Tower of London Archaeological Foreshore Assessment Report

7/25/2019 Tower of London Archaeological Foreshore Assessment Report

1/71

[FTH 01] Interim archaeological foreshore assessment report MOLA/TDP 2015

Tower of London

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

An archaeological foreshore assessment report

Site code: FTH 01

Au tho r: Elio t t Wra g g

October 2015


2/71


i

SUMMARY (non technical)

The Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) and Museum of London Archaeology(MOLA) have been commissioned by Tony King of Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) toundertake a series of archaeological surveys of the eastern foreshore in front of

Tower Wharf, London Borough of Tower Hamlets in advance of and during remedialwork to stabilise the fast-eroding foreshore and protect the base of the river wall.Previous interim archaeological assessment reports have been written1whichsummarised five seasons of volunteer work carried out on the site between 2010 and2014 along with further MOLA/TDP surveys, and a watching brief undertaken in 2013and 2014. The original reports have been incorporated within this present documentwhich replaces them and is also concerned with the geomatics and walkover surveyundertaken on the 4th of August 2015. The site code is FTH01 and the OrdnanceSurvey National Grid Reference is TQ 3364 8033.

A number of roundwood piles were recorded which were originally interpreted as twophases of Early Saxon fish-trap. It now seems more likely, due to the results of radio-

carbon dating of samples, that there are more structures, one of which dates to thelate Romano-British period. Interpretation, therefore, is problematic, although itseems most likely that the earliest may represent evidence of a Saxon settlementeast of the Roman City during the 4thcentury AD. One possible large jetty of elmconstruction was recorded towards the bottom of the foreshore, it is possible that thismay be of relatively early (pre 1295) date and may be associated with a constructionphase of the Tower. Two possible stair bases were recorded on a different alignmentto the current 14thcentury river wall and may be of similarly early date. Thefoundations of this river wall were recorded as being exposed from the cofferdaminstalled for the construction of Tower Bridge for a length of 31.60m westwards, up toa maximum depth of 0.85m. Cracks in the river wall were noted, and in one area theconstruction cut for the wall was recorded, sealed by c.17thcentury dumped deposits.The day before remedial works commenced a hole was observed where thefoundations were starting to wash out. The foundation was repaired prior to remedialwork being carried out. Six phases of campshed or barge bed revetment wererecorded, their surviving height suggesting that they were of late medieval or earlypost-medieval date. A series of braces and re-used base-plates which had beenpreviously interpreted as the bases of river stairs were re-interpreted as emergencyrevetments to protect the base of the river wall. A probable baseplate structure ofprobably post-medieval date was also recorded which may represent the remains ofa much later river stair. A further structure was recorded to the east which appears tohave been truncated by the cofferdam for the building of Tower Bridge and thus itwas not feasible to attempt an interpretation.

The most recent survey identified two new timbers which were not dated and did notappear to relate to those already identified, along with three areas of consolidation;one of 19th/20th century date, one probably dating to the 17th century, and onecomprising undated redeposited alluvium.

1Wragg 2013A, Wragg 2013D, Wragg 2014.


3/71


ii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1

1.1 Site background ..............................................................................................1

1.2 Origin and scope of this report ......................................................................1

1.3 Original research aims, objectives and methodology .................................1

1.4 Organisation of this report and conventions used ......................................2

2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................3

2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................3

2.2 Archaeological and historical summary .......................................................3

3 THE FORESHORE SURVEY ...............................................................................7

3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................7

3.2 The Alpha Survey ............................................................................................8

3.3 The Erosion Regime ......................................................................................11

3.4 The Archaeology of the foreshore ...............................................................12

4 POTENTIAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY ............................................................20

4.1 Original research questions .........................................................................20

4.2 Further Research Questions ........................................................................22

5 PUBLICATION AND ARCHIVING .....................................................................24

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................25

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ..............................................................26

8 APPENDIX 1: RADIO-CARBON DATING REPORT .............................................62

9 APPENDIX 2: NMR OASIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FORM ..................... 64

5.1 OASIS ID: thamesdi1-227593 .......................................................................64


4/71


iii

List of Figures

Fig 1 Site location .......................................................................................................67

Fig 2 Site map showing location of Alpha numbers ...................................................68

Fig 3 Contour plan of the foreshore June 2010 shown at 400mm .............................69

Fig 4 Contour plan of the foreshore May 2012 shown at 400mm ..............................70

Fig 5 Contour plan of the foreshore July 2013 shown at 400mm ...............................71

Fig 6 Contour plan of the foreshore at the east end of site, April ...............................72

Fig 7 Contour plan of the foreshore at the east end of site, July 2010 shown at400mm intervals ...............................................................................................73

Fig 8 Contour plan of the foreshore at the east end of site, May 2012 shown at400mm intervals ...............................................................................................74

Fig 9 Contour plan of the foreshore at the east end of site, 2013 shown at 400mmintervals ............................................................................................................75

Fig 10 Contour plan of the foreshore at the east end of site, February 2014 shown at400mm intervals ...............................................................................................76

Fig 11 River wall elevation showing drops in foreshore levels in 2014 ...................... 78

Fig 12 Contour plan of the foreshore at the east end of site, August 2015 shown at400mm intervals. Also showing new features and deposits recorded .............. 79

Fig 13 Features at the east end of site 2010 ..............................................................80



Fig 16 Features at the east end of site 2013/14 .........................................................83

Fig 17 A323A .............................................................................................................84

Fig 18 A323B .............................................................................................................85

Fig 19 A312 ................................................................................................................86

Fig 20 A321 and A322 ...............................................................................................87

Fig 21 A111 River wall elevation ................................................................................88

Fig 22 A111 Plan of river wall foundations and construction cut ................................89

Fig 23 A325 and A326 ...............................................................................................90

Fig 24 A316 ................................................................................................................91

Fig 25 A314 ................................................................................................................92

Fig 26 A315 and A301 Lower levels ..........................................................................93

Fig 27 A315 and A301 Intermediate levels ................................................................94

Fig 28 A315 and A301 Upper levels ..........................................................................95

Fig 29 A319 ................................................................................................................96

Fig 30 A320 ................................................................................................................97

Fig 31 A311 ................................................................................................................98


5/71


iv

Fig 32 A317 ................................................................................................................99

Fig 33 Unallocated timbers ......................................................................................100

Fig 34 Mooring features ...........................................................................................101

Fig 35 Conjectured pre-1295 riverbank ....................................................................102


6/71


1

\\mola-data-2k8\projects\towe\1413\na\field\fth 01 p4v2.docx

1 Introduction

1.1 Site background

The archaeological foreshore survey took place at the Tower of London, London Boroughof Tower Hamlets, hereafter called the site (Fig 1). The Ordnance Survey national gridreference to the approximate centre of the site was NGR 53364 18033. The site wasallocated the code, by which the records are indexed and archived, FTH 01.

Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 TDP/MOLA retains the copyright tothis document.

Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with archaeological and documentaryevidence, the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author andTDP/MOLA, correct at the time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, or

documentary analysis may require changes to all or parts of the document.

1.2 Origin and scope of this report

The archaeological work of analysis and recording, and the production of the originalreport, has been undertaken by the Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) and Museum ofLondon Archaeology (MOLA), in association with the Society of Thames Mudlarks and thePortable Antiquities Scheme, in order to inform our understanding of the erosion at thesite, to record the threatened and disappearing cultural resource, and in order that the sitemay be monitored by TDP volunteers in the future. The first two years of fieldwork werefunded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the 2012 fieldwork was funded by the Crown Estate,

whilst the 2013, 2014 and 2015 work and this report have been funded by Historic RoyalPalaces. The scope of works was agreed in advance with representatives of HistoricEngland (previously English Heritage), the Crown Estates, Historic Royal Palaces, thePort of London Authority and the Museum of London, and Written Schemes ofInvestigation (WSI) prepared2. All archaeological analysis and recording during theinvestigation on site was done in accordance with the Museum of London ArchaeologicalSite Manual (1994) and MOLA Health and safety policy operational procedures(2011).

The report has been prepared within the terms of the relevant standards specified by theInstitute of Field Archaeologists (IFA 2008).

The report presents the results of an archaeological assessment of part of the foreshore at

the Tower of London, the work being carried out between the 12thand 16thof July 2010,the 20thand 22ndof July 2011, the 5thand 11thof May 2012, 23rdand 29thJuly 2013, the23rdof August 2013, the 4thof February 2014, between the 19thof February and 20thofMarch 2014 and the 14th and 18th of July 2014, and on the 4th of August 2015.

1.3 Original research aims, objectives and methodology

The original aims and objectives were defined as:

2Cohen 2012, Wragg 2013B, C and Wragg 2015)


7/71


2


To establish and locate the various archaeologically significant features anddeposits on the site recorded by Thames Archaeological Survey (the Alpha survey)and establish the presence of any new features.

To record (describe, draw, sketch, photograph) the threatened archaeologicalfeatures at the eastern end of the site.

To recover, record and plot finds from the eroding eastern end of the site.

An archaeological foreshore survey was carried out over a six year period which identifieda number of features including a series of piles, braces and baseplates. The features werelocated by a geomatics team from Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) using GlobalPositioning System (GPS) and Total Station Theodolite (TST). The features were recordedusing TDP Alpha Survey Recording Sheets, and planned at a scale of 1: 20. Wherepossible, the individual timbers were recorded on pro formatimber sheets. A photographicsurvey was also carried out.

Further aims and objectives were identified for the last foreshore assessment visit andwere outlined in the final WSI3as:

Record any further features which have emerged in the Eastern area of theforeshore since the February and March 2014 fieldwork.

Undertake a further topographic survey of the Eastern area of the foreshore. Undertake a further finds survey of the Eastern area of the foreshore. Observe and record any further archaeological features, finds or deposits exposed

since the remedial works completed in March 2014.

1.4 Organisation of this report and conventions used

The archaeological and historical background to the site is briefly discussed, the resultspresented of the foreshore survey, along with a comparison to previous years results. Thepotential of the archaeology is then discussed.

All dimensions are given in metres or millimetres. In the text features are referred to bytheir TDP alpha numbers, while individual contexts are indicated by square brackets thus[25].

3Wragg 2015


8/71


3


2 Archaeological and historical background

2.1 Introduction

The time-scales used in this report are as follows.

Palaeolithic c 450,00012,000 BCMesolithic c 12,0004000 BCNeolithic c 40002000 BCBronze Age c 2000600 BCIron Age c 600 BCAD 43Roman AD 43410Early medieval AD 410c 1000Later medieval c AD 10001500Post-medievalmodern (including

industrial) c 1500present

2.2 Archaeological and historical summary4

2.2.1 Prehistoric

Excavations both within the Tower itself and nearby at Tower Hill have revealed evidencefor prehistoric activity in the vicinity. Prehistoric pottery and lithic material were foundwithin the SE corner of the Inmost Ward, and a large pit and an inhumation burial wereboth dated to the late Iron Age. Nearby, at All Hallows Barking churchyard, the discoveryof Bronze Age material indicated limited activity in that area.

2.2.2 Roman

Evidence for Roman activity has also been revealed at All Hallows; during antiquarianobservations (in the form of a tessellated pavement) and during the more recentexcavations, consisting of a sequence of external surfaces, covered by a probableBoudican destruction layer (AD 60-61). Within the Tower itself, the riverside area wasreclaimed by the end of the 1st century, and evidence has been found for timber andmasonry buildings, probably representative of ribbon development along a road. Around200 AD the City wall was constructed, and the riverside wall was added in the second halfof the third century, probably to protect against seaborne attacks. The Lanthorn, Wakefieldand Bell Towers may be sited on the remnants of Roman bastions along this riversidewall. Coins from the reign of Honorius (395-410) were found during excavations near theLanthorn Tower in 1777, indicating that the Tower site remained in occupation up until thevery last years of Roman control.

4 This section is largely reproduced from the TDP Tower of London Key Site Information sheet. Extrainformation is referenced separately.


9/71


4


2.2.3 Early MedievalVery little evidence has been found to demonstrate early medieval activity in the area untilthe late Saxon period; it seems likely that this was marginal land, with the foci ofsettlement lying further to the west, initially in Westminster and later along the waterfront inthe central part of the City. However, All Hallows Barking probably dates to the 10th

century, and two graves containing Saxon material have been found in the churchyard.Excavations in 1845 to the south of the Waterloo Barracks, within the Tower, found a largeditch with Anglo-Norman ceramics, indicating a possible enclosure on the site.

2.2.4 Later Medieval

After the Battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror took a circuitous approach to Londonin the autumn and winter of 1066; a series of Norman victories along the route intimidatedthe City leaders into submitting London without a fight. The fortification that would laterbecome known as the Tower of London was built in the south-east corner of the Romantown walls, using them as prefabricated defences. This earliest phase of the castle wouldhave been enclosed by a ditch and defended by a timber palisade, and probably hadaccommodation suitable for the new king. Two other castles in London Baynard's Castleand Montfichet's Castle were established at the same time. Work on the White Tower(the earliest stone keep in England), which gives the whole castle its name, is usuallyconsidered to have begun in 1078, however the exact date is unknown. Further defenceswere added in 1097, and the White Tower was probably finished by 1100 when BishopRanulf Flambard, the Towers first recorded prisoner, and first escapee, was imprisonedthere.

In 1270 a short length of quay was constructed from the area of the Lion Tower runningeast to the Byward Tower. It was not an initial success as it is documented that 300 alderpiles were brought in for its repair in 1312 and further repair was required in 1335 5. In

1336, Edward III ordered that the castle should be repaired; most of his building workswere associated with improvements to the river frontage, including heightening andwidening the wall from St Thomass Tower west to the Byward Tower. An earth and timberwall was constructed and 111s paid for this work in 1338 which is believed to have beencarried out between St Thomas Tower and the Byward Postern, while work was alsobeing carried out on the wall before the watergate suggesting further extension of thewharf6. The embankment incorporated a tunnel in front of the river entrance. Chalk, limeand Kentish Rag ashlar were bought in 1365-6 to extend the wharf, while elm piles werepurchased in 1369 and ditchers were paid for making a certain ditch for the wharf7.Finally a contract was made with three masons in 1389 to construct a wharf with two sidewalls in stone which would extend from the corner of the east end of the wall of the Towerfacing St Katherines as far as the Watergate of the said Tower8. Throughout the 14th

century warehousing was accumulating on the wharf as it was extended eastwards whilethree stairs led to the river; the Iron Gate, now under Tower Bridge, Tower Stairs at thewestern end of Tower Wharf, east of the now filled in 13th/14thcentury Tower Dock, andthe present day Queens Stairs9.

During the 15th century, there was little building work at the Tower, but the castlecontinued to be used as a royal ceremonial site (as the starting point for coronationprocessions to Westminster), an armoury, a place of refuge and as a prison; becoming

5HRP and OAU 1998, Parnell 1993, Pearson 1986.6Ibid.7Ibid.8Ibid.9Ibid.


10/71


5


notorious as the location of the murders of Henry VI, and Edward V (one of the Princes inthe Tower).

2.2.5 Post-Medieval

The beginning of the Tudor period marked the decline of the Tower's use as a royalresidence, becoming more commonly used as an armoury and munitions store. During thereign of Henry VIII, considerable funds were spent on the defences, however, this was notsufficient to bring the castle up to the standard of contemporary fortifications. The palacebuildings were left in a state of neglect and their condition was so poor that they werevirtually uninhabitable. From 1553 onwards, the Tower of London was only used as a royalresidence when its political and historic symbolism was considered useful and during the16th century, the Tower acquired an enduring reputation as a grim, forbidding prison, withmany religious and political undesirables locked away. Executions were usually carried outon Tower Hill rather than in the Tower of London itself; there were only seven executionsactually within the castle. Haiward and Gasgoynes 1597 Survey of the Tower and itsLiberties showed a large number of buildings/warehouses at the east end of the wharf10

Further modifications were made to the frontage during the 17th century, with sections ofthe Wharf rebuilt 1632-3, the installation of campsheds and fenders, and piling for anapron at the watergate (beneath the Traitors Bridge). In 1680, there were developmentsat the east end of the wharf, with the demolition of the medieval causeway leading fromthe Iron Gate to the Develin Tower, and refurbishment / rebuilding of parts of the southcurtain wall and ramparts. A survey of 1681 showed few buildings on the wharf but acauseway was shown leading from the river, while Holcroft Bloods 1688 survey showed alarge building at the eastern end of the wharf11.

The buildings of the castle were also remodelled, mostly under the auspices of the Office

of Ordnance and over the 18th and into the 19th centuries (see below), the palatialbuildings were slowly adapted for other uses and demolished. A survey of 1742 depicted alarge number of structures at the eastern end of the wharf including warehouses, a forgeand shops, stables, a proof yard and a wheelwrights shed12. For the most part, the 18thcentury work on the defences was spasmodic and piecemeal, although a new gateway inthe southern curtain wall permitting access from the wharf to the outer ward was added in1774. The moat surrounding the castle had become silted over the centuries and althoughlarge scale clearance was attempted in 1830, it was eventually decided to drain the moatand fill it in: this was completed by 1845. The last major programme of fortification at thecastle dates from 1828-1858 (including the construction of the Waterloo Barracks begun in1845), and most of the surviving installations for the use of artillery and firearms date fromthis period. At the same time, there was great interest in the history of the Tower, strongly

influenced by contemporary writers and architects. Parts of the castle were opened to thepublic, such as the Beauchamp Tower, and many post-medieval buildings weredemolished in the name of Victorian restoration. By the end of the 19th century, more thanhalf a million people per year visited the Tower. Sections of the riverside defences behindthe Wharf were also restored.

In July 1934, the Tower Beach was opened to the public it was estimated that during thesummer season of 1935 over 100,000 adults and children visited. The beach wasaccessed by ladder, and in 1936, 200 cubic yards of sand were added to the foreshore

10Ibid.11Ibid.12Ibid.


11/71


6


surface. The beach was closed when war was declared in 1939, and the castle suffereddamage during the Blitz, including the destruction of the beach access ladders by a flyingbomb. After the war, the damage was repaired and the Tower of London was reopened tothe public. It became one of the most popular tourist attractions in the country. The TowerBeach, however, although it also reopened after the war, eventually closed again in 1971,

amid declining popularity and the threat of terrorism. It is currently only accessible to thepublic on the annual Open Foreshore event in July, as part of the Festival of BritishArchaeology and on a weekend in September as part of the Totally Thames event; bothevents facilitated by Historic Royal Palaces, the TDP and the environmental charityThames 21.

The Tower of London is cared for by an independent charity, Historic Royal Palaces In1988 the Tower of London was inscribed on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites, andit is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument and a Grade 1 listed building.


12/71


7


3 The Foreshore Survey

3.1 Introduction

The site had been initially recorded in 1999 by the Thames Archaeological Survey (TAS).Subsequent phases of work were intended to establish which of the previously recordedfeatures surveyed were visible, along with recording the presence of features sincerevealed. NB. Features recorded by the TAS begin at A101, features recorded by TDPfrom 2010 begin at A301). It was also intended to institute a monitoring survey of thesurviving/newly visible features This chapter will first list a summary of all the featuresfound in 1999 and whether they were visble in 2010-13, before looking at the erosionregime at the eastern end of the site and some of features recorded there in more detail.


13/71


8


3.2 The Alpha Survey

NB. The blanks in the table indicate that that feature was not seen, but that may havebeen because the relevant area of foreshore was not visited, or that the tide may not havebeen low enough.

Alphano.

Designation Description Visible2010 Y/N

Visible2011 Y/N

Visible2012 Y/N

Visible2013 Y/N

101 Dock Curved brickdock entrance

Y Y Y Y

102 Dock Infilled withmodern brick

Y Y Y Y

103 Bargebed Timberrevetted, chalkand rubble

Y

104 Degradation Disturbed area N N N N105 Deposit Carvel-built

stern withrudder

Y

106 Furniture Wardboundarymarker onA101

Y Y Y Y

107 Unclassifiedstructure

Single squaredpost

N

108 Artefactscatter

Animal bone,with aconcentrationof pig? Jawbones

Y

109 Access Stone stair.Queens Stair

Y Y Y Y

110 Riverfrontdefence

Stone, singlephase

Y Y Y Y


Stone cappedwith concrete.At least threephases

Y Y Y Y

112 Furniture Hand crane onA111

Y Y Y Y

113 Drain Metal pipe Y Y Y N

114 Unclassifiedstructure Line of smallsquare timberstakes at slightangle to riverwall

N


Two lines oflargerectangulartimber posts

N


Line of largesquare timberposts at anangle to the

river wall

Y

117 Drain Timber Y


14/71


9


shutteredmetal drain.Possiblecauseway?


Line of threetimber posts.Goes underA103

119 Bargebed Vertical timberposts withhorizontals oneither side.Earlier thanA103

N N N Y

120 Drain Metal pipe N N N N121 Artefact

scatterAnimal bone,includingworking or

butcherywaste

Y Y Y Y


Stone. Straightjointed toearliest phaseof A111

Y Y Y Y


Single verticalfeature

N

124 Drain Metal pipe inrubble andconcrete

N N N Y

125 Agradation Single andsand

Y Y Y Y

126 Furniture Wardboundarymarker. Cualloy?

Notaccesssible

Notaccesssible

Notaccesssible

Notaccesssible


Brick. Pre-dates TowerBridge

Notaccesssible

Notaccesssible

Notaccesssible

Notaccesssible

128 Access Causeway.Pre-datesTower Bridge

Y Y Y Y

129 Drain Outfall belowA128. Metalpipe

130 Access Stone stair,Tower Bridge


Cofferdam forTower Bridge

Y Y Y Y

132 Degradation Disturbance Y133 Degradation Disturbance Y Y Y134 Bargebed Timber, double

plank revettedN N N N

135 Bargebed Y Y Y Y136 Mooring

featureN

137 Unclassified

structure

Two large

drilled timberposts and two

Y Y Y Y


15/71


10


smaller stakes138 Furniture Metal hand

craneN

139 Access Stairs140 Bargebed Earlier than

A103141 Structure Timber pilessupportingmodernwalkways

N

301 Baseplates River stairs.Number ofphases

Y Only onevisible

Y(New

baseplates)

Y(New

baseplates)302 Bargebed Timber piled

revetmentY


Timber &masonry. Pier

base?

N Y


Two woodenblocks. Pierbase?

N Y

305 Consolidation Compacteddeposit ofchalk and brick

N Y

306 Structure Threefragments ofmasonry.Foundationpad?

N Y

307 Mooringfeature

Large stoneblock withchain

N Y

308 Bargebed Squaredtimbers withmetal bolts.Same asA119?

N Y

309 Access Concreteplatform forstair. 20thcentury?

N Y

310 Unclassified

structure

Square brick

structure

N Y


Numeroustimber piles,no obviousalignments

N Y

312 Access Elmroundwoodpiles, possiblejetty?

Y Y Y Y

313 Access Tower Pierstairs

Y Y Y

314 Access Wharfrevetment?

N N Y

315 Access Brace for riverstair? Y Y Y


16/71


11



N N Y


Pile andplanks next toTower Bridgecofferdam

Y Y Y Y

318 Bargebed Truncatedremains ofbargebed(formerlyA312)

N Y


N Y N N


N Y N N

321 Access Stair? Y Y N N322 Access Stair? Y N N N323 Fish trap? Mid-Saxon? Y

324 Consolidation 17thcentury Y Y Y Y325 Campshed Two piles

parallel to riverwall

Y

326 Camppshed Three pilesparallel to riverwall

Y

3.3 The Erosion Regime

In 1998 Museum of London Archaeology Service (MOLAS), now MOLA, carried out atopographic survey of the eastern end of the site (Fig. 6). This showed the foreshoresloping down from approximately 0.00 to -0.60m OD to the low water mark at around -3.00m OD in front of the cofferdam constructed during the building of Tower Bridge. In linewith the southern edge of the cofferdam, the foreshore was recorded at around -2.20mOD. The TDP survey of 2010 (Fig. 7) showed the foreshore sloping down fromapproximately 0.40 to -0.80m at the top of the foreshore down to around -2.80m ODbroadly in line with the edge of the cofferdam. The formerly visible foreshore to the southhad disappeared. While the 2012 TDP survey (Fig. 8) showed the top of the foreshore atbetween 0.40 and -1.60m, and the low water mark again at around -2.80m OD, althoughthe contours were higher up the foreshore. The 2013 TDP survey (Fig. 9) showed the topof the foreshore at between -0.80 and -1.80m and the low water mark at around -2.80m,again the low water mark had further encroached upon the foreshore. The TDP survey

carried out in 2014 (Fig.10) demonstrated that the top of the foreshore had now erodeddown to almost -2.00m at its deepest, while the low water mark was now below -2.80mOD. This suggests that between 1998 and 2014, there has been some deposition in thewestern part of this area, while there has been significant erosion of up to 1.40m in theeastern part, this is borne out by the fact that the features discussed below were recordedneither by MOLAS in 1998 nor the TAS in 1999. Figure 11 demonstrates how theforeshore has dropped directly in front of the river wall over the four years to 2014 prior tothe temporary remedial works being inserted. Figure 12 shows that in 2015 that the lowwater mark remained at approximately -2.80m OD but had encroached northwards andthat the temporary remedial works appear to have stabilised the foreshore beneath thembut that the scouring has been pushed westward, the top of the foreshore having droppedby approximately 0.40m since 2012.


17/71


12


The TAS survey recorded the Tower Bridge cofferdam as protruding from the foreshoreapproximately 0.10-0.20m, by 2014 it was standing proud up to approximately 1.50m fromthe foreshore surface. Working on the assumption that the cofferdam was cut off close tothe foreshore surface on the bridges completion in 1894, it would seem that the foreshoreeroded by some 0.20m in the 105 years up to the TAS survey in 1999, and has eroded by

as much as 1.40m in the 15 years since.

3.4 The Archaeology of the foreshore

A large number of features and deposits were surveyed in each year of survey (Figs. 12,13, 14, 15 & 16). The dynamic nature of the foreshore is such that while some featuressurvived for five years before being obscured by the temporary remedial works, mosteroded out and were washed away, and new ones revealed each year. By amalgamatingthe results of each years survey up to 2014 it has been possible to identify a number ofdiscrete structures. The 2015 survey revealed further deposits and structural elements inthe area not obscured by the temporary works.

3.4.1 323 Possible fish traps (Figs. 16 & 17)

This feature only became visible in 2013 and comprised 18 small roundwood pilescomplete with bark, [129], [148], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158],[159], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168] and [169] ranging in diameter from 0.05m to 0.12m.A further small roundwood pile [170] was recorded during the 2014 survey. Similar pileshave been encountered elsewhere on the Thames foreshore and have generallycomprised Early or Mid- Saxon (5th-8thcentury) fish-traps. In this case it is likely that thereare at least two phases: 323A comprising three paired piles- [150] and [151], [153] and[154], and [155] and [156] and the single piles [165], [166], [167] and [168] and taking theform of a v shape 10.90m long (Fig. 16); and 323B [129], [164], [148], [152], [157],[158], [159], [169] and [170] which was 34.80m long and was linear (Fig. 17). It is possiblethat [157], [158], [159], [169] and [170] might represent another phase of use.

Samples were taken from timbers [148] and [152] for radio-carbon dating, one of whichreturned surprising results (see Appendix 1). [148] was dated most probably to AD329-386, or AD314-398, while the most likely date range for [152] was AD487-533. This raisesnew questions which will be discussed in 4.2.2 below.

3.4.2 312 Possible jetty (Fig. 18)

This feature was identified by the TDP as four vertical probable elm piles in 2010 and assix piles ([19], [20], [23], [24], [25], [26]) in 2011. By the 2012 survey the foreshore haddropped further, exposing two more piles [21] and [22]. With the emergence of the latter,the structure now appears to be the remains of an elm pier, approximately 3.30m wide andsurviving to length of approximately 4.00m. A multi-context plan of the structure wasdrawn at a scale of 1:20. The individual timbers are discussed below.

Timber [19] was sub-circular in plan, measured 220mm by 160mm, and had been squaredoff on two sides, while bark survived on the other sides. Pile [20] was box quartered andmeasured 220mm by 220mm. Pile [21] appeared to be a whole timber minus the bark andsome sapwood and measured 250mm by 220mm. Timber [22] seemed to be a wholetimber including sapwood and bark, and had a maximum diameter of 260mm. Pile [23]appeared to be virtually a whole tree, minus sapwood and bark and having beentangentially faced on one side. It measured 220mm by 200mm. Timber [24] appeared tobe a whole tree minus bark and some sapwood, seeming to be a top timber in the area ofa branch, it measured 230mm by 180mm. Pile [25] was a whole timber without bark and

had a maximum diameter of 230mm. Timber [26] appeared to have been tangentiallyfaced on two sides and had no bark. It measured 200mm by 240mm.


18/71


13


This structure was not aligned to the current river wall and, therefore, probably pre-datesit. All eight of the piles were still visible in 2015 although their tapers were very visiblesuggesting that the foreshore is eroding around them and they will be soon washed away.A sample was taken for radio-carbon dating from pile [22] but unfortunately did not returna useable date (see Appendix 1).

3.4.3 321 and 322 Possible river stairs (Fig. 19)

A large number of piles and baseplates were surveyed in 2010 and 2011; only after anumber of the more obvious features (see below) were extracted during the post-excavation process was it possible to define two further features within the previousjumble of timbers:

321 comprised twelve piles ([96], [97], [98], [100], [107], [108], [106], [105], [104], [103],[102] and [119]) forming a rectangular structure measuring approximately 5.50mnorthwest-southeast and 3.50m southwest-northeast. To the east of and immediately

adjacent to

321 lay structure

322 comprising ten piles ([114], [113], [112], [115], [116],[117], [118], [111], [110] and [109]). This formed a rectangular structure measuringapproximately 5.60m northwest-southeast by 4.70m southwest-northeast. Thesestructures probably represent river stairs.

Again, these two features did not respect the line of the late 14thcentury river wall andthus presumably predate it. No remnant of these structures was visible in 2013.

3.4.4 111 River wall (Figs. 20 & 21)

The lower courses of the 14th century river wall were drawn in elevation for a length of49.60m westwards from the Tower Bridge cofferdam. The wall was formed of ashlarblocks of Kentish Rag with maximum stone dimensions of 1.34m by 0.30m. For 31.60m

westwards of the cofferdam, the foundation was exposed up to a maximum depth of0.76mm and extended out away from the river wall by a maximum of 0.64m, although itwas more generally approximately 0.30 to 0.50m wide for most of its exposed length. Theupper 0.06 to 0.08m, encountered at between -0.57 and -0.87m OD, comprised smallpieces of tile and stone, where it survived, while the lower foundation was constructedfrom irregular un-faced stones with a maximum size of approximately 0.40 by 0.30m. Itappeared that the foundation had originally been mortared although most of this has beeneroded away in the visible part of the foundation. The construction cut [161] for thefoundation was visible for a short length on the 27th of July 2013, extended up to 0.40mout from the exposed foundation and was filled with re-deposited alluvium [160]. Twopossible pieces of elm were recorded at the base of the exposed foundations which maypossibly be the tops of timber piles on which the foundations stand, although this seems

unlikely as will be discussed in 4.1.5 below. There was evidence of concretion on theupper parts of the foundation and lower ashlar courses which probably represents 19thand/or 20th century attempts to consolidate the foreshore.

Immediately prior to the remedial works being enacted in 2014, part of the foundation wasseen to have washed out creating a hole some 7.00m long and up to 0.50m deep. Thiswas repaired during the subsequent works.

3.4.5 325 Possible campshed (Fig. 22)

This possible feature which only became visible in 2013 comprises two rectangular pileswhich appeared to be on a parallel alignment to the river wall. [125] measured 0.18m by0.12m, while [126] was 0.14m by 0.11m. It is possible that they could form part of a

revetment of a barge bed or of a campshed to protect the river wall.


19/71


14



This similarly aligned feature was also only exposed in 2013 and comprised threerectangular piles. [130] measured 0.19m by 0.10m, [131] was 0.16m by 0.12m and [132]0.12m by 0.09m. This feature was again interpreted as part of a protective campshed orbarge bed.


This structure, comprising a line of piles, was plotted along with the other timbers at theeastern end of the site in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Only in 2012 was it possible to identify itas a discrete feature which now appears to run some 19.70m east-west. It was interpretedas the remains of a campshed or barge bed revetment. The individual timbers arediscussed below.

Probable oak timber [30] was box quartered with some sapwood remaining and measured150mm by 100mm. A possible augur hole was recorded in the southern face. Probable

oak pile [31] was rectangular and box halved. Measuring 150mm by 85mm, somesapwood was present and a possible augur hole with a diameter of 11mm was recorded.Probable oak pile [28] was box quartered with some sapwood remaining and measured160mm by 120mm. A sample was taken from this timber for dendrochronological datingbut unfortunately returned no date13. Probable oak timber [35] was rectangular and boxhalved. No sapwood was recorded and it measured 130mm by 100mm and was observedto a height of 240mm. Probable oak pile [36] was box quartered with some sapwoodvisible. It measured 130mm by 100mm and survived to a height of 300mm. Probable oaktimber [38] was box quartered, measured 95mm by 65mm and survived to a height of360mm. Piles [76] and [77] were recorded on the plan but eroded out before detailedrecording could be undertaken. Piles [101] and [149] were not recorded in detail but wererectangular and measured 0.12m by 0.08m and 0.22m by 0.08m respectively.

By 2013 timbers [101] and [149] had emerged, not previously being visible, while theremainder of the previously identified structure survived with the exception of piles [76]and [77].


A similar structure to 316 was located approximately 1m behind it on a slightly differentalignment, and comprised four probable oak piles ([80], [49], [51] and [53]). Two probableoak piles ([50] and [52]) may have comprised a back line to the feature. This feature wasapproximately 12.80m long and 0.50m wide. It was interpreted as the remains of arevetment or wharf. A multi-context plan of the structure was drawn at a scale of 1:20. The

individual timbers are discussed below.Probable oak pile [49] was box halved and rectangular. It measured 120mm by 60mm andwas 380mm high. Probable oak timber [50] was a whole tree with some bark present andhad a diameter of 120mm. Probable oak pile [51] was box quartered and rectangular withsome sapwood present. It measured 120mm by 80mm and survived to a height of510mm. Probable oak timber [52] was a whole tree with sapwood observed. With amaximum diameter of 160mm it survived to a height of 780mm. Probable oak piles [53]and [80] were not recorded in detail.

By 2013, nothing survived of this feature.

13Ian Tyers pers.comm.


20/71


15


3.4.9 315/ 301/ 324 Consolidation/revetment (Figs. 25, 26, 27)

This structure, just north of 314 was originally interpreted as two structures- 315comprising one base-plate, a brace and three piles and appearing to function as a north-

south orientated bracing element of a river stair; and 301 comprising a series of base-plates, along with a possible post-pad. As they were not exactly on the same alignmentsand varied in size it was not initially possible to ascertain their relationship to one another.In 2013, however, it was realised that these features were sitting within a deliberatelydumped deposit containing 17thcentury material 324 which sealed the construction cut ofthe river wall, and they were re-interpreted as bracing and revetting to retain consolidationdeposits to protect the base of the river wall.

Base-plate [27] measured 590mm by 330mm and contained a rectangular mortisemeasuring 80mm by at least 270mm. A degraded possible marking-out line was visiblealong with some possible axe marks. Possible brace [41], located 0.61m north of thebase-plate was angled at approximately 55 to the horizontal in a northerly direction and

measured 260mm east-west by 500mm north-south and was 760mm high. An iron nailwas recorded as being still in place in the top of this timber. Brace [41] was held in placeby three smaller piles, [42], [43] and [44], indeed [42] and [43] were attached to it by ironnails. Vertical pile [42], on the western side of the brace, measured 130mm by 100mm,was 490mm high and was box quartered. Vertical pile [43], on the eastern side of thebrace, measured 120mm by 80mm, had a maximum height of 350mm and was boxquartered. Vertical pile [44] to the south of brace [41], was box quartered, had threepossible axe marks on its eastern side and measured 60mm by 150mm with a maximumheight of 490mm.

The remains of four possible brace structures were recorded to the west, the firstcomprising piles [64], [65] and [66] with brace [83] which was surveyed in 2011 but haddisappeared by 2012, the second pile [14] and baseplate [138], the third piles [32], [33]and [34], along with two parts of a split baseplate [139] and [140], and the fourth baseplate[137].

Pile [64] was rectangular and box quartered with some bark surviving. It measured 60mmby 100mm and survived to a height of 440mm. Pile [65] was rectangular and boxquartered with some sapwood recorded. It measured 100mm by 120mm and was 330mmhigh. Pile [66] was semi-circular and the conversion was not visible. It measured 120mmby 60mm and survived to a height of 370mm. A sample was taken from this timber fordendrochronological dating but unfortunately did not return a date14. Brace [83] was 0.62mlong and 0.24m wide and appeared to be a re-used building timber with a broken mortisein one end.

Baseplate [138] was 0.68m long and 0.24m wide and had a mortise measuring 0.36m by0.08m. A sample was taken from this timber for dendrochronological dating butunfortunately did not return a date15. Rectangular pile [141] measured 0.17m by 0.08m.

Pile [32], rectangular and box halved, measured 70mm by 140mm and survived to aheight of 230mm. Pile [33], rectangular and tangentially faced with some sapwood visible,measured 100mm by 80mm and survived to a height of 210mm. Pile [34], rectangular andtangentially faced with some sapwood visible, measured 120mm by 50mm and was 330mhigh. Two possible axe marks were recorded on the western face. A broken baseplatewas recorded as timbers [139] and [140]. It would originally have been 0.44m wide and0.68m long and contained an extremely damaged mortise.

14Ian Tyers pers. comm.15Ian Tyers pers. comm.


21/71


16


Baseplate [137] was 1.30m long and 0.34m wide and had a mortise measuring 0.24m by0.12m.

The lowest baseplates, and piles, surveyed but not fully recorded in 2013, were as follows:

Square pile [127] measured 0.10m by 0.10m and it served to hold baseplate [128] below

in place.Baseplate [128] was 4.70m long and 0.30m and contained six mortises up to 0.10m wideand ranging in length from 0.23m to 1.00m. The largest mortise had four differing depths;from left to right, 0.05m, 0.11m, 0.05m and 0.17m, and two lateral dowel holes wererecorded in the sides. The next mortise to the east was 0.13m deep, and had a slopingeastern end and a lateral dowel hole. The next two to the east had depths of 0.05m andthe most easterly was 0.13m deep.

Baseplate [134] was 0.72m by 0.28m wide and had a mortise which was 0.54m by 0.10m.It appears to have been part of an originally larger building timber and been re-used. Asample was taken from this timber for dendrochronological dating but unfortunately did notreturn a date16.

Timber pile [163] may have originally been square but was heavily degraded. Its maximumdimensions were 0.20m by 0.19m and its location suggests that its purpose was to holdbaseplate [135]/[136] below in place.

The next baseplate to the east had split in two and was recorded as timbers [135] and[136]. It would originally have been 5.46m long with a maximum width of 0.25m. Itcontained four mortises ranging from 0.40m to 0.60m in length and with a maximum widthof 0.10m. The three eastern mortises each contained two lateral dowel holes and the mosteasterly contained tenon [143] which measured 0.47m by 0.08m.

Its eastern end was held in place by two rectangular piles; [144] measuring 0.12m by0.07m and [145] which was 0.11m by 0.08m.

Higher courses of baseplates, recorded in 2011 and 2012, comprised the following:

Baseplate [95] was surveyed but not fully recorded. It was 0.65m long and 0.20m widewith a distinctive rectangular section missing in the north-western corner; this may suggestthat it is a fragment of a larger baseplate, the corner being the remains of a mortise.

Degraded base-plate [14] measured 0.82m by 0.44m had a series of axe marks in itsupper surface suggesting that it had been used as a chopping block for new piles. It had amortise measuring 0.38m by 0.09m which contained a fragment of a tenon [29] whichmeasured 0.07m by 0.080m.

0.20m east of [14] was base-plate [15]. Measuring 0.76m by 0.23m, it had a number ofmarks in its upper face which may be the remains of tool marks. One in particular may

have indicated the presence of a horizontal nail or, more likely, wooden peg. The mortisein this base-plate measured 0.20m by 0.08m.

Approximately 1.2m to the east lay base-plate [16]. This measured 0.77m x 0.26m andhad a mortise which was 0.35m by 0.06m, a peg hole with a diameter of 0.04m wasrecorded passing through both sides of the mortise on a north-south orientation. It had arebate in its north-east corner which measured 0.11m by 0.24m.

Some 1.2m to the east of base-plate [16] was a further one [17] which appeared to have asimilar rebate in its north-west corner measuring 0.25m by 0.09m. It is possible that thesetwo base-plates are associated. [17] measured 1.20m by 0.20m ad had a mortisemeasuring 0.21m by 0.09m. Seven nails were recorded in its upper face.

16Ian Tyers pers. comm.


22/71


17


Immediately north of [17] was yet another base-plate [18]. This was 4.44m long and 0.25mwide. It had two mortises, one of which measured 0.43m by 0.07m, the other 0.62m by0.07m and had two lateral 0.03m diameter peg holes. It had a further mortise at its easternend measuring 0.35m by 0.07m. There is likely to have been a matching mortise at thewestern end but this end was heavily damaged and split by later pile [47].

Situated between 315 and base-plate [17] was a possible post-pad [67]. This was asquare timber measuring 0.30m by 0.30m and may have functioned as a support to one ofthe river stair phases represented by the base-plates.

The highest recorded courses, surveyed in 2010 and 2011 comprised the following:

Baseplate [1] was 3.76m long and 0.28m wide, while baseplate [3] was 0.66m long and0.22m wide with a mortise in its southern edge suggesting that it was actually half of awider former baseplate. Baseplate [5] was 0.56m long and 0.22m wide and was situatedon top of baseplate [4] which was 3.96m long and 0.22m wide. Baseplate [6] was 3.50mlong and 0.22m wide with mortises in either end. Surveyed in 2011, baseplate [95] waslocated between [4] and [6], and was 0.66m long and 0.20m wide. It may have had the

remains of a mortise in the north-eastern corner, and thus may be a quarter of anoriginally larger baseplate.

To the west, against the river wall, another set of higher baseplates was surveyed but notfully recorded in 2013:

Baseplate [121] was not fully exposed but had a visible length of 0.76m and was 0.24mwide. It contained a rectangular mortise which measured 0.40m by 0.11m. Baseplate [122]was 1.12m long and 0.26m wide and contained a mortise measuring 0.10m by 0.24m.Baseplate [123] was 3.00m long and 0.33m wide. It had a mortise measuring 0.27m by0.10m, and had a 0.03m diameter vertical dowel hole and a 0.015m diameter iron nail inits upper face. [124] was 5.02m long and 0.23m wide. A 0.03m diameter iron nail headwas recorded in its upper face while two nails were recorded protruding from its river-

facing face. Just to the south lay possible baseplate [162] which was 0.60m long and0.12m wide.

3.4.10 329 Consolidation deposit (Fig. 12)

The 2015 survey recorded an area of redeposited alluvium containing frequent charcoal.Visibly measuring approximately 1.50m by 1.00m it appeared to underlay consolidation328 (see below 3.4.11). No artefacts suitable for dating were observed within thisdeposit,

3.4.11 328 Consolidation deposit (Fig. 12)

Again, the 2015 survey revealed an area of consolidation comprising red bricks, animalbone and 17thcentury pottery within a chalk/mortar matrix with moderate charcoalinclusions. Quite clearly an attempt at consolidation rather than random deposition (bricks,pottery and bone were frequently seen to be on edge), this deposit measuredapproximately 12.00m by 5.00m and may well represent an extension of consolidation324 discussed in 3.4.9 above.


The remains of another possible barge bed campshed frontage was surveyed in 2010/11,

and was no longer visible in 2012. This comprised a line of four piles [87], [88], [89] and[90] which was 9.60m long.


23/71


18



A further possible campshed or barge bed revetment was surveyed in 2010/11, and againwas no longer visible in 2012. This comprised another line of four piles [91], [92], [93] and[94] and was 2.30m long.

3.4.14 311 Possible river stair (Fig. 30)

This feature stretched north from the area of the base-plates to the river wall and east-west for approximately 13m. It appears to have originally comprised 5 groups each of 5piles, some of which had iron nails or nail holes pointing diagonally down towards thecentre of each group. It is suggested that these structures were originally intended to holdbase-plates, probably for a river stair. The groups were spaced equally apart at a distanceof approximately 2.10m, while piles were square or rectangular with maximum dimensionsof 0.12m by 0.16m and a maximum visible height of 1.09m. This suggests a much later,probably post-medieval, feature, the contemporary foreshore being supposed to be at asimilar height to the tops of the piles.

From east to west, the first group comprised piles [39], [40]; the second piles [45], [46],[47], [48] and [84] (recorded 2011, not visible 2012); the third piles [58], [59], and [60], thefourth piles [54], [55], [56], [57] and [79], the last of which eroded out during the weeksfieldwork; the fifth piles [68], [85] and [86].

3.4.15 327 Consolidation (Fig. 12)

This deposit, measuring approximately 13.00m by 4.00m was only recorded during the2015 survey and comprised redeposited material, particularly ceramic building material(CBM) comprising a mixture of red brick and London Stock Brick, suggesting a post-1840s date for this consolidation.

3.4.16 317 Unclassified Structure (Fig. 31)

This feature was located next to the cofferdam installed for the construction of TowerBridge. While not fully recorded, it was planned and comprised a pile [71], a board or pad

[72], and two planks [73] and [74]. This structure was truncated by the later cofferdam andprobably extended further east, as a result its function cannot be defined, although there isa possibility that it may comprise a mooring feature. This feature was surveyed but notfully recorded.

3.4.18Unallocated Timbers (Fig. 32)

A number of timbers were left unallocated to structures as no plausible alignments couldbe found for them. Two timbers ([171] and [172]) were observed in 2015 (Fig 12) and,having no apparent relationship to the features described above, have been includedwithin this group.

3.4.19 Mooring Features (Fig. 33)


24/71


19


A number of mooring features have been recorded on the site over the four years ofsurvey up to 2014 ranging from large concrete blocks and stone blocks to timber features.Given the associated deposits, it would seem most likely that they date from the 17thcentury onwards- the concrete ones would certainly date from, at least, the mid- 19thcentury.


25/71


20


4 Potential of the archaeology

4.1 Original research questions

4.1.1 Establish and locate the various archaeologically significant features anddeposits recorded by Thames Archaeological Survey (the Alpha survey) andestablish the presence of any new features.

The results of this monitoring exercise have been summarised in the table in 3.2 above.

4.1.2 Record (describe, draw, sketch, photograph) the threatened archaeologicalfeatures at the eastern end of the site.

Two possible fish traps were recorded in 2013, one extra pile being recorded in 2014. Twosamples were taken from one of the supposed features which returned probable dateranges of AD314-398 and AD487-533 which has implications for the interpretation both ofthe number of structures and their wider significance. This will be discussed further belowin 4.2.2. One possible large jetty of elm construction was recorded towards the bottom ofthe foreshore, while two phases of river stair were also recorded. These features were notaligned to the current river wall and, therefore, probably pre-date it. The lower courses ofthe 14thcentury river wall, along with its foundation and construction cut were recordedwhere visible. Four phases of campshed or barge bed revetment were recorded, theirsurviving height and associated finds suggesting that they were of late medieval/ earlypost-medieval date. One of them may be associated with the campsheds built in 1595-7,which may have been repaired in 1623, while another may be associated with thoseconstructed in 1632-317. A structure comprising a large number of re-used baseplates andbraces held in place by piles was associated with a 17thcentury dumped deposit andprobably represents remedial work to restore the level of the foreshore and protect the

foundation of the river wall. In 2015, a further deposit which may correlate to this wasrecorded overlying redeposited alluvium. A probable baseplate structure of later post-medieval date was also recorded which may represent the remains of a much later riverstair. A further structure was recorded to the east which appears to have been truncatedby the cofferdam for the building of Tower Bridge and which may possibly represent amooring feature. A 19th/20thcentury consolidation deposit was also recorded in 2015.

4.1.3 Recover, record and plot finds from the eroding eastern end of the site.

Several finds surveys have been carried out by the Society of Thames Mudlarks inconjunction with the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). As yet, no final report has beenreceived from the PAS.

4.1.4 In conjunction with examination of previous investigations of Tower Wharfand foreshore, can we establish the depth and width of the river wallfoundations?

The river wall foundations extended out from the wall itself by on average 0.30-0.50m witha maximum width of 0.64m, and a top height of between -0.57 and-0.87m OD. It was visible to a depth of up to 0.78m. Previous investigations on thenorthern side of the wharf wall appear to have had the base of their masonry foundationsmuch higher, between 0.40m to 1.00m OD, with one exception being the base of a

17Keay 2001 48, Colvin 1975 275-6


26/71


21


masonry foundation just west of St Thomass Tower, but the near contemporary Iron Gatecauseway had a top height of -0.10m OD and the masonry foundation was up to 1.25mthick; its lower 0.30m butting up to a horizontal oak timber and sitting on earlier 13thcentury beech piles18. This may give us some indication as to the likely depth of themasonry. There is no current indication as to its width.

4.1.5 Is there any evidence of mortaring of the foundations?

Fragments of lime mortar survive on the foundation but this mortar appears to have beenseverely eroded by wave action.

4.1.6 Is there any evidence of elm piling beneath the foundations?

Three timbers of possible elm were recorded but there is no definitive evidence that theyare piles; the only one which looks like it may possibly have been driven into the foreshore(although not vertically) has a diameter of 0.10m and the masonry does not appear to be

sitting upon its upper face. Oak piles recorded elsewhere on the inner side of the wharfhad diameters of typically 0.50m, while the beech piles of the Iron Gate causewaydiscussed above in 4.1.4 ranged from between 0.20m and 0.45m in diameter19.The othertwo, on closer inspection appear to be lying on their sides. It seems more likely, therefore,that they are part of the backfill of the construction cut for the wall, while in all likelihoodthe piles supporting the foundation are still uncovered below the existing foreshore level.

4.1.7 4.1.7 Have any new features or deposits emerged since the 2014 work? Ifso what is their nature, date and extent?

Two timbers which did not appear to have any relationship to any previously identified

structures were recorded, along with a probable 17th

century consolidation overlyingredeposited alluvium, and a 19th/20thcentury consolidation deposit were added to the2014 survey data.

18Keevil 2004: 116-919Ibid.


27/71


22


4.2 Further Research Questions

4.2.1 Can we determine the nature of the river wall foundations

The river wall foundations comprise a thin (0.06 to 0.08m) upper layer of small pieces oftile and stone where it survives, overlying randomly coursed unfaced masonry. The top ofthe foundation varies between -0.57 and -0.87m OD and it is visible at a height of up to0.90m, while it extends out from the river wall to a maximum extent of 0.64m with anaverage of 0.30-0.50m. Previous excavations and documentary evidence (see 2.2.4above) suggest that this foundation would be sat on wooden piles, which were not visiblein 2014. If this section of river wall is similar to the near contemporary Iron Gate causewaythen there may be a further 0.45m of masonry currently below foreshore level at its lowestpart20. Given the nature of the remedial works to protect the river wall, it is unlikely that anyfurther evidence will be forthcoming in the near future.

4.2.2 4.2.2 What are the implications of the radio-carbon dates returned fromsamples taken from supposed fish-trap 323b?

Samples were taken and dated from two timbers from the supposed structure 323b. Thelikely date range for timber [148] was AD314-398, while that for timber [152] was AD487-533.

From our knowledge of other Thames fish-traps it seems unlikely that such a structurewould be in use for over a century (although the later timber may possibly indicate arepair), suggesting that 323b represents at least two structures. It still seems likely thatthese structures represent fish-traps; there are no similar small roundwood structures

recorded on the Thames in the Greater London Area of similar date which have not beenso interpreted.

While the date range of AD487-533 for timber [152] is of Early Saxon date and fits withinthe current date range for most Thames fish-traps, the date range returned for timber [148]of AD314-398 does not. The two earliest hitherto known fish-traps have been recorded inthe Putney area dating to AD410-610 and AD420-640 suggesting very early Saxonsettlement21. It is, therefore, possible that the date-range returned from timber [148], beingnot so far away from these dates, indicates even earlier Saxon occupation close aroundthe eastern walls of the Roman city.

Further analysis of the feature currently known as 323b, along with comparisons with

other recorded Thames fish-traps, may allow us to separate it into its differing componentsand give more idea of possible function(s), while research into evidence of 4thcenturySaxon settlement around the east of the Roman city may indicate that this probably earlierstructure is consistent with such settlement.

20Ibid.21Cowie, R. & Blackmore, L. 2008: 116-8


28/71


23


4.2.3 Significance of the data

These various structures are significant in that they inform us as to the nature of activity onthe foreshore and its relationship to the Tower and also to much earlier, hitherto unknown,late Roman/Early Saxon activity.

At least three possible fish-traps or similar structures have been recorded, all other fish-traps found on the Thames which have been dated have come from the Early or MidSaxon period (5th-8thcenturies AD). The dates returned from radio-carbon dating suggestthat one of the previously identified structures is in fact at least two; one of which was inuse before the collapse of Roman Britain. There appear, therefore, to be at least threesimilar structures indicating occupation over a period of at least some 200 years; whetherthis represents continuous usage is not clear. During the Early Saxon period the mainsettlement of Lundenwic was located in the area of the Strand, there being little previousevidence of activity in the vicinity of the Tower. The 5th/6thcentury date indicates Saxonsettlement in the area, possibly related to a previously unknown settlement; while the

earlier 4

th

century date suggests the possibility of Saxon settlement in and around theeastern part of the city whilst Roman governance infrastructure was still in effect.

The large, possibly early, jetty is of such size, construction and location that it would havebeen able to service large sea-going vessels, and may well have been used to offload thestone for one of the construction phases of the Tower.

The two phases of possibly early river stair may well have complimented the jetty, allowingsmall craft to be accessed at low tides. Moreover, their alignment suggests a possible riverbank alignment pre-dating the late 14th century river wall. Given that the White Tower wasbuilt close up to the Roman wall, it may be that any accompanying ditch outflow may havecreated an inlet in the river bank at a slightly different alignment, and as this ditch appears

to have been blocked during the building of the curtain wall to the Inner Bailey (completedc.1295), this conjectured river bank location may pre-date 1295 (Fig. 34).

These features appear to have become redundant and were replaced by a series ofcampsheds or barge beds aligned to the late 14th century river wall. This may reflect achange in the role of this area of foreshore, up to the late 13th century this part of theriverfront was outside the Tower precinct (see above 2.2.4); or a change in shipping- flatbottomed cogs being more suited to sit on the foreshore at low tide than round-bottomedknarrs which would ideally use a jetty. Or indeed, they may represent revetting to protectthe base of the riverwall, for there is evidence of large deposition of made ground onto theforeshore in the 17thcentury and beyond, associated with structures comprising piles,braces and re-used baseplates.


29/71


24


5 Publication and archiving

Information on the results of this work will be made publicly available to permit inclusion of

the site data in any future academic researches into the development and use of theThames estuary. This will be achieved by incorporating the results of this work into ajournal article, as agreed with Historic Royal Palaces and Historic England (formerlyEnglish Heritage).

The site archive containing original and ongoing records will continue to be held by theThames Discovery Programme under agreement with the Museum of Londons LondonArchaeological Archive and Research Centre.


30/71


25


6 Acknowledgements

The Thames Discovery Programme would like to thank the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF),

the Thames Estuary Partnership, the Thames Explorer Trust, the Museum of London,University College London, Historic England (formerly English Heritage) and Museum ofLondon Archaeology for their support. In particular they would like to thank the CrownEstate and Historic Royal Palaces for generously funding the post- HLF work and thisreport.

The author would like to thank Nathalie Cohen, Gustav Milne, Courtney Nimura and TonyBaxter for their assistance in running the site, Mark Burch, Raoul Bull, Neville Constantine,Katherine Drew, Moises Hernandez and Sarah Jones of Museum of London Archaeologyfor the surveying, along with Ian Tyers of the Dendrochronological Consultancy Ltd. andStephen Hoper of the Chrono Centre, Queens University Belfast for the dating. He wouldalso like to thank Tony King and Fiona Keith-Lucas of Historic Royal Palaces and JaneSidell of Historic England (formerly English Heritage) for their support and advice. Equallythe hard work of the following TDP volunteers is gratefully acknowledged; JonathonAldridge, Reg Amin, Marian Andrews, Alan Aris, Martin Baker, Muriel Bailey, PeterBaistow, Lyn Baldwin, Andy Becker, Guy Bloom, Andrew Brown, Samantha Buchanan,Hannah Bullmore, Roxanne Burke, Cathy Butler, Glen Calderwood, Anne-Marie Causer,Jasmina Cenan, Chris Chadwick, Roger Chapman, Andrea Choate, Lucie Commans,Marianne Cook, Jill Cook, Leanne Corps, Rebecca Costello, Susan Cottee, Henry Creed,Jan Drew, Tanya Donnelly, Jo Dubiel, Hugh Dulley, Vanita Eden, Lynn Fergusson, JeremyFielden, Jenny Fisher, Nicola Fyfe, Justin Fox, Steve French, Brigid Geist, Alice Gibbs,Alice Gomer, Suzie Gretz, Christopher Gunstone, Alan Haigh, Michael Hargrave, AlanHarris, Keith Harmon, Barbara Harvey, Sheila Harvey, Peter Henderson, Martin Hatton,

Mick Hodges, Sybil Hunot, Ruthy Isadore, Neil Jacobson, Arwen James, Helene JeanVenturoli, Mark Jennings, Helen Johnston, Bryan Jones, Tanya Jones, John Joyce, PaulaKeyhoe, Fabri Kramer, Peter Kyte, Liam Lannigan, Solange LaRose, Gavin Latin, JohnLayt, Maurice Lewis, John Lingford, Fiona Lissauer, Claire Lowe, Sarah Lucas, PeterMarchant, John Marshall, Yvonne Masson, Becca McHugh, Charlotte Meynell, GraemeMitchell, Miriam Molnarova, Deborah Nadal, Odette Nelson, Lesley OConnor, JerryOMahony, Theresa OMahony, Damon Ortega, Sigrid Padel, Jill Reese, Olga Retka, TomRobinson, Sue Rowell, Rachel Sawczyc, Maryon Shaddock, Una Shanahan, ColletteSheehan, Ged Shipp, Toni Simms, Margaret Sparks, Selina Springbett, Brian Stanley,Sarah Stanley, Karen Stevens, Sally Stott, Iain Sutherland, Ann Sydney, Marizio Tarzia,Guy Taylor, Elizabeth Tearle, Sophie Thring, Thais Torra, Pat Wakeham, Jo Warren,Hugh Wang, Marion Watson, Shamayim Watson, Ann Watkins, Jean Whiting and Tim

Wilkins.


31/71


26


7 Bibliography and references

Cohen, N. 2012, A Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Survey atthe Tower of London Foreshore. Unpublished MOLA/TDP document.

Colvin, H. 1975, The History of the Kings Works. HMSO

Cowie, R. & Blackmore, L. 2008, Early and Middle Saxon Settlement in the LondonRegion, MOLAS Monograph No. 41.

Historic Royal Palaces and Oxford Archaeological Unit (HRP and OAU) 1998, TheTower of London Moat: A Summary History of the Tower Moat, Based on Historicaland Archaeological Research Undertaken for the Tower Environs Scheme.

Keay, A. 2001, The Elizabethan Tower of London, London Topographical Society.Keevil, G. 2004, The Tower of London Moat, Historic Royal Palaces MonographNo. 1.

Parnell, G. 1993, The Tower of London. English Heritage.

Pearson, N. 1986, Excavations at the Tower of London Foreshore Site, Site CodeTLF86. Unpublished OAU report.

Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) Tower Key Site Information:http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/riverpedia/tower-of-london-riverpedia

Wragg E. 2013A, Tower of London. An Interim Archaeological ForeshoreAssessment Report. Unpublished MOLA/TDP document.

Wragg, E. 2013B, A Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Survey atthe Tower of London Foreshore. Unpublished MOLA/TDP document.

Wragg, E. 2013C, Tower of London Foreshore, London EC3. Written Scheme ofInvestigation for an Archaeological Foreshore Survey. Unpublished MOLA/TDPdocument.

Wragg. E. 2013D.Tower of London Foreshore, London EC3. An Archaeological

Foreshore Assessment Report. Unpublished MOLA/TDP document.

Wragg, E. 2013E.Tower of London Foreshore. Written Scheme of investigation foran Archaeological Foreshore Survey and Watching Brief. Unpublished MOLA/TDPdocument.

Wragg, E. 2014.Tower of London Foreshore, London EC3. An ArchaeologicalForeshore Assessment Report. Unpublished MOLA/TDP document.

Wragg, E. 2015.Tower of London Foreshore. Written Scheme of investigation foran Archaeological Foreshore Survey and Watching Brief. Unpublished MOLA/TDPdocument.


32/71


62


8 Appendix 1: Radio-carbon Dating Report

Information about radiocarbon calibration

RADIOCARBON CALIBRATION PROGRAM*CALIB REV7.0.0Copyright 1986-2013 M Stuiver and PJ Reimer*To be used in conjunction with:Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P.J., 1993, Radiocarbon, 35, 215-230.Annotated results (text) - -Export file - c14res.csv

FTH01_148UBA-24425Radiocarbon Age BP 1706 +/- 26Calibration data set: intcal13.14c # Reimer et al. 2013% area enclosed cal AD age ranges relative area underprobability distribution68.3 (1 sigma) cal AD 263- 275 0.162329- 386 0.83895.4 (2 sigma) cal AD 254- 303 0.272314- 398 0.728

FTH01_152UBA-24427Radiocarbon Age BP 1594 +/- 25Calibration data set: intcal13.14c # Reimer et al. 2013% area enclosed cal AD age ranges relative area underprobability distribution68.3 (1 sigma) cal AD 418- 434 0.208455- 469 0.150487- 533 0.64295.4 (2 sigma) cal AD 409- 538 1.000

FTH01_22UBA-24428Radiocarbon Age BP 63 +/- 23Calibration data set: intcal13.14c # Reimer et al. 2013*Invalid age* for this calibration curveReferences for calibration datasets:Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CECheng H, Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guilderson TP, Haflidason H,Hajdas I, Hatt C, Heaton TJ, Hogg AG, Hughen KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B,Manning SW, Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon JR, Turney CSM,van der Plicht J.IntCal13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0-50000 years calBPRadiocarbon 55(4). DOI: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947

Comments:* This standard deviation (error) includes a lab error multiplier.** 1 sigma = square root of (sample std. dev.^2 + curve std. dev.^2)** 2 sigma = 2 x square root of (sample std. dev.^2 + curve std. dev.^2)where ^2 = quantity squared.[ ] = calibrated range impinges on end of calibration data set

0* represents a "negative" age BP1955* or 1960* denote influence of nuclear testing C-14


33/71


63


NOTE: Cal ages and ranges are rounded to the nearest year whichmay be too precise in many instances. Users are advised toround results to the nearest 10 yr for samples with standarddeviation in the radiocarbon age greater than 50 yr.


34/71


64


9 Appendix 2: NMR OASIS archaeological report form

5.1 OASIS ID: thamesdi1-227593

Project details

Project name An archaeological foreshore assessment report. Tower of London,London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Short description ofthe project

A number of roundwood piles were recorded which may represent atleast two phases of an Anglo-Saxon fish trap. One possible large jetty ofelm construction was recorded towards the bottom of the foreshore, it ispossible that this may be of relatively early (pre 1295) date and may beassociated with a construction phase of the Tower. Two possible stairbases were recorded on a different alignment to the current 14th century

river wall and may be of similarly early date. The foundations of this riverwall were recorded as being exposed from the cofferdam installed for theconstruction of Tower Bridge for a length of 31.60m westwards, up to amaximum depth of 0.76m. Cracks in the river wall were noted, and inone area the construction cut for the wall was recorded, sealed by c.17thcentury dumped deposits. Six phases of campshed or barge bedrevetment were recorded, their surviving height suggesting that theywere of late medieval or early post-medieval date A series of braces andre-used base-plates which had been previously interpreted as the basesof river stairs were re-interpreted as emergency revetments to protectthe base of the river wall. A probable baseplate structure of probablypost-medieval date was also recorded which may represent the remainsof a much later river stair. A further structure was recorded to the eastwhich appears to have been truncated by the cofferdam for the buildingof Tower Bridge and thus it was not feasible to attempt an interpretation.

Project dates Start: 12-07-2010 End: 04-08-2015

Previous/futurework

Yes / Yes

Any associatedproject referencecodes

FTH01 - Sitecode

Type of project Field evaluation

Site status Conservation Area

Current Land use Coastland 2 - Inter-tidalMonument type FLOOD DEFENCE Medieval

Monument type FLOOD DEFENCE Post Medieval

Monument type FISH TRAP Early Medieval

Monument type JETTY Medieval

Monument type HARD Medieval

Monument type HARD Post Medieval

Monument type LANDING STEPS Medieval

Monument type LANDING STEPS Post MedievalSignificant Finds N/A None


35/71


65


Methods &techniques

''Fieldwalking'',''Measured Survey'',''Photographic Survey''

Development type Estate management (i.e. maintenance of existing structures andlandscape by capital works and on-going maintenance)

Prompt Environmental (unspecified schedule)Position in theplanning process

Not known / Not recorded

Project location

Country England

Site location GREATER LONDON TOWER HAMLETS TOWER HAMLETS Tower ofLondon Foreshore

Postcode EC3N 4AB

Study area 900 Square metres

Site coordinates TQ 3364 8033 51.50558035202 -0.074202410139 51 30 20 N 000 04 27W Point

Project creators

Name ofOrganisation

Thames Discovery Programme/Museum of London Archaeology

Project brieforiginator

Thames Discovery Programme

Project designoriginator

Eliott Wragg

Projectdirector/manager

Stewart Hoad

Project supervisor Eliott Wragg

Type ofsponsor/fundingbody

Historic Royal Palaces

Type ofsponsor/fundingbody

Crown Estate

Type ofsponsor/funding

body

Heritage Lottery Fund

Project archives

Physical ArchiveExists?

No

Digital Archiverecipient

LAARC

Digital Contents ''Survey''

Digital Mediaavailable

''GIS'',''Survey'',''Text''

Paper Archiverecipient

LAARC


36/71


66


Paper Contents ''Survey''

Paper Mediaavailable

''Context sheet'',''Photograph'',''Plan'',''Report'',''Section'',''Survey'',''Unpublished Text''

Project

bibliography 1

Publication typeGrey literature (unpublished document/manuscript)

Title An archaeological foreshore assessment report. Tower of London,London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Author(s)/Editor(s) Wragg, E.

Date 2015

Issuer or publisher Thames Discovery Programme/Museum of London Archaeology

Place of issue orpublication

London

Description A4 Document

Entered by Eliott Wragg ([email protected])

Entered on 23 October 2015


37/71

FTH01

Fig 1 Site locationMULTI/1146

MOLA / TDP

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission ofthe Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead

to prosecution or civil proceedings. City of London 100023243 2011

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Meters

1:60,000


38/71

A325A326

A323

A312

A317

A320

A319A314

A311A315

A316

A313

A318

A

Documents

Tower of London Archaeological Foreshore Assessment Report