Page content begins after here
Founded 1955
Excavations at Elsyng Palace, July 2005: the East Wing of the Palace (Site code ENB05) by Martin J. Dearne
Introduction
Following the rather limited findings of the test pits cut in 2004 to check earlier magnetometry results which seemed to indicate the location of the gatehouse and an east range to the outer courtyard of Elsyng Palace in the grounds of Forty Hall (Society News 176), further work was undertaken in June and July of 2005.
With the benefit of the Ordnance Survey fixed points which the borough had installed in 2004 the Colchester Archaeological Group very kindly repeated part of their earlier magnetometry survey so that we could more precisely 'target' our excavation on the most promising of their features, and HADAS also surveyed much of the same area with resistivity equipment.
With funding from the borough and permission from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (as this is a scheduled ancient monument (LO59)) we then partially reopened one of our 2004 trenches (EGP04 Trench 1) over the presumed east wing and then successively extended it in an L shape to examine what still from magnetometry appeared to be a rectangular room in the wing (compare Society News 176 p6, with Fig. 1). The work took place on two successive weekends and some intervening days (9th to 17th July), culminating on the weekend of National Archaeology Week when progress reports were broadcast across London by LBC radio who were in attendance.
The Findings
Some 87 cm below the current turf surface we found what may be the undisturbed natural of the site, a deposit of rounded pebbles and cobbles in clayey silt (14), at +29.43m OD. Running at an angle right through the trench this had been cut by a large construction trench (20) holding an in tact Tudor arched brick and mortar drain (12). Though no part of this was removed, we uncovered nearly all of the top of it and part of the inside, which we could examine where a later chute had fed into it (Fig. 2). Internally it was 0.63 m high and c. 0.52 m wide with two lines of spacer tiles running its length near the apex, probably strengthening walls along its outer sides, a flat brick base and a fall of 1 in 38 to the north east (towards the presumed moat round the east side of the palace). After only the lower parts of the top of the drain and the strengthening walls had been covered by a grey, stony clayey silt (13), part of the roof of the drain had been removed and a rather crude mortared brick foundation (17) built round the hole, almost certainly for a wooden chute into the drain to sit on.
This means that the outer courtyard east range which the chute served was part of the same construction phase as the drain (? during the initial building of the palace in 1540), but the details at least of its sanitation had not been pre–planned (or had been misplanned).
Unfortunately the west wall of the range which must have crossed our trench was not found. It was evident on the magnetometry survey north and south of the trench but just here the presence of the drain probably ruled out substantial foundations, and this may have been where a door was located. However, the line of the wall was given by the meeting of contexts (5) and (11) (Fig. 3).
Context (5) was what in 2004 we had thought was a clay landscaping dump dating to after the demolition of the palace, but a full section through it showed it had been dumped straight on top of the drain, so it almost certainly formed the surface of the outer Tudor courtyard running up to the east wing. (The in situ smashed tiles in it in 2004 may have been surplus building materials from the wing.) Context (11), dumped over the rest of the length of the drain and round the chute into it, was by contrast a very clayey stony material probably dumped as floor make up inside the wing. However, the floor that had existed above it had been largely removed during demolition and much of (11) itself had been cut away or mixed with demolition deposits. Only approximately on or just behind the wall line where more of (11) was intact did a short length of dwarf brick wall survive (16). This was built within (11) and capped by large terracotta tiles which probably formed the floor surface (perhaps in the vicinity of the door threshold which could have had steps up to it).
Unfortunately this meant that nothing of the internal structure of the wing survived either, rather what we found was evidence for the demolition of the building, probably in 1657. On top of the dump forming the courtyard (5) was brick demolition rubble while to the east where (11) was cut away the void where the timber chute was removed had been filled in with dumps. Elsewhere (2 LOWER), consisting of a mixture of disturbed (11) and rubbish from the building, and probably demolition material, had been deposited to try to bring this area up to the same level as the courtyard surface. (2 LOWER) produced animal bone, the neck of a German salt glazed 'bellarmine' wine jug (Fig 5 No. 4.6) and a good deal of fairly fine pottery, much of it white or blue and white Southwark tin glazed earthenware ('delft ware') (Fig. 5 Nos 4.28 – 32) including half of a porringer (breakfast bowl) (Fig. 5 No. 4.29) as well as a clay pipe bowl (Fig. 5 No. 5.3) and a glass wine bottle (Fig. 5 No. 6.2) all dateable to the mid seventeenth century or earlier. The most useful dating evidence was however a jetton or Nuremburg Token (gaming piece) showing Louis XIV of France and the French royal arms issued at Nuremburg by Wolf Lauffer III between 1650 and 1670.
The finds in the dumps filling the chute and drain below were even more interesting. The floor of the drain had an original sterile silt (19) on it, but above it was filled to the top by a soil dump (7) and then the chute void by another (6) which incorporated a large dump of brick and tile rubble (10).
Between them they produced further wine bottles (Fig. 5 No. 6.2) and animal bones, nearly complete clay pipes probably broken in situ (Fig. 5 Nos 5.1 – 2), about a third of a glazed earthenware handled bowl (Fig 5 No. 4.16), part of a second large bowl (Fig. 5 No. 4.18), some window and vessel glass, iron nails, dressed flint and limestone blocks, a cut brick from an elaborate chimney (Fig. 5), pieces of glazed and polygonal floor tile (also found elsewhere), a variety of brick and tile fragments including grey 'glazed' ones perhaps from decorative diaper work and part of a moulded brick showing a bird's wing and clawed foot probably from an internal multi section armorial (Fig. 6).
After demolition (Fig. 4) we found that the area of the former courtyard had been covered with a rammed pebble surface (2 and 2 LOWER) (as found in 2004), while within the building, still lower than the courtyard surface to the west, further dumping to raise it up was represented by a soil (3) before it too was covered by the rammed pebble surface (4), though at one point either an area had been left uncovered or more likely it had disappeared through heavy wear.
Eventually this probable promenading surface of the second half of the seventeenth century went out of use to be covered by topsoil (1), subsequently in one area then disturbed by a later twentieth century pit (9 filled by 8).
Discussion
Whilst the results of the excavation are of course in themselves of importance in the ongoing process of understanding the layout, development and demise of the palace its particular aim was to check the nature of anomalies shown by magnetometry and resistivity and to what extent they can be used to 'map' the palace. This was fully achieved and the identification of not just the drain but also the dwarf wall on magnetometry plots allows increased confidence to be placed in the technique for this site (although resistivity survey was shown to be rather less applicable). Consequently the reality of the eastern wing of the outer courtyard, perhaps on magnetometry evidence as long as 38 +m and c. 6 – 7 m wide (Society News 167 p6), may be taken as confirmed while it is now apparent that the rectangular 'room' within it may be an illusion created by the passage of the excavated drain and possibly another further north across its line.
Unfortunately it is still unclear what function the east range served and whilst numbers of the finds imply a fair degree of architectural elaboration and internal fitments, as they were all from demolition contexts we cannot be sure that they derived from this part of the palace. Moreover almost all dateable material was early to mid seventeenth century and at best relates to the palace after it had passed from royal hands to the Earl of Pembroke, and some almost certainly to activity at the time of demolition.
Archive and Acknowledgements
This summary is taken from the much fuller archive report on the site by the author which we hope to enable members to consult at lecture meetings and to obtain at cost if there is sufficient interest (please see a member of the committee if you are interested). It in turn is part of a larger formal site archive lodged at Forty Hall where it is hoped to display some of the finds in due course.
The work would not have been possible without the financial support and permission of the London Borough of Enfield and the practical help of various of its officers, notably Lorraine Cox, Bob Jennings, Grahame Pink, Val Munday, Jan Metcalffe, Gavin Williams and Suzanne Linsey; and the support and advice of English Heritage, especially Dr. Steven Brindle. The author is very grateful as well to David and Aline Black of the Colchester Archaeological Group and members of HADAS led by Christian Allen for undertaking the geophysical surveys, and to all the EAS members who undertook the excavation, especially Mike Dewbrey (site supervisor), Peter Spindley and Jeremy Grove (surveying team) and Neil and John Pinchbeck (assistant site recorders). Finally this report is dedicated to the memory of our late chairman, Prof. Dennis Hill who was so instrumental in reinitiating EAS work on Elsyng Palace.