Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:04:16.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Settlement at Lincoln

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Margaret J. Darling and
Michael J. Jones
Margaret J. Darling
Affiliation:
City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit, The Sessions House, Lindum Road, Lincoln.
Michael J. Jones
Affiliation:
City of Lincoln Archaeological Unit, The Sessions House, Lindum Road, Lincoln.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Evidence for prehistoric activity and settlement in the area covered by the modern city of Lincoln has accumulated gradually. Published accounts of the material from Lincoln have treated it as part of a wider study of the county as a whole, while excavations on various sites in the city prior to 1972 had produced a number of prehistoric artefacts, all occurring in secondary contexts. Since these were residual, a distribution map would not necessarily be of any significance, but it is true that the vast majority were found in the lower part of the city, in the vicinity of (or on the bed of) the River Witham.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 19 , November 1988, pp. 1 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Margaret J. Darling and Michael J. Jones 1988. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Phillips, C.W., ‘The present state of archaeology in Lincolnshire, Pt. II’, Arch. Journ. xci (1934)Google Scholar ; Hawkes, C.F.C., ‘Prehistoric Lincolnshire’, Arch. Journ. ciii (1946)Google Scholar ; Baker, F.T., ‘Prehistoric Lincolnshire’, Unpub. MA thesis, Univ. Nottingham (1954).Google Scholar

2 B.J.J. Gilmour and C. Guy, Excavations on waterfront sites. The archaeology of Lincoln, VIIl/I (forth coming).

3 Wilkinson, T.J., ‘Palaeoenvironments of the upper Witham fen: a preliminary view’, Fenland Research iv (1987).Google Scholar

4 May, J. in Field, N. and White, A. (eds.), A prospect of Lincolnshire (1984), 18–22.Google Scholar

5 May, J., Prehistoric Lincolnshire, History of Lincolnshire, vol. I (1976), 206–7Google Scholar ; cf. Todd, M., The Coritani (1973), 21Google Scholar ; Whitwell, J.B., The Coritani: some aspects of the Iron Age tribe and the Roman Civitas, BAR 99 (1982), 33ff.Google Scholar

6 See M. J. Jones in F. Grew and B. Hobley (eds.), Roman urban topography in Britain and the Western Empire, (1985), and M.J. Jones, ‘Lincoln’ in G. Webster (ed.), Fortress into City (forthcoming).

7 As for instance suggested by Webster, G., Britannia i (1970), 184Google Scholar and others, not on the heath further south as in J. Whitwell, The Coritani, 39.

8 Antiq. Journ. xli (1981), 93–4.

9 May, J., Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 222–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar and The Iron Age and Roman Settlement at Dragonby (forthcoming); S. Elsdon and J. May, The Iron Age pottery from Dragonby, a draft report (1987).

10 A brief report appeared in Jones, M.J. (ed.), ‘Excavations at Lincoln: third interim report, sites outside the walled city 1972–77’, Antiq. Journ. li (1981), 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Eisdon and May, op. cit. (note 9).

12 Richmond, I.A., Arch. Journ. ciii (1946), 48–9.Google Scholar

13 T.J. Wilkinson in Gilmour and Guy. op. cit. (note 2).

14 Soils in Lincolnshire, Woodhall Spa sheet, p. 68.

15 Preliminary report in M.J. Jones, op. cit. (note 10), 86–7.

16 May, op. cit. (note 5), 175–91.

17 This work was part of a project for the University of Leicester Diploma in Post-Excavation Studies and was undertaken by Miss Muriel Thompson.

18 Peacock, D.P.S., PPS xxxiv (1968), 414–27.Google Scholar

19 K. Greene, Report on the excavations at Usk, 1965–1976: the pre-Flavian fine wares (1979), fig. 5; Darling, M.J., Roman pottery from the upper defences. The archaeology of Lincoln, 16/2 (1984), 82.Google Scholar

20 V. Rigby and I.M. Stead in I.M. Stead, Excavations at Winterton Roman villa and other Roman sites in north Lincolnshire, 1958–1967 (1976), fig. 75, no. 28; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), 60, fig. 13, P947.

21 Darling, op. cit. (note 19), 83.

22 Darling, M.J. in Anderson, A.C. and Anderson, A.S. (eds.), Roman pottery research in Britain and north-western Europe, BAR Int. ser. 123 (1981), 397–415.Google Scholar

23 Greene, op. cit. (note 19).

24 D.P.S. Peacock, ‘Pompeian red ware’ in Pottery and early commerce (1979).

25 May, J., Antiq. Journ. I (1970), 222–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar , fig. 7. no. 7; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 9, fig. 29, P697, P1773.

26 But see ibid., fig. 34, P1332.

27 May, op. cit. (note 25), 236.

28 ibid., fig. 9, no. 40; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 18.

29 As May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, no. 27. Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), fig. 40, 8–10, but one, no. 8, with a zone of paint and rouletted decoration.

30 May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, nos. 34, 35; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type groups 7 or 14.

31 May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, no. 38; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type group 17, tig. 19, P1420.

32 May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, no. 30; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 17, fig. 26, P1136.

33 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20), fig. 74, no. 2.

34 May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, no. 33; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 7.

35 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20), fig. 75, no. 30.

36 May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, no. 38; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 17.

37 Hawkes, C.F.C. and Hull, M.R., Camulodunum. First report on the excavation at Colchester 1930–1939 (1947), pl. LIV.Google Scholar

38 Mav, op. cit. (note 5). fig. 95. no. 2; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), fig. 41B, no. 5.

39 Hawkes and Hull. op. cit. (note 37). pl. LXXIV.

40 Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), fig. 9, P910; fig. 10, P923.

41 May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 9, no. 30; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 17.

42 As at Dragonby: May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 8, nos. 19, 20; fig. 9, no. 33; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 7.

43 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20) fig. 75, no. 31 from a Neronian-early Flavian context.

44 Darling, op. cit. (note 19), fig. 16. no. 94.

45 ibid., 84.

46 The use of the term ‘belgic’ here does not imply tribal significance, but is merely a shorthand term in common usage for late La Tene vessels of the type seen in the Aylesford-Swarling culture.

47 As at Newstead: J.C. Curie, A Roman froniier post and its people: the fort of Newstead in the parish of Melrose (1911). fig. 25.

48 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20), fig. 75, no. 28.

49 ibid., 187, fig. 92, no. 1.

50 Darling, op. cit. (note 22).

51 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20), fig. 75, no. 14.

52 ibid., fig. 76, no. 46.

53 ibid., fig. 75, no. 13.

54 ibid., fig. 75, no. 13 and fig. 65, nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8.

55 As at Old Winteringham, ibid., fig. 75, no. 31.

56 ibid., fig. 64, no. 11.

57 ibid., fig. 75, no. 32.

58 ibid., fig. 75, no. 34.

59 Rigby, V. and Stead, I.M., Baldock, Britannia monograph 7 (1986), fig. 130, no. 318.Google Scholar

60 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20), fig. 67, nos. 40–2, Type H.

61 Thompson, F.H. and Whitwell, J.B., Archaeologia civ (1973). fig. 13, no. 12.Google Scholar

62 Darling, op. cit. (note 19), Fiche C13.

63 Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20), 187.

64 Darling, op. cit. (note 19).

65 M.J. Darling (forthcoming).

66 R. Knorr, Terra-sigillata-gefässe des ersten Jahrhunderts mit Töpfernamen (1952), Taf. 36. D.

67 ibid., Taf. 47, D.

68 Atkinson, D., JRS iv (1914).Google Scholar

69 cf. ibid., pl. 13, no. 72 for eagle and scroll.

70 R. Knorr, Töpfer und Fabriken verzierter Terrasigillata des ersten Jahrhunderts (1919), Taf. 83, E.

71 cf. Atkinson, op. cit. (note 68), pl. 11, no. 57.

72 Similar to Hermet, F., La Graufesenque (Condatomago) (1934), pl. 46, no. 42.Google Scholar

73 cf. ibid., pl. 81, no. 6 and wreath, no. 13.

74 Stamp attested at La Graufesenque.

75 Dragonby: Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9); May, op. cit. (note 25); Old Winteringham: Rigby and Stead, op. cit. (note 20).

76 Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), Type Group 9; May, op. cit. (note 25), fig. 7, no. 7, etc.

77 Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), 18.

78 May, J. in Field, N. and White, A. (eds.), A Prospect of Lincolnshire (1984), 20.Google Scholar

79 Subsequent Roman building operations disturbed early sherds into much later contexts, illustrated by joining sherd associations, particularly of the demolition layer MR joining with OD, the disturbed top of redeposited ‘natural’ sand. MB has similar joining associations through the stratigraphy of Period I (with NM, MZ, NF, OV, and OT).

80 Although a sherd occurred at the top of the legionary rampart at East Bight (Darling, op. cit. (note 19), 81). the fabric is not the same and there is no certainty that the layer from which it came belonged to the legionary rampart or was a later modification.

81 Darling in Dore, J. and Greene, K. (eds.), Roman pottery studies in Britain and beyond, BAR Sup. ser. 30 (1977), 57–100.Google Scholar

82 Webster, G., JRS xxxix (1949), fig. 12, no. 48.Google Scholar

83 Darling, op. cit. (note 19).

84 The shell-tempered wares from the East Bight excavations were not differentiated, in the absence of consistently recognizable differences.

85 Darling, op. cit. (note 19), 89.

86 Darling, op. cit. (note 81). It could be argued that military personnel were using native pottery alongside the South Gaulish samian, but this is not consistent with the evidence since the bulk of the Iron Age pottery occurred in Period I, whereas the concentration of samian was in Period II.

87 The appearance of vessels in the common legionary Fabric 3 at Old Winteringham and possibly Dragonby as well suggests that distribution was not restricted to military personnel.

88 Numismatic references (RIC) for the coins listed here refer to H. Mattingly, E.A. Sydenham, C.H.V. Sutherland and R.A.G. Carson, Roman Imperial Coinage (1923 ff).

89 Mann, J.E. and Reece, R., Roman coins from Lincoln, 1970–1979, The archaeology of Lincoln, VI/2 (1983), 58–9.Google Scholar

90 A sestertius of Marcus Aurelius, RIC (Ant. Pius) 1352, was previously listed (ibid.) under Period II, but subsequent reinterpretation of the stratigraphy indicates that, although Roman, its context cannot be related to a specific period.

91 op. cit. (note 89), fig. 69a, L2.

92 The two Claudian copies were found in a late Roman (Period IV) ?robber trench and in Late Saxon levelling; the coin of Vespasian came from a late Roman (Period III) context.

93 Boon, G.C. in Casey, J. and Reece, R. (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist BAR 4 (1974), 106.Google Scholar

94 The relative absence of coins of Domitian (a single unstratified as was found) is interesting here, as elsewhere in Lincoln, and possibly reflects a break in occupation (but cf. pottery discussion above and general discussion below).

95 C. Poole in B. Cunliffe, Danebury: an Iron Age hiilfort in Hampshire. Vol 2. The excavations 1969–1978: the finds, CBA Res. Rep. 52 (1984), 398 and fig. 7.45.

96 Excavations at St Paul-in-the-Bail and East Bight by the Lincoln Archaeological Trust; finds are to be published in The Archaeology of Lincoln. Other military finds from the Water Tower site. Westgate, are illustrated in Webster, G., JRS xxxix (1949), 57–78, fig. 4.Google Scholar

97 The only material stratified within Period I contexts (other than the finds illustrated here) was a glass vessel fragment, part of a copper-alloy strip and several iron fragments. Details of these, and of mid to late first-centurv material from later levels, are held in the site archive to be deposited with Lincolnshire Museums and the NMR.

98 Fabric indentification by Mrs J. Young.

99 Poole, op. cit. (note 95), 398 and fig. 7.45.

100 ibid., 401.

101 Wheeler, R.E.M. and Wheeler, T.V., Report on the excavation of the prehistoric, Roman, and post-Roman site in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire (1932), 71–4.Google Scholar

102 Hawkes and Hull, op. cit. (note 37), pls. XCIV-V; periods III: c. 43/44–48 and IV: c. 49–61.

103 Mackreth, D.F. in Down, A., Chichester excavations 3 (1978), 286.Google Scholar

104 cf. Hawkes and Hull, op. cit. (note 37), pl. XCI, 42, 43; but with sprung pins.

105 ibid., Type V.

106 Mackreth, op. cit. (note 103), 279.

107 ibid., 280–1; fig. 10.26, nos. 12–20, fig. 10.27, nos. 21–3 ; Brailsford, J.W., Hod Hill. Vol I. Antiquities from Hod Hill in the Durden collection (1962), fig. 7, C18–26Google Scholar ; Hull, M.R. in Cunliffe, B.W., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961–1969 II: The finds (1971), figs. 36–7.Google Scholar

108 Hull, op. cit. (note 107), 100; fig. 37, 18.

109 Wild, J.P., Britannia i (1970), 145–6.Google Scholar

110 ibid., 141.

111 Manning, W.H., Catalogue of the Romano-British iron tools, fittings and weapons in the British Museum (1985), 162.Google Scholar

112 ibid., 165, pl. 78, V 94–100; pl. 79, V 101–4.

113 ibid., pl. 11, B45–50: wood gouges.

114 ibid., pl. 16, E32–4.

115 Berger, L., Römische Gläser aus Vindonissa (1960), 34.Google Scholar

116 Roach Smith, C., Archaeologia xxix (1842), 153.Google Scholar

117 Price, J. in Heighway, C., The East and North Gates of Gloucester (1983), 168.Google Scholar

118 See for example ones from Cologne: F. Fremersdorf, Römisches Buntglas in Köln, Die Denkmäler des römischen Köln III, (1958), Tafn. 14 & 17.

119 Ward-Perkins, J. and Claridge, A., Pompeii AD 79 (1976), III.Google Scholar

120 H.E.M. Cool and J. Price, Roman Glass from the excavations of 1971 to 1983, Colchester Archaeological Report (forthcoming).

121 V. Arveiller-Dulong and J. Arveiller, Le verre d'époque romaine au Musée archéologique de Strasbourg, Notes et Documents des Musées de France, 10 (1985), 77, no. 136.

122 Grant, A. in Wilson, B., Grigson, C., and Payne, S. (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, BAR 109 (1982).Google Scholar

123 M.A. Levine in B. Wilson et al., op. cit. (note 122).

124 S.A. Scott, ‘The animal bones from The Park, Lincoln’, Archaeology of Lincoln, 7/2 (forthcoming); archive report. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Reports series, 1985.

125 Maltby, J.M. in Grigson, C. and Clutton-Brock, J. (eds.), Animals and Archaeology: 4. Husbandry in Europe, BAR Int. Ser. 227, (1984).Google Scholar

126 Gilmour in Jones, B.J.J., Antiq. Journ. li (1981), 93.Google Scholar

127 cf. G. Webster's discovery of ‘Iron Age’ rockcut post-holes at Westgate School in the 1940s, later shown to be holes of glacial origin; JRS xxxix (1949), 57–78.

128 Waugh, H., Mynard, D.C., and Cain, R., Records of Bucks, 19, pt. 4 (1974), fig. 4, nos. 16–23.Google Scholar

129 ibid., fig. 12, nos. 31–2.

130 Thompson, I., Grog-tempered ‘Belgic’ pottery of south-east England, BAR 108 (1982), 504.Google Scholar

131 Tilson, P., Beds. Arch. Journ. viii (1973), fig. 24, no. 218.Google Scholar

132 Saunders, C. and Havercroft, A.B., Herts. Arch. viii (1980–1982). fig. 10, no. 112.Google Scholar

133 I.M. Stead and V. Rigby, Baldock: the excavation of a Roman and pre-Roman settlement, 1968–72 (1986), fig. 126, no. 258.

134 Friendship-Taylor, R. in Field, K.J. and Mynard, D.C., J. Northampton Museums xiii (1979), fig. 83, no. 74.Google Scholar

135 Hall, D.N. and Nickerson, N., Arch. Journ. cxxiv (1967), fig. 10, nos. 35, 39Google Scholar ; fig. 12, no. 53; fig. 15, no. 102.

136 P. Woods and S. Hastings, Rushden: the early fine wares (1984).

137 Friendship-Taylor, R., J. Northampton Museums xiii (1979), fig. 43, no. 184.Google Scholar

138 Hall and Nickerson, op. cit. (note 135), fig. 12, no. 53.

139 Jackson, D., Northants. Arch. xii (1977). fig. 15, no. 88Google Scholar ; Foster, P. and Harper, R., Bull. Northants. Federation of Archaeol. Socs. vii (1978), fig. 2. no. 10.Google Scholar

140 Greenfield, E. and Webster, G., Trans. Leics. Arch. and Hist. Soc. xl. (1964), fig. 9, nos. 55, a close parallel and 63.Google Scholar

141 Bushe-Foxe, J.P., Third report on the excavations of the Roman fort at Richborough, Kent (1932), pl. xxxix, no. 310.Google Scholar

142 Thompson, op. cit. (note 130).

143 Eisdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), fig. 8, P358 with a slight groove inside the rim; cf. also P356.

144 For instance, Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 9), 38, regarding a jar, fig. 13, P1404, finished in this way which also had vertical burnishing of the basal area, noted not only on the East Gate jar above, but also on the bowl, No. 6 below.

145 Branigan, K., The Catuvellauni (1985), 34.Google Scholar

146 Rivet, A.L.F. and Smith, C., The Place-names of Roman Britain (1979), 391–3.Google Scholar

147 Phillips, C.W., Arch. Journ. xli (1934), 118.Google Scholar

148 Platts, G., Land and People in Medieval Lincolnshire, History of Lincolnshire, vol. 4 (1985), 149.Google Scholar

149 J.B. Whitwell, Roman Lincolnshire (1970), fig. 13.

150 Simmons, B.B., Britannia x (1979), 183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

151 Wilkinson, T.J., Fenland Research iv (1987), 52–6.Google Scholar

152 May, op. cit. (note 5), fig. 63; contrast early-middle Bronze Age, ibid., fig. 54.

153 Coles, J.M.et al., Lines. Hist, and Arch. xiv (1979), 5–10.Google Scholar

154 May, op. cit. (note 5), 165–7.

155 Field, N., Penland Research iii (1986), 49–53Google Scholar ; final report forthcoming in PPS.

156 Hillam, J., Current Arch. cvii (1987), 361.Google Scholar

157 May, op. cit. (note 5), fig. 64; Wilkinson, op. cit. (note 151), 55.

158 May, op. cit. (note 5), figs. 6 and 9.

159 Grimes, W.F., Aspects of archaeology in Britain and beyond, Essays presented to O.G.S. Crawford (1951), 144–71Google Scholar ; May, op. cit. (note 5), 7–9.

160 Rivet and Smith, op. cit. (note 146), 324.

161 Now better known as the Corieltauvi: Hassall, M.W.C. and Tomiin, R.S.O., Britannia xiv (1983), 349–50, 356Google Scholar ; Tomiin, R.S.O., Anliq. Journ. lxiii (1983), 353–5Google Scholar ; Tomiin, R.S.O., Trans. Leics. Arch. Hist. Soc. lviii (1983), 1–5.Google Scholar

162 Frere, S.S., Britannia, a history of Roman Britain (1967), 3.Google Scholar This statement is still maintained in the 1987 edition.

163 Webster, loc. cit. (note 96).

164 Eisdon and May, op. cit. (note 9).

165 D.F. Allen, The coins of the Coritani (1963), Type A; R.P. Mack, The Coinage of ancient Britain (3rd ed., 1975), Type 50; see forthcoming monograph by J. May and H. Mossop on Coins of the Corieltauvi, Type AI, no. 431.

166 Allen, op. cit. (note 165), pl. V.

167 A. Fitzpatrick in P. Clay, Iron Age and Roman occupation in the St Nicholas Circle area, Leicester, (forthcoming).

168 May in Field, N. and White, A. (eds.), A Prospect of Lincolnshire (1984), 18–22.Google Scholar

169 D.W. Harding, The Iron Age in the Upper Thames basin (1972).