Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:21:44.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excavations at Winchester, 1971: Tenth and Final Interim Report: Part II1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Martin Biddle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The excavations of 1971 concluded the eleven-year programme begun in 1961. Eight sites were investigated in a season whose main emphasis was on the Roman and Anglo-Saxon periods down to about A. D. 1000. The Iron Age defences were examined at Assize Courts North and shown to date to the mid first century B.C. The Roman defences were sectioned at Castle Yard. The Roman south gate was discovered and its development followed from c. A.D. 70. Inside the Roman city extensive areas were examined at Lower Brook Street and Wolvesey Palace. At the former a possible military phase of the mid first century A.D. was followed by urban development c. A.D. 70 which continued down into the fifth century and included a Romano-Celtic temple and a large late third- or fourth-century workshop. At Wolvesey one house was entirely excavated and parts of two others examined. At Lankhills the excavation of the late Roman cemetery was concluded with a further season in 1972. A total of about 450 graves, many of them furnished and ranging in date from c. A.D. 310 to the early fifth century, was examined in 1967–72. A small fourth-century cemetery was excavated at Winnall. Information about the defence of the late Roman town was provided by the discovery of a bastion added to the town wall at South Gate, and by the implications of structures and objects from Lower Brook Street, Wolvesey, and Lankhills. Important evidence for the state of Winchester in the fifth to ninth centuries was recovered from South Gate, Lower Brook Street, and Wolvesey. At South Gate the gate was blocked first by a ditch and then by a wall, probably in the eighth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , September 1975 , pp. 295 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 295 fn 2 For reports on 1965–70 see Antiq. Journ. xlvi (1966), 313–19Google Scholar; xlvii (1967), 259–66; xlviii (1968), 259–68; xlix (1969), 303–12; 1 (1970), 298–310; and lii (1972), 98–115.

page 295 fn 3 Plate xxxb appeared in Part I of this report.

page 296 fn 1 Scientific American (May 1974), 36.

page 296 fn 2 I am grateful to Mr. Nick Griffiths for providing the information on which these comparisons are based.

page 298 fn 1 For a plan showing the Lower Brook Street street in relation to the Roman street grid as a whole, see Martin Biddle, ‘Winchester: the development of an early capital’, op. cit. on p. 96, n. 1, above, p. 231, fig.

page 298 fn 2 Lewis, M. J. T., Temples in Roman Britain (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 12–29Google Scholar.

page 298 fn 3 Ibid., p. 25.

page 298 fn 4 See above, p. 115, n. 1.

page 299 fn 1 See below, Appendix I, pp. 335–6.

page 300 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 101–2Google Scholar, fig. 3.

page 301 fn 1 E.g. ibid., 1 (1970), 298–302 (Houses IX and X).

page 302 fn 1 Miss Margaret Collins of King's College, University of London, has kindly reported on the soil profile. The layer over which the pattern appears (layer I. 882) is a ‘combination of a high proportion of the coarser fractions, completely unsorted, with fairly high Medium Silt’. It ‘would fit habitation rubble exposed for some time to the wind’. The humus figures for the layers over the pattern (layers I. 863, 870, 875a, 875b, 881) ‘could be those of a soil-weathering profile’. These latter, however, are post-Roman and contain early medieval pottery. They are not therefore relevant to the problem of the pattern.

page 303 fn 1 I am grateful to Dr. J. N. L. Myres and Professor W. A. van Es for their comments. They suggest that some of the pieces found in 1970, a few of which were published in Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 101–2Google Scholar, fig. 3, are of sixth-century date, esp. ibid, fig. 3, no. 6.

page 303 fn 2 The numbering of the Lower Brook Street graves includes those from St. Mary's Church (Grave 2) and St. Pancras’ Church (Graves 1, 3–21).

page 303 fn 3 The point is made and its implications discussed in Martin Biddle, ‘Winchester: the development of an early capital’, op. cit. on p. 96, n. 1, above, pp. 236–41. The importance of the cemetery distribution was first stressed by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes in Meaney and Hawkes, op. cit. on p. 119, n. 3, above, pp. 1–2, fig. 2.

page 305 fn 1 Meaney and Hawkes, op. tit., pp. 45–6.

page 305 fn 2 Ibid., pp. 50–5.

page 305 fn 3 Martin Biddle, ‘Winchester: the development of an early capital’, op.cit. on p.96,n. 1,above, pp. 242–7.

page 307 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 104Google Scholar.

page 308 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 104Google Scholar.

page 310 fn 1 On the Switsur calculations, see above, p. 103, n. 4. Recalibration by the Ralph–Michael–Han calculations (as above, p. 103, n. 4) would suggest a date of A.D. 700 ± 70. See Radiocarbon, 16. 2 (1974), 183–4.

page 310 fn 2 I am grateful to Professor W. A. van Es for examining this sherd.

page 310 fn 3 See now in general Addyman, P. V., ‘The Anglo-Saxon house: a new review’, Anglo-Saxon England, i (1972), 273–307Google Scholar.

page 310 fn 4 Current Archaeology, 39 (vol. iv. 4), July 1973, 127Google Scholar.

page 310 fn 5 Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 67–9Google Scholar, fig. 4, ‘Building 2’: more massive than the Winchester building and probably a century or more later in date.

page 310 fn 6 Current Archaeology, 12 (vol. ii. 1), Jan. 1969, 19–22Google Scholar: larger than the Winchester building, but equally thin-walled; considerably later in date.

page 310 fn 7 Weidemann, K., ‘Die Topographie von Mainz in der Römerzeit und dem fr¨hen Mittelalter’, Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmuseums Mainz, xv (1968), 197–9Google Scholar.

page 310 fn 8 Martin Biddle, ‘Winchester: the development of an early capital’, op. cit. on p. 96, n. 1, above, pp. 248–52.

page 311 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 102–3Google Scholar.

page 312 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 104–7Google Scholar.

page 312 fn 2 Fig. 15 shows Phases G–N. For Phases O–Z, see Antiq. Journ. xlix (1969), 307, fig.2Google Scholar.

page 312 fn 3 ibid, lii (1972), 107–9.

page 314 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 110–11Google Scholar.

page 315 fn 1 Ibid., fig. 2, pls. xxxivb, xxxvia.

page 316 fn 1 On the Switsur calculations, see above, p. 103, n. 4. Recalibration by the Ralph–Michael–Han calculations (as above, p. 103, n. 4) would suggest a date of A.D. 1060±70. A second sample (HAR–363) from not more than 26 rings on the inside of the timber provided a date of a.d. 960±70, recalibrated A.D. 981±70 (Switsur) or A.D. 1030±80 (R–M–H).

page 316 fn 2 Switsur, as last note. Recalibration by the R–M–H calculations (as last note), would suggest a date of A.D. 860–80±100. A second sample (HAR–368) from not more than 10 rings on the inside of the timber provided a date of a.d. 720±70, recalibrated A.D. 752±70 (Switsur) or A.D. 800–20±80 (R–M–H).

page 317 fn 1 I am grateful to Dr. Erwin Isenberg, Botanisches Institut der Universität Münster, for his examination of the pollen samples.

page 317 fn 2 I am grateful to Dr. M. L. Ryder and Mr. H. M. Appleyard for their reports on the hair.

page 317 fn 3 KCD 673: (on) Tœnnerestret (Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters (London, 1968), no. 874)Google Scholar.

page 318 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 111–15Google Scholar, fig. 5, pls. xxxvib, xxxvii.

page 319 fn 1 For a similar case, in which the bench was added as a fitting subsequent to the building of the main walls, see above, p. 106.

page 319 fn 2 The graves shown as Period VIII in fig. 16 could not usually be phased in relation to the structural history of the church, either because the relevantfloor-levelssealing them had been destroyed, or because they cut the latest floor of the church, They do in fact all seem to belong to a very late date. The earliest certain documentary reference to a burial in St. Pancras’ relates to the interment of John Baker in the chapel of St. Katherine (? the south chapel of Period VIII) in 1503: P.C.C., 23 Blanyr. I am indebted to Dr. D. J. Keene for this reference.

page 319 fn 3 For earlier aspects of this problem, see above, p. 305.

page 320 fn 1 Britannia, iv (1973), 347Google Scholar.

page 320 fn 2 Biddle, Martin and Kjølbye-Biddle, Birthe, ‘Metres, areas and robbing’, World Archaeology, i (1969), 208–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 321 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 125–30Google Scholar. For references to previous interim reports see ibid. 1 (1970), 322, n. 1.

page 321 fn 2 See Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, p. 323 (op. cit. above, p. 119, n. 1).

page 321 fn 3 Antiq. Journ. xliv (1964), 212–14Google Scholar.

page 323 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 322Google Scholar, pl. LIa.

page 323 fn 2 For an over-all plan of the medieval palace, see ibid, lii (1972), 130, fig. 9. This plan has not been reproduced in the present report since only minor details were added as a result of the 1971 season. Postscript: for results of work in 1974 at the southwest corner of the Norman palace, see below, p. 329.

page 323 fn 3 Hid. xlv (1965), 260–1Google Scholar, fig. 1.

page 323 fn 4 Ibid. 258; xlviii (1968), 281–2; xlix (1969), 323–4.

page 324 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. xlviii (1968), 281–2Google Scholar.

page 326 fn 1 Brown, David in Oxoniensia, xxxvii (1972), 78–81Google Scholar, revised specifically to take account of a non-Roman, continental ‘Germanic’ origin proposed in a lecture to the Sachsensymposium in London, September 1972.

page 326 fn 2 Frere, Sheppard, ‘Excavations at Dorchester on Thames, 1962’, Arch. Journ. cxix (1962), 120–3 figs. 5 and 6Google Scholar.

page 326 fn 3 Frere, Sheppard, ‘The End of Towns in Roman Britain’, in Wacher, J. S. (ed.), The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain (Leicester, 1966), p. 94Google Scholar.

page 326 fn 4 Miss Margaret Collins kindly reported on the soil profile. The organic content of the upper layers (50A: 18, 45a, 45b) was 0·95, 0·79, and 0·59 per cent respectively, while that of the basal layer (50A: 58) was 4·12 per cent. The fine sand in this layer was 0·2–0·06 mm.

page 328 fn 1 Dent, H. G., The Hampshire Gate (London, 1924), pp. 22–3, 35–6Google Scholar.

page 328 fn 2 The earliest mention (983) is in KCD 635 (Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters (London, 1968), no. 845)Google Scholar.

page 328 fn 3 On the Switsur calculations, see above, p. 103, n. 4. Recalibration by the Ralph–Michael–Han calculations (as above, p. 103, n. 4) would suggest a date of A.D. 1080±70. See Radiocarbon, 16–2 (1974), 184.

page 328 fn 4 Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 322–3Google Scholar.

page 329 fn 1 I am grateful to Bishop and Mrs. Taylor for their agreement to carry out this work, and for permission to undertake a full study of the present house while alterations and decorations were in progress in anticipation of their arrival. The excavations and reinstatement were undertaken with the aid of a grant from the Department of the Environment and with the help of their direct staff, The Church Commissioners gave permission for the work and were most co-operative throughout its progress.

page 329 fn 2 Proc. Hants F. C., iii. 2 (1895)Google Scholar, plan facing p. 224; cf. Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 130, fig. 9Google Scholar.

page 329 fn 3 Ibid, xlix (1969), 325, pl. LXXb. The chalk infilling in Room 42, which raised the floor of that room to first-floor level, has now been identified in all rooms except 40 and 41 where the ground-floor was constructed at contemporary ground-level. The greater part of the west hall was thus raised on an infilled substructure to a level equivalent to that of the present floor of the chapel.

page 329 fn 4 Ibid. xlix (1969), 325; see also, Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, p. 324 (op. cit. above, p. 119, n. 1).

page 329 fn 5 Antiq. Journ. lii (1972), 127–30Google Scholar; see also Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, p. 327 (op cit. above, p. 119, n. 1).

page 329 fn 6 I am grateful to Professor Carlrichard Brühl for telling me of these parallels: see now, C. Brühl, Palatium und Cioitas, 1 (Köln, 1975), p. 65, esp. nn. 114–16 (Reims) and p. 159 with n. 68 (Angers).

page 329 fn 7 A magna turris in this area is mentioned in the Bishop's Pipe Rolls from 1264 onwards; it contained a small chapel and at least three chambers and was in some way associated with the bishop's treasury: Martin Biddle, ‘Wolvesey: the domus quasi palatium of Henry de Blois in Winchester’, Château Gaillard, iii (ed. A. J. Taylor, 1969), 28–36, esp. p. 35.

page 329 fn 8 Ibid., pp. 35–6.

page 329 fn 9 Winchester in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 297–8, 325–7 (op cit. above, p. 119, n. 1).

page 330 fn 1 Antiq. Jourti. lii (1972), 127–30Google Scholar.

page 330 fn 2 Ibid, xlv (1965), 260; lii (1972), 128–9.

page 330 fn 3 Ibid. 130.

page 332 fn 1 Antiq. Journ. xlvii (1967), 276Google Scholar; cf. lii (1972), 130.

page 332 fn 2 Ibid. 1 (1970), 324–5.

page 333 fn 1 The first volume was prepared by Barry Cunliffe, Winchester Excavations 1949–60, I (Winchester: City Museums, 1964).

page 336 fn 1 ‘Circonscription d'Auvergne et Limousin: Clermont-Ferrand, Puy-de-Dôme’, Gallia, xxvii (1969), 320 ffGoogle Scholar.