Time Team - Lincoln's Inn

Wessex Archaeology
Lincoln’s Inn
London
Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results
Ref: 68739
MoL code: LF108
June 2009
Lincoln’s Inn, London
Prepared on behalf of:

Videotext Communications Ltd
49 Goldhawk Road
LONDON
SW1 8QP
By:
Wessex Archaeology
Portway House
Old Sarum Park
SALISBURY
Wiltshire
SP4 6EB
Report reference: 68739.01

Museum of London code: LFI 08
June 2009
© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2009, all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786
Contents
1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................1
1.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology................................................1
1.3 Archaeological and Historical Background ...........................................1
Prehistoric...................................................................................................1
Romano-British...........................................................................................2
Saxon ........................................................................................................2
Medieval and post-medieval.......................................................................3
Lincoln’s Inn................................................................................................3
Lincoln’s Inn Fields .....................................................................................4
1.4 Previous Archaeological Investigations ................................................5
Lincoln’s Inn................................................................................................5
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................6
2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................6
2.2 Principal Aims...........................................................................................6
2.3 Research Agendas ...................................................................................7
3 METHODS ...........................................................................................................7
3.1 Constraining Factors ...............................................................................7
3.2 Geophysical Survey .................................................................................8
3.3 Fieldwork Methods ...................................................................................8
4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................9
4.1 Geophysical Survey .................................................................................9
Lincoln’s Inn................................................................................................9
4.2 Evaluation Trenches ................................................................................9
Trench 1 .....................................................................................................9
Trench 2 ...................................................................................................10
Trench 3 ...................................................................................................11
Trench 4 ...................................................................................................12
Trench 5 ...................................................................................................13
5 FINDS ................................................................................................................13
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................13
5.2 Pottery .....................................................................................................14
Prehistoric.................................................................................................14
Romano-British.........................................................................................14
Medieval ...................................................................................................14
Post-Medieval...........................................................................................14
5.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM) ..........................................................15
5.4 Wall Plaster and Mortar..........................................................................16
5.5 Clay Pipes and Wig Curlers ...................................................................16
5.6 Stone........................................................................................................16
5.7 Metalwork ................................................................................................17
Coins and tokens......................................................................................17
Copper Alloy .............................................................................................18
Lead ......................................................................................................18
Iron ......................................................................................................18
i
5.8 Animal Bone............................................................................................18
5.9 Marine Shell ............................................................................................19
5.10 Other Finds .............................................................................................19
5.11 Potential and recommendations ...........................................................19
6 PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY........................................................20
6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................20
6.2 Results.....................................................................................................20
6.3 Potential and recommendations ...........................................................21
7 DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................21
7.1 Introduction.............................................................................................21
7.2 Constraining Factors .............................................................................21
7.3 Overview..................................................................................................22
8 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................24
9 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................25
Tables
Table 1: Finds totals by material type and by trench
Table 2: Pottery totals by ware type
Table 3: Clay pipe bowls
Table 4: Assessment of charred plant remains and charcoal
Figures
Figure 1: Site and trench location
Figure 2: Results of geophysics survey
Figure 3: Plate 1: Trench 1 showing Victorian walls and drains
Plate 2: Trench 2 showing cobbled surface 204 and pits 205 and 207
Plate 3: Trench 3 showing wall 305
Plate 4: east-facing section of Trench 4
Plate 5: Burnt post-hole 410 in Trench 4
Plate 6: Air raid shelter in Trench 5
Figure 4: Trench sections
(a) Trench 2, east-facing section
(b) Trench 3, north-facing section
Front cover: Trench 1 under excavation
Back cover: Top: the Old Hall of Lincoln’s Inn
Centre left: Trench 1 under excavation
Centre right: Trench 4 under excavation
Bottom left: window glass from Trench 2
Bottom right: silver coin of Elizabeth I from Trench 3
ii
Summary
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Videotext Communications Ltd. to

undertake the post-excavation recording and assessment of an evaluation in
Lincoln’s Inn, in central London. Lincoln’s Inn is one of four of the London Inns of
Court which developed as establishments to study law. There is documentary
evidence for Lincoln’s Inn from 1422 but the Site is believed to have been in use by
apprentices long before. Lincoln’s Inn Fields developed from three fields between
1629 and 1638; prior to this the fields were used as pasture and occupation. More
recently, underground tank and air raid shelters were constructed in 1940.
It was anticipated that the investigations would help to clarify the origins and
development of the Law Courts in medieval and post-medieval/modern times. It was
also hoped that evidence for earlier activity relating to Saxon and Romano-British
periods might also be encountered. Lincoln’s Inn Fields is located close to the known
eastern boundary of Middle Saxon London and the western boundary of Roman
London.
The investigations were subject to several constraining factors which prevented a full
understanding of the nature and extent of the archaeological deposits in the area.
Despite these limitations, a number of archaeological discoveries were made. These
included the finding of residual later prehistoric and Romano-British pottery which
attests to activity of this date in the area. Medieval layers and a possible robbed out
medieval building were also encountered. Finds included two silver medieval coins,
one dating to the reign of Elizabeth I.
Evidence for earlier structures predating the present Law Courts was also identified;
however, only small parts of these buildings were revealed. Part of the temporary
Victorian Law Court, built in 1841, was also noted. A World War II bunker was
excavated under the lawn in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
The findings of the evaluation were relatively small-scale, and do not warrant detailed
publication. Nevertheless, some structural remains were found which could relate to
the medieval occupation of Lincoln’s Inn, and the recovery of small quantities of
prehistoric and Romano-British artefacts is of interest. A short summary of the results
of the evaluation will be prepared for submission to Transactions of the London &
Middlesex Archaeological Society, for inclusion in the annual round-up of
archaeology in London. An OASIS form will be completed for the project.
iii
Acknowledgements
This programme of post-excavation and assessment work was commissioned and

funded by Videotext Communications Ltd, and Wessex Archaeology would like to
thank the staff at Videotext, and in particular Tim Taylor (Series Producer), Michael
Douglas (Series Editor), Jane Hammond (Production Manager), Ben Knappett
(Assistant Producer), Louise Ord (Researcher) and Emily Woodburn (Production Co-
ordinator) for their considerable help during the recording and post-excavation work.
The geophysical survey was undertaken by John Gater, Emma Wood and Jimmy
Adcock of GSB Prospection. The field survey was undertaken by Henry Chapman,
University of Birmingham. The excavation strategy was devised by Hedley Swain
(Museum of London). The on-site recording was co-ordinated by Catriona Gibson,
with on-site finds processing by Hannah Spieler, both of Wessex Archaeology.
The excavation was undertaken by Time Team’s retained archaeologists, Phil

Harding (Wessex Archaeology), Raksha Dave, Kerry Ely, Faye Simpson, Brigid
Gallagher, Ian Powlesland, Tracey Smith and Matt Williams, assisted by Neville
Constantine, Richard Brooker, Paul Owens, Scarlett McGrail, Dave Saxby and Ruth
Taylor, all of MoLAS (Museum of London Archaeology Service).
The archive was collated and all post-excavation assessment and analysis
undertaken by Wessex Archaeology. This report was compiled by Catriona Gibson
with specialist reports prepared by Lorraine Mepham (finds), Nicholas Cooke (coins),
Jessica Grimm (animal bone) and Ruth Pelling (palaeoenvironmental evidence). The
illustrations were prepared by Kenneth Lymer.
The post-excavation project was managed on behalf of Wessex Archaeology by

Lorraine Mepham. The work benefited from on-site discussion with Helen Geake
(University of Cambridge) Phil Harding, and standing building specialist Richard
Morriss.
iv
1 BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Videotext Communications Ltd

to undertake a programme of archaeological recording and post-excavation
work on an archaeological evaluation undertaken by Channel 4’s ‘Time
Team’ at Lincoln’s Inn, in central London (hereafter the ‘Site’) (Figure 1).
1.1.2 This report documents the results of archaeological survey and evaluation
undertaken by Time Team, and presents an assessment of the results of
these works.
1.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology
1.2.1 The Site comprises two parts – Lincoln’s Inn (Court) to the east and
Lincoln’s Inn Fields to the west. Lincoln’s Inn lies in the heart of central
London. The Inn occupies most of the rectangle formed by High Holborn on
the north, Carey Street and the Royal Courts of Justice on the south,
Chancery Lane on the east, and Lincoln’s Inn Fields on the west.
1.2.2 Both sites are located approximately 1.5km north of the Thames (Figure 1),
and while Lincoln’s Inn lies in the Borough of Camden, Lincoln’s Inn fields
straddle the borough boundary between Camden and the City of
Westminster. Lincoln’s Inn is centred on NGR 530967 181404 and Lincoln’s
Inn Fields is centred on NGR 530794 181369, both at a height of
approximately 20m above Ordnance Datum (aOD). The areas selected for
investigation during the project are currently under grass (lawn or park).
1.2.3 The sites are two rough rectangular blocks of land, together measuring
approximately 8.5ha in size.
1.2.4 The underlying geology is London Clay capped by orange river terrace
gravels laid down by the shifting course of the Thames during the
Pleistocene period (SSEW 1983). The site lies close to the junction of the
Lynch Hill and Hackney river terrace gravels laid down by the Thames
during the glacial period. These deposits can be overlaid by sand, silt and
clay commonly called ‘brickearth’ although recent watching briefs by MoLAS
detected redeposited brickearth (Burton 2003).
1.3 Archaeological and Historical Background
Prehistoric
1.3.1 Several Palaeolithic hand axes have been found in the vicinity at Holborn,
Kingsway and Chancery Lane (GLSMR refs. ML017751, ML017682,
ML016891, ML017695). An Iron Age pot sherd was discovered as a stray
find at Queen Street (GLSMR ref. ML067783) and this is the only find for this
period within a 1.5km radius. Prehistoric finds for this area are rare and of a
1
scattered nature, and there is little evidence so far for widespread prehistoric
occupation in the Lincoln’s Inn area.
Romano-British
1.3.2 The site lies to the west of Roman London between two major roads exiting
the city, Newgate (Fleet Street) and Ludgate (High Holborn). Excavations
nearby at 32 Furnival Street and Barnard’s Inn (Schofield and Maloney
1998) revealed evidence for gravel quarrying, possibly for use in the Roman
road system. Lincoln’s Inn itself is located outside of the walls of the main
Londinium settlement and this probably accounts for the high concentration
of burial activity in the immediate vicinity.
1.3.3 Cremation burials have been recorded at Holborn Station (GLSMR ref.
ML069168) and Southampton buildings (GLSMR ref. ML017783). Large-
scale excavations on part of the western Roman cemetery at St
Bartholomew’s Hospital (Bentley and Pritchard 1982) and by MoLAS at
Barnard’s Inn (Watson 2003) have revealed parts of a large cemetery dating
from the late 1st century AD. The cemetery is generally thought to have
developed alongside the Roman road between London and Silchester, with
the site of Britannia House (LAARC site records OBL97) yielding the earliest
dating evidence and thought to represent the eastern extent of the cemetery.
This urban cemetery appears to have continued in use until the early 5th
century AD (Schofield and Maloney 1998). At Took’s Court, a Roman
inhumation in a stone sarcophagus was found in 1952 (Museum of London
File 58) and this is now thought to have been part of a larger cemetery
following watching briefs in this area in 2001 and 2002 (LAARC site records
FUN01 and CIR96).
1.3.4 There have also been a number of Roman spot finds in the Lincoln’s Inn
area. In 1750 an urn containing a coin hoard of hundreds of copper coins,
mainly Victorianus and Tetricus (AD 269-74), was found in Lincoln’s Inn
Fields (GLSMR ref. MLO17776). In 1904, an Etruscan bronze statuette of a
dancer, thought to date from the 6th/7th century BC, was found near the north
corner of the west front of Stone Buildings, south of the boundary wall
abutting the buildings of Holborn (GLSMR ref. ML023579). The foot of a life-
size Roman statue was also found during the Kingsway excavations
(GLSMR ref. ML06175).
Saxon
1.3.5 After the decline of Roman Londinium in the 5th century, a separate Saxon
settlement, Lundenwic, was set up in the 7th and 8th centuries on the western
side of the Fleet valley in modern day Aldwych, the Strand and Covent
Garden. This town was one of many flourishing trading centres and is
thought to have covered approximately 60 hectares but to date it has not
been mapped accurately.
1.3.6 Few Saxon objects have been recovered from the Roman walled city and
any that have been found have been attributed to people visiting the ruins
rather than to occupation. Cowie (2000) has suggested that the ruins of the
Roman town would not have been suitable for the Saxon farming lifestyle
and that the harbour area was a poor landing place for their need for a large
trading site.
1.3.7 Evidence for a middle Saxon settlement, dating to the 7th to 9th centuries AD,
has been discovered to the west of the Site between Kingsway and the
2
Strand (Cowie 2000). On the periphery of this settlement, two Saxon
cemeteries have been partially revealed; one to the west at St Martin-in-the-
Fields, and one to the north at Covent Garden, predominantly dating to the
7th century. However, at St Martin-in-the-Fields, a recent find of a
sarcophagus containing a late Roman inhumation, dating to c. 410 AD,
demonstrates that Roman (at least funerary) activity survived for a
generation or more after Londinium had been abandoned. An early Saxon
pot, dating to c. 500 AD, also came from this excavation, and implies that
Saxon settlement may have existed in this area much earlier than previously
believed. The known gap between the extent of Roman Londinium and
Saxon Lundenwic may be less than previously thought
(http://www.molg.org.uk/English/NewsRoom/Archived07/St_Martins_release
.html).
1.3.8 Although to date there have been no significant Saxon finds at Lincoln’s Inn
Fields, its proximity to major Saxon sites could still make it a key area to
further the understanding of this period of London history. Its potential is
increased by the fact that the fields have not been extensively built on, and
may preserve relatively well preserved archaeological deposits that may not
have been substantially truncated.
Medieval and post-medieval

1.3.9 The main area of settlement returned to within the circuit of the Roman city
walls during the 9th century and the area around Lincoln’s Inn and Lincoln’s
Inn Fields became a suburb outside the main walled town throughout the
medieval period. Several churches and religious foundations, such as the
Old Temple Monastery in Chancery Lane, were located in this area.
Industries, particularly polluting industries such as tanning and parchment
manufacture, were situated outside the heavily populated city on the banks
of the Thames and the Fleet (Burton 2003).
Lincoln’s Inn
1.3.10 Lincoln’s Inn is one of the four Inns of Court in London (the other three being
Grays Inn, the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple), and can claim the
oldest extant records, the ‘Black Books’ which record its principal activities
from 1422 to the present day. These Inns developed as educational
establishments in which young apprentices could study law, and they had
the exclusive right to call lawyers to the Bar to act as advocates in the Royal
Courts (Herber 1999, 68). Lincoln’s Inn lies to the north of the Strand (and
the two Temples) and to the south of Holborn (and Gray’s Inn).
1.3.11 Lincoln’s Inn is thought to have taken its name from Henry de Lacy, the third
Earl of Lincoln, who died in 1311, although it is not certain whether he was
the actual founder. His coat of arms is on the Gatehouse, but it is more likely
that his Inn was located on Shoe Lane. An alternative theory is that Thomas
de Lincoln, a sergeant-of law, may have founded a small Inn pre-1422 at
Castle Yard, which then expanded to the present day Site when the Black
Books were begun (Roxburgh 1963).
1.3.12 The land was originally part of the holdings of the see of the Bishop of
Chichester, and an extravagant palace was built there before 1244 that
included a hall, a chapel, a bakery, brewery and other buildings. Although
the exact location of this building is not known, it is thought that it may
partially lie under the existing Old Hall at Lincoln’s Inn as a timber structure.
Little is known about the layout of these buildings (Simpson 1928, 23).
3
1.3.13 The present day Lincoln’s Inn stands on the west side of Chancery Lane.
The Old Buildings are situated around an irregular quadrangle with the hall
on the west side, the gatehouse to Chancery Lane on the east and the
chapel on the north with groups of chambers extending to the south beyond
the hall. The oldest surviving building is the Old Hall which was constructed
between 1489 and 1492. The chambers at No. 18-20 Old Buildings date
from 1524. No. 16 Old Buildings and 12 & 13 New Square were built c.
1534. No. 21-24 Old Buildings were rebuilt in 1609. The Chapel dates from
1623 and was considerably restored in 1685, and then later extended by an
extra bay. It is recorded in the Black Books that the Old Chapel was still
standing derelict when the new chapel was consecrated, so is unlikely to be
beneath the present day one. New Square was built in the late 17th century
and the top stories are an 18th century addition. In 1845 the New Hall and
Library were added in elaborate Tudor style to the designs of Philip
Hardwick, with additions to the library at the east end by Sir George Gilbert
Scott in 1871-3.
1.3.14 Parts of the Inn were damaged during bombing raids in World War II.
Extensive repairs had to be undertaken on the Old Buildings, the Stone
Buildings, the Chapel and the Old Hall (Appendix of the Black Books, 301-
2).
1.3.15 Famous past members of Lincoln’s Inn include Thomas More, Oliver
Cromwell, Pitt the Younger, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone, Margaret
Thatcher and Tony Blair.
1.3.16 Today Lincoln’ Inn continues to train Barristers and call people to the Bar;
the Inn itself contains 70 separate flats used as chambers by the residents.
Lincoln’s Inn Fields

1.3.17 Lincoln’s Inn Fields is currently the largest square in London, and in the past
it was a place of public execution. During the Tudor (1485-1603) and Stuart
(1603-1714) periods many religious martyrs and those suspected of treason
met their ends here.
1.3.18 The square developed from three separate fields between 1629 and 1638 -
Cup Field to the east, Purse Field to the west, and Fickett’s Field to the
south.
1.3.19 The history of these three fields is documented to some extent. During the
reign of Edward II (1284-1327) Cup Field was thought to have been made
up of 24 houses with 10 acres of arable land. The lands passed into the
possession of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell, in 1431
and a century later formed two fields, Cup Field and Conynger Field, the
latter eventually becoming part of Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
1.3.20 Less is known about the early history of Fickett’s Field and Purse Field,
although the latter became part of the holdings of the Hospital of St Giles by
the early 16th century. By the reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547) the history of
the fields are easily traced through various deeds, and at one point Cup
Field was leased by the Ship Inn and Purse Field was leased by The White
Hart.
1.3.21 By 1537, both of the fields had reverted to the Crown and remained pasture
grounds, occasionally used for public executions. In the early to mid 17th
4
century, the fields came under threat of development. In 1613, Charles
Cornwalliss applied for a licence to build houses on the fields, but his licence
was refused. In 1640, William Newton, a property developer, again
attempted to build on the open space, but students of Lincoln’s Inn and local
residents petitioned against it. Although the sides of the fields were
developed and houses were built, a promise was made that the land at the
centre of Lincoln’s Fields would remain a public park for ever, and today it
still stands as the largest public square in London.
1.3.22 In 1666, after the Great Fire in London, Lincoln’s Inn Fields was one of four
places set apart for the deposit of people’s goods under the protection of
trained bands, and it is thought that people who had lost their homes to the
fire also set up temporary camp here. Public hangings were still conducted
in the Fields, and a number of marches and protests also took place there,
including anti-Catholic uprisings, until the late 18th century.
1.3.23 Documentary evidence from the 18th century suggests that Lincoln’s Inn
Fields had fallen into disorder and was a place of lawlessness. Complaints
were made about the state of the fields were made in the preamble to the
House of Commons’ Lincoln’s Inn Fields Bill of 1735:
1.3.24 "the great Square, now called Lincoln's Inn Fields … hath for some Years
past lain waste and in great Disorder, whereby the same has become a
Receptacle for Rubbish, Dirt and Nastiness of all Sorts … but also for Want
of proper Fences to enclose the same great Mischiefs have happened to
many of His Majesty's Subjects going about their lawful Occasions, several
of whom have been killed, and others maimed and hurt, by Horses which
have been from Time to Time aired and rode in the said Fields; and by
reason of the said Fields being kept open many wicked and disorderly
Persons have frequented and met together therein, using unlawful Sports
and Games, and drawing in and enticing young Persons into Gaming,
Idleness and other vicious Courses; and Vagabonds, common Beggars, and
other disorderly Persons resort therein, where many Robberies, Assaults,
Outrages and Enormities have been and continually are committed."
1.3.25 The purpose of this Act was to tidy up, secure and enclose the fields. In the
early 19th century, the Fields were re-arranged as garden, the plan of which
remains intact.
1.3.26 During World War II, in 1940, an underground tank for emergency water
supplies was constructed at Lincoln’s Inn Fields and subsequently an
underground air raid shelter (Palmer 2007). It is unknown precisely in what
area these features now lie.
1.4 Previous Archaeological Investigations

1.4.1 A small watching brief by the Oxford Archaeological Unit in 1997 revealed
evidence for a post-medieval well (SMR EL03888). More recently, a 2005
watching brief by MoLAS discovered the remains of a post-medieval rubbish
pit (SMR EL06452)
Lincoln’s Inn
1.4.2 In 1968, an area of the gatehouse within the Inn was excavated, after part of
the inner court wing had been demolished for rebuilding. Some truncation of
5
the natural brickearth by building foundations was evident, but the remains
of a hearth were identified, probably dating to the 17th century (SMR
ML055895).
1.4.3 A watching brief in the gardens found evidence to suggest the demolition of
a brick building in the late 17th century AD (SMR EL03891).
1.4.4 Prior to the construction of a new floor in the undercroft of the 17th century
chapel in 1991, a short length of greensand and chalk wall was revealed, of
probable medieval date (GLSMR ref. EL03887). Large quantities of chalk
demolition rubble were also identified, probably coming from a medieval
building. The earliest layer recorded was 1.4m below the present ground
surface; a mid-orange clay silt.
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 A project design for the work was compiled (Videotext Communications
2008), providing full details of the research aims and methods. A brief
summary is provided here.
2.1.2 The aim of the project was to characterise the nature and date of the Site
and place it within its historical, geographical and archaeological context. Of
particular interest is establishing and refining the chronology and phasing of
the settlement.
2.2 Principal Aims
2.2.1 Two separate sets of research aims were identified for Lincoln’s Inn and
Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
2.2.2 The key questions posed for Lincoln’s Inn were as follows:
x To what extent have archaeological levels been disturbed or truncated

by modern buildings in this area?
x What is the nature and significance of surviving archaeological
remains?
x What are the levels of natural deposits and how do these compare to
adjacent sites at Lincoln’s Inn?
x What is the earliest evidence of medieval occupation of the area?
x What evidence is there for later medieval activity, which may be
associated with Lincoln’s Inn?
x Is there any evidence for any pre-existing structures, mentioned in
historical sources and shown on historical maps?
x Do the current buildings stand on the footprints of pre-existing
structures?
2.2.3 The key questions for Lincoln’s Inn Fields were as follows:
x What is the level of truncation caused by modern activity in the area?

x What is the nature and significance of surviving archaeological
remains?
6
x What are the levels of natural deposits and how do these compare to
adjacent sites?
x What is the earliest evidence for occupation of the site?
x Is there any evidence for Romano-British rural occupation, outside of
the city walls?
x Is there any evidence for Saxon occupation close to the abandoned
Roman Londinium?
x What is the earliest evidence for farming on the fields?
x Is there any evidence for medieval occupation on the fields which has
not been documented?
x Is there any evidence for post-medieval structures within Lincoln’s Inn
Fields?
x Is there any archaeological evidence for the development of the
gardens?
x Is there any evidence for World War II defences and shelters since lost
from the historical record?
2.3 Research Agendas
2.3.1 The project aims intended to address a number of topics relevant to Roman,
Saxon and medieval research agendas.
2.3.2 These include refining the understanding of the Roman foundation of

London and the management of countryside up to and during the period of
the Boudican revolt. Further, it was hoped that the investigation would help
to clarify the transition from the late Romano-British to early Saxon period,
and whether any overlap or continuity may be identified between the two
periods. This has been highlighted as a possibility following the results of
MoLAS excavations in St Martin-in-the-Fields. Lincoln’s Fields is located in
this ‘gap’ area between Roman Londinium and Saxon Lundenwic and it was
thought that the investigation might help to determine whether a real spatial
break existed between the two periods of occupation, and, if so, what would
be the possible implications for the shifting settlement patterns during these
periods.
2.3.3 With regards to the medieval research agenda, it was hoped that the
investigation would uncover archaeology to complement and support the
documentary knowledge.
3 METHODS
3.1 Constraining Factors
3.1.1 Several constraining factors affected the evaluation, and influenced not only
the location of trenches, but also their size and therefore depth. The
principal constraining factor related to preservation orders on a large number
of trees, particularly within the gardens of Lincoln’s Inn itself, but also within
Lincoln’s Inn Fields. This meant that most trenches had to be small, and
since all had to be placed at a distance of at least 15m from the boughs of
the trees, this left very little space that could be investigated. As a result,
only five trenches could be opened. Furthermore, because all the trenches
within Lincoln’s Inn had to be opened and closed by hand, they were small.
7
3.2 Geophysical Survey
3.2.1 Prior to the excavation of evaluation trenches, a geophysical survey was

carried out across the Site by GSB Prospection Ltd, in order to identify
underlying features over which trenches should be targeted. Several
instruments were used, comprising a Geoscan FM36/FM256 gradiometer, a
Bartington Grad 601-2, and RM resistence meter and a Noggin Smartcart
Pluss Ground Penetrating Radar.
3.2.2 The survey grid was set out by Dr Henry Chapman and tied in to the
Ordnance Survey (OS) grid using a Trimble R8 Real Time Kinematic (RTK)
GPS system.
3.3 Fieldwork Methods
3.3.1 The project was carried out between the 2nd and 5th of September 2008. The
sites were selected for investigation after communication with Mr Peter
Spooner, Estate Manager at Lincoln’s Inn, with the approval of the Head
Bencher.
3.3.2 All exposed archaeological deposits were recorded using Wessex

Archaeology’s pro forma recording system.
3.3.3 A full graphic archive was maintained. All features and archaeological
deposits were hand-planned at an appropriate scale. Plans and sections
were produced at a scale of 1:20 and 1:10 respectively, where appropriate,
with reference to a site grid tied to the Ordnance Survey National Grid. The
limits of the excavation areas were surveyed using a Trimble real Time GPS
system and Trimble Total Station.
3.3.4 All surveys, earthworks and geophysics, are compatible with each other.
Surveys were related to the National Grid/Ordnance Datum by local control
using the 1:25000 digital maps.
3.3.5 A full photographic record was maintained using digital cameras. The
photographic record illustrates both the detail and the general context of the
principal features, finds excavated, and the site as a whole.
3.3.6 All finds were retrieved and a metal detector was used on spoil from all
trenches. Bulk environmental samples were taken from sealed
archaeological contexts where appropriate.
3.3.7 Following the evaluation, all trenches were backfilled either by machine (at
Lincoln’s Inn Fields) or by hand (Lincoln’s Inn) and all turf reinstated.
3.3.8 A Site code (LFI 08) was issued by the Museum of London prior to the
commencement of works. Following fieldwork, the archive and all artefacts
were transported to the offices of Wessex Archaeology in Salisbury where
they were processed and assessed for this report.
8
4 RESULTS
4.1 Geophysical Survey (Figure 2)
Lincoln’s Inn
4.1.1 Difficulties were encountered in the courtyard owing to the number of
services and other recent interventions, especially on the tarmac access
road where little else could be identified with any certainty.
4.1.2 Over the grassed area, a number of responses were recorded that could
possibly be service routes albeit potentially installed in antiquity; this area
was the site of a hall only demolished in the 19th century. For this reason,
anomalies recorded closest to the existing structure were classified as
potential archaeology, whilst those further out were given a more ambiguous
classification. High amplitude anomalies down the eastern edge of the grass
are an effect of the curbing.
4.1.3 In the kitchen garden, strong anomalies were identified, and these were
thought to represent service trenches (unmapped) or a previously
unrecorded structure. A trench was located over the centre of this anomaly.
East of this, trends may relate to former garden features and a potential
sump or chamber; associated potential pipe routes are of uncertain date but
could be contemporary with the sump.

4.1.4 The data from this area showed intense magnetic disturbance which, owing
to the history of the site, is understandable. In the north and west of the
area, the data from this survey area are dominated by strong linear
responses from subterranean concrete structures, the remnants of World
War II air raid shelters. Rectilinear anomalies associated with the walls
become apparent from around 0.6m and can be seen to extend down to
beyond 1.5m. A service pipe can also be seen within the data on a north-
west – south-east alignment. The widespread nature of these structures
means that any responses seen in the shallowest slices will be related to the
post-war reinstatement of the park grounds.
4.2 Evaluation Trenches
4.2.1 Trenches 1 and 2 were located in Lincoln’s Inn, in the grassed part of the
courtyard behind the Old Hall. Trench 3 was placed in the south-western
corner of the Kitchen Garden (or Herb Garden) and Trenches 4 and 5 were
opened on the grass in the north-east quadrant of Lincoln’s Inn Fields. All
trenches were located in accordance with the results of the geophysical
survey
Trench 1 (Figure 3, Plate 1)

4.2.2 Trench 1 was located in the courtyard behind the Old Hall, in the flower bed
immediately behind and to the east of it. A series of modern deposits (as
indicated by the pottery) including imported garden soil (101), made ground
(102) and demolition deposits (103 and 104) were removed to a depth of
0.8m before foundations for a brick-built structure were revealed,
represented by one of the anomalies identified by the geophysics. The
trench was subsequently extended into the flowerbed in an attempt to define
these walls more clearly.
9
4.2.3 The main brick-built wall (111 with construction cut 121) was aligned north-
south. Its foundations survived to three courses, and the wall was two
courses wide. Two further walls abutted this wall to the west and curved
slightly to form a brick-built drain or culvert (123). All finds from this structure
and the layers above it were of post-medieval or modern (Victorian) date.
4.2.4 To the east of wall (111), a series of modern service pipes had disturbed any
further archaeological deposits. It was decided to stop archaeological
excavation at this point and record the Victorian brick foundations and
preserve them in situ. Documentary and cartographic evidence suggested
that these brick foundations probably formed part of the temporary brick
courthouse constructed in 1841 in Lincoln’s Inn.

4.2.5 Trench 2 was targeted over another geophysical anomaly in the lawn within
the courtyard of the gatehouse building, and c. 6.3m to the north-east of
Trench 1. Deposits similar to that encountered in Trench 1 were removed
initially (201 - garden soil, 202 - made ground). Modern and post-medieval
pottery was recovered from both these layers. A thin, white, crushed mortar
deposit (203) was revealed beneath (202) at a depth of 0.45m. This layer
sealed a compact consolidation layer constructed using small flint cobbles
(204). This hard consolidation deposit may have been an informal metalled
surface. Fragments of 15th/16th century ‘Tudor Green’ pottery were
recovered from this layer. This surface would originally have covered the full
extent of the trench, but had been truncated in the northern half by two large
later features.
4.2.6 Pit (205) was the latest in the sequence. It had been rapidly backfilled with a
finds-rich dump deposit (206) that contained substantial quantities of bricks
and tiles and fragments of pottery. The pottery included sherds of ‘Tudor
Green’ bowls, dishes and cups and a sherd of late 16th/17th century German
(Cologne/Frechen) stoneware. Pit (205) cut the upper fills of a rectangular
straight-sided cut (207), which measured at least 1.8m in length, 1m in width
and 1.2m in depth, although its full extent was not revealed in the trench.
The feature contained two backfill deposits (208 and 219). The lower deposit
(219) contained stone rubble and mortar fragments, presumably demolition
debris from an earlier building. The upper dump deposit (208) also contained
demolition debris and a substantial part of a ‘Tudor Green’ jug. Worked
stone from (208) included a window mullion, possibly originally from the
earlier robbed-out stone structure. The vertical sides of pit (207) imply that
the feature was rapidly backfilled soon after it was cut and the semi-
complete ‘Tudor Green’ pot probably dates this feature quite accurately.
Large quantities of stone rubble were also retrieved from the pit’s upper fill,
and this feature probably represents a robber cut that removed the stone
foundations of a rather substantial earlier wall or structure. It is likely that the
robber cut followed the original wall line exactly, and suggests that it was
orientated exactly east-west.
4.2.7 Robber cut (207) had cut through earlier levels sealed by the cobbled
surface (204). These included a series of demolition deposits (from earliest
to latest these were 209, 210, 211 and 212). One sherd of medieval pottery
(13th/14th century London-type ware) was retrieved from (210), but a sherd of
‘Tudor Green’ ware was also recovered. A small pit (213) was cut into layers
(210) and (211). This feature had been truncated to the north by robber cut
10
(207) and also by pit (205). Its lower fill (214) contained a sherd of medieval
pottery (13th/14th century Kingston-type ware).
4.2.8 The earliest deposit encountered in this trench (218) was sealed by layer
(211). This was a sandy clay, well sorted layer that may represent an
undisturbed subsoil. A small sherd of flint tempered prehistoric pottery came
from this layer, probably Late Bronze Age in date.

4.2.9 Trench 3 was targeted on a geophysical anomaly in the south-western
corner of the Kitchen Garden (or Tudor Herb Garden), c. 60m south of
Trenches 1 and 2. Modern deposits were removed to a depth of 0.5m before
any earlier structural evidence was revealed. Recent deposits included
imported garden soil and turf (301), levelling and consolidation deposits (302
and 303) and a trample layer associated with probable kitchen waste (304).
All finds associated with these horizons were of post-medieval or modern
date, and included wig curlers, clay pipe fragments (c. 1610-1710),
quantities of ‘Tudor Green’ ware, and later finewares including Chinese
porcelain and bone china. A late 16th/17th century decorative book clasp was
recovered from topsoil (301). A silver coin was also retrieved from layer
(303) - a medieval long cross penny. The coin was rather worn and is clearly
residual in this context.
4.2.10 Beneath (304), a demolition spread (306) overlay a partly robbed out brick-
built wall (305). This wall was revealed in the eastern part of the trench, and
it was aligned roughly north-west – south-east. The wall lacked a
construction cut but had been constructed in pre-floor packing layers. The
lower two courses of the wall were stepped out by 0.15m, forming its
foundations. Ten courses of this wall survived, sealed by white mortar, and it
was two courses thick. Fragments of ‘Tudor Green pottery’ and other post-
medieval finds were recovered from the layers associated with the wall. To
the east, wall (305) was abutted by a brick-lined culvert (314). This was filled
with a dark brown organic deposit that contained post-medieval pottery and
animal bone. The culvert cut deposit (316) which represented the dumping
of kitchen waste against wall (305). This deposit contained large quantities
of animal bone, shell and post-medieval pottery.
4.2.11 To the west of the wall a series of dump deposits and metalled surfaces
were encountered, built up against wall (305), and post-dating it. From latest
to earliest these are as follows. Layer (307) was a compact metalled surface
comprising small rounded flint cobbles and extending across the whole
trench. It may represent a footpath associated with an earlier phase of the
Kitchen Garden. Finds included a small copper alloy pin and sherds of post-
medieval (late 16th/17th century) Border Ware. A sequence of dump and
demolition deposits underlay (307), including (309), (310), (311), (315) and
(318). Quantities of post-medieval pottery were retrieved from all of these
layers including Cologne/Frechen stoneware and ‘Tudor Green’ ware.
Several of these layers were rich in demolition debris, including bricks and
mortar, and quantities of animal bone were also recovered, possibly
representing kitchen waste. Clay pipes from these layers dated from c.
1610-40.
4.2.12 The earliest demolition deposit (318) sealed a compact metalled surface
(319), made from gravel pebbles. This surface was quite worn, and probably
formed part of the floor contemporaneous with the structure represented by
11
wall (305), as it directly overlay the wall’s foundations. The surface also
overlay a consolidation layer (320), which was composed of compact
redeposited clay natural. No finds were retrieved from either of these layers.
4.2.13 A gravel-rich deposit (321) lay beneath (320), and this may represent an
earlier dump deposit. It contained quantities of shell, animal bone and
several fragments of post-medieval ‘Tudor Green’ ware and slip-coated
redware. A single abraded Romano-British sherd was also retrieved from
this deposit which, although residual, is of some interest. In addition, a
second silver coin was recovered, a sixpence of Elizabeth I struck in 1577,
and its condition may imply that it not residual.
4.2.14 The earliest layer identified in Trench 3 was deposit (322). This may be an
earlier subsoil and it contained a second sherd of Romano-British pottery
alongside quantities of post-medieval ‘Tudor Green’ ware, and an early 16th
century Nuremberg jetton. Three sherds from a medieval Kingston-type
ware jar were also recovered from this layer. Although the Romano-British
pottery is undoubtedly residual, its presence in this layer and that of the
layer above raises the potential of some activity of this date in the vicinity.
Trench 4 (Figure 3, Plates 4-5)

4.2.15 Trench 4 was located over a geophysical anomaly in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. A
fairly deep sequence of modern overburden was encountered representing
imported garden soil (401), beneath which lay two thick levelling and make-
up layers prior to the construction of the lawn (402 and 403). A possible
post-medieval dump layer (404) underlay these deposits, which was
relatively rich in finds. Large numbers of metal finds were recovered from
(401), including several coins and tokens (ranging from a very worn
medieval silver half groat to a George VI three pence, and including seven
lead tokens), copper alloy studs, buckles, buttons, pins, thimbles, a finger
ring, studs and other fittings, lead shot, window came and a cloth seal, and
iron nails.
4.2.16 A relatively sterile deposit (405) was encountered beneath (404), and this
may represent a slow silting deposit or bedding layer. Beneath this, a fairly
substantial dump deposit was revealed (406) possibly representing a
demolition horizon, as large quantities of rubble and tile were contained
within it, as well as post-medieval pottery. Deposit (406) sealed a compact
and level bedding layer (407), which was cut by three post-holes (410, 412
and 414). In all of these post-holes the posts appeared to have been burnt in
situ (Figure 3, Plate 5), and contained burnt material set within a highly fired
yellow clay packing deposit. However, an environmental sample taken from
one of the ‘posts’ (417) contained very little charcoal (see below, 6.2.2).
4.2.17 It is likely that the post-holes had been cut from a higher layer as they were
quite truncated, but were only identified at this level. They may have formed
part of the same structure, although in such a small excavation area it is
impossible to know what kind of structure this would have been. They were
set between 1m and 1.5m apart from each other. Only post-hole (410) was
excavated. Deposit (407) contained large quantities of post-medieval pottery
(16th/17th century) and the post-holes therefore must be of this date or later.
4.2.18 Layer (407) and an overlying and presumably redeposited brickearth layer
(408) had been cut by a quarry hollow (422). Layer (408) contained some
small quantities of post-medieval and medieval (London-type ware) pottery.
12
Similar quantities of both periods were noted, reflecting the mixed and
disturbed nature of these deposits.
4.2.19 The small size of the trench means that it is difficult to know the exact form
and size of quarry hollow (422), but it may have been roughly circular with a
estimated diameter of approximately 3.5m, and was at least 0.55m deep, but
undoubtedly originally considerably deeper. The hollow had been filled with
a series of finds-rich dump deposits (415, 416, 420) interleaved with silting
events. Finds included quantities of ceramic building material, shell, pottery,
three copper alloy pins and a copper alloy button. Although a small quantity
of post-medieval (16th/17th century) pottery was retrieved, the lowest
excavated fill of the pit (420) produced sherds of Kingston-type ware,
Hertfordshire/Limpsfield-type ware and Late London-type ware, all of
medieval date, with just one sherd of ‘Tudor Green’.

4.2.20 Trench 5 was relatively small in size and was located on the north-western
lawn of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, 40m to the north-west of Trench 4. It was
targeted over a strong geophysical anomaly in the GPR survey, with a
definite structural and linear form to it. The geophysical results implied that
this was a World War II bomb shelter.
4.2.21 Just over 1m of deposits were removed prior to encountering the collapsed
roof of this bunker structure. The upper three deposits (501, 502 and 503)
were make-up and consolation layers associated with the creation of the
lawn within Lincoln’s Inn Fields. A mixture of modern and post-medieval
pottery was recovered from (501), although a small, abraded medieval sherd
was also noted. Beneath this, deposit (504) was a soft ashy grey dump
deposit that had been used to infill the bunker. A lower layer of redeposited
brickearth (505) had also been dumped as backfill within the bunker
structure.
4.2.22 The trench exposed a small part of this shelter, although with the addition of
the geophysical results it should be possible to provide a fairly firm plan of
this structure. The bunker was located at a depth of 1.20m deep below the
current topsoil, and the length exposed was 1.5m by 1.5m. The bunker was
not bottomed because of safety issues and so its height is not known but it
was filled with collapsed rubble. It was constructed of concrete which was
0.10m thick. The height of the arch of the bunker was 0.3m. The west face
was cast in the ground with shuttering and the arches for the roof were pre-
cast and dropped on to the roof. An electric cable was visible near the
ceiling in the south-west corner of the bunker, to provide electricity and a
phone cable into the bunker. Iron brackets on the west face possibly indicate
steps into the bunker. Below these brackets a V-shaped scar indicates the
former position of light fittings. A lead water-pipe was noted in the north-west
corner.
5 FINDS
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Finds were recovered from all five of the trenches excavated, with most finds
coming from Trenches 2, 3 and 4. The assemblage is largely of medieval to
13
post-medieval, with a small amount of prehistoric and Romano-British
material, which occurred as redeposited finds.
5.1.2 All finds have been quantified by material type within each context, and
totals by material type and by trench are presented in Table 1. Following
quantification, all finds have been at least visually scanned, in order to
ascertain their nature, probable date range, and condition. Spot dates have
been recorded for datable material (pottery, ceramic building material). This
information provides the basis for an assessment of the potential of the finds
assemblage to contribute to an understanding of the Site, with particular
reference to the medieval origins of Lincoln’s Inn, and to any evidence for
earlier activity prior to the medieval period.
5.2 Pottery
5.2.1 The small pottery assemblage includes material of prehistoric, Romano-

British, medieval and post-medieval date, although the emphasis is on the
early post-medieval period (15th to 17th century). The assemblage has been
quantified by ware type, using the London type series. Totals by ware type
are given in Table 2.
Prehistoric
5.2.2 Two sherds were identified as prehistoric. Both came from layer 218, and
both are in a coarse, flint-tempered fabric characteristic of the post-Deveral-
Rimbury ceramic tradition of the Late Bronze Age. Neither sherd is
diagnostic of a specific vessel form.
Romano-British
5.2.3 Two small sherds were recovered of Romano-British coarse greyware, from
layers 321 and 322 respectively. Again, neither sherd is diagnostic, and
neither can be dated more closely within the Romano-British period.
Medieval
5.2.4 A relatively small proportion of the assemblage is of medieval date, and
most of these sherds came from Trench 4. All the wares represented are of
types well known in London, and derive from the major industries supplying
the capital: whitewares from the Surrey/Hampshire border (KING, CBW,
CHEA), London-type wares, with one known source in Woolwich (J. Cotter
pers. comm.), Mill Green ware from south Essex (MG), and greywares of
Limpsfield or south Hertfordshire type (SHER). Most of these wares appear
to have been supplying glazed wares to the site, probably mostly jugs; the
greywares are unglazed and could represent more utilitarian wares. The
medieval element of the assemblage, however, is noticeably fragmentary
and in small sherd sizes, with little clearly diagnostic material. The date
range of the wares identified suggests that there was little activity on the Site
before the 13th century.
Post-Medieval
5.2.5 Post-medieval wares made up the majority of the assemblage. A range of
ware types was identified, with a few wares clearly predominant. ‘Tudor
Green’ ware (TUDG) accounts for just over half of the post-medieval total by
sherd count; this ware type supplied the Site mainly with cups of various
forms, and also with jugs, bowls and candlesticks, all at least partially green-
or yellow-glazed. These forms are typical of the ‘Tudor Green’ repertoire of
the late 15th or 16th century, and a number of such vessels, particularly small
14
jugs, probably used as drinking vessels, have previously been recorded in
quantity from the Inns of Court (Matthews and Green 1969; Pearce 1992,
24). Later examples (16th/17th century) of the Surrey/Hampshire border post-
medieval industry (BORD, RBOR) are also present; in contrast to the ‘Tudor
Green’ wares these occur in utilitarian forms – pipkins, jars and a dish. Other
red Border wares may remain unrecognised amongst the more broadly
defined post-medieval redwares (PMR) which are also common amongst the
assemblage, together with white-slipped redwares (PMSR); again these are
largely in utilitarian forms (jars, handled jars, bowl, jugs, candlesticks,
dripping dish).
5.2.6 Alongside these common wares, probably largely locally supplied, are a few
regional wares from the 17th and early 18th century (Metropolitan slipware,
Midlands Purple ware, Staffordshire-type slipware and mottled ware), the
ubiquitous German raeren and Cologne/Frechen stonewares, spanning the
period from the late 15th through to the early 18th century (RAER,
KOL/FREC), and a few English stonewares (ENGS), including a Bartmann
jug, possibly a Fulham product.
5.2.7 Tinglazed earthenwares (TGW) are relatively well represented; these

include polychrome ‘display’ wares of the later 17th century (including a ‘blue
dash’ dish) as well as later utilitarian forms, and two wall tiles. Also present
is a single sherd from an imported Italian tinglazed vessel, possibly an
albarello or drug jar.
5.2.8 From the early to mid 18th century there are a few sherds of white salt glaze
(SWSG), agate ware (AGAT) and imported porcelain (CHPO), followed by
creamware, and finally refined redwares and whitewares from the modern
period.
5.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM)
5.3.1 This category comprises fragments of roof tiles, floor tiles and brick. Roof tile
makes up the largest part of the assemblage, and these consist mostly of
flat (peg) tiles, of both medieval and post-medieval date. There are also a
few fragments of curved tile, including one possible crested piece
(demolition deposit 104), and a pantile (levelling deposit 302).
5.3.2 Of the bricks recovered, two (from wall 305) are complete (with dimensions
of 220 x 100 x 50mm), one a ‘special’ with one long edge rounded. No other
complete lengths are present, but brick widths range from 100 to 110mm,
and thicknesses from 40mm to 60mm. A few fragments have surface
vitrification. Only two obviously modern examples, from contexts 102 and
501) are frogged and stamped; otherwise, form and dimensions suggest that
most bricks are of earlier post-medieval date (c. 16th to 18th centuries).
5.3.3 There are a small number of floor tiles. All of these are plain and most are
unglazed; two are white-slipped (robber trench 207). One tile from robber
trench 207 is complete (55mm square). There are also two modern, glazed
wall tiles (layers 403, 504).
15
5.4 Wall Plaster and Mortar
5.4.1 Other building material is present in the form of wall plaster and mortar.
None of this material came from in situ structural elements, and most
instead derived from demolition deposits (e.g. layers 206, 315).
5.5 Clay Pipes and Wig Curlers
5.5.1 The clay pipes consist largely of plain stem fragments, but there are 32
bowls sufficiently complete to enable dating (following Grove 1984); these
are summarised in Table 3. Bowl dates range from c. 1580-1610 to c. 1680-
1710; these were distributed between Trenches 3, 4 and 5, with none from
Trench 1, and only one late (19th century or later) decorated bowl from
Trench 2. None of the datable bowls carries a maker’s mark, but marks were
noted on two heels and one stem. One heel (Trench 4 topsoil) bears initials
in relief either side (?R/A), while the second (layer 303) bears an incuse
mark on the underside (a monogram B). One stem (layer 302) is stamped
CORK.
5.5.2 In addition, two pipeclay wig curlers were recovered, both from Trench 3.
5.6 Stone
5.6.1 All of the stone comprises building material, and this includes roofing slate,
and fragments of greensand and fine-grained limestone. Two slabs, possibly
from flooring, one possible ashlar, and two possible mouldings (one with a
window rebate) were recognised in the fine-grained limestone, but there
were no complete pieces.
5.6.2 Worked and Burnt Flint
5.6.3 Four pieces of worked flint were recovered, three waste flakes and one core.
These are not chronologically distinctive pieces, but are broadly indicative of
prehistoric activity in the vicinity of the Site. Three pieces of burnt, unworked
flint could also be of similar prehistoric date, although this material type is
intrinsically undatable. All this material occurred residually in medieval or
post-medieval contexts.
5.6.4 Glass
5.6.5 The glass includes both window and vessel glass, and two objects (bead,
marble). The window glass includes some thin-walled, degraded fragments,
with surface oxidation, typical of the early post-medieval period; fragments
from layer (210) are particularly badly degraded, almost to devitrification,
and could be of medieval date. At least two early post-medieval fragments
come from diamond-shaped quarries, and have grozed edges (robber trench
207, demolition deposit 209). Most of the window glass, however, is clearly
of modern date.
5.6.6 Vessel glass includes fragments of wine bottles of late 17th/early 18th century
type, although only one fragment is diagnostic to a specific type – a base
fragment from an ‘onion’ bottle (c. 1680-1730) from layer (302). There is also
one phial base of 17th or early 18th century date from Trench 4 topsoil. Most
of the vessel glass, however, is of modern date, and includes a complete,
small bottle in blue glass from layer (303).
16
5.6.7 A small, globular bead in translucent blue glass came from Trench 2 topsoil,
and is likely to be of post-medieval date. The marble came from Trench 4
topsoil.
5.7 Metalwork
5.7.1 Metalwork includes coins and tokens, as well as objects of copper alloy, lead
and iron.
Coins and tokens

5.7.2 Twenty-four silver, copper alloy and lead coins and tokens were recovered.
All of these date to the medieval, post-medieval or modern periods. In
general the coins are in poor condition, with many showing signs of both of
corrosion and wear.
5.7.3 The earliest coin from the site is a heavily worn, silver long cross penny of
the medieval period (layer 303). This is too worn to be closely dated,
although the quatrefoil in the centre of the long cross appears on coins from
the reign of Edward II, and long cross pennies continued to be issued until
late in the 15th century. A second silver coin, a six pence of Elizabeth I struck
in 1577, was recovered from layer 321 in the same trench. Three further
silver coins were recovered. These comprise two sixpences, of George V
and VI respectively (Trench 4 topsoil, and layer 504 within World War II
bunker 506), whilst the third (also from Trench 4 topsoil) is a badly worn
silver medieval half groat.
5.7.4 Twelve are copper alloy issues. The earliest is a Nuremberg jetton of the
first half of the 16th century, from layer 322. Four date to the 17th century,
and all came from Trench 4 topsoil. The first is a half penny of Charles II
struck in AD 1673. Two more coins from the same context are farthings of
William III (minted between AD 1695 and 1700 and in 1697 respectively).
The fourth is a 17th century (unidentified) trader’s token.
5.7.5 Three coins are from the 18th or early 19th century. Two (both from Trench 4
topsoil) are badly corroded and abraded half pennies of the 18th century or
early 19th century, while the third (layer 102) is a half penny of George III
(1760-1820).
5.7.6 The final four comprise a three pence of George VI, struck in AD 1943
(Trench 4 topsoil), and three illegible coins or tokens (topsoil in Trenches 2
and 4, layer 302).
5.7.7 Seven items are lead tokens. These tokens were first made in the late
medieval period, and continued to be made and circulated until the 17th
century; a number have been found in London (Egan 2005, 167-72). They
are frequently crudely made, and the designs are not always decipherable –
at least two of the items from Lincoln’s Inn are not identified with any high
degree of certainty. One example seen here carries the initials WS on one
side and a five-petalled floral motif on the other; a second bears the initials
HS (or SH) within a pelleted border; both these were from Trench 4 topsoil).
None appear to belong to the ‘cross-and-pellet’ type that formed the earliest
(medieval) token issues.
5.7.8 The majority of the coins and tokens from the site were recovered from
Trench 4 (Lincoln’s Inn Fields), and many were unstratified. As a group they
17
indicate continued coin use on the site from the medieval period onwards,
whilst some may also be useful in dating some of the stratified layers
encountered.
Copper Alloy
5.7.9 Other copper alloy objects include personal items in the form of buckles
(seven), buttons (nine), a pair of cuff-links, a finger ring, lace tags (five), pins
(12) and thimbles (five). All of these objects are of post-medieval date, and
most came from topsoil contexts, with the exception of one button (quarry pit
422), four lace tags (demolition deposits 209 and 315), and seven pins
(layer 210, surface 307, layer 407, quarry pit 422). Fixtures and fittings
include a furniture handle and a key plate (both from Trench 4 topsoil), and
13 small, domed studs or tacks, all from topsoil contexts in Trenches 3 and
4. The key plate is of late 16th or 17th century date (Allcock and Hall 1994,
34). In addition, miscellaneous small fittings, mounts and clasps amount to
ten objects, of which the only closely identifiable object is a book clasp from
Trench 3 topsoil, of late 16th or 17th century date, decorated with punched
fleur-de-lys motifs within a rocker arm ornamented border; one end is broken
(Margeson 1993, no. 452).
5.7.10 Miscellaneous identifiable objects, all modern, comprise five printing-type

letters, and a name and address tag (for Grosvenor Road S1).
5.7.11 Remaining objects comprise various small fragments of sheet, wire and rod,
and unidentifiable lumps, all of unknown date and function.
Lead
5.7.12 Identifiable lead objects comprise two buttons, eight fragments of window
came, five shot (both musket and pistol), a cloth seal, and two modern
fittings. The remainder consists of waste fragments and offcuts. Nearly all of
the lead objects came from topsoil contexts, with the exception of the cloth
seal (demolition layer 315) and a strip fragment (504).
Iron
5.7.13 Nails make up just under half of the total iron assemblage (27 examples),
and some other objects are also likely to be structural in function. One
horseshoe fragment and a buckle were also identified, both from Trench 4
topsoil.
5.8 Animal Bone
5.8.1 A total of 286 bones of mammals, fish and birds was hand-recovered from
the Site. Conjoining fragments that were demonstrably from the same bone
were counted as one bone in order to minimise distortion (so totals do not
correspond to the raw fragment counts in Table 1). No fragments were
recorded as ‘medium mammal’ or ‘large mammal’; these were instead
consigned to the unidentified category.
5.8.2 Most bone fragments were in good condition, with a total of 87% bones
identifiable to species. At 2%, the number of loose teeth is low; this seems to
be related to the absence of jaws in the assemblage and thus cannot be
used to assess the level of reworking. Gnawing marks made by dogs were
seen on 7% of the bones and some scavenger bias can therefore be
assumed. Only one bone showed signs of contact with fire and the burning
of bone waste or their use as fuel can largely be excluded.
18
Animal husbandry
5.8.3 The material included horse (n=1), cattle (36%), sheep/goat (45%), pig (5%),
deer (n=3; all post-cranial) and bird (7%). The bird bones consisted mainly
of domestic fowl. Rabbit bones were seen in layers 109, 322, 403 and 415,
Trench 3 topsoil, pit 213, and drain 317. Since their remains did not differ in
colour and preservation from the rest of the bone, they are likely not
intrusive. Cat bones were found in layers 322 and 404. Cod bones were
found in layer 304 and wall 305. The latter also contained a flatfish vertebra.
5.8.4 In total, 77 bones could be aged to provide insight in the population structure
of the animals. Layers 321, 322 and 404 contained the remains of neonate
cattle. This might illustrate local breeding (Reichstein 1994) and/or a taste
for veal. A total of 41 bones could be measured to provide insight into the
phenotype of the Lincolns Inn animals during the medieval and post-
medieval period. Layer 109 contained a complete sheep radius with a GL of
147 mm, giving a withers height of 59 cm (Teichert 1975). This is a normal
value for the medieval period or later.
Consumption and deposition

5.8.5 Although the assemblage is only small, the absence of certain elements like
the head and an overrepresentation of ribs indicate that we are not dealing
with the primary butchery site. Most animal bones probably represent
kitchen waste. Butchery marks were seen on 10% of the bones and were
made by knives and cleavers.
5.8.6 The assemblage also contained two pieces of worked bone. Layer 403
contained a fragment of the proximal part of a cattle metatarsus which had
been sawn off. This represents typical comb-making debris. Layer 404
contained a sawn piece of the shaft of a long bone of a large mammal.
5.9 Marine Shell
5.9.1 This consisted entirely of oyster shell, and included both left and right
valves, i.e. both preparation and consumption waste. The shell occurred
only in small quantities; no major dumps were encountered. This category
also included a small mother-of-pearl button from World War II bunker 506.
5.10 Other Finds
5.10.1 Other finds comprise small quantities of fired clay (unknown date and
function) and ironworking slag, and a single modern jet bead (layer 404).
5.11 Potential and recommendations
5.11.1 The evaluation produced a relatively small assemblage, dominated by post-

medieval material. Much of the material came from topsoil or demolition
contexts, i.e. the stratigraphic integrity of the assemblage is low. There are
no large, well stratified groups from layers of cut features.
5.11.2 The presence of prehistoric and Romano-British material is of interest, but is

of insufficient quantity or range to enable fuller discussion of the nature of
activity on or close to the Site at these periods.
19
5.11.3 Medieval material is likewise relatively limited in scale and range, and much
of it appears to be redeposited in later contexts, although some possible in
situ material was encountered.
5.11.4 Overall, the range of material recovered is as expected for a site of this
period and in this location, and numerous parallels can be found in
published assemblages from London.
5.11.5 Identifications have already been recorded for objects, pottery types (using
the London type series) and animal bone species, as well as spot dates for
datable finds (pottery, coins). No further analysis is proposed.
6 PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Four bulk samples of between 100 grams and 10 litres, one from Trench 3
and three from Trench 4, were processed for the recovery and assessment
of charred plant remains and charcoals. Features sampled comprised a
culvert (314), a burnt post (417), a post-hole (410) and finds/bone-rich layer
(407). The deposits from which the samples were taken were considered to
be post-medieval or medieval in date. The intention was to recover useful
biological information to assist in the interpretation of the features on the site
and shed like on the occupational activity of the site.
6.1.2 The bulk samples were processed by standard flotation methods; the flot
retained on a 0.5 mm mesh and the residues fractionated into 5.6 mm, 2
mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm fractions and dried. The coarse fractions (>5.6 mm)
were sorted, weighed and discarded. A 1 litre sub-sample of the culvert
(314) was first processed for waterlogged plant remains. As no such
remains were present, 10 litres were processed as a bulk sample.
6.1.3 The flots were scanned under a x10 – x40 stereo-binocular microscope and
presence of charred remains quantified (Table 4), to record the preservation
and nature of the charred plant and charcoal remains.
6.2 Results
6.2.1 The samples consisted almost entirely of coal, occasional charcoal and
black silty material which may include coal and charcoal dust. The flots were
generally blackened with fragments of highly vitrified charcoal and clinker or
metallic residue. One possible charred grain and a fragment of charred
hazelnut shell (Corylus avellana), both recovered from the finds rich layer
(407) were the only identifiable plant remains noted. Small quantities of
charcoal were noted in the flots. Rare waterlogged or long lasting seeds of
fig (Ficus carica) and bramble/raspberry (Rubus sp.) were present in the
culvert (314), as well as fragments of leaf and a single seed of swine-cress
(Coronopus sp.). This suggests that some water-logging of deposits in this
feature may have occurred although the density of material was too low to
be detected in the 1 litre sub-sample. Fig and bramble/raspberry seeds are
commonly encountered in sewage deposits, thus raising the possibility that
sewage was emptied into the culvert. Swine-cress is typical of disturbed, wet
muddy ground such as trodden gateways.
20
6.2.2 Generally the material present in all four samples is characteristic of waste
of an unspecified industrial process or burning event involving probably quite
high levels of heat. The level of destruction is such that no useful indication
of occupation activities can be derived from the samples. The deposit taken
from the presumed post burnt in situ in post-hole (410) produced very little
charcoal and is thought to consist of charcoal dust and silt only. The post-
packing around it (409) consists of similar material and as in common with
the other samples from the site consists largely of clinker, coal and possible
charcoal dust and silt.
6.3 Potential and recommendations
6.3.1 The samples have no further potential, and no further work is proposed.
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 The archaeological investigation at Lincoln’s Inn was partly successful in its
stated aims of characterising the nature and date of the underlying
archaeological remains. It was able to demonstrate that parts of the Site had
been subject to later truncation and disturbance, as would be expected in an
urban setting. However, it is feasible that lower-lying earlier deposits may
survive relatively intact.
7.1.2 In none of the trenches investigated was natural geology (brickearth)

encountered. It is likely that in several of the trenches, significant
archaeological deposits and structures still exist, sealed under deeper
horizons. Thus the evaluation was not able to investigate the complete
stratigraphic profile of archaeological deposits in Lincoln’s Inn.
7.1.3 The investigation did indicate that earlier buildings survive under the present
structures, although they have been disturbed to some extent. Tantalising
evidence of later prehistoric and Romano-British activity is also suggested
from the recovery of a small number of pottery sherds of these dates from
trenches in Lincoln’s Inn Court. Activity of later prehistoric and Romano-
British date may survive in earlier levels, and the pottery adds to the known
distribution of finds spots in this part of London.
7.2 Constraining Factors
7.2.1 Several constraints prevented a fuller understanding of the nature, date and
depth of archaeological horizons present at Lincoln’s Inn. In particular, the
Preservation Order on many of the surrounding trees meant that only a
small number of trenches could be opened and these had to be small in
size, several no larger than test-pits. It was only possible to step the
trenches in Lincoln’s Fields, although Trench 2 in the Courtyard was shored
to allow excavation to continue deeper. The other trenches could only be
excavated to a safe depth of 1.2m.
7.2.2 The trenches were opened up over lawn areas, which had been established
in the 19th and 20th centuries through the construction of make-up and
levelling layers. A minimum of 0.5-0.6m (and in some cases 1.2m) of
21
modern overburden had to be removed prior to any earlier archaeology
being encountered.
7.2.3 Small ‘keyhole’ excavation areas do not readily permit a comprehensive

understanding of underlying deposits, especially considering the complex
nature of the deep urban stratigraphy encountered. Furthermore, because of
the consecutive occupation of this site over hundreds of years, it is not
surprising that many of the earlier historical layers had been truncated and
disturbed by the later buildings constructed on the site. The presence of
earlier material, particularly of medieval date, in later layers provides an
indication of the extent of this disturbance.
7.3 Overview
7.3.1 In spite of the limitations encountered during this investigation, several

interesting discoveries were made that provide a clearer understanding of
the nature of activity on this Site over a lengthy time frame. These will be
discussed from earliest to latest below.
7.3.2 Although only a small sherd of late prehistoric pottery (probably Late Bronze
Age) was found residually within an early deposit in the courtyard (Trench 1)
its presence may imply some activity of this date in the wider environs.
Considering the small area excavated, it is possible that further evidence of
prehistoric activity may lie in earlier undisturbed levels. The only other find in
a 1.5km radius is a single Iron Age pot sherd from Queen Street, and this
adds to the limited evidence available for the later prehistoric period in this
part of London.
7.3.3 Two sherds of Romano-British pottery were retrieved, again residually, from
the earlier levels of the trench excavated in the Kitchen Garden. Lincoln’s
Inn is located outside of the walls of the main Londinium settlement, and
most Romano-British activity in this area relates to burials. The Romano-
British pottery from Lincoln’s Inn was not in situ, and it is impossible to
understand its original context. However, its presence may attest to activity
of a non-funerary nature in the immediate vicinity. Again considering the
small size of the trench, it is likely that more Romano-British material may be
present in this part of the Site. Further investigation could extend our
understanding of activity of this date and perhaps the extent of occupation,
and the boundary between Roman Londinium and Saxon Lundenwic.
7.3.4 No finds or activity relating to the Saxon period were encountered during this
investigation. Until fairly recently the Saxon period in London was fairly
poorly understood (e.g. Biddle and Hudson 1973). However, discoveries
made in the last 25 years have furthered our understanding of this period
markedly (e.g. Cowie 2000, 175). Some of the recently discovered sites
fairly close to Lincoln’s Inn include Arundel House, St Bride’s, Exeter Street,
Cowcross Street and St John’s Square. To the south-west of Lincoln’s Inn
Fields, the crescent of Aldwych, Southampton Row and Kingsway have
Saxon ancestry. Traces of settlement have been found to the east of the
Aldwych, including a hoard of Viking coins.
7.3.5 Although no Saxon evidence was encountered at Lincoln’s Inn, this need not
mean that none was present in the area, given the small nature of the
investigation and the fact that early archaeological horizons were not
22
investigated. The possibility that Romano-British and Saxon areas of activity
do overlap should not be discounted.
7.3.6 The presence of a substantial (albeit robbed out) east-west aligned stone
wall in the courtyard of Lincoln’s Inn (Trench 2) implies that a large building
was originally present in this area. A stone mullion was found in the backfill
of the robber cut, probably relating to the original structure. Small quantities
of medieval pottery were retrieved from earlier levels associated with this
robbed out wall. It is unlikely that this structure formed part of the early
medieval palace of the Bishop of Chichester believed to have been built in
this part of the Site (see above, 1.3.12), although it may have formed one of
the earlier medieval law court buildings. The upper layers overlying the
robbed out structure contained large quantities of building rubble and
suggest the demolition of a substantial building – possibly that of the old
medieval hall. Cartographic evidence suggests that this old hall would have
been aligned north-south and would have stood at right angles to the
present Old Hall. Documentary evidence indicates that the medieval hall
was pulled down in 1492 and it is feasible that the demolition rubble
encountered in this trench relates to this event.
7.3.7 Evidence for possible medieval activity was also revealed in the kitchen
garden, where some of the earlier levels excavated produced medieval
pottery and two silver medieval coins. The Kitchen or Herb Garden is
documented to mark the location of the earliest part of the Inn (Helen
Geake, pers. comm.), and the medieval finds found here may be associated
with this early activity.
7.3.8 Most of the activity in this area relates to post-medieval phases and at least
two earlier phases of the garden were identified, as well as part of a
previously undocumented post-medieval building. The large quantity of
fineware pottery (including ’Tudor Green’), in association with other artefacts
(such as wig curlers) indicates the dumping of waste from the adjacent law
court buildings in the 17th and 18th centuries.
7.3.9 It was hoped that walls relating to the possible earlier palace might be found
in the courtyard. However the brick foundations found in the lawn and
flowerbed of Trench 1 relate to Victorian walls with an associated curving
drain. Documentary research and cartographic regression were able to
demonstrate that these walls formed part a building constructed in 1841, as
a temporary structure after the Royal Law Courts had been burnt down. The
structure existed for 40 years, and its foundations likely truncate earlier
levels that may have related to the earlier palace.
7.3.10 Some medieval pottery was retrieved from the quarry hollow in Trench 4,
which may indicate activity of this date in the area. However, the material
was dumped as refuse, and may imply rubbish disposal from the
surrounding area and not actual medieval settlement in this area. Certainly
no direct structural evidence was encountered to support the idea of
medieval settlement in the Fields. The small post-holes found in this trench
could have represented the remains of temporary structures erected during
the mass evacuation of homeless people to the Fields after the Great Fire of
London in 1666. Many refugees camped here for a short period of time.
However, there is no direct dating evidence from the post-holes to support
this idea
23
7.3.11 The latest archaeological feature recorded was the World War II air raid
shelter in the north-western part of the Fields. This probably forms one of
several buried under the lawn in the surrounding area. The depth at which
this shelter was encountered implies that others would survive in a fairly
good state of preservation.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1.1 The findings of the evaluation were of necessity limited by the small scale of
the excavated trenches, and do not warrant detailed publication.
nevertheless, some structural remains were found which could relate to the
medieval occupation of Lincoln’s Inn, and the recovery of small quantities of
prehistoric and Romano-British artefacts is of interest.
8.1.2 A short summary of the results of the evaluation will be prepared for
submission to Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archaeological
Society, for inclusion in the annual round-up of archaeology in London.
24
9 REFERENCES
Allcock, N. & Hall, L., 1994, Fixtures and Fittings in Dated Houses 1567-1763,
Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Practical Handbook in Archaeol. 11
Bentley, D. & Pritchard, F., 1982, ‘The Roman Cemetery at St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital’, Trans. London Mddx Archaeol. Society 33, 134-72
Biddle, M. & Hudson, D., 1973, The future of London's past. A survey of the
archaeological implications of planning and development in the nation's
capital
Burton, E., 2003. Water Feature – New Square Gardens, Lincoln’s Inn WC2, London
Borough of Camden Watching Brief (NSQ03), Museum of London Archaeol.
Services
Cowie, R., 2000, ‘Londinium to Lundenwic: Early and Middle Saxon Archaeology in
the London Region’ in I. Haynes, H. Sheldon and L. Hannigan (eds), London
Under Ground: the archaeology of a city, Oxbow Books
Egan, G., 2005, Material Culture in London in an Age of Transition, MoLAS Monog.
19
Grove, J., 1984, Guide to the DUA Clay Tobacco Pipe Type Series, Museum of
London Dept.of Urban Archaeology
Herber, M., 1999, Legal London: A Pictorial History, Chichester: Phillimore
Margeson, S., 1993, Norwich Households: Medieval and post-medieval finds from
Norwich Survey excavations 1971-78, East Anglian Archaeol. 58
Matthews, L.G. and Green, H.J.M., 1969, ‘Post-medieval pottery of the Inns of Court’,
Post-Medieval Archaeol. 3, 1-17
Palmer, S., 2005, ‘From Fields to Gardens: The Management of Lincoln’s Inn Fields
in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth’ in T. Longstaffe-Gowan (ed), The London
Gardener, The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust
Pearce, J., 1992, Border Wares, London: HMSO (Post-Medieval Pottery in London,
1500-1700, Vol. 1)
Reichstein, H., 1994. ‘Über Knochen von Rinder-, Schaf- und Schweinefeten aus
Kloaken und Abfallschächten spätmittelalterlicher bis frühneuzeitlicher Städte
in Norddeutschland’ n N. Benecke (ed.), Beiträge zur Archäologie und
Prähistorische Anthropologie (=Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und
Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg Band 53), Stuttgart: Theiss, 445-48
Roxburgh R., 1963, The Origins of Lincoln’s Inn, Cambridge University Press
Schofield, J. & Maloney, C., 1998, ‘Archaeology in the City of London, 1907 – 1991:
a Guide to Records of Excavations by the Museum of London and its
Predecessors’, Archaeol. Gazetteer Series 1, Museum of London
25
Simpson, J., 1928, Some Account of the Old Hall of Lincoln’s Inn, Brighton: Dolphin
Press
Spilsbury W. H. 1850. Lincoln’s Inn: Its Ancient and Modern Buildings with an
Account of the Library
SSEW, 1983, Soils of England and Wales, Sheet 6 South East England, Soil Survey
of England and Wales
Teichert, M., 1975, ‘Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der

Widerristhöhe bei Schafen’ in A.T. Clason (ed.), Archaeozoological studies.
Amsterdam: North-Holland/American Elsevier, 51-69
Videotext Communications, 2008, Proposed Archaeological Evaluation Lincoln’s Inn

TQ 530967 181404, Lincoln’s Inn Fields TQ 530794 181369, unpub. project
design
Watson, S., 2003, An Excavation in the western cemetery of Roman London: Atlantic
House, City of London, Museum of London Archaeol. Service, Archaeology
Studies Series 7
26
Table 1: Finds totals by material type and by trench (number / weight in grammes)
Material Tr 1 Tr 2 Tr 3 Tr 4 Tr 5 TOTAL
Pottery 52/381 254/1874 365/2827 312/4701 23/393 1006/10176
Prehistoric - 2/12 - - - 2/12
Romano-British - - 2/2 - - 2/2
Medieval 2/39 4/30 8/111 68/1019 1/5 83/1204
Post-Medieval 50/342 248/1832 355/2714 244/3682 22/388 919/8958
Ceramic Building Material 29/7269 58/17957 90/12003 48/3957 9/1024 234/42210
Mortar - 4/1006 12/308 - - 16/1314
Wall Plaster - 3/3248 9/411 - - 12/3659
Fired Clay - - 35/21 - - 35/21
Clay Pipe 1/1 16/54 57/309 116/612 13/95 203/1071
Wig curlers - - 2/18 - - 2/18
Stone 2/4529 12/11655 1/23 2/289 4/205 21/16701
Worked Flint 1/23 2/6272 - 1/15 - 4/665
Burnt Flint - 2/27 1/78 5/23 - 8/128
Glass 5/31 21/63 7/169 24/139 12/219 69/621
Slag 3/55 4/361 5/495 1/32 13/943
Metalwork (no. objects) 22 34 30 114 9 209
Coins & Tokens 1 2 4 12 1 20
Copper Alloy 5 12 14 63 1 95
Lead 4 2 6 25 1 38
Iron 12 18 6 14 6 56
Jet (no. objects) - - - 1 - 1
Worked Bone (no. objects) - - - 1 - 1
Animal Bone 53/538 87/1426 104/1412 130 2/79 376/4731
Marine Shell 3/14 3/33 12/159 11/148 1/1 30/355
27
Table 2: Pottery totals by ware type
Fabric No. Weight

Date Ware type code sherds (g)
Prehistoric Flint-tempered ware 2 12
Romano-British RB greyware SAND 2 2
Medieval Cheam ware CHEA 3 45

Coarse Border Ware CBW 1 3
Kingston-type ware KING 25 198
Late London-type ware LLON 41 747
London-type ware LOND 7 177
Mill Green ware MG 1 4
S Herts/Limpsfield type greyware SHER 5 30
Sub-total medieval 83 1204
Post-medieval Agate ware AGAT 1 6
Bone china BONE 5 52
Border ware BORD 50 645
Chinese porcelain CHPO 1 4
Cologne/Frechen stoneware KOL/FREC 41 536
Creamware CREA 6 36
Eng stoneware blacklead bottle SBSL 6 105
English porcelain ENPO 3 268
English stoneware ENGS 7 101
Italian tinglazed ware ITG 1 20
Metropolitan slipware METS 4 102
Midlands Purple MPUR 5 139
Misc. stoneware - 1 8
Post-med black-glazed ware PMBL 5 62
Post-med slip-coated redware PMSR 21 490
Post-medieval redware PMR 145 2611
Raeren stoneware RAER 7 95
Red Border ware RBOR 5 212
Refined redware REFR 1 43
Refined whiteware REFW 42 362
Staffordshire-type marbled slipware SMSL 2 29
Staffordshire-type mottled ware SMot 1 15
Tinglazed earthenware TGW 49 423
‘Tudor Green’ TUDG 507 2566
White saltglaze SWSG 1 8
Yellow ware YELL 2 20
Sub-total post-medieval 919 8958
OVERALL TOTAL 1006 10176
28
Table 3: Clay pipe bowls
Bowl type* Date No. bowls

2 c. 1580-1610 1
5 c. 1610-40 2
6 c. 1610-40 1
8 c. 1610-40 7
9 c. 1640-60 5
10 c. 1640-60 5
13 c. 1660-80 3
16 c. 1660-80 1
18 c. 1660-80 4
19 c. 169001710 1
20 c. 1680-1710 1
21 c. 1680-1710 2
Total 32
*following Grove 1984
29
Table 4: Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal
Flot Residue
Feature type/ Context Sample size flot size Charred Waterlogged? Charcoal Notes Charcoal
no litres ml plants Plants 4/2mm >5.6mm
Culvert/314 313 1 10 350 5 - Ficus (A), Rubus 10/10 Coal, clinker, leaves, -
(C), Coronopus blackened silt, vitrified
(C) frags, blackened worm
capsules, smb.
Post/ 410 417 2 0.1 40 - - <1/<1 Silt lumps, charcoal -
dust?, clinker frags
Posthole/410 409 3 2 60 - - - 20/10 Coal/clinker, charcoal -
dust?
Layer 407 4 10 70 - Barley (1); Coal, clinker, smb., fish -
Hazelnut (1)
key: A** = exceptional, A* = 30+ items, A = t10 items, B = 9 - 5 items, C = < 5 items, smb =
small mammal bones
30
Appendix 1: Trench descriptions
bgl = below ground level

TRENCH 1 The Gatehouse Type: Hand excavated
Dimensions: 2.8m by 2.65m Max. depth: 1.00m Ground level: 19.65 aOD
context Description depth
101 Garden Dark greyish-brown loam with very rare gravel inclusions. Modern 0-0.25m
Topsoil imported garden soil. Contains modern pottery, nails, CBM etc.
102 Layer Brown silty clay made ground underlying garden topsoil. 0.25-0.6m
103 Layer Spread of white plaster mortar against eastern and central part of 0.55-0.58m
trench. Underlies (102) in places.
104 Layer Demolition rubble deposit beneath (102) and (103). Dark grey brown 0.6-0.8m
loose silty gravel with large quantities of broken tile and brick, and
fragments of chalk.
105 Cut Modern service trench (given a context number because 0.65m
residual finds came from its fill). Water pipe. deep
106 Fill Backfill of water pipe trench (105). 0.65m deep
107 Fill Backfill of Victorian service trench (108). 0.18m deep
108 Cut Victorian sewer trench cut for concrete pipe and backfill. 0.18m
deep
109 Layer Light grey brown coarse sandy silt with modern pottery fragments, 0.30m deep
CBM and mortar flecking. Demolition dump layer against wall (111)
and underlies (102).
110 Structure Light grey brown coarse sandy silt with modern pottery fragments, -
CBM and mortar flecking. Same as (109) but on western side of wall
(111) and also truncated by (108). Demolition dump layer against wall
(111) and underlies (102).
111 Layer Wall aligned roughly N-S. Two courses in thickness and survives -
three courses in depth. Red unfrogged brick bonded with creamy
sandy mortar.
112 Layer Light cream-brown rubble and mortar – Used as infill between walls
(115), (126) and (123).
113 Layer Friable light brown coarse sandy silt with frequent chalk fragments
and flecks. Underlies dump layer (109) and forms a lower Tudor
dump deposit.
114 Fill Backfill of construction cut (116), which contains wall (115). Underlies
E-W wall (126).
115 Wall N-S aligned Victorian wall. Only partially revealed in trench but is 2 -
courses of brick in thickness and survives as seven courses in depth
(with the lower two courses jutting out and forming the foundations).
Very dark brown black silty loam with common large limestone blocks
<0.10m in size. Deliberate dump of material which overlies (116) and
is sealed by (104).
116 Cut Construction cut for wall (115). -
117 Layer Demolition dump. Truncated by wall construction cut (116).
118 Layer Light brown sandy silt demolition layer with frequent peg tile
fragments. Underlies layer (113).
119 Layer Light brown gravelly silt with small rounded gravels. Consolidation
layer layer underlying (118).
120 Layer Light-mid brown coarse sandy silt with frequent CBM and mortar -
flecking. Underlies (119).
121 Cut Construction cut for wall (111). Cuts (104). -
122 Cut Construction cut for Victorian drain (123).
123 Structure Brick drain or possible culvert in cut (122).
124 Fill Backfill of construction cut (122).
125 Fill Backfill of wall construction cut (121).
126 Wall Short stretch of brick wall aligned W-E and abutting culvert (123). -
127 Layer Rubble infill comprising mortar and subangular pebbles and CBM
infilling gaps between wall (111) and culvert (123).
31
TRENCH 2 The Gatehouse Type: Hand Excavated
Dimensions: 3.10m by 1.8 m Max. depth: 1.58m Ground level: 19.71m aOD
201 Garden Dark greyish-brown loam with very rare gravel inclusions. Modern 0-0.20m
Topsoil imported garden soil. Fine and well sorted. Contains modern pottery,
CBM etc.
202 Layer Mid grey sandy silt with rare gravel inclusions. Made-ground deposit. 0.2-0.45m
203 Layer Thin layer of crushed white lime mortar overlying (204) and 0.45-0.52m
underlying (202). Contained 18th-19th century brick and is likely a
make-up layer prior to construction of garden/ levelling for turf.
204 Layer Orange hard sandy gravel with frequent small-medium round flint 0.15m thick
pebbles. Compacted consolidation layer. Cut by pit (205) and robber
cut (207).
205 Cut Roughly oval pit cut of fairly recent date. Cuts (204) and fill of 0.42m
robber cut (207). deep
206 Fill Light greyish brown silty gravel with moderate subrounded flint
pebbles. Contains tile and brick and represents a dump of material
infilling pit (205).
207 Cut Linear NEE-SWW aligned cut with vertical sides. Not bottomed. 1.15m+
Represents a robber trench that would have robbed out stone deep
wall and foundations of earlier wall. Contained two backfilled
deposits (208) and (219).
208 Fill Upper fill of robber trench (207). Creamish orange-brown backfill with 0.52m deep
occasional small subrounded pebbles. Finds included a substantial
part of a well-made ‘Tudor Green’ jug or drinking vessel.
209 Layer Dark grey brown silt layer mixed with red unfrogged brick fragments 0.05m thick
and red tile. Represents a rubble demolition deposit. Fairly horizontal
and level.
210 Make-up White mortar silty sand make-up layer. Very similar to (211). 0.10m thick
layer
211 Make-up Cream silty sand make-up layer with frequent mortar fragments, 0.12m thick
layer although less than (210).
212 Layer Mid brown sandy gravel with moderate abraded subrounded flint
pebbles and occasional small chalk fragments. Large quantities of
broken red roof tile and unfrogged brick. Layer not excavated (limit of
excavation).
213 Cut Probably circular concave pit cut. Truncated to north by robber cut 0.35m deep
(207) and pit (205).
214 Fill Light grey silt with a few small subrounded flint pebbles. Lower fill of 0.05m thick
pit (213).
215 Fill Mid brown silty clay with moderate decayed white mortar, and broken 0.30m thick
tile and brick fragments. Contains reworked material from (210).
Mainly a dump deposit containing demolition material and represents
the upper truncated fill of pit (213).
216 Cut Possible post-hole not recorded when excavated. Probably -
roughly circular and c. 0.20m in diameter and c. 0.15m deep.
217 Fill Fill of ?post-hole (216). Not recorded when excavated.
218 Layer Mid grey-brown sandy clay. Well sorted layer with no coarse 0.50m+
inclusions. May represent an early subsoil. thick
219 Fill Yellow-cream degraded sand mortar with occasional small stones 0.68m thick
and chalk fragments, Lower fill of robber trench (207).
32
TRENCH 3 The Kitchen Garden or Herb Garden Type: Hand Excavated
Dimensions: 2.8m by 0.9m Max. depth: 1.40m Ground level: 18.19m aOD
301 Garden Dark brown silty loam with abundant small fragments of mortar and 0-0.18m
Topsoil modern pottery and CBM. deep
302 Layer Dark brown silty sandy clay with clay and mortar lumps. Victorian 0.18-0.3m
levelling deposit. deep
303 Layer Very compacted ashy dark loam silt. Common charcoal and small
rounded flint pebbles. Consolidation layer possibly following
truncation of site to build garden.
304 Layer Very compacted dark grey silt, with abundant charcoal, common 0.18m thick
pottery and animal bone. Possibly a trample layer and pottery and
bone may suggest kitchen waste.
305 Structure Partly robbed-out brick wall Two course thick and 10 course deep red 0.65m thick
brick (unfrogged) wall. The two lower courses are stepped out slightly
as foundations. Of interest is the fact that this wall had no
construction cut and was built without dug-in foundations, but had
pre-floor packing layers rammed down instead. English bond. Cream-
white sand mortar. Wall aligned roughly NW-SE. wall is part of a
Tudor building pre-dating the existing square.
306 Layer Demolition dump of brick and mortar. Possibly associated with partial 0.12m thick
demolition of structure associated with (305).
307 Surface Compact level deposit of informal flint pebble mettling. Single layer 0.04m thick
thick and quite worn and patchy in places. Possibly part of a yard or
path surface. Overlies demolition layer (306).
308 VOID VOID context.
309 Layer Grey brown silty clay.One of the latest layers in a sequence of 0.05m thick
demolition deposits. Contains large quantities of CBM, pottery and
abundant mortar fragments.
310 Layer Dark grey-brown silt with common pottery, CBM etc. Part of a 0.05m thick
sequence of levelling and dump deposits to the west of wall (305).
Underlies demolition deposit (306) and overlies (309).
311 Layer Dark grey-brown silty sand with occasional pottery and rare charcoal/ 0.04m thick
One of many thin, almost laminated deposits, built up horizontally
against and to the west of wall (305). This lens may be related to
trampling activity. Underlies (309) and overlies (315).
312 Fill Dark brown-black silt forming the infill of drain (317). Mixed cessy 0.15m thick
deposit.
313 Fill Black cessy silt – very rich in organic matter. Fill of culvert (314). 0.4m deep
314 Structure Drain and culvert structure. Aligned roughly NE-SW with vertical
sides and a flat base. Brick-lined drain with plastered tile base. Drain
runs into stone-lined culvert or soakaway under edge of trench.
Remains of broken stones suggest capping and hence possible
culvert.
315 Layer Demolition layer – one of a series of demolition layers on the western 0.22m thick
side of wall (305). This layer dips downwards to the east, Thick
deposit with common peg tile and plaster and patches of mortar.
316 Layer Mid brown silty loam with common charcoal and mortar flecks. Silting 0.50m thick
soil build up against and to the east of wall (305).
317 Cut Drain cut for drain / culvert (314). Linear, aligned roughly NW-SE 0.15
with vertical sides and a flat base.
318 layer Mid-brown sandy silt layer. Underlies layer (315). Silty build up over 0.18m thick
metalled surface (319) which it overlies
319 Surface Very fine metalled surface comprising small small subrounded flint 0.04m thick
pebbles. Possible internal floor or external yard contemporary with
construction of wall (305).
320 Layer Mid yellow-brown clay. Compact redeposited natural laid down to 0.08m thick
seal (321) and to provide a base for metalled surface (319).
33
321 Layer Mid grey-brown silty layer below (320). Seems to form a series of 0.11m thick
laminated lenses (that were amalgamated into a single layer) of
make-up for clay and overlying metalled surface. Fairly loose and
friable layer with common mortar fragments and oyster shell.
Levelling ump or formation layer, Silver Elizabethan groat came from
this layer.
322 Layer Mid grey silty clay fairly compact layer. Rare animal bone and flecks 0.18m thick
of charcoal. This is a soil horizon below wall (305) and formation
layer (321). Pre-dates the construction of the building (of which wall
(305) forms a part. Pottery dates to the 15th century. May be an old
plough soil.
TRENCH 4 Lincoln’s Inn Fields Type: Machine Excavated

Dimensions: 3.9m by 3.2m Max. depth: 1.75m Ground level: 19.02m aOD
401 Topsoil Current topsoil and turf of lawn forming part of the square. Dark 0-0.32m
brown well sorted loam. Few stones. Lots of modern finds.
402 Layer Mid brown sandy silt. Modern layer of made ground comprising large 0.32-0.71m
quantities of rubble. Lies fairly horizontally and probably represents a
levelling layer prior to construction of lawn.
403 Layer Dark grey silty loam layer with moderate small gravels. Fairly clean 0.71-0.78m
deposit with small quantities of CBM, and occasional charcoal flecks.
Levelling or make-up layer for lawn. Underlies (402).
404 Layer Dark grey-brown sandy clay with frequent stones and fragments of 0.78-0.97m
CBM. Rubble layer which may represent a post-medieval
occupational dump layer. Underlies (403).
405 Layer Compact mid brown grey silty sand layer. Fairly clean layer with few 0.97-1.08m
small stones and small quantities of CBM. Underlies (404). Bedding
or silting layer.
406 Layer Dark brown sandy silt with frequent stones and quantities of pottery, 1.08-1.24m
tile and demolition and occupation debris (animal bone, oyster shell).
Large dump deposit sealing a series of post-holes and underlying
(405).
407 Layer Mid grey fine silt. Fairly compact and level bedding layer which was 0.10m thick
cut by a series of three post-holes (410, 412, and 414).
408 Layer Brickearth deposit only visible at north-eastern corner of trench. -
Appears to overlie deposit 407 although relationship uncertain as
both deposits are cut by pit (422).
409 Fill Burnt yellow clay (and ?mortar) packing fill of post-hole [410]. 0.12m deep
410 Cut Circular post-hole 0.3m in diameter and 0.12m deep. Steep 0.12m
straight sides and concave base. Post-hole with post-pipe (417) deep
and packing (409) all burnt in situ.
411 Fill Burnt yellow clay packing-fill of post-hole (412). Not excavated -
412 Cut Small square post-hole, only 0.12m in size. Not excavated. Filled -
with post-pipe (418) and post-packing (411).
413 Fill Yellow burnt clay packing-fill of post-hole (414). Not excavated.
414 Cut Cut for circular post-hole that has been burnt in situ and -
contains burnt post-pipe (419) and packing-fill (413). Measures
0.22m in diameter but not excavated.
415 Fill Light brown sandy silt with frequent small pebble inclusions. Dump fill 0.18m thick
– forms upper fill of quarry pit (422). Underlies and is sealed by (407).
416 Fill Dark brown silty clay with frequent sub-angular stones, broken tile 0.12m deep
and animal bone. Pottery suggests a medieval date. Dump fill of
quarry pit (422). Underlies (415).
417 Structure In situ burnt timber post within post-hole (410). 0.12m deep
418 Structure In situ burnt timber post within post-hole (412). Not excavated.
419 Structure In situ burnt timber post within post-hole (414). Not excavated.
34
420 Fill Dark brown silty loam with large quantities of material culture, 0.31m thick
including shell, CBM and tile. Material dumped from north tipping
downwards into the southern part of pit (422). NB this must be quite a
small, contained dump as it was not identified on the other side of this
pit section. Lowest fill of pit (422), and underlies (421).
421 Fill Mid grey-brown silt. Dump deposit rich in finds including large
quantities of CBM, chalk fragments and moderate pottery. Overlies
(420) and underlies (416).
422 Cut Cut of quarry pit cutting layer (408). Only part of this pit was
revealed in this trench and so it is impossible to understand its
true form and size. May be sub-circular, judging by extrapolation
of the extent of the cut revealed. At least 3m in diameter and
0.55m deep. Moderate concave sides – base unknown.
TRENCH 5 Lincoln’s Inn Fields Type: Machine Excavated

Dimensions: 3m by 2.7m Max. depth: 2.3m Ground level: 19.35m aOD
501 Topsoil Current topsoil and turf of lawn making the central grass area of 0-0.20m
the square at Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
502 Layer Dark grey brown silty loam. Make up layer prior to establishment 0.2-0.4m
of lawn. Contains large quantities of rubble.
503 Layer Orange silty rubble. Another make-up layer to build up soil height 0.4-0.55m
prior to creation of lawn.
504 Layer Clinker layer with large quantities of soft and friable grey ash. 0.58m thick
Dumped fill deposit within bunker (506).
505 Layer Redeposited brickearth with post-medieval tile. Dumped backfill
within bunker (506).
506 Structure Part of a World war II bunker. Only a small part of this structure 0.25m high
revealed, and geophysics indicates that it continues to the north,
west and east. The bunker was located at a depth of 1.20m deep,
and the length exposed was 1.5m by 1.5m. The trench was too
unsafe and collapsing so recording could not be done from within
the trench. The bunker was not bottomed because of safety
issues and so its height is not known but it was filled with
collapsed rubble. It was constructed of concrete (thickness of
concrete 0.09m) The height of the arch of the bunker was 0.3m.
The west face was cast in the ground with shuttering and the
arches for the roof were pre-cast and dropped on to the roof. An
electric cable was visible near the ceiling in the south-west corner
of the bunker, to provide electricity and a phone cable into the
bunker. Iron brackets on the west face possibly indicate steps
into the bunker. Below these brackets a V-shaped scar possibly
indicating light fittings. A lead water pipe was noted in the north-
west corner.
35
Plate 1: Trench 1 showing Victorian walls and drains (view from north-west) Plate 2: Trench 2 showing cobbled surface 204 and Plate 3: Trench 3 showing wall 305 (view from south-west)
pits 205 and 207 (view from south-east)
Plate 4: East facing section of Trench 4 (view from east) Plate 5: Burnt inpost-hole 410 in Trench 4 (view from north) Plate 6: Air raid shelter in Trench 5 (view from north)
Date: 19/06/09 Revision Number: 0

Wessex This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology.
No unauthorised reproduction. Scale: n/a Layout: KL
Archaeology
Path: Y:\PROJECTS\68739TT\Drawing Office\Report Figures\eval\68739_eval_Fig03.cdr
Plates 1–6 Figure 3

S N
E W
201
301
202
302
203
204
303
Pit 205
209 206 208 wall

304
307
212
306
310
213 Drain 309
brick 312
317 311
210 305
Tudor
brick wall
215 315
211
214
Pit 213
316
318
319
320
218 218 321

Robber
trench
207
322
0 50cm 0 50cm
Trench 2 east-facing section Trench 3 north-facing section
Date: 19/06/09 Revision Number: 0

Wessex This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology.
No unauthorised reproduction. Scale: Sections @ 1:10 Illustration: KL
Archaeology
Path: Y:\PROJECTS\68739TT\Drawing Office\Report Figures\eval\68739_eval_Fig04.cdr
Trench sections Figure 4

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LTD.
Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
London Office: Unit 113, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.

Time Team - Lincoln's Inn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time Team - Lincoln's Inn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time Team - Lincoln's Inn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wessex Archaeology

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

Prepared on behalf of:

Report reference: 68739.01

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2009, all rights reserved

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Videotext Communications Ltd. to

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

This programme of post-excavation and assessment work was commissioned and

The excavation was undertaken by Time Team’s retained archaeologists, Phil

The post-excavation project was managed on behalf of Wessex Archaeology by

Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

1.1.1 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Videotext Communications Ltd

1.2 Site Location, Topography and Geology

1.3 Archaeological and Historical Background

Medieval and post-medieval

Lincoln’s Inn Fields

1.4 Previous Archaeological Investigations

Lincoln’s Inn Fields

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.2 Principal Aims

x To what extent have archaeological levels been disturbed or truncated

x What is the level of truncation caused by modern activity in the area?

2.3 Research Agendas

2.3.2 These include refining the understanding of the Roman foundation of

3.1 Constraining Factors

3.2.1 Prior to the excavation of evaluation trenches, a geophysical survey was

3.3 Fieldwork Methods

3.3.2 All exposed archaeological deposits were recorded using Wessex

4.1 Geophysical Survey (Figure 2)

Lincoln’s Inn Fields

4.2 Evaluation Trenches

Trench 1 (Figure 3, Plate 1)

Trench 2 (Figure 3, Plate 2)

Trench 3 (Figure 3, Plate 3)

Trench 4 (Figure 3, Plates 4-5)

Trench 5 (Figure 3, Plate 6)

5.2.1 The small pottery assemblage includes material of prehistoric, Romano-

5.2.7 Tinglazed earthenwares (TGW) are relatively well represented; these

5.3 Ceramic Building Material (CBM)

5.5 Clay Pipes and Wig Curlers

5.6.2 Worked and Burnt Flint

Coins and tokens

5.7.10 Miscellaneous identifiable objects, all modern, comprise five printing-type

5.8 Animal Bone

Consumption and deposition

5.9 Marine Shell

5.10 Other Finds

5.11 Potential and recommendations

5.11.1 The evaluation produced a relatively small assemblage, dominated by post-

5.11.2 The presence of prehistoric and Romano-British material is of interest, but is

6.3 Potential and recommendations

7.1.2 In none of the trenches investigated was natural geology (brickearth)

7.2 Constraining Factors

7.2.3 Small ‘keyhole’ excavation areas do not readily permit a comprehensive

7.3.1 In spite of the limitations encountered during this investigation, several

Herber, M., 1999, Legal London: A Pictorial History, Chichester: Phillimore

Teichert, M., 1975, ‘Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der

Videotext Communications, 2008, Proposed Archaeological Evaluation Lincoln’s Inn