised ware bowl, and aMatres-de-Veyre samian fabric 2 Curie form 11bowl with deep flange (, Fig 9). The faunalassemblage from these pits was exclusively cattleremains. The cluster of rubbish pits and wells inthe centre of site (Fig 3) was dated AD 120-140by various forms in black burnished wares 1 and2, along with several dishes, bowls, and cups• yellowFig 8. Cast glass bowl (Scale 1:2)Fig 9. Samian bowl [265] (Scale 1:4)in samian ware from Les Matres-de-Veyre andLezoux. These pits also contained numerousfragments of mudbrick walling from clay andtimber buildings, a fragment of combed boxflue from a hypocausted building, and a faunalassemblage including marine and freshwater fishspecies.It is probable that some of the buildingsdiscussed above are actually part of the samestructure; it was not possible to confirm this dueto the small size of the trenches excavated. Noneof the Period 2 buildings or pits contained findsthat could be described as military, a patternthat has also been observed on neighbouringsites. The pottery assemblage from Period 2is very similar to that from 3 Noble Street, inthat it contained very little pottery dating to thesecond half of the 2nd century (Howe & Lakin2004, 39). This suggests that occupation of thePeriod 2 clay and timber buildings had ceasedby AD 160.Disuse of the fort cAD 200-400 (Period 3)The construction of the Northern House basementon the site in the 1950s destroyed all lateRoman horizontal stratigraphy. Evidence fromthe site (Fig 10), when placed alongside moresubstantial evidence from surrounding sites,suggests that the fort fell into disuse by the mid-3rd century AD.Of the fort features excavated on the site, onlythe fort ditch contained dating material, includinga near complete Highgate Wood ware C

162 Jo LyonN/ /A---.7/"-;r-/ /"J•N^Ôpen Area 5/_/ • • ^ /Open Area 61 ' ^ y ^ / V,Û Ôpen Area 5L 7Â\ \L IrWi /^\Open Area 5//• / ^ /0 7 / 7/ // /i^^.. / //^//'^jlimit of excavationretained wallroad surface: found and conjectured0'!;• \ - ^ 'ditch: found and conjecturedpits: found and conjectured10nnFig 10. Disuse of the fort, c.AD 200-400 (Period 3)

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 163•?• •'•^w^Fwi!WFC''''^P**!WS-''**^r°'Fig 11. Jar in Highgate Wood ware C with decorated shoulder [475] (Scale 1:1)round-bodied jar with decorated shoulder (,Fig 11), suggesting that the ditch was backfilledin the mid-late 2nd century AD. The backfilledfort ditch was also excavated by the RMLEC onsites at 70a-71 Aldermanbury (WFG14) and theGuildhall Library (formerly Guildhall car park),Aldermanbury (GM4), and contained potterydating to the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD(Grimes 1968, 39; Marsden 1968, 9).The backfilling of the ditch does not necessarilyindicate disuse of the fort, and was probablylinked with the building of the city wall. It isknown that construction of the Roman city walltook place between AD 190 and 225, at whichtime the north and west walls of the fort werethickened and incorporated into the city wall(Perring 1991, 92). The external ditch for thefort's south wall would have become redundant,and it is likely that it was backfilled at this point.It is not known whether the fort also ceasedto function and was entirely demolished atthis time, or whether the south and east wallscontinued to stand. Evidence for the disuseof the fort obtained from other sites suggeststhat the internal buildings of the fort went outof use by the 3rd century AD. For instance, onsites at 3 Noble street and 90-91 and 100 WoodStreet, barrack blocks were demolished and theinternal area sealed by a layer of demolitionmaterial dating AD 150-250 (Howe & Lakin2004, 45-7). On the site, the south wall ofBuilding 5 (Building 12 at 3 Noble Street) had

164 Jo Lyonbeen largely robbed out. The backfill of therobber trench contained a high proportion ofplaster and mortar, and was dated 1000-1150by a small amount of medieval pottery. Building11 at 90-91 and 100 Wood Street also hadrobbed out foundations backfilled with plasterand mortar debris from the demolition of itsinterior, but contained large amounts of potterydating to AD 160-300 (Howe & Lakin 2004, 42).This suggests that there may have been a delaybetween the demolition of the barracks, and therobbing of the foundations. It is clear that theoriginal layout of the fort did persist into thelater Roman period, due to the fact that someof the internal roads were remetalled after theinternal buildings were demolished.The site has produced evidence that suggeststhe south wall of the fort may have continued tostand after the construction of the city wall. Thereis no evidence of any Roman robbing of the southfort wall foundations on the site. This may meanthat the interior of the fort was redeveloped whilethe wall was left intact. Or it could simply meanthat robbing of the foundations of the fort didnot take place immediately after the demolitionof the upstanding wall, on this site. It was not untilthe early medieval period that cut features firstbegan to encroach upon the line of the wall; priorto this there is nothing to suggest that the wallwas not still a physical boundary in the landscape.This possibility is given further credence by themanner in which the landscape external to thesouth wall of the fort was remodelled duringthe 2nd/3rd century AD. Directly after the fortditch was backfilled, the area to the south ofthe wall was cleared and a metalled surface laid(Open Area 6, Fig 10). This metalling respectedthe line of the wall and sloped up towards it,suggesting that the wall may still have beenstanding at this time. The gravel surface, 5-6mwide north-south, extended east-west across thefull extent of the site. It contained roofing tileand brick in a variety of fabrics, suggesting thatit was partially made up of demolition materialfrom a number of buildings, possibly derivedfrom the destruction of internal fort structures.The latest pottery present in the assemblagefrom Open Area 6 was a small sherd of EastGaulish samian, dated c.AD 150-300, and whatmay have been a sherd of a Colchester white warevessel dated AD 200-300. This corresponds withthe date at which the ditch was backfilled, andwhen demolition of internal buildings probablybegan. Open Area 6 contained arguably theFig 12. Iron hipposandal (Scale 1:4)most interesting Roman finds from the site: theremains of two iron hipposandals, including anear complete example (, Fig 12), belongingto Manning's type 1 (Manning 1985, 63 andfig 16, no. 1). These were a form of horseshoeused on unshod animals on metalled surfaces,and it is extremely rare to find examples fromarchaeologically excavated contexts.It is possible that Open Area 6 representedan external road built during or after the constructionof the city wall, and was associated withthe partial redevelopment of the fort road systemat this time. It is difficult to relate later Romanactivity on nearby sites to that on the 25 GreshamStreet site; the metalled surface in Open Area 6has no parallel elsewhere. The metalling wastruncated at an unknown date, and sealed by anundated dark silty deposit (Open Area 7), notunlike late Roman 'dark earth'. There were noRoman pits cut through the layer of metalling,and so it is possible that this road or yardrepresents some kind of exclusion zone aroundthe south wall of the fort.Late Roman pits and linear features werefound to the north and south of Open Area6, in Open Area 5 (the pit internal to the fortwall (see below) would have been physicallyseparated from the other features at this time)(Fig 10). These features had a date range of c.AD200-300. In the western part of the site an eastwestorientated ditch ran approximately parallel

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 165to the gravel surface in Open Area 6, and mayhave been associated with it. The backfill of twolarge pits in the centre of Open Area 5 containeda range of finds including a copper-alloy fingerring (, Fig 13) with stone intaglio. The ringlooks like a late development of Henig type III_Ei\TTE^rFig 14. Jar in black burnished ware 2 with graffito TERTI [140] (Scale 1:4; graffito 1:1)Fig 13. Copper-alloy ring with intaglio (Scale 1:1)towards the forms characteristic of late Antoninetimes and beyond. The cornelian, with which itis set, is cut with a single stroke of the lap wheeland was clearly designed when worn to looklike an engraved signet. It compares well withan 'intaglio' from South Shields (Henig 1978,no. 421). Another example of a base of an ironhipposandal () was also recovered from apit in Open Area 5. A pit within the confines ofthe former fort (Fig 10) contained fragments ofbrown ferruginous sandstone; this is known tohave been used as a plinth at the base of the citywall, and could have been discarded during itsconstruction.There was no evidence of post-fort or laterRoman buildings on the site. There was evidenceof a post-fort building on the neighbouring site90-91 and 100 Wood Street, however, situated inthe internal area of the fort, and built on barrackdemolition layers. The building dates to AD 250-400 and does not respect the original internallayout of the fort, providing further evidencethat the fort had fallen into disuse by this time(Howe &Lakin 2994, 43).A fairly large assemblage of residual lateRoman pottery was found in early medieval featureson the site. The assemblage consists mainlyof 3rd-century pottery types, such as Alice Holt/Farnham ware, later black burnished ware forms.Oxfordshire and Nene Valley colour-coatedwares, and East Gaulish samian. The assemblageincludes sherds of a bowl in black burnishedware 2 (, Fig 14) marked with a graffitowhich reads TERTI.Roman discussionThe evidence from the site indicates that the areawas occupied by buildings in the latter part of the1st century AD, prior to the building of the fort.This confirms the pattern known from nearbysites, and shows that the settlement expandedquickly once it had been re-established after theBoudican revolt. The buildings excavated on thesite appear to conform to the general nature ofbuildings in the area in the 1st century AD —domestic houses with an industrial component.There is no evidence that these buildings weremilitary in nature, and they were not situated inareas which respected or anticipated the layoutof the later fort. There was no evidence on thesite that the fort was preceded by an earliermilitary installation, such as a timber fort, as hasbeen suggested (Perring 1991, 39-40).The Ist-century buildings on the site were sweptaway prior to construction of the fort; datingevidence from surrounding sites indicates thatfort construction took place between AD 120 and160. The discovery of the remains of the southwall of the fort demonstrated that the constructiontechnique of the fort foundations wasfairly crude, consisting of trench-built layers ofunshaped ragstone bonded with puddled clay.The fort ditch was recorded in three differentlocations on the site, approximately Im from the

166 Jo Lyonface of the south wall. No evidence of a secondexternal ditch was identified, as was the case atAlder Castle and Falcon House, 1-6 AldersgateStreet, where there was evidence that the fortmay have had a double ditch on its west side(Buder 2001, 45). The discovery of the southwall of Building 5, in conjunction with evidenceprovided by nearby sites, has allowed the fulldimensions of this barrack block to be moreaccurately estimated, giving a measurementof 50m long and 8-lOm wide. Evidence ofoccupation contemporary with the fort wasdiscovered outside the south wall. The buildingsin Period 2 were similar to those in Period 1 inthat they were clay and timber built, and not ofparticularly high status. The presence of the forton site is not reflected in the finds assemblages;very few in situ military type finds have beenretrieved from sites in the Cripplegate area ingeneral.The site did not provide any new evidencefor the date at which the fort may have falleninto disuse. Evidence from nearby sites suggeststhat the upper limit for disuse of the internalfort buildings is c.AD 250, and so the fortprobably fell into disuse by the mid-3rd centuryAD. Evidence from the site did show that thefoundations of the south wall of the fort werenot encroached upon until the early medievalperiod. Also, a gravel surface was laid down overthe backfilled fort ditch during the 3rd centuryAD that respected the line of the wall. This maysuggest that the wall remained standing in someform, perhaps in a partially robbed or ruinousstate, after the construction of the city wall. Thedefensive features of the fort would certainlyhave no longer been necessary once the city wallhad been built, and this must account for thebackfilling of the fort ditch. There is evidence thatthe south-east corner of the fort was still partiallystanding in the medieval period (Marsden 1968,7). On the site, there is also evidence that thefoundations of Building 5 were not robbed untilthe early medieval period. A stair turret recentlyidentified on the city wall, close to the turret onthe south-west corner of Cripplegate fort (AlderCastle and Falcon House, 1-6 Aldersgate Street),has been interpreted as a possible replacementfor the south-west corner turret, which mayhave been demolished during the building ofthe city wall (Butler 2001, 50). By extension, itis possible that the demolition of the south wallcould have taken place simultaneously; however,the evidence does seem to indicate that robbingand demolition of the stonework of the fort wasnot systematic, and did not occur as a wholesaleevent.THE MEDIEVAL SEQUENCEEarly medieval, c.400-1200 (Period 4)After the departure of the Romans at the beginningof the 5th century AD, the Cripplegate areawas apparently not occupied again until the lateSaxon period. Reoccupation of the Roman citybegan in the late 9th century, on the riverfront.By the 10th century settlement had expandedtowards Cheapside, and development of themedieval street system of Cripplegate had begun(Milne 2001, 122-5). It is documented thatWood Street was already in existence by the10th century (Harben 1918). The church of StJohn Zachary, just to the south of the site, is firstmentioned in 1120, as the church of St John theBaptist.The initial redevelopment of the Cripplegatearea is represented on the site by a concentratedburst of activity between c.1050 and 1080, asshown by the ceramic evidence. This trend is alsoreflected on neighbouring sites; the archaeologyof the area is characterised by sunken andcellared buildings and deep, lined pits andwells (Fig 15). It is likely that the wattle/timberlinedpits and wells on the site were originallyassociated with buildings fronting onto StainingLane, which have since been removed by deepbasements. The foundations of the fort barrackblock. Building 5, may also have been robbed inthis period as the backfill of the robber trenchcontained pottery dating to c.1050-1150.The remains of an early medieval sunkenbuilding(Building 10, Fig 15) were identifiedon the site, contemporaneous with most of thepits dated to this period. These pits were situatedin Open Area 8 (Fig 15), which extended acrossthe whole site during Period 4. During the late10th and early 11th centuries, pits began toencroach onto the line of the fort wall, perhapsindicating that it was no longer a visible orimportant feature in the landscape (Fig 16).Building 10 seems to have utilised the fort wallfoundations as part of its structure, which maymean that parts of the wall were at least stillpartially visible in the early medieval period. Thepractice of reusing Roman walls in early medievalbuildings is also known from other sites in theCity, for instance at 1 Poultry (ONE94), where a

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 167•J' ^ : " îklimit of excavation0 '5>beamslots; found and conjecturedpits: found and conjecturedpost- and stakeholesFig 15. Early medieval, c.400-1200 (Period 4)10m

168 Jo Lyon10th-century sunken-floored building was builtagainst the west wall of a Roman building (Burch& Travail in prep). Building 10 contained noevidence of floor surfaces such as have beendiscovered in other early medieval buildings, forexample on sites at 3 Noble Street and 90-91 and100 Wood Street (Howe & Lakin 2004, 64-7); theremains of Building 10 were quite ephemeral bycomparison. The base of the building was at thesame level as the base of the fort wall foundation,and measured at least 3.4m north-south and 3meast-west. The only surviving internal elementswere the partial remains of one beamslot, andthe impression of one insubstantial post setting.The area was cleared when the building went outof use, followed by dumping of large amounts ofdestruction debris. These dumps had a high woodcontent and were full of voids, presumably left bythe dumped rotted posts. It is probable that thismaterial relates to the wooden superstructureof the building, used to backfill the cellar whenit fell into disuse. The backfill of the buildingwas dated to c.1050-1150 by sherds of cookingpots/jars in early medieval chalk-temperedware and early medieval shell-tempered ware.This suggests that the building had a domesticfunction, similar to other early medieval buildingson neighbouring sites. Building 10 also appears tobe on a similar alignment to other early medievalbuildings recorded in the area (Howe & Lakin2004, 65, fig 52).The backfill of Building 10 was cut by pits ofsimilar date, suggesting that the building wasin use for only a short time. The pits in OpenArea 8 were concentrated mainly in the northeastportion of the site, where they occurred inclusters and were mostly rectangular in shape.Many of the pits were lined with wattle or timberplanking, and at least one was lined with clay.It is likely that they were used as cesspits, wells,and maybe even for storage (Fig 17). Some werein excess of 5m deep from the contemporarymedieval land surface, dug to the base of thebrickearth and into the underlying gravel. Not allof the exceptionally deep pits were lined, despitethis it is likely that many served as wells in theFig 16. Truncated fragment of south wall of Roman fort, showing early medieval timber-lined pits in foreground, lookingnorth (0.50m scale)

New work on Crippkgate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 169Fig 17. Section through early medieval lined pits, looking northbackyard area of tenements. The pitting did notseem to follow any particular pattern, so it hasnot been possible to reconstruct the boundariesof tenements by inference from the location ofpit clusters. All the pits were orientated with thesurrounding road system, however, indicatingthat they may originally have been associatedwith roadside buildings.Pits with medium sized pottery assemblages(30-100 sherds) are dated to c.1050-1080 by thepresence of early medieval handmade coarsewaresand the absence of London-type wares, first usedin the City c.1080 (Vince & Jenner 1991, 268).Sherds of London-type ware were found in somepits, including an unusual form of bowl or skilletin coarse London-type ware. The most commonceramic forms from Open Area 8 are cookingpots or jars, including a near complete cookingpot in London-area greyware (, Fig 18).Pitchers, used for serving wine or ale at table,are the other main form represented on thesite. Part of a probable spouted pitcher in earlySurrey ware (, Fig 18) has unusual, stampeddecoration on the shoulder. There is littlepottery that originated outside the London area,although a spouted pitcher in Ipswich-Thetfordtypeware was found. There is also relativelylittle continental pottery, although the rim andhandle from a spouted pitcher in red-paintedware was found in one trench — red-paintedwares are largely associated with the wine tradefrom the Rhineland.Very few bowls and dishes used for foodpreparation and serving were found in Open Area8; there were also relatively few food remains. Theanimal bone assemblage was composed mainlyof sheep/goat remains, with a lesser amount ofcattle and a small quantity of pig. The body partemphasis is on mandibles and lower limbs, thelesser meat-bearing bones, indicating that thisis butchery waste. Other sites in the Cripplegatearea have produced similar assemblages (Ainsley2004). On this site it is possible that the predominanceof sheep/goat remains indicatesthat the bones came from specialist butchers'waste (O'Connor 1993, 65). Food waste, as wellas butchery waste, was found in pits near toBuilding 10 (Fig 15). These assemblages containedfish remains, mainly herring, cod, andeel. There was evidence that beef, mutton and

170 Jo LyonP6P5Fig 18. Cooking pot in London-area greyware [276] and spouted pitcher in early Surrey ware [322] (Scale 1:4)some pork was consumed, along with chicken,goose, and duck. The only high status foodstuffspresent were roe deer and veal; these could alsohave been associated with vellum production,for book binding (Serjeantson 1980, 129). Lackof high status foodstuffs was also reflected inthe plant remains. Samples mainly producedevidence of cereals such as bread wheat andoat, fruit seeds such as blackberry/raspberry,cherry stones, and mineralised pear and appleremains.In addition to domestic activity, there was evidencefor metalworking and dye preparation.Metalworking crucibles were found in Open Area8, in Periods 4 and 5, mostly in early medievalcoarse whiteware, the main crucible fabric used inLondon between c. 1050 and 1150. Crucibles foundin Period 5 are largely residual, redeposited byconstant pit-digging in the same area. In Period4, sherds from two rounded crucibles werefound in wattle-lined pits in the central area ofsite (Fig 15). The fabric is vitrified, as a resultof having been heated to a high temperature.Neither crucible is large, and they were probablyused in the production of copper-alloy dressaccessories. One example from Period 5 appearsnot to have been used in metalworking at all.It is sooted and fire-cracked, with high levelsof calcium and phosphorus present internally,and may have been used in the preparation ofbone for cupellation, rather than in meltingcopper. There is also a rounded crucible inLondon-type ware (, Fig 19), heavily burntand sooted, with an internal deposit resemblinglimescale; again, it may not have been used inmetalworking. The Cripplegate area is known tohave been a centre of metallurgy, and over 150crucible fragments were found on neighbouringsites 3 Noble Street and 90-91 and 100 WoodStreet (Howe & Lakin 2004, 77). Nearby siteshave also produced evidence for silver working,but this was not present on the site. It was notpossible to identify areas of the site in whichmetalworking was concentrated.Vessels used in the production of dye frommadder were found in the north of site (Fig15). This process involved boiling up the rootsof dyers' madder (Rubia tinctorum) in order tocreate a purplish red liquid that was then usedto colour textiles (Walton 1992, 200). StandardFig 19. Crucible in London-type ware [356] (Scale 1:4)

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 171cooking pots and jars were principally usedin the process; these typically became staineddark purple over the inside and base as a result.Madder-stained pottery was found in both linedand unlined pits on the site, some of whichwere extremely deep and may originally havebeen wells. The evidence for madder-boilingis concentrated in this period; activity beganto wane in Period 5. Evidence for madderproduction has been found on many other sitesnearby, suggesting that the Gresham Street/Noble Street area was a focus for this activity.Another comparable concentration of madderstainedvessels was found at 1 Poultry (ONE94;Whitdngham pers comm). This activity appearsto be limited to the 10th-12th centuries in theCity, perhaps suggesting that dyeing subsequentlybecame more of a commercial enterprise, ratherthan a domestic handicraft (Crowfoot et al 1992,20). The number of madder-stained vesselsfound on the site may indicate the presence ofsmall scale, domestic, textile-related industry.The pits containing madder-stained vessels wereconcentrated in the north-east portion of thesite, perhaps indicating that dye production waslocalised in this area.Medieval development, c. 1200-1350 (Period 5)By the beginning of the 13th century, evidenceof activity on the site had decreased dramatically(Fig 20). Evidence from nearby sites indicatesthat the sunken/cellared buildings, typical of theCripplegate area in the early medieval period,were replaced with more substantial masonryand timber buildings (eg 3 Noble Street). Manyof the City's Guild and merchant houses were alsounder construction by this time: Haberdasher'sHall, Beaumont's Inn, Shelley House, Brewer'sHall, and Neville's Inn. There is evidence thatthe frontage of Silver Street became lined withthe houses of wealthy merchants (Howe & Lakin2004, 78). It is possible that a similar pattern ofdevelopment took place on this site, with thestreet frontages of Staining Lane and Noble Streetlined with larger houses during the 13th century.The intense pitting activities, which had previouslycharacterised the landscape of the northeastarea of the site, all but ceased in Period 5.Most of the pits in this period (Open Area 8,Fig 20) were dug in the same area as the earlierphases of pitting, causing the pottery assemblagesto become very mixed. This was particularly trueof the extensively recut sequence of pits in thesouth of the site. Such intense localised activityindicates that space may have become restrictedby this time. Several pits were dated by pottery tothe second half of the 12th or early 13th century.Some pits are dated after c.1170 by the presenceof South Hertfordshire-type greyware, and/orLondon-type ware decorated in the NorthFrench or Rouen styles. Other pits are datedto C.1140 or later by shelly-sandy ware and/orLondon-type ware early rounded jugs. CoarseLondon-type ware was common during the 12thcentury, as seen in the Period 4 assemblage, butwas going out of production by the beginning ofthe 13th century. The pits cut by a later building(Building 12) contained a medium sizedassemblage of pottery dated to c. 1240-1270;one pit in this sequence had the best-preservedwattle lining recorded on the site. Londontypewares predominate, with sherds from fourcooking pots or jars in South Hertfordshiretypegreyware and one in early Surrey ware.Part of a large Rouen-style baluster or roundedjug (, Fig 21) is clear-glazed, with verticalstrips of alternately red and white slip. A secondLondon-type ware jug has criss-cross sgraffitocombing around the neck, which alone is whiteslippedunder a green glaze (, Fig 21). Thisselective use of white slip is extremely unusual;jugs were either slipped entirely or not at all.The sgraffito technique is also found on anotherLondon-type ware baluster jug from the samegroup (, Fig 21), completely white-slippedunder a clear glaze. Part of a green-glazed jugin the highly decorated style has a series ofcurvilinear, applied plant tendrils around thebody, with applied stamped discs representingflowers (, Fig 21). Jugs with this moreelaborate development of the North Frenchstyle are first found in London c. 1240-1250 (seePearce et al 1985, 19, c/fig 40, no 135; fig 41, no138; fig 55, no 209). As this pottery came fromthe higher end of the local market, it is possiblethat the contents of pits cut by Building 12 werediscarded by a relatively wealthy household.A complicated sequence of wattle-lined pits wasexcavated in the centre of the site in Open Area8 (Fig 20). The later pits appear to have beendug through the centre of earlier ones, resultingin a 'Russian doll' effect, or it is possible thatone large pit was successively cleared out andrelined, gradually becoming smaller. Suchextensive recutting resulted in disturbance ofthe earlier features, demonstrated by the factthat there are numerous sherd links between

172 Jo Lyonr-^-jI II I/ !/ L"TTT-/ / •iCL.J• J Open Area 8/tei^^Builcling 1"M // // // //.v/7vystructure 3^ cesspitI "-LIIi/ // /Q^^•J///! I 1/ '7-.^ / / // //' ^ iI•^JOpen Area 8~7// • • - - ,CL,/^-Â• - ^limit of excavation•HB^^^^wall: found and conjecturedV \ \ ^>' pits; found and conjectured10mFig 20. Medieval development, c. 1200-1350 (Period 5)

New wcrrk on Crippkgate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 173YellowP8RedP9PIOFig 21. Pottery from pits in Open Area 8, Period 5: Rouen-style baluster jug in London-type ware [356]; jug inLondon-type ware with criss-cross sgraffito [356]; baluster jug in London-type ware with sgraffito [356]; greenglazedhighly decorated jug in London-type ware in the highly decorated style [356] (Scale 1:4)

174 Jo Lyonvessels from separate pits in the group. Theceramic assemblage is dated to c. 1290-1350 bysherds in London-type ware, Kingston-type ware,and South Hertfordshire-type greyware. Sherdsfrom tall, tulip-necked baluster jugs in Londontypeware come from a form probably used forstoring and serving wine. The assemblage alsoincludes more decorative vessels, such as jugsin Kingston-type ware and Mill Green warewith white slip decoration. Other pottery inthe group consists mostly of cooking vessels,including the substantial remains of a cauldron(, Fig 22); there are also cooking vesselsin London-type ware, including pipkins (,Fig 22). The only other form identified in SouthHertfordshire-type greyware is a rounded jug(, Fig 22). The sequence of pits also containedthe remains of a large roof finial in coarsePI2PI3PI4Fig 22. Pottery from Open Area 8, Period 5: cauldron in Kingston-type ware [758]; pipkin in Londontypeware [738]; rounded jug in South Hertfordshire-type greyware [758] (Scale 1:4)

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 175London-type ware. Most of the roof tile foundin Period 5 consisted of the common, Londonmadepeg and curved ridge tiles. The presenceof a decorated finial suggests a high statusbuilding in the vicinity.The wealth of the occupants of the site mayhave increased since Period 4, as suggested by theceramic finds, perhaps as a result of the metalworkingand textile-related industries focused inthe area during the early medieval period. Thereis no evidence for madder-staining on the site byPeriod 5, and the metalworking crucibles wereall residual from Period 4. These processes mayno longer have been taking place in the samelocation, or may have continued on a reducedscale. Although good quality, decorative potterymay suggest increased wealth, the record offaunal and floral remains is similar in compositionto that of Period 4, with little evidence forhigh status foodstuffs. Moreover, there is scantevidence for higher status stone buildings, withone possible exception. Building 12 (Fig 20)consisted of a single, extremely robust, chalk pierbase, constructed of Kentish ragstone and chalk,and bonded with a gravely mortar. The pier wasapproximately 5m in depth, from contemporaryland surface, trapezoidal in shape and was clearlyconstructed to carry the weight of a substantialstructure. Curiously, the pier was built inside anearlier watde-lined pit/well, which could accountfor its unusual shape. The earlier pit was datedto c. 1240-1270 by a medium sized assemblage ofpottery, so the pier must have been built after thistime. No other piers were discovered on the site,although similar piled foundations were foundon 3 Noble Street, to the north. These pilestruncated pits still in use in c.1150, which meansthey could have been built up to 90 years earlierthan Building 12. The remains on 3 Noble Streethave been interpreted as those of a large masonrybuilding, perhaps an early medieval hall (Howe& Lakin 2004, 68). As street frontages began tobe built up with masonry buildings in the latemedieval period, wood-lined cesspits were oftensuperseded by chalk-built ones. A chalk-builtcesspit (Structure 3, Fig 20) was discovered atthe eastern extent of the site, close to StainingLane. The latest pottery in the cesspit dates toc.1270-1350.Later medieval development, c.1350-1600(Period 6)By Period 6 activity in Open Area 8 was confinedNr J '''•, ^ylimit of excavationwall: found and conjecturedpits: found and conjectured10mFig 23. Later medieval development, c. 1350-1600 (Period 6)

176 Jo LyonFig 24. Section through inter-cutting late medieval pits, looking north-east (0.50m scale)to one small area in the north of the site, where asequence of unlined pits is dated to c. 1350-1400(Figs 23-24). The pottery is typical of late 14thcenturyassemblages across London. Jugs andcooking pots in coarse Surrey-Hampshire borderware are the most common types present. Thejugs include rounded and baluster forms. Inaddition to Surrey-Hampshire border ware,the pit assemblage includes a near-completerounded drinking jug in Cheam whiteware, firstused in the capital c.1350. The assemblage alsoincludes a virtually complete bone bodkin ortool (, Fig25).A large Kentish ragstone- and chalk-built cellarFig 25. Bone thread picker (Scale 1:1)

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000—2001 177Fig 26. Medieval glass vessels from a backfilled cellar (Building 11): flasks and andprunted beaker (Scale 1:1)(Building 11, Fig 23) was discovered in the northwestarea of the site. The building was probablyconstructed after the nearby pits went out ofuse. The date at which Building 11 was in use isunknown; pottery from the backfill suggests thatit fell out of use between 1480 and 1550. A rangeof cooking pots and jugs was found in Cheamwhiteware and Surrey-Hampshire border ware,used for food preparation, cooking, and serving.Examples of London-area redwares in theassemblage include cauldrons and/or pipkinsand a rounded jug. The backfill also contained asmall assemblage of medieval glass vessels: flasks and (Fig 26), a urinal , and aprunted beaker (Fig 26).The pottery from the pits in Period 6 is relativelyplain and utilitarian; there is no importedpottery or industrial wares. This is a pattern seenacross London at this date, and may be linkedto the impact of the Black Death on ceramicproduction. There is nothing to suggest that therubbish from the backfilled cellar (Building 11)was discarded by a wealthy household, althoughthe sample is not large. The few imported waresin the deposit include the base of a cauldron ortripod pipkin in Dutch red earthenware, and

178 Jo Lyonpart of a large dish in Merida-type micaceousware. Building 11 must have been a buildingof some size, possibly multi-storeyed and frontingonto one of the surrounding streets. Othersites in the area have yielded evidence of largecellared buildings, which housed wealthy occupants(Howe & Lakin 2004, 78).Medieval discussionThe reoccupation of the Cripplegate area in the11th century was characterised by an intenseburst of activity dating to c. 1050-1080, consistingalmost exclusively of wattle- and timber-linedpits and wells, which were probably associatedwith properties fronting onto the surroundingstreet system. The remains of one truncatedearly medieval sunken building (Building 10)were discovered, which seems to have utilisedpart of the south wall of the Roman fort in itsstructure. This is significant, since it impliesthat the wall may still have been visible at thistime. Complicated sequences of early medievalpits were found across the entire site in Period4, the backfills of which contained debris fromdomestic and industrial processes. The absenceof high status pottery and food remains maysuggest that the occupants of the area werenot especially wealthy. The remains of madderstainedvessels and metalworking crucibles showthat dye-production and metalworking werebeing carried out.By the end of the 12th century pitting activitieshad ceased almost completely, possibly becausethe site had become built up with houses. Moredecorative ceramics were discovered in thePeriod 5 pit groups, showing that the wealth ofthe occupants had increased, perhaps as a resultof the earlier dye-making and metalworkingindustries in the vicinity. By Period 6 there wasfurther evidence of the site's development, in theform of a large stone-built cellar and the virtualabsence of pitting. The finds assemblages fromthese features are not indicative of particularlyhigh status, although the sample is too small tobe fully representative.THE POST-MEDIEVAL SEQUENCEPost-medieval development, c.1600-1900(Period 7)By this period the street layout of the Cripplegatearea was fully developed, as depicted on theAgas woodcut map of 1559, which shows thatthe surrounding area was mainly occupied bytenements. Lobel's map of 1520 shows thatthe church of St John Zacharie remained theprincipal building in the vicinity of the site.The map also shows that buildings existedaround the perimeter of the site, and on eitherside of Lilipot Lane, which bisected the site. Inthe early 1600s there was at least one inn onthe site, 'The Chequer', which lay behind thechurch. Camden House, known to have been asubstantial building, also lay to the east of thechurch; part of it was converted into a tavern in1652. The Cripplegate area was devastated by theGreat Fire in 1666, and all buildings on the sitewere destroyed. It was quickly redeveloped afterthe fire, and by the 18th century the streets wereagain lined with tenements. The area remainedunaltered until the 19th century, at which pointwarehouses replaced the tenements. Thesesurvived until the World War II, when they weredestroyed in the Blitz.Anumber of post-medieval cesspits (Structures4, 7, and 9-15, Fig 27), a deep well (Structure7, Fig 27), and other building foundations werefound on the site. A large brick-built culvertrunning east-west across the site (Structure 6,Fig 27), on the approximate line of Lilypot Lane,is shown on historical maps of the area and couldbe associated with the old road. A similar featurewas found on 90-91 and 100 Wood Street, andcould be part of the same feature. Few of themany cesspits recorded on site yielded finds;however, a closely-dated assemblage came froma late post-medieval brick- and chalk-built cesspit(Structure 12, Fig 27). The pottery was probablydiscarded c. 1807-1820, and includes variousteawares and sherds of high quality Englishporcelain. Most interestingly, the cesspit alsocontained a 'Queen Anne' cannon-barrelledpocket pistol, dating to the late 18th century(, Fig 28). The frame and barrel are copperalloy and the wooden stock is made of walnut.Most of the stock and butt are missing, butthey may have been decorated with silver inlay.The side plates are engraved 'BARBAR' and'LONDON' with scrolls and flags. Louis Barbaremigrated from France c.1688 and establishedhimself in Soho (Blackmore 1986, 46). His sonscontinued the family business before setting upon their own, and his grandsons also workedas gunmakers. The pistol may have been madeeither by his son James, who worked at PortugalStreet and Dover Street and died in 1773, or by

New work on Cripplegate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 179limK of excavation^ • 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ wail: found and conjecturedmm^foundation: found and conjectureddrain: found and conjectured(arrow Indicates direction of fiow if i^nown)' 'r. - < " •\ '^, ^>' pits: found and conjectured 10mFig 27. Post-medieval development, c. 1600-1900 (Period 7)

180 Jo LyonFig 28. 'Queen Anne' copper-alloy pistol from cesspit (Structure 12) (Scale 1:2)P49 I IP67P47P62Fig 29. Late 18th-/early 19th-centurystemmed drinking glasses and (Scale 1:2), and bone cottonbarrels and (Scale 1:1),from cesspit (Structure 12)James's son, also James, who was apprenticed tohis father in 1747. Other finds included two late18th- to early 19th-century stemmed drinkingglasses ( and , Fig 29), and two boneobjects ( and , Fig 29), possibly cottonbarrels.Post-medieval discussionThe features in Period 7 must have been associatedwith the tenements on the site at this time. Thehouses were probably mostly residential, althoughtaverns are also known to have occupied the

New work on Crippkgate Fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street, 2000-2001 181site (for example, The Chequer Inn). Thefinds assemblages are domestic in nature, andseem to have come from relatively well-to-dohouseholds. The pistol is an extremely rare findon an archaeological site; it is especially unusualin that it appears to have been discarded whilestill in good condition. Victorian warehouses areknown to have occupied the site until just beforeWorld War II; the only possible evidence for thiswas a brick foundation (Structure 8, Fig 27) inthe southern part of the site.CONCLUSIONSThe site at 25 Gresham Street conforms to thegeneral picture of the Cripplegate area in boththe Roman and medieval periods, adding tothe body of information already provided byprevious sites.The presence of early Roman clay and timberbuildings confirms that the site was occupiedby residential type buildings prior to theconstruction of the fort, and not by an earliermilitary installation (such as a timber fort). Thefort is known to have been constructed betweenAD 120 and 160 (Howe & Lakin 2004, 39-40),and although the site produced no new evidencethat might help to refine this date further, thefort-related features identified on the site haveallowed a number of other issues to be resolved.Most significantly, the discovery of fragmentsof the south wall of the fort, its interval tower,the external fort ditch, and fragments of aninternal barrack block on the site has allowedthe location of the southern extent of the fort tobe more firmly defined.The evidence from nearby sites suggests thatthe fort went out of use by the mid-3rd centuryAD (Howe & Lakin 2004, 45-7), and that this wasprobably related to the construction of the citywall (AD 190-225). It is not known for certainif the fort walls were demolished or remainedstanding, although evidence from the areasuggests that demolition probably occurred.The 3rd-century AD gravel surface found at 25Gresham Street, which respected the line of thesouth fort wall, could indicate that it was stillstanding in some form after the construction ofthe city wall.The medieval evidence from the site addssignificantly to the previous understandingof the Cripplegate area, suggesting that it wasan important centre for dye production andmetallurgy in the early medieval period. TheCripplegate area was reoccupied in the mid-11thcentury. The archaeological evidence from thesite which dates to this period was characterisedby extensive pitting activities, and a medievalsunken building. The pits all contained debrisrelating to domestic and industrial processes;most significantly evidence for copper-alloy metalworking and the production of madder dye wasdiscovered. These industries no doubt greatlyinfluenced the economy of the Cripplegate areaand probably contributed to the increased wealthof the occupants, eventually culminating in thearea becoming fully developed with merchant'shouses and taverns in the post-medieval period.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMoLAS would like to thank Asticus (UK) Limited,in particular David Gibson, for generously fundingthe archaeological work. MoLAS is also gratefulfor the assistance of Matthew Mason and RichardYoung of Buro Four Project Services. Thanks arealso due to members of the Exterior developmentteam, in particular Paul Gransby, Maurice Ogley,and Matt Lawrence, who provided assistanceand advice to MoLAS throughout the excavationprocess; also to Charlie Benson and HenryWoodlark of Whitby Bird and Partners. Keltbrayworked alongside MoLAS during initial stages ofredevelopment of the site, and provided invaluablehelp and advice during this time. In particular theauthor would like to thank Operations ManagerMichael Patefield and Site Foreman Joe Allison.Thanks also to Elizabeth Howe of MoLAS forproject management of the site, and KathrynStubbs, Archaeology Planning Officer for theCorporation of London, for archaeological adviceand support. The author would like to thank thefollowing members of the MoLAS field team, for alltheir hard work during the excavation of the site:Mark Angliss, Andrew Banyasz, Kate Brady, NevilleConstantine, Bob Cowie, Raksha Dave, LauraDerry, Dave Harris, Mark Ingram, Sylvia Kennedy,Bridget Mackernan, Jim Marsh, Clodagh O'Niell,Dominique Quevillon, Katherine Quinteros,Dorella Romanou, Al Telfer, David Thorpe, KellyVincent, and Johanna Vuolteenaho. Thanks alsoto the MoLAS Geomatics Department for onsitesurvey work, and to Maggie Cox of MoLASPhotography for site photographic work. Specialistfinds and environmental analyses and contributionsto the text of the article were provided by Ian Betts,Susan Pringle, Lisa Gray, Jackie Keily, Jane Liddle,Jacqueline Pearce, and Robin Symonds. Theillustrations in this text were compiled by SophieLamb of the MoLAS Drawing Office. This articlehas been edited by Pete Rowsome, David Bowsher,and Elizabeth Howe of MoLAS.

182 Jo LyonNOTES1 The London Archaeological and Archive ResearchCentre, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London, Nl 7ED.2 Tabulated data/detail from the site not published inthis article can be found under the site code of NHG98in the LAARC.BIBLIOGRAPHYAINSLEY (2004), C Ainsley 'The animal bones' inE Howe & D Lakin The Cripplegate Fort MoLASMonograph 21BLACKMORE (1986), H L Blackmore A Dictionary ofLondon Gunmakers 1350-1850BURCH & TREVAIL (in prep), M Burch & P Travailwith P Rowsome Excavations at 1 Poultry: theMedieval Sequence MoLAS MonographBUTLER (2001), J Butler 'The city defences atAldersgate' Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 52,41-111CROWFOOT et al (1992), E Crowfoot, F Pritchard& K Staniland Textiles and Clothing c.ll50-c.l450(Medieval Finds from Excavations in London 4)GRIMES (1968), W F Grimes The Excavation of Romanand Mediaeval LondonHARBEN (1918), H A Harben A Dictionary of LondonHENIG (1978), M Henig A Corpus of Roman EngravedGemstones from British Sites BAR Brit ser 8 (2ndedn)HILL & ROWSOME (in prep), J Hill & P RowsomeExcavations at 1 Poultry: the Roman Sequence MoLASMonographHOWE & LAKIN (2004), E Howe & D Lakin TheCripplegateFortMoLAS Monograph 21MANNING (1985), W H Manning Catalogue of theRomano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in theBritish MuseumMARSDEN (1968), P Marsden 'Archaeological findsin the City of London, 1965-66' Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc 22A, 12-13MILNE (2001), G Milne Archaeology after the Blitz,1946-68: Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate EnglishHeritage Archaeol RepO'CONNOR (1993), T P O'Connor 'Process andterminology in mammal carcass reduction' IntJoum Osteoarchaeology 3, 63-7PEARCE et al (1985), J E Pearce, A Vince & MA Jenner A Dated Type-series of London MedievalPottery: Part 2 London-type Ware London MiddlesexArchaeol Soc Special Paper 6PERRING (1991), D Perring Roman LondonPERRING & ROSKAMS (1991), D Perring & S PRoskams with P Allen The Archaeology of RomanLondon vol 2. Early Development of Roman LondonWest of the Walbrook CBA Research Rep 70SEELEY (2004), F Seeley 'The Roman pottery' inE Howe & D Lakin The Cripplegate Fort MoLASMonograph 21SERJEANTSON (1980), D Serjeantson 'Animalremains and the tanning trade' in B Wilson, CGrigson 8c S Payne (eds) Ageing and Sexing AnimalBones from Archaeological Sites BAR Brit Ser 109,129-46SHEPHERD (in prep) J D Shepherd The CripplegateFort, London: Excavations by W F Grimes and AWilliams 1946-68WALTON (1992), P Walton 'The dyes' in Crowfootetal {19

CROSSED WIRES: THE RE-DATING OF AGROUP OF FUNERARY LEAD CROSSESFROM NEWGATE, LONDONB Sloane and B WatsonSUMMARYThe date and provenance of a group of at least 89 leadfunerary or mortuary crosses found with skeletons nearNewgate Street, City of London, in 1905, and now held bythe British Museum, the Science Museum, and the Museumof London, are radically reappraised. The publishedinterpretations that they were crosses accompanying victimsof the Black Death outbreak of 1348-50 and that thesevictims were probably Franciscans buried in the friarycemetery, are refuted. Instead, the argument is made thatthe crosses certainly date to after 1553, and were mostprobably buried with victims of 'gaol distemper' who diedin nearby Newgate Gaol in the 18th century. The natureand ownership of the cemetery is explored, and the crossesre-evaluated in terms of post-medieval burial practice. Theintriguing story of where the crosses ended up is recounted.INTRODUCTIONOn 7 December 1905, F G Hilton Price, FSA,read to the Society of Antiquaries of London acommunication concerning the discovery of 'anumber of leaden grave crosses near the GreyFriars Monastery, Newgate Street, London' andconcluded that the crosses had been placed withFranciscan friars who had succumbed to theBlack Death in the mid-14th century {Athenaeum1905; Hilton Price 1907) (Fig 1). The area to thesouth of this discovery was investigated during1907-09 (Norman & Reader 1912). The areawhere the crosses were found was to remainuntouched by further development until 1998,when the Museum of London ArchaeologyService (MoLAS) began extensive excavationson the site of the new Merrill Lynch European183Headquarters (Lyon in prep). These excavationslay adjacent to the site of London's medievalFranciscan friary, and were directed in partby one of the present authors (BW). One yearlater, and synchronous with the excavations, thesecond author (BS) was appointed to a ResearchFellowship at the University of Reading, fundedby the Arts and Humanities Research Board(AHRB), to examine the archaeological evidencefor medieval burial practice in Britain. Thesetwo separate strands of research converged on areport written exactly a century ago, concerningthe identity of a cemetery near Newgate, andthe lead crosses interred with its occupants. Reexaminationof the report by the authors revealedthat there were problems with the logic used todate the lead crosses, and over the associationof the site with the medieval Franciscan friary(1225-1538). The case for re-examining the datawas clear.THE ORIGINAL EXCAVATION:CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUMMARY OFDISCOVERIESThe excavations that produced the crossesoccurred as part of a major southward extensionto St Bartholomew's Hospital during the period1903-09, and the specific groundworks whichrevealed the archaeological discovery tookplace in July and August of 1905 (Fig 2). HiltonPrice was not able personally to visit the site, butrelied on two eye witnesses for his information(Hilton Price 1907, 14). The excavation areawas described as being an oblong measuring'about 50 feet by 20 feet [15m by 6m], situated

184 B Sloane and B Watson500mFig 1. Detail of the walled City of London in c.1520, showing the Franciscan friary; the approximate findspot of the crossesis marked (see Fig 2 for more detail)close to the wall near the southern extremityof the St Bartholomew's Hospital property, andextending partly beneath the old swimming bathof the Bluecoat School'. The excavation wasabout 20ft (6m) deep, and was 'upon the siteof the playground and bath of Christ's HospitalSchool' {ibid, 15). There also appears to havebeen a second area nearby subjected to someform of watching brief, as Hilton Price {ibid, 18)describes an area 'just outside the city wall, inthe south east corner of the site' where a brickstructure and further burials were encountered.Reconstructing the sequence of archaeologicalfeatures from Hilton Price's report is difficult,as no plans or sections were published. Thenatural geology at the base of the trench wasLondon Clay. Above this there was some form oflarge pit, whose base was upwards of 20ft (6m)below the contemporaneous ground level. Thewidth of the pit is not given, but must have beenvery considerable since all the later graves weredescribed as cut into it. The basal fill of the pit

184 B Sloane and B Watson500mFig 1. Detail of the walled City of London in c.1520, showing the Franciscan friary; the approximate findspot of the crossesis marked (see Fig 2 for more detail)close to the wall near the southern extremityof the St Bartholomew's Hospital property, andextending partly beneath the old swimming bathof the Bluecoat School'. The excavation wasabout 20ft (6m) deep, and was 'upon the siteof the playground and bath of Christ's HospitalSchool' {ibid, 15). There also appears to havebeen a second area nearby subjected to someform of watching brief, as Hilton Price {ibid, 18)describes an area 'just outside the city wall, inthe south east corner of the site' where a brickstructure and further burials were encountered.Reconstructing the sequence of archaeologicalfeatures from Hilton Price's report is difficult,as no plans or sections were published. Thenatural geology at the base of the trench wasLondon Clay. Above this there was some form oflarge pit, whose base was upwards of 20ft (6m)below the contemporaneous ground level. Thewidth of the pit is not given, but must have beenvery considerable since all the later graves weredescribed as cut into it. The basal fill of the pit

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 1854^ ^".0• ^ ^ ^^ 1/''Nf^"î(B18 X , ! 1KEY~^ City Walls and bastionsI I extent of tlie cemetery1900 boundary lineAW3E""^1903 boundary linecmncot^^t, «< -J Newgate Gate House (post medieval)» e&O u. o o'''cO oo a'-c)"tgi'Ûj. LJ swimming pool100mFig 2. The area of the site in 1903, showing the principal buildings of Christ's Hospital and the extent of the cemeteryas determined by map regression and the approximate location of the 1905 excavation described by Hilton Price (Christ'sHospital archive)was described as dirty grey gravel. The upper fillswere not described.Numerous graves were cut into the upperlevels of the pit. Here, the report becomesconfusing. It would appear that two areas ofburial were encountered, totalling some 400skeletons. In one area, many of these were found'in boxes, about 14 feet (4.3m) in length, whichhad entirely rotted away' (Hilton Price 1907,15). These appear to be distinct from thosegraves cut into the upper levels of the largepit, and may have lain in a separate part of theexcavation. The burials cut into the pit wereplaced in separate graves, the bodies laid oneabove the other with over 1ft (0.3m) of earthbetween each, and arranged 'about eight deep'.The highest grave was about 8ft (2.4m) from thesurface. This would suggest that the lowest levelswere some 16ft (5.5m) below ground level andperhaps 4ft (1.2m) above the base of the largepit. This detail is contradicted by Hilton Price'sfirst account of the site, in which the excavationarea was described as a single mass burial pit{Athenaeum 1905).Many of the skeletons were well preserved,with hair surviving in a number of cases. Theindividual (rather than boxed) inhumationswere found without any trace of coffins, but wereclothed in 'coarse frocks', and about 100 leadcrosses were found with them. The crosses wereplain 'that is to say they are uninscribed', andhad been found 'possibly laid upon their [theskeletons'] breasts' (Hilton Price 1907, 15-16),although the exact positions were uncertain. Ofthese, Hilton Price managed to retain 89 whichhe displayed before the Society of Antiquaries.One of the interments was found accompaniedby a bronze figure of Christ, 2Min (70mm) high,from a crucifix. Hilton Price identified it asvery good 14th-century work. Two graves wereapparently accompanied by letters fashionedfrom lead; a 'B' and a 'C, while another grave

186 B Sloane and B Watsonwas accompanied by a lead disk, pierced by threeholes IVs in (42mm) in diameter (Hilton Price1907, 18).The only other archaeological feature to bedescribed (situated in the south-eastern cornerof the site) was a brick structure containing aninhumation in a wooden coffin. The skeletonwas accompanied by a silver crucifix, and theletters 'P' and 'S' and the number '6' in lead.Hilton Price estimated the date of these itemsto be 16th-century. The brick structure was, hesuggested, the friary charnel house. Finally, helisted some other finds from 'other parts of theexcavations': a green-glazed earthenware jugwith the arms of Henry VIII on it; a candlestickand sherds of Metropolitan slipware (so of 17thcenturydate); and coarse, brown glazed pottery'with devices in relief (Hilton Price 1907, 19).Despite the fact that Hilton Price (1907, 15;18) was aware of the existence of a post-medievalcemetery on the site, he dated the burials tothe medieval period solely on the basis of thepresence of a medieval bronze figure of Christfound with one the burials. He concluded 'thatthese crosses belonged to members of the FriarsMinors in London who had died of the BlackDeath in the great visitation of 1348-1349'(1907, 17). It is certain that Hilton Price wasmistaken about the context of the site, andtherefore assigned an incorrect date to both thegraves and crosses.LOCATION AND HISTORY OF THE SITEThe site has been redeveloped a number of timessince the early 19th century, and now lies partiallyunder the new Merrill Lynch buildings, and partlyunder the Horder Wing of St Bartholomew'sHospital. As the confusion over whether the sitewas intra- or extramural is central to Hilton Price'sdating, a map regression exercise was undertakento relate the location of the 1905 excavation tothe line of the city wall and the post-medievalcemetery. This exercise shows that the site describedby Hilton Price lay beyond the city walland direcdy above the city ditch. The centre ofthe 1905 site was situated approximately at NGR531,910/181,463. Fig 3 shows a schematic crosssection of the site, showing the 13th-century cityditch as revealed by archaeological investigationsin the locality, with an approximation of how theburials described by Hilton Price could have beensituated within the infill of the city ditch.^The medieval city ditch within the Newgatearea was 18-23m in width. The base of the cityditch has been recorded locally at 9.1-10.3mCD (the former is some 8m below modernground level). The sequence of deposits withinthe ditch was: primary fills (wet, silt stained,sandy gravel) top 9.6-11.6m OD, then waterlainsilts (top 11.9-13.Im OD), which were sealedby systematic infilling during the 16th century.Excellent organic preservation of finds occurredwithin the lower ditch fills (Lyon in prep).It is documented that in 1553 the 'town ditch'from Newgate to Aldersgate was 'stoppyed upwith brycke and made playne [with the] erthe'(Nichols 1852, 77). Evidence of a 16th-centurybrick culvert constructed within the infilledditch was discovered during 1999 archaeologicalwork at the Merrill Lynch headquarters (Watson2000, 10). A postern gate was let through the citywall to permit access from Christ's Hospital to StBartholomew's Hospital. To span the (now mostlychoked) city ditch, a footbridge was constructed.Stow states that the postern and bridge wereconstructed in 1547-48 (Kingsford 1908, I, 34).These must have lain immediately to the east ofthe site, and a masonry foundation encounteredduring an archaeological evaluation of theHorder Wing of St Bartholomew's Hospital mayhave been a remnant of the footbridge (Tyler1999,23).In 1552 the former premises of Greyfriars,apart from the monastic church, was establishedas a new Royal Hospital, known as Christ'sHospital, which functioned as an orphanageand school (Allan 1984, 11). In 1538 the choirof the former friary church was taken over by thenew parish of Christ Church. This new parish,according to Stow, took in the former precinctof Greyfriars, that of St Bartholomew's Hospital,and the parishes of St Nicholas Shambles and StAudoen Newgate, as well as part of the parish ofSt Sepulchre (Dyson 1997, 78; Kingsford 1908,I, 318). The 1905 site thus fell within the newparish. The registers show that by February 1539baptisms were being undertaken (Littledale1895). The first burial apparently took place in1541 (although these dates were altered from1538 in the register: ibid, 257). The site of theparochial cemetery of Christ Church during themid-16th century is uncertain.The earliest map of the site is the recentlydiscovered section of the so-called 'Copperplatemap' of 1559 (Schofield 2001). This shows, inelevational format, Christ's Hospital within thecity wall, the wall's bastions, and, beyond, the

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 187modern ground levelN7.00rnOD7XKEYMedieval city ditch5m• City ditch infill^1^1\/^^JRoman and Post-Roman archaeological depositsbrickearthsiltsprimary infillt".-.':j terrace gravelsrnLondon clayFig 3. Schematic cross-section of the medieval city wall and ditch showing geology and depths of various archaeologicaldeposits and an approximation of how the burials from the cemetery could have been situated within the infilled cityditchpostern and bridge. The city ditch is shown asinfilled by this period, and the space is shownas open between the city wall and that of StBartholomew's Hospital precinct to the north.There is no evidence of a cemetery at this date.The London woodcut map of c. 1562-3 showshouses built over the Giltspur Street stretch ofthe city ditch, while the area of the ditch thatwas to become the burial ground is still shown asopen space (Procket & Taylor 1979).For the 17th century there are a numberof detailed maps relating to Christ's and StBartholomew's Hospitals, and it is clear that,by the early 17th century, the land west of thepostern bridge had become a cemetery. Theearliest map is the 1617 Treswell map of StBartholomew's Hospital (Fig 4). It clearly showsthe city wall, with the postern and the footbridge.West of the footbridge, a rectangular plot ofland is labelled as 'Church yard belonging toChristchurch'. East of the footbridge adjoiningBastion 18 (RCHM(E) 1928, 104), was a spacecalled 'Ye Car yard to Christ Hospitall'.^While the cartographic evidence for this newcemetery is clear, there is very little in the way ofpublished documentation concerning its foundation.The parish registers for Christchurch,Newgate Street, covering the years 1541-1754are incomplete, and there are no entries for theperiod between August 1588 and November 1666(Littledale 1895). Also the surviving entries donot distinguish between burials in the cemeteriesand those in the church.A plan of C.1650 (Fig 5) shows the layout ofChrist's Hospital in detail. To the north of thecity wall the cemetery is simply called 'Church

•"«, -. «fc.'»Fig 4. An 18th-century copy of Ralph TresweU's 1610 survey of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the City wall, showingthe postern and bridge out of Christ's Hospital and the cemetery to its right (west) (© British Library Crace Collection,Maps. Crace VIII, 92)

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 189/ri—T—'100mFig 5. Detailed plan of Christ's Hospital c. 1650 showing the site of the cemetery north of the City walls (GuildhallLibrary Print Room Pr. 141/CHR) (notefigure reversed to show N at top)yard'. Already there is evidence that the cemeterywas suffering from encroachment. Inthe south-eastern corner is a 'Conduit yard',while in the north-eastern corner is a buildingentitled 'J Kevill shed'. The 'grave yard' whichwas indicated on the 1617 map is not mentioned(and may actually have been a mis-reading of the'Car yard' of 1610). This area is simply called'The Towne Ditch'.Following the Great Fire of 1666, the area wassurveyed by John Ogilby in 1676 (Hyde 1976).The cemetery was now called the 'hospitalchurchyard', while the land east of the posternremained known as the 'town ditch'. Within thecity walls, the friary church had been destroyedin the Great Fire; between 1674 and 1687 theparish church of Christ Church was rebuilt onthe site of the old friary choir (Jeffery 1996,190).The extramural cemetery continued in usethrough the greater part of the 18th century.The western portion of this cemetery is shown asthe 'Burying Ground' on Rocque's map of 1746,but by this date the adjoining eastern portion ofthe city ditch was already partly built over (Hyde1982, 4). The area of the 'Burying Ground' wasalso shown as open space on Horwood's map of1792-93 (Laxton 1985, 14). In 1795 an Act ofParliament allowed the Governors of Christ'sHospital to enlarge both their premises inLondon and Hertford (Act 1795). The preambleto the act stated that it would be necessaryto 'appropriate a Piece of Ground called theBurying Ground of the Parifhioners of the Parifhof Christ Church Newgate Street, and the prifonersof Newgate...'. It was stated that the Christ'sHospital held this land from the Corporation ofLondon. In return for waiving their right to usetheir existing burial ground, the parishionersof Christ Church Newgate were to be given a

190 B Sloane and B Watsonnearby plot of land as a replacement. This wasto be acquired by Christ's Hospital specificallyfor this purpose. This new burial ground wasalso to be used by prisoners of Newgate. It wascreated by extending the existing cemetery of StBotolph's, Aldersgate, westwards (to King EdwardStreet), forming an open space now known asPostman's Park (Act, 1795, Third Schedule). Thisarrangement allowed the old burying ground tobe closed and subsequently built over during the1795-1835 redevelopment of the school.The last cartographic evidence of the cemeterydates to c.1810 (Fig 6), where the cemetery islabelled as 'Burial ground for Newgate & forpoor of Christ's Church'. By 1825, the cemeteryhad been completely taken into the extendedprecinct of Christ's Hospital allowed for by the1795 Act, and the new Great Hall had beenerected over its southern half. Further buildingsfollowed, including the boys' washroom, bathhouse and latrines, and, in 1870, the swimmingpool building (Lempriere 1913, 506). Theschool remained here until 1902, when it wasrelocated to Horsham, Sussex (Allan 1984, 11,76). The site of Christ's Hospital was disposedof in two portions. The first one (Vs acre, 2529square m) was sold to St Bartholomew's Hospital,which was redeveloped during 1903-04 as thenew out-patients' block (D'arcy Power & Waring1923, 91-2). The second portion was sold to thePost Office and redeveloped as the King EdwardBuildings General Post Office during 1907-09(Norman & Reader 1912, 274), which in turnwas redeveloped again during 1998-2000,when it was transformed into the new MerrillLynch Headquarters (Lyon in prep). A planmade in 1903 shows clearly the disposition ofthese buildings at the time of the transplant ofChrist's Hospital, and immediately prior to thebeginning of the redevelopments of 1903-09 in30mFig 6. The area of Giltspur Street and the boundary between the properties of Christ's and St Bartholomew's Hospitals inc.1810. The cemetery is marked (Guildhall Library Print Room Pr. 259/GIL)

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 191which the burials and funerary crosses came tohght(Fig2).OBSERVATIONS ON THE NATURE OFTHE CROSSESHilton Price furnished his audience with a broadconsideration of the crosses and their manufacture.He considered it likely that they hadbeen cut with shears and chisels from milledsheet lead, and then hammered out (HiltonPrice 1907, 20-1). Recent examination of aselection of the crosses by Geoff Egan has shownthat Hilton Price's observation concerning theirmanufacture requires some revision. Fig 7 showsthree examples demonstrating the variety ofform that can be found in the collections, whileFig 8 provides basic, scaled silhouette outlines ofa wide selection of the crosses to give a furtheridea of the range.It is quite apparent that the crosses were all verypoorly made by unskilled labour. No experiencedsheet-metal worker would have made objectsthis crude. The overall size of the individualcrosses varies, as do the shape and dimensionsof their arms. The crosses vary in length from54 to 165mm. They were clearly not made froma standard template, but look more like a seriesof individual efforts by a number of differentpeople. If just one or two individuals had madethem then a better standard of workmanshipwould have been expected. Also if a templateof some description had been used then a muchgreater degree of standardisation would haveresulted. The crosses were probably cut fromsheet lead by knives (not by shears or chisels).In many places this process is marked as a seriesof short, jagged cuts. One cross (SM A654859)shows evidence of having been cast in a verycrude and leaky mould, with very substantialamounts of flashing remaining between thecross arms and no evidence of having been cut,milled, or hammered.A large number of crosses have one relativelysmooth face (the original sheet face), and onewith a ribbed or slighted hammered appearance.This is due to the sheet metal being rolled (withsomething like a rolling pin, presumably a largemetal rod) to flatten it, after it had been cut intoa cross. This process has resulted in some veryFig 7. Detail of three of the kad crosses, two letters, and the number '6' (err possibly '9') found on the site. Dimensions/details:P (A3370) L 108mm, S (A3369) L 105mm, 6 (A3371) L 94mm (courtesy ofMoL)

192 B Sloane and B WatsonBritish Museum CrossesHilton Price Crosses not identified inlater collections(from photos in Proc Soc Antiq for 1905)0 100mmMuseum of London Crossesft+ +12 132016 j» 16•^»22 23 S24 25 26Museum of London Crosses27T I J " * '*Wellcome Trust/Science Museum Crosses320 100mmFig 8. Silhouette plans of a broad selection ofthe crosses to show relative sizes and styles. Notethat some of the crosses were unavailable forillustration at the time of preparation for thisarticle. For numbers phase refer to Appendix

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary had crosses from Newgate, London 193thin sheets, and the distortion of the originaledges. In some instances the rolled ends of thearms of the crosses have been folded over («g-MoLA8904e) or in others probably accidentally turnedover or creased/crumpled during handling {egMoL NN18702). Some crosses have a curved anddistorted appearance due to this rolling process.Several of the crosses have a single punchedhole, always off-centre and sometimes so closeto the edge of the metal it cannot have beenintended to fix the cross to another objectsuch as a shroud. Instead this hole may havebeen intended to secure the sheet metal duringcutting (a number of the holes certainly predatethe rolling process).Of the other finds, the letters 'S', 'C and 'P'were probably cast in crude clay moulds, thenfinished by being worked into their final shape bycold hammering. Due to extensive hammering ofthe edges their mode of manufacture is not certain(as any cut marks will have been obscured). The'6' was probably initially cast too, but it has someevidence of rolling as well as being hammered.The tiny (probably silver?) crucifix is certainlyof post-medieval date and has a flattened loop onthe top arm of the cross (L 28mm). The somewhatuninspired figure of Christ was made separately.The nature of the crosses and the letters,therefore, strongly suggests that they were createdby a number of different unskilled workers usingvery crude techniques and simple tools, working tothe most basic of designs. The crosses were clearlynot being made for the commercial market. Thislends powerful weight to the hypothesis that thoseburied with them were certainly at the lower endof the social strata.THE CHARACTER OF THE CEMETERYAND THE PEOPLE BURIED THEREIt is clear that the cemetery revealed during 1905was the one belonging to Christ Church, NewgateStreet. From cartographic and documentaryevidence it is certain that the cemetery wasestablished by the early 17th century, and wasstill (at least partly) in use in the early 19thcentury. The crosses and other finds discoveredwith the interments are, therefore, not relatedto either the medieval Black Death visitations,or the Franciscan friary. Who, then, were thoseburied in the cemetery, and why were at least 100of them accorded burial with lead crosses?Christ Church already had a cemetery, establishedin the early 1540s, the location of whichis uncertain. Possibly it was situated within theformer intramural cemetery of the Franciscans, orburial may have taken place within the monasticcloisters.^ In addition to the former precinct, thenew parish of Christ Church took in the formerparishes of St Audoen's and St Nicholas in theShambles, so burial may initially have continuedat cemeteries attached to these churches untiltheir closure in 1552. After the Great Fire, thenave of the old friary church was demolished,and a new cemetery established on its site(Jeffery 1996, 190). This area is still public openspace. However, a new burial area was needed forthe parish by the early 17th century. Harding'srecent work on the early modern burialgrounds of London and Paris demonstratesthat a combination of mounting populationand recurrence of epidemics in the late 16thand early 17th centuries prompted the Courtof Aldermen in 1604 to establish a committeeto find more burial space (Harding 2002, 99).Individual parishes responded to the problemby acquiring additional land wherever possible,and the open land left by the infilling of the cityditch was utilised in this fashion by St BotolphAldgate in 1615 and St Botolph Bishopsgate in1617. The new churchyard at Christ Church wasalmost certainly established within this context,and may indeed have been among the earliest.Such new churchyards were not initially popularwith parishioners, and in response to thisreluctance, some vestries created two-tier burialpricing. It followed, therefore, that the lesswealthy would tend to be buried in the newcemetery areas. Harding has also shown thatthe cheaper areas of churchyards were, perhapsunsurprisingly, much more often used for parishpensioners, servants, and foundlings (ie thosewithout known family nearby) than were churchinteriors (Harding 2002, 58-9). The ChristChurch cemetery was, therefore, likely to haveserved the poorer members of the communityand those with no one to organise and pay for aprivate burial, and certainly by 1810 this was itsexplicit role, as the map evidence indicates.It is most likely to have been such 'lower' churchyardsthat were also the locations for the massgraves, dug in years of high mortality associatedwith various epidemics, and culminating inthe exceptional events of 1665. Hilton Price'saccount of the very large wooden boxes (14ft/4.3m in length) containing numerous burials maywell represent the archaeological evidence forsuch mass graves. It seems inherently probable

194 B Sloane and B Watsonthat these were not transportable boxes, but revettedpits, and we might look to contemporarydescriptions of plague burials in London in 1625,where authorities were compelled 'to dig Graveslike little cellers, piling up forty or fifty in a Pit'(quoted in Harding 2002, 66). The absence atChrist Church of any churchwardens' accounts forthe years between 1588 and 1666 means that wehave no direct information on mass burials in theplague outbreaks between these years, and thereare no obvious references before or after, but itdoes seem likely that at least part of the cemeterywas set aside for plague burials from time to time.However, the mass burials were not those thatwere accompanied by the lead crosses. The latterwere found apparently within individual shaftscontaining up to eight inhumations buried oneabove the other. We further believe that theywere buried without coffins (since no woodwas found), and had all been dressed in similarcoarse smocks. Such a standardised, repeated,and very modest burial rite, associated withmultiple burials strongly suggests some kind ofinstitutional system for disposing of the dead,yet the evidence from the crosses themselvessuggests that this was no case of mass-productionby a single source (through the use of moulds forexample). To determine who these people mighthave been is something of a detective story.Firstly, we know from the 1795 Act and the 1810map that the cemetery was used for the poor andfor prisoners from Newgate. The parish registers(Littledale 1895) clearly confirm this. Between1579 and 1734 no fewer than 1,011 individualsin the burial register are described as being'from Newgate', and that excludes the missing78 years of the register. The term ceases to beused in 1734 and for the remaining 20 years ofthe registers appears to be replaced by the term'prisoner'. Between 1691 and 1754 (the periodwhen the register seems to be most consistent)1,879 individuals described in these terms wereburied in a cemetery area of Christ Church. Thatprisoners were being buried in a cemetery ofChrist Church is also clear from contemporarymid-18th-century accounts. Strype et al (1754, i,683) recorded that many prisoners awaiting trialor punishment in Newgate gaol often contracteda disease called 'Gaol Distemper' (typhoid),due to overcrowding and insanitary conditions,'of which they die by dozens, and cartloadsof them are carried out and thrown into a pitin the churchyard of Christ Church, withoutany ceremony'. So, the cartographic evidence,the Act of Parliament, and the burial registersseem to combine to show that the extramuralcemetery was the recipient of thousands ofbodies of those who had died in Newgate Gaol,and that mass burial was involved. The mannerand place of death of those buried would tendto have precluded any normal family burial,and there thus may have been the need for aninstitutional burial rite.However, the registers also show anothergroup of dispossessed, who may also have beenthe recipients of an institutional burial. At least509 individuals are described as 'almswomen'or 'pensioners' between 1691 and 1754. Manyparishes supported their poor and destitute,but this number is significantly high. It seemsprobable that the almsmen and women ofChrist's Hospital were also being buried in thecemetery on a regular basis.A third identifiable institutional burial group inthe registers are those described as being from theWorkhouse. However, we can certainly discountthese as being the recipients of the crosses sinceonly 13 individuals are so identified.Returning then to the archaeological evidence,we need to establish whether either of the twomost likely groups were being buried in thesort of numbers that would correlate with thearchaeological evidence described by Hilton Priceof narrow, shaft burials with eight inhumationsone above the other. Firstly, the descriptionmay have resulted from the misinterpretationof discrete individual inhumations that, seenin section, appeared to overlie each other Theuse of a narrow, unlined, shaft for mass burialis unusual compared with the deep, broad,mass burial pits or trenches such as have beenrecorded at the Black Death cemetery of EastSmithfield (Grainger et alin prep), or at the siteof London's 'New Churchyard' of 1569 (Malt &Hunting 1991, 35; Malt & White 1987), and suchas are commonly referred to in contemporaryparish registers. The form of this shaft wouldpreclude being left open for any length of time,since the sides would simply have collapsed. Btitthree London excavations have shown that it wascertainly used. At St Mary Spital, several shafts ofthis kind, dating to the 15th and 16th centuries,one containing as many as 12 individuals,have recently been excavated (Chris Thomaspers comm), while others were encounteredalongside more typical later 16th-century massgraves at the New Churchyard (Malt & Hunting1991, 31-6), and at the 19th-century lower

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 195cemetery of St Brides in Farringdon Street (AMiles pers comm). Hilton Price's recountedobservations therefore cannot be ruled out asmistaken.Since the parish registers give the precisedate of each burial, it is possible to calculatefor each day of each year how many prisonersand how many pensioners were being recordedas buried on the same date (and thus possiblyreceiving a common grave). Between 1691 and1754, the year of greatest mortality for prisoners(including those from Newgate) was 1729, when92 prisoners were buried and seven pensioners.Prisoner burials exceeded 50 in 12 years duringthis same period (1698, 1724-30 inclusive, 1737,1740-41, and 1750). In contrast, pensionerburials never exceeded 27 in any year. Thehighest numbers of burials recorded were in1746 (26) and 1747 (27). In terms of potentialmass burial, the highest recorded group buriedin one day was that of eight prisoners on 21February 1729 (officially then 1728 of course).Another group of seven was buried on 18January 1740. A further five groups of five burialscan be identified, 12 groups of four burials, and75 potential triple burials. Again, in contrast,never were more than three pensioners buriedon the same day: this number occurred onlythree times.Given that about 100 lead crosses wererecovered from these shaft graves, it wouldappear that the only recorded group who weredying in sufficient numbers to be buried upto eight deep (at least in the records that areavailable) were the prisoners from NewgateGaol. The crude nature of the crosses themselvesis of note here. The extremely simple approachof sheet lead being knife-cut, hammeredand/or rolled without a template and with noregard for finish suggests that the makers wereentirely unskilled. It does seem conceivable thateach cross could have been manufactured byprisoners for themselves or for dying inmates(assuming that the sheet lead was available andthat the rolling and hammering tools were ofa kind accessible within the cells), or even thatjailers were bribed to provide such items. Putanother way, it is hard to imagine people atliberty setting about making such items. No workwas provided for prisoners until the 19th century'although debtors always had the right to followtheir trades, and many other prisoners wouldmake goods for sale to help support themselves'(Byrne 1992,30).However, if this was the case, and crosseswere routinely offered to those who had diedincarcerated, then such a circumstance wouldsurely have left many more crosses than 100to be found by Hilton Price, as thousands ofprisoners were likely to have been buried in thisground. Two further options should therefore beconsidered. The first is that the burial practicewas an idiosyncrasy of a single sexton (or possiblyjailer?), and that therefore the crosses were onlymanufactured for a single generation. In supportof this the coincidence of multiple burials with thedecades between the 1720s and the 1750s wouldallow for a single practitioner to have providedthe crosses. The crude and highly variable form ofthe crosses argues against a single source however,and the Ordinary of Newgate Accounts (accountsof felons' final days published by the prisonchaplain) for 1687-1747 (Corporation of LondonGuildhall Library AN 20.1.2, S L3/1) reveal noevidence whatever concerning the mode of burialof prisoners during this period.A second option is that within the overallcategory of 'prisoner', there was a further subsetof society with whom it was appropriate to burysuch crosses. One possibility is that of gender.Returning to the parish registers, between 1691and 1754 a noteworthy total of 478 (25.4%) of the1,879 people who were described either as 'fromNewgate' or 'prisoner' were women. Multipleburials of women on the same day are indicatedfrom the registers, but the greatest single numberwas that of three women who were buried onChristmas Eve 1747. If the description of shaftscontaining eight burials provided with crosses isaccurate, sex was not the defining character.Another possible subgroup is of distinctreligious groups, although it must be emphasisedthat we have no evidence for any employing leadfunerary crosses at this date in any context. Theearliest group with a specific link to Newgateprison may be that of the nonconformists, sorelyaffected by the events of the early 1660s. Recordsrelating to Newgate prison show that followingthe passing of the Act of Uniformity (1661) andthe Conventicles Act (1664) large groups ofnonconformists were imprisoned in Newgate. Ofthe 120 Quakers jailed there for nonconformityin 1665, 52 died of plague (Crippen 1909, 377).Such discrimination continued into the late 17thcentury and beyond, so it is conceivable that theidentity of oppressed religious groups mightbe expressed in their funerary arrangements.Religious oppression of this order had begun

196 B Sloane and B Watsonto fade during the first half of the 18th century,following such laws as the Tolerance Act of 1738,so Roman Catholics (and other minority groupssuch as the French Prophets) may have felt morefreely able to articulate specific burial practicesdespite desperate straits imposed by prison.Thus, not being incarcerated for their faith, butfor other, secular crimes, they were allowed someaspect of its expression in death. This hypothesishas the advantage of also tying in with the peaksof mass burial suggested by the parish registers.Clearly there are very significant gaps in thedocumentary coverage of the registers, and clearlythere may have been other groups being disposedof who were not identified by description inthe registers, so no absolute certainty exists. Itdoes, however, seem plausible that the repeateddevastation caused by disease, and especiallytyphoid, among the wretched populationincarcerated in Newgate gaol provoked somekind of crude response in those set to bury theircorpses, and that rude lead crosses were placedin the folds of their 'coarse frocks' before theirbodies were lowered into their unmarked shafts.THE HISTORY OF THE CROSSES: ASTORY OF DISPERSAL AND CHINESEWHISPERSThe post-discovery history of the crosses is everybit as interesting as their excavation. They werereported, and displayed, at a lecture of theSociety of Antiquaries in 1905 {Athenaeum 1905,841). They then began to find their way intopublic, and private, collections.At least four of the crosses were accessioned atthe British Museum in the same year (BM accessionnumbers 1905,1121.1-1121.4), and a further sixwere accessioned in 1906 (BM 0514.1-0514.6).They bear differing descriptions, suggesting theyformed two separate acquisitions. The first aredescribed simply as plain, thin, lead-alloy crosses,with edges irregularly beaten out, and assigned asuggested date of 14th to 15th century. They wereprovenanced to Christ's Hospital. The secondgroup were not assigned a date, and described asplain, flat, lead mortuary crosses.A further six crosses were acquired by theGuildhall Museum before 1908, enteringthe museum's catalogue as number 249 (GM1908, 23) and accessioned as 8904. These weredescribed as 'Mortuary crosses (six), roughlycut in lead, from graves on the site of GreyFriars' Monastery (Christ's Hospital); perhaps1348-9; from 31/2 in x IM in to 5M in x Wi in'.Such a location would have been taken as beingcertainly intramural at the time: the hospital stillstood and some elements of the old friary wereprobably still visible.Hilton Price clearly held many of the crosseshimself for a time, perhaps all of the remainder.One of the group acquired by the WellcomeInstitute (see below) had an anonymous noteattached: 'Leaden Cross, from Plague pit of1348-9, site of Christ Church, London, 1907(One of these laid/on breast of each body).Given me by Mr F G Hilton Price. Dec. 08' (SMaccession A17456). It seems likely too that thecollection of 32 crosses accessioned at the LondonMuseum in 1912 (MoL accession numbersA3336-A3367) may have been obtained from theHilton Price collection. In the catalogue, thesewere described as 'Leaden mortuary crossesfound with interments on the site of Grey Friarsmonastery'. They were given a date of the 14thcentury, and were provided with a broad locationof 'Newgate Street'. This effectively cementedthe intramural location. At least eight, andprobably significantly more, of these crosseswere subsequently auctioned in 1920, a numberof which were bought by the Wellcome Institute.The Wellcome Institute appears to have obtainedits first example in 1919, the one donatedin 1908 by Hilton Price to a friend, when it waspurchased in Stevens's Auction Rooms in CoventGarden in December 1919 for the considerablesum of 16 shillings.* Stevens's, a respected andbusy auction house, was the source for severalfurther acquisitions: two crosses for 5s in August1920 (SM accessions A635017 and A635018),and six in December of that year (SM A635015and A635016; A654844-A654846; and A9076)for a total price of £1 6s 3d. A further groupwas that acquired from the London Museum.Three of an otherwise undated group still bearthe original London Museum accession numbers(MoL accessions LM A3344, A3358, A3367), andby association, a total of 17 crosses may have beenacquired at this time (SM A654840-A654843;A654847-A654859). The Wellcome Institutehad thus gathered a total of 26 crosses by 1921.In the London Museum Medieval Catalogue 27crosses were listed in the collections, and anadditional five examples were described as incollections of the Guildhall Museum (WardPerkins 1940, 290). At least eight crosses hadbeen sold by the London Museum by the endof 1920 (there are currently 21 accessions of the

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary had crosses from Newgate, London 197original 32 obtained in 1912). The remainingeleven examples are 'not traced', a numberwhich includes all eight definitely sold in 1920,so it may be that three examples were disposedof at this time.The notes that were made of the provenanceof the crosses are contradictory and complex.Most describe the fact that the crosses wereplaced on the breasts of plague victims at theGreyfriars, and dated to 1348-50, in line withHilton Price's original surmise. Two, however,are noted as 'Lead mortuary cross from monasticvictim of the plague, English, 1601-1700', andone is described as being from Greyfriars, butdated to the 12th century. In the London MuseumMedieval Catalogue the crosses were describedas 'found with internments at Christ's HospitalNewgate Street, on the site of Grey Friars' burialground' (Ward Perkins 1940, 290).A further cross was presented to the LondonMuseum in November 1929 by a Mrs Greg orGrey. It apparently originated in the HiltonPrice collection, and was described as a 'Leadencoffin cross, medieval' from 'London' (LondonMuseum accession 29.186/1). One more surfacedat another auction at Steven's Auction Roomsin September 1934, identified as being fromChrist's Hospital, and purchased by the WellcomeInstitute for 17s 6d (SM accession A205305).Specimens from the original group clearlywent a considerable distance with their owners.In 1951, the Guildhall Museum acquired a cross(MoL accession GH 17155) from the LeicesterMuseum as part of a collection of London materialformerly owned by the late Mr V B Crowther-Beynon FSA. He was President of the NumismaticSociety in the 1930s, and endower of CambridgeUniversity's eponymous fund for archaeology andanthropology. The cross fi'om his collection washonoured with the most specific description yet:'Leaden mortuary cross, found, with interment,in the Lesser Cloister, Grey Friary, NewgateStreet, AD 1348-9, Christ's Hospital 1905'. Itmeasured 4.7in by 3.6in. It was joined by a giftof two more crosses (MoL accessions GH 255585and 255586), this time from the Bridgnorth andDistrict Historical Society, in 1971. These wereaccompanied by written cards defining them as'absolution' crosses, each found with 'a humanskeleton, a friar, in a great pit containing about400 skeletons uncovered during excavationson the site of the churchyard of the Grey-FriarsMonastery (Christ's Hospital), Newgate Street,London ECThe most poorly provenanced are a curiousgroup of five crosses currently on loan to theScience Museum from the Wellcome Institute,and originally held in the latter's 'strongroom'(SM accessions Al 15565, A629427, A629445-A629447). These are not the originals, butinstead are copies (made in Willesden) ofcrosses lent for exhibition at Antwerp, Dresden,and Buenos Aires. We do not know when theseexhibitions took place, nor what happened tothe originals. Indeed it is not certain (though itis very likely) that these actually came from thesite to which the others belong. The descriptionstates that they were from London, and that theywere 'from the graves of victims of the plaguein London, original l7th century'. All but onestrongly resemble in form and size the Newgatecrosses (one is rather more of a Maltese crossshape), and there is no known findspot of asimilar nature in any other literature. There isthus a high probability that the originals werepart of this group. Why the 17th-century datewas ascribed to these is unclear.The remaining objects discovered with burialsand reported by Hilton Price comprised thecrucifix, the lead letters 'S' and 'P' and the leadnumber '6' found with a skeleton in a brickvault; and the letters 'C and 'B' in lead fromother graves (Fig 7). These too survive (at theMuseum of London, respectively A3368-73) buttheir dates of accession are not recorded. Theaccession sequence follows immediately on fromthe crosses obtained by the Museum of Londonin 1912, so it seems very probable that theyformed part of the Hilton Price collection too.In 1974, the creation of the Museum ofLondon brought together the collections ofthe Guildhall and London Museums, and thusreunited a number of the crosses held at boththese locations. Between 1972 and 1978 theWellcome Institute transferred its holdingsof crosses on loan to the Science Museum.Although the latter had not previously held anyexamples of the crosses, this now meant thatsignificant collections existed in two nationalmuseums and one regional museum.The story of the crosses was not yet complete.In 1978 a selection of the crosses was illustratedin a social history and archaeology of medievalEngland as coming from the friary cemetery(Piatt 1978, pi 86), and this reference was laterused to illustrate the opinion that funerarycrosses were 'a relatively common feature' ofmedieval cemeteries (Daniell 1997, 166). In

198 B Sloane and B Watson1998, the book accompanying the 'LondonBodies' exhibition at the Museum of Londondescribed authoritatively how in 1905 'a massgrave had been uncovered on the site of thepriory of the Grey Friars north of St Paul's'. Itwent on to explain how the pit 'contained severalhundred bodies, many of them accompanied by[the crosses]' (Werner 1998, 65-6). The crossescurrently on display in the Science Museum(5th floor Science and Art of Medicine G9) aredescribed as 14th-century mortuary crosses froman English Black Death cemetery. Thus the mythof a Black Death mass grave on the site of theGreyfriars, Newgate Street lives on.This remarkable dispersal brings the sum ofcrosses received at one time or another intomuseum care and currently traceable to 63 (BM= 10, SM = 32 inci replicas, MoL = 21), leavingthe whereabouts unaccounted for of 26 of thosedisplayed in 1905. The object of this review is,of course, not to presume any kind of academicsuperiority over our predecessors, but to showhow powerfully a simple slip can influence thefacts. Hilton Price probably knew little of postmedievalburial customs, and the stratigraphicstudy of archaeological sites was in its infancyin 1905, so such a mass of burials, laid so deepwould of course have had the appearance ofa plague pit. What is more interesting is theassumption that these burials were friars, andthe manner in which the crosses acquiredembellished descriptions over time: first coffins,then cloister burials, and finally the single masspit. All these characteristics were invented later.Equally interesting is the snapshot that thisgroup gives of the manner in which artefactswere dispersed quite thoroughly from Londonto Leicester and Shropshire, via personal gift,auction, and museum donation.THE CROSSES IN THEIR NEW CONTEXT:THE FINDS IN THE CONTEXT OFMEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN BURIALPRACTICEThe identification of the funerary crosses asbeing certainly post-medieval, and almost certainly18th-century, provides us with a uniquenew group of mortuary artefacts in Britain. Leadfunerary crosses are known from a number ofmedieval sites, mostly monastic, but they arerare. Only two English sites. Bury St EdmundsAbbey and the Crutched Friars in Colchester,have revealed the recurring use of lead crossesin graves. Neither is as late as the 18th century.The Bury crosses are considered to have beenof 12th- or 13th-century date, and several areinscribed, leaving Colchester as the one possibleparallel for the use of crude, uninscribed crossesin a cemetery, and these would appear to be at thelatest 16th-century in date (for a discussion of leadcrosses see Gilchrist & Sloane 2005, 5.1). Leadcrucifixes have been recovered from the 18th- to19th-century burial grounds of St Pancras and StMarylebone in London, but these were finishedwith Christ figures, and not the crude crosses asfound at Newgate. They probably accom.paniedCatholic burials (A Miles pers comm).The inclusion of lead crosses in medievalgraves has been interpreted as a means by whichthe bodily remains could be protected fromdemonic possession, or by which the deceasedmight exhort any who disturbed their bones tooffer intercessory prayer to hasten their soulsthrough Purgatory. The need for such talismansshould have faded long before the 18th centuryaccording to current understanding, andarchaeological evidence for grave goods fromthis time is indeed normally confined to coffinfittings, depositum plates, and items of mortuarydress. Indeed no published examples of leadmortuary crosses of this date have been found(see for example Litten 1991; Mytum 2004).This group is therefore particularly interestingas it sits outside our general understanding oforthodox burial practice for the time.The intriguing possibility that these crosses mayhave been in some way associated with poor badgeshas been raised (T Hitchcock pers comm). FromElizabethan times, and encoded by the BadgingAct of 1696, the poor who were in receipt ofparish pensions (k the pensioners recorded in theParish Registers, above) had to wear small badgesidentifying themselves. Most often these werecloth badges stitched to clothing. However, somewere brass or tin discs, and Romsey, Hants, usedelaborate lead plaques (Hindle 2004, 22). Theseartefacts of deprivation certainly seem to resonatewith the crude crosses from Newgate, and one ortwo of the crosses do carry small holes by whichthey could have been stitched to clothing, thoughproving any link is impossible, and, as we haveseen, the pensioners do not seem to have beendying in the numbers and frequency demanded bythe circumstances of the finds.There are other rare types of grave finds fromthe post-medieval period which might indicatethat the breadth of mortuary practice, and thus

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 199of the belief structures of Londoners was widerthat previously considered. For instance, in 1601the gravediggers at St Dunstan in the M-'est werecharged with removing from a grave a lead coffinalong with an hourglass, a handkerchief, and agarland of flowers (Harding 2002, 145). Such areference is explained by the discovery of anothergarland in a grave in St James, Clerkenwell (Anon1747, 264). The writer describes how in 1733, theclerk of Bromley church, Kent, dug up a garlandwrought in filigree of gold and silver to looklike myrtle, covered with a cloth of silver. Suchgarlands apparently often formed crowns formourners to wear at the funeral, and the centrepiecesof such crowns could be, among otherthings, wire representations of hourglasses.CONCLUSIONSExactly 100 years after the first report on thefinds from the Christ's Hospital excavations,the cemetery and its associated artefacts cannow be set in their proper place in the historyof London. It is worth considering briefly howHilton Price came to mistakenly pronouncethe site to be a 14th-century Black Deathcemetery. He knew (1907, 18) of the earlymaps showing that the cemetery was connectedwith Christ's Hospital, and he had undertakensome research in the literature, so he also knewabout Pearce's (1901, 62) Annals of Christ ChurchHospital and the use of this burial ground bythe prisoners of Newgate and parishioners ofChrist Church (1907, 15). He even stated thegeneral impression 'that [the skeletons] musthave been buried there in one of the greatplague years 1603 or 1665' {ibid). All the pieceswere in place, but he could not understand howthe cemetery could lie beneath the playgroundand swimming baths of the hospital. It wouldappear that in his mind the only way that thiscould be the case was if the cemetery entirelypre-dated the hospital, and the only candidatehe could perceive was the nearby friary. Itremains a credit to him that there is sufficientinformation in his promptly published reportfor us to have been able to write this paper. Theshaft burials, the 'coarse smocks', and of coursethe lead crosses all add a significant dimensionto our understanding of post-medieval burialrites and the beliefs associated with them. Wemay never know the precise conditions underwhich people were provided with the crosses attheir deaths. It might have been the practiceof a single sexton, operating for only 20 or 30years, which coincided with the mass burialsfrom the 'gaol distemper'. It may conceivablyhave been a hidden Catholic rite, with unskilledprisoners themselves fashioning crude objectsof their faith. Some part of the cemetery mayyet survive the palimpsest of later development,and if so, should the occasion arise, it wouldbe highly informative to excavate what remainsunder controlled conditions to try to answer thesequestions.^ Equally, the many parish registers forCity churches and Corporation cash books mighthold further clues. What we can say with someconsiderable certainty at this point is that thecrosses were provided to those among the loweststrata of society, people not usually representedwell in the history of death and burial.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to extend their thanks tothe following people and organisations who haveassisted in the completion of this report. The Cityof London Archaeological Trust provided resourcesfor completion of the graphics and specialiststudy of the crosses. The London and MiddlesexArchaeological Society were able to offset costs ofprinting for their Transactions. The various curatorsof the leaden crosses kindly provided access tothe material and furnished the relevant accessionnumbers: John Clark of the Museum of London,Early Dept; Stewart Emmens of the ScienceMuseum; James Robinson of the British Museum.Dr Vanessa Harding (Institute of HistoricalResearch, London University) and Professor TimHitchcock (University of Hertfordshire) providedsuggestions on research sources and welcomefeedback on drafts of this paper. Adrian Miles andKieron Tyler of MoLAS likewise commented ondrafts. Mrs Dot Mariner and Tony Hogarth-Smith,the Christ's Hospital Archivists, provided assistanceand access to documents during our research andkindly allowed the reproduction of a number ofhistoric maps in their collection. Dr Geoff Egan,Museum of London Specialist Services, providedan expert view on the manufacture of the crossesand his comments form the basis of this sectionof the article. Jane Dunn of MoLAS preparedthe graphics. Pete Rowsome of MoLAS providedassistance with project management and Sue Hirstof MoLAS editorial guidance.Thanks are also due to British Library (GraceCollections) (Fig 4), Guildhall Library (Figs 5-6) andChrist's Hospital (Fig 2) for permission to reproducethe historic maps. Fig 7 was produced by TorlaEvans and reproduced by courtesy of the MuseumofLondon.

200 B Sloane and B WatsonC/2W0Uri•a%)i g,113be1!«173ci i.S1o1'S1a;;«IT;oT3a;'3crcflbe ^BcnocCO.o.sia00>-0C/3sQ

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 201o•suIuBOC13•^ be•aIl s3 O.b 33 a;< s•a3 T33 OJc2B•3 i s^1 81CMc o•- (Mc^ S,!^.b 33 ucr 3^1-o -a3 C-a; i;HJ .S1^ u11^ 3OS3;^ s2 u3 g>- £rB.SS.S3 _rt Oaj "^^ B = -|s-53 t s-5o 3 c S•^5 •a tg•« F- ^^3 'S'S ^be u £ 3 ° ^ 33 ,>:O O^^?1- t*HX o- &~b•^ a;•^ -S qi= a a zSx2 3"°. f, Bbe o a•^ U TOZ HoSi=T3 ^-o•ô-a -«i IH ra" ^0 S3 OHS x)^0 O^'^ ou SC 5•a a;qj -ÊJD U5 '53 0 3O S ?i3 SXO K «.3 CMHJ2l.s>-,'0•^^-0 '^.«5 ;• rt- XI0 23 eL-^^ IH :^'^ ^S 23 OHSS -^'0 or'^ OU CMt-S 33 «I- fctH2 >-B Jic O'^ i«2 j=S 3a; °3 2bC eo Z3 iB.SS^S -o33,P311i^XozCO CO 00^BO•%uob 33 o1^0S 33 0a; T33 31^0B 33 0a; -T33 35 00B 33 0JJ T33 §0S 33 0U 132 30S 33 0U T3a 3S HJ0S 33 0U T33 31^0S 33 0OJ 733 31^0B 33 0OJ T33 33 0S HJ0B 33 3.aj T33 3^ 0S HJ0g 33 0u -03 35 0S H-1

202 B Shane and B Watsontr.i: GHJ 2I.S>.T3-Q rs"^ 0xi ^tu >ô ri:^ -9 u- rf^ 2d OH,- s« ^0 Or'l "Ô CHijrt11IIc O2 âxa; °5b co V2 BS.S3-SST3CC33io X CZ -iiXC^JOl^crtJ:u^ 3OH• . _r- c«^ "Tl •.—i3 o U"^ t/5 W53 c:!-2 S .>S c SQJ ? S3 T3s =•^ 3C ,0•oco3 c«; S c 'ô o u? 2o ojo n.1^Câ>,s-csfl^ ui^30-) O ^S C SO-S-Sfl 'S11o•ac;x3 e- • ctils30 0-=:33 rt 3OJ 3 C S^0 3;-" o ^z_- 0OJrt c^ ^ 3^1—4 i-J 'K K-J 20s.s^2•a SH CJ 1—1 >-rt XIfa rt^ -ÎIO6tIJ^^-J .Sin ajbe c"3 SOJ -fa2 -a• 3 ^ 1 )&-o IS £;Z -iXC-JOia-0OJrt^ u30-S g3 OJa;>'be3 •- aS-S.^= 'S S11^•§131 3 ef 81§ &s«•- ^ ,^ Vn .^ n.2 bb• s1^^-a Tj oiiCMCT)^C•0!Drt£u3eube g r'?o o os3 V^ 33 •-6 ^•EboexS£-ac 'S SC ,_ tL. -HT3 2 . OS 3 &•«J O 3 3., 5 " Ca 6 >i or1 w qj rt,^ -5^^Z -g^XS^--CSC'"bf O O „' o o _rbS'"rtbeHit-J 2o ^s.sIIcrS o ^ 3 - 3l^tbe g"S a c o c oOj w c-Ss sIsâ i) 5b s £bert ti ^S ou 3 o I 3 O= 0. 3 •- OH3 -3 j ;S-S^3 •? 2e 'g SOJ g C3 T3 ^ n •o 2 ^ uS § g-w c SC ,0 3 c 3 cS3T3 3 O 31u ° 33 a•o- S 2 u 3Obe c S u 3£ Jo 5 £î o uiSO X3zoZoinTJCOCO

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 203•aV.b uu-0 3o i;o> 0COC =2 in•- Mu^0 ^t/3O ôc^c o•- CM-J 20 ^s.si-0rt JDH rt0 gTPOOG^c o•- c^•J 2o ^s.sT3t/^rt J2h «0 eZ (x•*o CMe o.- CM-1 20 '^s.s1^8^rt J2h t«z (53S O•3 C^-J 2S.S^2i 0•ti ^H >^rt ^h rt" Xio p.Z ruCMcncT1OJrt^3P^•Sg11?1oZ-J 2s.so 2Z £cOCM^^bo-0 COn =3 un•a*r10 t^2tyi XI c/2enaT3^^c•a 3 ert ti baj >^ 3 'C tj rt â; fl ^•s ôC 'bc^° SOSow•^ -S- 3!J .5 -a•fa • o oj•rr t^ rf J :^* / 3 '3 O C^15 J: a Cc " c« •£H fii bJD 3Z §u £ 3•^ o&-S|gt&-••=2 ^ ' 11s ^C^ H O T3o w•a MI»3zoZos0•aC9U00B 33 0a; T3S5 3S^0B 33 0(U -33 3S^0S 33 coj -03 Cs30B 33 0OJ -32 3S^0E 33 0aj ^33 Cla0E 33 01) X!3 3la0S 33 CU -32 3S W0S 33 0OJ -33 ^S -1CE 33 0V x;3 3s30E 33 0OJ -33 3S -1E 33 _o3 3la

204 B Sloane and B Watsonr.21r•oa;•3cr-a3o-3^he ^; ^ B :S EUN l^N UN UN UN ^^2 g.-H .-. (JS. ^ •"w '^ oco•aao-Jc«Ca;>•aaSaT3be36 i- § 2 a3 3 t; « -5 a3 OH Uat^ -^ 'rt ^ oS « .s 2 I31 IIIO ^ -^ 3 J=^ j; OJ u 5i: " " "J 2cj 2 .S -S uS q;•^ .S 2u!*• rta 3-HO K J-^- O OJe b b•asV5 inO O«be" S S• - n! gn >n tÊ)c £ *- ^ ...9 Si S'^^ be £s? ^ ;oO « ocj rt i-HO 3- ^« -^ T!"O -i XS '3 "^.Ji 3S o siii " enIfo S 2 zI-^Ô5SbO oS O• 2 | ^c« 1)OJ^(73bc »i3 ^j 3 t ^3 « 3 "5 " «3s « fc s -s Qt-i a;OJ" 5 g bcd^ca S OJ .^ * 5T3 " M O -H C^- 3? ^W Owi « 2 u 9 S"g S I ^ -i '5^S i' S2 3-S '^ ^!=^ 9 §

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 205I-ooT3II^ c33 -J> a -c3 -J û 1- ( oi0- H 1o•a•? s- coU J•XIf^¥116'S fi _.-i O; j3C X -C "o - 3he Q-CQ^ s«i °" o c S iSi J3 _5O t- uU -3 i^ -^"«ca.I :a ^f13 ^3^321^Bi J= 3 S13 ^ u0-So -—. r- c^ SH -r - -^ u« OJ '1-' c/1 c/i ii , iJ ^ («QJ—H (-H re s- I—-»u (^ tLH .3 -3 a; ^-J s3 -b.be P-'CO -o •c S °o QJiS3 ^ 13o 3 3XI — o13 -M 3X -3rt 3.-Piiii°-lurt6s; 3be^"? EO Pa;O 33 ca^ "2oj 3« Of5CMJ3« Q.S ^ >.g o^ CO -J- ^ S;.s Vy•^ hJ ^ -O rt £I ^ô-a.-o-is ^ -^3 *j s-j= .2- 1* s2 QJ JJ'u 3'S rt bcp £^"! a S„ S O=^ 5 r-nj O 5^^1p ii S" ' S 3•sO o6 B Ss - "^besoest•2

206 B Sloane and B Watson3C-4 5 pcM c-jH c-*H c-*H 3-" 3Jh Ssîr! a'îrH-ûS-g f^^Ji •= c^: •? oo -a =o- ».o^S? H^-g H-1-g H-l-§COV^M:;: C O ^ O GO q co q oo t..2^c c-^3 3^3 3^3jj(M^8c i d ^ ^ ' ^ B S o « - f g o c « - ° g o - 2 r j _ - r ^ ^ 3 Sole S'^•3^ î^ 0J3l^tlnS ^^^ :ag|| .Oi^-lllîil^ :a§|| :a§|| |'H-3^ ±^S-3^ S-o"gx, 3 a£Û sS-oQ iS3 0>"2 S -g-^ Iua; 5 "2 g I S -S •§ I S-D •§ I i -0 •§ ^ § I S ^ S II ;-5 II ;-s | | ;.siH3 Cn•gs--g s--cS s|iî|ili|ig-2||||| ^Îg y^ô ^^S|ll< c^J:•"•,bo3W•Ss;a w. ^ rt^ • 2 ;2 0s 3- u ^ y -g -3 -3 -gfc, J^C~enc 3=" ,-3iSEi2 s n! « a >^ yi- c-H1^^ ^ 2 S £ ^H S^ I2"-^ oj rt (« c -5 s .5 s -S s -3 s -3 .sS 2 .3 al •« '^B ^5oj3 3 •"I I § - I g ^ -5 I •% -^ -^Z I g o ^CiO 0 -OM l — 5"^ JSsaJ-^H ,^ i« il^ il?: =•— J.r5 c . 2 ; g a - l ^ ° 'o ^ ^ o-S -g-^ -cSi'l ^ f e o _ ^ ! 5 0 ^ oj Ji U ^« 1.3 ^„-.„" , £ % , , C - > £ r Q, P- p- P-T3 o.'" B--3^rar" S ' B ^ O - 3 ^ 0 0 g O O O* g" 33:-â-3-s^ - a - s ^ ^ ^ ^ iS iSS :^S iS^". S g w ^ « -^ U ^ ^ ^ "^ ^2 o-a ^ûsf«SoS2 S g 2 S -a -o T3 T3 Tf o -a o -a r-- .3ooC P oI So P S "-^ -7" >,^ >~^ >~,^--^ >^'-' >,-! >^^ >~" V, >,-' .3 >- rt 3 ^'^-a-iôo -oASoo'O^ •S-s •a-g—•0 -y^•g T3i TS^ TJ'S.S -O-SC TJJIU -VSB rartotj^ c « O u ^ 3 ^ f= B^ S^ ? 3rt S B^ 3:^1- B^^f^ B O ^ B^^Jr-53- J - S - U Q UQ UQ OQ UQCJ !JQfe USZ ;JCg'•Ss§^«bnE,6Z0zû «Js-0I I I I I I i % t %g•ûaB ^1 S3 Hu 0^ Tl• — nja;v:3s0)u1 ^Jisp6 ^^3 3t/5a; 3 tSQJs

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 207JSHCO00-.i^ D iK Ji 5CO 3 ;. ~^ G C ^M O 3 >^S o c2S J 2 ^fj , « Ô .2 S^ -S S O .2 c« -a -Hsô.IŌ oOJ Ois= o13*- S11i 1^g11c•o>^1ss0Su^4H0V0-0a"a•Crtin03XOJCOo6CO0-ccq>—i_ > • .-0 ^"3 rfU( (UU Q•5XQ«s0OH0C0•art•5.•art01/303XOJ^,UT33CO0600c"073CcU J«0gu1+-0OJOH0uC0•aa;rt•5.•ort"0COW5006CO3 0•aca;0J_>^"a; X-a3 rtOJU Q-Cc5Qurts =4-.0.ec0cT3i2"BH"2 CT'0 ocS2l-H" CQJ 0S §c/: hJO. isoacoT3PCXIh -ôS iSBa,"2 q'O 00isS §in —)oO COCOoO Xu CO ^ COT3 ^ T3 -ô-oco.-1Co-aco, 0 3.i a S "I '^ s £i" J3 >O " \3Oci-a ^ Sg 3 Tf CC fa < T3O .. ' 3^ ^ ;-i OOH 1J "^ ?-.=1^ - ti! •:=^ --H ^ a" -H g ^-;- (U -- 3 ^ ° « ^£• O ii 'CB T3 -S X•5 •ss^53 j M rj "^ l lUQ UO U o O u(J«oS•5;-OcoT3T3C3(UinB 5 gIO 00h '*W COi co3 rtu Q1=3o S z s g^Zrt CLU CO fa XIe T ^ -^ ao§S "OJ rH -y - B_M 3 OQ, O i ^B- '^ \•o c J.o Q •?;c^J: :3i^SIIill- 3 Syf3 2 OH Mo •£ S" ^ c Q;« « O S " ^'^ .« "^ THOJ U U -S O be•y> 32 'CBS > « 3c^ o rt c/:> "d T31;B .S !u' " 3O U ulU -5 IJ3o ..rt ^•3.":^.22 £rt HX; .O CTifc; "*O-co"2 00oOHQ.O^rtoc ^ ^3-S'S BX /i; « ^^»j « c =3 ca ^ a^ • ^ ^ oo rt aa;3 Sw00X. u CO00" iCOpc' S 3 1; O 3rj ^ T3ai irt • —^ .a ^"us£-0gzt. o1 Oi B4JO 10 SCO "^S r- O"2 == -Û CO •«I—I 1—1 [/^,—,c0•a » 6/3b b-6Z^•ii'OMTtHCO• *Tf"^6Ztj41S'000Tf-00-* in05

208 B Sloane and B WatsonNOTESLocally the top of the London Clay has been foundat 9.4m OD. The overlying Pleistocene terrace gravelhas been recorded at various points between 12.6mand 14.6m nearby at St Bartholomew's Hospital (Tyler1999, 14; Daykin & Miles 2003, 26). This was capped bybrickearth subsoil, located at 12.8 to 13.0m OD. Theearly Roman land surface was situated at between 13mand 14m OD. By the 13th century the accumulation ofdeposits had raised the ground surface locally over 2mto above 17m OD, the level from which the medievalcity ditch was cut. Modern ground level is about 17.6mOD (Lyon in prep)." Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language(1755) defined 'car' as 'a small carriage of burden'(1843edn, 97).^ During the 18th century benefactors and membersof Christ's Hospital were buried inside the friary cloister(Harrison 1775, 202). Within the 'north cloister, thenecalled the Dead Cloister' was a vault where deceasedpupils were buried. The vault was sealed in 1809 andsubsequently the inner quadrangle was used as theschool cemetery (TroUope 1834, 346).* In 1914 the annual cost of maintaining a boy atChrist's Hospital School was £69 (Allan 1984, 131).^ Evaluation Trench 7 within the Holder Wing wassited within the area of the cemetery, but no burialswere found and natural geology was reached in thisparticular trench (Tyler 1999, 16). In 2003 archaeologicalmonitoring of geotechnical pits in the George VBlock revealed residual disarticulated human boneincluding neonatal material within post-medievaldeposits (Daykin & Miles 2003, 27-8). Watching briefwork on the Merrill Lynch Headquarters, very closeto the site of the cemetery, during 1999 (Area K testpits 1-3) revealed post-medieval deposits and the topportion of the infilled medieval city ditch, but no signof burials (Watson 2000, 10).BIBLIOGRAPHYACT (1795), Act Geo 3rd ch 104 'An Act forenabling the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizensof the City o{ London, Governors of the Poffeffions,Revenues, and Goods, of the Hofpitals of EdwardKing of England the Sixth, of Chrift Bridewell, andSaint Thomas the Apoftle, and other Governors ofChrift's Hofpital, to purchafe Houfes and Groundfor enlarging Chrift's Hofpitals in London and atHertford... [22 June 1795]'ALLAN (1984), GAT Allan Christ's Hospital (1937edn revised byj E Morpurgo)ANON (1747), Anon 'Of burial garlands' Gentleman'sMagazine (June 1747), 264-5ATHENAEUM (1905), Athenaeum Journal no. 4077,Diary, 16 December 1905, 841BYRNE (1979), R Byrne Prisons and Punishments ofLondonCRIPPEN (1909), T G Crippen 'Nonconformity inLondon' in Victoria County History of London vol 1(edWPage), 374-400DANIELL (1997), C Daniell, Death and Burial inMedieval England 1066-1550DAYKIN & MILES (2003), A Daykin & A Miles KingGeorge V Block, St Bartholomew's Hospital, LondonECl, an Assessment of the Monitoring of GeotechnicalPits unpub MoLAS archive reportD'ARCY POWER & WARING (1923), Sir D'arcyPower & H J Waring A Short History of St Bartholomew's HospitalDYSON (1997), T Dyson 'The church and churchyardof St Nicholas Shambles' in J Schofield (ed)'Excavations on the site of St Nicholas Shambles,Newgate Street, London EC2' Trans LondonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc 48, 78-84GILCHRIST & SLOANE (2005), R Gilchrist & BSloane, Requiem: the Medieval Monastic Cemetery inBritain MoLAS monographGRAINGER et al (in prep), I Grainger, D Hawkins& T Waldron The Black Death Cemetery at EastSmithfield, London MOLAS Studies PaperHARDING (2002), V Harding The Dead and theLiving in Paris and London, 1500-1670n^^RRISON (1775), W Harrison Universal History;Description and Survey of London, Southwark andWestminsterHILTON PRICE (1907), F G Hilton Price 'Notesupon the discovery of a number of leaden gravecrosses near Grey Friars Monastery, Newgate Street,London' Record of the session of 7 Dec 1905,Proc Society of Antiquaries 21 (1906-7; 2nd series),12-22HINDLE (2004), S Hindle, 'Dependency, shame andbelonging: badging the deserving poor, c.1550-1750' Cultural and Social History 1, 6-35HYDE (1976), R Hyde (ed) A Large and Accurate Mapof the City of London by John Ogilby 1676HYDE (1982),RHyde (ed) Th£ A to Z of Georgian LondonLondon Topographical Society Publicadon 126JEFFERY (1996), P Jeffery The City Churches of SirChristopher WrenKINGSFORD (1915), C L Kingsford (ed) TheGreyfriars of London British Assoc FranciscanStudies 6KINGSFORD (1908), C L Kingsford (ed) A Survey ofLondon by John StowLAXTON (1985), P Laxton (ed) The A to Z ofRegency London London Topographical SocietyPublication 131LEMPRIERE (1913), WM Lempriere 'The history ofChrist's Hospital, London' Trans London MiddlesexArchaeol Soc 2, 495-510LITTLEDALE (1895), W A Litdedale (ed) TheRegisters of Christ Church, Newgate, 1538 to 1754Harleian Society 21

Crossed wires: the re-dating of a group of funerary lead crosses from Newgate, London 209LITTEN (1991), J Linen The English Way of DeathLYON (in prep), J Lyon Within these Walls: theArchaeology of the Merrill Lynch Financial Centre, 2King Edward Street, City of London, EClNICHOLS (1852),JG Nichols (ed) Chronicle of TheGreyfriars of LondonNORMAN & READER (1912), P Norman & F WReader 'Further discoveries relating to RomanLondon 1906-12 (includes: Site of Christ'sHospital)' Archaeologia&Z, 257-344MALT & WHITE (1987), R D Malt & W WhiteExcavations at Broad Street Station: part 3 the Cemeteryunpub MoL report part of LSS85 archiveMALT & HUNTING (1991), R D Malt & P HuntingBroadgate and Liverpool Street StationMYTUM (2004), H C Mytum Mortuary Monumentsand Burial Grounds of the Historic PeriodPEARCE (1901), E H Pearce Annals of Christ's HospitalPLATT (1978), C Piatt Medieval EnglandPROCKET &: TAYLOR (1979), A Proclcet & RTaylor (compilers) The A to Z of Elizabethan LondonLondon Topographical Society Publication 122RCHM(E) (1928), Royal Commission on HistoricalMonuments (England) An Inventory of the HistoricalMonuments in London, Vol lU, Roman LondonSEYMOUR (1754), R Seymour A Survey of the Citiesof London and Westminster, Borough of Soulhwark andParts of WestminsterSCHOFIELD (2001),J Schofield 'An introduction tothe three l

FAST FOOD IN THE MEDIEVAL CITY:EXCAVATIONS AT 29-30 QUEEN STREETAND 1-7 GREAT ST THOMAS APOSTLE,LONDON EC4Alison TelferWith contributions by Anne Davis (plant remains), Rupert Featherby (Roman pottery), Nigel Jeffries (post-Romanpottery), Jackie Keily (accessioned finds), Alan Pipe (animal bone), and Terence Paul Smith (building material)There is in London on the river bank among the wines for sale in ships and in the cellars of the Vintners apublic cook-shop. There daily you may find food according to the season, dishes of meat, roast, fired andboiled, large and small fish, coarser meats for the poor and more delicate for the rich, such as venison andbig and small birds ... For this is a public kitchen, very convenient to the City, and part of its amenities.William FitzStephen (12th century)SUMMARYFieldwork carried out at 29-30 Queen Street and 1-7Great St Thomas Apostle between 1989 and 2001 revealedactivity from the Roman to the post-medieval periods. Thesequence was dominated by substantial medieval chalk andragstone walls and a series of pitched tile hearths, datingfrom the 13th to the 17th centuries. The hearths appearedto be situated outside the building represented by the walls,in an area which may have been a cookshop or food stall.Although set bach from the Thames-side cookshops noted byFitzStephen, the site provided important evidence for foodpreparation in medieval London.INTRODUCTIONThis article presents the results of archaeologicalwork carried out by the Museum of LondonArchaeology Service on the site of 29-30 QueenStreet and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, LondonEC4 (QUSOO, NGR 532400 180930) (Fig 1). Itrefers largely to archaeological investigationsbetween September 2000 and February 2001Fig 1. Site location plan211

212 Alison Telfer25m^^•1989 Evaluation (THM89)1990 Excavation (THM89)1991 Watching brief (THM89)^ ] ^ 2000 Excavation (QUSOO)2000 Watching brief (QUSOODistrict Line Railway tunnelFig 2. Plan showing phases and numbered areas offieldwork(QUSOO), but also attempts to integrate previousfieldwork by the DUA between 1989 and 1991(THM89: Goode & Pope 1989; Lawrence 1990;Elsden 1991). The specialist results refer solelyto the most recent investigation of QUSOO. Thesite was divided into five areas and each phaseof fieldwork is illustrated in Fig 2. The mainarea of excavation in 2000-2001 was Area 4,which was the only part of the site not to havebeen previously basemented. The work wascommissioned by Berkeley Homes and thesite archive will be deposited in the LondonArchaeological Archive and Research Centre.Prior to clearance, the site housed a mixture ofVictorian and Edwardian commercial buildings,including the Vintry Public House. In addition,the London Underground District Line tunnelruns east-west through the middle of thesite (represented by Area 2). The proposeddevelopment involved the construction of newretail and residential units, requiring extensivenew foundations and piling, which had anarchaeological impact.Geology and topography (Open Area 1)There was no evidence of pre-Roman activityon the site. The natural subsoil encounteredthroughout the fieldwork was brickearth,although gravel was seen in Area 1 during piling.The height of the brickearth varied from 8.93mOD in Area 1 to 6.95m OD in Area 5. Despite theimpact from Roman and modern truncation, theOrdnance Datum levels of the brickearth acrossthe site reflect the downward slope in the naturalterrain towards the River Thames to the south.Archaeological backgroundThe site and others in the immediate vicinity(Sites 1-10, see Fig 3) have produced a number ofRoman features including ragstone foundations,beam slots of timber-framed buildings, andtimber-lined drains, as well as quarry, rubbish,and cess pits. The dating of these featuressuggests that the area was not fully developeduntil the 2nd century AD. An excavation at Site 6also revealed an early Roman pottery kiln whosedemise appeared to have coincided with theBoudican revolt.The site is in Vintry Ward, which stretched fromjust north of Great St Thomas Aposde down tothe Thames; in 1320 this was the second richestward in the City with four parish churches andsix company halls. Just to the north-west of thesite stood Ormond Place. Originally built by theearls of Ormond, it was given by Edward IV tohis wife Elizabeth in the second half of the 15thcentury, but was demolished shortly afterwardsto make way for tenements.

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostk, London EC4 213Fig 3. Previous archaeological sites in the vicinity. Key: Site 1: (The Site) 1-7 Great Thomas Apostle, 29-30 Queen Street,EC4 (THM89 and QUSOO); Site 2: 32-35 Queen Street, 6A Great St Thomas Apostle, 21-26 Garlick Hill, EC4 (QUE88and GRL88); Site 3: 2-4 Skinner's Lane, 36-39 Queen Street, EC4 (SKI83); Site 4: 40 Queen Street, 1 Skinner's Lane,EC4 (QSK89); Site 5: St James Garlickhithe Church, Garlick Hill, EC4 (JAS91); Site 6:14 Garlick Hill (Sugar Loaf Court),EC4 (SL082); Site 7: Ormond House, 62-63 Queen Victoria Street, EC4 (ORM88); Site 8: Mansion House UndergroundStation, 38 Cannon Street, EC4 (ORM88); Site 9:13-14 Great St Thomas Apostle, EC4 (GTA89); Site 10: 48-50 CannonStreet, EC4 (CS75).The church of St Thomas the Apostle stood onthe northern side of Great St Thomas Apostle,formerly part of Knightrider Street. It was firstmentioned in 1170, but was destroyed in theGreat Fire and never rebuilt. Most of KnightriderStreet disappeared when Queen Victoria Streetwas built.The Great Fire created the opportunity forthe construction of Queen Street, named inhonour of Catherine of Braganza, the wife ofKing Charles II. With King Street, Queen Streetprovided direct access from the Guildhall to theThames, a route used by the Lord Mayor andAldermen to board a boat to Westminster Hall.Southwark Bridge was built at the end of QueenStreet at the beginning of the 19th century.The widening of Queen Street in the mid-19thcentury led to the clearance of the remaininggraveyard of St Thomas the Apostle. The areawas further disrupted by the construction of theLondon Underground in the 1870s, when theDistrict Line cut a wide trench across the site.THE ARCHAEOLOGICALINVESTIGATIONThe Roman periodUrban activity in the lst-4th centuries (Open Area 2)The excavation in 1990 (Fig 2, Area 1) producedevidence of structural slots, possibly relatingto a building, as well as an earlier boundaryfence, both on a north-south alignment. Thesediscoveries add to evidence from nearby sites,which included dwellings (Sites 2, 3, 4, 6, and

214 Alison Telfer9), river related drainage (Sites 4 and 10), and aRoman road (Site 7). The site is located betweenthe bathhouse at Huggin Hill to the south-westand the building complex excavated belowCannon Street Station.Across the remainder of the site, only pitsand dumps were observed. A single tessera(mosaic tile) was found during the watchingbriefin Area 5 in 1991. It would seem that earlypitting was prevalent in the area: Roman quarryand rubbish pits were recorded on sites in theimmediate vicinity (Sites 7 and 8). Althoughthe areas of the watching-brief (Areas 1, 3, and5) involved substantial modern truncation, theRoman deposits had also been heavily truncatedby medieval activity.In general, the pottery assemblage from the2000-2001 fieldwork suggests domestic activityon the site during the period c.AD 70-140,peaking c.AD 120-140. One deposit, however,dating to c.AD 70-100, contained sherds fromthree different types of amphora, one fromSpain and two from Gaul. Each form is thoughtto have carried a distinctive foodstuff: olive oilwithin the Spanish amphora and olives and wineor fish paste in the two French amphorae. Thisconcentration of amphora is more than mightbe expected in one home and could possiblyrepresent either the storage area of a shop or adry-rising area, with the amphorae allowing thecirculation of air in a basement.The Roman pits and dumps produced anumber of very corroded and unidentifiablefragments of iron and copper alloy. Fragmentsof Roman vessel glass were found residually inlater post-Roman contexts.Only a few fragments of adult ox mandible,vertebra, rib, and femur, and adult sheep/goatvertebra and rib were recovered from this phase.They indicate waste derived from consumptionof good quality beef and mutton. An ox vertebrashowed transverse and mid-line chop marksindicating splitting of the carcass into sides, withsubsequent division into 'chops'.The medieval periodBackyard cess pits (Open Area 3), 1050-1150There was no evidence of Saxon activity on thesite: this had probably been truncated. A numberof Saxo-Norman pits, however, were recorded atSites 7 and 9 and sporadic finds from elsewherein the surrounding area have generally also datedto the later Saxon period. The earliest medievalactivity recorded on the site dated to the 11thor 12th century. This consisted of a number ofintercutting pits, some of them wattle-lined. Thepits contained cess and domestic refuse andpresumably lay in garden areas.Evidence for wattle-lined pits was found inAreas 3, 4 and 5 and at Site 7, to the north-west.Site 7 also produced evidence for the remainsof a privacy screen next to one of the cess pits.A sequence of contemporary pits has beenrecorded on Sites 3, 7, 8, and 10.A sample from one pit contained abundantmineralised concretions and occasional seedspreserved by mineralisation, suggesting that thefeature was used, at least partially, as a cess pit. Afew seeds of blackberry (Rubus cf fruticosus) andelder {Sambucus nigra) were the only plant foodssurviving, but small fragments of fishbone andscales, eggshell, and flecks of marine molluscshell also indicated food waste. Charred grainsof oats {Avena sp) and barley {Hordeum sativum),together with a few seeds of wild grasses, weremost likely to be waste material or sweepingsused as fuel. Oats and barley could have beenused for brewing, in pottage, or to feed horsesand cattle.Fills of two wattle-lined pits in the same areaalso contained abundant mineralised concretions,some with impressions of plant stems,as well as occasional mineralised grape (Vitisvinifera), blackberry, and elder seeds, sloe/plumstones (Prunus sp), and possible fruit skin, allpreserved by mineralisation. Small fish bonesand remains of marine mollusc shells were againquite frequent, showing that these pits werealso used for the disposal of cess and probablykitchen waste.Small groups of bone recovered from threewattle-lined pits reflected an increasingly variedmeat diet. This material included the majordomesticates, with occasional fragments of herringfamily (Clupeidae), eel (Anguilla anguilla), chicken{Gallus gallus), goose {Anser anser), wild duck, andrabbit {Oryctolagus cuniculus). The bulk of thebird and mammal material derived from adults,although there was a fragment of juvenile chickenradius; tooth eruption and wear on a pig mandibleindicated a sub-adult animal between six monthsand a year old. A butchered ox metacarpal hadbeen partially worked into an ice-skate blank— the only evidence of bone working from thisgroup.The wattle-lined pits produced limited evidence

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 215Residential house and garden (Building 2,Structures 1 and 2 and Open Area 4), 1080-1150Fig 4. Crucible (Scale 1:1)for metalworking in the area, in the form of asmall fragment from a ceramic mould ,probably used in the production of cast copperalloyvessels, and a crucible (Fig 4).The latter contained copper alloy residues. Inaddition, a number of very small, corrodedfragments of copper alloy were recovered, someof which may have been heat-effected. Otherfinds comprised a fragment of Roman bottleglass and a worn stone hone.Residential house (Building 1), c.llOOA north-south aligned ragstone wall with areturn was recorded at the western end of Area4 (not illustrated). The structure probablyrepresented a cellar at the eastern end of aproperty. Confirmed earlier and later featuresgive it an approximate date.__Substantial ragstone and chalk walls (Fig5) had been built on top of Building 1, ona slightly different alignment, with a lateraddition appearing to form a return to thewest. These later walls possibly representedtwo buildings, or a single building with a lateraddition: interpretation was complicated bymodern truncation. They appeared to beexternal: the interior of the building wouldhave been to the west, within Area 3. Acontemporary wall segment (Structure 1)was recorded in the north-eastern corner ofArea 4 (see Fig 6). This may have representeda third building.Across the site, sections of chalk foundationmay have represented up to five differentbuildings or structures (Fig 6). Remains werealso recorded on other sites in the immediatevicinity, namely Sites 6, 7, 8, and 9. Site 6produced evidence of a medieval undercroft,as well as a chalk foundation with associatedoccupation layers dating to the 12th century.In Area 4, this period also included anarea of homogeneous garden soil, which hadbuilt up against the outside of Building 2 andover Structure 1. This open area was possiblyused for gardening, or simply allowed tobuild up over time. It had been truncatedby another, later segment of chalk and ragstonewall (Structure 2) to the south-east (Fig 6).The garden soil from this period yieldedabraded groups of medieval pottery depositedbetween 1080 and 1150. The ratio of sherds(106) to number of vessels (104) could haveresulted from gradual sporadic deposition andthe abrasion caused by possible trampling andweather erosion, which corresponds with the useof this area as open ground.The garden soil also produced a numberof accessioned finds, including two small,undiagnostic fragments of ceramic metalworkingmould , and small fragments (89g) ofcorroded copper alloy and , some of itmolten waste. A very small fragment of ceramiccrucible was also found, as well as partof a lead-alloy bar ingot (Fig 7). A seriesof dumps and pits, either cut into or overlyingthe garden soil, produced a large assemblageof accessioned finds, including many smallfragments of heavily corroded copper alloy and

216 Alison TelferFig 5. North-south aligned ragstone and chalk walls forming the eastern end of Building 2, view looking westiron. Identifiable objects comprised an ironpintle , part of a possible iron padlockslide key , a copper-alloy bar mount with two rounded terminals, probably for useon a strap, as well as various fragmentary ironand copper-alloy mounts. The most interestingobject, however, is a balance fork from whicha small balance could be suspended (FigFig 6. Plan showing remains of medieval wall foundations across the site

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 217Fig 7. Lead ingot (Soak 1:2)Fig 8. Balance fork (Scale 1:1)8). This may have been used for weighing smallitems, such as precious metals or spices. Some ofthe unidentifiable copper alloy may be waste butis too corroded to identify. Small fragments ofburnt, vitrified ceramic hearth lining were alsofound, some with traces of copper alloy.The dumps and pits also yielded a substantialanimal bone assemblage derived mainly from ox,sheep/goat and pig, with occasional fragmentsof chicken and single fragments of wild duckand horse (Equus caballus). All the material wasderived from adults. There was some evidence ofcharring on a pig femur. A sheep/goat scapulaunusually showed a hole bored through theorigin of the distal end.Backyard cess pits (Open Area 4 retained),1180-1220A series of dumps and pits overlay or cut thegarden soil, including two pits that were wattlelined.Although Structure 2 had gone out ofuse by this stage, it would appear that the wallsof Building 2 stayed in use until the early postmedievalperiod.The deposits yielded a total of 419 sherdsfrom 270 vessels. Pottery recovered from oneof the wattle-lined pits is typical of the area:two episodes of backfilling produced pottery,which, although highly fragmented, containedsubstantial remains of the rim from an earlymedieval shell-tempered ware (EMSH) cookingpot and the base of a London-type coarseware(LCOAR) jug.The fills from one of the wattle-lined pitsin this phase also suggest its use as a cess pit.Many mineralised concretions and plant stemfragments were seen in the samples and thesame food plants as were found in samples fromthe previous open area, including a great manyblackberry seeds. The stems, which are oftenfound in this sort of deposit, may come from hayor straw used to dampen smells from the pit. Allsamples also included charcoal fragments andanimal bones, indicating that these pits wereused for various types of domestic waste.

218 Alison TelferThe most unusual pottery fabricIdentified from this phase was from theexcavation in Area 4. Sherds from aWinchester ware pitcher (WING) wererecovered from two pits. WING is a fine,often highly decorated, white-fired fabric,thought to date between c.970 and 1100.It has been recorded on several other sitesin the Gity, but appears most frequentlyon port sites such as Queenhithe. Thediscovery of WING from another sitenear the medieval port is significant inour understanding of the distribution ofthis fabric. The only occurrence of thisfabric in London outside the Gity hasbeen in Southwark.Cookhouse (Building 3), 1135-1400Building 3 took the place of the previousgarden area and appeared to have usedthe exterior eastern wall of Building2 as its own western wall. A total ofeight hearths and a possible oven wererecorded within this phase of occupation.Seven of the hearths were constructedwith pitched tile. Due to the presenceof numerous floor layers associated withFig 9. Plan of Building 2 and sequence of hearths to its eastthe hearths, it seems likely that a roofwould have existed (although no tracewas found of this or of supporting walls or posts) Descriptions of the hearths and related structureshave been listed in Table 1; this should beand the area may have been a kitchen or, perhapsmore likely, a cookshop or food stall.read in conjunction with Fig 9.Table 1. Medieval hearths and structuresStructureHearth 1OvenRagstone and flintstructureHearth 2Cobble structureHearth 3Hearth 4Hearth 5Hearth 6Hearth 7Hearth 8Date1135-12201170-1350C.1270C.12701170-13501150-1280?c.l2001180-13501340-13501350-14001350-1400DescriptionRagstone and flint hearthPossible crude and unstructured ovenRagstone and flint within rectangular cut: base forHearth 2? Separate hearth? (not illus)Rectangular pitched tile hearth, with stones set intosand along northern edgeCobbles set into clay bed: floor? hearth? (not illus)Irregular pitched tile hearth, with stones in SWcornerOvular pitched tile hearth, with sections of tilealigned in different directionsRectangular pitched tile hearthRectangular pitched tile hearth with cobbledsurround (Fig 10)Circular pitched tile hearth, with central gap forlikely flue (Fig 11)Rectangular pitched tile hearth with gutter andcentral square of flintsDimensions1.35m N-Sx 1.10m E-W1.20m N-Sx 1.38m E-W1.55m N-Sx 1.15m E-W2.10m N-Sx 1.26m E-W2.50m N-Sx 1.50m E-W1.70m N-Sx 1.65m E-W1.53m N-Sx 1.26m E-W0.55m N-Sx 1.50m E-WTiled area: 0.90m N-S x0.70m E-W. Total area:1.75m N-Sx 1.60 E-W1.62m N-Sx 1.42m E-W2.06m N-Sx 1.10m E-W

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 219Charred cereal grains and weed seeds werefound in a sample associated with the disuseof the possible oven. About 40 grains werepresent (equivalent to 80 grains per litre ofsoil), consisting of a mixture of free-threshingwheat {Triticum ci aestivum) and barley {Hordeumsativum), with smaller quantities of oats andrye {Secale cereale). The sample also containeda single rachis node of barley and a number ofsmall weed seeds, as well as several medium sizedvetch seeds {Lathyrus /Vicia sp) which could notbe reliably identified to species, but resembledcommon vetch (Vicia saliva) in general size andshape. Common vetch was frequently grownas a fodder crop during the medieval period.This assemblage may be the remains of oneor more crops burnt accidentally during foodpreparation, or possibly crop cleanings or strawused to fuel the oven. There was little sign ofthese waste products in the assemblage, but it ispossible that the grains, being more robust, mayhave survived the high temperatures while strawand chaff were destroyed. Only single fragmentsof unidentified fish fin ray and goose toephalange were associated with the oven, whilea single fragment of juvenile ox mandible wasrecovered from a contemporary trample layer.A dump contemporary with Hearth 1 produceda small diverse group of bone from fish, poultry,domestic mammals, and 'game', includingherring family, eel, cod family (Gadidae), dove(Columba livia/c.oenas), chicken, goose, greypartridge {Perdixperdix), wild duck, passerine bird,ox, sheep/goat, and pig. The major domesticatematerial produced clear butchery marksindicating marrow extraction, disarticulation, andsplitting by use of cleavers.A dump associated with Hearth 2 producedonly a single fragment of infant pig skull.Fragments of ox femur and sub-adult sheep/goat tibia were contemporary with Hearth 4. Noanimal bone was recovered from any depositsassociated with Hearths 3 or 5.Occupation deposits associated with HearthFig 10. Hearth 6 (1340-1350), view looking east

220 Alison TelferFig 11. Hearth 7 (1350-1400), view looking south-east6 showed an increase in species diversity andincluded wild duck, grey partridge, mallard/domestic duck {Anas platyrhynchos), and rabbit.Pheasant {Phasianus colchicus) makes its onlyappearance in this phase and brown hare (Lepuseuropaeus) its first. Although the majority of thematerial derived from adults, there was again considerablerecovery of juvenile chicken. Hearth 6was particularly grand in style (Fig 10), with aninner, pitched tile area skirted by a band of smallcobbles, and an outer edging of large squarecobbles. It was also one of the largest hearthsand its grandeur is reflected in the type of fareassociated with it.Deposits associated with Hearths 7 and 8included gurnard (Triglidae), the first recovery ofthis species from the site. One dump containeda single fragment of plaice/flounder, anunidentified wading bird, and swan (Cygnus sp).There was also occasional recovery of juvenilechicken, which increased in the later medievalmaterial, suggesting that poultry were reared inthe locality. Hearths 7 and 8 may not have beenin use simultaneously: a modern service trenchhad bisected Area 4 and so definite relationshipswere lost across the site; it is known only thatthe structures were broadly contemporary. Thetwo hearths were very different in shape anddesign and may represent two separate roomswithin Building 3. Hearth 7 (Fig 11) was circularin design: there was a deliberate gap left in thepitched tile, near its centre; this was likely tohave accommodated a flue. The remains of alarge quernstone had been laid on the depositoverlying the hearth, suggesting baking, in additionto cooking, on the site.This series of hearths and associated occupationdumps and make-up layers produced small,corroded fragments of metal, some from fittingssuch as fragmentary mounts possibly for caskets

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 221Fig 12. Copper-allay stud (Scale 1:1)Fig 13. Copper-alloy strap mount (Scale 1:1)or furniture, others unidentifiable and possiblywaste. These appeared to be redeposited, ratherthan directly associated with the hearths, andincluded a small undiagnostic fragment of ceramicmould with associated copper-alloy waste attached. A dense lump of molten copper alloy was alsoprobably a by-product of metalworking, although itis fragmentary and its specific form or function isuncertain. Other identifiable finds are either of amore domestic nature (fragments of stone mortars and , a hone , a corroded ironknife with fragmentary wooden handle )or associated with horses (fragmentary ironhorseshoe , probably dating to the 12th-14thcenturies), or possibly commerce (a lead-alloy discweight ).Possible dress accessories included smallcopper-alloy studs with plain, convex heads,another, , with a flat, square headdecorated with rows of fine dots (Fig 12), anda strap-end and strap mounts (Fig 13),all decorated and with traces of what has beenidentified by the MoL conservation laboratory assilver plating.The post-medieval periodCookhouse (Building 3), 1400-1650The sequence of hearths continued into the 16thand 17th centuries, up until the time of the GreatFire (Table 2). All four hearths were constructedwith pitched tile, although the purpose of theadditional stone structure was unclear, unlessit was simply to provide a solid base for Hearth11. Hearths 9 and 10 may not have been in usesimultaneously. As with Hearths 7 and 8, the twohearths were very different in shape and designand may represent two separate rooms or foodstalls.Deposits associated with Hearth 9 producedthe largest and most diverse animal bone assemblagefrom the site. Although dominated bydomesticates, there was a considerable componentof fish and 'game' species, including plaice, eel,grey partridge, and rabbit, and, for the first time,conger eel (Conger conger), woodcock (Scolopaxrusticola), and fallow deer (Dama dama). Therewas also considerable recovery of infant andjuvenile chicken and sheep/goat, and occasionalrecovery of foetal or neonate pig. No animalbone was recovered from any deposits associatedwith Hearth 10.Trample, dump, and floor deposits associatedwith Hearth 11 produced small groups of fragmentedbone derived from a diverse range ofdomesticated and wild species. Small componentsof cod family, conger eel, chicken, rabbit, andbrown hare were recovered. A floor deposit alsoproduced a single fragment of rat. There wasTable 2. Post-medieval hearths and structureStructureHearth 9Hearth 10Stone structureHearth 11Hearth 12Date1400-1.5001400-1!7001480-15,501.500-16001580-1650DescriptionCircular pitched tile hearthRectangular pitched tile hearth withtile edgingStone base: hearth? pad? (not illus)Rectangular pitched tile hearth withtile gutterRectangular pitched tile hearthDimensions0.64m N-S X 0.60m E-W2.72m N-Sx 1.35m E-W1,37m N-S X 0.56m E-W1,50m N-S X 0,90m E-W1,15m N-S x0.,55m E-W

222 Alison Telferalso occasional recovery of foetal/neonate andinfant sheep/goat and pig.Rubbish pits contemporary with Hearth 12produced small numbers of fragments derivedfrom chicken, ox, and sheep/goat, with singlefragments of gadid fish and rabbit. There wereoccasional finds of juvenile ox and sheep/goat.The almost identical style and position of thestone structure and Hearths 11 and 12 suggest analteration in occupation and activity at the sitebetween about 1500 and 1650. In addition, a pitcontemporary with Hearth 12 had truncated thetop of one of the ragstone and chalk walls, withwhich the other hearths had been associated. Itis therefore likely that the layout of Building 3changed in the 16th century and, although nofurther evidence was recovered to substantiatethis, the change is likely to be connected withthe redevelopment of the vicinity, as mentionedby Stow in 1598. Most of the pottery from thislast phase of occupation was recovered fromthe pit, which dated to between 1580 and 1650.The material included a smashed Martincampstoneware costrel (MART 1; made in NorthernFrance), a range of white Surrey/Hampshireborder ware (Pearce 1992), and early Londoncoarse red earthenware (Nenk 1999, 237)fabrics and forms. Other vessels included thesubstantial remains of a PMRE sprinkler, usedfor horticultural purposes, which was found in ademolition layer.The finds from post-medieval activity in thisarea are similar to those from the earUer phases:small fragments of corroded iron and copperalloy, some of the latter probably debris frommetalworking in the area. They also included afragment of a residual Roman glass vessel handle and a small fragment of medieval windowglass , the latter possibly associated with anearby church or well-to-do household. Otherfinds included domestic items (half a stonemortar with two lugs remaining (Fig 14)and a small, copper-alloy curving rod handle, probably from a cast vessel) and dressaccessories (a copper-alloy lace chape , anincomplete copper-alloy buckle frame , anda copper-alloy stud with a flat, circularhead).One of the most interesting finds is a copperalloytomb inscription letter : a LombardicFig 14. Stone rmrrtar (Scale 1:4)

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 223Fig 15. Copper-alloy tomb inscription letter (Lombardic 'T') (Scale 1:1)letter 'T' (Fig 15), possibly from a funerarymonument associated with the nearby church ofSt Thomas the Apostle, which lay to the north.The size indicates that it belongs to Blair's 'MainGroup size 1' (Blair 1987, 140), dadng from thelate 13th to the mid-14th century. From the early14th century, this size of lettering was normallyused on full-scale figure brasses {ibid, 144). It isof interest to note that this phase also producedtwo fragments of stone moulding, one of whichcould be dated stylistically to before the mid-14th century and possibly also originated in thechurch of St Thomas the Apostle.There was a small but interesting assemblageof early post-medieval vessel glass and a smallfragment possibly from a glass mirror ;two fragmentary vessels, both probably beakers,are of particular note. Two small fragmentsfrom a beaker in deep blue glass have painteddecoration in white and gold (Fig 16)and may date to the late 15th century or later.The other beaker is in colourless glass withapplied, marvered spiral threads of opaquewhite glass (latimo) and ; this formof decoration is called vetro afili and such glass isimported, possibly from Venice, and dates to thelate 16th to I7th century.Fig 16. Glass beaker (Scale 1:2)IIAccessioned find is a complete upperstone from a rotary quernstone in Mayen lavafrom northern Germany. The upper surfaceis roughly pecked and has traces of mortar,presumably from re-use. It is plain with no ridgearound the central hopper.The metalworking evidence continues intothe post-medieval period. Small square andtriangular fragments of copper-alloy sheet areoff-cuts from sheet-working and a small angledfragment of copper alloy may be wastefrom buckle-making. A copper-alloy bar ingot with a circular section was also found.Small fragments of molten runnels and blobs(total weight 25g) may be residual from earlierdeposits or may indicate that casting continuedinto the post-medieval period too. Fragments ofcopper-alloy wire of varying gauges, and, may be waste from metalworking or fromthe production of items such as headdresses: twoof the pieces have one end bent to form a loopand a third (the thickest fragment) has beenbent at an angle, possibly to form a frame for aheaddress.This dumping also produced an assemblage ofsmall copper-alloy mounts and studs of varyingforms: plain convex heads with no shafts, somewith traces of lead-alloy solder inside the head (x4), domed convex head with a moulded five petaldesign (x 1), small studs with plain convex heads(x 4), plain convex mounts with an off-centrehole (x 2), plain convex mounts with a centralhole (x 1), and a small, square pyramidal mount(x 1). It is unclear whether these may have beencollected for recycling or are merely discardedor lost items. Other finds included a fragmentaryiron horseshoe dating to the 14th century,part of a very corroded copper-alloy lace chape, iron mounts, some possibly from boxes orfurniture, a lock , a plain D-shaped ironbuckle , and iron buckle frame fragments and .DISCUSSIONRomanIt would appear that the area of the site wasresidential in the Roman period. Patterns of landuse can be broken down into episodes of pitting,early timber-framed buildings, and, later, granderragstone buildings with tessellated floors.The Roman pottery assemblage comprised arange of vessels that appeared to be domestic:

224 Alison Telferbowls, jars, fine wares, and mortaria. Theassemblage as a whole dates from c.AD 70, suggestingthat there was little or no activity on thesite until the Flavian period. The presence of lateRoman fabrics, such as Alice Holt/Farnham (c.AD250-400) and Oxfordshire red/brown colourcoatedwares (c.AD 270-400), suggests that therewas also late Roman activity across the area.Medieval and post-medievalBuilding 1This possible cellar structure represented thesouth-eastern corner of a building and had beenbuilt on an alignment with Garlick Hill, to thewest, possibly fronting it.The hearth structuresThe hearths in Area 4, which spanned about fivehundred years, showed an interesting diversity inposition, type and layout of materials, size, andshape. Their construction and use in the area tothe east of Building 2 and their lack of continuityin position suggest that the area could representa succession of food stalls. These would havebeen rebuilt more frequently than if they hadbelonged to the kitchen of a residential property,where the fireplace and chimney would have hada more consistent position.The design of the hearths appeared fairlyeclectic and there were few obvious signs ofstyle evolution. Hearths between the 12th and13th centuries encompassed a wide variety ofstyles: flint, tile with stones, rectangular, circular.Circular hearths seem to have been less commonthan rectangular ones, but appeared on the siteat the end of the 13th century (ovular), in thesecond half of the 14th century, and again in the15th century. While it is possible that they serveda different culinary function, there is no faunalor botanical evidence to substantiate this.During the 14th century, the hearths becameslightly more sophisticated, in general appearingbigger and also more robust. This change isevident in Hearth 6, with its large cobbledsurround, and also in the sturdy circular designand flue of Hearth 7. Hearth 10, constructedduring the 15th century, was by far the largeststructure, measuring nearly 3m in length.This type of scale supports the likelihood ofcommercial rather than domestic activity on thesite.The end of the 14th century is the only pointat which a change in hearth design can bepinpointed. This is represented by Hearth 8,which was the first hearth to contain a gutteralong its edge and the last hearth to containboth tile and flint. In addition, this hearth hada central square of flints; in earlier hearthscontaining both materials, the stones or flintswere contained along one side or in one corner.The layout of the pitched tiles also varied fromstructure to structure: Hearth 4, in particular,had areas of tiles facing every direction. This mayhave represented periodic enlargement of thefireplace, but seen in situ appeared to have beenpart of the hearth's original design. It is possiblethat the diversity of the hearth styles reflected avariety of shop proprietors, as well as illustratingdesign influences of the times.The environmentalevidenceThe early medieval material indicates consumptionof a varied meat diet based on good qualitybeef, mutton, and pork, but also includingmarine/estuarine and migratory fish, poultry,and bird and mammal 'game' species.Although much of the major domesticatematerial derives from carcass areas of good meatbearingquality, occasional recovery of elementsof the head and feet suggests that the depositsmay include waste resulting from primarycarcass-processing as well as post-consumptiondisposal.Varieties of herring are still abundant in thelower tidal Thames (Wheeler 1979, 172-3);they would have been fished for as adults, andalso as mixed shoals of juveniles ('whitebait'),which were a major seasonal fishery in theThames estuary and regarded as a London dishpar excellence {ibid 1979, 70). Eels are extremelyabundant throughout the Thames estuary andriver system, and are staple components of thefish diet throughout the medieval and postmedievaldeposits in London. Grey/commonpartridge are abundant as a breeding species onsuitable agricultural land in the area surroundingLondon (Holloway 1996, 142) and would havebeen available from markets and game dealersin London.The later medieval material shows a broadlysimilar composition, although with the increasedspecies diversity of plaice, gurnard, pheasant,rabbit, and brown hare. Tub and red gurnardare the most significant as food species, with

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 225tub gurnard providing the best eating quality.A deposit dating to between 1350 and 1400produced additional 'game' components: anunidentified wader and a swan. Since at leastthe late 12th century (Birkhead & Perrins 1986,19-20) swans have been regarded as Royal Birds,with consumption very much limited to theupper ranks of society, and even then confinedto special days such as church festivals (Wilson1976, 125). The Dyers' Guild, which met in ahall directly to the south of the site, was giventhe privilege of keeping swans on the Thames(heraldicmedia.com). Recovery of swan froma medieval or post-medieval archaeologicaldeposit suggests consumption at a high level ofsocial status.The recovery of juvenile chicken increases inthe later medieval material and may imply thatpoultry were reared in the vicinity.The post-medieval material shows a furtherincrease in species diversity with the recoveryfor the first time of conger eel, woodcock, andfallow deer, in addition to plaice, grey partridge,rabbit, and brown hare. Conger eel is a marinespecies only occasionally caught in the outerThames estuary and generally rather uncommonin the southern North Sea (Wheeler 1979, 171).It has a strong preference for rocky shoresand offshore sites such as wrecks. Although ofgood eating quality and still widely availablefrom London fishmongers and markets, it hasnever been widely esteemed as a staple foodfish (Wheeler 1978, 63). There was no recoveryof true freshwater species from the site and acomplete reliance on marine/estuarine andmigratory fish.Woodcock are an esteemed 'game' species andoccur in the London archaeological record fromthe Roman to the post-medieval periods. Brownhare is an indigenous, highly esteemed gamespecies available from agricultural land closeto London and still seasonally available fromLondon markets and game dealers.Fallow deer are an introduced species inthe British Isles; they are now widespread,particularly throughout southern Britain, inmature deciduous or mixed woodland (Arnold1993, 133). Hunting and consumption offallow, as with red and roe deer, was confinedto a limited proportion of the population andrecovery of this species has definite implicationsfor the presence of high-status consumers. Aswith the later medieval material, there is definiterecovery of very young individuals of chicken.sheep/goat, and pig, suggesting some level oflocal stock rearing, and consumption of youngfowls, lambs, and suckling pigs, again withimplications for the status of local consumption.The dating evidenceThe bulk of the building material from the sitewas early medieval roofing tile. Two distincttypes of roofing system were represented: theflanged and curved tile system which is basedon the Roman tegula and imbrex style of roofing,and the peg tile system. Shouldered peg tile, anearly form of peg tile, was present, and both thisand the flanged and curved tiles are typical ofceramic roofing in London in the period c.1135-1220. All of the early types were superseded byplain rectangular peg tiles: those recoveredincluded both medieval and post-medieval types.Three ridge tiles were also present.Several fragments of 'Westminster' floor tileswere recovered from occupation dumps. Twowere decorated, one with design W5 (Betts 2002,51), the other too fragmentary for identification.The rest, including one of triangular shape, areplain. They date from the second half of the 13thcentury and were made in the London area. Ofthe few Penn tiles from Buckinghamshire, madein the second half of the 14th century, theone clearly recognisable design is Eames 2820(Fames 1980, vol 2, pi 2820). Also present weresome yellow plain-glazed tiles imported from theLow Countries in the 14th and 15th centuries.None of the floor tiles were in situ and it ispossible that they came from the church of StThomas the Apostle.A Caen stone capital was also recovered. Itsfoliate angles appeared to be prototypes ofthe more common water-leaf, annular chevrondecoration replacing the more usual astragal.The bedface of the circular shaft shows a smallhole formed by the dividers used to describe thecircle. A 12th-century date is likely and the stonepossibly originates from St Thomas the Apostle.The other examples of worked stone, possiblyalso from the church, are Reigate; they includevoussoirs with diverse mouldings and of variousdates, one with a hole in its bedface for an ironreinforcing rod. Some paving slab fragmentsof Kentish Ragstone and laminated sandstoneappeared to have been reused as hones.The most dominant type within the medievalpottery assemblage was handmade early medievalcoarsewares (see Vince & Jenner 1991),

226 Alison Telferdating to between 1050 and 1150; thesecomprise a range of sand-tempered (EMSS; 8.6%of the total sherd count), local greyware (LOGR;19.3%), and sand- and shell-tempered fabrics(EMSH; 10.1%). The most significant quantitiesof glazed wheel-thrown coarsewares found wereSouth Hertfordshire greywares (SHER; 7.1%).SHER is one of the major suppliers of coarse,unglazed jars and jugs into London betweenC.1170 and 1350 and has been used to date manyof the later phases of Building 3.The post-medieval pottery assemblageconsisted of 264 sherds (ENV total of 113); it wasgenerally dated no later than c.1650 and foundin a poor condition. The majority of vessels (bysherd count) were kitchen wares {ie cauldronsand tripod pipkins) and storage/transport wares(represented solely by the MART costrel). Incommon with the medieval pottery, none of thelater vessels were identified as having a specificindustrial use.There is evidence on the site for the productionof both cast and cold-hammered copper-alloyobjects, although this is quite limited and appearsto be indicative of metalworking in the generalarea rather than necessarily at this particularsite. The evidence comes from both the medievaland early post-medieval periods. Early medievalactivity produced crucible fragments, moltencopper alloy waste, and small fragments ofceramic mould used in the production of castcopper-alloy objects, probably vessels. In themedieval period, metal industries tended to beconcentrated in towns and usually, as the scale ofproduction increased, in particular areas (Bayleyet al 2001, 4); in London such concentrationshave already been identified in the GreshamStreet/Foster Lane/Cripplegate area (Schofieldwith Maloney 1998, 36-7 and 185-6; Tobert1982) and evidence for the mass production ofsmall dress accessories has been found in boththe Guildhall and Copthall Avenue areas (Egan1991, 122-3; Egan 1996, 85-7). To the south-eastof the site, at the waterfront site of the ThamesExchange, an assemblage of waste material anddiscards from a foundry was recovered (Egan1996,86).Late medieval and early post-medieval activityproduced more copper sheet off-cuts andtrimmings, as well as a small circular-sectionedbar ingot. Again the evidence is quite limitedand is probably redeposited from a metalworkingcentre in the vicinity of the site. The presence ofa number of small fittings/mounts may simplybe due to accidental loss and careful retrieval ormay represent material collected for recycling orwaste from a workshop.The remaining identifiable finds are amix of domestic items, dress accessories, twofragmentary horseshoes, and various mounts andfittings. The material is typical of that found indumps in the medieval and early post-medievalcity. The small fragments of imported glassvessels, the stone mortars, and the silver platedstrap mounts indicate the likelihood of a wellto-dohousehold nearby; the tomb inscriptionletter, possibly from the church of St Thomasthe Apostle, is a reminder of the many medievalfunerary monuments, and indeed medievalchurches, that no longer exist in London.CONCLUSIONSThe area of the site exhibited signs of high statusin the medieval and post-medieval periods. Findssuch as the 14th-century silver plated mounts,the late 15th-century beaker, and the expensive,fine imported glassware from the 17th centurysubstantiate this trend. In addition, evidenceof delicacies such as pheasant, sturgeon, swan,and fallow deer suggest wealthy consumers, particularlybetween the 14th and 16th centuries.The wide variety of animal bone consistentlyassociated with the hearths could relate to thatproduced by a series of cookshops occupying thesame property. Hearth 1 is roughly contemporarywith the writings of William FitzStephen, whosedescription of a Thames-side cookshop is cited atthe beginning of this article. The evidence fromthe hearths suggests a commercial, rather thana domestic undertaking and one which couldhave accommodated less affluent social groups,as well as appealing to those with more expensivetastes.In Stow's Survey of London from 1598, hewrites that cookshops in the Vintry Ward weretaken over by vintners in the 14th century andgrumbles that taverns started to sell food inaddition to wine. It is possible that the hearthswere associated with a tavern, although theirnature suggests a more transient situation, ratherthan belonging to a kitchen with an establishedchimney. Further north, in the Cheap Ward,there is evidence for cookshops leading northfrom Cat Street to the Guildhall. These servicedthe community in the 12th and 13th centuries(Bowsher et aZin prep).The recovery of certain species of expensive

Fast food in the Medieval City: excavations at 19-30 Queen Street and 1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 227fish and 'game' appears to correlate with eitheran increase in size and grandeur of hearth or aperiod when two hearths may have been in useat the same time. The recovery of the pheasantbone, for example, was associated with Hearth6, possibly the largest and grandest of thefireplaces. Swan consumption is contemporarywith Hearths 7 and 8. The trend towardshigh-status consumers continues into the 15thcentury, with recovery of fallow deer from Hearth9. The fact that tiles from the hearths containedno industrial or baking residue suggests thatthey were simply used for heating and cookingfood, and the presence of three mortars and aquernstone suggests food preparation.Stow frequently mentions links between theVintryWard and royalty, mayors, and merchants.This appears to be significant in relation to theevidence from the site: the taverns may haveattracted a wealthier customer with a morediscerning palate and a liking for elegant glassware.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMany thanks are due to Berkeley Homes forfunding the excavation and to everyone from A&QPartnership, Mowlem and Henry's for their assistanceduring the project, which was managed by NickBateman of MoLAS. The graphics were producedby Peter Hart-Allison and Faith Vardy. Thanks alsoto Geoff Egan for contributions. Sue Hirst, Dick Maltand Peter Rowsome for editing, and the staff whoworked on site: Dan Eddisford, Cat Edwards, KirstenEgging, Chiz Harward, Nick Holder, David Jamieson,Paddy McNulty, Victoria Osbourn, Clive Raymond,Jez Taylor, and Johanna Vuolteenaho.BIBLIOGRAPHYARNOLD (1993), H R Arnold 'Atlas of mammals inBritain' ITE Research Publication 6BAYLEY et al (20Q\),] Bayley, D Dungworth & SPainter Centre for Archaeology Guidelines: ArchaeometallurgyBETTS (2002), I M Belts Medieval 'Westminster'FloorTiles MoLAS Monograph 11BIRKHEAD & PERRINS (1986), M Birkhead & CPerrins The Mute SwanBLAIR (1987), J Blair 'English monumental brassesbefore 1350: types, patterns and workshops' in JCoales (ed) The Earliest English Brasses: Patronage,Styk and Workshops 1270-1350, 133-74BOWSHER et al (in prep), D Bowsher, N Holder,I Howell & T Dyson The London Guildhall: theArchaeology and History of the Guildhall Precinctfrom the Medieval Period to the 20th Century MoLASMonographEAMES (1980),ESEames Catalogue of Medieval LeadglazedEarthenware Tiles in the Department of Medievaland Later Antiquities British Museum (2 vols)EGAN (1991), G Egan 'Buckles' in G Egan & FPritchard Dress Accessories cll50-cl450. MedievalFinds from Excavations in London: 3, 50-123EGAN (1996), G Egan 'Some archaeologicalevidence for metalworking in London cl050-cl700 AD' Hist Metallurgy Sac 30 (2), 83-94ELSDEN (1991), N Elsden Archaeological WatchingBrief at 30 Queen Street, EC4 (THM89) DUA unpubreportFITZSTEPHEN (12th century), W FitzStephen'Description of London' in D Douglas & GGreenaway English Historical Documents //(1981), 958GOODE & POPE (1989), C Goode & S Pope Test PitSurvey, 1-3 and the Courtyard of 6a Great St ThomasApostle, EC4 (THM89) DUA unpub reportHOLLOWAY (1996), S Holloway The Historical Atlasof Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland 1875-1900HUSTINGS ROLLS 141 (29), July 1413, City ofLondon Records OfficeLAWRENCE (1990), D Lawrence ArchaeologicalInvestigations at 1-3 Great Saint Thomas Apostle, EC4(THM89) DUA unpub reportNENK (1999), B Nenk with a contribufion byM Hughes 'Post-medieval redware pottery ofLondon and Essex' in G Egan & R L Michael(eds) Old and New Worlds, Historical/Post-m£dievalArchaeology Papers from the Societies, Joint Conferencesat Williamsburg and London 1997, 235-45PEARCE (1992), J E Pearce Post-medieval Pottery inLondon, 1500-1700: 1 Border WareSCHOFIELD with MALONEY (1998), J Schofieldwith C Maloney Archaeology in the City of London1907-91: a Guide to Records of Excavations by theMuseum of London and its Predecessors ArchaeolGazetteer Series 1STOW (1598), J Stow A Survey of London (edn HMorley Ltd, 1994), 238-9TOBERT (1982), N Tobert Foster Lane 1982: theFinds, an Appraisal Report (OST82) unpub DUAappraisal reportVINCE & JENNER (1991), A G Vince & AJenner'The Saxon and early medieval pottery of London'in A G Vince (ed) Aspects of Saxon and NormanLondon 2: Finds and Environmental Evidence lônAonMiddlesex Archaeol Soc Spec Pap 12, 19-119WHEELER (1978), A Wheeler Key to the Fishes ofNorthern EuropeWHEELER (1979), A Wheeler The Tidal Thames: theHistory of a River and its FishesWILSON (1976), C A Wilson Food and Drink inBritain from the Stone Age to Recent Timeshttp://www.heraldicmedia.com/site/info/livery/livcomps/comp013a.html

A SUMMARY OF PAPERS READ AT THELAMAS LOCAL HISTORY CONFERENCEHELD AT THE MUSEUM OF LONDONON 20 NOVEMBER 2004: 'ST PAUL'S ANDTHE DIOCESE OF LONDON: FOURTEENHUNDRED YEARS'THE FOUNDATION AND ENDOWMENTOF ST PAUL'SPamela TaylorThe magnificent new centenary history of StPaul's takes the history of London's cathedralthrough from the foundation in AD 604 to2004. My own chapter there, Toundation andEndowment: St Paul's and the English Kingdoms,604-1087', has a wider span than this paper, butcould not include some of the detail that a localaudience might appreciate. This paper thereforefocuses only on the first two centuries and onthree topographical issues, all within what mightbe called greater Middlesex. These are: firstly,the diocesan boundary; secondly, Stepney andthe 24 hides; and thirdly, the west Middlesexestates: Eulham and Willesden.Foundation and endowment were always inextricablylinked since no church or any otherinstitution could or can exist without the fundsto support its buildings, staff and so on. In latercenturies there were alternative forms of investment,but in the pre-modern world land was theonly resource capable of yielding a long-termregular income. Since every founder knewthis, the act of foundation necessarily includedendowment. The sources for the early historyof St Paul's are weak but we do have Bede'saccount of the foundation, and, although Bede229himself was far away in Jarrow, and not writinguntil the 730s AD, he had a key research assistant,Nothelm, who was a priest of St Paul's and alsoimmersed himself in the records at Canterbury.This immersion was not a routine genuflectionto ecclesiastical hierarchy but a reflection of abasic and permanently determining politicalreality, that conversion was always via princes.When St Augustine, sent by Pope Gregorythe Great to reconvert the various tribes andkingdoms that would eventually coalesce intoEngland, landed in Kent in AD 597, he was notsimply taking the shortest crossing from Gaulbut also acknowledging the prevailing politicalcircumstances, ^thelberht. King of Kent, was alsooverlord of much of southern England, and theEast Saxon kingdom, which included London,although it had its own royal line, was under^thelberht's direct hegemony. This explainswhy the archbishopric was settled at Canterbury,even though Pope Gregory had assumed that therefounded church would continue the Romanpattern with the archbishoprics at Londonand York; and it is also why it was ^thelberhtwho in AD 604 established two other sees afterCanterbury — at Rochester and London. Itis also, in the longer view, why St Paul's, thecathedral of the permanently subservient EastSaxons, was never as well endowed as one mightassume the cathedral of London to have been.Bede's account of the foundations makes this

230 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004essential royal support and endowment crystalclear:In the year of our lord 604 Augustine, archbishopof Britain, consecrated two bishops,namely Mellitus and Justus, Mellitus topreach to the province (provincia) of theEast Saxons, which is divided from Kentby the river Thames and borders on thesea to the east. Its capital is the city ofLondon, which is on the banks of that riverand is an emporium for many nations whocome to it by land and sea. At that timeSasberht, Jithelberht's nephew ..., ruledover the people {gens) although he wasunder yEthelberht's suzerainty ... When thisprovince had accepted the word of truththrough the preaching of Mellitus, King.(Ethelberht built the church of the holyapostle Paul in the city of London, in whichMellitus and his successors were to havetheir episcopal seat ... [Êthelberht alsobuilt the church for Justus at Rochester]; healso bestowed many gifts on the bishops ofboth these churches and that of Canterbury;and he also added lands and possessions forthe maintenance of those who were with thebishops.Crystal clear, but only as far as it goes. First, Bededoes not attempt to specify any of the 'lands andpossessions'. Secondly, he does not fully definethe province of the East Saxons, saying only thatit was divided by the Thames from Kent andbordered the sea to the east, and thus avoidingthe far more difficult question of the landboundaries on the north and west. It is obviousthat the East Saxon kingdom was larger than thelater county that inherited its name. Essex liesentirely east of the river Lea, but the kingdom inAD 604 spread much further west. London itselfis west of the Lea and until the local governmentreorganisations of the 19th and 20th centurieswas part of Middlesex, or the territory of theMiddle Saxons. Earlier scholars assumed that inthe 6th century the East Saxons must have beenperforming more strongly than later, and hadmanaged to absorb the Middle Saxon kingdom.This is now considered doubtful. A better guessis that the East Saxon kingdom extended west ofthe Lea from the beginning and that 'Middlesex'(whose first recorded usage comes in a charterof AD 704) was a new term coined in the early8th century by the Mercians, who had certainlyby then absorbed the East Saxon kingdominto their ever-expanding empire. (Kent'shegemony barely outlived yEthelberht, who diedin AD 616). On this reading the Middle Saxons,like the neighbouring Middle Angles, were abureaucratic invention.It is also important to remember that theshiring of Mercia into anything resembling itsmodern counties did not occur until the early10th century — as part of the reconquest of thearea from the Vikings. Hertford, a newly createdfort of AD 911, soon afterwards received itseponymous shire, which must have been takenprimarily from Middlesex, though probably withadditional land on the same problematic northand west. In the 10th century the new boundarybetween Middlesex and Hertfordshire becomesan additional issue, but one which is excludedhere. Before this, the problem of the northernand western boundaries of the province anddiocese pertain to greater Middlesex. The TribalHidage, probably drawn up in the 670s AD, givesa list of the political units that were then payingfinancial tributes to Mercia; these included theEast Saxons, and also two other separate groupswithin the later Hertfordshire, the Cilternscetan(Chiltern-dwellers) at the western edge andthe Hicce around Hitchin in the north, but theother known tribes in the area, including theBrahingas around Braughing and the Wceclingasaround St Albans, are not named. As with theequally absent Middlesex and its constituenttribes, they had therefore already been absorbedinto a larger unit, most probably that of the EastSaxons.The whole fledgling church came perilouslyclose to collapse during the 7th century, andwas only placed on a more stable footingby the dynamic Archbishop Theodore (AD668-90). One of his actions was to rationalisethe diocesan structure, both severing the exactconnection with tribal origins and creatingseveral new dioceses in Mercia. Among thesewas Leicester, created in AD 679 for the MiddleAngles — as mentioned above an inventedgrouping (and, unlike the Middle Saxons, Ithink always understood as such) — and this wasthe adjacent see along London's northern andwestern edges. Leicester was ultimately absorbedwithin the enormous diocese of Lincoln. Thediocese of London, as it existed from at least thehigh Middle Ages until subdivision in the 19thcentury, comprised the whole of the counties ofEssex and Middlesex and about the eastern thirdof Hertfordshire, with West Herts, includingSt Albans, within the diocese of Lincoln. Theboundary between East and West Herts was

Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 231and is the Roman Stane Street. The boundarybetween West Herts and Middlesex has noobvious topographical rationale (and all theoriesconcerning Grimsdyke, which runs along part ofthe line, should be treated with great caution),and it is still uncertain whether when this wasmade the new county boundary in the early 10thcentury, it preceded or followed the diocesanone. But we do know that in AD 704, 25 years afterArchbishop Theodore's rearrangements. KingOffa of the East Saxons gave his bishop land inHemel Hempstead, which must therefore at thattime have been within the East Saxon provinceand diocese. Hemel, which is west of St Albans,was later firmly within West Herts and Lincoln.The Hemel estate was later lost to St Paul's, weknow not when or how, but that is a commonstory.Endowments, then, can be revelatory: theHemel grant shows that the East Saxons' boundarychanged after AD 704. More generally, the amountof endowment that a church received and retainedat various periods can be a rough indicator ofits standing vis-a-vis its rivals — and London'scompetitors came to include not only Canterburybut such other heavyweights as Westminster andSt Albans. There are, of course, always difficultiesin interpretation, not least because endowmentscould be problematic not only to retain but also,particularly in the later Anglo-Saxon period, toreceive, so that documented promises could easilyfail to materialise. Also, and an important pointfor local historians returned to below, changesboth in the names of aggregated manorial unitsand in units of measurement make reading backfrom later evidence extremely hazardous.By the time of Domesday Book (1086) thebishop and canons were holding their estatesalmost entirely separately from each other — thatis both were holding directly from the Crown.No other English cathedral had yet progressedthis far, and even at London such a fixed andformal degree of separation was recent. BishopTheodred (d.951x953) transferred some estatesfrom episcopal to cathedral endowment, butsome had been re-transferred by 1066. Somebequests made around 1000 make it clear thatthe gift is to one side or the other, but otherswere still undivided; Êthelric for examplebequeathed estates west of Rayne (Essex) 'forthe bishop for the provision of lights and forthe communication of Christianity to God'speople there', and this is still in exact line withBede's '[Êthelberht] also bestowed many giftson the bishops ...; and he also added landsand possessions for the maintenance of thosewho were with the bishops'. In the 7th and 8thcenturies we have to assume that endowmentswere undifferentiated between the bishop andcanons, and were only divided later. There aretwo other important facts about early grants: firstthat they were almost always made by kings, andsecondly that they were normally of large tracts ofterritory. The smaller grants by lesser people suchas ^thelric come later, and are closer to grantsof estates as we easily recognise them. The earlyroyal gifts are different, comprising not simplyland but huge contiguous areas within whichthere was some alienation of royal sovereigntyso that the grantee became responsible for someaspects of royal peace-keeping and so on. Despitethe risk of a circular argument, I am convincedthat even without documentation any evidenceof one of these very large contiguous estates isevidence of an early, certainly pre-Viking, grant.St Paul's had four such large blocks of territory,two in Essex and two in Middlesex. To deal brieflywith the Essex ones: one has no charter and theearliest reference comes in Bishop Theodred'swill of the mid-10th century, but it compriseda very large chunk of coastal Essex, 54 hides inDomesday Book, by which time it was dividedexactly between the bishop's manors of Chich-StOsyth and Clacton and the canons' The Naze.Even without knowing the exact value of a hide(if it was actual it was probably around 120 acres,but it was as likely to be cadastral, and sometimesleniently beneficial), this is obviously a large area.The other Essex estate has a reputable charter,or more exactly, a reputable 17th-century copyfrom an apparently reputable charter roll, nowlost, by which Suabred, King of the East Saxons,gave the Bishop of London 70 cassati 'in regionequi dicitur Deningei'. This regio or region calledDengie was the whole promontory betweenthe rivers Crouch and Blackwater. Exactly howmuch was granted is unclear, and if the wholepromontory then much was later lost, but thebishop's extensive manor of Southminster withinthe promontory was assessed at 30 hides in 1086.Tantalisingly too, the promontory also includesTillingham, which St Paul's has always claimed asa foundation estate.The Tillingham estate actually boasts a charter,or a copy of one, but the balance of expertopinion is that AD 604 would have been too earlyfor this to be possible, and that it is thereforea later forged justification. I accept that the

232 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004charter is suspect but am less sure that thismeans that the gift cannot have occurred then.To say that no document equals no early estatebut that any document is deeply suspect is to bedamned either way. This becomes relevant whenwe move across to Middlesex, which has the onlyother estate that the canons always claimed as afoundation grant — the 24 hides just north ofthe city. Their claim was accepted by Williamthe Conqueror, no pushover but four and a halfcenturies after the event, but as far as we knowSt Paul's never adduced any written evidence.We cannot pinpoint the 24 hides exactly — theamounts of land in the then recently createdDomesday prebends do not tally — but theyhave to be more or less the area covering StPancras, Tottenham Court, part of Moorfields,and probably part of Islington.This by itself is quite substantial, but againneeds to be seen in conjunction with the bishop'sadjacent holdings. The bishop's manor of Stepney,for which there is no early documentation norclaim, lay all around the 24 hides. In 1086 he had32 hides in demesne (direct ownership) there,as well as various subinfeudated chunks. Thetwo largest of these were, first, 5.25 hides heldby Hugh de Berneres, and since this becamethe manor of Islington Berners or Barnsbury,we know where it was — in Islington and northwestof modern Stepney. Second was a 5-hideestate held by the wife (or widow) of Brian, andalthough this carried no such helpful name-tag,because of its later descent it has been shown tobe Clerkenwell, and therefore west not only ofmodern Stepney but also of the 24 hides.The bishop also held Bishopsgate. This ledout into St Paul's land, basically the manorof Stepney, although it was the canons whosecottagers were recorded at Bishopsgate in theMiddlesex Domesday survey. In City terms itwas a major gate, controlling the northern endof the important direct route up from LondonBridge and the pre-bridge crossing place. Withinthe City we would probably expect St Paul's tohave controlled the area around the precinct,but, although this may well originally have beenthe case, there seems to have been some radicalreadjustment and loss when the adjacent CastleBaynard was destroyed in the early 13th century.The bishop did however have a large soke (areaof privileged private jurisdiction) covering theCornhill and Bishopsgate areas. When thiswas acquired is uncertain, and it is only welldocumented from the 13th century, but theearlier silence is almost certainly simply anabsence of documentation. It is highly unlikelythat any such new grant would have been madeby then in exchange for the old area around theprecinct: sokes and socage rents are anotherexample of early alienation of royal authority— and made at a time when the City's ownlocal government was not a player. There was alegend, reported by Stow in the 16th century,that St Peter Cornhill marked the site of theRoman cathedral, and even though this is nolonger accepted (it was certainly on the forumsite but no suitable traces of a church have beenfound), if the legend was current sufficientlyearly it might explain the gift. But how early?AD 604 courtesy of ^thelberht? Around AD 700courtesy of the Mercians, and if so, why? AroundAD 900 during the Alfredian reconstruction of theCity, or AD 950 when Bishop Theodred was verypowerful? Any later than that seems unlikely.It is certainly arguable that the soke seemscoherent with St Paul's adjacent extramuralholding, and that such a large area, ringingthe City from Stepney and Hackney in the eastround to Clerkenwell in the west, must have hadobvious strategic importance. Not only does itmake obvious sense for a foundation grant to beclose to the cathedral city, but it is far from clearthat any of London's later overlords would havebeen so generous with such territory. It is truethat we now know that some or all of Islington— at the northern end of the area — was notreceived until some point in the 10th century,and in the bishop's case was then added into Stepney (this was standard administrativepractice if there was a convenient neighbouringmanor), but this does not vitiate the main point.But we cannot prove that this was a, or the,foundation grant. All students of the past haveto learn to live with uncertainty, and the burningdesire to know definitively has to be controlledbefore it leads to idees fixes and tunnel vision.The fourth of the cathedral's large areasof endowment comprises its estates in westMiddlesex. Here we know that at least some weregranted in the very early 8th century. There areactually two charters, or rather, again, reputable17th-century copies from a reputable roll. Bothwere first published with the rest of RichardJames's extracts by Marion Gibbs in 1939. In theearly 1990s Simon Keynes unearthed another setof extracts from the same missing roll, this timeby the distinguished jurist John Selden, againfrustratingly incomplete, but providing a little

Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 233bit of additional information. The larger of thetwo grants, of 50 manentes 'in loco qui diciturFulanham (in the place that is called Fulham)',which Gibbs dated to c.AD 704-5, can now, thanksto Keynes, be assigned to AD 701. The othergrant, of 10 manentes 'in loco qui dicitur Gillingas(Ealing)', is still only datable to between AD 693and 704, so we still do not know which came first.We do know that the Ealing grant was made byyEthelred King of the Mercians, while Fulhamcame from Bishop Tyrhtilus of Hereford with theconsent of Sigeheard King of the East Saxonsand Coenred joint King of the Mercians. WhyTyrhtilus had the land is still a major puzzle. Evenwithin the Mercian empire it seems an unlikelyendowment for so distant a see as Hereford, andeven if, as is highly likely, Tyrhtilus was a Mercianprince, this is usually considered too early forland to be held by the lay aristocracy.The exact area covered by manentes, like hides,is unknowable but 50 plus 10 is a substantialterritory, far more than what we would now thinkof as Fulham and Ealing. As with Stepney or the24 hides, grantors or owners picked on one name,which (as with a London borough) denotes anadministrative unit not the settlements within it.This has been a constant pitfall for local historians.In the Hammersmith Local History Group'spioneering A History of Hammersmith, for instance,published in 1965, Helen Miles, the then-borougharchivist who contributed the chapter on themanor, was still as sure as earlier antiquarianshad been that the Domesday manor of Fulhamequated to the later parish of Fulham, which inturn equates to what had just in 1965 becomethe London Borough of Hammersmith, but inthe face of local outrage was later renamed theLondon Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.Fulham is a less complicated Domesday entrythan Stepney, with only a 40-hide main manorheld by the bishop and two other estates of 5hides each, one of them held from the bishopby Fulchered and the other held by the canonsdirectly from the Crown. Marion Gibbs showedin 1939 that the canons' estate equated to theirmanors of Sutton and Chiswick, which betweenthem occupied a large part of today's Chiswick,and should perhaps have given Miss Miles pausefor thought. But, convinced that the rest of theentry had to refer exclusively to Fulham andHammersmith, she equated Fulchered's 5 hidesto Wormholt, now the Wormwood Scrubs area.Shortly after this, and after Miss Miles'sdeparture, 1 too came to Hammersmith as one ofits archivists and turned with immediate interestto the manor, only to discover that the existing,extremely Fulham-centric, model simply did notfit. This led fairly swiftly to my doctoral thesis onthe medieval Bishopric of London estates, andalso to my one article in the LAMAS Transactions,published in 1977, and far too densely argued.The basic argument, though, remains sound.Just as in Stepney Hugo de Berners' and thewife of Brian's estates were in fact in Islingtonand Clerkenwell respectively, so in FulhamFulchered's 5 hides were in fact in Acton. Theapparent absence of Ealing and Acton fromDomesday Book is because in 1086 they were stillfully subsumed within the manor of Fulham.So does the 50 hides of Fulham in 1086 equateexactly to the 50 manentes in Fulham and 10 inEaling granted around AD 700? Almost certainlynot, not least because distant Finchley wasprobably added in the 10th century. But thereis also a wider problem. That reputable charterroll whose 17th-century copies give us thegrants of Hemel, Fulham, Ealing, Islington, andDengie, refers predominantly to estates, or estatenames, later held by the bishop. The canonshad their separate Tillingham charter andtheir acceptance of the 24 hides by William theConqueror, but for virtually everything else theyrelied on one comprehensive forgery, purportingto be a confirmation of their estates by KingAthelstan (925x939), but in fact manufacturedin the 12th century with help from the creativeforgers down the road at Westminster Abbey.By then the holdings of the canons and bishopwere fully separate and this confirmation (whichwas often later misconstrued as a grant) onlydeals with the canons' estates. A genuine 10thcenturydocument would not have been sonarrow. If the canons had previously had anygenuine documents, they seem to have disposedof them, but in the case of the four main earlyblocks of territory one has to wonder if suchdocumentation had ever existed — for a singlegrant would have been made under a singlename — Fulham, Ealing, Dengie — and later,when the territory had long been divided, thismight well have been misunderstood. By 1066the canons held extensive territories in a blockadjacent to episcopal Fulham, listed in DomesdayBook under the names of Twyford (two holdingsof 2 hides), Harlesden (5 hides), and Willesden,a substantial 15 hides. Were these the result of aseparate grant or grants, or were they within theoriginal donations of Fulham and Ealing? There

234 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004is no way of knowing, but the problem underlinesthe dangers of any rigid equation of amountsof land, as well as of names, over time. And onthe latter point, the area listed as Harlesden andWillesden in Domesday Book appears as Neasdenin a St Paul's list of c.lOOO, compiled to show thedistribution of obligations towards the manning ofa warship and thus incidentally the first genuinelist of the church's estates.Further readingB Colgrave and RAB Mynors (eds) Bede'sL^cclesiasticalHistory of the English People (1991)D Dumville 'Essex, Middle Anglia and the expansionof Mercia in the south-east Midlands' in ipse,Britons and Anglo-Saxons in the Early Middle Ages(1993), IX, 1-30 [this is a footnoted version; thepaper was first published without references in SBassett (ed) The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms(1989), ch 9]D Dumville 'The Tribal Hidage: an introduction toits texts and their history', in Bassett op cit, ch 16M Gibbs (ed) Early Charters of the Cathedral Church ofSt Paul, London (1939)D Keene et al St Paul's The Cathedral Church of London604-2004 (2004)S E Kelly (ed) Charters of St Paul's, London Anglo-Saxon Charters 10 (2004)S Keynes 'A charter of King Edward for Islington'Historical Research m (1993), 303-16D P Kirby 'The Saxon bishops of Leicester, Lindsey(Syddensis), and Dorchester' Leicestershire Archaeologicaland Historical Soc Trans 41 (1966), 1-7J Morris (ed) Domesday Book. Middlesex (1975)P Taylor 'A knight's fee at Acton, in the manor ofFulham' Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 28(1977), 316-22P Taylor 'The bishop of London's city soke' HistoricalResearch55 (1980), 174-82P Taylor 'Clerkenwell and the religious foundationsof Jordan de Bricett: a re-examination' HistoricalResearches (1990), 17-28RECONSTRUCTING ST PAUL'S BEFORETHE FIREJohn SchofieldAn archaeological account of St Paul's and its siteis only now being assembled. The observationsand excavations on which it is based go backto the time of Wren as he was building his newcathedral in the 1670s, and continue at thepresent day.No certain evidence of the Saxon cathedralhas yet been identified, though a foundationof Saxon or at latest 11th-century characterfound in a test pit on the north-west side ofthe cathedral in 1933 is significant: it suggeststhat where pockets of stratigraphy survive, theymay include Saxon layers and features. Butotherwise the Saxon cathedral and its ancillarybuildings remain unknown. One potential sitefor the Saxon church, beneath the nave of itsRomanesque successor, is suggested here; butthere is no firm evidence and other sites areequally possible. The plotting of sites for thegazetteer has produced a probably significantproximity of the findspot of the well-known 11thcenturyViking tombstone and the proposed site,on documentary grounds, of the bishop's palacebefore its move across the churchyard sometimein the 13th century.The form of the eastern arm and transeptsof the Romanesque cathedral were suggestedby Richard Gem in 1990, and their significancehinted at, though not much could be said as theinformation was so exiguous. The London regionwas where a fully-developed style of Romanesquearchitecture might be expected before theNorman Conquest, and the rebuilding of thecathedral from 1087 would fit into this context.The analysis of moulded stones from the recentexcavations, probably from the nave, has filledout this picture and identified the main buildingstone as from Taynton in Oxfordshire. The plottingof the oudine of the whole church, fromall the evidence, is gradually taking place oncomputers.As we progress through the succession ofcathedrals on the site, the information increasesand our understanding of the building andtherefore its architectural and historical significancebecomes clearer. The New Work, therebuilding and extension of the choir between1255 and 1314, was presumably intended toprovide an enlarged, spacious setting for the

Summary of papers read at the I^MAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 235shrine of Erkenwald; a similar extension for thepatron saint had just been finished at Ely in 1252.The rose window in the east gable, the largest inBritain, may have been a conscious echo of, orreponse to, the rose in the south transept ofNotre Dame, Paris. From 1270 to the 1290s, StPaul's was the greatest architectural undertakingin the London area, surpassing even the works atWestminster Abbey.At the Reformation in the 1530s the cathedralsuffered, like all other great churches. Its fabricwas despoiled and neglected; in 1561 the spirecaught fire and was afterwards demolished.During the Elizabethan and Jacobean decades,however, the choir of the cathedral became thesite of prestigious, assertive tombs of courtiersand high-ranking officials. A major new elementin our understanding of the development ofthe pre-Fire cathedral comprises the recoveryand analysis of fragments of the Jones porticoof 1633-1641 and other fragments from hisrestoration of the church. The majority of thesefragments come from excavations of 1994-96,but now others in the historic collection, in thesouth triforium of the present building, can berecognised as also being from Jones's works. Forthe first time the portico can be reconstructedfrom actual fragments, and a detailed pictureof his whole restoration is emerging from theconjunction of archaeological and documentarystudy.Two overall conclusions can be drawn fromthis work. First, although the Wren buildingwas itself destructive of traces of the previouscathedrals throughout its footprint and possiblyfor some distance outside in certain directions,a great deal survives beneath the ground and ithas the capacity to elucidate, as no other sourcecan, the early history of the cathedral and its site.By charting the discoveries and observations ofthe strata in and around the present cathedralsince the time of Wren, we can underpinthe present cathedral with much of the site'sprevious physical history and the context ofworship in the cathedral since AD 604. Second,it may be suggested that St Paul's Churchyard,a rectangular block of land and strata in thewestern part of the City, comprises probably thebest and most significant remaining block ofstrata for the understanding of the evolution ofthe City of London through 2000 years.JOHN COLET AND THE FOUNDATIONOF ST PAUL'S SCHOOLReverend Hugh MeadFive years after the see of London celebratesthe fourteen hundredth anniversary of its refoundation,the school that John Colet built inthe cathedral's shadow, but that now flourisheson the river bank at Barnes, will celebrate amuch more modest five hundred years of life.But perhaps the school ought really to havealready kept its thousandth anniversary, as longago as 1886. So argued the Edwardian pundit AF Leach, on the grounds that, when King Alfredretook London from the Danes in that year, acathedral school would have at once been set up,and that Colet's foundation was no more than areform of that cathedral school. There certainlywas a medieval cathedral school — indeed therewere two, a grammar school and a choir school.The grammar school may be able to claim bothThomas Becket and Geoffrey Chaucer as oldboys, and can certainly claim a schoolmaster,one Elwin, 'who among other works of pietyexercised the most vigilant discipline over theboys', one of whom miraculously escaped abeating by fleeing to the nearby shrine of StErkenwald. But by Colet's day this school was indecay. It occupied tiny premises over some shops('cum quatuor shoppis subtus') and Colet calledit 'schola nullius plane momenti (obviously aschool of no importance)'. In its place Coletplanned a beautiful stone building, staffedby masters as well qualified (or so he told thepope) by sanctity as by literary knowledge. Hebegan the complex legal and financial processof foundation in 1509 and obtained royal letterspatent in 1510.In one respect Colet's school certainly didbreak with the past — he ensured that it shouldbe entirely outside the control of the cathedralauthorities (apart, that is, from his own personalsupervision), going so far as to petition thepope to quash any claims over it by the canonchancellor. Perhaps this was partly because thethen chancellor was William Lichfield, of whomthe Cathedral's historians have written, 'thatno project could possibly flourish if placed inhis apathetic hands' and who had allowed theCathedral's divinity lectures, for which he wasresponsible, to lapse for twenty years. InsteadColet vested its government in the most seniorof the livery companies of the City of London,

236 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004the Mercers, of which both he and his father,who had twice been Lord Mayor of London,were eminent members. According to his friendErasmus of Rotterdam, 'that learned Erasmus' asColet rightly called him, he chose them because,though there was nothing certain in humanaffairs, he yet found the least corruption inmarried laymen. He chose a married layman asthe first high master too.It used to be thought that these were radicalchoices: in fact married schoolmasters and laytrustees of schools were known well before Colet'sday. What is surprising is that so severely ascetica celibate as Colet should have chosen them. Hisown view of marriage, expressed in his treatiseon the sacraments, was that 'the marriage ofmale and female for the propagation of the fleshis a vain and empty shadow of the true marriagebetween Christ and his church ... There is noneed for [carnal marriage] among Christians,though it is necessarily permitted to the weakand feeble; nor is the resulting offspring needed... The pagans would supply ample material forregeneration even if the church were altogetherbarren in that respect.' All this is from his Latintreatise on the sacraments, which was neitherpublished in full nor translated until 1989. Yet hecould also write, paraphrasing Proverbs xviii.22,'if thou intend to marry or being married hasta good wife thank the Lord for it, for she is ofhis sending'. And he lavished a large fortune onthe education of this unnecessary offspring andentrusted it to married men.John Colet was himself the eldest of twentytwo children, eleven boys and eleven girls, ofwhom all but two died in infancy. His remainingbrother, Richard, seems to have died aged abouttwenty five. All this mortality helped make himvery rich as his father's only heir It may also havemade him, to use a phrase that the late HarryPorter transferred to Colet from Inge, somethingof a gloomy dean. Erasmus thought Colet aman of strong passions, strongly repressed. Healways wore black (it seems that in his day deansgenerally wore purple); he entertained meagrely(he thought demons were attracted by the smellof cooking) — you got good conversation at histable, but rose from it not very well filled. TheChapter thought he neglected his duties ofhospitality, especially to the Chapter, and Coletthought that the Chapter, like the ungodly inthe psalm, hated to be reformed. He orderedthe canons: 'to refrain from vain conversation,guffawing and laughing, and ... to stand upstraight in their stalls, concentrated and devout;and they are either to be praying or reading orchanting, mindful that they are in the sight ofGod and the angels.'Either in 1510 or 1512, in any case at thevery time that his new school was rising in thecathedral churchyard, Colet preached beforethe Convocation of Canterbury a sermon whichwould later be hailed as having heralded thereformation, though its boldness and uniquenessmay prove to have been considerablyexaggerated. But even if conventional, his criticismsof his fellow clergy are certainly severe:'Most priests give themselves up to feasting andbanqueting, spend themselves in vain babbling,take part in sports and plays; devote themselvesto hawking and hunting; are drowned in thedelights of the world...' These strictures are nodoubt reflected in his orders that the boys ofhis school should not be allowed 'cock fighting,nor riding about of victory, nor disputing at StBartilmewe, which is but foolish babbling andlosse of time'. Having dealt with the lust of theflesh, the Dean's sermon turns to covetousness:'For what other thing seek we nowadays in thechurch than fat benefices and high promotions... we care not how many, how chargeful, howgreat benefices we take so that they be of greatvalue.' He himself had already acquired threelivings in plurality, including a very valuable onewhich he kept for the rest of his life, even beforehe had been ordained deacon.Colet the severe reformer then was also Coletthe rich pluralist, and the Colet who found mostvirtue in married business men was also Coletthe almost savagely celibate ascetic. For theseparadoxes all beneficiaries of St Paul's Schoolmust be grateful. His reforming instincts madethe school a centre of Christian humanism (butthere are more paradoxes to come as to thistopic). His childlessness (and the deaths of hissiblings) left him free to give his school nearly allhis wealth, and his wealth enabled him to makeit the largest and best endowed in the kingdom(there were to be more than twice as many boyson its foundation as at Eton, and its masterswere paid twice as well). Within a few years ofthe school's foundation Sir Thomas More couldwrite to Colet that 'some are bursting with envyat your famous school'.The new St Paul's school 'was elegantly built instonework' and established in the eastern part ofSt Paul's churchyard. Adjoining it houses wereprovided for the High Master and his assistant.

Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 237the surmaster. Later on the High Master was alsoto enjoy a country house, in Stepney, but thiswas at first still occupied by Colet's mother, whosurvived him.No plan or picture of the school Colet built isknown to survive; but we have a verbal descriptionof it at the time of Colet's death from the pen ofErasmus. It was a single large hall, divided intothree by curtains. The High Master taught thesenior boys at one end; the surmaster taughtthe middling boys in the middle; the chaplaintaught the little boys at the other end. The lastseems to have been an afterthought. At first thechaplain's duty was that of a chantry priest; but ifhe was learned enough, said Colet, he could helpwith the teaching should the High Master wishit. Over the High Master's chair was an imageof Jesus as a boy, with the inscription 'Hear yehim', added, says Erasmus, 'at my suggestion':the school was dedicated to Jesus in his boyhood,and was at first often called Jesus School.The boys sat on benches raised in tiers. Coletintended that boys should be admitted fromall nations and countries indifferently, but 'mycountrymen Londoners specially'. As St Paul'swas at first entirely a day school, early Paulineswill all have been Londoners, unless they wereput to board with friends or relations in theCity. They were not to be admitted until theycould read and write and say their catechism:but they were probably admitted very young,as Colet, in the introduction to the Grammarthat he drew up for the school, addresses themas little babes, little children. Their educationwas to be free, but each was to come to schoolprovided with a wax candle; for lessons, at leastin winter, began in the dark. That the candleswere of wax and not of tallow suggested to oneearly 20th-century historian of the school that StPaul's was not intended for the children of thepoor. Well, perhaps not. But in the early 20thcentury, a London day school, however eminentacademically, could never feel quite secure as toits place in the public school pecking order. AndColet did provide for at least one poor child ofthe school, who was to have the duty of removingthe boys' urine and the perk of selling it.Erasmus says that there were sixteen boys ineach class. The top class at St Paul's is calledthe eighth (instead of the sixth as at most otherschools). If this was so from the beginning, thenwe can envisage eight benches or forms, fouron each side of the school room, and 128 boysaltogether; but neither 128 boys nor eight formsare divisible by three masters. Erasmus's schemeis too tidy. In any case Colet ordered that thereshould be 153 boys. (There are still 153 scholars.)As far as we know he did not explain his choiceof this interesting number; but there seems nogood reason to doubt that it is a reference to the153 fishes in the miraculous catch at the end ofSt John's gospel. The school is to catch childrenfor Christ, just as the apostles were to be fishersof men. J H Lupton, biographer and editor ofColet and surmaster 1866-99, argued againstthis view, probably because it went against hisown idealised picture of Colet as a rational andenlightened Christian, a precursor of all that wasgood and moderate in the English Reformation.But Colet was interested in numerology: he mayhave had in mind the belief that there were 153species of fish in existence, so that the catch issymbolic of the command to preach the gospelto all nations. Or he may have been thinkingmore elaborately. 153 is the triangular of themystic number 17, which is the sum of 10 and7, 'both symbols of perfection'. The Pauline, assoon as he was admitted to the school, was taughtthe ten commandments and the seven sacramentsincluded in the catechism which Colet himselfwrote for them in English. 'By this way', saidColet, 'thou shalt come to grace and to glory.'Once the boys had learned their catechism,their studies were entirely in the classicaltongues, and principally, of course, in Latin.But Colet, though he himself did not seriouslytry to learn Greek until nearly the end of hislife, ordered it to be taught at his school; Lily,the first High Master, was a good Greek scholar,and St Paul's has long claimed to be the firstEnglish School to teach Greek. Hebrew wasadded at least as early as the 17th century. OneHigh Master was removed, in 1559, ostensibly fornot knowing Greek, but really for holding thewrong religious opinions. Colet's instructionswere that the boys should be taught 'all way ingood literature ... and good authors such ashave the very Roman eloquence joined withwisdom, specially Christian authors that wrotetheir wisdom with clean and chaste Latin'. Hedenounced as blotterature rather than literaturethe 'Latin adulterate which ignorant blindfools later brought into this world and utterlyabanished and excluded it' out of his school.This rather intemperate language reflects thecontempt of Erasmus's circle for scholasticauthors, especially the scotists, though Colethimself particularly disliked Thomas Aquinas.

238 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004Besides the catechism, Colet wrote an accidenceor elementary grammar for the school.This, with additions by Erasmus, William Lily,the first High Master, and John Ritwise, Lily'sson-in-law and successor, grew into the longlived Lily's Grammar, made compulsory for allteaching in grammar schools by convocationin 1571, and, in 1758, shamelessly filched byEton and rechristened the Eton Latin Grammar.Colet, who may well have personally taught inhis school, also hoped that Erasmus would teachat St Paul's: this he declined to do, though heattempted, without success, to recruit mastersfor the school at Cambridge, reporting, ifwith disapproval, a remark he heard there tothe effect that no man would willingly leadsuch a slavish life if he could earn his livingin any other way: he did, however, write othertext books for St Paul's, the Colloquies (Latinconversation), De Copia (a Latin phrase book),and a sermon on the child Jesus, for one of theboys to deliver to the others, perhaps as boybishop on Innocents' Day. The good literaturewhich the boys were to read when competent ingrammar and vocabulary was specified by Coletand is surprising, given that he wants them'to be proficient in the very Roman tonguewhich in the time of Tully and Sallust andVirgil and Terence was used'. The prescribedauthors are 'Lactantius, Prudentius, and Probaand Sedulius, and Juvencus and Baptista Mantuanus'.These writers were all Christian: one,Baptista Mantuanus, was a contemporary muchadmired by Erasmus. The others were mostlylate classical apologists: Lactantius wrote a goryDeaths of the Persecutors, Juvencus a harmony ofthe Gospels in Virgilian hexameters, PrudentiusChristian poems and hymns, some of them fineones: 'Corde natus ex parentis (Of the father'sheart begotten)' is his. Sedulius was a Carolingianpoet and theologian. This is a very conservative list:most of the names on it had been appearing inschool syllabuses for centuries. C S Lewis thoughtthat 'no more deadly or irrational scheme couldhave been propounded' and it certainly does notsquare with the school's perception of itself as apioneer of humanist education. But it does squarewith Colet's professed aim: 'my intent is by thisschool specially to increase knowledge of God andour Lord Christ jesu and good christian life andmanners in the children.'Yet within half a century of Colet's death, all hisprescribed authors, except the moderns, Erasmusand Baptista Mantuanus, had disappeared fromthe syllabus, replaced by such classical authorsas Caesar, Horace, Ovid, and Cicero. Classicalwriters had in any case been insinuated intoPauline studies by Erasmus's exclusive use ofthem as grammatical examples, and Lily wantedthe boys to read Cicero, Virgil, and Terence. Sodead a letter did Colet's instructions prove that itis permissible to wonder whether they were everintended seriously. Colet told Erasmus that 'ourschool' was under attack: somebody influentialhad been 'blaspheming our school before alarge concourse of people, declaring that I haveerected ... a temple of idolatry.' Thomas Morecompared St Paul's to the Trojan horse. Just asGreeks came forth from the horse to destroybarbarian Troy, so Paulines come forth fromthe school to destroy ignorance and disorder.So it may be (though I doubt it) that that veryconservative and strictly Christian reading listwas meant for a smoke-screen rather than a realcurriculum.In his Letter to Justus Jonas, which was written in1521, two years after Colet's death, and containsa biographical sketch of him, Erasmus declaresthat Colet 'had never got along well with hisbishop', the aristocratic octogenarian RichardFitzjames, who with two other bishops, delatedthe dean to the Archbishop of Canterbury forheresy. He specifies three charges: that Colet 'hadtaught that images were not to be adored', 'thathe refused to acknowledge the duty of hospitalitywhich Paul praised', and that he criticised thosewho read their sermons (meaning but notnaming the Bishop of London). The Archbishopdismissed the charges, along with others which,according to Erasmus, were even more absurd,Colet himself disdaining to defend himself.In 1531 William Tyndale accused Fitzjames ofbringing another charge against Colet, that oftranslating the Pater Noster into English .As Colet's most recent biographer, JohnB Gleeson, has pointed out, these chargescertainly are absurd, far too absurd for Fitzjames,unless quite senile, to have contemplated for amoment. We have already seen that an image ofJesus was set up in Colet's new school. Colet wasnot opposed to the cult of images: if he opposedthe worship of the image in place of the reality itrepresented, he was quite orthodox in doing so.Colet's hospitality may have been meagre; butmeanness is not heresy. It is rude to criticise one'sbishop's manner of preaching: but rudenessis not heresy either. Colet did indeed translate(and expand) the Pater Noster for his schoolboys:

Summary of papers read at the I^MAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 239O father in heaven, hallowed be thy name amongmen in earth as it is among angels in heaven, andso on. The expansions are unexceptionable; thepractice of such translation was not forbiddenbut encouraged by the hierarchy. (The wholeBible, of course, was another matter.)Not only do the specified charges of heresynot make sense; but Gleeson is able to show thatErasmus was wrong in claiming that the bishopand the dean had never got on: 'the two menworked amicably together for years'. Gleesonalso shows that as late as 1511, Colet 'so far frombeing suspected of heresy', sat on a commissionthat tried and condemned two heretics. ButGleeson does see a spark of truth behind themurky smoke of Erasmus's and Tyndale's stories.In the power struggle between Warham andWolsey that ended with the Cardinal of Yorkreplacing the Archbishop of Canterbury asLord Chancellor in 1515, Fitzjames supportedWarham, Colet supported Wolsey. In Hunne'scase, Fitzjames had favoured repression as thebest way to silence the Church's critics. Wolseyand Colet saw the need for the Church toreform itself, if it was to avoid being reformed byothers. Conservative bishops might well look forunsound opinions in a reforming dean who hadhelped loosen their hold on power. And Colet,Gleeson thinks, though generally discreet onformal occasions, could be less than discreet offduty. 'Heresies', he was reported as saying, 'arenot so pestilent and pernicious ... as the evil andwicked life of priests.' Some years after his death,Erasmus told the story of the dean's disgustwhen invited to kiss the shoe of St Thomas ofCanterbury: 'By the same token they might offerhis spittle to be kissed, or who knows what else.'However motivated and however ill- or welljustified,the attack on Colet for heresy gotnowhere. An attempt to discredit him with theKing fared equally badly. Colet, it seems, hadpreached pacifism, or near pacifism, at a timewhen Henry was projecting war on France.'All the wicked', says Erasmus, 'then flockedtogether ... in the hope that now at last theKing's anger would be kindled against him.' TheKing interviewed the dean in private, and thenin public drank his health, embraced him, anddeclared: 'Let every man have his own doctorand show his favour to him. This is the doctor forme.' Colet, it seems, had agreed to explain 'forthe sake of the rough soldiers' that some wars,such as defensive English wars against France,were just wars.Colet died in 1519. His school was rebuilt forthe second time on its original site in 1824, andmoved to Hammersmith in 1884, and to Barnesin 1968. The fourth school's buildings weredesigned by Waterhouse and destroyed by an actof gross official vandalism soon after the moveto Barnes in 1968. I remember approachingthem from Baron's Court station on my way towork there as a very junior master. They were asplendid sight, at least on a sunny morning. Youcan see the fifth school if you take a bus overHammersmith Bridge.Further readingJohn B Gleason/oAn Colet (1989)S Knight The Life of Dr John Colet (1724)Arthur F Leach 'St Paul's School before Colet'Archaeologia 62 (1910)J H Lupton Life of John Colet (1909)JAR Marriot The Life of John Colet (1933)Michael F J McDonnell A History of St Paul's School(1909)Michael McDonnell The Annals of St Paul's School(1959)Michael McDonnell The Registers of St Paul's School1309-1748 {1977)A H Mead A Miraculous Draft of Fishes: A History of StPaul's School 1509-1990(1990)J B Trapp 'An English late medieval cleric and Italianthought: the case of John Colet, Dean of St Paul's(1467-1519)' in Medieval Religious and EthicalLiterature. Essays presented to G.H.Russell (1986)J B Trapp 'John Colet' in Oxford Dictionary of NationalBiography vol xii (2004), 60IffVICTORIAN MISSIONARY WORK INLONDONRight Reverend Richard Chartres, Bishop of LondonHats off to the Society for making possible thisday as a coda to the celebrations of the 1400thanniversary of the re-organisation of the Dioceseof London and the building of the first StPaul's.Ecclesiastical history has been in temporaryeclipse as a dimension of wider historical studies.Historians of the 20th century often lacked theimagination to believe that a part of life whichmeant little to them could have played a moresignificant role in the past. This is why in therecent histories of London, apart from a fewcaricaturing asides, the massively significant

240 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004social and institutional presence of the churcheshas been largely ignored.At the same time ecclesiastical history hadthe misfortune to become, at least in part, theprovince of clerical partisans, who studied thepast with polemical intent informed by somewhatarcane theological controversies of their own dayand in the process convinced the wider publicthat there was little to interest them in such anarea of study.Things are changing. We await eagerly thepublication of Arthur Burns new assessment ofmy predecessor Bishop Blomfield, coming as itdoes from the pen of the head of the historyfaculty in Kings and not from a divine.The Economist is also a sign of the times. Itwould be fair to say that ten years ago thatmagazine believed that religion could be safelyignored as a phenomenon with no influence onthe daylight world. That is not the case today.The salience of religion worldwide and not leastin this great city state of London is vastly greaterthan it was a quarter of a century ago, sometimesfor good but very often for ill. Once again, ina way that baffles many of our contemporaries,religion is unignorably connected to our deepestlife and death concerns. This gives a newsignificance to the historical studies with whichwe are concerned today.At the same time even the Church of Englandis waking up in a way that is directly relevant tomy introductory talk. The talk is once more of'mission'. In a recent influential report entitled'Mission Shaped Church', various 'new ways ofbeing church' are considered and commended.The authors frankly acknowledge that near theclose of Victoria's reign in 1900, 55% of all thechildren in England and Wales were enrolledin some kind of Christian Sunday School, quiteapart from the religious instruction which waspart of the normal school day. In 2000 the figurewas 4%, and I am surprised that it is so many.As we mount our response to this challenge,I have become more and more aware thatthere are precedents for nearly all our 'newways of being church' and it is instructive tocontemplate our own situation in the light ofthe huge missionary challenges faced by theVictorian Church. We only have a limited timefor such a vast subject, so I want to illuminatethe picture a little with four vignettes. BishopBlomfield at work, the Exeter Hall meeting ofJune 1840, the 1858 Primary Charge of BishopTait and its consequences, and lastly the witnessof an unpublished manuscript preserved in theGuildhall Library and written by the Reverend JM Rodwell between 1865 and 1875.BlomfieldTo tell you the truth I am a trifle anniversariedout after the various 1400th celebrations of thereconstitution of the Diocese of London in AD 604to serve the East Saxon tribe. But the experienceof this year has been only an exaggerated versionof usual episcopal business. I have to fulfil mypredecessors' diaries as well as my own. This hasalerted me to how busy my predecessor BishopBlomfield was in opening churches. Therehas been a plethora of 150th anniversaries offoundation stone laying by Blomfield.London in the 1830s constituted a challengefor all the churches and for the Church ofEngland in particular. London had grown explosivelyand by 1820 was larger than all thecapitals of continental Europe put together. TheChurch was beset by the difficulty of organisingnew parishes to serve the expanding population,of providing adequate clerical incomes, and indealing with the related problem of clerical nonresidence.The years of the struggle with France had seenan explosive growth of Dissent. Between 1795 and1801 alone there were 3,300 dissenting chapelsregistered. These were years of apocalyptic enthusiasmand speculation. In London WilliamBlake gave voice to a buried tradition of urbanmysticism. Old patterns of life and social restraintswere disrupted by rapid industrialisation and thefascinating figure of Napoleon fuelled the senseof a world in the melting pot. By 1815, a thirdof the UK population were dissenters from theNational Protestant Established Churches.In London the response of the EstablishedChurch developed in an active alliance withthe Government. The London based HackneyPhalanx, a network of high church clergy andtheir supporters were influential in promotingthis church\3tate compact. From 1809-21, forexample, the Government allowed £100,000 pato enhance poor livings. In 1818 the Phalanxassisted by the Claphamites (their evangelicalequivalents) and a Government grant of£1,000,000 launched the Incorporated ChurchBuilding Society with the intention of providingmore 'sittings' for the burgeoning population.In the years before 1828 the alliance of Churchand State worked more in the favour of the

Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 241Established Churches in Britain than at any timesince the reign of Charles II. The Governmentacted on the belief that the parochial structuresof the Established Churches could assist innation building.The strategy came to grief in Ireland where theSecond Reformation associated with ArchbishopMagee's St Patrick's Charge of 1822 was a divisivefailure. The repeal of the Test and CorporationActs in 1828 marked the end of even a theoreticalconstitutional symphony. There were furtherconstitutional changes in the following yearswhich made Parliament less Anglican and anassault on the Church's property and usefulnessintensified in the early 1830s. Hostility to thecollection of Church Rate was widespread. InBethnal Green in 1836 when a lay worker soughtto collect money for church extension, he wastold that 'they would give him a shilling to hangthe bishop but not six pence for church building'(quoted in SJ Brown The National Churches).The moralists were gloomy about theprospects. One influential assessment, 'TheState of the Metropolis considered in a letter tothe Bishop of London', was published in 1835. Itwas the work of Baptiste Noel (1793-1873), oneof the founders of the London City Mission.There is something, my Lord, unspeakablypainful in this contemplation of this massof immortal beings, in such close juxtapositionwith ourselves, living as we havereason to fear without God and withouthope. 500,000 Sabbath breakers at thevery least, in total neglect of the restraintsof religion, communicate the plague ofungodliness to all around them. 10,000 ofthese are devoted to play: above 20,000 areaddicted to beggary: 30,000 are living bytheft and fraud: 23,000 are in the courseof the year picked up drunk in the streets:above 100,000 are habitual gin drinkers; and100,000 or more have yielded themselves tosystematic and abandoned profligacy.The recipient of the letter was Charles JamesBlomfield who, although a high churchman, wasjustly noted for his pragmatism — he happilyaccepted the title of 'priest in the temple ofexpediency' when it was bestowed upon him in aParliamentary debate. The Church's true beautyin his eyes was 'the beauty of its holy usefulness'.He was born in 1786, was elevated to Chesterin 1824, and translated to London in 1828. Hewas convinced, especially in the light of theexperiments in Glasgow associated with the nameof the Reverend Thomas Chalmers, one of themost influential Christian strategists of the 19thcentury, that the revival of parish communitieswas the key to lasting social improvement.In 1834 in 'The Uses of a Standing Ministryand an Established Church', Blomfield arguedthat such a church was 'the most efficientinstrument of instructing the people in thedoctrines of religion and of habituating them toits decencies and restraints.'By declining to issue licenses for non-residence,he managed between 1831 and 1835 to increasethe number of resident incumbents in theDiocese of London from 287 to 325. By 1834there were only 64 parishes without a residentclergyman. He was also an enthusiastic supporterof the work of the Ecclesiastical Commissionwhich was launched in February 1835.In April 1836 a major church building campaignwas launched in London. The aim of the MetropolitanChurches Fund was the construction ofat least 50 new churches. The need, especiallyin east and north-east London was very great.The population of 353,460 was served by only 18churches and chapels and 24 clergy. Blomfieldasserted that it was the task of the EstablishedChurch 'to divide the moral wilderness ofthis vast city into manageable districts eachwith its own place of worship, its schools andits local institutions'. Citing the example ofchurch building in Glasgow, Blomfield calledfor voluntary contributions to build and endowthe new churches. Endowments were especiallyimportant because they would render theparish clergy 'independent of pew rents' andthus strengthen the Church's mission in poorerdistricts.In 1837 the first of the campaign's districtchurches was begun — St Peter's Stepney. It wasfinanced by a wealthy banker, William Cotton.Within two years St Peter's was a model districtchurch, with a district visiting society, a hospice,two large schools, and a lending library with 570volumes.Blomfield saw the Cathedral establishmentsas one source of finance, which earned him thehostility of the vastly overrated but admittedlywitty Canon Sidney Smith, supposedly a Whig, butstout in the defence of antique Cathedral abuses.Blomfield, in a speech in the House of Lords in1840, observed, 'I am continually brought intocontact in the discharge of my official duties withvast masses of my fellow creatures living withoutGod in the world. I traverse the streets of this

242 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004crowded city with deep and solemn thoughtsof the spiritual condition of its inhabitants. Ipass the magnificent church which crowns themetropolis and is consecrated to the noblest ofobjects, the glory of God and I ask of myself inwhat degree it answers that object.'Between 1831 and 1841, the Church ofEngland, almost entirely by its own efforts, built667 new churches. There were lingering hopesof government assistance with this programmeespecially when the Tories under Sir Robert Peelwere returned to power. The Prime Ministerwas personally a devout member of the Churchof England but the moment had passed whenit was possible for the Government to regardalliance with any particular religious body asa recipe for social cohesion. The explosion ofthe urban population continued but, althoughgiven an opportunity in 1840, Parliamentdeclined to provide further public funds tomake church extension a truly national effort.There was a similar story in education where, by1839, 1,118,000 children were being educatedas a result of voluntary exertions in Church ofEngland schools.The Church had by its own efforts achievedmuch of the vision to which Thomas Chalmersgave classic expression in his London lecturesof 1838 on 'The Establishment and Extensionof National Churches'. After the turmoil of theconstitutional changes of the 1828-32 period withthe determined attacks of the radicals, the churcheshad redefined themselves as popular institutions,exhibiting in Blomfield's words a 'beauty of holyusefulness'. They had set themselves to buildviable communities, to educate the young, andto promote social harmony with the assistanceof a new generation of clergy taught to seethemselves as 'tribunes of the people'.But had such a renascent Church achievedParliamentary patronage in 1838-41 it mighthave resembled the Churches of Scandinaviaand become more a department of state with itsspiritual independence compromised. As it was,this watershed marked a decisive development inthe peculiar British tradition by which religion isallowed a place in the public arena while beingalmost entirely sustained by voluntary effort.In the light of the responsibility carried by theChurch of England in particular for such a largepart of the architectural and cultural inheritanceof the whole community, it can be confidentlyasserted that the Anglican Church is the mostdisestablished in Europe.Exeter HallMost often today we associate ticket touts withgreat sporting events, but at the beginning ofJune 1840 the touts were doing a roaring tradein tickets for the first anniversary meeting of the'Society for the Extinction of the Slave Tradeand for the Civilisation of Africa'. The doors ofthe Exeter Hall in the Strand, one of the greatplaces of Evangelical Assembly in VictorianLondon, were open at 10.00am and the streetssurrounding the Strand were packed with peoplewaiting to view Queen Victoria's German consorton his way to his first public engagement — towhat The Times was to describe as 'the scene ofPrince Albert's matriculation in the business of afree and deliberative people'.The Bishop of London pleaded a priorengagement in Hertfordshire but he was hardlymissed among the serried ranks of politicians,bishops, and noblemen. They were there to cheerthe initiative which was about to be launched byHMG. Three steamships were being sent to theRiver Niger in West Africa where it was believedslavery and worse still lingered. They were to sailup and down the river pacifying and civilising asthey went. In defence of the bishop I must saythat it was announced as the day wore on that hewas among the more notable new subscribers tothe Society.The meeting exhibited the old alliance betweenthe anti-slavery movement and the missionaryimpulse and marks the outpouring of forces whichhad been gathering strength for the previous halfcentury and which in the century to come were totransform Africa.I have just attended a conference sponsoredby the World Bank, organised around the idea,which some of the participants seemed to believewas novel, that the churches should be involvedin the work of sustainable development. At leastin part as a result of the eruption of energy whichfollowed the Exeter Hall Meeting, Africa is 45%Christian and, in a country like Zambia, 40% ofthe health care and 30% of the education serviceis provided by the churches. They are in fact unignorable,although this comes as unwelcomenews to many post-Victorian West Europeans.Wilberforce's successor in the anti-slaverycrusade, Thomas Fowell Buxton, was presentin Exeter Hall. He declared that, 'It is the bibleand the plough that must regenerate Africa'.Trade and Christian standards would replace theeconomy which depended upon the exploitation

Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 243of human misery and ignorance. The PrinceConsort stood next to Buxton and such was thetumultuous reception of the first sentence heuttered, that his speech notes dropped off thebrim of his upturned top hat and were scatteredin the interior.Wilberforce's son the Archdeacon was alsothere to remind the great audience that theirpurpose was to ensure 'that every ship ladenwith commerce might also bear the boon ofeverlasting life', that, in addition to gold andspices, every part of the earth should receive'the more precious wealth - the more blessedfrankincense of Christ their master'. Theapplause was tremendous and somewhere in theHall was a 27-year-old medical student from theCharing Cross Hospital, David Livingstone.Bishop Tait's Primary Charge of 1858The place was St Paul's Cathedral and the datewas 13 November 1858. It was, as the bishopnoted, the 300th anniversary of the accessionof Queen Elizabeth — you see once again theanniversary captivity of the episcopate.The Charge, 122 pages long and replete withstatistical appendices, required almost five hoursfor its delivery and so exhausted the bishopthat he was obliged to take a seaside break inSouthend to recover.It is interesting to note in the light of our focuson the history of St Paul's that the Cathedral wasdescribed by the bishop as being 'now used forthe first time for such a gathering of the wholeclergy of the Diocese'.Appendix A lists the new churches consecratedby Blomfield, 198 in all, 169 in the 'presentDiocese of London'. There is a table ofattendance figures and of school rolls.Among particular concerns noted by Tail is thefact that London clerical stipends have sufferedby the loss of burial fees consequent on changesin the public health regime.There is much reference to the recentHouse of Lords Select Committee on SpiritualDestitution and a recognition that the bondsbetween Church and society as a whole werefraying. 'It is certain that in our large townsthere is a gradual diminution going on of allthose outward helps that used to prop up aparish clergyman's position.' One of the notablechallenges facing the Church was 'the subtleprogress of an intellectual infidelity'.In 1851 the population of the Diocese was2,143,340. The Church of England regarded itselfas responsible for the 1,881,994 unprovided forby other religious bodies. In 1858 Tait calculatedthat this figure had risen to 2 million served by885 licensed clergy. The average stipend was£140 pa and many were dependent on privatemeans. The debate about church rates tosupport the buildings was still raging. 'The daysare gone by when the Church of England canlook to be propped up by the adventitious aid ofsecular authority.'But with the evidence of the voluntary vigourof the Church in London, the bishop struck aconfident note of a kind which seems to havebecome very difficult for church leaders tosound in our own day. 'This our own nationaldevelopment of the Church of Christ — with itsown peculiar institutions, dear to true heartedEnglishmen from the historical associations fromthe centuries of England's most real greatness,which has been bound up with so many crisesof the nation's history in times past, which menlove because it maintains the faith in which theirfathers lived and died, and in which they desireto rear their children; to which all the Protestantnations of the earth look as the great bulwark ofthat at once reasonable and loving Christianitywhich commends itself only the more to rightminded men, the more they love freedom andthe more they are educated — I say this, ourgreat national development of the Church ofChrist is in no danger, if we, its ministers, arewhat we ought to be.'Tait turned to some specific challenges. Therewas, he argued, a danger of dumbing down. 'Iknow that it is a favourite theory with some inthe present day that we need a lower order ofclergymen of a more homely type with less Latinand Greek.' The bishop was determined to resistthis movement.He was alive, however, to the need for a clearparochial strategy. Every five or six thousandpeople ought to have a church and a parson supportedby adequate staff, rather than subdivisioninto smaller units.In 1857 there had been a meeting of theclergy of the more populous parishes in LondonHouse, the Bishop of London's town house in StJames's Square (you can still see the mitres onthe drain pipes). This meeting had resulted inthe formation of the Diocesan Home Mission'for adding somewhat of a missionary machineryto our ordinary parochial work'. 'The parochialsystem, standing quite alone, is unable to meet

244 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004many other wants of our complicated and highlyartificial state of society.'Methodist open air meetings were an exampleof an appeal to the alienated and deservedemulation. The days when it was feared that theChurch of England was 'dying of her dignity'had passed but the needs of a fluctuatingpopulation were best met by missioners. 'Butthese efforts must be saved from degeneratinginto irregularity.' In consequence every effortwas made to secure the incumbent's support forspecial services for the labouring poor who areinvited to come in their working dresses.The first missionary curate was appointed at£200 pa to serve Whitechapel and Spitalfields. In1862 there was a special appeal for funds to employtwo missionaries to work among omnibusmen andcabmen. They, together with their families, wereestimated to comprise a population of 80,000,largely untouched by Christian mission.The work made rapid progress, judging bythe reports of London Diocesan Home Missionpreserved in Lambeth Palace Library. TheCouncil included luminaries like the Duke ofMarlborough, Lord Shaftesbury, Mr Cazenove,even the Dean of Westminster. The AGM washeld at Willis's Rooms on 2 March 1865 and thework of the previous year was reviewed.Resolution II proposed by Lord Harrowby andseconded by the Bishop of Ely, stated: 'That thegreat extension of the operations of the DiocesanHome Mission, through the large grants from theBishop of London's Fund and the success whichhas attended the work of the increased staff ofmissionaries show that the method of workingadopted by the mission is well suited to grapplewith the various forms of Spiritual Destitutionin the Metropolis and most effectually assists inthe extension of the parochial system and theerection of new Churches.' In speaking to themotion Harrowby remarked, 'At last it had beenfound out that the church was the culminatingpoint. The apostles began by addressing themultitude.' (The Church Commissioners wereinvolved in funding this 'transient work'.)The limitations of the strategy which put theprincipal emphasis on church building were wellrecognised in the second half of the 19th centuryand it is fascinating to discover Tait at work settingup a Home Mission Fund remarkably similar tothe initiative which has just been taken by the21st-century Diocese of London. We are unitedwith our Victorian forebears in recognising that'this Metropolitan Diocese is a world in itself andits schemes of Christian usefulness must suit alltastes'.J M RodwellUnpublished diary preserved in the Registerof St Ethelburga, Bishopsgate commenced1792-1812. Manuscript number 4238 GuildhallLibrary.After the bomb explosion which laid it waste in1992 the church of St Ethelburga in Bishopsgatewas restored to serve a very contemporary needwhich is part of the duty of all followers ofChrist, the work of preventing and transformingconflict, especially those conflicts with a religiousdimension.The St Ethelburga Centre which is devoted tothis expression of Christian faith in the serviceof the whole community has just celebrated itssecond birthday. As a mark of respect. ProfessorHaleem, the foremost Quranic scholar whosetranslation of the Quran has just been publishedby Oxford University Press presented a copy ofhis new work to the library of the Centre. Hewas astonished by the news of a Providentialdiscovery.In a moment of leisure I was glancing at theinvaluable publications of the London RecordSociety and noticed mention of an unpublishedfragment of autobiography written on theleaves of an 18th-century Register of Birthsand Deaths from St Ethelburga's, Bishopsgate.The author was John Medows Rodwell, Rectorof St Ethelburga from 1843. The name seemedfamiliar for some reason that I could notremember and courtesy of the helpful staff inthe manuscripts section of the Guildhall libraryI read it recently.In the year of our Lord 1808. April 11 thewriter J.M.Rodwell was born at Barham Hallin the County of Suffolk. - educated at BurySchool under Dr Malkin.B.A. of Gaius and Gonvile College Cambridge1830M.A. 1834.From the Rev. W. Kirby Rector of Barham, thecelebrated naturalist and father of Englishentomology I derived great advantages and[?] in 1833 became his curate. He was alsomy uncle having married Miss CharlotteRodwell, my Fathers sister in 1816. A debtof everlasting gratitude is due from me tothe memory of my maternal uncle the RevRobert Kedington M.A. of Babergh Hall inthe aforesaid county who took an unceasing

Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004 245interest in my education - early instilledinto me sound church principles - a lovefor natural science - and a taste for learninggenerally especially languages. He wasRector of Bradfield Combust and a devotedParish Priest and in every sense a thoroughEnglish gentleman.In the year of our Lord 1843 I was appointedto the rectory of St Ethelburga Bishopsgateon the collation of the Right ReverendCharles James Blomfield D.D. Lord Bishopof this Diocese. I had previously labouredfor nine years in the charge of St Peter'sSaffron Hill, as the first incumbent of thatpopulous and poor District containing13,000 souls - and the Bishop was goodenough to say that he presented me to St E'sin acknowledgement of what he was pleasedto term "my arduous and earnest labours inthat anxious sphere of duty". Such indeedit was and though I am only too painfullyconscious how much that ought to havebeen done was left undone, and that I mademany and painful mistakes, yet upon thewhole my ministry there was very successful,the congregation very large, the schools wellattended and the communicants numerous.Being onlyjust in priest's orders and blessedwith a strong constitution, a loud voiceand a willing mind, I have reason to bemost thankful that I was enabled to devotethese gifts to the service of God - to whomI can never be sufficiently thankful forhaving raised up for me so many helperswho rendered most efficient aid with theirpurse and time as well as with personallabours among the poor in the schoolsand in visiting the sick and poor. The Rev.Gilbert Beresford was at this time Rector ofSt Andrews Holborn, to which St Peters wasa Chapel of Ease - a really good man of deepunaffected Piety. He was very unpopularin the Parish except among a few selectfriends; most undeservedly so however, ashis only offence was that of standing upfor the rights of the church, and claimingthe very low tythe which had always beenpaid up to the time of his appointment butwhich was now withheld by a few factiousDissenters and nominal Churchmen. Peacebe with his memory. He was always kindliberal and most judicious in his counsels tome - and though there was lack of energyin his ministrations and he belonged to thatsomewhat uninfluential class of churchmencalled High and Dry yet he was personallyin every sense a Christian Gentleman. - Itwas with many regrets that I heard of hisremoval to a family living in Leicestershire- where however I once again saw him.Rodwell pens other affectionate reminiscences,most particularly of his wife, and then looks back(from 1865) to the period we have already beenconsidering.With the year 1842 and 1843 commenceda most eventful period for this Church ofEngland. The ancient Barriers were nowbroken down; the old bonds between churchand state were one after another graduallyloosened. Romanism and Dissent hadcommenced their attacks. A High Churchmovement commenced in the Churchitself and these all have been steadilydeveloping during the last 25 years. TheHigh Church movement first showed itselfin the publication of the Oxford Tractsby Dr Pusey, Newman, Keble, A. Percevaland Hugh James Rose and the principleswhich they enunciated appear to me to havesteadily leavened the Church of Englandever since. Of course there have been otherPhases of Religious Opinion - the Broad orLiberal Church Party and the Evangelicalor Puritanico-Calvinistic schools. The lattersensibly diminishing for some years pastboth in number and in influence. And bythe side of High Churchism has also grownup no small amount of German Neologyand this I have no doubt is steadily thoughstealthily on the increase. It has its fautorsin high places and the name and writingsof Bishop Colenso will mark I believe anepoch in the history of religious thoughtin England. Whether those views andprinciples are destined largely to overspreadthe church remains to be seen. If I mayventure to prophesy I believe that they will.I have kept my eye steadily upon this subjectfor many years. I have read much ofthe literature connected with it and amdecidedly of the opinion that the orthodoxparty have not yet manifested learning andresearch equal to that of their opponents. Ishall not live to see the issue of these attacksupon the Old Faith. But if these remarksshall last two hundred years hence, I ventureto think that whoever may read them willfind that much of the Catholic creed as nowheld by High Churchmen and orthodoxpersons generally will have been eliminatedfrom the creed of Englishmen, when hecompares the creed of his days with thestandards and formularies of the church ofthis day. Regeneration in Holy Baptism, theEternity of Hell Torments, the Inspiration

246 Summary of papers read at the LAMAS Local History Conference held at the Museum of London 20 November 2004of Scripture are already open questions;and there are certain portions of the sacredtext itself which seem likely to fare ill at thehands of the critics. For my own part staresuper antiquas vias is my motto, and so faras my individual efforts go, I will never giveup, whatever difficulties I see and feel, myportion of the old Catholic faith. There maybe reasons for faith in mysteries that areabove me, and for clearing up perplexingdifficulties which I do not see and knowI am a thorough conservativein religion and wish to leave on recordthis my testimony for the ancient creeds.Englishmen seem to be fast unlearning theirreligion. There is a widespread scepticismamong the lower orders especially in themanufacturing districts. In London largeassemblies are held in various parts onSunday evenings for lectures and discussionsof an infidel tendency. Three years ago Iremember attending one such in the CityRoad at which at least 1500 persons werepresent and when the speakers advocated'infidelity pure and simple'. Neither arethe middle classes free from this insidiousenemy. The immense circulation attainedby Essays and Reviews, Colenso's works, theWestminster Review, the Daily Telegraphnewspaper etc clearly show how large asection of the public holds very loosely tothe Faith of their Fathers.For all his conservatism, however, Rodwell hadbeen a friend of Darwin and accompanied him onbotanising expeditions. His most extraordinaryachievement, however, was his translation of theQuran, published in 1861. It has appeared inmany editions ever since, particularly after itsinclusion in the Everyman Library. ProfessorHaleem commended the Rodwell version forits stylistic felicities and was clearly moved to bestanding in the church where Rodwell servedand worshipped for so many years as rector.There are, of course, judgements in theRodwell translation and especially in its footnoteswhich are unacceptable to contemporary Muslimscholarship, but in his day Rodwell represented apositive estimate of the work of Muhammad andfollowed Carlyle's judgement that the Quranwas the 'ferment of a great rude human soul ...fervent, earnest ... Sincerity in all senses seemsto me the merit of the Koran'.Rodwell himself says in the preface to histranslation, 'The more insight we obtain fromundoubted historical sources into the actualcharacter of Muhammad, the less do we findto justify the strong vituperative language ofMaracci, Prideaux and others [scholars of theprevious century]'.Rodwell was also responsible for converting StEthelburga's into a place of advanced ritual ofthe kind that made Victorian bishops uneasy butwhich was part of the reaction to the missionarychallenges of the new industrial society. By 1865,as the smoke of industrial London grew thicker,Rodwell introduced incense, the fragrance ofParadise, collected from trees which legendasserted were smuggled out of the Garden ofEden by Adam and Eve when they were expelled.Eucharistic vestments were also adopted.In December 1867 there were anti-ritualisticdisturbances in St Ethelburga's which resultedin a case heard by the Lord Mayor. Protests fromthe Vestry continued which did not howeverreflect the views of the substantial congregationand Bishop Jackson was induced to orderthe cessation of the ritual lovingly detailed inRodwell's manuscript autobiography.The Church Times for 13 April 1877 described thesituation thus: '£1500 had been spent by Rodwelland his friends re-edifying St Ethelburga's.Large sums also came from the Rector's pocketto beautify the worship. Mr Rodwell was thefirst of the City clergy to open his church forshort mid-day services and the success of theexperiment may be gathered from the factthat 530 communicants signed a memorial tothe bishop praying His Lordship to protect MrRodwell from persecution.' The bishop wasunmoved however and threatened action unlessthe advanced ritual was abandoned. 'BishopJackson is content', thundered the Church Times,'to let the City drones convert their beneficesinto sinecures but this admirable worker must betreated as if he were the scum of the earth. Theright reverend prelate may depend upon it thathe is accumulating matter for bitter remorse.This is not one of his Little Sins [a reference tothe title of the Bishop's most popular devotionalbook].'Rodwell survived until 1900 and died in StLeonard's on Sea. I do not doubt however thathe has intervened recently to bless the newendeavours which we are building on the ancientfoundations of St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate.

REVIEWSAspects of Archaeology & History in Surrey: Towardsa Research Framework for the County. Edited byJonathan Cotton, Glenys Crocker and AudreyGraham. Surrey Archaeological Society, 2004.Pp. xi + 260, 120 figs. ISBN 0 0541460 3 4. Price:£24.70 (incl p&p) pb.Although this book stems from the conferenceArchaeology in Surrey 2001: Towards a ResearchAgenda for the 21st Century, it would be wrong tosee it simply as a set of conference proceedings,and the conference itself was more than just anupdate of the earlier conference The Archaeologyof Surrey to 1540. The dual theme of lookingback and looking forward is present to someextent in all the contributions, with varyingemphases. A series of chronologically-basedchapters (Surrey's Early Past: a Survey of RecentWork [Palaeolithic to Bronze Age]; Iron AgeSurrey; Surrey in the Roman Period: a Survey ofRecent Discoveries) gives broad overviews andsyntheses of recent work, with lists of recent sitesand extensive bibliographies. More thematicchapters deal with topics of landscape (TheEnvironmental History of Surrey; EngravedSequences and the Perception of PrehistoricCountry in South-East England; The SurreyHistoric Landscape Characterisation Project) orspecialised functions (Roman Religious Sites inthe Landscape). The medieval and post-medievalperiods are also covered thematically (Supre-ge- the Foundations of Surrey; Manors and otherSettlements; Vernacular Architecture; TheImpact of Royal Landholdings in the County ofSurrey, 1509-1649). There are two locally-basedstudies (Medieval Settlement in the BlackheathHundred; Kingston - Saxon Royal Estate Centreto Post-Medieval Market Town), a study of Surrey'srelationship to London (What Did London DoFor Us? London and Towns in its Region, 1450-1700), three chapters on industrial archaeology(The Archaeology of Industrialization: Towardsa Research Agenda; Surrey's Industrial Past: aReview; Iron Production in Surrey), and one onSecond World War defences.One's first impression is of the impact of thePPG 16 regime. Sites have been investigatedacross the county in a way that simply did nothappen before, and although some may regretthe development-driven nature of this work, itdoes help to lift archaeological research outof the dangers of self-fulfilling prophecies. Atlast, the absence of evidence may begin to meansomething. The synthesis of large amounts ofrelatively 'small scale' data requires new skills ofanalysis and perception, which are demonstratedwell here.The second impression is of how much we stillhave to learn, before we can really understandsome of the main themes in Surrey's past.The contribution 'The Environmental Historyof Surrey', a bold attempt that would scarcelyhave been considered at an earlier conference,highlights how little evidence we yet have, andthe extreme difficulty of making sense of, andcommunicating, such a sparse dataset. The post-Roman settlement of the county is still relativelypoorly understood, as the study of therelationships between manors and villages makesclear. Here, perhaps, the 'scatter gun' approachof PPG 16 is less effective, and more carefullytargeted research will be needed. It is good tosee the work on the Surrey Historic LandscapesCharacterisation Project presented as a backdropagainst which archaeological discoveriesare made, but its maps, beautiful though theyare, disappoint in the sense that many of theircolour codes are almost indistinguishable.The paper 'What Did London Do For Us?' isparticularly valuable; from at least the medievalperiod, and probably from the Roman, Surreywould not have been Surrey as we know itwithout the expanding presence of Londonon its borders. This point is reinforced by the247

248 Reviewscontribution on royal land-holdings, whichshows one effect of the proximity of London onlarge swathes of northern Surrey. It is important,too, to be reminded of Surrey's industrial past.The range of industries in the county comesas a surprise — from the well-known Surreyware pottery through extractive industries, ironand glass production, gunpowder and papermaking, to the manufacture of motor vehiclesand aircraft. There is a clear need to record afast-changing scene while at least some of theevidence is still with us. The same can be saidof the physical remains of WWII sites, wherepriorities for preservation still need be to beestablished.The contributions have been well put togetherto form a coherent whole, aided by a commongeological base map, over which authors have laidsites relating to their particular topics. Colouris used sparingly but on the whole effectively,and the bibliographies will be of immensehelp in bringing readers up to date; there is acomprehensive index. But, as 'towards' in thetitle reminds us, this book, however valuable, isjust one step on the way to our understandingof the past of this varied and fascinating county;hopefully it will lead researchers on to furtherdiscoveries and interpretations.Clive OrtonTowards a New Stone Age: Aspects of the Neolithic inSouth-East England. Edited by Jonathan Cottonand David Field. Pp. xxi + 237, 80 figs, 18 tables.Council for British Archaeology Research Report137, 2004. ISBN 1 902771 39 7. Price: £28.00 pb.With the appearance of this volume, a significantgap in the prehistory of Britain is at least partiallyfilled. Hitherto, there had been no overviewof the Neolithic of the South-East of England,despite the huge advances made in fieldworkand analysis over the last two decades or so. Whatcomes through strongly in many of the papersin this volume is that, although it may havebeen much eroded through later occupationand land use, the South-East has abundantNeolithic evidence, some of it in Wessex-likeconcentrations, some of it (such as the flintmines) fairly distinctive but under-appreciatedat the national level.There are 21 papers in total, ranging fromopening and closing overviews by Barber andKinnes (historical and continental, respectively)to reports on single sites, and even single artefacts(the Chelsea 'beater', by Webber andGaniaris). Like many such multi-author volumes,it has clearly taken a long time for the volumeto come together and some of the papers areless up-to-date than they might have been. Theeditors also note that some potentially importantcontributions did not in the end find their wayinto print. However, these problems are aninevitable fact of life when assembling this kindof overview, so the editors are to be congratulatedon their perseverance in bringing this volume tofinal publication.Perhaps the most useful papers are those whichsummarise either recent significant fieldwork, orwhich bring together knowledge on a particulartopic in a new synthesis. Allen et al's paper, forexample, is a fascinating summary of excavationsat the Eton Rowing Course and the Maidenhead-Windsor Flood Alleviation Channel. A huge areaof landscape has been investigated (the latteralone covers a transect 15km long and 60m wide)with excellent in situ preservation and goodenvironmental evidence. Particularly importantis the evidence for long-term early Neolithicoccupation close to the banks of the Thames,represented by spreads of trampled domesticmaterial. This includes carinated bowl fragmentsand some of the earliest secure dates for cerealcultivation in Britain (c.3900-3530 cal BC). Lipidresidue analysis also seems to show that dairyingwas practised from the early Neolithic.Lewis and Welsh summarise the Neolithic aspectsof the impressive fieldwork campaigns at PerryOaks, which may already be familiar to followersof London archaeology. They make a convincingcase that the Neolithic monuments, mostsignificantly the cursus, were 'the formalisationof practices that had been in existence for severalmillennia', such as processional routes throughthe landscape.From the point of view of environmentalarchaeology, Bates and Whittaker have contributedan important paper which identifies fivestages in landscape evolution over the last 30,000years. By plotting radiocarbon age estimatesfor sites with organic remains, they constructa model of the speed of landscape changefor the north Thames in the area of BarkingCreek, which concludes that '75% of the formerfloodplain landscape within this area was lost towetlands between 4700 and 4000 cal BC'. This hasimportant implications for our understanding

Reviews 249of prehistoric societies in the area, and meritsfurther development and investigation. Thispaper sits well alongside that of Sidell andWilkinson on Neolithic river development andfloodplain archaeology of the central LondonThames. The principal theme here is thedeposition of sands in the early Neolithic leadingto eyot formation and the development of peatsas a result of the waterlogging of the floodplainin the later Neolithic. As both papers argue,the time is ripe for a detailed synthetic studyof the archaeology and palaeoenvironment ofthe Neolithic of the London area to provide anintegrated model of development.In terms of synthetic overviews of specificthemes, a number of papers stand out. Fieldprovides a useful and accessible summary ofnew approaches to landscape archaeology where'places that spirits inhabit are as important acomponent in the landscape as those occupiedby the living'. More specifically, he suggeststhat through controlled burning the Mesolithiclandscape of the South-East may have been muchmore open than is generally imagined, and thatthe early Neolithic inhabitants were principallyforest dwellers obtaining a living from thewoodland, rather than through farming.Russell's provocative paper challenges theconventional categories of 'burial monument','industrial monument', and 'enclosure' andargues for their replacement by more neutralterms. This is because, he argues, the threekinds of monument are different versions of thesame principle, which is to imprint the identityof local cultural groups into the landscape.Long mounds, for example, may not be burialmonuments because sometimes other materialis privileged within them, such as flint waste,pottery or carved chalk. The same is arguedfor flint mines which have seemingly symbolicdeposits suggesting non-utilitarian facets of theiruse.This latter point is explored in greater detail inTopping's excellent paper on the South Downsflint mines. A survey of ethnographic evidencefor the mining of flint and stone suggests thatcertain artefacts would be held sacred andthe extraction and working of flint would beembedded within ritual behaviour. A study ofthe deposits in the South Downs mines showstheir structured nature, and parallels are drawnwith similar ones in causewayed enclosures. Thepresence of burials in some mines suggests that'certain mines were paraphrasing, conceptually,tombs and barrows', linking the ancestors withthe raw material. His conclusion is that, throughthese conceptual links with other kinds ofmonuments, 'the flint mines played a uniquerole as the origin of a symbolic stone derivedfrom the psychological interface between theliving communities and their gods'. The symbolicimportance of the stone was further expressedthrough its crafting into special artefacts suchas axes which were curated perhaps for manygenerations.There is much that is useful and fascinatingin some of the shorter contributions, such asPerkins's paper on the dense concentration ofbarrows on Thanet, and Cotton and Johnson'saccount of two Peterborough bowls from theThames at Mortlake. The photographs of thefingertips and nails of a (probable) woman fromsome five thousand years ago humanise theNeolithic in an uncanny way.Overall, then, this volume represents a majorstep forward in putting the Neolithic of theSouth-East and its significance onto the UKarchaeological map, and the questions it raiseswill inform the research agenda for many yearsto come.Nick MerrimanRoman Burials, Medieval Tenements and SuburbanGrowth. By Dan Swift. Museum of LondonArchaeology Service Archaeology Studies Series10, 2003. Pp. xi + 88, 69 figs, 23 tables. ISBN I901992 41 I. Price: £9.95 pb.Investigating the Maritime History of Rotherhithe:Excavations at Pacific Wharf, 165 RotherhitheStreet, Southwark. By Kieron Heard and DamianGoodburn. Museum of London ArchaeologyService Archaeology Studies Series 11, 2003. Pp.xi + 58, 44 figs. ISBN 1 901992 40 3. Price: £7.95pb.Excavations at Hunt's House, Guy's Hospital,London Borough of Southwark. By Robin Taylor-Wilson. Pre-Construct Archaeology LimitedMonograph 1, 2002. Pp. vii + 68, 41 figs, 3 tables.ISBN 0 9542938 0 0. Price: £7.00 pb.These three reports, ranging from 58 to 88 pageslong, fulfil the need to publish something otherthan a journal article, but less than a majormonograph. The two MoLAS reports are intheir Archaeology Studies Series (distinct from

250 Reviewstheir Monographs), the PCA report is theirMonograph No. 1. The two MoLAS studies areNos 10 and 11 in their series and demonstratethe confidence derived from their editorialand production experience. Integration of thedifferent contributions has been well thoughtthrough, and systematically presented, graphicsand layout are well designed, to a format familiarto their readership.Swift's account of excavations at 201 Bishopsgate,and Taylor-Wilson's of work at Guy'sHospital, both cover urban fringe sites, providingan arbitrary slice through Roman, medieval,and post-medieval archaeology. They are verydifferent, in that the first lay just outside theRoman and medieval walls, with Roman burialsbeside Ermine Street, and medieval tenementsin the purlieus of St Mary Spital; the second inmarshes on the fringe of the Southwark islands,at the head of the Guy's Channel, subject tothe fluctuations of the Thames. Heard andGoodburn's report has a more focused themeof the evolution of a riverbank wharfage inRotherhithe Street, from c.1650 to the present.Production of such reports demands considerationof what is worth publishing, taking intoaccount the findings of the CBA's user needssurvey From the Ground Up (2003). Althoughall three reports cite the circumstances of thefieldwork, none allude to those of post-excavationassessment, which leads to the selection of datafor publication. Only Taylor-Wilson sets out theresearch objectives, five in all, for his project, andshows that these influenced the choice of resultsfor publication. Questions that could have beenasked of 201 Bishopsgate might be inferred fromSwift's introduction to each period description.Heard and Goodburn set out a straightforwardaccount of what was found.At Bishopsgate a substantial Ist-century ditch,redug many times, ran north-south through thesite, and would appear to have served ErmineStreet, no trace of which was found. Two roadsidefunerary structures were identified, and fourinhumation burials beside them. Two furtherburials were made after the structures had beendemolished, when the area was used for refusedisposal. From c.1050 to 1197 the area seemsto have gradually developed with extramuraloccupation, backyards utilised for rubbishdisposal and cesspits. Three phases of land useare identified 1197-e.l400, and, associated withthe founding of St Mary Spital, the masonrypriory drain c. 1280-1300 which subdivided thesite. Various tenement structures, owned by thehospital, and related wells, cesspits etc are tracedthrough to the Dissolution. The post-Dissolutionevidence continued through to the 20th century,again largely in the form of wells, cesspits, andrubbish pits, and the refuse in their fills.The descriptions of the Roman burials arecompatible with those used in other MoLAScemetery publications, allowing inter-sitecomparisons. Pottery is described in the textusing the MoL fabric codes, and ceramics, asthe main dating evidence, are usefully set outin tables for each period by feature, fabric, andassociated date range. Other dateable material,such as glass, is simply described in the text.Specialist appendices include plant remainsanalysis tabulated by periods, and a more simpletabulation of animal bones by period.The appropriate extent to which excavatedevidence can be usefully discussed is a hardjudgement. Thus the presence of cucurbit fragments,and glassware, in the 16th-17th centuriesis taken as a sign of status, a lack of glassfinds thereafter of declining status. Only mapevidence is used in this discussion, which wouldhave benefited from documentary research intothe households, their relative wealth, and howthis changed over time.At Hunt's House the sequence begins inprehistory, with ardmarks indicating early cultivation.Roman management of this marginal landwas in response to the changing Thames. It beganin the early 2nd century with the constructionof a post-and-plank revetment along the Guy'sChannel, and a jetty, abandoned c.AD 170 due tosevere flooding. Rare donkey bones were foundwith horse skeletons in the fill. As river levels fell,the channel silted up over the next two hundredyears, the land beside it being drained, possiblyfor livestock. An amphorae tank was constructedin the later 3rd century. A rise in water levels inthe later 4th century may have made the channelnavigable again, and the ground level was raisedby dumping. Ditched fields may have continuedinto the 5th century, after which the site wassubmerged until c.1300. The land was reclaimedfor housing in the 18th century.Ceramic and some other specialist informationis integrated with the text, although the MoLfabric codes are not used, nor is the datingevidence quantified for each phase. Specialistreports summaries are given at the end, somecontaining detailed descriptions of specificartefacts. Roman animal bones are tabulated

Reviews 251and quantified by period, but plant remains aresimply discussed.The site sequence, divided between threemain trenches and the channel, is helpfullysummarised in a 'Land-use diagram', to illustratethe conclusions. The research design did notcover the post-Roman periods, nor was thisremedied at post-excavation assessment stage;they are thus summarily dealt with, but theopportunity is taken to describe artefact groupsfrom a small number of 18th-century fills to wellsand pits. Their relationship to Rocque's mapof 1745 is shown but no documentary evidencediscussed.In contrast Heard and Goodburn lead each oftheir period descriptions with the documentaryand cartographic evidence for the site at thattime. We learn of the fortunes of the site'sowners, who mostly lived there, and how theymanaged their property. The archaeologicaldescription is largely of structures, with onlysome ceramic finds evidence to interpolatewith the text for dating evidence. Their storycommences in the 17th century, when theconstruction of a timber river wall enabled useof marginal land as a wharf, probably for timber.This was extended in subsequent centuries,and a wet dock constructed in the 18th centuryfor shipbuilding. The site was used in the 19thcentury for ship-breaking — most famouslythat of the Temeraire — and for wharfage andwarehousing from the 1870s until recently.Such a close association with the timbertrades has left a fascinating legacy of evidencefor timber construction methods either in theprimary construction of the riverfront structuresor the reused elements, particularly from ships.These are ably described by Goodburn, whodraws attention to a building trestle foundationof reused ship's timbers; the two parts of ship'spumps, one 17th-, the other 19th-century in date,are unusual. Crane bases were also identified,one incorporating parts of a naval anchor.The two MoLAS reports benefit from beingprinted on good quality shiny paper, whichenhances reproduction of photographs and linedrawings. Reproduction in the PGA monographis somewhat dull by comparison; the awkwardlength of their trench plans has caused the lossof the caption to fig 8(b), and the end of that tofig 26(b).Overall these three volumes largely succeed inpresenting succinct, integrated reports, whichare readable, yet deliver a useful level of detail.Some standardisation for tabulation of specialistcontributions, notably animal bone and plantremains, would facilitate inter-site comparisons;and thought should be given to a consistentapproach to delivering ceramics evidence. ThePacific Wharf report demonstrates the valueof documentary research to adequately setpost-medieval archaeology in its context, fordescription and interpretation.Rob WhyteheadSt Paul's: the Cathedral Church of London 604-2004.Edited by Derek Keene, Arthur Burns andAndrew Saint. Yale University Press, 2004. Pp.xiv + 538, 389 figs, 7 tables. ISBN 0 300 09276 9.Price: £65.00 hb.Mention of St Paul's Gathedral invariablyincludes a superlative or two and this mightypublication (weighing in at 2.5kg) provides uswith ample information and insights to justifythe cathedral's fame. There are 42 chapters by 43contributors, arranged in three parts, the thirdand largest dealing with the present cathedralbuilding, its contents, use, and context. Theearlier history, particularly in Pamela Taylor'saccount of the Foundation and Endowment, isgiven full attention — Kerry Downes' account ofWren and the New Cathedral does not come untilch 19. These and other authors have summarisedand brought up to date their previous work andhaving the summation of current thinking togetherin one volume is, of course, the greatmerit of such a book.This is the latest and, as befits its subject, thegrandest, of a recent line of collaborative volumesdevoted to a particular cathedral. The last Historyof St Paul's in 1957, with six contributions editedby the then Dean W R Matthews and CanonLibrarian W M Atkins, has some claim to bethe first of them. However, the 1977 volume onYork Minster was the first to commemorate thefounding or rebuilding of the existing cathedralafter the Norman Conquest. It set the formulafor each chapter being written by a specialist,which can result in an uneven coverage if theavailable contributors do not match the needs ofsuch a volume.This is certainly not a criticism one can levelat this book though. It includes chapters beyondthe obvious subjects (architecture, liturgy, music,furnishings, and monuments), on the role of

252 Reviewsthe cathedral in national history (includingthe book trade) and the City of London, on itsconservation and its reputation. The last (byAndrew Saint) tries to address the intangiblequalities that the building expresses, thankfullywithout using the word 'iconic', but finally concludingsomewhat laconically, 'in short, it isadmirable, because it is there .Anybody who works closely with a big cathedralis bound to absorb its magnitude and quicklycome to accept its great status as a matter ofcourse. This must be even more the case for thoseassociated with St Paul's, because, alongside thesheer scale of the building and the supportinginstitution that is required to service it, there arefurther expectations raised by its widely acceptedrole in national history. In his preface, DerekKeene explains how, despite not being at thetop of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, an inevitableconsequence of being in the capital city is thatSt Paul's has 'attained a unique position amongEnglish cathedrals'. Nevertheless, he goes too farin maintaining in ch 1 that it dominates its city'in a manner unmatched by any other Englishcathedral'. Most of the ancient cathedralsphysically dominate, and influence the planningof, their immediate surrounding cities. Some,like Durham or Lincoln, continue to commandmore distant views, especially now that so manyhigh rise buildings surround St Paul's. This topicis itself covered by Simon Bradley in a chapterthat unveils a depressing story of City concernfor the setting of the cathedral overcome byshorter term priorities. He ends with justifiedhope that the latest rebuilding north and southof the cathedral will finally succeed in giving thecathedral a setting it deserves.Before it was burnt off in 1561, the medievallead-covered spire must indeed have been'unmatched', and not just in England. CarolDavidson Cragoe describes it in comparisonwith the tower beneath as 'a plain affair,which gloried in its height, not its decoration'.However, it was almost certainly covered inlead laid in herringbone fashion (as someillustrations show) and topped by a golden balland cross. Even if it only attained about thesame 404ft height as Salisbury's stone spire thatGordon Higgott deduces (and not the 520ft Stowestimated), this was by far and away the tallesttimber structure in England, if not Europe. Itmust be queried whether both tower and spirewere really completed in 1221, as the spirelooks to be a development from, rather thanthe precursor of, the early to mid-13th-centurystone spires of Lincolnshire and Oxfordshire.Lincoln Cathedral's great central timber spire— the nearest rival to St Paul's in England — wasabout contemporary with Salisbury; even if of anearly 14th-century date, St Paul's spire was still awonder of its age.In fact, only one chapter is given over to thefabric, tombs, and precinct of the medievalcathedral, perhaps because much of what canbe said has been set out already, most recentlyin the 1990 British Archaeological Association'sConference Transactions. On the other hand,there are five short studies of practical aspects ofthe medieval cathedral, including an entertaininginsight into the household and daily life of a15th-century dean. It is not easy to interpret theHollar engravings and Carol Davidson Cragoegives an efficient summary of recent thinking.However, the semi-circular Romanesque navearcades were surely not stilted — they were nomore that shape than the ill-fitting arcs thatHollar gives the Gothic choir arches in hisattempt to draw in perspective. John Schofieldholds out hope for more information becomingavailable from the islands of archaeological stratahe believes are still available. Recent perforationof the Wren crypt walls, made up from the debrisof the old cathedral, has yielded much of interestto Gordon Higgott in verifying just what InigoJones and others did to the medieval cathedral,which, according to Carol Davidson Cragoe,was 'quietly mouldering away' by the mid-16thcentury.The extraordinary two-storey cloister surroundingthe chapter house (itself importantto the development of the Perpendicular Gothicstyle) was one of three enclosures within theprecincts around the cathedral that witnessednational, as well as City, events, from early inthe Middle Ages. The more recent role of thecathedral itself as the nation's place of worship isfully explained in two chapters; John Wolfe givesus much more than a list of events in his chapteron national occasions since 1800, but ArthurBurns' chapter 'From 1830 to the Present' is evenmore revealing, especially of the clergy that haveserved it. In many respects, conduct at St Paul'shas reflected national sentiments; its Chapterwere not the only clergy to feel uneasy in havinga Christmas crib and tree inside their church.The 'gloomy Dean', W R Inge (1911-34), isprobably not the first priest to have taken a bookto read during services — or the first to find that

Reviews 253the choir singing disturbed his concentration(despite being tone deaf!).Cathedrals have undergone a major revival inthe last thirty years or so, not just in attractingtourists or academic interest, but also in theirprimary purpose, worship and mission. Since theylost their shrines, the role of a cathedral beyondthe commemorative has long been dependenton the strength of individual members of theChapter and St Paul's like all others has sufferedfrom a lack of talented men. Providing theright facilities to satisfy the demands of today'svisitors, and balancing the needs of those whocome to gawp with those who come to pray,is a real challenge. Charging for entry hascaused less consternation here, perhaps, thanelsewhere, partly because the balance betweenworshippers and tourists is so uneven. Unlikemany other cathedrals, St Paul's has very littleancillary accommodation, except beneath (inthe crypt) and above (in its capacious galleries,that include the library and fabric archives), andboth have limited access.The Surveyor to the Fabric, Martin Stancliffe,tells us of recent physical changes and it is a greatpity that the rewarding first results of the hugecleaning works now being undertaken were toolate to be illustrated in this book. Donald Gray, acleric from the other place, Westminster Abbey,writes of liturgy up to 2004, but otherwise thereis no input from the present Dean and Chapter(though their initiative and support for thepublication is fully acknowledged). The Bishopof London, the only one of today's diocesanbishops to be elected to the Antiquaries, writes astirring foreword — though surely there is muchin this volume alone that contradicts his viewthat history has no 'directly applicable lessons toteach'. In view of the current high level of activityand innovation at the cathedral, a contributionfrom the cathedral clergy on their vision of therole of St Paul's in the early 21st century wouldhave completed the picture for me.Other things I missed were complete lists ofDeans and Surveyors and a large scale plan ofthe present and pre-Fire cathedrals in an easilyaccessible place, all of which would have mademany chapters easier to follow. An overviewof the diocese — not least, its contractionover the last two hundred years — would havealso rounded out the broader context of thecathedral, between City and nation. There area very few inexplicable typos — prince Charles?— but overall, this is a magnificently producedand lavishly illustrated book, bringing togethermany images that have not been publishedtogether before (and not only in Ralph Hyde'sfascinating 'Images of St Paul's' chapter). Foranyone with an interest in learning about thebroad development of the principal aspectsof English cathedrals (with the exception ofmedieval architecture), this is a very goodprimer, especially with its extensive bibliography.At this price, length, and weight, this book isfor the serious student of St Paul's, but it isexcellent value for money and will surely remainunsurpassed for many years. Indeed, I somehowdoubt that we will see the like of it again.Richard HalseyLondon in the Later Middle Ages: Government andPeople 1200-1500. By Caroline M. Barron. OxfordUniversity Press, 2004. Pp. xvi + 472, 12 figs, 2tables, 1 map. ISBN 0 19 92577 9. Price: £55.00hb.Caroline Barron has been a dominant andcreative presence in the field of medieval Londonstudies. The influence of her wide-ranginginterests and her generous encouragement ofother researchers in the field have caused herpresence to be felt already in an impressivecatalogue of doctoral theses, articles, and booksconcerned with the late medieval capital. Theappearance of her own gathered thoughts inbook form is a major event.At the heart of Professor Barron's engagementwith London's past lies her unique knowledge ofthe City's administration. As a former pupil ofMay McKisack, she researched in the late 1960sa doctoral dissertation on the government ofLondon in the 15th century (much consultedever since), which provides an intellectuallink back to the earlier, foundational studiesof English medieval urban history, focused asmany of these were on constitutional questions,by James Tait and his pupils. The subsequentdecades have seen the emergence of newand diverse approaches to London history, ofwhich arguably the most revelatory have beenbased upon topographical and archaeologicalresearch, but which include additionally arange of social and cultural studies. In all ofthese, Caroline Barron herself has participated,and her new book reflects these interactions(although, with regard to topography, it is a pity

254 Reviewsthat the map provided is neither easy to read inthis format nor much drawn upon in the text).Yet it remains a distinguishing and exemplarystrength of her work that she understands, asdoes no other scholar in the field, both thestructure and the spirit of London's governmentin the later medieval centuries.In her writing about what might appear to bethe unpromising subject of urban bureaucracy,present and future researchers will appreciateand learn from Caroline Barron's sensitivity to theways in which administrative and constitutionalchanges helped to construct new traditions,collective memories, and, in short, civic identity.Her analysis of the procession at the instaurationof the mayor, of the Midsummer watches whichwere traditionally held for the defence of theCity, and of the magnificent structure of theGuildhall (on which she has published a separatemonograph), are integral to Barron's persuasiveaccount of how urban government operated notthrough bureaucratic process alone, but alsothrough the elaborate construction of its ownimage. This was a continuous process; but inthis study one period stands out as uniquely richin evidence of that kind. The late 14th centurywas marked simultaneously by the greatest socialtensions recorded within the period treated inthis book, and by a distinct elaboration of Citygovernment: the latter appears to have been adirect, and in Barron's view largely effective,response to the former development.The tone of the book is marked throughoutby its author's fundamental optimism. A characteristicsummary of civic measures to deal withthe catastrophic effects of plague in Londonconcludes: '... So, by the combined efforts ofindividual Londoners, churchmen, and themayor and aldermen, the surviving Londonerswere able to bury their dead, find clerks topray for them, and secure food and servicesat reasonable prices' (241). In broad termsthis positive report seems justified. Even if herpicture of the Revolt of 1381 underestimates,as is possible, the extent of Londoners' activeparticipation in the challenge to authority, onemust acknowledge that the late medieval capitalwas largely peaceful — more so than many anItalian or Flemish city of the period. Yet one isleft wondering how far the centripetal force ofcivic self-promotion succeeded in drawing in thelarge number of Londoners outside the core ofprivileged citizens. Freemen comprised about athird of all adult men in late medieval London.The others could not hold office, so the questionof their participation in the public life of theCity focuses on the wards, parishes, and guildsto which all but the truly poor might belong. Oneach of these, Barron has new and interestingthings to say. The life of the two dozen wards ofthe City she describes as 'grassroots democracy',and indeed it is tempting to envisage these asthe context for the enrolment of artisans andshopkeepers in the political culture of London.It is unfortunate that relatively little is known ofthe internal life of the wards. Barron notes thattheir respective aldermen may not have beenrequired to summon a meeting of the wardcouncil more than once a year; but one maysurmise that this was not always the case, and itwould be worthwhile to explore the comparisonwith the contemporary Florentine gonfaloni,whose fragmentary surviving records tell of alively, if largely parochial, political activity whichmore or less effectively connected the variousneighbourhoods of the city with the centre andwith the image of the urban community as awhole.Parallel to this positive record of Londonpolitics is Caroline Barron's upbeat assessment ofthe economy of the late medieval capital. To theextent that the economy remained buoyant inthe context of endemic plague, she convincinglyargues that this was sustained by the demand ofa substantial market of consumers, about whomone would only wish to add that they were notconfined to the 'largely wealthy' spenders whoare the chief focus of discussion here, but musthave included a significant proportion of themiddling group of society, whose shopping needsand desires — of clothing, kitchen utensils, andbasic furniture — will have been less rarefiedthan those of the urban and rural aristocracy, butmore stimulating to local industrial production.Not all the contemporary opinions of Londoncited by Caroline Barron are equally enthusiastic.As late as the 16th century, Italian visitorsfastidiously complained about the muddy streetsof the City. This was a classical topos for civicachievement: in the late 14th century Petrarch,drawing similarly on Antique models, hadrecommended to the Marquis of Ferrara thathe should clean up the streets of his city. Thisbook implies that late medieval Londoners builtup their own city in broad ignorance of classicalexample — and it would be hard, if tempting,to argue with that position. As Caroline Barrondescribes them, the Londoners who took on the

Reviews 255burdens of office as mayor, or as muck-raker, or asone of a long hierarchy of public responsibilitiesin between, were characterised by a very Englishsort of empiricism and practicality. Her accountis almost entirely convincing; and every studentof London will want to read it.Gervase RosserThe History of the Merchant Taylors' Company. ByMatthew Davies and Ann Saunders. Maney, 2004.Pp. xiii + 316,122 figs. ISBN 1 902653 99 8. Price:£49.50 hb.We are all familiar with the phrase to be 'at sixesand sevens', and yet few probably know thatit derives from the judgement of Lord MayorRobert Billesden in 1484, when he was requiredto settle a 'variaunce and controversie' betweenthe Tailors and the Skinners, as to which craftshould have precedence in civic processions.With the judgement of Solomon, Billesdendecreed that each company should takeprecedence over the other in alternate years,so when, in 1515, the order of precedence forall of the 'Great Twelve' Livery Companies hadbeen fixed, the Tailors and Skinners occupiedsixth and seventh positions in alternate years: adiplomatic solution which continues to this day.The Livery Companies of the City of Londonhave a long and distinguished pedigree, butover the last few years their role and ethos hasundergone something of a renaissance. Muchhas been made of the companies' contributionto the fabric of London as 'the guardians of ourgreat history and the trustees of our City', but alsoto the central part they play in modern societythrough their work to support charities and asa social and community force. This renewedsense of vigour and purpose is increasinglyexpressed in the form of collective 'ProfileReviews' and a spate of new company histories,many written by those who have a keen interestin the political and social significance of theseremarkable institutions which, not withstandingthe vicissitudes of centuries, continue to thriveand prosper. The publication of The History ofthe Merchant Taylors' Company, written by twoeminent London historians, is therefore a timelyand fitting tribute to the 700-year history ofthe guild of Merchant Taylors' and the 500thanniversary of the granting of their charter fromHenry VII.The book is divided into three parts, eachcovering a broad chronological sweep: 'TheMedieval Company'; 'Reformation to Restoration';and finally 'The Company in the Modern World'.The first section explores the development ofthe Company from its early origins in the 13thcentury as a religious and social fraternity andan assembly of tailors and linen-armourers,with chapters on the structural organisation ofthe Company and its craft, and the relationshipof the Company to the City and Crown. Thesecond part examines the threats posed by theReformation; the Company's role in establishingeducational provision in the 16th century;the social context of daily life in ElizabethanLondon; the relationship of the clothworkingtrades with each other, the City, and the Crown;the Company during the Civil Wars; the impactof the Great Fire and subsequent rebuilding; andfinally the troubled years of the late I7th centurywhen the 'seam between the Company and itscraft' started to unravel. The third part is dividedinto three chapters, covering the period from1700 to the 1960s. Key events in the Companyduring the last fifty years are considered inan epilogue, and there are appendices listingthe Masters and Clerks from the 14th centuryonwards, together with a useful index showingthe 'value of money' from 1300 to 2002.Sometimes books written by two or morecontributors are connected only by the coversthat bind them, but in this case the styles of bothauthors are complementary and they have eachtaken responsibility for chronological periodsas befits their particular area of expertise.Of the two, Davies has the more analyticalapproach, and his contributions are particularlyinteresting because he has tackled a range ofknotty questions, such as the impact of religiouschange and the relationship of the LiveryCompanies to the government and politicsof the City. Saunders has had to grapple withan almost overwhelming quantity of archivalmaterial and yet has managed to distil this intoa coherent and very readable synthesis. Bothauthors have included fascinating biographies ofdistinguished members of the Company, such asSir Thomas White (founder of St John's College,Oxford), the protestant martyr Richard Hunne,and the celebrated London chronicler JohnStow; the book is worth reading for these alone.Although the book is fully illustrated, I have aslight quibble with the choice of image and thelayout on the page: it seems a pity that in the

256 Reviewschapter on 'Daily Life in Elizabethan London',figs 45 and 46 show documents dating to 1615.But these are minor concerns. The authors haveaccomplished an astonishingly difficult taskwith great skill, and are to be commended forproducing one of the very best Company historiesin recent years. The History of the Merchant Taylors'Company is no mere chronicle of events and hasa relevance and value to anyone interested in thehistory of London.Hazel ForsythThe Small House in Eighteenth-century London. ByPeter Guillery. Yale University Press and EnglishHeritage, 2004. Pp. vii + 351, 278 figs. ISBN 0 30010238 0. Price: £40.00 hb.The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments(RCHM) used to carry out county-wide surveys ofarchaeological sites and historic buildings. Thesewere replaced in the 1990s by thematic surveysof particular categories of buildings. Those whowould bemoan the passing of the county surveyshave nevertheless to recognise the worth ofthe latter approach. Both types of volume havealways been produced to a very high standard,and have always proved enormously valuable tothose working in the heritage sector, as well asto those with a less specialised interest in theirhistoric environment. With the absorption of theRCHM into English Heritage in 1999, it has beenreassuring that their publications, of which thisis the latest example, have continued to appear.It is to be hoped that the Royal Commissiontradition of research and publication will survivethe continuing restructuring at English Heritageand the culture of change imposed by modernmanagement regimes.The strength of this book lies in its illustrations,the very large number of 19th- and 20th-centurydrawings and photographs of a London whichhas now disappeared and which make it adelight to handle. To someone more used tothe architecture of the counties adjacent to themetropolis, the profusion of weatherboardingand gambrel roofs with pantiles is a revelation.The problem, however, is that most of thebuildings have been demolished. The subjectof Guillery's investigation no longer exists. Theevidence, such as it is, is also confined largely toLondon suburbs, principally Spitalfields, BethnalGreen, Southwark, Bermondsey, and Deptford.The text thus consists of rambles round theseareas with discussions of illustrated houses. Theresult is a social history, as the development ofLondon's periphery is chronicled and explainedand the houses put into context: 'this is a bookabout London, not one about a class of housesper se.' It is not so much about buildings asthe meaning of buildings as cultural entities.The houses are mainly described in terms ofplan form, and the series of house plans isvery valuable and informative. But the housesthemselves are submerged in an excessivelydiscursive and prolix prose style and do notreally come to life. For that, Dan Cruickshankand Neil Burton's Life in the Georgian City, or thework of Sir John Summerson, succeed ratherbetter, though of course they were dealing withless modest houses. What does emerge betterhere is a picture of the people who lived inthem. Guillery can, for example, illustrate thehouse in Whitby that Captain Cook lived in as anapprentice, the one he occupied in the Mile EndRoad as a young man, and the one in Claphamwhere his widow spent the end of her life.In terms of vernacular architecture, Londonis a great unknown, a place presumably wherestyles and traditions merged and new fashionsdeveloped. Seen from the perspective of thesurrounding counties, it ought to have beenhugely influential and significant, but the dearthof surviving evidence makes it difficult, if notimpossible, to assess. This is true of the latemedieval and early modern periods, and also toa large degree of the 18th century, as Guilleryeffectively shows. But it does seem certain thatrestricted urban space had transformed theground plans of houses such that by the endof the 15th century the predictable hall houseformula was no longer recognisable and hadbeen replaced by a variety of layouts. This varietycontinued to prevail into the 18th century,though the factors influencing it, the interplay oftradition, emulation, and pattern of occupancy,prove difficult to untangle, leaving 'a greatmuddle of smaller eighteenth-century houses'.This situation was probably in part the resultof what was mainly piecemeal development bysmall artisans, predominantly carpenters. Thesimplest plan type identified, comprising housesone-room deep over two or more storeys, is tobe found already at the end of the 16th centuryin Cloth Fair, Smithfield, and in the Treswellsurveys of 1607-12. Guillery argues that suchhouses with stairs at the front were designed for

Reviews 257multiple occupancy and effectively functionedas tenements. This simple plan form, often intimber, was remarkably persistent until quite latein the century. Of plan forms two-rooms deep,older examples with central stacks and stairsresemble lobby-entry houses turned on theirsides with their narrow ends to the frontage.This looks like a rural house in an urban context,but whether influences have moved from thecountry to the town, or vice versa, is unclear.Central stacks remained common well into the18th century, especially south of the river. Bythe end of the century, plan forms had becomemore uniform, with stacks attached to partywalls and stairs at the rear of the house. TheBuilding Acts, initially limited in their effect,increased the degree of standardisation in thelast quarter of the 18th century. So too did thegrowing role of architects and surveyors and achange from artisan to large scale developers.Such factors completed the transition fromhouses which preserved elements of a remotervernacular tradition to a new urban vernacular— brick-fronted with parapets, sash windows,with a relatively standard plan and more or lessinfluenced by a degree of classical taste.No one who has read this book will be able towalk past frontages of older houses in London'ssuburbs without giving them a second glance andpuzzling over their development. Post-medievalvernacular architecture, unlike late medievaland early modern, has not yet been the object ofdetailed study and survey. This book contributesto putting it firmly on the agenda. If we are toachieve a fuller appreciation of such buildings,then a corpus of thoroughly analysed and phasedexamples is required, advantage being taken inparticular of major repair work and restoration.The surviving London evidence may be limited,but Guillery has indicated the links between themetropolis and provincial towns, and it may bethere that more progress can be made.David AndrewsA History of Pinner. By Patricia A Clarke.Phillimore, 2004. Pp. 224, 104 figs. ISBN 1 86077287 0. Price: £16.99 pb.Here is a comprehensive history of Pinner,written by a well-known local historian, PatriciaA Clarke, a former chairman of the PinnerLocal History Society as well as the Londonand Middlesex Archaeological Society, whohas previously published numerous papers onPinner's history and a book, Pinner, a PictorialHistory. She has lived in the area for more thanforty years and has done an enormous amount ofresearch using every type of source from medievalcourt rolls and ministers' accounts to 20thcenturydevelopers' brochures and oral history.Many of her secondary sources, publicationsof the Pinner Local History Society, are basedupon her own research and interpretation ofdocumentary material. It is therefore a cause forregret, to the author as well as the reviewer, thatthe publisher deemed the sources too numerousfor full footnotes or even a comprehensive list tobe printed in this relatively short book.Pinner was a hamlet in the manor of Harrow,whose lord was the Archbishop of Canterburyfrom late Saxon times until 1546. Three largedemesne estates, Woodhall, Pinner Park, andHeadstone Manor, cut a swathe across Pinnerfrom north-west to south-east and affected thelayout of the settlements, but the ecclesiasticalowners' main concerns lay in other parts of thecountry and they rarely visited them.After a short chapter describing Harrow'sprehistory, archaeology, and the implicationsof Saxon charters, the book devotes a roughlyequal amount of space to the medieval period,the 16th and 17th century, 1700-1850, and thelast 150 years. Within this framework, the authortells the story of Pinner, bringing to life, witha wealth of fascinating and often entertainingdetail, the people of each period and theirconcerns, which varied with new landowners,and changing social customs and economicconditions. John Swetman married his daughteroff without the lord's licence in 1337. RichardPeryman of Hatch End had a dog 'which biteseveryone' in 1427. Both were fined.As in the neighbouring north-west Middlesexparishes woodland covered the northernuplands of Pinner and there were commonfieldsto the south. The main settlement. Pinner Street(now High Street) with the church of St Johnat the top, and eight smaller groups of houses,lay between. The history of individual houses istraced from the 14th century in several cases andthe author's keen interest in and study of oldbuildings is apparent.A layman, Edward, Lord North, Chancellorof the Court of Augmentations, purchasedHarrow in 1547, but, like his predecessors, hismajor interests lay elsewhere. He had a survey

258 Reviewsmade, which has been used effecdvely by theauthor to reconstitute property boundaries.Later sales of the demesne brought in lawyersand citizens of London who purchased propertyin Pinner as an investment, gradually displacingthe former yeomen families. Fashionable housesfor Londoners continued to be built in the18th century and many families are examinedin detail. Road communications improved andcarriers and coaches provided regular services toLondon. A movement started to enclose the oldfashionedcommonfields throughout the manorof Harrow. Poor Relief was also modernised as aworkhouse was built in 1785.Despite these trends Pinner remainedundisturbed until opened up by the coming ofthe railways, first the London and BirminghamRailway at Hatch End in 1842 and then themuch more intrusive Metropolitan Line in 1885.The story of the developments that followed,particularly in the 1930s, and the newcomerswho mainly travelled daily to work in Londoncompletes this fascinating book.The well-chosen photographs of places andnamed people enhance the text. The book isaimed at the general reader and tells the storyof Pinner well, but those who require moredetail about estates etc and references need tolook at the author's earlier articles in PinnerLocal History Society publications and LAMASTransactions.Eileen BowltFlood! The Brentford Flood of 1841. By Valerie Bott.Brentford and Chiswick Local History Society,2002. Pp. 54, 10 figs. ISBN 0 9508025 0 6. Price;£7.99 pb.The Cresswells of Winchmore Hill. By Peter Hodge.Southgate District Civic Trust, 1999. Pp. 271, 60figs. ISBN 0 905494 07 5. Price not given, pb.Victorian Seven Dials. By David Hayes. CamdenHistory Society, 2001. Pp. 52, 18 figs. ISBN 0904491 50 1. Price: £5.95 pb.When the Bombs Fell. By Paul Barnfield. Boroughof Twickenham Local History Society, 2001. Pp.36, 10 figs. ISBN 0 903341 73 5. Price: £4.50 pb.These four books from local history societiesin the Greater London area are specimens ofthe numerous publications produced by suchgroups. Valerie Bott's book won the LAMASLocal History Award 2004 and the others werejoint runners up. Unlike the Pinner book, whichtells the general history of a parish, all focusupon a single event, a particular family, or aspecific time.Flood! The Brentford Flood of 1841 is exceptionallywell presented, with a dramatic cover and clearprint and format. Newspaper accounts and streetdirectories, plans and engravings are reproducedand discussed, but there is very little in the wayof references or bibliography. The story has notbeen told before, possibly because there was littleloss of life, owing perhaps to the swift warningsissued by one gallant policeman when he sawthe waters rising, although there was muchdamage to property and businesses. A child wassnatched to safety from a boat that was about tobe smashed and the Duke of Northumberlandgot his name into the papers through theactions of his gardener, who gave succour toboat families who climbed over the wall at Syon.The author considers the effects upon the localeconomy, and shows that the cause of the floodwas the incompetence of Grand Junction CanalCompany officials at its Brent Reservoir. Otherlocal historians might be inspired to assess theeffect of sudden disasters upon their own areasof study.Henrietta Cresswell (1855-1931) like manyVictorian young ladies drew the scenery aroundher and took an interest in botany. The book shepublished in 1912, Winchmore Hill: Memories ofa Lost Village, inspired Peter Hodge to find outmore about what turned out to be a generallytalented family whose world was the church, law,and medicine. In The Cresswells of Winchmore Hill,he traces five generations from the mid-18th tothe early 20th century and sets those who livedin Winchmore Hill in the context of the widerfamily in Kent, Devon, and London. It wouldhave been helpful if the pedigree showed placesof residence. The book is illustrated by paintingsand drawings executed by Henrietta's father, adoctor, as well as her own, and a splendid runof family photographs and modern views of thehouses where they lived.In 1865 an anonymous member of the YoungMen's Christian Society for the Relief of thePoor in the Neighbourhood of St Giles' gavea talk about his labours in this notorious partof London. His script, in which he describesthe area and some of the inhabitants in detail,has survived. David Hayes, in Victorian Seven

Reviews 259Dials, by reference to census returns and othercontemporary sources has, in a series of longfootnotes, given the historical background ofbuildings and topographical features and builta picture of Victorian life in Seven Dials. Thedocument itself, as a record of mid-VictorianChristian endeavour and attitudes, deservedmore comment and discussion.As a tool oral history tends to be under-used bylocal historians, but some of the most interestingparts of Paul Barnfield's account of the Blitz inTwickenham, When the Bombs Fell, come from thissource. Other records from newspapers and thePRO are skilfully brought together to completethe story. The result may be a revelation tonewcomers to Twickenham and younger inhabitantswho may wonder whether later developmentshave done even more destruction tothe appearance of the town than the bombs.Eileen Bowlt

INDEXLF PittsPage numbers in italic denote illustrationsadzes (flint), Mesolithic 123Agas map 178Akerman, J, excavation of barrow 9Aldermanbury conduit 63Aldgate 70, 79Aldwych 29ale-brewing 41-2, 53almswomen 194Alperton 107Andrews, David reviews PeterGuillery The Small House inEighteenth-century London 256-7animal bone:medieval 169, 214, 217, 219-20,224-5post-medieval 221Roman 161, 214animal carcass processing 69-83antler-beam mattocks, Mesolithic126-7, 126, 128'Archaeology in London: annualround-up and news for 1855/6'(Barney Sloane) 9-16arrowheads. Neolithic 134; BronzeAge 138-9, 137, 138Ashbee, Jeremy 'The Tower ofLondon and the JewishExpulsion of 1290'35-7axes (flint), Mesohthic 125;Neohthic 127-31, 128, 130Badging Act 1696 198balance fork (copper-alloy),medieval 216, 217Barbar, James 180Barbar, Louis 178-80Barnet market 75Barnfield, Paul When the Bombs Fell(reviewed by Eileen Bowlt)258-9barrack building, Roman 159-60Barron, Caroline M London in theLater Middle Ages: Governmentand People 1200-1500 (reviewedby Gervase Rosser) 253-5barrow 9Bateman, Thomas 130-1bead (glass) 160Becket, Thomas, birthplace 51, 54Bede, on London 27, 31Bedfont church, LAMAS visit 22Bermondsey 73, 76-9, 133, 134,138, 142Betjeman, Sir John 89-118Betts, IanM153Biffin, Edward 6bird bone:medieval 170, 214,219-20,224-5post-medieval 221Bishopsgate Institute 19Bishopsgate, houses 20Black Death 183, 186, 194bodkin (bone), medieval 176bone objects:arrowhead 138-9, 138bodkin 176Bott, Valerie Flood! The BrentfordFlood of 1841 (reviewed byEileen Bowlt) 258-9Boutell, Charles 19, 20Bowlt, Eileen M 'Some early LAMASmeetings and outings' 17-26;reviews Patricia A Clarke AHistory of Pinner 257-8; ValerieBott Flood! The Brentford Flood of1841 258-9; Peter Hodge TheCresswells of Winchmore Hill 258-9; David Hayes Victorian SevenDials 258-9; Paul BarnfieldWhen the Bombs Fell 258-9Brent, river 95Brentford Ait 141brick: post-medieval 87Bridgmore Brown, Cdr G 3Briggs, Martin Middlesex Old andNew9\British Museum 196Bronze Age flint and bone artefacts136-9; dagger 139; ingot 141-2;spearhead 139-41bronze objects 9brooches 11-12, 147Brookfield market 75buildings:medieval 168, 171, 175, 215, 216Roman 10, 155, 160, 161, 212, 213Saxon 30260Burial Act (1835) 11burials:Bronze Age 9medieval/post-medieval 185, 194Roman 10, 11Burns, Arthur ieeKeene, DerekBury St Edmunds 198butchers in the City 70, 75, 169butchery 219Caen stone capital 225Campion, William, brewer 63Candlewick Street 43carcass reduction sequence 70, 71cellars, medieval 166, 176-7cemetery, post-medieval 186, 187,189, 190, 193, 198cereals, medieval 170, 214, 219cesspits:medieval 175, 214, 217post-medieval 178Roman 212Chapman, Hugh 5Charterhouse conduit 49Chartres, Richard 'Victorianmissionary work in London'239-46Cheapside, conduit fountain 40, 51,52, 54, 57, 59Cheapside Standard 61Chelsea 129, 139Chester conduit 54Chobham, Alice 53Christ Church 186, 187, 190, 193Christ Church Canterbury, conduit46-8Christ's Hospital School 184, 186,187, 189, 190city ditch, medieval 186, 187city wall 10, 13,163, 164Clark, John 'So what have you donefor us lately?' 3-8Clarke, Patricia A History of Pinner(reviewed by Eileen Bowlt)257-8Cliff, William, London conduit 59coins 11, 144-7, 144, 145, 151Colchester, Crutched Friars 198comb makers 79

cookshops: medieval, 218-221; postmedieval221-3copper alloy waste 141, 221copper-alloy objects:brooch 147dagger 137, 139ingot 223ring 165spearhead 139-41, 140'Copperplate map' 186Corner, Frank 125Corner, George 125Cornhill conduit 62Cotton, Jonathan, and Adrian Green'Further prehistoric finds fromGreater London' 119-51Cotton, Jonathan, Glenys Crockerand Audrey Graham (eds)Aspects of Archaeology (ff Historyin Surrey: Towards a ResearchFramework for the County(reviewed by Clive Orton)247-8Cotton, Jonathan, and David FieldTowards a New Stone Age: Aspectsof the Neolithic in South-EastEngland (reviewed by NickMerriman) 248-9Covent Garden, Saxon London 31Cranford, LAMAS visit 21Cricklewood 101, 110Cripplegate Fort 153-82Crocker, Glenys see Cotton, JonathanCrosby Hall 17'Crossed wires: the re-dating of agroup of funerary lead crossesfrom Newgate, London' (BSloane and B Watson) 183-211crosses (lead), post-medieval183-211, 191, 192crucibles 170, 215crucifix (silver?), post-medieval 193Cruikshank, George 90Crystal Palace 10, 13-14culvert, brick, post-medieval 178,186Cuming 10-11cuders 79, 80daggers: (copper-alloy), BronzeAge 139, 137; (iron). Iron Age142-4, 143Danes in London 29-30Davies, Matthew, and Ann SaundersThe History of the MerchantTaylors' Company (reviewed byHazel Forsyth) 255-6Davis, Anne 211Delamotte, Philip H, LAMASphotographer 18Denham church, LAMAS visit 23de Valence, John 13ditches:prehistoric 155Roman 159, 160, 163, 164Domesday Book 28, 29, 31-2Dover conduit 44drains, Roman 212dress accessories (copper-alloy) 222Drope, Robert 62Durden, William 46dye preparation, medieval 170-1Earle, Charles frontispieceEastcote 113EastFinchley 7C»6, 109Edgware 97, 100Edward I 36, 51Egan, Geoff 191Enfield 127; LAMAS visit 22Estfield, William and Londonconduit 56-7, 59, 60Evans, W R Rustic Walking Routes inthe London Vicinity 90Exeter conduit 44Fabian, Robert, Chronicle 27-33Farringdon conduit 53, 60'Fast food in the medieval city:excavations at 29-30 QueenStreet and 1-7 Great StThomas Apostle, London EC4'(Alison Telfer) 211-27Featherby, Rupert 211fellmongers 76Field, David see Cotton, JonathanFinchley 96, 98Finchley Common 97Finsbury, New River Head 85-7fish bone:medieval 169, 214, 219-20, 224-5post-medieval 221FitzStephen, William 211, 226Fleet Bridge 51Fleet Street, London conduit 49, 51,63; Standard 63Fleet Valley 10flints 9, 119-26, 121, 122, 124,127-34, 130, 136-8, 155floor tiles, medieval 225Foley, H J Our Lanes andMeadowpaths: or, Rambles inRural Middlesex 90food, in medieval City 211-27Forsyth, Hazel reviews MatthewDavies and Ann Saunders TheHistory of the Merchant Taylors'Company 255-6'"For the poor to drink and the richto dress their meat": the firstLondon water conduit' (DavidLewis) 39-68fort wall, Cripplegate 158-9, 158'Foundation and endowment of StPaul's, The' (Pamela Taylor)229-34Fraunceys, Adam 62fruit seeds 170, 214funerary lead crosses 183-211, 191,192Gaol Distemper 194Index 261garden, medieval 215Gerrard'sHalll3Gilbert de Stanford, and Londonconduit 50, 53glass, medieval:vessels 177, 177window 222glass, post-medieval:vessel 223glass, Roman:bead 160bowls 161phial 155Golders Green 105, 109Goodburn, Damian see Heard,KieronGracechurch Street conduit 62graffiti, Roman 165; Victorian 87Graham, Audrey see CottonJonathangrave slab, inlaid, Westminster12-14Gray, Lisa 153Great Conduit 39-68Great Fire 178, 189, 213, 221Great St Thomas Aposde 211-27Green, Adrian see Cotton, JonathanGreenford 95, 96, 103, 116Gresham Street 153-82Greyfriars conduit 44, 45Greyfriars monastery 183Grimes, WF 4, 153, 155Guildhall Museum 196-7Guillery, Peter 'Police graffiti. NewRiver Head, Finsbury' 85-7, 86;The Small House in EighteenthcenturyLondon (reviewed byDavid Andrews) 256-7Halsey, Richard reviews DerekKeene, Arthur Burns andAndrew Saint (eds) St Paul's:the Cathedral Church of London604-2004251-3Hammerson, Michael '"Our LostElysium" - rural Middlesex: apictorial essay' 89-118Hampstead 106Hampstead Heath 102Hampton Court, LAMAS visit 21Hanwell 120Harefield 107; LAMAS visit 23Harlesden 112Harlington, LAMAS visit 21Harmondsworth, Great Barn 25;LAMAS visit 23Harper, Charles G Rural NooksRound Londmi (Middlesex andSurrey) 90Harris, George 19Harrow 99Hayes 119; LAMAS visit 21Hayes, David Victorian Seven Dials(reviewed by Eileen Bowlt)258-9Hayes End 104

262 IndexHeard, Kieron, and DamianGoodburn Investigating theMaritime History of Rotherhithe(reviewed by Rob Whytehead)249-51hearths:medieval 218-21, 219, 220, 224post-medieval 221-3Roman 161Heath, John Moore, paintingcollection 22Heathrow 134Hendon 105, 108Henry V 51, 62Heston, LAMAS visit 21Highgate frontispieceHill, Sir Thomas 62Hillingdon 139Hilton Price, F G 183-211 passimhipposandals (iron), Roman 164-5,164Hodge, Peter The Cresswelk ofWinchmore Hill (reviewed byEileen Bowk) 258-9horncores, cattle 71, 81; sheep 72-3Homers Company 69, 70, 76, 79horsehide 75Horsenden Hill 136Houndslow market 75Hugo, Thomas 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16,17, 19, 20, 21human bone 134, 185-6; skull134-6, 135Hundey, Frederick, PC 87ingots (copper-alloy) 141-2, 223;(lead) 215, 27 7Inner London (North)Archaeological Unit 5inscription, Roman 11intaglio, Roman 165Iron Age coins 144-7, 144, 145iron objects;dagger 142-4, 143hipposandals 164Isleworth 131Islington, cattle market 75ivory workers 80jadeite axe 127-9Jeffries, Nigel 211Jerrold, Walter Highways and Byways91Jewish expulsion of 1290 35-7John Colet and the foundation ofSt Paul's School' (Hugh Mead)235-9Keene, Derek, Arthur Burns andAndrew Saint (eds) St Paul's:the Cathedral Church of London604-2004 (reviewed by RichardHalsey) 251-3Keily,Jackiel53, 211Kennedy, Maev, lecture on LAMAS15Kenton 118kiln, Roman pottery 212Kingsbury 111Kings Cross 129King's Cross Police Station 87Kirkpatrick, Thomas, PC 87knife sheath (leather), medieval 14knives 9, 221'LAMAS Local History Conferenceheld at the Museum of Londonon 20 November 2004: "StPaul's and the Diocese ofLondon: Fourteen HundredYears", A summary of papers'229-46Lawrence of Stratford, WalthamAbbey conduit 45lead objects:crosses 183-211, 191, 192ingot 215, 217letters 185-6, 191, 193pipes 42-4, 59Leadenhall, leather market 76leather markets: Leadenhall,Southwark 76leather objects 14Leicester Archaeological Society11, 15Lewis, David "Tor the poor to drinkand the rich to dress theirmeat": the first London waterconduit' 39-68Lichfield Cathedral conduit 46Liddle, Jane 153Little Conduit, Cheapside 60Lobel map 178Londesborough, Lord 17London and MiddlesexArchaeological Society 3-8, 9,15-16, 17-26London Bridge 54London Going Out of Town 90London Museum 196-7Ludgate prison 63Lundenwic 27-33Lyon, Jo 'New work on CripplegateFort: excavations at 25Gresham Street, 2000-2001'153-82madder 170-1Maitland, William, on London 29Mann, Thomas, horner 71mattock (antler-beam), Mesolithic126-7, 126, 128McKinley,John, PC 87Mead, Hugh 'John Colet and thefoundation of St Paul's School'235-9Merovingian coins 11Merriman, Nick reviews JonathanCotton and David Field Towardsa New Stone Age: Aspects of theNeolithic in South-East England248-9Mesolithic artefacts 123-7metalworking, medieval 170, 215,226Metroland 89-93Metropolitan Police 87MetropoUtan Railway Company 92Middlesex 89-118Middlesex Local History Council 4Middlesex Victoria County History 4M0LASI53, 183,211monastic water supply 42, 45, 46Moore, Frederick, PC 87Moorhall, Harefield 24Mordake 127, 139mosaics 10Moul, Duncan and R H Ernest HillPicturesque Middlesex 90Museum of London 5, 197-8Neasden 110Neolithic flint artefacts 127-34,pottery 131-4, 133New Cannon Street 10, 13New Churchyard 194Newgate prison 63, 183-211New River Head, Finsbury 85-7Newsletter (LAMAS) 5NewSouthgate 102, 114'New work on Cripplegate Fort:excavations at 25 GreshamStreet, 2000-2001' (Jo Lyon)153-82Non conformists 195Norden,John, Speculum Britanniae 28Northolt 99 103Norwood Green 104Ogilbyjohn 189Old Fish Street, cellar chapel 15Ormond Place 212Orton, Cjlive reviews JonathanCotton, Glenys Crocker andAudrey Graham (eds) Aspects ofArchaeology & History in Surrey:Towards a Research Framework forthe County, 247-8'"Our Lost Elysium" - ruralMiddlesex: a pictorial essay'(Michael Hammerson) 89-118Oxlease springs, London conduit57,60Palaeolithic artefacts 119-23Palmers Green 114Paternoster Row 10Paternoster Square, medieval leadwater pipe 43-5, 51Pearce, Jacqueline 153Pembroke, Earl of, grave slab 13Perivale 100, 116Petticoat Lane 70, 79pin (copper-alloy) 142Pindar, Sir Paul, house 20Pinner 101Pipe, Alan 211pistol, 'Queen Anne' 178, 180

pits:medieval 166, 168, 168, 169, 171,176post-medieval 222Roman 155, 161, 164,214Saxo-Norman 214plague burials 193-4Plumbers Company 43plumbers in London, medieval 43'Police graffiti. New River Head,Finsbnry' (Peter Guillery)85-7, 86poor badges 198postern gate 186potin coins 144-5, 144pottery:Neolithic 131-4, 133medieval 166, 168, 169, 171, 173,174, 176, 177,215,217,218,225-6post-medieval 222, 226prehistoric 155Roman 155, 160-1, 161, 163, 164,165, 214'prehistoric finds from GreaterLondon, Further' (JonathanCotton and Adrian Green)119-51Prideaux, Colonel W F, on SaxonLondon 29Pringle, Susan 153purgatorium 48Putney 134, 135, 147Quakers 195Queen Street 11,211-27quern, Mayen lava 223'quiir of water 60Ralph Merrifield Award 7'Reconstructing St Paul's before theFire' (John Schofield) 234-5ring (copper-alloy), Roman 165Roach Smith, Charles 10, 15-16, 19road, Roman 164Robinson, Detective Sergeant 87Rocque's map 189Roe Green 'Garden Village' 94Roman and Mediaeval LondonExcavation C'oimcil 4roof finial, medieval 174—5Rosser, Gervase reviews CarolineM Barron London in the LaterMiddk Ages: Government andPeople 1200-1500 253-5Rotherhithe 75, 134Royal Opera House, SaxonLundenwic 31Ruislip 94, 117; LAMAS visit 23, 25Saint, Andrew see Keene, DerekSt Bartholomew's Hospital 183, 186,187, 190St Brides, Farringdon 195St Clement's, London conduit 51St Clement Dane's church 29, 31St Dunstan baptism registers 79St Dunstan in the West 199St James Clerkenwell 199St John Zachary 166, 178St Mary Aldermanbury 57St Mary Colechurch 51St Marylebone 198StMarySpital 194St Michael le Quern 53, 60St Pancras 198St Paul's 229-46St Thomas the Apostle 213, 225Sandwich, Ralph of, (Nonstable ofthe Tower of London 35-6Saunders, Ann see Davies, MatthewSaxon London 27-33Schofield, John 'Reconstructing StPaul's before the Fire' 234-5Science Museum 197Shadwell 81Sidell, Jane 134-5slaughterhouses 70, 75, 79Sloane, Barney 'Archaeology inLondon: annual round-up andnews for 1855/6' 9-16Sloane, B, and B Watson 'Crossedwires: the re-dating of a groupof funerary lead crosses fromNewgate, London' 183-211Smirke, Sidney 14Smithfield market 75Smith, Terence Paul 211'Some early LAMAS meetings andoutings' (Eileen M Bowlt)17-26Southgate 115, 117Southwark 123, 131; tanningindustry 76'So what have you done for uslately?' (John Clark) 3-8'Spatial determinants of animalcarcass processing in postmedievalLondon and evidencefor a co-operative supplynetwork' (LisaYeomans) 69-83spearhead (copper-alloy). BronzeAge 139-41, 140Spitalfields 79-80, 81spurgels 47-9, 51Staining Street 166, 171Standing Cîonference on LondonArchaeology 6Stanwell, LAMAS visit 22Stepney 81Steven's Auction Rooms 196-7stone objects:capital 225hone 215mortar 222Stow, John, on water supply 41, 59,60; Survey of London 28, 226strap-mount (copper-alloy),medieval 221structures, sunken-floored 166-8studs (copper-alloy), post-medieval223Index 263Sudbury 144Sudbury Hill 115Surrey Archaeological Society 19swan bones 220, 224Swift, Dan Roman Burials, MedievalTenements and Suburban Growth(reviewed by Rob Whytehead)249-51Symonds, Robin 153tanners 73, 76, 81Taylor, Pamela 'The foundationand endowment of St Paul's'229-34Taylor-Wilson, Robin Excavations atHunt's House, Guy's Hospital,London Borough of Southwark(reviewed by Rob Whytehead)249-51Teddington, barrow 9Telfer, Alison 'Fast food in themedieval city: excavationsat 29-30 Queen Street and1-7 Great St Thomas Apostle,London EC4' 211-27tessera, Roman 214Thames foreshore 122, 123, 126,127, 133-4, 133, 139, 141, 145Thames, Long Reach 126'"The Lesse Set By": an earlyreference to the site of MiddleSaxon London?' (Robert LWhytehead) 27-33theatre, Roman 10tile (ceramic), medieval 175, 225Tite, William 10tomb inscription letter, Lombardic'T' 222-3Tottenham 98Totteridge Fields 108'Tower of London and the JewishExpulsion of 1290, The'(Jeremy Ashbee) 35-7Tower of London, LAMAS visit 21tower, interval-159, 159train, LAMAS outings by special21fTransactions?,, 6, 9, 13, 14, 20, 25-6Tresswell, Ralph, drawing of Londonconduit 59, 60, 61; map 187,188Tun, on Cornhill 62Tyburn, source spring of Londonconduit 50, 53, 57Uxbridge, St Margaret's church andMarket Hall 23; LAMAS visit23,24Vauxhall 123'Victorian missionary work inLondon' (Richard Chartres)239-46Wales, Henry 62Waltham Abbey conduit 45, 47, 48

264 IndexWapping 80wardens of London conduit 52, 55,56,63water-bearers 41water conduit 39-68water pipes 10, 42-4Watson, B ie«Sloane, BWebb, George Bish 17Wellcome Institue 196-7Wells, John, Cheapside Standard61wells:medieval 40-1, 166, 169post-medieval 178Roman 161Wembley 111, 112, 118West Drayton 119; LAMAS visit 23Westminster Abbey, LAMAS visits21, 22; London water conduit53,57Westminster Palace 12, 20Westminster, medieval water pipes43Wheatley, John 15White, Bill, report on cranium134-6Whytehead, Robert L '"The LesseSet By": an early referenceto the site of Middle SaxonLondon?' 27-33; reviews DanSwift Roman Burials, MedievalTenements and Suburban Growth249-51; Kieron Heard andDamian Goodburn Investigatingthe Maritime History of Rotherhilhe249-51; Robin Taylor-WilsonExcavations at Hunt's House,Guy's Hospital, London BoroughofSouthwark 249-51Willesden 113Windsor Castle conduit 44, 50, 59wood objects:coffin 186dagger sheath 142-4, 143Workhouse 194Yeomans, Lisa 'Spatial determinantsof animal carcass processingin post-medieval London andevidence for a co-operativesupply network' 69-83

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS1. Contributions should be sent to the Archaeology/Local History Editors (see inside front cover).2. Submission of articles on computer disk is usual. A clean print-otit should also be supplied foreditorial use; this should be on A4 paper, printed on one side only, in double spacing throughout, withgenerous margins all roiuid. The disk and hard copy should be identical.3. Editing is done using Word. Disks using other standard systems may be submitted, but to avoid lossof formatting it is recommended that whenever possible authors output onto the disk in Word.4. Transaclions style should be followed, but complex layout should not be attempted. For style refer toprevious copies of Transactions (contact Production Editor for detailed style sheet). All papers shouldstart with a summary of their aims, main points and conclusions. Tables usually need rekeying; theyshould be supplied in a separate file and a clear print-out on separate sheets provided. Figure and tablepositions should be noted in the margin of the print-out.5. The type area of a page in Transactions measures 208 x 149 mm. All artwork should be designed tobe reduced to or within such a space. Fold-outs are very expensive and should be avoided. Scales inmetres should be provided on plans. Electronic submission of artwork is welcome but this must be onCD and a printed version must also be supplied. Files should be Tiff orJPeg and designed for blackand white reproduction. Line drawings in particular should be saved at the highest resolution possible— ideally 1200 dpi or above.6. On submission papers should be complete in every particular. Every alteration made by an authorin proof means higher production costs. Unless there are exceptional circumstances first proofs onlywill be submitted to contribiUors.7. Contributors will receive 6 offprints of articles gratis. Additional copies may be ordered at costprice.Produced for the Society by Past Historic, Kings Stanley, GloucestershirePrinted in Great Britain

ContentsList of presidents and officers149th Annual Report of LAMAS Council for the year ending 30th September2004 viIncome and Expenditure Account for the yea«nding 30th SeMg|£iber 2004and Balance Sheet as at 30th September 2(1TO ^^^^^- îiWelcome! The Publication Co'mmitteiySSS^^jjkSjMjjKBS^^^^^^^^ 1So, what have you done for us lately? lofin (daiW.... f.'....!'.'.^^^^^•••• 3Archaeology in London: annual round-up and news for 1855/6 ^Barney Sloane .£. 9Some early LAMAS meetina^ and outings Eileen M Bowl I .^gggr. 17'The Lesse Set By': an early reference to the site of Midcne SaxonLondon Robert L ^JJ^^^JB^: -M 27The Tower of London ana thejewish expulsion of 1290 vJeremy Ashbee *. *. 35'For the poor to drmk and the rich to dress tliyprr meat': the firstLondon water coniniit David Lewis 39Spatial determin^ts of animal carcass procpîng in post-medievalLondon and e^gpence for a co-operatiy^^îpply networkLisa Yeomans ^r.. 69Police graffiti, New River Head, FmlBury Peter Guillery 85'Our lost Elysium' - rural MiddMaex: a pictorial essayMichael Ham merson ^. 89MFurther prehistoric finds from Greater LondonJonathan Cotton and Adrian Green '. 119#New work on Cripplegafe fort: excavations at 25 Gresham Street,2000-2001 Jo Lyon 153Crossed wires: the redating of a group of funerary lead crosses fromNewgate, London B Sloane and B Watson 183Fast food ^^1^ medieval city: excavations at 29-30 Queen Street andI 1-7 Gre^St Thomas Apostle, London EC4 Alison Telfer 211lary of papers read at the LAMAS local history conference' at the Museum of London on 20 November 2004: 'St Paul's andthe Diocese of London: fourteen hundred years' 229Reviews 247Index to volume 55 261v

Vol 55

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?