ABSTRACT
The evidence in question was uncovered on the Financial Times site in Cannon Street, about 200 yards south-east of St. Paul’s, in 1955 (35). The fringes of this site to north and south were comparatively unproductive. For some distance back from Cannon Street disturbance of all periods left little Roman material untouched: here a single mediaeval pit was interesting for its well-preserved wicker-work lining (Plate 7 1 : p. 16 1 below). To the south (Knightrider Street-Queen Victoria Street) the early features had vanished for a different reason. Knightrider Street, now in part eliminated by ‘re development’, lay near the edge of the 50-foot terrace, which here falls fairly sharply to the river-frontage level in Thames Street. The natural contours of the area were drastically modified by the construction of Queen Victoria Street in 1869. Cellars, built no doubt as part of this construction, had been terraced into the slope above the street, with the result that only the natural gravel had survived beneath their floors (p. 145). In the central part of the site a greater depth of artificial deposits re
mained. There was no brickearth, possibly because it had been removed in antiquity. The surface of the natural gravel lay 5-6 feet below the cellar floor and was much cut into by pits of various kinds, but the biggest distur bance was an irregular excavation, over 40 feet long as revealed in the cutting, and from 3-5 feet deep below the existing gravel surface. This hollow was filled with mixed deposits deliberately introduced and containing dark occupation material in irregular layers. It is most probably to be explained as a Roman gravel-pit, dug, no doubt, while this area was still outside the built-up extent of London. More important than this, however, were two later cavities, both dug
partly into the quarry-filling (Plate 67). As they presented themselves in the section it was thought that they might be hut-pits and this interpretation was in due course confirmed when the ground on each side of the original cutting was opened up. Of the two pits, that to the north was the smaller ( 1 12 feet long), its main axis roughly north-and-south (Plate 68). By an unfortunate accident its western half was destroyed unrecorded apart from one post-hole, but it must have been about 9 feet wide. The sides of the pit, recognisable to a height of just over 3 feet above its level floor, were practi cally vertical (section: Fig. 34). The lower part certainly had been boarded,
' 0m
the timber surviving as a sharp dense black line. There was an indication on the east side that the pit had been heightened by the addition of a bank of which a small portion remained. In the angles of the pit and at intervals along the sides were massive post-holes which looked as if they had been intended for tree-trunks split in half. Those on the sides in particular were D-shaped in plan, with their straight faces against the wall of the pit, where they had helped to keep the timber lining in place. These post-holes were normally more than a foot across and 1 5 inches or so deep. There was an uneven layer of unproductive occupation-soil over the hut-floor. Provision for an entrance must have been made on the west side of the pit. The second pit (322 by 17 feet: Plate 69) to the south was more com
plicated in its features, having existed apparently in at least two versions. It had also been much cut up by later pits and by recent cesspits and other structures. Its floor was about 6 feet below the cellar surface and the wall stood to a maximum height of 4 feet above that. Here the arrangement seems to have been that of a gully (or more probably a sleeper-trench) with very large post-holes at 3-4-foot intervals along it (Fig. 35). As with the first pit, the post-holes were often semi-circular, though less sharply cut, and rather more than a foot in depth. The site was somewhat damp, so that remains of timber had survived in a number of places. There were indica tions of at least two planked floors, as well as of wall-linings on the west and north sides. The entrance to the hut had clearly been through the middle of the south side. In spite of much destruction by later pits there were indications of a wooden sill or doorway and possibly also of a porch, only the eastern half of which had survived. In this summary account many details have been omitted, but enough
has been said to make clear the general character of the structures repre sented by these remains. They were rectangular huts sunk perhaps to at least half their total height into the ground, their roofs, presumably pitched, supported by remarkably large timber uprights. The immediate and obvious parallel for this combination of elements is provided by the Saxon huts which have become increasingly well known in this country since E . T. Leeds and G. C. Dunning published their discoveries at Sutton Courtenay and Bourton-on-the-Water in 19 2 1-6 and 1931 respectively.1 But while
the relationships of the London hut-hollows appear to be clear enough their actual date is less easy to decide, at any rate until the evidence from the site can be subjected to a more detailed examination than it has yet received. From at least one pit which was later than the second hut came pottery which, being of eleventh-century date, shows that the huts had been given up and were at least partly filled by early Norman times. The Financial Times huts must therefore be regarded as of at least late Saxon date, even if at the extreme end of the Saxon period. As such they constitute the earliest structural evidence for Saxon London on the secular side; though fairly certainly they must be the successors of earlier huts of similar type which have yet to be found. Suggestions of other such huts have been observed elsewhere. At
Bucklersbury, just off Cheapside (43: p. 133), on a much restricted site, a flat-bottomed hollow which merely projected into the cutting from the east may have been a small hut-pit. It was a little under 8 feet wide, 3 feet deep, and retained traces of two plank floors, one above the other-features which entirely differentiated this pit from others on the same site. At Addle Street (Wood Street) (21) amongst a confusion of mediaeval pits and other dis turbances were found the south-western angle and part of two sides of a larger hut-hollow on the Cannon Street model. The corner post-hole and two lateral post-holes had survived. The pit was deeper than elsewhere (5 feet), but there could be no mistaking its distinctive character (Plate 70). A second pit about 10 feet square by rather over 52 feet deep in the
same area was of the type of those that at Oxford and elsewhere have been interpreted as Saxon cellars.1 In the filling, which had been largely des troyed by a modern foundation, was a fragment of heavy floor-boarding. These disjointed fragments may be the last tangible signs of an occupation which was associated with the traditional site of the palace of the Saxon king Ethelbert in neighbouring Aldermanbury.2 Whatever the actual date of the huts, they make their contribution to a visual impression of London as it
2 Roy. Commission on Hist. MSS., gth Report, p. 44a.
