Abstract

Excavations have revealed the plan of a Dominican Friary founded in 1275, and suggest the possibility that an earlier friary, de Ordine Martyrum, lay on the same site. Documentary evidence has been used to illuminate both these developments and more especially the post-dissolution history of the site for which the excavation evidence is weak.

The Friary Meux Brewery, situated in the angle between Onslow Street and North Street, was for nearly a century a familiar landmark to the people of Guildford. Its name preserved a faint memory that it lay on the site of a medieval Dominican Friary. Knowledge of the exact location of these buildings had, however, been lost in the centuries after its dissolution in 1538. In the early 1970s it was decided to redevelop the friary site and consequently in 1973 Felix Holling, then curator of Guildford Museum, opened two small trial trenches. He discovered that footings of the friary buildings survived in good condition. Large scale excavation was clearly needed and this was readily agreed to by the site developers and organised by and through the Department of the Environment and Guildford Museum. Humphrey Woods then directed the excavations in conjunction with the first phase of demolition in 1974. The second phase of demolition did not, however, take place until 1978 and Woods then had other commitments which prevented him from taking charge. Rob Poulton, Field Officer with the County Archaeological Unit, was asked to direct this stage of the excavations. This division of responsibility for the excavation work not surprisingly created some difficulties in the preparation of this report. In particular, the two main seasons of work (the results of Holling’s work are incorporated into chapter 2) had taken place under very different circumstances and hence had different aims and used different techniques.

This primary records quite distinct in form and detail which proved hard to combine satisfactorily. This basic problem was added to by expected differences of opinion and emphasis between the two chief authors and further emphasised by the introduction of microfiche publication of level III reports. Responsibility for the different parts of the report is indicated in the list of contents. It may be noted here that the organisation of the report is the responsibility of Rob Poulton. Some aspects of this deserve further comment. Firstly, chapters 2 and 3, the excavation reports, were prepared quite separately with certain very limited exceptions and are published solely in microfiche: in the printed Synthesis, chapter 7, the results have been combined. Secondly, chapters 4 and 5 (the specialist reports) also appear only in the microfiche. In the case of chapter 4 the main points, and effectively a guide to its contents, are given in chapter 7: 3.2. The main reports in chapter 5 are similarly treated in Appendices 1 to 3. This form of publication inevitably required frequent cross-references. In order to avoid unduly cluttering the text these have been placed in the margin. Where a part of the report, rather than a particular page, is referred to the first figure gives the chapter and the figure(s) after the colon indicate the part referred to. Thus ‘ch 2: 3.1.2’ indicates part 3.1.2 of chapter 2. It should be noted that the figures, plates and tables are numbered in sequence with the printed, rather than the full microfiche, text. The archive has been lodged in Guildford Museum.