« Back to the previous page
|LARA Record Number
We have no reason to doubt that the walls of the lower city were also substantially those of the Roman Era. Certainly this will have been the case during the Anglo-Scandinavian period, although any repair and enhancement of this period would be of the greatest interest if it could be identified. It is possible, however, that maintenance of the walls of the lower city was not a high priority for the inhabitants of the lower city in the Anglo-Scandinavian period. Dr Vince's discussion of the development of the waterfront (chapter 9a) makes it clear that there was 10th-century activity related to the port on both sides and the wall may have been no more than an inconvenience here. Furthermore, where excavated, it is clear that the south wall of the Roman city was a constraint on the development of the waterside and within a century or so it had been done away with. Research on this length of wall, therefore, should be focused on the date and manner of this abandonment. Was the wall breached by a sequence of private initiatives over an extended period of time, or was it rather overwhelmed by a single act of public policy? Our present understanding of the development of the Anglo-Scandinavian town suggests that these pressures of development were less acute on the west side of the lower city and it may be that the wall required less adaptation in this sector. Certainly little evidence was forthcoming for any major alterations to the wall after the end of the Roman period in the Park excavations (P70 - ed. Jones 1999, 262), but there was some evidence from further up the slope that the ditch was re-cut in the 11th century (Ibid. 253).
In the cases of the lower city, however, we have a small amount of evidence that the walls were reconstructed and maintained during the High Medieval Era. First the city was granted murage on a number of occasions during the 13th and early 14th centuries (Turner 1971, appendix b). These grants, which allowed the city to raise money for their town wall, fall into three distinct groupings. The first comes in 1224-7, when the city might have been rectifying damage caused during the 'Fair of Lincoln' in 1217. A second phase of repair is indicated by three successive murage grants from 1253 to 1274, whilst an even more extended period of consolidation is marked by a sequence of grants, with gaps, between 1288 and 1371. We also have some excavated evidence for adaptation and alteration from excavations, and it was no doubt during the final phase of work indicated by the murage grants that the wing-walls were extended down to the water's edge, and the two new terminal towers were constructed (chapter 9a). The final act in the re-edification of the city's defences was the (partial) reconstruction in 1390 of Stonebow, the city's south gate (Stocker 1997b). The present structure is a complex one of several dates and any repair work here must be accompanied by appropriate archaeological recording, aimed at elucidating the structural sequence and the extent to which this gate was ever really defensive, as opposed to symbolic, in character. The buried remains of earlier gates will survive below and within the fabric of the standing building and any work here will have to be carried out in conjunction with an extensive recording project. Although the 'wing-walls' were clearly newly built, most of the work on the walls must have been repair and reconstruction. The evidence for such repairs comes mostly from the eastern wall in the vicinity of Greyfriars. Here Anglo-Saxon sculpture has been discovered, perhaps reused in the town wall in the 13th century (Everson and Stocker 1999, 197-8); here also alterations to the alignment of the wall were deduced during excavations (GLB94) and here there is documentary evidence for the blocking of a postern gate and for the Friar's encroachment on the wall's fabric (Martin 1935, 44-5). Dr Vince has already pointed out that a later-medieval doorway is visible in the Buck view of Clasketgate gate, to the north of the Greyfriary, implying some measure of medieval reconstruction here (chapter 9a). This major gate is unknown apart from this single early view, and it may have been Roman in origin (RAZ 7.12). The buried remains of the gate lie beneath a complex road junction and any opportunity provided by the reconstruction of services within the road should be taken to produce a thorough study of the remains of this important structure. Further north still a length of the east wall survives above ground, standing almost to full height, between the Bishop's Palace and College of the Vicars Choral and many phases of work can be seen. As the last surviving fragment of the lower city wall surviving to anything like its original height a detailed study of both sides is required to enable us to understand whether or not the medieval wall was provided with a wall-walk. Although fragments of the east wall survive above ground, it is likely that the greater part of the west wall survives in better condition. Here the massive earthwork created by the buried wall is visible in both Motherby Hill and in the walk called The Park (RAZ 11.76). The wall evidently still stands to a considerable height below ground, and in the areas where it has been revealed it has been shown to be largely Roman. That is not to say, however, that the fabric does not retain evidence for medieval reconstruction, although only proper stone-by-stone recording and analysis can elucidate this. We remain ignorant about the disposition of gatehouses along much of this wall in the medieval period and this is a major lacuna. The gatehouse in the 'wing-wall' leading to the Newland market is known from a single Buck view and is clearly later medieval. It is probably the same date as the wall itself, i.e. late 13th or early 14th century. More information about it would be valuable, however, and care should be taken to record buried remains during road works. Dr Vince has suggested that Midhergate originally entered the city through the western wall somewhere to the south of the Roman lower west gate. This structure should be relatively easy to investigate, as the line indicated by Dr Vince is quite clear, and it could be found in a small trial excavation. It is presumed that there was also a gate in this wall at the point at which Motherby Lane/West Parade left the city (ed. Jones 1999, 254). The very existence of this gate in the medieval period remains hypothetical, however, and again, careful watching and recording during services work in the road should produce important dividends. The existence of a medieval gate at the top end of the western wall of the lower city, where it joins the upper city, remains uncertain. The Hundred Rolls of 1275 report a gate near the castle which has been explained as this gate, and it is possible that this is the New Gate mentioned in 1349 and 1564 (Roffe and Gilmour 1999, 266). An opening at this point would explain the line of Spring Hill, but it remains uncertain how old this road is. Dr Vince has been unable to trace any evidence for the gate earlier than the Stukeley map of 1722 and he points out that the first reference to Spring Hill is as late as 1649 (Cameron 1985, 83) (pers. com.) Once again, observations made during works on services are likely to be the most effective means of confirming the gate's presence, but more extensive work is needed to establish its date.
Nothing very much seems to be known about the ditches on either side of the lower city, although there was the suggestion of an Anglo-Scandinavian re-cutting of the ditch at Motherby Hill (Jones 1999, 253). They are likely to have been just as substantial as those in the upper city, and in their lower parts they offer the prospect of having some waterlogged fills at the base. These fills are of the utmost interest and importance, not just because of the likely interest and quality of the artefacts they may contain, but also because the pattern of their clearing and silting will provide a barometer for civic concerns with the defences over an extended period. These fills ought also to include the remains of timbers associated with the known or presumed bridges which lead east and west out of the city along the waterfront. Surviving timbers from such structures, which can sustain dendrochronology, could be of enormous help in understanding the development of the waterfront. Higher up the slope it is less likely that timbers will survive, but even so the remains of bridges which must be presumed to have crossed the ditches outside Clasketgate gate and outside the various gates in the west wall, will be important evidence for the chronology of development in these parts of the town.
The RAZ boundaries are drawn to include both the wall itself and a strip of land 50 metres wide to include the whole of the ditch. Along the waterfront, where there was no ditch, the strip is reduced to 30m wide.