Early Anglo-Saxon activity in and around the Lower City is represented almost entirely by finds of pot-sherds, none of them apparently stratified (Figs. 8.3 and 8.11). The scatter of finds has no apparent focus, and includes parts of the Lower City that might have been thought of a peripheral – such as the western defences (at The Park, for example – P 70). There are, however, too few finds to say that there was a concentration on the defences. The large number of finds from Flaxengate (F 72) is only partly explained by the size of the 1972–76 excavations and the large quantity of ‘dark earth’ excavated there, since early Anglo-Saxon potsherds were also found in the 1945–
47 and 1969 excavations. There is no apparent cor-relation between these finds and the duration of Roman occupation, since sites such as Hungate, with some of the latest and largest late 4th-century finds assemblages, have not produced early Anglo-Saxon potsherds. Five sherds have been found on waterfront sites (WNW 88, WO 89 and LT 72), which were
probably either under water or seasonally flooded during the early Anglo-Saxon period. In addition to these meagre pottery finds, however, Professor Evi-son identified two pieces of vessel glass as of either very late Roman or early Anglo-Saxon date (1996). A bowl fragment from Spring Hill (SPM 83) was decor-ated with trailing and a claw (Fig. 8.12) and a body fragment from Hungate (H 83) was decorated with trailing. In both cases a late Roman date is more likely than an Anglo-Saxon one.
Middle Saxon activity in and around the Lower City is also represented almost entirely by potsherds found in later deposits (Figs. 8.5 and 8.13). In two cases it is Fig. 8.11. Totals of sherds of 5th-and 6th-century pottery from sites in and around Lower City (source, Vince and Young forthcoming).
Sitecode Ware name Sherds Broad source
WNW 88 ESAX 1 Local Roman or early Anglo-Saxon date from Spring Hill (SPM 83) (drawing and copyright, City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit).
possible that the figures are biased because of the inclusion of vessels of ELFS ware. At Hungate, 85 sherds from a single bowl were found in 10th-century contexts (which were the earliest post-Roman deposits on the excavation). Clearly, there is a difference in the significance of a complete smashed vessel as opposed to single sherds and it is very likely that this vessel was broken on site. As to when it was broken, the excavation at Flaxengate may be significant, in that it too has a high concentration of ELFS ware sherds, although in this case there is no suggestion that they are from a single vessel. However, they too occurred in later deposits, dating in this case to the late 9th century. It is thought likely that ELFS ware continued in use in Lincoln after the Viking take-over of the town, but its rarity in other early 10th-century deposits, together with the presence of sherds of definite late 9th-century date at Hungate, suggest that the Hungate bowl was used in the late 9th century, rather than in the 10th century. The various imported vessels found at Flaxen-gate (F 72), and at Silver Street (LIN 73a) are also potentially examples of ceramics used at the very beginning of the Anglo-Scandinavian period, although they are also types which are definitely known in pre-Viking contexts, and in other circumstances would be
taken as evidence for middle Saxon activity. Only two sites produced definite early middle Saxon pottery (MAX A ware), the 1969 excavation at Flaxengate (F 69) and a trench at Saltergate (LIN 73d), situated just north of the southern wall of the Roman city and immediately north of the contemporary waterfront. Given the small size of most excavations, and the low frequency of these middle Saxon sherds, it is difficult to make much of their absence unless a wider pattern is visible. It does, however, seem to be significant that middle Saxon pottery is absent from sites in the western part of the Lower City. None was found on The Park (P 70) and West Parade (WP 73) sites and on sites on the hillside, such as Spring Hill (SPM 83) and Steep Hill (SH 74).
The presence of middle Saxon pottery outside the walled area to the east of the city may be significant, although only one or two sherds have been present per excavation to date. Finds from sites to the south of the Roman wall are likely to have been deposited in an area which was either permanently or seasonally under water in the middle Saxon period and must reflect either the use of the river or activity on the waterfront.
Other middle Saxon finds from the Lower City have been very rare and their assignment to this period is in most cases doubtful. With the exception of a buckle with triangular buckle plate from Michaelgate (MCH 84), found in a medieval context (Fig. 8.14), they are all from Flaxengate (F 72). An antler die is of a type known Fig. 8.13. Totals of sherds of 7th-, 8th- and 9th -century
pottery from sites in and around the Lower City (source, Vince and Young forthcoming).
Sitecode Ware name Sherds Broad source
BE 73I MAX B 1 Local
BE 73I MAX C 1 Local
BE 73v MAX B 1 Local
BN 89 ELFS 1 Local
DT 74ii MSAX 1 Not identified
(missing)
LIN 73di MSAX X 1 Regional
LIN 73f MAX 1 Local
Fig. 8.14. Buckle of middle-Saxon date from medieval deposits at Michaelgate (MCH 84) (drawing and copyright, City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit).
from both middle and later Saxon contexts, as is an antler counter. A copper alloy pin with polygonal head decorated with ring and dot is equally likely to be of late Saxon as middle Saxon date. There are two possible ansate brooches, of a type best known from contexts on continental sites dated between the 7th and 9th centuries, but whose date range may extend to the end of the 9th century. Although one of these brooches was unstratified, has no evidence for mounting and must be regarded as a suspect identification, the other, found in Wigford (SM 76), is an undoubted example and was probably produced before the Viking settlement (Mann 1986, 41, fig. 30) (Fig. 8.15). When it was first deposited in Lincoln is uncertain, however, as it was recovered from a medieval deposit and might have arrived on the site long after its period of use. Finally, the rim of a glass cup or beaker with a trail below the rim, from Flaxengate (F 72), has been dated by Professor Evison to between the 8th and the 10th centuries (Fig. 8.16).
The Silver Street burials –
An early church centre in the Lower City?
At least five inhumation burials were found in exca-vations in the early 1970s between Silver Street and Saltergate (LIN 73e) (Fig. 8.17). The burials were situated in the north-eastern part of the excavated area and did not extend further east, east or south-west. One of the burials was identified in the northern section of the trench underneath what is now the southern pavement of Silver Street and it is possible that further burials lay to the west and north, under-neath the road. This may be important evidence for the dating of the burials, as the road was certainly in existence in the early 10th century and most likely also in the late 9th century. One of the burials was on its back but with the legs flexed (Fig. 8.18). This ‘supine-flexed’ position was common during the 7th-century phase of burial at Castledykes, Barton-Upon-Humber (Drinkall and Foreman 1998, 333) but it was not present in the cemetery of St Guthlac’s Monastery in Hereford (dating from the middle Saxon period to the 12th century – Shoesmith 1980), the late Saxon monastery of St Oswald in Gloucester (Heighway and Bryant 1999) nor the Anglo-Scandinavian parish church graveyards of St Mark’s (SM 76) or St Paul-in-the-Bail (SP 72) in Lincoln. Three of the Silver Street burials could be aged and sexed, the fourth being too fragmentary for study. Three were females ranging in age from young, through young/middle aged to mature adult (Boylston and Roberts 1995). Loose adult human bones found in the excavation suggest that a further burial, or burials, may have been destroyed by later activity. The presence of neo-natal human bones either shows that an infant (or infants) was also buried in this cemetery or that there might conceivably have been a Roman infant burial within the Roman town house into whose remains the later burials were cut. A Carbon-14 determination of AD 780±90 was obtained from one of
the burials (Har. 863, uncalibrated). Stratigraphically, the burials must be very late Roman or later and they are sealed by late 9th- or early 10th-century deposits.
The Carbon-14 date, and the supine-flexed burial, suggests that they belong to the middle part of this period and are probably early or middle Saxon in date.
No grave goods were present, unless the remains of an iron knife in one of the graves and lead sheet (possibly part of a vessel) from another were deliberate in-clusions, and there is scant evidence for coffins (iron nails were present in two of the graves but were not noted as being coffin nails during excavation).
Whilst it is possible that the burials were isolated, perhaps even being hurried burials following a di-saster (such as a Viking raid), it is more realistic to link them to the churchyard of St Peter-at-Arches church (which lay some 50m to the west). Con-sequently, it is not impossible to imagine that, at an earlier stage in the development of the town, the graveyard might have extended this far east, and may have included the Silver Street burials. The church of St Peter-at-Arches, and its fellow church in the same graveyard, St Peter-at-Pleas, have long been thought potential early church sites (Hill 1948, 60, 130–1) perhaps representing a middle Saxon monastic com-munity ruled over by the bishop of Lindsey. Docu-Fig. 8.15. ‘Ansate’ broach (c. 80mm long) of middle Saxon date from the excavations at St Mark’s church (SM 76) (drawing and copyright, City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit).
Fig. 8.16. Fragment (c.25mm wide) of glass cup or beaker of middle-Saxon date from excavations at Flaxengate (F 72) (photo and copyright, City of Lincoln Archaeology Unit).
ordinate churches were often dedicated to the Virgin Mary (Gem 1993, 126). On these, admittedly flimsy, grounds we can suggest that St Peter-at-Arches, together with St Peter-at-Pleas, could have formed the core of a monastic community ruled by the bishop of Lindsey. An alternative hypothesis, advanced by David Stocker, suggests that Bardney may have been the site of this second community and the presence at Bardney of the head of St Oswald does indeed suggest Fig. 8.17. Plan of early or middle Saxon burials cut into Roman buildings in the south-eastern part of the Lower City (LIN 73 e and f) (source, J. Wacher – drawn by Dave Watt, copyright English Heritage).
mentary sources show that the bishop presided over two communities and Richard Gem has argued that at York, Canterbury and London the 8th-century bishops also presided over two communities, one of regular canons and the other monastic. He further points out that at least one of the bishop’s churches was dedicated to one of the apostles and that, in the late 7th and early 8th centuries, dedications to Paul, Peter or Andrew would be most likely, whilst
sub-that this monastery was of considerable importance during the middle Saxon period.
Further evidence in favour of an early church at the site of the two St Peters has been put forward during the progress of this Assessment work by Mr Jones. He suggests that the complex of public build-ings in this general vicinity in the Colonia Era, which included at least one temple, might have been reused in middle Saxon times. It is possible, he suggests, that some of the stone structures within this complex were adapted for a later purpose – for instance, the public fountain (ON 217) may have become a baptistery associated with either, or both, the churches dedicated to St Peter (p. 137 above). Mr Jones also notes that the proximity of two buildings both dedicated to the same important early saint may point to the existence of a double church separated by a baptistery, in the form now known in considerable number on mainland Europe (Duval et al. 1991). Although if this is the case, they might be no earlier than 7th-century in origin. In other former Roman provinces baths buildings were frequently converted into churches; examples at Jublains and Cimiez are only two amongst several in Gaul (Ibid.). The fact that standing remains of the baths were encountered in 1924, near to the site of the later St Lawrence’s church further to the north may suggest that the Lincoln bath ruins were also reoccupied in the post Roman centuries, as they were at Leicester, where they formed an annex to St Nicholas’ Church.
The traditional site of Icanho
Another hint that Lincoln was occupied by a church in the middle Saxon period is given in John Leland’s Itinerary, written in the 1540s. He recounts that there
was a local tradition that the cell of St Mary of York to the east of the Lower City was the site of the monastery of Iccenhoe (Icanho), famous as the house of St Botolph in the 7th century (Toulmin Smith 1910, I, 30). In many cases, these late traditions have a grain of truth within them. For example, the location of Hamwic, the middle Saxon predecessor of Southampton, was recorded, in jumbled form as a local tradition, in Leland’s account of St Mary’s church there. However, in that case there was plentiful corroboration of the previous importance of the suburb of St Mary, not least the fact that the church had retained its status as mother church of Southampton. In the case of Lincoln there is no other evidence, archaeological or historical, to suggest that there had ever been a middle Saxon monastery east of the city. However, the monks of the York abbey often acquired sites with an earlier Christian association and were given a large estate in Lincoln in the early 12th century. Their initial holding seems to have been bounded by the Butwerk suburb to the west, the limestone scarp to the north and east and the Witham to the south.
Another reason not to dismiss Leland’s report of the tradition entirely is the fact that this area shares a topographic similarity to Fishergate in York, the Strand in London and St Mary’s suburb in South-ampton, all of which have been shown by archaeo-logical excavation to have been occupied by middle Saxon trading settlements. The presence of single sherds of middle Saxon pottery from three sites in the Butwerk suburb does suggest that the area might have seen activity at this time, but the area itself has yet to be investigated archaeologically and is now covered by a 19th-century suburb.
Evidence for early and middle Saxon activity in Wigford
There is no stratigraphic evidence for post-Roman, pre-Viking activity in the Wigford suburb and in most cases the stratigraphic hiatus continues to some point in the early or mid 10th century. The Wigford suburb is also almost devoid of finds of early or middle Saxon date. The only exceptions are from Monson Street (where an imported Grey Burnished Ware vessel was discovered, represented by nine sherds from two contexts – M 82); a sherd of MAX B ware from excavations at St Mary’s Guildhall (SMG 82) and the ansate brooch from St Mark’s Church mentioned above (SM 76) (Fig. 8.15). All three finds could belong to a transitional phase in the mid 9th century, but they do suggest there was some activity south of the Witham in either the middle Saxon or very early in the Anglo-Scandinavian periods. It may be significant that these sites are the most southerly of the Wigford excavations, two of them being situated at a point where the sand terrace rises up above the Witham flood plain.
Fig. 8.18. Burial in a ‘flexed’ posture of early or middle-Saxon date cut into Roman buildings in the south-eastern quadrant of the Lower City (LIN 73e) looking south-west.
See Fig. 8.17 (photo and copyright, English Heritage).
B. The Early Medieval Era – The archeological agenda.
An introduction to the Research Agenda Zone entries (on CD-Rom)
David Stocker
may not lie in continual re-examination of the same few items of excavated data but, rather, in establishing a research agenda that addresses the context in which the site at St Paul’s developed (RAZ 8.1.1). Our first step down this road must be to recognise that we have evidence for two other early Anglo-Saxon burial grounds in Lincoln; at Silver Street (RAZ 8.1.2) and at the Greetwell ‘villa’ (RAZ 8.1.3). Taken as a group, some additional reflected light is cast on the individual sites. All seem to represent examples of the same ritual behaviour that has been observed on dozens of other former Roman sites. That is to say, a space was cleared within the ruins of the buildings and a small number of burials were carefully dug into the rubble. This type of early Anglo-Saxon burial is ubiquitous on former villa sites, and it comes as no surprise that it occurs also at the Greetwell ‘villa’. So, before we make special claims for the burials at the St Paul’s site, we have to ask why we should consider them any differ-ently from those at Greetwell ‘villa’ or at Silver Street.
This category of Anglo-Saxon burial has been the subject of considerable study in recent years. It is clear, for example, that the burials within villas should be compared with burials carefully placed in Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows and in other features of what was, to the Anglo-Saxons, their own historic landscape (Williams 1997; Bell 1998). Williams, in particular, shows that, whilst this burial behaviour is very deliberate, the wide range of Roman sites selected for re-use as burial grounds makes it unnecessary to imagine that the Roman function of the structure re-used influenced its selection as an Anglo-Saxon burial ground. It is the generalised association with previous generations, he argues, that was sought out by the Anglo-Saxons, rather than a specific connections with remembered Roman cult practises. Furthermore, such re-use of Roman monuments can occur at any date between the 5th and 8th centuries, so this behaviour cannot be used as a dating mechanism at St Paul’s.
Even so, it does indicate that the ruins of Roman Lincoln were not merely abandoned in the Anglo-Saxon period. They may have become a liminal location, between the living and the dead, but they were evidently not without meaning or function.
Unfortunately, although this burial behaviour clearly indicates a desire to appropriate the ancestors and to ‘impose a … sense of the past’ (Williams 1997, 26) on contemporary Anglo-Saxon society, it cannot be said that such burials represent any specific cultic Whatever its character, in the area formerly occupied
by the Roman city, the early medieval presence was minimal. As Dr Vince shows (above), the evidence is confined, almost literally, to a handful of pottery and a small number of burials, some of which were rather inadequately recorded. Whatever else, then, there was
by the Roman city, the early medieval presence was minimal. As Dr Vince shows (above), the evidence is confined, almost literally, to a handful of pottery and a small number of burials, some of which were rather inadequately recorded. Whatever else, then, there was