Archaeological Excavations at the North Annexe, York Guildhall

Overview | Roman activity | Anglo-Norman activity | The Augustinian Friary | Post-medieval and modern activity

9.1 Overview

Activity in the Roman period is represented by a sequence of landscaping and dumping interspersed with at least two building phases and occupation dating to the 2nd to 3rd century CE. A shift in land use seems to have taken place in the 3rd century CE, with domestic occupation replaced by dumping and eventually consolidated ground associated with a large retaining wall. Subsequent activity was sparse until the late 12th or early 13th century when preparations for re-establishing occupation of the area occurred, following which new structures appear and waste disposal took place. Population growth and increased prosperity during the 13th and 14th centuries provided the opportunity for the founding and development of an Augustinian friary on the site. The friary appears to have expanded and evolved throughout the 15th century, however, so thorough was its clearance following the Dissolution in the mid-16th century that little trace of friary buildings or their layout within its precinct survived.

Summary of the Roman sequence

Period 1: Natural Geological Processes

Observations from boreholes and piles demonstrate that the top of the glacial till slopes down towards the River Ouse, from a maximum height of 7.27m AOD at the north-east to 2.2m AOD at the south-western end of the site. At the north-eastern end of the site, in Excavation Area 2, an approximately 0.4m thick deposit of pebbly clay was found above the till. The higher deposit lacked the stratified make-up of the underlying glacial till, but whether the less structured appearance of the pebbly clay was the result of natural or anthropogenic processes remains unclear. One possibility is that deposition of this material relates to the landscaping undertaken in the late 1st or 2nd century CE.

Period 2: Late 1st to 2nd century CE landscaping and early dumping activity

The earliest definitively human activity observed involved clearance and re-profiling of a strip of land occupying space on the north-eastern bank of the River Ouse. It appears that terracing was carried out in front of the south-western side of the Legionary fortress close to where the main approach road from the south-west entered the fortress at the porta praetoria. The re-profiling involved the stripping away of turf and topsoil exposing the till beneath, resulting in a bank, onto which a gravel surface was laid, with flat platforms both above and below it. Overlying the lower part of the bank were a series of deposits which demonstrate that dumping from nearby occupation, most likely from within the fortress, was taking place perhaps not long after its construction.

Period 3: 2nd century CE building and occupation activity

Periods 3 and 4 span the 2nd century CE and saw buildings come to occupy the terrace at the foot of the gravel bank. A domestic character to this occupation is attested by the scale and make-up of the structures encountered and the finds uncovered, including the range and types of pottery and animal bone. Dumped deposits continued to accumulate on top of or close to the foot of the gravel bank, suggesting some of this area remained as open ground. Eventually both floors of structures and dumps were covered by deposits characteristic of building demolition. More dumping followed, from which an extensive range of late 1st to early 2nd century CE pottery was recovered, suggesting this material originated from a different source than the underlying structures, and perhaps the demolition deposits.

Period 4: Mid/late 2nd to early 3rd century CE structures, occupation activity and dumping

There seems to have been little or no hiatus between the clearance of the first building in Trench 2 and the construction of a new building at the site; indeed, the dumping between the two may have been intended to raise the ground level in order for new construction to begin. The Period 4 animal bone and pottery assemblages are the largest from any of the Romano-British periods at Guildhall North Annexe; this and their content demonstrates a continuation of high-status consumption at or in the vicinity of the site into the 3rd century CE.

Period 5: 3rd century CE structure and later Roman activity

In Excavation Area 2, the remains of a large 3rd century CE structure cut through earlier activity on the terrace at the foot of the bank and the Period 4 dumped deposits covering the bank itself. A clay bonded cobble and limestone foundation followed the north-west/south-east alignment defined by the topography of the site. Trench 2 and NA WB 8 revealed flat stony deposits dating to the 3rd century CE at a comparable height to the foundation. Another flat stony deposit was found at the base of Trench 3, a little over 6m south-west of Trench 2. This surface was present at a height around 2m lower than those further to the north-east, but the mid-3rd century date of pottery recovered from it suggests they could be contemporaneous, hinting at the presence of a lower terrace closer to the riverbank.

9.2 Roman activity

Periods 1–2, late 1st to early 2nd century CE

The Guildhall North Annexe site occupies a narrow stretch of land between the north-eastern bank of the River Ouse and the south-western frontage of the legionary fortress, which was established in the late 1st century CE. Wild plant species recovered from 2nd century CE deposits suggests the local environment was waterlogged, marshy and prone to periodic flooding, as might be expected in the environs of what was a tidal river at the time.

Landscaping in front of the legionary fortress

Activity at the site began in the late 1st or early 2nd century CE with a campaign of landscaping. It seems to have been the case that military necessity, to maintain an open field of view free of clutter and obstruction in front of the fortress, held back organised development of the civilian settlement on the south-western bank of the river opposite the Guildhall site until the latter part of the 2nd century CE (Roskams 1999, 60 and Ottaway 2011b, 91).

Terracing appears to have been an element of the landscaping, at least above the gravel bank. However, the creation of terraces elsewhere in Roman York seems to have been with the intention to produce platforms for building on rather than re-profiling simply for the sake of clearance or decluttering. In any case, buildings with a residential character would soon occupy the area (see Periods 3 and 4 below), suggesting a potential change in emphasis away from military defensive requirements towards necessities of a more civic nature. This does not necessarily preclude a military influence, and any extramural settlement or canabae on the north-eastern bank of the Ouse would, at least initially, have been under military supervision (RCHME 1962, xxxiv and Ottaway 2021, 65). Indeed, as Griffiths (see section 6.1) points out the range and types of pottery forms for Period 2 is consistent with early military and urban centres.

Dumping/waste disposal

Dumps of waste material accumulated soon after the area had been landscaped. Pottery and building material suggests that this waste originated from within the fortress, but whether this dumping was opportunistic or a deliberate land reclamation effort is not clear from the small scale of excavation. What is perhaps significant for the early use of the site is that, as McComish highlights (see section 6.7), building material is not present in sufficient quantity to suggest the presence of buildings in the immediate vicinity at this time.

Periods 3–4, mid-2nd to early 3rd century CE

Riverfront development at the site

Periods 3 and 4 coincide with the late Antonine period (c 160–192 CE) refurbishment of the legionary fortress, involving the upgrading of timber structures to stone (Ottaway 2021 68). The rebuilding programme was on a vast scale and, although initiated in the early part of the 2nd century CE, may not have been completed until the early part of the 3rd century CE (Ottaway 2011b, 67). It is conceivable that the recently cleared site at the North Annexe, Guildhall presented a convenient dumping ground for waste materials deriving from the rebuilding program.

Dumping of rubbish from within the fortress potentially accounts for much of the material found between the floors of buildings found on the terrace below the Phase 2 bank, including a layer of hardcore that served to level the ground immediately below the Period 3 floor in Trench 2. The deposits below and between the floors hint at a degree of organised deposition, potentially associated with the construction of buildings, perhaps with the intention of elevating structures to a level where the risk of flooding from the adjacent river was reduced.

The Period 3 building

Unfortunately, only the floors of Periods 3 and 4 structures were uncovered, and no walls were found that might provide a floor plan or extent of associated buildings. Clues as to the status of structures at the site can be inferred from building materials found above the floors. Some of the painted plaster above the Period 3 floor boasts an elaborate trellis design with leaves. Additionally, over-painting on some plaster demonstrates sufficient longevity for redecoration to have occurred.

The types and location of building debris gives some insight into the demolition process, which appears to have been careful and systematic with only materials not easily recycled left behind, for example the mortar and plaster, while other building materials such as CBM and masonry were almost completely absent. It may be that the building was constructed from organic materials, such as timber and thatch. The presence of mortar and plaster directly on top of the floor gives some credibility to that material originating from this room as it seems logical for wall plaster to have been stripped away early in the demolition process, and as we will see this was a pattern repeated following the abandonment of the Period 4 building a little further up the Trench 2 sequence.

Nevertheless, some uncertainty remains regarding the origin of the demolition material, and while much of the mortar and plaster was in large enough fragments to suggest nearby buildings were their source, the legionary fortress is close by and offers a credible alternative.

The Period 4 buildings

The successor to the Period 3 building in Trench 2 had a clay floor. A second structure, including the footing of a probable internal wall with occupation deposits to either side, was found at the same level in Excavation Area 2. The two appear to have stood at the same time, as when demolished they were sealed beneath very similar layers of demolition material.

As was the case with the Period 3 building large quantities of wall plaster covered the floors. This material could have been brought in from anywhere in the vicinity, but buildings on the site present a source that is at least as likely as buildings elsewhere. The quality of plaster above the Period 4 structures is much lower than that previously seen, giving the impression that the buildings were more utilitarian in character, or at least of lower status, implying a shift in status of occupation on the site with the transition from Period 3 to 4.

Subsequent activity at the site suggests that the lifespan of the second phase of buildings may have been short-lived. Demolition and clearance were followed by extensive dumping, much of which included an organic or cess-like component and an array of 2nd to 3rd century CE pottery. The dumping covered not just the area previously occupied by the buildings but also completely covered the gravel bank seen in Excavation Area 2. The effect would have been a reduction in the prominence of the bank's slope as it became obscured below dumping.

Material culture and status in the mid-2nd to early 3rd century CE

It is possible to say a little regarding the Period 3 and 4 occupants of the Guildhall North Annexe site and its vicinity. As highlighted above the building remains and finds assemblages demonstrate that a degree of comfort, if not prosperity, was being enjoyed.

The pottery assemblage from Period 3 and 4 points to high-status domestic activity at or close to the site with a strong military and urban character. An increase in the range and sources of vessels sustained across the mid-2nd and early 3rd centuries CE is also evident, reaching its peak in Period 4. In comparison with Period 2 a significant increase in the relative proportion of table wares occurred, alongside an increase in fine ware and a decrease in mortaria. However, as Griffiths points out the source of this material is not certain, for example rubbish dumping from the nearby fortress cannot be discounted. Generally, the assemblage demonstrates growth in contact and exchange with other parts of the province and the continent, reflecting a well-connected and economically successful settlement.

The relatively high status of that part of the population occupying the site, or at least using it for refuse disposal, is also reflected in the animal bone assemblage (see section 7.1). A different pattern of consumption or deposition of animal bone compared to other parts of the settlement has been identified, with a higher ratio of pig bones in comparison to cattle bones than would be expected. This could reflect that processing of cattle carcasses was taking place away from the centre of the settlement, which stands in contrast to other central sites such as 24–30 Tanner Row. The proportion of chicken bones in the assemblage is also high when compared to other major Roman towns, again perhaps reflecting a high status of consumption.

The few personal items that were recovered also reflect a potential for a diversity of sources while going some way to offering insight to the identity of those occupying the area, for example the fragment of mirror (SF68) and keys (SF65 and SF195) from Period 3 deposits. A bone hair pin (SF22) is particularly evocative, this object shows a hand in profile holding an object that is usually interpreted as an egg or pomegranate. This type of decorative object is rare: two other examples from York, both in copper alloy, are held at the Yorkshire Museum. A second carved bone example has recently been found at 105–111 Micklegate, where early indications are that this example was recovered from deposits relating to occupation dating to the 2nd or 3rd century CE (Loffman pers. comm.), offering some potential parallel with the Guildhall object. Banfield (2024, 170) notes the rarity of this type of object suggesting it was a special commission, the wealth and high-status of the owner reflected by its bespoke character.

A military style copper alloy buckle plate (SF213) has also been found in association with one of the Period 4 buildings, and we know from inscriptions that many veterans remained in York after their time of service and that some had families.

Collectively the finds and structural remains depict a moderately affluent domestic setting, perhaps occupied by veterans and their families, some of whom could have made their homes on or close to the site.

The context of site development from the mid-2nd century CE

The material evidence portrays a residential district characterised by the consumption of goods, with a notable absence of craft working, industrial activity, or any obvious commercial purpose. This perhaps offers some distinction from other areas of the extra-mural settlement. The broader context for development of a residential district between the legionary fortress and the River Ouse north-west of the river crossing in the late 2nd and early 3rd century CE is that of a rapidly evolving urban landscape where districts or zones defined by their topographical placement, access to communication routes and emphasis or concentration of particular activities were experiencing a period of change. Arguably central to these changes was the Late Antonine period programme of construction in the fortress from around 160–192 CE, including the re-digging of the ditch and reconstruction and widening of the rampart behind the wall (Ottaway 2021, 68).

Change is apparent at other locations between the fortress and the north-eastern bank of the River Ouse. At 39–41 Coney Street, granaries constructed from timber had been sited adjacent to the riverbank close to the south corner of the fortress since the late 1st century CE. The last of these was dismantled in the mid-2nd century CE and replaced in the late 2nd to mid-3rd century CE with other buildings which are not thought to have been used as stores (Hall 1986, 16–20). The end of commercial activity here seems to have occurred around the same time that the first building (Period 3) in Guildhall Trench 2 appeared, although construction of the later Coney Street buildings perhaps did not start until Guildhall Period 4 was underway.

Timber and masonry buildings dating to the 1st and 2nd century CE have also been found close to the junction of Spurriergate and High Ousegate, again in close proximity to the riverbank and the south corner of the fortress, first in 1959, with more uncovered at 7–15 Spurriergate in 2005. The earliest phase of buildings at Spurriergate predates those at the Guildhall by perhaps as much as 50 years but occupation assigned to the 2005 excavation's Trench 6 Phases 1C and 1D are likely to have been contemporary with Guildhall Periods 3 and 4. Additionally, the character of the Period 3 and 4 structures at the Guildhall resonates with the buildings at 7–15 Spurriergate, for example the recovery of large quantities of opus signinum demonstrates a degree of status comparable to that suggested by painted plaster at the Guildhall, while a post-built structure with a sandy mortar-like floor, found in Trench 10, is analogous to the flimsy Period 4 structure at the Guildhall (RCHME 1962, 59–60, fig. 49; MAP 2005, 70–4, 85–6 and 89).

The mid to late 2nd century CE began to see the emergence of riverfront development on the opposite bank of the Ouse from the Guildhall site, here a zone immediately adjacent to the north-western side of the southern approach road assumed a distinct commercial character. This is evidenced by finds at Wellington Row, 5 Rougier Street and 24–30 Tanner Row (Ottaway 2011b, 94–97). Evidence for construction, or reconstruction of a bridge, between the two is inferred by the discovery at Wellington Row (directly opposite the Guildhall), of a cobble and gravel causeway that served to elevate Road 10 on its approach to the river, a necessity to mitigate the height difference between the lower south-western side of the river and the more elevated north-eastern bank occupied by the fortress (Ottaway 2011b, 93–4, figs.9 and 47).

Demand for materials, commodities and services necessary to facilitate the 2nd and 3rd century CE growth of the town could have stimulated the emergence of commercial and manufacturing activity south-west of the Ouse. Ease of access to key communication routes would have been fundamental to sustaining activity here and a key consideration in selecting this particular location in the first place, perhaps encouraging relocation of commerce from other sites such as the 39–41 Coney Street warehousing. Alternatively, increased pressure on areas desirable for residential use might have stimulated movement. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but at least imply a degree of planning reliant on local administration rather than purely private initiative, not dissimilar to that which must have been necessary for the construction of a massive artificial terrace at Bishophill in the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE (McComish 2015, 14). Certainly, the archaeological evidence is not extensive enough to offer much more than speculation on this point, but the limited information we have suggests that the rise of commercial activity south-west of the river was occurring alongside the emergence or expansion of a residential district opposite, on the north-eastern bank.

Period 5, 3rd and 4th century CE

Whether the presence of a substantial 3rd century CE masonry structure superseding the earlier buildings at Guildhall North Annexe represents a significant change in how this area was being utilised is difficult to say with any certainty. Nonetheless, the apparent change in land use sits within a context of changes to how the town functioned, for example national and regional pottery types dominate an assemblage that was significantly smaller than previously seen, suggesting a more self-sufficient economy had developed, albeit one where continental and Mediterranean imports remained available in small quantities. There is, however, a little that can be said about the structure and the stony deposits adjacent to it in how they compare to the Phase 3 and 4 buildings and other Roman buildings known in the vicinity, this then presents an opportunity to explore what factors may have motivated this change.

Setting and context of change in the 3rd century CE

The praetentura barrack blocks at Blake Street were rebuilt in stone in the 2nd century CE; here, the Main Range was constructed on clay and cobble foundations up to 1m wide supporting masonry walls 0.55–0.6m thick (Hall 1997, 340, fig.234). This is somewhat smaller than the Guildhall Period 5 foundation which, at up to 1.7m wide and at least 1m deep, bears closer comparison with Interval Tower SW5 (approximately 80m north of the Guildhall North Annexe site) whose foundations were in the range of 1.4 to 1.6m across and 1 to 1.1 m deep (Sumpter and Coll 1977, 75), or those of a masonry structure found during construction of the Lendal Post Office in 1883 which were approximately 1.5m wide (RCHME 1962, 61, fig. 50). Other masonry walls of smaller scale were also recorded at the Post Office site, although their location is not specified by the RCHME and they are not thought to have necessarily been part of the larger building (Sumpter and Coll 1977, 61). Unfortunately, we know nothing of the date, function or lifespan of the Post Office site buildings beyond the use of masonry at a large scale, but this in and of itself may reasonably be taken to indicate a later 2nd or 3rd century CE date for those structures.

Large scale reorganisation south-east of the fortress was clearly underway in the early part of the 3rd century CE. New streets were laid out and large stone-built structures begin to appear, including baths and temples, for example inscriptions found in the 1830s at the former Midland Bank on the corner of Nessgate and High Ousegate are associated with temples, including one dedicated to Hercules (RCHME 1962, 119 and Ottaway 2011b, 88). Meanwhile, as has been seen at 39–41 Coney Street and 5 Spurriergate, other buildings were being removed, in this instance to make way for a new road, part of what the RCHME designates as Road 2 (RCHME 1962, 3). This route runs from the south-east to near the porta praetoria where a crossroads is formed with Roads 10 and 5, the latter continuing north-west ultimately to join with Roads 6 and 7 en route to Cataractonuim (Catterick).

Evolution of the local road network

Projecting a line between the nearest known locations of Road 2 (39–41 Coney Street) and Road 5 (Museum Gardens) would see Road 5 pass close to the north-east of Excavation Area 2 and place an intersection with Road 10 approximately 50m south-east of the North Annexe site, more-or-less at the front door of the 15th century Guildhall building. This poses the question as to whether the succession of compacted sand and cobble surfaces found below the South Range of the Guildhall might be part of Road 2 or 10, and if Road 5 could have passed along a terrace north-west of their junction, potentially with the Period 5 wall retaining ground alongside. Intriguingly, Raine (1955, 145) recounts observing a layer of cobbles sloping down (presumably towards the river) just outside the Guildhall entrance, which he interprets as part of a Roman road, the banks either side of which were strengthened with a retaining wall. Unfortunately, it is not noted whether the retaining walls extended parallel to the road as it sloped down, holding back banks to either side, or if it ran perpendicular to Road 10 as might be concluded from the Period 5 structure observed in Excavation Area 2.

No convincing evidence for a road found at the North Annexe site. The stony surfaces south-west of the wall foundation lacked sufficient structural cohesion to credibly be interpreted as forming part of a road. That said, there is no indication that any road was in place up to the inside (north-east) edge of the wall. Here the latest deposits present between the 1st/2nd century CE gravel bank and the wall foundation had clearly been impacted by disturbance relating to robbing out of the wall in the 12th century; had these been sealed by a road they would surely have been shielded from the depredations of demolition or robbing activities.

The terraces and the South Range surfaces have the advantage of providing a flat level area desirable for a major junction. Alternatively, the crossroads could have been situated further north-east, closer to the porta praetoria. Road surfaces are present under the Mansion House approximately 25–30m north-east of the Guildhall South Range. The road found here was 1–1.2m higher, while the 1st to 2nd century CE date assigned to it suggests it is more likely to belong to Road 10 on its rise from the river crossing to the fortress gateway. This change in elevation could be seen to demonstrate how important terracing would have been in facilitating the passage of traffic along the north-west/south-east axis in front of the fortress.

The balance of municipal influence and economic adjustment

Whatever the catalyst, a degree of gentrification is apparent across the settlement at this time and the prospect of a large masonry building occupying the Guildhall site in the 3rd century CE cannot be totally dismissed; indeed, the buildings seen below the Post Office could very well be contemporaneous and add context to this, but there remains a distinct possibility that buildings were cleared from in front of the fortress to be replaced with hard standing and a retaining wall. Removing clutter here may have been desirable to enhance or at least not detract from the appearance of the rebuilt south-western frontage of the fortress. Plausibly this reflects a continuation or re-establishment of military authority governing decision-making in this zone, something perhaps supported by the recovery of a fine enamelled military buckle plate from one of the stony surfaces.

The decision to relocate or remove residential occupation from the site in the early 3rd century CE appears to have had long-lasting implications for how the river front zone was used. Some late 3rd and 4th century CE pottery was present in medieval deposits, as were four 4th century CE coins, implying a continued utilisation of the site but there is no evidence to suggest that intensive occupation returned to the site over the course of the 4th century CE, a time when the settlement inside and outside the fortress went into decline (Roskams 1999, 60). What followed appears to have been a prolonged hiatus exemplified by the complete lack of immediately post-Roman pottery and the very small proportion of Anglo-Scandinavian wares present. Not until the late 11th or 12th century robbing of the retaining wall and dumping above the stony deposits in Trenches 3 and 4 does a measure of exploitation begin to re-emerge at the site.

9.3 Anglo-Norman activity

Period 6, Late 11th to early 13th century

Following the demise of the Roman settlement, Palliser argues, on the basis of numismatic evidence, for a revival of York as a major economic centre in the reign of Adfrith, King of Northumbria 685–c 705 (Palliser 2014, 34–5). The distribution of Anglian find spots within both the fortress and colonia demonstrate occupation of these districts in the 7th–9th centuries CE (Kemp 1996, 3); the same cannot be said for the Guildhall where no material evidence, pottery or indeed any other artefact type could be attributed to this period. This perhaps emphasises the marginal position of this zone outside of the fortress despite proximity to both the River Ouse and its bridging-point.

Evidence for any early medieval activity at the site was instead extremely limited and largely reliant on a small assemblage of 9th to late 11th century CE Anglo-Scandinavian pottery, representing less than 2% of the post-Roman pottery, much of which was found residually in later medieval deposits.

A handful of late 11th century pottery sherds found in association with robbing of Roman structures implies an exploitation of resources rather than necessarily a return of occupation to the area, but whether this occurred prior to the Norman Conquest is by no means certain. Use of the site at this time is, nonetheless, hinted at by antler off-cuts in deposits close to the base of Trench 4 and their occurrence residually in later deposits and features which perhaps points to some limited form of occupation associated with craft working.

The first medieval structures on the site belong to the late 12th or early 13th century and Norman architectural styles are apparent from masonry and roofing material, which are indicative of high-status buildings in the vicinity. The presence of new structures was accompanied by an increase in waste disposal, mainly within pits but dumping was also taking place. Evidence is limited to the study of samples from a single borehole but there is some suggestion that land reclamation along the river margin was associated with improving the quality of soil in damp meadows and was linked to cultivation of cereals. Quite how or why cultivation of land to the rear of high-status properties occupying burgage plots fronting onto Coney Street was desirable, appropriate or even necessary is unclear and it may be that wheat cultivation in the 12th century was only short-lived, soon superseded by further ground reclamation which itself may have been in response to adjustments in seasonal river levels as wetter and drier periods have been demonstrated as ground levels dramatically increased into the 13th century.

Intriguingly, cultivation later returned, this time hulled barley, a fodder crop, was produced. Pinning a date to this phase of cultivation has not been straightforward. Radiocarbon dates from borehole BH03 suggest a mid-13th century date is most likely, but artefacts recovered from nearby tend towards a late 11th of 12th century date for activity at or around the height this later cultivation was identified at. In the mid-12th century orchards are described as occupying land to the rear of properties fronting onto North Street (Kemp 1996, 75), again giving an impression of marginal land prone to flooding and not suited to occupation.

9.4 The Augustinian Friary

Period 7, Mid-13th to mid-14th century

Major societal and economic changes were well underway in England by the 12th century, reflected in York by increased prosperity and population growth, prompting urban merchants and craftsmen to assert themselves by pushing for greater influence in civic matters (Palliser 2014, 113–14). The result was a growth in civic government in the 13th century (Rees Jones 2013, 109). This was not occurring in isolation and the later 12th century saw a new relationship develop between the King and his barons, an effect of which can be seen through changes in property ownership across the city and along Coney Street in particular (Rees Jones 2013, 109).

Key to this change was the dispersal of local gentry away from Coney Street to other locations as diverse as Walmgate and Bishophill by the 14th century (Rees Jones 2013, 131). Transfer of ownership would see the development of future public buildings, a prime example being the predecessor to the current 15th century Guildhall: originally the property of Gerard and Hugh, sons of Lefwin, it became a civic common hall in 1256 (Rees Jones 2013, 197). York's Jewish community also became an important presence on Coney Street, acquiring several properties there by the mid-13th century (Rees Jones 2013, 203).

The transfer of royal and baronial sites to religious foundations was also a common occurrence in York during the 13th and 14th centuries, the city becoming one of nine English towns to host all four of the main orders. By 1230 the Dominicans were present on part of the King's House curtilage south-west of the Ouse and Franciscans on land north-east of the Ouse adjacent to York castle. The Carmelites initially settled north of the city around 1253 before relocating to land between Fossgate and Hungate north of the River Foss. The Augustinians were relative latecomers, but are of particular relevance, as by 1272 they had acquired land between Old Coney Street (now Lendal) and the River Ouse, central to which is the Guildhall North Annexe site (Palliser 2014, 128, 153; Addyman 2015, Maps 5 and 6).

Change at Guildhall North Annexe in the mid-13th century is characterised by the removal of structures, small parts of which were encountered in Trenches 3 and 4, and subsequent elevation to the ground level. The landscaping appears to have occurred prior to construction of a new building sited near the river in an area subject to considerable land reclamation that had, perhaps relatively recently, seen cereal cultivation. The north-east side of the building extended across Trench 4 where a large hearth was also present. The size of the hearth hints at a large-scale building even though no other structural elements remained intact, and although no definitive link could be established with a horizon of limestone rubble observed in a borehole to the south-west, what may be debris relating to construction or demolition of this building lies approximately 7.5m from its north-eastern extent.

Four factors influence our understanding of this building, and by association the early Augustinian friary; its apparent large scale, its location away from the street front close to the river, a domestic character, as suggested by the clean, well-maintained hearth, and a lifespan that starts in the mid-13th century and continued up to the mid-14th century.

A continuation of substantial Norman houses fronting Coney Street to the Guildhall North Annexe site seems very probable. A stone hall certainly neighboured to the south-east, later to develop into the Guildhall, so construction of a large building here in the mid-13th century might not be in and of itself evidence of new ownership. However, it was larger than preceding structures on this part of the site. In addition, other factors such as demolition of earlier buildings and a new waste disposal regime place construction of this building within a period characterised by significant change. Its siting approximately 50m back from the street and within 20m of the river might reflect a necessity to adopt a previously marginal area at a time when space was constrained, either by the clearance or adaptation of existing buildings in more prominent positions, in all likelihood occupying higher ground at the north-eastern end of the site closer to the street. A domestic character to occupation is reflected by the remains of the building and the content of the large rubbish pits found north of it. Management of waste disposal offers another distinction from earlier periods, the larger rubbish pits hinting at an increased population with greater resources at their disposal. The exception to the pattern of domestic refuse disposal is the late 11th to 13th century roofing material found at the top of one pit which, if anything, adds further evidence of the clearance of earlier high-status buildings on the site. A possible candidate is presented by the wall foundation at the eastern side of Excavation Area 2. Lastly, the building continued in use until a reorganisation within the friary precinct took place, probably around the mid-14th century, well into the timeframe of Augustinian occupation of the site.

The structural and other remains assigned to Period 7 demonstrate a period of change associated with the founding and early life of the Augustinian friary, and hint at alignments governed by the physical constraints of the site. However, the limited nature of the physical remains can do little more than provide an appreciation that change was occurring around the time that historical evidence tells us of the Augustinian presence. We can only guess at the reasoning behind the acquisition of property here: the availability of the land or a bequest from a prominent individual or family could have been reason enough, although what the VCH terms 'unverified tradition' states that seven houses were bought to found the friary (VCH 1961, 361). Whatever the case, the site's location offered clear benefits, proximity to key communication routes perhaps foremost among these. Access to the river would have been attractive, for example other monastic institutions acquired land near the Ouse or Foss to provide convenient warehousing sites for wool shipments (Palliser 2014, 119). The road network as well would have been important, with Coney Street providing easy access to St. Mary's Abbey to the north-west and Ouse Bridge, rebuilt in stone in 1155, to the south-east (Rees Jones 2013, 95). Connecting the road and the river were the common lanes and landings, two of which lie either side of the friary precinct. To the south-east was Common Hall Lane, later covered over when the Guildhall was rebuilt in the mid-15th century, and to the north-west St. Leonard's landing and ferry where quarried stone was brought up from Tadcaster for construction of the Minster and other buildings, including the Guildhall (Raine 1955 146–7).

Period 8, 14th century land division and associated structures

Historical documents provide some useful, if limited, information on the Augustinian land ownership in York, of which expansion of landholding during the second half of the 14th century was an important part, influencing and perhaps even acting as the catalyst for significant change.

From the beginning the north-eastern and south-western boundaries were constrained by Old Coney Street and the River Ouse respectively. The original north-western and south-eastern boundaries is, however, less certain. The suggestion that seven houses were bought at the founding of the friary points to burgages existing at the site by the mid-13th century. Urban manors were often subdivided into rows of tenements, typically 1 to 3.5 perches in width, presenting an interesting correlation with the seven houses obtained for the friary (Rees Jones 2013, 71). The local perch width in York has been calculated at 18 feet, approximately 5.5m (Rees Jones 2013, 41), equating to a potential street frontage of 126 feet or 38.5m, a distance matched almost exactly by that of properties running from 6 to 18 Lendal, the modern equivalent of Old Coney Street, which occupy a street frontage measuring 38.65m. To their north-west is a lane running down towards what was St. Leonard's landing, the City River Cruises boatyard today, which conceivably represents the legacy of a much earlier boundary. Without more evidence this lane presents a best guess for the extent of the friary in that direction.

More properties were added in the second half of the 14th century, five between 1353 and 1370, a narrow plot of land near Old Coney Street, recorded as lying near the friary church and extending from a corner of the precinct's old wall to the old gate, was donated in 1382, followed in 1391 by yet another plot on Old Coney Street (VCH 1961, 361). A south-east expansion of the friary, bringing it close to Common Hall Lane and the Guildhall would seem a plausible location for these acquisitions, although growth to the north-west encompassing properties backing onto St. Leonard's Landing remains a possibility. It seems that Augustinian landholding perhaps nearly as much as doubled over a 40-year period up to the end of the 14th century.

How much of this new land was directly absorbed into the friary precinct is not known, but the construction of new buildings and reorganisation of space occurring around this time demonstrates a significant evolution of the friary that the provision of additional space would have enabled. Nevertheless, the addition of greater space appears to have had little effect on the alignment of new buildings. The physical constrains of the site, determined by the River Ouse as much as in earlier periods, proved to be a major influence on building alignment, consequently buildings were arranged either north-east/south-west or on the same north-west/south-east orientation of the burials in the graveyard.

As we have seen, documentary evidence records the friary church as located near Old Coney Street within a walled precinct that had a gateway onto Old Coney Street (VCH 1961, 361). However, nothing else is known regarding the layout of buildings within the precinct, although documentary sources record some of the changes which were made over time, these include the gift of 100 marks by Thomas Gare, a merchant and Lord Mayor of York in 1420–1, for plumbing works in a new dormitory, while a donation was made towards building of the cloister in 1452 (Raine 1955, 131–2). This implies potential large-scale remodelling, some 60 years after the last recorded acquisitions for the friary on Old Coney Street.

The remains from this period imply a substantial north-east/south-west aligned wall (Phase 30), with a parallel wall to the northeast added in Phase 32 and with subsequent additions and repairs to the Phase 30 wall in Phase 33. Others structural evidence was also found to the north-east, whilst to the south, the evidence appeared to be almost completely funerary in nature, including at least four rows of burials.

It is difficult to fully interpret these walls. Given their location towards the rear of the precinct it seems unlikely that they were part of the church, as this probably fronted onto the street to provide easy access for the secular congregation. One possibility is that the two walls represent a cloister passage; the walls are just over 3m apart, which is the right size for such a feature, and if so the burials to the south-east would have been within the cloister garth. If, however, this was a cloister walk it would have been a prime location for burials, and there were none, which may suggest that it was not a cloister passage. The presence of brick piers to support a suspended floor would also seem to argue against this.

Comparative sites by J. M. McComish

The survival of urban friary buildings across England, which may otherwise have provided insight into the layout of the Augustinian friary at the Guildhall site, is poor. This is because the buildings were sold off at the time of the Dissolution and most were subsequently heavily adapted or demolished as part of the process of urban change and redevelopment. Major archaeological excavations at Augustinian friaries include Hull, Cambridge, Warrington, Leicester, Winchester and London (Evans 2000, 20–2; Cessford and Neil 2022, 387; Heawood et al. 2002, 136 and 181; Mellor and Pearce 1981, fig.2; Cessford and Neil 2022, 396; Holder et al. 2013, fig.12), but nowhere has a complete urban precinct been excavated, which is simply a reflection of the usually constricted nature of urban archaeological excavations.

Friaries were not laid out to any standard plan even within individual orders (Butler and Given-Wilson 1979, 58). For example, the Austin friaries in Leicester and London both had a church with a cloister to the north that had a second cloister to the north of the first (Mellor and Pearce 1981, fig.2; Holder et al. 2013, fig.12). In contrast, at Warrington the cloister was to the south of the church (Heawood et al. 2002, 136) while at Cambridge the first cloister was located to the south of the church with a second cloister south of the first one (Cessford and Neil 2022, fig.4).

Friaries were often built in a piecemeal fashion, usually starting with the church. For example, in the case of London, the Austin friars took over and existing church or chapel dedicated to St Olave in the late 13th century which they enlarged by adding an aisle; in the late 13th century they built the cloister, starting work on a large nave for preaching in the second quarter of the 14th century and adding a second cloister to the north of the first cloister in the final quarter of the 14th century (Holder et al. 2013, 145 and 158).

One aspect of the evidence excavated at the Guildhall site that provides some clue to the layout there is that of the graveyard and its inhabitants. The possibility of burial of both males and females, and juveniles as well as adults suggests at least some were secular individuals.

Archaeologically burials are known from various locations within Augustinian friary precincts including the church, cloister passages, cloister garth, chapter house and in precinct cemeteries (Cessford and Neil 2022, 395–6 and fig.4; Heawood 2002, 138–47; Mellor and Pearce 1981, 22, 26 and 37; also see Tomlinson nd, 12). Presumably donors got what they paid for, with the wealthy being able to obtain burials in the most prestigious burial locations notably the church, chapter house, or cloisters, while the poorer donors were buried in the cemetery. In the case of York, so little is known of the layout of the precinct it is impossible to know with any certainty how the burials seen in the present excavations related to the rest of the precinct; they could be from within a cloister garth or within a cemetery.

The friary appearance by J. M. McComish

Little is known of the appearance of the friary in York. Only 13 medieval architectural fragments were recovered during the excavations which give very little indication as to the style of the buildings concerned. Two of these were reused fragments within wall foundation C8092, and it is impossible to know if these originated from an earlier building within the friary of from a building which predated it. The remaining fragments were from deposits relating to the demolition of the friary or later, as such they could have originated from anywhere within the friary so cannot be attributed to any specific building such as the church or cloister. That said, the fragments included a block with integral capital with a water leaf design of 12th–13th century date and five perpendicular items dating to 1350–1540, including four window mullions and a small fragment of tracery; these indicate that at least two phases of building works were represented.

Several friaries have yielded evidence for tiled floors including London, Cambridge, and Leicester (Holder et al. 2013, 155; Cessford and Samuel 2023, 176; Mellor and Pearce 1981, 31 and 70). Just four inlaid floor tiles and six plain glazed floor tiles were recovered at the site in York, which probably originated from the friary, but all were residually occurring. Nonetheless, they indicate that tiled floors were present, potentially representing at least three phases of tiled flooring, as suggested by the presence of one Nottinghamshire tile dating to 1325–1365, two Huby-Percy tiles dating to c. 1500, and one Trans-Pennine tile of late 15th century date.

Six fragments of crested ridge tiles were recovered from the present excavations, one of which had deep green glaze, but all the fragments were very poorly preserved. Crested ridge tiles are also known from the Austin friary at Leicester (Cessford and Samuel 2023, 175).

No window glass was recovered at the York Guildhall site, but this may simply be a reflection of where within the precinct the excavation took place (if the excavation trenches were not within the church, glass might not be expected).

9.5 Post-medieval and modern activity

Periods 9 and 10: Post-medieval and modern activity

The friary was surrendered on 28th November 1538 (Raine 1955, 133) and the following year leased to Sir George Lawson, a wealthy city alderman and Crown official who owned a mansion on Lendal (Palliser 2014, 271 and 285), and in whose family it remained until 1568.

In his request to Thomas Cromwell, at this time Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the friary grounds Lawson describes the site as 'small in extent, with no ground but a little kitchen garden adjoining the walls of my house' (VCH 1961, 361). This is perhaps something of an understatement of the scale of a site that had been at one point considered for housing the Council in the North, as Lawson was seeking a free gift of it before finally accepting a 21-year lease (VCH 1961, 361). The suggestion that there was 'no ground but a little kitchen garden' might not necessarily be inaccurate, perhaps a deliberate attempt to underplay a site with built-up character. Lawson's statement also raises an interesting question regarding the extent of the friary precinct and where it sat in relation to neighbouring properties, but unfortunately the exact location of Lawson's Lendal property is not known.

A 1540 account roll of St. Thomas's Hospital records the sale of roofing lead from the Augustinian friary (Raine 1955, 133). Its buildings then appear to share the same fate as many medieval monasteries, effectively becoming a quarry of easily accessible stone. The result was the complete disappearance of the friary above ground level with the exception of part of the precinct wall along the river front.

Redevelopment of the site is not apparent until 1714 when nos. 10, 12 and 14 Lendal were built by Henry Baines, the gardens of which encompass the location of the Guildhall North Annexe site. Originally built as a pair of three storey town houses, these properties still stand today with the ground floors converted into commercial premises in the 19th century. Conversion work in the basement of no.12 in 1959 uncovered 15th century stonework, presumably belonging to the friary (RCHME 1981, 155). From the end of the 19th century, the Guildhall complex expanded into gardens at the rear of nos. 12 and 14 Lendal, including the North Annexe in around 1902 and the 'Hutments' in 1945.

Acknowledgements

The project was managed by Ian Milsted (Head of Fieldwork, York) and the fieldwork overseen by Thomas Coates (Project Officer) and Ben Savine (Project Officer) supported by Clare Jackson-Slater (Project Officer) and Paul Howlett (Supervisor). Post-excavation processing was overseen by James Badger and Nienke van Dorn, reporting and publication was administered by Kate Allenby with the assistance of Franchesca Birtles, and publication editing was undertaken by Dr Kris Poole. Figures were produced by Lesley Collett, Briannie Price, Ben Savine and Jane McComish.

York Archaeology would like to thank the principal contractor Vinci, Claire MacRae, City of York Archaeologist, and City of York Council for their assistance and input into the project.

← Previous chapter