Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, Ec1m 6Bq

QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, CHARTERHOUSE SQUARE, EC1M 6BQ

LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

An Archaeological Field Evaluation Report

December 2016

QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, CHARTERHOUSE SQUARE, EC1M 6BQ

LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

An Archaeological Evaluation Report

NGR: TQ 32014 82032 (approximate site centre)

Planning reference No. P2016/1850/FUL

Site code: QMU16

COMPASS ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED 250 York Road, Battersea London SW11 3SJ

Tel: 020 7801 9444

e-mail: [email protected]

James Aaronson

December 2016

©Compass Archaeology Ltd

Abstract

In early December 2016 Compass Archaeology conducted an archaeological evaluation on land on the site of Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ. The evaluation was carried out in advance of development of the site for a new cryostore between Dawson Hall to the north and the Joseph Rotblat Building to the south.

The evaluation was commissioned by Queen Mary University of London following recommendations from Historic England. The evaluation was recommended due to the site’s location within the former footprint of the eastern range of the cloister of the Carthusian Charterhouse founded in 1371. The site held potential to expose wall footings and floor surfaces related to this institution, as the door to monastic Cell S remains in situ from when it was excavated in the late 1950s. Four trial trenches were sited to cover the footprint of the proposed development and evaluate the depth and level of survival of archaeology.

In the event no archaeological features were exposed in any of the four pits. Rather, natural ground was shown to be sealed below deep deposits of made-ground dating from the 16th century up to the 19th century. The composition of the made ground appears to have derived from midden material probably imported from local sources after the dissolution of the monastery in 1537.

iii

Contents Page 1 Introduction 1

2 Acknowledgments 2

3 Site location and geology 2

4 Archaeological and historical background 4

5 Statement of significance 7

6 Planning and objectives 7

7 Methodology 9

8 Results 12

9 Conclusions 28

10 Sources 30

Appendix I Pottery from QMUL16 by Paul Blinkhorn 32

Appendix II Ceramic Building Material from QMU16 by Susan Pringle 34

Appendix III Glass from QMU16 by Florence Smith Nicholls 36

Appendix IV OASIS data collection form 37

Appendix V London Archaeologist Summary 40

Figures

Front cover – Johannes Kip’s depiction of The Charter House c1720 Page

Fig.1 OS site location map 1

Fig.2 Location plan of the proposed cryostore, (orange), and temporary storage facility, (blue). The existing access tunnel is in green 3

Fig.3 Extract from Morgan, 1682 5

Fig.4 Extract from the 1895 revision of the OS map 6

Fig.5 Extract from the 1952 OS 1:1250 plan 6

Fig.6 Plan showing the location of trial trenches 1-4 in relation to the proposed footprint of the new cryostore and associated drainage works 8

Fig.7 Plan showing the location of the trial trenches, in relation to the cryostore footprint, existing buildings, and the underground access tunnel 12

Fig.8 English Stoneware from (105) representing several sizes of storage jars (10cm scale) 13

Fig.9 Detail of an English Stoneware jar bearing the Doulton stamp, (10cm scale) 14

Fig.10 Trench 1 facing NW, (1m scale) 15

Fig.11 South-facing section through Trench 1, recorded at 1.35m depth 15

Fig.12 South-facing section through Trench 1, facing NW, (1m scale). Note the ‘pillar’ of concreted material due to presence of a modern drain 17

Fig.13 South-facing section through Trench 1 17

Fig.14 South-facing section in Trench 1, full depth 18

Fig.15 Trench 3, south-facing section, facing NE, (1m scale) 20

Fig.16 South-facing section through Trench 3. As exposed to 1.65m 20

Fig.17 South-facing section through Trench 3, facing NE 21

Fig.18 Two floor tiles with dark-green glaze from context (406), (10cm scale) 22

Fig.19 A mixture of pottery from deposit (404) 23

v Fig.20 A partially complete Post-medieval Fine Redware with Brown Glaze tankard from context (404) 24

Fig.21 Transfer-printed Whiteware from (403). Note the Charterhouse crest on the piece second left, (10cm scale) 24

Fig.22 North-facing section through Trench 4, facing S, (1m scale) 25

Fig.23 North-facing section through Trench 4, as exposed to 1.47m 25

Fig.24 North-facing section through Trench 4 exposing natural at base. Facing S 26

Fig.25 Trench 4 in relation to the in situ door to monastic Cell S, facing NE, (1m scale) 27

Fig.1 reproduced from the OS digital information with the permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of HMSO ©Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. (Compass Archaeology Ltd, license no. AL 100031317)

Figs.2, 6 and 7 adapted from original drawings produced by TWS provided by the client

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This document forms a summary of the results of an archaeological evaluation conducted by Compass Archaeology in December 2016 on land at Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square campus, EC1M 6BQ, (see figs. 1 and 2).

Fig.1: OS site location map

1.2 The evaluation was commissioned by Queen Mary University of London prior to the demolition of an existing liquid nitrogen facility, (hereafter referred to as the cryostore), and its subsequent replacement, (permanent store planning application ref. P2016/1850/FUL).

1.3 The evaluation programme followed recommendations from Historic England and a WSI was written in accordance with and in order to discharge the following planning condition attached to the proposed development of the site as approved under application ref. P2016/1850/FUL:

7 CONDITION (Written Scheme of Investigation): No demolition or development shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, which shall include the statement of significance and research objectives, and

A. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works

1 B. The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication & dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI

Reason: To protect the archaeological integrity of the area1

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Compass Archaeology would like to thank Queen Mary University of London for their support of the fieldwork, especially to Richard Mann for his advice regarding trench locations and on-site logistics. We would like to thank Jason Hill and the team at Borras Construction Limited for providing on-site attendances and aid during the excavation process. The author would also like to thank colleagues at Compass Archaeology for their assistance during the fieldwork and post-excavation processes.

3 SITE LOCATION AND GEOLOGY

3.1 The site lies to the north of Charterhouse Square and within the former area of the medieval Charterhouse precinct. It fronts onto the eastern side of The Green, a rectangular grassed area which was once the cloister garth of the medieval monastic community. Presently it is bounded by student accommodation; Dawson Hall, to the north and Therese House (29-30 Glasshouse Yard) to the east.

The development site comprises an ‘L-shaped passageway between Dawson Hall and the Joseph Rotblat Building. The site is open to the west facing The Green and enclosed at the rear by Therese House and nos. 26-28 Glasshouse Yard. The development area extends further west than the current line of buildings, ending at the eastern side of The Green. The total area for development is approximately 30m long, (N-S), and 30m wide, (E-W), fitting in between existing buildings (see fig.2).

3.2 The British Geological Survey, (Sheet 256: North London not shown), indicates that the site overlies an extensive area of geologically recent River Terrace Deposits, (Hackney Gravel). The gravels give way in the southeast and west to pockets of Taplow gravels, Langley silts and the alluvium of the Thames flood plain. The site lies immediately north of a pocket of Langley silt.

Recent soil investigation works2 indicated a substantial depth of ‘made ground’ within the vicinity of proposed trial trench 2, including large quantities of brick rubble to a depth of 3.20m below existing ground level. Below this was a ‘firm clay with inclusions of sand and gravels, over dense sand and gravel, thence stiff becoming very stiff clay’. These represent the natural river terrace gravels over the London Clay sequence described above.

A trial pit against the eastern wall of the site identified the base of the stepped foundation to be at 1.23m below existing ground level. The trial pit showed 170mm of reinforced concrete over 480mm of brick and block rubble fill over 580mm of soft dark- grey-brown silty-clay.

1 Sullivan, K. (personal communication by letter. 12th July 2016) 2 MRH Geotechnical, (2016)

Fig.2: Location plan of the proposed cryostore, (orange), and temporary storage facility, (blue). The existing access tunnel is in green

4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

4.1 The archaeological and historical background to the site has been thoroughly examined in a Desk Based Assessment (DBA) submitted alongside the planning application for the development site, (Compass Archaeology, 2016a), so only the most relevant points will be repeated here.

4.2 Prehistoric

Previous archaeological work in the area has produced very limited evidence of prehistoric remains, consisting of two isolated finds. One of these finds was recovered from the Charterhouse area. However, it is unlikely that these finds represent a settlement or activity in the area and are most likely chance findings.

The potential for prehistoric finds was therefore considered to be low.

4.3 Roman

Although there is a lack of documentary / other evidence for Roman activity in this area recent excavations have uncovered a range of evidence for a Roman presence in the area, although the extent of this is unclear.

The potential for Roman remains and finds was therefore considered to be low – medium.

4.4 Medieval

Both documentary and archaeological evidence exists for the medieval layout of the Charterhouse. The Charterhouse was founded in 1371 as a Carthusian Monastery with each monk allotted his own individual cell as per the Orders solitary existence. The archaeological excavations by the Museum of London Department of Greater London Archaeology in 1990 recorded substantial remains of the Great Cloister and cells situated on the location of the development site, specifically monastic Cell S, and the eastern path / arcade of the cloister. Furthermore, during excavations by MoLAS in 2005 and 2006 to record the cells, three burials believed to relate to this phase were uncovered and an additional single burial found to the east of the cells in Glasshouse Yard. The medieval complex of Charterhouse was extensive, with parts underlying the edge of the current site.

The potential for medieval finds or features was considered to be moderately high, increasing towards the western end of the site where more remains are likely to survive. The presence of standing buildings (the doorway of Cell S) would suggest there is potential for more masonry remains to survive within the immediate area.

4.5 Post-medieval

The site saw a lot of repurposing and alterations during the post-medieval period; reaching its peak shortly after the Dissolution of the monastery when the area was subdivided into a series of manor houses, and industrial workshops to the east of the

4 cloisters around Glasshouse Yard. This phase lasted until the 17th century when the hospital was established. As shown from the cartographic evidence, however, the eastern side of Charterhouse where the development site is located remained relatively clear; being used as a bowling-green and playground for the schools, (see fig.3-4). Whilst it is possible that there may be artefacts and features associated with these phases it should be taken into account the area was heavily damaged during the war and the standing buildings are relatively new, (fig.5). Recent excavations by MoLAS at 26-28 Glasshouse Yard have uncovered evidence of a 16th or 17th century cellar of a property fronting onto the yard. Evidence of such destructive activity in close proximity to the site was taken into consideration.

This said the main area of previous development on the site is the existing cryostore which is a relatively unobtrusive building with quite shallow foundations. As such, any buried features within the immediate vicinity of the current storage facility will not have been greatly affected, and therefore could survive to a relatively high degree.

The potential for post-medieval finds or features was therefore considered to be medium, with particular emphasis on ‘backyard’ activity associated with the buildings in Glasshouse Yard, for example cut features such as rubbish and cess pits, wells, and artefacts associated with the use of the site as a variety of schools.

Fig.3: Extract from Morgan, 1682

Fig.4: Extract from the 1895 revision of the OS map

Fig.5: Extract from the 1952 OS 1:1250 plan

6 5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

5.1 As was detailed in the DBA, it was considered likely that some form of archaeological evidence would remain on the present site. This conclusion was reached because of the general wealth of documentary and cartographic evidence for settlement of the Charterhouse area, (from at least the medieval period), and the archaeological excavations in the area which have produced finds from the prehistoric period onwards. This specifically relates to elements of the eastern arcade and cells of the Carthusian cloister. The site has mostly avoided any large scale significant disturbance from past and modern development associated with the University buildings apart from an isolated area around the basement-level access tunnel.

5.2 Overall it was concluded that there was a moderate to high potential for archaeological finds on the site that could be affected by the proposed development, particularly as this includes digging footings to a significant depth.

6 PLANNING AND OBJECTIVES

6.1 The proposed development is for the present storage facility to be demolished and replaced with a new structure which will be situated between the two existing college buildings. The block will consist of a freestanding single storey structure, with provision for liquid nitrogen storage vessels, reception and an external liquid nitrogen storage tank.

6.2 During the construction of the new facility a temporary storage unit will be erected over an existing lightwell to the north of development area. This will be supported by a structural deck and concrete plinths already in existence. This element is not anticipated to interfere with any potential archaeology and so the accompanying application was not subject to an archaeological condition (planning ref.2016/1852/FUL).

6.3 The new facility is currently expected to sit on a c0.40m thick layer of compact hardcore and blinding, (blue shading in fig.6), with continuous concrete strip footings round the perimeter 0.7m wide and reaching a depth of 1.0m, with 18 additional piles securing the slab in place, (pink circles in fig.6). The new cryostore will occupy a footprint of approximately 145 square metres3.

6.4 In the area of the extant underground access tunnel, (green in fig.6) an expanding polystyrene foam frame will be constructed in order to safely bridge the tunnel4. This will entail stepping the footings either side of the tunnel to install the frame, by up to a further 1.4m, to bring it in line with the c2.4m deep tunnel. The exact details are to be confirmed once the exterior of the tunnel has been exposed.

6.5 These two elements of the design are therefore most likely to impact on any buried archaeological deposits and will have a direct effect on the site’s heritage assets. Excavations in the region of 1.0m or more have the potential to encounter archaeological deposits of significance.

3 CBRE. 2016. PLANNING STATEMENT Replacement Cryogenic Storage Facility, Charterhouse Square Queen Mary University of London. p.10 4 Pers.comm. Henry Simon to Compass Archaeology 20.01.16

Fig.6: Plan showing the location of trial trenches 1-4 in relation to the proposed footprint of the new cryostore and associated drainage works

6.6 The site lies within the Borough of Islington and as such there are a number of relevant policies regarding archaeological remains. These can be found within the Islington Local Plan: Development Management Policies, (adopted June 2013) pp17-23.

6.7 The area of Charterhouse is a designated Archaeological Priority Area. This is focussed around:  All buildings associated with the Charterhouse  All addresses on Glasshouse Yard

The local plan states:

‘Archaeological priority areas and scheduled monuments are identified on the Policies Map and in Appendix 7. All planning applications likely to affect important archaeological remains are required to include an Archaeological Assessment.’

8 6.8 The site falls within the Charterhouse Square Conservation Area as designated by Islington Council (CA09), focusing on the area occupied by Charterhouse Square and extending west to Charterhouse Street and Cowcross Street. The area contains medieval buildings and structures relating to Smithfield Market, as well as several listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed development site. In particular, immediately to the rear of the site is a Grade II Listed wall and a Grade I Listed Warden’s House.5 As such the development has taken into account the character of its wider setting and potential limitations imposed by its designation.

6.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS

6.9.1 The fieldwork presented the opportunity to answer the following general and more specific questions.

 Is there any evidence for prehistoric activity on the site? Is this residual in nature?  Is there any evidence for Roman activity on the site? What is its nature; domestic, industrial, military, administrative?  What evidence is there for the medieval layout of the Charterhouse? Can this be related to documentary sources or previous archaeological investigations?  Are there any archaeological deposits pertaining to the dissolution of the monastic community in the 16th century?  What evidence is there for post-medieval repurposing and occupation of the site? What is its nature? Can it be related to documentary sources or previous archaeological investigations?  What impact has Second World War damage of the site had on the archaeological remains?  At what level does archaeology survive across the site?  What is the natural geology and at what level does it exist across the site?

7 METHODOLOGY

7.1 Standards

7.1.1 The field and post-excavation work was carried out in accordance with Historic England guidelines (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service: Standards for Archaeological Work, 2015). Works also conformed to the standards of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation, 2014). Overall management of the project was undertaken by a full member of the Chartered Institute.

7.1.2 Fieldwork was carried out in accordance with the Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations. All members of the fieldwork team held valid CSCS (Construction Skills Certificate Scheme) cards, and wore hi-vis jackets, hard-hats, steel- toe-capped boots, and other personal protective equipment, as required. All members of the fieldwork team also followed the contractors’ health and safety guidelines.

5 CBRE. 2016. PLANNING STATEMENT Replacement Cryogenic Storage Facility, Charterhouse Square Queen Mary University of London. p.4

9 7.1.3 The Client and the Archaeological Advisor for the London Borough of Islington was kept informed of the progress of fieldwork and any finds. As advisors to the London Borough of Islington arrangements were made for Historic England’s representative to visit the site to inspect the works on the 7th December 2016.

7.2 Fieldwork

7.2.1 The fieldwork involved the excavation of four trenches across the footprint of the proposed development, situated to provide a suitable coverage of the development footprint, areas of perceived archaeological potential and existing constraints such as the presence of extant buildings, service runs and accessibility.

7.2.2 The trenches are described below in terms of location and dimensions and follow the numbering system as shown in figs.6 and 7.

 Trench 1 = Far western end of the new cryostore footprint. 1.5m x 1.5m  Trench 2 = Northern of centre, (east of access tunnel). Orientated east-west, 2.5m x 1.5m  Trench 3 = Northeastern tip of new cryostore. Situated to determine position of western edge of the medieval cloister arcade. Orientated east-west, 2.5m x 1.5m  Trench 4 = Far northeastern tip of cryostore. Situated to determine survival levels of cloister arcade in eastern part of site. Orientated east-west, 1.9m x 1.2m

7.2.3 Due to accessibility issues arising from the fact that the existing cryostore will still be in use during the evaluation works Trenches 1 and 2 were excavated separately. Trench 2 was opened first, followed by Trenches 3 and 4, Trench 1 was opened last. Each trench was backfilled and made level with MOT type 2 prior to excavation of the subsequent trench.

7.2.4 The trenches were initially opened using a mechanical excavator fitted with a concrete breaker and a toothless grading bucket. Initial ground reduction commenced using the mechanical excavator under archaeological supervision in shallow spits down to a depth of approximately 1.20m depth. The trench was recorded at this depth in detail by section and photograph, and then a deeper exploratory hole was dug by machine, to reach natural deposits and observed / recorded from ground level.

7.2.5 Following initial clearance an on-site decision was made as to the extent and likely significance of archaeological deposits and features within the trenches and dictate the extent of hand-excavation required. Sufficient work was undertaken to establish the nature of deposits and features, with adequate recovery of finds dating and other evidence.

7.2.6 Archaeological contexts were recorded as appropriate on pro-forma sheets by written and measured description, and drawn in section, generally at a scale of 1:10. The investigations were recorded on a general site plan and related to the Ordnance Survey grid. Levels were taken on the top and bottom of the excavations, transferred from the nearest Ordnance Datum Benchmark. The fieldwork record was supplemented by digital photography, in.jpeg and RAW formats.

7.2.7 The recording system followed the procedures set out in the Museum of London recording manual. By agreement the recording and drawing sheets used are directly compatible with those developed by the Museum.

7.3 Post-excavation

The fieldwork was followed by off-site assessment and compilation of a report, and by ordering and deposition of the site archive.

7.3.1 Finds and samples

Assessment of finds will be undertaken by appropriately qualified staff (see Appendices I - IV). Finds and samples were treated in accordance with the appropriate guidelines, including the Museum of London’s ‘Standards for the Preparation of Finds to be permanently retained by the Museum of London’. All identified finds and artefacts have been retained and bagged with unique numbers related to the context record, although certain classes of material were discarded once an appropriate record was made. Sensitive artefacts will be properly treated, in line with the appropriate Standards.

7.4 Report procedure

7.4.1 The following report contains a description of the fieldwork plus details of any archaeological remains or finds, and an interpretation of the associated deposits. Illustrations have been included as appropriate, including as a minimum a site plan located to the OS grid. A short summary of the project has been appended using the OASIS Data Collection Form, and in paragraph form suitable for publication within the ‘excavation round-up’ of the London Archaeologist.

7.4.2 Copies of the report will be supplied to the Client and Historic England.

7.4.3 There is no provision for further analysis or publication of significant findings. Should these be made the requirements would need to be discussed and agreed with the Client and with the Archaeological Advisor to the Borough of Islington.

7.5 The site archive

Assuming that no further work is required, an ordered indexed and internally consistent archive of the evaluation will be compiled in line with MoL Guidelines for the Preparation of Archaeological Archives, and will be deposited in the Museum of London Archaeological Archive under site code QMU16. The integrity of the site archive should be maintained, and the landowner will be urged to donate any archaeological finds to the Museum.

8 RESULTS

8.1 Between the 6th and 7th of December 2016 Compass Archaeology conducted the evaluation programme as detailed in section 6. What follows is a written description of observations made during the evaluation. The trenches are described in the order as numbered in fig.7. In the main text deposits are shown in round brackets thus (x) and cuts in square brackets [x]. The text is supplemented with illustrative photographs and an accompanying section.

Fig.7: Plan showing the location of the trial trenches, (red), in relation to the cryostore footprint, (blue), existing buildings, (orange), and the underground access tunnel, (green)

8.1.2 All trenches were excavated by a 3-tonne mechanical excavator fitted with a toothless grading bucket under constant archaeological supervision. The trenches were excavated to a depth of 1.2m - 1.40m below existing ground level where work ceased, and the sections and base cleaned by hand. A section was chosen for drawing and the trench levelled and drawn at this depth in detail. After this initial record excavation continued by machine until natural geology was reached, and the trench was photographed, and additional measurements taken from the top.

12 8.2 Trench 1

8.2.1 Trench 1 was the final trench to be opened during the evaluation and was situated in the southwest corner of the development footprint. The pit measured 1.50m by 1.60m being slightly longer north-south than east-west. The trench was dug initially to a depth of 1.35m deep and then a further 1.15m to 2.5m deep at the base.

8.2.2 Natural clayey-gravels (107) were observed from 2.12m deep below present ground level, 16.46mAOD. The uppermost levels of this exposed natural were somewhat dirtier and became a reworked version of itself, (106), approximately 900m thick. The reworked natural was observed from 1.25m deep, 17.33mAOD.

8.2.3 Directly overlying the natural was a sticky black silt containing occasional animal bone, oyster shell and ceramic building material, (CBM), fragments, (105), including part of a chimney stack. This deposit was 420m thick. The deposit produced exclusively 19th century pottery, with five sherds of Post-medieval Redware, and 21 sherds of English Stoneware in the form of storage jars, one bearing the mark of the Doulton works, (figs.8-9).

Fig.8: English Stoneware from (105) representing several sizes of storage jars (10cm scale)

Fig.9: Detail of an English Stoneware jar bearing the Doulton stamp, (10cm scale)

8.2.4 The black silt was sealed below a layer of fine compacted sandy mortar containing a dump of post-medieval glass and Post-medieval Redware and Green-Glazed Border Ware, (104). This relatively discreet dump was sealed below mid-brown sticky clay, (103), 111mm to 320mm thick.

8.2.5 Clay (103), and dumping episode (104), was cut through towards the west by concrete slab (102), at least 300mm thick as exposed. The slab and clay (102) / (103) were sealed below a brick rubble layer (101) up to 300mm thick, forming the base for the extant concrete ground slab, (100). The ground slab was 200mm thick.

Fig.10: Trench 1 facing NW, (1m scale)

Fig.11: South-facing section through Trench 1, recorded at 1.35m depth

15 8.3 Trench 2

8.3.1 Trench 2 was dug first due to its situation in the centre of the development footprint and the need to maintain access to the existing cryostore and rear of Dawsons House. The trench was rectangular, aligned E-W, measuring 2.50m long by 1.5m wide. It was originally excavated to a depth of 1.42m deep and then dug a further 1.25m to reach natural ballast. The base of the trench was at 15.93mAOD, 2.67m below existing ground level.

8.3.2 Natural orange gravels, (209), in a brown clay matrix were reached at a depth of 2.35m below existing ground surface, (16.25mAOD). The natural was sealed below a 500mm thick deposit of brown-grey clayey-silt, (208), which was in turn overlain by a dark, wet, silty-clay containing occasional gravels, CBM and mortar, (206), 390mm thick. Deposits (208) and (206) both produced mid-18th century pottery including Late- medieval Sandy Transitional Ware Staffordshire Yellow-glazed Border Ware, London Stoneware, White Salt-Glazed Stoneware, Post-medieval Redware, Creamware, Chinese porcelain and English Tin-Glazed Ware. Both deposits also produced similarly dated CBM including peg tile, pantile and ridge tile. One possible fragment / flake of a Roman tegula was also recovered from deposit (208) but is considered residual.

8.3.3 Deposit (206) was sealed below a thin layer of redeposited orange sandy ballast up to 100mm thick, (205). This may have acted as a consolidation layer for the next period of dumping or some form of temporary work surface. It was overlain by between 190mm and 270mm of mixed chalk dust and grey silt containing some small fragments of brick and tile, (204).

8.3.4 Overlying deposit (204) was a mixture of red brick and mortar rubble, (203). The two combined layers may represent some form of demolition spread derived from buildings nearby in the later-18th century or 19th centuries. This formed a bed for a dark-brown silty-clay layer, (202), containing infrequent mortar and brick flecking between 50mm an 270mm thick, thinning considerably from west to east.

8.3.5 Deposit (202) was overlain by loosely compacted brick rubble (201), approximately 230mm thick and forming the bed for the existing concrete ground slab (200).

8.3.6 In the centre of the northern section of the trench, below slab (200) a ‘pillar’ of concreted deposits extended for a depth of 870mm corresponding to the encasing of a small man hole just to the north of the excavation.

Fig.12: South-facing section through Trench 1, facing NW, (1m scale). Note the ‘pillar’ of concreted material due to presence of a modern drain

Fig.13: South-facing section through Trench 1

Fig.14: South-facing section in Trench 1, full depth

8.4 Trench 3

8.4.1 Trench 3 was located towards the east of the development area and measured 2.40m long, (E-W), by 1.50m wide, (N-S), the top of which was at 18.66mAOD. The trench was initially dug to 1.65m below ground level, and then dug to 2.20m to reach natural gravelly-clay, 16.46mAOD.

8.4.2 Natural, compacted orange gravelly-clay, (307), was exposed from 1.80m below existing ground level, 16.86mAOD. Natural was overlain by a reworked pale-brown clayey-silt with occasional CBM / chalk fragments, (306), and a single sherd of South Hertfordshire-type Greyware dated to 1170-1350. This sherd was the only example of medieval pottery found on the site. It may be that the find is residual / redeposited and indicates a substantial level of truncation of the medieval deposits. As such it may represent the earlier, medieval, ground levels which have since been built up by periodic dumping and reconsolidation during the post-medieval period.

8.4.3 The reworked natural was sealed below 310mm of sticky black / dark-grey clayey-silt containing occasional gravels and rare CBM fragments, (305). This lower deposit contained Yellow-glazed and Green-glazed Border Ware dated to the late-16th century. It also produced two fragments of Late-medieval Crucible suggesting nearby industrial activity, (albeit these examples were unused), which would equate with the early post- medieval redevelopment of the area for industrial purposes.

8.4.4 (304), a similar mid-brown silty-clay overlay (305). It measured 410mm thick and contained frequent oyster shell, cockle shells, and occasional CBM fragments, along with Post-medieval Black-glazed Redware, Late-medieval Sandy Transitional Redware, Yellow-glazed Border Ware, dating to the 17th century.

8.4.5 These dumps were sealed below a thin, 30mm, layer of redeposited ballast, (303), which could be considered a consolidation layer for the softer ground beneath. Over this was a 320mm thick deposit of mixed friable black silty-sand containing frequent rounded gravels, pockets of orange clay-silt, and chalk flecking; context (302).

8.4.6 Made-ground (302) was overlain by the same loosely compacted rubble layer observed in Trenches 1 and 2, (301), forming the bed for the existing concrete ground slab, (300). These two uppermost layers measured a combined thickness of up to 540mm.

Fig.15: Trench 3, south-facing section, facing NE, (1m scale)

Fig.16: South-facing section through Trench 3. As exposed to 1.65m

Fig.17: South-facing section through Trench 3, facing NE

8.5 Trench 4

8.5.1 Trench 4 was situated in the northeastern corner of the development footprint and immediately northeast of Trench 3. The trench was aligned E-W measuring 2.00m long, (E-W), by 1.40m wide, (N-S). It was originally dug to 1.26m deep and then to 2.16m deep, with the base resting at 16.53mAOD.

8.5.2 Natural orange clay, (408), was exposed from 2.16m below ground level, 16.53mAOD, and overlain by a similar reworked natural deposit of brown-orange clay, (407), as seen in the other trenches, (106), and (306).

8.5.3 The reworked natural was sealed below 340mm of brick and tile rubble and lime mortar dust, (406). The assemblage of CBM included 17th century brick, peg tile and roof tile, along with two potential 15th century floor tiles with remnants of dark-green glaze still adhering to some surfaces, (fig.18). It is probable that these two tiles were redeposited, as the deposit also included a sherd of Green-glazed Border Ware dated to the mid-16th century and a single sherd of Romano-British Greyware, (fig.19). The deposit is thought to represent remodelling / partial demolition of some of the cloistral buildings in the period after the dissolution of the monastery in 1537.

Fig.18: Two floor tiles with dark-green glaze from context (406), (10cm scale)

8.5.4 The rubble layer was sealed below 170mm of brown-clay lens, (405), possibly redeposited natural, consolidating the ground, over which was dumped a deep deposit of dark-brown silty-sandy-clay, (404). Dump (404) contained frequent animal bone, oyster shell, pottery and CBM and occasional charcoal and rare metal in the form of two bronze pins. The pottery was largely dated to the 17th century and produced the largest assemblage of the site; 68 sherds. The pottery included most of a Post-medieval Fine Redware with Brown Glaze tankard, Green-glazed Border Ware plates, dishes and a pipkin, (fig.19-20). The CBM was mostly early-post medieval peg tile, with a single floor tile, and residual Roman flue tile. The animal bone found within the deposit was from domestic species, predominantly sheep and cattle, comprising the proximal and distal ends of long bones; scapulas; and ribs with a few lower manibles. The recovery of these bones from within a mixed context would suggest they derive from local

22 domestic middens rather than from semi-industrial processes such as the meat market at nearby Smithfields.

Fig.19: A mixture of pottery from deposit (404); Green- glazed Border Ware (top- left), Coarse Border Ware (top-right), Post-medieval Slipped Redware (centre) and handles, rim and pipkin foot. (10cm scales)

Fig.20: A partially complete Post-medieval Fine Redware with Brown Glaze tankard from context (404)

8.5.5 Dump (404) was overlain by light-to-mid-brown mixed silt, mortar dust, gravels and CBM fragments, (403), which lay in a cut into at the eastern end of the section, [402]. The extent of the cut was not fully seen, but probably represents a single incident maybe a backfilled post-hole. Deposit (403) contained four sherds of 19th century Transfer- printed Whiteware, one piece bearing a fragment of crest of Charterhouse School, (fig.21). This would suggest a local source for the material and a relatively recent deposition.

Fig.21: Transfer-printed Whiteware from (403). Note the Charterhouse crest on the piece second left, (10cm scale)

8.5.6 This modern made ground was overlain by 320mm to 340mm of loosely compacted brick and tile and mortar dust, (401), and on top of this is the existing concrete ground slab, (400).

Fig.22: North-facing section through Trench 4, facing S, (1m scale)

Fig.23: North-facing section through Trench 4, as exposed to 1.47m

Fig.24: North-facing section through Trench 4 exposing natural at base. Facing S

Fig.25: Trench 4 in relation to the in situ door to monastic Cell S, facing NE, (1m scale)

8.5.7 The above description refers to the north-facing section as observed. However, the opposing section, the south-facing section, was significantly different in that below the existing concrete slab and rubble bedding layer, a secondary 1.30m thick concrete plinth was observed. Below this was the deep black-silt, (404), (see fig.25). Its’ presence so close to the in situ door of Cell S on the east range of the cloister is maybe relevant in that it was most likely put in after the excavation of these remains sometime in 1959.

9 CONCLUSIONS

9.1 We can now look back at the original research questions set down in the WSI and compare them with the results of the evaluation.

9.2 Is there any evidence for prehistoric activity on the site? Is this residual in nature?

No evidence of prehistoric activity or finds were recovered during the excavations

9.3 Is there any evidence for Roman activity on the site? What is its nature; domestic, industrial, military, administrative?

A single sherd of residual Greyware was recovered from deposit (406), and three fragments of Roman CBM in the form of tegula, flue tile and a brick later reused as a floor tile, were found in contexts (208), (406), and (304) respectively. All finds were found within deposits containing significantly later pottery and CBM evidence suggesting they were redeposited / reused and so do not constitute evidence for in situ Roman activity. It could imply local occupation, in line with other material found and features found in Smithfield and on Carthusian Street, but equally they could have easily been imported onto site from elsewhere.

9.4 What evidence is there for the medieval layout of the Charterhouse? Can this be related to documentary sources or previous archaeological investigations?

No direct in situ evidence relating the medieval Charterhouse was observed during the evaluation. Two potential monastic-era floor tiles were recovered from (406), but these were redeposited within a later, mid-16th century, context. It is possible that the tiles may have been displaced during the remodelling of the cloistral ranges shortly after the dissolution in 1537. Again the single sherd of earlier South Hertfordshire-type Greyware was a single example and dates to the 13th century, prior to the establishment of the Carthusian establishment in 1371.

The complete absence of any clear medieval features, wall footings, surfaces or even large quantities of building material suggest that these earlier deposits were completely removed / truncated / robbed out and re-used in subsequent periods.

9.5 Are there any archaeological deposits pertaining to the dissolution of the monastic community in the 16th century?

As stated above, the redeposited floor tiles within deposit (406) may be evidence of remodelling of the cloistral ranges shortly after the dissolution.

9.6 What evidence is there for post-medieval repurposing and occupation of the site? What is its nature? Can it be related to documentary sources or previous archaeological investigations?

Again deposit (406) is the best evidence for repurposing of the site after the dissolution of the Charterhouse Monastery in 1537. No clear-cut features, walls or ground surfaces were exposed during the evaluation, although layers, (104), (205), (303), and (405),

28 may have acted as consolidation layers and temporary work surfaces during the large scale periodic dumping that appears to have occurred on the site since the 16th century.

No previous earlier subsoils or topsoils were exposed in any of the trenches, with natural gravels and sandy-silts being directly overlain with substantial depths of made ground. These made ground deposits had a relatively organic element with the presence of animal bone and crustaceans, but also pottery, and occasional fragments of CBM, suggesting they originated from domestic middens. Some of the earliest dating evidence for the dumping is from 16th century, shortly after the dissolution of the medieval Charterhouse. It is possible that prior to the re-occupation of the site there was an interim period when it was used as a convenient local dumping ground. It may have then been decided that it was easier to deliberately raise the ground levels further prior to re-occupation rather than remove these earlier deposits.

9.7 What impact has Second World War damage of the site had on the archaeological remains?

No direct evidence of Second World War bomb damage was observed during the evaluation. It is possible that the consistent rubble base for the existing ground slab was derived from demolition of surrounding bomb-damaged buildings during the post- war period, effectively sealing in earlier deposits, but this has not been conclusively proven. The complete lack of evidence for the eastern cloistral range would suggest that later activities has completely removed them, but whether this was directly linked to bomb damage is suspect.

9.8 At what level does archaeology survive across the site?

No archaeological features, be they cuts, walls, floor / ground surfaces or the like were observed during the evaluation. Merely deep deposits of made-ground were exposed resting immediately above the natural geology. Deposits ranged in date from the 16th to 19th century, and the 20th century in the case of the existing ground slab and its base. These were exposed for up to 2.35m in the west of the site, and 2.16m in the east of the site below existing ground levels.

9.9 What is the natural geology and at what level does it exist across the site?

Natural geology in the form of orangey-brown clay-silt was reached in all four evaluation trenches at a depth of between 1.80m and 2.35m below existing ground level, 16.86mAOD to 16.25mAOD. The uppermost levels of the natural were somewhat dirtier suggesting either some reworking or exposure at one point. No accumulated subsoil or topsoils were exposed suggesting the previous land surface had been truncated.

10 SOURCES

10.1 General

Islington Local History Centre

Greater London Historic Environment Record ([email protected])

London Archaeological Archive & Research Centre (LAARC) database (http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/laaarc/catalogue)

10.2 Bibliography

Barber, B. & Thomas, C. (2002), The London Charterhouse. MOLA Monograph 10

Borras Construction Limited, (2016), Charterhouse Sq. Cryo Store, Main Building and Tempbuilding for Queen Mary University of London

Bowlt, C. (2003), ‘The Great Conduit at the London Charterhouse’ in London Archaeologist Summer 2003, Vol.10 No.5

CBRE, (2016), PLANNING STATEMENT: Replacement Cryogenic Storage Facility, Charterhouse Square Queen Mary University of London

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, (2014), Standard and Guidance for archaeological field evaluation

Communities & Local Government, (2010), Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment

Compass Archaeology. (2016)a, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, EC1M 6BQ Borough of Islington: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Compass Archaeology. (2016)b, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, EC1M 6BQ Borough of Islington: A Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Field Evaluation

Fraser Brown MacKenna Architects. (2016), Cryo Storage Facility, Charterhouse Square Design and Access Statement

Historic England, (2015), Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service: Standards for Archaeological Work

Islington Council, (2012), Development Management Policies

Islington Council, (2015), Charterhouse Square Conservation Area

MRH Geotechnical, (2016), Ground Investigation for Queen Mary university of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ

Museum of London, (2002), The London Charterhouse, Excavation Report

Nelson, J. (1811), The History, Topography and Antiquities of the Parish of St Mary Islington, in the County of Middlesex

Porter, S. (2009), The London Charterhouse

Temple, P. (Ed), (2008), Charterhouse Square area: Charterhouse Street and other streets, in Survey of London vol.46, South and East Clerkenwell

Thornbury, W. (1878), ‘The Charterhouse’, in Old and New London, vol. 2, pp. 380-404

Weinreb, B. & Hibbert, C. (1993), The London Encyclopaedia

10.3 Websites

Charterhouse Online. n.d. The Charterhouse. Online: [Accessed 02.08.16]

QMUL, Charterhouse Square. Online: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/about/howtofindus/charterhouse/ [Accessed 02.08.16]

10.4 Cartographic sources

Ralph Agas, ‘Civitas Londinium’, (c1562)

William Morgan, ‘Map of the Whole of London’, (1682)

John Rocque, ‘Survey of the Cities of London, Westminster and Southwark’, (1746)

Ordnance Survey, First edition Surrey Sheet III, (surveyed 1868-73, published 1880-82)

Ordnance Survey, First Revision London Sheets VII.44 and VII.55, (surveyed 1894, published 1896)

London County Council, Bomb Damage Map Sheet 62: Holborn; Bloomsbury; City of London (west), (1945)

Ordnance Survey, TQ Plans 3182SE, 3282SW, 3181NE, 3282NW, 1:1250 scale, (surveyed and published 1951)

APPENDIX I: Pottery from QMU16 by Paul Blinkhorn

The pottery assemblage comprised 134 sherds with a total weight of 4849g. It consisted of a mixture of Romano-British, medieval and post-medieval wares, and was recorded using the conventions of the Museum of London Type-Series (eg. Vince 1985), as follows:

BORDY: Yellow-glazed Border Ware, 1550-1700. 6 sherds, 159g. BORDG: Green-Glazed Border Ware, 1550-1700. 17 sherds, 241g. CBW: Coarse Border Ware, 1270 – 1500. 1 sherd, 13g. CHPO: Chinese Porcelain, 1580 -1900. 1 sherd, 20g. CREA: Creamware, 1740-1830. 2 sherds, 24g. ENGS: English Stoneware, 1700-1900. 21 sherds, 1374g. LMCR: Late Medieval Crucible, 1480-1700. 2 sherds, 65g LMSR: Late Medieval Sandy Transitional Redware, 1480-1600. 25 sherds, 946g. LONS: London Stoneware, 1670 – 1900. 1 sherd, 52g. PMBL: Post-medieval Black-glazed Redware, 1600 – 1900. 3 sherds, 217g. PMFRB: Post-medieval Fine Redware with Brown Glaze, 1580-1700. 18 sherds, 530g. PMR: Post-medieval Redware, 1580 – 1900. 19 sherds, 670g. PMSR: Post-Medieval Slipped Redware, 1480 – 1650. 4 sherds, 287g. SHER: South Hertfordshire-type Greyware, 1170-1350. 1 sherd, 23g. SWSG: Staffordshire White Salt-Glazed Stoneware, 1720-1780. 5 sherds, 106g. TGW: English Tin-Glazed Ware, 1600-1800. 48 sherds, 826g. TPW: Transfer-printed Whiteware, 1830-1900. 2 sherds, 21g. WEST: Westerwald-type Stoneware, 1590-1800. 1 sherd, 9g.

A single, residual sherd of Romano-British pottery (62g) occurred in context 406. It is in very good condition, and is from the base of a wheel-thrown Greyware jar. The pottery occurrence by number and weight of sherds per context by fabric type is shown in Table 1. Each date should be regarded as a terminus post quem.

All the assemblages are post-medieval, with the range of fabric types typical of sites in the region. The two sherds of medieval material are both fairly large and in good condition, indicating that they have not suffered much disturbance. The post-medieval wares are largely also in good condition and fairly well preserved. Most of the 16th – 18th century pottery is vessels associated with eating and drinking, such as plates, bowls, tankards, and tea-bowls, although chamber-pots were also present. For example, the material from 206 includes fragments of chamber-pots and tea-bowls in SWSG, WEST and CHPO, and all the sherds of PMFRB from context 404 are from a large, partially-complete tankard. The Border Wares from the same context are largely pieces of plates and dishes, although a single pipkin leg was noted. Food preparation and cooking pottery is otherwise scarce, other two handles, one from a cauldron and the other from a skillet of dripping dish, both from context 304.

The two crucible fragments in fabric LMCR appear to be the only obviously industrial pottery present. They are from two individual vessels, have flat bases, and appear to be unused.

The 19th century pottery is largely utilitarian. The large group of stoneware from context 105 is entirely fragments of storage jars, although the sherds of TPW from context 403 are transfer-printed tablewares, and include pieces of a mug bearing a fragment of the crest of Charterhouse School.

Bibliography Vince, AG, 1985, ‘The Saxon and Medieval Pottery of London: A review’, Medieval Archaeology 29, 25-9

32 Table 1: Pottery occurrence by number and weight (in g) of sherds per context by fabric type

SHER CBW LMSR LMCR PMSR BORDG BORDY PMR PMBL PMFRB TGW CHPO LONS ENGS SWSG CREA TPW Cntxt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt No Wt Date 104 1 2 1 17 L16thC 105 5 186 21 1374 19thC 106 1 10 L16thC 206* 4 101 2 21 1 20 3 52 1 9 M18thC 208 1 38 1 28 1 8 1 52 2 54 1 15 M18thC 304 2 230 1 20 1 8 17thC 305 2 65 2 15 3 44 1 37 L16thC 306 1 23 L13thC 403 4 20 19thC 404 1 13 22 678 4 287 13 213 1 67 6 311 2 209 18 530 17thC 406** 1 11 M16thC 1 23 1 13 25 946 2 65 4 287 17 241 6 159 19 670 3 217 18 530 2 21 1 20 1 52 21 1374 5 106 2 24 4 20

*includes a sherd of WEST, 9g **includes a sherd of Romano-British Greyware, 62g

33 APPENDIX II: Ceramic Building Material from QMU16 by Susan Pringle

Key: A = Abraded; M = Mortar; Med = Medieval; PM = Post medieval; Rd = Reduced; Ru = Re-used; S = Sooted;

All measurements given in millimetres, (L = Length; B = Breadth; T = Thickness). Weight in grams

Context CBM / Period Fabric Form Count Weight L B T Condition Comments Context date 105 1800?-1900 PM ? chimney 1 173 0 0 16 S Victorian chimney pot with 2 bands of impressed decoration- leaf pattern. External diam. Roughly 240mm. Red fabric 105 1800?-1900 PM 2276 peg 2 57 0 0 0 105 1800?-1900 M 2271 peg 4 127 0 0 0 Reduced core x 22. Part round nail-hole. Probably medieval date. 106 1480-1900 PM 2276 peg 3 177 0 0 0 1 frag is a flake - no sanding visible so date uncertain. 206 1630-1900 PM 2275 pantile 1 490 0 0 0 206 1630-1900 PM 2276 ridge 1 223 0 0 13 M 206 1630-1900 PM 2276 peg 9 758 0 0 0 M Reduced core x 2 on thinner tiles. Small polygonal nail- hole (part) x 1. 206 1630-1900 PM 2276 peg 1 449 127+ 162 12 M, Ru? Complete width at base of tile. Appears to have been trimmed to height of 127mm (5"). Mortar on most faces including re-worked edge. Re-used? In fireplace?? 208 1630-1900 PM 2275 pantile 1 90 0 0 0 S Part nib, rectangular, 20mm wide, with damaged ends. Some slight sooting. 208 1630-1900 PM 2276 peg 2 203 0 0 0 Rd x 1 Part reduced tile has small, 11mm diam. Indentation in top surface. Finger mark? 208 1630-1900 PM 2276 peg 1 540 151+ 155 14 Complete width top of tile. Indented right-hand margin. 2 small asymmetric nail-holes, polygonal, c, 12-13mm diam. Flattened clay blobs at top end of tile 208 1630-1900 R 3028 tegula? 1 89 0 0 22+ Rd, S Flake, flat tile, tegula or brick 304 1200-1500 M 2586 peg 1 92 0 0 15 M Part 1 messy polygonal nail-hole, large (16mm diam), fairly fine moulding sand with moderate medium to coarse quartz 304 1200-1500 R 2815 brick 1 332 0 0 35 A, M, Ru Roughly triangular in shape, no original edges. Worn very smooth on top surface, Roman brick re-used as floor tile/cobble. Fabric 2459A but fairly fine moulding sand

34 Context CBM / Period Fabric Form Count Weight L B T Condition Comments Context date 306 1480-1800 PM 2276 peg 7 332 0 0 0 2 tiles have part polygonal nail-holes 306 1480-1800 M/PM 2586 peg 1 25 0 0 0 A, Rd Reduced core. Fairly fine moulding sand with sparse medium quartz. 404 1480-1800 PM 2276 peg 7 432 0 0 0 1 large square nailhole, 15mm2.; part large round nail- hole; 1 ?angular nail hole blocked with mortar 404 1480-1800 M/PM 2271 peg 5 392 0 0 0 S x 2, A 2 round nail-holes. 2 of the tiles definitely medieval. 404 1480-1800 M/PM 2586 peg? 1 26 0 0 15 A Side of fragment has knife-cut bevel. Top very abraded, either glazed or vitrified. 404 1480-1800 M 2318? floor tile 1 138 90+ 53+ 22 A, M Surface very abraded. Nail-hole in surviving corner. Spots of clear glaze on knife-cut bevelled sides. 404 1480-1800 R? 3028? flue? 1 107 0 0 21 Knife-trimmed and chamfered edge. May be edge of plain face of box flue - ID insecure. 406 1480-1800 PM 2276 peg 13 1522 0 0 0 M 2 conjoin. 1 large (16mm) polygonal nail-hole; 1 tile has square nail holes c. 14mm2, 1 of which is set diagonally. 1 tile (2 frags) has fabric print on base 406 1480-1800 PM 2276 peg 1 229 0 158 12 M Complete width, top and bottom missing. 406 1480-1800 M/PM 2271 peg 3 207 0 0 0 Rd & S x1 1 with diagonal finger-drawn batch mark. 15th c? Fabric 2271 near 2276, slightly coarser moulding sand 406 1480-1800 M/PM 2586 peg 2 223 0 0 0 M x 1 1 with part large (17mm) round nail-hole 406 1480-1800 M/PM 3121 roof tile 1 200 0 0 12 M, Rd Fragment of fine-grained laminated sandstone roof tile. Part nail-hole survives. White lime mortar on underside. Stone discoloured, probably burnt. 406 1480-1800 PM 3033 brick 3 2648 0 102 51 All unfrogged, with creased bases and indented margins. 15th-16th c? 406 1480-1800 PM 3033 brick 0 0 0 108 56 All unfrogged, with creased bases and indented margins. 15th-16th c? 406 1480-1800 PM 3033 brick 0 0 0 107 53 All unfrogged, with creased bases and indented margins. 15th-16th c? 406 1480-1800 M/PM ? floor tile 1 751 130+ 103+ 43 A Abraded dark green glaze. Slightly bevelled knife-cut side. Nail-hole? Fine red fabric with sparse fine chalk and medium quartz 406 1480-1800 M/PM ? floor tile 1 646 130+ 110+ 40 A Dark green glaze on base. Slight knife-cut bevel. 2 spots of glaze on side - completely gone from surface. Probably Flemish. Fine red fabric with sparse fine chalk and medium quartz

APPENDIX III: Glass from QMU16 by Florence Smith Nicholls

A total of 25 sherds of glass were recovered from made-ground deposits during the evaluation weighing a total of 1082g.

Context (104)

Overall 18 fragments of glass all with patination were found in context (104), which comprised a fine compacted sandy mortar layer with fragments of pottery as well as glass. The vast majority of the fragments were small body shards, including one very large pale aqua glass body shard probably from a jar or bowl, and part of a dark olive glass base of a bottle with stippling which indicates it is 20th century in date.6 The base and part of the body of a small colourless glass bottle (25mm in diameter) was also recovered, possibly a condiment bottle. Although it has no obvious vertical side mould seam it does have a faint valve mark on its base which indicates it was machine-made. This, coupled with the fact it is colourless is also indicative of a 20th century glass vessel.7

Context (105)

Two fragments of a pale aqua bottle were found in context (105) which was a sticky black silt which contained other finds including animal bone and CBM. Whilst one of the fragments is body shard, the only is much larger with the full neck and finish of the vessel. The full diameter of this finish is 32.5mm. There is a discontinuous vertical side mould which suggests that the bottle was ‘hand blown’ and can be roughly dated to before 1915. The bottle has an ‘applied’ finish; this was identified through several diagnostic characteristics such as excess glass slopping over on to the upper neck of the bottle just below the finish as well as small fissures visible in the area where the glass was applied to the sheared/cracked off neck end.8 More specifically, this indicates that the bottle dates to the 19th century.

A complete large light aqua glass stopper was also found in context (105). It has a flat disc-shaped finial with a diameter of 107mm. There is no neck between the finial and the shank, which itself has a diameter of 67mm. The stopper has no additional decoration or identifying marks. It is assumed that it would have sealed a large jar, perhaps containing foodstuffs or medicinal contents. The stopper has no mould seams and the small concentric lines on the shank could indicate that it was produced in a turn-mould, unless these instead indicate use-wear or were formed as a result of grinding it down to precisely fit the bore of the corresponding vessel. In any case, the stopper can only broadly be dated to either the 19th or 20th century.

Context (206)

Three glass fragments were found in context (206), two of which are thin colourless shards with patination and one a thin light aqua rim shard which was possibly from a decorative vessel.

Context (406)

A single thin medium cobalt blue shard was found in context (406); unfortunately this was not diagnostic.

6 Lindsey, B. (2016) ‘Bottle Bases.’ [Online] Available: https://sha.org/bottle/bases.htm [Accessed: 16.12.2016] 7 Lindey, B. (2016) ‘Bottle Dating.’ [Online] Available: https://sha.org/bottle/machinemadedating.htm [Accessed: 16.12.2016] 8 Lindsey, B. (2016) ‘Bottle Finishes (aka "Lips") & Closures.’[Online] Available: https://sha.org/bottle/finishes.htm#Ground lip or finish [Accessed: 15.12.2016]

APPENDIX IV: OASIS data collection form

OASIS ID: compassa1-271892

Project details Project name Queen Mary University of London: An Archaeological Evaluation

Short description of In early December 2016 Compass Archaeology conducted an archaeological the project evaluation on land on the site of Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ. The evaluation was carried out in advance of development of the site for a new cryostore between Dawson Hall to the north and the Joseph Rotblat Building to the south. The evaluation was commissioned by Queen Mary University of London following recommendations from Historic England. The evaluation was recommended due to the site's location within the former footprint of the eastern range of the cloister of the Carthusian Charterhouse founded in 1371. The site held potential to expose wall footings and floor surfaces related to this institution, as the door to monastic Cell S remains in situ from when it was excavated in the late 1950s. Four trial trenches were sited to cover the footprint of the proposed development and evaluate the depth and level of survival of archaeology. In the event no archaeological features were exposed in any of the four pits. Rather, natural ground was shown to be sealed below deep deposits of made-ground dating from the 16th century up to the 19th century. The composition of the made ground appears to have derived from midden material probably imported from local sources after the dissolution of the monastery in 1537.

Project dates Start: 06-12-2016 End: 07-12-2016 Previous/future work No / Not known Any associated QMU16 - Sitecode project reference codes Type of project Field evaluation Site status Area of Archaeological Importance (AAI) Site status Conservation Area Current Land use Other 3 - Built over Monument type MADE GROUND Post Medieval Monument type MADE GROUND Modern Significant Finds POTTERY Roman Significant Finds POTTERY Medieval Significant Finds POTTERY Post Medieval Significant Finds ANIMAL BONE Post Medieval Significant Finds CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL Medieval Significant Finds CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL Post Medieval Significant Finds CLAY TOBACCO PIPE Post Medieval Significant Finds GLASS Post Medieval Significant Finds BRONZE PINS Post Medieval

37 Significant Finds CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL Roman Methods & ''Test Pits'' techniques Development type Small-scale (e.g. single house, etc.) Prompt Planning condition Position in the After full determination (eg. As a condition) planning process

Project location Country England Site location GREATER LONDON ISLINGTON Queen Mary University of London Postcode EC1M 6BQ Study area 12.55 Square metres Site coordinates TQ 32014 82032 51.521260117189 -0.096982146842 51 31 16 N 000 05 49 W Point Height OD / Depth Min: 1.8m Max: 2.35m

Project creators Name of Compass Archaeology Organisation Project brief Historic England originator Project design Compass Archaeology originator Project Geoff Potter director/manager Project supervisor James Aaronson Type of Educational Establishment sponsor/funding body Name of Queen Mary University of London sponsor/funding body

Project archives Physical Archive Museum of London archaeological archive recipient Physical Contents ''Animal Bones'',''Ceramics'',''Glass'',''other''

Physical Archive Floor tile, bronze pins notes

Digital Archive Museum of London Archaeological Archive recipient

38 Digital Media ''Images raster / digital photography'',''Spreadsheets'',''Text'' available

Paper Archive Museum of London Archaeological Archive recipient

Paper Media ''Context sheet'',''Plan'',''Section'',''Unpublished Text'' available

Project bibliography 1 Grey literature (unpublished document/manuscript) Publication type Title QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, CHARTERHOUSE SQUARE, EC1M 6BQ LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON An Archaeological Evaluation Report

Author(s)/Editor(s) Aaronson, J. Date 2016

Issuer or publisher Compass Archaeology Ltd

Place of issue or 250 York Road, Battersea, SW11 3SJ publication

Description A summary report of the findings of the evaluation. Includes background to the site including; location, geology, planning background, historic and archaeological background, methodology employed, written description of the deposits and conclusions drawn. Text accompanied by illustrative photographs and sections, and specialist reports appended.

APPENDIX V: London Archaeologist Summary

Queen Mary University of London, EC1M 6BQ, TQ 32014 82032 James Aaronson Evaluation 6th-7th December 2016 Queen Mary University of London QMU16