¹ Antiq.J. xliv (1964), 165–87.Google Scholar On 175 it was stated that Kiln 1 had been discovered in 1949 by Mr. Spencer Cook. He certainly opened it up then and invited the late Dr. Gerald Dunning to see it, but it should be said that Mrs. E. H. Rudkin, who has made such notable contributions to Lincolnshire studies, visited Torksey on 4th January 1932 and recorded in her diary both stone and glazed pottery on the site of the Fosse Nunnery, and in the middle of the field ‘a mass of pottery, but only one piece of tile or brick had any glaze on it’.

² It was necessarily discontinuous, and no drawn section is here reproduced.

³ Sawyer, P. H. in Sawyer, and Wood, I. N. (eds.), Early Medieval Kingship (Leeds, 1977), PP. 152–3.Google Scholar

⁴ Davis, F. N. (ed.), Rotuli Roberti Grosseteste (Lincoln Record Soc. xi, 1914), p. 151Google Scholar; Cal. Charter Rolls 1226-67, P 226.

⁵ Dodwell, Barbara, ‘A Papal Bull of Torksey Priory’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research lii, No. 125 (May 1979), 87–90;Google ScholarPlac. de Quo Warranto (1818), p. 396.Google Scholar The brief account of Torksey by our late Fellow, Sir Hill, Francis (Medieval Lincoln (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 307–11)Google Scholar cannot be bettered. He emphasizes particularly the important part played by Lincoln merchants in Torksey affairs in the twelfth century.

⁶ By our Fellow, Dr. Patrick Strange.

⁷ Near feature 3 on fig. 2; since it was at a depth of only 30 cm., it is not shown.

⁸ Antiq. J. xliv (1964), 175Google Scholar; see comparative plans, below, p. 227.

⁹ Ibid., 171, fig. 3.

¹⁰ This limitation together with the season of the work (February) arose out of the requirement that the arable routine should not be interfered with.

¹¹ Antiq. J. xliv (1964), 177.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., 173,184. This corrects that statement made on 177 that Keuper marl was used for the pottery.

¹³ Healey, R. Hilary, Medieval and Sub Medieval Pottery in Lincolnshire, Nottingham M.Phil, thesis, 1975, p. 50.Google Scholar Miss Healey seems to have been the first to observe this of Torksey and of later east midland pottery; others working on the same material confirm her finding.

¹⁴ As on one base from Kiln 2 ( Antiq. J. xliv (1964), 178,Google Scholar fig. 7 no. 6).

¹⁵ Compare the surface of Romano-British Derbyshire ware and th e Midland purple ware of th e late middle ages for this effect of firing at a higher temperature.

¹⁶ It is no w clear that pottery found in the vicinity of Kiln 1 but which was not made in it could have come from Kilns 3, 4 or 5. This included one socket: Antiq. J. xliv (1964), 184,Google Scholar 186, including fig. 11.

¹⁷ Spouted pitchers seem to have been made in Kiln 1; loc. cit., 180-1.

¹⁸ e.g. Med. Arch, i (1959), 38, fig. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Aitken, M. J. and Hawley, H. N. in Archaeometry, ix (1966), 190–1.Google Scholar

²⁰ I am deeply indebted to th e following for the opportunity to discuss their work and to adopt their findings in advance of publication: Christine Mahany, Stamford Archaeological Trust; Lauren Adams, Lincoln Archaeological Trust; Charles Young and Graham Black, Nottingham Castle Museum; Catherine M. Brooks, York Archaeological Trust; Frances Ipson who carried out neutron activation analysis at th e University of Bradford; Glyn Coppack, who will report on the pottery from Guy Beresford's excavations at Goltho.

R. C. Alvey has drawn the pottery in figs. 9-14, has examined all the material and has kept me in touch with relevant finds and research.

²¹ It is possible that Northampton ware began to be made before 875; Williams, J., ‘The early development of the town of Northampton’ in Dornier, A. (ed.), Mercian Studies (Leicester, 1977). PP. 147–9Google Scholar.

²² Sylloge (7) of Coins in the British Isles: Copenhagen Part 11 (London, 1966), pl. 53Google Scholar; Sylloge (17), Midland Museums (London, 1971), pl. VII,Google Scholar this latter bein g a cut half penny found in excavations at Tamworth in 1960.

²³ Sawyer, D. H. and Wood, I. N., Early Medieval Kingship (Leeds, 1977), p. 151.Google Scholar For early Islamic pottery at Lincoln, see Med. Arch, xxiii (1979), 218–9Google Scholar.

²⁴ Hart, C. in Dornier, A. (ed.), Mercian Studies (Leicester, 1977), p. 58Google Scholar; for the technology of building in stone and timber, ibid., pp. 123, 140-1, and also Rahtz, P. and Bullough, D. in Anglo-Saxon England, vi (Cambridge, 1977), 15–37.Google Scholar N. Brooks has noted that Mercian charters refer to borough-work in the middle of th e ninth century, earlier than those of Wessex; Clemoes, P. and Hughes, K. (eds.), England before the Conquest (1971), p. 82Google Scholar.

²⁵ Hall, R. and Coppack, G., ‘Excavations at Full Street, Derby 1972’, Derbys. Arch. J. xcii (1972), 47Google Scholar; Hebditch, M., ‘A Saxo-Norman Pottery Kiln in… Leicester’, Trans. Leics. Arch. Soc. xliii (1967-1968), 5–9:Google Scholar since this kiln produced flat-based cooking pots, it may well be ninth century.

²⁶ Antiq. J. xliv (1964), 182–4,Google Scholar including fig. 9.

²⁷ i.e. the Torksey-type wares b and c in Houldsworth, Jane, Selected Pottery Groups AD 650-1780 (Archaeology of York: The Pottery, 16/1; CBA, 1978), p. 6,Google Scholar are thus not true Torksey ware, according to Frances Ipson. The b ware is in fact rather harder than Torksey (i.e. is fired to a rather higher temperature) and contains more limestone particles.

²⁸ Antiq. J., xliv (1964), 165,Google Scholar quoting the Lincolnshire Domesday.

²⁹ For Ruddington see Thoroton Soc. Trans. lxxxii (1978), 69–71;Google Scholar for Thurgarton, ibid., lviii (for 1954), 30 and lxiii (for 1959), 39, Torksey ware is not clearly distinguished in the Thurgarton reports and more was found than they indicate.

³⁰ Ibid., lxxx (for 1976), 21-2, where it is presumably residual.

³¹ Ibid., Ixiv (i960), 39.

³² Antiq. J. xliv (1964), 169.Google Scholar